FILED

Brian Gaffney, SBN 168778 Keith G. Wagner, SBM 210042 Henry A. Steinberg, SBN 284998 LIPPE GAFFNEY WAGNER LLP 329 Bryant St., Suite 3D San Francisco, California 94107 Tel: (415) 777-5600 Fax:(415)777-9809

, .

Superior Court Of Cahflornia,

2 3 4 5 6 8 9
10 11 12

0S/i4/20l3 By
CasB Numbei".

, Deputy

34-2013-80001531

7 Attorneys for Pctitionei"

CITIZENS AGAINST ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING IN MIDTOWTM; EILEEN DOWNES

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CITIZENS AGAINST ALCOHOL

Case No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF M ANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT]

13 MANUFACTURING IN MIDTOWN; EILEEN 14 DOWNES, and DOES l-IO, 15 16 vs. 17 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 18 SACRAMENTO and DOES 11 through 20, 19 20 21 ALLISON OTTO; RICH HANNA; MIKE 22 BRUCE; KYLE TAMBORINI; MATT EASON; 23 LOCKDOWN BREWERY; TWO RIVERS 24 CIDER; and DOES 21 through 30, 25 26 27 28 29 30
LIPPEOAFFtiEV VMOriEft LIP Si-iFtix'io.CA

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

Respondents and Defendants, TIM QUESSENBERRY; MILL SUPPLY LLC;

SONNY MAYUGBA; JIM CULLETON;

Real Parties in Interest and Defendants

1 2 3 1.

BY THIS PETITION AND COMPLAINT ('Tetition"), Petitioners and Plaintiffs allege; INTRODUCTION Petitioners and Plaintiffs Citizens Against Alcohol Manufacturing in Midtown and Eileen Downes

4 ("Petitioners") seek to establish lhat Respondents and Defendants City of Sacramento and the Planning and 5 Design Commission of the City of Sacramento ("Respondents") violated CEQA (the California 6 Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000 et .seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 7 California Code of Regulations 15000 etseq.) and in other ways abused their discretion and violated the 8 law in taking actions hereinafter specified related to approval of the Mill Supply Building Project af 2533 9 R Street in the Midtown area of the City ofSacramenlo (the "Project").
10 2.
Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion in violation of CEQA by issuing a Categorical

II Exemption for the Project despite substantial evidence presented to Respondents of a reasonable possibility 12 the Project will have significant environmental effects due to unusual circumstances. The Project will result, 13 iiUev alia, in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, water quality, and air quality, as well as cumulative 14 impacts. Respondents also violated CEQA by failing lo consider thai tlie Project may have significant 15 eiwironmental impacts due the particularly sensitive environment of nearby schools and school age cliildren. 16 In addition, a Categorical Exemption was improper because the Project is inconsistent with Respondents' 17 general plan as well as applicable zoning. 18 3.
Respondents also prejudicially abused their discretion in violation of CEQA by failing to accurately

19 describe the Project as including on-site alcohol manufacturing, and by failing to analyze the impacts of lhat 20 portion of the whole project. Respondents also failed to accurately describe the environmental setting as 21 including children and children's schools within close proximity. 22 4.
Respondents further prejudicially abused their discretion in violation of CEQA by filing a Notice

23 of Exemption vvilh the Sacramento County Clerk on May 10,2013 despite that their agency action was not 24 final, and by failing to withdraw their Notice of Exemption upon the timely filing of an administrative 25 appeal oflhc Project to the City Council. 26
PARTIES

27 5. Petitioner CITIZENS AGAINST ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING IN MIDTOWN ("Citizens") 28 is an unincorporated association of individuals dedicated to protecting the quality ofthe environment, and 29 the unique character, ofthe Midtown area ofthe City ofSacramenlo. Citizens include residents oflhc City 30 ofSacramenlo, many of whom live inclose proximity lolhe proposed Project and will be adversely affected
LIPPE OAFFfJEY V/AOMR LLP

Pclitioii for Writ of Mniulatc; CnseNo (TBA).

by Respondents violations of law. Members of Citizens participated in the administrative process by

2 submitting written and verbal comments objecting to the Project and Respondents' lack of proper 3 environmental review of the Project. Citizens was founded afler Respondents approved the Project. Citizens 4 bring this action both on behalf of itself and its adversely affected members. 5 6.
Petitioner EILEEN DOWNES participated in tiie administrative process by submitting written and

6 verbal comments objecting to the Project and Respondents' lack of proper environmental review of the 7 Project. Eileen Downes is a member of Citizens. Eileen Downes is concerned with protecting the quality 8 ofthe environment, and the unique character, ofthe Midtown area of the City ofSacramenlo. 9 7.
Petitioners and their members rely on Respondents to comply fully with the California

10 Environmenlal Quality Act, which assures that projects will be subject to the environmental protection and 11 public participation. Petitioners and their members live in and/or spend tiine in the Midtown area adversely 12 affected by Respondents' use of an improper categorical exemption and adoption ofthe Project in reliance 13 Ihereon. The proposed Project directly affects tlie environmental values with which Petitioners are 14 concerned. Petitioners and their members have been, are being, and unless the relief requested is granted, 15 will continue to be directly adversely affected by the Project. 16 8.
Respondent CITY OF SACRAMENTO is the lead agency for the Project under CEQA, and is thus

17 responsible for analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the Project's environmental impacts and for following 18 the procedures outlined by CEQA. The Cit)''s address is 915 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 19 9.
Respondent PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

20 ("Commission") is the governmental body which approved the Categorical Exemption, Special Permit, and 21 Design Review at the Commission's May 9, 2013 public hearing. The Commission is located in the 22 Planning and Building Department, Planning Division, 1231 I Slreel, Room 300, in Sacramento, California 23 95814. 24 10.
Real parlies in interest, JIM QUESSENBERRY; MILL SUPPLY LLC; ALLISON OTTO; RICH

25 HANNA; MIKE BRUCE; KYLE TAMBORINI; M A I T EASON; SONNY MAYUGBA; and JIM 26 CULLETON, are identified in the May 9,2013 Commission Staff Report as the "Applicant/Owner" forlhe 27 Project. The May 9,2013 Commission Staff Report lists the address for these individuals and entity as: 400 28 S Street, Sacramcnto, CA 95811. Petitioners are informed and believe, and on lhat ground allege, that 29 resolution ofthis action in Petitioners' favor may affect the rights and interests ofthe foregoing named Real 30 Parties in Interesl in a manner lhat would indicate that they should be allowed to participate as parties to this
LfPPEGAFfl.EY WAOIJERILP ^;3^,l-lw,&.),^^
&^Fnr<:t>,CA Ttt. 4 1 ^ 7 7 7 ^ ^ ^

Fit

*ii.tn.itn

-2PelKion for Wril of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

1 litigation. 2 11.
Real parties in Interest LOCKDOWN BREWERY and TWO RIVERS CIDER are the prospective

3 beer and wine lenanis for the Project and intend to brew and serve wine and beer at Ihc Project site. 4 Petitioners are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that resolution ofthis action in Petitioners' 5 favor may affect the rights and interests of the foregoing named Real Parties in Interest in a manner lhat 6 would indicate lhal they should be allowed to participate as parties to this litigation. 7 12.
Petitioners do not know the true names and capacities of Petitioners fictitiously named herein as

8 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, lhat such 9 fictitiously named Petitioners are beneficially interested in Respondents' compliance with their mandalory
10 legal duties, and that such Petitioners adequately participated in Respondents' administrative review process 11 for the Project to have standing to be joined as Petitioners in this proceeding. Petitioners will amend this 12 Petition to allege the fictitiously named Petitioners' true names and capacities when ascertained. 13 13. Petitioners do not know the true names and capacities of Respondents fictitiously named herein as 14 DOES 11 through 20, inclusive. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that such 15 fictitiously named Respondents are responsible in some manner for the acts or omissions complained of or 16 pending herein. Petitioners will amend this Petition to allege the fictitiously named Respondents' true 17 names and capacities when ascertained. 18 14. Petitioners do not know the true names and capacities of Real Parties in Interest fictitiously named 19 herein as DOES 21 through 30, inclusive. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that any 20 resolution of this matter in Petitioners' favor may affect the rights and interests ofthe fictitiously named 21 Real Parties in a manner lhal would indicate lhal they should be allowed lo participate as parlies to this 22 litigation. Petitioners will amend their Petition to allege the fictitiously named Real Parties' true names and 23 capacities when ascertained. 24
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25 15. On May 9, 2013, the Commission held a public hearing on the Project, Ilem No. 4, "P12-040 Mill 26 Supply Building." Al this hearing, the Commission was charged with approving or disapproving an 27 Environmenlal Determination of CEQA Exemption, an Alcohol Special Permit, and a Design Review for 28 Exterior Modifications. 29 16. Specifically, the Project proposes to establish beer and wine (cider) tasting rooms, and retail alcoiioi 30 sales, in a mulliple tenant space within the former Fred Rader Mill Supply building, located in the
LIPPE OAFFf.'EY WAOtlER LLP ;^^r./il^^ iL,z.:t
inFfj-cKo.CA Ttl. ^ l 5 . 7 / ? . * F. 4li-;7-05

-3Petition for Writ of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

Residetitial Mi.xed Use R Street Corridor Special Platiniiig District (RMX SPD) zone, ll is unclear from

2 the project description if Ihe Project includes manufacturing facililies (beer and cider breweries), where such 3 facilities will be localed or their cnvironmetital itnpacts. The address of the Project where the proposed 4 breweries atid tastitig rootiis would be built is 2533 R Street, Sacramento, CA. 5 17.
The Staff Report for the Project contained several errors atid omissions regarditig the effects of the

6 Project on the largely residential neighborhood. Forexatnplc, the Staff Report stated there were no schools 7 within 500 feet of the Project site, bul in fact there is a pre-school wilh enrollment of over 70 children 8 located withiti 380 feel ofthe proposed brewery Project. Also, there is a children's French language 9 educatiotial facility directly adjacent lo the proposed brewery facility. The children al these schools would
10 be exposed to the strong unpleasatit odor of Iwo nearby breweries on a regular basis. Additionally, the Staff 11 Report did not adequately address the significant effects relating to traffic, noise, water quality, atid air 12 quality, as well as cumulative impacts, that will result frotii the Project. 13 18.
At the May 9,2013 Comtnission hearing, Petitioners and their members comtneiited regarding the

14 the absence of proper environtnenlal review, inconsistency with applicable zoning and the General Plan, 15 and urged the Cotnmission therefore not to approve the Project. Many ofthe members of Citizens who 16 eomtnetited at the hearing had also previously submitted writien objections to the Project. 17 19.
Despite Petitioners' objections, the Cotnmission approved all three items before it, iticluding: the

18 Envirotituenlal Determinatioti lo Exempt the Project per CEQA Guidelines Sectioti 15332, the Special 19 Permit to allow beer atid wine retail sales in conjunction with beer and wine tastitig in two laslitig rootns 20 on roughly .59 acres iti the (RK'IX SPD) zotic, atid the Desigti Review for exterior modifications lo an 21 existitig retailAvarehouse building in the R Street Corridor Design Review District. 22 20.
Without waiting for the time for adtiiinistrative appeal of the Comtiiission's May 9,2013 approvals

23 lo elapse, Respondents issued a Class 32 Notice of Exemption forlhe Project. Respotidents filed the Notice 24 of Exctnption with the County of Sacratiietito on May 10,2013, and posted the Notice of Exemption on May 25 11,2013. 26
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

27 21. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.5, Petitioners .served Respondents with 28 written notice of comtnencement of this action on .Utne 12, 2013 and Jutic 13, 2013. The June 13, 2013 29 notice, and proof of service by tiiail thereof are attached hereto as Exhibil 1. 30 22. In accordatice with Publ ic Resources Code section 21167.7 and Code of Civi I Proceduie section 388,
LIPPE OAFFHEY V/AONER LLP

F*i I14-7JMCC0

Petition for Writ of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

Petitioners have provided a copy of this pleading lo the Attorney General's office. Proof of service by mail

2 of this Petition on the Attorney General is attached herelo as Exhibit 2. 3 4 23.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Petitioners britig this action as a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

5 sections 1094.5, and Publ ic Resources Code sections 21167,21168 and 21168.5, The Court has jurisdiction 6 over these claims. 7 24. 9 25.
Venue is proper iti Sacratnenlo Coutity under Code of Civil Procedure section 394, subdivision (a),

8 because Respondent City ofSacramenlo is situated therein.

Venue is also proper in Sacratnetito County under Code of Civil Piocedure section 393, subdivision

10 (b), because Respotidents are comprised of public officers especially appointed to execute the duties of a 11 public officer, and this suit challenges acts done by Respondents and their members in virtue ofthe office. 12
STANDING

13 26. Petitiotiers atid their metnbers are beneficially interested in Respondents' full cotnpliancc with 14 CEQA, and State and local zoning and General Plan coiisisteticy law, before Respondetits approve the 15 Project. Respondetits owed a tnandalory duty lo cotiiply wilh CEQA and State and local law land use law 16 before approving the Project. Petitioners have the righl to enforce the mandatory duties that the law itnposes 17 on Respondents. 18
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

19 27. Petiliotiers have exhausted all available administrative remedies. In accord wilh Public Resources 20 Code section 21 177, subdivision (b), Petitioner objected to the approval ofthe Project orally and in writing 21 during the public cotntnenl period or prior to the close of the May 9, 2013 Cotnmission public hearing on 22 the Project before Respondetits filed the May 10, 2013 Notice of Exemption. 23 28. In accordatice with Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a),.all alleged grounds for 24 non-compliance with CEQA that are alleged hereiti were presetited lo Respondents during the public25 comment period for, or prior to the close of the public hearing on, the Project. 26 29. Iti the alternative, there was no opportunity for members of the public lo raise the grounds of 27 tioncotnpliatice alleged in this Petitioti and Cotnplaint prior to Respondents' adoptioti of the Project. 28
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE

29 30. Petitioners bring this action as a private attortiey general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 30 1021.5, and atiy other applicable legal theory, to enforce itnportant rights affectitig the public interest.
UPPE OAFffJEY VVAONER LLP
!TFf-*.sfJ, CA Olio;

-5Pctition for Wril of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

Issuance of the relief requested in this Petitioti will confer a significant benefil on a large class of persons

2 by ensuring that Respondetits not adopt the Project without cotnplyiiig with the law. 3 4 5 6 31. 7 32.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FILING OF AN INVALID NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Public Resource Code 21152(b); CEQA Giiidcliiie 15062 Petitioners incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Petition as if fully set forth herein. Petitioners allege this cause ofaction against all Respondents.

8 33. Respotidents prejudicially abused their discretion in violation of CEQA by filing a Noiice of 9 Exemption wilh the Sacrainento County Clerk on May 10, 2013 despite that their ageticy action was not
10 final, and by failing to withdraw their Noiice of Exemplioti upon the timely filing of an administrative 11 appeal ofthe Project to the Cily Council. 12 34. Petitioners have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the orditiary course of law and will 13 suffer irreparable injury unless this Court issues the relief requested in this Petition. 14 15 16 35. 17 36.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IMPROPER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Petitioner incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Petition as if fully set forth hereiti. Petitioners allege this cause ofaction against all Respondents.

18 37. Respondetits' action in approving the Project in reliance on improper envirotimental review 19 constitutes prejudicial abuses of discretion in that Respondents fail to proceed in the mantier required by 20 law as sel forlh below. 21 38. Petitioners have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law atid will 22 suffer irreparable injury unless this Court issues the relief requested in this Petition. 23 Claim One - Project Approval Througli Categorical Exemption from CEQA 24
39.

Respondetits prejudicially abused their discretion iti violation of CEQA by issuing a Categorical

25 26 27 28 29 30
LIPPE OAFf MEV WAOriER LIP SnFrtv'wi.CA tnot ri'-.AWJ7.K,V3

Exemption for the Project despite substatitial evidence presented to Respondetits of a reasonable possibility the Project will have significant environmental effects due to unusual circutnstatices. The Project will result insignificant effects relalitig to, inter alia, traffic, noise, water quality, atid air quality, as well as significant adverse cumulative impacts. 40. Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion in violatioti of CEQA by failitig to consider that

the Project may have significant en viionmental impacts due the particularly sensitive environment of nearby

-6Petition for Wril of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

schools and school age children.

2 41.

Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion in violafion of CEQA by determinitig that the

3 Project was categorically exempt from CEQA despite lhat the Project is inconsistent with Respondents' 4 General Plan and applicable zoning. 5 Claim Two - Improper Project Description 6 42.
Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion in violation of CEQA by failing lo accurately

7 describe the Project as including on-site alcohol manufacturing, and by failing to analyze the impacts of lhal 8 portion of the whole project. 9 Claim Three - Improper Description of the Project's Environmental Setting
10 43.
Respondents prejudicially abused their discrefion in violation of CEQA by failing lo accurately

11 describe the environmental setting in the vicinity ofthe Project as iticluding children and children's schools 12 within close proximity. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
UPPE GAFFNEY WAOriER LIP 6nFuv':o.C^ I1>7

PRAYER FOR R E L I E F WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for the following relief For a peremptory wril of mandate pursuant lo Public Resources Code section 21168.9 ordering: 1. Respondetits and their agencies and departments to set aside and void the Notice of Exemption dated May 9,2013, filed on May 10, 2013 and posted commencing on May 11, 2013. 2. Respondents to fully comply with CEQA by selling aside their Categorical Exemption, preparing an Initial Study to determine whether to prepare either an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration for the Project, and proj^erly describing the Project and the environmenlal setting of the Project. 3. 4. Respondents lo comply with local and State zoning and General Plan law. Upon Petitioners filing a request. Respondents and Real Parties in Interest to suspend all physical activities in furtherance ofthe Project until Respondents have complied with CEQA atid applicable local and State zoning laws; 5. Upon a determination on the merits, permanently enjoin Respondents and Real Paities in Interest from taking any actions with respect to the Projccl unlil Respondents have fully complied wilh CEQA and local and Slate zoning laws; 6. Respondents lo take any other actions the Court finds necessary lo bring Respondents' determinations, findings, and decisions into compliance with CEQA and local and State

Petition for Writ of Mandate; CnseNo (TBA).

zoning laws. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DATED: June 14, 2013 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

UPPE OAFflJEY V/AOnes LIP

7. 8. 9. 10.

For an order retaining the Court's jurisdiction over this matter unlil Respondents comply with the peremptory writ; Respondetits and Reai Parties in Ititeresl to pay Petitioners' costs of suit; Respondents and Real Parties in Inlerest to pay Petitioners' reasonable attorneys fees related lo these proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5; and For such other relief as the Court may deem proper. LII^PE GAFFNEY WAGNER LLB Brian Gaffiiey Attorneys for Petitioner

wry

CiAS.icraincmo l}rcwei)-VI"rialVI'lc.idiiigs\P001 Pclilion SP.NT.wpd

Tfi 41J?77-5W3 r*.-41S->77.K

Petition for Writ of Mandate; Case No (TBA).

1 2 3 4

VERIFICATION Citizens Agairist Alcohol Manufacturing i7t Midtown, etal. v. City of Sacramento, etal, Sacrainento Countj' Superior Court

I, Eileen Downes, declare tliat; 5 1. I am a Plaintiff herein and a member- of Plaintiff Citizens Against Alcohol ManufactMring In 6 Midtown, and am authorized to sign this verification. 7 2. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief, 8 and know the contents thereof; the factual allegations therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to 9 those matters which are therein stated upon my infonnation or belief, and as to those matters I believe them 10 to be true. 11 I declaie imder penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia, that the foregoing is hue 12 and con-ect. Executed on Jnne 14, 2013 at Sacramento, Caiifomia. 13
14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
LIPPE OAFF N^r

Eileen Downes

Petition for Writ of Mandate - Verification, CaseNo. (TBA)

10/10 3^6

S3NM0a

90306Se9T6 Hd0E:90 ET03/SI/90

D a

EXHIBIT 1

s L i p p O

llllTrnOy

S3 ! j V V a g r ' ^ C );/' \ \ . A ^ www.lgwlawyers.com

Thomas N. LIppe Brian Gaffney Keith G. Wagner

j^^ny ^ Granger ,, . ^. . ,

SAN FRANCISCO 329 Bryant St., Ste. 3D, San Francisco, CA 9-1107 T -115.777.5600 F -115.777.9809 SACRAIVIENTO 9333 Sparks Way, Sacramento, CA 95827 T 916.361.3887 F 916.361.3897

Henry A. Steinberg

June 13, 2013 Via Email & Facsimile Mr. Jeffrey Heeren City of Sacrainento Senior Deputy Cily Attorney 916-808-7455 Fax Jheeien@citvofsacraiuento.org Re: Notifying County Clerk of Withdrawal of Noiice of Exemption Mill Supply Building Project

Dear Mr. Heeren, This office represents Citizens Against Alcohol iManufacturing in Midtown in regards to the proposed Mill Supply Building Project. We request that Sacramcnto write to the County Clerk on Thursday with a one sentence notice of withdrawal of the Project Notice of Exemption. The NOE (attached) vvas filed May 10. Thus, a CEQA 35-day statute of limitations expires this Friday, June 14. CEQA Guideline 15112, subd. (c). If this office receives a copy of Sacramento's withdrawal by close of business June 13, we will refrain from filing suit on Friday.' Graham v. DainilerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 577. Sacrainento .should have no qualms about withdrawing the NOE, as we discussed, because of the May 20 appeal (atiached) of the Planning Commission's Project approval.^ PRC 21151, subd. (c). The appeal was timely filed and paid for. By definition, the Project is not final. A NOE can be filed and posted only once there is final agency action, and thus this Project's NOE must be withdrawji. PRC 21152(b); CEQA Guideline 15062. Litigation unfortunately can be expensive and we seek to avoid it. We ask for your assistance in this regard. Ifyou decide not to issue the requested withdrawal, please consider this the notice of intent to file CEQA action. PRC 21167.5; Graham v. Dainilei Clv'y.sler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553. Thank you, /S/Briaii Gaffney Brian Gaffney cc: Citizens Against Alcohol Manufacturing in Midtown

' Litigation, iffiled,will allege CEQA violalions for improper NOE issuance, and use of a categorical exemption despite a reasonable possibility that the Project will have significant environmental effects, and inconsistencies wilh zoning and geiieral plan. ^May 19"'was a Sunday.

130181

I\OIK;I:OI'KXKIMI'I'IOIN

'fO:

X County Clerk County oi'-Sncinnicnio Ofiice ol'Pliiniiinj; .ind Rcsearcli l.'IOn lOili Stvcci, Room 121 -Siicraniento, CA 9.5 SI-I

I'ltOM;

Cily (il'S;icranieiiio Coiiiiniiniiy l^cvolopniciit l.lepi.. linvironnicntal Plunnini; Services 300 Kidiiird-; Mlvil., .^rii l- lofir SiicriMncnlo. CAO^Sil

ACriVITY/l'llQ.JI'CI' '1 ITLl-:: Mill Supply liuiUlini; (I'l^-flltll

AC'nvi'i\7i'iu;ui':cf
Cri'V; .S;icriniienlii

LOCATION;

2.11.1 R sr. fAPNS: 007-o.r-i-o 1 1v

COllN'rV: SiicranicMlo

DliSCllll'TIOiN 01' AC I'lVITV/l'liO.lKCrr: Spccinl I'eniiil fbr ;i beer tn-sling moni :IIKI n wine tiLslliu- room (nlcoliol .sales) In Ihc Kcsiilciitiiil MixocI i.hc R Sircct Corridor .Special I'kinniMg Dislrici (RiVIX-Si'O) /one. Do.'iiLjn Roviow thr c.vtcrior liiodificntioiis lo iiii cxisiini; commercial hnililing in the R Street Corridor Design ReviuwDislrici. NAMIi; Ol'- I'Ulff.lC AGKNCV At'l'UOVINC ACI I Vri V/t^llO.lt'Xrr: CilvorSaeraiiienlo NAMK. OK l>KRS0^7AG^^iNCV CAUUYI.NG ODT ACriVrrY/l'RO.JI'X'T: .lim Oucssciiherrv. -100 S .Slroel. SiK-r:nnento. CA'j.SSI I . Telephone: ';i(;--|:l2-lir.3r)TKIi; CITVOI'-.SACRAiMliNTO ITiNIXSTIlAT TIlK ACl IVri V/PltO.IK.C 1' IS KXKiMI'T. li.vcmpi .Sialiis: (Check One) [ [ [ [ [ [ ] j ] I ] ) Activity is not n project as delincd in Section 15:?7f< [.Section l.')Or>l(l))(I)] Aelivily has no iiolciilini Ibr causing a sitinincant clled on lite cnviroinueni |.Sect inn 1506i('h)('')l SlaUilorial l-.ve nipt ion [.Scciion '210S()(l>XS)l .Vlinisle'rial l:.\emplioii fScelion I.S368I Declared I'lnerijeMcy llxcniplion [Section l.')269(n)J tiniergcncyProject fSection l.^:?l')|){l)) and (o)I Calcijorical li.veniplion-Siale Class 22 f nd Section Niinil)er(s) l.V.1.12

[ XJ

KKASON'S WIIV ACTIVIT'SYi'KO.I KCT IS KXIMMI'T: ihc project i.s consistent with the appiicahle general plan desigiiaiioii and policicii and /.oiiing, occnr.s willn'n cily h'niits on a project site of no more than live acres suhslaniially siu'ronndcd hy urban uses, and approval would luit rcsull in any sijinilicanl clVccis rclalinii. lo noise, Irallic, air or UMier quality, 'Iho |)rojcci has no habitat value liirendangered, rare, nr Ihrealencflspecies, andean bc ade<|uately.scr\cd hyall required utilities and|.uiblieservices. COiN'TACT I'liltSON: Susanne Cook, Associate Planner

Ti';Li';niOiNi':: ^in-xo.s-Sjv.s o.-vii;n;

^/'T'A;

POSTeO I.W SACpmPMro co. CLG(^l<-Rh'CORt:)l:l^{

FROM: J3lll J3_

TO:. J A ( M J ^ ,

 i .

Community Development Department

300 Richards Boulevard 3rd floor ^Sa^ramento/CA pSSI 1 Hdp Line: (916)264-5011 ', U^^f . v - ^ ^ ^
.'.r'^\

Date: . S r L ^ g " ^ R To the Planning Director: I do hereby malte application to appeal the decloion of th Cliy Planning Commission on .C-^ - y-? (hearing date), for project numbsr P _iz.jz-D.lf O (dnio)

Special Penviit Variance "R" Review Othr __c&Q4= ^y

for fof for Granted by the City Planning Commiaalon Denied by the City Planning Commi88ion .JAAL.0ja:?."^^}12^-:SOCicx

Property Location: ^y.^^f^ ^ .sttrx?pf s.r. <vsik//,

Grounds For Appeal: (SKplaim In detail, you may attach additional pagm)

Appellant: J^^g,^,::^^^ Address: ji^cuJl^^j/^,,^_s^^^

Dayiiins Phone:

L3JU!:fS:3.,s2iJ^

Appellant's Signature: _ J . - < W ^ x . . . . . ^ . y ^

Ploaio nola (tal onoo (l^lii opptloalian |3 cMbmliWd lo llio Cily ol 6sar.\wn'o, loir Ir/ixmcUoo may ba Mtiack lo public rucoitf. ]-kmavor, plojsw nolo llirl Dm Cily vi1 iiol!) i'Our<)clxi or InfofinslJonternny putfosas.

THIS 0OK FOR OFFICE USE 0\!LY Filing Fee Reueivad; Applicant ($1,192) Or Third Party ($208) RecQivGdBy; Date:
DlaWbut Copies to: Planning Director

Zoning Adminletretor

Original & ReD8lpt In Fits

CDD-008S

Revised 03-11-2011

Pago 1 of f

Reoson for Appeal fnnppiopiiate Locdtion for iPublic Alcohol Uses TJie Mill Supply bnilcling site is located in an almost completely residential area. The site is siinoimded by housing to the north, east and south. There ate many homes located well within a 100' radius of the site (something of great concern (o ABC, particularly inligJitof fhe 'undue concentration' of nlcoliol Iicciise.s already existing in Midtown). Tliere isa longeslablished preschool/childcare cenier just 380 feet away (again of great concern to ABC). There is also n school which offers Frencli clas.ses for cliildren located in (he established arts center directly behind the building just a few feet away (again an ABC concern). If this were new constmction, eighty (80) percent of it would have to be residenfial. Alcoiioi venues such as fhis have; led to public nuisance problems ns well ns public safety and welfare concerns due to noise, crime (as docniTicnted in the problem statement fhe police Department submitted aa part of its 2012/13 apph'cation for ABC's Grant Assistance to Local Law enforcement program) nnd public dnmkenness in of Iter areas of Midtown. There is no way that any business that sells alcohol to the public con bc conditioned so fhat surrounding residents (the nearest 25 feet away) are protected and their 'right to quiet enjoyment of property' is presei-ved. The sireet parking in the area wil! be adversely affected making it impossible for residents to park near their homes and creating a safety ond welfare issue for residents reliiming home after dork. The January 14,2010 meeting ofthe then Planning, now Planning and Design Commission, was an orientation for comnu'ssioners. That orientation included the following guideline for comniis.'iioners: A Special Use Permit cannot be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or result in fhe creation of a nuisance. Because the area around fhe Mill Supply site is so strongly residential nnd flic impacts are potentially so severe, approval ofthe Special Use Permit allowing public alcohol sales violates the above guideline Unnnswered Enviioninciitnl Questions and Inappropriate Location for Alcohol Mfl"foc^m''"g In order for a project lo be exempted from GEQA. Section 15300.2 states lhat it..shall NOT be used for an activity where there is a rensouable )[io.<iflibillty that the activity will have a .ilgnlflcinit effect on the enviromnent due to unusunl citi'CHiu.9fflHCcs. Members of the public raised quesfions about the environmental impacts of beer nnd wine manufacturing. Tiiese. include, but are not limited tQcheniicals released as a result ofthe manufncfuring process; potential for unpleasant smells; impacts of manufncturing discharges on the sewer system, soil aud groundwater; over-use of the water supply; confainiimtes fhat may already exist nt the project site; ond what federal, sfate or local environmental Inws apply and what agencies would be responsible. Staff was unablo lo answer these questions. Wifhont answers to fhe.ie questions, the Planning and Design Commission had no valid basis for approving the exemption tVom CEQA. Tlie environmental concerns previously listed could also be detrimental fo the jjublic health, safety and welfare making it inappropriate fo grant the Special Use Permit as well.

Staff Hrrora and Onii.?sions Both the staff-report and .staff presentation contained significant errors and omissions that may have affected the Planning and Design Commission vole. And there is an additional environmental-health concern and that is the historical use of the i>roperty a a an industrial grade equipment nnd hardware diafribution center in what was an industrial corridor. What kind of contaminates are already there? We don't know and neither docs the city if staff is not willing to conduct nn environmental .study, Do wc really want people consuming alcohol lhat may have been made in a pofenfially contaminated enviroimient?

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

OITY OF SACRAMENTO v/'.w/.cllyofsacfaniento.Ofg Help Una; 311 (Cily Residents) OR 1-91G-26'1-5011 Inspedion Request; 1-91Q-808-7622

300 RICHARDS BOULEVARD, 3rd FLOOR SACRAMENTO. CA BS811-0210

Recorti Nuinbar;

Current Status: Parcel No: sue Address:

In Progress 007-033'1-011 Q O O O 2533 R ST

Print Dale: Mny 20, 2013 Project No.: P1510Q001 (I'W)

ConTRACTOR

OWNER MILL SUPPLY LLC 400 S ST SACRAMENTO CA 950)1

APPLICANT Mill Supply LLC Jin) Quessenberry 400 S Street Sacramenio. CA 95811

FEE DETAIL
Class U 230 Fco Dflscrlpllon Appeal-City Council-Third Paily - 236

CASHIER FEE SUMMARV Balitnco Duo S 298.00 $ 290.00 Claao it 236 Balanco Duo S 298.00 $ 290.00

1 2

TROOF OF SERVICE 1 . am a citizen ofthe United States, eniployed in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

3 My business address is 329 Bryant St., Suite 3D, San Francisco, CA 94107. 1 am over the age of 18 years 4 and not a party lo the above entitled action. On .Tune 13, 2013,1 served the following document: 5
LETTER 1 ^ : NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CEQA ACTION

6 on the parlies designated on the attached service list by placing said document into a sealed envelope 7 addressed to the parlies designated on the atiached service list; and 8 9
10 [ J By First Class Mail 11 12 1 3 I X ] By Overnight FedEx 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30
UPPE OAFFNEV VVAONER LLP
i r , v t Bt . V . I 3 J Ttl J I S - Z ^ W J

MANNER OF SERVICE (check all that apply) In the ordinary course of business, I caused each such envelope to be placed in the custody of the United States Postal Service, with first-class postage thereon fully prepaid in a sealed envelope. I caused such envelope to bc placed in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an enveloi)e or package designated by the express service carrier with deliveryfeespaid or provided. I caused such document to be served via facsimile electronic equipment transmission (fax) on the parties in this action by transmitting a true copy to the follovving fax numbers listed under each addressee below. 1 caused such document to be served via electronic equipment transmission (email) on the parlies in this action listed on the attached service list by transmitting a true copy lo the email addresses listed on the attached service list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error on June 13, 2013.

[ X ] By Facsimile

[ X J By Electronic Mail

1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true

25 and correct. Executed on June 14, 2013, in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

^ Amelia Mooney

//

Proof of Service; Case No (TBA).

1 Mr. Jeffrey Heeren City ofSacramenlo 2 Senior Deputy City Attorney 3 Fax:916-808-7455 Jheeren@cityorsacramento.org

4 5

G:\Sacraiiieiito Brcw'eri'CorrXCoimscKCOOl POS re Notice to AG CliQA suit .wpd

6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
LIPPE GAFFNEY WAONERLLP 3?7lJr,lMSt.S;i 3J $S.-frrBiX:uo.CA0J|D7 Fj.. t\^1Jf\i.'}

Proof of Seivice; Case No (TBA).

EXHIBIT

Thomas N. LIppe ipP OSlil'tlSy WSQflSif L L P www.lgwlawyers.com Brian Gaffney Keith G. Wagner
SAN FRANCISCO 329 Bryant St., Ste. 3D, San Francisco, CA 94107 T 415.777.5600 F 415.777.9809 SACRAWIENTO 9333 Sparks Way, Sacramento, CA 95827 T 916.361.3887 F 916.361.3897

Kelly A. Franger Henry A. Steinberg

June 14,2013

Via U.S. Mail

Hon. Kamala D. Harris Attorney General State of California Office of the Attorney General 13001 Sireet, lllh Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Notice of Intent to Bring Action as Private Attorney General: Cilizens Against Alcohol Mainifactiii'ing in Micilown, el al. v. Cily of Sacramenio, et al, (Mill Supply, PI 2-040)

Dear Attorney General Harris: Puisuant to section 21167.7 ofthe Public Resources Code, 1 am furnishing your office with a copy ofthe Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in the above referenced case. If necessary, any subsequent supplemental or amended pleadings will be forwarded. Please note that Petitioner is bringing this action as a private attorney general pursuant to section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and any other applicable laws. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian Gaffney

\\t.g\v-seivcr\bB\Siicraiucmo Bio\very\Coir\Coiinsel\COOIa Notice to AC CEQA siiil.wpd

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 am a citizen ofthe United States, employed in the City and Coutity of San Francisco, Calilbtnia.

3 My business addiess is 329 Bryant St., Suite 3D, San Francisco, CA 94107. 1 am over the age of 18 years 4 and not a party to the above entitled action. On June 14, 2013,1 served the Ibllowing document: 5
PETITION FOR WlUT OF IVIANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6 on the parties designated on the attached service list by placing said document into a sealed envelope 7 addressed to the parties designated on the attached service list; and 8 9
10 11 12 13 [ 1 By Overnight FedEx 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
I declare under penalty of peijury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true I I By Electronic Mail [ j By Facsimile X) By First Class Mail MANNER OF SERVICE (check all that apply) In the ordinary course of business, 1 caused each such envelope to be placed in the custody of the United States Postal Service, with fiist-class postage thereon fully prepaid in a sealed envelope. 1 caused such enveloi)e to be placed in a box or other facilily regularly maintained by the express service carrier or delivered to an aulhorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided. I caused such document to be served via facsimile electronic equipment transmission (fax) on the parties in this action by transmitting a true copy to the following fax numbers lisled under each addressee below. I caused such document to be served via electronic equipment transmission (email) on the parties in this action listed on the attached service list by transmitting a true copy to the email addresses listed on the attached service list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error on June 14, 2013.

25 and collect. Executed on June 14, 2013, in the City and County of San Francisco, California. 26 27 28 29 30
UPPE GAFFNEY WAONER LLP
I t ! 4I5.T)7.M<:0

Amelia Mooney

Proof of Service; Case No (TBA).

4 6 7

Hon. Kamala D. Harris Attorney General 2 State of California Office of the Attorney General 3 13001. Slreel Sacramento, CA 95814

G.XSacrimicnto Urcwcry\Corr\Co(insel\COOI POS rc Noiice lo AG CI-.QA suit .wpd

8 9
10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
LIPPE OAFFMEV WAONER LLP
T t l ^lt.T7(.ML-J

-11-

Pioof of Service; Case No (TBA).