MCWD Petition For Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 11-24-2014
MCWD Petition For Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 11-24-2014
10
11
12
13
v.
16
17
Case No.:
18
19
20
21
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, a California water corporation,
and DOES 51-100,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Petitioner and Plaintiff Marina Coast Water District ("MCWD" or the "District") alleges
2 as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This action challenges the decisions of the Respondent and Defendant California Coastal
PARTIES
1.
22 potable water service to all residential, conunercial, industrial, enviromnental, and fire
23 protection uses in the then unincorporated connnunity of Marina. The City of Marina
24 incorporated in 1975, but MCWD remained separate public agency. The District also provides
25 potable water delivery and wastewater conveyance services within the boundaries of the former
26 Fort Ord Army Base, known as the Ord Conununity. MCWD serves approximately 30,000
27 residents in its Marina and Ord Community service areas, who rely on MCWD for their
28 domestic drinking water. MCWD holds an interest in the property that is the subject of the CDPs
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 issued by the Coastal Commission. The District, as well as it 30,000 residential and conunercial
2 customers, would be material injured by the activities that were approved in the Coastal
3 Development Permits.
4
2.
Petitioner is unaware of the true names and capacities of Petitioners and Plaintiffs
5 fictitiously named herein as Does I through I 0, inclusive. Petitioner is informed and believes,
6 and thereon allege, that such fictitiously named Petitioners and Plaintiffs are beneficially
7 interested in the Coastal Cmmnission's compliance with its mandatory duties under Coastal Act
8 and CEQA before approving the Project, and that such Petitioners and Plaintiffs adequately
9 participated in the Cmmnission's administrative review process for the Project to have standing
10 to be joined as Petitioners and Plaintiffs in this proceeding. Petitioner will amend this Petition,
11 with leave of the court if necessary, to allege the fictitiously named Petitioners' and Plaintiffs'
12 true names and capacities when ascertained.
13
3.
14
authorized to enforce the California Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code, 30000, et seq.) The
15
16
4.
17
named DOES 11 tlnough 100, and sues such respondents by fictitious names. Petitioner is
18
informed and believes, and on the basis of such infonnation and belief, alleges the fictitiously
19
named respondents are also responsible for the actions described in this Petition. When the true
20
identities and capacities of these respondents have been determined, Petitioner will amend this
21
petition, with leave of the court if necessary, to insert such identities and capacities.
22
5.
23
corporation as defined in Public Utilities Code section 241 and is regulated by the California
24
Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"). Cal-Am is not a public entity, but a wholly owned
25
subsidiary of American Water, the largest investor-owned water and wastewater utility
26
company in the United States. American Water has its headquarters in Voorhees, New Jersey.
27
28
6.
through 100, and sues such real parties in interest by fictitious names. Petitioner is informed
2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
and believes, and based on such information and belief, alleges that the fictitiously named real
parties in interest are directly and materially affected by the actions described in this Petition
and Complaint. When the true identities and capacities of tl1ese real parties in interest have
been determined, Petitioner will amend this Petition, with leave of the court if necessary, to
6
7
7.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
8 sections 526, 526A, 1060, and 1094.5, as well as Public Resources code sections 21080.5,
9 21168, 30801, 30803, and 30804. Alternatively, this Com1 has jurisdiction under Code of Civil
8.
12
9.
While venue would be proper in the Superior Court of Monterey County, because
13
this action is brought by a public agency located in Monterey County against the State of
14 Califomia (Code Civ. Pro., 394), venue is also proper in the Superior Comt of Sacramento
15 County under Govemment Code Section 955.3 and Code of Civil Procedme section 401. The
16
latter provision states that whenever an action or proceeding may be removed to the County of
17
18
19
Sacramento, the same action may be c01mnenced and tried in the County of Sacramento (or any
city in which the Attorney General maintains an office). (Code ofCiv. Pro. 401.) Here, even
if the action had been c01mnenced in Monterey County, the Attorney General may, on behalf of
20
the State, have moved to change the place of trial for this Action to Sacramento County. (Gov.
21
22
23
24
25
Code 955.3) Expeditious resolution in this case is critical. To avoid any potential delay
caused by removal of tllis action allowed by the Government Code, MCWD brings this action in
the Superior Comt of Sacramento County. (See also Pub. Res. Code 30806 [change of venue
for actions brought by or against local district under the Coastal Act].)
LEGAL BACKGROUND
26
27
28
10.
Under the Coastal Act, development in the coastal zone generally requires a CDP.
The Coastal Commission has original jmisdiction to issue CDPs unless the local govermnent
3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
has a certified Local Coastal Program ("LCP"), in which case the local govermnent has original
permit jurisdiction. (Pub. Resources Code, 30519, subd. (a), 30604, subd. (b).) In
authorizing the certification of LCPs, the Legislature recognized the need to "rely heavily on
local govermnent and local land use planning procedures" in order to "achieve maximum
responsiveness to local conditions." (Pub. Resources Code, 30004, subd. (a).) The Coastal
undertaken on any tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands. (Pub. Resources Code,
11.
The Coastal Cmm11ission certified a LCP for the City of Marina after a public
10
hearing on Apri120, 1982. Accordingly, an applicant proposing development within the City of
11
12
12.
The Coastal Commission may hear an appeal from a denial of a permit under a
13
certified Local Coastal Program in very limited circumstances. "[A]fter certification of a local
14
coastal program, issuance of coastal development permits is the purview of the local
15
govermnent, not the Coastal Cormnission." (City ofMalibu v. California Coastal Com. (2012)
16
206 Cal.App.4th 549, 556.) Only once the City makes that decision does the commission have
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The only grounds for appeal to the Coastal Co=ission from the local
govermnent's aCtion on a coastal development permit for a major public works
project or a major energy facility are that the development does, or does not,
conform to the certified LCP and the Coastal Act's public access policies. (
30603, subds. (a)(5), (b)(l), (2).)
(City ofMalibu, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 555.) The Commission does not have generalized
jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a local agency's detennination under CEQA. (Hines v.
California Coastal Commission (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, 852 ["The Coastal Co=ission
As with the Coastal Act, the Cmmnission has an independent duty to ensure
compliance with CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, 21080.5; 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CCR")
13096, subd. (a) ("All decisions of the cormnission relating to permit applications shall be
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
accompanied by written conclusions about the consistency of the application with ... Public
14.
4
5
6
7
8
9 (Pub. Resources Code, 21080.5, subd. (g); see also id., 21168.)
15.
Under the Coastal Act, any party aggrieved by the decision or action of the
10
11
Commission has the right to judicial review of that decision or action by filing a petition for
12
writ of mandate in accordance with section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 60
13
days after the decision or action has become final. (Pub. Resources Code, 30801.)
14
16.
Under the Coastal Act, any person may maintain an action for declaratory and
15
equitable relief to restrain a violation of the act and to enforce the duties specifically imposed
16
17
18
19
20
17.
Groundwater Basin. MCWD pmnps water from these wells, treats it, and then delivers this
water to MCWD's customers. The Project will pump groundwater from the Salinas River
21
Groundwater Basin, which is the same groundwater basin from which MCWD's groundwater
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
Cal-Am proposes to construct and operate a test slant well, including monitoring
wells and other related infrastructure within a sensitive coastal dune complex located in the
City of Marina.
19.
The allegedly "temporary" test well is the initial phase in Cal-Am's unapproved
Water Supply Project proposal to construct a desalination facility north of the City of Marina.
(hereafter, "MPWSP"). In April2013, Cal-Am filed an application with the CPUC for the
5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
MPWSP, which includes slant wells that would be located at the Project site, a desalination
facility to be located about two miles inland of the test well site adjacent to a regional
wastewater treatment facility, pipelines, and the other related facilities. The CPUC is currently
20.
Cal-Am initially proposes to use the slant well to calculate how much water being
pumped from Salinas River Groundwater Basin is groundwater, how much is sea water, and
then discharge all of the pumped water to the ocean. Cal-Am hopes to use the slant test well as
21.
Cal-Atn has no groundwater rights in the Salinas River Groundwater Basin. The
10
slant well Project and MPWSP could have a significant impact on the Salinas Valley
11
Groundwater Basin since this is the third year of drought, which prompted Governor Brown to
12
declare a drought emergency and request all citizens to reduce water use.
13
22.
Cal-Am applied for a CDP for the Project (but not the MPWSP) with the City of
14
Marina, and the City of Marina prepared an initial study/mitigated negative declaration
15
16
23.
On or about March 13, 2013, Cal-Atn applied for a CDP from the Coastal
17
Conmrission for portions of the slant well (but not the MPWSP) within tidelands, submerged
18
lands, and public trust lands. Under the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section
19
13053.5, the application must describe the "applicant's legal interest in all the property upon
20
which work would be perfonned, iftl1e application were approved, e.g., ownership, leasehold,
21
enforceable option, authority to acquire the specific property by eminent domain." The
22
application notes that the project would be on state lands, but that an application for a lease
23
from the State Lands Commission had not yet been submitted.
24
24.
On September 4, 2014, tl1e City of Marina denied Cal-Am's CDP application for
25
development of the test slant well "without prejudice" because the City found that the IS/MND
26
prepared pmsuant to the CEQA was inadequate. As a result of its CEQA decision, the City
27
could not make any fmdings on whether the CDP was consistent with tl1e City of Marina's LCP
28
1
2
3
25.
Conunission, explaining that the Coastal Cmmnission did not have jurisdiction yet since the
City had only denied the CDP "without prejudice" pending further environmental review
required by CEQA.
27.
October 31, 2014 (Staff Report). Under the Cmmnission's certified regulatory program the
10
staff reconm1ended that the Connnission find that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal (in the
11
parlance of the Commission, that there is a substantial issue) because the CD P did not conform
12
to the City of Marina's LCP because it would result in significant and unavoidable impact to
13
environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHA"). Despite the fact the City was never able to
14
review the CDP for compliance with its LCP and never completed environmental review under
15
CEQA, and State Lands had not reviewed the Project for compliance with CEQA, and the
16
CPUC had not even published the Draft EIR for the entire MPWSP, the StaffRepmi
17
recommended the commission find a "substantial issue" to exercise jurisdiction over the CDPs
18
and approve Cal-Am's permit application for the slant well both within the jurisdiction of the
19
City (Appeal No. A-3-MRA-14-0050) and the pennit application within the Cmmnission's
20
21
28.
22
the Coastal Cmmnission lacked jurisdiction to act on the permits. MCWD's November 7, 2014
23
also explained that the Staff Report did not satisfy the Cormnission's obligation under CEQA
24
and the Coastal Act for multiple reasons, including that significant environmental impacts of
25
the Project had not been adequately addressed, the lack of baseline information made it
26
impossible for public and Conunission to understand the potential impacts of the Project (or
27
larger MPWSP), and that the two-page alternatives discussion contained no facts and omitted
28
feasible altematives.
7
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1
2
3
29.
On November 10, 2014, MCWD submitted another cmmnent letter, which further
explained why the significant environmental impacts of the Project had not been addressed.
30.
Cormnission published on its website a 767 page "addendum" to its October 31, 2014 staff
report. The addendum did not include the comments submitted by MCWD on November 7 or
November 10, although it did include the email transmission sheet for the November 7
cmmnents. MCWD asked Commission staff why the letters were not included in the
addendnm, and was informed that the letters would be included in a later addendum.
31.
Well into the evening on November 11, 2014, the Coastal Connnission published a
10
second addendum, substantially modifying the original October 31, 2014 staff report and
11
purporting to address the cmmnents raised by MCWD. The second addendum still did not
12
include MCWD's letters of November 7 and 10, 2014. Those letters were never provided to
13
the public and where apparently withheld from public disclosure. Although MCWD's
14
November 7 and 10 letters were never provided to the public or Commissioners before the
15
hearing, Connnission staff provided copies of both letters to Cal-Am. Unfairly, Cal-Am's
16
response to MCWD's letters was included in the addendum the staff report provided to the
17
public and Cmmnissioners. MCWD received the second addendmn by email fi"om Coastal
18
Conunission staff at roughly 6:00pm on November 11. The second addendum was posted on
19
the Coast Conm1ission's website at some point that later that night for the remainder of the
20
public. MCWD alleges based on information and belief, the most members of the public never
21
22
32.
The second addendum significantly changed both the project and the mitigation
23
for the project in ways that substantially increased the severity of enviromnental impacts that
24
were disclosed in the October 31 Staff Report, including but not limited to biological resources
25
and hydrology impacts. The Project, for instance, was modified so as to allow construction to
26
continue after February 28; this was identified as the critical date in all of the project
27
applications--after which all work would stop--because it is start of the snowy plover breeding
28
and nesting season. The mitigation was altered as well. For instance, the new mitigation allows
8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Cal-Am to move species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act in a way that is
arguably an impermissible "take" under that Act. The perfonnance criteria for groundwater
impacts was also changed. Given the incredibly short notice between the release of the second
addendum and the hearing scheduled for 9:00am the following day, the public and MCWD
were substantially and prejudicially deprived of the right to review and conunent on these
changes to the Project and mitigation. MCWD did provide some c01mnents, but they were
33.
At the November 12,2014, hearing, Commission staff did not call attention to the
changes in the project or mitigation made the prior evening but did announce further changes to
10
mitigation. These changes further reduced the efficacy of the mitigation measures. These new
11
changes to the mitigation will allow substantial increases the severity of environmental impacts
12
than previously analyzed or discussed in the October 31 Staff Report, including but not limited
13
14
34.
15
determined, without a hearing (refusing to hear testimony from the City, MCWD, and public on
16
this its jurisdiction over the appeal) and without ever seeing MCWD's November 7, 2014letter,
17
that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in matter Appeal No. A-3-MRA-14-0050. The
18
process whereby this occurred was grossly unfair and worked a substantial deprivation of the
19
City's, the public's and MCWD's rights. The City of Marina's representatives at the hearing
20
were not provided an opp01iunity to testify before the Commission made its decision on
21
22
35.
Well into the middle of the hearing, right before the C01mnission voted to
23
approve the permits, Commission staff provided the Commission with copies ofMCWD's
24
letters of November 7 and 10, 2014. In as much as the letters were in excess of 102 pages
25
combined, and involved difficult and complex legal and factual matters, it strains credulity that
26
the Commissioners would be able to read and comprehend MCWD's c01mnents in minutes they
27
28
36.
Although MCWD's letters were not included in either the first or second
9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
addendum to the Staff Report, MCWD was not provided additional time to address the
Commission. Rather MCWD was given the same 2 minutes per speaker that everyone but Cal-
Am was provided (Cal-Am was provided 15 minutes) for conm1ents to the Commission. In its
public comments, MCWD requested the Commission reconsider its decision to exercise
jurisdiction of the Project. The City of Marina's general manager and city attorney also
testified and explained that the City denied the CDP "without prejudice" and therefore could
8
9
37.
The Commission's process for the Project was grossly unfair and worked a
10
38.
The public process was substantially undermined and the fact that the significant
11
addendums to the staff report, were not made public until late at night on the eve before the
12
hearing, and MCWD's conm1ent letters were not included in any of the addendums. The error
13
was further compounded by the fact that the substantial changes to the Project were not
14
addressed in any meaningful way at the heaTing. It is unclear whether the Commission or the
15
public were aware of, much less understood, the material changes made to the staff report or
16
MCWD's comments, m1d to mitigation supposedly addressing project impacts, in the cover of
17
night.
18
39.
After the close of the hearing on November 12, 2014, the Commission approved
19
both CDPs with almost no discussion because the public hearing had run past the expected time
20
a11d was cutting into the time for a planned field trip.
21
22
23
24
STANDING
40.
The C01mnission owed a mandatory duty to comply with CEQA and the Coastal
Act in approving the Project. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code, 30804.)
41.
25
and the Coastal Act before the C01mnissions decides whether to approve the CDP for the
26
27
28
42.
MCWD has the right to enforce the mandatory duties imposed upon the
Conmlission by law.
10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
43.
MCWD is a public agency charged with providing safe and reliable water service
to all residential, cmmnercial, industrial, enviromnental, and fire protection uses in the then
44.
MCWD serves approximately 30,000 residents in its Marina and Ord Community
service areas, who rely on MCWD for their domestic drinking water. The District currently
pmnps all of its water supply fiom groundwater wells in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
45.
Operation of this proposed well will adversely affect water supplies and water quality in the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, impairing MCWD's water rights, contracts, and ability to
10
11
MCWD has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
12
law, and MCWD will suffer irreparable injury nnless this Court issues the relief requested in
13
this Petition.
14
47.
MCWD also entered into a recorded annexation agreement with the Monterey
15
County Water Resources Agency, the City of Marina, the J.G. Armstrong Fan1ily, and RMC
16
Lonestar (owner of the "Lonestar" property at issue in this litigation): the Annexation
17
Agreement and Groundwater Mitigation Framework for Marina Area Land dated March 1996.
18
The property at issue in this litigation is subject to restrictions set forth in the Annexation
19
Agreement. The Annexation Agreement protects the groundwater resources of the Salinas
20
River Groundwater Basin. MCWD's rights under the Annexation Agreement would be
21
22
23
24
25
48.
MCWD objected to the Cmmnission's approval of the CDP in writing and orally
The grounds for noncompliance with CEQA and the Coastal Act alleged in this
26
Petition were presented to the Commission orally and in writing prior to the close of the
27
28
50.
In the alternative, because of the process wl~ereby the Conm1ission amended its
11
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Staff Report, in the evening of a national and state Holiday the day before the hearing on the
2 Project, and during the hearing, there was no opportunity for members of the public to raise the
3 grounds of noncompliance alleged in this Petition prior to the Commission's approval of the
4 CDP.
5
51.
7
8
9
52.
The Commission overturned the City of Marina's decision and approved the CDPs
10 limitations under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 21080.5), the Coastal Act (Pub. Resources
11 Code, 30801), and any other applicable statute of limitations.
12
13
On November 24, 2014, MCWD's counsel faxed and sent via overnight delivery a
14 letter to the Commission giving notice ofMCWD's intent to file this action. A copy of that
15 notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
16
55.
19
RECORD OF PROOCEEDINGS
56.
Petitioner requests that the California Coastal Commission prepare the record of
20 proceedings.
21
22
23
24
25
57.
Paragraph 1 through 56 set forth above are realleged and incorporated herein by
reference.
58.
26
Cal-Am to construct and operate a slant test well and associated monitoring wells on the
27
CEMEX property is invalid as an abuse of discretion because the Commission is not the
28
appropriate lead agency under CEQA, and because the Commission's approval would allow
12
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
construction to substantially commence before all required approvals are in place, including an
essential lease under public trust lands from the State Lands Cmmnission. Notably, the State
Lands Connnission has neither approved the lease, nor commenced CEQA review for the lease.
In allowing the project to connnence without this approval, the Conunission has either:
a.
the location and manner proposed, even before it has had the
10
11
12
(Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Ca1.4th 116, 130, quoting
13
14
!5
were allowed, EIR' s would likely become nothing more than post hoc
16
17
b.
18
19
20
Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432, CEQ A's information demands are
21
not met simply by noting that future development will not occur if
22
23
24
25
26
59.
27
Cal-Am to construct and operate a slant test well and associated monitoring wells on the
28
CEMEX prope1iy is invalid as an abuse of discretion because the Cmmnission' s findings are
13
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
not supported by evidence, its decisions is not supported by the fmdings, and it has not
proceeded in the manner required by law. Specifically, the Conm1ission failed to comply with
the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, 21000 et seq.). Among
a.
project description relied upon by the Commission in the EIR functional equivalent
b.
c.
10
d.
11
e.
Failed to comply with CEQ A's mandatory public connnent and review
12
13
14
15
period and failed to comply with its own regulations to provide reasonable notice;
f.
Failed to ensure the whole of the project was analyzed by allowing the
project to proceed without prior approval from the State Lands Commission;
g.
16
including impacts to the federally-listed Western snowy plover, water supply, and water
17
quality;
18
19
20
21
22
23
h.
Failed to adopt legally adequate mitigation for the project and approved the
24
k.
25
I.
26
law when the Project and project-mitigation was substantially modified and when the
27
28
14
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1
2
60.
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
61.
Paragraph 1 through 60 set forth above are realleged and incorporated herein by
reference.
62.
The Commission, when approving the CDP, also failed to proceed in the mrumer
required by the California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code, 30000 et seq.). Among other things,
the Commission abused its discretion and violated the Coastal Act by:
a.
12
0050), and usurping the local agency's authority, when the City of Marina has a certified
13
LCP and had yet to approve or deny the CDP under the certified LCP;
14
b.
Granting the appeal, a11d approving the permit, even though the
15
Commission independently found that the CDP was not in conformity with the LCP, and
16
doing so by improperly reaching findings under Public Resources Code section 30260,
17
thereby usurping the City of Marina's discretion under the ce1iified LCP;
18
c.
19
(ESHA) in a manner that is inconsistent with Public Resources Code section 30240,
20
which prohibits uses that affect ESHA unless the use is "dependent on those resources";
21
d.
Making findings under Public Resources Code section 30260 that are not
22
supported by substantial evidence that either (1) alternative locations are infeasible or
23
more enviromnentally damaging, (2) that to do otherwise would adversely affect the
24
public welfare, and (3) that adverse enviromnental effects have been mitigated to the
25
26
e.
27
1735) and approving a permit, when the applicant, Cal-Am, has not demonstrated it has
28
an interest in the property. (Pub. Resource Code, 30601.5.) State Lands Commission
IS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
has not granted a lease for the project, has not put the subject of the lease on an agenda,
f.
procedures that are set out in the Coastal Act for doing so in Public Resources Code
g.
h.
I.
14
PRAYERFORRELIEF
11
13
participation; and
10
12
Wherefore, the Marina Coast Water District prays for judgment against the Commission
as follows:
1.
For a temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent
15 injunctions restraining Respondent and its agents, employees, officers and representatives fiom
16 issuing any perinits or taldng other actions in furtherance of the Project pending full compliance
17 with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Coastal Act.
18
2.
For a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Commission to vacate and set
19 aside in its entirety its decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit allowing Cal-Am to
20 construct and operate a slant test well and associated monitoring wells on the CEMEX property;
21
3.
For a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Respondents to comply with the
4.
For a temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and pennanent
24 injnnctions restraining the Real Parties in Interest and Respondents and its agents, servants, and
25 employees, and all others acting in concert with Real Parties in Interest and Respondents on
26 their behalf, from taldng any action to implement the Project, pending full compliance with the
27 requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Coastal Act;
28
16
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5.
For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this action to Petitioner;
6.
For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
2 and
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
' 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
EXHIBIT A
REMY
MOOSE
MANLEY
LLP
Re:
2.
A peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Commission to vacate and
set aside in its entirety its decision to approve the Coastal Development Permits allowing
Cal-Am to construct and operate a slant test well and associated monitoring wells on the
CEMEX property.
I www.rmmenvirolaw.com
Charles Lester
Christopher Peterson
California OJastal Commission
November24, 2014
Page2
3.
A peremptory writ of mandate directing the OJmmission to comply with the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the OJastal Act.
4.
A temporary stay, temporary restraining order, and preliminary and pennanent
injunctions restraining the Real Parties in Interest California American et a!. and
Commission and its agents, servants, and employees, and all others acting in concert with
California-American and the OJmmission on their behalf, from taking any action to
implement the Project, pending full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the OJastal Act.
5.
6.
And any such other and further relief that the Olurt deems just and proper.
and