EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

Attorney General of California 

Rosnz~ W. BYRNE 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

MICHAEL W. NEVILLE 

Deputy Attorney General 

State Bar No: 96543 

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1 1000 

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Telephone: (41 5) 703-5523 

Fax: (415) 703-5480 

E-mail: Michael.Neville@doj .ca.gov 

Attorneys for State Respondents 

I I. I By Christa Beebout, Deputy Clerk 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 

EL COMITE PARA EL BIENESTAR DE 

EARZIIMART, an unincorporated 

association, COMMITTEE FOR A ' 

BETTER ARVTN, a California non-profit 

corporation, ASSOCIATION OF 

IRRITATED RESIDENTS, an . 

unincorporated association, COMMUNITY 

AND CHILDREN'S ADVOCATES 

AGAINST PESTICIDE POISONING, a 

California non-profit corporation, 

Petitioners, I 

Case No. 34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS 

fHWWBEl] JUDGMENT DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 

Dept: 31 

Judge: Honorable Michael P. Kenny 

Action Filed: May 20,2009 

MARY-ANN WARNERDAM, in :her 

off~cial capacity as Director, California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation; 

DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE 1 REGULATION, 

1 Respondents. 

AIR COALITION TEAM, 

I Intervenor. I 

I Iudgment Denying Petition For WritOf Maidate (34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS) I 
Bienestar De Earlirnart, Committee for a Better Arvin, Association of Irritated Residents, and 

I 

Community and Children's Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning (collectively "petitioners") 

D 

1 

I 4 11 filed their petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief 

1 '-! 

,,I 

The Court finds the fol1owing:that on May 20,2009, petitioners El Cornite Para El 

("Petition") agaiit Mary-Ann Warmerdarn, in her official capacity as Dbctor of the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation, and against the California Department . of . pesticide . 

Regulation (collectively "respondents"); that on August 5,2009, the court granted leave to 

intervene to the Air Coalition Team ("intervenor"); that subsequently respondents lodged the 

certified administrative record in this action and the parties filed briefs on the merits; that the 

court issued its tentative opinion in favor of respondents and intervenor.on December 10,2009; 

I l1 II .that on December 11,2009, the court held a hearing on the merits during.which the matter was . . 

l2 II argued by counsel for all parties and then submitted; that . on ... December 11,2009, .the court issued . . 

l5 A Minute OrderIRulilig on Submitted Matter (which is attached as Attachment A and incorporated , 

13. 

14 

l6 11 herein) and the other orders and stipulations of the court, all issues in this action have been fully 

a Minute OrderICourt Ruling on Submitted Matter ("Ruling on Submitted Matter") in which the 

' court affirmed its tentative ruling and denied the Petition; and that consistent with the court's 

17 ( and finally resolved and adjudicated. 

18 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 

l9 11 1, The Petition is denied and petitioners shall take nothing by their Petition. 

2o 11 2. Judgment is rendered in favor of the respondents and the intervenor, and against 

- 21 11 petitioners. 

3. The respondents qe awarded judgment for costs of suit in the 'amount of $ 

Ill 

Ill 

Judgment Denying Petition For Writ Of Mandate (34-2009-80000253-CU7Wh4-GDS) 
,intervenor is 4. The- awarded judgment' for costs of suit in the amount of 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: THE CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY &THE. 

ENVIRONMENT 

Dated: DEC 28 2010 , MICHAEL KENNY 

The Honorable'Michael P. Kenny Judge of the Superior Court . - 

3 -. -+hpaod] Judgment Denying Petition For Writ Of Mandate (34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS) 
ATTACHMENT A* 
.--, a .~ERIOR COURT OF CALIFORK , 

" COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO . 

GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE 

MINUTE ORDER 

Date: 1211 112009 Time: 09:00:00 AM Dept: 31. 

Judicial Officer presiding: Michael P Kenny Clerk: Susan Lee 

ReporterIERM: 8. Henrikson CSR# 1 1373 

Ball iff1Court Attendant: Derek Greenwood 

i 

Case No: 34-2009-~OOOO~~~-~U-WM-ODS Case hit. Date: 0512012009 

Case Title, El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimkrt vs. ~aiy-~nn Warmerdarn in her offic[al . . 

capaci,ty as'Director 

Case Category: Civil - Unlimited 

EVENT IDIDOCUMENT ID: 1270755,3325056 

EVENT NPE: ~etitldn for Writ of Prohibition - Writ of Mandate 

MOVING PARTY: Committee For A Better Arvin, El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimart, Association 

Of Irritated Residents, Communi And Children's Advocates A ainst Pesticide Poisoning CAUSAL DOCUMENTIDATE F Y LED: /Petition for Writ of. 9 andate For Preparatian Of Record O) 

Proceedings, 0512012009 

APPEARANCES . . 

. .. 

Alegria De La ~ruz and Brent Newell are"present for petitioners. Michael W, Ne'llle, Deputy Attorney 'General is resent for respondents; 

Ann M. Grottvelt is present and Rissa A. Stuart P s present telephonlcally for Intervenor, . . ~ir'~oalltlon 

Team. 

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:, PETITION.FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 

TENTATIVE RULING . ' 

I. 

, . 

The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the demurrer filed by the Real Party in 

Interest, setfor hearing in Department 31 on Friday, November 20, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.,The tentative . 

ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of 

thls' Department no later than'4:OO p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing and further advises the 

clerk that such party has notified the other slde of its intention to appear. 

In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per' 

side. 

In this maridate roceedlng under the California ~nvironm~ntal hual1ty Act ("CEQA"), 'petitioners 

~hallenge the a equacy of B respondents1 revlew of an April 2009 amendment to a regulation (Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 3, 3 6452.2.) requiring respondent Dlrector to establish llmlts for volatile or anic compound 

em~ssions "VOC") fromfumigant pesticides during the period of May 1 to October 3 in certain areas of t B 

California. he amendment increased the benchmarks for total VOC emissions from fumlgant and 

nonfumigant pesticides used to trigger the,Director's establishment of the fumigant emlssion limits and 

delayed any establishment of the limits until 201 1. Petitioners contend that respondents failed to comply with CEQA requirements for the analysis of the sigr~ificant environmental Impacts of the amendment, the 

Date: 1211 112009 / 

MINUTE ORDER Page: 1 

Dept: 31 Calendar No.: 
identiflcatlon of reasonable alternatives to the amendment and feasible mitigation measures that would 

avoid or minimize the si nifi.cant Im acts, a statement of overriding considerations supported by substantial evidence in t a e adminls P rative record, and meaningful responses to public comments on the 

amendment.[l] 

To protect public health and welfare, the federal Clean Air Act ("CAN) requires the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency "US EPA") to establish national ambient air quality ("NAAQ") standards for certain air 

pollutants and requ I res each state to submit for US EPA approval a State Implementation Plan ("SIPw) to 

achieve and maintain each NAAQ standard in areas of the state where the standard has not been met or 

attalned (non-attainment areas or "NAAs"). (42 U.S.C. 5 7409,7410, 7502.) Pursuant to this CAA 

requirement; the California Air Quality Resources Boar d ("CARB") prepared a SIP to achieve and 

maintain the NAAQ standard for ozone in five NAAs, including San Joaquin Valley and Ventura, and the 

US EPA approved this SIP in 1997. (62 Fed. Reg. 1150 (January 8, 1997).) 

The approved California SIP for ozone set forth,measures to attain the NAAQ ozone standard in N'AAs 

by controlling and reducing emissions of ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and reactive organic 

gases ("ROGn) from multiple sources, including mobile sources, consumer products and pesticides. A . section of the SIP prepared and revised by respondent Department of Pesticide. Regulation ("Departmentw) set a goal of reducing VOC (i.e., ROG) emissions from agricultural and 'commercial 

structural pesticide use b .20 percent of a 1990 baselme emissions inventory in the sc eduled 

attainment years for four k AAs, including a reduction of 2.4 tons per day ("tpd") of RO 6 in 2005 for the 

Ventura NAA. (8 AR 2221-2231;[2] 62 Fed. Reg., supra, at 1170. This pesticides section of the SIP alga 

set a goal of reducing pesticide VOC emlsslons by 12 percent of 1 he 1990 baseline in the scheduled 

attainment year of 1999 for the San Joaqutn Valley NAA. (Ibid.) These reductions would inltlally be 

achleved by changes in pest management practices, includin the Use of lower VOC-containing pesticide products and pesticide application methods and tec 1 nologies producing lower VOC emissions: 

(Ibid.) A decision as to whether additional regulatory measures were n.ecessar-y to achieve the 20 

percent reduction goal was to be made by the Department in 1997. (/bid.) 

On the basis of pesticld6 VOC emisslbns data collected by 1997, the department determined thkt no 

additional regulatory measures were necessary to meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2905 and took 

no steps to adopt any additional regulato measures. (See El Comite para el Blenestar de Earlirnart v? 

Warmerdam (2008) 539 F.3d 1062, 1068T~his determination was effectively rejected in litigation . . 

.brought.in the U.S. District Court, which concluded that the Depaitpent .had failed to comply with its SIP 

commitments to adopt regulations. (id. .at p. 1066. See 5 AR 2087-2132 (orders in Comite para el 

Bienestar de Earlirnart v. Helliker (E.D.Cal. 2006).) On the basis of this conclusi6n, the US. i3istci.d 

Court ordered the Department to adopt regulations by 2008 .to achieve a reduction .in pesticide VOC 

emissions of 20'percent, using a 1991 em'lssions inventory as a suirogate for the 1990 baseline from 

.which to measure the 20 percent reduction. (Ibid.) . . 

While appealing the order of the U.S. District Court, the Department undertook to adopt the regulations 

ordered by the court in a rulemaking proceeding pursuant to the California Administrative Procedure Act 

("APA"), Government Code section 11 370 et seq. The regulations, which were adopted and became 

effective on January 25, 2008, established restrictions on the use of fumigant pesticide products and 

application methods; required respondent Director to set limits on fumigant VOC emissions in each NAA 

from May 1 to October 31 consistent with the 20 percent reduction from 1991 levels ordered by the U.S. 

District Court and expressed as benchmarks In the re ulations; and instituted a process for the 

allocation of fumigant emissions within the establlshe 9 limits among parties permitted to apply fwmigarits in the NAAs. (1 AR 484-516, 521-523.) To ensure that the court-ordered 20-percent reduction goals or 

benchmarks were not exceeded, the fumigant emission limits were set at 80 percent of the benchmarks. 

(Ibid.) 

In a subsequent rule-making proceeding, the Department amended the re ulations, effective September 

3, 2008, to allow a phase-in of the fumigant VOC emission reductions for t \ e Ventura NAA between 

2008 and 201 2. (6 AR 301 9,3076-3086, 31 02-3134.) This amendment reflected a revision of the ' 

Date: 1211 112009 MINUTE ORDER Page: 2 

Dept: 31 , Calendar No.: 
'- -. 

I 

.- , 

r ./-\ 

Case Title: El Comite Para El .snestar De .Eartimart Case No:, 1009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS 

vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official capacity as 

pestlclde section ~.f the ozone SIP approved by the US EPA on July 18, 2008. (Ibid.).The amendment 

was undertaken in light of data indicating that a reduction of 46 percent from current fumigant enilssion 

levels in Ventura would be necessary in 2008 to comply with the regulatory benchmark and emission 

limits and that such a reduction would lead to a decrease in fumigated acreage, declines In agricultural 

yields, and the converslon of a ricultural land to other uses. (Ibid.) To mitigate the serious economic 

~mpacts of lost agricultural pro I? uction and the environmental impacts of lost agricultural lands, the 

amendment phased in the 20 percent reduction of 1991 levels of VOC emissions by 2012. ((lbid.) The 

US EPA approval of the SIP revision reflected in the amendment found that the temporary increase in 

pesticide VOC emissions resulting from the phase-in would not interfere with reasonatjle further 

progresg in attaining the NAAQ standard for ozone by the attainment deadline. (6 AR 31 14-31 15. See 

73 Fed. Reg. 41280 (July 18. ?008).), I 

, While the regulatory amendment'to phase in emission reductions in the VenturaNAA wab pending, in ' 

August 2008, the U.S. Court of A peals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. Dlstrict Court orders for' . emission reduction regulations. ( E Comife para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam (2008) 539 

F.3d 1062.) Shortly thereafter the Department began rulemaking proceedings to adopt an amendment, 

effective April 20, 2009, which etitioners challenge herein. Specifically, the Department amended . section 6452.2 in title 3 of the e alifomia Code of Regulations by changing the benchmarks for pesticide . VOC emissions from those ordered by.the U.S. District Court to those in the pesticide section'.ofthe . 

California SIP for ozone approved by the US EPA: the amended 'benchmarks for four of the NAAs, ' 

including.Ventura, reflected 20 percent reductions in pesticide VOC emissions from ,1990 rather than ' ' 

1991 levels, and the amended benchmarkfor the San Joaquin Valley NAA reflected a 12 percent reduction in pesticide'VOC emissions from,1990 levels. (7 AR 3221, 3218. See 62 Fed. Re ., supraleat 

I1 70.) In addltlon, the amendment of section 6452:2 delayed until 201 I the Director's estab 1. ishment of 

fumigant VOC emlssion'limlts which cap and .allocate emissions to growers through a errnit system when overall emissions in an NAA,exceed 80 percent of the benchmark for the. NAA. ( 5 AR 321 8,3222.) The amendment preserved the benchmark phase-in rocess prevlously adopted for the Ventura NAA 

and approved as a .revision of the SIP by the US EP R . (Ibid.) . . . 

All of the afore-mentioned regulatory roceedings are part of the Depadment's pesticide regulatory 

program which has been cert~fied un 8 er Public Resources Code sectlon 21080.5 as functionally equivalent to CEQA. (Food 81 Ag. Code 3 11401 et seq.; CEQA Guideline 15251.(i . See Californian for 

Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Pesticide Regulation 2006) 136 Gal-App. th 1049, 1059.) , I a 

Pursuant to this certification, the Department's pesticide regu atory activities are exempt from, the 

procedural requirements of.CEQA for the preparation of negative declarations and environmental impad ' 

reports, .ahd the Department is required to prepare only the documents specified in its own regulations ' 

which conforrri to CEQA's policy goals and substantive standards. (CEQA Guidelines 15250, 15252.) As : 

set forth in Department's regulations, it Is requlred to prepare a public report that summarizes any 

proposed regulation, amendment to a regulation, or repeal of a regulation; that states any significant . 

adverse environmental impact that can' reasonably be ex ected'to occui from implementation of.the 

proposal and any reasonable mitigation measures availa le to minimize the signilicant impact; and that 

states .and discusses reasonable alternatives to.reduce any significant impact. (Cal..Code Regs., tit. 3, 5 

61 10:) The Department is also required evaluatedhe adequacy of the regulatory proposal in achieving 

the purposes of the pesticide regulatory program set forth in Food and Agriculture Code section 1 1501. 

(Ibid.) Among those statutory purposes is the safe and efficient use of pesticides essential for the 

productlon of food and the protection of the publlc health and safety (Food & Ag. Code.§ 11501, subd. 

(a)) and the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating and ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food & Ag. Code 5 11501, subd. (b). See Cal'. Code Regs., tit. 3, 3 6100, subds. (a)(2), (a)(4).) 

In amending section 6482.2 b revising the pesticide VOC emissionsbenchmarks and delaying the 

establishment of emisslon lim Y ts in all NAAs except Ventura until 201 1, the Department prepared and . ' 

Issued. a publlc report evaluating the amendment's environmental impacts In accordance w~th its 

pesticide regulatory program certification (Cal. Code Regs,, tit. 3, ,§§ 61 00, 61 10) and in conjunction with its preparation and issuance of Initial and final statements of reasons for the amendment pursuant to 

Date: 1211 112009 . MINUTEORDER .. page: 3 

Dept: 31 Calendar No.': 
.*--\ / Case Title: El Corniie Pa; E~raestar De ~arlirnart case No: : '009-80dO0253-CU-WM.ODS 

1 vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official capacity as 

APA rulemaking requirements. (See 7. AR 3220ff. 3468ff.) Contrary to the contentions of petitioners, the Department ade uately complied with the environmental requirements for a .public report and the CEQA 

substantive stan 3 ards that the public report is designed to carry out. 

-Evaluation of environmenta/.impacts 

Perhaps most important; the report indicated that he increasesin pesticide VOC emissions 

allowed by. the amended benchmarks .would have little or no. impact on the state's efforts or progress in . 

attaining the national ambient air quality ozone.standard pursuant to the SIP. (7 AR 3236, 3468-3469, 

3477, 3478. Thus, the fumigant pesticide VOC emissions allowed by'the amended benchmarks could 

not reasona b ly be expected to preclude attainment of-.the air quality ozone standards In either the San 

Joaquin Valley or Ventura NAA. 

' 

-Mitigation measures - 

The public report adequately analyzed the significance of an enylronmentai impacts resulting from the 

amendment In the San Joaquin Valley and Ventura NAAs, the two areas on which petitioners' contentions fncus. With respect to the Ventura NAA, the public report reco nized that the amendment ' . 

would adopt a pesticide V.OC emissions benchmark 0,4 tpd less stringent t a an the benchmark in the 

existing regulation, thus allowing up to 0.4 tpd more VOC emlssions from fumigant pesticides than would 

have been allowed under: the'existing regulation. (7 AR 3226.) The publlc report reasonably concluded 

that the potential contribution of the additional'0.4 tpd to the'fonnation of ozone would be minor because 

.of tbpreference shown by growers in the area for the fumigant methyl bromide which has a low 

reactive nature. (/bid.; 3 AR ,1363; 6 AR 3084) The report also reas.onably concluded that the additional 

0.4 tpd areawide VOC emissions averaged over the six month period from May to October could not be 

expected to increase the .risks of toxic exposure to pesticides', which are a function of airamcentration at 

a particular. lace .and time and which are mitigated by other programs of the department . (7 AR 3224, 

3227, 3483.r 

With respect fo thb.San Joaquln Valley NAA, the public report recognized that the amendment would . 

make the area's pesticide VOC emissions benchmark 2.1 tpd less strin ent than the benchmark in the 

existing regulation and delay any Implementation of fumigant emission B irnits until 201 I, thus allowlng up 

-to'2.1 tpd more VOC emissions from fumi ant pesticides than would have been allowed under the B 

The public report explalned that the purpose of the amendment was to meet the Department's 

commitments under the 1994 SIP to reduce pesticide VOC emissions without placing an unreasonable 

or disproportionate burden on fumigant pesticide users. (7 AR 3225.) To achieve this purpose, the public 

report identified pesticide VOC emission reduction measures for the Ventura NAA and the San Joaquin Valley NAA. 

existing regulatlons. The public report exp ained that.pesticide.VOC emissions.durlng 2007 were below 

the benchmark pro osed by the amendment and that .the emissions were expected to continue 

decreasing below t I: e proposed benchmark because, of the regulations that went Into effect in January . 

2008, restricting fumigant applications in the San Joaquln Valley NAA to low. emitting methods and 

technologies. (7 AR 3229, '3471-3472, 3501 .) Pesticide VOC emissions were also expected to continue 

decreasin below the proposed benchmark because VOC emissions from nonfumigant pesticides, .which 

acwunte f for two-thirds of the.total pesticide VDC emissions in the San Joaquln Valley NAA would 

decline with the introduction of nonfilmigant .pesticide products with lower VOC. emittlng potentials. (7 AR 

3223, 3228,3501 .) 

Regulatory rneasuresto control and reduce pesticide VOC emissions in the Vkntura NAA in accoidance . 

with the Department's commitments under the 1994 SIP were adopted effective September 2008'and, 

as indicated in the public report, were retained by the amendnient. (7 AR 3224.) These measures 

included the establrshment of emission limits and alloeations aniong pesticide users to.phase in 

attainment of the benchmark consistent with the 1994 SIP by 101 2 without giving.rlse to losses in 

agricultural yields and lands, (7AR 3224, 3226:) 

. . Date: 1211 112009 ' . WIINUTE ORDER . . Page: 4 

~eptf 31 , . Calendar No;: 
'\ L - 

Case Title: El ~omite Para E; ,.hestar De ~arllrnai Case No: - ~009-80000253-~~-~~

vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official capacity as ' 

Measures identified in the public report to reduce'pesticide VOC emissions In the San J.oaquin Valle 

NAA b 12,percent of 1990 levels, consistent with the Departments 1994 SIP commltment,'include the 

restrict r on of fumigant pesticide users to low VOC-emitting fumlgant products and low-emission , 

d 

application methods and technology as well as the redudron of tionfumigant pesticide VOC ernlssions, 

whichcomprise two-thirds of the pesticide.VOC emissions In the San Joaquin Valley NAA, through the required use 07 low-emitting nonfurnigant products. (7 AR 3231 -3232,3473-3474.) These control 

.measures.are enforceable pursuant to the re ulations adopted in January 2008 or.wlll be enforceable 

upon the adoption of further regulations. (Ibi 9 .) The establ~shment of em~ssipn limits. at 80 percent of the 

amended benchmarks to ensure that pesticide VOC emisslons do not exceed the'benchmarks was 

reasonabl delayed untll 201 1 to avoid prematurely limiting and allocating VOC emisslons below the 

benchmar Z s, thereby unnecessarlly disru tin fumigant applications and incurring substantial state and 

local costs to implement the allocations. 6 A! 3222-3223, 3228, 3242, 3486.) 

The public report stated that there were no other mitigation measures or alternatives that would serve 

the purposes of the amendment while reducirlg any potential adverse environmental impact. (7 AR 

.3229.) This statement is legally and factually correct. 

Legally, CEQA does not require consideration of an alternative to a.pmposed project, such as the. 

proposed regulatory amendment of section 6452.2, if the alternative does not- meet basic project objectives, whetheror not the alternative may avoid or minimlze a significant environmental impact of 

the pro osed project. (In re Bay-Delia etc. (2008) 43 .Cal.$th 1 143, I 166, referencipg CEQA Guideline 

151 26.&c).) 

Factually, the amendment of section 6452.2 was designed to serve the purposes of the Department's pesticide regulatory program while maintaining wnslstency with the Department's commitments to 

reduce pesbclde VOC emisslons under the 1994 SIP for the attainment of the federal air quality standard for ozone. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, 55 6100,6110, subd, b (I), referencing Food & Ag. Code § 

11 501 .) In particular, while tak~n steps to reduce pesticide V ernisslons' ursuant to SIP 9 A2 

commitments, the amendment a so took steps to promote the safe and eMc P ent use of pesticides for the 

production of a ricultural commodities. (Food & Ag. 11 501, s~bd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tft. 3, 5 6100, 

subd. (ab(Z),) ~fe amendment minimized the dsks of losses in agriculturai yields and agricultural lands created y the more stringent benchmarks ordered by the U.S. District Court and undertook to relieve 

the disproportionate and potentially counterprodyctive responsibility placed on fumigant pesticides for 

overall pesticide VOC emission reductions. (5 AR 2461-2463; 7 AR 3226, 3228, 3479-3480.) Petitioners 

do not identify any alternatives that similarly maintain consistency with the Department's commitments to 

reduce pesticide VOC emissions under the 1994 SIP while minimizing potential losses in agricultural ields and lands or otherwise serving the purposes of the Department's pesticide regulatory program rdentified in Food and Agriculture Code section 1 1 501. 

Contrary to etitioners' c~ntentlon, the pesticide VOC emission berichmarks in the exlstin regulation adopted in J' anuary 2008 pursuant to orders of the U.S. District Coyrt is adequately consi 8 ered in the 

public report as the "no-project alternative1, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15126.6(e (3 (A . The 

~ncdnslstency of the court-ordered benchmarks in the existing regulation with the 1 A2 9 S 1 P reduction 

commitments and the mateylal differences between the existing regulation and the amendment are 

discussed In detail in the public report and responses to public comments. (7 AR 3220, 3226, 3228, 

3476-33481 .) 

-Statement of ove,riding considerations , 

- Substantial evidence in the rulemaking record reasonably supports the conclusion in the publlc report that any potential adverse environmental impact by the amendment on the formajion of ozone in the 

Ventura and San Joaquin Valley NAAs is outweighed'by other economic and environmental 

. . ~&e: I UI 112009 MINUTE ORDER Page: 5. 

Dept: 31 Calendar No.: 
I 

-+' --, ry- . 

\ .Chse Title: El Comite Para E( dnestar De Earlimart case No:! : .009-80000253~~~~-

vs. MaryAnn Warmerdarn in her official capacity as 

considerations. As previously discussed, the additional .04 tpd of esticlde VOC emissions allowed In 

the Ventura NAA by the qmended benchmark would not apprecia ly contribute to ozone formation but 

would enable the farming of hundreds of acres 'of historically fumigated acres on which high value crops 

are grown. (3 AR 1389; 5 AR 2425-2426; 7 AP 3226. The additional 2.3 t d of pesticlde VOC emlsslons 

allowed in the San Joaquln Valley NAA by tha amen d ed benct~mark woul 8 not prevent the state from 

attaining the federal air quality standard for ozone under the SIP, while the amendment would facilitate 

reductions In nonfumi ant emlsslons proportionate to their two-thirds contribution to overall pesticide VOC emissions. (7 A X 3228, 3469, 3476, 3480.) 

Petitioners object to the Department's system of responding to the public comments on the amendment 

by summarizing the .comments in, the ubiic report rather than including the original comment letters 

whlch were available to the public at t R e Department's head uarters in.Sacramento. Petitioners contend 

that this system of responding to public comments prevente 9 members of the public from meaningfully 

partlcipating in the CEQA process. Petitioners do not identify any provision of CECA which requiresthe 

Department to provide copies of public comment letters with environmental review documents instead of 

summarizing the public comments in the.do~uments. Nor does this system of responding to public. . 

comm,ents . appear . to-prevent meaningful public participation in the environmental review process. . . 

For the fokgoing reasons, the petition is denied. Counsel for respondents is directed to prepare a 

proposed Judgment consistent with this ruling, serve it on counsel for petitioners and intervenors, and 

then submtt it to this.court pursuant to rule 3,1312 of the California Rules of Court. , , 

. . 

111 Respondents' request for an extenslon of tlme to file their opposition brlef on November 19 instead.of November: 1'3,2009, 

IS granted. There is no showing that respondents' minor delay In serving and filing their opposition bdef 

in any way prejudiked petitioners In replylng to the opposition brief. 

[2] Cftations to the adrninistratlve record begin with the volume number, are followed by "ARp and end with the page . . .. number(s)i . . 

. . 1 COURT RULING. . . 

The matter is argued and submitted. . 

The Court takes matte; under submission. 

COURT RULINGON SUBMITTED MATTER ' 

. . 

~h& court AFFIRMS the tentative rullng. ' 

. 

Certiflcate of Service by Mailing is attached. . 

I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Califomla, County of Sacramento, deqi that I am not a arty to thls 

cause, and on the date showri below I served the foregoing MINUTE ORD 2' R DATED DEC 2 MBER 1.4, 

2009 b deposlting true copies thereof, enclosed in separate, sealed envelopes with the postage fully in the United States Mall at Sacramento, California., each which envelopes was addressed 

respectively to the persons and addresses show below: 

. . 

ALEGRIA DE LA.CWZ, ESQ.. 

BRENT NEWELL, LEGAL DIRECTOR 

.47 Kearny Street,, Suite 804 

. -~ - 

Date: 12/11/2009 . . MINUTE ORDER . Page: 6 

Dept: 31 . Calendar No;: 
. 1' n __,,- - . -. 

Case Title: El Comite Para El , :hestar De Earlimart Case No? b09-80000253~~-~~-

vs. Mary-Ann Warmerdam in her official eapacity as -. ' 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

MICHAEL W. NEVILLE 

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL . , . 

Department of Justice . . 

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1 1000 . .. 

San Francisco,. CA 941 02-7004 . . 

ANN M. GROTNEIT, ESQ: 

RlSSA A. STUART, ESQ. 

KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP 

141 5 L Street, Suite 400 . . 

Sacramento, CA 95814 . . 

I, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing ig true and correct 

Dated: Deceniber 15,2009 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACMMENTO 

Is1 S. Lee . 

By S. Lee, Deputy Clerk . . . 

, Date: 1211 1/2009 . . MINUTE ORDER Page: 7 

Dept: 31 .I Calendar No.: 
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL 

Case Name: El Comite Para, et al. v. Mary-Ann Warmerdam, et al. 

NO.: 34-2009-80000253-CU-WM-GDS 

I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the 

California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or 

older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the 

Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United 

States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondesce placed in the internal 

mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States . . Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. 

On December 22,2010, I served the attached [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE by placing 'a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed . 

envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail~collection system at the Office 

of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1 1000, San Francisco, CA 941 02- 

7004, addressed as follows: 

Alegria De L;a Cruz, Esq. . . 

Brent J. Newell, Esq. 

Center on Race, Poverty & Environment 

47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 

San Francisco, CA 941 08 

Ann M. Grottveit, Esq. 

Rissa A. Stuart, Esq. 

Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP - Hanford 

2 1 9 North Douty Street 

Hanford, CA 93232 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true 

and correct and that this declaration was executed on December 22,2010, at San Francisco, 

California. 

Pattie Manning 

Declarant Signature