Oak Hill Park v. City of Antioch CA1/4

Filed 7/18/22 Oak Hill Park v. City of Antioch CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

OAK HILL PARK COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ANTIOCH et al., A162604 Defendants and Respondents; (Contra Costa County LET ANTIOCH VOTERS DECIDE, Super. Ct. No. MSN20-1185) Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Plaintiff Oak Hill Park Company (Oak Hill) appeals an order awarding real party in interest Let Antioch Voters Decide (LAVD) $66,725 in attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure1 section 1021.5 based on LAVD’s opposition to Oak Park’s pre-election challenge to a local ballot initiative. Oak Hill contends that the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to LAVD because, among other reasons, LAVD did not enforce an important right affecting the public interest. Oak Hill’s request for a restraining order was denied based solely on a declaration submitted by the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters (county registrar) for the City of

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

1

Antioch (the city) establishing that removal of the initiative from the ballot at that late date would interfere with the election process. We agree that LAVD’s contribution to the litigation was duplicative of the city’s opposition on the controlling issue, so that LAVD’s efforts to defend the public’s right to vote on the initiative was neither necessary nor productive. We shall therefore reverse the attorney fee order. Background The city’s general plan outlines a vision for development of up to 4,000 residential dwelling units within the 2,712-acre southern portion of the city known as the Sand Creek Focus Area (focus area). Oak Hill owns vacant land in the focus area which it intends to develop for residential housing. In advance of the November 2018 election, LAVD began collecting signatures to place an initiative on the ballot which, if approved by the voters, would prohibit development of housing within a portion of the focus area that includes Oak Hill’s property. In June 2020, following an unsuccessful attempt by the city to adopt the initiative without an election, the city adopted a resolution placing the initiative on the November 2020 ballot. In August 2020, Oak Hill filed a petition for a writ of mandate and an ex-parte application for a temporary restraining order to prevent the placement of the initiative on the November 2020 ballot. Oak Hill argued that the initiative conflicted with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Government Code section 66300 et seq., which prohibits cities and counties from modifying their land use regulations to lessen the intensity of, or otherwise prohibit, new housing. (See Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B) [prohibiting any “moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development”].)