Page 2 of 5 CEQA is likely to happen soon. Local officials carrying out the people s business should consider the following tips to help ensure CEQA c
|
|
- Magdalen Neal
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page 1 of 5 Send to printer Close window Practical Advice for Minimizing CEQA Liability in Your City B Y S T E P H E N E. V E L Y V I S Stephen Velyvis is a partner with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen and can be reached at svelyvis@bwslaw.com. About Legal Notes This column is provided as general information and not as legal advice. The law is constantly evolving, and attorneys can and do disagree about what the law requires. Local agencies interested in determining how the law applies in a particular situation should consult their local agency attorneys. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the primary state law that requires public agencies and their decision-makers to understand and evaluate the environmental consequences of their discretionary decisions before making them. 1 Moreover, CEQA requires that public agencies not only consider but take action to mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts where feasible. 2 In other words, CEQA is a powerful law that in its 44 years of existence has undoubtedly helped shape a greener, more sustainable California. It is precisely because of its power, however, that CEQA can be controversial and may be used (or, as some believe, abused) by interested parties to delay, modify or even stop projects they consider objectionable. Yet, despite any outcry over perceived CEQA abuses and related calls for CEQA reform, the current discussions in city halls throughout the state and political debate in Sacramento are only the latest in a long-standing discussion that has resulted in sporadic and modest legislative CEQA reforms. In other words, neither a major legislative overhaul nor a decreasing focus on
2 Page 2 of 5 CEQA is likely to happen soon. Local officials carrying out the people s business should consider the following tips to help ensure CEQA compliance and limit potential liability related to development projects or other activities in their cities. Conduct a Thorough Preliminary Review in Search of Potential Exemptions Local elected officials may know from experience in serving their cities that many projects (especially small and infill projects) are truly exempt from CEQA. But if your city is going to approve a project without environmental review based on an exemption determination, make sure all the i s are dotted and the t s are crossed, because exemptions can raise red flags to ardent project opponents. The first step is to conduct a thorough preliminary review of a proposed activity to determine whether the activity is a project that is subject to CEQA and, if so, whether the project is exempt from CEQA. 3 Statutory exemptions are straightforward because they are absolute, so a project that is statutorily exempt from CEQA requires no further environmental review or consideration. In contrast, categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions. 4 When any applicable exemption is identified for a project, city staff should carefully collect and develop evidence for the record to demonstrate how and why the project falls within the language and meets all elements of the exemption(s). It is perfectly fine to assert more than one applicable exemption. However, if the city is claiming a project is categorically exempt and there is any legally adequate evidence in the record of a possible adverse impact, then more substantive environmental review may be required. And while CEQA does not require agencies to follow any specific procedure in approving CEQA-exempt projects, once it is decided that a project is exempt, it is best to ensure that the city: 1. Expressly mentions that determination and cites that exemption in any public notices or agendas issued leading up to a final decision; and 2. Files a Notice of Exemption (NOE) as soon as possible after approving the project. Doing so will ensure that the city can easily secure dismissal of any subsequent CEQA litigation brought by parties who failed to challenge the exemption before project approval and thus failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. 5 It will also trigger a strict and short 35-day statute of limitations period within which any related CEQA lawsuits must be filed or lost forever. 6 When preparing and filing an NOE for an approved project pursuant to a CEQA exemption, make sure that the city: Satisfies all the NOE content requirements, 7 most notably by: 1) including a finding that the project is exempt, with a brief statement of reasons and a citation to the statutory and/or CEQA Guideline section memorializing the exemption; and 2) identifying all project applicants/approval recipients, as CEQA requires any subsequent legal challenge to name all such parties identified in the NOE; 8 Files the NOE promptly with the county clerk after the project is approved 9 and insists the clerk: 1) post the NOE within 24 hours and for a full 30 days; 10 and 2) thereafter return the NOE with a notation of the period it was posted; and Revises and re-files the NOE if there is any doubt regarding its validity. Otherwise CEQA s 180-day statute of limitations period rather than the short 35-day limitations period may be found to apply. CEQA Prefers Environmental Impact Reports Of course, not all projects are exempt from CEQA. If a project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply, agencies must conduct an initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment and what type of CEQA document is needed. 11 Some agencies and applicants may seek to steer projects with potential adverse impacts toward preparation of a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration and away from a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) based on an aversion to the additional time and cost associated with EIRs. But it may be advisable to do just the opposite, especially when opposition is certain and litigation likely.
3 Page 3 of 5 The reason is simple. Because CEQA s policies prefer EIRs, the law effectively protects those who prepare them by applying the substantial evidence standard of judicial review to EIR challenges. Under that standard, as long as the EIR s factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court may not reweigh that evidence and may not set aside the agency s decision even if the opposite conclusion could have been reached. 12 In other words, this highly deferential substantial evidence standard applies to all of the city s factual conclusions, findings and determinations in the EIR, the scope of an EIR s analysis, the amount or type of information contained in the EIR, the methodology used to assess impacts, and the reliability or accuracy of the data supporting the EIR s conclusions. In stark contrast, the fair argument standard of review applies to court challenges to Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations. The fair argument standard entails a strong presumption in favor of requiring full EIRs. The presumption is embodied in numerous provisions, which require that if a project is not exempt and may cause a potential adverse environmental impact, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. 13 It takes only one piece of substantial evidence showing that a project may have a significant adverse impact to require preparation of a full EIR under the fair argument standard, even if other and more voluminous contrary evidence exists. 14 Given this very low threshold, there is much less risk of losing a CEQA challenge if an EIR is prepared from the outset for big or controversial projects. In sum, EIRs typically take longer to prepare and cost more than Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations. But EIRs are much easier to defend when challenged, and that initial expenditure of time and money for an EIR can be sound insurance against the much greater delay and cost associated with having the project approval and Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration set aside because an interested party presented a fair argument of a possible significant adverse environmental impact. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle This familiar mantra of sustainability applies to CEQA as well specifically, the reuse of previously adopted Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations and EIRs. As noted earlier, because CEQA favors the preparation of EIRs, it can benefit those who prepare them. In addition to applying the deferential substantial evidence standard to the key factual determinations in an EIR, CEQA applies that same standard to agency decisions to reuse a prior EIR. Indeed, CEQA provides that once an EIR has been completed and certified for a project, no additional environmental review need be completed even if the project requires a further discretionary approval, as long as the agency demonstrates that no new or more severe impacts will result. 15 Moreover, because of CEQA s policy favoring prompt resolution of challenges to agency land-use decisions and the related presumed validity of unchallenged CEQA documents, the deferential standard also applies when an agency proposes to reuse a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for related subsequent discretionary approvals. Given the significant economic downturn that began in 2008, many of the projects approved around that time were understandably put on hold. Now that the economy is improving, the question of whether supplemental environmental review needs to be done is arising with increasing frequency as projects become financially feasible and are dusted off and re-envisioned. Local agencies can reuse their prior Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations or EIRs and approve modest changes to those projects without any further environmental review as long as they demonstrate with supporting evidence that none of the triggering events listed in the CEQA Guidelines exist. 16 It is also advisable to publish any decision to rely solely on an addendum to a prior CEQA document in the notices and agendas leading up to the further project approvals and to file a Notice of Determination with the county clerk soon after project approval. Doing so will similarly trigger CEQA s exhaustion doctrine and a short 30-day statute of limitations period for any legal challenge. 17 Conclusion The CEQA compliance process can be criticized for being complex and costly, especially given the numerous decades of published and sometimes conflicting judicial opinions. As discussed here, however, it need not be. Practically speaking, if CEQA s procedural requirements are followed strictly, CEQA exemption determinations are supported and
4 Page 4 of 5 publicized fully, and full EIRs are favored for big or controversial projects, cities can achieve CEQA compliance and significantly limit their potential liability. Interested in Learning More? March Webinar Will Cover This Topic in Greater Depth Environmental/land-use attorneys Stephen Velyvis and Kristina Lawson (who also serves as mayor of Walnut Creek and vice chair of the League s Environmental Quality Policy Committee) will present a webinar on March 19 that explores the topic of this article in greater detail. Learn more about minimizing CEQA liability and take advantage of this opportunity to have your questions answered by experts. To sign up, visit Footnotes: 1 CEQA is codified at California Public Resources Code et seq. 2 Pub. Res. Code 21102, ; 14 Cal. Code of Regs. ( CEQA Guidelines ) In contrast, CEQA s federal counterpart the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA is primarily procedural, generally requires only the disclosure of a project s potential adverse impacts and typically does not apply to projects in California unless there is a federal nexus (i.e., when a federal permit or approval is required or a federal agency provides federal financial assistance for the project. 3 CEQA Guidelines 15060, While a comprehensive list of CEQA exemptions is beyond the scope of this article, see generally CEQA Guidelines (statutory exemptions), (categorical exemptions), (specific and general exceptions to the categorical exemptions). 5 The exhaustion doctrine is codified in CEQA at Pub. Res. Code 21177, see also Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4 th Pub. Res. Code 21167(d). 7 CEQA Guidelines Pub. Res. Code (d). 9 See, e.g., Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 (NOE filed before project approval is invalid and does not trigger the running of the applicable 35-day limitations period). 10 See Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal.App.4 th 1154 (NOE must be posted for full 30 days, not counting day in which NOE is first posted or any partial day in which NOE is removed) 11 CEQA Guidelines Laurel Heights Improvement Ass n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393, 408; Western States Petroleum Ass n v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4 th 559, 571 (high degree of deference implicit in substantial evidence
5 Page 5 of 5 standard); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1177 (all evidentiary conflicts and any reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of agency under substantial evidence standard). 13 See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines 15064(a)(1), (f)(1). 14 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, Pub. Res. Code 21166; CEQA Guidelines This is typically demonstrated by way of a modest addendum to the prior EIR demonstrating that no new or more severe impacts will result from changes to the project or the circumstances underlying the project, or as a result of new information not known when the EIR was first certified. CEQA Guidelines 15162, Id. 17 CEQA Guidelines (NOD re approval pursuant to ND or MND), (NOD re approval pursuant to EIR).
CEQA Portal Topic Paper. Exemptions. What Is An Exemption? Why Are Exemptions Important?
CEQA Portal Topic Paper What Is An Exemption? Exemptions While CEQA requires compliance for all discretionary actions taken by government agencies, it also carves out specific individual projects and classes
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C081929 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Respondent,
More informationCEQA s Substantive Mandate: When is it Defensible to Find Mitigation or Alternatives Infeasible?
CEQA s Substantive Mandate: When is it Defensible to Find Mitigation or Alternatives Infeasible? Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Opening General Session; 1:00 2:45 p.m. Beth Collins-Burgard, Deputy City Attorney,
More informationCEQA AND INFILL LEGAL UPDATE: BERKELEY HILLSIDE SB 226. Presentation by Al Herson JD, FAICP Sohagi Law Group SD APA Presentation, April 24, 2012
1 CEQA AND INFILL LEGAL UPDATE: BERKELEY HILLSIDE SB 226 Presentation by Al Herson JD, FAICP Sohagi Law Group SD APA Presentation, April 24, 2012 2 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2012)
More informationShedding Light on the AAA s Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option
Shedding Light on the AAA s Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option July 2018 Michael P. Subak subakm@pepperlaw.com R. Zachary Torres-Fowler torresr@pepperlaw.com This article was published in the July
More informationCITY OF LOS ANGELES Department of Building & Safety
CITY OF LOS ANGELES Department of Building & Safety BUILDING PERMIT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PROCEDURE FOR HISTORICAL MONUMENTS 11/2001 TABLE OF CONTENT I. REVIEWING PROJECT AND APPLYING
More informationCalifornia Environmental Quality Act PART 2: CEQA Case Law
California Environmental Quality Act PART 2: CEQA Case Law July 1, 2014: 12:00 p.m. California Preservation Foundation Webinar Susan Brandt-Hawley, Esq. Brandt-Hawley Law Group Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A127482
Filed 2/16/11 Fung v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 1:30 p.m. 08/12/2011 HON. ALLEN SUMNER DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 42 M. GARCIA DANIEL E. FRANCIS, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
More informationCalPERS Audits & Related Issues How City Attorneys Can Prepare, Survive And Litigate
CalPERS Audits & Related Issues How City Attorneys Can Prepare, Survive And Litigate Friday, October 2, 2015 General Session; 10:30 11:45 a.m. Steven M. Berliner, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCLAIMER: These
More informationPARKLAND PROTECTION PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE
PARKLAND PROTECTION PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2006 James C. Kozlowski On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
More informationAgenda Item D.1 DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: April 7, 2015
Agenda Item D.1 CPMS DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: April 7, 2015 TO: FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers Rosemarie Gaglione, Public Works Director CONTACT: Tim Giles, City Attorney SUBJECT: Transportation
More information2.2 Negative Declaration Preparation of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.2 Negative Declaration 2.2.1 Preparation of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration A Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared for a project when there
More informationAdministrative Code Chapter 31 Amendments
t Administrative Code Chapter 31 Amendments Case Number: Ordinance No. 161-13 Initiated by: Supervisor Wiener Effective Date: September 25, 2013 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103~2479
More informationCEQA Portal Topic Paper. Alternatives. What Are Alternatives? Why Are Project Alternatives Important?
CEQA Portal Topic Paper Alternatives What Are Alternatives? Alternatives, in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), are optional ways that the project proponent could achieve most
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
C074506 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe Petitioner and Appellant v. EDMUND G. BROWN,
More informationEmployment of CalPERS Annuitants
Employment of CalPERS Annuitants Friday, September 7, 2012 General Session; 9:00 10:15 a.m. Stacey N. Sheston, Best Best & Krieger League of California Cities 2012 League of California Cities Annual Conference
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EDUARD SHAMIS, ) Case No.: BC662341 ) Plaintiffs, ) Assigned for All Purposes to ) The Hon. Maren E. Nelson, Dept. 17 v. ) ) NOTICE
More informationCalifornia Jobs and Housing Act (Version 3)
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Initiatives California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives 1-1-2010 California Jobs and Housing Act (Version 3)
More informationCase 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-00280-DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Kang Sik Park, M.D. v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER First American Title Insurance
More informationProcedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals
September 25, 1997 Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals By: Glenn Newman This new feature of the New York Law Journal will highlight cases involving New York State and City tax controversies
More informationCEQA Checklist for School Districts
CEQA Checklist for School Districts (Revised March 2014) Copyright 2014 Lozano Smith For more information, please visit our website at LozanoSmith.com or call us Toll Free at 800.445.9430. CEQA Checklist
More information! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS October 13, 2011
! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS October 13, 2011 INSURER MAY INTERVENE IN PENDING LAWSUIT WHEN ANSWER OF INSURED HAS BEEN STRICKEN AND DEFAULT ENTERED AND MAY ASSERT ALL DEFENSES
More informationCase3:09-cv MMC Document22 Filed09/08/09 Page1 of 8
Case:0-cv-0-MMC Document Filed0/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 United States District Court For the Northern District of California NICOLE GLAUS,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the State of California
In the Supreme Court of the State of California CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Case No. S241948 STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents; NATIONAL
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationRESOLUTION WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017 a Scoping Meeting was noticed and held pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15083; and,
RESOLUTION 2018 A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TRINITAS MIXED-USE PROJECT, ADOPTING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY In the Matter of: An Appeal by Eric Titus Lee E. Titus and Sons Vineyard and an appeal filed by Ginny Simms to a decision by the Planning Commission on March
More informationCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potentially significant effects on the environment resulting from the proposed City of Citrus Heights City
More informationCITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CENTEX TELEMANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
29 Cal. App. 4th 1384, *; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1113, **; 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 782, ***; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8396 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CENTEX TELEMANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant
More informationTribes Need More Than Just The Sovereign Immunity Defense
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tribes Need More Than Just The Sovereign
More informationDay to Day Dealings with the SEC: Registration Statement Comments; Exemptive Relief; and No- Action Letters
Day to Day Dealings with the SEC: Registration Statement Comments; Exemptive Relief; and No- Action Letters Eric S. Purple December 15, 2011 Investment Company Interaction with the SEC Investment companies
More informationSAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
CITY OF 4% SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY COUNCIL AGENDA: 8-23-16 ITEM: 4.4 Memorandum TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SEE BELOW FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC City Clerk DATE: August 19, 2016
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO B234955
Filed 5/8/12; pub. order 6/5/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO VAN DE KAMPS COALITION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B234955 (Los
More informationCarryover and Prefunding Balances Post-PPA
Carryover and Prefunding Balances Post-PPA Stephen Parks, EA, MSPA, Chief Actuary, Retirement Systems of California, Inc. Stephen R. Parks, EA, MSPA, Chief Actuary, Retirement Systems of California, Inc.
More informationCEQA AND LAND-USE LAW UPDATE
CEQA AND LAND-USE LAW UPDATE JIM MOOSE REMY MOOSE MANLEY LLP SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 I. CEQA OPINIONS Scope of CEQA Statutory Exemptions Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) Supplemental
More informationALJ/UNC/lil Date of Issuance 2/17/2017
ALJ/UNC/lil Date of Issuance 2/17/2017 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation pursuant to Senate Bill 380 to determine the feasibility of minimizing
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims No C
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 11-157C (Filed: February 27, 2014 ********************************** BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. **********************************
More informationEmployment, Labor & Benefits Update
Employment, Labor & Benefits Update April 16, 2012 TOPIC OVERVIEW You are invited.... 1 Breaking News Hits as April 30 Looms For Non-Union Companies... 1 You are invited. On May 2, starting at 9:00 a.m.,
More informationRESOLUTION NO
PO Qf sup, a1to~.' un`y` : RESOLUTION NO. 265-2006 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO CERTIFYING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT TO THE 2004 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationProp. 26 New Limits on Government Fees
Prop. 26 New Limits on Government Fees Co. Counsels Ass n of CA Fall 2011 Land Use Conference Napa, CA December 1, 2011 1 MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO 2 Colantuono & Levin, PC 11364 Pleasant Valley Road Penn
More informationWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUAN A. RIVERA, Case No. POM 00 Applicant, vs. TOWER STAFFING SOLUTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER
More informationCEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Adopted by City Council on September 18, 2007 by Resolution No. 07-113 Revised by City Council on June 3, 2014 by Resolution No. 14-49 CITY OF BENICIA CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS SETTING A MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION BALLOT SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Turner et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 DAMON G. TURNER and KRISTINE A. TURNER, v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
More informationRequest for Proposal. General Counsel Services. Santa Rosa Regional Resources Authority
Request for Proposal General Counsel Services Santa Rosa Regional Resources Authority Santa Rosa Regional Resources Authority REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Purpose... 3 Instructions to Proposers... 3 Background...
More informationP.C. RESOLUTION NO
Exhibit A P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-594 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS APPROVING FILE NO. 150000753, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMPOUNDING PHARMACY AND DRUG
More informationA Risk Manager's Guide to Negotiating the Terms and Conditions of an EPL Insurance Program
A Risk Manager's Guide to Negotiating the Terms and Conditions of an EPL Insurance Program By Michael A. Rossi, Esq. Past issues of have focused on a variety of points to consider and coverage enhancements
More informationF IL E D. Clerk of the Superior Court. Attorneys for Plaintiff SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
4 5 6 7 8 9 Steven P. Rice (State Bar No. 94321) srice@crowell.com CROWELL & MORING LLP 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor Irvine, CA 914-8505 Telephone: (949) 3-8400 Facsimile: (949) 3-8414 Attorneys for Plaintiff
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 2018- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 4, 2018, PROVIDING DIRECTION TO COUNTY STAFF REGARDING THE COUNTY CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM,
More informationSUMMARY OF MECHANICS LIEN LAW FOR KANSAS. with Changes in 2011
SUMMARY OF MECHANICS LIEN LAW FOR KANSAS with Changes in 2011 Section Contents Pre-lien Notice(s) Name of Notice Who Must Use This Notice When How to Serve Verified or notarized? Section Contents Mechanic
More informationCO:MMUNITY SER VICES DISTRICT. January 8, 2016
Chad Blais, President Kenneth J. McLaughlin, Vice President Betty A Anderson, Director Joan E. Roberts, Ph.D., Director Jane F. Anderson, Director ~ CO:MMUNITY SER VICES DISTRICT Bill Blankenship BIA of
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/22/12 Defehr v. E-Escrows CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session STEVEN ANDERSON v. ROY W. HENDRIX, JR. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-07-1317 Kenny W. Armstrong, Chancellor
More informationPolicy Role in Land Use Planning
Policy Role in Land Use Planning Niroop K. Srivatsa Interim City Manager City of Lafayette Mark Teague, AICP Associate Principal PlaceWorks NEW MAYORS & COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY JANUARY 17, 2109 1 IMAGINE
More information2/10/2015. AB 52 (Gatto) Native Americans: CEQA AB 1739, SB 1168, SB 1319 Sustainable ab Groundwater Management Act. SB 743 Transportation and Traffic
Bob Brown, AICP Streamline Planning Consultants bob@streamlineplanning.net AB 52 (Gatto) Native Americans: CEQA AB 1739, SB 1168, SB 1319 Sustainable ab Groundwater Management Act SB 743 Transportation
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING LEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. IF YOU PURCHASED MERCHANDISE FROM SPORTS
More informationJANUARY 2004 LAWRENCE WASDEN
Office of the Attorney General Idaho Lemon Law JANUARY 2004 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Statehouse Boise, ID 83720-0010 www.ag.idaho.gov State of Idaho Office of Attorney General Lawrence Wasden My
More informationReducing Pension And Retiree Health Benefit Costs
Reducing Pension And Retiree Health Benefit Costs Thursday, October 1, 2015 General Session; 4:15 5:30 p.m. Jack W. Hughes, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCLAIMER: These materials are not offered as or intended
More informationOFFICE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 559 Los Angeles, CA 90012
City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 559 Los Angeles, CA 90012 February 2, 2015 TO: Jose Huizar, Chair Planning and Land Use Management Committee FROM: Ken Bernstein, AICP Manager, Office of Historic Resources
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----
Filed 5/8/15 In re T.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 Introduction 2 Choosing small claims 4 Going to court 6 Litigation funding 7 Your privacy 8 Further resources
SMALL CLAIMS GUIDE Disclaimer: this Guide is meant to be legal information and not legal advice. Users should not rely on this information but should rather seek independent legal advice regarding their
More informationBlueprint. for Design Professionals September 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2. What do you do when served with a lawsuit?
Blueprint for Design Professionals September 2011 Volume 2 Issue 2 Welcome to our third edition of Blueprint For Deisgn Professionals. The articles for this issue provide a primer for the litigation process
More informationDanger: Misclassifying Employees Can Lead to Huge Liability!
Danger: Misclassifying Employees Can Lead to Huge Liability! Paying your workers and laborers as independent contractors? Avoiding paying overtime just because certain employees are on salary? Think twice.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/14/17; Certified for Publication 12/13/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent,
More informationCFPB Releases FDCPA Rule Outline; Creditor Collection Rule to Come
Consumer Financial Services Update CFPB Releases FDCPA Rule Outline; Creditor Collection Rule to Come July 29, 2016 On July 28, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an outline
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ----
Filed 7/22/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ---- DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Petitioner, C078345 (WCAB No. ADJ7807167)
More informationCITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.6 AGENDA TITLE: Adopt a resolution approving a Final Map for Subdivision No. 13-021, Sun Grove, and authorizing the City Manager to execute
More informationCalifornia Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Four, Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2002) 95 Cal.App.
California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Four, Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2002) 95 Cal.App.4 th 1373 (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1373 Page 1 FRIENDS OF THE SANTA
More informationAmendments to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IAS 19 Employee Benefits
Amendments to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IAS 19 Employee Benefits 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, UK Phone: +44 (20) 7246 6410, Fax: +44 (20) 7246 6411 Email:
More informationWELCOME & INTRODUCTION
The Proposed Elimination of Arbitration Clauses Part of the Unraveling the Proposed Borrower Defense Rule Webinar Series Aug.-Sept. 2016 higher education practice WELCOME & INTRODUCTION Jeffrey R. Fink
More informationEmployee Relations. Lytle v. Lowe s Home Centers, Inc.: A Case Study in ERISA and Employee Classification Issues. Craig C. Martin and Amanda S.
Electronically reprinted from Autumn 2014 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L ERISA Litigation Lytle v. Lowe s Home Centers, Inc.: A Case Study in ERISA and Employee Classification Issues Craig C. Martin
More informationHot Topics in Public Works Contracting: Seven Things You ll Wish You Had Done When the Claims Come In
Hot Topics in Public Works Contracting: Seven Things You ll Wish You Had Done When the Claims Come In Thursday, May 9, 2013 General Session; 2:00 4:15 p.m. David S. Gehrig, Hanson Bridgett League of California
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 8/30/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT HCM HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B213373 (Los
More informationCEQA YEAR IN REVIEW 2015
CEQA YEAR IN REVIEW 2015 A SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED APPELLATE OPINIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT By: Steve Kostka, Marc Bruner, Julie Jones, Geoff Robinson, Barbara Schussman, Laura Zagar,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 15-CV-837 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS MAVROFF, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-CV-837 KOHN LAW FIRM S.C. and DAVID A. AMBROSH, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110007
Filed 7/25/06 P. v. Miller CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationPUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE REFUSE COLLECTION FEES AND SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE
June 4, 2012 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Department of Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE REFUSE COLLECTION FEES AND SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE
More informationSUMMARY OF YOUR OPTIONS AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF EACH OPTION APPROVE THE
Manwaring v. The Golden 1 Credit Union NOTICE OF PENDING CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT READ THIS NOTICE FULLY AND CAREFULLY; THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS! IF YOU HAD A CHECKING
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO MARY BARBER and ISABEL FERNANDEZ, Case No. 14CEG00166 KCK as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Considering Fiduciary Responsibility For 401(k) Plan Company Stock Funds and Other Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)
Fiduciary Responsibility For Funds and Other Employee Andrew Irving Area Senior Vice President and Area Counsel The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to enter the debate over the standards of
More informationIMPERIAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Review of Economic Actuarial Assumptions for the June 30, 2014 Actuarial Valuation
IMPERIAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM Review of Economic Actuarial Assumptions for the June 30, 2014 Actuarial Valuation 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104 COPYRIGHT 2014 ALL
More informationTHIS NOTICE IS DIRECTED TO:
THIS NOTICE IS DIRECTED TO: United States District Court for the Northern District of California NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Goertzen v. Great American Life Insurance Co., Case No. 4:16-cv-00240
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A118155
Filed 2/29/08 P. v. Campos CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationAN ESTIMATE OF YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT IS SET FORTH ON THE GREEN CLAIM FORM.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT LAWRENCE WEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCITY OF HEALDSBURG RESOLUTION NO
CITY OF HEALDSBURG RESOLUTION NO. 67-2016 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY HEALDSBURG ESTABLISHING NOVEMBER 8, 2016 AS THE DATE FOR A MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON A PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE SEEKING VOTER
More informationIN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT How Litigation Abuse Under the California Environmental Quality Act Undermines California s Environmental, Social Equity and Economic Priorities and Proposed Reforms to Protect
More informationFIDUCIARY CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSURED RETIREMENT INCOME PRODUCTS: FOCUS ON GUARANTEED WITHDRAWAL BENEFITS
FIDUCIARY CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSURED RETIREMENT INCOME PRODUCTS: FOCUS ON GUARANTEED WITHDRAWAL BENEFITS by Fred Reish & Bruce Ashton Introduction In light of the shift in the last several decades from
More informationState v. Continental Insurance Company
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2012-2013 State v. Continental Insurance Company John M. Newman john.newman@umontana.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 5/21/15; mod. & pub. order 6/19/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE AMADO VALBUENA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 12/13/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., D057446 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
More informationBy Alexander B. Johnson and Roberto Zapata 1
Optima is Optimal: Sidestepping Omnicare in Private Company M&A Transactions By Alexander B. Johnson and Roberto Zapata 1 The general controversy surrounding the Delaware Supreme Court s decision in Omnicare,
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE IN THE MATTER OF ) ) THE CITY OF VALDEZ ) NOTICE OF ESCAPED PROPERTY ) ) OIL & GAS PROPERTY TAX AS 43.56 )
More informationaid Terry College of Business J.M. Tull School of Accounting File Reference No. 194-B
aid ------ 171 S ------ The University of Georgia Comment Letter No.3 File Reference: 1082-194R Date Received: 3/83/9CJ Terry College of Business J.M. Tull School of Accounting March 17,1999 Mr. Timothy
More informationNo. 07SA50, In re Stephen Compton v. Safeway, Inc. - Motion to compel discovery - Insurance claim investigation - Self-insured corporation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/ supctindex.htm. Opinions are also posted on the
More informationlocate a copy of the same until that time. HPA contends that this court order shows that COAH had no jurisdiction over the pricing of the units in que
IN RE MOTION TO DISMISS ) COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING COAH'S PROCEEDINGS REGARDING ) DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION OF PRICING ) OPINION ON CERTAIN AFFORDABLE UNITS ) IN BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP, ). SOMERSET COUNTY
More informationUpdate on Utility Fees: Props. 218 & 26
Update on Utility Fees: Props. 218 & 26 California Municipal Utilities Association San Francisco, CA April 12, 2016 MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO Colantuono, Highsmith & 420 Sierra College Drive, Ste. 140 Grass
More informationTHOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0230 September Term, 2015 MARVIN A. VAN DEN HEUVEL, ET AL. v. THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired,
More informationIN THE ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) BETWEEN
IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) BETWEEN APOTEX INC., Claimant/Investor, -and- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Party.
More information