Preview
1 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Daniel R. Golub (SBN 286729)
2 daniel.golub@hklaw.com
Sarah A. Marsey (SBN 297911)
3 sarah.marsey@hklaw.com
William E. Sterling (SBN 332585)
4 william.sterling@hklaw.com
Kevin J. Ashe (SBN 312938)
5 kevin.ashe@hklaw.com
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
6 San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.743.6900
7 Fax: 415.743.6910
8 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest,
WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC,
9 BEN VANZUTPHEN
10
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
12
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 ST. HELENA CITIZENS FOR A ) Case No.: 23CV000938
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE and WATER )
14 AUDIT CALIFORNIA, ) REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
) OF JOINDER TO RESPONDENT’S
15 Petitioner, ) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
) PLEADINGS
16 vs. )
) Date: April 11, 2024
17 CITY OF ST. HELENA, CITY COUNCIL OF ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
ST. HELENA, and DOES 1 through 20, ) Dept.: Department C
18 ) Judge: Hon. Joseph J. Solga
Respondent, )
19 ) Complaint Filed: July 27, 2023
) Trial Date: None set
20 WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC, BEN )
VANZUTPHEN, and DOES 21-40, )
21 )
Real Parties in Interest. )
22 )
)
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
1 Real Parties in Interest White Fang Properties, LLC and Ben Vanzutphen (“Real Parties”)
2 respectfully submit this Reply in support of their Notice of Joinder and Joinder (the “Joinder”) to
3 Respondents and Defendants’ City of St. Helena (the “City”) and City Council of St. Helena
4 (collectively, “Respondents”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on March 15, 2024 (the
5 “Motion”). Real Parties join in Respondents’ Reply and file this brief separate reply in support of
6 Real Parties’ distinct interests with respect to this litigation, and to address arguments raised by
7 Petitioner St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future (“CSF,” and, with Petitioner Water Audit
8 California (“Water Audit”), “Petitioners”) with respect to Real Parties. 1
9 Petitioners have appended to this administrative mandamus action two claims that have been
10 repeatedly rejected by this Court (specifically by Judge Young, against whom Water Audit filed a
11 peremptory challenge because of his familiarity with the issues). Because those claims exhibit the
12 same deficiencies as those previously and repeatedly rejected by Judge Young, they should be
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 dismissed. Further, because Petitioners have shown through their repeated inability to plead a viable
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
14 claim that they cannot cure the deficiencies through an amended pleading – and because they still do
15 not identify how those claims could be saved by further amendment even now – the claims should be
16 dismissed with prejudice. See Delgado v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409
17 (“In seeking leave to file yet another amended complaint, appellants do not identify anything more
18 they can add to the allegations they have already made. Accordingly, further leave is inappropriate.”).
19 This result is compelled both by the law regarding the public trust doctrine – as thoroughly developed
20 in Respondents’ Motion – and by the clear mandate to expeditiously resolve CEQA litigation. See
21 Notice of Joinder at 6-7. A contrary outcome would prejudice Real Parties and, more importantly,
22 the people who will live in the homes that Real Parties seek to build, and which Petitioners seek to
23 thwart. See, e.g., Magpali v. Farmers Grp., Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487, as modified on
24
25
1
26 Petitioners chose to file a joint petition and complaint, but resist the attendant responsibility to
litigate jointly. The two Petitioners have filed separate oppositions to the same Motion, and have
27 declined to express consistent and shared positions about the claims they both bring in the same
pleading. Had each Petitioner wished to control the course of its own litigation, each Petitioner could
28 have filed a separate complaint. To ensure appropriate respect for judicial economy, Real Parties will
request that this Court direct Petitioners to file jointly in the future.
2
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
1 denial of reh’g (Aug. 20, 1996) (“liberality in permitting amendments” inapplicable where there is
2 prejudice to the opposing party).
3 Rather than meaningfully distinguish the authorities cited by Respondents and relied upon by
4 Judge Young, which establish that the third and fourth causes of action fail to state a claim, Petitioners
5 prefer to do battle with a straw man: arguing that the re-pled claims may not technically be barred by
6 res judicata. Water Audit Opposition at 3; CSF Opposition at 1. But neither Respondents nor Real
7 Parties argued that they were. Rather, the Motion argues that the Third and Fourth Causes of Action
8 exhibit the same deficiencies that proved fatal in the prior litigation. Motion at 10. Since the current
9 claims read almost identically to those previously pled, they fail for the same reasons.
10 To the extent that Petitioners identify anything new about these claims, it does not concern
11 their substance, but the fact that they have now been pled alongside two other causes of action that
12 challenge a specific administrative act. 2 In meet-and-confer correspondence, Respondents and Real
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 Parties expressed that they would have been willing to forego bringing this Motion if Petitioners
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
14 would confirm that the third and fourth causes of action, like the first two, challenge the City’s
15 approval of the Hunter Subdivision Project (the “Project”). See Declaration of Patricia Ursea in
16 Support of Motion (“Ursea Decl.”), ¶¶ 7-14. In response, only counsel for CSF – but not counsel for
17 Water Audit – was willing to confirm that either cause of action was an administrative mandamus
18 2
As discussed in the Joinder, Motion, and Respondents’ reply, any challenge to the City’s approval
19 of the Hunter Project can only arise in administrative mandamus pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
1094.5, whereas a generalized challenge to City policies could only arise, if at all, in traditional
20 mandamus pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. An administrative mandamus must be tried on the
basis of the administrative record, and extra-record discovery is not permitted into the merits of the
21 claims. Where, as here, there is a relevant legal distinction between the two statutes (such as whether
extra-record discovery is permissible), a trial court must determine the appropriate and applicable
22 standard. When “the review necessitates looking into the administrative record itself, the trial court
must proceed under section 1094.5 and not section 1085.” Professional Engineers In Cal.
23 Government v. State Personnel Bd. (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 101, 111 (emphases added) (reversing
trial court for proceeding to adjudicate claim under traditional mandamus procedures, since the facts
24 indicated that review of the administrative record was necessary to determine the agency’s actions);
see also Eureka Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 353, 364 (collecting
25 authorities providing that it is the “court’s duty to issue the correct writ of mandate and to apply the
appropriate standard of review, based upon the facts of the case”). Petitioners know this, because the
26 prior WAC petition brought different and independent causes of action, some purportedly arising
under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, and others purportedly arising under Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. All
27 failed to state a claim. For reasons too obvious to require explanation, petitioners are not entitled to
take discovery and request a jury trial by pleading traditional mandamus causes of action that fail to
28 state a claim, merely because they have married those claims to closed-record administrative
mandamus causes of action that do not entitle petitioners to take discovery at all.
3
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
1 challenge limited to the Project. Ursea Decl., ¶ 11. In communications with counsel, and on the face
2 of the complaint, Petitioners made no effort to distinguish these causes of action from those that Water
3 Audit brought in the prior litigation: generalized challenges to City policies, which do not even name
4 any specific act Petitioners seek to challenge. If Petitioners are now willing to stipulate that either of
5 the causes of action subject to the Motion will be tried on the basis of the administrative record, and
6 that Petitioners will not seek discovery with respect to that cause of action, then such a stipulation
7 would likely obviate the need for the Court to dismiss at least that claim at the pleading stage.
8 Further, to the extent that either Petitioner responds to Real Parties’ specific points, those
9 responses are confined to footnotes which are heavy on ad hominem name-calling and hyperbole, but
10 quite light on citations to legal authority or evidence. See CSF Opp. at 1:23-28; 7:23-28. CSF claims
11 Real Parties’ Joinder makes “unsupportable assertions … that fly in the face of the facts of the record
12 and reveal nothing more than a desperate attempt by the Real Parties to avoid scrutiny and discovery
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 of the manner in which they have aided and abetted in an abject breach of public trust.” CSF Opp. at
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
14 2:26-28. Nowhere does the Opposition identify the supposed “unsupportable assertions.” As
15 explained in the Joinder, Real Parties object to Petitioners’ strategy of re-alleging repeatedly
16 dismissed and generalized claims, and then using those rejected claims as a pretext to take discovery
17 and thus push resolution far beyond the statutory deadlines governing CEQA litigation. See Pub. Res.
18 Code § 21167.1(c) (requiring a merits hearing 120 days after filing of request for hearing – i.e., March
19 21, 2024). An interest in expediting resolution of CEQA challenges is hardly a sinister motive; it is
20 the adopted policy of the State. See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a) (establishing preference for
21 CEQA cases and requiring an expedited briefing schedule “so that the action or proceeding shall be
22 quickly heard and determined”); § 21167.6(b)(1)(B) (requiring court to schedule case management
23 conference “within 30 days of the filing” of a CEQA petition).
24 CSF also claims that the Project targeted by this litigation will not provide any affordable
25 housing. See CSF Opp. at 7, n.2. This argument is strange for several reasons, not least of which is
26 its suggestion that CEQA litigation delay tactics should be forgiven if they are aimed at projects
27 without deed-restricted affordability requirements. But in any event, CSF is simply incorrect. The
28 Project is required to provide affordable units by both the City’s Municipal Code and an express,
4
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
1 legally binding Condition of Approval to which the Project is subject. See Administrative Record, at
2 p. 532. CSF’s belief to the contrary is both irrelevant and baseless.
3 Finally, CSF protests that the mandate to expedite CEQA litigation, and the numerous
4 authorities supporting that mandate (see Joinder at 6-7), should have no bearing on its request to
5 amend its deficient pleading (a request that is unsupported by any description of what amendments it
6 would make). Opposition at 9, n.3. Here, CSF fails to grapple with the consequences of its own
7 litigation strategy. CSF chose to file a complaint that both (1) alleged a CEQA violation and (2)
8 advanced a public trust doctrine theory that has been repeatedly rejected by this Court. As discussed,
9 CEQA litigation must be “quickly heard and determined.” Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a). If CSF (or
10 Water Audit) wished to avoid this mandate, it should have brought its public trust claims in a separate
11 litigation, or confirmed that its public trust arguments could be brought in administrative mandamus
12 and tried on the basis of the record, like its other claims. CSF cites no authority for the proposition
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 that the statutory mandate to promptly adjudicate CEQA claims may be evaded by endlessly
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
14 repleading claims in service of an already-rejected theory. The Court should decline to countenance
15 such an approach.
16 Real Parties respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion and dismiss the Third and
17 Fourth Causes of Action with prejudice.
18 Respectfully submitted,
19 Dated: April 4, 2024 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
20 /s/ Daniel R. Golub
Daniel R. Golub
21 Sarah A. Marsey
William E. Sterling
22 Kevin J. Ashe
23 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest
White Fang Properties, LLC and Ben Vanzutphen
24
25
26
27
28
5
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
3 above-captioned action; that my business address is 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco,
4 CA 94105. On April 4, 2024, the following document(s) were served:
5 • REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER TO RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
6 on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
7 Adam Keats William McKinnon
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
8 2489 Mission St., Suite 16 952 School St., PMB 316
San Francisco, CA 94110 Napa, CA 94559
9 Tel.: 415-964-0070 Email: legal@waterauditca.org
Email: adam@keatslaw.org vstephan@waterauditCA.org
10 general@waterauditca.org
Attorneys for St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable
11 Future Attorneys for Water Audit Corporation
Sarah E. Owsowitz
12 Patricia Ursea
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
Megan Kilmer
Holland & Knight LLP
San Francisco, CA 94105
13 BEST BEST & KRIEGER
Fax: 415.743.6910
Tel: 415.743.6900
1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 220
14
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
15 Email: sarah.owsowitz@bbklaw.com
megan.kilmer@bbklaw.com
16 patricia.ursea@bbklaw.com
17 Attorneys for City of St. Helena and City Council
of St. Helena
18
(BY ELECTRONIC MAIL): I caused a true and correct scanned image (.PDF file) copy
19 to be transmitted via the electronic mail transfer system in place at Holland & Knight, LLP,
originating from the undersigned at 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA
20 94105, to the address(es) indicated above.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
22 true and correct.
23 Executed April 4, 2024, at New York, New York.
24
____________________________
25 Reena Kaur
26
27
28
6
REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER
Preview
1 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Daniel R. Golub (SBN 286729) 2 daniel.golub@hklaw.com Sarah A. Marsey (SBN 297911) 3 sarah.marsey@hklaw.com William E. Sterling (SBN 332585) 4 william.sterling@hklaw.com Kevin J. Ashe (SBN 312938) 5 kevin.ashe@hklaw.com 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 6 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.743.6900 7 Fax: 415.743.6910 8 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest, WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC, 9 BEN VANZUTPHEN 10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 12 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 ST. HELENA CITIZENS FOR A ) Case No.: 23CV000938 Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 SUSTAINABLE FUTURE and WATER ) 14 AUDIT CALIFORNIA, ) REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT ) OF JOINDER TO RESPONDENT’S 15 Petitioner, ) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ) PLEADINGS 16 vs. ) ) Date: April 11, 2024 17 CITY OF ST. HELENA, CITY COUNCIL OF ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ST. HELENA, and DOES 1 through 20, ) Dept.: Department C 18 ) Judge: Hon. Joseph J. Solga Respondent, ) 19 ) Complaint Filed: July 27, 2023 ) Trial Date: None set 20 WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC, BEN ) VANZUTPHEN, and DOES 21-40, ) 21 ) Real Parties in Interest. ) 22 ) ) 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER 1 Real Parties in Interest White Fang Properties, LLC and Ben Vanzutphen (“Real Parties”) 2 respectfully submit this Reply in support of their Notice of Joinder and Joinder (the “Joinder”) to 3 Respondents and Defendants’ City of St. Helena (the “City”) and City Council of St. Helena 4 (collectively, “Respondents”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on March 15, 2024 (the 5 “Motion”). Real Parties join in Respondents’ Reply and file this brief separate reply in support of 6 Real Parties’ distinct interests with respect to this litigation, and to address arguments raised by 7 Petitioner St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future (“CSF,” and, with Petitioner Water Audit 8 California (“Water Audit”), “Petitioners”) with respect to Real Parties. 1 9 Petitioners have appended to this administrative mandamus action two claims that have been 10 repeatedly rejected by this Court (specifically by Judge Young, against whom Water Audit filed a 11 peremptory challenge because of his familiarity with the issues). Because those claims exhibit the 12 same deficiencies as those previously and repeatedly rejected by Judge Young, they should be 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 dismissed. Further, because Petitioners have shown through their repeated inability to plead a viable Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 14 claim that they cannot cure the deficiencies through an amended pleading – and because they still do 15 not identify how those claims could be saved by further amendment even now – the claims should be 16 dismissed with prejudice. See Delgado v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409 17 (“In seeking leave to file yet another amended complaint, appellants do not identify anything more 18 they can add to the allegations they have already made. Accordingly, further leave is inappropriate.”). 19 This result is compelled both by the law regarding the public trust doctrine – as thoroughly developed 20 in Respondents’ Motion – and by the clear mandate to expeditiously resolve CEQA litigation. See 21 Notice of Joinder at 6-7. A contrary outcome would prejudice Real Parties and, more importantly, 22 the people who will live in the homes that Real Parties seek to build, and which Petitioners seek to 23 thwart. See, e.g., Magpali v. Farmers Grp., Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487, as modified on 24 25 1 26 Petitioners chose to file a joint petition and complaint, but resist the attendant responsibility to litigate jointly. The two Petitioners have filed separate oppositions to the same Motion, and have 27 declined to express consistent and shared positions about the claims they both bring in the same pleading. Had each Petitioner wished to control the course of its own litigation, each Petitioner could 28 have filed a separate complaint. To ensure appropriate respect for judicial economy, Real Parties will request that this Court direct Petitioners to file jointly in the future. 2 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER 1 denial of reh’g (Aug. 20, 1996) (“liberality in permitting amendments” inapplicable where there is 2 prejudice to the opposing party). 3 Rather than meaningfully distinguish the authorities cited by Respondents and relied upon by 4 Judge Young, which establish that the third and fourth causes of action fail to state a claim, Petitioners 5 prefer to do battle with a straw man: arguing that the re-pled claims may not technically be barred by 6 res judicata. Water Audit Opposition at 3; CSF Opposition at 1. But neither Respondents nor Real 7 Parties argued that they were. Rather, the Motion argues that the Third and Fourth Causes of Action 8 exhibit the same deficiencies that proved fatal in the prior litigation. Motion at 10. Since the current 9 claims read almost identically to those previously pled, they fail for the same reasons. 10 To the extent that Petitioners identify anything new about these claims, it does not concern 11 their substance, but the fact that they have now been pled alongside two other causes of action that 12 challenge a specific administrative act. 2 In meet-and-confer correspondence, Respondents and Real 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 Parties expressed that they would have been willing to forego bringing this Motion if Petitioners Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 14 would confirm that the third and fourth causes of action, like the first two, challenge the City’s 15 approval of the Hunter Subdivision Project (the “Project”). See Declaration of Patricia Ursea in 16 Support of Motion (“Ursea Decl.”), ¶¶ 7-14. In response, only counsel for CSF – but not counsel for 17 Water Audit – was willing to confirm that either cause of action was an administrative mandamus 18 2 As discussed in the Joinder, Motion, and Respondents’ reply, any challenge to the City’s approval 19 of the Hunter Project can only arise in administrative mandamus pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, whereas a generalized challenge to City policies could only arise, if at all, in traditional 20 mandamus pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. An administrative mandamus must be tried on the basis of the administrative record, and extra-record discovery is not permitted into the merits of the 21 claims. Where, as here, there is a relevant legal distinction between the two statutes (such as whether extra-record discovery is permissible), a trial court must determine the appropriate and applicable 22 standard. When “the review necessitates looking into the administrative record itself, the trial court must proceed under section 1094.5 and not section 1085.” Professional Engineers In Cal. 23 Government v. State Personnel Bd. (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 101, 111 (emphases added) (reversing trial court for proceeding to adjudicate claim under traditional mandamus procedures, since the facts 24 indicated that review of the administrative record was necessary to determine the agency’s actions); see also Eureka Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 353, 364 (collecting 25 authorities providing that it is the “court’s duty to issue the correct writ of mandate and to apply the appropriate standard of review, based upon the facts of the case”). Petitioners know this, because the 26 prior WAC petition brought different and independent causes of action, some purportedly arising under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, and others purportedly arising under Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. All 27 failed to state a claim. For reasons too obvious to require explanation, petitioners are not entitled to take discovery and request a jury trial by pleading traditional mandamus causes of action that fail to 28 state a claim, merely because they have married those claims to closed-record administrative mandamus causes of action that do not entitle petitioners to take discovery at all. 3 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER 1 challenge limited to the Project. Ursea Decl., ¶ 11. In communications with counsel, and on the face 2 of the complaint, Petitioners made no effort to distinguish these causes of action from those that Water 3 Audit brought in the prior litigation: generalized challenges to City policies, which do not even name 4 any specific act Petitioners seek to challenge. If Petitioners are now willing to stipulate that either of 5 the causes of action subject to the Motion will be tried on the basis of the administrative record, and 6 that Petitioners will not seek discovery with respect to that cause of action, then such a stipulation 7 would likely obviate the need for the Court to dismiss at least that claim at the pleading stage. 8 Further, to the extent that either Petitioner responds to Real Parties’ specific points, those 9 responses are confined to footnotes which are heavy on ad hominem name-calling and hyperbole, but 10 quite light on citations to legal authority or evidence. See CSF Opp. at 1:23-28; 7:23-28. CSF claims 11 Real Parties’ Joinder makes “unsupportable assertions … that fly in the face of the facts of the record 12 and reveal nothing more than a desperate attempt by the Real Parties to avoid scrutiny and discovery 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 of the manner in which they have aided and abetted in an abject breach of public trust.” CSF Opp. at Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 14 2:26-28. Nowhere does the Opposition identify the supposed “unsupportable assertions.” As 15 explained in the Joinder, Real Parties object to Petitioners’ strategy of re-alleging repeatedly 16 dismissed and generalized claims, and then using those rejected claims as a pretext to take discovery 17 and thus push resolution far beyond the statutory deadlines governing CEQA litigation. See Pub. Res. 18 Code § 21167.1(c) (requiring a merits hearing 120 days after filing of request for hearing – i.e., March 19 21, 2024). An interest in expediting resolution of CEQA challenges is hardly a sinister motive; it is 20 the adopted policy of the State. See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a) (establishing preference for 21 CEQA cases and requiring an expedited briefing schedule “so that the action or proceeding shall be 22 quickly heard and determined”); § 21167.6(b)(1)(B) (requiring court to schedule case management 23 conference “within 30 days of the filing” of a CEQA petition). 24 CSF also claims that the Project targeted by this litigation will not provide any affordable 25 housing. See CSF Opp. at 7, n.2. This argument is strange for several reasons, not least of which is 26 its suggestion that CEQA litigation delay tactics should be forgiven if they are aimed at projects 27 without deed-restricted affordability requirements. But in any event, CSF is simply incorrect. The 28 Project is required to provide affordable units by both the City’s Municipal Code and an express, 4 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER 1 legally binding Condition of Approval to which the Project is subject. See Administrative Record, at 2 p. 532. CSF’s belief to the contrary is both irrelevant and baseless. 3 Finally, CSF protests that the mandate to expedite CEQA litigation, and the numerous 4 authorities supporting that mandate (see Joinder at 6-7), should have no bearing on its request to 5 amend its deficient pleading (a request that is unsupported by any description of what amendments it 6 would make). Opposition at 9, n.3. Here, CSF fails to grapple with the consequences of its own 7 litigation strategy. CSF chose to file a complaint that both (1) alleged a CEQA violation and (2) 8 advanced a public trust doctrine theory that has been repeatedly rejected by this Court. As discussed, 9 CEQA litigation must be “quickly heard and determined.” Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a). If CSF (or 10 Water Audit) wished to avoid this mandate, it should have brought its public trust claims in a separate 11 litigation, or confirmed that its public trust arguments could be brought in administrative mandamus 12 and tried on the basis of the record, like its other claims. CSF cites no authority for the proposition 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 that the statutory mandate to promptly adjudicate CEQA claims may be evaded by endlessly Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 14 repleading claims in service of an already-rejected theory. The Court should decline to countenance 15 such an approach. 16 Real Parties respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion and dismiss the Third and 17 Fourth Causes of Action with prejudice. 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 Dated: April 4, 2024 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 20 /s/ Daniel R. Golub Daniel R. Golub 21 Sarah A. Marsey William E. Sterling 22 Kevin J. Ashe 23 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest White Fang Properties, LLC and Ben Vanzutphen 24 25 26 27 28 5 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the 3 above-captioned action; that my business address is 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, 4 CA 94105. On April 4, 2024, the following document(s) were served: 5 • REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 6 on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 7 Adam Keats William McKinnon LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA 8 2489 Mission St., Suite 16 952 School St., PMB 316 San Francisco, CA 94110 Napa, CA 94559 9 Tel.: 415-964-0070 Email: legal@waterauditca.org Email: adam@keatslaw.org vstephan@waterauditCA.org 10 general@waterauditca.org Attorneys for St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable 11 Future Attorneys for Water Audit Corporation Sarah E. Owsowitz 12 Patricia Ursea 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 Megan Kilmer Holland & Knight LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 13 BEST BEST & KRIEGER Fax: 415.743.6910 Tel: 415.743.6900 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 220 14 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 15 Email: sarah.owsowitz@bbklaw.com megan.kilmer@bbklaw.com 16 patricia.ursea@bbklaw.com 17 Attorneys for City of St. Helena and City Council of St. Helena 18 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL): I caused a true and correct scanned image (.PDF file) copy 19 to be transmitted via the electronic mail transfer system in place at Holland & Knight, LLP, originating from the undersigned at 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA 20 94105, to the address(es) indicated above. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 22 true and correct. 23 Executed April 4, 2024, at New York, New York. 24 ____________________________ 25 Reena Kaur 26 27 28 6 REAL PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER