Appeal of RPC Vote Decision Findings.pdf - Humboldt County
Appeal of RPC Vote Decision Findings.pdf - Humboldt County Appeal of RPC Vote Decision Findings.pdf - Humboldt County
I 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l+ 15 l6 l'7 18 to 20 2l 22 ZJ 24 25 zo 27 28 4. Conserve natural resources. 5. Enhance the beauty and quality of the environment. The RPC violated the above referenced statute and policy of the State of Nevada by a through its vote, decision and findings on February 1 lft, 2010 by failing to deny the extension the CUP, or in the alternative, by failing to grant Appellants and other citizens request that Jung conduct, perform, and/or submit to an environmental review andlor environmental impact or the like. 9) The RPC abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in extending the CUP, and were clearly erroneous in its finding that good cause existed for the extension. Said RPC granted the extension while completely failing to impose any conditions on the extension to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Humboldt County, Pershing County and other citizens of the State and/or visitors to the public land abutting the landfill site, and this was an abuse ofdiscretion. 10) It was not proper and violative of public policy of the State of Nevada when the RPC agreed with Jungo that good cause existed, to any extent, based on the existence of a pending meritorious lawsuit involving Jungo. It also was clearly eroneous by implicitly finding that Jungo was "prevented" from timely obtaining the permits it needs from the State, and otherwise "prevented" by lawful forces from commencing operations. Jungo just did not commi sufficient resources or effort to the project. How the failures of Jungo becomes "good cause" in the minds of the members of the RPC who voted to grant a five year extension without any new conditions is absurd. and an abuse of discretion. 11) It was not proper and violative of public policy of the State of Nevada when the RPC agreed with Jungo that good cause existed, to any extent, based on protected political actions and expression by appellants and other citizens and elected officials.
I z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 !1 II t2 IJ 14 l5 t6 17 l8 19 20 2l 22 ZJ aA 25 26 27 28 12) It was not proper and violative of public policy of the State of Nevada when the RPC agreed with Jungo that good cause existed, to any extent, based on the failure of Jungo to designate and spend sufficient money or assets to timely and effective proceed through the State of Nevada regulatory process. 13) The RPC abused its discretion when it effectively made the citizens of Humboldt County the guarantors of its CUP by prejudicing and damaging the appellants and citizens for having exercised their fundamental rights as United States citizens and their First Amendment rights. Indeed, at least one member of the RPC essentially stated that of course lawsuits constitute good cause for an extension. The blanket failure of the RPC during its deliberation and vote to be able to discriminate and/or discern a difference between meritorious lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits in its deliberation is breathtaking! 14) The RPC engaged in egregious procedure by accepting as true all or most of the representations of Jungo in its request for the extension, without question and/or without proper investigation to confirm the truth or propriety of said representations, and by failing to impose reasonable conditions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the appellants and the other citizens who use the abutting land of the landfill site. Essentially, the RPC made said vote, decision, and findings without meaningful and reasonably complete information. WHEREFORE it is respectfully submitted by the undersigned that good cause exists for the Humboldt County Commission to review and reverse the above referenced decision, vote and finding of the RPC of February 11'h, 2010.
- Page 1 and 2: I 2 4 ) 6 8 9 10 1l t2 l3 14 15 l6
- Page 3: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 l5
- Page 7 and 8: 0l-81-2010 00:llu Fror{flfid,ll Pll
- Page 9 and 10: 01.01-2010 0f ,4i{ Frm{l[0t!l RtltE
- Page 11 and 12: SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE TRlBE Primary Ad
- Page 13: RESOLUTTON #l-0-14*_ REQUEST: An ex
I<br />
2<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
l0<br />
ll<br />
12<br />
l3<br />
l+<br />
15<br />
l6<br />
l'7<br />
18<br />
to<br />
20<br />
2l<br />
22<br />
ZJ<br />
24<br />
25<br />
zo<br />
27<br />
28<br />
4. Conserve natural resources.<br />
5. Enhance the beauty and quality <strong>of</strong> the environment.<br />
The <strong>RPC</strong> violated the above referenced statute and policy <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Nevada by a<br />
through its vote, decision and findings on February 1 lft, 2010 by failing to deny the extension<br />
the CUP, or in the alternative, by failing to grant Appellants and other citizens request that Jung<br />
conduct, perform, and/or submit to an environmental review andlor environmental impact<br />
or the like.<br />
9) The <strong>RPC</strong> abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in extending the<br />
CUP, and were clearly erroneous in its finding that good cause existed for the extension. Said<br />
<strong>RPC</strong> granted the extension while completely failing to impose any conditions on the extension to<br />
protect the health, safety and welfare <strong>of</strong> the citizens <strong>of</strong> <strong>Humboldt</strong> <strong>County</strong>, Pershing <strong>County</strong> and<br />
other citizens <strong>of</strong> the State and/or visitors to the public land abutting the landfill site, and this was<br />
an abuse <strong>of</strong>discretion.<br />
10) It was not proper and violative <strong>of</strong> public policy <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Nevada when the<br />
<strong>RPC</strong> agreed with Jungo that good cause existed, to any extent, based on the existence <strong>of</strong> a<br />
pending meritorious lawsuit involving Jungo. It also was clearly eroneous by implicitly finding<br />
that Jungo was "prevented" from timely obtaining the permits it needs from the State, and<br />
otherwise "prevented" by lawful forces from commencing operations. Jungo just did not commi<br />
sufficient resources or effort to the project. How the failures <strong>of</strong> Jungo becomes "good cause" in<br />
the minds <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>RPC</strong> who voted to grant a five year extension without any new<br />
conditions is absurd. and an abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion.<br />
11) It was not proper and violative <strong>of</strong> public policy <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Nevada when the<br />
<strong>RPC</strong> agreed with Jungo that good cause existed, to any extent, based on protected political<br />
actions and expression by appellants and other citizens and elected <strong>of</strong>ficials.
Change language