Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS
A Professional Corporation
2 WILLIAM D. ROSS, ESQ. (SBN 64538)
CHRISTINA M. BELLARDO, ESQ. (SBN 350097)
3 400 Lambert Avenue
4 Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone Number: (650) 843-8080
5 Facsimile Number: (650) 843-8093
Email: wross@lawross.com
6 Email: cbellardo@lawross.com
7 Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and AMERICAN CANYON CITY COUNCIL
8
JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374
9 CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND, SBN 303865
REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
10 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
11 Telephone: (916) 443-2745
Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com
12 Email: cberglund@rmmenvirolaw.com
EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
13 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest
[GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
BUZZ OATES LLC
14
BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC.
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
17 COUNTY OF NAPA
18 CITY OF VALLEJO and STEVEN ROY Case No. 24CV000544
HUSONG,
19 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN
Petitioners,
v. INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
20 TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
21 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and
AMERICAN CANYON CITY COUNCIL;
22 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES:
Respondents, Hon.
23 ______________________________________ Dept.
24 BUZZ OATES LLC; Filing Date of Action: April 4, 2024
BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC., and
25 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
26 Real Parties in Interest.
27
28
1
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
1 Pursuant to Rule 3.300(g) of the California Rules of Court, Respondents City of American
2 Canyon and American Canyon City Council (collectively, “American Canyon”) and Real Parties in
3 Interest Buzz Oates LLC and Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. (collectively, “Buzz Oates”) submit the
4 following response in opposition to the Notice of Related Case (“Notice”) filed by Petitioners City of
5 Vallejo and Steven Roy Husong (“Petitioners”) in City of Vallejo, et al. v. City of American Canyon, et
6 al., Napa County Superior Court Case (Case No. 24CV000544), in which Petitioners challenge
7 American Canyon’s direct enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative (“Measure K Action”) pursuant
8 to Elections Code section 9215, subdivision (a). The Notice asserts that the Measure K Action is related
9 to an existing case in Sacramento Superior Court entitled City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon
10 filed on April 21, 2023 (Case No. 23WM000055), which is currently assigned to Judge Stephen P.
11 Acquisto.
12 For the reasons set forth below, the Measure K Action is not related to Case No. 23WM000055
13 under criteria set forth in Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court. Even so, American Canyon and
14 Buzz Oates agree that the Measure K Action should be transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, and
15 would have no objection if the case ends up before Judge Acquisto (though any such assignment would
16 be for the Presiding Judge of Sacramento Superior Court to decide).
17 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18 On June 14, 2023, City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000517), Golden
19 State Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000510), and Center
20 for Biological Diversity v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000511)—all of which challenged
21 American Canyon’s March 21, 2023 approval of the Giovannoni Logistics Center and certification of
22 the underlying environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act
23 (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) —were ordered partially consolidated for purposes of
24 trial and transferred to the Sacramento Superior Court. Upon transfer, the Sacramento Superior Court
25
26
27
28
2
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
1 assigned the partially consolidated actions Case No. 23WM000055 (“EIR Action”). Contrary to the
2 Notice, of those three actions, only the City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon remains pending.1
3 The Measure K Action challenges American Canyon’s March 5, 2024, adoption of a citizen-
4 sponsored initiative that amended the American Canyon Zoning Ordinance to allow qualifying projects
5 to obtain a ministerial “Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Warehouse Design Permit” in lieu of the normal
6 discretionary design permit for certain warehouse facilities located in the General Industrial zone. The
7 Measure K action alleges violations of CEQA and the California Constitution in seeking a peremptory
8 writ of mandate as well as declaratory relief and injunctive relief.
9 LEGAL ARGUMENT
10 The Measure K Action and the EIR Action are not “related” under California Rules of Court,
11 rule 3.300. Subdivision (a) of Rule 3.300 provides that a “pending civil case is related to another
12 pending civil case … if the cases:
13 (1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;
14 (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring
15 the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact;
(3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or
16
17 (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if
heard by different judges.”
18
The Measure K Action and the EIR Action do not meet any of these criteria.
19
A. The Measure K Action is not based on the same or similar claims as the EIR Action.
20
The legal theories, claims, and relief sought in the Measure K Action are separate and distinct
21
from those sought in the EIR Action. The Measure K Action, claiming CEQA and constitutional
22
violations, seeks to invalidate American Canyon’s legislative action in directly enacting Measure K and
23
thereby amending its Zoning Ordinance. In contrast, the EIR Action seeks to invalidate American
24
Canyon’s approval of a Design Permit for the Giovannoni Logistics Center, and certification of the
25
26
27 1
The City of Vallejo incorrectly identifies Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of American Canyon
as pending. (Notice, p. 2.) Environmental Justice Alliance voluntarily dismissed its action against
28 American Canyon on February 16, 2024 and the clerk entered dismissal on February 28, 2024.
3
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
1 underlying EIR under CEQA. Accordingly, on its face, the Measure K Action involves claims very
2 different from those being pursued in the EIR Action.
3 Nevertheless, to the extent the court finds there is nominal overlap in that both actions include
4 CEQA claims, any purported similarity ends there. The issues presented by the Measure K Action (e.g.,
5 whether CEQA applies to the adoption of a citizen-sponsored initiative) are separate and distinct from
6
whether the EIR prepared for the Giovannoni Logistics Center is adequate. The two actions therefore
7
do not present the same or similar claims.
8
9 B. The Measure K Action and the EIR Action do not arise from the same or substantially
identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or
10 substantially identical questions of law or fact.
11 The alleged incident or event giving rise to the Measure K Action is American Canyon’s direct
12 enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative to amend its Zoning Ordinance citywide as applied to all
13
land zoned General Industrial. In contrast, the incident or event that gives rise to the EIR Action is
14
American Canyon’s approval of a Design Permit for the Giovannoni Logistics Center and certification
15
of the underlying EIR. These two events are plainly not the same or substantially similar.
16
As the events giving rise to the Measure K Action and the EIR Action lack even remote
17
sameness, they do not require determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or
18
fact. As to factual questions, the Measure K Action will be heard on an administrative record separate
19
and distinct from the record for the EIR Action with no overlapping evidence (or very little, at most).
20
The Measure K Action requires determinations of predominantly legal questions regarding (i) whether
21
CEQA applied at all to the enactment of Measure K (it did not), (ii) whether, as Petitioners contend, the
22
subject matter of Measure K was adjudicatory rather than legislative (it was not), and (iii) whether
23
24 Measure K requires Real Parties in Interest “to perform and/or execute one or more functions, powers,
25 or duties” (it does not). (See Measure K Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for
26
27
28
4
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
1 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶¶ 32-58.)2 In contrast, the EIR Action involves the sole question of
2 whether substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusions in American Canyon’s EIR
3 regarding the environmental impacts of the Giovannoni Logistics Center related to water supply.
4 In summary, the criteria in Rule 3.300(a)(2) simply are not met here.
5
C. The remaining criteria set forth in Rule 3.300(a) are not implicated—nor can they be met.
6
The City of Vallejo does not assert that the Measure K Action and the EIR Action are related
7
pursuant to Rule 3.300(a)(3) or (a)(4) and therefore those criteria need not be addressed here.
8
CONCLUSION
9
American Canyon and Buzz Oates request that the Measure K Action not be related to the EIR
10
Action, as the Measure K Action does not meet the definition of “related case” set forth in Rule 3.300.
11
While there is no risk of duplication of judicial resources if the Measure K Action and the EIR Action
12
are heard by different judges, American Canyon and Buzz Oates would not object to a transfer of venue
13
of the Measure K Action to Sacramento Superior Court, nor would they object if the Presiding Judge of
14
that court assigns the Measure K Action to Judge Acquisto. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 394,
15
the Measure K case should not be heard by the Napa County Superior Court. Thus, transfer to
16
Sacramento County Superior Court would be acceptable to American Canyon and Buzz Oates. Indeed,
17
the sooner such a transfer is effectuated, the better. American Canyon and Buzz Oates believe that the
18
Measure K case is wholly without merit and (particularly with respect to the CEQA claim) patently
19
frivolous. The sooner the matter can be ready for adjudication, the better.
20
Respectfully submitted,
21
Dated: April 12, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS
22
23 By:
WILLIAM D. ROSS, ESQ.
24 CHRISTINA M. BELLARDO, ESQ.
25 Attorneys for Respondents
26
27 2
In the Measure K case, the CEQA claim is patently without merit and frivolous, as the California
Supreme Court has unequivocally held that direct enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative measure is
28 not subject to CEQA. (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Super. Ct. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029.)
5
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and AMERICAN
1 CANYON CITY COUNCIL
2
Dated: April 12, 2024 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
3
4
By:
5 JAMES G. MOOSE
CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND
6
7 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
BUZZ OATES LLC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASE
Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS A Professional Corporation 2 WILLIAM D. ROSS, ESQ. (SBN 64538) CHRISTINA M. BELLARDO, ESQ. (SBN 350097) 3 400 Lambert Avenue 4 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone Number: (650) 843-8080 5 Facsimile Number: (650) 843-8093 Email: wross@lawross.com 6 Email: cbellardo@lawross.com 7 Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and AMERICAN CANYON CITY COUNCIL 8 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374 9 CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND, SBN 303865 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 10 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 11 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com 12 Email: cberglund@rmmenvirolaw.com EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 13 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103] BUZZ OATES LLC 14 BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC. 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 COUNTY OF NAPA 18 CITY OF VALLEJO and STEVEN ROY Case No. 24CV000544 HUSONG, 19 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN Petitioners, v. INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 20 TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and AMERICAN CANYON CITY COUNCIL; 22 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES: Respondents, Hon. 23 ______________________________________ Dept. 24 BUZZ OATES LLC; Filing Date of Action: April 4, 2024 BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC., and 25 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 26 Real Parties in Interest. 27 28 1 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 1 Pursuant to Rule 3.300(g) of the California Rules of Court, Respondents City of American 2 Canyon and American Canyon City Council (collectively, “American Canyon”) and Real Parties in 3 Interest Buzz Oates LLC and Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. (collectively, “Buzz Oates”) submit the 4 following response in opposition to the Notice of Related Case (“Notice”) filed by Petitioners City of 5 Vallejo and Steven Roy Husong (“Petitioners”) in City of Vallejo, et al. v. City of American Canyon, et 6 al., Napa County Superior Court Case (Case No. 24CV000544), in which Petitioners challenge 7 American Canyon’s direct enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative (“Measure K Action”) pursuant 8 to Elections Code section 9215, subdivision (a). The Notice asserts that the Measure K Action is related 9 to an existing case in Sacramento Superior Court entitled City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon 10 filed on April 21, 2023 (Case No. 23WM000055), which is currently assigned to Judge Stephen P. 11 Acquisto. 12 For the reasons set forth below, the Measure K Action is not related to Case No. 23WM000055 13 under criteria set forth in Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court. Even so, American Canyon and 14 Buzz Oates agree that the Measure K Action should be transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, and 15 would have no objection if the case ends up before Judge Acquisto (though any such assignment would 16 be for the Presiding Judge of Sacramento Superior Court to decide). 17 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 On June 14, 2023, City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000517), Golden 19 State Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000510), and Center 20 for Biological Diversity v. City of American Canyon (Case No. 23CV000511)—all of which challenged 21 American Canyon’s March 21, 2023 approval of the Giovannoni Logistics Center and certification of 22 the underlying environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act 23 (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) —were ordered partially consolidated for purposes of 24 trial and transferred to the Sacramento Superior Court. Upon transfer, the Sacramento Superior Court 25 26 27 28 2 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 1 assigned the partially consolidated actions Case No. 23WM000055 (“EIR Action”). Contrary to the 2 Notice, of those three actions, only the City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon remains pending.1 3 The Measure K Action challenges American Canyon’s March 5, 2024, adoption of a citizen- 4 sponsored initiative that amended the American Canyon Zoning Ordinance to allow qualifying projects 5 to obtain a ministerial “Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Warehouse Design Permit” in lieu of the normal 6 discretionary design permit for certain warehouse facilities located in the General Industrial zone. The 7 Measure K action alleges violations of CEQA and the California Constitution in seeking a peremptory 8 writ of mandate as well as declaratory relief and injunctive relief. 9 LEGAL ARGUMENT 10 The Measure K Action and the EIR Action are not “related” under California Rules of Court, 11 rule 3.300. Subdivision (a) of Rule 3.300 provides that a “pending civil case is related to another 12 pending civil case … if the cases: 13 (1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; 14 (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring 15 the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or 16 17 (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” 18 The Measure K Action and the EIR Action do not meet any of these criteria. 19 A. The Measure K Action is not based on the same or similar claims as the EIR Action. 20 The legal theories, claims, and relief sought in the Measure K Action are separate and distinct 21 from those sought in the EIR Action. The Measure K Action, claiming CEQA and constitutional 22 violations, seeks to invalidate American Canyon’s legislative action in directly enacting Measure K and 23 thereby amending its Zoning Ordinance. In contrast, the EIR Action seeks to invalidate American 24 Canyon’s approval of a Design Permit for the Giovannoni Logistics Center, and certification of the 25 26 27 1 The City of Vallejo incorrectly identifies Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of American Canyon as pending. (Notice, p. 2.) Environmental Justice Alliance voluntarily dismissed its action against 28 American Canyon on February 16, 2024 and the clerk entered dismissal on February 28, 2024. 3 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 1 underlying EIR under CEQA. Accordingly, on its face, the Measure K Action involves claims very 2 different from those being pursued in the EIR Action. 3 Nevertheless, to the extent the court finds there is nominal overlap in that both actions include 4 CEQA claims, any purported similarity ends there. The issues presented by the Measure K Action (e.g., 5 whether CEQA applies to the adoption of a citizen-sponsored initiative) are separate and distinct from 6 whether the EIR prepared for the Giovannoni Logistics Center is adequate. The two actions therefore 7 do not present the same or similar claims. 8 9 B. The Measure K Action and the EIR Action do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or 10 substantially identical questions of law or fact. 11 The alleged incident or event giving rise to the Measure K Action is American Canyon’s direct 12 enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative to amend its Zoning Ordinance citywide as applied to all 13 land zoned General Industrial. In contrast, the incident or event that gives rise to the EIR Action is 14 American Canyon’s approval of a Design Permit for the Giovannoni Logistics Center and certification 15 of the underlying EIR. These two events are plainly not the same or substantially similar. 16 As the events giving rise to the Measure K Action and the EIR Action lack even remote 17 sameness, they do not require determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or 18 fact. As to factual questions, the Measure K Action will be heard on an administrative record separate 19 and distinct from the record for the EIR Action with no overlapping evidence (or very little, at most). 20 The Measure K Action requires determinations of predominantly legal questions regarding (i) whether 21 CEQA applied at all to the enactment of Measure K (it did not), (ii) whether, as Petitioners contend, the 22 subject matter of Measure K was adjudicatory rather than legislative (it was not), and (iii) whether 23 24 Measure K requires Real Parties in Interest “to perform and/or execute one or more functions, powers, 25 or duties” (it does not). (See Measure K Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for 26 27 28 4 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 1 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶¶ 32-58.)2 In contrast, the EIR Action involves the sole question of 2 whether substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusions in American Canyon’s EIR 3 regarding the environmental impacts of the Giovannoni Logistics Center related to water supply. 4 In summary, the criteria in Rule 3.300(a)(2) simply are not met here. 5 C. The remaining criteria set forth in Rule 3.300(a) are not implicated—nor can they be met. 6 The City of Vallejo does not assert that the Measure K Action and the EIR Action are related 7 pursuant to Rule 3.300(a)(3) or (a)(4) and therefore those criteria need not be addressed here. 8 CONCLUSION 9 American Canyon and Buzz Oates request that the Measure K Action not be related to the EIR 10 Action, as the Measure K Action does not meet the definition of “related case” set forth in Rule 3.300. 11 While there is no risk of duplication of judicial resources if the Measure K Action and the EIR Action 12 are heard by different judges, American Canyon and Buzz Oates would not object to a transfer of venue 13 of the Measure K Action to Sacramento Superior Court, nor would they object if the Presiding Judge of 14 that court assigns the Measure K Action to Judge Acquisto. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 394, 15 the Measure K case should not be heard by the Napa County Superior Court. Thus, transfer to 16 Sacramento County Superior Court would be acceptable to American Canyon and Buzz Oates. Indeed, 17 the sooner such a transfer is effectuated, the better. American Canyon and Buzz Oates believe that the 18 Measure K case is wholly without merit and (particularly with respect to the CEQA claim) patently 19 frivolous. The sooner the matter can be ready for adjudication, the better. 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 Dated: April 12, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS 22 23 By: WILLIAM D. ROSS, ESQ. 24 CHRISTINA M. BELLARDO, ESQ. 25 Attorneys for Respondents 26 27 2 In the Measure K case, the CEQA claim is patently without merit and frivolous, as the California Supreme Court has unequivocally held that direct enactment of a citizen-sponsored initiative measure is 28 not subject to CEQA. (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Super. Ct. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029.) 5 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, and AMERICAN 1 CANYON CITY COUNCIL 2 Dated: April 12, 2024 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 3 4 By: 5 JAMES G. MOOSE CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND 6 7 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest BUZZ OATES LLC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 RESPONDENTS’ AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE