NIELSEN MERKSAMER PARRINELLO GROSS & LEONI 11 Christopher E. Skinnell, Esq. (S.B. No. 227093) James E. Barolo, Esq. (S.B. No. 301267) 2350 Kerner Boulevard, Suite 250 San Rafael, California 94901 Telephone: (415) 389-6800 Facsimile: (415) 388-6874 E-mail: cskinnell@nmgovlaw.com E-mail: jbarolo@nmgovlaw.« Attorneys for Defendants CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION; HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION; and CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, CTRONICALLY FILED County of San Francisco 04/09/2019 BOP ha Cun Doputy Cork IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, | C: Plaintiff, No. CGC-19-573230 Assigned to the Honorable Garrett L. Wong, Department 610 vs. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT MATTER OF Proposition C on the FOR VALIDATION November 6, 2018 San Francisco ballot, authorizing an increase in specified Complaint Filed: Jan. 28, 2019 business taxes to fund specified homeless | Response Due: April 10, 2019 services in San Francisco, and all other Trial Date: None Set matters and proceedings related thereto, Defendants. ER TO COMPLAINT — VALIDATION PROCEEDING N FRANCISCO PROPOSITION C (NOV. 2018) ‘CASE NO. CGC-10-5732301 Defendants CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATIO! 2 || HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION; and CALIFORNIA BUSINESS 3 | ROUNDTABLE (“Defendants”) hereby respond to and answer the Complaint for 4 ||Validation (the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco s || (*Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) as set forth below. To the 6 |Jextent the allegations of a given paragraph are not expressly admitted, and to the 7 |lextent that a response is required, they are denied. See Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30, 8 ||subd. ®. 9 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 10 Answering the un-numbered first paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants n |/admit that Plaintiff purports to bring the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil az || Procedure §§ 860 et seq., and San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code § 13 |] 6.15-4. 4 “THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSITION C 5 IN THE NOVEMBER 2018 ELECTION” 16 1 Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 7 2. Defendants lack information or belief sufficient to admit or deny the 18 |] allegations of Paragraph 2, and therefore deny them on that ground. % 3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 20 4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of x || Paragraph 4. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 2 5. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 4 7. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action in attempt 25 || to validate the legality of the adoption of, and the enforceability of, Proposition C by San Francisco voters on November 6, 2018, and of the other documents relating, thereto. 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT — VALIDATION PROCEEDING ‘CASE NO. OGC=10-573230 ;AN FRANCISCO PROPOSITION C (NOV. 2018) Page 11 “JURISDICTION AND VENUE” 2 8. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of 3 ||Paragraph 8. The remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 constitute 4 || conclusions of law to which no response is required. 5 9. _ Theallegations set forth in Paragraph 9 constitute conclusions of law to «6 || which no response is required. > 10. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 10, except to note that 8 || “the local electorate’s right to initiative and referendum ... is generally co-extensive o || with the legislative power of the local governing body.” DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 wo || Cal. 4th 763, 775 (1995). 7 11, Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 11. 2 12. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 constitute conclusions of law 13 || to which no response is required. . 13. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 constitute conclusions of law as || to which no response is required. 6 “NATURE OF THIS ACTION” a 14. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action as an in 18 || rem validation action under the Validation Act and Section 6.15-4, in attempt to 1 || validate the legality of the adoption of, and the enforceability of, Proposition C by 20 ||San Francisco voters on November 6, 2018, and of the other documents relating a: ||thereto. As for the allegations of Paragraph 14 that the ability of the City to collect 22 || Proposition C funds will be “substantially impaired” absent validation, Defendants deny that there will be any impairment of the City’s ability to collect the taxes. 24 || Defendants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Treasurer's 2s | office intends to begin collecting the tax beginning in 2019. As for the allegations of Paragraph 14 that the ability of the City to spend Proposition C funds will be “substantially impaired” absent validation, Defendants are informed and believe, og ||and on that basis allege, that the City Controller has indicated to the Board of ANSWER TO COMPLAINT — VALIDATION PROCEEDING ‘CASE NO. OGC=10-573230 ;AN FRANCISCO PROPOSITION C (NOV. 2018) Page 2