SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO--CENTRAL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [FILE: ] Cory J. Briggs (State Bar no ) Mekaela M. Gladden (State Bar no ) 99 East C Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA Telephone: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Coalition for Safe and Healthy Economic Progress SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO--CENTRAL DIVISION COALITION FOR SAFE AND HEALTHY ECONOMIC PROGRESS, vs. Plaintiff and Petitioner, CITY OF SAN DIEGO and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants and Respondents; IMPERIAL MARKET INVESTORS, LLC; STEVE JULIUS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES 101 through 1,000. Defendants and Real Parties in Interest. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [California Environmental Quality Act implicated] Plaintiff and Petitioner COALITION FOR SAFE AND HEALTHY ECONOMIC PROGRESS alleges as follows in this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandate: Introductory Statement 1. This lawsuit challenges unlawful demolition and new construction activities at the San Diego Farmers Market building in Southeastern San Diego without valid development and construction permits ( Project ).

2 Parties 2 COALITION FOR SAFE AND HEALTHY ECONOMIC PROGRESS ( COALITION ) is a non-profit coalition formed to ensure that their neighborhoods in Southeastern San Diego are developed responsibly, equitably, and lawfully. COALITION s members are residents of the City of San Diego and live in the same neighborhood where the Project is located. 3. Defendant and Respondent CITY OF SAN DIEGO ( CITY ) is the local agency responsible for issuing development and construction permits for the Project and for enforcing violations of the San Diego Municipal Code ( SDMC ). 4. Defendants and Real Parties in Interest IMPERIAL MARKET INVESTORS, LLC ( IMPERIAL ), and STEVE JULIUS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ( JULIUS ), are the owners, applicants or developers of the project that is the subject of this proceeding or have some other cognizable interest in it. 5. The true names and capacities of the parties identified as DOES 1 through 100 and 101 through 1,000 are unknown to COALITION, 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. COALITION is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named parties 1 through 100 and 101 through 1,000 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the property that is the subject of this proceeding or has some other cognizable interest in the property or its development. 6. COALITION is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all times stated in this pleading, each Defendant/Respondent was the agent, servant, or employee of each other Defendant/Respondent and was, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, acting within the scope of said agency, servitude, or employment and with the full knowledge or subsequent ratification of his principals, masters, and employers. Alternatively, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, each Defendant/Respondent was acting alone and solely to further his own interests. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Exhaustion of Remedies 7. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1084 et seq. 8. Venue in this Court is proper because the obligations, liabilities, and violations of law alleged in this pleading occurred in the City of San Diego in the State of California. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 2

3 There has been no public hearing or other opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies for the wrongdoing alleged in this pleading. Regulatory Setting 10. SDMC Section establishes the following definitions (using italics to identify each definiendum): A. Construction permit means a permit issued pursuant to Land Development Code Chapter 12, Article 9. Construction permits include the following: Building Permits, Electrical Permits, Plumbing/Mechanical Permits, Demolition/Removal Permits, Grading Permits, Public Right-of-Way Permits, and Sign Permits. B. Development means the act, process, or result of dividing a parcel of land into two or more parcels; of erecting, placing, constructing, reconstructing, converting, establishing, altering, maintaining, relocating, demolishing, using, or enlarging any building, structure, improvement, lot, or premises; of clearing, grubbing, excavating, embanking, filling, managing brush, or agricultural clearing on public or private property including the construction of slopes and facilities incidental to such work; or of disturbing any existing vegetation. C. Development permit means a permit issued pursuant to Land Development Code Chapter 12, Article 6. Development permits include the following: Neighborhood Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Neighborhood Development Permits, Site Development Permits, Planned Development Permits, Coastal Development Permits, and Variances. D. Historical building means a construction that possesses historical, scientific, architectural, aesthetic, or cultural significance that was created principally to shelter human activity (such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction). E. Historical resource means a designated historical resource, historical building, historical structure, historical object, important archaeological site, historical district, historical landscape, or traditional cultural property. F. Historical structure means a functional construction that possesses historical, scientific, architectural, aesthetic, or cultural significance, usually made for purposes other than sheltering human activity (such as large-scale engineering projects, water control systems, transportation systems, mine shafts, kilns, ovens, lighthouses, and radio telescopes). COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 3

4 G. Premises means an area of land with its structures that, because of its unity of use, is regarded as the smallest conveyable unit. H. Structure means an edifice or building of any kind or any construction built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner including a wall, fence, pier, post, sign, or shelter. 11. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: It is unlawful for any person to maintain or use any premises in violation of any of the provisions of the Land Development Code, without a required permit, contrary to permit conditions, or without a required variance. 12. SDMC Section (b) provides as follows: It is unlawful for any person to engage in any of the following activities, or cause any of the following activities to occur in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Land Development Code: (1) To erect, place, construct, convert, establish, alter, use, enlarge, repair, move, remove, equip, maintain, improve, occupy, or demolish any structures; (2) To grade, excavate, clear, fill, grub, build an embankment, construct slopes, or disturb sensitive natural or biological resources on any lot or premises; or (3) To change density or intensity of the use of land; or (4) To maintain or allow the existence of any condition that creates a public nuisance. 13. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: The issuance or granting of any development permit or construction permit or any plan, specifications, computations, or inspection approval does not constitute a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the Land Development Code, including the Building, Electrical, Plumbing, or Mechanical Regulations or any other ordinance of the City. Development permits, construction permits, or inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Land Development Code, Building, Electrical, Plumbing, or Mechanical Regulations or other ordinances of the City are not valid. 14. SDMC Section (b) provides as follows: The issuance of a development permit or construction permit based on plans, specifications, and other data does not prevent the City Manager from subsequently requiring the correction of errors in the plans, specifications, and other data or the Building Official from stopping building operations that are in violation of the Land Development Code or any other applicable law. 15. SDMC Section (b) provides as follows: All existing and proposed uses on the site shall be identified in the permit, including existing or new uses permitted by right in the applicable COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 4

5 zone, any uses subject to a use permit, and those proposed uses that require the Conditional Use Permit. 16. SDMC Section (d) provides as follows: A Site Development Permit decided in accordance with Process Four is required for the following types of development. (1) * * * (2) Where historical resources other than historical districts or designated historical resources are present, unless exempt under Section : (A) Subdivisions; (B) Multiple dwelling unit residential development; (C) Commercial or industrial development; (D) Public works construction projects; and (E) Development that deviates from the historical resources regulations, as described in Section SDMC Section provides as follows: It is unlawful for any person to maintain, use, or develop any premises without a Site Development Permit if such a permit is required for the use or development, or to maintain, use, or develop any premises contrary to the requirements or conditions of an existing Site Development Permit. 18. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: This division applies to proposed development when the following historical resources are present on the site, whether or not a Neighborhood Development Permit or Site Development Permit is required; (1) designated historical resources; (2) historical buildings; (3) historical districts; (4) historical landscapes; (5) historical objects; (6) historical structures; (7) important archaeological sites; and (8) traditional cultural properties. 19. SDMC Section (b) provides as follows: Where any portion of a premises contains historical resources, this division [i.e., SDMC Sections ] shall apply to the entire premises. 20. SDMC Section (e) provides as follows: A Neighborhood Development Permit or Site Development Permit is required for the following types of development proposals that do not qualify for an exemption in accordance with Section : * * * (2) Site Development Permit in Accordance With Process Four. * * * (B) Multiple dwelling unit residential, commercial, or industrial development on any size lot, or any subdivision on any size lot, or any City public works construction project, or any project-specific land use plan when a historical resource is present. * * * 21. SDMC Section provides as follows: The property owner or applicant shall submit required documentation and obtain a construction permit, a Neighborhood Development Permit, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 5

6 a Site Development Permit as required pursuant to this division [i.e., SDMC Sections ] before any development activity occurs on a premises that contains historical resources. 22. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: The City Manager shall determine the need for a site-specific survey for the purposes of obtaining a construction permit or development permit for development proposed for any parcel containing a structure that is 45 or more years old and not located within any area identified as exempt in the Historical Resources Guidelines of the Land Development Manual or for any parcel identified as sensitive on the Historical Resource Sensitivity Maps. Interior development and any modifications or repairs that are limited in scope to an electrical or plumbing/mechanical permit shall be exempt from the requirement to obtain a site specific survey prior to approval of the applicable construction permit where the development would include no change to the exterior of existing structures. 23. SDMC Section (c) provides as follows: The City Manager shall determine the need for a site-specific survey within 10 business days of application for a construction permit or within 30 calendar days of application for a development permit. A site-specific survey shall be required when the City Manager determines that a historical resource may exist on the parcel. If the City Manager determines that a site-specific survey is not required within the specified time period, a permit in accordance with Section shall not be required. 24. SDMC Section provides in part as follows: The following development activities are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Neighborhood Development Permit or Site Development Permit. However, in all cases a construction permit is required. (a) Any development that proposes minor alterations or improvements consistent with Section (a), to a designated historical resource, or any historical building or historical structure located within a historical district, or any new construction within a historical district that will enhance, restore, maintain, repair, or allow adaptive reuse of the resource and which will not adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural value of the resource when all feasible measures to protect and preserve the historical resource are included in the development proposal consistent with the Secretary of Interior s Standards and Guidelines. (b) Interior modifications or repairs or the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any historical building or historical structure that does not COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 6

7 adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural, or cultural value or designated interior elements of the property consistent with the Secretary of Interior s Standards and Guidelines. Exterior architectural features shall mean the architectural elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all of the outside surfaces of an improvement or structure, including the type of building materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs, and other fixtures appurtenant to the improvement or structure. (c) Substantial alteration of a non-significant structure within a historic district consistent with the Secretary of Interior s Standards and Guidelines. However, new construction within a historic district is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a Site Development Permit except in accordance with Section (a). (d) Any development on a parcel that has an important archaeological site and will not result in substantial alteration, demolition, destruction, removal, relocation, or encroachment into such resources during or after construction, subject to the following requirements. (1) All feasible measures to protect and preserve the resource shall be included in the development. (2) A 100-foot buffer measured from the edge of the important archaeological site shall be provided. (3) All documentation necessary to verify consistency with this subsection shall be provided by the applicant consistent with the Historical Resources Guidelines of the Land Development Manual. (4) The property owner shall sign an acknowledgment that no further development can occur on the property unless the development is reviewed and approved in accordance with this division. (e) Except in the case of a designated historical resource, the modification of an existing structure or the replacement of a single dwelling unit with another single dwelling unit, including modification or replacement of paved areas, brush management for fire protection purposes, and any other landscaping improvements, or alterations that do not alter the existing development area by more than 10 percent. 25. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: No permit shall be issued for the installation of fixtures or equipment, or for the erection, construction, conversion, establishment, alteration or enlargement of any buildings, structure or improvement, or for the occupancy of any building or structure or for the grading, subdivision or street actions for any site in any portion of the Southeastern San Diego Planned District until approval of the appropriate decision maker has been COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 7

8 obtained by the applicant or owner in compliance with the development criteria contained herein. Applications for grading permits, tentative maps and street actions shall not be accepted unless concurrent application is made for a Southeastern Development Permit and/or building permit, or until the City Manager determines such action may proceed independent of said permits. 26. SDMC Section (a) provides as follows: A Southeastern San Diego Development Permit shall be required for: (1) Multi-family residential projects of four or more units. (2) Projects sited on or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, including hillsides, creek/drainage areas, and other areas within the Community's Open Space System. (3) Commercial and industrial development. (4) Move-on buildings to assure that they are properly integrated into the neighborhood. (5) Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 27. SDMC Section (b) provides as follows: An application for a Southeastern San Diego Development Permit, including fees or deposits, shall be processed in the same manner as an application for a Site Development Permit, in accordance with Land Development Code Chapter 11, Article 2 (Required Steps in Processing) and Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 5 (Site Development Permit Procedures). Procedural Background 28. In 2008, IMPERIAL caused two General Applications to be submitted to CITY for a permit to the continued operation of an existing 45,800-square-foot grocery/market use and related retail commonly known as the San Diego Farmers Market. Nowhere on either application did the applicant specify that it sought permission to demolish any portion of the building associated with the Farmers Market. A true and correct copy of the applications is attached to this pleading as Exhibit A. 29. In processing IMPERIAL s applications, CITY prepared an Addendum to Negative Declaration no , which consisted of the Addendum, Negative Declaration no , and the initial study on which Negative Declaration no was based (collectively, the Addendum ). A true and correct copy of the Addendum is attached to this pleading as Exhibit B. 30. The Addendum makes the following statements: A. On page 1 (emphasis added): The project would also include on-site improvements to construct new City standard curb ramps at the corners of 21st Street, 22nd Street, and Imperial Avenue; repair of the existing driveway along to 22nd Street to a standard 24-foot wide COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 8

9 driveway, replace the abandoned driveway along 21st Street with a full height curb and sidewalk; and remove the existing asphalt paving and storm drain pipe to allow drainage flow clearance. Besides the proposed public improvements as described above, the project does not propose any new development or grading. Minor modifications to the interior floor plan would be processed through tenant improvement plans.... B. On page 2 in the ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING section (emphasis added): Since no development, new construction, or alteration of the existing structure is proposed, the project would not require an FAA determination of No Hazard. C. On page 3 in the DISCUSSION Section (emphasis added): HR [i.e., Historic Resources] staff determined that the proposed CUP [i.e., conditional use permit] would therefore be consistent with the Standards [of the Secretary of the Interior] since alterations to the exterior facades are not proposed. D. On page 3 in the DISCUSSION Section (emphasis added): Since no development or new construction is proposed or anticipated to the exterior facade of the building, the project would not create a significant adverse impact on a historical resource eligible for local listing, and therefore no new significant impacts are identified and no mitigation would be required. 31. Figure 2 to Negative Declaration no indicates that the north half of the parcel where the Farmers Market is located is zoned CSR-2 and that the south half of the parcel is zoned I On July 8, 2009, CITY (acting through a hearing office) issued Conditional Use Permit no and Site Development Permit no to IMPERIAL (collectively, the CUP/SDP ) in accordance with decision-making Process 3 under the SDMC. A true and correct copy of the CUP/SDP is attached to this pleading as Exhibit C. 33. The second paragraph of the CUP/SDP states as follows (emphasis added): Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Permit, permission is granted to Owner and Permittee to allow the continued operation of an existing large retail facility including a market/grocery use and related retail activities, for a 25-year period, as described and identified by size, dimension, quantity, type, and location on the approved exhibits [Exhibit A ] dated July 8, 2009, on file in the Development Services Department. Nowhere does the CUP/SDP state that any demolition of any exterior portion of the Farmers Market or that any pharmacy use was anticipated or authorized. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 9

10 Resolution no. HO-6214, which approved the CUP/SDP, states as follows: A. In describing the site of the Farmers Market covered by the CUP/SDP: The site encompasses one city block with the north half designated for industrial use and the south half designated as commercial. (See Ex. C, p. 9 (emphasis added).) B. The project proposes the continued re-use of the building as a grocery/market with a variety of other retail uses, with no physical improvements are proposed other than those required for unreinforced masonry correction plans. (See id., pp. 10 & 13 (emphasis added).) C. The project is the continued use of an indoor large retail facility which includes a market/grocery store and various retail uses and, a request to extent the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. to midnight. No new development is proposed with this application and no deviations have been requested. (See id., p. 12 (emphasis added).) 35. Resolution no. R-HO , which approved the Addendum accompanying the CUP/SDP, states that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of San Diego as Lead Agency and that the information contained in said report, together with any comments received during the public review process, has been reviewed and considered by the Hearing Officer of the City of San Diego. (See Ex. C, p. 8 (emphasis added).) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Demolition of Historic Building without Valid Permit (Against All Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest) 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. 37. The San Diego Farmers Market building is a historical building within the meaning of SDMC Section The building s primary purpose has been to provide a location for commercial activity, which is a distinctly human activity. 38. At all times relevant to the wrongdoing alleged in this pleading, the San Diego Farmers Market building has been more than 50 years old. 39. CITY s Department of Parks and Recreation determined in 2007 that the property on which the San Diego Farmers Market building is located meets Criterion A of CITY s criteria for designation as a historical resource. Thereafter, in connection with the Addendum, CITY s Historic Resources and Environmental Analysis Section staff reviewed IMPERIAL s proposed changes to the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 10

11 San Diego Farmers Market and concluded that the building structure was potentially eligible for designation as an historical resource under the SDMC. 40. Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest are violating the SDMC in the following ways: A. The CUP/SDP does not authorize demolition of any portion of the San Diego Farmers Market building and does not authorize any new construction on the site, the Addendum stated repeatedly that the building would not be demolished, and the applications for the CUP/SDP gave no indication that anyone intended to demolish any portion of the building. However, the building is currently being demolished and new construction on the site is scheduled to begin as soon as demolition is complete. B. If CITY has issued any construction permit (i.e., a ministerial permit in accordance with decision-making Process 1) that purports to authorize demolition of the building and/or new construction on the site: Such permit s issuance breached the issuing official s mandatory not to issue such a permit until such time as a site-specific survey has been completed for any parcel where a structure more than 45 years old is located, in accordance with SDMC Sections (a) and (c). The building was more than 45 years old at the time such permit was issued. The only site-specific study ever performed for the parcel, which occurred prior to 2010, concluded that it is eligible for designation as a historical resource. C. Even though the San Diego Farmers Market is a historical resource under the SDMC, Defendants/Real Parties in Interest have never applied for, and Defendants/Respondents have never issued, a Site Development Permit in accordance with decision-making Process 4, as required by SDMC Section (e)(2)(B). D. No person has ever applied for or obtained a Site Development Permit authorizing the demolition of any portion of the San Diego Farmers Market building, as required by SDMC Section Even if such a Site Development Permit has been issued, it was not issued in accordance with decision-making Process 4, as required by SDMC Section (e)(2)(B), and is therefore invalid. 41. COALITION recently learned that the premises of the San Diego Farmers Market has been leased to Walmart, who plans to use the premises for a Neighborhood Market that will include COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 11

12 a grocery store, bakery, and pharmacy. In a letter to San Diego City Councilmember David Alvarez on April 13, 2012, Walmart promised that the iconic nature of the building will be preserved yet enhanced by our sustainability features.... A true and correct copy of Walmart s letter is attached to this pleading as Exhibit D. 42. Demolition of the San Diego Farmers Market building will expose nearby residents to, for example, significant levels of air pollution (e.g., asbestos and particulate matter) and construction noise. In addition, construction of a Walmart Neighborhood Market will expose nearby residents to, for example, significant levels of traffic, air pollution, and noise, as well as increased parking demand. All of these impacts would have been adequately addressed and mitigated had the potential for demolition and new construction been identified as part of the activities covered by the CDP/SDP, and the public would have had an opportunity to review and comment on the impacts and proposed mitigation prior to the CDP/SDP s approval. Because the demolition and construction potential were never disclosed, COALITION s members have been substantially harmed. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory Relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060 et seq. (Against All Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest) 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. 44. COALITION is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that an actual controversy exists between COALITION, on the one hand, and Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest, on the other hand, concerning their respective rights and duties. As alleged in this pleading, COALITION contends that demolition and construction activities at the San Diego Farmers Market building are being illegally pursued, whereas COALITION is informed and beliefs and on that basis alleges that Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest disputes COALITION s contention. 45. COALITION desires a judicial determination and declaration as to whether construction activity is permitted without development and other applicable permits and whether the necessary permits have been obtained. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1084 et seq. (Against All Defendants/Respondents) 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 12

13 COALITION has no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, since its members and other members of the public will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the violations of the SDMC and other laws by Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest. Defendants /Respondents authorization of the demolition and new construction activities also rests on the failure to satisfy a clear, present, ministerial duty to act in accordance with those laws. Even when Defendants/Respondents are permitted or required by law to exercise their discretion in approving these activities under those laws, they remain under a clear, present, ministerial duty to exercise their discretion within the limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws. Defendants/Respondents have had and continue to have the capacity and ability to approve the activities within the limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws, but Defendants/Respondents have failed and refuse to do so and have exercised their discretion beyond the limits of and in a manner that is not consistent with those laws. 22. COALITION has a beneficial right and interest in Defendants /Respondents fulfillment of all their legal duties, as alleged in this pleading. PRAYER FOR ALL THESE REASONS, COALITION respectfully prays for the following relief against all Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest (and any and all other parties who may oppose COALITION in this proceeding) jointly and severally: A. A judgment determining or declaring that Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest failed to comply fully with the SDMC with respect to the Project and that any demolition or construction activity at the Project site is illegal in at least some respect. B. A judgment determining or declaring that Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest must comply fully with the SDMC before any demolition or construction activity at the Project site may commence or continue. C. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants/Respondents/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--including but not limited to physical demolition or construction activities--unless and until Respondents have complied with all applicable provisions of the SDMC, as determined by the Court. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 13

14 D. A writ of mandate ordering Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest to comply fully with the SDMC before any activity at the Project site may commence or continue. E. Any and all other relief that may be authorized by the SDMC but is not explicitly or specifically requested elsewhere in this Prayer. F. An order providing for the Court s continuing jurisdiction over this proceeding in order to ensure that Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest comply with all applicable laws. G. All attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by COALITION in connection with this proceeding. H. Any further relief that this Court may deem appropriate. Date: April 18, By: Respectfully submitted, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Cory J. Briggs Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Coalition for Safe and Healthy Economic Progress COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 14

15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Exhibit A

16

17

18

19

20 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Exhibit B

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Exhibit C

52 Exhibit "C": Page

53 Exhibit "C": Page

54 Exhibit "C": Page

55 Exhibit "C": Page

56 Exhibit "C": Page

57 Exhibit "C": Page

58 Exhibit "C": Page

59 Exhibit "C": Page

60 Exhibit "C": Page

61 Exhibit "C": Page

62 Exhibit "C": Page

63 Exhibit "C": Page

64 Exhibit "C": Page

65 Exhibit "C": Page

66 Exhibit "C": Page

67 Exhibit "C": Page

68 Exhibit "C": Page

69 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Exhibit D

70

71

72

73