Live. Life. Lincoln . Live . Life . Lincoln. Live . Life . Lincoln . Live . Life - Lincoln . Live . Life Lipcoln.  MINUTES CITY OF LINCOLN Regular Meeting July 14, 2020  CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY and REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY  OPEN SESSION MEETING  No Physical Location, Meeting conducted electronically on Zoom with Live Stream on City of Lincoln  YouTube Channel and WAVE Channel 18. 1. CALL TO ORDER by Mayor Karleskint at 6:00PM.  2. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Holly Andreatta -1 teleconference  Peter Gilbert. teleconference Paul Joiner teleconference Alyssa Silhi- teleconference Dan Karleskint- teleconference  Mayor  Roll Call: 5 members present, 0 members absent.  Staff members present: Jennifer Hanson, City Manager- teleconference  Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney teleconference Doug Lee, Public Safety Chief- - teleconference Katherine Hunt, Library Manager- -t teleconference Gary LeCheminant, Finance Director - teleconference Ray Leftwich, Public' Works Dir./City Engineer- teleconference Steve Prosser, Community Development Dir. teleconference  Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk  Various City employees, consultants and members of the public were also present via teleconference. 3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION -Mayor Karleskint stated there was no closed session 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Ryan Hornick from Boy Scout Troop 435 led the Pledge of Allegiance.  meeting.  5. AGENDA REVIEW MODIFICATION = none.  6. PRESENTATIONS 8.A. McBean Skatepark.  Ray Leftwich, Public' Works Director, gave a brief powerpoint, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof. A lengthy Council discussion ensued regarding: possible repair timing and bridging gap until new park can be constructed, possibly at Chief Robert Jimenez Park; having a community workshop to get skatepark priorities from residents ini the area; product specifications and cost for both repairs and a new skatepark; repair and maintenance schedule of skateparks; funding challenges and options; having the Park & Recreation Committee involved in the process; and whether Community Facility District funding for regional parks could be used for repairs or new skatepark. Mayor Karleskint opened the  discussion to the public with the following comments: reopened to serve the huge youth population of Lincoln.  a) b)  Randy Carver, al Lincoln resident, stated his concern that the McBean Skatepark be Melissa Waggoner, a Lincoln resident, agreed with previous speaker and suggested removal  ofr ramps and repair of the McBean Skatepark to lessen the cost of repairs and suggested residents  could donate toward this effort.  600 Sixth Street * Lincoln, CA 95648 www.d.lincoln.ca.us 916-434-2400    Live . Life Lincoln Live. Life . Lincoln. Live . Life Lincoln - Live Life . Lincoln Live Life Lincoln  Page 2of5 City Council, Public Finance. Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes July14, 2020 c) Skatepark remain open.  Christy Advonik, a Lincoln resident, agreed with previous speaker and requested McBean  7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - City Clerk stated the email or voicemail comments received prior to the meeting were all related to agenda items and Mayor Karleskint opened  public comment with the following comments:  a)  Stan Nader, a Lincoln resident, stated his concern that public comment left via email or  voicemail were being summarized and not read in their entirety.  8. CONSENT  Mayor Karleskint stated he had received requests from the Council to pull Items: 81, Public' Work Vehicle Purchase & Surplus; 8L, Public Safety Power Shutoff Grant; and 8M, COVID-19 Update. He asked if any members of the public would like to pull any other items from the Consent Agenda and hearing none he called for a motion on the balance of the consent agenda. Councimember Gilbert motioned approval of the consent agenda and the motion was seconded by Councimember Silhi. By the following Vote (Approved): Gilbert - Aye, Silhi-/ Aye, Andreatta - Aye, Joiner- Aye and Karleskint - Aye - the balance 8.A. Approval of Minutes of. June 23, 2020 Regular City Council meeting and the July 7, 2020 Special 8.B. Receive and file Contract Report, identifying contracts, task order and purchase orders executed by the City Manager and filed ini the Office of the City Clerk by July 2, 2020.  ofthe consent agenda. Those items approved were: Joint City Council /F Planning Commission meeting.  8.C. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-112 accepting the Warrants of. June 19 and 26, 2020 and July 2, 2020 8.D. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-113 accepting the McBean Stadium Bleacher Shade, VIP Shade and VIP Area Netting of the McBean Stadium Renovation Project Phase 1 as complete and authorize the Total construction cost of the project is $203,497 from Fund 100 within CIP 446 of the Fiscal Year 8.E. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-114authorizing the City Manager to accept a Grant of Easement for ingress and egress purposes including rights over, on and across all that real property as described in the grant of easement access easement (associated with APN 337-200-010-000). 8.F. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-115 authorizing the City Manager to execute an additional Contract for Services with Goodwin Consulting Group to update the City's Public Facilities Element Study Analysis and Report Services in the amount of $20,500 from Account 600-6830-50400. 8.G. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-116 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with NLD Rocklin, LLC to sell 0.87 acre-feet of volumetric credits in the Lakeview Farms Retention Basin for $24,493 and a one-time payment of $13,000 for perpetual maintenance. Revenue will be deposited to Funds 247 (Drainage-PFE) and 285 (CFD 2018-1). 8.H. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-117 approving a budget augmentation of $52,000 from the unencumbered balance of Fund 241 PFE-Community Services-Police Fund to capital improvement project (CIP) 483 - PD Warehouse Expansion, authorizing the City Manager to approve a contract for  tol be placed on file with the City Clerk and available for audit.  City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Placer County Recorder.  2019/20 Capital Improvement Budget.  600 Sisth Strect  Lincoln, CA 95648 "www.si.lincoln.ca.uX+916-4142400    Live. Life Lincoln Live Life - Lincoln. Live . Life - Lincoln - Live Life Lincoln Live. Life Lincoln  Page 30 of5 City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes July 14, 2020  construction for Bullet Guard bullet resistant windows for the Police Station in the amount of $49,853, 8.J. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-119,accepting the Grant Deed for Lots A, B, C, and G for Open Space The open space will be maintained by the City, and will be funded by the CFD 2018-1 Maintenance 8.K. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-120ratifying the City Manager's approval to submit to the California State Library the application for the 2020/2021 California Library Literacy Services grant, which supports the Adult and Family Literacy program, committing an estimated $20,746 of matching funds already identified and included in thel library's 2020/2021 budget if the grant should be awarded.  and authorizing the City Engineer to approve change orders not to exceed $2,000. and drainage purposes, within the Twelve Bridges Village 11 Project.  Services).  ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: 8.1. Public Works Vehicle Purchase & Surplus.  Councimember Andreatta stated she had pulled this item to get clarification on the vehicle rating system. Ray Leftwich, Public Works Director, gave a brief explanation. Mayor Karleskint opened and closed the discussion tot the public at 7:03PM with no comments and called for a motion. Councimember Gilbert motioned approval oft the resolution associated with this item and the motion was seconded by Councimember Andreatta. By the following Vote (Approved): Gilbert- - Aye, Andreatta - Aye, Joiner- - Aye, Silhi - Aye and Karleskint - Aye - RESOLUTION 2020-118 authorizing the City Manager to purchase a Chevrolet 1500, a Ford F250 Utility Truck, and Heated Asphalt Machine. Itis further recommended that a 2007 F150 and a 2004 F350 be designated as surplus. All vehicle purchases are fully funded ini the Capital Improvements Budget for FY20/21 in Funds 221, 711 and 721. Councimember Silhi stated she had pulled this item to ask if the City received this grant last year and what the funds were used for. Jennifer Hanson, City Manager, and Doug Lee, Public Safety Chief, gave a brief explanation that the grant was not received last year and what the funds would be used for. Mayor Karleskint opened and closed the discussion to the public at 7:07PM with no comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution associated with this item and the motion was seconded by Councimember Gilbert. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Gilbert - Aye, Andreatta - Aye, Silhi - Aye and Karleskint - Aye - RESOLUTION 2020- 121 authorizing the City Manager or designee to submit an application to the Placer County Office of Emergency Services for funding that will aid the City of Lincoln's preparation and response to the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company's Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Events.  8.L. Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Grant.  8.M. COVID-19 Update.  Councimember Silhi stated she had pulled this item to provide transparency to residents. Jennifer Hanson, City Manager gave a brief staff report and information related toi the City's application for Cities' Allocation of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act from the State Department of Finance. Ms. Hanson proposed tabling these funds for a few months and al brief discussion ensued Mayor Karleskint opened and closed the discussion to the public at 7:14PM with no comments and called for a motion. Councimember Gilbert motioned approval of the item and the motion was seconded by Councimember Silhi. By the following Vote (Approved): Gilbert - Aye, Silhi- - Aye,  regarding COVID-19 efforts ini the City.  600 Sisth Strect Lincoln, CA 95648 "wd.incoln.ca.us+916-34.2400    Live. Life Lincoln Live . Life Lincoln. Live . Life Lincoln . Live . Life . Lincoln . Live. Life Lipcoln  Page 40 of5  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes July 14, 2020  Andreatta - Aye, Joiner - Aye and Karleskint - Aye -Receive and file report from Staff providing an update on the status oft the current COVID-19 state of emergency in the City of Lincoln.  9. PUBLIC HEARINGS  9.A. (1) Conduct a Public Hearing Regarding an Amendment to Title 18 - Zoning of the Lincoln Municipal Code relating to Alcohol Sales; (2) Find the project Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) General rule of no potential for causing significant impact; and, (3) Waive full reading and introduce ORDINANCE 1016B by title and number for the Steve Prosser, Community Development Director, gave a brief staff report to allow restaurants, bars and tavern to sell beer and wine and in some cases all alcohol to be permitted by right without a conditional use permit (CUP) to ease local regulations. Councilmember Silhi stated she had concerns with the proposed action and asked to hear from Chief Lee who then gave a brief staff report. Al lengthy City Council discussion ensued regarding: erosion of local control over CUP's; something in between permit by right and administrative CUP's; possibility of drive-thru restaurants selling alcohol; better definition of bar and taverns; and historical approvals of CUP's. Mayor Karleskint opened and closed the public Another lengthy City Council discussion ensued regarding: staff's motivation to help local businesses in the current COVID-19 climate; concerns voiced by City Council; middle ground between permit by right and administrative CUP's problematic because ofl lack of clear parameters; creating a hybrid CUP model that is ministerial with some clear guidelines; reducing the CUP fee without relaxing any of the requirements isn't possible because of noticing requirements; or changing the format from a CUP to a license model. Mayor Karleskint stated the item was not right to vote on and asked if a motion was needed to send it back to staff? Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney, stated the item would die without a motion and effectively provides direction to staff to do their homework and bring something back to City Council. No Action Taken on Waive full reading and introduce ORDINANCE 1016B by title and  following Text Amendments to Title 18 -Zoning.  hearing at 7:44PM with no comments.  number for thei following Text Amendments to Title 18 -Zoning  10. GENERAL BUSINESS  10.A. Adopt RESOLUTION 2020-122 decertifying the portions of the Village 5 Specific Plan Project EIR which address (1) reliance on the PCCP as mitigation for agricultural resource impacts and biological resource impacts and (2) impacts to transit; and suspending the City's Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as they relate to (1) reliance on the PCCP as mitigation and (2) Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney, gave a brief staff report and stated the City had received one comment via email from Soluri Meserve, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof, in response tot the Writ of Mandate issued by the Court. Mayor Karleskint opened the discussion to the public at a) Byron Chapman, a Lincoln resident, spoke in support of the Scheibers and their right to protect b) Connie Scheiber, a Placer County resident, read the Soluri Meserve letter into the record and Mayor Karleskint closed the public discussion at 8:13PM with no further comments. A brief City Council  impacts to transit facilities.  8:09PM with the following comments:  their property.  referenced the exhibits, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof.  600 Sixth Street * Lincoln, CA 95648www.ci.lincoln.ca.us +916-434-2400    Live. Life - Lincoln . Live . Life - Lincoln. Live . Life . Lincoln . Live - Life . Lincoln . Live . Life Lincoln  Page! 50 of5  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes July14,2 2020  discussion ensued regarding the Judge's ruling and possible future legal actions. Councimember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution associated with this item and the motion was seconded by Councimember Gilbert. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Gilbert = Aye, Andreatta - Aye, Silhi - Aye and Karleskint - Aye RESOLUTION 2020-122 decertifying the portions oft the Village 5 Specific Plan Project EIR which address (1) reliance on the PCCP as mitigation for agricultural resource impacts and biological resource impacts and (2) impacts to transit; and suspending the City's Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as they relate to (1) reliance on the PCCP as  mitigation and (2) impacts to transit facilities. 11. COUNCIL INITIATED BUSINESS - none.  12. INFORMATION ITEMS  Councimember Joiner asked for an update on the hiring of a new Executive Director for Pioneer Community Energy (Pioneer). Councimember Gilbert, the City'sa appointee to Pioneer Board, gave a  brief report.  13. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Karleskint adjourned the meeting at 8:18PM.  Submitted by: Suer Garl Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk  600 Sixth Strect - Lincoln, CA 95648 ww.d.lincahn.ca.US*916414.400    o  LLI  e  I  5  S C - 6  D 6  6 0  8    E 2 0  5    O 0 0 O 0  a  S 8  @ -  A 9 De 8 e e 0 a e de à o ) @  Z 8  3  @ V  8 0  5    8  Z C 5  O 32 $  8 O $  - : @ - 0 E  - Q D ) 0 O N O @ o A S  9 @ 9    0 8 0 0 , 5 o  A @ 2  @ €  A C d 8 8 e 1 3 C O  1)  o . & C - o o o o E A @ X @ V  9  9    9  D  S @ 3  5  Z  I    o  e 9 2  o  1S  8 8  A S  @ ')  O  5 L  52 J a @ LE 3 @ - 5 O I 8 O 0 o X ) 1e 0 0 A  E  - -    D o B 1$ C de E @ > O O @  8 @ 0 à - E O S  U 3 4 8 o O n D0 - @ > & e 0 C C C a o  )  0 C  C  S C  0 O 9 a 0 )  C 1$  U  I    U  I    SOLURI  MESERVE a la pTTw  te:916455.7300-fax9162447300 5108thStret-Sacramento.CA95814  July 14, 2020  SENT VIA MAlLainserdlaslsa  Mayor Dan Karleskint and Members oft the City Council City ofLincoln cloofCity Clerk - Gwen Scanlon 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648  RE: City ofLincoln Regular Meeting Scheduled for July 14, 2020 - Comment to Agenda Item 10.A  Honorable Mayor Karleskint and Members of the City Council:  This letter, submitted on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP (collectively, "Scheibers") provides comments on Agenda Item 10.A. for the regular meeting of the City Council for the City ofLincoln scheduled for  July 14, 2020.  The City Council is being asked to consider Agenda Item 10.A. to adopt Resolution 2020-122, which is in response to the Scheibers' successful challenge to the City's CEQA review for the Village V Specific Plan ("V5SP"). While a good first step, the actions set forth in Resolution 2020-122 do not go far enough to address the defects in the City's CEQA review identified by the trial court in its April 13, 2020 ruling.  While we are aware that the City and Richland procured a somewhat narrower judgment and peremptory writ from the trial court dated June 25, 2020, that judgment is unlawful for the reasons in the attached objections dated June 30, 2020 (see Exhibit 1).  and have forced us to file a motion challenging it (see Exhibit2.)  Asj just one example, the trial court found that the Environmental Impact Import ("EIR") fails as a matter ofl law with respect to impact analysis and mitigation for transit impacts. The V5SP's transit plan may therefore ultimately require wholesale revision = along with resulting revisions to the land use and circulation pians - following adequate  preparation ofa new impact analysis.    Mayor Dan Karleskint and Members oft the City Council City ofLincoln July 14, 2020 Page 2 of2  Notwithstanding the present unlawful judgment, additional substantive revisions tol both the V5SP and its Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") will be required in order to address the defects already identified by the trial court as well as any additional deficiencies that will likely be identified by the Third Appellate District as part ofits de novo review of the adequacy of the V5SP and the City's CEQA review process. We can only speculate that the City is taking these actions in an attempt to reassure Placer County LAFCO that the City's CEQA review for the V5SP somehow is adequate and complete. As explained above, this is certainly not the case.  Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE ALaw Corppration By:  Ps Patrick M. Soluri  PMS/wra cc (via email):  Kristine Mollenkopf@ (sristine-molsnkopl@incolncagov) Christopher J.I Butcher chucheiatlomshssn LAFCO Executive Director, Kristina Berry bery@plasercagow) Attachments: Exhibit 1 Objections dated June 30, 2020  Exhibit 2 Plaintiffs' Notice ofl Intention to Move for New Trial filed  July 13, 2020    EXHIBIT: 1    MATTHEW L. EMRICK (SBN 148250) LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW EMRICK, APC 6520Lone Tree Boulevard, Suite 1009 3 Rocklin, California 95765 Telephone: (916)789-9919 4 Email: mathewgmlelaw.com  2  5 7  PATRICK M. SOLURI (SBN 210036) 6 OSHA R. MESERVE (SBN 204240) NICOLAS R. SWEENEY (SBN 319320) SOLURI MESERVE, Al LAW CORPORATION Sacramento, California 95814 9 Telephone: (916)455-7300; facsimile: (916)244-7300 10 Emails: atrickgsemlanyerscom: pshagsemlawyer.com nckgsemlawyer.com Attomeys for Plaintifis 12 SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES, LP and ALBERT SCHEIBER  8 510 8th Street  11 13 14 15  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  COUNTY OF PLACER  BYFAX  16 SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES, LP and CASE NO. SCV0040629  17 ALBERT SCHEIBER,  PETITIONERS OBJECTIONSTO RESPONDENT AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND [PROPOSED) PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE Dept.: 42  18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28  Plaintiffs, V.  CITY OF LINCOLN,  Defendant;  Judge: Assigned for All Purposes to Honorable Charles Wachob Date Action Filed: January 12, 2018  23 RICHLAND DEVELOPERS.INC.,  Real Party in Interest.  Petitioners' Objections to Respondent and Real Party in Interest's [ProposedJludgment and [Proposed)  Peremptory Writ ofMandate    Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1590. subdivision G). Petitioners Scheiber  2 Ranch Properties. LP and. Albert Scheiber (collectively "Petitioners"). hereby submit their 3 objections to Respondent City ofLincoln ("City")and! Real Party in Interest Richland 4 Developers. Inc. Richimd7lcolectiney Respondents") [Proposed.Judgment and 5 [Proposed] Peremptory Writ ofl Mandate ("Proposed Judgment") filed with this Court on June 6 26, 2020. Respondents previously lodged this same Proposed Judgment on May 6, 2020. In the! 7 jevent the Court decides to adopt a separate standalone Judgment and Peremptory Writ of 8 Mandate, Petitioners also submit their own [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Peremptory 9 Writ of Mandate. attached hereto as Eshibits land2. respectively, which follow this Court's  10 rulings filed April 13, 2020, 11 Objection No.1:  12  Petitioners object to the filing of Respondents' Proposed Judgment on the grounds that  13 the Court currently lacks jurisdiction to issue a new standalone judgment. Under Code of Civil 14 Procedure section 916. the perfection of an appeal stays all proceedings in the trial court 15 embraced or affected by the appealed judgment. This stay applies IO modifications ofjudgments 16 or orders. (Varian Medical Systems, Ine. V. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196-198: Laidlaw 17 Waste Sustems, Inc. V. Bay Cities Services, Inc. (1996)430 Cal.App.630. 641.) Even proceedings 18 that are intended to cure: a purported defect in the judgmeni or order appealed from are a nullity. 19 (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 197.) Peritioners filed notices of appeal from the Ruling on 20 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Ruling on the Demurer on June 12, 2020.  21  Here, Respondents' Proposed Judgment is merely an attempr to correct what they  22 perceive as a defect in the Court's April 13, 20201 Ruling on the Petition for Writ ofMandate. 23 Issuing Respondents Proposed Judgment and thereby modilying the Court's prior order 24 contradicts the purpose of section 916: to preserve the status quo until the appeal is decided. (Id. 25 at 198, citing Elseav, Saberi (1992)4Cal.App.4h 625, 629.) "In order to preserve the stalus 26 quo and retum the parties to the same condition they were before the order was made, section 27 916 necessarily renders any subsequent trial court proceedings on maitèrs embraced or affected 28 iby the appeal void - and noL merely voidable," (Ibid internai quotations and citations  2  Petitioners' Objections to Respondent and Real Party in Interest's [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed)  Peremptery Writ of Mandate    1 omitted).) Respondents' Proposed Judgment would modify the very orders at issue on appeal. 2 Both the Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate and Ruling on the Demurrer are necessarily 3 embraced in and affected by the appeal. Thus, pursuant to section 916, the Court no longer has  4 jurisdiction to adopt Respondents' Proposed Judgment.  5 Obiection No.2:  6  Petitioners further object 1o the premise that a separate judgment is necessary in this case.  7 The Court's Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate and Ruling on the Demurrer to the Second 8 Amended Complaint are both final, appealable orders that have been served on the parties. 9 (Code Civ. Proc., S 904.1; Wilsons V. Couaty of SanJ Joaquin (2019)38 Cal.App.5th 1,7, quoting 10 Jacobs-Zomne V. Superior Court (1996)46 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1070 ["It is the substance and 11 effect of the adjudication. and not the form. which determines ift the order is... .final and 12 jappealable.")) They are file-stamped. signed by Judge Wachob and include proof of service of 13 all parties. Further. as discussed below. the Ruling on Petition on Writ of Mandate contained 14 sufficient detail pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9. Therefore. a separate 15 writtenj judgment is not required. (See Haight V. Hanhweiler(1988): 199 Cal.pp.3d85,89: 16 Aviolmeriors SpA 1. W'orld. Airways, Ine. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d d908, 913.)  17  In the event the Court ultimately decides that a separate judgment is necessary,  18 Petitioners submit the attached Exhibitl. Petitioners' [Proposed] Judgmen! and Exhibit 12. 19 Petitioners' [Proposed] Writ ofMandate. These documents are consistent with the Court's 20 Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate and do nou ascribe extraneous findings Io the Court as  21 Respondents' [Proposed] Judgment does.  22 Obiection No. 3:  23  To the extent the Court is inclined to issue a separate written judgment, Petitioners object  24 tol Respondents' Proposed Judgment because it fails to identify Petitioners as the prevailing 25 party. "Plaintiffs are unquestionably the successful parties" when they successfully allege 26 CEQA violations. (Preserve Wild Santee V. Cityo ofSantee (2012)210CalAppath 260.291; 27 see CEB, Califomia Administrative Mandamus. $ 15.9 ["Ifaj petition is granted :. the court will  28  3  Petitioners' Objections to Respondent and Real Party in InierestsProposed). Judgment and [Proposed)  Peremptory Writ ofMandate    I generally instruct the.petitioner 10 prepare a proposed judgment":s see aiso Kostka & Zischke, $ 2 23.139A [respondent agency is prevailing party only when the petitioner obtains no relief].) 4 that they are the prevailing parties, asserting that "Petitioners did not prevail on two oft the three 5 causes of action : and, as to the CEQA cause of action, Petitioners only prevailed on (WO ofthe 6 numerous claims it advariced in this litigation." (Exhibit3. p.3.)! Ini making this argument, 7 Respondents rely on the narrow definition of prevailing parly sel out in Code of Civil Procedure 8 section 1032, subdivision (a)(4)relating to entitlement to litigation costs. (Ibid.) Whether 9 Petitioners are entitled to costs is not at issue here. however. For all practical purposes, 10 Petitioners are the prevailing party in this litigation. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate 11 directing the City to set aside Project approvals and certification ofthe environmental impact 12 report ("EIR"). Petitioners obtained the reliefit sought. "The appropriate benchmarks in 13 determining which party prevailed are (a) the situation immediately prior to the commencement 14 ofsuit and (b) the situation today, and the role. ifany played by the litigant in effecting any 15 changes between the Lwo." (Maria P. V. Riles(1987)43 Cal.3d 1281, 1291 [reciting the federal 16 standard for prevailing partyl.) Therefore. Petitioners object to any Proposed Judgment that  3  In the correspondence attached here as Exhibit3. Respondents claim, without authority.  17 does not identify Petitioners as the prevailing party.  18 Objection No.4:  19  Petitioners last object to Respondent' 's Proposed Judgment because it finds the Project  20 and Project approvals severable. Respondents" Proposed Judgment reads in findings that the 21 Court did not make. and has no present basis to make. The Court's Rulings on Petition for Writ 22 ofMandate directed the City to set aside certification of the EIR and Project approvals "as they 23 pertain to reliance on the PCCP as mitigation for agricultural impacts and impact to biological 24 resources, and as they pertain to1 the EIR's discussion of impacts to transit." (Ruling on Petition 25 for Writ of! Mandate, p. 32:7-11.) The Court did not make any finding that the EIR or Project 26 approvals are severable. Nor was such a finding necessary, or even feasible. Respondents argue  27 28  Respondents inexplicably did not altach this correspondence to their Proposed. Judgment. Petitioners' Objections to Respondent and Real Party in Interest's [Proposed]. Judgment and (Proposed]  despite previously attaching itl tO the Proposed. Judgment lodged on May 6, 2020.  4  Peremptory Writ of Mandate    that under Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b). the Court is required to 2 leave intact Project approvals that are unaffected by the judgment. (See Proposed Judgment, 3 Exhibit B, pp. 2-3.) What Respondentis failed to note in their correspondence was the full 4 requirement forl Public Resources Code: section 21169.9. subdivision (b) applicability. A court 5 must not only find that portions of aj project are severable. but that severance would not  6 prejudice complete and full compliance with CEQA.  7  It cannot presently be ascertained - and the Court should not be expected 10 speculate  8 about - what Project approvals will ultimately be affected by how the City chooses to address 9 the Court's Ruling. Ifthe Court predetermines, as Respondents suggest, that the Project is 10 severable, it forecloses any necessary changes to the Project and Project approvals that could 11 result from the transit impact analysis. The Court directed the City to conduct a transit impaci 12 analysis. The results oft that analysis could require changes to the Village 5 Specific Plan, or 13 additional mitigation measures. These, in turn, could result in other new impacts, requiring 14 additional revisions 1o the EIR as well as affecting Project approvals. Even Respondents 15 implicitly acknowledge this fact. Note. in their Proposed Judgment, Respondents assert that 16 "fajll other Project approvals were based on portions oft the EIR that are not affected by the 17 Court's decision and no remedial action is required uless compliance with the writ changes or 18 afècts the other. Projecr approvals." (Proposed Judgment, p. 4.b (emphasis added).)  19  That changes to the Project would be necessary to comply with the order is evident in the  20 Village 5 Specific Plan itself. While the EIR'st transit impact analysis was legally inadequate, 21 the Specific Plan includes a Transit System section on page 5-25 (AR 15963). The relevant 22 section ofthe Specific Plan is attached here as Exhibit 4. lfcomplying with the Court's Ruling 23 on Petition for Writ tofMandate requires changes to this section of the Specific Plan at all, then  24 analysis of those changes would be need to be analyzed.  25 26 27 28  5  Petitioners' Objections 10 Respondent and Real Party in Interest's [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed!  Peremptory Writ of! Mandate    1  Given the strong possibility that complying with the Court's order and engaging in good-  2 faith analysis oftransit impacts could result in changes to the Project and Project approvals, 3 Petitioners object to any. judgment that would find the Project severable. Such a finding would 4 prejudice the City's future compliance with CEQA and the Court's Ruling on Petition for Writ  5 ofMandate. 6 Dated: June 30, 2020  SOLURI MESERVE, Al LAW CORPORATION Patrick M. Soluri A Attorney for Plaintiffs Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP and Albert Scheiber  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  By:  Petitioners' Objections to Respondent and Real Party in Interest's ProposedJudgment. and [Proposed]  Peremptory Writ ofMandate    PROOF OF SERVICE  2  Ihereby declare that 1 am employed in the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento,  3 Califomia. Iam over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action. My business address is  4 510 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.  5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  On. June 30, 2020, Iserved the attached document:  PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT AND: REAL: PARTY INI INTEREST'S ROPOSEDCDONENT AND PROPOSED! PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE  8 Ont the following parties or attorneys for partics, as shown below:  KRISTINE MOLLENKOPF kristinemollenkopf@lincoinca.gov CITYOF LINCOIN 600 Sixth Street, Lincoln, CA 95648 Telephone: (916)434-2428 IINAA. THOMAS thomasqthmaslay.com CHRISTOPHERJ.BUTCHER huteherathomaslaNv.comn THOMAS LAW GROUP 455 Capitol Mall. Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916)287-9292 Attorneys for Defendant CITYOFLINCOLN Service was caused as follows:  TIFFANYK. WRIGHT wright@,rmmenvirolaw.com REMY MOOSE MANLEY.LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento. CA95814 Telephone: (916)443-2745 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest RICHLANDDEVELOPERS, INC.  BYELECTRONIC: MAIL: Icaused each such document to be sent by electronic  20 mail to the addressees at the email addresses listed ahove. The document was served 21 electronically from my place ofbusiness at 510 8th Street, Sacramento. California 95814. from  22 my electronic service address at mick@semlawyer.com.  23 24 25 26 27 28  Ideclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on June 30, 2020.  RyanSiveeney  16  7  Petitioners' Objections 10 Respondent and Real Party inl Interest's [Proposed). Judgment and [Proposed)  Peremptory Writ ofN Mandate    EXHIBIT2    1 MATTHEW L. EMRICK (SBN 148250) LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW EMRICK. APC 6520Lone Tree Boulevard. Suite 1009 3 Rocklin, California 95765 Telephone: (916)789-9919 4 Email: matthew @mlelaw.com  2  5 7  PATRICK M. SOLURI (SBN 210036) 6 OSHA R. MESERVE (SBN 204240) NICOLASE R. SWEENEY (SBN319320) SOLURI MESERVE. ALAW CORPORATION Sacramento. California 95814 9 Telephone: (916)455-7300; facsimile: (916)244-7300 10 Emails: patrncgsemlnyer.com: ahagsemlawyers.com mick@semlauyer.com Attomeys for Plaintiffs 12 SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES. LP and ALBERT SCHEIBER  8 510 8th Street  11 13 14 15  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  COUNTY OF PLACER  FILEBVFAX  16 SCHEIBER RANCH PROPFRTIES. .LP and CASE. NO. SCV0040629  17 AEBERT SCHEIBER,  PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF INTENTION TOMOVE FOR: NEWTRIAL (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. SS 657-662)  18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28  Plaintiffs. V.  CITY OF LINCOLN,  Hearing Date: Time: Dept.: 42  Defendant  Judge: Assigned for Ail Purposes to Honorable Charles Wachob Date Action Filed: January 12, 2018  23 RICHLAND DEVELOPERS. INC..  Real Party in Interest.  Plaintiffs" Notice of Intention to Move for New Irial    TO THE COURT,ALL. PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that al a time that shall be set by the Court under Code of  2  3 Civil Procedure section 661. Plaintiffs Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, and Albert Scheiber 4 (collectively. "Plaintiffs") will move this Court to set aside its. June 25, 2020. Judgment 5 (Judgment"): and to grant Plaintiffs a new trial as to the propriety of the Judgment. This notice 6 ist timely filed pursuant IO Code ofCivil Procedure section 659. subdivision (2), which allows 7 such notice to be filed and served within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of  8 judgment 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  This motion is made on the grounds that the Court's issuing ofthe June 25, 2020 1. The Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the. June 25, 2020 Judgment, as Plaintiffs timely filed appeals of the Court's twO appealable orders, the. April 13. 2020 Ruling on Petition 2. Issuing the June 25, 2020. Judgment violated California Rules of Cour Rule 3.1591. subdivision () because the Court did not afford Plaintiffs the ten-day period to object IO Respondent City ofLincoln and Real Party in Interest Richland Developers, Inc.'s 3. The June 25, 2020. Judgment purports to make findings regarding severability oft the Village 5 Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. but any such purported findings are not supported by any facts. Neither Plaintiffs' nor Respondents briefed the issue in their merits briefs, and! Respondents' proposedjudgment does not refer to any Each of these grounds materially affected the substantial rights of Plaintiffs, who were  10 Judgment is against law (Code of Civ. Proc.. S6 657, subd. (6)) in the following respects:  for Writ of Mandate and April 13, 2020 Ruling on the Demurrer.  coldiney-Kspondm? proposed judgment.  facts in the record supporting the conclusory finding.  24 thereby prevented from receiving a fair trial. The above errors require a new trial as to the  25 propriety of the. Judgement.  26 28 m  The grounds specified above will be supported by the minutes ofthe Court, by  27 declarations, and other written materials to be served and filed hereafter.  2  Plaintifis Notice of intention t0 Move for New Trial    This motion is also based on this notice; all pleadings, transcripts, papers, and records in  2 this action; evidence presented at trial; and the supporting memorandum, declaration and 3 frequest for judicial notice to be served and filed within ten (10) days hereafter.  4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  Respectulysubmited, SOLURI MESERVE, AL LAWCORPORATION  5 Dated: July 13, 2020  By:  BA Patrick M. Soluri Attorney, for Plaintiffs Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP and Albert Scheiber  3  Plaintifis' Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial    PROOF OF SERVICE  Ihereby declare that 1 am employed in the City of Sacramento. County of Sacramento, California. Iam over the age of 18 years and not aj party to the action. My business address is  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  510 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.  OnJuly 13, 2020 I served the attached document:  PLAINTIFES NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL  on the following parties or attorneys for parties, as shown below:  KRISTNEMOLENKOPF kristine-mollenkopf@lincolncagow CITY OF LINCOLN 600 Sixth Street, Lincoln, CA95648 Telephone: (916)434-2428 TINA. A. THOMAS thomas@thomashny.com CHRISTOPHERJ BUTCHER hucherAthomaslai.com THOMASLAW GROUP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916)287-9292 Attorneys for Defendant CIYOPLINCOLN Service was caused as follows:  TIFFANY K. WRIGHT relamamenipew.cn REMY MOOSE MANLEY.LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA95814 Telephone: (916)443-2745 Artorneys for Real Party in Inferest RICHLANDDEVELOPERS. INC.  BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Icaused each such document to be sent by electronic 19 mail to the addressees at the email addresses listed above. The document was served electronically from my place of'business at 510 8th Street. Sacramento, California 95814 from  20 my electronic service address at wona@semlwyer.com. 22 Executed at Sacramento. California on July 13,2020.  21 23 24 25 26 27 28  Ideclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  OouBe Wo ona S. Rosier-Arauz  4  Plaintitis" Notice of Intention to Move. for New Trial