Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara
RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
CALLIE KIM, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 257213) 4/22/2024 2:31 PM
105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982
E-mail: ckim@countyofsb.org
Attorneys for Respondents,
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD,
TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and
DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
Exempt
from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103]
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
12
(ANACAPA DIVISION)
13
14
JANA ZIMMER, an individual and Case No.: 24CV00199
15 TRUSTEE OF THE SOLOMON-
ZIMMER LIVING TRUST,
16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Petitioner, OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
17 VS. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
18 Writ filed: January 16, 2024
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
19 Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
Dept. SB5
20 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
LISA PLOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF
Hearing: April 29, 2024
21 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT,
ROB HAZARD, FIRE MARSHAL,
22 TRAVIS SEAWARDS, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
23 DEVELOPMENT, DAS WILLIAMS,
FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR,
24 DOES 1-25, in their official and
individual capacities,
25
26 Respondents.
27
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. -1-
105 E. Anapamu Street, #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(805) 568-2950
Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT, ROB HAZARD, FIRE MARSHAL, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT
SUPERVISOR (hereinafter “County Defendants”) oppose Petitioner Jana Zimmer’s Request for
Judicial Notice on the following grounds.
Courts must take judicial notice of some matters under Evidence Code section 451 and
have discretion to take judicial notice of other matters under Evidence Code section 452. Proper
subjects for judicial notice are facts and propositions that “are of such common knowledge within
10
the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute” or
11
“not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by
12
resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (g), (h); Malek
13
Media Grp. LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal. App. Sth 817, 825.) Any matter to be judicially
14
noticed must be relevant to a material issue. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000)
15
24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.) Most of the documents Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice,
16
which total over 400 pages, are either inappropriate subjects for judicial notice or irrelevant to the
17
issues in this case. Nor are any of the documents authenticated as true and correct copies of the
18
documents they are alleged to be.
19
Legislative Materials. The County does not oppose the Court taking judicial notice of
20
legislative materials when the materials would be useful to interpret an ambiguous state statute.
21
(Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th
22
26, 29 (noting that resort to legislative history is appropriate only where statutory language is
23
ambiguous).) The County does oppose the Court taking judicial of legislative bills as authority
24
for existing law because this may result in legal error if the laws that were enacted by the
25
legislative bills have since been amended. For instance, Petitioner’s Exhibit 6 is Senate Bill
26
Number 330, which was a 2019 bill that amended Government Code Section 65589.5, among
27
other statutes. Section 65589.5 was subsequently amended in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Ifthe
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. -2-
105 E. Anapamu Street, #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(805) 568-2950
Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit 6 and relies on the bill in deciding this case, it will also need
to determine whether each of those amendments substantively impacted the provisions at issue.
A better approach would be to rely on the current statute, which is readily available online. Other
legislative bills Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice are: Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8.
The County also objects to Exhibit 9, which purports to be “(SRA) FIRE SAFE
REGULATIONS, 2020, 14 CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 Fire Protection, Subchapter 2, Articles
1-5.” The document is not authenticated, so it is unclear where the document came from. It
appears to be a proposed amendment because it includes strike through and underlined text. It
also appears to be an outdated version of the law from 2020. The County asserts the current
10
version of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, which is readily available online, is
11
more appropriate for ruling on the demurrer.
12
The County likewise objects to Exhibit 27, which appears to be a proposed or draft
13
ordinance. The document is not authenticated so it is not clear where it came from. The County
14
contends that the Court should only judicially notice adopted ordinances.
15
Irrelevant Materials. As stated previously, any matter to be judicially noticed must be
16
relevant to a material issue. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th
17
415, 422, fn. 2.). The County objects to the documents Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice
18
that are not relevant to this litigation because they do not pertain to the County’s determination
19
that Zimmer’s property is not eligible for a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7.
20
These exhibits are: 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 26, 29, 30 and 31.
21
22 Emails. Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice a number of emails under Evidence
23 Code Section 452(h). Section 452(h) allows, but does not require, the court to take judicial notice
24 of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate
25 and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” “Judicial
26 notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h) is intended to cover facts which are not
27 reasonably subject to dispute and are easily verified. These include, for example, facts which are
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. -3-
105 E. Anapamu Street, #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(805) 568-2950
widely accepted as established by experts and specialists in the natural, physical, and social
sciences which can be verified by reference to treatises, encyclopedias, almanacs and the like or
by persons learned in the subject matter.” (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31
Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) The emails Zimmer asks this Court to judicially notice include hearsay
statements about issues that are subject to dispute and are not therefore admissible under Evidence
Rule section 452(h). Nor do the emails qualify as official acts. (See Golden Door Properties,
LLC v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty. (2020) 53 Cal. App. Sth 733, n. 18, as modified on denial
of reh'g (Aug. 25, 2020) (“The request for judicial notice of exhibit No. 35, an e-mail exchange,
is denied also because it is not properly the subject of judicial notice.”) (citing LaChance v.
10 Valverde (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 779, 783).) Accordingly, the County objects to the Court
11 taking judicial notice of exhibits 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, at 27.
12
13 DATED: April 22, 2024 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL
14
15
16 By: Callieékim.
Deputy County Counsel
17 Attorneys for Respondents
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF
18 SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA
BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD,
19 TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. -4-
105 E. Anapamu Street, #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(805) 568-2950
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East
Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California.
On April 22, 2024, I served a true copy of the within COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the
Interested Parties in this action by:
XI by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of
Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the
above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service,
after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central
10 Mail Room.
11
Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC Richard C. Solomon
12 Andréa Marcus 2640 Las Encinas Lane
133 E. De La Guerra St. #143 Santa Barbara, CA, 93105
13 Santa Barbara California 93101
14
GB by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
15 address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I did
not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
16 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
17 Andréa Marcus, andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com, Attorney for Plaintiff
Richard C. Solomon, resolomon42@gmail.com, Attorney for Plaintiff
18
19 by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below.
20
(State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct
21
22
Executed on April 22, 2024, at4 Gants ara California.
Santa Baib. ara,
23
24 Marleen van den Heuvel
25
26
27
28
SANTA BARBARA -24-
COUNTY COUNSEL.
105 E. Anapan Street, #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 PROOF OF SERVICE
(805) 568-2950
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer CALLIE KIM, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 257213) 4/22/2024 2:31 PM 105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982 E-mail: ckim@countyofsb.org Attorneys for Respondents, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR Exempt from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103] 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 12 (ANACAPA DIVISION) 13 14 JANA ZIMMER, an individual and Case No.: 24CV00199 15 TRUSTEE OF THE SOLOMON- ZIMMER LIVING TRUST, 16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Petitioner, OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S 17 VS. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 18 Writ filed: January 16, 2024 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, 19 Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE Dept. SB5 20 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF Hearing: April 29, 2024 21 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ROB HAZARD, FIRE MARSHAL, 22 TRAVIS SEAWARDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND 23 DEVELOPMENT, DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, 24 DOES 1-25, in their official and individual capacities, 25 26 Respondents. 27 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. -1- 105 E. Anapamu Street, #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (805) 568-2950 Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ROB HAZARD, FIRE MARSHAL, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR (hereinafter “County Defendants”) oppose Petitioner Jana Zimmer’s Request for Judicial Notice on the following grounds. Courts must take judicial notice of some matters under Evidence Code section 451 and have discretion to take judicial notice of other matters under Evidence Code section 452. Proper subjects for judicial notice are facts and propositions that “are of such common knowledge within 10 the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute” or 11 “not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by 12 resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (g), (h); Malek 13 Media Grp. LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal. App. Sth 817, 825.) Any matter to be judicially 14 noticed must be relevant to a material issue. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 15 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.) Most of the documents Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice, 16 which total over 400 pages, are either inappropriate subjects for judicial notice or irrelevant to the 17 issues in this case. Nor are any of the documents authenticated as true and correct copies of the 18 documents they are alleged to be. 19 Legislative Materials. The County does not oppose the Court taking judicial notice of 20 legislative materials when the materials would be useful to interpret an ambiguous state statute. 21 (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 22 26, 29 (noting that resort to legislative history is appropriate only where statutory language is 23 ambiguous).) The County does oppose the Court taking judicial of legislative bills as authority 24 for existing law because this may result in legal error if the laws that were enacted by the 25 legislative bills have since been amended. For instance, Petitioner’s Exhibit 6 is Senate Bill 26 Number 330, which was a 2019 bill that amended Government Code Section 65589.5, among 27 other statutes. Section 65589.5 was subsequently amended in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Ifthe 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. -2- 105 E. Anapamu Street, #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (805) 568-2950 Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit 6 and relies on the bill in deciding this case, it will also need to determine whether each of those amendments substantively impacted the provisions at issue. A better approach would be to rely on the current statute, which is readily available online. Other legislative bills Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice are: Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. The County also objects to Exhibit 9, which purports to be “(SRA) FIRE SAFE REGULATIONS, 2020, 14 CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 Fire Protection, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5.” The document is not authenticated, so it is unclear where the document came from. It appears to be a proposed amendment because it includes strike through and underlined text. It also appears to be an outdated version of the law from 2020. The County asserts the current 10 version of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, which is readily available online, is 11 more appropriate for ruling on the demurrer. 12 The County likewise objects to Exhibit 27, which appears to be a proposed or draft 13 ordinance. The document is not authenticated so it is not clear where it came from. The County 14 contends that the Court should only judicially notice adopted ordinances. 15 Irrelevant Materials. As stated previously, any matter to be judicially noticed must be 16 relevant to a material issue. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 17 415, 422, fn. 2.). The County objects to the documents Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice 18 that are not relevant to this litigation because they do not pertain to the County’s determination 19 that Zimmer’s property is not eligible for a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7. 20 These exhibits are: 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 26, 29, 30 and 31. 21 22 Emails. Zimmer asks the Court to judicially notice a number of emails under Evidence 23 Code Section 452(h). Section 452(h) allows, but does not require, the court to take judicial notice 24 of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate 25 and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” “Judicial 26 notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h) is intended to cover facts which are not 27 reasonably subject to dispute and are easily verified. These include, for example, facts which are 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. -3- 105 E. Anapamu Street, #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (805) 568-2950 widely accepted as established by experts and specialists in the natural, physical, and social sciences which can be verified by reference to treatises, encyclopedias, almanacs and the like or by persons learned in the subject matter.” (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) The emails Zimmer asks this Court to judicially notice include hearsay statements about issues that are subject to dispute and are not therefore admissible under Evidence Rule section 452(h). Nor do the emails qualify as official acts. (See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty. (2020) 53 Cal. App. Sth 733, n. 18, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 25, 2020) (“The request for judicial notice of exhibit No. 35, an e-mail exchange, is denied also because it is not properly the subject of judicial notice.”) (citing LaChance v. 10 Valverde (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 779, 783).) Accordingly, the County objects to the Court 11 taking judicial notice of exhibits 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, at 27. 12 13 DATED: April 22, 2024 RACHEL VAN MULLEM SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL 14 15 16 By: Callieékim. Deputy County Counsel 17 Attorneys for Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF 18 SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, 19 TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. -4- 105 E. Anapamu Street, #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101, RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (805) 568-2950 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. On April 22, 2024, I served a true copy of the within COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the Interested Parties in this action by: XI by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central 10 Mail Room. 11 Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC Richard C. Solomon 12 Andréa Marcus 2640 Las Encinas Lane 133 E. De La Guerra St. #143 Santa Barbara, CA, 93105 13 Santa Barbara California 93101 14 GB by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail 15 address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other 16 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 Andréa Marcus, andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com, Attorney for Plaintiff Richard C. Solomon, resolomon42@gmail.com, Attorney for Plaintiff 18 19 by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below. 20 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct 21 22 Executed on April 22, 2024, at4 Gants ara California. Santa Baib. ara, 23 24 Marleen van den Heuvel 25 26 27 28 SANTA BARBARA -24- COUNTY COUNSEL. 105 E. Anapan Street, #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 PROOF OF SERVICE (805) 568-2950