1 INTRODUCTION

2 With this lawsuit, Petitioner PLEASANTON CITIZENS FOR RESPONSILBE

3 GROWTH (“PCRG”) challenges the February 4, 2020 action of Respondent CITY OF
4 PLEASANTON (“City”), taken by and through its City Council, certifying a recirculated final
5 supplemental environmental impact report (“RFSEIR”) and approving the “Johnson Drive
6 Economic Development Zone” Project (“Project”), a series of land use rules, regulations and
7 guidelines to enable and facilitate development of various new commercial uses on 12 parcels
8 totaling approximately 40 acres on Johnson Drive between Stoneridge Drive and Interstate 580
9 in the City. The new commercial uses would total over 535,000 square feet of building space,
10 and would include a +/- 148,000 square foot Costco retail warehouse club and gas station in
11 addition to hotel recreational and various other large and small-format retail businesses.
12 Petitioner contends the City’s approval action violated the California Environmental
13 Quality Act (“CEQA”), Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.. As certified by the City, the
14 Project’s EIR fails to adequately identify, evaluate, and/or require mitigation for all significant
15 direct and cumulative environmental impacts the Project will cause. As a result, there is no
16 substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City’s findings that nearly all the
17 Project’s environmental impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Instead, substantial
18 evidence in the record shows the Project will have several significant unmitigated environmental
19 effects that the EIR either failed to identify, failed to evaluate adequately, or failed to mitigate
20 where feasible.
21 Petitioner accordingly seeks a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil
22 Procedure section 1094.5 commanding the City to set aside its certification of the EIR and its
23 approval of the Project. Petitioner further seeks a stay of the effect of the City’s actions during
24 the pendency of these proceedings. Finally, Petitioner seeks an award of costs and attorneys’
25 fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, together with any other relief the Court
26 deems necessary and proper.
27 In support whereof, Petitioner alleges:
28 /

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-1-
 1 PARTIES
2 Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth
3 1. Petitioner PLEASANTON CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH is an
4 unincorporated association of residents, citizens, property owners, taxpayers and electors
5 residing in the City of Pleasanton. Its organizational purpose includes advocating for equitable
6 and responsible land use development policies, maintaining political accountability by elected
7 local officials, and enforcing land use planning and environmental laws in and around
8 Pleasanton. Petitioner’s membership includes but is not limited to Matt Sullivan, and adult U.S.
9 citizens and resident of Pleasanton.
10 2. Petitioner’s members maintain a direct and regular geographic nexus with the City
11 of Pleasanton, and will suffer direct harm as a result of any adverse environmental and/or public
12 health impacts caused by the Project. They have a clear and present right to, and beneficial
13 interest in, the City’s performance of its duties to comply with. As Pleasanton citizens,
14 homeowners, taxpayers, workers, and/or electors, Petitioner’s members are within the class of
15 persons to whom the City owes such duties.
16 3. By this action, Petitioner seeks to protect the interests of its members and to
17 enforce a public duty owed to them by the City. Because the claims asserted and the relief sought
18 are broad-based and of a public as opposed to a purely private or pecuniary nature, direct
19 participation in this litigation by Petitioner’s individual members is not necessary.
20 4. One or more individual members of Petitioner presented oral and/or written
21 comments in opposition to the Project prior to and/or during the numerous public hearings
22 culminating in the City’s February 4, 2020 approval action, and raised or supported all
23 objections to the Project and alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA and other
24 applicable law presented herein. Petitioner may therefore properly maintain this action pursuant
25 to Public Resources Code section 21177(c).
26 City of Pleasanton
27 5. Respondent CITY OF PLEASANTON is a California General Law City situated
28 in Alameda County. On February 4, 2020, the City, acting through its City Council, certified an

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-2-
 1 EIR under CEQA and approved the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone Project. At
2 all times relevant hereto, the City served as the “lead agency” under CEQA responsible for
3 evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project.
4 Does
5 6. Petitioner currently does not know the true names of Respondent DOES 1
6 through 25 inclusive, and therefore names them by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek
7 leave from the court to amend this petition to reflect the true names and capacities of DOES 1
8 through 25 inclusive if and when ascertained.
9 JURISDICTION & VENUE
10 7. This action is brought pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21167, 21168,
11 and 21168.5, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Venue is proper in Alameda County
12 under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.
13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14 Project Description
15 8. The Project area is approximately 40 acres in size and consists of 12 parcels
16 located at 7106-7315 Johnson Drive and 7080 Commerce Circle in the City. It currently
17 contains a mix of land uses, including light industrial, office, retail, and institutional uses. The
18 area is bounded by a fitness center and parking uses on the north; light industrial, wastewater
19 treatment, and Park and Ride uses to the east; Stoneridge Drive and the I-680 interchange to the
20 south; and I-680 to the west. The area currently includes 224,688 square feet of occupied
21 building space.
22 9. The Project as approved consists of policies, regulations, and guidelines to allow
23 for and facilitate future development and redevelopment within the area. As part of the Project,
24 the City could also specify fees and fee credits for prospective uses; specify off-site
25 improvements; and execute one or more Development Agreements with identified property
26 owners. A tax incentive or rebate program may also be established.
27 10. The uses authorized within the Project area include club retail (also known as
28 warehouse club), hotel, recreational, office/commercial, and small- and large-format retail

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-3-
 1 establishments. Existing uses would be permitted to operate until redevelopment activities occur
2 on those specific parcels.
3 11. With full development, the Project area could contain up to 535,490 square feet
4 of building space, a net increase of 310,802 square feet over existing building space.
5 Relevant Procedural History
6 12. The City released a draft Supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) for the Project in
7 accordance with CEQA in September 2015. Petitioner and other individuals, organizations, and
8 public agencies submitted written comments disputing the EIR’s analysis and conclusions and
9 objecting to the Project.
10 13. The City released a final SEIR in March 2016 that purported to respond to
11 comments received on the draft SEIR, and that made changes to the text of the draft SEIR. The
12 final SEIR also included an Economic Impact Analysis, something that had not been included in
13 the draft SEIR.
14 14. The City suspended its consideration of the Project and SEIR in July 2016,
15 pending the outcome of a voter initiative that would have limited the size of new uses in the
16 Project area. The City resumed processing the Project and EIR after the initiative was defeated
17 by voters in November 2016.
18 15. The City held public hearings on the Project, including the financing aspects of it,
19 between September and December 2017. The Planning Commission held a hearing on the SEIR
20 and Project on October 11, 2017. Members of the public, including Petitioner and one or more
21 of its individual members, objected to the inadequacy of the SEIR and to the Project as whole
22 orally and/or in writing prior to the hearing. These objections included concerns about the air
23 quality and human health impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions and the failure to
24 circulate the economic impact analysis for public review and comment, in addition to concerns
25 over traffic and tax-payer funding of infrastructure improvements to benefit the Costco
26 warehouse club. After closing the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that
27 the City Council certify the final SEIR and approve the Project.
28

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-4-
 1 16. The City Council held a final public hearing on the SEIR and Project on
2 November 7, 2017. Members of the public, including Petitioner and one or more of its
3 individual members, once again objected to the inadequacy of the SEIR and to the Project as
4 whole orally and/or in writing prior to the hearing, raising the same or similar concerns as those
5 raised before the Planning Commission, which had disregarded them. After closing the public
6 hearing, the City Council voted to certify the final SEIR and approve the Project together with
7 an associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding
8 considerations for the Project under CEQA.
9 17. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate in Alameda County Superior Court
10 on December 1, 2017 (Case No. RG1788433), challenging the City’s actions under CEQA. That
11 case settled before any hearing of its merits, with Petitioner dismissing its lawsuit with prejudice
12 following the City’s adoption of a resolution de-certifying the SEIR and rescinding its approval
13 of the Project on September 21, 2018.
14 18. In July 2019, the City issued a revised draft “Partial Recirculated Supplemental
15 EIR” (PRSEIR) consisting of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA); an Updated Air Quality
16 Technical Memorandum – Criteria Pollutant Emissions Analysis; a new Greenhouse Gas
17 Analysis; and an Energy Resources Technical Memorandum. Petitioner and other individuals,
18 organizations, and public agencies submitted written comments disputing the PRSEIR’s analysis
19 and conclusions and objecting to the Project.
20 19. The City released a final PRSEIR in early December 2019 that purported to
21 respond to comments received on the draft PRSEIR, and that made certain changes to the text
22 of the draft PRSEIR.
23 20. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the PRSEIR and Project on
24 December 11, 2019. Members of the public, including Petitioner and one or more of its
25 individual members, objected to the inadequacy of the PRSEIR and to the Project as whole
26 orally and/or in writing prior to the hearing. After closing the public hearing, the Planning
27 Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the final PRSEIR and approve
28 the Project.

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-5-
 1 21. On February 4, 2020 the City Council held a final public hearing on the PRSEIR
2 and Project. Members of the public, including Petitioner and one or more of its individual
3 members, once again objected to the inadequacy of the PRSEIR and to the Project as whole
4 orally and/or in writing prior to the hearing, raising the same or similar concerns as those raised
5 before the Planning Commission, which had disregarded them. After closing the public hearing,
6 the City Council voted to certify the final PRSEIR and approve the Project together with an
7 associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding
8 considerations for the Project under CEQA.
9 22. Petitioner is informed and believes that on February 5, 2020 the City posted a
10 Notice of Determination in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21152.
11 CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 (Violations of CEQA)
13 23. Petitioner here incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs in their entirety.
14 24. At all times relevant to this action the City was the “Lead Agency” responsible for
15 the review and approval of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21067.
16 25. CEQA requires public agencies to identify and analyze the environmental effects
17 of its project or program, and then mitigate those adverse environmental effects through the
18 imposition of feasible mitigation measures, or through the analysis and selection of feasible
19 alternatives. Public Resources Code, § 21002. CEQA requires a lead agency to establish that
20 either: (1) impacts will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) the agency has
21 adopted findings that all significant environmental effects have been avoided or mitigated to the
22 extent feasible, and any remaining effects found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to specific
23 overriding economic, social, technological, or other benefits.
24 Inadequate Analysis and Mitigation of Significant Environmental Impacts
25 26. The EIR for this Project fails to adequately evaluate all of the Project’s significant
26 direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, including but not limited to individual and cumulative
27 impacts on: air quality, human health, transportation and traffic, utilities, and urban decay.
28 27. The City therefore prejudicially abused its discretion in certifying the EIR by failing

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-6-
 1 to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, and by adopting findings that are not supported by
2 the evidence.
3 Failure To Respond Adequately To Comments On Draft EIR
4 28. A lead agency must evaluate comments on environmental issues received from
5 persons who reviewed a draft EIR during the public comment period, and must prepare a written
6 response. 14 C.C.R. § 15088(a). The written response must describe the disposition of significant
7 environmental issues raised. Id. at subd. (c). In particular, the major environmental issues raised
8 when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the
9 comments must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions
10 were not accepted. Id. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response; conclusory
11 statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. Id.; see Berkeley Keep Jets Over The
12 Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344.
13 29. The City here failed to provide a detailed, written, good faith, reasoned analysis in
14 response to comments received on the draft EIR during the public comment period from
15 individuals and responsible agencies, including but not limited to comments on air quality,
16 human health, transportation and traffic, utilities, and urban decay impacts.
17 30. The City therefore prejudicially abused its discretion in certifying the EIR by failing
18 to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.
19 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
20 31. This action is brought consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code
21 section 21177 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Petitioner and/or its constituent
22 members objected to the City’s approval of the Project orally or in writing during the public
23 comment period provided by CEQA, and/or prior to the close of the public hearing on the
24 project before the issuance of the Notice of Determination. Petitioner, its members, and/or
25 other agencies, organizations and individuals raised or affirmed each of the legal deficiencies
26 asserted in this petition orally or in writing during the public comment provided by CEQA, or
27 prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the Notice of
28 Determination.

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-7-
 1 32. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying
2 with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21167.5 in serving notice of the
3 commencement of this action March 4, 2020.
4 INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
5 33. Petitioner declares that it has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
6 ordinary course of law for the improper action of the City.
7 NEWLY PRODUCED EVIDENCE
8 34. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(e), Petitioner may,
9 prior to or during the hearing on this petition, offer additional relevant evidence that could not,
10 in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been produced at the administrative hearing.
11 ATTORNEYS FEES
12 35. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees as provided under Code of Civil
13 Procedure section 1021.5 if it prevails in this action and the Court finds that a significant benefit
14 has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and
15 burden of private enforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate.
16 PRAYER
17 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for entry of judgment as follows:
18 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City of Pleasanton:
19 (a) to set aside its action taken February 4, 2020 certifying a final EIR and associated
20 mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the
21 Project under CEQA;
22 (b) to set aside its action taken February 4, 2020 approving General Plan
23 amendments, zoning changes, and associated other land use rules and regulations as part of the
24 Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone Project; and
25 (c) to comply fully with CEQA in any subsequent action or actions taken to approve
26 the Project.
27 2. For an order staying the effect of the City’s actions pending the outcome of this
28 proceeding.

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-8-
 1 3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease and refrain
2 from engaging in any action in reliance upon the approval actions challenged herein until the
3 City takes any necessary action to bring its actions into compliance with.
4 4. For costs of suit.
5 5. For an award of attorneys’ fees.
6 6. For other legal or equitable relief that the court deems just and proper.
7
8 Dated: March 4, 2020 M. R. WOLFE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C
9
10
By:____________________________
11 Mark R. Wolfe
12 Attorney for Petitioner
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC

555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 369-9400
Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Pleasanton
Case No.
-9-