Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2015 Item 1 - WhiteFrom: Linda White fmailto:lindaleewhitei5Cgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM To: E-mail Council Website Subject: Cal Poly Master Plan RPCEIVED SEP 15 2015 COUNCIL MEETING: 06i' 15 _ 1-5 ITEM NO.: You will recall that I was active in unsuccessfully urging the City of San Luis Obispo to sue the CSU Trustees because of inadequate mitigations regarding the Freshman Dorm South project. These inadequacies were outlined in detail by the SLO City staff and communicated in numerous letters composed by Derek Johnson. The City Council members were provided with the resume of EIR attorney Margaret Sohagi who was very interested in representing the City of San Luis Obispo in a case against the CSU. She had successfully represented the City of Marina and was awaiting the City of San Diego vs. CSU California Supreme Court decision that she had argued. Attached are the original Sohagi Law resume provided to the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney and two articles regarding the recent decision by the CA Supreme Court in favor of the City of San Diego argued by Margaret Sohagi. How much longer will the San Luis Obispo City Council be satisfied by the crumbs thrown to them by Cal Poly? How much longer will the "Velvet Glove Approach" (City Manager's term) be employed unsuccessfully in negotiating with the University? When will you realize that Cal Poly gives you only the things that they no longer want, e.g. Hotel/Convention center. (Their big money funder of a hotel complex is probably not ready to donate yet.) When will you realize that Cal Poly will continue to ignore legitimate requests made by the City ? e.g. Mayor Marx request that CP concentrate on on -campus student housing rather than faculty/staff housing? I will be watching the City Council meeting at 4 PM since I have no one to take over my care giving responsibilities at home. I don't know how long I will be able to tolerate the fawning that the Council demonstrates when dealing with the far superior Cal Poly Dog and Pony Show. Linda White DOWN EYBRAN D Related People supreme Court Holds – Zachary W. Lloyd California state University – Christian L. Marsh *� Related Practices Cannot �7 1 of Avoid Off -Campus - CEQA/NEPA Mitigation – Land Use August 5, 2015 On Monday, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, ruling unanimously that the University's Board of Trustees had failed to adequately mitigate impacts associated with the expansion of campus facilities, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Board unsuccessfully argued that it could not feasibly mitigate off-site traffic impacts of a campus expansion project without a legislative appropriation made specifically for that purpose. This case represents the first CEQA ruling since Justices Cuellar and Kruger joined the Court, and marks the latest roadblock in the CSU Board's $9.9 billion program to expand its campuses statewide. At issue in City of San Diego is the proposed renovation and expansion of the San Diego State University ("SDSU") campus, including a new housing development for faculty, staff, and graduate students, a research and instructional facility, the expansion of a student residence hall, a new student union building, and a hotel. The expansion is expected to enlarge SDSU's student enrollment by 11,385 and add 1,282 faculty and staff members. The SDSU expansion was first the subject of a 2005 EIR. In that EIR, the Board found the proposed SDSU expansion would contribute significantly to cumulative traffic congestion at several off -campus locations. As was its practice with other campuses, the Board declined, on narrow legal grounds, to contribute its share of the cost of improving those roads and intersections, finding that any contribution for off-site mitigation would amount to a prohibited assessment of state property and an unlawful gift of public funds. On that basis, the Board concluded that SDSU could not feasibly mitigate the project's off-site traffic impacts, and certified the EIR based on a statement of overriding considerations detailing the project's otherwise beneficial nature. The City of San Diego filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging the Board's failure to share in the cost of off-site mitigation. Contemporaneous to that proceeding, the California Supreme Court decided a related case, City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University ("Marina"), which rejected the Board's decision not to mitigate off- site environmental impacts arising from the expansion of CSU -Monterey Bay on the same narrow legal grounds—that off-site mitigation would amount to a prohibited assessment of state property and an unlawful gift of public funds. The Court held that off-site mitigation could not be deemed infeasible on those narrow legal grounds, and that agencies have the duty to mitigate or avoid its projects' significant effects within the area affected by the proposed project. In dicta, however, the Court noted one example where the state's appropriations process might render mitigation infeasible. As the Court stated, "if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist" to mitigate the impacts of a particular project. Ultimately, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Marina, the superior court in the San Diego case refused the Board's same arguments with respect to the SDSU campus expansion and issued a peremptory writ. Instead of appealing the writ, the Board issued a new EIR for the SDSU project in 2007, once again finding that the proposed project would contribute significantly to off -campus traffic congestion. For each affected location, the Board estimated the project's "fair -share contributions" to mitigate the increased congestion, which averaged around 12 percent. The Board also identified the specific improvements that would mitigate most of the impacts below the threshold of significance. Perhaps viewing the Supreme Court's off -handed statement about the appropriations process possibly rendering mitigation infeasible, the Board provided no assurance that it would pay SDSU's fair share of the mitigation costs. Instead, citing the dicta in Marina, the Board stated that: "the university's fair -share funding commitment is necessarily conditioned up[on] requesting and obtaining funds from the California Legislature. If the Legislature does not provide funding, or if funding is significantly delayed, all identified significant impacts would remain significant and unavoidable." In a resolution certifying the 2007 EIR and approving the campus master plan revision for SDSU, the Board found that the project's significant impacts on traffic could not be feasibly mitigated given its interpretation of Marina, but that overriding benefits justified proceeding despite unmitigated effects. The City and other regional entities filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the 2007 EIR. This time, however, the superior court denied the petition. On appeal, the court reversed in part, ruling that the Board had erred in relying on Marina to find off-site mitigation infeasible. The Supreme Court granted the Board's petition for review. While mitigation is often reviewed under the more deferential "substantial evidence" standard, the Court reviewed as a question of law the Board's finding that mitigation is infeasible without an earmarked appropriation. With respect to the Board's reliance on Marina, the Court explained that the case makes clear that the duty to mitigate a projects' significant impacts attaches not just to the agency's own property, but "within the area which will be affected by a proposed project," including off -campus areas. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.5.) It was "beside the point" that the Board lacked authority to construct improvements in off -campus areas because payment to a third party to perform the acts may represent a feasible alternative. Despite the Board's repeated request for a $15 million systemwide mitigation fund for off- site campus development impacts, in no instance had the Legislature acted on this request. And as the Court explained, "[n]either CEQA itself, Marina, 39 CalAth 341, nor any other decision suggests that mitigation costs for a project funded by the Legislature cannot appropriately be included in the project's budget and paid with the funds appropriated for the project." Mitigation is always the rule. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(b).) Additionally, while the Legislature had previously exempted the Board from CEQA's requirements, it had done so explicitly, and no such exception could be reasonably inferred here. Finally, the Court repudiated the rule proposed by the Board that fair -share mitigation payments are infeasible unless funded with an earmarked appropriation, noting the unreasonable consequences of such an Bt3WN EYBRA D interpretation. First, such a ruling would apply to all agencies and would have the unwelcome effect of forcing the Legislature to sit as a standing environmental review board to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state agencies' projects should proceed despite unmitigated off-site environmental effects. The Court disagreed that CSU should be treated any differently than another agency because the Board had identified no statute or regulation modifying CEQA requirements for CSU projects. Second, the practical effect of such a rule would shift costs to local and regional governmental agencies, imposing a financial burden on them not recoverable through other means. Third, under the Board's proposed rule, off-site mitigation would likely be found infeasible for many, if not all, state projects that receive non -state funding, and more such projects would proceed without mitigation pursuant to statements of overriding considerations. While seemingly narrow to the CSU practice of avoiding offsite mitigation through its particular budgeting process, the Court's ruling further limits the circumstances under which mitigation can be deemed infeasible. The ruling also adds to the growing list of cases to apply the non -deferential "de novo" standard to review of agency infeasibility findings. Shortly after deciding to review the City of San Diego case, the Court granted review of a parallel case addressing the same legal issue concerning feasibility of off -campus mitigation in City of Hayward v. California State University Board of Trustees. Given the unequivocal ruling in the instant case, the Hayward decision is certain to similarly invalidate the Board's practice with regards to mitigation. MARGARET MOORE SOHAGI NICOLE HOEKSMA GORDON R. TYSON SOHAGI ALBERT I. HERSON THOMAS JACOBSON ALISON L. KRUMBEIN ANNE C.H. LYNCH HELENE V. SMOOKLER PHILIP A. SEYMOUR OF COUNSEL THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 11999 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 150 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-5136 TELEPHONE (310)475-5700 FACSIMILE (310) 475-5707 www.sohagi.com Firm Profile The Sohagi Law Group, PLC Introduction SACRAMENTO OFFICE 1104 CORPORATE WAY SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95831 TELEPHONE (916) 395-4491 FACSIMILE (916) 395-4492 The Sohagi Law Group, PLC ("SLG" or the "Firm") represents public agencies only throughout California in complex environmental and land use matters. Our areas of expertise include general and specific plan, coastal resources issues, CEQA and NEPA review, regional transportation plans, air quality and climate change, planning and zoning, land use, exactions, capacity charges, rates and assessments, water supply, and sensitive resources. We work on a wide range of public planning initiatives and development projects, including major public infrastructure. We are a full service environmental and land use law firm, offering preventative legal advice combined with the full spectrum of litigation services, including alternative dispute resolution. At SLG, we are committed to providing cost-effective solutions to the multi -layered legal and political issues that arise in the public law arena. About Us The Sohagi Law Group has an AV rated state-wide reputation for efficiently handling complex transactional and litigation matters for public agencies. The Firm has been recognized for high professional legal standards and ethics since 2006 in The Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers (Martindale -Hubbell). SLG represents only public entities, including cities, counties, townships, state agencies, special districts, commissions, and authorities. Perhaps because of our extensive litigation experience, we believe that litigation is often not the best way to resolve disputes. It is our goal to defend the principles and policies that are important to our clients while minimizing expensive, lengthy, non- productive litigation. We take special care in handling agreements, environmental documents, ordinances, resolutions and day-to-day agency actions that can lead to costly litigation. We firmly believe in the practice of preventive law. The Firm has developed a wide range of educational and professional experience in the highly specialized fields of land use and environmental law. Ms. Sohagi taught land use law at the USC Gould School of Law. Members of the Firm have THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC supplemented this experience by writing, lecturing and teaching as well as through professional service to the State Bar of California, Environmental Public Law Section; the League of California Cities; the American Planning Association; the Southwestern Legal Foundation; Institute on Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain; the Los Angeles County Bar Association; the International Municipal Lawyers Association (formerly known as NIMLO); and other professional organizations. The Firm also sponsors seminars and lectures on issues of concern to its clients. Current and Recent Litigation Philip A. Seymour, Margaret M. Sohagi, Nicole Hoeksma Gordon, and Tyson Sohagi are the Firm's CEQA litigation attorneys. In the last five years, the Firm has handled the following cases, including some currently pending oral argument: Cases pending oral argument in the California Supreme Court: City of San Diego et al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (California Supreme Court Case No. S199557), previously published at (2011) 201 Cal.AppAth 1134. Prevailed on appeal of SANDAG and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System's challenge to San Diego State University's Master Plan EIR. Review granted by Supreme Court on April 18, 2012. Case is fully briefed, awaiting oral argument. Appellate cases: Cleveland National Forest Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club v. San Diego Association of Governments et al.; Intervenor People of the State of California; and CREED -21 v. San Diego Association of Governments et al. (2011) San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37 -2011 -00101593 -CU -TT -CTL consolidated with 37 -2011 -00101660 -CU -TT -CTL; Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1 Case No. D063288 Appeal pending regarding the first Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), drafted pursuant to SB375 and related Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Case is fully briefed, awaiting oral argument. City of Oxnard v. California Coastal Commission, et al. (2009) Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS122248; Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4 Case No. B227835 Represented the City of Oxnard in litigation associated with proposed development of a new peaker plant and compliance with the Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Program. Page 12 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC County of Butte Environmental Council, et al. v. California Department of Water Resources and Pumas County, et al. v. Department of Water Resources (2009) Yolo Superior Court Case No. CV09-1258; Court of Appeals, 3rd District Case No. C071785 Appeal pending re successful defense at trial court of challenge to EIR for license extending Oroville hydroelectric facility. Trial court cases: LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey, et al. (2010) Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M109434 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. Open Monterey Project v. County of Monterey, et al. (2010) Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M109441 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. Carmel Valley Association v. County of Monterey, et al. (2010) Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M109442 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. Salinas Valley Water Coalition & Monterey County Farm Bureau v. County of Monterey, et al. (2010) Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M109451 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. City of Porterville v. County of Tulare, et al. (2012) Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU249043 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. Sierra Club, et al. v. County of Tulare, et al. (2012) Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU249061 Litigation associated with defense of the County's General Plan Update and General Plan EIR. Page 13 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Alliance for Regional Solutions to Airport Congestion v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; City of Inglewood, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., and; SEIU United Service Workers West v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2013) Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court Consolidated Case No. BS143086 [consolidated with BS143328 and BS143292] transferred in 2014 to Ventura County Superior Court and assigned Case No. 56 -2014 -00451038 -CU - W M-OXN Litigation representing the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports and other related agencies associated with the defense of the Specific Plan Amendment Study (SPAS) projects approved under the 2004 LAX Master Plan related to the implementation of modernization of the runway and taxiway system, redevelopment of the terminal area, improvement of access to the airport, and enhancement of passenger safety, security and convenience. California Cartage, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; Fast Lane Transportation, et al., v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; East Yards, NRDC et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; Long Beach Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles, et al.,; South Coast Air Quality Management District v. City of Los Angeles, et al., and; Coalition for a Safe Environment v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2013) Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court Consolidated Case No. BS143332 [consolidated with BS143333, BS143356, BS143454, BS143448 and BS 143381 ] transferred in 2014 to Contra Costa County Superior Court and assigned Case No. MSN14-0300 Litigation representing the City of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles and other related agencies associated with the defense of the Southern California International Gateway Project (SCIG) EIR. This project involves construction and operation of a new near -dock intermodal rail facility by BNSF that would handle containerized cargo transported through the Port of Los Angeles. Santa Ana California Lodge, LLC v. City of Santa Ana, et al. (2012) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2012-00556147-CU-WM- CXC Successfully defended the City of Santa Ana against a challenge to an EIR prepared for a sewer lift station project by a nearby property owner. Cuesta Annex and Salco Acres Preservation Group v. Santa Clara Valley Water District (2012) Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 112CV238334 Represent SCVWD against a challenge brought by citizens group on the Permanente Creek Flood Protection project. Page 14 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Tehachapi Area Critical Landuse Issues Group v. Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District (2011) Kern County Superior Court Case No. S -1500 -CV -275260 Successfully defended TVHD against challenge to Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with a hospital expansion and renovation project. Nunez v. City of National City (2011) San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37 -2011 -00078086 -CU -MC -CTL Litigation associated with defense of the City's General Plan Update adoption under the Brown Act. Southern California Edison v. City of Oxnard (2011) Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2011-00399096CU-WM- VTA Litigation associated with a writ of mandate ordering issuance of ministerial permits associated with SCE's proposed peaker plant, issuance of a water connection, and ordering the City water policy to be illegal, invalid, and unenforceable. Friends of the Whittier Narrows v. San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority (2010) Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 125058; Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 2 Case No. B232561 Successful defense of the Authority's EIR for the creation of a state -of the art, LEED certified interpretive center at the location of the Whittier Narrows Nature Center. DeHoff v. City of Poway (2010) San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37 -2010 -00104510 -CU -TT -CTL Successfully defended City of Poway against a challenge to a negative declaration prepared for a lighting and turf project at the Arbolitos Sports Field. Building a Better Redondo v. City of Redondo Beach, et al. (2010) Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 124769; Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8 Case No. B226499 Defense of certification procedures associated with the Local Coastal Plan and California Coastal Act. Friends of the Lacy Historic Neighborhood v. City of Santa Ana, et al. (2010) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010-00388033-CU-WM- CXC Defense of Transit Zoning Code and affordable development project within redevelopment area and related EIR. Negotiated settlement agreement that allowed development of the project and reuse of existing homes for affordable housing. Page 15 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Citizens for Quality of Life v. City of Encinitas (2008) San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00100864-CU-WM-NC Successful defense of the City of Encinitas' EIR for a 44 -acre sports park. Holland Partners v. City of Loma Linda (2007) San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 146978 Successful defense of City of Loma Linda's Measure V, a citizen's measure adding a managed growth element to a general plan, on-going legal advice regarding general plan update, Affordable Housing Element and drafting Interim Development Ordinance. Citizens for Preservation of Coronado Beach v. City of Coronado (2005) San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC 845202 Defended Coronado in CEQA challenge to mitigated negative declaration for Lifeguard Services Building, alleged inconsistency with City's Local Coastal Program and General Plan. DeJong v. City of Vista (2008) San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37 -2008 -00053475 -CJ -PT -NC Legal defense of the City of Vista in a CEQA lawsuit brought by a commercial property owner regarding zoning issues. Practice Areas and Representative Clients CEQA and NEPA The Firm has worked on a wide range of projects, including the first Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), drafted pursuant to SB375, public infrastructure projects such as the Los Angeles Airport Master Plan projects, the Port of Los Angeles expansion projects, the Port of San Diego Airport Master Plan project, and complex transmission line projects for the California Public Utilities Commission. The firm has also worked with clients on regional infrastructure plans, large mixed use projects, residential projects, coastal bluffs, specific plans, hillside ordinances, sensitive lands, deep pit mining, landfills, rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation regulations. SLG attorneys have drafted and revised local CEQA guidelines, thresholds of significance, and CEQA mitigation monitoring plans. Ms. Sohagi teaches introductory and advanced CEQA courses to trial judges, appellate justices, and research attorneys at the California Judicial College. As a former vice president of Jones & Stokes (now ICF International), Mr. Herson's extensive experience with several major environmental consulting firms gives him unique insights into the complex legal issues that arise when preparing environmental documents. Page 16 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Association of Governments. Review of adequacy of Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Regional Comprehensive Plan and related EIRs. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] San Diego Association of Governments. CEQA advice related to EIR/EIS for beach replenishment project. San Diego Association of Governments. CEQA advice for the Fair Share Methodologies Programs. San Diego Association of Governments. Review of EIR and pre -litigation settlement for the Coronado Bridge toll removal. San Diego Association of Governments. Review of EIR for Multiple Species Habitat Plan for North San Diego County. City of Los Angeles — Harbor Department, Port of Los Angeles Ms. Sohagi is the lead environmental and land use attorney advising the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor Department on a series of port expansion and redesign projects on the Port of Los Angeles property. Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project EIR/EIS. Legal advice for CEQA/NEPA compliance on $245 million project to expand and modernize the container terminal at the Port of Los Angeles' Berths 136-147, upgrade existing wharf facilities, and install a buffer area between the terminal and the community. Channel Deepening Project Supplemental EIREIS. Legal advice on CEQA/NEPA compliance for project to provide additional capacity for disposal of dredge material associated with completing the Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los Angeles. San Pedro Waterfront Project EIS/EIR. Legal advice on CEQA/NEPA compliance for project to develop a variety of land uses, including new cruise ship berths, park space, harbors, and 375,000 sq. ft of commercial space. Wilmington Waterfront Project EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance for project in 31.5 acre development district, coastal trail extension, and a 10 acre elevated park. Al Larson Boat Shop Improvement Project EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance for modernization of a ship repair facility including dredging, maintenance, and confined disposal facility. Southern California International Gateway Project (SCIG) EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance for creation of a near -dock intermodal rail facility. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Page 17 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Southwest Marine Building Demolition Project (SWM) EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance for the demolition of the former SWM Shipyard and restoration of the site to its condition at the time of initial occupancy. City of Los Angeles — Los Angeles World Airports: Ms. Sohagi is the lead environmental and land use attorney advising the City of Los Angeles and LAWA on a series of $11 billion Specific Plan Amendment Study projects pursuant to the 2004 LAX Master Plan. The projects relate to the implementation of modernization of the runway and taxiway system, redevelopment of the terminal area, improvement of access to the airport, and enhancement of passenger safety, security and convenience. Underlying projects include the Tom Bradley International Terminal Reconfiguration Project and the Crossfield Taxiway Project. Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT) EIR. CEQA advice regarding Bradley West Project, a $2 billion renovation of the international terminal and gates at LAX. Crossfield Taxiway Project (CFTP) EIR. CEQA advice regarding Crossfield Taxiway Project, providing improvements to a portion of the existing taxiway system to support aircraft access between the north and south runway complexes at LAX. Central Utility Plant (CUP) EIR. CEQA advice regarding LAX Central Utility Plant Project, providing for the replacement of the existing CUP and associated cogeneration facilities. Specific Plan Amendment Study (SPAS) EIR. CEQA advice on Study and EIR to analyze alternative projects within the 2004 LAX Master Plan Program, pursuant to the 2006 Stipulated Settlement with neighboring communities. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Westchester Stormdrain Project EA/MND. CEQA and NEPA advice regarding Westchester Stormwater Project, groundwater infiltration facility. Westchester Golf Course EA. NEPA advice regarding improvements to the Westchester Golf Course, located within the boundaries of LAX, including the addition of three new holes. Korean Air Cargo Terminal Improvement Project MND. CEQA advice on project to construct additional warehouse and office space at the Korean Air facility at LAX. Van Nuys Phaseout of Noisier Aircraft EIR. CEQA advice on Van Nuys Noisier Aircraft Phaseout Project to change aircraft operations at the Van Nuys Airport, including review of the EIR. Castle & Cooke Aviation Fixed Based Operation Project MND. CEQA advice regarding the Castle and Cooke Project at Van Nuys Airport, renovation of a Page 18 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC 3.5 acre site for a Fixed Base Operator (FBO), including legal review of Negative Declaration. Van Nuys Propeller Park Project ND. CEQA advice regarding Propeller Park Project at Van Nuys Airport, renovation of a 30 acre site with new hangars and facilities, including legal review of Negative Declaration. City of Los Angeles — Community Redevelopment Agency University Gateway Project EIR. Reviewed and provided CEQA advice on the EIR for the University Gateway Project, a mixed-use student housing project adjacent to the University of Southern California. St. Vibiana's Cathedral EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance related to historical significance. Thermal Icehouse Project EIR. Legal advice on CEQA compliance. California Public Utilities Commission Sunrise Powerlink Project EIR/EIS. The Sohagi Law Group, PLC provided legal review the CPUC's Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line EIR/EIS. The Sunrise Project is a 117 -mile, $1.883 billion 500 -kilovolt electric transmission "superhighway" that will carry renewable energy from Imperial County to San Diego County with 1,000 megawatt capacity (enough energy for 650,000 homes). The project will traverse several cities as well as federal and state lands improving the reliability of the electric transmission grid and link renewable energy sources to primary consumers. As outside CEQA/NEPA counsel to the CPUC, The Sohagi Law Group performed legal consulting tasks from beginning to end related to the CEQA/NEPA process, leading to publication of the Joint EIR/EIS including determinations regarding multiple, complex Alternatives. Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 (DPV2) EIR/EIS. Legal review of EIR/EIS for construction of high voltage (500 kilovolt) electric transmission line through California and Arizona, known as Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 (DPV2) and upgrades of transmission facilities in an existing transmission line corridor that passes through the multiple cities, counties in both California and Arizona and federal and tribal lands. Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRIP) EIR/EIS. Legal review of EIR/EIS for construction of the 500 kilovolt transmission project, proposed by Southern California Edison. The Project includes some National Forest land and requires a 50 -year term Special Use Easement from the Forest Services. EI Casco Project EIR. Legal review of EIR for Southern California Edison transmission project. Page 19 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Cressey-Gallo 115 W Powerline Project. Legal review of MND for powerline project. Santa Cruz 115 W Reinforcement Project. Legal review of CEQA document for powerline reinforcement project in Santa Cruz mountains. Cleveland National Forest Electric Safety and Reliability Project. Provide ongoing legal review of the application and anticipated CEQA/NEPA document to be prepared for SDG&E's CNF Electric Safety and Reliability Project. Santa Barbara County Reliability Project. Provide ongoing legal review of the application and anticipated CEQA document to be prepared for SCE's Santa Barbara County Reliability Project. Nevada Hydro's Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500 W Interconnect Project EIR. Legal review of EIR for proposed 500 kV alternating current regional interconnection transmission line with a nominal design capacity of 1,000 MW. All Other Agencies County of Monterey. CEQA advice regarding General Plan update and General Plan EIR. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Southern California Association of Governments. Legal review of proposals for Governor's Committee on CEQA Reform and advice regarding Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan. Intermodal Container Transfer Facility Joint Powers Authority (ICTF) EIR. Review of the proposed near dock Intermodal Containerized Transfer Facility for modernization and goods movement. The ICTF JPA is a joint entity created and funded by the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority (LA- RICS). Provide advice to Joint Powers Authority on compliance with CEQA and NEPA related construction of more than 300 individual monopole and tower sites to facilitate a Land -Mobile Radio (LMR) system and a broadband wireless network using Long -Term Evolution (LTE) technology, which would enable interoperability among first responders region wide in the case of a natural or man-made disaster. City of Redondo Beach. CEQA advice on EIR for multiple development projects. California Department of Fish and Game. Legal review of EIR/EIS for Newhall Ranch Master Plan development. Page 1 10 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC Cambria Community Services District. Review of County of San Luis Obispo's North Coast Area Coastal Plan and EIR regarding Hearst development proposal, desalination plant, and other public facilities and annexations. City and Redevelopment Agency of Santa Ana. CEQA review of Transit Zoning Code and affordable development projects within redevelopment area, and related EIR. The City's Transit Zoning Code provides a comprehensive, pedestrian -oriented development framework that encourages infill and alternative modes of transportation along with affordable housing. City of Arcadia. Legal and planning advice to City relating to general plan update, specific plan and development agreement and EIR. City of Burbank. Review of EIRs for contaminated sites, including the Lockheed and ITT sites. City of Chula Vista. CEQA advice regarding General Plan update. City of Encinitas. Legal review of EIR for a 44 -acre sports park. City of National City. Legal review of General Plan Update and EIR re Sustainable Communities Strategy and SB 375. City of Oceanside. Legal review of Master Plan and airport expansion issues including preemption and noise. City of Oxnard. Review of various groundwater issues in Ventura County, including MTBE soil and groundwater contamination. City of Riverside. CEQA advice regarding proposed Super Wal-Mart and Specific Plan and related EIR. City of Riverside. T&S Development, Inc. v. City of Riverside; Martin v. City of Riverside (trial court cases). CEQA advice related to the City's EIR for shopping center expansion. City of Rohnert Park. Legal and planning advice to City relating to general, specific plan and annexation issues. City of Vista. CEQA advice related to EIR for extensive expansion of church campus, involving onsite sanctuaries, k-12 school, office buildings and support facilities. City of Vista. Legal counsel to City relating to the EIR for the Regional Solid Waste Authority's trash transfer station. City of Vista. Challenge to the District's certification of EIR relating to the light rail system (North San Diego County Transit District). County of Los Angeles. Legal review and drafting of amendment to County's Santa Monica Mountains Plan (ridgeline ordinance). Page 1 11 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC County of Los Angeles. Legal counsel to the County related to the Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County EIR. County of Los Angeles. Ongoing legal advice to the Department of Public Works regarding water, wastewater and infrastructure and other projects including the Termino Drain EIR. County of Marin. CEQA advice regarding General Plan update and related EIR. County of San Joaquin. Legal review of air quality and greenhouse gas analyses for railyard expansion EIR. County of Tulare. Legal review of General Plan and EIR, including air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis for General Plan Update. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Department of Fish and Game. Legal review of EIR/EIS for the Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan associated with the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Fern Lane Homeowners v. City of Glendale. Successfully defended challenge to regional sports complex. Glendale Redevelopment Agency. Review of EIRs for several projects. San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority. Legal advice related to the Authority's EIR for the creation of a state -of the art, LEED certified interpretive center at the location of the Whittier Narrows Nature Center. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Public Infrastructure With its focus on land use and public agency clients, SLG is particularly well positioned to assist in the development of a full range of public infrastructure projects. The Firm is familiar with every aspect of the public project development process, from funding mechanisms, to planning, to environmental review, and implementation. Each of these stages involves a host of laws, regulations, and rules, and SLG is well equipped to guide its clients through the process. The Firm regularly works with clients in implementing their Capital Improvements Programs, interfacing with public employees, consultants, and construction managers, and state, federal and local permitting agencies along the way. Page 1 12 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC The Firm has worked with public agencies in developing their public infrastructure projects: • Los Angeles County • The California Public Utilities Commission • Los Angeles World Airports • The Port of Los Angeles • City of Encinitas Land Use Planning/General Plan Updates The Firm draws on its breadth and depth of experience in advising its clients in the complex, and often contentious, realm of land use planning. Our experience ranges from small, focused zoning amendments to comprehensive, jurisdiction -wide planning initiatives. Whatever the context, our focus is on helping the client achieve its vision, ensuring compliance with state and federal law, and implementing effective, manageable solutions. SLG advises cities and counties in developing and updating general plans and specific plans, and has successfully represented cities and counties defending their General and specific plans in mediation and litigation. The Firm has worked with the following agencies on their planning projects: County of Monterey. LandWatch Monterey County, et al. vs. County of Monterey and Helping Our Peninsula's Environment vs. Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and related litigation. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Redondo Beach. Review and provide legal advice on all land use planning documents, including the Coastal Land Use Program, Harbor/Pier Specific Plan, and Coastal Zoning. National City. Review and revisions to City's general plan and the associated EIR for compliance with the Government Code and CEQA. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] County of Marin. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Loma Linda. Holland Partners v. City of Loma Linda. Successful defense of City's Measure V, a citizen's measure adding a managed growth element to a general plan, on-going legal advice regarding general plan update, Affordable Housing Element and drafting Interim Development Ordinance. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Page 1 13 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC County of Los Angeles. Assist Regional Planning Department in preparation of updated CEQA Guidelines and procedures for the County. County of Los Angeles. Legal review of issues relating to Agua Dulce Airport expansion, preemption, local, state and federal airport regulations and violations of permit conditions. County of Los Angeles. Represent County in its opposition to the redevelopment of a Westside army base and the Veterans Administration property. County of Los Angeles. Legal review and drafting of amendment (ridgeline ordinance) to Santa Monica Mountains Northland Plan. City of Chula Vista. CEQA review of general plan update. City of Arroyo Grande. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Carpinteria. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Fillmore. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Oceanside. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Rohnert Park. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. City of Simi Valley. Legal review of adequacy of general plan update and EIR. County of Tulare. Legal review of FEIR for general plan update. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] City of Vista. Legal review of proposed citizen's initiative. Subsequently mediated general plan/initiative conflict between City and concerned citizens. Project Planners v. City of Oceanside. Settled lawsuit relating to hillside residential development through mediation. Weiner v. City of Glendale. Settled lawsuit relating to residential development regarding environmental impacts. City of Arcadia. Legal and planning advice to City relating to general plan update, specific plan and development agreement. City of Rohnert Park. Legal and planning advice to City relating to general, specific plan and annexation issues. City of Santa Barbara. Drafted transfer of existing development rights program. Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cal.AppAth 259. Defended City in challenges to Riverside's growth management measure and general plan. Page 1 14 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Citizens Against the Airport v. City of Oceanside. Legal review of Master Plan and airport expansion issues including preemption and noise. Clean Air, Climate Change/Air Quality/Health Risk Assessments Clean air is one of the most important environmental issues facing public agencies today, and SLG has the expertise necessary to help our clients develop effective, efficient solutions to problems they face in this area. In order to provide clients with the best advice, SLG closely follows the development of federal, state, and local standards for criteria pollutants, emissions analysis, health risk assessments, air quality modeling, and air quality environmental justice issues. SLG regularly advises clients regarding compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and its regulations, including the conformity requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7506. SLG also advises clients on California's air pollution laws, including the California Clean Air Act, the Lewis - Presley Air Quality Management Act, and the Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act. SLG stays on the cutting edge of greenhouse gases, adaptation, and other climate change issues, particularly those related to AB 32 and SB 375. We keep our clients up-to-date on constantly evolving legislative, regulatory and judicial guidance on monitoring, reporting, and evaluating greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA and NEPA. In addition to advising clients in evaluating greenhouse gas emissions for their planning initiatives in development projects, the firm helped negotiate a MOU with the California Attorney General regarding greenhouse gas mitigation and monitoring at the Port of Los Angeles. Margaret Sohagi and Helene Smookler are regularly featured speakers at national and local conferences on the topic of land use planning, environmental review, and climate change. SLG advises metropolitan planning organizations and local governments on implementation of SB 375. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Legal counsel to SANDAG related to SB 375 implementation. Preparation of Regional Transportation Plan with a Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan and EIR. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] National City. Review and revisions to City's general plan and the associated EIR for compliance with the Government Code and CEQA. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Southern California Association of Governments. Provided drafting advice on SB 375 and negotiated proposed terms with stakeholders. City and Redevelopment Agency of Santa Ana. CEQA review and defense of City's Transit Zoning Code and affordable development projects and related EIR. The City's Transit Zoning Code provides a comprehensive, pedestrian - oriented development framework that encourages infill and alternative modes of transportation along with affordable housing. Page 1 15 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles. Conquest Student Housing, LLC v. Community Redevelopment Agency and Knoll, et al. v. Community Redevelopment Agency. Defense and settlement of a mixed use/transit oriented development adjacent to the University of Southern California in which adequacy of parking vs. public transit was at issue. Port of Los Angeles. Ms. Sohagi negotiated one of the first Memoranda of Understanding with the California Attorney General in response to a comment letter on the climate change analysis in a large international port -of -entry infrastructure EIR/EIS. County of Marin. Legal review EIR air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis for general plan update. County of Monterey. Legal review EIR air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis for general plan update. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] County of Tulare. Legal review EIR air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis for general plan update. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Port of San Diego. Legal review of-EIR air quality chapter for San Diego Airport Master Plan. Port of Los Angeles. Legal review of EIR/EIS air quality chapter, greenhouse gas analysis, and health risk assessments for port expansion and waterfront projects. Review of Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach "Clean Air Action Plan." [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Los Angeles World Airports. Legal review of EIR/EIS air quality and greenhouse gas analysis and health risk assessments for airport and landside projects. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Los Angeles World Airports. Legal review of Sustainability Guidelines. County of Los Angeles. Legal review of EIR air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for stormwater project. Department of Fish and Game. Legal review of EIR/EIS air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for large development project. California Public Utilities Commission. Legal review of EIR/EIS air quality chapters and greenhouse gas analysis for transmission line projects. Advice to planning staff, legal counsel and Administrative Law Judge on CEQA and greenhouse gas analysis. Page 1 16 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC San Diego Association of Governments. Legal review of EIR air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis for Regional Transportation Plan. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] San Gabriel River Discover Center. Legal review of EIR/EIS air quality chapter and greenhouse gas analysis. [See also under Current and Recent Litigation supra.] Southern California Association of Government. Advice on greenhouse gas analysis and health risk assessments. City of Vista. Legal review of EIR air quality and greenhouse analysis. City of Encinitas. Legal review of EIR air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for large park. City of Riverside. Legal review of EIR air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for large big -box project. Climate Change and Sustainability: Advisory Boards and Speeches Helene Smookler has extensive experience and up-to-date knowledge of CARB's and the SCAQMD's rules and regulations, particularly those relating to mobile and construction emissions and greenhouse gases. Sohagi Law Group's legal review of environmental documents includes analysis of conformance to CARB's and SCAQMD's rules and regulations. Ms. Smookler works closely with staff CARB and the SCAQMD and reviews all proposed and new regulations, Air Quality Management Plans, and the State Implementation Plans. Ms. Smookler has extensive background in air quality. As Chief Counsel for the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") she was responsible for the legal adequacy of SCAG's portion of the SCAQMD's, Air Plan under Health & Safety Code §§ 40460 and 40463, which included emissions data and budgets for transportation measures and strategies. She also provided legal review the transportation conformity findings under 42 USC § 7506. Ms. Smookler's negotiation and drafting of transportation and air quality Environmental Justice documents has been recognized by the Federal Highway Administration and included in their case studies. While at SCAG she litigated the following cases. Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments. Successfully defended challenge to the mobility portion of 1991 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. EPA (9th Cir. 1992) 971 F.2d 219, cert. denied (1993) 113 S.Ct. 1361. Challenge to 1991 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Page 1 17 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC California Air Resources Board v. EPA, SCAQMD and SCAG. Challenge to agreement between U.S. EPA and Coalition for Clean Air. Ms. Sohagi has participated in speeches and advisory boards related to Climate Change and Sustainability, including: County Counsel's Association Land Use Study Section "Global Warming & Climate Change: Practitioner Perspective & Prescription." SB 97 Working Group, co-sponsored by the California Center for Environmental Law & Policy and the California Resources Agency. California Chapter American Planning Association "New State -Federal Mandates for Local Hazard Mitigation: Legislation Addressing Global Warming." California Airport Attorneys Roundtable "AB 32 Update, MATES Ill, The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007." UCLA Extension Environmental Sustainability Advisory Board. Benjamin S. Crocker Symposium on Real Estate Law and Business "Global Warming, Risk, Sustainability, and Development —A New World." UCLA Extension Land Use Law & Planning Conference Chair and Moderator of "Next Steps in Addressing Climate Change: Is Climate Change Modifying Our Approach to Land Use Planning and Environmental Analyses" and "Environmental Year in Review: The CEQA Update." Affordable Housing SLG advises cities and counties on California's requirements for affordable housing development and assists clients with development of projects to meet those requirements. The Firm also advises its clients in developing general plan housing elements that comply with the Government Code, and defends housing elements in litigation and mediation. SLG advised the City of Oxnard in development of an affordable housing project and defended the City of Oceanside's managed growth ordinance as it related to affordable housing. Former member of Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, an advisory committee to the Little Hoover Commission. Review of local jurisdictions' housing elements regarding legal adequacy including Cities of Fillmore, Oceanside, Rohnert Park and Simi Valley. City of Oxnard. Development of affordable housing project. City of Loma Linda. Legal advice re preparation of housing element. Holland Partners v. City of Loma Linda. Defense of City in a challenge to initiative measure on affordable housing grounds, including Federal Fair Housing Act claims. Page 1 18 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC BIA/Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside. Defense of City's managed growth ordinance, particularly affordable housing. Griffin Homes, Inc. v. City of Simi Valley; Long Beach Equities v. City of Simi Valley; CoastFed v. City of Simi Valley. Defense of City's managed growth ordinance including affordable housing issues. Hatcher v. City of Oceanside, et al. Represented cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista and Encinitas in regional homeless housing supply case. Settled through mediation. Settlement Negotiations and Mediations The Firm prides itself on resolving issues through settlement negotiations and mediation. Ms. Sohagi has represented clients in numerous settlements. She has also served as a mediator in a complex endangered species dispute, San Bernardino Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District (2001) 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 108. Ms. Smookler is a trained mediator, specializing in large complex public policy disputes. She has recently been retained to mediate issues between the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Coalition to Preserve Open Reservoirs. Her mediation of jurisdictional and water quality issues involving the counties of Imperial and Riverside and the Coachella Water and Imperial Irrigation Districts resulted in the creation of the Salton Sea Authority. Ms. Smookler is Adjunct Professor of Public Policy Dispute Resolution at the University of Southern California, Graduate School of Policy Planning and Development. Ms. Smookler has provided mediation training for local public officials (elected officials and staff). Federal and State Budgeting and Legislative Process The Firm frequently takes an active role in requesting financial and legislative assistance from state and federal agencies and elected officials. As Director of Government Affairs for SCAG for three years, Ms. Smookler was responsible for all federal and state legislative activities, including drafting of legislation and oversight of Sacramento and Washington D.C. lobbyists. Ms. Sohagi has numerous contacts in Sacramento at the various regulatory agencies including the Department of Fish & Game, State Parks, the Department of Health Services, and Assembly and Senate offices and committees. These contacts have been useful in obtaining funding for remediation efforts and legislative amendments. Page 1 19 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Professional Staff The Firm's attorneys are licensed to practice law before all state and federal courts in the state of California, and are in good standing with the State Bar of California. In addition, Ms. Sohagi has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Margaret Moore Sohagi, Principal Margaret Moore Sohagi is a recognized authority on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), regional transportation plans and sustainable communities strategies, SB 375, climate change, air quality analyses, and land use and infrastructure planning. She has extensive experience in impact fees, rates and charges, land use and zoning, sensitive resources, takings, the Public Records Act, and the Brown Act. For the past 20 years, Ms. Sohagi has represented only public agencies in complex, high profile, land use and environmental transactional and litigation matters. Ms. Sohagi has been an Adjunct Professor of Land Use Law at USC Law School, where she taught land use law for over 7 years. She is an instructor for the Judicial Council of California where she teaches introductory and advanced CEQA courses to Superior, Appellate, and Supreme Court judges and court attorneys. Ms. Sohagi teaches several CEQA courses through UCLA's Public Policy Program, serves as co-chair of CLE International's Annual CEQA Update conferences and regularly teaches CEQA and NEPA in-house training workshops for public agencies. Ms. Sohagi, along with Thomas Jacobson, also of The Sohagi Law Group, is a co-author of Exactions and Impact Fees in California: A Comprehensive Study Guide to Policy, Practice and the Law. She is AV -rated for highest professional excellence and ethical standards and is listed in Martindale Hubbell's Register of Preeminent Lawyers. Ms. Sohagi is currently special counsel for San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for its environmental matters, including implementation of SB 375, the bill signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger redesigning communities to reduce greenhouse gases. She regularly meets with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) throughout the state and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on behalf of SANDAG regarding development of Regional Transportation Plans consistent with SB 375. The Firm is appellate counsel for SANDAG and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) in the Del Cerro Action Council v. Board of Trustees of California State University (Court of Appeals Case No. D050260, San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC855643). This case involves a challenge to an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by the Board of Trustees of the California State University on the grounds it failed to adequately evaluate and mitigate the impacts of a campus expansion on public transit systems. Page 120 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Education BA, Geography/Ecosystems, UCLA JD, Loyola Law School Bar Memberships State of California United States Supreme Court Nicole Hoeksma Gordon, Partner Nicole Gordon advises public agencies on complex environmental and land use matters at the administrative, trial, and appellate level. She focuses her practice on CEQA, NEPA, federal and California Endangered Species Act, and Planning and Zoning Laws. Representative projects include complex renewable energy projects, transmission lines, General Plan updates, harbor improvements, airport expansions, transportation improvements, and public works projects. Ms. Gordon's CEQA litigation experience includes the Del Cerro Action Council, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (Case. No. D057446) in California's Fourth Appellate District, De Hoff v. City of Poway (Case. No. 37 -2010- 00104510 -CU -TT -CTL) in the San Diego Superior Court, and Friends of Lacy v. City of Santa Ana, et al. (Case. No. 30-2010-00388033-CU-WM-CXC) in the Orange County Superior Court. Ms. Gordon also teaches several CEQA courses through UCLA's Public Policy Program and regularly teaches CEQA and NEPA in-house training workshops for public agencies. Ms. Gordon's article Demystifying CEQA's Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements was published in the California Environmental Law Reporter (September 2011 issue). She has also published an article in Western City Magazine entitled Shovel -Ready on a Shoestring: Tools for Efficient, Cost -Saving CEQA Compliance (September 2009). Ms. Gordon also frequently speaks on environmental matters at conferences throughout the state. Education BA, cum laude, International Studies, Middlebury College JD, University of Southern California Bar Memberships State of California R. Tyson Sohagi, Associate Robert Tyson Sohagi's practice focuses upon environmental law, land use and planning law, the Coastal Act (including Port Master Plans, and Local Coastal Program Compliance), CEQA, and NEPA. He advises public clients on complex matters such as infrastructure projects (transmission lines, port facilities, airport facilities, intermodal and on dock railroad facilities, utility plants), mass transit fees, Page 121 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC general plans and specific plans, specific development proposals, and other land use issues. Mr. Sohagi has been involved in numerous litigation matters in the California Superior and Appellate Courts involving issues pertaining to CEQA compliance, Coastal Act compliance, zoning compliance, election law and ballot measures, hydrology and water quality, water supply, geology, traffic and circulation, historic and archaeological resources, and biological resources. Such cases include, Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2nd Appellate Dist. Case No. B226499); City of Oxnard v. California Coastal Commission (2nd Appellate Dist. Case No. 8227835); Friends of Whittier Narrows Natural Area v. San Gabriel River Discovery CenterAuthority (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS125058) Mr. Sohagi completed an externship with Justice Earl Johnson in the California Court of Appeal, District 2, Division 7 where he drafted two appellate opinions. He was also a certified law clerk for the City Attorney's Office in Los Angeles where he tried misdemeanor cases. Mr. Sohagi received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley and has an in depth understanding of many technical engineering issues that arise in many of the infrastructure projects and the associated documents and EIRs. Education BS, Mechanical Engineering and Minor in Modern English, UC Berkeley JD, with distinction, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Bar Memberships State of California Helene V. Smookler, PhD., Of Counsel Helene Smookler has over 40 years experience in state and local government policy and planning and environmental law. Her practice focuses on CEQA and NEPA, air quality, greenhouse gases, transportation, goods movement, housing, environmental justice and other regional issues. Recent CEQA and NEPA matters include Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, California Public Utilities Commission, Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, ITCF JointPowers Authority, the County of San Joaquin, Sand Diego Association of Government, and County of Los Angeles projects. A significant part of Ms. Smookler's practice also involves mediation of complex public policy disputes, principally environmental and land use issues. Helene Smookler was formerly Chief Counsel at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Prior to joining SCAG, she was an attorney at the Center for Law in the Public Interest, where her cases included Keith v. Volpe. (858 F.2d. 467 (1988); 352 F.Supp. 1324 — Dist. Court, CD California 1972.) Earlier in her career, she was a special consultant to the court during the Los Angeles School desegregation (Crawford v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., No. 822-854 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Feb. 11, 1970)). She has published extensively in the area of public policy and Page 122 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC planning, including housing, transportation, education and dispute resolution. In addition to her legal practice, Ms. Smookler is an Adjunct Professor at USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development where she teaches Public Policy Dispute Resolution. Ms. Smookler has extensive experience and up-to-date knowledge of air quality regulations, including CARB and air district rules and regulations, particularly those relating to mobile and construction emissions and greenhouse gases. While at SCAG, she was responsible for the legal adequacy of SCAG's portion of the SCAQMD's, Air Plan under Health & Safety Code §§ 40460 and 40463, which included emissions data and budgets for transportation measures and strategies. She also provided legal review of the transportation conformity findings under 42 USC § 7506. Ms. Smookler's negotiation and drafting of transportation and air quality Environmental Justice documents has been recognized by the Federal Highway Administration and included in their case studies. Education BA, Political Science and History, UC Berkeley Ph.D, Political Science (Urban Politics and Public Policy), UCLA JD, UCLA, School of Law Bar Memberships State of California Philip A. Seymour, Of Counsel Mr. Seymour has extensive legal experience in various land use matters including CEQA, California land use law, including First Amendment, complex land use, general planning and zoning, permits and variances, California Coastal Act, and related administrative regulations, and implied dedication (public access). His CEQA experience includes some of the major California cases, including Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Orange County (1998) 71 Cal.AppAth 493; City of Menlo Park v. City of Palo Alto; Mission Oaks Ranch v. County of Santa Barbara (1998) 65 Cal.AppAth 713; Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167; Citizens To Preserve The Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421; Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357. Education BA, History, UC Santa Barbara JD, Santa Barbara College of Law Bar Memberships State of California Page 123 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Albert I. Herson, FAICP, Of Counsel Al Herson is an environmental attorney and planner with over 30 years experience. He is a recognized authority on CEQA, NEPA, and natural resources law. Mr. Herson serves as the firm's Sacramento presence, and advises public agencies on complex environmental and land use law matters, including water resources and supply, climate change, SB 375, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act (including 404 permitting), as well as CEQA and NEPA. He currently serves as on-call CEQA counsel for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. He advises District staff on a wide variety of CEQA compliance issues, as well as provides legal review of CEQA and NEPA documents. Mr. Herson is co-author of California Environmental Law and Policy: A Practical Guide, the CEQA Deskbook (2nd edition), and The NEPA Book, as well as CEQA and wetlands chapters in Matthew Bender's California Environmental Law and Land Use Practice treatise. He has taught numerous courses on NEPA, CEQA, environmental permitting, and climate change, and is co-chair of CLE International's Annual CEQA Update conferences. Mr. Herson has served on the State Bar Environmental Law Section Executive Committee, as President of the California Planning Roundtable, and as President of the American Planning Association California Chapter. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP). Education BA, Psychology, University of Illinois; summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa MA, Urban Planning, UCLA JD, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; Valedictorian, Order of the Coif Bar Memberships State of California Thomas Jacobson, FAICP, Of Counsel Thomas Jacobson is one of California's foremost attorneys in land use law, including takings and exactions, planning and zoning, Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, growth management, housing, and land use initiatives and referenda. He is Professor of Environmental Studies and Planning at Sonoma State University, where he is Director of the Center of Sustainable Communities. He was formerly an attorney with the Land Use Group at McCutchen, Doyle, Brown, and Enersen and adjunct professor of law at the University of San Francisco. Mr. Jacobson is co-author of Exactions and Impact Fees in California (Solano Press Books) and contributed the chapters on growth management and aesthetic regulation and design review to California Land Use Practice (California Continuing Education of the Bar). He is a consultant to local governments on land use law and planning matters, and a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP) and the California Planning Roundtable. Page 124 THE SOHAGI LAw GROUP, PLC Mr. Jacobson will continue to advise public agencies on complex land use and environmental matters at The Sohagi Law Group and will mediate land use and natural resource disputes. Education BA with honors in Liberal Studies, Hutchins School of Liberal Studies at Sonoma State University MA, City Planning, UC Berkeley JD, with honors, University of California, Hastings College of Law Bar Memberships State of California Alison L. Krumbein, Of Counsel Alison Krumbein's practice focuses on environmental and land use counseling and litigation. Ms. Krumbein has experience advising public agencies in all aspects of land use law, including planning, zoning, environmental review under CEQA and NEPA, affordable housing, green building, historic preservation, wetlands regulation, coastal development, water supply, development agreements, the Williamson Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Krumbein also has experience defending writ of mandate proceedings. She has worked on permitting and entitlements for residential, retail, commercial, office, historic preservation and solar projects. Formerly an associate with the Land Use Group at Bingham McCutchen, Ms. Krumbein served as review editor of the 26th edition of Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Krumbein worked as a legislative aide for San Francisco Supervisor Barbara Kaufman from 1997 until 2000. Ms. Krumbein graduated magna cum laude from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she served on the editorial board of the Hastings Law Journal. Education BA, Sociology with honors, Northwestern University JD, magna cum laude, University of California, Hastings College of Law Bar Memberships State of California Anne C. Handley Lynch, Of Counsel Anne Lynch is a former Santa Barbara County Planning Commissioner who brings this political experience in land use issues to SLG. Prior to serving on the Planning Commission, Ms. Lynch was an active public participant in land use planning and policy, also serving on a general plan Advisory Committee and leading a local environmental organization. As Vice President of Citizens for Goleta Valley, Ms. Page 125 THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC Lynch led the organization through litigation and settlement of a major CEQA case and water rights litigation. She focuses on environmental law, including review of environmental impact reports and compliance with CEQA and NEPA. Recent CEQA matters include Monterey County, LA-RICS, the California Department of Fish and Game, California Public Utilities Commission, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airways. Ms. Lynch advises public clients on complex matters and projects including transmission lines, transportation improvements, large development projects, and coordinating environmental review with the federal Clean Water Act and federal and state endangered species acts. Ms. Lynch's recent litigation includes Friends of Whittier Narrows Natural Area v. San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS125058). Education BA, Biology, Mount Holyoke College JD, Santa Barbara College of Law Bar Memberships State of California The Sohagi Law Group, PLC 11999 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 150 Los Angeles, California 90049-5136 Telephone: (310) 475-5700 Facsimile: (310) 475-5707 info@sohagi.com www.sohaai.com WAC\493\911100305171 DOC Page 126 CSU Board in trouble - score one for neighborhoods! Best — Margaret California Supreme Court Rules State Agencies' Duty to Mitigate Not Solely Dependent on Legislative Appropriations In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court yesterday held that CSU failed to proceed in a manner required by law when it found that mitigation for the off -campus environmental impacts of its San Diego State University (SDSU) 2007 Campus Master Plan would be infeasible absent an explicit appropriation from the Legislature to fund its fair -share of such mitigation. The Court rejected CSU's proposed rule that the feasibility of mitigating its project's off-site environmental effects depends on a legislative appropriation of funds. The Court instead agreed with the City of San Diego, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), who had challenged CSU's EIR for the Master Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for its failure to adequately mitigate impacts associated with the expansion of both the student population and campus facilities. The Supreme Court's opinion affirms the Fourth District Court of Appeal's 2011 decision directing CSU to vacate its certification of the EIR. The question before the Court involved interpretation of its 2006 decision in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 CalAth 351, addressing a state agency's mitigation responsibilities. In City of Marina, the Supreme Court discussed an entity's obligation to make a "fair -share" contribution as mitigation for a project's significant off-site impacts under CEQA. In finding that CSU failed to take appropriate mitigation measures in its development of its Monterey Bay campus, the Supreme Court in City of Marina stated: "[A] state agency's power to mitigate its project's effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist." In yesterday's decision, Justice Werdergar (who also authored the City of Marinamajority) confirmed that this statement from City of Marina was dictum. That dictum, the Court found, is "simply an overstatement" and "does not justify [CSU's] assumption that a state agency may contribute funds for off-site environmental mitigation only through earmarked appropriations, to the exclusion of other available funding sources." Instead, the Court found, a public agency, in mitigating a project has access to all of its discretionary powers, not just the power to spend appropriations, including adopting changes to proposed projects, imposing conditions on its approval, adopting plans or ordinances to control a broad class of projects, and choosing alternative projects. CEQA does not provide an exception to the general rules of mitigation for state agencies. The Court's decision was also based on the "unreasonable consequences" that would follow from CSU's proposed rule that fair -share payments for off-site mitigation may be funded only with an appropriation earmarked for that purpose, and that without such an appropriation, mitigation is infeasible. Specifically, applying this rule to all state agencies would force the Legislature to sit as a "standing environmental review board to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state agencies' projects will proceed despite unmitigated off-site environmental effects." The Court also found that CSU's proposed rule would impose on local and regional government agencies the cost of addressing a state agency's project's contribution to cumulative impacts on local infrastructure. Finally, under CSU's proposed rule, off-site mitigation would be found infeasible in most cases and nothing would compel the Legislature to make appropriations for funding off-site mitigation. For these reasons, the Court rejected CSU's conclusion that the feasibility of mitigating its project's off-site environmental effects depends on a legislative earmark. The Court, thus, invalidated CSU's finding of infeasibility as a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. Margaret M. Sohagi, Philip A. Seymour, and Nicole H. Gordon represented the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) in this case.