SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)Amicus Curiae Brief of Leadership Counsel for Justice and AccountabilityCal.May 12, 2015aa 985, C7 BO og ae my hogry ew mf PO » tdURL fCOPY CASE NO. 8219783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FILED SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN,and May 19 20° LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF FRESNO, Plaintiffs and Appellants Frank A. WVicGuire Clerk v- Deputy COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant and Respondent FRIANT RANCH,L.P., Real Party in Interest and Respondent After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, filed May 27, 2014 Fifth Appellate District Case No. F066798 Appeal from the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno Case No. 11CECG00726 Honorable RosendoA.Pena,Jr. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, AND LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF FRESNO LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Ashley E. Werner (State Bar No. 282217) PhoebeS. Seaton (State Bar No. 238273) 764 P Street, Suite 012 RECEIVED Fresno, California 93721 Tel. (559) 369-2790 MAY -6 7015 awermner@leadershipcounsel.org pseaton@leadershipcounsel.org CLERK SUPREME COURT ‘ o i e M A R c e W y at Counselfor Leadership Counselfor Justice and Accountability I. APPLICATION TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.200(c), Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (Leadership Counsel) requests permission from the Chief Justice to file an amici curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs and Appellants, Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin and League of Women Voters of Fresno. Pursuant to Rule 8.520(f)(4) of the California Rules of Court, the proposed amicuscuriae brief is combinedwith this Application. This brief addresses the following issue certified by this Court for review: Doesa one paragraph general discussion of the health problems typically associated withcriteria air pollutant emissionssatisfy CEQA’s legal standard for what must be analyzed and explained in an EJR’s consideration and discussion ofa project’s significant air quality impacts? The Court has granted Leadership Counsel an extension oftimeto file its application and briefby May 6, 2015 pursuant to Rule 8.200(c)(1). Accordingly, this submissionis timely. A. INTEREST OF LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND HOW THE PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability is a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Based in the Central Valley and East Coachella Valley, Leadership Counsel’s mission is to work alongside California’s most impacted communities to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, incomeorplace. Leadership Counsel works with rural and urban communities that have someofthe nation’s highest poverty rates and are predominately, and in some cases almost entirely, made up ofpeople of color. These communities include significant immigrant populations with no or limited English proficiency; are often isolated geographically from more affluent areas; and havehistorically lacked political power and influence. These communities frequently lack access to basic public services and amenities such as paved roads, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, potable water, and functioning sewerservice -- amenities and services that are considered a right by most Californians and that are essential to human health and well-being. They disproportionately lack access to fresh food; green space; effective public transportation; adequate housing; and quality public schools. In addition, polluting land uses-- including freeways, industrial facilities, agricultural operations, hazardous waste sites, and landfills, to namea few -- are often concentrated in and around these same communities with which Leadership Counsel works. These conditions have disastrous impacts on the health outcomes in manyofthese lower income, communities of color, exhibited in disproportionately high rates of chronic disease such as asthma,obesity, diabetes, and heart disease; and the comparatively short life expectancy. Leadership Counsel worksto undo the disparities impacting the Central and Coachella Valleys’ disadvantaged communities by connecting residents with the legal and political tools, structures and processes that impacttheir lives and shape their communities. Ensuring robust access to public information on issues that impact residentlives is a key component ofthese goals. Through community education, policy advocacy andlegal representation, Leadership Counsel supports the efforts of these communities to secure essential amenities and services; advocate for land 2 use planning that promotes health and community development; encourage strategic public and private investment; and catalyze robust civic engagementthat represents community priorities. Leadership Counsel’s interest in the health and prosperity of California’s most vulnerable communities and Leadership Counsel’s interest in informed and inclusive decision-making are intimately linked to the Court’s resolution of the second issue in this matter: whether a summary discussion of air quality impacts suffices under CEQAas an analysis of a proposed project’s air quality impacts. Issuanceof a carte blanche by this Court to public agencies to forego analysis of the health impacts of a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would further jeopardize and underminethe health of disadvantaged communities already disproportionately burdened bylack of access to essential amenities and services, exposure to environmental pollutants, and poor health outcomes. Leadership Counsel has a strong interest in ensuring that decision-makers and the public — especially residents of low-income communities of color — haveaccessto information abou: the public health impacts likely to result from a proposed project when weighing the merits of a project and considering the adequacyandfeasibility of mitigation measures. Leadership Counsel’s proposed amicus brief will help the Court by providing the Court with information not includedin the other parties’ briefing regarding the disproportionate pollution burden born by low- income communities of color in California, and their related heightened vulnerability to increased air pollution and other environmentalstressors. The proposed amicusbriefwill highlight the disproportionate adverse impact on such communities that a ruling by this Court would havethat allows public agencies to forgo analysis of the health impacts of a project’s air emissions. The briefing will also explain the consequentfailure of an 3 EIR lacking such analysisto serve its role as an “informational document” that enables informed decision-making and meaningful public participation. Pursuant to Rule 8.200(c)(3)(A), the applicantcertifies the undersigned authored and financed the preparation of the proposed amicus brief in full and that no other party or counsel authored the brief in whole or in part or made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission ofthis Brief. Therefore, Leadership Counsel respectfully requests that this Court grant it permissionto file the accompanying amici curiaebrief. Dated: May5, 2015 LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY By: Shapeng§ UWerron Ashley E. Werner PhoebeS. Seaton Attorneys at Law Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability CASE NO. 8219783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THESAN JOAQUIN,and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF FRESNO, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant and Respondent FRIANT RANCH,LP., Real Party in Interest and Respondent After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, filed May 27, 2014 Fifth Appellate District Case No. F066798 Appeal from the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno Case No. 11CECG00726 Honorable Rosendo A.Pena, Jr. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, AND LEAGUE OF WOMENVOTERS OF FRESNO LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Ashley E. Werner (State Bar No. 282217) PhoebeS. Seaton (State Bar No. 238273) 764 P Street, Suite 012 Fresno, California 93721 Tel. (559) 369-2790 awerner@leadershipcounsel.org pseaton@leadershipcounsel.org Counselfor Leadership Counselfor Justice and Accountability TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BRIEF OF AMICT CURIAE......cccccecccscsccsssscssesesseeeeessesssesssnssensossesseneseeees 1 A. INTRODUCTION...ceeeeeseecseeeeseceeeseeenenesesssesssasecnsescsssensaeseaesneeees 1 B. A FINDING THAT CEQA DOES NOT REQUIRE ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS LIKELY TO ARISE FROM A PROJECT’S AIR EMISSIONS WILL HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDEN BY POLLUTION....... 2 C. FAILURE TO ANALYZE A PROJECT’S HEALTH IMPACTS UNDERMINESTHEEIR’S ROLE AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT.........cccscecsscccereceserssersaeeeseesesenesssssssesessesesneessssssssssesasseeeonas 5 D. FAILURE TO ANALYZE THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AIR EMISSIONSIS AT ODDS WITH STATE VALUES...ccccccecceeeeeesseeeeesseeesecsseseesnesseaseassnsuseesseeseessesseeees 7 E. CONCLUSION 20...cccecssccseessesssesseseessensessceneseeesseeeeeesaseesersesssonees 8 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pages CASES Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of U. of Cal. (1988) 47Cal.3d 376, 404-405 0...ceeeeeseseessesereessecesecseesessnsenes 2,7 CALIFORNIA STATUTES Government Code Section 650411eeesesscseecseeccneeeseeessesesesnessesseesesssseeseneeseseeseeeseesesenseseaees 8 Public Resources Code Section 21061] oo... ..ccccccsssccscssssceccecessssececessnneeecssecessecsnesseeeesessnessonsees 1, 5, 6, 7 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) CEQA ooo eecceessessceceeeessneeeeeeseceeessceseessneeneeeaceesneseaeeaeesenseeeeseeeneseesateneeses passim Section 15003(b)-(2)......:esscscccsssecseceessesseseeseeeceseseseeceeeseteceeeeeaeeneeeasenses 1, 5,6 Section 15093 (8) ......ccssccscsscssssccsessesssecessecssseeseesnscsecssesssseeeseeesessesseessrerenssee 6 Section 15126.2 oo... ccccccssscccssssscessneceessececsssssessecseceseeccesseeecsessesssssessseees 1,7 Section 15126.2(a) 0... cccccsssccsscccesecessceeesscensecsessesssseeeeeeesseceaseesssaeseaseneeesees 5 OTHER SOURCES California Communities Health Screening Tool, Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen, 2.0 or CalEnviroScreen).............:cccccesssesseseeeeseeees 2, 3,4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard (QEHHA)........eee eeeeeeeeees 2, 3,4 (Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation, Dec. 2010, p. 1X)... ceccsscssssccsecesscecescceescsseecsssssescaeeeesseesseesressesessneense 3 (Analysis of CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and Race/Ethnicity, AUuguSt 2014, p. 4)... ccccsssccessscssteessccesneessecsessessseeeseseesessscnsssssessesesees 4 Jane Hall, The Benefits ofMeeting Federal Clean Air Standardsin The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins (2008) at 22-23......... 4 ii I. BRIEF OFAMICI CURIAE A. INTRODUCTION Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability submits that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the Friant Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not analyze the adverse human health impacts that are likely to result from the air quality impacts identified in the EIR. The CEQA Guidelines are unequivocal: “[t]he discussion [in an EIR] shall include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes.....[and] health and safety problems caused by the physical changes”. (italics added). § 15126.2. An EIR that fails to analyze the human health impacts likely to result from the physical impacts identified therein does not comply with CEQA’s mandate. Neither does such an EIR serve its fundamental role as an “informational document”, since decision- makers and the public are unable to accurately weigh and comment upon the relative costs and benefits of the proposed project on the basis of such an EIR. Pub. Res. Code § 21061; Gui:‘elines §§ 15003(b)-(e). To rule otherwise would not only undermine the letter and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act but would also disproportionately negatively impact low-income communities of color already disproportionately impacted by environmental stressors and their health consequences. Those communities stand to be most impacted by additional and inadequately mitigated pollution resulting from projects approved pursuant to EIRs lacking analysis of the human health impacts associated with their air emissions. Additionally, those same individuals and communities also stand to lose the most from an EIR lacking sufficient detail for them to meaningfully consider a project’s impacts and instead leaves them grasping in the dark during the public review process regarding the extent and nature of possible health impacts arising from the project’s air emissions. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405 (Laurel Heights I). B. A FINDING THAT CEQA DOES NOT REQUIRE ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS LIKELY TO ARISE FROM A PROJECT’S AIR EMISSIONS WILL HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON LOW- INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENED BY POLLUTION A ruling by this Court that gives public agencies a green light to forego an analysis of the health impacts likely to arise from a project’s significant physical impacts will disproportionately negatively impact low-income communities of color that are already disproportionately impacted by pollution. Acrossthe state, certain communities are dis} ‘oportionately burdenedby, and vulnerable to, multiple sources of pollution comparedto others. The California Communities Health Screening Tool, Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen, 2.0 or CalEnviroScreen), a rigorousscientific screening methodology developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard (QEHHA), demonstrates this inequity.' 1CalEnviroScreen was developedto assist the CalEPA in carrying outits environmental justice mission to conductits activities in a mannerthat ensuresthe fair treatmentof all Californians, including minority and low- income populations. California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen 2.0), Guidance and CalEnviroScreen evaluates multiple pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to pollution’s adverse effects through population indicators.? CalEnviroScreen recognized the cumulative impact ofboth multiple environmental stressors and vulnerability to those stressors. Pollution indicators used by CalEnviroScreen measure human exposure to pollution and environmental degradation and include indicators for air quality (ozone, PM 2.5 and diesel particulate matter), traffic density, and toxic releases from facilities, among others. Population characteristic indicators represent demographic factors known to influence vulnerability to environmental stressors including proportion of young and elderly, asthmarate, low birth weight, educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.’ While all of these indicators demonstrate cumulative burden from and increased vulnerability to increased environmental stressors such as air quality degradation, it bears noting that at least four of the indicators (ozone, p.m. 2.5, diesel and asthma) are directly related to air quality and its impacts. Accordingly, those communities most burdened by and most vulnerable to environmental stressors are those mostat risk from adverse health impacts of a project and therefore most reliant on an adequate analysis of a project’s health impacts pursuant to CEQA. Screening Tool, October 2014,p. i, available at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CES20FinalReportUpdateOct2014.pdf. 2A] numberofstudies have reported increased sensitivity to pollution, for communities with low incomelevels, low education levels, and other biological and social factors. The combination of multiple pollutants and increased sensitivity in these communities can result in a higher cumulative pollution impact.” OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation, Dec. 2010, p. ix, available at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/cipal2311.html 3 CalEnviroScreen 2.0, pp.8, 9. Using CalEnviroScreen, the CalEPA and OEHHAconducted a statewide analysis to identify California’s most burdened and vulnerable communities by ranking communities by censustract accordingto relative vulnerability. OEHHA’s “Analysis of CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Scores and Race / Ethnicity” showsthat African Americans and Hispanic / Latinos in California “disproportionately reside in highly impacted communities while other groups tend to reside disproportionately in less impacted communities”, while whites are over-represented in the least burdened communities.* Over 19 percent of the state’s Hispanic / Latino population lives in one of the 10% most burdened communities per CalEnviroScreen, while fewer than 3 percent of the state’s white population live in those communities. Similarly, one in three Latinos and one in four African Americanslive in the 20% most burdened communities, compared to only one in fourteen whites. Other research has also found that low-income communities of color in California are exposedto air pollution more often andat higher levels than other groups.° Additional pollution from all sources, including by “projects” subject to CEQA,disproportionately impacts the health of low-income communities of color that are already disproportionately burdened bypollution and other environmental stressors. As a project with potentially deleterious health impacts is morelikely to disproportionately and negatively impact communities of color, so too does an EIR that fails to comprehensively * OEHHA,Analysis of CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and Race / Ethnicity, August 2014, P. 4., available at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CES20FinalRaceEthnicity.pdf. > Jane Hall, et al. The Benefits ofMeeting Federal Clean Air Standardsin the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins (2008) at 22-23. assess health impacts that disproportionately and negatively impact those communities most often burdened and vulnerable to those very health impacts. Accordingly, not only does an EIR that glosses over the health impacts of a project fail to assess the true impacts and costs of a project, it does so with particular acuity with respect to the most vulnerable communities of the state. And, as the most vulnerable communities ofthe state are disproportionately communities ofcolor, it does so with particular disregard for Latino and African American Californians. C. FAILURE TO ANALYZE A PROJECT’S HEALTH IMPACTS UNDERMINESTHEEIR’S ROLE AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT CEQAGuidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (a), provides that, “An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposedproject....Direct and indirect significanteffects of the project on the environmentshall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion shall include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes.....[and] health and safety problems caused bythe physical changes”. (italics added) Failure to analyze a project’s health impacts likely to arise from a project’s significant physical impacts fails to comply with CEQA’s mandate that an EIR include “relevant specifics” of the health and safety problems caused by a project’s physical changes and underminesthe EIR’s crucial role as an “informational document”. Pub. Res. Code § 21061. (“The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public thatit is being protected.” CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b); “The EIRis to demonstrate to an apprehensivecitizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyze and considered the ecological implicationsofits action.” /d. § 15003(d); see also § 15003(c),(e), (g)). An EIR’s lack of analysis of the health impacts associated with a project’s physical impacts prevents decision-makers from making a fully informed decision about the project as envisioned by CEQA. Pub.Res. Code § 21061; Guidelines § 15003(b)-(e). As the Appeals Court astutely noted in reference to the Friant Ranch EIR: “*’..Information about the magnitude of the humanhealth impactsis relevant to the board of supervisor’s value judgement about whether other considerations override the adverse health impacts. In other words, a disclosure of respiratory health impactsthat is limited to the better / worse dichotomy does notallow the decision makers to perform the required balancing of economic,legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project against the adverse impacts to human health because they havenot been informedofthe weight to place on the adverse impactside of the scales. (See Guidelines, § 15093, subd. (a) [statement of overriding considerations].) Sierra Club v. County ofFresno (2014), 226 Cal. App. 4th 704, 744, Footnote 23. The lack of information about the extent of health effects associated with a project’s physical impacts especially impairs decision-makers’ ability to understand and weighthe costs and benefits of the project as they effect individuals and communities disproportionately burdened by and vulnerable to environmental stressors. Additionally, insufficient information in the EIR provides another obstacleto residents often marginalized in the political arena to holding their elected leaders accountable for decisions that impact their health and their communities. In addition, failure to analyze the health impacts associated with a project’s physical impact further excludes low-income communities of color from decision-making processes that impact their health andtheir lives in violation of CEQA. “To facilitate CEQA’s informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency’s bare conclusionsor opinions.’ [Citations.] An EIR mustinclude detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand andto consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” Laurel Heights I, supra, at 404-405. Without more than a general discussion ofthe health effects associated with certain pollutants, an EIR provides insufficient information to individuals reviewing the EIR “to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposedproject”, including how theprojectis likely to impacttheir own health, their children’s health, and the health of their community. For individuals and communities that are already disproportionately impacted by and vulnerable to environmental stressors and whostandto be disproportionately adversely impacted by additional pollution exposure, a lack of disclosure about the health effects associated with a proposed project renders an EIR all the more inadequate as an “informational document”. Pub. Res. Code § 21061; Guidelines § 15126.2. D. FAILURE TO ANALYZE THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A PROJECT’S IDENTIFIED AIR EMISSIONSIS AT ODDS WITH STATE VALUES An interpretation of CEQAthatalleviates agencies of responsibility to analyze the health impactslikely to arise from a proposedproject’s air quality impacts would be at oddswith state priorities. The State Planning Priorities, codified in Government Code Section 65041.1, are intended to “promote equity, strengthen the economy,protect the environment, and promote public health and safety” in rural, suburban, and urban communities throughoutthestate. Denying CEQA’s mandate to evaluate health impacts ofproposed projects likely to arise from the significant physical impacts of those projects ipso facto runs contrary to the state goal to “promote the public health and safety” by allowing decision-makers to approve projects with no knowledge of the actual health impacts those projects are likely to create and without considering such actual health impacts when weighing the merits of the project and the adequacy ofthe project’s mitigation measures. E. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully request that this Court uphold the Appeal’s Court ruling that the Friant Ranch EIR was inadequate, becauseit does not analyze the adverse human health impactsthat are likely to result from the air quality impacts identified in the EIR. Dated: May 5, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, By:.. Crag €- (HeyRey Ashley E. Werder PhoebeS. Seaton Attorneys at Law LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this brief was prepared in compliance with Rule 8.204 of the California Rules of Court. The brief was prepared with 13 point font. The brief, excluding the required tables, attachment, and this certificate, is 1992 wordslong. Sierra Club etal. v. County of Fresno,et al. Supreme Courtof California, Case No. S219793 (Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case No. F066798; Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 110ECG00726) PROOF OF SERVICE I, Olivia Faz, declare as follows: I am employed with the law offices of LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Mybusiness address is 764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721. I am over the age of 18 years of age, and not a party to this action. On May5, 2015, I served the foregoing documententitled: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF LCJA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, AND LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF FRESNO AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF LCJA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, AND LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF FRESNO on counsel for Respondents/Defendants and Real Parties in Interest at the following address: SEE ATTACHED LIST [X] By Mai! 1 accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013a(3) as follows: I am readily familiar with this firm=s practice of collection and processingcorres ondence for mailing with the United States Postal ervice. Underthe practice the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same dayin the ordinary course of business with postage thereon fully prepaid at Fresno, California. Such envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary businesspractices. I declare that I am employedin the office of a memberofthe bar of California whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe lawsofthe State of California that the aboveis true and correct. Executed on May 5, 2015, Fresno, California. Sierra Club et al. v. County ofFresno, etal. Supreme Court of California, Case No. S219793 (Fifth District Court ofAppeal, Case No. F066798; Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 110ECG00726) SERVICE LIST Sara Hedgpeth-Harris LAW OFFICE OF SARA HEDGPETH-HARRIS 5445 E. Lane Avenue Fresno, CA 93727 Tel: (559) 233-0907 Fax: OS ) 272-6046 Email: sara.hedgpethharris@shh-law.com Daniel C. Cederborg Bruce B. Johnson,Jr. OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL 2220 Tulare Street, Suite 500 Fresno, CA 93721 Tel.: (559) 600-3479 Fax: O59) 600-3480 Email: bjohnson@co.fresno.ca.us Bryan N. Wagner WAGNER & WAGNER 7110 N.Fresno Street, Ste. 340 Fresno, CA 93720 Tel.: (559) 224-0871 Fax: (559) 224-0885 Email: bryan@wagnerandwagner.com James G. Moose Tiffany K. Wright Laura M. Harris REMY MOOSE MANLEY,LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: jmoose@mmmenvirolaw.com tvvright@rmmenvirolaw.com Clerk of the Court Fifth District Court ofAppeal 2424 Ventura Street Fresno, CA 93721 Tel.: (559) 445-5491 Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants Sierra Club etal. Attorneys for Respondents County ofFresno Attorney for Real Party in Interest/Respondent Friant Ranch, L.P. Attorneys for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Friant Ranch, L.P. Clerk of the Court Superior Court of California County of Fresno 1130 Street Fresno, CA 93721 Courtesy copies R. Tygon Sohagi THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP 11999 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Tel.:(310) 475-5700 Fax: G10) 475-5707 Email: tsohagi@sohagi.com Marcia L. Scully General Counsel METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Tel.: (213) 217-6115 Shanda M.Beltran General Counsel BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDAITON 17744 Sky Park Cr., Suite 170 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel.:: {349} 553-9500 Fax: (949) 769-8943 Em::]: sbeltran@biasc.org Gen: Talmadge President CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTALPROFESSIONALS 40747 Baranda Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Jennifer L. Hernandez HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 rel.415) 743-6927 Fax: a ) 743-6910 Email: jennifer.hernandez@hldaw.com Attorney for Amici Curiae League of California Cities, and the California State Association ofCounties Attorney for Amicus Curiae The Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA Attorney for Amicus Curiae Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation Attorney for Amicus Curiae California Association of Environmental Professionals OnbehalfofAmicus Curiae CEQA Research Council
