Preview
E-FILED
2/22/2021 2:54 PM
DANIEL C. CEDERBORG — SBN 124260 Superior Court of California
County Counsel County of Fresno
Kyle R. Roberson — SBN 285735 By: E. Alvarado, Deputy
Deputy County Counsel
FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL
2220 Tulare Street, 5th Floor
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 600-3479
Facsimile: (559) 600-3480
Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant
Attorneys for Respondents To Government Code Section 6103
COUNTY OF FRESNO and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
CIVIL DIVISION
11
12 SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN Case No. 11CECG00706
JOAQUIN and LEAGUE OF WOMEN (Consolidated with Cases Nos. 11CECG00709
13 VOTERS OF FRESNO and 11CECG00726)
14 Petitioners RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO
15 PETITIONER’S PROPOSED JUDGEMENT
Vv, AND PROPOSED AMENDED WRIT OF
16 MANDATE
COUNTY OF FRESNO; FRESNO
17 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Judge: Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan
18 Respondents Dept. 403
19 Petition Filed March 7, 2011
FRIANT RANCH, L.P.,
20
Real Party in Interest.
21
22
23 Pursuant to Rule 3.1590, subdivision (j), of the California Rules of Court, Respondent
24 COUNTY OF FRESNO and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
25 (“Respondents”) hereby submit their objections to Petitioners’ Proposed Judgment and Proposed
26 Amended Writ of Mandate.
27 //1
28 //1
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
I INTRODUCTION
On February 12, 2021, Petitioners’ Sierra Club, et al., (“Petitioners”) filed and served a
Notice of Lodging of [Proposed] Judgment and Writ (“Notice of Lodging”), [Proposed]
Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Proposed Judgment”), and [Proposed]
Amended Peremptory Writ of Mandate (“Proposed Amended Writ”).
As discussed in the Notice of Lodging, the County proposed 180 days in which to take
the required action rather than the next available Fresno County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Respondent’s opposed Petitioner’s unreasonable timeframe because it would require the County
to violate the requirements to provide appropriate notice of open meeting according to the Ralph
10 M. Brown Act and would run afoul of the County’s internal process to prepare, review and
11 approve the agenda item necessary to complete the required actions. Although Petitioners rely
12 on this Court’s March 19, 2019 writ to require “the County take prompt action” in support of its
13 draconian timeframe, prompt necessarily includes that the action taken be feasible. As discussed
14 below 30 days is not feasible for the County to take the action required by the amended writ.
15 Further, Respondents join Real Party in Interest’s objection to the writ to the extent it
16 requires the County recirculate the entire revised EIR. Lastly, Respondents object to the
17 Proposed Judgment to the extent it provides for an award of costs and attorney’s fees against the
18 County because the County did not participate in the subsequent appeal.
19 IL. OBJECTIONS
20 Respondents provide their objections to the Proposed Judgment and Proposed Amended
21 Writ as follows:
22 Objection No. 1:
23 Respondents object to an order “that promptly upon service of this writ, the County of
24 Fresno shall: (1) Vacate its decision to approve the Friant Ranch project promptly and in no case
25 later than 30 days after the service of this writ [the project approvals]” and “(2) Vacate its
26 decision to certify the competition of the Final EIR promptly and in no case later than 30 days
27 after the service of the this writ on the County.” (Proposed Amended Writ, p. 2:10-21.)
28 Respondents object to Petitioner’s proposed timing require for the County to
2
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
complete the listed actions as unreasonable and impractical. Vacation of the adopted General
Plan Amendment No. 511, update to the Friant Community Plan, adopted of the Friant Specific
Plan, are all legislative actions to be taken by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (“Board”).
The Board is a legislative body under the Ralph M Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950
et seq, (“Brown Act”), the actions of the Board are subject to the Brown Act. The Brown Act
requires the public be provided notice of the agenda of a regular scheduled meeting at least 72
hours before the scheduled meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(1).) The Board typically holds
regular scheduled meetings every two weeks. Further, the timing requirements are unreasonable
and impracticable regarding the County’s internal preparation and review of agenda items
10 brought for the Board’s consideration at regularly scheduled meetings. Typically, agenda items
11 prepared by the County’s Department of Public Works and Planning, the department responsible
12 for the Board Agenda Item (“BAI”) to comply with the writ, require a minimum of 70 days to 90
13 days to be prepared and internally reviewed for compliance with the County’s agenda
14 preparation guidelines. (Declaration of Bernard Jimenez in Support of Respondents’ Objection to
15 Petitioner’s Proposed Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate, {ff 2-8.)
16 Based on the above, the thirty (30) days proposed by Petitioners is impractical and may
17 result in the County being unable to conform to its legal obligations towards open meetings
18 under the Brown Act. Further, the County will not be able to comply with the proposed writ’s
19 short timeframe for the County to vacate the project approvals and decertify the Environmental
20 Impact Report (“EIR”) without violating its internal policies related to the review and approval
21 of the BAI needed to complete these obligations.
22 Therefore, the County requests that the writ provide the County with at least 90 days to
23 take the required action in compliance with the writ. To accommodate the County’s request for
24 sufficient time to take the necessary action to comply with the writ, the County would be
25 agreeable to submit an initial return explaining the action it intends to take to satisfy the writ’s
26 requirements within 30 days of service of the writ.
27 //1
28 //1
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
Objection No. 2:
Respondents object to the Proposed Writ in that “[t]he County may not approve the
project before preparing, circulating, and certifying the revised EIR. » (Proposed Amended
Writ, p. 3:2-3 [emphasis added].) The Proposed Writ is internally inconsistent. Regarding
recirculation, initially all that is required in the Proposed Wirt is for the County to “recirculate
the revisions to the EIR,” which is appropriate and consistent the opinion of the Court of Appeal.
(d., at p. 2:22.). Recirculating of the entire revised EIR goes beyond the direction from the
Count of Appeal in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2020) 57 Cal.App.Sth 979 (“Sierra Club
IIT”).
10 The Court of Appeal directed the Superior Court to issue an amended peremptory writ to
11 compel the County, among other action, to “(3) not approve the project before preparing a
12 revised EIR, circulating the revisions of the EIR, and certifying the completion of the revised
13 EIR.” (Sierra Club II, at p. 991 [emphasis added].) The appellate court explained that the
14 principals of the res judicia and collateral estoppel protect the County and Real Party in Interest
15 Friant Ranch from having to relitigate challenges to the EIR other than the revised air quality
16 analysis. As the appellate court stated:
17 In this case, the sufficiency and CEQA compliance of most components of the
EIR have been litigated and resolved. Based on the principals set for in lone
18 Valley [Land, Air, & Water Defense Alliance, LLC v. County of Amador (2019)
33 Cal.App.5th 165 (‘one Valley’’), new challenges to the parts of the EIR that
19
have been upheld are not allowed in proceedings on remand. Thus, we conclude
20 an order of partial decertification is not necessary to protect Developer form
relitigating the CEQA compliance of parts of the EIR not affected by the errors
21 relating to air quality impacts. Instead, Developer is protected by res judicata
collateral estoppel and the requirement for the exhaustion of administrative
22
remedies. (Sierra Club II, supra, 57 Cal.App.Sth at p. 990 [internal citation
23 omitted].)
24 Furthermore, recirculation limited to only the revisions to the EIR is consistent with the
25 CEQA Guidelines, which states “[i]f the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the
26 EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.”
27 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, subd. (c).)
28 The County respectfully requests that the writ be modified so that the County is
4
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
required to recirculate only the revisions to the EIR.
Objection No. 3:
Respondents objects to the order to “require[] the County to file an initial return
explaining the action it intends to take to satisfy the writ’s requirements within 30 days of
issuance of the writ.” (Proposed Judgment), p, 3:5; Proposed Amended Writ, p. 3:5-7.) The
requirement that the County file an initial return within 30 days of service of the writ is
inconsistent with the Proposed Writ’s command that the County vacate the project approvals and
certification of the final EIR within 30 days renders an initial return within this same timeframe
redundant and unnecessary. For reasons stated above, the County cannot take the required action
10 within 30 days. As stated above, the County would be agreeable to submit an initial return within
11 30 days of service of the writ so along as the time period to take the necessary actions in the writ
12 extended by at least 90 days.
13 Objection No. 4:
14 Respondents objects to the [Proposed] Judgment Granting judgment to the extent
15 Petitioner seeks costs and attorney’s fees as a result of the latest appeal in Sierra Club, supra, 57
16 Cal.App.Sth 979 against the County. The County did not participate in the appeal. Any costs and
17 attorney’s fees Petitioner may have incurred were not the result of any legal action taken by the
18 County.
19 //1
20 //1
21 //1
22 //1
23 //1
24 //1
25 //1
26 //1
27 //1
28 //1
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
Til. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that that the Amendment
Peremptory Writ of Mandate be modified incorporate Respondents’ changes. For the Court’s
convenience, Respondents submit Respondents’ Alternative [Proposed] Amended Writ of
Mandate” that modified section (1) and (2) to provide the County vacate the project approvals
and vacate approval of the final EIR in no case later than 90 days after service of this writ, and
section (3) in compliance with the objections noted above, consistent with the Court of Appeal’s
express direction in Sierra Club III. For the reasons provided above, Respondents respectfully
requests the Court adopt its Alternative [Proposed] Amended Wirt of Mandate (which
10 incorporate the modifications by Friant Ranch), rather than the Proposed Writ submitted by
11 Petitioners. Alternatively, pursuant to rule 3.1590, subdivision (k), of the California Rules of
12 Court, Respondents request a hearing regarding Petitioners’ Proposed Judgment and Proposed
13 Alternative Writ and Respondents’ objections thereto to be held before the Court enters
14 judgment and issues the writ.
15
16 Dated: February 22, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
17 DANIEL C. CEDERBORG
County Counsel
18
19
By: /s/ Kyle Roberson
20 KYLE R. ROBERSON, Deputy
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
21
COUNTY OF FRESNO
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733
Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate
PROOF OF SERVICE
Sierra Club, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al. Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 11CECG00706
(Consolidated with Case Nos. 11CECG00709 and 11CECG00726)
I, Vincent Soliz, declare as follows:
lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action. I am employed at the Fresno County Counsel’s Office, 2220 Tulare
Street, Fifth Floor, Fresno, California, 93721.
On February 22, 2021, I served a copy of the within:
RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S PROPOSED JUDGEMENT AND
PROPOSED AMENDED WRIT OF MANDATE
on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows:
James G. Moose Douglas P. Carstens
10 Tiffany K. Wright Michelle N. Black
11 Laura M. Harris Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer, LLP
Remy Moose Manley, LLP 2200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste.318
12 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-27052
Sacramento, CA 95814 dpce@cbcearthlaw.com
13 jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com mnb@cbeearthlaw.com
14 twright@rmmenvirolaw.com
lharris@rmmenvirolaw.com
15
16
X by transmitting via Electronic Mail the above listed document(s) to the Electronic Mail
17 address(es) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. pacific daylight time.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 2021, at Fresno, California.
19
20
21
Litigation Paralegal
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proof of Service
Fresno Superior Court Case No. 11CECG00706
Preview
E-FILED 2/22/2021 2:54 PM DANIEL C. CEDERBORG — SBN 124260 Superior Court of California County Counsel County of Fresno Kyle R. Roberson — SBN 285735 By: E. Alvarado, Deputy Deputy County Counsel FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL 2220 Tulare Street, 5th Floor Fresno, California 93721 Telephone: (559) 600-3479 Facsimile: (559) 600-3480 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant Attorneys for Respondents To Government Code Section 6103 COUNTY OF FRESNO and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 CIVIL DIVISION 11 12 SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN Case No. 11CECG00706 JOAQUIN and LEAGUE OF WOMEN (Consolidated with Cases Nos. 11CECG00709 13 VOTERS OF FRESNO and 11CECG00726) 14 Petitioners RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO 15 PETITIONER’S PROPOSED JUDGEMENT Vv, AND PROPOSED AMENDED WRIT OF 16 MANDATE COUNTY OF FRESNO; FRESNO 17 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Judge: Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan 18 Respondents Dept. 403 19 Petition Filed March 7, 2011 FRIANT RANCH, L.P., 20 Real Party in Interest. 21 22 23 Pursuant to Rule 3.1590, subdivision (j), of the California Rules of Court, Respondent 24 COUNTY OF FRESNO and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 25 (“Respondents”) hereby submit their objections to Petitioners’ Proposed Judgment and Proposed 26 Amended Writ of Mandate. 27 //1 28 //1 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate I INTRODUCTION On February 12, 2021, Petitioners’ Sierra Club, et al., (“Petitioners”) filed and served a Notice of Lodging of [Proposed] Judgment and Writ (“Notice of Lodging”), [Proposed] Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Proposed Judgment”), and [Proposed] Amended Peremptory Writ of Mandate (“Proposed Amended Writ”). As discussed in the Notice of Lodging, the County proposed 180 days in which to take the required action rather than the next available Fresno County Board of Supervisors meeting. Respondent’s opposed Petitioner’s unreasonable timeframe because it would require the County to violate the requirements to provide appropriate notice of open meeting according to the Ralph 10 M. Brown Act and would run afoul of the County’s internal process to prepare, review and 11 approve the agenda item necessary to complete the required actions. Although Petitioners rely 12 on this Court’s March 19, 2019 writ to require “the County take prompt action” in support of its 13 draconian timeframe, prompt necessarily includes that the action taken be feasible. As discussed 14 below 30 days is not feasible for the County to take the action required by the amended writ. 15 Further, Respondents join Real Party in Interest’s objection to the writ to the extent it 16 requires the County recirculate the entire revised EIR. Lastly, Respondents object to the 17 Proposed Judgment to the extent it provides for an award of costs and attorney’s fees against the 18 County because the County did not participate in the subsequent appeal. 19 IL. OBJECTIONS 20 Respondents provide their objections to the Proposed Judgment and Proposed Amended 21 Writ as follows: 22 Objection No. 1: 23 Respondents object to an order “that promptly upon service of this writ, the County of 24 Fresno shall: (1) Vacate its decision to approve the Friant Ranch project promptly and in no case 25 later than 30 days after the service of this writ [the project approvals]” and “(2) Vacate its 26 decision to certify the competition of the Final EIR promptly and in no case later than 30 days 27 after the service of the this writ on the County.” (Proposed Amended Writ, p. 2:10-21.) 28 Respondents object to Petitioner’s proposed timing require for the County to 2 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate complete the listed actions as unreasonable and impractical. Vacation of the adopted General Plan Amendment No. 511, update to the Friant Community Plan, adopted of the Friant Specific Plan, are all legislative actions to be taken by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (“Board”). The Board is a legislative body under the Ralph M Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950 et seq, (“Brown Act”), the actions of the Board are subject to the Brown Act. The Brown Act requires the public be provided notice of the agenda of a regular scheduled meeting at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(1).) The Board typically holds regular scheduled meetings every two weeks. Further, the timing requirements are unreasonable and impracticable regarding the County’s internal preparation and review of agenda items 10 brought for the Board’s consideration at regularly scheduled meetings. Typically, agenda items 11 prepared by the County’s Department of Public Works and Planning, the department responsible 12 for the Board Agenda Item (“BAI”) to comply with the writ, require a minimum of 70 days to 90 13 days to be prepared and internally reviewed for compliance with the County’s agenda 14 preparation guidelines. (Declaration of Bernard Jimenez in Support of Respondents’ Objection to 15 Petitioner’s Proposed Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate, {ff 2-8.) 16 Based on the above, the thirty (30) days proposed by Petitioners is impractical and may 17 result in the County being unable to conform to its legal obligations towards open meetings 18 under the Brown Act. Further, the County will not be able to comply with the proposed writ’s 19 short timeframe for the County to vacate the project approvals and decertify the Environmental 20 Impact Report (“EIR”) without violating its internal policies related to the review and approval 21 of the BAI needed to complete these obligations. 22 Therefore, the County requests that the writ provide the County with at least 90 days to 23 take the required action in compliance with the writ. To accommodate the County’s request for 24 sufficient time to take the necessary action to comply with the writ, the County would be 25 agreeable to submit an initial return explaining the action it intends to take to satisfy the writ’s 26 requirements within 30 days of service of the writ. 27 //1 28 //1 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate Objection No. 2: Respondents object to the Proposed Writ in that “[t]he County may not approve the project before preparing, circulating, and certifying the revised EIR. » (Proposed Amended Writ, p. 3:2-3 [emphasis added].) The Proposed Writ is internally inconsistent. Regarding recirculation, initially all that is required in the Proposed Wirt is for the County to “recirculate the revisions to the EIR,” which is appropriate and consistent the opinion of the Court of Appeal. (d., at p. 2:22.). Recirculating of the entire revised EIR goes beyond the direction from the Count of Appeal in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2020) 57 Cal.App.Sth 979 (“Sierra Club IIT”). 10 The Court of Appeal directed the Superior Court to issue an amended peremptory writ to 11 compel the County, among other action, to “(3) not approve the project before preparing a 12 revised EIR, circulating the revisions of the EIR, and certifying the completion of the revised 13 EIR.” (Sierra Club II, at p. 991 [emphasis added].) The appellate court explained that the 14 principals of the res judicia and collateral estoppel protect the County and Real Party in Interest 15 Friant Ranch from having to relitigate challenges to the EIR other than the revised air quality 16 analysis. As the appellate court stated: 17 In this case, the sufficiency and CEQA compliance of most components of the EIR have been litigated and resolved. Based on the principals set for in lone 18 Valley [Land, Air, & Water Defense Alliance, LLC v. County of Amador (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 165 (‘one Valley’’), new challenges to the parts of the EIR that 19 have been upheld are not allowed in proceedings on remand. Thus, we conclude 20 an order of partial decertification is not necessary to protect Developer form relitigating the CEQA compliance of parts of the EIR not affected by the errors 21 relating to air quality impacts. Instead, Developer is protected by res judicata collateral estoppel and the requirement for the exhaustion of administrative 22 remedies. (Sierra Club II, supra, 57 Cal.App.Sth at p. 990 [internal citation 23 omitted].) 24 Furthermore, recirculation limited to only the revisions to the EIR is consistent with the 25 CEQA Guidelines, which states “[i]f the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the 26 EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.” 27 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, subd. (c).) 28 The County respectfully requests that the writ be modified so that the County is 4 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate required to recirculate only the revisions to the EIR. Objection No. 3: Respondents objects to the order to “require[] the County to file an initial return explaining the action it intends to take to satisfy the writ’s requirements within 30 days of issuance of the writ.” (Proposed Judgment), p, 3:5; Proposed Amended Writ, p. 3:5-7.) The requirement that the County file an initial return within 30 days of service of the writ is inconsistent with the Proposed Writ’s command that the County vacate the project approvals and certification of the final EIR within 30 days renders an initial return within this same timeframe redundant and unnecessary. For reasons stated above, the County cannot take the required action 10 within 30 days. As stated above, the County would be agreeable to submit an initial return within 11 30 days of service of the writ so along as the time period to take the necessary actions in the writ 12 extended by at least 90 days. 13 Objection No. 4: 14 Respondents objects to the [Proposed] Judgment Granting judgment to the extent 15 Petitioner seeks costs and attorney’s fees as a result of the latest appeal in Sierra Club, supra, 57 16 Cal.App.Sth 979 against the County. The County did not participate in the appeal. Any costs and 17 attorney’s fees Petitioner may have incurred were not the result of any legal action taken by the 18 County. 19 //1 20 //1 21 //1 22 //1 23 //1 24 //1 25 //1 26 //1 27 //1 28 //1 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate Til. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that that the Amendment Peremptory Writ of Mandate be modified incorporate Respondents’ changes. For the Court’s convenience, Respondents submit Respondents’ Alternative [Proposed] Amended Writ of Mandate” that modified section (1) and (2) to provide the County vacate the project approvals and vacate approval of the final EIR in no case later than 90 days after service of this writ, and section (3) in compliance with the objections noted above, consistent with the Court of Appeal’s express direction in Sierra Club III. For the reasons provided above, Respondents respectfully requests the Court adopt its Alternative [Proposed] Amended Wirt of Mandate (which 10 incorporate the modifications by Friant Ranch), rather than the Proposed Writ submitted by 11 Petitioners. Alternatively, pursuant to rule 3.1590, subdivision (k), of the California Rules of 12 Court, Respondents request a hearing regarding Petitioners’ Proposed Judgment and Proposed 13 Alternative Writ and Respondents’ objections thereto to be held before the Court enters 14 judgment and issues the writ. 15 16 Dated: February 22, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 17 DANIEL C. CEDERBORG County Counsel 18 19 By: /s/ Kyle Roberson 20 KYLE R. ROBERSON, Deputy Attorneys for Cross-Defendant 21 COUNTY OF FRESNO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respondents’ Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Court Case No.15CECG01733 Judgment and Proposed Amended Writ of Mandate PROOF OF SERVICE Sierra Club, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al. Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 11CECG00706 (Consolidated with Case Nos. 11CECG00709 and 11CECG00726) I, Vincent Soliz, declare as follows: lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. I am employed at the Fresno County Counsel’s Office, 2220 Tulare Street, Fifth Floor, Fresno, California, 93721. On February 22, 2021, I served a copy of the within: RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S PROPOSED JUDGEMENT AND PROPOSED AMENDED WRIT OF MANDATE on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows: James G. Moose Douglas P. Carstens 10 Tiffany K. Wright Michelle N. Black 11 Laura M. Harris Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer, LLP Remy Moose Manley, LLP 2200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste.318 12 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-27052 Sacramento, CA 95814 dpce@cbcearthlaw.com 13 jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com mnb@cbeearthlaw.com 14 twright@rmmenvirolaw.com lharris@rmmenvirolaw.com 15 16 X by transmitting via Electronic Mail the above listed document(s) to the Electronic Mail 17 address(es) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. pacific daylight time. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 2021, at Fresno, California. 19 20 21 Litigation Paralegal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof of Service Fresno Superior Court Case No. 11CECG00706