Sweerwraunune uw 13 14 1s 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION (exe: 1889.00) CONFORMED COPy Cory J. Briggs (State Bar no. 176284) QRORIGINAL FILED jony N. Kim (State Bar no. 283353) Los Angeles Superior Court 99 East “C” Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 MAR 27 2017 Telephone: 909-949-7115 ‘Sher R, Caner, execunve otteercien Attomeys for Plaintiff and Petitioner By Shaunya Bolden, Deputy Grassroots Community Group of Alhambra SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ~ STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY GROUP OF) CASENO. 88168557 ALHAMBRA; and DOES 1 through 10, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF Plaintiff and Petitioner, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE vs. } RELIEF UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ) 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA; and DOES 1} through) PLANNING AND ZONING LAW, AND , OTHER LAWS Defendants and Respondents, 5 YASILIS_PAPADATOS, NATIONAL) ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, | INC.; CHARLES COMPANY; SOUTH MERIDIAN, Ne ELC; and DOES 101 through 1,000, } Defendants and Real Parties in Interest. Plaintiff and Petitioner GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY GROUP OF ALHAMBRA (“Petitioner”) alleges as follows in this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, and Other Laws Parties 1, Petitioner is a non-profit organization formed and operating under the laws of the State of California andhas an interest in ensuring open, accountable, responsive government and in protecting the region’s environment. At least one of Petitioner's members pays taxes in and resides in or near thewe aah es wn 10 ul 12 1B 14 Is 16 7 18 19 20 24 22 2B 24 28 26 27 28 City of Alhambra, California. One of Petitioner's members is Eric Sunada, who opposed and objected to the project that is the subject of this proceeding prior to the project's approval. 2. Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ALHAMBRA (“Respondent”) is a public agency under Section 21063 of the Public Resources Code, Respondent is authorized and required by law to hold public hearings to determine whether the California Enviromental Quality Act (“CEQA”) applies to development within its jurisdiction, to determine the adequacy of and certify environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA, and to determine whether a project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, 3. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that VASILIS PAPADATOS, NATIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., CHARLES COMPANY, and SOUTH MERIDIAN, LLC, are each a Real Party in Interest insofar as they are the applicant for the ‘project that is the subject of this proceeding or have some other cognizable interest in the project. 4, The true names and capacities of the Defendants and Respondents identified as DOES 11 through 100 are unknown to Petitioner, who will seek the Court's permission to amend this pleading in order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named Respondents and Defendants 11 through 100 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the proposed project that is the subject of this proceeding and that each of the fictitiously named Real Parties in Interest 101 through 1,000 either claims an ownership interest in the proposed project or has some other cognizable interest in the proposed project. Background Information 5, The project being challenged in this proceeding is the construction of Lowe's home- improvement store, two office buildings, and a parking structure on a contaminated site in the City of Alhambra, The project includes an industrial planned development permit, tentative tract map, and a proposed mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) (collectively, the “Project”). 6. On or around January 17, 2017, Respondent's planning commission approved the Project. One or more members of Petitioner administratively appealed the Project's approval to Respondent's city council. \VBRiPIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND ‘CompLatvr Fox DECLARATORY AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC, Page 2wCwoerauaun 10 ul n 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 Pa 28 7. Onor about February 27, 2017, Respondent's city council held a public hearing on the administrative appeal, ultimately affirming the planning commission's decision and approving the Project. 8. Petitioner opposes the Project and challenges certain actions taken by Respondent. In particular, Petitioner seeks to invalidate Respondent's approval of the Project and related actions and approvals with respect to the Project on the grounds that Respondent violated CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law (“PZL”), Petitioner's fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws. Notice Requirements and Time Limitations 9. A Notice of Determination for the Project was filed on or around March 1, 2017. Alternatively, no Notice of Determination for the Project has been filed. 10. This proceeding is being commenced not more than 30 days after the Notice of Determination’ filing, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21 167(b), if there was a fling; ‘and within the period of time otherwise prescribed for commencement of the proceeding if there was no such filing, 11. Petitionerhas caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on Respondent, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. A true and correct copy of the Notice of ‘Commencement of Action is attached to this pleading as Exhibit “A.” 12, Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney General not more than ten days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388. Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 13, Petitioner seeks review by and relief from this Court under Public Resources Code Section 21168 or 21168.5, as applicable, and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1060 et seq. and 1084 et seq., emong other provisions of law. 14. Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies to the extent required by law; by way of ‘example and without limitation, Petitioner's members submitted written comments during the administrative proceedings relating to this Project. ‘VERIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF FTC. Page 3eee 10 u 12 13 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 4 2s 26 7 28 15. Respondent's conduetin approving this Project without complying with CEQA, the PZL, Petitioner's fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion because, as alleged in this pleading, it failed to proceed in the manner required by law and made findings not supported by substantial evidence. 16. Petitionerhas no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law since its members will suffer irreparable harm as a result of Respondent's violations of CEQA, the PZL, Petitioner’ fair-hearing and due-process rights, and other laws. Respondent's approval of the Project also rests on its failure to satisfy a clear, present, ministerial duty to act in accordance with those laws. Even when Respondent is permitted or required by law to exercise its discretion in approving projects ‘under those laws, it remains under a clear, present, ministerial duty to exercise its discretion within the limits of and in 2 manner consistent with those laws. Respondent has had and continues to have the capacity and ability to approve the Project within the time limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws, but Respondent has failed and refused to do so and has exercised its discretion beyond the limits of and in # manner that is not consistent with those laws. 17. Petitioner has a beneficial right and interest in Respondent's fulfillment of all its legal duties, as alleged in this pleading, 18, Petitioner has not yet been proved with a complete copy of the administrative record and has not had a reasonable opportunity to review the record in ts entirety. Consequently, the allegations in this pleading are based on very limited informationavailable to Petitioner within the short limitations period that applies to this lawsuit. Petitioner reserves the right to amend this pleading to include additional and/or different allegations of wrongdoing after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review the entire record. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: (Against All Defendasts/Respondent/Real Parties in Interest) 19, Paragraphs 1 through 18 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. 20, The Project's approval violates CEQA as follows: A. Whenevera project proposed to be carried out or approved by a lead agency has the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact, CEQA prohibits the agency from relying ona \Vanigp Pet mon FoR WRIT OF MANDATE AND (COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INIUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC, Page 4wor sw awR 10 ui 2 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 negative declaration. Instead, CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report to identify and analyze the significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-term impacts, providing decision-makers with enough information to enable them to make an informed decision with full knowledge of the likely ‘consequences of their actions, and providing members of the public with enough information to participate meaningfully in the project-approval and environmental-review process. CEQA also requires every environmental impact report to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives toa proposed project. CEQA farther requires every environmental impact reportto identify andanalyze all reasonable mitigation measures for e proposed project's significant adverse environmental impacts. ‘An environmental impact report must be prepared for a proposed project if there is a fair argument, supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, that the project may have an adverse environmental impact; stated another way, a negative declaration may not be used unless the lead agency determines with certainty that there is no potential for the project to have an adverse environmental impact, B, There is a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental impacts; by way of example and without limitation, the administrative record is replete with evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts related to greenhouse gases, land use and planning, air quality, hazardous materials, traffic, parking, noise, hydrology/water quality, and public services. The Project will also result in curnulative impacts unaccounted for in the MND. C. These significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment give rise to Respondent's legal obligation to prepare an environmental impact report D. Respondent's failure to prepare an environmental impact report is a violation of CEQA. E. Asa result of Respondent's violation of CEQA, Petitioner has been harmed insofar as it, its members, other members of the public, and the responsible decision-makers were not fully informed about the potential adverse environmental impacts of the this Project, and insofar as Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public did not have an opportunity to participate ‘meaningfully in the analysis of such impacts prior to approval of the Project. \Vururiep PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND ‘COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INIUNCTIVE RELIKY 2TC, Page 521. The Project's approval violates the PZL as follows: A. TheProject was approved by Respondent without finding that the tentative map contemplated by the Project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan under Government Code Section 66473,5. Alternatively, Respondent approved the tentative map based on 1 finding that it is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan under Section 66473.5, but the finding was not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. B. __ In approving the Project, Respondent was legally obligated to make the finding described in Government Code Section 66473.5 and to support the finding with sufficient evidence in the record, C. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as a result of Respondent's violations of Government Code Section 66473.5 because they have been denied the benefits and protections provided by compliance with this statute. D. — Government Code Section 66474 states that a legislative body shall deny approval of a tentative map if it finds the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General Plan, Respondent could not approve the tentative map absent findings that it was consistent with the General Plan. E. _ Respondent failed to make the findings required for approval under Government Code Section 66474. F. Additionally and/or alternatively, the Project was approved by Respondent based on findings under the various sub-parts of Government Code Section 66474 that were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. G. _Inapproving the Project, Respondent was legally obligated to supportits findings ‘under the various sub-parts of Government Code Section 66474 with sufficient evidence in the record. H. Respondents approval of the Project based on its failure to make findings ‘required for approval, or based on its findings under the various sub-parts of Goverament Code Section 66474 that were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record, constitutes a violation of Government Code Section 66474, \Venurino PETITION FOR WAIT OF MANDATE AND (Conptamnr FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC, Page 6Sema avneron u 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 26 2 28 1. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as result of Respondent's violations of Government Code Section 66474 because they have been denied the benefits and protections provided by compliance with this statute. 22. The Project's approval violates the Alhambra Municipal Code (“AMC”) as follows: A. The AMC prescribes the land uses that are authorized in the Industrial Planned Development Zone, B, The Project site is located in the Industrial Planned Development Zone. C. The Project does not meet the legal criteria for uses authorized in the Industrial Planned Development Zone. D. Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public have been harmed as a result of Respondent's violations of the AMC because they have been denied the benefits and protections provided by compliance with the AMC. Prayer FOR ALL THESE REASONS, Petitioner respectfully prays for the following relief against Respondents and Real Parties in Interest (and any and all other parties who may oppose Petitioner in this proceeding): A. A judgment determining or declaring that Respondent failed to fully comply with all laws applicable to the Project's approval (including all associated entitlements and the MND) and that the approval was therefore illegal in at least some respect, rendering the Project and its approval null and void; B. _A judgment determining or declaring that Respondent must prepare an EIR and certify it fully in accordance with CEQA before final approval of the Project may be granted; C. _Injunctive relief prohibiting Respondent and Real Parties in Interest (and any and all ‘persons acting at the request of, in concert with, or for the benefit of one or more of them) from taking any action on any aspect of, in furtherance of, or otherwise based on the Project unless and until Respondent complies with all laws applicable to the Project, as determined by the Court; D. —_Anyandall other relief that may be authorized by law but is not explicitly or specifically requested elsewhere in this Prayer, \VERIFIED PETTTION FOR WaT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page?Seweraneun n 3 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 a 28 E. __Allattomey fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit, including ‘but not limited to reasonable attorney fees as authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure; and F. Any and all further relief that this Court may deem appropriate. Date: March 27, 2017. — submitted, S “| CORPORATION Attomeys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Grassroots ‘Community Group of Alahmbra ‘Vim PETTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC Page 8PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW, AND OTHER LAWS Exhibit “A”BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Sen Dig Off Inde emp fic deri eciic hey, i106 s9cut"C Stee See Bt Sen ouga CAOBTID Uilnd C4 91706 ‘Talaplione: 619-497-0021 ‘Telephone: 909-949-7115 eile 9900721 ‘eile ETE ate nape x nad Erin Ofer cc 4) 80000 24 March 2017 ‘Lauren Myles, City Clerk LMYLES@cityofalhambra.org Via e-mail, U.S. Mall and Fax to 626-576-8563 City of Alhembra LI South First Street Alhambra, CA 91801 Re: Notice of Commencement of Action ‘Dear City Clerk: | represent Grassroots Community Group of Alhambra and am sending this Notice of Commencement of Action on my client's behalf, Please be advised that an action is to be commenced by my client in Los Angeles County ‘Superior Court against your agency. The action will challenge your agency's approvalofthe project that was the subject of tem 16 on the city council's February 27, 2017 agenda, on the grounds that the approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act (PUB, RES. CODE § 21000 er seg.) ‘The Aton may also challenge your agency's approval of the projectbased on on oF more Vilaons of ‘If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, ‘Sincerely, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Coy Bo Cory J. Briggs det ear, Rey‘TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT +: 93/24/2017 11:208M Beigs Law CORP 9093497121 } usseaecoN276525 ‘DATE. TIME Edie ao ee ie BriGGs LAW CORPORATIO! & Inland Compre Office ores eee 99 Bast °C” Steves, Soles LLL Serer <7 ‘Talaphone: 619-497-0021 mene Facile: 909-949-7121 ‘plone 7 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Recipient: City of Alhambra, City Clerk Recipient’s fax number: 626-576-8568, Date; 3/24/2017 BLC Fite 1889.00 Total Pages (including cover sheet): 2 Sender; Cory J. Briggs Sender's fax number; __ 619-515-6410 X_ 909-949-7121 Message: Please see attached Notice of Commencement of Action.BRIGGS LAW CORPORATI: Sen @itgo Office Inland Empire 4A91 esc Wigs, Solu 106 99 84st "C" Stree Suite 111 Sen ings, CA 92110, ‘Upland CA 91786 ‘Tepe: 619-497-0021 lghone 909.968.7115 aside 909-999-7121 "Perine 909-963.7121 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Recipient: City of Alhambra, City Clerk 626-576-8568 Recipient’s fax number: Date; 3/24/2017 Total Pages (including cover sheet): 2 Sender: Cory J. Briggs Sender’s fax number: __ 619-515-6410 X_ 909-949-7121 Message: Please see attached Notice of Commencement of Action. Original Document to Follow? X__Yes ___ No CONFIDENTIALITY. The document accompanying this facsimile transmission contains information that may be either confidential, legally privileged, or both, The information is intended only forthe use of the tecipient(s) ‘named on this cover sheet. If not done by or atthe diection of the recipient(s), disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of the contents ofthis transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone so that we can arrange for ils retum at no cost to you.VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Bernardino Thave read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under the California Environméntal Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, and Other Laws and know is contents. TEICHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH 1 tamaparty to this ation. The maters stated in the foregoing document are tue of my own knowledge except so those matters which are tated on information and belie, and as to those matters I beleve them to be tue, (am 2) an Officer C] a partner Os of party Tis acon and a thorized ake thir verification or and on is Daal and make ts verction for at Teuon,C) Tam inforsed and believe and on that ground allege thatthe matters stated in the foregoing document a ttue.() The matters stated in the foregoing document are tue of my own knowledge excep as to those matters which are stated on information ard bit, and sto those matters believe them tobe tue. [x] Tam one of the attorneys for Grassroots Community Group of Albambra ‘apary to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where auch aiomeys Rave Weir ofices, and T mak ths verification for and on behalf of that ary for that reason, Tam informed ang believe and on that ground allege thatthe rafters sated inthe foregoing document ar true. Exeeuied on March27 120.17, Upland . California, 1 declare under penalty of perjury under We awe oie Sat of California hat he SQOABIS ue gl mee, ae a ae le Anthony N.Kizn ea ce Type or Pint Name Signature PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 1am employed in the county of » State of California, Tam over the age of 18 and not a pany tothe within scion; my Business adres Ts, On 720 Tserved the foregoing document described as on inthis action by placing the tue copies thereof enclosed in saled envelopes addressed as slated on the alached mailing list by placing [) the original C1 a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Clevman deposit such velop inthe malt Califia ‘Re envelope was mad with postage thereon Tay PAE CP A toowe tam "eal Eni” with efi pacteof collection and procesingcoeapondenee fr naling Lnderihat practice t would depose with U.S posal servis on hat same day wih postage tieeon ill prepa at Califia inthe ortnary couse of busines. {am aware that on motion of the 7a sewed sence Is pevined vd postal anellation ate ot postage meter dt mor han one day afer Ct of epost foraling inact Executed on 20 __yat + California, (1 =*(py PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand io the offices of the addressee. Executed on 120 __yat » California (State) 1 eclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Slate of California that the above is true and correct. I (Federal) declare that | am employed in the office of member ofthe bar ofthis court at whose direston the service was ‘made. ‘Type or Print Name Sienature “oyun ATURE MUST BE OF PEREONDEPCSTING ENVELOPE I SLo7 ox DRAG WOR PERCHA. SERVE HONATURE MUST BE THA OF MESSENGER) 201 @ areca pane