Kitty Moore - 3-11-2018 9-45 a.m. - Redwood-city-lawsuit-2RECEIVED
SEP 16 2016
City of Redwood City
City Clerk
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
AUG 2 6 2016
Cterko the uperiorCourt
By
PUTYICLEFIK
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION
REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT,
Petitioner,
VS.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Respondent,
JEFFERSON RES LLC, and DOES I-
25,
Real Parties in Interest.
Civil No. 16CIV01069
CEQA
Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1
This CEQA case is assigned for all purposes, according to Local Rule 2.1.3, to the
Honorable Marie S. Weiner in Department 2, the Court's designated CEQA judge,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.1(b),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
PETITIONER SHALL SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER UPON ALL
RESPONDENTS AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. i (16 -CIV -01,0159
I Case Marm9emem Order
j 165412
1 � �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�
1. All pleadings, motions, applications, briefs, and any and all other papers in
this case shall be filed with (and related filing fees paid to) the Civil Clerk's Office
located in the Hall of Justice, First Floor, Room A, 400 County Center, Redwood City,
California. One extra copy of any such filing shall be stamped "Judge's Copy" and
delivered by overnight or first class mail directly to Department 2 located at Courtroom
2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California 94063. DO NOT LEAVE THE
JUDGE'S COPY WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. PLEASE ADD DEPARTMENT 2
TO YOUR MAILING SERVICE LIST IN THE CASE AS TO ANY AND ALL
PAPERS FILED WITH THE COURT. All motions and briefs shall conform with the
California Rules of Court, especially Rule 3.1113, and indicate on the caption page
that this matter is assigned for all purposes to Department 2. DO NOT FAX
COPIES OR CORRESPONDENCE TO DEPARTMENT 2, AS THERE IS NO
DEDICATED FAX LINE FOR THE CIVIL COMPLEX DEPARTMENT.
2. As to any and all motions or other matters requiring a hearing, the hearing
date shall be obtained directly from and approved by Department 2 at (650) 261-5102
(and not with the Civil Clerk's Office nor with the Research Attorney), prior to filing of
the moving papers or other initial filings..
3. Ex parte applications in this matter shall heard by Department 2, on
Tuesdays and Thursday between 2:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and the parties are required
to meet the requirements of CRC Rule 3.120 et seq.. With the consent of counsel for all
parties, telephone conferences on simple interim case management matters may be
scheduled with the Court for a mutually convenient time and date — with the scheduling
and logistics of such telephone conferences to be the responsibility of the requesting
party/parties.
4. As to any discovery motions, the parties are relieved of the statutory
obligation under CRC Rule 3.1345, and thus need not file a separate statement — instead
the subject discovery requests (or deposition questions) and written responses (or
deposition answers or objections) must be attached to the supporting declaration on the
discovery motion.
5. In regard to all discovery disputes, counsel for the .parties (and any
involved third parties) shall meet and confer on any and all discovery disputes and, if
there are remaining disputes, then counsel for each side shall serve on each other and
mail/deliver directly to Department 2 a letter brief setting forth the dispute and attaching
as tabbed exhibits to the letter the subject discovery requests and discovery responses (if
any). At the time or prior to submitting the letter briefs, counsel for the parties shall also
schedule a discovery conference with the Court to occur no sooner than five court days
after delivery of the last letter brief to the Court, in order to discuss the dispute. THE
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER BRIEFS AND THE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
SHALL BE DONE WELL PRIOR TO THE STATUTORY DEADLINES FOR FILING
OF ANY MOTION TO COMPEL OR OTHER DISCOVERY MOTION. No discovery
motion may be filed by any party unless and until there is compliance with the
requirement of this Order, i.e., (i) substantive meet and confer, (ii) exchange of letter
briefs, and (iii) discovery conference with the Court. This requirement does not
constitute an extension of time for any statutory time period for filing and serving any
motion under the Civil Discovery Act.
6. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(i), the Complex Civil Department, Dept. 2,
requires that if any authority other than California cases, statutes, constitutional
3
provisions or state or local rules are cited, a copy of that authority must be lodged (not
filed) with the papers that cite that authority and tabbed as required by Rule 3.11100.
7. The initial Case Management Conference is set for Friday, October 7,
2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 2 of this Court, located at Courtroom 2E, 400 County
Center, Redwood City, California.
8. In anticipation of the Case Management Conference, counsel for the
parties should be prepared to discuss at the hearing and submit written case management
conference statements (in prose and details, not using the standardized Judicial Council
form) directly to Department 2 on or before September 30, 201614, as to the following:
a. Status of Service upon or appearance by Respondents and Real Parties in
Interest;
b. Status of Administrative Record;
C. Status of Settlement Conference;
d. Status of Request for Hearing;
e. Conclusions reached after meet and confer on all matters set forth in CRC
Rule 3.750 and Rule 3.724(8);
f. Anticipated motions and proposed briefing schedule;
g. Setting of Briefing Schedule and Hearing/Trial;
h. Setting of next CMC date; and
L Any other matters for which the parties seek Court ruling or scheduling.
DATED: August 26, 2016
HON: MAW, S. WEINER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SERVICE LIST
Redwood City Residents v. RWC and Jefferson Res, CEQA No. 16CIV01069
as of August 26, 2016
Attorneys for Petitioner:
GEOFFREY CARR
CARR YELEY & ASSOCIATES
605 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 364-3346
{ ATTORN Y OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nam, Slate Barmxnbe aid a-dPsai:
Geoffrey T, Carr, SBN 88055
FORCOURTUSEONLY
i CARR YELEY & ASSOCIATES
best describes this case:
605 M3ddlefreld Road
I1.
Auto
0
Redwood City, CA 94063
i
Contract
TELEPHONENO 650.364.3346 FAxN0:650.365.4206
ATTORNEYFORVivav). Petitioners 605 Middlefield- LLC, et al.
ENDORSED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo
� g
FIh
STREETADDRESS: 400 County Center
(N D pp q� r—,r�
SAN PalrYTFV CC)Lli,lt
l�
MAILING ADDRESS:
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
CITY AND ZIP CODERedwood City, CA 94063
AUS 2 Cl 2ol
aRANCH NAME: Southern Branch - Hall of Justice
Other collections (09)
CASE NAME:
Clerk of the Superior
Redwood Ci Residents for Res . Dev, v. Ci of Redwood Ci
CDU
By �[�c:n; �, .
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEETCASE
— Complex Case Designation
z
NUMBER' LE%
J Unlimited [� Limited
(Amount (Amount 0 Counter Joinder
n
I
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant
JUDGE:
L exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) I (Cal, Rules of Court. rule 3.402)
DEPT:
2. This case L_Jis (VI is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Q Large number of witnesses
b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Q Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check alt that apply): a.= monetary b. El nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. =punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 2
5. This Case =is El is not a class action suit.
6. if there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You mayy se form CM -015.)
• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 at seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Foul Adopledlm Mandalwy Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cay. Rules ar Dmxl, rules
.udcial Coumll of Celdomia Cal standards of
CNW10 [Rev. July 1 2007]
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
Check one box below for the case type that
best describes this case:
I1.
Auto
0
Tort
Contract
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Rules Court,
Auto (22)
Breach of cantracf/warranty, (06)
(Cal. of rules 3.400-3.403)
i
Uninsured motorist (46)
0
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
AntihusbTrade regulation (03)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Prop"
Other collections (09)
Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
0 Asbestos
Insurance coverage (18)
Mass tort (40)
(04)
Product
0
Other contract {37}
Securities litigation (28)
I
liability (24)
Real Pra e
p rty
� Environmental/Toxic Tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45)
�
Eminent domain/Inverse
Q Insurance coverage claims arising from the
i
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
0
condemnation (14)
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
(Other) Tort
Wrongful eviction (33)
INonI-PiIPDIWD
fut
Qir_—JI
Business tortiunfair business practice (07)
0
Other real property (26)
Enforcement of Judgment
I
Civil rights (08)
Defamation
Unlawful Detainer
= Commercial
Enforcement of judgment (20)
tJ
0
(13)
(31)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
0
Fraud (16)
r�
Residential (32)
RICO (27)
Intellectual property (19)
a
Drugs (38)
Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Professional negligence (25)
Judicial
Review
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Em loyment
Other non-PIIPD/WD tort (35)
Asset forfeiture (05)
Q Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Wrongful termination
Petition re: arbitration award (11)
= Other petition (not specified above) (43)
(36)�1
Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15)
II
I
Other judicial review f391
2. This case L_Jis (VI is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Q Large number of witnesses
b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Q Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check alt that apply): a.= monetary b. El nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. =punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 2
5. This Case =is El is not a class action suit.
6. if there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You mayy se form CM -015.)
• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 at seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Foul Adopledlm Mandalwy Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cay. Rules ar Dmxl, rules
.udcial Coumll of Celdomia Cal standards of
CNW10 [Rev. July 1 2007]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 i 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
1�
28
GEOFFREY T. CARR (SBN 88055)
CARR -LEY & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
605 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, California 94063
650.364.3346; 650.365.4206 (fax)
E-mail: geoffreycarr@sbcglobal.net
Attorney for Petitioner
CIV
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT;
Petitioner.
vs.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Respondent;
fEFFERSON RES, LLC, and
DOES I through 25, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
Case No.: 16 C 1 V 010
REQUEST TO PREPARE RECORD
OF PROCEEDINGS (COST
ESTLMATE); CONDITIONAL,
NOTICE OF ELECTION OF
PREPARATION BY PETITIONER
(Public Res. Code § 2I 167.6.)
CEQA MATTER
(San Mateo Local Rule 2.1.3)
R:<>s` STTO PRLPART, 1W'�-ORll —
Reix:,uc r_itp Rrd:furlp (rr Rc� w;,il•/. Pzri!o7 n.uu r C.i(� or R.eu;ncod C.: �
Cio- 1a.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6, and Code of Civil Procedure
I section 1094.5(a), Petitioner REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE
DEVELOPMENT hereby requests that Respondent CITY OF REDWOOD CITY provide it
with a cost estimate for preparing the administrative record in the above -captioned matter,
including indexing, page -numbering, and photocopying.
Petitioner requests that Respondent designate in the record all documents, including
all transcripts, minutes of meetings, notices, correspondence, reports, studies, proposed
decisions, final decisions, findings, and any and all other documents relating to its actions
made July 26, 2016 through its City Council approving a Downtown Planned Community
Permit including five guideline deviations, a Tentative Map, Condominium Permit, and a
Planned Development permit for a new 8 -story residential condominium and retail building
consisting of 91 residential units and 4,500 square feet of ground floor retail, located at 603
Jefferson Avenue in the City ("Project"). The Project sponsor is Real Party In Interest
JEFFERSON RES, LLC ("Jefferson")
Please refer to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e) for a list of materials
required to be included in the administrative record.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21167.6(b)(2), Petitioner hereby reserves the right to elect to prepare the record itself after
receiving Respondent's cost estimate, subject to future discussion and any alternative
arrangement to which the parties to this action may agree.
Dated: August''LS 2016
CARR, YELEY & ASSOCIATES
By:
f air
Attorney for Petitioner
LEQUEST TO PREPARE RECORD
Sedwood City Reridenk for Rupons ble Developmev P. C,itj, of Redwood G'ty
;ase No.
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'12
23
�a
_5
26
77
28
GEOFFREY T. CARR (SBN 88055)
CARR YELEY & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
605 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, California 94063
650.364.3346; 650.365.4206 (fax)
E-mail: geoffreyearr@sbeglobal.net
Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT;
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Respondent;
JEFFERSON RES, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
Case No.: 16 C IV
0 1 0 tri
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF
ACTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Pub. Res. Code § 21167.5)
CEQA MATTER
(San Mateo Local Rule 2.1.3)
N(iiic C;F(.c.r5it11 'a,' 1 -_`"❑_M 44 .0--1'!( I':l+Li;
Re,:J'a,� F. ItsY.'�•':::h& Ure, yb3t/t.'4 �.eb .r 1C..<::..,,. !.fll
t.a.c No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
Notice is hereby given to Respondent CITY OF REDWOOD CITY of
commencement of this lawsuit challenging its July 25, 2016 actions approving a Downtown
Planned Community Permit including five guideline deviations, a Tentative Map,
Condominium Permit, and a Planned Development permit for a new 8 -story residential
condominium and retail building consisting of 91 residential units and 4,500 square feet of
ground floor retail, located at 603 Jefferson Avenue in the City ("Project"). The Project
sponsor is Real Party In Interest JEFFERSON RES, LLC ("Jefferson").
The action is brought by Petitioner Redwood City Residents For Responsible
Development pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code sections 21167 and 21168, and the writ of
mandate provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
Dated: Augusts, 20I6
CARR, YELEY &ASSOCIATES
By:_ z4rZ41�
off Carr
Attorney for Petitioner
.\VTIC.Chi= A(71'10NUXULRCcr��l
RrAn,00d Cil-- Rerideper For Reypro;euVe brie,' Mweia n. (_.ili of Ral.wood i.i1y
2
3
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. § 1013(a), 2015.5)
I am employed in the County of San Mateo, California. I am over the age of eighteen years
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 605 Middlefield Road, Redwood City,
California 94063.
On served the attached NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF
ACTION UN ER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT on the parties in
this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
City Clerk
City of Redwood City
I017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
[X] (BY MAIL) 1 placed each such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid
for first class mail, for collection and mailing at Carr, Yeley & Associates, Redwood City,
California, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
the firm of Carr, Yeley & Associates for collection and processing of correspondence, said
practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the
United States Postal Service the same day it is placed for collection.
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand
to the addressee noted above.
[ J (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused such sealed envelope to be delivered by
overnight service to the addressee noted above.
[ ] (BY FACSIMILE) I transmitted the above described documents by facsimile
machine, pursuant to Rule 2008 from Fax number (650) 365-4206 to fax number listed above.
The facsimile machine that I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by
the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4) I caused the machine to print a transmission record,
a copy of tivhich is attached to this declaration.
1, mo,^� GG, L L , declare tinder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on Zlo at Redwood City, California.
NOTICE OF COMMENCEIA NT OFACTION UNDER CEQA
Redwood Ci y Retiden& For Responsible Development v. City of Redwood Ci y
Case No.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
X11
,l
,,
23
'6
.,..
8
GEOFFREY T. CARR (SBN 88055)
CARR YELEY & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
605 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, California 94063
650.364.3346; 650.365.4206 (fax)
E-mail: geoffre_yearr@sbeglobal.net
Attorney for Petitioner
SAN P°A? -
�UG 2
CferfcBy
DEYl.iiY C1��f7;<
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT;
Petitioner,
VS.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Respondent;
BFFERSON RES, LLC, and
)OES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
Case No.: 1 8 C I V 0 1 9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Pub. Res. Code
§§ 21168; 21168.5 et seq.)
CEQA MATTER
(San Mateo Local Rule 2.1.3)
1'![ U101 (tP `.C%V).l F[.
l�r.inxn..: (ilJ h::d,rr l:a if; ,r ••.r: nla( t':rv4,t.r.:.aa. , :'r • t!{,.... r, ,.r t_.�
d a N,,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 I I
21 f
22
23,1
24 iI
25 'a
26 n
27 C
28 C
INTRODUCTION
With this lawsuit, Petitioner REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE
DEVELOPMENT ("Pelitioner") challenges the July 25, 2016 actions of Respondent CITY
OP REDWOOD CITY ("City"), taken by and through its City Council, approving a
Downtown Planned Community Permit including five guideline deviations, a Tentative Map,
Condominium Permit, and a PIanned Development permit for a new 8 -story residential
condominium and retail building consisting of 91 residential units and 4,500 square feet of
ground floor retail, located at 603 Jefferson Avenue in the City ("Project"). The Project
sponsor is Real Party In Interest JEFFERSON RES, LLC ("Jefferson").
In approving the Project, the City erroneously determined it was consistent with the
Downtown Precise Plan ("DTPP") for which a Program environmental impact report
("DTPP FIR") was certified in 2011; that the Project would have no new significant
environmental impacts that were not already identified, analyzed, and mitigated in the DTPP
EIR; that there is no new information that was not known at the time the DTTP EIR was
certified that identifies new or more severe significant effects; and that CEQA therefore did
not require preparation of any subsequent EIR.
Petitioner contends the City violated applicable provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by making these determinations. Substantial
;vidence in the administrative record before the City shows the Project will have new and/or
nore severe significant environmental impacts that were not adequately identified,
;valuated, or mitigated in the DTTP ETR. CEQA therefore mandated preparation of a
ubsequent EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 and Sections 15162 and/or
5163 of the CEQA Guidelines. Petitioner further contends the City violated the applicable
rovisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65000 et seq.
nd applicable provisions of its own Municipal Code by approving the Project despite
umerous inconsistencies with governing policies and goals contained in the DTPP. The
'ity therefore prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Project in violation of
'EQA and the State Planning and Zoning law.
1-r.11 i 1UN t -UR WHi"r OF MANDATF
Redwood City &.rx'dertr.For Rerportible Development v. Giy of&dwood Ci y
Case No.
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 i
23 ]
24 '
25 it
26
27 r
28
Petitioner accordingly seeks a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil
B Procedure section 1094.5, and Public Resources Code section 21 168 and/or 21168.5,
commanding the City to set aside its actions approving land use entitlements for the Project,
and to reconsider its actions only after complying fully with the CEQA, the State Planning
and Zoning Law, and the Redwood City Municipal Code. Petitioner further seeks a stay of
the effect of the City's approvals during the pendency of these proceedings. Finally,
Petitioner seeks an award of costs and attorneys fees under Code of Civil Procedure section
1021.5, together with any other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.
In support whereof, Petitioner alleges:
PARTIES
Redwood City Residents For Responsible Development
Petitioner REDWOOD CITY RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE
DEVELOPMENT is an unincorporated association of Redwood City and San Mateo County
citizens and businesses organized in accordance with Public Resources Code section
21177(c). Its constituent members include, but are not limited to, Kevin Frederick, Kris
rohnson, Eileen Lepera, Stasha Powell, Lynn Utrecht, and Vicki Yeley, all of whom live
ind/or work in Redwood City.
2. Petitioner's members maintain a direct and regular geographic nexus with the
'-ity of Redwood City, including and especially the Downtown Area, and will suffer direct
farm as a result of any adverse environmental and/or public health impacts caused by the
'roject. Petitioner's members have a clear and present right to, and beneficial interest in, the
,ity's perfonnance of its duties to comply with CEQA and the State PIanning and Zoning
,aw, and is within the class of entities to whom the City owes such duties.
3. Petitioner's members presented oral and/or written comments in opposition to
he Project prior to and/or during the public- hearings culminating in the City's July 25, 2016
.pproval actions, and raised or supported all objections to the Project and alleged grounds for
oncompliance with CEQA and other applicable law presented herein.
PE11"11ON FOR WRIT OF MANDf1TE
Redwood Gy Re;idenls For Rnponsibir Developmea v. Gty of Redwood City
Csse No.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 i
24
25
26
27 l
28 '
4. By this action, Petitioner seeks to protect the interests of its members and the
general public by enforcing a public duty owed to them by the City. Because the claims
asserted and the relief sought in this petition are broad-based and of a public as opposed to a
purely private or pecuniary nature, direct participation in this litigation by Petitioner's
individual members is not necessary.
City of Redwood City
5. Respondent CITY OF REDWOOD CITY ("City") is a California Charter City
situated in San Mateo County. On or around July 25, 2016, the City, acting through its City
Council, approved the construction and operation of the Project challenged herein. At all
times relevant, the City served as the "lead agency" under CEQA responsible for evaluating
the environmental impacts of the Project.
Jefferson Res, LLC
6. Petitioner is informed and believe that Real Party in Interest JEFFERSON
RES, LLC ("Jefferson"), is a Delaware limited liability company maintaining its principal
)lace of business in Denver, Colorado.
7. Petitioner is informed and believe that Jefferson is the sponsor and developer
)f the Project, and was the applicant for and recipient of the land use entitlements challenged
terein.
Does
8. Petitioner currently does not know the true names of Real Parties In Interest
)OES I through 25 inclusive, and therefore names them by such fictitious names. Petitioner
vill seek leave from the court to amend this petition to reflect the true names and capacities
f DOES I through 25 inclusive if and when ascertained.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
9. This action is brought pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21167,
1168, and 21168.5, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Venue is proper in San
4ateo County under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.
PETTON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Redwood Cij Residenth Far Rerponsible Development v. Cio of Redwood Gi y
Case No.
ME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10, On September 4, 2015, Jefferson submitted an application for a Downtown
Planned Community Permit, Tentative Map, Condominium Permit, and Planned
! Development Permit to develop the Project.
11. The Project is within the Downtown Precise Plan Area, and therefore it is
I subject to the DTPP, which was approved by the City in January 2011. The DTPP contains
mandatory development standards and design guidelines for development of projects within
the DTPP area.
12. Jefferson's original application sought deviations from eight of the DTPP's
design guidelines. On February 9, 2016, the City's Architectural Advisory Committee
("AAC") held a public hearing and recommended denial of three of the deviations.
Thereafter, Jefferson modified the Project design to address the AAC's recommendation, but
continued to seek approval for five deviations from the DTPP guidelines.
13. On February 11, 2015, the City's Historic Resources Advisory Committee
("HRAC") held a public hearing to consider whether the Project would create a substantial
adverse change in the significance of the adjacent historic resource located at 620 Jefferson
Avenue. The 14RAC determined the Project would not create a substantial adverse change in
the significance of the historic resource, and that the historic resource would remain eligible
Lo be listed on the California Register.
14. On May 17, 2016, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on
he Project, including the proposed deviations from the DTPP guidelines. Petitioner's
members submitted oral and written testimony objecting to the Project prior to and/or during
he public hearing before the Planning Commission,
15. After closing the hearing, a majority of the Planning Commission voted to
approve the Downtown Planned Community Permit including five guideline deviations,
Centative Map, Condominium Permit, and Planned Development permit for the Project. The
Tanning Commission based its action in part on an initial study "checklist" prepared by the
"ity's Planning Division. The checklist concluded the Project was within the scope of the
'ETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
redwood Cay Rta dertr For Responiible Development v. Ct}' of Redwood City
:ase No.
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
previously approved DTPP; was adequately described in the previously certified DTPP EIR
for purposes of CEQA; that the Project will not result in any new environmental impact, or a
substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impact, or require new mitigation
' measures beyond those identified in the DTPP EIR; and that no new environmental
document was therefore required.
16. Certain of Petitioner's members timely appealed the Planning Commission's
actions to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in the Citv's
Municipal Code.
17. On July 25, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals.
Petitioner's members again submitted oral and/or written testimony objecting to the Project
and the Planning Commission's determinations prior to or during the City Council hearing.
18. After closing the public hearing, a majority of the City Council voted to deny
Petitioner's members' appeals and to uphold and reaffirm the Planning Commission's
approval actions in full, including the approvals of all the entitlements that Jefferson sought,
the five deviations from the DTPP design guidelines, and the determination that no new
environmental document was required in order to comply with CEQA.
19. The City posted a notice of determination in accordance with Public Resources
Code section 21152 on July 26, 2016,
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of CEQA)
20. Petitioner here incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs in their
,mirety.
21. At all times relevant to this action the City was the "lead agency" responsible
or the review and approval of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21067.
22. Public Resources Code section 21166 requires a lead agency to prepare a
ubsequeut or supplemental EIR where one or more of the following events occurs: (a)
ubstamial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
,nvironmemal impact report; (b) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances
'ETITION FOR WRIT OF Nir-NDATE
Iedwood City Raidexw For Besponnble Development P. City of Rdw od City
:ase No.
-5-
1
2
3
4
6
7
8�
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the
environmental impact report; or (c) new information, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete,
becomes available. See also CEQA Guidelines, 15 C.C.R. §§ 15162, 15163.
23. There is substantial evidence in the administrative record before the City that
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project
is being undertaken, including but not limited to circumstances pertaining to cumulative
traffic volumes and intersection levels of service ("LOS") in the DTPP area, that will require
major revisions to the DTPP EIR.
24. There is substantial evidence in the administrative record before the City
showing that new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the DTPP EIR was certified as complete, showing that the Project will have new and
more significant impacts on areas including, but not limited to, cumulative traffic and
circulation and intersection LOS impacts in the DTPP area, had become available prior to the
City's actions approving the Project.
25, The City therefore had a mandatory duty under Public Resources Code Section
1166 and sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental ETR before approving the Project.
26. The City therefore prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Project
n violation of CEQA, and by adopting findings that are not supported by substantial
;vidence.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of State Planning & Zoning Law)
27. Petitioner here incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs in their
ntirety.
28. Under the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65000 et
eq., a local public agency may entitle a proposed land use only if the land use is consistent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Redwood City Reaidenat For Reipoejible Development v. City of Redwood City"
Case No.
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 i
23 z
24
25
26
27 r
28
with the goals, policies, and objectives contained in its General Plan, any duly adopted
I subsidiary land use plan, and zoning ordinances.
29. A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary
land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See
Gov't Code § 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its
approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County,4udubon Society, Inc. v. County of San
Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal_App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural EI Dorado
County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341.
Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general
plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa
Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts
with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict. " Napa Citizens at 379. "The
proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatible with and will not
frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments
to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id.
30. The Project is substantially and materially inconsistent with several goals and
)olicies contained in the DTPP, the General Plan and Municipal Code, including but not
imited to policies pertaining to architectural design, scale, residential income mix, street
lesign, historic resource preservation, urban place -making, and community character.
31. The City therefore prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Project
n violation of the State Planning and Zoning Law, and by adopted findings of DTPP
onsistency that are not supported by the evidence.
EXHAUSTION OF ADIYIINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
32. This action is brought consistent with the requirements of Public Resources
:ode section 21177 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Petitioner's constituent
iembers or representatives objected to the City's approvals of the Project orally or in
=riting prior to the close of the final public hearing on the Project. Petitioner's constituent
i'r. i I i JUN t'VR WRIT OF NL-1NDATE
Redwod Gi y Retidentr For Responsible Development v. Gty of Redwood G' jy
Case No.
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 1
25 t
26
27
R
members, representatives, and/or other agencies, organizations and individuals raised or
affirmed each of the legal deficiencies asserted in this petition orally or in ,�vTiting prior to the
close of the public hearing on the Project.
33. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by
complying with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21167.5 in serving notice
of the commencement of this action on the City on July 24, 2016.
INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
34. Petitioner declares that they have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law for the improper action of the City.
NEWLY PRODUCED EVIDENCE
35. In accord with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(e), Petitioner may, prior
to or during the hearing on this petition, offer additional relevant evidence that could not, in
the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been produced at the administrative hearings
before the City's Planning Commission and/or City Council.
ATTORNEYSFEES
36. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided under Code of Civil
'rocedure section 1021.5 if it prevails in this action and the Court finds that a significant
Ienefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the
lecessity and burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for entry of judgment as follows:
1. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City:
(a) to set aside its action taken on or about July 25, 2016 approving a Downtown
Tanned Community Permit including five guideline deviations, a Tentative Map,
.ondominium Permit, and a Planned Development permit for the Project under CEQA; and
(b) to comply fully with CEQA and the State Planning and Zoning Law in any
ubsequent action or actions taken to approve the Project.
PETITION FOR %VRTF OF MANDATE
RedwooJ City Reddenh Far Responsible Demlopment P. Ci y of Redwood Gy
Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1;
16
17
18
19
20
21
�)1)
2;
24
25
26
27
28
2. For an order staying the effect of the City's actions pending the outcome of this
proceeding.
3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease and
refrain from engaging in any action in reliance upon the approval actions challenged herein
until the City takes any necessary action to bring its actions into compliance with.
4. For costs of suit.
5. For an award of attorneys' fees.
6. For other legal or equitable relief that the court deems just and proper.
Dated: August2s, 2016 CARR, YELEY &ASSOCIATES
By:
eoff darr
Attorney for Petitioner
'ETITIOti FOR WRITOF M AADATF
;rdwood City R -=Jeno For Re%V antibL Dere?apment v. Cly of Ped;vood Cqy
:ase No.
-9-
1
2
3
A
-r
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
71
23)
24
25
26
'8
V1;RIFICAATION
I, Vicki Yeley, declare:
I am a principal member of Redwood City Residents for Responsible Development,
the Petitioner in the above -captioned action.
I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE and know its
contents. The statements made therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to
be true.
I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: August j,� 2016
By
'MT?`ION 1,OR XXItI i US NL%N:D VITT
.rdix-m"d Calp R svdevs Fw'!Leaklnuiblr Drierlopme l u. CaT u) 1Gdrrva
.SSC D O.