Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report Item 4 6/29/1998
JUN 2 91998 wv CITY OF PETALUMA, CA AGENDA SUMMARY Agenda Subject Meeting Date: • Lafferty Ranch- Retention of outside,legal consultant 1. June 29, 1998 Department Contact Person Phone Number City Attorney Richard-R. Rudnansky, City.:Attorney 778-4362 Cost of Proposal Amount Budgeted N/A N/A Account thrnber N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item.. 1 Statements of qualifications submitted by various law fans. 2. Resolution authorizing retention of law firm. Summary/Statement Under,the'terms of the City,Attorney's tontractwith:the-City°of Petaluma, he has the authority to retain outside legal consultants'for assistance: In this regard, I have requested a statement of qualifications from three.law firinsto consult with the City regarding Lafferty Ranch. Attached are the responses ?for your consideration, and;I request direction from the 'Council regarding the retention of one of these firms to assist m the process of opening Lafferty Ranch for recreational use. Attached,is a resolution for possible action: Recommended City Council'Action • 1. Review responses to request{for statements of qualifications. 2.. Adopt resolution authorizing retention of law firm. 3. Other courses as determined by the City Council. Submitted to Finance:Director:! Submitted; City M alter: ✓ . %/ vim— _ V 07 Today's Date File Code ,June'25, 1998 • .59q1niarY 6`5,98(fink) CITY'OF PETALUMA OFFICE OPCTEY ATTORNEY 'TO: Mayor and City Counciltheinbefs FROM Richard kiRhdriansky, City Attorney "11/4-- DATE: June 25, 1998 RE: Lafferty Ranch/L_egal Consultants Under the terms the City Attorney's contract with the City of Petaluma, he has the authority to retain outside legal consultants fotlasSiStarice: In this regard, and particularly with re.apeet-to taffettyRanch, I'have,requested:a statemeneffqualifiCations frorwthree law firms?(see attached). Attached are the responses for your conideration, and I-request direction from the Council regarding the retention.of brie of these flints to assist inFthe process of turftinglafferty Ranch intb a park. Attached is a res,ointion fot pcISSitileaction. 1111 Attachments ,RESPONSES WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE. • cc: Fred Stouder R17110110 Lafferty File RUDNANSKY & VARNER, ANASSOC:LUION OF2TTORNEYS• RICHARD R•RUDNANSKY 815 FIFTH STREET,SUITE 200, TELEPHONE:'(707)578-3303 BRYAN J.VARNER SANTA ROSA,CALIFORNIA 95404 FACSI IILE:(707)578-3826 FAXED• June 16,.1998 Steve Koska McCutchen, Doyle, Brown&Enerson Post:Office Box V Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4502 • Re: Lafferty Ranch Dear Mr..Koska: • The City of Petaluma is currently,in the process of convertingcity/owned property (commonly known as Lafferty Ranch) located outside of the city limits to a park for-passive recreational,use. The establishment of the park has met with-vigorous opposition byproperty owners:in the vicinity of- Lafferty Ranch. • .At:this time, I am seeking a-law firm to.assist and•consultwith me;and°the Council regarding the:project. In particular„I am interested:in a firm which has attomeys,who specialize in the areas of eminent domain, CEQA,,Iand.use, real property(i.e., titleissues boundary issues; easement issues) and municipal law. If your firm is interested in assisting,in this project, please forward'_a firm'resume along,:with resumes for individual attorneys who specialize in the above areasproviding'any,additional . information you feel would be helpful'm.the;consideration,of your firm including but not limited to specific experience of the.fi n and individual attorneys in the above∎specialityareas and the navies of any governmental:entities-for which attorneys in your firm;have performed services..in these specialty areas:In addition, I would request that you provide,alee schedule which°you wouldapplyto this • project If you are interested, please provideAhis information on`orbefore June:24;1998. Should you have any questions or wishito discuss this;matter imfurther detail,please feel,free to.contact:me. Very , •_rs, ` `41'qaI i _ ' ard"R. R .nanslcy CityAttomey, of etaluma' RRR:wsy, cc: Frederick C. Stouder, Petaluma City Manager IN . RUDNA.NS1CY ,8c VARNER ANAszei4TibAoEfiripmyktil RICHARD&R1MNANSKY 815 Fit 111 STREET,SUITE 266 =PHONE:(707)578-3303 BRYANJ.YARNER SA1TIAILCSA,CIALIFORNIK95404 FACSIMILE:(707)57&3826 FA 2C D June 16,4998i Stele Meyers Meyers, Nave, et 11. 777 Divis Street, Suite 300 SaikLeandro,:CilifOrnia 94577 Re:. •Lifferty'Ranth Dear Mr. Meyers: • The City of-Petaliiniais;ottrently.in the process-Of eonverting:city owned property(commonly known as Lafferty Ranch);locatecloutsido of the Citylimita'to a park for passive recreational use The establishment of thegparkthas met with vigorous:opposition,by property owners in the vicinity Of Isaffertyltandh. At this timeyr amiseeking a law firm to assist aridconsith with Me and theCoundil regarding • the project. In particular, I am interested in a firmwhichHhanttomeys who specialize in the areas of eminent dornaik CE0A, land use, real,prepetty,(i:e„titleriSaties, boundary issues; easement issues) and municipal law. If your firrit!iSintereated:in.astisting;iii this project, pleasefOrward,a firm resume alongWith resumes for specialize any additional, information you feel would be helpful intherconsideration,of jour firm inclUdingThuttotlimited to cspecific experience of the firm and individual attorneys in:thelabove,Speciality areas and the names of 'anyisoyemrnenta entities for which attorneys in your firm have pcifOrmed.services in these specialty are* Infaddition,,I,Viotild.reqUeSt that you proVidealit schedule which you would apply to this - project: if you are interested, please provide this information on before June 24,,1998. Should you have anyqueitions,orwishio,discuss,this.matterlinlwther.detail, plethe feel:freer:to &int:lett-ie. • • erytrulyyo S,, • • _.,It 4 • ' • Ric ,R., • zidnanS' City Attorney, Cityletalurna :RitIt:WSY cc: Frederickr..Stoucler,-Peialtutta CityMatiiger RVDNANSKY & VARNER ANASSOCATTON0FATTORNEYS RICHARD It RUDNANSKY 815 FIFTH STREET,SUITE 200 TELEPHONE(707)578-3303 BRYAN J.YAR'YER SANTA ROSA,CALIFORNIA 95404: FACSI IILE:(707)578-3826 June 16, 1998 Richard S.'Taylor Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger , 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Lafferty Ranch Dear.Mr,Taylor: The City of Petaluma is currently in the process of converting,city owned property(commonly known as Lafferty Ranch):located outside of the city limits to a park for passive recreational use. The establishment of the park has met with vigorous opposition by property owners in the vicinity of Lafferty.Ranch. - • At this time,I am seeking;a;law firm to assist and consultwith me and.the Council regarding the.project. In particular, I am interestedin affirm which has attorneys who;specialize in the areas of eminent domain, CEQA, land use, real property(i.e., title issues, boundary issues, easement issues). and municipal law. If your firm is interested,in assisting in this project, please forward a firm resume along with resumes-for individual attomeyskwho specialize in the above areas providing any additional information you feel would be helpful inthe consideration of your-firm including but not limited to specific experience of the firm and individual attorneys in the'above speciality areas and the names of any governmental entities for which,attorneys in your firm have performed services in these specialty areas. In addition, I would request that you provide a fee schedule which you would:apply to this project If you are;interested, please provide this information=on or before June 24,`1998. Should you have,any questions or wisfi'to discuss this matter in further detail, please feeffree to contact me. Very truly yo Ric d°R Rue anskv City Attorney, City of=Pelima RRR:wsy cc: Frederick:C. Stouder, Petaluma City Manager 1 2 3 4 AUTHORIZING THECITYATTORNEY TO OBTAIN AND 5 EXECUTE A-PROFESSIONALSERVIeES AGREEMENT WITH 6 ' [NAlVEEOF LAW FIRM] REGARDING.LAFFERTY RANCH 7 8 9 WHEREAS, therCity Council per Ordinance No 2022 has authorized the,opening of Lafferty . 10 Ranchtfor passiverecreationil use; and 11 WHEREAS, theEitrAttomey desires to retain the-services of a multi-specialty lawfirmro act 12 as a consultant to the City Attorney and the City'Council regarding the opening of Lafferty Ranch for 13 passive recreationaluse; and 14 WHEREAS, the CitrAttemey has solicitedstatements of qualification from various law firms; 15 and 16 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered.the responses submitted by various law-firms to 17 the request for statements of qualification. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. City Attorney is hereby anthmized to 19 retain and enter into a professional services,retainer agreement with [name of law firm] to act as 20 consultant to the dityAttorneyland the City Council regarding-the opening ofLaffertyRanch for public 21 use. 22 23 24 25 CJOhL J.J70 V -F10 30 ir al ooN 2 9 1998 SHIITE,MEALY& mrsERGER • '111J: KATIP.111t!C V4P4:44tt< ,1-343t 44V25/98 08:33 8dettiMIRAU U1062/007 SHUTE. MIHALY Ss WEINBEft,GER L.CLEMENT smurE.a.. Arrat.vrts Ad- LAC,/ [Aunt L IMPETT.MCP MARX WEINatitcaa .3% HAYES STILEET USN MAMMA MARC B.MICA=R C; SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORN IA 94102 EUZA53134 M 0oo MAN Mt LAYTON AACH3L IL HOOPER Tt 414310NE:(4151 5524272 or —WOOL ELLEN 3.CAREER TE1.BCOPIZA.:(415) 532.-58Ie. CFCRISIT 14.TAYLOR T4EARA 3.cdasktrEs. ithisON POLL •EUCMAA.13 STAflflJ L June 24, 1998 • 3U3ANNAN T.Maar AARON S.makoroob • ROBERTS.Pratiaarrilla 311W 3:CLOyELAND a J.PRIEDMAN Richert:- 1.11 Radnansky Petaluma•,City,Attorney Rudiatinskylk Varner 815 Fifth'S —treetH Sidle 290' Santa Rosa;,CA 95404 • • Re: ,LegaLigaimcteiligIgEzdaggeh• • Dear Mr.,Rudnausky: . • Shiite,Mihaly&Weinberger would be.olessedle:proVide legal services to the City of.Petalumain connection with the City's efforts to make its Lafferty• property available to the public fur passive tecreatiOnaluse. The firm has advised a number of cities.and other public agencies in a wide ranged',controversial•pliting and land use issues drawing on the fin's expert.*inCEQA,-,landasemunicipal law, eminent domain,and real property: This letter sets forth the Antes relevant experience, the attorneys;vim,vicitild be assigned•to the case,references,arid our nits. RelentaLaaneric= Since itsjineeptiqa,Shure,Mihaly&Weinberger.has•Practiced exclusively in the arcabfpuhlie agency law, an emphasis on land use,environment,and regulatory•matters:Appirnanuitely 70%of the Pk&s practice involves representing California public agerit in Complex matters rigeiringohtside comaet Most of the ferisa11Iing30%of our puierieeconsisb of representing'citizens jots and public interest ••cniities throughout the state un avVide*iety of land:usFanclenvirotimental issues. Roughly 60%of the fiinars.practiceiScievoted to lrngauon,and 40%to advice and negotiation. • The Firm*Adis interdisciplinary and integrated legal representation to goVeroments•regarding complex,often highly;poliiiCiiectairbjectS. Typical representation begins with legal research and development of apnoea-and Strategy:far our client agency and is followed hy some cidnibinatien,Of neginiaricin,drafting'of relevant polley'doduteemS, litigation'tlepending on thelfattsiand ciicunittances of 06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3826 .PuDNANsky .8PHER PAGE 04/21 06/123198 08:33 ea 5IItTE,41}{ALY 0uai0c7 • Richard as b c b r a y • hine 24;21998 _ Page 2 each case. 'Given the complex nature of projeciaTot which.we proyicle legal serviCes;.the Finn ftequeudy retainsanddirects-the Wolk of etaiiiihatits from a variety of disciplines; who can assist legal coimsel boachieYing,glient objectives Where necessary,we work as; part Of a teaniWith,anden.eyt from outside our Offite. Members of the'Firm/Outineir appear,before ancf confer with regulatory bodies,boards Of directors,the stare LegiShintre; anti state itgitteieat behalf of local giiverinnents, Matters illustrating our experience with,respect to the issues of Primal • concern for the Lafferty Ranchmafterinclude: 0 The firm represents the East Hay Regional Park Disirietin ougeing. negotiations with c.atellus'corp.;theicalifotniaDepartment ot,Parks.and, Recreation,anct,itaiiuSraktilatory agencies and local governments lege/ding the acquisition'Of lands necessary to establish thaasiBay. .Shoreline Park. aulier;:the.firmassisbed the City of 13etheleyin, preparation of general plan amendments and a specific plan to open space on the privately held Pertinia of the Berkele0Viteifront and successfully defended thevlan•amendments against litigatibi& • • Ine-finntepresentedtheEasi Bay Regional•Park.Distriat condemnation of lands necessary for effective management of existing District holdings. The firm adViseit the District throughOut the condemne1ionVt00;eclOgs, including preparation of appraisals,resolution of a Mania of title issues,preparation for trial,and an eventual settlement out of court, • • The fam represented the Colorado River Indian Tribes in resolving a quiet title action conceibingslaim&of accretion and avulsive movement itiffiscting,pthrity.olithe Ochirradoiiver. The matter was resolved • througkaconliilarty settlement intolvingland.ttansfers,easements,and Other realestateagreentents necessary to resolve title issues and create Viableigrieulitind.parcela. In thiS case the fmnretained outside counsel to assistWithseveral highly specillired:aspecis of the nsalestat e transactions. • ;After bringing litigation on behalf of the City of l-lye:mom challenging the appreval Of Mier development in the,ththicorporated'aree north:Of Livettoote,.thefuninegotilted a complex settlement agreement among the City,AlaniedkCouhtY.ind private landowners that launched a cooperative proCess}WhicliViill=Satin permanent protection of a substantial :porn&61 the North Livermore am for ranching use and'habitat protection. while:at the same time allosiiingdeveloppient of ttu to 12;500 units of new 110 06/2521998 10:05 707-578:3826 gUDNGNSK`/;E.VARNER PAGE 05/21 98/25/98 08:'34 12' art:. IHAI;Y ®004/007 • Richard R Rudnaasky Jtmc•24, 1998 Page 3 housing and related commercial development. Tire im-is currently repaesenting the City in this pimping process including the CEQA component of the process hire effort is'similar tri;a"planning process for lands south;of the.City of Livermore that is;now warm- g completion. In that process th(firm'advised the City indrafing the.plan and preparing necessary,.CEQA documentation under tbreit of litigation: The firm is now;repieseoting the City in negotiating development agreement and 'cbnservetion easeme -to implement the.plan_ • The•fim,advised the cities of Benicia,'Fairfield,•and Vallejo in developing a longterm planning strategyfat open space lands between the three cities and now:;servos as general"counsel to the Tri-Cityand Caunty Cooperative Planning,Group,a joist powers agency comprised of the;three cities and Solano'.County: The Croup is responsible for developing and implementing an agriculture and open. preservation plan for a 10,000 amt ppen space area:, The firm dratted the joint;powam agreement ,establishing the'Cttoup and advises the group in connection:with plan preparation and admioist ation,.compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,acquisition of land and open spare easements, • and other matters arising in the Minx o£agency-administration. • The firm addvises the:Uriversity of California,Davis campus,on numerous • CEQA compliance issues related to development;and has as isted in preparing seven El s for the campui. The fimi,also lam defended five CEQA tawsuits on behalf of the Davis campus, In addition,the firm served_as special counsel to the'University:for its preparation of an a for selection of a new University of California campus"iii the central region of the state. The firm advised the' on CEQA•andothe legal issues pertaiiiing to site selection,reviewedconsultant dtafts of the EIR,and drafted mitigation measures,responies to comments and fu*trtings for the prey O The dirm'represents'the'Sacramento-AreaFlood;Cortrol Agency ("SAFCA"),a joint powers agency.including the;City,of Sacramento, Sacramento Coty S Couty thAmerian giver Flood•Control District;_arid Reclamation District 1000: SAFCA is responsible for planning a and pleinentmg flood protectionmeas 'in the Sacramento . region..The&M ins advisedSAFCA with regani to its•powers of extrate itorial condemnation;complinace with the CaliSra Envrronmenal Quality.Act,the National Environmental Policy Act,and state and federal cndangeredspecies'acts. • 06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3826 RUDNANSKY VARIER PAGE :08/21 08/25/98 08:34 re SMITE:MIHALY LC 003,1,007 Richard ItiRtainauslcy • June 24, 1998 • Page 4 • The fain reprisentedtie.Cityjot Sacramento in negOtiatingt development ;agreement concerning mixed use redevelopment of 240-acre So Pacific RnlYanis adjannitnthe.eitys downtown. 'The issues negotiated by the parties included phasing;major public facilities Stunning,design • veitertriglits;assignment rights,liability and bazindeits materialinniSliiitiOn.The:Min advised the City on environmental review and planning issues throughout the planning process. • The firm;has prãided extensive advice to the San Francisco — fiedevelopteent'Agener("SERA')in connection with'rhat Agency's 'compliance with CEO IA end:NE?:4, Since.1981zthefinn:htSasaisted. (SFRA in CamiecticalWitlithesterba Bucha Center("Y'St7) redevelopment Pitied ilnlialiagisSiStence in Elk scOPing,- developing a strategy for review of significant amendments to thaYBP'Redevelopment Plan,drafting mitigation policies,responding to comments.on draft envxfonmfll tiodmient5;,drafti4 ageccY,findings,dovciPlitig:teview - procedures for project component potentiallY subject to a CEQA exenption,and leiiiiiingrapata of plan intnexiientatitai subject nthe • National Historic Preservation Act. 'The firm also abased'SFRA in preparing ajonniEWEIS with the federal General Services A 7dininsinttion("GSA")frifetnittMaion of it federal intei binding- dOwntown San Francisco and has advised SERA on a number of other CEQA issues. • • esexasgera1 ..cotalFlIttilicAlameds CoulttY WasteLMOinagemect Anthdfiry;a`jOint powers agency comprised of AtamedaCounty.all the cinisinAlanTheda'CotaltY,*4 two sanitary disttists=•The4.irra has advised the Authority in&wide range of real property mittersincluding a manlier of land leases anclthe;acquisition of more than f1506 acres of Lancl in eastern Alameda Cont.!for use as an Integrated Waste Management Facility. The Firm has represented the:Authorityin.negotiatiOns With dandiininers,:preparation ófaquisiton clotainients,and,in several instances,the initiation of condemnation proceedings:We recently concluded negotiations on behalf of the Authority of i2Otynar,openuhag agreement for the sewagesludge/green waste co-contostingtompoinent, of theintegratt&WasteManitgementf anility. The firm also represents local governments and othersiii'anunibei,of areas othethimMOSe.deteribid aboith. A more ccimplete description of the firm;our iincleporoach to piacticeianclizdedintlieettaChed firm:resume., 06/25/1898 10:05 707-578-3825 4PIII5PANEipcg. VAFNER PAGE 07/21 ' osizs/se, OS 34 12 sRTE, LflL1 oo6/o07 ak • RichardB,Rudnansky June 24,1998 Page 5 Jarsiect-Ming Richard Taylor and Christy Taylor wouldbe•the partneri in the fum• primarily responsible for woridng•wi*the City on this matter. Pith of these attorneys has extensive experience in connection with land use,CEQA,muninipal law,and real property transactions,includingicquisitions under threat of CondeinnatMu,conservation easements,and development agreements_ In addition,of comae,other attorneys from the firm would be available to respond to specific.issues of deiticein:Mtthe City as-needed to ensure a thorough and cost-effective response to the City's needs. Additienalinfonnation regarding the ethical" ion indrexpenence of the menaberiettlie fitin ii.ihsdei lathe firm resume. • David Medway GeneralCounsel Sc Francisco,Redevelopment Agency '770 Golden Gate San FranciScO,CA 94102 (415)749,2400'1 - Tina:Washburn Ageacytotinsol Sacramento•Areaflood Control Agency 9261 Stieet,Suite 424- Sacramento,CA 95814 Telephone:,(916)174-7606 Thomas It Curry city Attorney City of LivcimOic 1052 SySkLiyermore Avenue Livermore CA 94550 Telephone:.(510f 3735120 TOltadosevich District Coimsel East Bay Regional Park District 2950 YemiteDuks Court 06/25/1998 10:05. 707-578-3826 '.RUPNANSKY- E:: VARNER PAGE. ©8/21 08/25'/98 08:35 '$ SHUTE.SIH:tLY 11007/007 Richard'R.Rudniinsky • June 24, 1998 Paget P.O.Box 5381. Oakland CA 94605-5369 Telephone:(510)635-0135 Fact Because we represent public agencies,and citizens groups that often have limited resources to,accomplish.their objectives,each attorney in the firm is very,aware of;the heedto closely monitor costs and billings to assure that we do not exceed ow clients'.budgets. To this end,we often review billings mid-month and parmers'.will provide jtmior;auornsys with a fixed number of hours that can be Anileilbitei particular task: The paraier responsible for billing routinely reviews draft invoices,with fellow team menibers to asture'that the billings„properly.reilcci thi a work and'results achieved., • Our hearty rates are as follows:. Send Partner $175.00 Junior'Partner 165:00 • Associate 150:00 Jr.Associate 125.00 Planner 120:00 Lair Clerk 40:00' Air additional 2%charge would'be frilled to;cover tong distance telephone,normal copying,,,tclefacsimilie'and messenger charges..Copying of briefs;and other.costs advanced,-such as,t:avel expen es,:would be billed sepaiate1y. Please do not hesitate ter call nie1f yon have any questions. Veryy yam, ,SHUTE -MIHALY et WEINBERGER RICHARI)s:TAYLOR 5'16usami51timnoc. • 06225/199,8 10;,05 707-572-3225 =.UDNANSK`i: &' VARNER PAGE 09;21 • SHUTE., M!HALY 8 WEINBERGE R • E:CLEMEN sntrre..a. • ATTORNEYS<AT L&w LAUREL 1.. IMPET?.AICP MARIA.nINDERCER .:386 HAYES STREET UWN RAIO1LX MARL-.B.-MiHAL.Y,r.c. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94402 ELIZABETH M.DODD PRA$M.LAYTON RAOWL.R HOOPRA TELEPHONE:(415) 552-7272 Of COUNSEL eu.EN 1_G„kban TELECOPIER:(415) 552-5816' CHRISTY H.TAYLOR TAMARA 3.CA ANTE& EUJ30N FOLK • RICHARD B.TAYLOR. • SUSANNAH T.FRENCH AARON S.;SHERWOOD ROEERT.3.PERINUTTM 311AN 3.CLEVELAND HEATHER J.FRIEDMAN RESUME Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger,is'a,law partnership formed in,1980•to practice goverment, environmental;natural resources,,land'use,,and appellate law; The,firm offers a full array of litigation,counseling and planning services,and works regularly with technical consultants in a broad range of disciplines. The firm also has an urban planner who works with public agencies and other clients in land use disputes,planning efforts,and the environmental review and permitting process. Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger;specializes'in the following areas: • Land Use Issues(including General Plan,Zoning,Subdivision Map Act,Local Agency Fonnation Commission(LAFCO),Development Agreement and Open • Space Matters) • Takings Defensesnd Exactions • California Environmental,Quality Act(CEQA)and NationalEnvironmeutal Policy Act(NEPA) • Initiative andReferendum. • • Solid Waste • Hazardous:and Toxic`Materials • Affordable Housing • Water Issues+and Wetlands • .Air Quality-and Transportation • Municipal'Financing and Taxation • Other practice areas,including public agency,administration,redevelopment law, and`legislative drafting and analysis • •' 06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3826 FUDNANSk/ & VApHEP RAGE 10/21 Shute,Mihaly et Weinberger serves as special counsel tothumerous,local governments and oMer public agencies. The firm provides advice regarding environmental and land matte/Sant compliance with environmental laws It alsotrepresentspuhlie entities in negotiations with State and federal regulatory agencies,and drafts and negotiates contractual agreementeconcerniiig • land use and development, settlement or avoidance of litigatiokand,realestate transactions In additiOn,;the firm brings antl defentli litigitibtioribehallotpublic agencies. AREAS OF PRACTICE Land Use Issues The.firtm provides advice on and bringaanddefendslitigation involving allAspectsof general planning and zonmgrequirements,as well as I specific,plans,use permits,variances,andiletal government reorganization under,the egitese4cnox,A.4 Men:theta:Of the'finthaVepartieipated in drafting'Meal general plans and,zoningorilinancist,'LAFC0fghidelines, and state legislation -concerning general plans and zoning requireatits. The flit Also negotiates development agreement:arid partieipates iii other complex land usetegotiations. • The firm assisted the City of preparation of general platramendinents and aspecific plan to preserve open space on the privately held portions of the Berkeley Waterfront. The firm alinanctossfullSrftlefendedthe plan against litigation and assisted;thetity:haWoildirgWithother cities,itheEast Bay Regional Park Dfstrict and the State tWimpiementan EsstlElay Shoreline park:, • The firm has advised and Presentecittical Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs)and represented iiianyilionta in LAKOlitigatiemand.pmceedings. The firm advised the Sieraniento County LAECOM drifting and adopting policies and standards fcir spheres of influence,annexation,and relatedmatters. The firm represented the Monterey County LAFCO on CEQA issues pertaining to the proposedIncorporation of Pebble Beach and Wittrrespeet to the constitutionality of gatolcotinnilititits,.the allocation of tax monies and consolidation of seryice;districts. The firm is currently representing the East-Bay Regional Park District in connection with LAFC6 proceedings affecting the Contra Costa County urlian limit'line. • After bringing.litigation,on tie-half of the City of Livermore challenging the approval of major development in thenithicorporated area south of Livermore;the firm negotiated a complex settlement:agreement among the City,Alameda County And thiVate,landowners thatlaunchedAsopperativeiplanaing process winch will result in permanent protection of a sUbstaitial`partnin of the(Solith,LiVermore Valley for agricultural Use. • The fizei..reprekoted the City of Sacramento'in negotiating a delielopthent. agreement concerning mixed use redevelopment of the 240-acre Southern-Pacific Itailyartis,adjacerittdthe dity'SdovintoWit The issues negotiated by theparties ji4wmm.A Weinberger Row 2 - • 136'42511998 10:•05 •707578-382E, 'WUDNAFiEKY• &, VARNER PAGE 11/21 zc , . itiehidedViainig; thejotpublic.facilities firianding,:clesign atandards,vested rights,istigninent:rights, liability and hazardous materialarremediation. The principles'of agreement were memorialized in a+PreliininatyAgreemerit between the cipiihd Southern Pacific Transportation Company, as well aSitirthespecific platiandtapeeial zoning ordinance for thefarea. The firm ilsorreptetentotithe City in riegatiatiermviith the • ownersinthentiainderofthe T1000-acre Railyards/RialiardiBoulerariltedevelopment Area concerning the plan for redevelopment The firm• the City on environmental and planning issuestbroughput-the planning process. • The firm advised thecitiesg Benicia,Fairfield;and Vallejo in developing a long term planning strategy for open space lands between the three cities and now serves'as general counsel to theTri-City and County Cooperative,Plarming:Group, a joint powers agency comprised of thethreecitiCS(3/1dSclial.10'COUnty. The Grouplistesponsiblefor developing and implementing@ agriculture and open spacepreservationlplanTOr a 10,000 acre open space area The firm drafted the joint-poi-Vers.-net—Merit establishing the Group and advises,thelroup in connection with,plam preparation and administratiomacomPliance With the California Environmental Quality Act,acquisitiomot land and open space easements, and other matters arising in the course olagermyadmiristration. • The firm provided legal advice to the City of Malibu regarding the City's adoption of its first general plan. The firm worked with the City to develop strategies for protecting the environment and avoiding unconstitutional.taliags,of private property. Takings Defense and Exactions The firm defendsrpublic ehtities intakings.chellenges-and other related challenges,such as alleged equal protectiorrandshm process violations under 42 V.S.c.Section 1983 The firm also advises public entities on how to:avoicttakinp and assists public entities with nexus studies to support desired regulatthits.aild elitbtibms. O The firpaassisted the City of Sacramento in preparing,a nexus study,drafting a low-income housing fee ordinance,and then successfully defending litigation challenging theoidinanee. ,Comm in': Builders Of ICiorthAmetica v.City of Sacramento,941 R2d 872;(9th Cir. 1991),,cert.-denied. The district coiut granted • the City's naotielmfbr summary judgment and foilbdthaftheorditiance.challenged by a7buildingindustry association,did not constitutea taking,and did not violate the due process and equal protection clauses: The Ninth Circuit upheld the disttiateourt decision,and the Supreme Court denied review. • The firm City of Tiburon before,the,United'States Supreme Court in Agins v CiivAtiTiburon,447 U.S.425.51(1980);Mwhieh thelandowner alleged Shea Mihaly et WeithaTer Rastas 3 06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3826 RObE145.NEK'i 8,1 VARNER PAGE 12/21 ' that the City's largeflotopor space zoning,ordinance had taken its land. The'Court endorsed the open space purposes of ordinance and unanimously upheld the City's actions: 9 The:6M successfully.defended SantaCtutCounty in a takings challenge to its Mobile home PM control•ordinance De Ann Pronerties Ltd v County of tug Cruz,,936,Ka 1084;(9th:Cir: 1991);'TheNinth-Circuit upheld the district courts decisionigranting the County's mononfor summary judgment owilie grounds that the:plaintiffs challenge.Walbartedby the statute of linlitations. The;fumrepresented East BayRegionat park District in tahingsactions;filed,by developer in both state and federal:ontirts:thPallege4,thogaltablFRMcondetonatiott activity and_regUlatory.takings: The state court of appeal upheld the state trial. paurts.decision.,sustaining the:DiOricts demurrer and impoSin&sanctionkagginst- plaintifft for filing a frivolous lawsuit Likewise,the NinthCircuitCopt of Appeals upheld the federal district • decision granting the Iiistricts.thotion to dianiiss the federalaction.onthoth Yotmger abstenticmand tipenessztounds, California-EnyironmentaLQualify Act(CEQA) and „ NationnitnYirourkental f9h0Piket (NEP.A) The firm provides consultation regarding CEQ/oattd,NEPA compliance and bimgs and defends CEQA and NEPA Jitigatiorrawbehilf of local and state goVernnient agencies.and oititens' 110 tops. Menthols of the firm have'participated in drafting,CEQA legislation,reviewed and commented on proposed amendments to CEQA.and assisted the Resources Agency in drafting the CEQA Guidelines .Firm members alsehave taught CEQA and NEPA courses at law schools,:nlarang seminars arid attorney continuing education conferences: et The firmadvises thegiiiversity-of CalifomDaviseampus, numerousCEQA compliance issues related to development; and has assisted in preparing seven EIRs for the canapi.P.The ftim.alsoliardefefided:fiVe CEQA lawsuits cirihehalf of Davis campus..In addition,the firm served!as.special counseltothe University for its preparation of EIR for selection,of a new University of California campus in the:Contilliegion.Of the State. The fine University on CEQA and Other legaVissuev pertaining to site selection,reviewed consultantdrafts.ottheIR,and drafted,rnitigation,measures,responsesAO comments aor12findiiiga'fal the project. 'The)firrri also assisted the University in its preparation-6f a revised Ent for its Sah Francisco campus following the California Supreme Court'S decision in Laurel • Regents of ihelIniverSify of aciliforniai:and assisted.in the litigatiOniuteessfullydefendingthe revise,d • The firm has advised San Francisco Redevelopment Agency("SFRA"),in connection With'SFRA'spreparatiorrof a joint Elk/EIS'with the federal general. Services Adminiatratien("GSA7)for construCtibn of a federal'Offieehiiildiiig in Shwa.Mihaly&Weinberger Resume 4 • 106/2541998 -1n:05 707-57873815 RUDNANSKY `& 'VARNEP PAGE 19121 downtown San Francisco. The firm negotiated a memorandum of understanding with:GSArr garding theprocedure for preparation'of the,EIIt/EIS and resolution of interagency disputes,and provided advice-regarding the-interreiationship between,CEQA and NEPA. The also assisted lathe EIRIEIS soaping and the • detemmnatto`n of approaches Ter evaluation of potential impacts,renewed consultant drafts-for legal adequacy,,and draftedtningation policies and'findings and selecteddocutncntsforproject approval. o On:bebalf of the East Bay,Municipal UtilityDist ict, the firm successfully challenged Contra Costa County's approval of an,11,000-home development in the Dougherty Valley,persuading the trial court that the environmental impact report("all., failed to consider adequately theavailability:of water and impacts to:the:local watersupply.in violation of CEQA. -As,a result,the court set aside the project:approval.'The frrm,also successfully represented!the cities of Danville, San Ramon,Pleeasanton,;and Walnut Creek,andseveral environmental groups in separatedttigation challenging other aspects,of the County's CEQA compliance in connection with the)ame project. Initiative and Refeiendum , • The firm represents public entities in litigation challenging adopted,initiatives and referenda affecting land use issues,such as management of future growth-and preservation of agricultural and open space lands. Thelma also drafts'.local initiative:nitasiifeiaad*ferenda • law challenging a citizen initiative to protect farmland-in on under the state planning ® The firm successfilly defcndedNapa County int li din the County. The firm drafted the initiative and'was retained by the to defend:die measure in litigation brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation,ia building industry association,and local landowners. The trial court found that the initiative was not preempted bystate planning'laws. The of appeal affirmed the trial court;the state Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the:court,of appeal decision. DeVita v:Countv'of Nima;,9 CaL4th 763 (1995)..T he firm represented the Cotmty:throughoutthe litigation. • The Turn drafted'and in cooperation with Orange County'successfully defended an initiative that establishes a planning process for reuse of a military,airforce base :goer _ The trial court`held that aviation law,did not preempt the dent ed`forclosure initiative, and Mat did not violate-the County's plan. • �. 8m�p • The firm has assiktect numerous other:cities'and counties iredefendinglegal challenges to adopted land use initiatives Published decisions include,Carat v. City of Riverside,-2 Cal.App:4th 259(1991), and-Lesher Cemmunicatlons.Inc. v, City of WalnutCreelc 52 Ca1:3d 5314(1990). 411 Awr.,u cry a Weinberger Rs uNt 5 06/25/1398 10:05 707-578-3826 PUDNANSKY & VARNEP PAGE 14/21 9 The firm drafted and assisted in draftiiag numerous initiatives and referenda including City Of Fientotit Measure A(I 981),.Selano County Measure A(1984), y9143.coanty Measure G.(1990),,Mergan.Hill Measure C(1990),Napa Measure J:(1990),.Sait Diego County PrepositioniC;(1993);:Stains'llau&County Measure F(1993),Athador COunty:Measuretk(1994),Orange County Measure A (1994).,.the update for Sohadeounty Measure A(1994),and City of Saratoga MeasureG(1996). Solid Waste expertise The firmadVisesplibliclagencies on stilidwastemanagementandrecycling issues:Thefirm has intheCithibinia Integrated WasteManagementActandsthe regulations and practices of theCa.lifontieintegrated Waite Management&hid,Weal air criiility.thinageiiiiiat'aitricts and the StateandaegionaltWater QuatiriCchitrol Beard& • • Mecum serves as.general'counsel Iodic Alameda aunty WaSteMaitigenient „ . . Authority("ACWMA",),,ejoint powers agency comprised of Alameda County two sanitary districts,and allthe cities in Alameda County. ACWMA is responsible for preparing and implementing the County Integrated Wake Management Plan and tlizardous Waste Management PlattisolidWistefiaility siting,and 4:skating member agencies in matters pertaining to solid and hazardous Waste management The fumadvises ACWMAinthese areas on an ongoing basis and provides legal services in connection with a wide range of public agency • matters such as Brown and Public RecOrds Act corapflance.Ociallietk of interestiland acquisition,andptiblie tentracts. • The firm has extensiveccperience advising public agencies in negotiating, di-afting,,entenforcMg waste collection and disposal agreements On behalf of theiACWMA,-the firm evaluated all menthe agency franchise agreements to identify.oppottimitiesifor influencing waste flow and to develop strategies.for franchise renewal negotiations In addition,the firm advised RiVersideCouray and the Del Node Solid Waste Management Agenctin drafting new franchise agreements,represented the City of McitintaiiiYiew in a dispute with efranchised solid waste hauler regarding the scope of its fcanehise agreement,and served as an expert witness on behalf of the City of Fairfax-in litigatioia cont-eating-Me nature and scope of Waste collection.franchises. • The fmnirovide&ongoing representationto the City of Mountain Niew regarding permitting,landfill closure and other regulatory requirements associated with Citing a large landfill operation. In addition:the firm advises the City on interim and end uses for its landfill sites as well as compatibility with adjacent uses The find advises the,ACWMA regarding that agency's design,permitting,,and development of 1.greenWaitedbibiOlids co-ciiinposting facility. Shia Mihaly tWeiabemer Reams 6 ak 06125/1998 10 fl5 707:=5783b'2E, FILIDNANSKY!& VARNER FACIE 15/21 ct Hazardousand'Toxie Materials The firm is well-versed in hazardous materials law andthereddieloPnietitcdetiritaininated "properties(brownfields),inctuding,develninnenftifland use baed clàniip stritegies„ minimization of risks to firlinerlindowners,MipliCationifethfirituiciiit,and:titeptvert'of local agencies to direct retieliatitni The regularly works WrittitheCaliforniafinvirenniental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control("DTSC"),various Regional Water Quality Control Boa s,andlocal;hazardous materials regulatory offieits. • The firm representeittlie City.of Sacramento re —gardiiitpoteritial deVelopment of the Southern Pacific RitlyartisiRichards BoulevardledeVeliipment area. The proposed pit involved large-scale,mixed-use rleYelOpment adjacent tdthe.City's downtown area The firm advised the City on the,cleinuprof hazardous materials at the superhard site located on the Southern Pacific property,retained worked with hazardous materials experts,,repreSeatetthe.City,in negotiations with Southern Pecifid and DTSC over cleanup.standardS,:drafted a Memorandum of Understanding between the City,DTSC and Southern Pacific regarding • ongoing land use authority over the site and drafted the Hazardous Substances element for Rallyards.Specific Plan and a development agreement to govern developmentand eleanup`of the 240 acre site. 9 The firm repreterulthe City of Benicia with regardto;thSoperations and subsequent closure of a"Class thazatdous waste facility In response to litigation Claiming that state hazardous waste law preempted the • exercise of the County's local land use authority,thefirmatithored,an amicus brief on behalf of fifteen California citiesand counties in support of Solano County's authority to require IT Corporation to complY4itlithe CountY's land use petit The Court tided for the Connty. IT Corporation v.;Solarie.County, I Ca14th 81 (1991). • The finarepresents the ef Mountain ViesY,,and has represonted the Whisman School Distiict;with regard to the interrelitionShipietweetithe Teledyne/Spectra- PhysiesI,aters ground water plume(a federal Stipertturd site), the City's landfill °patients' ;redevelopment and use of affectediCityprtperty,and cleanup of the School DiStriersleaking underground'storage tanks. Affordable'Housing The firth represents cities;counties and redevelopment'agencies in connection with constitutional and regultoryissues associated With iffordable houSing. • The firm provided drafting assistance and legal advice to the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency regarding the creation of affordable housing through a Sacramento Housing Trust Fund. The firm worked With.the Agency in the selection of a consultantto prepare ateicus report; Share.Mihaly&Welaberger Renate 7 06/25/1996 10:05 707-578-3826 RUDNANJSRY &`VARNEP. PAGE 16'21 defining the legal requirements for the;report,,and in deveIoping!an analytic approach to satisfy those;requirements •In collaboration with Agency staff and the Department of City Planning ,the,Snn drafted Housing Mist- Ordinance and advised the Agency dining;the hearing process. 'The fins also' ' • suecessfiilly defended litigation challenging the'ordinance: 0 The firm drafted wan inclusionary housing and"affordable horising;trvst fluid ordinance,for San this Obispo County; The firm identified alternative approaches to•inclusionaryhousing used by other jurisdictions in California,worked with County staff and consultants to identify a conservative nexus'forintposition of.the inclusionary housing requirement,prepared options papers for County♦staff,and drafted a final ordinance and accompanying findingsfor approval by the Board of Supervisors.; Water'Issues and Wetlands . The firMworks on a widevanety of eases sinvol i :water qiiality,water'ri ts,:wetlands,t,public trust and'coastal-issues. Thefiint has'ciipertrse in'the.Clean Water,Act,Porter-Cologne Water.. QualityTConti-of Act and regional water quality�regulations and standards. it The funs serves counsel to the,Sacramento Area Water Forum,which is engaged in an innovative:effort to. regional long-term water supply problems through a mediator--led"negotiation process: The Water'Fonun is a stakeholder coalition including the Ceurny:of Sacramento;the cities,within the water districts,business,labor,agricultural interests,and environmental groups. The Forumfseeks to formulate a`Water Planithatwill provide the regionWith a safe ,and reliable long-term water supply while preserving•the fishery,'wildlife, recreationaland aesthetic values of the Lower American River. The firm represents,the Sacramento Area Flood'Control Agency("SAFCA');a joint powers'agency including,the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, Sutter County,the American^River:Flood,Control District, andrReclataation District `1000:. SAF,CA is'responsible for planning-and implementing flood protection measures in the Sacramento region. .The firm has'advisedSAF.CA-withregard.to such matters as compliance with'the California'Environmental.Quality Act,the National Environmental P.olicy.Act,and state,and federal..endangered species acts. The,fum;assisted,SAFCA in obtaining a Clean Water Act section apermit for the;proposed construction of a$30 Million levee improvement projectbetween;the Sacramento and American Rivers. The firm; advised'SAFCA in its efforts to obtain'state aneffederal supportfor regional flood protection and to develop local;development fees and-Other:east recovery programs-to finance local flood control programs. Shwa Mikdy,d'Weinbngv'RO n g • 022521898- 10;ps 707-578-3826 4R111BilaigKu:I& VARNER Al ' 1 ' PAGE 17/21 o ClenShuteseryes as teferee to the Los P,mgeles Superior CourtnthelBallona Wetlands dispute-in:LosAngeles,working Witli,the parties to reaelio solution to • regMlatiiry problemsinvolving numerous • The firm a handbook for localgovemmetits ancicitizenS'Iroups that addresses local,stateand,federalwetlandi regulitionsand,proyidevadviceon, techniques local governments can use to protect wetlands within their jurisdictions., AirQuAlity/TtiOtpUrtatiOil The proYidet representation to public:entities on air quality and Mmsporiation issues. The firm regularly works with regional air quality management districts has expertise in the state and federal Clean Air Acts; • The firm represents the South Coast Air Quality".Managementpistrict ht the defense of air quality adopted by the Distridfin'reduce air pollution enissiOns.. For example;working with District Counsel,the firm has defended challenges rolair,:emissionslinitations on architecturaltdatings,.aerosol coatings, hydrogen flwxide;tand barbecue charcoal LighiermaterialSaricirelatedprodncts. O The firm has represented the County of Santa Cruz in connection with its regulation of esandquarry operation: The firm y orked extensively with the Monterey Bay'Unified Air Pollution Control Distriet,andtheCounty;sair quality consultant on analyzing inmacts from the quarry opetation,particularly concerns regarding:pMI0,and crystalline silica entisSipitS. O The firm has represented numerous public agencies and citizenS'groups:in challenges to transportation agencies'approvals of freeways and major thoroughfares,including the Hatton Canyin Freeway in Monterey County and the San..Toaquiii HilliTrinaportaiion Corridor andEa.steni Transportation Corridor in Orange Caunty. Municipal financintind Taxation The,firnadvises public ageneidi on nothoda for.finding public projects, including,taxanon,. assessment clistrictsland4evelopment4fees. • The firm successfully defended an assessment district formed by the City San Buenaventura to perform dredging and maintenance of boat channels in a waterfront The lawstit included allegationsi of illegal;taxation under '11111 Via Mihaly et Welsher Ratan 9 '06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3825 RUDNANSKY .& VARNER PAGE 18'21. Proposition 13. The firm also adviseilthe Citythroughout the assessment!district formadon:process.. • The firm advised a flood control district on structuring a development fee to be • unposed m conjunctronAvith an assessment district,and on issues arisingm commectibn With formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District: a The firth has advised41oca1 jurisdictions,including-the.Cities of Sacramentaand San.Diego,,and the County of Sacramento,;concerningthe.vaiious mechanisms available to fund progratnssuch aarlOWinnoide housing and parks'and'openspace acquisition. The firm alsohas advised special'districts regar ing'openspace and other special use taxes,_and the implications,of various proposed statewide ballot measures that would affect the taxing powets!ofmunicipalitiesand special". • districts: Other Areas of Practice • Other areas iiiwhich. he firm spectaliiesinclude: ., • Public agency administrationwith respect;to matters such as the Brown-Act,Public Records Act,Freedom Of Information conflict of interest issues • Hi stoPreservation' • Enc?gyyMatters . • ' • • op Redevelopment Law • IndimiLaw: • • PuhlicTmst • Mobile Home'RentControl • ,Preservation of Significant Resources through acquisition, conservation easements and Other means • Real:EstateTransacctions • Legislative Drafting and:Analysis Members of,the firm provide litigation,counseling and;planning services;in each of these practice;areas: •fie,ypafyd•PlewbvaerResume 10 S. • OE/25t1998 10:05 707257B-382E, RUDNA-r%KY 8:VARNER PAGE 19/21 sAmnzicw PUBLIC ENTTTY CLIENTS • CITIES • Benicia 9 Lafayette- P Patterson 0,SatuRamon • Berlceley •taguna,Beach 0 Piedmont *Santa Ana . o Carlsbad S Livermore 0 Pleasant Hill •Santa Barbara • Carmel-By- s'Malibu *Pleasanton 0 Santa Clara • The-Sea 1'Martinez • Roseville 0 Santa Rosa •Danville 0 Mill Valley o Ross ";Sausalito . ' Eureka . (*.Mountain-View 0 Sacramento • South Pasadena • Fairfax IgNeWpcirt Beath 0 San 0 Tibaron _ 0 Fullerton :• Oakland Buenaventura a Walnut Creek o Half Moon Bay 0 Olinda' 0 San Diego • Irvine 0;Pacifica 0 San Rafael • SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 0 Alameda County Waste,Management Authority o California Coastal Commission . COUNTIES 0 California Department,Of Forestry , 0 o California State tandiCortimission tr Mann O Central Contra Costa Sanitary ',Napa o Colorado River Indian Tribes, _ •'San Bernardino o Del Norm Solid Waste Management Authority 0 Santa Clara o East Bay Municipal'Utility District 0:Santa Barbara O East Bay Regional Park District • Santa Cruz o Fairfiald-Stusuzi Sewer Department *Sonoma _ 0 Irish Beach Water District •Yolo o Metropolitan Water District of Southern California c Monterey Bay Unified Air pollution-Control District 0 Monterey County ILAFC0 !a Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District . . * Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency • Sacramentb Housing and-RedeVelopment Agency 0 Sacrainento LAE:CO 0 SanfranciacoPortDistrigi cSan Francisco Redevelopment Agency o South Coast Aiibuality-Management District o Tri-City and County Cooperative Planning Group O University of California IllSham Mihaly&Weinberger Resume 11 06/25/1998 10:05 707-578-3826 RODNANSKY & VARNER RAGE 20/21 FIRM MEMBERS Clement ShutçJt,iBoaltHallSchobl ofLaWgradirate,Was AStistantAttorneyGeneralin 11111 charge of the Environmental and Consumer Protection Settibti of the.Attorney General's Office . beforelleaVing to foinaiShute,Milaly.fleinlierger, HeiWasla meniberiof the Attorney General's office homc1964to•,1980. Mr Shute received his undergraduate degreelfrorwthe University of Califoirda:atlierkeley,and cainpletedapth—gana•in Environmental Policy and • /vianagement•atilinVard University. Marc B.Mihaly worked in the California Attorney General's Environmental Unit from 1976 tti 1980.:ntiot to founding the him He-alsi‘workerf ilithelSin Mateo County Legal Aid Society following his,graduaiconfrom Boalt Hall,SchooEtif Law, Mi.Milialy received his undergraduate degree fronkliaryard College. Mark L Weinhergetwas a member Of the•Attorney Genetars'office'from.1975'to 1980,Where; lie was lead:attorneyfor the EnVironmentalVnitin•SanDiegty and also worked in the Sacramento Office before leaving to;foundShute,Mihaly84.Weinberger. He is a graduate of Harvard Law. School andreceived his undergaclual:e dem;from Stanford:University. Fran M.Layton joined the hit in 1981aftefthree years as lit attorney at Weld,Harkrade, Ross in Washington,•DC.,where she was involved irilitigatiOn before federal Ceuta and:federal adniiiiistrative'agencies. Ms.Layton holds arlaw degree fromBoillHallSchtiol of Law and an undergraduate degreefrom the University:of California atBerkeley,i • RachelcB..iHoopeitigan workiiig witlithefirtim 1984.aftet tivo years•asTa.lacticlerk District hidge,LattOilinE:Witets,amitwes years'avah attorney at ICifitella,Boesch;Pujikawa TowleirriLoSAfigeles:Ha law degreeis:from boakHill:SChoollof Law and her tinditgradnate, clegreels from Tale C011ege. . _ Ellin Gather,a graduate of Boalt Hall Sehodl of Law,joined the firm'Mi987. Before 'attending law scho&she worked for seven years as afruitaruplanner in public and private• practice,Xs.Carberreceived a Bachelor of Urban PlannMg•froiri the Uniitersitysof Cincinnati. Christy H.Taylor worked as-a law clerk and staff attorney forChiel Justice Malcolm Lucas of the California Supreme Court for two yearsprim:tojoining:Meifirm in 1990. She is etraduate • of BóältHall School of Lavi.and bartiriontliCollege. Tamara S.Galanter,a graduate of Yale Law School,joined the&Chill 1989. Prior to school,she worked as a political organizer and ftindrais—er:for a statewide entiformientaliand. consumer advocacy-organization. She received her undwgi arhiate'degree fronitheUnivetiitrof CalifOnniat Berkeley. Ellison Yolk;who joined the fum in 1990,received her laW degree from Boalt Halt School of Law. She also holds a Masters in City and Itegionaiiliundrig fromthe•University of California at Berkeley'ancl'an undergrachiaw degree from Piinceton.T4niversity. smut ML#à4y&WOthcrter Rest 12 • 0E/2c1,1.988 10::05 707-578-382E RUDNAN 1/4. • EKY `EPNER P4`.GE 21121 -', • . • Richard S. Taylor, who j'.1 pined-the fumin 1991,previously workectaslan attorney,kw Paul, Weiss,Itifkind,Wharton-k GarrisoniiiWashington,-D.C„Where he wasinv,olVe'din • envirebnientat compliance:and international trade He holds a law degree#from Boalt Hall School of Law and a MastersinaiSinest.AdniinistratiOn frOmthellniversity of California at Berkeley;his tridergradbar- e:degee itcfrom theUniversity Of Califbrnia elDirvis. Elizabeth M.Dodd graduated from the icing HathSchoot of-Law,:University ofeilifomia at Davis. She practiced environmental law Withrthe Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund for three years before joining the firm iii,1986, She received her undergraduate degree.from Radcliffe College. Susanah T French, a Boalt Hall SchoolOfLi*graduate,hegan working at firm in 1993 Prior to law worked asAresearcli assistant at the.SierniClub Legal Defense Fiincl. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College. AaroW.S.Isherwood joinedthefunias an environmental felloWin:1996. He received his law degree from the University of Oregon School of Law and Ins from the University of Chicago. Deforejoining tlie firm,he clerked for JusticeRobert Durham of the OregowSupame Court. Robert a-Perlmutter,a Boalt Hail SehoOl of Law graduate,joined the firm as an environmental fellow in 1996 after cOnipletingl judicial Clerkship for the Honorable'Melton E Henderson, Chief Judge of the US.DistrictrOurt for the Northern District of California. He received his undergraduate degree fromairvard°allege. Susan Cleveland gradliateiltrOnt Stanford Law School and joined the&al'as an environmental fellow in 1997 During law school she worked at the Conservation Law Foundation in New England,and prior to law School directed an:environmentalsant program in Central Europe for several U.S.:fOunditions. She holds an undergraduate degree from the Georgetown UniVersity:Salioal ef Fintign:Service. Bather J.Friedman;a Harvard Law School graduate,joinedthe.ftinEastair environmental fellow:in-199T. During law school she worked at the V. S.Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Division,and with an environmental organization in Quito;Ecuador. She received her undergraduate degree from HaryardCollege. Laurel L.-Inipettnihe firm's urban andregional planner,joined the firm in 1989,after working with'the,EPA for two years as an air quality specialist. She has it,Masterain Urban Planning:and Arthitectureand an undergraduate degree from the University ofCaliforniaat Los Angeles. and is a member of the American-Institute of Certified Planners soznaminputm-REsycauc.cm • Slade Mihaly di Weinberger Resume 13 • Utr/fiLD/I:770 - (t)(-D/O-JiiLID KUL,NAliahf, 1/1.4kNtM t.1.2/ 4 JUN. 2 9; 1998 McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN&ENERSEN • • 06%25/1998 10:01 707-578L3825 RUD4KY & V — NNSARNER PAGE 03/09 - jun. 25 1999 10.2AM MCCUICHEN W/C No, 6389 F. 2 McCv T H f. N • Mcarriass,Dona Throws a Essessears June 25, 1998 Direct.(92I)915-5312 sIcostka@mdbe.com • VIA FACSIMILE Richard R.Rudnansky,E$q. City Attomey-City of Petaluma Rudnzaisky it Varner 815FifdiSteet,Suitc200 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Lafferty Ranch Dear Mr.Rudnaru3ky: This is in response to your letter of June 16 requesting information regarding ourqUalificalcms to provide legal services to the City of Petaluma relating tattle Lafferty • Ranch matter. Under scparaW cover I have forwarded to ycna a copy of a firm resume describing our local govimmimt practice group together with my resume and the resume of my partner,Sad),'Skaggs. As you know, specialize in CEQA and land use matters. Public agencies I have recently represented inCEQA counseling or litigation include the Cites of Redlands, SamDiego,Tulare,Watsonville, and West Hollywood,the Port of Oakland, and the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District., Sandy specializes in land use and real estate matters and has an active condemnation practice. He is currently representing the City of Red Bluff in a condemnation case,and has recently represented the City of Martinez and Contra Costa County in condemnations arising under the Map Act and the City of Fremont in an inverse Condemnation case. My hourly rate is$350 and Sandy's rate is$380. We also have a team of skilled associates who work with us on these matters whose rates range from$1804250 per hour. Because of our..extensiye experience handling issues such as those raised by the Lafferty Ranch matter, we believe that we would be able to staff and manage the-work so that the effective hourly rate would range between$240 and S270. • A I TORNE Y S AT LAW 1331 N.California Blvd.; P.0,Box V San Francisco Palo Alto • VValnut"Creek California 54595-1270 Lob Angeles hip& Tel. (921)937-8000 Fax 1925)975:5390. Walnut Creek vinvin nissutchen.eorn Z6/25/1998 10:01 -707=578-'3826 RUPNAIEKY & 'VARNER PAGE 04/09 n4 15. 1.998 iff.25AM MCi UTCHEN W/C No. bin Y. 3 RichatdR.Rudnansky,Esq. June 25, 1998. Page 2 We appreciate the CitSesinterest ii our,fum If youhaveany questions'or need,any:futther itfozaiation about our qualifications;please lermaknow. •v : taily,youm, p L.KO • • • • iiii?liew 0E725/1998 i@:61 707-578-3826 RUDNANSO S VARNEP PAGE 05/09 Z ! y., 1 ITIK. 4a , li7A 1 I ......, .56 Ti E r a t s. iti ti • a LI a i 5.1 tga I 111 I; f ‘Jt kt 1 1.41 mil ' • -A.T:I ?., a - - t g, _ i 0 Ds i . g a f g i 13 Ei CJ 5 < 15 a $ Alg i 13 ! ]i i 13i1 hi ...1. 1G aka i2 e.v.1 ItegAi - - i ^ - Og g2 AT .g. I ..t. i ta ta - gr -a I- s a i A 1 11 2 i 11 . -, a 2 1 is ii• 0 • • J • o 2 a U 1 hit — c I 1 1 i< 1 I k 4 A gm li ] illi till ) • . -2 , 11111tLRE ,fdv 111A2luf _ I " il . u u a 2 g ! 2 lalillu •4 m ' 2 - I • ma a • - '- I 111P rri v/ A lip ] t 1 c i 1 d I IIZ y g — -6 t N. i ,, .3 2 . 3 e i lISii15 (33 .2. , ',..i . 2 a ad saan U I Li' u i -I & . i 1 5- - a t te i 1 .11 ti til i 3'1,61 I all =iss.2 ,2 31 .. let ji ili / wfIllialig5 - ci - 21 I . - 11,141 ,, i ,d111 -ta .I 141 " 'Pia - zill " ; 118 ,11 - RJ i ,4 ` 2211t, m ' z3233 SJOILI ,_ nsit.n 31 01 o a . e • 2 i 1 i e • 2, 5 li AA , Iri t , 4 .5 , CC a ° , liii is gsi 4114 213: etsit . ii ,isa .. 11 4 , 1 111111Ilit 5 al i 1111 11 liar ! E 1 T 51 i li g i 1 - '33 2128 i 4 a J _ 1 2 2 z i d 1119 n IM NHI1flT1i 11 P 958( P1 ' 06725/1998 10:01 707-578-3E2E RUDNAtiSKY & 'VARNER PAGE 0E/09 11 1 I 1 I -1 1 ilill 141% kli - irshl: 0 . -I -filitii.Lc iiillillpif l'elg 1 11 i 1 e II 11 8- 5 4 I 1 to 11 Eli 'iliti - - , ri . t ' g C13 li l .: „1.1 trial ti,' .1 3 e IA it ill itigu n'l a 1 i It II+ 4 ...j. , '' 112 E g ill I 21 it 4101 'i v. .11 I a 1 14 Ai 5;; ti;g 4111 :tg 211, TA il I!"Ali i I i Ili al tE !Jill!" i'lli 11 ",.g m143 1111 i I/11A- I Piz k 1 I 'll1 : 1 ji,a°Elta ■ cst ;La m1:—M' ..1;p: 3 3 L.2 1 1.-- ; I kit; ''' 111-nq ri iri Ill i.31.e.-E 5./1 t itt z :I i 1 ' -.. '.'ilt, liAli41/ 1 illajg, t2 1 I .1 5 . [(Llly ii.7i3 Eiji i :81-. ' g: -3'2' - lit . Illi ' Itt44 4 'ilJill qiellitiltilk- i I 3 L ;711a%8 .1 A ' gXel v -JEts. 4-5 . I I 211 ti, ital: itil .1 .-if 4 t, $1; . P fibliq toll .31 i p 9 1 ti irtfl: Ili. !i°"Pitt Dili i LI 11 s 1. 11 - 41-12111 11 d 11.22• Olt rc- ill pits., g itilt' Ail i X I -;11,111 1 . . .t.u?..,- ilkil . to311 PITilVilifilin i ftkit t] -41x.; 13411111Il ., rytts. g 'Jill 1110A' 4141 4111111 1111Pill j t ilig. 11 iztii is ',11 Ligil 'il ',la i I ri fli ilig _41 1 t ,„.< 17 ;y 4„'a 1 [ , g 't.11' .2 .(1; 5 .,. V' g 0 31111 - 1L3 .T8 1 11i14111111 il liIillivi' l 4 if cit f :;1',5 1 _. t s. 'utg ti It 2.+ Elk I v.sr.,,,I,L b., . a IP6-,-. ... 3 :t iti14 ,11: 131 il I Li ii 4 Iftp1113 p 11 i r IL A i., ill 1 // gill l'' I Pis 6 g 1.‘illtalP 1..i: li:II .5 1 - a rittqz 311 I 5 4 I 1-J5141 lellit' AI Iltp441111e411-411 1 Aret IIIIS%1 1 111111 1111 1 ill lii i 3 IA 'N tt I 31 t 11 ed " 41i 14 t5 k -110' Al a . trialiA w22hil Iti.wg gsajliir- ri Witt I n 4111141 11- 1 11.2 Ili 1121C114,47,i it i 11. 11 ill -.-. ,1' 03 t lirldg In d 1 114 . VI' 3 a t1/4, i i t 1 1 t il 2 ! hi rt4 re 10 Ili III VE1 tall w' I ill ? Il.s.t1 ' 1 z a 2 . .v. B li41 tell 1H-:, ..c.. 1. 161ati5 11 1 1 Ill I- 431 1142.111111111Iii .1: '51 11 i 1 triptio 11 Pli Ilia: di' i' ll, I V" A le; If IS- 01. 1 I asetrt. . -41 ii d ilsji )1117' g PA ilihillii Allrill .. !le ItI iovir114 .1 dial-Ji 1111e41. i1 ; , -Ha itz, 111 , 11 •53 , LII . 411 t flail , I 1 1 1111 Iiillii! al 31BI: tit 11111111;$)1 1 1111 '. ':ittlaii 1",in*Brittrv:i: zflilittt 1 0 ;1 i I a I.11 Ili hill i 1 49'.;°. '101 a -1,14P4-1 t'illnlii E i 'llEE oN 3/A1113E1[0: ?S , 86t 1 06725/199& 113:9I 707-57373826 cFaIDNANSKY,1,8,; VARNER P4GE 07/09 Jun. 24. 1998 •4"-.08Pi ECUICEEN Vi/C ';" 4 ' No 6356 P. 2 • Stephen LICostka McCuleheti,Doyle,,Biown&Emmen • 1331'NortlitalifcinifiTh'Bottlevard Walnut.Qtek,.Cilifornia.541596 (510)9374000 • Partner,McCutehen,Doyle;*own&Enersenspecialiiing in environmentalrandlancluse litigitinat,and counseling Clientslirreititirainneinal Lind land use Sten Education ID. University of California,Berkiley; 1973 Editor-in-Chief.CalifOrriialawReOiew B.A. University of California,;SantiBarbara, 1970 Political'Science RecentiPublications Books 111• S.Kostka&M.Zisalikei PracticeVnder The Catifoi-niti,Eraditimitental Quality Act (2 yelunies,CEEi 1996ed) • S.Kostka,CEQA Haiitibeak(1994) • S.Kostka&G.Robinson,Administrative Mandgmus ActioniCruide:(CE13 1993) • Coauthor,The California Environmental Qualls),ACt: Critical Issues,.Recent Developments, andlitigatton'Trends(CEB 19911 • Artides . _ Western States Petrolewn Ass-'n: CourteCenerally Cannot Conticier:Evtdence Not Contained In Administrative ReCoiettNiieviesio OiQuali4egislativeDiaiiton (LA:Daily Thurnal,Nlarch1995) CEQA—Some Proposalsfirleforta tend Use rostra;Spring 1993) CEQA,&firm •(BuSinetalroine,'Spring1994) • 06/25".1998 10:01. 707-578'3826 RUDNANSKY"&iVARNER' PAGE 0E/09 ion. 24. 1998 s:98P!4 4CCUTCa£11 • /C No. 6366 P. 3 - Recent Coureea>Tsnght,andtectores Given ABAG.TiainingCenter • • CEQA: An Advanced Seminar Win7iingCEQA Litigation and Bulleiproofng;`EIRs UC Berkeeley'Extension Advanced CEQA Semiiu¢ Coivra:Cosna County A CEQA Seminar for County Plarmers emdDeeision-Makers' Western Surface Miaing:Conference Application'ofNEPA to Surface Alinitiethjects 'UC:.Davis CEQA•and'Economic Development California.Appellate.Research Attnrncys.1n;titutc • CEQAfr=:Overview and Recent_Develepments; BIA Select Confer nee:on Industry y:Litigation • Recent Developmentr in CEQ.4 Litigation' City of Chico • • CEQA'Seminar for Plaiflreis,,Environrimental ProfessionaLt and Decision-MmIcers UC:Santa Cruz Extension CEQ4.=Annual:Law Review and Update Association of Bay Area Eavuonrnenttai Professionals CEQA Legislation mad CEQ%Reforin Contta+nng_Education of the Hat,,(August-September,497) The Ca li forniaiEmvonmental'Quality'Act:-Recent Developments, New Case Law, Litigatio>r Procedures (Los Angeles,Sap Francisco :Beverly Hills;Irvine, San Diego, Sunnyvale;Sacramento) Prole-Wank'Affiliation's Real Property:Section,'Zoning and_Land Use:.Subsection;Statte$ar of California • Litigation Section, Statelier of California Envinnmental':Law Sectiou,'StateBar of California • 2 . 0515/,1998 10:,01. 707-578-3826 RUDNANSKY' & VARNER PAGE 09/09 Jan. 24. 1998 4::08?u EcCUichEN. w%c; N:. 5366 P. 4 Sanford M.'Skaggs • For more than 30 years,Sandy:Skaggs has represented clients in a"wide variety.of matters. In recent years,'his practice has been"focused on real estate develop-Meat and local government law and related litigation. In addition;he has served as a patty and neutral at'bitcater in private arbitrations pang from na.tiral gas purchase contracts and Teal estate=orations and construction. Previously,be was general counsel of a publicly traded natal gas pipeline company. His practice includes representation of applicants before local government entities;including City Councils,Boards Of SupesvisoXS,LAFCOs,Planning Commissions and-similar bodies. Those representations often involve"the"negotiation of development agrees ehts to vest the rights of his clients and of conditions ef approval with the objective of limiting exactions to those which are constimdonally pernnssib1e: They also include review of compliance with procedural and environmental laws,primarly:the California Environmental Quality.Act,to red ice'the possibility of successful challengea,to his clients'approvals acd entitlemetaa. • Sandy also is,a trial attorney Quaintly,much of his Mai.practice relates to his:landIuse and real estate development practice and includes defense of entitlements and approvals against challenges brought by project opponents and suits against governmental entities for excessive exactions and'feea. He obtained;&judgment invalidating a growdacontrolimtiative:that was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in the landmark Lesko v. Wal nu Crack decision. • He also maintains an active'condemnation'.practice representing public agencies and land owners. In the past six Yeats,he has successfully completed 23 condemnation proceedings by settlement, one byerbitration and one by jiffy trial. Over the entire course of his caner,he has dealt with _ title,easement and boundary issues including.drafting,negotiating and`interpretiag serious -documents affecting title and litigating_elated disputes. Sandy currently series as aDirector ofthe John Muir/Mt.Diablo Health,System and as a member of the California Law,Revision Commission to which the Governor appointed him in 1990, 1994 and 1998: Previously,he served for 18 years as an elected official;-including terms as Mayor of the City'of Walnut Creek and President of the Board of Directors of the East Ray Municipal Utility District. He also has served as a director of two national banks' of a'closely held real estate invest rent corporation..He is a full member of theUrban Land Institute and was the vice-chairman of its Development Regulations Council and a member oftfie Audit. Committee. He also is a member of Lambda Alpha,an honorary land'economics society, He has lectured and'written about the Subdivision•Map Act,CEQA,aad real property and land use law for the University.of California°Extension,ALI-ABA;am,Home Builders Association and Urban Land iaatttate .He:graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1961 and from ita:School oflaw(Boalt Hall)in 1964. • cAOe m.tymn!1ltn.tt WPM o+:tt PM 06/ s)198 09:46 707-578-3826 RUM-lAttr-KY • VaPrIEF PAGE 02 \ .1' JUN 2. 9 log8 , P a MEYERSNAVE,RMACK;SayER&AWILSON • 0 • ■-it; lth b ■t•r• VAIsf 06/7t/.1.‘3Y6 (-I.: MEYERS NAVE. RIBACK,'SILVER Wi.W..11..SON affenc. msvE MAW A PROFE:ialial LAVA CCIPOR4110.4. PRAWN SILVER 161 NMI Thur.Stair 210 %COQ I?MO( GATEWAY!Ft,AZA- tWir*ant:at ascii Kftell, Mt-VW OMADWIIII0Mbi 777,0Aiila alaggri.aiint 160 TFIA,Orta C70716411-1.0* Gat n'071;Kau =YEN TAtaTTAS SAN LEANDRO, CAbRaFtNIA;94i77 fo:Nu3„,=Ram TELEFINONE:.(5101 4E14360 ,ganatted Ace FACSIMILE: 1E10) 5.1-4481 -ragmLiges •ItiOtw• DE JARVIS 62fia-c-aawan*Yew( BBIE F.LATHAM Parra%CA Iiii/27 ARMS Unait..7G rassalt tan 8677,010 whom.•rin• scoutt coo R Iva> ak.110.A aura WICK RANCOLP14 rue(NI4TNEU: wAlfwelec.rittumul • zoom litzuw June 24, 1998 Car A.wart slat.Metneml Repry To: 'DWG IL aCtrai San:Leandro COUNEC. U £enr-Taisi - CERriceb APPEUATESPECA1S7 SITCAMe V.CANOMP • ViaTaa Unite eir U.S. mot .Richard:Rudnanslcy; City Attorney City:of:Petaluma iltditanSleya Varner • '615 5i.h Stteet, Suite•200' Santa Rosa CA 95404 Re: Lafferty Ranth Pear Rich: Thank you for your letter of Tune 16, 1998,:regarding additional legal services for the Lafferty itanckprojeet.. You ilavc,capressed an inicrustAn three distinct areas real property, CEQA/ancuse,and etiac a nt domain. CE0A/Land.Use: We hayepreviously reNiewed land iise,anthemitonmental clearance issues pertainingto,the.LaFferty,Ranch,prOiect. We'anticiPate that the•CityTwilli•seek to insure that the.Certeral Pliviriiticiineni.9(Art.and the ETA for dietatferty.;Ranth project are comprehensive and legally sufficient for purposes of-wiihitariding a legaltchaltirige: kids Wjlirsitipccializcs:in environmental-and land:Lue litigation, and has represented numerous public igenciesLir! CEQA litigation.. Mr. Jarvis 13 prcscnifr reprcsa ningtthe clues of Sali.Leandro•andTractOn CLQA litigaliPulliVolviOg very large development,and land,useprojcets,,anctraLsolias.defer:dn.' tlieCitiei of$tockton,.MOdesto, • _ Richard Rudnanslcy, City Attorney June 24, 1998 Page 2 Menlo Dublin, Park, and the To WM of Ayiniisorragainst=major CEQA challengeiri:recent yeirs;:with a favorable settlement in the-Milpitas,cak,and•a succasfill.defensein,ekit.of tlici`cithers A moreidetAiledrciesciiptiailith:Mr.Jarvis' land use and cnVitianmental eases TareLlicluded with:theenclosed materials. 'Mr.JarvisTrefen'to work with iheagencylaeforethe Fitt is approved and the lawsuit IwsÜjtjs filed, so that he earr review and assist in preparation of the CEQA datuniaittailon a;lciifin4ings. A fcW-preVentitive:measures early in the processl'cirthelp avoid errors which would be costly or difficult cure if suit is filed. Mr. larvisliathad repeated success in "bullet-proofing" enyironinentaldocumentationsfroth a CEQA challenge, so as tO:facilitatea successful defense in eiltirt. or even•discotirage projea .0ponentS from fifing'acEQA,laWsiiit in-the:first place: CEQA co:tuatara:set:end menjoy 'Mr.,Jaw)?workingstyle,andproMpt responses to questiOns,,and have expressed appreciation for h15 useful input from(a litig-ator's.petspective. Mr • Jarvistecently‘Presented aTaper at CEQA Conferenceica•sponsored. , •bytheBarAssociatiori of Sari,Erancisco,aneithe Envirortmerual Law Section of the • California State -A copy of this paper, "CEQA Practice:Pitfalls: top:10,0versighti to WatCh Otietor,' is,enclosed. 'Real'Estate: Based Upcin.bur wad<with the tity-tifPctaltana'to dare areavvare that:there' • exist:boundary;title,s-urVey,antieasementlasuesiwitivrespett to Lafferty Ranch and iecess thereto: Efizabeth.H. Silver would advise 'City regardinganytitletbOundary,survey and easement iSsues. Ms. Silve: has,practiced-mimicipal law since 1915 One her areas • ol'eap_ertiSeisLreal estate'and land use law. !Shc,ha,.sire-preserited many of our client cities in connection-with these issues forexample,,she filed an eminent domain action to condemn the interesiloftwoindividualslitted on a title'report a hOlding,,fide to property based on deeds from the 1320's and obtained a judgment for the city after serving the defendants by publicatibri. She hastevieWed,ninnerous:policiesFof titleMsurance and has litigated quiet talc actionsitmclear tide encumbrances Ms. SilVer has also provided adviee,anclrepresentationto clients in connection With boundary'disputts., In one instance:f6t Sampley she researched and prepared 2 lerigthrinc_morandum to the client regardingthe:locition of an original surVey4ection corner'atiMthe options to resolyethe discrepancy inlocition;of the section Corner as shown On'tivti.diffeient Records of Survey ! - dated hack tie(the 1.,S.Oas- A quiet titleaction vrassRletl ae.hail:`—of diem as rt-StAt • • 11.A4NISAT vaRNER• PAGE .05 '06/25/1198 09:46 707-678,3826 • Richard Ruditansity.City Attorney June 24. 1998 • Page 3 • the rrternorandum; partially reSolVing the dispute regarding the?location otthe section corner Finally. she has•proYidedadvice on nurncruus;occasitinitegarding casement issues, including advice:regarding„the•citation ofeasernents, different types of casement , the location of caserriehts.and the &tint:lash:neat of easements: Eminent Domain: We haye previously cyaluatcil the legal authority ofihe City.to useits condentriation authotity•fOr extraterritorial park and reereatiortal•pisipOics. Michael Nave heads the firm'sIitigaticin department •Meyers. Nave, Riback, Silver &Wilson has an outstanding track record ih.eminentdomain. Mr Nave was tecentlyseleaid.to preside as a Superior Court judge.pro,lempere•gYer'an eminent domain jury trial in Contra Costa County, a distinct honor for arpracticing attorney. Pur legal servieesspan the entire range of eminent domairrWork During the critical pre-acquisitior planning stage..we•advise clients on the legal,consequences of site • selection and project design and provide necessary instructiOnsto the appraiser At the . _ negotiation atige, we drift agreements related to acquisition and•reloanion. We provide • rclocatiori assistance advicerandlcoOrdinate goodwill appraisals and business inverttorics. We assist staff in preparing evidence to support the adoption of a legally defensible "resolution of nectesity,"including review of eztvirbruncntalielcarances. At the litigation phase, Our attorneys title prepare•all.condenutation pleadings, obtain orders of'possesilorconduct discoveryi•andlprepare necessary motions and represent our clients at trial. Cliir ittOrneys bririg`esceptional skills to the courtroom. We have represerited,minteteus public agencies III Condemnatioe:proceedings and have tried more than SO jury trials•in eminent domain cases We have aim) handled a number of appeals in.:eniinent domain actions including tales which have resulted in published'Court of Appeal decisions. • Meyers, Nave, Riback. Silvei:dt Wilson has represented public erttitiesin the acquisition of land far streets, highways,,airport-eaparisionS, OverpdS„."esi'sewage,eas-ernents. seWagetieatrnent plants,:parks, housingprojeCti, senior citizen housing, commercial' redevelopmentschools,water treatmeneplants, water dislri.htition facilities,.parkintlots, flood control'improycrnenu. and hospitals. Please refer to thelttacited materials for Sped&tdamccs emit\eel*.clamacAl,..2as.e.n. 11111. . . ljb/25/ Tjd 4t] 31:32b l'AbE Oti Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney June 24. 19,9S Page 4 Coordinatikm:' We appreciate theintensc Icgal4ndpoiliticat scrutiny which thei/Lifferty'Ranch psvject;has been is and ydilil:eisubjected to Eprtkes!-;i-easons, all ligittstiviettimill he eporilthatet4t4rough me to insure 00 ditassignortpersanneflavcadequaLlyirapprie adyria,ithi • •cattrusil and staff on the status, aposure anttalternatiimv which arc present to variota?legalittategies • I'ettloseia:liwolcurrent,public clicip4;land UK:and cm inent,darnain.cares. Our ratcs..wouid be 000,per hour for Shareholders and'S 160 per hour few associates. . As alWays, if you:have any titicatiOnsi-or need anYk t ; ;......ng.further, plcasc do not hesitate-to contact-me. Very rally yours, • l'aYERS. NAVE R.113ACK, SILVER aWISON SteVen R.,Meyers SRM:kag -Enclottile:s lAwPrANINasyssa‘atirxeruNsicaan • O5'2 /133S , 707 5-,1,8-382e t'FIAlt4ANSre & V;PHEP P4GE 07 06/24/1998 13:34 '7iY7=678-3826 RijotionsKY & VARIER Pat*. JUN- 4-9 9 :kir 2:09 P .1&i S* FAX NO. 5103514f81 ?. 7 • METERS, NAVE, RDAACX, SILYafit WELsoN• issamarangs. • . Name 7004 nortsuirwitinv wIwoa■cric:m- an'aotoee'fiSt'.i • CUPCV7171.fl IP arm nen.WISP Ist717411 t MC GATEWAY Anil gam CA 40•71 DAVI 77,7S MEET;510E2300 Marlyn:171171 lama bat SIN acipuns.7717n Sian MUM,traM711 SAM UNIORO.WORNI4 SMIT7 •WateS.C.RUMOUR On YELEPHOWe:1510i 251-4.100 ana e= sagesexauxuattu •10171111:811117/71011.raft ;FACSIMILE;(5101 351-440l Ana sin too twassin=nut nes.sane 1100111111 ar tenet elecinass 11111711100 s1114291 OM&81111761174 11aaltaftel 0117/18.7.70474 -111111/1WW.rot SIMS=WU tam craft imenowass mum" SIR TINS CAM Man 'nal-SSA J1JOWA.IS.72tur 13111972,7111‘11/17t WWI/LIST • CEQA Practice Pitfalli: • Top. 10 Oitersights to-Watch.Out-For 'frac/ad& aka IV:Jarvis BASF CEQ4 Car= January 14, 1998 thirtop t C.-li stidendram CEQA errors ant oyeraighutfrecpiendrritade•by public cit.t053 and their,staff and consatants,,,as well as less common ovemigritywhitheauw nonethelentave SCOW;consequences., Some of these items involve violations•of fundamental CEtikrequinernentsovhile others are more:technical in nature(but, nonetheless potentially important):?Where applicable, the list also:notes:recent authority on these issues,including calls,/'and,reetnily adopted or propcsecfritylsionsito the . CEQA guidelines. Theitemsirt the:list:ate in roughly;chronological otter:base' d on whet they*cam the CEQA-prikeis. • Of totipe; C4QAuriposm demanding and tinte-COnSUnting tesurement4.,and agencies•snusekeigit Soth the importance Of sip:eject and the Otti6cAtirsy itirrounding- in detennining•the amount ot2resotuctsto espendio,tnalte'fute•that every C is dotted and ar,is',erosied. kowevet,whale counsel is.trying,to "Millet-proOr an EiR or negative declaration,from judiCial.challenge.,counsel Should easefully reitewiite;project to make sure•thatahescefrors arenot thà : . -1 • 886725/1988 09:46 707-5788-3826 PIJDNANSI^"I 3 \?APNEP P45E 08 0E/24/1998 13:34 707-578-3826 FU/wit-1W( & V4PNER iUN-224-99 HI 2: 10 P`1 M{RSw FAX NO. 510351443: °. r _ •1. Rel iance on m tij;ation ttieasurea addedto!a^negtave detaration after lchas been cirt blared for'ptiblic comment. An agency may rely upon micigation•measuresin issuing.*negative dedaration,onty if those measures were adopted before the_release of the-negative.dederation fot;public review. (Pub, Resources Code'4 21080 iibd: (c)(2);Gouty,v:.Ctor of Mu»ieer (1995)36 Callipp.4tt 1359,43 t al.Rptr2d 170) 'The only exception b that an agency may substractsi mitigation measures for those identified in:the circulated negative declaration 3f the agency find a p s(fallowing ublic heating) that•the eiradated.messures are infeasible, and,that the new measures are equally'or,more.etfective. (Pub.Resound Code §21089, subd. (f). CEQA Gmdelines 1 15074.1 (tgwj:) (Also:the addition of mitigation measures does not riot nearsanly regtare rednujadon If the- agency:is not uptmthem'to fiend proiectimpaea.to be"envirvnsnentally insignifcant. ,In that case. the new it: antra are.. simply superfluous from a'CEQA standpoint.), • Although the linv fs wen settlod,in,this.ares,tome-agencies have eondnued;to try to rely upon new midgation measures added to negauve deduations after;ihey have.been dratted. Some have eked section 150885'of the,CEQA Guidelines,which sets'aantch mote forgiving standard for recirculation of Ellis. However,byits:taats,that standard does not apply to nega,ive dedatations. Counsel should make'_su re Otat:rlf'additional' nutigatton measure are found necessary in order to support mitigated negative declaration.the"negative detlarationis'cedcczrIacerd fot'additional public review. 2,, e oaaly'libeling portions'of a-irogram•l t" as a"project'tIR." Agencies and •picponents sometimes thslstupon labeling a'program;Eras also:bangtiarprojea ElR"for certain portions of,thc program:. They do this to c¢iphasize the„pomcthat the progrun.Lit includes;_a'”project-spctific7Stnalysis of certain'aspects.of' the.prograat,for which-ito'fiirthci:CEQA reviewwiThbe'needed. Libeling a'progran EIR"'asalso'being s,-projett ELK'is:often'a`taaical error_ Fuse.it generally prm des no practical advantigts. 'Regardless of how the EU Is labeled, theagencresSendally will have•to apply the same,snrulard'in°the future to:daausine whether subsequent disaedonaryspptgva]s w1ll tri=ger;the need for a subsequent;or. "project•spedfrc, LIR Section 15168,,subdixision(e}(2), of the CEQA Giudeiines;.,tvitidi addresses "program EIRs.' requires;the use of the stantrd set forth in section 15162 to dcttruune,whether a subsequent.emmironaientai dtainietitis necessary.. Section 15162 establishes`the.same standards;(is ,.substantial changes`in'the project or.circumstances,or other subst,antial•.new inforsnadon) which always app ywhen you determine whether yosi can rely upon a previous EIR regardless of whether the prior E1R is a;progranvor'project EIR The detezminadve'fattorisnothow theEIR u'labe ed,.but whetherihtprogram -2- • Ot!'25/1,99?, 09:,4E LLI fd-JU.2t - tf;d/j98 13: 34' 707-578-3826 RLIDNIANSicr:E, vuRNER r9ct 2 JUN-24-. E FRI 2:IC PM •ORR FAX; n 51035140: F. a in fact;:analyzedthe effects of Me liter project at issue; (§=151613,:ntbd.,(c)(1).) With a good and detailed analysis of theprograrn,many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope•of the!prOject desaibed in theprograntE113.-, and no further envircuuttental doctunatts would,be required." (§ 15168,sillxL.(c)(5).)1 Second,what it comes whiiption, labeling Ai prograntEllt as alniliang a cproject Er isiike.putting a big.-ncr,*Me sign on the backOf:the project= •CoUrts'at T 4tivall tend to take a harder lookat:something labeled a"project Elk"than they will a*program Elk.' Any detain in court based on or,MR being only on a program lever will be compromised if the dOcurnentisiatio'labeleta*project L Civenthe lack:of any real practical advantages oldointothenviSt,ii is better to leave a .w fl"as just being program E1R. 3. Failure to adequattelY identify the' linoltaoblectives, Sfifivpesai CEQA Goiania, if 15124;Cag eCarrxd4pdirSat r. U.S:Dept of Truiriportatiort (9th Cr 1997) 123 F.11 1142, 11554157, 1,169-1165. The•Mtpurtance of the,detalptionof the,pmjeet objeCtiVes is Ofterctmderestlmated by modes: Counsel should take ihardlook at the project objectives to make sum that they are complete,.make sense,and consistent with other status lniht PAR regarding Sthe goals of the.Froject. hatefully coMideted'(but not artifiCiallynanea)desaiptlort of W the project objectives is important key to a legally defensible EEL. -Nanny written statement of objectives will helptheind agency develop a seasonable range of altenuttives to evaluate in the.EIR and will aad the decision-makers:inpreparing findinp4or a statement of overriding considerations,it necessary? (CEQA Giddelinis § 15124.sub& (b),proposed seri:non.), Once a•proper sett objectives are ariiallautd,much of the rest of the analtsii required by CEQA wilrfollow. Without one,the analysis may be without direction,which Often results in ill-considered and even indefensible statements For example,as discussed'hinherin the;ten union, it may be hard to defend an agency's rejection of certain alternatives if t agency's objectives are unclear. • sOnelniSit azguelhatlabeling a pinta"EIR.asiletsbeing,•irt pact.:a''project 'ElIC could avoid the need to liter Prepare4 sitespeciAc cheritlist•under section. 15168, (e)-(4).to;determine whether site specific Operations:art covered by theptogranyEllt 'However,even with a project UP. quideitne&have•recentiy beet amended to require some analysis (a'brief mplanatiat") of whether Liter attivitimuigger;the:iteed'Inr additional enybonmental.triew:(section 15164 subd. (e)), and the subdivision (c)(4) ilieddistaharcily seems a burdensome way to comply with.MO rapiumetnent. -3- - • o '707-578u-5526 PIIDNtNSKy & VC,RtIEP P-il 13. i&/ 4/1S38 13:34 707-576-3826. RUDN4NSs d WARNER ear 1n PA-24:-,g8 F?: 2: `1 Plf 'MNRS1 FAX,NO 51035144?1 Do not tiverdooIcthe fart than Char otta&will be two rep of pmject,obJectives.:the • objectives`of the lead agency and the objecives of the,pwject applicant: This is generally the case when an applicant uestslthatan make a le ttve a1'P n4 agency 8ula (i.e-.poy�:.na&;u�� deoelon,such as a 8eaeral plan amendment:vna teiorttng. Sian n agency.is acting in a, policy-malting apadty,it should itsiown objectives (Independent of the appllant's) foe doing so,<and those objectives (along with"the applicant's)should be set forth in the project desatption Conversely,.what a lead agency actsAin merely •adhtdccznver capacity(e.g:,granting a use permit or other specific development permit),and is not Getting:policy,the agency nughtnot have its ownvobjeccves (although'agency find n8s iJ at a project is in the-public consistentwtth, Seneral plan,often requizt for development penuta,;should leave room fur.the Agency,toaanticulate its own obje`Rives,if it wislus.to:do.so). 4- Failure to tailor alternatives to;aetually accomplish project objectivesrand: avoidspecific enviroinnentel"icopatts In.tchtnniying•pmjeaalternative .agencies are,tequiied to,forntulate altern rim which menially avoid`one or.mote spodEed enstonn entil impacts.wltiie still accomplishing most of the project:objeetives. (CEQA,Gutdelincs 3 15126 subd:,(d):), while this is a very fundinnattal CEQA regtiiremein.Yt'it often overlooked by E.IIt preparers. Many Ems merely Contain a standard list Of alternatives (erg.."-no development,' 'reduced•dernity,"and pelipps alternative confgurations)withlitrle or no consideration ofwlsethenthey meet objectives:and avoid impaeta or how,theyconid be tailo ed;to do so. Ityowwant to"bullet proof an Lilt you should insist:that•the alternatives section include a adiknasiOniptellically.explauung`by the specific alternatives were selected,how they avoid some t alliof the impacts which have been identified while still aaompbshing most'project objectives,and why other alternatives • W?njected forisot°doing so. 5: 'Failure to include a reasonedeaplitnattoa.why,particular:impact-a are dimmed. to beaatr gated,,or why they were even deemcdsijinif'icant in the first-:place.: For environmental impacts which are measonable (such.asitralic air quality,and noise impacts), agencies typically have'standard`bnght line' thresholds of'signifcance which-they are able:to'use to determine whether a;projecc's impacts'are-signl1tant.. *nether with:or withoutlinitigation. • However:other envitorimei tai impacts are;moteamorphous_and difficult to quantify, E.umples lnclude.aesihetic and habitat•related"itnpaas. Agencies often 1acic standards'for determining at what-point sue imparts are severe enough to be deemed ,4, • • 06/25;4398 09:`=6 707=578-3826 JRLPNGN°L/ ?„vAFNEF. F GE . 1 .961411338 13534 707-578-3826 SKY"* vAFN R rxt ii= :U9-24-98 ;?1 2 12 FMl g11kS'k FAX NO. 510335,144S1 P. 11 • • 'si care:" 'In such case. ittan'be ritky`for an'agenry round elutathe impact-is significant without 444a1iva but will'zwt Ge significant after the adoption of Certain mitigation:meanuss,(unless those:measures actuallyelimuute,`or at lastvey substantially reduce,the impact). -11 an agency cannot explata whythe:impect is significant'in the first place,it aho be difficult to rationAlize why the impact Is not significant after mitigation,or'to sxplain'how such;a finding is`supported:by;substantial evidence. This is particularly risky where'an agency is proceeding with a negative declaration,and 1s thus subject"to i less defeietttiai standard of review. „(Set Quait, Botanical Gardbts Fvandation v. is y.of.Erainitas (1994)'29 CalApp 4th 1597, 1604,35 CaltRpts 2d 470 jirrvandating negative dedaration,finding that ortyscimowledged'that projea a on views bum a nearby pat was alviltaaantally sigtufiant,but rrjeaing dty'a'conelusion that impart was mitigated].) Thus:as a matter of practice.where:'an agency Etbds that'an aequantifable advent ertvi onmcualimpact is atgnifican4 it should find the impact,tobe mitigated only if it can offer a dear:explatation stipportitig'such°a finding,preferably based upoii a reasonable standard.for;.determining tts,significance. Aitcrnattvely,tlx:agency should carefully • consider whether the'idpact should be d eemed envirotunnnaUyysignifant in the 5rst place- 6. Failureto analyze mitigation raeastires within the jStadicaonof another agency. Agencies sometimes Sir short shrift potential:mitigationmeastues which are not within-their juriidietion to implement,summa ily rcjectiag,ther as,iniersible for that reason alone However,CEQA ctarly,contempIates that EIRs say consider and analyze mitigation measures outside the lead agency's jurisdiction (tub:Ri sources Code § 21081,subd..(a)(2)_) Even if anigency is without regulitory power to implement.or impose a;particular miugationmeasure:its'art should consider whether it is feasible for anther to do so (particula iy if the other agency has some approval authority). While this requircinent should'be obvious,to'CEQA counsel,agenda have made the amiutahe of failing CO doraply with it. • Z Failure to make an,express finding,(supporttd by evidencee and analysis) that certa t4impacts are too spenrlative:for;cdaluation, , CEQA Guidelines,section 15145 a cpressiytauthorizalead,agencies to:find (after "thorough invesugauon') that patticular;iinpaa is too speculat ye,for evaluation'i and to thus terminate discuairon of the impact Agenoes;fret-rattly fail to take advantage of this provision. Wlteie'.tliea"dauniscritive recotd leaveitinansv erect theeltiestiein of why an 5 • 06/25/199 •OS: 45 7fl 578 =25 RUDNANSKY &'`'AP.NEP. FAGS 0b/Z4/.1998 13:34 707-578-3826 FIJDNONSKY $ vaR a PcnE• SUN-24-95. H; 2: 13 FA YN 5 Fll 90 5132 14481 ? 1., agency did,not evaluate alpanic:itar unpact(particulaiiy an impact whidt,manbers of the • . public asked te;be epalwted),an agency faces,Men*that court wall ovettum,its decision Huwerer,when:the agency maka'_ari cnyicss;-Ending and supports that f ngiing with:analysis and,evide`nce explaining why,-t the speculative nature.of the impact renders anatysis`infe sible:courts shoulddt.fer to the'agencysdetermination_ Applitable.rarit xuthrmty: Akimoaiof Small!tiiaanllMrtaltindnstiy a:Sofa*C.aastAfrQn..7ity tD stint (Dec.48. 1997)':97 Cal. Daily Op.5ery,9495, 97 Daily Journal DAR: 51233. Tatbook wmpk of the agency prepealy making a finding that a pit ucvlar impact: is too:speculative fir cnluation, Ind:the count deferring tq it. That case invoivcd a challenge to.ehe Septette,air pollution control,rrgulations on the that -- the EI&did not evaluate the envaonu catal impacts of future pollution control • tecltnologiesWtuch would be utilized as aatsalt. The Court upheld the Agency's. finding that funar_e tethrtolog cs andcosts.wereitimpiy unknown,and`.tliat analysis, wouldtlius brinfeasible. Los Axgda Ua Sa'raaol L7lsvist a Cfty j :Amides (1997,) 58'Cal.AnAth 1019, 68 Cal Rptr.24-367. Court rejects Citfs posrhoe atglunent that itwas,too •speculative to anal]ze traffic-noise impacts on•schools from a cat year,devdopment project.: The EIRFdid,nutfind that thelimpactwould be specviative,and instead provided,predse:nekic estiuuaa. 54vsira F. Las.GaAtrrar Valley Saigtary Dint (1997175■ CalApp,4th 980, 63 Ca1.Rptr 2d 244.'Upholds negative dedatagon for pmlect,invobring,pu>chase-of` property.;to use agate buffer zone for treat twit plate,holds,that agency dia not; needito speculate as to how acgatsiuon;might'make it>feasible to.etpanerficilityln._. the.future_ 8- Palliate to adopt adequate and complete CEQ a findings, tneltidingrationale, for eseh of the agency'deteisninatiotts. An agency's CEQf1 findirng;lsprobablythe must important document in the;CEQA process. Mit findings should establish how-the agency eatirtit the aryria4 cw amental issues raised during the proceedings;,explaining what impacts are signiStancWhaVinitigation measures are'feasrble.why other'altemadvcs were rejected, • and why the pro jeci s bate8ts outweighiatry rtznatituig'adverse envaronmental;impacts. (CEQA'Guidelines;if 1308171J093) Cotuts'!havetlongapplied fairly demanding: requirements to agency.fndings,sequ ring that they';bt dge the analytical:gap between the mw evidence and die ultimate dectsiom Or dtr"and Mpiain"tlieatlationships • .6_ • 06/25/1998. '113:14E 707-518-SE26 ,I.EgPVq:JSX S VAPNE 26E 13 06/2441998 13"..3a 7i7-57 -3?-25 RUDNaN5KY ■"4RNER PaGE Jo-1(14 Ht '214 1C1F,SW FAX- lib:. 5:03514481 P. 13 betweente:Sidence and thefindingsirld beta/ten findingrand ultiMattaction: retnalla g theateritY'S'7aPa!rie'Itit-4-ej Veringri Aligthigion fir it:LSGaie Canunatilti- C.santy(Lan Aagria (1914) 11.Cati3ii 50O,5l 5-517, 113.:Cal.Rptr: poi) inEthorti the .CLIZZA findings are a final opportunity for the agency.(and the project opponent)to ensure that there is a sensible rationale,stipPorted by the evidence,For every deumnination the agency has made. Notwithstanding the importance of die findings..agenclespore often than not treat their preparation as a mere mechanicaltereise. The fiadingitifitii consist of only the balm cinndusions cullerthesnimpict summary tables.of pits,sometimeswitkan incomplete explanation of the rationale for each futdlng;and Sometimes reithyirtually-no explanation other than a recitatiortiof the statutory language. in lighted staff time sad cost constraInts.an agency may find this an acceptable approach.whezt there is little 'likelihood of jucilcialchallenge. But the appraadils not acceptable for an;agency tying to Thullet-proorits CEQA pmeessfrontehallenge_ Whtleitis certainly appropsiite toi incorporate by reference:analysis in the:Ea into . the findings,a properly prepared.:EIR:rill still summarize theanaliftie:touterlfOrthe agency's environmental deteiminadona In order to iikozporate'by,refinstc:Aiii.tafts, practice is tcispecifically ate to dilate:portions of the Ellt trait untny(botklit the draft and in the response to,coonnents)In each seedOn‘of the Citir4:findingi;and to s-ummariet the EIR'sNatitnis conclusions. • 9. Adoption of iittprOpezirsiiirortied notices of deterrninatiern:for sabsevent ,phases of a project,whieh zeopenthe door to challenging preylously7approved. ' Ens or negative declarations. • Often, a "project"which hal:been.subject ta CEQA teview:wili.actuallyinvelve a series of discretionary approvals occurfing triter some period of time Agency staffs are often confused as to what CEQA process'shetild-be followed follOWititthe)initial.projett approval. AC frequent area-of eonfusionis whether a new notice of defertign(Torn should be filed for each separate approval. Willie these are definiteldvantageste,f1fing a new NOD in order to nigger the thon' 074ilay_lnauonpcnodtr alisit sualsee Pub- Resources Cade§211457; CEQA•Culdelittes ,§;1075.subsi,(e):15094,;subeL(1)),special language should be usedin ihelaterii013s. Otherwise,the ageticy riiks.fallinginto a _trap set bi!--akt.old, troublingtte Cten-overlotilied court holding that an agency s voluntary decision twine nicorld NOD irspOttak the°trot ElKorta cirtun.ltdr"rheaknie(11.1). notwithstanding the running of the 30itlithilutationsperiotiftillog the filing otthe Fun NOD,: (LTDairdzi Union SASI-Dirtriat City f Pfactivilk:(1983) 144,CalApp:34 123. 1:29130,:1,2 Calantr.,.4804 • -7- RE/25/1398 09:45 7007-578-.3825 RUE.G ISKY'x VARt4ER PAGE 14 06/24/1998 13:34 707-578-3828 Ruotior KY"8 VagNER Pact 14 iUt1-24-98 FR1 2: 14 Pd %USW FAX 80.. 5!0351'4481 P. 14 Recently adopted ames>dthaus'to.seeuoti$507,5't subaivisitma),of the-.CEQA, Guidelines help clarify the ptevioissiy inisettiediquestioribt whether NODS should-be filed for each phase of a-.pmjecs: "Far projects.with phases.the lead agency shall'We,a,notic of detiaminetiein after:dedding to any out eir'approve each phase.-2 The El ortuk.holding;seemswrongly decided,and a strongatgumcnt'could'be' made that it has bea55otplcitly ovemtjed"liy a number of CEQA dediions aframing.that The running of the 30-day Ii utations period ban later'dtallenges to ERa and negative, declaratiorS: However for agencies which do not want to be a-'test case;-itstill presents tstuse:foc concern. . The F,I bomb. can be avoided by'42E104y wording the=NOD; Railter,than stating,ihat.the agency is pm`sdm8 Stioe:that itdias;ptepatedFan EIR or_negative deeiatiion,;t a NOD:could instead state,that the agency is providing notice(1)that its = approval is within the scope of aproject which.was;pr eviouslytapprttved;(2)that ihetZt for the trOjectiadequately desaibes the Current appto al for the purposes of CEQA and • (3)that the agency has'determined,pwraam to teedon 15164(e)of ihe,CEQA,Giddeh that there is no _ ant'a t or supplemental . p - EIR. Portions of this recommended are bane ed horn Guidelines section,^15,. ., _ PAP ., �� 5268.strbdlnsion(e). which Ica only applies to later,actions taken+under a 7.$rogtam''Ei1t.but,whide,. can'be'appjied to Protect Mks as;well The:tecommcnded Language should safely distinguish the agency's later approval from that m l Dorodo'by"making it explicitly dear that agency is cot in any fray.recertifying the prior EIR,but only determining that no • additionalCEQA review is required Thus,in filing"additional NODS for subsequent disaedonary appiov-als,in;order to avoid'any,riots of reopening the door to"dtalkngea to;prcviousiy-appnried CEQA d4armetits,agenda siiotrld not use the form NODcontafned'irtAppendix D to she 'While section 15075'only-applies to NODsIfOr negative declarations,"and while similar languagewas not added to sectioar 15094(wluch•appiier to•NODs,for EIRs):'Sere:isiprobabiq no-reason to'treat NODS fcr,Bb and negative'declarations different-i i this&sprCt However,to'further confuse matters.;the recent amendments too the CEQA Guidelines actually deleted language for,section 15094 stating that NODs are;to:be-filed"following each project approval for which an EIR was considerrd." kpessimistitinterpretationtitiheserecent amendments Would be that•.the requirement for filing separue NODs for'cach phase of a project subject to a negative declaration'Visa'intendedto"reopen the'door for CEQA challenges'to negative deciarations at each phase. However.'such an:interpretation'would,conflict with, section 15162 of the CEQA Ctiiticiines, -8- 111 96/2571998 99:46 7G]7&578-3826 gti „HIlir N5R/ S,NAFNEK -.,.vt 1-: OEi2ati998 13'34. 787-578`3625 PUDNFNSK\'' v vARNER rqwt r7 lUti 24=3? F8I 2:15 PM I 'Y ?AI NC' 5'103514181; ? • CEQA Guidelines, bucrather should draft;their own, and should consider,using language similar-to that recommended above 10.. Waiting until after a lawsuit is ifilei.to bring:intni aide CEQA counsel on a contentious project. Where a citizen',suit appear inevitable for a publidy contentious project,and where an agency or appliant'intends 4a retain outside CEQA counsel to represent them in the litiption,there often:wlll be a lotexperienczdlitigaaim counsel can do to buttress their position in litigation if they areibroughc'into the prams before the gtnc tadopts.the findings and approves the protect:, Often,a few language changes in the findings.and the additionof minor analysis.w the final EIR,,an nuke;a world of di ference in ebon- y/Me atturneys;wiii often already be involved in the adminisi ativeprocess.they will l not necessarily be,familiar with approaches'Iitigarora'nil want to take in court If outside counsel will be brought,in anyway for the`litigarion,and if litigation'appeara reasonably inevitable, there ahcuid be limited(if any) additional cost in hiving-Ahern review the final sEIR and ftndznpbdoze the project wapproved Nate they will have,to do so anyway). and,potentiauy great,cost savings ifthey can.pro ideadvi cewisndlteliminates'atleastsoar CEQA issues. tv.ii.wrwii rangy cnr -9- • • Ub.1. .3/1yyd M3 4b fUeojrLb VAFflEF.: H4ot lb 06/24/1396 13:34 707-578=3625 SuptiArts-r;y S VHN& PArk 15 JUN-24-98 FRI 2:16 PI !CRP! Bi0251.4431 F. 16 ' MEY)IRS.,;NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON itaufessional Law commotion rasam.f.daaa çinailv.u.tCJmtj. in Doti 34lett; 3CC .353, 3Cresi.Cats riff, 3=Clan=Masa 549-111/4a- 9913:1, net9andro.CA,991593 SilainA.CA 95209_ _ Tdzi qv:a= 010)311:4300, 74.4■7 OW)San IThphOilf(209)9514013 4 Ponisson,010)3314411 FaiiialiT 5414617 951-7CICC • SUM:MARY tOY.SIPNIFICANT . EvuriErittgilviAthi CASES • Sanholateo County SupenotCourt NO.39007. 1,41,4i..,%enapmed and presecaged eminent,domain actions to acquire cii wash'anti'Dizza for it,railioadgrarieseparation projent, Cine case waapied(jurttriai)by David'WiSkirmer:the Odin was tettled. CnaiitvertpntxaCOav Sirijw Pr at • Ctnstra COStil COunty,Siipenor Craig Case No.C92-02032, • 141,41-s)v,,,preparecl and prosecuted aft eminent domain action to acquire numerous parcels for State Highway(widening Citses:Seided'andror rare via. Town ofbarwille v Sorel: Contra Costa County Superior'Court Case No C92-01273. - MNRSW prepared and pros:edged an ennnent domain action to acquire property for PI680/FtistorFs Boulenrd OVererouittg:The caiesettied without trial.,Davit W Skinner represented the City .thiaingiOnt theinotess. • 0E1/425/1398 03:45 707-578-3825 •PUbilatIPKY •.3 VARNER PAGE i 7 , 05124/159EY 13:34 707-578-38Th l i u p t 4 A N i 54;e & V A R t e R PAGE 1 7 ICIKL.24-9E PRI 2. 16 P tRaSt FAX C. 510351:44.81 Siptifiterti anima Docein,C,... Page 2 • • Ciirof.Dablin y.Wonlyerton, AlantectitiCowst*StiftliOrCtittit CaseNo:CV 009571-4 IYINILSW:prepared and.proseetnedTaiiiiiinenfdomain setiottroileaiiire slap 011andanm I car dealenlaptor a meet widesieg. The property:and:business owners.thaidied 570o,000 in e-entputsatiott.including$150.09sy for Woof business goody:ill Alter a 1G-day jory.trisd;the jury awarded the deb:Waal 1001,000; with tinly25i5.006 in lost garthall: ,Michael t Nave end Daniel Muller trial:die cue AlamediCourity'SoPerica'Court:Cise Has V-0037884:V-003789-5:V-0037901:V1003'191=0;V-003792-9 MNRSW•prepared and prosea4_ ted-rend anialudiamain actions to extend Dublielladevard 915113 inaudedieieral past-taltes'elbosinesaproperties All Cain settled withauttrial David W Skinner represented tbe Citythroughout the process. cdairflia&SZS.AZAICO • Sanneato.County SuPinot Gaut' MNRSW prepared end prosautectenaninent domain action to esquire an approach zone for the Sport. Tlte•case settled. Miehaaijklaywrepresented the City. re firtIlister r Mantis Air Sanikatotounty Superior Court Caseble 1998 7 MNRSW prapared and Prosecuted an eminent,domain action to acquire 104 iutea'fiirdlicaPhition Of the Otis savage treacroad.plenL; Case sada:1400r to trial. Dal.rid.V. Skinner represented the' City: çi dili;iennstre-i• alma/skyWest et.al AlimeiaCoenty;Septior,Conit 14.-.1•74053,2 MNRSW prepared and prosecuted an'lantern domain eerioncejacquire art approach ione-feii the Liaamare.atipore. The terse with atictessfully tried: MiChael represented the City Throughow. the process. 111 lib/.j},r F]• :4t. /U4-717 jb_b rVllIV:.i r' tih U [ t,. Y::Vt 1d 176/Z4/1996 -1'3:34 7 87-578-3826 RUIkJ!>r+SKY& `7ARNER FPGE 18 1J5-24-93 FRi 2:17 2k M4t1RSW . 'FALK°. 5!'D35144F1 P. 16 SipafiwrR'gnaw.*Dwain C .s. Pane l • City of tayerrnore-v Martini'DSYelnn ir,t RRmchandenrlmd'I inc, AL'mcdiCwidy';Sdpeirior Court CeS Nos:.Y-009629-.;V-009626-5!ind V-010143-5 MNRSW,prepered and prosecuted uveral:eriiiitem.domaIfl:W ona to extend and widea,Xasw Rand, Ynmary v:1omian dispute was whether property aequired,wouldhave to be dedicated as Iteriditioa, to development, thereby affecting property''shigfiesiend belt use. David W.Skinner'represaRedstlie City and'obtained fivorable court rulings: Mann'County Redcvdnnmeat Aecncv Y.Ptesbne v of taj$edwoodi. Si:Sash-22;c Minn County:Supeior Court Case No. 15093e MNRSWprepared and.prosecuted an eminent domain action td acquire church property for'State Filghway 101 Interchange Michael Nave represented:tiro City throughout the protest • Marie Cowrcy;;Superter Court Case No. 160,343 MNRSW prepared and prosecuted an,eminentdomain action to acquire numerous percelefor a regional water siorigeind ti'atisinisiion project Thi rase is pending. ,Michael Nave rcpicserits ttie • Cary: Watco- Stanislaw'County'Superior Countase No. 290508 MNRSW prepared and prosecuted an eminent domain action to:acquire the last<'rd largeat_,printe water company;m thekCity.The;case;was:settiedtwuh.thi City acquunng the wetn company. MichaelNave ant EhenbetitSilverrepresent the City- City,of Modesnr Redei slonment,Aga v,Califormili si na.Sznties' et al. Stanalaus CouatySuperior CoufiCaie•No.85213 t4tyitSW prepared irid,prosecuted general eminent domain actions to acquirc`cwii nerad'properties çuicLidwj two hotel buildings, furniture business and a caterin flunness) fora large downtown, redevelopment project:, One case went to jury triat the other cases are still Pending. Michael;Nave_ David W. Skinner'and.Dantd'Mullu represented the Agency • • ;c1E(X5/199!3. 9'gfd5 X7U7-575-3876; FUUNANSKY 8''VARNEF, 'F4.3E 19 :06/24/1996 1�3: 3a 701-57a-3625 Runhaisicv g VaRNER PAGE 19 1924 98 FRI 27,17 ?B MERSw FAX NO 5103514481. F. 19 siwiifxwe.Eariocnt�DOttiWi Gila Par• a Monterey County Redevdenmon money Y Stinthe n'Pacitic,T'aosporeation-Cmmpitev, Monterey County'Supenor'Court. MNRSW prepared end prueeraced an eminem.dernain action•to acquire numerous pereds fur reeouveyance and for street ectettsian- Thet:ase scaled without trial. Miebeet Nave represented the City throughout the pt etteS ci of P nwft W ll R.Arvolo la c• vwncV MNRSW has been retained by the developer:a large downtown cafev&opmratt;project..,to;oversee and handlehe acquiaitions;oInumerous resi lemiat and commercial properties. Cases have not been Mod yet rdwof sgsAv �Nelsnn efeL, Monterey Corny Sttpenor Court Case No..93023 MNRSW prepafed.ant ptmavied'an enannet domain action to extend Roasi''Sueet. All eases .smiled withoui trial: Michael Nave represented the City throughrrut the process: • • Citt cf Salinas v Swanson Monterey County Superior Courteous No: 99457 MNRSW prepared and prosecuted an erninnu domain action to acquire property for a-stemmata retuntion/detention,basin David W.lkinner.suceessitilly tried the issue of inverse condemnation liability: Hof Salinas v Massa, Mousey County Superior Court.Citm,No, 'I04356 MNRSW prepared and;prosetuted'aketnintadontain action'to acquire 512 acres'fart a etitenrapn of 4,road"{Noah Dana Road)road'to;scrve Walmart.,related lot retail user and°an`ndo mail: The case serried v4tkonit triad.,David W: Skinner represented the City througrout;tlie pracesa. • • 08/25/1998 09: 466 707-578-.3826 ,P.UDNPtJsF'Y ?,' 'daRFJER- PAGE. 20 06/2471996 13:3a 707-576-3826 RUDCANSKY &°DARNER Fait ze 1JN-24-96 FRI 2:18 FM I2IRS'N FAX,NC. 510351446: ?. 20 Svnitica a'Eamrat Dumaw Gsei • Page 5 Sa italltbdrmmetrt:Avrnc .v Cht!Mktof•lagg .t: Motnaiey County,Super ocCourt;CaSi No !05927 MNRSW"prepared,and prosecuted's:U.-emine n dtimein'action to acquire property owned by uehurch for purpeies'of constructing an;affordable housittg project:. Thi ene settled`wittivut trial: David,W: Skinner tcorrseated the RedevelopmentAgency. Ow of San Cadm v-Herr-et al Sad Mateo Councy,Supe i9r Court Case No 332832: MNRSW prcparod and'prosecutrd m+mervw eiament'domain aaians for arailroad graEe sepuntion ROIOCt._.AWuisisonstcclude portions of improved'cfimmtxctal and industrial property,:rss+dwhal. properties'and.raw hand. Michael Nave and David W.'Sliinnet represented the City thcnughout;the process. Cty of SAn lone v Th� ec'Jit Santa Clara County Suoe+iorCoiirt Cate Nos: 708981,706983;;7088 le; 71Q120; 709019.365747 tie MNRS 'p'epared'and;prosecutc@ an emittaatdotmin edtion to acquire nunxro ua parcels ter street •eitension. The cases sailed and/or;were arbitrated Michael Kaye icpresented theCity throughout! p Cihaef Sci L gn&y y f'hiCICY'Citd[eS; Ahneada'County,Superior Court'Case No.1is 1617430 M RSW prapartsiand!prosecuted'an eminent domain action to widen at freeway interchange. AD_of die vases were settled prior to vial. StevenR..Meyers'und`David'w 'Skinner representedthe city. CiriorSyntundra-v Southern PatificTransyortationCe We}1i'P rr:riSank Alameda Coithty.Supeijor-CburtCase'&.11=163385-2 MNRSW preparedar:d:07Secuted an emutent,domam action to widens major thoroughfare venhin+ the City:of Sin i'wadib.,All'cases were settled without trial. Steven R. Meyers and David W • . Slyoner represented the City. • 1110 • 0E:425,1998 99:16 70:7-57778-3EE26 RUDNANSI ` E'.VARNEP PAGE 21 obrz4r.1.7VH .13:34 707-57.8-3826 RUDNGN9KY d .VORNER, PARE 21 Fil 2: !.9 M?i4SW /AX iYC 51035i446 Y":?! • •5j e*sntitmt Dacuiia t;uw •' X6`6 v-of Sa: inon.v.!_S ith :etal. Contra Costa County Superior Court'C9z-0091; MNRSW pteparsd'tutd pre ceu ed an eminrnr:domain action for a freeway interchange. Al!cases settled without trial. David W.::Skinner represented the Ci y OW Af _ anIany. Lealg o6£Nude a:d S_artyer Contra Costa County.Superiior.Court MNRSW prepared,and:proseeuted;xverel'otrinent domain action 'for'a redevelopment proiect. M i c h a e l R:Nave and Dawd W.;Skinner reereaattod the City. Two seed wart[D oral. City ojSalSad v Marine-et-ai Monterey County:Superior Court tase'N .98537 MNRSW;prepared and proaeaitedien enti ent''domain,action for the,Soledad';St-wept-jean sewn yipeCae project. Alt cases settled':wiihouttrill:'Michael`Nave represented the City. • City of Sonoma v[testa - Sonoma,Cuunty Superior Court case No.,1751G9 .MNRSW prepared and succnuii lly ptcsvcutod eminent domain action to widen Napa Street. Michael Nave represented the City.. Cieema' - ntv W :v�SSprin.Me.Anavi. nyerm i e Sonoma County Superior Court Came No.180579 MNRSW prep-tired and prosecuted'an a Mem domain acrionto':acquire a Imp tract of land for watershed, The action.is pcndiing 'Michael Nave represents the Agency. i .1 .: Ii.San Freri isto•v.Mint San Mateo County?Supetior Court MNRSW prepared and.proseated,an erranemdm oain aetionn to acquire a conference utter..The action involved a unique.valuation issue relatin g to the impact:of a'condi mnation clause in s l ass where the conderiming agency was'also the lessee Tha issue,wasresolved by the coon. David W. Shinier,eucccsafulllytep esentedlthe'City, • U6/25/,1998 U9; V4K4t-t 06/24/1996 13:34 701-578-3826 DNAN Y S VARNER Pal* • TUN-24-95 :ii 2: 19 PM MNRSW FAX Na. 5!Q35;443! ?._22 Significant Emiurat'Duman'Casa Pam 7 • • Saaamento County Superior Court MNRSW Wepresemed,City in anettnnertt',domain actidn!toacyttireg0 9 can(located d Solano County),Aiihigitwaywidernngs_aid wetlands.natigatton. The case:went to jury melin Stietameato. County: David w: skinner siteesittilly repreaented.ihe City.. iWarepnville(teievelnnmeetAtntory r$iyat Monterey''County'S tpetior Court Case No. 119515 MNRSW prcpared'and prd`sacuted an eminent dorpatn action io acquire property for strut extension The case scaled without.trial. Michael Rodriquez represented the City throagliwtthe process jmnn cif Wallace'v C-adsgy Soma County,s Somata' uperMrCourt MNKSW;prepared and proxntted an eminent domatn`action to:acquire property:ftir sweet widenata The cue settled without trial Michael Nave i epresented the City throughout the process. i�wnm me iu,w tow • • 06Y25?-1998 OS:;46 707-578-3826 PU614r15K"? & NiARHER PAGE 23 e6/7,44113913 13 4 7E17-578-3825 RuDriamsky g MARNER POLE 23 11.111724-59 :RI 2:20 PM MRRS! FAX NO. 5113514491 P. 23 • • ,MEYERS; NAVE, RIBACKy SILVER I WILSON A ProfialiOnutigiw Curponat* atunalta tezettlhaais Nowa vallay 17wrie Unrss Saito 300 555$ SO4 4.4..di 14•14 . CA WTI 5250 tinalmt 4401Y4 SO/4410. 43910 ItilniCA 9540/ Mortal,CA 95207 Tetii9S- (540 351.43C0 Tati4a6Tarn)Mbar) rnin: MO)351441 7.1.494 CaN)931:40110 Pectinls:007)1454617 Fi li ctisaia04 951-3C00 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT :TANI)USE.LMGATION Court of Appeal;Pint bistiin:Cut No:,A067490 38 Cal.App.4th 1716;4561.Rptr.7.4.752(1995) 1.114WY succosnillY'Wetaital'Panits•C9anellti_kt&Leankuse Wee/tray betYveal two cities andlicoantyron,thepousd that itAinlawfully:resuicted..their legislative police powers_ Michael Nave and Rick Janis were the ittorttys. • esbaff Pity of Ukiah _ . United StatesCourt OtAppeallitir the:Ninth Circuit (9th Cir. 194/7),130,F:3d,49, "TheNintb"Circalt acceptesi•ktNitSw71 argument(theta eitisciirgroup did nothave• scandingcuntiersiistigeD of Slaw=Conservation and ltspavoryzAct to sue is (sclera'court fur alleged violations of slate solid waste regulations andjperntir reqttirements•whiCh_are more•itiiiagatt than fedital rcquueañaia ThetOurt thui, atfirrnecta judgment aiintlisintthe Complaint. Itick•lirislestesented the Qty. LisanshnuaL2wilit (1991. Pit.. L Div 4Q4782. • • 'Successful represetssoon.otTown on appeal ofjudgrnest dunking petition for writ of . . tnendate-y4tieh etailtengist-Town's final to enter inco.a•Vialitunson Act contract. • 06/25/1998 05:46 707-578-3926 PUDNANEKY 80/APNEP PAGE 06/_24/19913 13:34 707-578-3526 ROptia49KY& ,itARNER PAGE .74 SUM-24-98' FU 2:70 pg mEsw FAX NO 51035144.0 P' 24 significant Lai u*Lingestion - - - - --- ------ -- -- ----- -- ----- -- -- - - - - - - Fate Z Court of'pine* Fut Dittrict, Caic NO n070517 45.CaLApp.4 52(Calltbtr2d-902((l996)) On.beIi .1f of the City,of Livermore,,MlittSWoblainetrin important pulilished denision from the Court Of Otppea/Jupholninglite authbrity Ofanunielpalities to,require develoPera'triinStall fire wrinklertin militia:tees. Steven Meyers,'Asthma Saltunia, and Riek lantittepietetited tho'c4y. • CityafFlensanion_N: -"City cif gawk! Sao Mateo SupaiettoUrt Caselio.185533 (Consolida ted) MI•110Wittiv.imit the Cityithrtnighotift fiVeyeitt,prOceSs;te amend'the geheriliplan land adopra:4ncific,pjahrfar approxiinaielp60130 acra htpUISW theekucostisfutly defended the Citpiaitwv.mandie actions alinihglturacompliance with CEQA.,and ginietik plan Stale fellOiving,:adoptiOri1ola 6000-acre getteraitriaottmcindentstratall specific PiartiWiticit:approvcil 14000 dwelling units and:It:000,03 squirefeet,of commercial cleveropment. ELizabeth siivelailvitheCdii City through the planning. • process and was the trial attorney',assistecil.60ticiviarv-4. tc,thiatioskaamoditaii.satsicias. . _ • CoontyloponOtcoon No. 28059 . .the_City*Mit zi writ.ofrnandit le:challenge hp the California Pilots Assixiiiiati to a wileuiretitejeer iiPpriral.bY the-City. Stevan Mattis, was iriikaitormly. • Catarty afiContra Coin ribLeif Pistilli mill COatrat.o.StiSuperiot court CiseNo. C90-05275! inctiori brought;by contra tosireounty.challenting,an atfitinditicint,W, PInnt general Ilan.- The case was flied without trial. Elia:theth Silver min:semen Contra Costa:County._ • • • • 06425/1.998; 09:45 7q7-578-3626 . .1..161.!4N51;2( VARNER" FIAGE 25 kiy24/,1198. 13:3a 70757e-38-25 FILPIONSKY '3,VCARNER FP.GE 25 JUN24-93 FRI. 2:21 PI mffRsw FAX NC. 5105514481 P. 25 Isst Load 1.1,4 LitigitIon Pc 3 DIVUSCallIS1CRInanYL—C4SabgrS2 Stank:slam Superior Carts Cise No. 296579 MMRSW defended:6i City ot Meth:staida CE.04 challenge to acquisition of a private water company. The else was dismissed following settlement, blizabethiilver and Andrea Saltarmurreptesermsd the City. Court of Appeal, Fifth District, CsseNo, F224G40 MDIRSW advised the:Cittef.Modestb,:on'CEQA,complianceifor&two-tilockelowntown redevelopment prOjeet,,and then successfully defenderEtlie.iprOject in bad;trial and appellate,coats against,ohallenges that it inadequatelraddreaserVimpacts tcrhistorical resotirces_Under:CS:A. :Pak JarVii represented the Cit • Cit:LgualdsilaxSallallellabulllss Sanalaiso:SUperior anirruise No.r348925 MPIRSW represented the City of Dublin in &challenge rei Alameda County general plan amendment fur the East County As Following.a 3-day court trial in 1990, the an was laded when the County agreed to rescind:the general:plats amendment, the very a1 soughtt4Ithe'City irsit.spetition for writ of malidate. Elieibeth Silver was the trialattumeyRizMitilin. calludiAsds lltLY—LuxREZIsSalua- Contra Costa SuperiortoureC9505746 MNRSW prevailed in twrit of manger iction.pn behalf of Dublin against Pleasanton and iteal-Pluty:inlintiest Prudsndallnsdraraw Ccsawany., We successfully argued ttmt Plzasantonts reviniifg,61280:aertiofjtaciaida:lasinessiPaitto allow commercial iietelispment,wasmn consistent wini.Priasanica's general plan. Elizabeth Silver was lareAtial atterrieronlhisease,.assistisd tirKaddeasi Fa4bicin'and Rick Janis. • S . 136/25/1998 09i45 797-578-;826 RJDNAr�S;Y"&. C!APtiEP PAGE 26 86/24/1998 13:3a 787-578-3826 RUDtaatiSKY 8 `✓tR6ER F74 GE ?r JUN-24=98 Fir 2:22 FN MNRS'i� FAX' NC' 51735[449! F. 25 Siptilcan(LAW lire Lali atant Pat;.4 •, F_i4n�!e..efNtIson Crl< et-y_ Cit=t: Saratn¢n Santa Clara Superior Court Cate NO. Cy'73/W9 .MNRSW siieeisshillydefended the Ciry s'findings'in support of the cancelladon of a Williamson Act contact to allow fur;the development of a 5-acre, 9;(torn'infill developmcnt proje6t: The Court ruled in favor of the City and dismissed'ihe:petition ror*nt of'mandare Rick Jarvis represented th'c City; • ('binpr:ythe•nn'_!City of I st^ San'Ioegtiin Superior Court Case No CV 004283 Sinn flub Csmnty of Alarrtetltt_<City of'Pivermore v City of Tracy San;loaeuin Superior Glint Case No. CY004284 MINRSW ts'defending the City of lacy i approval oL,a spot plan for a e 115=are de t< equatciy analyze impacts relating tv traffic, Water and sewer. ':The cast is pending in tire trial,toun.. Steven Meyers and Rick Jams are represeotinelthe City. r-,a[dnrr':y- Gtv.of—Seha5aopoi • Sonoma Cvtuity Superior Court No. 204966 MNRSW°successfully;defended the City OliSebastopol ur.a challenge to the City`s denial of a developer's proposed affordable housing,:project. the`,case;involvednovel issuo relating to California's ant' NIMBY prevision(Coy: Code E6558915),and housing discrinuttation sttuwe(Gov: Code 165005). After;:a nine daytrial, the Court disriniledtthe developer's challenge: Steven Meyai and David Skinner rt p!e efic d the City. • }it^ol He kistal Env_,Cdit N nt'.Srinoina Sonora?County.Superior Court`Ca<ie-:No..204788 'MNRSW suooesifully-repttscnted:the City ot_lieaidsbure;in a CEQA attion;against,the County of Sonoma and Department of:Fish and C ame:,•clating;to Russia&River water impoundment. Steven'Mattas was the trial anomey. •' 06/ 571398 09:46. 7071-578-382E RUDNA2HEKy ,&i,idARNEF EAGE 27 J1 • 6/24 93'419 13;'34 '7,07-57635z6. RUDNIOSKY 1$k PaGE 27 JUH-14A8 ,222 -M 4JjN FAX 50:: 5;03514481 111 sugue.14.1 Load Utii Litigaum kfamelimilikasisa6tansaS AlamediCounty Supericir.ContitCase No. V-012735-2 . The oourtgranted hiNitSVri inotionIor summarrjudgmentidisaiinieg icothplSnc.by devetopers alleged ciatays in the City of fiaaflntaps andlitiildiegperznita violated their civilñghARickJaMspreparS litirtetiOn. • _ Court of Appeal, Stith District, CatiNO. H013304 • On behalf Of the City of Morgatilliff,'MNRSW successfullyidefended&challenge to the adequieji Of theatre Salting twat plan: The Coat oi.,Appeakinia thathe• approval of a,drehipaterit penult dila nut open the dtio4ba:Other41',Mee-halt:4es otherwise barred by the staanoty'llmitations period. Rick laniatcpresciatcl'thc city at both die trial andeppellattectiirt3. Saiicaasiarekaam—Cilaiii-salazOks • NottherniDiSuic f of California U.S Co . istriet•Court, Case No. C:95-20059 at' • . , fteprescntintthe City of Strittigi,:MNRSW obtaineeN)Udgmen;dismissing a conrPlaint,allegingrthathe,Ciiy,was operating is storm di-ainagetystent:ia,iielation of thc Ckan Water Act. iiicic:isryisreptescnied'the City. Lmasarastscimptiliins, Santa Clara Superior Court Cass_No. CV 766687(CeriSolidated), MNRSW defended the city of‘Milpitis!'approyacif a,master2Plan for a 226-acre mixed-use nisidential, commerriial,;and:iiidustrialirjeielopmcnt'itgalnii CEQA eltallatgarhatdie ELRdid not‘adcquatairanalyee:iiiiiitierscrelatiliete'odorsi traffic.. and;habitit The Cat ictetto after extensive 'Steven Meyers and Rick Jants teorateritedthe • 05/2571998 09:,»5 707-57873826 „PUDNNSKY P, VGPFHER, PAGE 28 06/26/1938 13:`36 707-578-3826 RUDNatt5KY g,:NARt a rFUC Z7 FJH-24-36 FP,l 2:23 PM MRSV Hoc NO. 5103514421 2. 26 Sinticaai Land t1M:in1KW,on Payt6 .� PAM.raa �-: ti�..:Cnrtii_nins v. fitr.'nfMetile�Park! Cwrtof:Appeai, First'Diittict,.CaSeNos. ;A06309,antA063362 MNRSW sueccssfvlly Wended the,City;nf,Atenlo Parkiand;the daveluper in a,CEQA ' ictiot cha itriging(the appruval of an intiil suisdiv,isiat onr.the site of.a seminary. MNRSW prevailed'inibottthe ttial,antappe latc'courtkt Steven Serf!,:Anita Salrcman'and'ltick Jarvis repttsoiteitflthe`city. gi:- {,Sil cadre r. port of gland Sonoma Supeiier<Cosiv'Ciii(No:218618 MNRSW^Is�eepdattiagthe City of Saa l eando,in a CEQA,lawsuit 041144814 the Pettsplansto sepand,dw OaklandAi pgn. The case is.now pending: Steven Meyers,- Rick I vis,and°tiaiie Randolph are representing;;ttle City, Sicoa i h ,. A. oLiaS Insndrn AJameda'Superlor Courttase No. 14;1622024 •MNRSw,adviseS the City on the potopara, lion Wan emliiroemental"anndland use, approval documents fora 750-unit;esidenual<project which;includcs the atationof'. over 300°actasof;restored:tidal wetlandiareas' MNRSw:ttten successfully the anded'the. land.,use approvals at the trial and'appeliatts coup;levels against a series of cEQA challenges: '.Steven?Meyers, Steven'Mattas and,Andrea Saltunan repreaen atthe'City ;the trtaliand appelIate courts. itam lasa'NalhPaf ka*U2m e,t y ountnf S �a1a. Court of:Appeal, Fifth District, FQ23633 48 C:aLApp.4th 182, 53 Cl .li ptr;24 625 (1996). MNRSW ieptcsented.thi Resi•}!a ry-in lno 'esc',in a lawsuit against aS,00;utut;; 30,000 acre specific,plan apptovea bye StanisLus C,ountytBoard of:Sapesvisors Peritioncrs raissd numerous challenges under'CEQA the WiUtarnwn,Act,.and the Endangered Species Ace MNRSW'prevailed:oa:aU but'one'saue, and obtauted'a largely favorable result which alfuwed development to p`ruceed aftcr'l muted additional; CEQA'revieW of a`.long-teim water supply. ,Steven Meyers. Rick Jarvis and Andrea taltansn;prepared:the,briefs for both the County and the:Real-Party-iii=Interest. • • 06725/1998 09'246 707-578-3825 RUDIAN9g & VARNER. FA.E 29 06'f.2ai1998 13:"31 707-578-3825 RUDNANSKV 3 VARit-R PAGE 29 J01i-24.98 FR 2:23 PM MNRSit FAN 51039i143i P. 29 Significant Land Us I:a,ptrn • Pate 7 • San Joaquin.Superior Couit No. 217462' LUA r: City.of Stockt n San Joaquin Superior Court No 217460.. MNRSW successfully defepded''tlte City of Steekton'sadoption oi,a metal"plan Ittnendment'i i these two;tints. Steven?Meyers represented the'City. Sanoms Superior Court Case No, 215438 MNRSW'Sucetaftilly defentie0 the Town of Windsor against a CEQA_challexige to the Town's approval of a.Wiliaitt-pioject. Rick Jarvis and l:ianc"Raridolph,wut the':trial attorneys. za{pa>axa v Cite o44iitf Moan-Aar. San Maim;St'perior Cow't Case;Nv.402781 • frjrJRSW a.defeadingcthe:CityiotRHalfMoon Bay against claims by a developer that tht City is wlongfuUy withholding a wastal development permit and'a,fnal subdivision map in"alleged violation of the developers!`ci>:il rights. The nise is pending. 'Rick Jarvis is representing the City. 1..r.170413.1nUA miseus "7" • • 06/25/1998 @9:48 707-578-3828 RODNI41454N-g VaRNER P4GE 30 86/24f1958 13:34 707-578-3826 RUDNAN51■Y Z vARNER, PAGE 38 JUli-2498 ?R'l 2:24 PX UEFA FAX Ne:. 510351448i P. 30 . RetirSentatlie Clients 0 Cttlilambilatindimma: Milpitas, City of eilimata.QTY of Modesto, City"of Ainpik City,of MonteSereno. City of Anna.: City of Monterey, City of Anmta,'City of MonteitylCotintyMties Beln*nt,,Cily of Morpn:Hill, City of BefiteicY;Citi. <4: Nip, City of Brentwood, car of NWCanty . 1 ,Bosisogstroe, City Of Ontario, City of ca4SPP, City of brinda...City of C.tenp15011,..city of . Paleifiitto, City"of Can, City of Petalunta..City of atOsfilifbilla, City of :PISanwn,City of Claylon, City of 'Redding.--Citytof Cliallae, City of `RidgeOrest..City of :Cloverdale, city-of Salinas, City Of C-Oftoltil.City'at San f Bruno,-City of I concord;City of :Slat:Carlos, City of Contiatosurgounty -.Sari Diego:County cities Cuperinoi City of 'Slit low. City of ,Panville l'„owitiff San Juarrisautiita, City of . DOblin.,-,City of 'Sao,Leandro, City of aiiii - - yville,'city,of San Pablo, City of -Faiifield„City of i Sin Hafiel. City.of Pinter City ,Sartlitimon, City of 1 Fremont;City of 'Saratoga. City of Gitroy,lcity.of Sausalito City of Gaiiiki; City of Scotts Valley;City of Crorni frild, CitY.:01 Sotiatopvi, City of . . , Hag 1!loosf Bay,.City of sofloofCounty Hantiirc), Ciptof Sofustadi City of Hatildstiiirg,'City of SOnorts41,-.City of r r Herne%r CITY of Saguia. County of Ifollfrer, City,of SinitbrSanrFtiocisco. City of frvinet City of stanistaus:Coenty cities Kern County Stutkton,-City.of King City Suisun city, City of ' Lakeport, City of Sunnyvale, City of Liychnore.,City of Tibuitn. Town of mace' d.City'of Tullock,'City of Millthae, City of Traty. City of Mill III/alley. City of ',Ukiah, City of 0 lib/125/1'398: 09:;46 -5(8-3825 VC.FrIER F-4:(3E -- 06h-4/1998 13)...-3a 797-578-3876 RuDNIANSKY & VARIER PAGE 31 ,Rik2148 Fit 215 FM aX,4 FAX /pi .510354481 ? 3; Union City,:City/nf Vacaville, City of Vailejo,,City Venters County cities Victorfille. City of Walnut Creek, City of Wilsonville, City of Windsor, Town of Yousttville. Town of tlakulsaltaglAttorate •BeliitontRedevekipmelit Agenty Ceres Redevelopment-Agtiky Clearhtlte Redevelopment Agency • Ociverdale)RedevelopmenPAgency Conn Costs County Redevelopment Agency Panpipe lb:development:Agency Gonzales Rednaiiniinient AiefIcY' Half Main Bay Redevelliginein Agency; Healdsburg!Communityltadeieliannentagency •Sauget Itedc,1ThPfllellt AllAncY Livermore Redevelopment Agency Matiticounty Redevelop-Men(Ageney • Milpitas,Redevelopment Agency Modesto RedevelopmentAgenCy Monterey County Redevelopment Agency - Pint*Redevelop's=Agency Petaluma Redevelvemcnt Agency Salina' s Redevelopment Agency' San Leandro Rater deportee Agency: San Pablo RedevelopmentAgency Sanitafael Redeveloprnen Agency. San Ramon Ralevekipment Agency • Seaside Redevelopment.Agency Shasta Lake Redevehipment Agency Suledrni j cpa it Agency Somima Itedevelotnnent'Alatei Soudi!San rancisocE-Redeveltinniefit-Agenty StisattaleltattrOPlnera Agency • Valhi°Redenilloptnentagency Wationville Redivehip•nientAgenty• Wind:oral:development Agalay . _ 0E1/25,1139e- 01.4:,4E 707.4.578-3826 . PAGE 32 06/2411998 131,34 767-578-3826 RUDNAN54-ce- & -VARNER P‘IcE., 32 FRI 225 ft WiESW FAX NC. 5103E,14481 F. 32 OtharfuldkAstatios: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency AlamedisCounty Fair:ASSOC-1=On Alemedatounty Rousing Authority Alieneilagounty,loint Recuseltate Review Committee Otticeley‘ROusing Authority *tee County Atoniiito7Atetatement,pisttiO Cloierdile‘Fire-Fiertecticin Diatrict Cootra:CostaCounty Flood Control and,WaterDiStriet COMM Costa County Mpaquitojdt Vector Control District Centra.Cesta:CountYininitipallItisk Mnispiratit biwnirtne Authority Contra Coats CountY.Seheels Instinuice.Gieup COnt&Costa TranslOrtatten Authority Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Dublintlimising,Auttiority F.aatiktyRegiorial Pirk District fairyieVliFire ffromaionpistrict .Fire Dithiet,Aisiaciation Kensington.Fire Ditirint Livermore*reader.Valley Transit Authority' Los Alamos Community Services District Mnin Cuts Liability Managaund Authority Mann County Risk:Management Authonty • Marin.Municipal Water District Midpaimsula ItegionaliOiRsniSpitce.District • MiliensiRedevokaOrneint Agency 44,1uss'Liinding,HittiOfDiatiiet 1%.'.114.40PitPCoutt'OUCilliOnsia, Alameda County Dro,44nutiSartitary;13istrict Russian River County Water District San Joaquin A=FloOd•Controt Agency Santa Para Valley Water District • Seotti valley Water:Diorict • Schternatounry Water Agency Sonoma Valley CceintylSiiititation Disuia SweerviaterSOringaWatet District • -Tireber`Cove County:Wale-District Union Sitnitary`Disttict Vallejo;Sanitation,and Flood Control District wi4OancrAiiesiinent DiStrict/Citypf Ceres Windsor water District •