You are on page 1of 20
8207173 In THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TUOLUMNE JoRs & SMALL BUSINESS ALLIANCE, Petitioner, » SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, Respondent, WAL-MART STORES, INC., JAMES GRINNELL, AND THE CITY OF SONORA, Real Parties in Interest. After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District Case No. F063849 Hon, James A. Boscoe, Superior Court Judge Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tuolumne Case No, CV56309 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY CITIZENS IN CHARGE IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-4900 « FAX: (916) 447-4904 brad@benbrooklawer steve@benbrooklawgroup.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae CITIZENS IN CHARGE TABLE OF CONTENTS: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. Amicus Curiae Brief. A. Subjecting Directly Adopted Land Use Initiatives To CEQA Would Undermine The Legislature's Multiple Requirements That Such Initiatives, If Passed, Take Effect Prompt 1. The Elections Code Dictates That Initiatives Be Processed With 2. The Opinion Wronely Decides That Direct ‘Adoption 0 OfLand Use Initiatives Leads To A Different Result Under CEQA Than Voter Adoption. B, The Court Of Appeal May Not Substitute Its Policy Iudgments For Those Of The Legislature. wll CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT 14 9 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Associated Homebuilders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore 18 Cal. 3d 582, 591 (1976).. Cal, Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified Se Sch. Dist. 14 Cal, 4th 627, 632 (1997) City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sweet 12 Cal, 4th 105, 121 (1995). Comm'n On Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Super. Ch. 42 Cal. 4th 278, 306-307 (2007)... DeVita v. Cnty. of Napa 9 Cal. 4th 763, 794-96 (1995). DiCampli-Mintz v. Cnty. of Santa Clara 55 Cal. 4th 983, 992 (2012)... Ferguson v. Skrupa 372 US. 726, 730 (1963) Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre 25 Cal. 4th 165, 189 (2001)... Native Am. Sacred Site d Envil. Prot. Ass'n v. 120 Cal. App. 4th 961 (2004) Perry v. Brown $2. Cal, 4th 1116, 1140 (2011)... Stanson v. Mott 17 Cal, 3d 206 (1976).. Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal. 4th 364, 412-13 (2009)....... Thomas v. City of Richmond 9 Cal, 4th 1154, 1165 (1995)... Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Super. Cl 210 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (2012).. Statutes Code Civ. Proc. § 1858... Elections Code § 1405 § 1917... § 9203. § 9212 § 9212(a).. iii § 9212(0)... §o2i4 Rules California Rules of Court rule 8.520(0)(4)(A).. rule 8.520(f) Constitutions California Constitution, Article IL, § 10(e). California Constitution, Article IL, § 8 California Constitution, Article If, §11 .. Other George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson & Gray Davis, Op-Ed. Viewpoints: Preserve CEQA’s goals, end its abuses SACRAMENTO BEE, Feb. 3, 2013, at SE (available at hey bee.com/2013/02/03/5159564/ preserve-ceqas-goals-end-its-abuses.html..... ‘Wyatt Buchanan California environmental law faces challenges S.F. CHRONICLE, Aug. 22, 2012 http://www. sfgate.com/default/article/ California-environmental-law-faces-changes-3808467,php INTHE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TUOLUMNE Jops & SMALL BUSINESS ALLIANCE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, Respondent, WAL-MART STORES, INC., JAMES GRINNELL, AND THE CITY OF SONORA, Real Parties in Interest. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f), amicus curiae Citizens in Charge (“CIC™) respectfully requests permission to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of real parties in interest Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., James Grinnell, and the City of Sonora.’ CIC is a non-profit, 501(c)(4) advocacy group dedicated to protecting and expanding citizens’ initiative, referendum, and recall rights throughout America. CIC promotes these rights without regard to partisanship or polities. CIC collaborates with a broad coalition of legislators, media, opinion leaders, and voter groups from across the political spectrum to protect the initiative, referendum, and recall process in i ‘No party or counsel for any party authored this brief, participated in its drafting, or made any monetary contributions intended to fund the preparation or submission of the proposed brief. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(2(4)(A). CIC certifies that no person or entity other than CIC and its counsel authored or made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the proposed brief. 1 the 26 states where it currently exists, and to expand the process to the 24 states where voters currently lack these rights. While CIC never takes stands on specific ballot issues (unless those issues relate to the initiative and referendum process), it commonly assists local organizations and individuals who pursue the initiative process. CIC is alarmed at the increasing tendency of government agencies and powerful political forces to resist and actively undermine citizens’ use of the initiative process. In state after state, powerful political forces have caused local governments to grow increasingly hostile to the use of the initiative power. Direct democracy is often the only avenue remaining for concerned citizens to enact laws that such forces might oppose. CIC has an interest in ensuring that these groups continue to have access to the initiative right. CIC thus regularly appears as an amicus in state and federal courts to emphasize the importance of preserving the right of initiative and to aid citizens in resisting improper efforts to interfere with such right. CIC is particularly interested in this case because the opinion by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (2012) (“ZJSBA” or the “Opinion”), will facilitate further interference with citizens’ ability to enact policies through the initiative process. Until the Opinion, it was settled that citizen-sponsored land use initiatives were not subject to CEQA when enacted as ordinances by cities under Election Code section 9214(b). Native Am. Sacred Site & Envtl. Prot. Ass'n v. City of San Juan Capistrano, 120 Cal. App. 4th 961 (2004) (“NASSEPA”), The Opinion acknowledges its divergence from NASSEPA, It also states ~ repeatedly and without citation to authority or acknowledgement of irony ~ that the signature- gathering thresholds for qualifying initiatives allows for “minority” rule when initiatives are adopted by a city council rather than put to a vote of the citizens, ‘The Opinion’s apparent disdain for the initiative process is troubling enough. The consequence of the Opinion’s result is of particular concem for the citizens of California, as they are often forced to resort to the initiative process for a varicty of land use issues precisely to avoid CEQA’s promise of endless litigation or rent-seeking, or both. Left alone, the Opinion opens the door to further frustration of California citizens’ initiative rights, CIC offers this brief to explain why reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal is necessary to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power. Dated: May /(, 2013 BENBROOK Law Group, PC oy, eae radley A. Benbrool Attomeys for Amicus Curiae CITIZENS IN CHARGE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF A. — Subjecting Directly Adopted Land Use Initiatives To CEQA Would Undermine The Legislature’s Multiple Requirements That Such Initiatives, If Passed, Take Effect Promptly. This Court has consistently recognized that “a basic precept of our governmental system” is “that the people have the constitutional right to alter or reform their government.” Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal. 4th 1116, 1140 (2011) (citing Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 412-13 (2009). In Perry, the Court reaffirmed the “consistent judicial interpretation of the constitutionally based initiative power in California*: ‘The amendment of the California Constitution in 1911 to provide for the initiative and referendum signifies one of the outstanding achievements of the progressive movement of the carly 1900's, Drafted in light of the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people, the amendment speaks of the initiative and referendum, not as a right granted the people, but as a power reserved by them, Declaring it “the duty of the courts to jealously guard this right of the people” the courts have described the initiative and referendum as articulating ‘one of the most precious rights of our democratic process...” ‘[ ]¢ has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right be not improperly annulled. If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it.’ Perry, 52 Cal, 4th at 1140 (quoting Associated Homebuilders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 34 582, 591 (1976) (italics in Perry). Often when the people are roused to act through their right of direct, rather than representative, democracy, i is because an issue demands immediate attention and their representatives have failed to act, are dragging their feet, or are hamstrung by red tape. There can be no dispute that CEQA is rife with opportunity for delay, litigation, and frustration. Indeed, Governor Brown has made CEQA reform a priority in his administration; in this year’s State of the State address, he announced: “We . . need to rethink and streamline our regulatory procedures, particularly the California Environmental Quality Act. Our approach needs to be based ‘on consistent standards that provide greater certainty and cut needless delays.” Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., State of the State Address (Jan. 24, 2013).? Governor Brown has also remarked that “I've never seen a CEQA exemption I didn't like,” and described CEQA reform as “the Lord’s work.” Wyatt Buchanan, California environmental law faces challenges, S.F. CHRONICLE, Aug. 22, 2012, http:/Awww.sfe IWarticle/C: 3808467 php.» chang: Until the Opinion, it had been universally recognized that land use projects arising from the initiative process — whether approved by the voters or through direct adoption by a city ~ were exempt from CEQA. review. Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal. 4th 165, 189 (2001); DeVita v. Cnty. of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 794-96 (1995); The text of the Governor's remarks is available at http://gov.ca. gov/news.php?id=17906 (last visited Apr. 28, 2013). 7 Three of Governor Brown’s predecessors recently joined together to decry CEQA’s sorry state: CEQA has . . . become the favorite tool of those who seck to stop economic growth and progress for reasons that have little to do with the environment. Today, CEQA is too often abused by those seeking to gain a competitive edge, to leverage concessions from @ project or by neighbors who simply don't want any new growth in their community — no matter how worthy or environmentally beneficial a project may be. George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson & Gray Davis, Op-Ed., Viewpoints: Preserve CEQA’s goals, end its abuses, SACRAMENTO BEE, Feb. 3, 2013, at SE (available at itp. NASSEPA, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 968." By deciding for the first time that such projects are subject to CEQA’s often endless delays when adopted by city councils, the Opinion wrongly undermines the policy, expressed throughout the Elections Code, that land use initiatives be submitted quickly to a public vote (or passed by the city council) and, once passed, promptly enacted. 1. The Elections Code Dictates That Initiatives Be Processed With Dispatch. In reserving their right to make and repeal laws by initiative, the people entrusted the Legislature with the task of establishing the procedures by which initiatives would be proposed and processed. Cal. Const., art. II, § 10(c) (“The Legislature shall provide the manner in which petitions shall be circulated, presented, and certified, and measures submitted to the eleciors.”). The Legislature has demonstrated its concern that the people’s right of initiative not be handicapped by delay. It set short deadlines for public officials to act. See, ¢.g., Blec. Code §§ 9203 (15 days for City Attorney to prepare title and summary), 9308 (30 days for Registrar to verify signatures). It required that initiatives which have qualified for the ballot be set quickly for election. See, e.g., Elec. Code §§ 9212, 9215 (city must order an election within 40 days of Registrar's certification), 1405 (setting time frames for elections). It provided that approved initiatives take effect promptly, unlike the Legislature's own acts, which are delayed to the first of the year. See, e.g., Elec. Code §§ 9217, 9520 (approved initiatives take effect 10 days after vote certified). And it placed strict ‘In Friends of Sierra Madre, this Court recognized that “imposing CEQA requirements on [voter-sponsored] initiatives might well be an impermissible burden on the electors’ constitutional power to legislate by initiative.” 25 Cal. 4th at 189 (citing Cal. Const., art. IL §§ 8, 11). limits on the type and timing of lawsuits seeking to keep an initiative off the ballot. Elec. Code §§ 9295, 9380 (challenger must petition for writ or injunction within 10-day public examination period, and conclude suit before ballots go to print). To further avoid delay, the Legislature has expressly identified what acity may study, and for how long, before acting on an initiative that has qualified for the ballot. Elections Code section 9212(a) permits, but does not require, a city to study seven specified impacts of the initiative or “any other matters” provided that any study so ordered must be completed “no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies . .. the sufficiency of the petition.” Elec. Code § 9212(b). Conspicuously absent from section 9212 is any requirement to study the proposed initiative’s environmental impacts under CEQA. And as a practical matter, the steps necessary to comply with CEQA could never be completed in 30 days. In view of the people’s right to a meaningful and timely initiative process, the Legislature put a tight rein on a local agency’s choices when presented with the certification of the elections official that an initiative has qualified for the ballot. Under Elections Code section 9214: If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters of the city... . the legislative body shall do one of the following: (a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented. (b) Immediately order a special election, to be held pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1405, at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city. (©) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212° at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b). Elec. Code § 9214 (emphasis added), ‘The Legislature thus gives a city council the choice to either promptly allow the voters to vote on the initiative or “[a}dopt the ordinance, without alteration,” in which case the proposed initiative gets implemented even sooner than if the voters had approved the initiative at the ballot box. Decades of experience has shown that local governments often use the direct-adoption alternative in section 9214(a) to show they “get the message” being advanced by the citizens qualifying the initiative, That adoption of an initiative by a city council leads to the same result — sooner and at less expense as approval of the initiative at an election is further confirmed by Elections Code section 1917: Regardless of the manner of adoption, the ordinance may only be amended or repealed “by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance.” The NASSEPA court stressed that when, as here, the city has adopted an initiative, the citizens qualifying an initiative “are entitled to have their decision implemented under section 9214, which manifests the power of initiative reserved to the people under the Constitution.” NASEBPA, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 968, Elections Code section 9212 requires that a report ordered pursuant to section 9214(c) be presented to the city within 30 days, Elec. Code § 9212(b). 2. The Opinion Wrongly Decides That Direct Adoption Of Land Use Initiatives Leads To A Different Result Under CEQA Than Voter Adoption. ‘The Opinion rejects the notion that the Legislature intended a city council’s adoption of an initiative to lead to the same result, under CEQA, as voter approval. It starts from the proposition that “[i]t is settled that when a development project is approved by means of a ballot initiative placed on the ballot by voters and adopted by them in an election, the project is exempt from environmental review under® CEQA. TJSBA, 210 Cal. App. 4th at 1013. The Opinion goes on to conclude, however, that “when the lead agency chooses nof to have an election but to adopt the initiative through its own action,” id. at 1019 (italics in original), CEQA does apply.* This conclusion directly conflicts with the holding in NASSEPA, The Opinion perverts the operation of Elections Code section 9214 by presenting local governments with choices at odds with the statute. The Opinion “acknowledge{s] that [its] holding means the direct-adoption option of Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (b), will usually not be available for an initiative that would have a significant environmental impact, and an election will usually be required.” Jd. at 1031. In other words, even if a city council supports the initiative and would prefer to reach the same result that would be achieved following voter approval ~ sooner, and at less cost to taxpayers ~ the Opinion takes that option away from city councils. ‘By distinguishing between Section 9214's alternatives, the Opinion creates an inconsistency that does not exist on the face of the statute, which places direct adoption and calling an election on equal footing. This is improper. DiCampli-Mintz v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 35 Cal. 4th 983, 992 (2012) (“A court may not, under the guise of construction, rewrite the law or give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Opinion further assumes that city councils opposed to an initiative must necessarily refuse to adopt it and send it to a vote, Id. at 1032 (“{i}f'a city council opposes an initiative, it must hold an election”). But political actors are capable of more subtle ~ and cynical ~ approaches. For example, a city council actually opposed to a land use initiative and willing to game the system may choose instead to sit on the initiative on the theory that the CEQA process must take place while it “considers” whether to adopt the initiative, Or it may “adopt” the initiative pending a lengthy CEQA review, during which time allied groups will ensure that the project never takes place, as the cost and delay of litigation undermine the project’s economic viability. Indeed, CIC has observed that local governments are increasingly apt to thwart initiatives through delay alone. Moreover, the very opening of the process to CEQA review under these circumstances invites a new set of questions about how such review should take place: CEQA review would seemingly be an idle act since a council could not, consistent with Elections Code section 9214, actually alter an initiative based on an environmental impact report. CEQA partisans would not take such a result lying down. ‘This Court sces no shortage of the political maneuvering needlessly invited by the Opinion. Notwithstanding that such tacties by local governments would be improper under Elections Code section 9214, the Opi the line. Indeed, the Opinion suggests that one “meaningful” option for ion itself evidences judicial tolerance for local officials to play close to local governments opposed to land use initiatives is to call an election and then “inform the electorate of its objections” during the campaign on the initiative. Id. Needless to say, this raises grave concerns under Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d 206 (1976), which observed that a “fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of 10 several competing factions.” Jd. at 217. In short, the Opinion’s invitation for local government gamesmanship in this area should be rescinded. B. The Court Of Appeal May Not Substitute Its Policy Judgments For Those Of The Legislature. ‘The Opinion expresses an alarming disdain for the initiative process. As one example, it repeatedly states that the signature-gathering thresholds for qualifying initiatives allow for “minority” rule when initiatives are adopted by a majority of the city council rather than put to a vote of the citizens. See, e.g., TISBA, 210 Cal. App. 4th at 1021 (“It is even clearer that CEQA applies when a mere 15 percent of the voters has expressed support for the initiative and the city council chooses to approve the project without an election.”) (emphasis added); 1022-23 (repeatedly characterizing the initiative as an effort to impose “minority” rule over “the will of the people of the state” as expressed through CEQA); 1023 ; 1028 (referring to the petition signers as a “fraction of the electorate” and “a (characterizing direct adoption as “the antithesis of democracy small minority of voters”), 1032-33 (concluding that holding an election is “necessary” to express the “will of the people”), In dismissi ing direct adoption as antidemocratic, the Opinion ignores that the Li islature itself has allowed for direct adoption of initiatives. It further ignores the various ways citizens participate in California’s representative democracy. A citizen who disagrees with a proposed ordinance has many options at his disposal: he may make his views known ata city council meeting, and encourage the council to call an election or order a report: if unsuccessful, he could circulate his petition to repeal or amend the ordinance; he can vote or campaign against councilmembers who do not share his views. He may even choose to run for city council 11 himself. In short, holding an election for each citizen-sponsored initiative is not “necessary” to express “the will of the people.”? And by substituting its judgment for the Legislature’s, the Court of Appeal engaged in a patent exercise of judicial legislation. This is contrary to fundamental principles of statutory interpretation and the separation of powers: “When the Legislature has spoken, the court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the better policy.” City and Cnty. of San Francisco v, Sweet, 12 Cal. 4th 105, 121 (1995); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1858 (“In the construction of a statute . . ., the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted ”); Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified Sch. Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 627, 632 (1997) (“In interpreting statutes, we follow the Legislature's intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the law, whatever may be thought of the wisdom, expediency, or policy of the act.”) (citations and intemal quotation marks omitted); Thomas v. City of Richmond, 9 Cal. 4th 1154, 1165 (1995) (“It is not for us to substitute our public policy judgment for that of the Legislature. If the Legislature is dissatisfied with the policy reflected in the current statutes, it can modify them at any time.”) (citation omitted); Comm'n On Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Super. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 278, 306-307 (2007) (Chin, J., dissenting); Cal, Sch. Emps. Ass'n v. Governing Bd., 8 Cal. 4th 333, 360 (1994) (Kennard, J., dissenting); accord Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372. U.S. 726, 730 (1963) (“{Clourts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.”). Indeed, a citizen who believes citizen-sponsored initiatives should be subject to CEQA review can sponsor a ballot measure to change section 9214, or lobby the Legislature to amend the statute, 12 Such arrogation of authority is particularly pernicious here, where its effect is not simply to subvert the intent of the Legislature, but to thwart the right of the people to exercise their initiative power. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and hold that citizen-sponsored initiatives directly adopted by local governments are exempt from CEQA. Dated: May/6, 2013 BENBROOK Law Group, PC By “ eed gale énbrodl ey Attomeys for Amicus Curiae CITIZENS IN CHARGE 13 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(c)(1).) ‘The text of this brief consists of 4,101 words as counted by the Microsoft Word version 2011 word processing program used to generate the brief. Dated: May/¢, 2013 Bradley A. Benbrook 14 PROOF OF SERVICE (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court). California Supreme Court Case No. $207173 1, Danielle C. Williams, declare: 1am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action, My business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610, Sacramento, CA 95814, On May 16, 2013, I served the document(s) described as APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY CITIZENS IN CHARGE IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST on the interested parties in this action a by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST x__ BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Sacramento, California, in the ordinary course of business, I am aware that on motion of the party serviced, service is presumed invalid if they postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after service of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2013, at Sacramento, California, DANIELLE C. WILLIAMS, SERVICE LIST Steven A. Herum, Esq Brett S. Jolley, Esq, Ricardo Z. Aranda, Esq. Herum Crabtree 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 Stockton, CA 95207 Counsel for Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance Edward P. Sangster, Esq. K&L Gates LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Counsel for Wal-Mart Stores, Ine. Randy Edward Riddle, Esq Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai LLP 350 Sansome St. #300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Counsel for League of California Cities (supporting review) Anthony L. Francois Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Counsel for Pacifie Legal Foundation (supporting review) Clerk of the Superior Court ‘Tuolumne Superior Court 41 West Yaney Avenue Sonora, CA 95370 Respondent Timothy A. Bittle, Esq, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn. 921 11" Street, Suite 1201 Sacramento, CA 95814 Counsel for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 0 Richard Matranga, Esq. City Attlomey City of Sonora 94 W. Washington Street Sonora, CA 95370, Counsel for City of Sonora Robert S. Bower Peter J, Howell John A. Ramirez Rutan & Tucker LLP G1] Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Counsel for James Grinnell Cory Jay Briggs, Esq. Briggs Law Corporation 99 East “C” Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 Counsel for CREED-21 Amicus Curiae for Petitioner below Timothy R. Busch J. Serra Catholic High School 26531 Junipero Serra Road San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (supporting review) Clerk of the Court Court of Appeal, Fifth District 2424 Ventura Street Fresno, CA 93721