OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL OF SACRAMENTO JOHN F, WHISENHUNT, SBN 89823 County Counsel E-mail: whisenhuntj@saccounty.net KRISTA WHITMAN, SBN 135881 Assistant County Counsel E-mail: whitmank@saccounty.net 700 H Street, Suite 2650 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 874-5544 Facsimile: (916) 874-8207 ‘Attomeys for Respondent COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO THOMAS LAW GROUP TINA A. THOMAS, SBN 088796 E-mail: thomas@thomaslaw.com CHRISTOPHER J. BUTCHER, SBN 253285 E-mail: cbutche jomaslaw.com ANGELA C. MCINTIRE, SBN 271615 E-mail: amci Ithomaslaw.com 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: | (916) 287-9292 Facsimile: (916) 737-5858 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest ANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. CARL DOLK, MICHAEL J. SEAMAN, CAROL ) Case No. 34-2015-80002032 S. LAMBDIN, CAROL R. HARRIS, SARAH M. ) MEDAL, KATHLEEN A. STRICKLIN, and SUZANNE R. SOLBERG; ) RESPONDENT'S AND REAL PARTY } IN INTEREST’S VERIFIED ANSWER Petitioners/Plaintifts, ) TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) MANDATE v. ) ) Hearing Date: December 11, 2015 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Time: 1:30PM Respondent/Defendant, 3 Sudge for All Purposes: ) Christopher E. Krueger ANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 3 Dept.: in Interest. } Filing Date of Action: YW fc A Real Party in Interest. Ring oo Y p ‘RESPONDENT'S AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S VERIFIED ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WAITOF | MANDATEee) Respondent COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (Respondent) and Real Party in Interest ANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Real Party) answer the Petition for Writ of Mandate (Petition) filed by Petitioners CARL DOLK, MICAHEL J. SEAMAN, CAROL S, LAMBDIN, CAROL R. HARRIS, SARAH M. MEDAL, KATHLEEN A. STRICKLIN, and SUZANNE R. SOLBERG (Petitioners) as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party admit that on January 28, 2015, Respondent recorded a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the Project, a 148-unit multi smily residential complex proposed in the Arden, Arcade community in unincorporated Sacramento County, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000) and its implementing Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14 California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq,). Respondents and Real Party further assert that the NOE is part of the record and speaks for itself. Respondent and Real Party contend that the allegations in Paragraph | contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 1. 2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party contend that the allegations in Paragraph 2 contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 2. 3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party allege the Project approval documents are part of the record and speak for themselves, Respondent and Real Party further contend thatthe allegations in Paragraph 3 contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 3. 4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party allege the NOE. prepared for the Project and the Project approval documents is part of the record and speaks for itself. Respondent and Real Party further contend that the allegations in Paragraph 4 contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of lav, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 4. 5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party affirmatively assert that Respondent properly determined the Project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA 1 RESPONDENT'S AND REAL PARTY IN INTERESTS VERIFIED ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATECe tan eun 10 " 12 3 “4 Is 16 W 18 9 20 2 2 23 24 28 26 2 2B Guidelines section 15268 and Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(1) and thus properly granted a NOE. Respondent and Real Party assert the NOE granted for the Project is part of the record and speaks for itself, Respondent and Real Party further contend that the allegations in Paragraph 5 contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 5. PARTIES 6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party lack information or belief sufficient to enable an answer. Furthermore, Respondent and Real Party contend that the allegations therein contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no respons required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 6. 7, Answering Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party lack information or belief sufficient to enable an answer. Furthermore, Respondent and Real Party contend that the allegations in Paragraph 7 contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is required, and to the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 7. 8. Answering Paragraph & of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party affirmatively assert the County is a county municipality operating under the laws of the State of California, and that the County has jurisdiction to issue land approvals consistent with the requirements of State law, including CEQA and State Planning and Zoning taw. Respondent and Real Party further assert that the County Board of Supervisors is the elected decision-making body of the County and that the County Board of Supervisors approved the Project and issued an NOE consistent with the requirements of State law. To the extent a further answer is required, Respondent and Real Party deny all other remaining allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Petition, Real Party asserts that ANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY is a company that does business in Sacramento County and is the recipient or intended beneficiary of the Project approvals. To the extent a further answer is req Respondent and Real Party deny all other and remaining allegations in Paragraph 9. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent and Real Party contend that the allegations therein contain argument, speculation, and conclusions of law, to which no response is RESPONDENT'S AND REAL PARTY ININTEREST’S VERIFIED ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE,