Petitioners have another remedy since they have raised the identical SEPA-related issue in their parallel action pending in Clark County Superior Court. Because Petitioners did not raise SEPA compliance while the plan was under consideration prior to its adoption, they do not have participation standing to raise that issue in this proceeding before us. Therefore, we should rule that Petitioners lack standing to raise SEPA compliance in this action and rescind the remand based on that issue. Petitioners in their response, reiterated many of the opposing arguments they had made in their prehearing briefs and added additional arguments. The City now challenges participation standing based on the allegation that it is Petitioners duty, rather than the City s, to initiate non-project SEPA review.
Petitioners have no such duty.
The City s analysis omits the important fact that SEPA procedures are dependent on the timing and performance of the City s duties under the Act, particularly, the City s duty to notify the public of its actions. In the absence of such notice, interested parties are clearly denied an opportunity to engage in environmental review. In short, there can be no lack of participation standing where there was no hearing in which to participate. We did not believe it necessary to discuss in the FDO every argument raised by the parties in their briefs. It is obvious that it is not Petitioners duty to comment in order to raise an issue of the City s failure to prepare a SEPA threshold determination on the proposed ordinance where no opportunity for such public participation was provided.