Preview
Electrunically
bySupemr Court My ofSaI-u Match
nfEalufarI-uarflnu
. UN 9/26/2019
RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 27797 1) “1" f"
SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568) flfluflifli“
ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 956-8100
Fax: (415) 288—9755
ryan@zfp
Attorneys for Petitioners
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
California Renters Legal Advocacy and
Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon
\OOONONtlI-b
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE No. 18C1V02105
PC 10
FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS
400
94104
11 LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERS’ NOTICE 0F ERRATA IN
SUITE
PATTERSON,
FUND, VICTORIA PIERCE, and JOHN MOON, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
12
CALIFORNIA
Petmoners’
STREET
(CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5)
& 13
VS.
14 Date: October 24, 2019
FRANCXSCO,
MONTGOMERX
FREEDMAN
CITY 0F SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Tlmei 2100 Pm-
15 Dept: Courtroom 2G
SAN
COUNCIL, and CITY 0F SAN MATEO
235
Judge: H011. Joseph C. SCOtt
ZACKS,
16
PLANNING COMMISSION,
17 Respondents,
18 TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V.
19
GUNDOGDU,
2O Real Parties in Interest.
21
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22
Petitioners SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA
23
RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE, and JOHN
24
MOON (“Petitioners”) hereby submit this Notice of Errata for the sole purposed 0f correcting an
25
inadvertent error in Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief filed in this action on September 19, 2019. The
26
error exists on page two, line 18, and should include the word “no” as follows:
27
“Must a Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ 0f Mandate alleging a Violation of Gov.
28
-1-
PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF ERRATA IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Code § 65589.5(f)(4) give p_o_deference to the government entity’s findings?”
A true and correct copy of the caption page of the originally submitted document as well as
ALANthe operative page With the error corrected in red is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.”
Respectfully submitted,
\OOONQLII
Dated: September 26, 2019 ZACKS, REEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC
w:—
PC 10 Ryan J. Patterson
Attorneys for Petitioners
400
94104
11 San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
SUITE
PATTERSON,
California Renters Legal Advocacy and
12 Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon
CALIFORNLA
STREET
8c
13
14
FRANCISCO,
MONTGONERY
FREEDMAN
15
SAN
235
ZACKS,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF ERRATA IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
EXHIBIT A
RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 277971)
SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568)
ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
#UJN
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 956-8100
Fax: (415) 288-9755
Attorneys for Petitioners
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
QQUI
California Renters Legal Advocacy and
Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE NO. 18CIV02105
FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS
PC
11 LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE, and JOHN MOON,
400 12
94104
(CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5)
SUITE
PATTERSON,
Petitioners,
13
CALIFORNIA
VS. Date: October 24, 2019
STREET
14 Time: 2:00 p.m.
&
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Dept: Courtroom 2G
15
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Scott
16 PLANNING COMMISSION,
SAN
235
ZACKs,
17 Respondents,
18
TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V.
19 GUNDOGDU,
20 Real Parties in Interest.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
2. Is Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) applicable to this matter?
Yes. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) applies to this Project because it isa “housing development
project” as defined by the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).)
ng 3. Does Gov. Code § 65589.5(/)(4) eliminate thepower 0fa government entity t0
exercise discretion in determining which “plan, program, policy, ordinance, standards, or
other similar requirement” isapplicable?
“GUI
Yes. The questions 0f applicability and compliance are two sides 0f the same coin. If a
standard isnot “applicable,” a proj ect effectively complies with it.Accordingly, if there is
substantial evidence that standards are not “applicable” t0 a proj ect, it isthe same as the proj ect
complying with all applicable standards. As a result, the agency cannot apply that standard to deny
10 the proj ect.
11 4. Does Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) eliminate thepower ofa government entity t0
PC
deny a project ifthere is some substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person t0
400 12 conclude it is code-compliant?
94104
SUITE
PATTERSON,
13 Yes. By its plain language, GOV. Code § 65589.5(t)(4) eliminates the power of a government
CALIFORNIA
STREET,
14 entity t0 exercise discretion to deny a proj ect if there is “substantial evidence that would allow a
&
15 reasonable person to conclude it isconsistent, compliant, or in conformity.” The legislative history
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
16 confirms that this was the legislature’s intent.
SAN
235
ZACKS,
17 5. Must a Superior Court ruling 0n a Petition for Writ ofMandate alleging a
18 violation 0f Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) give M deference t0 the government entity’s
19 findings?
20 Yes. A Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ of Mandate alleging a Violation of the
21 HAA must not give deference t0 the government entity’s findings, because the HAA reverses the
22 “substantial evidence” standard of review in favor of Petitioners, as the legislative history explicitly
23 confirms.
24 A. Issue 2: Does the HAA Preclude the Use 0f Discretionary Guidelines?
25 Yes. The HAA precludes the use of discretionary guidelines t0 deny residential housing
26 development project permits, because such guidelines are not “objective” standards. (Gov. Code §
27 65589.SG)(1).) If a project complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and
28 subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards” it must be approved. (Id)
PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
Case No.: 180IV02105
I,Julie Du, declare that:
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18, and
am not a party to this action. My business address is 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San
Francisco, California 94104.
KOOOQQU‘I-PWNH
On September 26, 2019 I served:
Petitioners’ Notice of Errata in Supplemental Brief
in said cause addressed as follows:
Dolores Dalton
Barbara Kautz
Goldfarb & Lipman
1300 Clay St. Fl. 11
Oakland, CA 94612
Email: dda1t0n@goldfarblipman.com
Email: bkautz@goldfarblipman.com
David Finkelstein
V. Winnie Tungpagasit
Finkelstein Bender & Fujii LLP
1528 S El Camino Real STE 306
San Mateo, CA 94402
Email: dfinkelstein@dgflaw.com
Email: wtungpagasithdgflawcom
NNNNNNNNb—tr—Ir—tr—Ir—lp—Ap—Ir—to—ng—s
/XX/ (BY E-SERVICE) I served the above documents through One Legal in accordance With
the Court’s Local Rule requiring all documents be served upon interested parties Via One
Legal.
VONUIAUJNv—IOKOOQQONUI-bUJND—‘O
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 26, 2019 at San Fran isco, lifornia.
/ fl JULIE DU
[/
28
ZACKS & PROOF OF SERVICE
FREEDMAN, P.C.
Preview
Electrunically bySupemr Court My ofSaI-u Match nfEalufarI-uarflnu . UN 9/26/2019 RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 27797 1) “1" f" SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568) flfluflifli“ ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 956-8100 Fax: (415) 288—9755 ryan@zfp Attorneys for Petitioners San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon \OOONONtlI-b SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE No. 18C1V02105 PC 10 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS 400 94104 11 LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERS’ NOTICE 0F ERRATA IN SUITE PATTERSON, FUND, VICTORIA PIERCE, and JOHN MOON, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 12 CALIFORNIA Petmoners’ STREET (CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5) & 13 VS. 14 Date: October 24, 2019 FRANCXSCO, MONTGOMERX FREEDMAN CITY 0F SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Tlmei 2100 Pm- 15 Dept: Courtroom 2G SAN COUNCIL, and CITY 0F SAN MATEO 235 Judge: H011. Joseph C. SCOtt ZACKS, 16 PLANNING COMMISSION, 17 Respondents, 18 TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V. 19 GUNDOGDU, 2O Real Parties in Interest. 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 Petitioners SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA 23 RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE, and JOHN 24 MOON (“Petitioners”) hereby submit this Notice of Errata for the sole purposed 0f correcting an 25 inadvertent error in Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief filed in this action on September 19, 2019. The 26 error exists on page two, line 18, and should include the word “no” as follows: 27 “Must a Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ 0f Mandate alleging a Violation of Gov. 28 -1- PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF ERRATA IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Code § 65589.5(f)(4) give p_o_deference to the government entity’s findings?” A true and correct copy of the caption page of the originally submitted document as well as ALANthe operative page With the error corrected in red is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” Respectfully submitted, \OOONQLII Dated: September 26, 2019 ZACKS, REEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC w:— PC 10 Ryan J. Patterson Attorneys for Petitioners 400 94104 11 San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, SUITE PATTERSON, California Renters Legal Advocacy and 12 Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon CALIFORNLA STREET 8c 13 14 FRANCISCO, MONTGONERY FREEDMAN 15 SAN 235 ZACKS, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF ERRATA IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF EXHIBIT A RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 277971) SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568) ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 #UJN San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 956-8100 Fax: (415) 288-9755 Attorneys for Petitioners San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, QQUI California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE NO. 18CIV02105 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS PC 11 LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE, and JOHN MOON, 400 12 94104 (CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5) SUITE PATTERSON, Petitioners, 13 CALIFORNIA VS. Date: October 24, 2019 STREET 14 Time: 2:00 p.m. & CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Dept: Courtroom 2G 15 FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Scott 16 PLANNING COMMISSION, SAN 235 ZACKs, 17 Respondents, 18 TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V. 19 GUNDOGDU, 20 Real Parties in Interest. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 2. Is Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) applicable to this matter? Yes. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) applies to this Project because it isa “housing development project” as defined by the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).) ng 3. Does Gov. Code § 65589.5(/)(4) eliminate thepower 0fa government entity t0 exercise discretion in determining which “plan, program, policy, ordinance, standards, or other similar requirement” isapplicable? “GUI Yes. The questions 0f applicability and compliance are two sides 0f the same coin. If a standard isnot “applicable,” a proj ect effectively complies with it.Accordingly, if there is substantial evidence that standards are not “applicable” t0 a proj ect, it isthe same as the proj ect complying with all applicable standards. As a result, the agency cannot apply that standard to deny 10 the proj ect. 11 4. Does Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) eliminate thepower ofa government entity t0 PC deny a project ifthere is some substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person t0 400 12 conclude it is code-compliant? 94104 SUITE PATTERSON, 13 Yes. By its plain language, GOV. Code § 65589.5(t)(4) eliminates the power of a government CALIFORNIA STREET, 14 entity t0 exercise discretion to deny a proj ect if there is “substantial evidence that would allow a & 15 reasonable person to conclude it isconsistent, compliant, or in conformity.” The legislative history FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN 16 confirms that this was the legislature’s intent. SAN 235 ZACKS, 17 5. Must a Superior Court ruling 0n a Petition for Writ ofMandate alleging a 18 violation 0f Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) give M deference t0 the government entity’s 19 findings? 20 Yes. A Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ of Mandate alleging a Violation of the 21 HAA must not give deference t0 the government entity’s findings, because the HAA reverses the 22 “substantial evidence” standard of review in favor of Petitioners, as the legislative history explicitly 23 confirms. 24 A. Issue 2: Does the HAA Preclude the Use 0f Discretionary Guidelines? 25 Yes. The HAA precludes the use of discretionary guidelines t0 deny residential housing 26 development project permits, because such guidelines are not “objective” standards. (Gov. Code § 27 65589.SG)(1).) If a project complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and 28 subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards” it must be approved. (Id) PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 2 PROOF OF SERVICE Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No.: 180IV02105 I,Julie Du, declare that: I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18, and am not a party to this action. My business address is 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94104. KOOOQQU‘I-PWNH On September 26, 2019 I served: Petitioners’ Notice of Errata in Supplemental Brief in said cause addressed as follows: Dolores Dalton Barbara Kautz Goldfarb & Lipman 1300 Clay St. Fl. 11 Oakland, CA 94612 Email: dda1t0n@goldfarblipman.com Email: bkautz@goldfarblipman.com David Finkelstein V. Winnie Tungpagasit Finkelstein Bender & Fujii LLP 1528 S El Camino Real STE 306 San Mateo, CA 94402 Email: dfinkelstein@dgflaw.com Email: wtungpagasithdgflawcom NNNNNNNNb—tr—Ir—tr—Ir—lp—Ap—Ir—to—ng—s /XX/ (BY E-SERVICE) I served the above documents through One Legal in accordance With the Court’s Local Rule requiring all documents be served upon interested parties Via One Legal. VONUIAUJNv—IOKOOQQONUI-bUJND—‘O I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 26, 2019 at San Fran isco, lifornia. / fl JULIE DU [/ 28 ZACKS & PROOF OF SERVICE FREEDMAN, P.C.