NoticeCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.November 27, 2019C o O H Y Q DW o N n fF 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN 153721) Law Offices of Donald B. Mooney 417 Mace Boulevard, Suite J-334 Davis, California 95618 Telephone: 530-758-2377 FILED Facsimile: 530-758-7169 Superior Court of California County of Pir- Attorneys for Petitioner JAN 13 2020 Stop Lincoln Twelve Bridges Hotel Jake Chatters cutive Officer & Clerk AO. Lucatuorto, Deputy IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER STOP LINCOLN TWELVE BRIDGES HOTEL,) an unincorporated association; Case No. SCV0044111 ) _. ) Petitioner ) ) NOTICE TO RESPONSIBLE V. ) AGENCIES ) CITY OF LINCOLN; CITY COUNCIL OF ) THE CITY OF LINCOLN; and DOES | to 20, +) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondents JG LAND & INVESTMENT, LLC., a Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 21-40 ) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5(c), the Clity | of Lincoln has identified the following agencies as potentially having jurisdiction over a natural resource affected by the Project at issue in this matter. Charlton H. Bonham California Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 N Y D n N n £& oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Zl 28 Placer County Air Pollution Control District 110 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Water Agency 144 Ferguson Road Audubon, CA 95603 Dated: January 9, 2020 NOTICE TO RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY By Z- eE. a, Donald B. Mooney Attorney for Petitioner su / Lincoln Twelve Bridges E £& N I N D WN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE _Tam employed in the County of Yolo; my business address is 129 C Street, Suite 2, Davis, California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action. On January 9, 2020, I served a true and correct copy of NOTICE TO RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES X__ (by mail) on all parties in said action listed below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a(3), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a United States mailbox in the City of Davis, California. (by overnight delivery service) via Federal Express to the person at the address set forth below: ____ (by personal delivery) by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person and at the address set forth below: ____ (by facsimile transmission) to the person at the address and phone number set forth below: Christopher J. Butcher Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Charlton H. Bonham California Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Placer County Air Pollution Control District 110 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Water Agency 144 Ferguson Road Audubon, CA 95603 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 9, 2020, at Davis, California. Donald B. Mooney NOTICE TO RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES 3 © me Y A WwW pa .i w w il 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 > ? 27 -28 || Facsimile: 530-758-7169 | DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN 153721) a oo | Law Offices of Donald B. Mooney ' 417 Mace Boulevard, Suite J-334 [ Davis, California 95618 fo 8, ors Telephone: 530-758-2377 Attomeys for Petitioner Stop Lincoin Twelve Bridges Hotel IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. - | IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER a. STOP LINCOLN TWELVE BRIDGES HOTEL, ) @CWOR44a 124 an unincorporated association; ) - Case No. ; | ; ) : Petitioner ) , . ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR. V. ) WRIT OF MANDATE | . ) s * CITY OF LINCOLN; CITY COUNCIL OF ) THE CITY OF LINCOLN; and DOES 1 to 20, ) | Y Respondents ) ) ; [ ) : JG LAND & INVESTMENT, LLC., a ) | Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 21-40 ) ; -) 7 1. Petitioner Stop Lincoln Twelve Bridges Hote] petitions this Court for aWritof |. . Mandate, directed to Respondents City of Lincoln and City Council of the City of Lincoln . | | | (“Respondents”). Petitioner challenges Respondents’ October 22, 2019, approval of La Quinta | Inns & Suites - Conditional Use Permit and Specific Development Plan and Development : | Permit (“Project”). .The Project is the construction and operation of a four story, 104 room | 56,914 square foot La Quinta Inn & Suites and associated site improvements on property within -| | the Main Village area of Twelve Bridges. Petitioner contends that Respondents’ approvals for | the Project violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources. Code | section 21000 et seq., City of Lincoln Municipal Code section. 18.56.010 and Goyernment-Code | “§$§ 65300 et seq. Petitioner alleges as follows: . . . | O o C O N N DO B W n e R | ! H N O ~~ _ - P P R B R B G e A W A A B U B R B H A S Zi 28 PARTIES | me Petitioner Stop Lincoln Twelve Bridges Hotel is an unincorporated association | whose mission is to protect and enhance the environment and community in the City of Lincoln. | Members of Petitioner have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in ensuring that | Respondents comply with CEQA, the Lincoln Municipal Code, and the State Planning and | Zoning Law. Members live, work and/or recreate in City of Lincoln and throughout the areas__| that will be impacted by the Project. Petitioner’s members have long-standing interests inthe _| area adjacent to the Project site, as well as in the surrounding community and City asa whole. | Petitioner’s members’ environmental, aesthetic and property interests will be severely injured if | the adoption of the Project is not set aside pending full compliance with CEQA and all other | applicable laws. Petitioner’s members enjoy the City’s and State’s natural resources. | Petitioner’s members will be harmed by the Project unless court action is taken and Petitioner’s | requested relief is granted. Petitioner brings this petition on behalf of all others similarly | situated who are too numerous to be named and brought before this Court as petitioners. | Petitioner is within the class of persons and entities beneficially interested in, and aggrieved by, | the acts of Respondents as alleged below. Petitioner and its members participated in the | administrative processes herein, with many members submitting comment letters and objecting | to the Project. Petitioner and its members have exhausted their remedies. Accordingly, | Petitioner has standing to sue. | s Respondent City of Lincoln is a political subdivision of the State of California and | a body corporate and politic exercising local government power. City of Lincoln is the CEQA | “lead agency” for the Project. As lead agency for the Project, the City of Lincoln is responsible | for preparation of an environmental document that describes the Project and its impacts, and if | necessary evaluates mitigation measures and/or alternatives to lessen or avoid any significant | environmental impacts. The City also has principal responsibility for determining whether | projects within its jurisdiction are consistent with applicable land use ordinances and other | | applicable laws. | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 2 S o O o N H D B m E L h W O P O F 8 B B e S& S S e A B a A R B H R EA S 25 27 28 4, Respondent City Council of the City of Lincoln is a legislative body duly | authorized under the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California to act on | behalf of the City of Lincoln. Respondent City Council of the City of Lincoln is responsible for | regulating and controlling land use within the City including, but not limited to, implementing | and complying with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of | Regulations, title 14, section 15000 ef seq. (the “Guidelines”), applicable land use ordinances | and other laws. As the elected representatives of the people of the City, the City Council | establishes overall City priorities and sets policy. The City Council is the governing body of the | County and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving or denying the Project. | 5. Real Party in Interest JG Land & Investments, LLC is a California limited liability | corporation. Real Party in Interest JG Land & Investments, LLC is the applicant for the Project | and the recipient of the Project approvals. The City of Lincoln’s October 25,2019, Notice of | Exemption, however, fails to identify Real Party in Interest JG Land & Investment as entity | carrying out the Project and instead states the City of Lincoln will be carrying out the Project. | 6. Petitioner is unaware of the true names and identities of DOES 1 through 20 and 21| through 40, inclusive, and sue such unnamed Respondents and Real Parties in Interest | respectively, by their fictitious names. Petitioner is informed and believe, and based thereon | alleges, that fictitiously named Respondents and Real Parties in Interest are responsible for all _| acts and omissions described above. When the true identities and capacities of Respondents and | Real Parties in Interest have been determined, Petitioner will, with leave of Court if necessary, | amend this Petition to include such identities and capacities. | JURISDICTION AND VENUE | 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the matters alleged in this Petition pursuant to | Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and Public Resources Code section 21168. In the | | alternative, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and | Public Resources Code section 21168.5. | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3 o O o me a Y N D n wn FP W! B P O & p t he m pa ch mk P B B R B G C e WU A a R B H R Ss 25 26 27 28 8. Venue for this action properly lies in the Superior Court for the State of | California in and for the County of Placer pursuant to sections 393, 394 and 395 of the Code | of Civil Procedure. | BACK ND FACT, | A. THE PROJECT AND PROJECT SITE | 9. The Project entails the construction of a four story, 104 room, 56,914 square foot | La Quinta Inns & Suites and associated site improvements on vacant property within the Main | Village area of Twelve Bridges. The property is located directly north of the existing Terra | Cotta Village (currently partially constructed with two buildings and site improvements), on the | east side of Colonnade Drive, and south of the future extension of Red Rock Road. (Assessor’s | Parcel Number 329-010-068.) | 10. The property is bounded by General Commercial (GC-1) zoned properties to the | north, east, and south (Terra Cotta Village) and Employment Center (EC) zoned property to the | west (see below). The site is 3.1 acres in size. The La Quinta Inn & Suites and associated | improvements are proposed on 1.73 acres, while the remainder of the property is to be set aside | for review of a building at a later date. The La Quinta is proposed be located in the middle part | of the property (on an east-west axis) and approximately 70-feet west of the eastern property | line. The building elevations will be visible on all sides. | B. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT | | 11. On August 21, 2019 the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to approve Resolution No.| 2019-40 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Resolution No. 2019-39 approving the Specific, Development Plan and Development Permit for the operation of La Quinta Inns & Suites. As | part of the approval, the Planning Commission held that the Project is categorically exempt from | the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public | Resources Code, section 21000 et seg. per CEQA Guidelines section 15183. | 12. On August 30, 2019, Petitioner timely filed an appeal of the Planning | Commission’s approval of the Project. Petitioner’s appeal challenged the Planning | Commission’s determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 4 N oO o O o N I K n ne LL W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 section 15183; the Planning Commission’s resolution approving the Specific Development Plan | and Development Permit (Design Review); and the Planning Commission’s resolution approving| the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of the La Quinta Inn & Suites. | 13. | On October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-242 denying | Petitioner’s appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2019-40 and | Resolution No. 2019-39. The City Council also upheld the Planning Commission’s | determination that the Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines | section 15183. | 14. On October 25, 2019, Respondents filed a Notice of Exemption with the County | Clerk of Placer County as provided for in Public Resources Code, section 21152. | AUSTION OF INISTRA REMEDIES | AND INADE FR D 15. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing the instant action and have exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by law. 16. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code, section 21167.5 by mailing written notice of this action to the Respondents. A copy of this written notice and proof of service are attached as Exhibit A to this Petition for Writ of Mandate. 17. Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.6 by concurrently filing a request concerning preparation of the record of administrative proceedings relating to this action. 18. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require Respondents to set aside their approval of the Project. In the absence of such remedies, Respondents’ approval will remain in effect in violation of State law. 19. This action has been brought within 35 days of the filing of the Notice of Exemption as required by Public Resources Code section 21167(d). VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 5 Y A D N NA BP WB BV Oo 10 1] i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Pa 22 23 26 27 28 STANDING ‘| 20. Petitioner has standing to assert the claims raised in this Petition because | Petitioner’s aesthetic, environmental and property interests are directly and adversely affected by| Respondents’ approval of the Project. | A RAR I A N; | 21. Petitioner brings this action on the basis, among others, of Government Code | section 800, and other applicable laws, which award Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees in actions to | Overturn agency decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, such as the decisions in question in | this action. | CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Abuse of Discretion | Violation of CEQA, Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. 22. Petitioner realleges and incorporate herein, as if set forth in full, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 21. 23. Respondents’ action in determining the Project is categorically exempt violates CEQA in that Respondents failed to proceed in a manner required by law and their decision to approve the Project based upon a categorical exemption is not supported by substantial evidence. 24. _ Respondents determined the Project was exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Section 15183 provides for an exemption from further environmental review for vrojecss that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. Section 15183, however, does not exempt analysis of impacts that are “peculiar to” the parcel or the project if those impacts were , not addressed as significant impacts in the previous EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15183(a).) Section 15183 also does not exempt analysis of significant impacts that are peculiar to the parcel | | or project if substantial new information shows that the impact will be more severe than was described in the prior EIR. Thus, significant impacts peculiar to the parcel or project that were VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 6 O o ea N Y D n n H F& F W O Y O & N N b v O N Y NY N Y N Y N K H F e F e F F E O E E S B H R P R R P B B RP B G B e W A A R B H R £ £ S s not evaluated or that were treated as insignificant in the previous EIR are not exempt from | further review. | 25. Public Resources Code section 21083.3(c) requires that the City must make a | finding that any mitigation measures in the prior EIR that apply to the project’s specific effects | will be undertaken. If the required finding relating to an applicable mitigation measure is not | made, then the related significant effect is not exempt from further environmental review. (See | Pub. Resources Code, § 21083(c); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15183(e).) | 26. The Planning Commission’s Resolution states that “the project shall comply with | the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Twelve Bridges Specific Plan EIR | Mitigation Measures.” The Resolution, however, fails to identify which specific mitigation | measures apply to this project and instead just makes a general statement about compliance with | mitigation measures. | 27. There are impacts that are “peculiar to” the parcel or the project that were not | addressed as significant impacts in the previous environmental documents. (CEQA Guidelines, | § 15183(a).) For example, with the brief exception of noise, nothing in the SEIR discusses | hotels within the general commercial area. Nothing in the SEIR addresses the impacts of placing| a hotel adjacent to or in close proximity to a school or a residential neighborhood. Also, nothing| in the SEIR addresses the construction of a four-story structure that may impact aesthetics and | views from the adjacent neighborhood. | 28. Section 15183 also does not exempt analysis of significant impacts that are peculiar | to the parcel or project if substantial new information shows that the impact will be more severe | than was described in the prior EIR. As the SEIR did not address or discuss hotels within | General Commercial area, the public has provided substantial new information that placing a | hotel in this particular location will impact residential uses as well as the future/under | construction schools. | 29. In order for section 15183 to apply the Project must be consistent with the General | Plan. (See Guidelines, § 15183(d)(1)(C); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21083 .3(a)-(b).) The | | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7 o N N N ek WO U N © 25 26 Zl 28 Project is not consistent with the General Plan with respect to Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”). (See | discussion below.) | 30. Reliance on CEQA Guidelines section 15183 for an exemption from further | environmental review is not consistent with CEQA’s requirements. Thus, the City’s reliance _| upon section 15183 violates CEQA and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and is | contrary to law. | | SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of City of Lincoln Municipal Code § 18.56.010; | Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5) 31. Petitioner realleges and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 30. 32. Lincoln Municipal Code section 18.56.010 provides that “The consideration of a conditional use permit application shall result in the issuance of written findings in support of the planning commission decision, which shall be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record. To grant a conditional use permit, the planning commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use, building or structure applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the nei ghborhood or to the general welfare of the city.” 33. Asaresult the City must make findings that (1) that the use is substantially similar | in characteristic to a use or uses currently within the district; (2) that the use would be appropriate in the district applicable to the property as a permitted or conditional use; (3) that the proposed use, with the appropriate conditions, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace and morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; and (4) that at least one of the findings in Section 15 32.250 of the municipal code is satisfied. 34. Respondents’ Findings | and 3 do not adequately address the required finding and are not supported by substantial evidence. | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE we O o O D D Y HD Ww W Bb 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 35. Substantial evidence does not support the finding that the Project is substantially | similar in characteristic to the uses currently within the district. Respondents’ findings that the | Project is substantially similar in characteristics to uses currently within the District. Moreover, | the findings with respect to the proposed use do not address the construction and operation of a | hotel at this location, but instead focuses on the size of the building, the set-backs and - | landscaping. The findings also fail to address how the use of a hotel is consistent or | substantially similar to uses such as the high school and other schools currently planned for the | area. Also, the hotel will be four stories and significantly taller than other structures in the | vicinity and quite visible from nearby neighborhoods. A four story building is not similarin _| characteristic to the uses currently within the district. | 36. Substantial evidence does not support the finding that the Project will not be | detrimental to the health, safety, peace and morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons | residing or working the neighborhood or injurious to property and improvements in the | neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Respondents failed to adequately address the! hotel’s proximity to homes and a school. | 37. As Respondents’ findings are not supported by substantial evidence, approval of | the Project constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and is contrary to law. | THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION | (Violation of General Plan Laws - Government Code §§ 65300 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5) | 38. Petitioner realleges and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 37. - | 39. The State Planning and Zoning Law prohibits the City from approving the Project | if it conflicts with its General Plan and other applicable land use plans. Local land use and | development decisions must be consistent with the applicable general plan. (Families Unafraid | to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App 4th 1332, 1336 | (FUTURE).) “A project is consistent with the general plan ‘ “if, considering all its aspects, it | will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.”’ | [Citation.} A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 9 o O O e Y T DB D em BP WO P O we N O D O R O e e e e t 2 B S B R B C e W A A R B P s 2 26 Zi 28 policy. [Citation.] To be consistent, a project must be “compatible with’ the objectives, | policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan.” (Jbid.) | 40. The record demonstrates that the Project is not consistent with the applicable | General Plan regarding Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”). Under the General Plan, the Project site has | a maximum FAR of 0.35. (General Plan, Page 4-4, table 4.1.) As approved, the FAR is 0.42, | which exceeds the maximum 0.35. On the Project site for just the hotel, which is 1.73, the FAR | is 0.76, more than double allowed under the General Plan. | 41. As the Project is inconsistent with a critical portion of the General Plan, anditis | that inconsistency that leads to a structure significantly larger than nearby structures and that | may have aesthetic impacts, approval of the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning | Law. | 42. As the Project conflicts with the General Plan and the General Plan, approval of | the Project constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and is contrary to law. | PRAYER | Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests the following relief and entry of judgment as_ | follows: | L. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondents to: | (a) vacate and set aside its approval of the Project grounds that it violates the _| California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.; Lincoln | Municipal Code 18.56.010; and Government Code section 65300 et seq. | (b) vacate and set aside of Respondents’ Resolution No. 2019-242; | (c) vacate and set aside Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-39 and | Resolution No. 2019-40’ | | (c) suspend all activity that could result in any change or alteration to the | physical environment until Respondents have taken such actions as may be necessary to bring | their determination, findings or decision regarding the Project into compliance with CEQA; | 2. For a stay, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction restraining City of | Lincoln, the City Council of City of Lincoln, and Real Party in Interest and their respective | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 10 - agents, employees, officers and representatives from undertaking any activity to implement the | Project in any way pending full compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, the State | Planning and Zoning Law, and the City’s Municipal Code; | 3. For Petitioner’s costs associated with this action; | 4, For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure | section 1021.5; and | 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. | O o O e N I D n ne SP WY Ww DATED: November 27, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY | _- oS ll 12. 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11 o O Bm N Y WB N n m Ph W w P H Fm m l m m m m m m me k PR P RP B Y P B G e D T A A R a R e S 25 26 ZI 28 VERIFICATION | I am the attorney for Stop Lincoln Twelve Bridges Hotel, which are located outside the | County of Yolo, State of California, where I have my office. For that reason, I make this | verification for and on their behalf pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure section | 446. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. | The matters stated in this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate are true of my own knowledge | except those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to | be true. | I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed this 27th | day of November 2019, at Davis, California. | Donald B. Mooney VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 12 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A ~ am LAW OFFICE OF DONALD B. MOONEY 417 Mace Boulevard, Suite J-334 Davis, CA 95618 530-758-2377 dbmooney @dcn.org November 27, 2019 VIA FASCIMILE (916.645.8903) AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Gwendolyn.Scanlon@lincolnca.gov Gwendolyn Scanlon City Clerk City of Lincoln 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Re: Notice of Intent to File CEQA Petition Dear Ms. Scanlon: Please take notice that under Public Resources Code section 21167.5, that Petitioner Stop Lincoln Twelve Bridges Hotel intends to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Placer County Superior Court under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000 er seq, against the City of Lincoln and the City Council of the City of Lincoln (“Respondents”). Petitioner challenges Respondents’ October 22, 2019, approval of La Quinta Inns & Suites - Conditional Use Permit and Specific Development Plan and Development Permit (“Project”). The Petition for Writ of Mandate will request that the court direct Respondents to vacate and rescind the approval of the Project. Additionally, the Petition will seek Petitioner’s costs and attorney’s fees associated with this action. _ Very truly yours, onald B. Moone Attorney P F SER I am employed in the County of Yolo; my business address is 129 C Street, Suite 2 Davis, California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action. On November 27, 2019, I served a true and correct copy of as follows: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CEQA PETITION PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21167.5 X_ (by mail) on all parties in said action listed below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a(3), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a United States mailbox in Davis, California. X___ (by electronic mail) to the person at the email address set forth below: X___ (by facsimile transmission) to the person at the address and phone number set forth below: Gwendolyn Scanlon City Clerk City of Lincoln 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 (916) 645-8903 Gwendolyn .Scanlon@lincolnca.gov I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 27, 2019, at Davis, California. Donald B. Mooney
