SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF...

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA

SOO South Victoria Avenue

Ventura, CA 93009

(805) 654-2609

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

Case Number: 56-2011-00397S03-CU-WM-VT A

Your case has been assigned for all purposes to the judicial officer indicated below. A copy of this Notice of Case Assignment must be served on all named defendants/respondents with the complaint or petition, and with any cross-complaint that names a new party to the underlying action.

ASSIGNED JUDICIAL OFFICER COURT LOCATION DEPT/ROOM Hon. Mark Borrell Ventura 43

[ X] ADR Information attached.

SCHEDULING INFORMATION

Judicial Scheduling Calendar Information

Court calendars vary from courtroom to courtroom. You may contact the clerk's office for more information when you need to schedule a hearing before the judicial officer.

Ex Parte Matters

To set an ex parte hearing, contact the judicial secretary in the assigned department. Per Local Rule 15.03, all ex parte documents must be filed in the courthouse where the ex parte application shall be heard.

Noticed Motions Contact the clerk's office to reserve a date for a law and motion matter. Per Local Rule 3.19, all law and motion documents must be filed in the courthouse where the motion shall be heard.

Other Information

You can visit the court's website at www.ventura.courts.ca.gov for public access to non-confidential case information, local rules and forms, and other court information.

Clerk of the Court.

Date: 06/01/2011 By: __ 4J_...::.Jj£J:---______ _ Monika Akuna, Clerk

VEN·FNR051

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA

Superior Court of California, County of Ventura

800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura. CA 93009

PAYMENT RECEIPT

Clerk 10: makuna Transaction No: 802208 Transaction Date: 06/01/2011

Receipt #: 9990318993

Transaction Time: 02:07:55 PM

56-2011-Q0397803·CU·WM·VT A 166 • Complaint or other 1 st paper $395.00 $395.00 $395.00

Sales Tax: $0.00

Total Total: $395.00 Rem.

Bal: Check Number(s): 1300

Check: $395.00

Total Amount Tendered: $395.00

Change Due: $0.00

Balance: $0.00

www.ventura.courts.ca.gov Our Court is here for the people we serve.

ORIGINAL

Page: 1

$0.00

$0.00

SUMMONS (elrAC/ON JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO):

County of Ventura; County of Ventura Board of Supervisors; County of Ventura Resource Management Agency - Planning Division; Does 1:25,

1»(.;...'-' .; ," fT YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: I

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

SUM-100 FOR COURT USE ONL Y

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

VENTURA SUPfiRIOR QOUf1T

FILED

JUN 01 2011 Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural Resources, a Calif. Corp.; MICHAEL D. PLANEr

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, a Calif. CS~ .~x~I~~~~~~~~Oeputy

NonCEI You have been sued. The court may decide against you wilhout your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at his court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.couttinfo.ca.govlsellhelp).your county law library. or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee. ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further waming from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want 10 call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attomey referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at Ole California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.couttinfo.ca.govlsellhelp). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court v.;11 dismiss the case. IA VlSOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde denlro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su conlra sin escuchar su ltersion. Lea la in(ormacioo a continuacidn.

Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que Ie entreguen esta citacion y papales legales para presentar una respuesta p~r escrito en esla cotte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una catta 0 una /lam ada le/e(onica no 10 protegen. Su respuesta por esmto tiene que eslar en formato legal conecto si desea que procesen su caso en la cotte. Es posible que haya un formularb que usted pueda usar para su respuesla. Puede encontrar estos (ormularios de la cotte y m~s informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Col/es de Califomia (www.sucorte.ca.gev). en la bibfioleca de leyes de su condado 0 en la cotte que Ie quede m~s cerea. Si no puede pagar la cuora de presenlacien, pida al secretario de la cotte que Ie de un formulario de exencien de pago de cuotas. Si no presenla su respuesta a liempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la cotte /e podr~ quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin m~s advertencia.

Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmed/atamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede liamar a un seNicio de ramision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es pos/ble que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales graluitos de un programa de servides lega/es sin fines de lucre. Puede encontrar estes grupos sin fines de lucre en el sitio web de Califomia Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las ClJrtes de Califomia. (www.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniendose en conlacto con la cotte 0 el co/egio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte liene derecho a reclamar las cuolas y los costes exenlos por imponer un gravamen sobre cUBlquier recuperacion de $10,000 0 m~s de valor raclblda mediante un acuerdo 0 una concesioo de artitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la cotte antes de que la cotte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: I CASE NUMBER: (M'ItrotO del Cam);

56-2011-00397803-CU-WM-VT A (EI nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): Ventura County Superior Court 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an atlarney, is: (EI nombre, la direcci6n y e/ numero de telMono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no Iiene abogado, es): David Blake Chatfield, 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, CA 91361; 805 267-1220

DATE: JUN 1 2011 Clerk, A,lrCHAa PLANET (Fecha) 0 (Secretarlo)

M.AKUNA

(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use e/ formularlo Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

ISEAl! NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. 0 as an Individual defendant. 2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

3. D on behalf of (speCify):

under: D CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP416.60 (minor)

, Deputy (Adjunto)

D D

CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

FOITlI Adojlled fOt MandalOty Use Judidal eo.mal cI cafilomia SUM-l00 [Rev. July 1.2009)

CCP 416.40 (associafion or partnership) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

D other (specify): 4. D by personal delivery on (date):

SUMMONS PaB.I 0' I

CO<Ie of Civil Proceduro §§ 412.20. 465 wwwCOUlfinfo.c:a gov

A lTORNEY OF PARTY IVrrnour A lTORNEY (Name and Address) Tol..,oo"" Number

David Blake Chatfield, SBN 88991 805267-1220 Westlake Law Group

2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, 91361

E·MAIL ADDRESS [email protected] A lTORNIlY FOR (Name) Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural Resource

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF VEf\TURA

[l] 800 SOUTIf VICTORIA AVE. VENTURA, CA 93009

D 3855 - F ALAMO ST. SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063-2110

FOR COURT USE ONLY

VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT

FILED JUN 01 2011

VN027

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER Citizens for Ihe Protection of Agricultural Resourses, etc,

MICHAEL D. PLANET Executive Ofllcer and Cieri<

ey:._~~~ ___ ; OeputY M. AKUNA

DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT County of Ventura, etc. et aJ.,

DECLARATION FOR COURT ASSIGNMENT r'\~I' NlIMRI'R'

56-2011-00397803-CU-WM-VTA (Family Law and Unlawful Detainer and all other General Civil actions ONLY) I

Family Law, Domestic Violence, Paternity, Harassment, Unlawful Detainer, and all other General Civil actions presented for filing MUST be accompanied by this declaration.

The undersigned declares that the above entitled matter is filed for proceedings in the: o East County Division - Unlawful Detainer I Civil, 3855 - F Alamo St., Simi Valley, Ca 93063 (Based upon Zip Code.)

o 91301 0 91302 0 91304 0 91307 091360 091362 o 91377 093020 093021 093062 093063 093064 o 93065 091363 East County Division - Family Law only, 3855 - F Alamo St., Simi Valley, Ca 93063 (Based upon Zip Code.)

o 93020 093021 093062 093063 093064 093065 091363 IZ1 Ventura Division, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, Ca 93009 (Venue does NOT fall within the Zip Codes above but is within

Ventura County.)

For the checked reason:

o o o o o Il1 o o B o o o o o o

Contract Equity Eminent Domain Family Law Harassment Mandate Name Change Paternity Personal Injury Personal Property Prohibition Review Title to Real Property Unlawful Detainer Domestic Violence Civil not oIherwise specified

Performance in the division is expressly provided for The cause of action arose within the division The property is located within the division Plaintiff, defendant, petitioner or respondent resides within the division Plaintiff, defendant, petitioner or respondent resides within the division The defendant functions wholly within the division The petitioner resides within the division Plaintiff, defendant, petitioner or respondent resides within the division The injury occurred within the division or the defendant resides within the division The property is located within the division or the defendant resides within the division The defendant functions wholly within the division The defendant functions wholly within the division The property is located within the division The property is located within the division Plaintiff, defendant, petitioner or respondent resides with the division

(Venue Rule Applicable)

The address of the accident, performance, party, detention, place of business, or other factor which qualifies this case for filing in the division:

Name: County of Ventura; etc. et at. Address: 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009

Upon information and belief, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: May 31, 20 II

Mandatory Fonn VN02?(Rev 7/10)

DECLARATION FOR COURT ASSIGNMENT

-. CM 010 .

~TTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY~Namo. Slam Barn_r. an<1 iKltIt9SS): David Blake Chatfield, SBN 8 991

FOR COURT USE ONL Y

Westlake Law Group 2625 TownsHate, Suite 330 Westlake Vi age, CA 91361 VENTURA

TELEPHONE NO.: 805267-1220 FAX NO.: 8UpgRIOR ftOU~ ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural Resources, etc. FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Ventura STREET ADDRESS: 800 South Victoria Avenue JUN 01 20U MAlUNG ADDRESS:

CITYANOZIPCOOE Ventura, CA 93009 MICHAEL D. PLANET

BRANCH NAME: Ventura Executive Officer and Cieri( CASE NAME: Y: , Deputy Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural Resources v. County ofVentufil M.AKUNA

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation 56~2()1 °1'~60397803-CU-WM-VTA o Unlimited D Limited D Counter D Joinder (Amount (Amount

demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE:

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT.

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract D Auto (22) D Breach of conlraclNlarranty (06)

D Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other PUPDIWD (PersonallnJury/Property D Other collections (09) DamageJWrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) D Product liability (24) Real Property D Medical malpractice (4S) D Eminent domainllnverse D Other PIIPOiWD (23) condemnation (14) Non.pUPDIWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) D Business torUunfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26) D Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer D Oefamation(13) D Commercial (31) D Fraud (16) D Residential (32) D Intellectual property (19) 0 Orugs (38) D Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review D Other non·PIIPOiWO tort (3S) D Asset forfeiture (OS) IEm~loyment D Petition re: arbitration award (11)

Wrongful termination (36) [Z] Writ of mandate (02) . D Other employment (1S) 0 Other judicial review (39)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

D AntitrusVTrade regulation (03) D Construct/on defect (10) D Mass tort (40) D Securities litigation (28) D EnvironmentallToxic tort (30) D Insurance coverage claims arising from the

above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment D Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint o RICO(27) o Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition o Partnership and corporate governance (21) o Other pelition (not speCified above) (43)

2. This case D is l.LI is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. D Large number of separately represented parties b. D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel

Issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence

d. D Large number of witnesses e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court f. D Substantial posljudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply); a.D monetary b. [Z] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. 0 punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Four 5. This case D is [Z] is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (Yo

Date: May 31, 2011 David Blake Chatfield

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed In the action or proceeding (except s II aims cases or cases filed

under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

other parties to the action or proceeding . • Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheel will be used for statistical purposes onlv.

fl •• 1012

Fcrm AdopIed tor Mandalay Use JudiCIal CounaI 01 Cabrmnia CM-OIO (Rev. July I. 2007)

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CaI.RuIOs oICourt.IIllos2.30. 3.220.3400-3.403.3.740; Cal. SIatICIanlS 01 Jud>aaI AMtni$ua-. $Id. 3.10

..ww.CXl<JItinfo.ca.gov

.J ...

CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET

To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your tirst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases tiled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.

To PartJes In Rule 3.740 CollectJons Cases. A ·collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.

To Parties In Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that

the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract

Auto (22}-Personal Injury/Property Breach of ContractiWarranty (06) DamageJWrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease

Uninsured Motorist (46) (if /he Contract (not unlawful detainer case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) motorist claim subject to ContractiWarranty Breach-Seller arbitration, check /his item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of ContracV

other PIJPDIWD (PersonallnJuryl Warranty Property DamagelWrongful Death) Other Breach of Contracl/Warranty Tort CoUections (e.g., money owed, open

Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Asbestos Personallnjuryl Other Promissory Note/Collections

Wrongful Death Case Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (nol provisionally

tOxic/environmental) (24) complex) (1S) Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation

Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37)

Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Malpractice Other Conlract Dispute

Other PllPDmD (23) Real Property Premises liability (e.g .• slip Eminent Domain/Inverse

and fall) Condemnation (14) Intentional Bodily InjurylPDIWD Wrongful Eviction (33)

(e.g., assault, vandaUsm) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet tille) (26) Intentionallnnlction of Writ of Possession of Real Property

Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Negligent Innlelion of Quiet Title

Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent Other PUPDIWD domain, land/onJltenant, or

Non·PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort foreclosure) Business TorVUnfair Business Unlawful Detainer

Practice (07) Commercial (31) Civil Rights (e.g., disaimination, Residential (32)

false arrest) (not civil Drugs (3S) (if the case involves illegal harassment) (OS) drugs, check this item; othefWise,

Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or ReSidential) (13) Judicial Review

Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandale (02)

Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on limited Court

(not medical or/egal) Case Maller Other Non-PIIPDIWD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case

Employment Review Wrongful Tennination (36) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order

CM.(Jl0 IRov. July 1. 2007)

Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Provisionally Complex Civil Ullgallon (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.401h1.403)

AntitrusVTrade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (2S) EnvironmentallToxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims

(arising from proviSionally complex case type listed above) (41)

Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20)

Abstract of Judgment (Out of County)

Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations)

Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award

(not unpaiJ taxes) PetitiOn/Certification of Entry of

Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment

Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

RICO (27) Other Complaint (not speci6ed

above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non-

harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint

Case (non-tortlnon-complex) Other Civil Complaint

(non-totf/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Pelltlon

Partnership and Corporate Govemance (21)

Other Petition (nol specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence EiderlDependent Adult

Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late

Claim Other Civil Petition

Pago2 of2

1 David Blake Chatfield, State Bar No. 88991 WESTLAKE LAW GROUP

2 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, California 91361

3 Telephone: 805-267-1220 Facsimile: 805-267-1211

Attorneys for PetitionerslPlaintiffs

VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT

FILED

JUN 01 2011 MICHAEL D. PLANET

Exoc:utive Officer and Cler\( ~: ,DepWy

M.AKUNA

4

5

6

7

8

9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural 10 Resources, a Calif. Corp,; Ventura County

Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business, a 11 Calif. Corp.

12

13 v.

PetitionerslPlaintiff,

14 County of Ventura; County of Ventura Board of Supervisors; County of Ventura Resource

15 Management Agency - Planning Division; Does 1 through 25, inclusive,

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RespondentslDefendants.

CASE N(, 56_2011_00397803-CU-WM-VTA

VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

(Public Resources Code §§ 21167; 21168 and 21168.5, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1094.5, Civil Code § 3420 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 525 et seq.)


1 For their Petition and Complaint, (collectively, "Petitioners") allege as follows

2 INTRODUCTION

3 1. This case involves an attempt by the defendants to force fundamental changes in the

4 regulation of local land use, including agriculture, farming and ranching, without first engaging in

5 the studies of the effects of such changes, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act

6 ("CEQA.") On April 26, 2011, defendants replaced the existing biological resources section of

7 Ventura County's Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (which apply to the issuance of most

8 discretionary land use penn its in Ventura County) with a new and more far reaching biological

9 resources section, declaring that Ventura County's actions are exempt from CEQA. Defendants

10 filed their Notice of Exemption from CEQA on April 27, 2011, a copy of which is attached to this

11 Petition and Complaint as Exhibit "A".

12 2. By this Petition and Complaint, Petitioners challenge the decision by respondent/defendant

13 Ventura County Board of Supervisors ("VCBS"), respondent/defendant Ventura County ("VC")

14 and respondent/defendant Ventura County Resource Management Agency - Planning Division's

15 ("VCRMA") to adopt amendments to the Biological Resources Section of the County of Ventura's

16 Initial Study Assessment Guidelines - Biological Section (the "Amendments" or the "Project")

17 and the respondent/defendants' erroneous determination that the Project "fits within the Class 8

18 categorical exemption from CEQA."

19 3. As alleged more fully below, VCBS, VC and VCRMA (collectively the "VC Defendants")

20 adopted the Amendments and detennined that the Project was exempt from the requirements of

21 CEQA to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIRIt) without undertaking the review and

22 analysis necessitated by the California Environmental Quality Act. The VC Defendants' failure to

23 perform the necessary review and analysis both circumvented the information gathering process

24 mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act and resulted in an uniformed decision in

25 violation of CEQA.

26 4. Accordingly, Petitioners seek by this Petition and Complaint issuance ofa peremptory writ

27 of mandate requiring the VC Defendants to comply with their obligations under the California

28 Environmental Quality Act, a declaration that the VC Defendants violated their obligations under -2-


1 that act, and an injunction prohibiting the VC Defendants from implementing any of the

2 Amendments until such time as the VC Defendants comply with their legal obligations under the

3 California Environmental Quality Act.

4 PARTIES

5 4. Petitioner/plaintiff, CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL

6 RESOURCES is a nonprofit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

7 California, doing business in the County of Ventura, State of California.

8 6. Petitioner/plaintiff, VENTURA COUNTY COALITION OF LABOR AGRICULTURE

9 AND BUSINESS is a California Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the

10 State of California (consisting of over 200 Ventura County businesses, residents and tax payers)

11 doing business in the County of Ventura, State of California.

12 7. Respondent/defendant County of Ventura ("VC") is a political subdivision of the State of

13 California. Respondent/defendant Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura is Ventura

14 County's governing legislative body, vested by the laws of the State of California with the

15 authority and duty to regulate land use in the county. Respondent Ventura County Resource

16 Management Agency - Planning Division is an agency of the County of Ventura. VCBS, VC, and

17 VCRM are prohibited by law from enacting and/or enforcing laws, regulations, regulatory

18 guidelines, and ordinances that violate the California and/or United States Constitution or

19 applicable general state laws, is prohibited from expending public funds for an improper and

20 wasteful purpose, and is prohibited from adopting land use guidelines and/or regulations in

21 violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

22 8. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names of respondents/defendants Does 1-20, inclusive,

23 and therefore sues said Doe respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioners are informed and

24 believe and, on that basis, allege that each of the fictitiously named respondents has or may have

25 an interest in the subject matter of this action. Petitioners will amend this Petition to set forth the

26 true names and capacities of such Doe respondents if and when the same have been ascertained.

27

28 9

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At all times pertinent to the matters alleged herein Petitioners and/or their -3-

VERlFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRlT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 members/shareholders either were residents, tax payers, or owned interests in real property that

2 lies within the area to be regulated by the Amendments. Petitioners and/or their

3 members/shareholders have an interest in the preservation of agricultural resources in Ventura

4 County. The decisions ofVC Defendants' challenged by this Petition and Complaint will have

5 detrimental impacts on Petitioners and/or their members/shareholders and their interests within the

6 Ventura County.

7 10. This lawsuit has been commenced within the time limits imposed for actions under the

8 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Public Resources Code, as made applicable to

9 the VC Defendants by the general laws of this State.

10 11. Venue and jurisdiction in this Court are proper pursuant to the California Code of Civil

11 Procedure for a matter relating to subject property located within, and governmental action taken

12 within, the Court's jurisdiction.

13 12. Petitioners, by and through themselves and other citizens of the Ventura County area, have

14 made oral and written comments in opposition to the Amendments, and have participated in the

15 public hearings and meetings and raised each of the legal deficiencies asserted in this Verified

16 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, except that

17 defendants/respondents' determination that their Project was subject to a categorical exemption

18 failed to provide petitioners with any administrative remedy.

19 13. Petitioners have performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying with

20 all requirements of the California Public Resources Code. Petitioners have no remedy other than to

21 bring this action. All other requests of Petitioners, having been previously made, or without

22 administrative remedy, would be and are futile.

23 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

24 14. In 1970, the California Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act

25 [Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.] ("CEQA") as a means of requiring public agency

26 decision-makers such as the VC Defendants to document and consider the environmental

27 implications of their actions. CEQA's fundamental goal is to fully inform the public and the

28 decision makers as to the environmental conseq~a~ces of their actions and to assure members of


1 the public that their elected officials are making informed decisions. CEQA requires governmental

2 authorities, such as the VC Defendants, to identify and to seek feasible means to reduce or avoid

3 significant environmental damage, including negative impacts on agricultural resources, that

4 otherwise could result from their actions. It forbids agencies from approving projects with

5 significant adverse environmental impacts when feasible alternatives can reduce or minimize

6 such impacts.

7 15. The cornerstone of the CEQA process is the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration

8 that discloses the adverse environmental impacts which may result from the proposal or approval

9 by a public agency. The primary function of the environmental impact report or negative

10 declaration is to discuss the important environmental consequences and to provide decision-

11 makers, responsible agencies and the general public with mitigations and alternatives to the project

12 that would have less serious environmental consequences.

13 16. The agricultural resources of Ventura County are part of the present and historical

14 environment of Ventura County. Agricultural activities in Ventura County are both

15 environmentally and economically important. Agricultural activities in Ventura County have

16 substantially contributed to the unique quality of the environment in Ventura County, have

17 resulted in the preservation of the environment, i.e. prevention of erosion, waste and fire, and have

18 been part of the quality of the environment of Ventura County for over one hundred years.

19 17. Ventura County's General Plan recognizes the importance of agricultural resources and

20 that the declining profitability of agricultural operations can lead to the loss of agricultural

21 resources in the County. See Ventura County General Plan, Resources Appendix, pg. 67 (4-6-10

22 edition). Likewise, Ventura County has recognized that to preserve agricultural resources in the

23 County, it is necessary to discourage the conversion offannland to other uses. The Amendments

24 have just the opposite effect. By making it harder and more costly to use land for agricultural

25 production (as a result of in increased time delays for project review and approval, increased costs

26 for project review as a result ofEIR preparation being required more frequently, increased costs

27 associated with increased frequency and amount of mitigation being required for perceived

28 biological resource impacts, increased requirem:g!s for potentially fannable lands to be deed


1 restricted as mitigation, and increased instances of project modifications and project denials), The

2 Amendments have a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources within Ventura County

3 and the VC Defendants violated CEQA when determining otherwise.

4 THE CEQA REQUIRMENT FOR AN ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

5 18. CEQA requires public agencies, such as the VC Defendants, to prepare an environmental

6 impact report where a proposed project may cause a significant impact on the environment. Cal.

7 Pub. Resources Code § 21100,21151; 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15064(a)(I), (0(1). Where a fair

8 argument exists that a project may cause a significant impact, the County must prepare an EIR.

9 See, e.g., Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City o/Encinitas, 29 Cal App. 4th 1597 (1994).

10 19. The Amendments constitute a project subject to compliance with CEQA. Moreover, the

11 adoption of the Amendments is not subject to a categorical exemption under CEQ A Guidelines §

12 15308. This is so because such an exemption does not apply where, as here, there is a reasonable

13 possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, 14 Cal. Code

14 Regs § 15300.2(c). The VC Defendants, by way of the Amendments, are attempting to apply

15 CEQA in an unnecessarily onerous and burdensome manner on the agricultural community (as

16 well as all other landowners and project applicants). The actions of the VC Defendants, are not

17 exempt from compliance with CEQA review and the VC Defendants' exemption determination

18 and adoption of the Amendments without an EIR violates California Law.

19 20. The categorical exemption claimed by the County, found in Section 15308, was

20 established because the California Resources Agency determined that ordinarily a project of this

21 type (Le., actions that are intended to assure the protection of the environment) would not be

22 expected to have a significant adverse environmental effect. While this assumption may be true

23 in the majority of instances, it is not true for this Project. The administrative record contains

24 substantial evidence indicating the many ways in which the Amendments can be expected to

25 indirectly (as well as cumulatively) result in significant adverse impacts to agricultural resources.

26 This reasonable possibility that the VC Defendants' actions will have a significant effect on the

27 environment precludes the use of a categorical exemption. See, Wildi/fe Alive v. Chickering, 18

28 Cal. 3d 190(1976). -6-


1 21. With respect to Amendments approved by the VC Defendants, there is a "reasonable

2 possibility" that a significant effect on agricultural resources in Ventura County will occur. For

3 precisely these circumstances, the CEQA Guidelines make clear that in this type of situation, the

4 categorical exemption of Section 15308 does not apply. See Section 15300.2(c).

5 22. Specifically, Section IS300.2(c) provides, in pertinent part, "A categorical exemption shall

6 not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a

7 significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." The VC Defendants

8 o'verlooked the adverse impacts that the Amendments are likely to have on agricultural resources.

9 This oversight gives rise to the problem, as well as to the applicability of the Section 15300.2(c),

10 invalidating the CEQA exemption claimed by the VC Defendants and requiring analysis of the VC

11 Defendants action under CEQA.

12 23. Unusual circumstances exist here because some feature of the "project" distinguishes it

13 from the ordinary use or characteristics of the type of project that would otherwise qualify for the

14 exemption. See, for example, Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243 (1999). In this

15 case, there are a number of unusual circumstances that distinguish the Amendments from the

16 typical biological thresholds adopted by lead agencies. The existence of only one unusual

17 circumstance is sufficient to invalidate an exemption claimed under Section 15308. However, in

18 this instance, like in the situation the court reviewed in Azusa Land Reclamation Company v. Main

19 San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal. App. 41b 1165 (1997), there are a "host of circumstances

20 that are unusual" when compared with the circumstances surrounding the typical language used by

21 lead agencies when formulating their significance thresholds for biological resources. According,

22 apply the analysis ofthe Azusa Land Reclamation Company, the categorical exemption claimed by

23 the VC Defendants does not apply in this instance and the actions of the VC Defendants violated

24 their obligations under CEQA.

25 24. The administrative record relating to the Amendments contains substantial evidence that

26 the Amendments will have a significant adverse impact on Ventura County agricultural resources.

27 Such evidence includes, but is not limited to, the following:

28 a. New threshold and implementation language for impacts to "wildlife movement -7-


1 corridors" will hinder agricultural production and result in loss of agricultural resources or prevent

2 the realization of agricultural resources within 16,000 acres of State designated "local farmland"

3 containing prime agricultural soils;

4 b. New threshold and implementation language for impacts to plant and animal

5 species and "habitat connectivity" will result in significant new expenses to farmers and ranchers

6 as a result of requiring a substantially greater number of and more costly, biological surveys (for

7 species deemed "sensitive" by Ventura County) and analyses (regarding impacts to "critical

8 habitat," waters/wetland "buffers", "stepping-stones," "habitat linkages," etc.) for proposed

9 agricultural activities, resulting in various agricultural activities not being conducted, and a

10 consequent loss of agricultural resources;

11 c. New language in the Amendments will have the effect of requiring fanners and

12 ranchers to "prove a negative" in terms of potential impacts to habitat connectivity and linkages

13 will discourage agricultural production in the County;

14 d. New language concerning "wildlife movement corridors," "habitat connectivity"

15 and "linkages" will decrease the amount of crops which can meet new food safety standards,

16 thereby resulting in a loss of agricultural resources in Ventura County;

17 e. New language concerning "wildlife movement corridors," "habitat connectivity"

18 and "linkages" will prevent the adequate protection of certain crops (such as olives), thereby

19 resulting in a loss of agricultural resources in Ventura County;

20 f. New thresholds for species, sensitive plant communities, waters/wetlands,

21 and habitat connectivity are set so low that processing subdivisions of agricultural lands

22 with the intention of maintaining the land in agricultural production will result in

23 prohibitive costs to the farmer or rancher, resulting in more land removed from agricultural

24 production;

25 g. New thresholds for species, sensitive plant communities, waters/wetlands,

26 and habitat connectivity are set so low, and the number of species proposed to be considered

27 as "Special Status Species" and "Locally Important Species" is so expansive that it is likely to

28 prevent a number of crops as qualifying for "~~anic" certification, which will, in turn,


1 reduce the amount of agricultural resources in the County as more and more crops will need

2 to meet this certification for their production to remain viable; and,

3 h. New thresholds for species, sensitive plant communities, waters/wetlands,

4 and habitat connectivity are set so low that needed, new water supply and water delivery

5 infrastructure projects for continued agricultural production in the County will be adversely

6 effected, which will, in turn, increase the cost of water for agricultural operations and ·1

7 result in conversion of existing crop land to non-agricultural uses.

8 25. Agricultural operations in Ventura County rely on the continued ability of farmers

9 and ranchers to conduct a variety of agricultural activities on their land, which will be

10 subject to prior CEQA review, analysis, and approval by Ventura County. Project review, in tum,

11 will be subject to the new basement level thresholds of significance for impacts on biological

12 resources contained in the Amendments that substantially increase the instances in which future

13 agricultural activities can be expected to be considered by Ventura County to have a significant

14 impact on biological resources. Such a finding of significant impact will, in tum, require that the

15 agricultural activity be denied, modified to avoid the impact, or mandated to provide mitigation in

16 many cases substantial and expensive mitigation including the deed restriction of potentially

17 farmable land .for this perceived biological impact before proceeding. Even requiring mitigation

18 for the agricultural practice (as opposed to outright denial) can be expected to have a substantial

19 adverse impact on agricultural resources, as imposition of

20 mitigation will increase the economic costs on the agricultural operations.

21 26. Ventura County has recognized in its General Plan that increasing the costs of agricultural

22 activities in Ventura County is expected to result in the loss of agricultural resources in the County

23 since profit margins are often thin in the County. See Ventura County General Plan Resources

24 Appendix (4-6-2010 edition), at pg. 67.

25 27. Given the significant adverse impacts to agricultural resources expected to result from the

26 Amendments, the VC Defendants were required to comply with CEQA and prepare an EIR prior

27 to further adopting the amendments. The VC Defendants did not comply.

28 28. Petitioners have performed any and all c?q~itions precedent to filing this action and have


I exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by law.

2 29. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law unless

3 this Court grants the requested Writ of Mandate to require the VC Defendants to set aside their

4 adoption of the Amendments prior to completing the required EIR.

5 30. In the absence of such remedies, the VC Defendants' adoption of the Amendments will

6 remain in effect, in violation of State law.

7

8

9 31.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Writ of Mandate Under CEQA: Failure to Provide EIR)

Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation

10 contained in paragraphs 1 through 30, above.

11 32. The Amendments were unlawfully adopted and approved by the VC Defendants, without

12 conducting any analysis as to whether or not the Amendments would have a significant impact on

13 the environment.

14 33. The Amendments were unlawfully adopted and approved by the VC Defendants, without

15 conducting any analysis as to whether or not the Amendments would have a significant impact on

16 agricultural resources.

17 34. CEQA applies to the Project and the VC Defendants were obligated to prepare an

18 environmental impact report, but failed to do so.

19 35. The Project is an action by the VC Defendants that is subject to CEQA, as the

20 Amendments will have a significant impact on the environment and/or agricultural resources.

21 Substantial evidence exists which shows that the Project will have a significant impact on the

22 environment/and or agriCUltural resources. Among other things;

23 a. The Amendments set many unusually low (basement level) thresholds of

24 significance for impacts to biological resources proposed by the Document. These thresholds are

25 markedly lower for many biological resources than thresholds of significance typically adopted by

26 lead agencies. Such unusually low and atypical thresholds will place significant mitigation or

27 avoidance burdens on the preservation or expansion of Ventura County agricultural lands as

28 agricultural operations seek discretionary autho~\W!ions from the County on a going-forward


1 basis.

2 b. The Amendments' unusual and atypical treatment of non-rare species as if they are

3 rare or highly sensitive under CEQA (and thus setting low thresholds of significance for impacts

4 to these species), through the use of certain third-party lists that include species not shown to be

5 "rare" or sensitive and through the designation of species as "Locally Important." CEQA

6 biological resource thresholds of significance adopted by lead agencies rarely .if ever treat species

7 as if there were "threatened" or "endangered" or "rare" simply because the lead agency has

8 classified species as "locally important," without consideration of the abundance and distribution

9 of the species in its overall range.

10 c. The Amendments' process for identifying species as "locally important" is highly

11 flawed, both scientifically and procedurally, and was never subject to proper public notice or

12 adequate public input. For example, the Amendments use a low number of reported "element

13 occurrences" as a basis for designating species as "locally important," and yet Ventura County

14 does not have a process for tracking or cataloging element occurrences that are identified in

15 biological survey reports for projects submitted to the County. Moreover, the County has not

16 demonstrated that the County has been adequately surveyed for these species to begin with. A low

17 number of recorded element occurrences does not demonstrate that the species is not reasonably

18 abundant in the County, a fact that even the authoritative State agency acknowledges. The

19 California Department ofFish and Game cautions that a low number of reported element

20 occurrences should not be considered indicative that the species has been adequately surveyed for,

21 or is not more abundant.

22 d. The Amendments use a "Locally Important Species" list that contains species

23 which the County's own biologists acknowledge do not meet the new criteria which the County

24 proposes for this list.

25 e. The County is proposing to assume the role of a mini-U.S. Fish & Wildlife

26 Service or mini-Department ofFish & Game and create an independent list of County-specific, so-

27 called "rare" species (to be called "locally important species"), which will result in significant land

28 use regulations and restrictions on farmers, ran:~;r~' and all other landowners in the County. Yet,


1 the County assuming this role without using any sufficiently rigorous scientific or public review

2 process which even closely approximates the scientific and administrative law procedures adopted

3 by the State and federal governments in creating and updating their lists of rare/sensitive species

4 (e.g., threatened or endangered). The haphazard way the County is now permitted to establish and

5 maintain its "locally important species" list denies landowners in the County due process. The

6 County's proposed process is highly unusual, and certainly not typical of how other lead agencies

7 have approached the concept of establishing rare species lists of their own choosing for purposes

8 ofCEQA.

9 f. The significant expansion of the concept of "wildlife movement corridor" to

10 include the much broader concept (biologically) of habitat "linkages" (implicit in the language of

11 the Amendments) and under circumstances in which the County indicates that currently the most

12 authoritative document on linkages in the County is a report written by a biased and unaccountable

13 third party that claims that agricultural lands and operations have a detrimental impact to wildlife

14 and wildlife movement and habitat connectivity; claims to have as a major purpose of its report the

15 targeting of lands (such as those currently in agricultural production or which could be placed in

16 agricultural production) for the placement of restrictions on them for use only as wildlife habitat;

17 designates a large amount of the County's existing and potential future agricultural lands as being

18 located within habitat "linkages" which, the group claims, must be used for wildlife conservation

19 habitat rather than agricultural resources; defines "linkages" as land areas intended to serve many

20 more functions than simply wildlife movement corridors and which therefore encompass many

21 more intended biological functions than those intended by the County to be analyzed in the ISAG

22 Biological Resources Document; refuses to share with affected landowners the data which the

23 group claims supports its delineation of habitat "linkages." The proposed treatment of very

24 broadly defined "habitat linkages" (encompassing and/or adjacent to large amounts of agricultural

25 land) as a biological resource which itself must be protected, without the County having first

26 adopted any kind of local or regional habitat conservation plan. The Document, in effect, proposes

27 to establish a kind of de facto County-wide habitat conservation plan without going through the

28 necessary public review process. -12-


1 g. This defacto conservation plan will have substantial adverse impacts on agricultural

2 resources, as the South Coast Missing Linkages Project document cited by the Amendments views

3 agricultural production lands as adversely impacting biological resources. Thus, the CEQA review

4 process for many future discretionary actions for agricultural operations can be expected to impose

5 expensive mitigation or avoidance obligations on agricultural lands, which will lead to the loss of

6 producing agricultural lands given the thin profit margins for agricultural operations in the

7 County.

8 h. Evidence exists on the record establishing that the County is currently considering

9 the adoption of modifications to two of its ordinances (Grading Ordinance and Fire Ordinance),

10 which modifications may increase the types of common agricultural practices which will be

11 subject to prior discretionary review and approval by the County, thereby subjecting even

12 more agricultural operations to prior review under CEQA and the application of the County's

13 Amendments to agricultural practices and operations. In testimony at the Board of Supervisor's

14 public hearing on March 1,2011, the CEO of the Farm Bureau of Ventura County explained that

15 the County currently is considering expanding the circumstances under which common

16 agricultural practices in the County (such as clearing ofland for new crops or ranch grazing lands)

17 will first have to obtain discretionary approvals from the County. The cumulative impact of these

18 reasonably foreseeable modifications to existing regulations in addition to the adoption of the

19 project have not been analyzed for impact to agricultural resources.

20 36. Relying upon their claimed exemption to CEQA, the VC Defendants have not addressed

21 the Projects' impact on the environment, the serious socio-economic impacts on the community,

22 the effects on human health and safety, nor has there been any analysis of the extent of the impact

23 of exercise of the VC Defendants' land use authority under the Amendments.

24 37. The VC Defendants erroneously determined that there is no reasonable possibility that

25 Amendments are likely to have an adverse impact on agricultural resources in Ventura County and

26 that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

27 38. The categorical exemption relied upon by the VC Defendants is inapplicable for the

28 reasons set forth in this Petition and Complaint:.13

_


1 39. In taking the above actions, the VC Defendants abused their discretion, acted contrary to

2 law, and their decisions were not supported by substantial evidence.

3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4 (Writ of Mandate Under CEQA: Failure to Identify and/or Analyze Significant Impacts)

5 40. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation


7 41. CEQA and its regulations require that an EIR identify and discuss significant adverse

8 effects on the environment and/or agricultural resources, and that all significant effects on the

9 environment and/or agricultural resources be reduced, to the extent feasible, through the adoption

10 of mitigation measures, including without limitation avoidance or adoption of impact reducing

11 alternatives.

12 42. VC Defendants, through their adoption of the Amendments and claim of exemption from

13 CEQA, failed to identify significant impacts to the environment and/or agricultural resources, as

14 set forth herein above.

15 43. By failing to identify significant adverse effects on the environment and/or agricultural

16 resources, and by failing to propose mitigation measures adequate to reduce those impacts to a

17 level of insignificance, the VC Defendants committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion, and acted

18 arbitrarily and capriciously. Its adoption of the Amendments and determination of exemption to

19 CEQA must therefore be set aside.

20

21

22 44.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief)

Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation


24 45. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioners, on the one hand, and

25 the VC Defendants, on the other, in that Petitioners contend that the VC Defendants' adoption of

26 the Amendments and detennination that said adoption of the Amendments was exempted from

27 CEQA was in violation of CEQA. Petitioners are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege

28 that the VC Defendants disagree. Without inte~fa~ion of this Court, the VC Defendants will


1 allow its adoption of the Amendments without an EIR to stand.

2 46. Petitioners desire a judicial determination of their rights, and the duties of the VC

3 Defendants, by a declaration as to whether or not the VC Defendants have violated CEQA.

4 47. A judicial determination and declaration is appropriate at this time under the circumstances

5 so that Petitioners may ascertain their rights and interest in this matter may be resolved.

6 48. Petitioners have no plain or adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently being

7 suffered.

8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Injunctive Reliet)

10 49. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every contained in

11 paragraphs 1 through 48, above.

12 50. Petitioners and others demanded that the VC Defendants not adopt the Amendments prior

13 to preparation of an EIR and otherwise comply with its legal obligations under CEQA. The VC

14 Defendants claim to be exempt from CEQA and have refused, and still refuse, to comply with

15 CEQA.

16 51. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, VC Defendants' wrongful

17 conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable harm to Petitioners and the public at large in

18 that the VC Defendants are engaged in an unlawful act and an illegal waste of municipal funds by

19 proceeding to utilize the Amendments to the ISAG without complying with state law.

20 52. Petitioners have no plain or adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently being

21 suffered.

22 WHEREFORE, PetitionerslPlaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24 A. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the VC Defendants, and all of their

25 agents, employees, officers and representatives, from issuing or using any development approvals

26 or permits utilizing the Amendments or undertaking any activity to implement in any way the

27 Amendments until such time as the VC Defendants comply with CEQA;

28 B. For a peremptory writ of mandate direc~r5-that the VC Defendants comply with CEQA,


1 including but not limited to preparation of an EIR, prior to implementing the Amendments;

2 C. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing the VC Defendants to vacate and set aside their

3 adoption of the Amendments and determination of exemption from CEQA;

4 D. For a judicial determination that the VC Defendants have violated CEQA;

5 E. For costs of this suit; and

6 F. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: May 31, 2011 WESTLAKE LAW GROUP

""""'"-~eys for petitioners/plaintiffs

-16-VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

~

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Plann ing Division

Kimberly l. Prillhart Director county of ventura

.(i)

APR 2 f'f POSTED. " 2011 .-..

;ror~ATJ~'N ~_l_l_ NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Ventura county Clerk al)d Recorder

TO: 181 County Clerk County of Ventura

FROM: Sy: • Deputy

County of Ventura

A.

B.

c.

D.

BOO South Victoria Ave. L#121 0 . Ventura, CA 93009

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

RMA. Planning Division BOO So'uth Victoria Ave. L#1740 Ventura, CA 93009·

1.. Ent~tlement: Amendment to County of Ventura's Initial Study Assessment Guidelines

2. Applicant: County of Ventura

3. . Location: Countywide County: Ventura

Assessor Parcel Noes}: All parcels

4. Project Description:· Update of the BiQloglcal Resources Section ot" the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment· Guidelines, which provides· the· threshold of significance criteria and, methodology for evaluating whether or not a project

. . (individually or cumulatively with other projects) could have a Significant effect on the environment under the· California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA") (Pub. Res. Code

. § 21000 et.seq. and corresponding state regulations (title 14; Calif. Code ofAegs., § 15000 et seq.). .

·CONTACTS: . , 1. Publlc·Agency Approving ProJect:· County of Ventura

2. 3.

Contact Persor:': Ctlristina Danko

Telephone No.: (805) 654-5193

. EXEMPTSTATUS: (Check One)

·0" D

'181

Ministerial (Sec. 15268) Emergency Project (Sec. ) Categorical. Exemptton (Sec. 15308)

FILED Ventura County .

county Clurk and Recorder

APR 27 2011

MAI::K A. LUNN pounty Ch,r~ and Recorde~

By GRACE McVICKER, Deputy

Type: Class B (section 15308 "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of

B the Environmenf) . No Impact: (Sec. 15061 [b][3]) Other Statutory Exemption (Sec. ) .

STATEMENT OF REASON TO SUPPORT EXEMPT FINDING: This project fits within the Glass 8 categorical exemption from CEQA for actions taken to protect the environment beCause the purpose of the project is to clarify the procedures and methodology ·for preparing and completing Initial Sh:'dles· (14 CCR,' § 15063) in compliance with the goals and 'principles of CECA, and to formally adopt Biological Resource Thresholds of Significance (14 CCR § 15064.7) for general use as ·part of the

800 South Victoria Avenue, L#1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654-2481 Fax (805) 654-2509

Printed on Rocycled Paper

County's lead agency responsibilities under CECA . and its' corresponding state regulatIons. Therefore, this project assu~ the maIntenance, restoration, enhan~ment, or protection of the environment. .

DATE OF PROJECT APPROVAL: April 26, 2011

Prepared by: Christina Danko, Planning Biologist

e::%. A_ "? M 4hdt:.Of/ Bruce Smith, Manager . . Plans, Ordinances and Regional Planning Section

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA

I have read the foregoing document described as:


and know its contents.

_ I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to

those matters that are stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

l. I am an authorized agent of Citizens for the Protection of Agricultural Resources, a party to this

action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for

that reason. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters that are

stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where

such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that

reason. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege that the matters stated in it are true and

correct.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May 31, 2011, at Westlake Village, California.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

VERIFICATION



VERIFIED PETmON FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF


9 _ I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to

10 those matters that are stated on infonnation and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

11

12 .1L I am officer, of Ventura County Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business, a party to this

13 action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and ] make this verification for

14 that reason. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters that are

15 stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

16

17

18

19

20

21

_ I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where

such attorneys have their offices, and J make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that

reason. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege that the matters stated in it are true and

correct.

22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

23 that the foregomgis true and correct.

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on /f1Jp 1/ , 2011, at Ventura, California.

,4'

/4~~-A.E. Sloan

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

B

VERIFICATION





9 _ I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to

10 those matters that are stated on infonnation and belief and, as to those matters, [ believe them to be true.

11

12 x.. I am officer, of Ventura County Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business, a party to this

13 action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for

14 that reason. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters that are

15 stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

16

17 _ I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where

1 B such attorneys have their offices, and J make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that

19 reason. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege that the matters stated in it are true and

20 correct.

21

22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

23 that the foregoing is true and correct.

24

25

26

27

28

, 2011 , at Ventura, California.

Date post:	27-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanngoc
View:	215 times
Download:	3 times

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF...

Documents