Docstoc

Pilots lawsuit against city of Watsonville

Document Sample
Pilots lawsuit against city of Watsonville Powered By Docstoc
					     I   Jonathan Wittwer, SBN 058665
         William P. Parkin, SBN 139718

~
     2   Nicole Di Camillo, SBN 283088
         WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP
     3   147 S. River Street, Suite 221
0    4
         Santa Cruz, CA 95060
         Telephone: (831) 429-4055
U        Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
     5   wparkin@wittwerparkin.com
,-:] 6   Attorneys for Petitioners,
         WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and
     7   FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA

     8

     9                   SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    10                            FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

    II

    12    WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,         Case No.   CV 178418
          a California non-profit corporation,
    13    FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA, an
          unincorporated association              PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    14
                                   Petitioners,
    IS                                            [CEQACASE]
          vs.
    16
          CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CITY
    17    COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
          WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
    18    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
          DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS and DOES 1
    19    THROUGH IS,
    20                            Respondents.
    21

    22
    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28
     I                                          I.   INTRODUCTION

     2            I. On January 22,2013, Respondents City of Watsonville and the City Council of the

     3    City of Watsonville (hereinafter "City" or "Respondent City") adopted the "Watsonville Vista
     4    2030 General Plan Update" (hereinafter "Vista 2030 Plan") and certified the associated
     5    Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (hereinafter "Vista 2030 EIR"). Respondent City filed a
     6    Notice of Determination ("NOD") with the Clerk of the Board ofthe County of Santa Cruz on
     7    February 8, 2013 . Said NOD was untimely. Petitioners Watsonville Pilots Association ("WP A")
     8    and Friends of Buena Visa ("FOBV") (collectively "Petitioners") challenge the validity of both
     9    the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR.
 10              2. Respondent City previously adopted an amendment/update to the City General Plan
 11       with the same 2030 horizon and certified an associated Environmental Impact Report, both on
 12      May 26,2006. Petitioners filed a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the prior general plan
 J3      amendment/update as violative oflocal, state and federal aeronautic laws as well as challenging
14       the adequacy of the former EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"-
15       Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (Santa Cruz County Case Number CV 154571).
16       The Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate on April 28, 2008, directing Respondents to set
17       aside certification of the former EIR and all approvals and findings for the former Watsonville
18       2030 General Plan Update. The Court also enjoined the City from implementing the General Plan
19       or from basing any action on the same. Respondents appealed the Superior Court decision and in
20       Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, the Court of
21       Appeal upheld the Superior Court decision.
22               3. Petitioners again challenge the adequacy of the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030
23       EIR, based on, inter alia, Respondents' failure to cure the infirmities pointed out in the above-
24       referenced action, some of which the Court never addressed due to other threshold inadequacies
25       and illegalities in the City's prior decision, and based on new claims resulting from the City' s

26
27       Petition for Writ of Mandamus

28
      I    reapproval that result in further failures to comply with law. Petitioners allege that Respondents

     2     have failed to comply with the Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by the court, and fail to

     3     follow California law, statutes and regulations including but not limited to, failure to comply

     4     with the State Aeronautics Act, CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines.

     5             4. Petitioners more specifically challenge the Vista 2030 Plan based on the following

     6     grounds, including but not limited to , the fact that the Vista 2030 Plan (I) is inconsistent with the

     7     California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") Division of Aeronautics ("CDOA") Airport

     8     Land Use Planning Handbook ("CDOA Handbook"), which provides mandatory criteria, which

     9     Respondents have failed to include in the language of the Vista 2030 Plan; (2) violates CEQA;

 10        and, (3) violates the City's voter-adopted Measure U.

 11

 12                        II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 13                5. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 4 herein as if fully

 14        set forth herein.

15                 6. The City re-circulated the Vista 2030 EIR for public comment. The Petitioners and

16        others submitted comments on the recirculated EIR.

17                 7. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Vista 2030 Plan and EIR

18        on June 19, 2012, and adopted Resolution No. 9-12 (PC) recommending that the City Council

19        adopt the Plan and EIR.

20                8. On September 25,2012, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Vista

21        2030 Plan and EIR, and closed the hearing but continued final action while the prepared

22        revisions to portions of the Vista 2030 EIR. The City recirculated these revisions to the EIR for

23        public comment, and the Petitioners and others submitted comments on the recirculated portions

24        of the EIR. The City failed to respond to comments submitted by Petitioner Watsonville Pilots

25        Association in violation of CEQA.

26                9. On January 22, 2013 , the City certified the Vista 2030 EIR, and approved the Vista

27        2030 Plan. The City untimely filed the NOD on February 8, 2013, in violation ofCEQA.

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                            2
      I                                               III.   PARTIES
     2               10. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 9 herein as if fully
     3     set forth herein.

     4               II. Petitioner Watsonville Pilots Association is a California non-profit corporation

     5     consisting of individuals dedicated, inter alia, to the preservation, protection and enhancement of
     6     the Watsonville Airport as a regional, public-use facility. Petitioner's purpose includes, but is
     7     not limited to, providing technical and operational information for public officials and teachers

     8     regarding aviation safety regulation and Airport Land Use Planning. Its members include

     9     residents of both the City and the County, and include residents of the area of the County affected
 10        by the Vista 2030 Plan, whose interests in preservation and enhancement of the integrity of the

 II        Watsonville Airport will be adversely affected by the lack oflegally adequate environmental

 12        review under CEQA and approval of the Vista 2030 Plan. Watsonville Pilots Association,

 13       through its members and representatives, has participated at public hearings before the City and

14        has submitted comments to the City with respect to the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR.

15                   12. Petitioner Friends of Buena Vista is dedicated to protection of the environment in the
16        City of Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz by participating in local environmental and

17        land use policy and decision making, and is dedicated to the enactment and implementation of

18        land use policies that will protect the environment. Its members include residents of the City of

19        Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, and include residents of the City of Watsonville and

20        County of Santa Cruz affected by the 2030 Vista Plan, whose interests in preservation of the

21        environmental integrity of the City and County will be adversely affected by the violations of

22        CEQA and Measure U, and approval of the project. Friends of Buena Vista, through its members

23        and representatives, has participated at public hearings before the City and has submitted

24        comments to the City with respect to the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR

25               13. Respondent City of Watsonville is a charter city and the owner of the Watsonville

26        Airport.
27               14. Respondent City Council of the City of Watsonville is the governing body of the City

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                             3
      1    ofWatsonvilJe with responsibility for complying with and enforcing all applicable laws and the
     2     City Council has certified the 2030 Vista EIR and adopted the Vista 2030 Plan.

     3             15. Respondent State of California Department of Transportation, Division of

     4     Aeronautics, is the State agency authorized to oversee airports and is vested by law with the
     5     authority to enforce the California State Aeronautics Act.

     6             16. Petitioners are informed and believe that at all times herein alleged, Respondents and

     7     each of them were the agents and employees of each of the remaining Respondents and while
     8     doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and

     9     employment.
 10                17. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of Does I

 II        through 15, are unknown to Petitioners who therefore sue said Respondents by such fictitious
 12        names and will seek leave to amend this Petition for Writ of Mandamus when they have been

 13        ascertained.

14

15                                                IV.    STANDING
16                18. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 17 as if fully set

17        forth herein.

18                19. Approval of the Vista 2030 Plan will adversely affect the interests of Petitioner

19        Watsonville Pilots Association and its members. Said Petitioner is dedicated to preserving and
20        enhancing the Watsonville Airport as set forth, supra. Approval of the Vista 2030 Plan and the

21        Vista 2030 ErR will adversely affect these interests of said Petitioner and said Petitioner's

22        members. Members or representatives of Petitioner Watsonville Pilots Association, on behalf

23        thereof, have submitted numerous comments on and objections to the Vista 2030 Plan, have

24        participated at public hearings before the City, and individual members have met numerous times

25        directly with City staff to discuss their concerns. Petitioner's challenges to the Vista 2030 Plan

26        and the Vista 2030 EIR encompass the legal adequacy of these two documents in their entirety.

27        Petitioner has requested Cal trans to enforce State law with respect to Respondent City as to the

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                           4
          Vista 2030 Plan, the Vista 2030 EIR and the Watsonville Airport. Accordingly, Petitioner is an

     2    "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21177. The claims

     3    asserted and relief requested are broad-based, so that participation in the litigation by individual

     4    members is not required.

     5            20. Approval of the Vista 2030 Plan will adversely affect the interests of Petitioner

     6    Friends of Buena Vista and its members. Said Petitioner is dedicated to protection of the

     7    environment in the City of Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, as set forth, supra.

     8    Approval of the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR will adversely affect these interests of

     9    Petitioner and Petitioner's members. Members or representatives of Petitioner, on behalf thereof,

 10       have submitted numerous comments on and objections to the Vista 2030 Plan and have

 11       participated at public hearings before the City. Petitioner's challenges to the Vista 2030 Plan and

 12       the Vista 2030 EIR encompass the legal adequacy of these two documents in their entirety.

 13       Accordingly, Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Public Resources Code

 14       Section 21177. The claims asserted and relief requested are broad-based, so that participation in

15       the litigation by individual members is not required.

16               21. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

17       Sections 1085 and 1094.5; California Public Resources Code Section 21167; CEQA Guidelines

18       Section 15112; the Constitution of the State of California; the Constitution of the United States;
         and applicable law.
19

20
                          V.    EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
21
                 22. Petitioners hereby incorporate by references paragraphs I through 21 as if fully set
22
         forth herein.
23
                23. Petitioners and others, by and through their representatives and members, have
24       performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this Petition by raising each and every issue
25       know to them before the City, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21177 and
26       Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 and 1094.5.

27              24. Notice of Intent to file this action, as required by Public Resources Code Section

28

         Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                          5
      I    21167.5 was mailed to the Respondents on March 8, 2013. (See attached Letters and Proof of
     2     Service attached hereto as Exhibit "A").

     3
                                          VI.    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
     4
                               [Failure of CaItrans to Enforce the State Aeronautics Act
     5                         and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook)
     6             25. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 24 herein as if fully
     7     set forth herein.

     8             26. Respondent Caltrans is the duly authorized agency in charge of State airports, and is

     9     vested by law with authority to enforce the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section

           21001 et seq.).
 10
                  27. The Watsonville Airport is a permitted airport within the jurisdiction of Respondent
 II
           Caltrans. The Caltrans CDOA Handbook is binding on Respondent City as to the Watsonville
 12
           Airport and its environs.
 13
                  28. Caltrans is required to implement a program to assist local land use agencies in the
 14
          preparation ofland use plans in the vicinity of airports that protect the State's interest in a sound
15         air transportation systems. In this regard, Cal trans has promulgated the CDOA Handbook.
16                29. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670. I(e), as an amendment of the General
17        Plan of a city affected by an airport, the Vista 2030 Plan is required to incorporate:

18                (1) the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria that are compatible with airport

19                operations as established by the California State Aeronautics Act (CDOA Handbook)
                  (2) all federal aviation regulations, including, but not limited to, Part 77 (commencing
20
                  with Section 77.1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
21
          Despite the fact that the aforementioned decision in Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of
22
          Watsonville made clear that inclusion of the CDOA Handbook criteria in the Vista 2030 Plan is
23
          mandatory, Respondent City has failed to appropriately incorporate the foregoing in the Vista
24
          2030 Plan. Respondent Caltrans failed to enforce the requirement that Respondent City do so.
25               30. Respondent Caltrans failed to enforce the requirements of the CDOA Handbook and
26        the State Aeronautics Act when Respondent City adopted the Vista 2030 Plan and associated
27        Vista 2030 EIR.

28

          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                            6
     1

     2                                  VII.    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

     3                  [Failure of Respondent City to Comply with State Aeronautics Law)
                  31. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 herein as if fully
     4
          set forth herein.
     5
                  32. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 (e) and the published case law as
     6
          established by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of
     7
          Watsonville, Respondent City is mandated to incorporate into its general plan the "height, use,
     8    noise, safety, and density criteria" specified in the CDOA Handbook. Pub. Uti!. Code §
     9    21670.1(d)(2). The Court of Appeal held that in a so-called "no-procedure" county - as is the
 10       case here - "each affected city must 'adopt the elements' that '[i]ncorporate[]' the 'criteria' in the
 11       [CDOA] Handbook" into their general plans." The Court of Appeal made clear that the City

 12       "does not have discretion with respect to the criteria in the Handbook," stating that "it would

 13       defY the Legislature's intent to conclude that the City [Watsonville] has discretion to modifY the
          criteria to suit itself based on the City's own determination." Therefore, Respondent City cannot
14
         modifY the Handbook as it continues to insist it may.
15
                 33. Respondent City has failed to comply with Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(e)
16
         and the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal, by not properly incorporating the CDOA
17
         Handbook language. Respondent has (1) omitted CDOA Handbook language, (2) added its own
18
         language in a manner that modifies the meaning of the CDOA Handbook-required language; (3)
19       transposed language from the CDOA Handbook in a manner that obfuscates the meaning ofthe
20       Handbook; and, (4) generally used language throughout the General Plan that purports to give the
21       City to discretion in matters in which it has no discretion. For example, section I3.i.5 of the

22       Vista 2030 Plan - "Land Uses of Special Concern" - pertains to private parcels within airport

23       safety Zone 3 (the turning zone) and Zone 5 (the runway sideline zone). This section is
         applicable to an area located in a high-risk, safety-critical location adjacent to, and just west of
24
         runways 2-20, and near runways 9-27. The area is over-flown by aircraft making rejected
25
         landings (go-arounds), is next to banner towing pickups and drops, is under helicopter
26
         approaches, and during airshows is in the aerobatic box, and over-flown by high-speed, low
27
         flying fighter aircraft. Respondent City has significantly altered the language of the Handbook in
28
         Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                            7
      1     adopting this section. The City has also failed to adopt other criteria found in the Handbook and

     2     Petitioners also complain of these other failures.

     3             34. By failing to follow the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, including, but not
           limited to the CDOA Handbook and the FAA regulations via omitting CDOA Handbook
     4
           language, transposing Handbook language, adding its own obsfuscatory language and repeatedly
     5
           using language that conveys that the City has discretion in regards to CDOA Handbook criteria,
     6
           Respondent City has failed to proceed in a manner required by law.
     7

     8
                                         VIII.    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
     9
                               Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act
 10
                   35. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 herein as if fully
 11
           set forth herein.
 12
                   36. Respondent City prepared an EIR prior to its decision to approve the Vista 2030 Plan
 13
           pursuant to CEQA. However, this EIR is legally inadequate on numerous grounds.
 14
                  37. The Vista 2030 EIR fails to adequately address the environmental impacts of the
 15
           Vista 2030 Plan and fails to comply with CEQA because, including but not limited to, (1) the
16
          EIR's project definition is unstable - assumptions regarding impacts and alternatives are based on
17
          flawed infonnation regarding what property is within the City limits, which makes the analysis of
18
          alternatives fatally flawed; (2) the EIR is based on faulty population assumptions with no basis in
19
          fact, making its analysis flawed; (3) the EIR mischaracterizes local voter initiative Measure U,
20
          improperly relying on this mischaracterization resulting in a skewing of the Alternatives analysis;
21
          (5) presenting the Alternatives with a high degree of bias and inconsistency; (6) the EIR's
22        findings of infeasibility are inadequate to support its rejection of the Alternatives; (7) failure to
23
          include mitigations for impacts to Highway One; (8) failure to provide analysis of the impacts
24
          associated with deviating from the CDOA Handbook; and, (9) failure to respond to public
25
          comments on the Vista 2030 EIR and recirculated portions thereof. Some of the above
26
          referenced violations are further elaborated as follows.
27

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                             8
      I                                 [The EIR's Project Definition is Unclear)

     2              38. The Manabe-Burgstrom property (also referred to as the Manabe-Ow property) was

     3     originally excluded as being part of the City, thereby skewing any baseline analysis of impacts

     4     and alternatives, and making the project definition unclear. Despite the fact that the Manabe-Ow

     5     property was annexed prior to the City's previous approval of the prior General Plan, the EIR did not

     6     reflect this, which changed numerous assumptions relied on in the decertified EIR with respect to

     7     virtually every type of potential impact, including but not limited to biological, traffic, noise, and

     8     population and housing.

     9             39. The current Vista 2030 EIR does nothing to correct this deficiency and the City

 10        belatedly admitted that the Manabe-Ow property was included in the City, but failed to address

 II        how the inclusion of the property related to the General Plan as a whole, and failed to include any

 12        analysis related to impacts as a result of the property being already located within the City limits.

 13        For instance, the EIR continually and falsely states that under Alternative I there is little vacant

 14        land left in the City.

15

16                                  [The EIR's Analysis is Inadequate Because it is
                                       Based on Faulty Population Assumptions)
17
                   40. The Vista 2030 EIR states with respect to Alternative 2 that "reduced densities may limit
18
          the City'S ability to meet regional growth projection in the future based on historic trends, and
19
          reduce the ability to obtain State funding tied to meeting these projections." However, the growth
20
          projections are simply conjured from thin air and are higher than the current Association of
21
          Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) projections for the next 20 years. Moreover, because
22
          the more recent AMBAG regional growth proj ections are based on detailed statistical methods, the
23
          City's attempt to ignore these numbers by propounding numbers without any basis improperly
24
          resulted in the City discounting alternatives. This lack of proper analysis fails to comply with
25
          CEQA.
26
27

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                              9
      I       [The EIR Relies on an Improper Interpretation of Local Voter Initiative "Measure U"]

     2             41. The EIR' s reliance on a misinterpretation oflocal voter initiative Measure U skews

     3     the Alternatives analysis. Measure U calls for "Encouraging appropriate development, especially

     4     infill development, within the existing urban areas ofthe City of Watsonville in accordance with

     5     principles that promote a sustainable, livable community." Measure U also amended the City's

     6     former expansive annexation policy to now "promote development of lands within existing urban

     7     areas before development oflands in outlying areas." The 2030 Vista EIR entirely misinterprets

     8     Measure U and in fact directs new growth into the Buena Vista and Atkinson Lane areas. The

     9     2030 Vista Plan directly conflicts with Measure U, while the EIR speciously rejects alternatives

 10        that actually comply with Measure U, by falsely claiming that they do not meet "planning

 II        objectives defined in Measure U." Respondent City's continual mischaracterization of Measure

 12        U fundamentally skews the Alternatives analysis, violating CEQA and Measure U itself.

 13

 14            [The EIR's Findings of Infeasibility in its Statement of Overriding Considerations
                          are Inadequate to Support its Rejection ofthe Alternatives]
15
                  42. Petitioners brought to Respondent City's attention in comments that it failed to make
16
          findings of infeasibility to support rejecting environmentally superior alternatives in favor of the
17
          Vista 2030 Plan, which the City found to have significant and unavoidable environmental
18
          impacts. Respondent City's response and subsequent findings of infeasibility in its Statement of
19
          Overriding Considerations are inadequate because they are conclusory and fail to provide
20
          required evidence supporting infeasibility of the alternatives, as required by CEQA (Pub. Res.
21
          Code, § 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3)).
22

23
                            [The EIR Fails to Identify Adequate Mitigation Measures]
24
                 43. The EIR fails to identifY adequate mitigation measures, including but not limited to,
25
          for increased traffic on Highway 1 as a result ofthe Vista 2030 Plan. The EIR found significant
26
          unavoidable impacts associated with additional trips generated by the Vista 2030 Plan on
27
          Highway 1 but nonetheless the City fails to provide any mitigation, claiming it "on its own
28

          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                          10
     1    cannot address the impact without cooperation of the entire region that impacts the Highway."

     2    The City must propose specific mitigations it can perform to reduce impacts to Highway 1. The

     3    City made the same argument in the previous challenge to the EIR with respect to impact

     4    analysis, which the Court rejected and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Respondent City has again

     5    failed to proceed in a manner required by law.

     6           44. For all the reasons stated above, and for others not mentioned, the City'S
     7    determinations and findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and the City failed to

     8    proceed in a manner required by law. Therefore, the City abused its discretion.

     9
 10
 II                                    IX. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

 12                                           Violation of Measure U

 13              45. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 herein as if fully

 14      set forth herein.

15               46. As stated supra, Measure U is a voter adopted measure that calls for "Encouraging
16       appropriate development, especially infill development, within the existing urban areas of the

17       City of Watsonville in accordance with principles that promote a sustainable, livable

18       community." Measure U also amended the City's former expansive annexation policy to now

19       "promote development of lands within existing urban areas before development of lands in

20       outlying areas ." The 2030 Vista EIR entirely misinterprets Measure U and in fact directs new

21       growth into the Buena Vista and Atkinson Lane areas. The 2030 Vista Plan directly conflicts

22       with Measure U.

23              47. The courts have established a rule oflaw requiring any amendment or change of a
24       voter-adopted measure to meet the strictest standard so as to avoid any evasion of the will of the

25 ' People. The test applicable is whether these changes "may conflict" with Measure U. The City' s

26       failure to comply with the wishes of the voters was a failure to proceed in a manner required by

27       law.

28
         Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                           11
      I

     2                                         X.   ATTORNEYS FEES
     3             48. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 47 herein as if fully
     4     set forth herein.

     5             49. In pursuing this action, Petitioners will confer a substantial benefit on the People of

     6     the State of California and therefore are entitled to recover from Respondents reasonable

     7     attorneys ' fees and costs pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and other

     8     provisions oflaw.

     9             50. Furthermore, Respondents have abused their discretion in approving the Vista 2030

 10        Plan and EIR, and have acted arbitrarily and capriciously under Government Code Section 800.

 II

 12                                              XI.    INJUNCTION

 13                5 I. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 50 herein as if fully

 14        set forth herein.

 15                52. An actual controversy has arisen concerning Respondents' failure to comply with

16        Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., as set forth above.

17                53. As a result of the above alleged violations of CEQA, Respondents have failed to

18        conduct adequate environmental review as required by law, have failed to provide the public with

19        information concerning these impacts, also as required by law, and have failed to comply with

20        the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act.

21                54. At all times mentioned herein, Respondents have been able to require adequate

22        environmental review for approval of the Vista 2030 Plan, and comply with CEQA, CEQA

23        Guidelines, and the State Aeronautics Act. Notwithstanding such ability, Respondents fail and

24        continue to fail to perform their duty to require and perform sufficient environmental review and

25        comply with the State Aeronautics Act.

26                55. At all times mentioned herein, Respondents have been able to require that the Vista

27        2030 Plan comply with Measure U. Notwithstanding such ability, Respondents fail and continue

28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                           12
      I    to fail to perform their duty to require and perform sufficient environmental review and comply
     2     with the State Aeronautics Act.
     3             56. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Respondents are
     4     threatening to proceed with utilization of the Vista 2030 Plan in the near future. Said
     5     implementation will irreparably harm the environment, and will result in significant impacts to
     6     the Watsonville Airport and surrounding environs.
     7             57. Petitioners possess no speedy, adequate remedy at law, in that implementation and
     8     development in connection with the Vista 2030 Plan will permanently and forever harm, injure,
     9     degrade and impact the environmental values of the City of Watsonville and County of Santa
 10        Cruz. Petitioners and Petitioners' members, as residents, landowners, citizens, and taxpayers of
 II        the City and County, will suffer irreparable and permanent injuries if Respondents' actions herein
 12        are not set aside.
 13                58. A stay and/or restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction should
 14        issue restraining Respondents from proceeding with development of the Vista 2030 Plan.
 15                59. In order to preserve the status quo, a stay should issue staying the approval of the
16        Vista 2030 Plan and EIR by the City Council.

17
18        WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows :
19                1. For Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate ordering Respondent City of
20        Watsonville and City Council of the City of Watsonville to set aside the January 22, 2013,
21        approval of the Vista 2030 Plan and associated EIR, and to follow California statutes and
22        regulations in complying with CEQA, the State Aeronautics Act, the California Airport Land Use
23        Planning Handbook, and Measure U;
24                2. For Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate ordering Respondent State
25        Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics to enforce the requirements of the State
26        Aeronautics Act and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook;

27                3. For an order staying the approval from engaging in any activity pursuant to the 2030
28
          Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                           13
 1   Vista Plan, until the environmental review and the Vista 2030 Plan complies with California

 2   statutes and regulations, including but not limited to the requirements of CEQA, CEQA

 3   Guidelines, the State Aeronautics Act, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and

 4   Measure U;
 5          4. For reasonable attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure Section

 6   1021.5, Government Code Section 800, and any other provisions oflaw;

 7          5. For costs of suit;
 8          6. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

 9

10
                                                          Respectfully submitted,
11                                                        WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP

12

13
                                                  By:     Jo      Wittwer
14                                                        A orneys for Petitioners

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
25

26
27

28
     Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                                                     14
                                            VERIFICATION

 2
 3          I, Bert Post, am the Chair of Friends of Buena Vista, a party to this action. I have read the

 4   foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate, and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my

 5   own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief,

 6   and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This verification was executed on March 8,

 7   2013 in Santa Cruz, California.
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
EXHIBIT A
 Jon.tL.&n WiUwer
 W;]J;~   P. P~1cin
                                    WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP
                                      1~7
                                        SOUTH RIVER STItEET. SUITE 221                      OF COUNSEL
 R.y&n D. Moroney                      SAN!'A CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060                      G..,. A . P.u.on
 Nioole G. Di Camillo                    TELEPHONE. (8311 ~29"'056
                                          FACSIMILE. (831) ~29_~057
                                            E-MAIL. ol!ioo@,.;.......ul.i..~




                                                   March 8, 2013

 Via U.s. Mail

City Council                                                 Raiyn Bain-Moore
City of Watsonville                                          Department of Transportation-Division of
275 Main St., Suite 400 (4th Floor)                          Aeronautics
 Watsonville, CA 95076                                       1120 "N" Street (MS 57)
                                                             Sacramento, CA 95812-1438


          RE:         NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE LITIGATION
                      The Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR

       PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code
Section 21167.5, this letter will serve as notice by the Watsonville Pilots Association and Friends
of Buena Vista that they will commence litigation the against the City of Watsonville, the City
Council ofthe City of Watsonville and the Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics.

       The litigation challenges the Vista 2030 Plan and the Vista 2030 EIR based on the
following grounds, including but not limited to, the fact that the Vista 2030 Plan (1) is
inconsistent with the California Department of Transportation ("Cal trans") Division of
Aeronautics ("CDOA") Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("CDOA Handbook"), which
provides mandatory criteria, which Respondents have failed to include in the language of the
Vista 2030 Plan; (2) violates CEQA; and, (3) violates the City's voter-adopted Measure U.

        The litigation has been commenced because the actions listed in the preceding paragraph
do not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) the State Aeronautics Law, state and local planning and
land use laws, and the City's voter-adopted Measure U.

                                                                Very truly yours,
                                                                WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP

                                                                ~td~
                                                                lonathan Wittwer
                                PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

        I certify and declare as follows:

        I am over the age of 18, and am not a party to this action. My business address is

Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, 147 South River Street, Suite 221, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, which

is located in Santa Cruz County where the mailing described below took place.

        I am familiar with the business practice at my place of business for the collection and

processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence

so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the

ordinary course of business.

       On March 8,2013, the attached Notice of Intention to Commence Litigation was placed

for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage fully paid to:

City Council                                       Raiyn Bain-Moore
City of Watsonville                                Department of Transportation-Division of
275 Main St., Suite 400 (4th Floor)                Aeronautics
 Watsonville, CA 95076                             1120 "N" Street (MS 57)
                                                   Sacramento, CA 95812-1438


       I certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.


Dated: March 8, 2013



                                            A)~~~ >
                                            •        Nan L. Pietrowski

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:27
posted:3/21/2013
language:Unknown
pages:19