09 - Laserfiche WebLink

mandate (first through fourth causes of action) and additional causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief (seventh and eighth causes of action). The Parties agreed to bifurcate the seventh and eighth causes of action fbr separate trial. 1.6 On or about June 24, 2009, People of the State of California, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, filed a Complaint in Intervention in the Urban Habitat Litigation, joining in Plaintiffs' first three causes of action. The Court overruled the City's demurrers to the Second Amended Complaint and the Complaint in Intervention on or about August 27, 2009. 1.7 On or a bout August 21, 2009, People of the State of California, ex. Rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, filed an action in Alameda Superior Court known as People of the State of California v. City of Pleasanton, et al., Case No. RG 09 469878 ( "General Plan /CEQA Litigation "). The Complaint alleged, among other things, and the City denies, that in adopting an updated General Plan and certifying an environmental impact report the City tailed to fully evaluate and disclose reasonably foreseeable environmental effects or to consider less environmentally harmful alternatives, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). ()n or about September l5, 2009, the Superior Court entered the Parties' stipulated stay of the General Plan /CEQA litigation pending the Court's ruling in the Urban Habitat Litigation. 1.8 On or about October 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Writ of Mandate on their first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the Urban Habitat Litigation. Intervenor concurrently filed a Motion for Writ of Mandate on its first, second, and third causes of action. Those motions came on regularly for hearing before the trial court on December 18, 2009. 1.9 On or about March 12, 2010, the Court issued its Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate ( "March 12, 2010 Order "). For purposes of reference, the March 12, 2010 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1.10 Soon after entry of the March 12, 2010 Order, the Parties began a series of meetings to determine whether negotiation of a resolution of Plaintiffs' and lntervenor's disputed claims would be possible and advisable. The tenor of these meetings was amicable and the negotiations were constructive. The parties have worked extensively to reach a settlement that benefits all participants and achieves results for each party that they could not have achieved through a litigated outcome. 1.11 The Patties have worked in good faith to arrive at this Settlement Agreement. As reflected herein, the City has an interest in making housing more available and affordable in Pleasanton, and has worked with Plaintiffs and Intervenor to arrive at a resolution of the issues that promote Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue - Page 2 of 15 2506199.1