Case No. S194708 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA _______________________________________________ SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. _____________________________________________________ COUNTY OF ORANGE, Real Party in Interest. After a Decision by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 3, Case No. G044138 Orange County Superior Court Honorable James J. Di Cesare No. 30-2009-00121878-CU-WM-CJC __________________________________________ APPLICATION OF 212 GIS PROFESSIONALS AND 23 GIS ORGANIZATIONS TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB AND [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ________________________________________________________ Victor J. Otten, Esq. (S.B.N. 165800) Brigid Joyce, Esq. (S.B.N. 223271) Otten & Joyce, LLP 3620 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 100 Torrance, California 90505 Phone: 310-378-8533 Attorneys for Amici Curiae 212 GIS Professionals and 23 GIS Organizations TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................................ 1 I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................................... 1 II. AMICI CURIAE’S REASON FOR FILING ................................... 2 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ......................................................................... 4 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 4 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 6 A. Orange County’s Position is the Result of Misinterpreted Fact ............................................................................................ 7 1. Orange County Fabricated an Incorrect Definition of “Computer Mapping System” .............................................. 8 2. The County Has Misinterpreted the Definition of GIS ..... 11 3. A “Computer Mapping System” Consists Solely of Software; It Does Not Consist of Both Software and Data .................................................................................... 15 4. The County’s OC Landbase Database is Not Resident In a GIS ..................................................................................... 15 5. The OC Landbase Is Not a Computer Mapping System, and Should Not Be Exempt Under Section 6254.9 .................. 16 B. GIS Database Structure is Essential for Using GIS to Analyze Parcel Data ............................................................................... 17 C. Likely Harmful Consequences of Upholding the 4th District Court’s Opinion ....................................................................... 18 1. Public Oversight of Government Decisions is Threatened .......................................................................... 18 2. If GIS-Readable Databases are Considered Exempt as Computer Mapping Systems, Most Government Data Could be Removed From Public Scrutiny .................................... 20 i 3. A Decision Supporting Orange County May Reverse a Meaningful Trend Toward Greater Public Access To Our Governments’ Data ............................................................ 21 4. Threat to Enforcement of the Santa Clara County Decision ............................................................................. 23 5. Threat to People Living Outside of California .................. 24 6. Efficient Coordination of Data By Diverse Government Agencies is Threatened ...................................................... 25 D. National Policy Supports Public Record Access to GIS Parcel Basemap Data .......................................................................... 26 1. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) .................. 26 2. National States’ Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) ............................................................................. 27 E. Access to County GIS Basemap Databases is Vital to California’s Governance .......................................................... 30 F. Meaning of the Terms “Macro-Programming” and “Mapping System” .................................................................................... 34 G. EXCEL Analogy to Understand the Relationship Between Software and Data ................................................................... 36 1. Starting the Software Without Data ................................... 37 2. Importing Data in Compatible Format ............................... 37 3. Programming Specific Software Tools .............................. 38 III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 39 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................... 41 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES California Cases County of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct. (California First Amendment Coalition) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 ............................................................. 4 Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange County (2011) previously published at 195 Cal.App.4th 1537 [125 Cal.Rptr.3d 913] ....... 28,29 Statutes California Government Code §6254.9 ............................................... passim California Rules of Court section 8.520 .................................................. 1,2 Other Authorities Attorney General’s Opinion 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 153 (2005) .................................................... 21 Wade and Sommer (Editors) A to Z GIS (2001) ................................ 11,12 Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary ............................................ 35 Websites <http://www.cio.ca.gov/wiki/GetFile.aspx?File=%2fCAGISCouncilDocu ments%2fCA_GIS_Council_minutes_Oct_2010.doc> ............................ 31 <http://www.cio.ca.gov/wiki/GIS%20Council%20Strategic%20Plan%20 Revision%20Work%20Group.ashx > ...................................................... 33 <http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/policyandplanning/executive_order> ......... 26 <http://mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-7/> ............... 10 <http://mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto- 7/pdf/geographic-information-systems-toward-a-geo-relational.pdf> ..... 10 <http://www.nsgic.org/publications-by-nsgic> ........................................ 27 <http://www.nsgic.org/public_resources/NSGIC_Data_Sharing_Guidelin es_120211_Final.pdf> .............................................................................. 27 iii APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.520(f), Amici Curiae 212 GIS Professionals and 23 GIS Organizations respectfully request leave to file the attached Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Petitioner Sierra Club.1 I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The Amici Curiae are comprised of 212 GIS professionals who are experienced with, and knowledgeable about, the workings and application of geographic information systems (hereinafter “GIS”) and associated technologies. Also represented are 23 professional associations comprising, and representing, the interests of GIS professionals and their community of GIS users, developers, implementers, maintainers and teachers. Amici Curiae have been working with Geographic Information System (GIS) technology for years and in many cases, for decades. They use this technology to analyze problems with facts that relate to the location of physical infrastructure, natural resources and people. They recommend action to solve problems based on geographic analysis. They assist both public agencies and private companies in the use of GIS technology. They teach the use of GIS in educational institutions, and recommend public 1 Attached as Appendix A is a list of the individual GIS professionals and GIS organizations constituting Amici Curiae. 1 policies regarding the use of GIS and the geographic information it operates upon. They create, analyze and maintain the geographic data2 that is the subject of the Sierra Club v. Superior Court (County of Orange) Opinion. II. AMICI CURIAE’S REASON FOR FILING Amici Curiae work frequently with GIS-compatible data related to land parcels that is created by public agencies, and they are concerned about the potential harm that could come from rescinding the public domain status of this data. If Orange County, and perhaps all California counties, were allowed to sell their GIS-formatted parcel basemap data at prices higher than the cost of duplication, then citizens, private organizations and government agencies would be limited or excluded from access to this vital informational resource. Amici Curiae could be constrained in their professional practice, and so could their partners, their colleagues and their clients. Amici Curiae are grateful that the Supreme Court is reviewing this case. The [Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief offers their professional expertise for the Court’s consideration. Pursuant to California Rules of Court section 8.520(f)(4) (A) and (B), this Brief has been authored by Amicus Curiae co-signer Bruce Joffe and counsel Brigid Joyce, Esq. No contributions have been made in 2 Although technically “data” is a plural noun, Amici Curiae use it as a singular noun representing the collection of a mass of individual informational elements. 2 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION As with the 6th District Court of Appeal’s decision3 which required Santa Clara County to provide its land parcel basemap data to the California First Amendment Coalition in the same GIS-readable format that it uses internally, Amici Curiae