MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Real Party in Interest, Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, Answer to Petition for Review

Cal.July 28, 2017

Supreme Court of California Supreme Court af California Joree E. Navarrete. Court Administrator and Clerk Jorge E. Navarrete, Court Administrator and Clerk Electronically RECEIVED on 7/28/2017 at 4.53.47 PM Electronically FILED on 7/28/2017 by Celia Rivera. Deputy Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF MORGANHILL, Plaintiff and Respondent, SUPREME COURTNO.: 8243042 VS. COURT OF APPEAL.NO.: H043426 SUPERIOR COURT NO.: 16-CV-292595 SHANNONBUSHEY, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS,etc.,et al., Defendants and Respondents. RIVER PARK HOSPITALITY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent; MORGANHILL HOTEL COALITION, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. MORGAN HILL HOTEL COALITION’S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ASIT S. PANWALA(SBN: 224118) LAW OFFICE OF ASIT PANWALA 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 766-3526; asit@panwalalaw.com J. RANDALL TOCH(SBN: 124547) TOCH LAW FIRM PO BOX 66 MORGANHILL, CA 95038 (408) 762-9712; tochlawfirm@gmail.com Attorneys for Appellant/Real Party In Interest MORGANHILL HOTEL COALITION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. QUESTION PRESENTED. ....00.. 0.00 c ccc ce cece cnn eee ence ence nee eneeeee ees4 II. INTRODUCTION... 2...cccenereene e Eee eE 4 Ill. STATEMENT OF FACTS.....0 0.0.00 occecece ence ene ee ence ene teen ee eees 5 IV. STATEMENTOF CASE.......... ccc ccc ccc eect eet eee ene e ence eee ene nee eee 8 V. ARGUMENT... 2.20... c cece cece n eee cent een e nee nee been eee ene eens ence eneen eens 11 A. The Fourth District Undermined DeBottari In Chandis By Holding That A Rule Declaring That Voters Cannot Reject One Of Several Choices Would Render The Exercise Of The Power OfReferendum Meaningless...............cccece cece eee ee eect ee eee ee eee e ete n teense nner eee ee eee 11 B. Government Code § 65860 Allows For A Reasonable Period Of Time To Remedy Inconsistency Created In Zoning When The General Plan Is Amended............. 00 ccc ccc cece cece ee cee eee tence nese ene n eee ena aeeessnieeeens 13 C. The Debottari Court Found A Referendum Enacts Legislation Because No Other Zoning Districts Were Available That Conformed To The Amended General Plan............eecccceecececcceeeeeeeeeeeaneeeseeaeetsaeeeseneerseeenanes 15 VI. CONCLUSION... 0. eccccece enn een n ene eee cnet eens eee ea tees 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages deBotarri v. City ofNorco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204................9-11, 15-17 Chandis Securities v. City ofDana Point (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 475.000...c cece cece eee e cence ee ene ee ee ee eneen ens 11-13, 16 City ofIrvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868 ........ 0... c cece cece eee e nent ee eee en ee eeneenenenes 11, 15 City ofMorgan Hill v. Bushey, et al. (2017) 5 Cal.App.4th 34.........Passim Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 51 Cal.3d 5310...cee cece rete eee enna eens ee en ease 13-15 Lockard v. City ofLos Angeles (1949) 3 Cal.2d 252.................008 16 Midway Orchards v. County ofButte (1990) 220-Cal.App.3d 765....16 Merritt v. City ofPleasanton (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1032..............16 Constitution Article TH, Section 9.0.0.0... cece cece ec ccc cece eee e eee neencseenesenunes4 Statutes Election Code § 9237.00.00... ccc ccc cc ence ccc n cent cece teen teen ee eae enna:4,7 Election Code § 9241.0...ccc ccc cece ence ee ee eee e eee eeeetneenas 4 Government Code § 65000 et Sseq....... 20... cc ceccece eee e eee eeeeeeeneeees 12 Government Code § 65860............. 0... c cece cece e eee cece e eee eneenenas 10, 13-14 Government Code § 65860(c)...........2...cccceceneee eee ence ee eens ene ecens 10, 14-15 Government Code § 65862............. 00 ccc cece ence ence eee e eee a aetna ee neaas 13 Morgan Hill Municipal Code............ccc cece eee ce eee e eee e ee eeeeneneees7 The Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, real party in interest in the trial court, and Appellant on appeal, answers the petitions for review of the decision of the Sixth District Court of Appeal in City ofMorgan Hill v. Bushey, et al., (2017) 12 Cal.App.5" 34 (issued May 30, 2017, Court of Appeal No. H043426). I. QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the reserve power provides the voters with the opportunity to reject one zoning district for another if they both equally conform to the recent general plan amendment? I. INTRODUCTION Theright to exercise of the power of referendum is a Constitutional nght that more than two thousandfive hundred registered voters sought to exercise whenthey signed a petition for referendum (“Petition”). The Petition required the City of Morgan Hill (“City”) to repeal Ordinance No. 2131 or seek voter approval. The exercise of the power of referendum is enshrined in the Article 2, Section 9 of the California Constitution, and codified in Election Code §§ 9237 and 9241. Ordinance No. 2131 would amend the zoning for a parcel located at 850 Lightpost Way(“Parcel’’) from “ML-light industrial” to “general commercial.” The City had previously amendedthe general plan’s land use designation from “industrial” to “commercial,” leaving behind inconsistent zoning. It attempted to remedy the inconsistency by passing Ordinance No. 2131. The Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition (“Coalition”) timely filed a petition for referendum preventing the ordinance from becoming effective. The City argued that voters would enact an invalid statue if they failed to approve the measure becausethe Parcel would remain “ML-light- industrial.” The City has eleven other commercial zoning districts to choose from should the voters reject the City’s first choice of zoning. The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed with the Coalition that a referendum that seeks to prevent a zoning change from taking effect does not create an inconsistency with the general plan’s land use designation. Disapproval of the measure merely maintains the pre- existing status quo until the City chooses another commercial zoning district. The Sixth District Court of Appeal noted that referendums do not enact laws; they merely approveor disapproveoflegislation enacted by legislators before they becomeeffective. Thus, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the reserve powerof the people to exercise the power ofreferendum and ordered the Superior Court to deny the City’s petition. Ut. STATEMENTOF FACTS In January of 2014, River Park Hospitality (“River Park’), an out-of-town developer, applied for a general plan amendmentfor a 3.39 acre undeveloped parcel (“Parcel”) located at Lightpost Way and Madrone Parkwayin Morgan Hill, California. Joint Appendix (“JA”) at 401:8-11. The Parcel is surrounded by industrial land on the north, east and west side, and commercial on the south side. JA at 132. The amendmentsought to change the general plan’s land use designation from industrial to commercial. JA at 401: 8-11. The proposed amendmentwas not submitted to the City’s then active General Plan Task Force for consideration.' On November 19, 2014, the City amended the general plan solely for the Parcel from industrial to commercial. JA at 130-31. The zoning for the Parcel, however, remained “ML-light industrial.” Jd. For several months, an inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning designation existed, On March 18, 2015, the City Council passedthefirst reading of Ordinance No. 2131, which would change the zoning designation from “ML-light industrial” to “general commercial.” JA at 116. Hotel use is allowed with a conditional use permit on land zoned “general commercial.” JA at 410. The Coalition opposed the ordinance because two new hotels would open soon, thereby increasing the supply of comparable hotel rooms by over twenty percent. JA at 383: 9-13. Although the City Council heard public comments against the Ordinance No. 2131 again on April 1, 2015, the City Council narrowly adopted the ordinanceby a three to two vote. JA at 121-22; 301. On May1, 2015,the Coalition filed the Petition. JA at 295. The City Clerk issued a certificate of examination and sufficiency after determining that there were approximately 2,500 valid signatures from registered voters.Jd. Subsequently, the City passed a resolution accepting the City Clerk’s certificate of ' One day after the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion,the civil grand jury of Santa Clara County issued a report criticizing the City for failing to submit all proposed general plan amendments to the General Plan Task Force. * The City continues to argue that the purposeofthe referendum is to preserve industrial land solely based on a proposed ballot argument that was never examination and sufficiency. JA at 291-92. The Petition states that in accordance with “California Election Code, Section 9237, should the ordinance not be repealed by the City Council it must be submitted to the voters at the next regular election or at a special election called for that purpose.” JA at 119. On July 15, 2015, the City Council voted to direct the City Clerk to discontinue processing the Petition. JA at 93. River Park then prepared a conditional use permit application to build a hotel on the Parcel. JA at 452-53. In the fall of 2015, River Park listed the Parcel for sale for twice as muchasit had paid for it a year earlier. JA at 463-65. On January 13, 2016, the Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandamus compellingthe City to repeal Ordinance No. 2131 or placeit on the ballot. JA at 385:15-21 (Superior Court No. 16-CV-290097). On February 17, 2016, the City Council reviewed staff reports that provided other alternatives such as selecting another commercial zoning district for the Parcel that does not permit hotel use. JA at 404-5. Morgan Hill Municipal Code providesfor twelve different types of commercial zoning districts including 29 6¢ “administrative office,” “service/commercial,” and “light commercial/residential,” that the City may chose from that would conform to the general plan, but do not permit hotel use. JA at 407-31. The Coalition has urged the City multiple times to consider another commercial zoning districtprior to litigation. Reporter’s Transcript of Hearing on March 24, 2016 (“RT”) at 6:1-13; 15:2-7 (note the transcript mistakenly includes a “not” before the other zoning options that the Coalition asked the City to consider). The City instead adopted a resolution directing the City Clerk to place Ordinance No. 2131 on the June 7, 2016 ballot, but then also authorized the filing of a suit to have the referendum measure removed. JA at 101-3. On March2, 2016, the City passed a resolution to submit the referendum to the voters at a special municipalelection to be held on June 7, 2016. JA at 319. The proposed referendum measurestates: “Shall the ordinance amending the zoning designation of 3.39 acre site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Madrone Parkway and Lightpost Way from the ML-Light Industrial District to the CG-General Commercial (APN 726-33-026) be adopted?” Id. The voters never had an opportunity to vote on the measure. IV. STATEMENT OF CASE On March 11, 2016, the City sued Shannon Bushey,the Registrar of Voters for Santa Clara County, and Irma Torrez, City Clerk for Morgan Hill, for an alternative and peremptory writ and declaratory relief to remove the referendum measure from the ballot and to certify Ordinance No. 2131. JA at 13-325. The City argued thatto allow the voters to reject Ordinance No. 2131 would leave a zoning district that is inconsistent with the general plan, and therefore invalid by operation of law. JA at 18, 419. On March18, 2016, the Coalition filed an opposition to the City’s request for alternative and peremptory writ and declaratory relief. JA at 375-431. The Coalition arguedthat the right to exercise the powerofreferendum is a Constitutional right that should not be curtailed. JA at 387-89. The Coalition asserted that if the voters reject the measure, it would simply maintain the status quorather than enact an invalid law. JA at 391-93. It also noted that the City could choose another commercial zoning district to bring the Parcel into conformity with the general plan even if the measure failed. JA at 393-94. Thus, the Coalition argued that the City Council’s selection of zoning after a general plan amendment should not be immune from exercise of the powerofreferendum.JA at 391. The City, in its reply, argued that it was irrelevant that the City could remedy the inconsistency between the general plan and zoning by choosing another commercial zoning district if the measure failed. JA at 475. On March 29, 2016, the trial court issueda decision granting the peremptory writ and declaratory relief sought by the City to remove the measure from the election ballot and certify Ordinance No. 2131 “as duly adopted and effective immediately.” JA at 484-87. The trial court’s decision relied upon deBottari v. City ofNorco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204. On April 1, 2016, the Hotel Coalition filed a notice of appeal. JA at 495-96. On May30, 2017, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a published decision overturning the Superior Court’s writ of mandate and declaratory relief. The Court found that the stated purpose of the referendum wasto prevent the developmentof a hotel on the Parcel.” Slip Op. at 2-3. The Court held that * The City continues to argue that the purposeof the referendumis to preserve industrial land solely based on a proposed ballot argument that was never Government Code § 65860’s mandate that the Parcel’s zoning must be consistent with the general plan only prevented the City from enacting new zoning that was inconsistent with the general plan. Jd. at 6. The City has “a reasonable time” under Government Code § 65860(c), to amend the zoning of the Parcel to makeit consistent with the recently amended general plan. Jd. at 5. The Court held that the “referendum does not seek to enact anything,” andthat it is “undisputed that the City could have selected any of a numberofconsistent zoning districts to replace the parcel’s inconsistent zoning.” Jd. Thus, the Court held that the consistency requirement did not preclude the electorate from exercising its referendum power to reject the City’s choice of zoning.Jd. at 6. The Sixth District Court of Appeal further stated that the “Fourth District’s reasoning in deBottari is flawed,” because a referendum cannot enact an ordinance. Id. at 8. It stated that a referendum that rejects an ordinance simply maintains status quo, and cannot violate Government Code § 65860, which prohibits the enactment of an inconsistent zoning ordinance.” Id. at 8. The Sixth District Court | of Appeal pointed out that the City could choose another commercial zoning district if their first choice failed to gain approval from the voters. Jd. published and submitted a yearafter the petition wasfiled that listed many arguments to disapprove of the ordinance including water usage, oversupply of hotel rooms, and failure to bring lucrative jobs. JA at 482. > The zoning for Parcel remains “ML-light industrial.” No one arguedthat the zoning had changedas a result of Ordinance No. 2131. 10 The City’s and River Park’s petitions for rehearing in the Court of Appeal . 44 were denied. Vv. ARGUMENT A. The Fourth District Undermined DeBottari In Chandis By Holding That A Rule Declaring That Voters Cannot Reject One Of Several Choices Would Render The Exercise Of The Power Of Referendum Meaningless. The City’s and River Park’s petitions for Supreme Court review rely heavily on the argumentthat there is a split between the Fourth and Sixth District on the issue of whether the voters may reject the City’s choice of zoning after an amendmentto the general plan. Their petitions fail to inform the Court that the Fourth District Court of Appeal has undermined deBottari in a subsequent decision.” In Chandis, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a “rule declaring that voters cannot reject aproposed specific plan falling within the parameters of the city’s general plan would renderthe exercise of the powerofreferendum meaningless.” Chandis Securities Co. v. City ofDana Point (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 475, 482 (italics added). The City of Dana Point had adopted a general plan which designated the Headlandsas a specific plan area, with guidelines on the numberof * In the City’s petition for rehearing, it argued for the first time that the Court’s finding that there were other commercial zoning districts that would conform to the general plan was false even thoughit did not argue otherwise and instead arguedthat the existence of other commercial zoning districts wasirrelevant. City’s Petition for Rehearing at 8-13; City’s Reply Brief at 28-31; JA at 475-76. ° City ofIrvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868 relied heavily upon deBottari. The Sixth Districtstated that it suffered from the same flaws as deBottari. Slip Op. at 8, fn 4. 1] residences and hotels allowed and designating over 61 acres of open space.Id. at 479-80. The plaintiffs submitted a specific developmentplan that satisfied the requirements of the aforementioned general plan including the open space./d. at 480. The city council approved the specific plan, and additionally amendedthe general plan only to extent of modifying the open space element. Jd. However, petitions for referendums were timely filed and placed on the ballot requiring voter approval. Jd. However, the voters failed to support the measures, and the plaintiffs sued becausetheir proposed specific plan along with the general plan amendment conformed to Dana Point’s general plan for the Headlands. /d. at 481-82. Dana Point considered eleven developmentalternatives other than the one they adopted. Jd. at 482. The Chandis Court clarified that the specific plan and general plan amendment never became effective because the petitions were timely filed. Jd. at 482. Thus, the Chandis Court held that the “subsequent rejection by the voters simply maintained the status quo;it did not repeal a specific plan previously adoptedby:the city council.” /d. at 482. Both the plaintiffs in Chandis and the City and River Park in this case cited deBottari and argued that the consistency requirement of Government Code § 65000 et. seq. would invalidate the referendum./d. at 484-85; JA at 19. However, Chandis held that the rejection of a proposed specific plan only maintains the status quo of no development temporarily pending another choice. Jd. at 485. No developmentis not consistent with a general plan calling for development, but the Chandis Court did not invalidate the referendum becauseofit. The reasoning of the Fourth District in 12 Chandis and Sixth District in City ofMorgan Hill is the same-voters should be allowed to disapprove of one choice among manythat conform to the general plan. B. Government Code § 65860 Allows For A Reasonable Period Of Time To Remedy Inconsistency Created In Zoning When The General Plan Is Amended. The City and River Park also request review becausethe Sixth District Court of Appeal refused to find that the zoning for the Parcel was invalid. City’s Petition for Review at 4; River Park’s Petition for Review at 10-14; Slip op.at 5. The Sixth District’s decision is consistent with Government Code § 65860 andthis Court’s holding in Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531. The City created the inconsistency it-complains of when it amended the general plan for the Parcel without amendingthe zoning.° For almost six months, the zoning of the Parcel remained “ML-light industrial”after the City amended general plan. The zoningis not invalid, but rather it was lawfully enacted, but currently inconsistent with the general plan. River Park argued that the Sixth District Court of Appeal is wrong becauseinconsistent zoningis neither legally effective nor enforceable, and thus nullifies the consistency requirement. River Park’s Petition for Review at 12. It argues that the voters cannot disapproveofthe City’s choice of zoning because doing so would keep the pre-existing zoning in ° Government Code § 65862 expresses a preferenceto have both the zoning and general plan changed concurrently. To the extent that City is accurate that this factual scenario repeatedly occurs, it suggests that cities tactically do so to curtail the right of the people to exercise the powerof referendum. 13 place until another ordinance is adopted. River Park’s argument leadsto the conclusionthat the failure to file a petition for referendum for a general plan amendment waives away the People’s right to file a petition for referendum for a subsequent change in zoning. Their argument fails to recognize that under Government Code § 65860(c), cities are provided a reasonable timeto cure the inconsistency in zoning after a general plan has been amended. For example, when the City Council voted, it could have rejected Ordinance No. 2131 and then considered and approved another commercial zoning district. Likewise if the voters failed to approve Ordinance No. 2131 in a referendum, the City may consider another commercial zoningdistrict that does not allow for hotel use. Underboth scenarios, the City would be complying with the mandate of Government Code § 65860(c) to amend the zoning within a reasonable period of time. The delay in re-zoning the Parcel is due to the City becauseit first discontinued the Petition without placing it on the ballot, and then sued to remove it from the ballot.’ The Sixth District’s ruling is also consistent with this Court’s ruling in Lesher. In Lesher, the Supreme Court construed a successful voterinitiative as a zoning ordinance, and foundit was inconsistent with the general plan. Lesher at 543-44. As a result, the ordinance was invalid at the time it was passed becauseit violated the consistency requirement of Government Code § 65860. Jd. at 544. As ’ River Park requested that the City discontinue the Petition and joined the City in its request to remove the referendum measure from theballot. 14 the Sixth District pointed out, Lesher stands for the proposition that the electorate maynot utilize the initiative power to enact a zoning inconsistent with the general plan. Slip op. at 6. The City’s reliance on cases concerningthe initiative poweris misplaced. Jd. Notably, this Court in Lesher distinguished when a zoning ordinanceis invalid upon enactment from when the zoning ordinance wasvalidat the time it was enacted, but later became inconsistent because of an amendmentto the general plan. Jd. at 545-46. In Lesher, this Court stated that Government Code § 65860(c) applies to the latter, and thusit also applicable here. Jd. C. The DeBottari Court Found A Referendum Enacts Legislation Because No Other Zoning Districts Were Available That Conformed To The Amended General Plan The City relied on deBottari v. City ofNorco to argue that the referendum would enact invalid zoning. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204; see also City ofIrvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment(1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868. After the city of Norco had amendedgeneral plan from residential/agricultural to residential low density, it attempted to rezone the land to allow single-family homes on 10,000 square feet lots. deBottari at 791-92. Essentially, it rezoned the land to allow three to four units per acre rather than zero to two. Jd. Although the City approvedthe ordinances changing the zoning,petitions for referendum were timely filed. /d. The deBottari Court found itself in a bind. If it allowed the measure to be voted on and it failed, there were only three options possible: re-enact the zoning that had been disapproved, enact a new zoning scheme,or force the city to change i) the general plan.® Jd. at 795. All three choices went beyondthe court’s power to order and would have violated the doctrine of separation of powersbylegislating on behalf of the city. The court did not discuss the possibility of choosing another residential low density zoning designation that would also conform to the amendedgeneral plan. Therefore, one should conclude that was not an option. The deBottari Court in a poorly reasoned decision concludedthat rejecting the ordinance was enacting invalid zoning and wouldviolate the consistency requirement. /d. at 795. Asillogicalasit is, the deBottari court concludedthat.a referendum enacts new legislation. However, courts have subsequently held that a referendum wherethe measure fails merely retains the status quo ratherthan enacting new legislation. Midway Orchards v. County ofButte (4996) 220 Cal.App.3d 765; Chandis at 482; _ Merritt v. City ofPleasanton (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1032. More importantly, deBottari is not applicable because eleven other commercial zoning designations that exist in Morgan Hill that would also conform with the amended general plan whereasnoneare discussed in deBottari. The Sixth District likewise distinguished the facts of deBottari in its decision when it expressed no opinionasto the validity of a referendum challenging an ordinance that chooses the only available zoning that is consistent with the general plan. Slip Op. at 8, fn 5. Thus, the Respondents’ * “Zoning scheme”is the entire constellation of zoning districts that exist within a city. Lockard v. City ofLos Angeles (1949) 3 Cal.2d 253. Thus, the Court considered whetherit should ordered the City ofNorco to create new zoning districts, which suggests that there were no otherdistricts that were consistent with the amended generalplan. 16 reliance on deBottari is misplaced as the Fourth District’s decisions in that case applied to a uniqueset of facts that have been undermined in subsequentdecisions. Vi. CONCLUSION The Sixth District Court of Appeal is correct whenit held that referendums do not enact legislation and voters should be able to reject one choice of zoning if another equally conformsto a general plan amendment. The Constitutional right of the voters to exercise the power of referendum should be affirmed. This Court should deny review ofthis matter. Dated: July 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF ASIT PANWALA ZC Asit Panwala J. Randall Toch Attorneys for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition 17 VERIFICATION Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 8.504(d)(4), I hereby certify that the forgoing Appellant Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition’s Opposition to Petitions for Review is in Times New Roman 13-point font and contains 4,034 words as counted by Microsoft Word. Dated: July 28, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF ASIT PANWALA o-fC Asit Panwala, Esq. Attorney for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition 18 City of Morgan Hill v. Shannon Bushey,etc., et al., Supreme Court No. $243042 Court of Appeal No. H043426 Superior Court No. 16-CV-292595 PROOF OF SERVICE I, ASIT S. PANWALA,herebystate: I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the above action. My business address is 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400, San Francisco, California 94111. On July 28, 2017, I served the following documents: MORGAN HILL HOTEL COALITION’S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW by serving the following parties via True Filing E-Service. Katherine Alberts Counsel for City of Morgan Hill Leone & Alberts 2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 900 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Danielle Goldstein Counsel for Registrar of Voters Santa Clara County Counsel Office 70 W. Hedding Street Floor 9, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Jolie Houston Counsel for River Park Hospitality Berliner Cohen 10 Almaden Blvd., Floor 11 San Jose, CA 95113 Thomas Murphy Counsel for River Park Hospitality Berliner Cohen 10 Almaden Blvd., Floor 11 San Jose, CA 95113 Donald Larkin Counsel for City ofMorgan Hill Office of the City Attorney City of Morgan Hill 17575 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Scott Pinksy Counsel for Irma Torrez Office of Gary M. Baum 19925 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 100 Cupertino, CA 95014 I also placed a copy of the MORGAN BILL HOTEL COALITION’S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEWin sealed envelope withfirst-class US mail postage in United States Postal mailbox affixed and addressedto: Superior Court of Santa Clara County Clerk of the Court The Honorable Theodore Zayner 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Sixth District Court of Appeals Clerk of the Court 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060 San Jose, CA 95113 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. ZC ‘Asit S. Panwala STATE OF CALIFORNIA Supreme Court of California Jorge &. Navarrete. Court Administrator and Clerk Electronically FILED on 7/28/2017 by Celia Rivera, Deputy Clerk PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Supreme Court of California Case Name: MORGANHILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY (RIVER PARK HOSPITALITY) Case Number: 8243042 Lower Court Case Number: H043426 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and nota party to this legal action. 2. My email addressused to e-serve: asit@panwalalaw.com 3. I served by email a copy of the following document(s) indicated below: Title(s) of papers e-served: Filing Type DocumentTitle ANSWERTO PETITION FOR REVIEW (WITH ONE TIME RESPONSIVEFEE) Answerto Petitions for Review Service Recipients: Person Served Email Address Type Date / Time Asit Panwala asit@panwalalaw.com e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Law Office of Asit Panwala Service |PM 224118 | Donald Larkin donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov|e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Office of the City Attorney Service [PM 199759 Louis Leone lleone@leonealberts.com le- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Leone & Alberts Service |PM 99874 Scott Pinsky spinsky@earthlink.net e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Law Offices Gary M. Baum Service [PM 120095 Danielle Goldstein danielle.goldstein@cco.sccgov.org|e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Additional Service Recipients Service [PM Jolie Houston jolie.houston@berliner.com e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Additional Service Recipients Service [PM Katherine Alberts kalberts@leonealberts.com e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Additional Service Recipients Service [PM Randall Toch tochlawfirm@gmail.com e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Additional Service Recipients Service [PM Thomas Murphy tom.murphy@berliner.com e- 07-28-2017 7:53:46 Additional Service Recipients Service |PM This proof of service was automatically created, submitted and signed on my behalf through my agreements with TrueFiling and its contents are true to the best ofmy information, knowledge, andbelief. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true andcorrect. 07-28-2017 Date /s/Asit Panwala Signature Panwala, Asit (224118) Last Name, FirstName (PNum) Law Office of Asit Panwala Law Firm