Is reasonable access a violation of equal protection rights?

¹⁰ In their reply brief, the Homeowners belatedly assert that the reasonable access requirement is violative of their equal protection rights because " [t]wo groups of residences are established by the WMRs: (1) those who own their own driveway; and (2) those who [like the Homeowners] co-own their driveway." We decline to address this untimely argument, which was also not raised in the trial court. (See REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 489, 500, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 639 ["This court will not consider points raised for the first time in a reply brief for the obvious reason that opposing counsel has not been given the opportunity to address those points [citations], particularly when the plaintiffs also failed to raise such issue before the trial court."].)