CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PEOPLE)Appellants, Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club, OppositionCal.November 30, 2015S223603 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF CALIFORNIA CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION; SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; CREED-21; AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION OF SAN DIEGO; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs, Intervenor and Respondents, v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS; SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Defendants and Appellants. After a Decision by the Court OfAppeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case No. D063288 Appeal from the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2011-00101593-CU-TT-CTL (Lead Case) [Consolidated with Case No. 37-2011-00101660-CU-TT-CTL] The Honorable Timothy B. Taylor, Judge Presiding PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO SANDAG’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE *Rachel B. Hooper (SBN 98569) AmyJ. Bricker (SBN 227073) Erin B. Chalmers (SBN 245907) Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 552-7272 Facsimile: (415) 552-5816 Daniel P. Selmi (SBN 67481) 919 S. Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (213) 736-1098 Facsimile: (949) 675-9861 Marco Gonzalez (SBN 190832) Coast Law Group LLP 1140 South Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-8505 Facsimile: (760) 942-8515 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Respondents Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club Kevin P. Bundy (SBN 231686) Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7100 x313 Facsimile: (510) 844-7150 Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent Center for Biological Diversity Cory J. Briggs (SBN 176284) BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION 99 East “C” Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: (909) 949-7115 Facsimile: (909) 949-7121 Attormeysfor Plaintiffs and Respondents Creed-21 and Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County Defendant and Appellant San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) requests judicial notice of four documents in support ofits Consolidated Answer to Amici’s Briefs. These documents are not relevant to any issue before the Court and are not properly subject to judicial notice under subdivision (h) ofEvidence Code section 452 in any event. SANDAG?’s request should be denied. I. SANDAG?’s Extra-Record Materials Are Irrelevant to AnyIssue Before the Court. SANDAGconcedesthat each of the documentsfor whichit requests judicial notice is outside the record and therefore irrelevant to determination of the claims before this Court. (Respondents’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support ofAnswer to Amici’s Briefs (“SANDAG RJN”) at pp. 2-3 [citing Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571, 575].) “{JJudicial notice, which is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence, cannot be taken of any matter that is irrelevant.” (Peoplev. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1171, fn. 3 [quotation omitted].) SANDAG?’srequest should be denied onthis ground alone. SANDAG claims it offers these extra-record materials solely in response to similar materials cited by amici curiae, but its Consolidated Answerto Amici’s Briefs (“‘“SANDAG Amici Answer”) belies this claim. Rather, it appears SANDAGis seekingjudicial noticeof documents either to support its arguments on the merits or to respond to argumentsit concedesare not before the Court. SANDAGcites Exhibits 1 and 2, for example, to support its argumentthat technological changes needed to attain California’s 2050 climate stabilization goals have not yet been developed andare often | outside individual agencies’ control. (SANDAG Amici Answerat pp. 39- 41.) SANDAGalsorelies on Exhibit 2 in support of its argumentthat Executive Order S-3-05 merely states a goal, but does not contain a detailed plan for implementation. (Jd. at pp. 17-18, 39.) These are not arguments madesolely in response to extra-record evidence offered by amici curiae. These are arguments SANDAG madeon the merits. (SANDAG Opening Brief at pp. 24-25, 35-37; SANDAG Consolidated Reply Briefat pp. 44- 45.) Becausethese documentsare outside the record, they are irrelevant to whether SANDAG complied with CEQA andnotsubjectto judicial notice. (See Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 576.) SANDAG’s Exhibits 3 and 4 fare nobetter. In its response to amici curiae, SANDAGinvents a dispute it acknowledgesis not at issue in this case: whetherthe EIR should have attemptedto predict the specific . environmental effects attributable to the Plan’s incremental emissions increase.’ (SANDAG Amici Answerat pp. 22-25.) No partybefore the ' SANDAGeither misunderstands or misstates the argument ofAmici Curiae Dennis D. Baldocchi, Ph.D., and other climate scientists that the Court has advanced any such argument. SANDAG’s Exhibits 3 and 4, cited solely in response to an argumentno party is making (SANDAG Amici Answerat p. 24), are thus concededlyirrelevant and not subject to judicial notice. II. SANDAG’s Materials Are Not Judicially Noticeable Pursuantto Subdivision (h) of Evidence Code Section 452. Even if SANDAG’s materials were relevant, or were offered solely for the purpose of rebutting extra-record material cited by amici curiae, SANDAGhasfailed to show theyare properly subject to judicial notice. SANDAGpredicatesits request entirely on Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), which allows judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determinationby resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Theseinclude, for example, “facts which are widely accepted as established by experts and specialists in the natural, physical, and social sciences which can be verified by reference to treatises, encyclopedias, almanacs andthe likeor by personslearnedin the subject matter.” (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) The mere fact that an assertion has appeared somewherein print, however, doesnotestablish thatit is capable of accurate EIRfailed to provide a meaningfullevelofdetail regarding the potential impact of global warming on California, and the relationship between increased emissions and warmingeffects, as a general matter. (See Brief of Amici Curiae Climate Scientists at pp. 30-34.) determination and beyondreasonable dispute. (See, e.g., Edelstein v. City and County ofSan Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 171, fn. 3 [denying judicial notice ofNew York Times Index because appearanceofanarticle in the Index did not mean“the truth ofthe article had been shown with ‘reasonably indisputable accuracy’”]; Huitt v. Southern California Gas Co. (2010 188 Cal.App.4th 1586, 1605, fn. 10 [“Simply because information is on the Internet does not mean that it is not reasonably subject to dispute.”].) Noneofthe documents SANDAGoffers meetsthe statutory test. These are not treatises, encyclopedias, almanacs, or even published scientific studies. Exhibit 1 is a “draft white paper” prepared by certain individuals affiliated with a professional trade association. (SANDAG RJN at p. 6.) Asthetitle page ofthe “draft white paper” explains,“[t]he views expressed in this paper are the personal opinions of the authors and do not represent the opinions orjudgmentoftheir respective firms or ofAEP.” (SANDAGRJN,Ex. 1.) Exhibit 2 appears to be a report prepared by a private consulting firm for an unknownclient or purpose. The personal opinionsofindividuals and reports of consulting firms are a far cry from the published, scholarly scientific literature considered in the cases SANDAGcites. (SANDAGRJN atp. 2; see In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 111, 125-26; People v. Smith (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 646, 671-72.) Exhibits 3 and 4,in turn, appear to be “scientific,” but theystill consist solely ofprintouts from a website. Neither SANDAG’srequest nor the accompanying declaration demonstrates that these printouts (a) contain only facts not reasonably subject to dispute, or (b) are “sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Indeed, the accompanying declaration does not even attempt to authenticate any ofthe documents, and claims only that the documents are “attributed to” their purported authors. SANDAG has failed to show that any ofthese materials are judicially noticeable pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452, subdivision (h). Forall ofthe foregoing reasons, SANDAG’s request forjudicial notice should be denied. DATED: November 30, 2015 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP By: (am. B, etu— RACHEL B. HOOPER \ Attomeys for Plaintiffs and Respondents Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club DATED: November 30, 2015 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY KEVIN P. BUNDY Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity DATED: November30, 2015 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION By: Com)Bre, Ca#) CORYG, GS °° Attorney for CREED-21 and Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County 728649.1 PROOF OF SERVICE Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments,etal. Case No. 8223603 California Supreme Court Atthe timeof service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Mybusiness address is 396 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. On November 30, 2015,I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: _ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO SANDAG’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIA NOTICE on the parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICELIST BY MAIL:I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the personsat the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing,it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November30, 2015, at San Francisco, California. Sean P. Mulligan SERVICE LIST Cleveland National Forest Foundation, etal. v. San Diego Association of Governments, et al. Case No. $223603 California Supreme Court Julie D. Wiley, Special Counsel San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-1995 Facsimile: (619) 595-8605 E-mail: jwi@sandag.org Attorneyfor Defendants and Appellants San Diego Association ofGovernments, San Diego Association ofGovernments BoardofDirectors Michael H.Ziscke Andrew B.Sabey Linda C.Klein Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 262-5100 Facsimile: (415) 262-5199 Email: mzischke@coxcastle.com asabey@coxcastle.com Iklein@coxcastle.com Attorneyfor Defendants andAppellants San Diego Association ofGovernments, - San Diego Association ofGovernments BoardofDirectors Margaret M. Sohagi Philip Seymour The Sohagi Law Group, PLC 11999 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 150 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 475-5700 Facsimile: (310) 475-5707 E-mail: msohagi@sohagi.com pseymour@silcom.com Attorneyfor Defendants and Appellants San Diego Association ofGovernments, San Diego Association ofGovernments _ Board ofDirectors Timothy R. Patterson Supervising Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General . P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 645-2013 Facsimile: (619) 645-2271 E-mail: tim.patterson@doj.ca.gov Attorneyfor Intervenor andRespondent People ofthe State ofCalifornia Janill L. Richards Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 622-2130 Facsimile: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: janill.richards@doj.ca.gov Attorneyfor Intervenor and Respondent People ofthe State ofCalifornia . Marco Gonzalez Coast Law Group LLP 1140 South Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-8505 Facsimile: (760) 942-8515 E-mail: marco@coastlawgroup.com Attorneysfor Plaintiffs andRespondents Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club Kevin P. Bundy Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7113 Facsimile: (510) 844-7150 E-mail: kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org Attorneyfor PlaintiffandRespondent Centerfor Biological Diversity Daniel P. Selmi 919 S. AlbanyStreet Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (213) 736-1098 Facsimile: (949) 675-9861 E-mail: dselmi@aol.com Attorneysfor Plaintiffs and Respondents Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club Cory J. Briggs Mekaela M. Gladden Briggs Law Corporation 99 East “C”Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: (909) 949-7115 Facsimile: (909)-949-7121 E-mail: cory@briggslawcorp.com mekaela@briggslawcorp.com Attorneysfor Plaintiffs and Respondents CREED-21 and Affordable Housing Coalition ofSan Diego County In Consolidated Case No. 37-201 1- 00101660-CU-TT-CTL M. Reed Hooper Jonathan C. Wood Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: mrh@pacificlegal.org E-mail: jw@pacificlegal.org Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation . Michelle Wilde Anderson Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Telephone: (650) 498-1149 Facsimile: (650) 725-0253 Email: manderson@law.stanford.edu Deborah Ann Sivas Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Telephone: (650) 723-0325 Facsimile: (650) 723-4426 Email: dsivas@stanford.edu Attorneysfor Amici Curiae League of WomenVoters ofCalifornia.et al. NancyC.Miller Jennifer V. Gore Miller & Owen 428 J Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-7933 Email: miller@motlaw.com Attorneysfor Amici Curiae Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, et al. Cara Ann Horowitz Jesse Lueders UCLA School ofLaw 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-4033 Facsimile: (310) 206-1234 Email: horowitz@law.ucla.edu Attorneysfor Amici Curiae Dennis D. Baldocchi, Ph.D., etal. Whitman F. Manley Laura M.Harris ChristopherL.Stiles Remy Moose & Manley, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 Facsimile: (916) 443-9017 Email: wmanley@rmmenvirolaw.com lhanis@rmmenvirolaw.com cstiles@rmmenvirolaw.com Attorneysfor Amici Curiae California Association ofCouncils of Governments, etal. Tina A. Thomas Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 287-9292 Facsimile: (916) 737-5858 Attorneysfor Amici Curiae California Infill Builders Federation and San Diego Housing Commission Richard M. Frank UC Davis School ofLaw 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, CA 95616 Ethan N. Elkind UC Berkeley School ofLaw 2850 Telegraph Avenue Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94705 Jayni Foley Hein Policy Director Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School ofLaw WilfHall 139 MacDougal Street Third Floor New York, NY 10012 Attorneysfor Amici Curiae Council of Infill Builders and Planning and Conservation League Stephan C. Volker Alexis E. Krieg Daniel P. Garrett-Steinman Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker 436 14th Street, Suite. 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone:(510) 496-0600 Facsimile: (510) 496-1366 Attorneyfor Amicus Curiae Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. Clerk ofthe Court San Diego Superior Court 330 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 California Court ofAppeal 4th District, Division 1 750 B Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101
