1 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [FILE: 1889.

00]
Cory J. Briggs (State Bar no. 176284)
2 Anthony N. Kim (State Bar no. 283353)
99 East C Street, Suite 111
3 Upland, CA 91786
Telephone: 909-949-7115
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner NAME
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
10
11 NAME; and DOES 1 through 10, ) CASE NO. __________________________
)
12 Plaintiff and Petitioner, ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
) MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
13 vs. ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
) RELIEF UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
14 CITY OF ALHAMBRA; and DOES 11 through ) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE
100, ) PLANNING AND ZONING LAW, AND
15 ) OTHER LAWS
Defendants and Respondents, )
16 )
V A S ILIS P A P A D A T O S ; N A T I O N A L )
17 ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC.; )
CHARLES COMPANY; SOUTH MERIDIAN, )
18 LLC; and DOES 101 through 1,000, )
)
19 Defendants and Real Parties in Interest. )
20
21 Plaintiff and Petitioner NAME (Petitioner) alleges as follows in this Verified Petition for Writ
22 of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under the California Environmental
23 Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, and Other Laws:
24 Parties
25 1. Petitioner is a non-profit organization formed and operating under the laws of the State
26 of California and has an interest in ensuring open, accountable, responsive government and in protecting
27 the regions environment. At least one of Petitioners members pays taxes in and resides in or near the
28
 1 City of Alhambra, California. One of Petitioners members is Eric Sunada, who opposed and objected
2 to the project that is the subject of this proceeding prior to the projects approval.
3 2. Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ALHAMBRA (Respondent) is a public agency
4 under Section 21063 of the Public Resources Code. Respondent is authorized and required by law to
5 hold public hearings to determine whether the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies
6 to development within its jurisdiction, to determine the adequacy of and certify environmental
7 documents prepared pursuant to CEQA, and to determine whether a project is compatible with the
8 objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan.
9 3. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that VASILIS
10 PAPADATOS, NATIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., CHARLES COMPANY, and
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN, LLC, are each a Real Party in Interest insofar as they are the applicant for the
12 project that is the subject of this proceeding or have some other cognizable interest in the project.
13 4. The true names and capacities of the Defendants and Respondents identified as DOES
14 11 through 100 are unknown to Petitioner, who will seek the Courts permission to amend this pleading
15 in order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Petitioner is informed
16 and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named Respondents and Defendants
17 11 through 100 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the proposed project that is the
18 subject of this proceeding and that each of the fictitiously named Real Parties in Interest 101 through
19 1,000 either claims an ownership interest in the proposed project or has some other cognizable interest
20 in the proposed project.
21 Background Information
22 5. The project being challenged in this proceeding is the construction of Lowes home-
23 improvement store, two office buildings, and a parking structure on a contaminated site in the City of
24 Alhambra. The project includes an industrial planned development permit, tentative tract map, and a
25 proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND) (collectively, the Project).
26 6. On or around January 17, 2017, Respondents planning commission approved the
27 Project. One or more members of Petitioner administratively appealed the Projects approval to
28 Respondents city council.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 2
 1 7. On or about February 27, 2017, Respondents city council held a public hearing on the
2 administrative appeal, ultimately affirming the planning commissions decision and approving the
3 Project.
4 8. Petitioner opposes the Project and challenges certain actions taken by Respondent. In
5 particular, Petitioner seeks to invalidate Respondents approval of the Project and related actions and
6 approvals with respect to the Project on the grounds that Respondent violated CEQA, the Planning and
7 Zoning Law (PZL), Petitioners fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws.
8 Notice Requirements and Time Limitations
9 9. A Notice of Determination for the Project was filed on or around March 1, 2017.
10 Alternatively, no Notice of Determination for the Project has been filed.
11 10. This proceeding is being commenced not more than 30 days after the Notice of
12 Determinations filing, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167(b), if there was a filing;
13 and within the period of time otherwise prescribed for commencement of the proceeding if there was
14 no such filing.
15 11. Petitioner has caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on Respondent,
16 as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. A true and correct copy of the Notice of
17 Commencement of Action is attached to this pleading as Exhibit A.
18 12. Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney General
19 not more than ten days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public Resources
20 Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388.
21 Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
22 13. Petitioner seeks review by and relief from this Court under Public Resources Code
23 Section 21168 or 21168.5, as applicable, and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1060 et seq. and 1084
24 et seq., among other provisions of law.
25 14. Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies to the extent required by law; by way of
26 example and without limitation, Petitioners members submitted written comments during the
27 administrative proceedings relating to this Project.
28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 3
 1 15. Respondents conduct in approving this Project without complying with CEQA, the PZL,
2 Petitioners fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws constitutes a prejudicial abuse of
3 discretion because, as alleged in this pleading, it failed to proceed in the manner required by law and
4 made findings not supported by substantial evidence.
5 16. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law since
6 its members will suffer irreparable harm as a result of Respondents violations of CEQA, the PZL,
7 Petitioners fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws. Respondents approval of the Project
8 also rests on its failure to satisfy a clear, present, ministerial duty to act in accordance with those laws.
9 Even when Respondent is permitted or required by law to exercise its discretion in approving projects
10 under those laws, it remains under a clear, present, ministerial duty to exercise its discretion within the
11 limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws. Respondent has had and continues to have the
12 capacity and ability to approve the Project within the time limits of and in a manner consistent with
13 those laws, but Respondent has failed and refused to do so and has exercised its discretion beyond the
14 limits of and in a manner that is not consistent with those laws.
15 17. Petitioner has a beneficial right and interest in Respondents fulfillment of all its legal
16 duties, as alleged in this pleading.
17 18. Petitioner has not yet been proved with a complete copy of the administrative record and
18 has not had a reasonable opportunity to review the record in its entirety. Consequently, the allegations
19 in this pleading are based on very limited information available to Petitioner within the short limitations
20 period that applies to this lawsuit. Petitioner reserves the right to amend this pleading to include
21 additional and/or different allegations of wrongdoing after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review
22 the entire record.
23 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
Illegal Approval of Project
24 (Against All Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest)
25 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are fully incorporated into this paragraph.
26 20. The Projects approval violates CEQA as follows:
27 A. Whenever a project proposed to be carried out or approved by a lead agency has
28 the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact, CEQA prohibits the agency from relying on a

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 4
 1 negative declaration. Instead, CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report to
2 identify and analyze the significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project, giving due
3 consideration to both short-term and long-term impacts, providing decision-makers with enough
4 information to enable them to make an informed decision with full knowledge of the likely
5 consequences of their actions, and providing members of the public with enough information to
6 participate meaningfully in the project-approval and environmental-review process. CEQA also
7 requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives
8 to a proposed project. CEQA further requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze
9 all reasonable mitigation measures for a proposed projects significant adverse environmental impacts.
10 An environmental impact report must be prepared for a proposed project if there is a fair argument,
11 supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, that the project may have an adverse
12 environmental impact; stated another way, a negative declaration may not be used unless the lead
13 agency determines with certainty that there is no potential for the project to have an adverse
14 environmental impact.
15 B. There is a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental
16 impacts; by way of example and without limitation, the administrative record is replete with evidence
17 that the Project will have significant environmental impacts related to greenhouse gases, land use and
18 planning, air quality, hazardous materials, traffic, parking, noise, hydrology/water quality, and public
19 services. The Project will also result in cumulative impacts unaccounted for in the MND.
20 C. These significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on the
21 environment give rise to Respondents legal obligation to prepare an environmental impact report.
22 D. Respondents failure to prepare an environmental impact report is a violation of
23 CEQA.
24 E. As a result of Respondents violation of CEQA, Petitioner has been harmed
25 insofar as it, its members, other members of the public, and the responsible decision-makers were not
26 fully informed about the potential adverse environmental impacts of the this Project, and insofar as
27 Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public did not have an opportunity to participate
28 meaningfully in the analysis of such impacts prior to approval of the Project.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 5
 1 21. The Projects approval violates the PZL as follows:
2 A. The Project was approved by Respondent without a finding that the tentative map
3 contemplated by the Project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan under
4 Government Code Section 66473.5. Alternatively, Respondent approved the tentative map based on
5 a finding that it is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan under Section
6 66473.5, but the finding was not supported by sufficient evidence in the record.
7 B. In approving the Project, Respondent was legally obligated to make the finding
8 described in Government Code Section 66473.5 and to support the finding with sufficient evidence in
9 the record.
10 C. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as
11 a result of Respondents violations of Government Code Section 66473.5 because they have been
12 denied the benefits and protections provided by compliance with this statute.
13 D. Government Code Section 66474 states that a legislative body shall deny
14 approval of a tentative map if it finds the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General
15 Plan. Respondent could not approve the tentative map absent findings that it was consistent with the
16 General Plan.
17 E. Respondent failed to make the findings required for approval under Government
18 Code Section 66474.
19 F. Additionally and/or alternatively, the Project was approved by Respondent based
20 on findings under the various sub-parts of Government Code Section 66474 that were not supported by
21 sufficient evidence in the record.
22 G. In approving the Project, Respondent was legally obligated to support its findings
23 under the various sub-parts of Government Code Section 66474 with sufficient evidence in the record.
24 H. Respondents approval of the Project based on its failure to make findings
25 required for approval, or based on its findings under the various sub-parts of Government Code Section
26 66474 that were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record, constitutes a violation of
27 Government Code Section 66474.
28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 6
 1 I. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as
2 a result of Respondents violations of Government Code Section 66474 because they have been denied
3 the benefits and protections provided by compliance with this statute.
4 22. The Projects approval violates the Alhambra Municipal Code (AMC) as follows:
5 A. The AMC prescribes the land uses that are authorized in the Industrial Planned
6 Development Zone.
7 B. The Project site is located in the Industrial Planned Development Zone.
8 C. The Project does not meet the legal criteria for uses authorized in the Industrial
9 Planned Development Zone.
10 D. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as
11 a result of Respondents violations of the AMC because they have been denied the benefits and
12 protections provided by compliance with the AMC.
13 Prayer
14 FOR ALL THESE REASONS, Petitioner respectfully prays for the following relief against
15 Respondents and Real Parties in Interest (and any and all other parties who may oppose Petitioner in
16 this proceeding):
17 A. A judgment determining or declaring that Respondent failed to fully comply with all
18 laws applicable to the Projects approval (including all associated entitlements and the MND) and that
19 the approval was therefore illegal in at least some respect, rendering the Project and its approval null
20 and void;
21 B. A judgment determining or declaring that Respondent must prepare an EIR and certify
22 it fully in accordance with CEQA before final approval of the Project may be granted;
23 C. Injunctive relief prohibiting Respondent and Real Parties in Interest (and any and all
24 persons acting at the request of, in concert with, or for the benefit of one or more of them) from taking
25 any action on any aspect of, in furtherance of, or otherwise based on the Project unless and until
26 Respondent complies with all laws applicable to the Project, as determined by the Court;
27 D. Any and all other relief that may be authorized by law but is not explicitly or specifically
28 requested elsewhere in this Prayer;

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 7
 1 E. All attorney fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit, including
2 but not limited to reasonable attorney fees as authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure; and
3 F. Any and all further relief that this Court may deem appropriate.
4 Date: March 27, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
5 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION
6
7 By: ______________________________
Cory J. Briggs
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner NAME
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 8