Reply To Opposition To Motion To Discharge Supplemental Peremptory Writ of Mandate

Reply

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 2, 2015

AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEON J. PAGE, COUNTY COUNSEL NICOLE M. WALSH, SUPERVISING DEPUTY (SBN 248222) 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 407 Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: (714) 834-6257 E-mail: nicole.walsh@coco.ocgov.com Attorneys for Respondents COUNTY OF ORANGE and ELECTROMICALLY FILED Superior Court of Califarnia, County of Orange 12/14/2018 at 03:40:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374 NATHAN O. GEORGE, SBN 303707 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 Email: jmoose @rmmenvirolaw.com William D. Coffee, SBN 143653 Janet E. Humphrey, SBN 149031 SONGSTAD, RANDALL, COFFEE & HUMPHREY LLP 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 950 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 757-1600 Email: bcoffee @sr-firm.com Attorneys for Real Party in Interest YORBA LINDA ESTATES, LLC Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER PROTECT OUR HOMES AND HILLS; HILLS FOR EVERYONE; ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, INC.; CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY; FRIENDS OF HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS, INC,, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COUNTY OF ORANGE; CITY OF YORBA LINDA; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Respondents and Defendants. Case No. 30-2015-00797300-CU-CT-CXC REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISCHARGE SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE RESERVATION NO. 72912215 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES: Hon. William Claster Dept. CX104 Date: December 21, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. 1 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISCHARGE SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AN nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YORBA LINDA ESTATES, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company and a California Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 21 through 50, Real Parties in Interest. Action Filed: July 2, 2015 2 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISCHARGE SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION Of the more than 16 pages they submitted to the Court in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Discharge Supplemental Peremptory Writ of Mandate (Opposition Memo), Petitioners avoid the merits by devoting a mere three to the substance of the Motion to Discharge (id. at pp. 10-12), and fill the rest with various attempts to shift the Court’s attention to Petitioners’ alleged needs for a full formal administrative record and for related discovery, and to Petitioners’ baseless claims that the Board of Supervisors (Board) is somehow legally bound by statements of staff, and that only Petitioners should be allowed to submit letters to the Board. Petitioners casually accuse the County of “intentionally” violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (id. at pp. 18-19) and of “allowing [Real Party Yorba Linda Estates] to have undue influence and control” (id. at p. 15). The Court should not condone these flippant accusations. (Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1079, fn. 5 [condemning baseless accusations of corruption].) Lastly, Petitioners ignore the direction in the Court of Appeal pointing the County to consider recirculation under Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App.4th 1099, 1112 (Amador Waterways). Because none of these arguments are persuasive, the Supplemental Writ should be discharged. ' STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW As Petitioners admit, review “under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b), is limited to ensuring compliance with the peremptory writ of mandate.” (Opposition Memo, p. 16, fn. 8; citing Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 480 (Ballona Wetlands).) Petitioners wrongly claim that “this Court owes no deference to the County.” (Opposition Memo, p. 8.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, courts “resolve[] the substantive CEQA issues ... by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by the County and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the County’s factual determinations.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th I Respondents and Real Party in Interest maintain that Petitioners’ “new” allegations are barred by res judicata, as is more fully explained in the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the 2018 litigation and the forthcoming reply brief in support of that motion. 3 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISCHARGE SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 412, 426.) The nature of the issue determines the standard of review. (See Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1045.) Moreover, 9