File #: TMP-0249    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Action Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 11/25/2014 In control: City Council
On agenda: 12/9/2014 Final action: 6/10/2016
Title: SETTLEMENT OF CEQA PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, SDSC CASE NO. 37-2013-00076859-CU-WM-NC (Cell No, et al. v. City, et. al)
Attachments: 1. Settlement Agreement and Release 3
MEETING DATE:
DECEMBER 9, 2014

SUBJECT:
Title
SETTLEMENT OF CEQA PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, SDSC CASE NO. 37-2013-00076859-CU-WM-NC (Cell No, et al. v. City, et. al)
Body

Recommendation
Recommendation
APPROVE proposed settlement of San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00076859-CU-WM-NC, Cell No, an unincorporated association, and Elliot Herman, Petitioners vs. the City of San Marcos and New Singular Wireless PCS, LLC, Respondents, and AT&T Mobility, LLC as Real Party in Interest ("the Action").

Body

Relevant Council Strategic Theme
Not applicable

Relevant Department Goal
Not applicable

Introduction
In September of 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project consisting of an AT&T wireless telecommunications facility at 2080 Golden Eagle Trail in San Marcos ("the Approvals"). Petitioners appealed the Approvals to the City Council, which denied the appeal in October of 2014. Petitioners initiated the Action on November 22, 2013. Since that date, Petitioners and AT&T have engaged in settlement discussions, and have reached agreement upon the terms and conditions for dismissal of the Action in the draft document entitled Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"), a copy of which is attached.

Discussion
Petitioners and AT&T have presented the Settlement Agreement to the City for its approval. It contains no obligations to be performed by the City, but does recognize the City's existing role as the entity which processes land use entitlements and associated approvals within its boundaries. With respect to the project represented by the Approvals, the City's discretion is not affected by the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Despite the fact that there are no obligations imposed on the City by the Settlement Agreement, the other parties wish to include the City in the mutual release and discharge of any...

Click here for full text