WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93720
Telephone: (559) 233-4800
Facsimile: (559) 23 3-9330

John P. Kinsey #215916
ik?insev@wj I11
Rebecca S. Maddox #320316
rmaddox@Wihattornevs . corn

Attorneys for: Petitioners and Plaintiffs DAVID RODRIGUEZ, an individual; SARAH
KOLB, an individual; TIMOTHY TAIRA, an individual; SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER ACCESS CORPORATION, a California Non-Pro?t Corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO

CENTRAL DIVISION
DAVID RODRIGUEZ, an individual; Case N0.
SARAH KOLB, an individual; TIMOTHY
TAIRA, an individual; SAN JOAQUIN VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
RIVER ACCESS CORPORATION, a MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
California Non-Profit Corporation INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, RELIEF

v.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

CONSERVANCY, a California Public
Agency; SANTOS GARCIA, in his
of?cial capacity as a Director .of the San
Joaquin River Conservancy; JULIE
VANCE, in her official capacity as a
Director of the San Joaquin River
Conservancy; JOHN DONNELLY, in his
of?cial capacity as a Director of the San
Joaquin River Conservancy; JENNIFER
LUCCHESI, in her of?cial capacity as a
Director of the San Joaquin River
Conservancy; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

Respondents and Defendants.

 

 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs David Rodriguez, Sarah Kolb, Timothy Taira, and San
Joaquin River Access Corporation (collectively, ?Petitioners? or ?P1aintiffs?)
1

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENLNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 





 

 

submit this Veri?ed Petition for a Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse Condemnation

and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the ?Petition?), stating claims against Respondents and

Defendants the San Joaquin River Conservancy (the ??Conservancy?), and Santos Garcia, Julie

Vance, John Donnelly, and Jennifer Lucchesi, in their of?cial capacities as Directors of the

Conservancy (collectively, ?Respondents? or ?Defendants?), as set forth below.
INTRODUCTION

l. On or about December 13, 2017, after several contentious meetings, the
Conservancy approved the San Joaquin River West, Eaton Trail Extension Project (?Project?),
which included developing public access and a parking lot at a location adjacent to Palm
Avenue and Nees Avenue in the City of Fresno. This point of access was referred to during the
administrative process as ?Alternative 

2. The Conservancy approved Alternative 5B through its Resolution 17-02, which
stated that the Conservancy Board may decline to proceed with Alternative 5B if ?reasonable
progress is not made toward implementing Alternative 5B within one year of approval,? with
the requirement that ?all parties? act in ?good faith.?

3. The Conservancy Board defined ?reasonable progress? as the achievement of
five Benchmarks within one year after the approval of Alternative 5B: (1) SJ acquisition
of approximately 11 acres of land for the parking lot and public access called the ?Spano
Property?; (2) receipt of a post-closure land use plan for the Spano Property; (3) the
City of Fresno?s approval of exceptions and variances to the Bluff Protection Overlay District
and tree removal ordinance required to implement Alternative (4) resolution of
certain issues raised by the Board at its December 2017 meeting associated with the Spano
easement ?to the Conservancy Board?s satisfaction?; and (5) negotiation of an access
easement for public use in favor of a willing public agency for the Spano property (collectively,
the ?Benchmarks?). In addition to these Benchmarks, SJ RAC was to report its progress to the
River West Fresno and North Palm Access Implementation Work Group (the ?Work Group?)
consisting of collaborating agencies and entities jointly involved and responsible for completing

the Benchmarks. The Conservancy Board also requested progress reports throughout the year.

2

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

4. In reliance on Resolution No. 17-02, and at the direction of Conservancy Staff
and Board Members, SJRAC fully discharged its obligation to make ?reasonable progress? in
?good fait by meetingw?and exceeding?each of the Benchmarks, expending significant time
and resources in the process. Speci?cally, SJRAC: (1) acquired and recorded title to the Spano
Property (in addition to other properties); (2) obtained a Post-Closure Land Use Plan that was
approved by the County of Fresno Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board; (3) received the necessary approvals from the City of Fresno; (4) completed and
recorded the Spano Easement, with the edits speci?cally requested by the Conservancy Board in
December 2017 (and, although not required under Resolution 17-02, subsequent public
meetings); and (5) negotiated a ?nal draft of the public access easement with the Wildlife
Conservation Board 

5. Although SJRAC and others met each of the Benchmarks, the Conservancy
ultimately determined ?reasonable progress? had not been made, based on factors not stated in
Resolution 17-02, and not'articulated to SJRAC and the public until after it was too late for
Petitioners to resolve any alleged concerns. Moreover, the Conservancy and others failed to act
in ?good faith? toward the implementation of Alternative 5B, acted with impermissible bias
against Petitioners (openly calling them declined to provide Petitioners a fair
hearing on the merits, and violated Petitioners? rights under state and federal law.

6. Petitioners have therefore been forced to seek relief from this Court, and through
this Petition seek: (1) a writ of mandate pursuant to Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to set aside the Conservancy?s action on February 27, 2019; (2) damages as a
result of the Conservancy?s inverse condemnation of land acquired by SJRAC to implement
Alternative and (3) a declaratory judgment pursuant to Section 1060 of the Code of Civil
Procedure ?nding that each of the Benchmarks articulated in Resolution 17-02 were met.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Petitioner and Plaintiff David Rodriguez is a resident of Pinedale, California, and

lives close to the intersection of Palm and Nees. As a citizen of Pinedale, Mr. Rodriguez hopes

to visit the Eaton Trail at a location close to his neighborhood. Mr. Rodriguez is concerned

3

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COWLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJ CTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

about the Conservancy?s determination that ?reasonable progress? on Alternative 5B had not
been made, as this ?nding will result in delayed access to the Eaton Trail, and may result in
access being developed at a far less convenient location, Riverview Drive. Mr. Rodriguez is
also bene?cially interested in the Project?s impact on roads, infrastructure, and the surrounding
community, and participated in the administrative process leading up to the Conservancy
Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

8. Petitioner and Plaintiff Sarah Kolb is a resident of Fresno, California. As a
Fresno City resident, Ms. Kolb hopes to visit the Eaton Trail to access the San Joaquin River for
recreational purposes. Ms. Kolb is also concerned about the Conservancy?s determination that
?reasonable progress? on Alternative 5B had not been made, as this finding will signi?cantly
delay access to the Eaton Trail. Ms. Kolb is also bene?cially interested in the Project?s impact
on roads, infrastructure, and Fresno community, and participated in the administrative process
leading up to the Conservancy Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

9. Petitioner and Plaintiff Timothy Taira is a retired traf?c engineer and resident of
the community adjacent to the Project. Mr. Taira?s residence is located near the proposed
parking lot for Project Alternative 1. Mr. Taira is also concerned about'the Conservancy?s
determination that ?reasonable progress? on Alternative SB had not been made, as this ?nding
will signi?cantly delay access to the Eaton Trail. Mr. Taira is also bene?cially interested in the
Project?s impact on roads, infrastructure, and impact on his neighborhood and community, and
participated in the administrative process leading up to the Conservancy Board?s decision on
February 27, 2019. I

10. Petitioner San Joaquin River Access Corporation is a California Non?
Pro?t Public Bene?t Corporation based in Fresno, California. The purpose of SJRAC is to
ensure reasonable public access to the San Joaquin River and the Fresno River West, Eaton
Trail Extension. Several members of SJRAC reside in the area affected by the proposed
Project?s environmental impacts. Several of its members and representatives have made
objections both in writing and/or orally prior to the close of the public meetings held by the

Conservancy evaluating the project as described herein. SJ RAC is beneficially interested in this

4

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUN CTIVE RELIEF 

 

 





 

 

matter because it owns the property that was the subject of Alternative 5B, and has a direct
interest in ensuring that the Respondents ful?ll their duties to comply with State law and the
Conservancy?s own Resolutions. SJRAC also has an interest in preserving and protecting, for
the general public, the environment and character of the San Joaquin River West, Eaton Trail
Extension.

11. Respondent San Joaquin River Conservancy (the ?Conservancy?) is a regionally
governed public agency created by the San Joaquin River Conservancy Act, Public Resources
Code 32500 et seq. The purpose of the Conservancy is to acquire and manage public lands
within the San Joaquin River Parkway and coordinate efforts and mediate differences among
the local jurisdictions and the state. The Conservancy adopted Resolution No. 17-02 in
December 2017, and is the body that made the determinations on February 27, 2019, that are the
subject of this action.

12. Respondent and Defendant Santos Garcia is a Councilmember from the City of
Madera and serves as the Vice Chair on the Conservancy Board of Directors. At all times herein
mentioned after January 1, 2019, Respondent Garcia participated in the Conservancy Board of
Directors actions, including the Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

13. Respondent and Defendant Julie Vance is a Regional Manager-for the Department
of Fish and Wildlife and serves as a Member on the Conservancy Board of Directors. At all
times herein mentioned, Respondent Vance participated in the Conservancy Board of Directors
actions, including the Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

14. Respondent and Defendant John Donnelly is the Executive Director of the
Wildlife Conservation Board and serves as a Member on the Conservancy Board of Directors.
At all times herein mentioned, Respondent Donnelly participated in the Conservancy Board of
Directors actions, including the Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

15. Respondent and Defendant Jennifer Lucchesi is the Executive Officer of the State
Lands Commission and serves as aMember on the Conservancy Board of Directors. At all
times herein mentioned, Respondent Lucchesi participated in the Conservancy Board of

Directors actions related to the Project, including the Board?s decision on February 27, 2019.

5

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEIWNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

16. Petitioners are unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents
?ctitiously named Does 1 through 20 and sues such respondents by fictitious names. Petitioner
is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the ?ctitiously named respondents are
also responsible for the actions described in this Petition. When the true identities and
capacities of these Respondents have been determined, Petitioners will amend this petition, with
leave of the court if necessary, to insert such identities and capacities. Whenever the terms
?Conservancy,? the ?Conservancy Board,? ?Garcia,? ?Vance,? ?Donnelly,? ?Lucchesi,?
?Respondents,? or ?Defendants? are used herein, said terms shall be construed as including
Respondents and Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.

Petitioners and/or their members have performed any and all conditions precedent
to the ?ling of this Petition. Petitioner SJRAC, its members and representatives exhausted any
and all administrative remedies required by law by, inter alia, participating in the administrative
process both in writing and orally at the February 27, 2019 hearing before the Conservancy
Board.

18. Petitioners will also be filing a request concerning the preparation of the record of
administrative proceedings relating to this action concurrently with this Petition.

19. Petitioners have 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 determination that ?reasonable progress? had not been made on Alternative 5B. In the
absence of such remedies, Respondents? determination will remain in effect in violation of state
law, Petitioners and other residents within the vicinity of the Project will be irreparably harmed.
No money damages or legal remedy could adequately compensate Petitioners and those
residents and property owners for that harm.

20. Venue in Fresno County Superior Court is proper pursuant to sections 393 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and Section 955 of the Government Code. The San Joaquin River
Conservancy is situated in the County of Fresno, and the Project at issue is located within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the County of Fresno.



6

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF NIANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTWE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

21. The San Joaquin River West, Eaton Trail Extension Project (?Project?) includes
the extension of the San Joaquin River Parkway trail by 2.4 miles from Perrin Avenue near
Woodward Park to Spano Park in the City of Fresno. Though planning for the Project began
well over a decade ago, implementation has been hindered by disagreements, including about
where the Project should provide public access to the trail. The Proj ect?s Environmental Impact
Report proposes building a parking lot at Perrin Avenue as well as potential additional
access at one of six action alternatives. Two Alternatives?Alternative 1 and Alternative SBW
both propose developing additional public vehicle access and a 40~car parking lot, but at
different locations. Alternative 1 proposes developing a public road off of West Riverview
Drive in a residential neighborhood to a parking lot that is far from the San Joaquin River, and
that is not close to public transportation. Alternative 5B, in contrast, proposes developing a
public access road near the intersection of Palm Avenue and Nees Avenue to a parking facility
that is close to the San Joaquin River and nearby public transportation.

22. On or about December 13, 2017, the Conservancy Board held a public meeting to
approve the Project and one of the access alternatives. Following staff recommendation, the
Conservancy Board adopted Resolution 17-02 approving Alternative 5B and directing the staff
and all other parties to work in ?good faith? toward developing Alternative 5B. Resolution 17-

02 states:

With the understanding that all parties shall be acting in good faith, if, in
the Board?s sole discretion, reasonable progress is not made toward
implementing Alternative 5B within one year of this approval, the Board
by majority vote may direct staff to evaluate and prepare Alternative 1 as
analyzed in the Final EIR for Board approval and to rescind approval of
Alternative 5B.

Resolution 17~02 de?ned ?reasonable progress? as five specific Benchmarks for
SJRAC to meet over the following year:
1. Acquire approximately 11 acres of land for the access road and
parking lot called the ?Spano Property?;

7

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

2. Create and receive approval for post-closure land use plan for the
Spano Property;
3. Secure exceptions and variances to the Bluff Protection Overlay
District and tree removal ordinance from the City of Fresno.
4. Resolve issues associated with an easement on the Spano Property
(?Spano easement?) ?to the Conservancy Board?s satisfaction?; and
5. Secure an easement for public use in favor of a willing public agency
and recorded for the Spano Property, or, alternatively, the
Conservancy shall investigate acquiring fee title ownership of the
Spano Property.
Resolution l7~02 required SJ RAC to report its progress to the Conservancy Board and the River
West Fresno and North Palm Access Implementation Work Group (?Work Group?) and
participating parties throughout the year. Parties participating in the Work Group?and
obligated to work in ?good fait toward the implementation of Alternative SB?u?included the
Conservancy Staff and Board, Fresno County, the City of Fresno, the Wildlife Conservation
Board, and the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust (the ?Parkway Trust? or
among others.

23. Throughout the year following the adoption of Resolution 17-02, SJRAC worked
diligently and in good faith with the Conservancy Staff and parties to the Work Group to meet
each Benchmark articulated in Resolution No. 17?02. SJRAC incurred signi?cant expenses
related to implementing Resolution 17-02, including, but not limited to, acquiring title to the
Spano Property (and two additional properties that could be used for additional parking),
negotiating the easements and incorporating Conservancy Board input, conducting
environmental studies, and applying for and defending approvals received from the City of
Fresno. SJRAC reported its progress and addressed concerns from participating parties and the
Conservancy at numerous Work Group meetings and Conservancy Board meetings throughout
the year. These efforts to implement Alternative 5B also received extensive support from

numerous leaders in local government, including the Mayor of the City of Fresno, the Fresno

8

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

City Council, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the State Senators representing the
region surrounding the Project.

24. On January 9, 2019, the Conservancy Board held a public meeting during which
the Conservancy Staff would share its ?ndings that SJRAC made ?reasonable progress? on the
Benchmarks required by Resolution 17-02 and recommendation to continue implementing
Alternative 5B. Conservancy Staff speci?cally determined SJRAC had made reasonable
progress on the Benchmarks, and thus recommended the Conservancy continue implementing
Alternative 5B. Despite SJ diligent work, and against the ?ndings and recommendations
of Conservancy Staff, however, the Conservancy Board sought to unwind the progress made for
Alternative 5B.

25. At the January 9, 2019 meeting, the Conservancy Board voted the Benchmarks
for Alternative 5B were not met and instead directed staff to proceed with Alternative 1.
Because those approvals were not agendized, SJRAC noti?ed the Conservancy Board of its
actions violated California?s open meeting laws (118., the Brown Act), causing the Conservancy
Board to rescind its vote and conduct a subsequent, properly agendized, public hearing on the
matter.

26. On or about February 27, 2019, the Conservancy Board held another public
meeting to evaluate whether SJ RAC met the Benchmarks presented by Alternative 5B. Again,
the Conservancy Staff found SJRAC made reasonable progress required by Resolution 17-02
and recommended the Conservancy Board continue implementing Alternative 5B. Members of
SJRAC and supporters raised numerous concerns in writing prior to the meeting and in oral
testimony during the meeting that voting to not move forward with Alternative 5B would result
in signi?cant damages to SJRAC, raise legal claims against the Conservancy and others, and
result in signi?cant costs and delays. SJRAC and its members also raised concerns about bias
and failure of the Conservancy and participating agencies and Board Members failing to act in
good faith to implement Alternative 5B.

27. At the end of the February 27, 2019 meeting, however, the Conservancy Board

ultimately foundmwithout evidentiary basism?that reasonable progress somehow had not been

9

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR IN VERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

made on Alternative 5B. The Conservancy Board has now directed staff to cease work on
Alternative 5B and reconsider Alternative 1, signi?cantly delaying public access to the Project
and the San Joaquin River.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate?~Violation of Resolution No. 17-02
(All Respondents, and DOES 1-20)

28. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
27 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

29. On or about December 13, 2017, the Conservancy Board adopted Resolution 17-
02 approving Alternative 5B, but also stating the Conservancy Board may decline to proceed
with Alternative 5B if ?reasonable progress is not made toward implementing Alternative 5B
within one year of approval.? Resolution 17-02 also required ?all parties? act in ?good faith?
with respect to the implementation of Alternative 5B.

30. The Conservancy Board de?ned ?reasonable progress? as the achievement of the
?ve Benchmarks within one year after the approval of Alternative 5B.

31. Thus, the Conservancy had a legal duty to proceed with the implementation of
Alternative 5B so long as ?reasonable progress??de?ned as the achievement of the
Benchmarks?was met by the parties acting in ?good fait 

32. In reliance on Resolution No. 17-02, and at the direction of Conservancy Staff
and Board Members, SJRAC fully discharged its obligation to make ?reasonable progress? in
?good fait by meeting each of the Benchmarks. Specifically, SJRAC: (1) acquired and
recorded title to the Spano Property; (2) negotiated a Post-Closure Land Use Plan approved by
the County of Fresno Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; (3)
received a development permit, variance, and tree removal permit from the City of Fresno; (4)
completed and recorded the Spano Easement to the Conservancy Board?s satisfaction; and (5)
negotiated a ?nal draft of the public access easement with a willing public agency, the WCB.



10

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COWLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUN CT IVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

33. Alternatively, to the extent any person could argue Benchmark No. 5 was not
met, any such obligation was either excused or made impossible by the actions or inactions of
the Conservancy staff and the Wildlife Conservation Board, and their failure to act in ?good
faith,? including the failure to commence negotiations on the public access easement until it was
too late to receive formal approval by WCB, and failure to provide a draft public access
easement to Petitioner that was acceptable to Conservancy staff until December 17, 2018.

34. The Conservancy failed to comply with its legal duty to proceed with the
implementation of Alternative 5B and reasonably construe Resolution 17-02. The
Conservancy?s ?nding that the Benchmarks had not been met was inconsistent with the express
language of Resolution l7~02, any reasonable interpretation of Resolution 17-02, California
law, and the ?ndings of the Conservancy?s own professional staff. Petitioners have a clear,
present, and legal right with respect to the Conservancy?s actions under, and construction of,
Resolution 17-02. Petitioner SJRAC was the party obligated under Resolution 17-02 tasked
with the completion of the majority of the Benchmarks. In addition, all Petitioners, and
members, have an interest in the development of Alternative 5B, which provides
access to the Eaton Trail at a convenient location adjacent to existing transportation nodes and a
commercial intersection, with a parking lot located conveniently adjacent to the San Joaquin
River.

35. As a result of the foregoing, the Conservancy also abused its discretion by acting
in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, and without evidentiary support.

36. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

37. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s ?nding that SJRAC (and others) purportedly did not
make reasonable progress meeting the Benchmarks.




ll

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 00 Ul 



 

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ of Mandate?Failure to Act in Good Faith in Violation of Resolution 17-02)
(All Respondents and DOES 1-20)

38. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
37 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

39. On or about December 13, 2017, the Conservancy Board adopted Resolution 17-
02 approving Alternative 5B. The Resolution also ordered that the Conservancy Board may
reconsider Alternative 1 if ?reasonable progress is not made toward implementing Alternative
5B within one year of approval,? with the requirement that ?all parties? act in ?good faith?
toward ?implementing Alternative The ?parties? that were required to act in ?good faith?
toward ?implementing Alternative included the Conservancy (including its board and
staff), the Conservancy?s member agencies (such as the Wildlife Conservation Board, the State
Lands Commission, and the City of Madera), and parties participating in the implementation of
Alternative SB (such as the Parkway Trust).

40. Thus, the Conservancy had a legal duty to ensure all parties participating in the
implementation of Alternative 5B acted in ?good fai Likewise, the Conservancy Board
members?and their respective agencies?had the obligation to act in ?good fait with respect
to the implementation of Alternative 5B. ?Good faith? included an obligation to assist in the
completion of the Benchmarks in a timely manner, and decline to act in a manner that could
impair, interfere with, hinder, or potentially injure the rights of Petitioner SJ RAC and others to
implement the Benchmarks.

41. In reliance on Resolution No. l7~02, and at the direction of Conservancy Staff
and Board Members, SJRAC fully discharged its obligation to act in ?good faith? to make
?reasonable progress? toward the implementation of Alternative 5B and complete the
Benchmarks articulated in Resolution 17?02.

42. Several parties who were required to act in ?good faith? under Resolution 17?02
violated the intent, spirit, and the letter of the resolution by actively thwarting SJ ability

to meet the Benchmarks. These efforts included, but are not limited to:

l2

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 



NMHI?Ah?dh?lh?tr?Av?r?tl?tI?t


 

 

A. The WCB staff and Conservancy Staff and legal counsel failed to
provide SJRAC a ?nal draft of the Public Access Easement that was ready for SJRAC to edit
until December 17, 2018. Despite this, SJRAC worked through the holiday season and fully
negotiated the draft Public Access Easement with WCB and Conservancy staff by January 4,
2019. While the Conservancy Board subsequently took the position that ?nal approval from
governing Board was required, Respondents knew?and were speci?cally advised by
Conservancy staff?that it was impossible to complete the multi-month process to receive
WCB ?nal approval and recordation in merely a few weeks before progress would be
reported at the January 9, 2019, Conservancy Board meeting. .

B. The WCB representative on the Conservancy Board, Respondent and
Defendant John Donnelly, persuaded the Conservancy Board that SJRAC failed to meet the
Public Access Easement Benchmark because SJRAC had not gone through a multi-month
process to secure a real property transaction review by the WCB Board. Director Donnelly
knew and understood it was impossible for SJRAC to secure such a review after his own
agency, WCB, failed to deliver a ?nal draft of the Public Access Easement that was ready for
SJRAC to edit until December 17, 2018. When confronted about this issue, Mr. Donnelly
blamed Conservancy staff for the delay?notwithstanding the fact that Conservancy staff itself
was obligated to act in ?good fai toward the implementation of Alternative SE.

C. The San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, Inc. (the
?Parkway Trust?) participated in the Work Group meetings concerning the implementation of
Alternative 5B, and is a long?time partner of the Conservancy. As a member of the Work
Group, the Parkway Trust was obligated to act in ?good faith? under Resolution 17-02 toward
?implementing Alternative The Parkway Trust, however, failed to act in good faith
toward the implementation of Alternative 5B. Instead of facilitating the implementation of
Alternative 5B, the Parkway Trust opposed Alternative 5B publicly and fomented opposition.
Instead of facilitating the project approvals required to develop Alternative 5B, the Parkway
Trust appealed the City of Fresno?s approval of the Development Permit, Variance, and Tree

Removal Permit required by Resolution No. 17-02. Parkway Trust staff publicly berated and

l3

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





yelled at the Conservancy?s Executive Director for making statements they construed as
supporting Alternative 5B following a City of Fresno Planning Commission meeting. The
Trust also failed to act in ?good faith? by mispresenting several material facts about
constructing, operating, and maintaining Alternative 5B and disseminating those
misrepresentations to the Conservancy Board and the public.

D. With the intent of hindering SJ negotiations to acquire the Spano
Properties, throughout 2018, Respondents requested numerous additions to the real estate
documents SJRAC was negotiating with Spano after the adoption of Resolution 17-02. Many
of these requested additions were legally super?uous or contrary to the Conservancy?s own
environmental documents. For example, members of the Conservancy Board required edits
that were duplicative of the existing legal effect of the documents, and also required SJRAC to
require Spano to agree to far more parking than was studied and authorized under the
Conservancy?s own environmental document.

E. The Conservancy Board?s ?nding that the Benchmarks was not met was
illogical, and contrary to the ?ndings of the Conservancy?s professional staff.

F. The Conservancy Board and its Board members relied on factors outside
of the Benchmarks required by Resolution 17-02 to make the determination that ?reasonable
progress? had not been made. For example, Respondent John Donnelly stated at the January 9,
2019, Conservancy Board meeting that Conservancy staff had failed to receive public access
easements from the City of Fresno and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, even
though Resolution 17-02 did not require such easements. Likewise, Director Vance relied
upon the fact that the City of Fresno had not yet agreed to fund operations and maintenance for
the entire Proj ect_even though this was not a requirement in the Benchmarks, and (ii) any
such obligation is contrary to the Conservancy?s enabling statute. (See Pub. Resources Code, 
32511 [stating that the Conservancy ?shall be responsible for operation and maintenance of the
parkway . . . 

G. The Conservancy Board ignored factual information from staff and

instead relied on misrepresentations about Alternative 5B fabricated by the Parkway Trust.

l4

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

H. The Conservancy Board relied on statements by the Parkway Trust that
Alternative 5B would remove mature sycamores. The Conservancy?s reliance on such
statements constitutes a lack of ?good fait because the Conservancy regularly removes
mature trees as part of its projects, and many of the trees to be removed were determined to
already be deceased. Further, mitigation measures required any removed tree to be replaced
with five more in its place.

I. Conservancy representatives stated in the hearing that Alternative 5B
would ?destroy the bluf This is also evidence of a failure to act in ?good fait toward the
implementation of Alternative 5B, as such statements are factually inaccurate and contrary to
the determination of the Conservancy?s professional staff. Moreover, Petitioners are informed
and believe, and based thereon allege, that such approvals aremand will be?Mrequired for other
Conservancy projects.

J. Instead of objectively evaluating whether SJRAC and others met the
Benchmarks, Director Santos and others instead referred to Petitioners during the
administrative process as 

43. Therefore, the Conservancy, its Board members, the Parkway Trust, and WCB
failed to act in ?good fait in violation of Resolution 17-02.

44. Petitioners have a clear, present, and legal right with respect to the requirement
that the Conservancy ensure all parties act in ?good faith? with respect to the implementation of
Alternative 5B, as required under Resolution 17-02. Petitioner SJRAC was the party obligated
under Resolution 17-02 tasked with the completion of the majority of the Benchmarks. In
addition, all Petitioners, and members, have an interest in the development of
Alternative 5B, which provides access to the Eaton Trail at a convenient location adjacent to
existing transportation nodes and a commercial intersection, with a parking lot located adjacent
to the San Joaquin River.

45. As a result of the foregoing, the Conservancy also abused its discretion by acting

in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, and without evidentiary support.


15

VERIFIED PETITION FOR 0F MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

46. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

47. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s decision to halt implementation of Alternative 5B, due
to the failure of the Conservancy, its Board Members, its member agencies, and other parties
participating in the Alternative 5B Work Group (such as the Parkway Trust) to act in ?good
faith? with respect to the implementation of Alternative 5B.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ of Mandate?Imposition 0f Unlawful Conditions on Alternative SB Implementation)
(All Respondents and DOES 1?20)

48. Petitioners re?allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
47 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

49. On or about December 13, 2017, the Conservancy Board adopted Resolution 17-
02 approving Alternative 5B, which approved Alternative 5B, but also ordered that the
Conservancy Board may decline to proceed with Alternative 5B if ?reasonable progress is not
made toward implementing Alternative 5B within one year of approval,? with the requirement
that ?all parties? act in ?good faith.? The Conservancy Board de?ned ?reasonable progress? as
the achievement of the five Benchmarks.

50. Thereafter, however, the Conservancy Board applied several conditions on
Alternative 5B that were contrary to law, which include, but are not limited to:

A. The Conservancy Board imposed several conditions on Alternative 5B
and SJ RAC that were not included within the Benchmarks, in violation of Resolution 17-02.

B. The Conservancy Board imposed several conditions on the development
of Alternative 5B after the approval of Resolution 17-02, interfering with right to
develop the-Spano Property consistent with the conditions articulated by the Conservancy
Board at the time of Project approval.



l6

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

C. To the extent Resolution 17-02 could be read as authorizing the
Conservancy Board to rely upon conditions other than the Benchmarks, several of those post
hoc conditions were contrary to law, including the Conservancy Board?s demand that third-
parties?and not the Conservancy?.qund operations and maintenance for components of the
Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, 32511 [stating that the Conservancy ?shall be
responsible for operation and maintenance of the parkway . . . 

D. To the extent Resolution 17-02 could be read as authorizing the
Conservancy Board to rely upon conditions other than the Benchmarks, several of those post
hoc conditions were particular to the project proponents, and not the property itself, and thus
void. (See Anza Parking Corp. v. City ofBurlingame (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 855, 858.)

E. To the extent Resolution 17?02 could be read as authorizing the
Conservancy Board to rely upon conditions other than the Benchmarks, there is no logical
nexus or reasonable relationship between several of the post hoc conditions imposed upon the
approval of Alternative 5B and the project?s alleged impacts. (See Dolan v. City of igard
(1994) 512 US. 374.)

F. To the extent that Resolution 17?02 could be read as authorizing the
Conservancy Board to rely upon conditions other than the Benchmarks, Resolution No. 17-02
is unlawfully ambiguous and vague, and failed to provide Petitioners and the public adequate
notice of the factors upon which the Conservancy Board would subsequently evaluate
Alternative SB.

G. To the extent that Resolution 17-02 could be read as authorizing the
Conservancy Board to rely upon conditions other than the Benchmarks, those conditions were
unlawful and unconstitutional because they were proposed after the expiration of the one-year
period, and thus too late for Petitioners to have reasonable notice of the Conservancy Board?s
subjective and unarticulated expectations.

51. .As a result of the foregoing, the Conservancy failed to proceed in a lawful matter

in implementing Alternative 5B following its approval of Resolution 17-02.



17

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJ UNCT IVE RELIEF

 

 





52. Petitioners have a clear, present, and legal right with respect to the requirement
that the Conservancy impose only lawful conditions on the approval of its projects, including
Alternative 5B. Petitioner SJRAC was the party obligated under Resolution 17-02 tasked with
the completion of the majority of the Benchmarks. In addition, all Petitioners, and 
members, have an interest in the development of Alternative 5B, which provides access to the
Eaton Trail at a convenient location adjacent to existing transportation nodes and a commercial
intersection, with a parking lot located conveniently adjacent to the San Joaquin River.

53. As a result of the foregoing, the Conservancy also abused its discretion by acting
in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, and without evidentiary support.

54. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

55. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s decision to halt implementation of Alternative 5B due
to the Conservancy?s imposition of unlawful conditions on the implementation of Alternative
5B.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ of Mandate??Failure Certain Board Members to Abstain from Decisions
Concerning Alternative SB)
(All Respondents and DOES 1-20)

56. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
55 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

57. California common law requires that public of?cers act with ?disinterested skill,
zeal and diligence primarily for the benefit of the public.? (Noble v. City of Palo Alto (1928)
89 Cal.App.47, 51.) As a result, project proponents enjoy the right to a fair and unbiased
decision-maker. (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 557; see also
City of Fair?eld v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 772.) Thus, a decisionmaker is

disqualified from participating in a matter if that decisionmaker is biased in favor or against a

18

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

party involved in that decision. (Nasha v. City of L05 Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470,
486; Clark v. City ofHermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152.)

58. Throughout the proceedings relating to Alternative 5B, several members of the
Board declined to abstain from considering the merits of Alternative 5B, even though they
exhibited impermissible bias against Petitioners and others who supported Alternative 5B and
were disquali?ed. This is based on several facts, including, but not limited to, the following:

A. Director Garcia and others openly derided Petitioners and their members
as I

B. Director Vance asserted on the record that she did not intend to apply the
same level of rigor to Alternative 1 that had been applied to Alternative SE.

C. Directors Vance, Donnelly, Garcia, and Lucchesi openly stated they
were relying upon extraneous and irrelevant factors to determine ?reasonable progress? on
Alternative 5B supposedly had not been made, which prohibited Petitioners and other
stakeholders the opportunity to address these issues prior to the Board?s decision not to
proceed with Alternative 5B.

D. Directors Vance, Donnelly, Garcia, and Lucchesi relied upon factors
other than the Benchmarks articulated in Resolution 17-02 to determine whether reasonable
progress had been made.

E. Several of the factors Directors Vance, Donnelly, Garcia, and Lucchesi
relied upon to reject Alternative 5B are commonplace with Conservancy projects, setting a
different standard for SJRAC. Indeed, Mr. Garcia openly stated his vote against Alternative
5B ?comes down to? his belief that Alternative 5B would ?destroy the bluff? and ?destroy
trees.? Conservancy projects, however, regularly involve the removal of trees. Moreover, in
addition to the fact that bluff, of course, will not be destroyed, Petitioners are informed and
believe, and based thereon allege, that Conservancy projects regularly require?-and will
continue to require?variances from the City?s Bluff Protection Ordinance.

F. Although WCB was tasked with providing SJRAC with a draft public
access easement at the beginning of 2018, WCB staff did not provide SJRAC with a draft

19

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COWLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

document in a timely manner. Indeed, Conservancy staff has conceded that did not
receive a draft of the easement acceptable to both the Wildlife Conservation Board and
Conservancy staff and legal counsel until December 17, 2018.? Despite this, SJRAC worked
over the holidays to ?nalize the easement prior to the Conservancyis review of the
Benchmarks on January 4, 2019. Nevertheless, Director Donnelly advised the Conservancy
Board on January 9, 2019, that SJRAC had not met the Benchmark concerning a public access
agreement because it had not gone through the formal real property review process at WCB,
which is a multi-month process. Securing such approval before January 9, 2019, of course,
was plainly impossible because WCB staff did not provide a draft easement to SJRAC with
sufficient time to seek WCB approval. Director Donnelly?s statements were procedurally
unfair, based on erroneous information, and failed to account for own delay, exhibiting
plain bias against Petitioners.

G. Director Lucchesi?s vote was determined by the State Lands
Commission prior to the Conservancy?s action on Alternative 5B, ensuring her vote
would not and could not change at the noticed hearing on the Alternative 5 B. Consistent with
the direction, Director Lucchesi has continued to oppose Alternative 5B in favor of
Alternative 1.

H. Director Lucchesi, as Executive Director, conducted SLC
meetings concerning the Project without providing notice to Petitioners (and only providing
adequate notice to the Parkway Trust), which had a material effect on SLC decisions
concerning Alternative 5B and Director Lucchesi?s vote on February 26, 2019. This lack of
notice caused then~Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and others to be misled into believing
the proponents of Alternative 5B simply did not care about the issue, as evidenced by his

statements on the record:

Seeing none, no one here advocating for SB. None of the folks that
were at that council meeting.

That was very helpful for me, the public comment [by the Parkway Trust
and its supporters], and the presentation. And it shows the value of

20

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COWLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

being here, and also suggests those that aren?t here may not feel as
strongly, or perhaps have con?icts, but curiously no one here to
oppose, which is interesting. [emphasis added]

Later during the hearing, Mr. Newsom stated he was initially ?open to
argumen about ?how to achieve access? to the Project, but that ?in the absence of the
alternative argument? being presented, he stated, don?t think this is a difficult decision for
this Commission.? [emphasis added]

59. As a result of the foregoing, and the participation of Board Members who were
disquali?ed from participating in the decision concerning whether SJRAC and others met the
Benchmarks articulated in Resolution 17-02, the Conservancy failed to proceed in a lawful
matter in implementing Alternative 5B following its approval of Resolution 17-02.

60. Petitioners have a clear, present, and legal right with respect to the requirement
that Conservancy projects be considered only by impartial and unbiased decisionrnakers.
Petitioner SJ RAC was the party obligated under Resolution 17-02 tasked with the completion of
the majority of the Benchmarks. In addition, all Petitioners, and members, have an
interest in the development of Alternative 5B, which provides access to the Eaton Trail at a
convenient location adjacent to existing transportation nodes and a commercial intersection,
with .a parking lot located conveniently adjacent to the San Joaquin River.

61. As a result of the foregoing, the Conservancy also abused its discretion by acting
in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, and lacking evidentiary support.

62. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

63. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s decision to halt implementation of Alternative 5 B, due
to the participation of several decisionmakers who were disqualified from participating in the
decision concerning Alternative 5B based on unlawful bias.




21

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Equitable Estoppel)
(All Respondents and DOES 1?20)

64. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
63 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

65. In adopting Resolution 17-02, the Conservancy actively misled Petitioners into
believing that, if SJRAC met the Benchmarks articulated in Resolution No. 17-02, the
Conservancy would continue with the implementation of Alternative 5B. The Conservancy
Board also represented in Resolution No. 17-02 that it would act in ?good faith? toward the
implementation of Alternative 5B.

66. At the time the above representations were made, the Conservancy knew and
intended that SJ RAC would rely on this representation. SJRAC, in turn, reasonably believed
that the Conservancy would rely upon the Benchmarks articulated in Resolution No. 17-02, and
that it would not decline to proceed with Alternative 5B if those Benchmarks had been met.

67. In reasonable and justi?ed reliance on the Conservancy Board?s vote approving
Alternative 5B and Resolution 17-02, SJRAC expended signi?cant resources to meet the
Conservancy?s Benchmarks, including: (1) acquiring title to the Spano property; (2) obtaining
an approved Post-Closure Land-Use plan; (3) acquiring the necessary approvals from the City
of Fresno; (4) resolving the concerns articulated by the Conservancy Board in December 2017
concerning the easement over the Spano Property; and (5) negotiating a Public Access
Easement for Alternative 5B to be developed over the Spano Property.

68. Despite this, the Conservancy ultimately declined to proceed with Alternative
5B, relying upon factors other than the Benchmarks articulated in Resolution 17?02.

69. Based on the foregoing, Respondents should be equitably estopped from halting
implementation of Alternative 5B. An actual controversy between Petitioners and Respondents
exists as to whether Respondents should be equitably estopped from determining reasonable
progress had not been made under Resolution 17-02, and Petitioners are entitled to such a

declaration from this Court.

22

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Substantive Due Process)
(All Respondents and DOES 1?20)

70. Petitioners re?allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
69 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

71. ?Substantive due process protects against arbitrary government action.? (County
ofSacramento 12. Lewis (1998) 523 US. 833; Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th
954, 960.) Conduct that violates Petitioners? right to due process includes failure to provide
adequate notice of governmental action, (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605,
607), repeated project denials and procedural errors in the approval process, (Cohan v. City of
Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Ca1.App.4th 547, 561), and through the failure to provide a fair
hearing. (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 90.)

72. The Conservancy violated Petitioners? right to substantive due process in several
ways. In addition to the facts stated in each and all of the above stated paragraphs, the
Conservancy violated Petitioners? due process rights by, among other things, relying upon
factors other than those articulated in Resolution No. 17-02, which failed to provide Petitioners
or the public with objective criteria for determining whether ?reasonable progress? had been
made; repeated project denials and procedural errors in the consideration of Alternative 5B, as
well as the lack of notice to SJRAC, its members, and the City of Fresno; making numerous
additional requests to the SJRAC relating to the real estate documents it was negotiating with
Spano; and the failure of the Conservancy, WCB, the Parkway Trust, and others to act in ?good
faith? toward the implementation of Alternative 5B, as stated in the previous Paragraphs above.

73. In addition, the Conservancy?s finding that SJRAC and others did not meet the
Benchmarks also violated Petitioners? right to substantive due process because the
Conservancy?s conduct was ?for the purpose of oppression,? amounted to an ?abuse of
governmental power that shocks the conscience,? and was ?legally irrational in that it is not
suf?ciently keyed to any legitimate state interest.? (Stabblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San
Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 711.)

23

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDENINATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

74. Petitioners have a clear, present, and legal right with respect to the requirement
that the Conservancy act in a manner that is not arbitrary, and provide Petitioners a fair hearing.
In addition, all Petitioners, and members, have an interest in the development of
Alternative 5B, which provides access to the Eaton Trail at a convenient location adjacent to
existing transportation nodes and a cowercial intersection, with a parking lot located
conveniently adjacent to the San Joaquin River.

75. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

76. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s decision to halt implementation of Alternative 5B, due
to the Conservancy?s arbitrary actions, and the failure to provide Petitioners with a fair hearing.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ-of Mandate Violation of Equal Protection)
(All Respondents and DOES 1-20)

77. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
76 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

78. ?The federal equal protection clause (US. Const, 14th Amend.) and its
California counterpart (Cal. Const, art. I, 7, subd. provide that persons who are similarly
situated with respect to legitimate purpose of a law must be treated alike under the law.
[Citations omitted] Equal protection challenges typically involve claims of discrimination
against an identi?able class or group of persons. The United States Supreme Court in Village of
Willowbrook v. Lock (2000) 528 US. 562, 564 (Olech), however, held that a plaintiff who does
not allege membership in a class or group may state a claim as a ?class of one.? (Las Lamas
Land Co., LLC v. City ofLos AngeZes (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 857.)

79. Respondents violated Petitioners? right to equal protection under the law.

Petitioners are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Respondents? unequal


24

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT OR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

treatment of Petitioners is clearly intentional, appears to be based on animus and the belief that
Petitioners are and is not based on any rational or legitimate basis.

80. Respondents also violated the equal protection clause because of its disparate
treatment of the SJRAC and the Parkway Trust and other similarly?situated Conservancy
projects and properties.

81. Petitioners have a clear, present, and legal right with respect to the requirement
that the Conservancy provide them equal treatment consistent with its Constitutional
obligations. In addition, all Petitioners, and members, have an interest in the
development of Alternative 5B, which provides access to the Eaton Trail at a convenient
location adjacent to existing transportation nodes and a commercial intersection, with a parking
lot located conveniently adjacent to the San Joaquin River.

82. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

83. Petitioners therefore request that the Court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to
Sections 1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court?s inherent equitable
powers, to invalidate the Conservancy?s decision to halt implementation of Alternative 5B, due
to the Conservancy?s differential treatment of Petitioners.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inverse Condemnation)
(All Respondents and DOES 1'20)

84. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
83 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

85. On or about December 13, 2017, the Conservancy Board adopted Resolution 17?-
02 approving Alternative 5B and requiring SJ RAC to make ?reasonable progress? by achieving
the five Benchmarks Within a year of the approval.

86. Petitioners reasonably and justi?ably relied on the Conservancy?s representation
in Resolution 17-02 that if reasonable progress were made meeting the Benchmarks presented

by Resolution 17-02, the Conservancy Board would continue implementing Alternative 5B.

2.5

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND TNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

 

Plaintiff also reasonably and justi?ably relied on the representations made by Conservancy Staff
on behalf of the Conservancy and at the direction of the Conservancy Board that if reasonable
progress was made by achieving the Benchmarks presented by Resolution 17-02, the
Conservancy Board would continue implementing Alternative 5B in ?good fait 

87. In reliance on Resolution No. 17-02 and at the direction of Conservancy Staff
and Board Members, SJRAC acquired three properties, recorded easements, and sought (and
received) numerous government approvals in furtherance of developing Alternative 5B for
public use on the Spano Property. Speci?cally, SJRAC acquired and recorded title to the Spano
Property, negotiated a Post-Closure Land Use Plan, which the Conservancy Board approved,
received a development permit, variance, and tree removal permit from the City of Fresno, and
completed and recorded the Spano Easement to the Conservancy Board?s satisfaction. In
addition, SJRAC conducted environmental studies, engineering studies, and took additional
actions at its own expense in furtherance of developing Alternative 5B for public access to the
San Joaquin River. Every action described here was performed by SJRAC for developing
Alternative 5B for public use. SJRAC also conducted numerous studies of the site for
compliance with the purposes of developing Alternative 5B on the site, such as environmental
and engineering reviews.

88. On February 27, 2019, the Conservancy damaged the value of the property by
voting to stop the implementation of Alternative 5B, despite the fact the Conservancy knew and
understood SJRAC made these signi?cant investments in reliance on Resolution 17-02.

89. The Conservancy?s decision resulted in a taking of property from SJRAC, and
SJ RAC has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

90. Respondents have performed actions in the foregoing paragraphs that have
damaged property, prevented SJRAC from having access to or using all of its
property, and interfering with reasonable investment-backed expectations.

91. The actions described herein have injured SJRAC. Respondents have not paid
compensation to SJRAC for the damages caused to SJRACS property that is being taken.



26

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND CONIPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND TNJ UNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

92. SJRAC is entitled to compensation from Respondents commensurate with the
damages caused to it pursuant to the United States Constitution Fifth. Amendment and
California Constitution Article 1, Section 19.

93. SJRAC has been required to retain legal counsel to pursue legal redress for
Respondents? wrongful conduct. Accordingly, SJRAC is entitled to recovery of its attorneys?
fees, costs of suit, fees and expenses pursuant to Section 1036 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and other applicable laws.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
(All Respondents and DOES 1-20)

94. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
93 in their entirety, as though fully set forth therein.

95. There exists a clear and actual controversy as between Petitioners and
Respondents as to whether the Benchmarks were met. Petitioners claim those Benchmarks
were met (except to the extent they were preventing from completing the Benchmarks by
Respondents and WCB), while Respondents claim they were not.

96. Petitioners therefore request a declaration that each of the Benchmarks
articulated under Resolution 17-02 were met (except to the extent prevented by Respondents
and WCB), and that ?reasonable progress? on implementing Alternative 5B was thus achieved.

97. Such declaration is a necessary and proper exercise of this Court?s power under
Section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent harm to Petitioners and others.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Injunctive Relief
(All Respondents and DOES 1?20)

98. Petitioners re-alleges and incorporates by reference the precedent paragraphs 1 to
97 in their entirety, as though fully set forth herein.

99. With respect to the violations of law alleged in the First through Eighth Causes

of Action, and as alleged in the foregoing paragraphs of the Petition, Respondents will

2?

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 





 

 

continue to proceed in a manner that will cause Petitioners harm for which they cannot be fully
compensated.

100. Petitioners are therefore entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to Sections
525 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure commanding Defendants to cease violating the law
and Resolution 17-02, and to follow the required legal processes for evaluating the Alternative
SB.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment as follows:

1. For a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure
section 1085, or, in the alternative, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, directing
Respondents to vacate and set aside their vote ?nding ?reasonable progress? had not been made
on Alternative 

2. For damages and just compensation for the taking of property, the precise
amount to be proven at trial;

3. For a declaration that each of the Benchmarks stated in Resolution 17-02 were
met, and that ?reasonable progress? toward the implementation of Alternative 5B was met.

4. For an injunction restraining the violations of law alleged in Petitioners? First
through Ninth Causes of Action, and preventing further damage to Petitioners? property; and

5. For fees and costs available under the laws of California, incidental or necessary
in procuring the relief sought in Petitioner?s First through Tenth Causes of Action, including
reasonable attorneys? fees pursuant to Sections 1021.5 and 1036 of the Code of Civil
Procedure; and







28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 






 

DATED: MARCH 28, 2019



 

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

By:

6. For such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under California law.

 
 

 

29

Joth. Kinsey. i. 
Rebeeca S. Maddox,

Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
David Rodriguez, Sarah Kolb, Timothy
Taira, and San Joaquin River Access
Corporation

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COWLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

VERIFICATION
446, 1096]

I, David Rodriguez, am a petitioner and plaintiff in this action. I have read
the foregoing Veri?ed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse
Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (the ??Petition?), and am familiar with its contents.

All facts alleged in the Petition are either true of my own knowledge, or as
I am informed and believe them to be true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this gday of March, 2019 in Fresno, California.

   


DavidR

 


,a

. . ?y
dr1guez er: . W3

{?507f002f009?2785 

VERIFICATION
446, 1096]

1, Timothy Taira, am a petitioner and plaintiff in this action. I have read
the foregoing Veri?ed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse
Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (the ?Petition?), and am familiar with its contents.

All facts alleged in the Petition are either true of my own knowledge, or as
I am informed and believe them to be true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this Jifday of March, 2019 in Fresno, California.

  

. .379"

~12 {fig/Eff?

 



Timothy "ll/aim



VERIFICATION
446, 1096]

I, ?g?f am the President of the San Joaquin

River Access Corporation, a petitioner and plaintiff in this action. I am authorized to
execute this veri?cation on behalf of the San Joaquin River Access Corporation.

1 have read the foregoing Veri?ed Petition for Writ of Mandate and
Complaint for Inverse Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (the ?Petition?), and am
familiar with its contents.

All facts alleged in the Petition are either true of my own knowledge, or as
I am informed and believe them to be true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this Z?day of March, 2019 in Fresno, California.

EA/r?Xg?/?m/



VERIFICATION
446, 1096]

1, Sarah Kolb, am a petitioner and plaintiff in this action. I have read the
foregoing Veri?ed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse
Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (the ?Petition?), and am familiar with its contents.

All facts alleged in the Petition are either true of my own knowledge, or as
I am informed and believe them to be true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this (33-day of March, 2019 i 5110, California.

ill/v

'"Sa?n?tiolb