BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 9, 2024
H.7. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH
LEIBOLD, MCCLENDON & MANN
Attached is the following document
• Agreement for Legal Services
• John G. McClendon’s Significant Environmental/Land Use/Municipal Law Matters
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 9th day of April 2024, by the CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, a chartered municipal corporation, ("CITY"), and LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, a professional corporation ("ATTORNEY”).
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:
1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the CITY Council’s authorization on April 9, 2024.
2. The CITY is a chartered municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the CITY.
3. The CITY and ATTORNEY desire to enter into an Agreement for services upon the terms and conditions herein.
AGREEMENT
THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall cover services rendered from April 9, 2024 and until terminated.
2. Services to be Provided. The services to be performed by ATTORNEY shall consist of the following:
The services to be provided by ATTORNEY under this agreement will focus on advising the CITY concerning CEQA compliance and potential challenges related to a proposed Green Line expansion by the MTA.
Legal services to be provided by ATTORNEY shall include, but not be limited to, (1) advising the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney on strategies and options available to minimize and/or preclude environmental impacts from the project; (2) review and analysis of draft environmental documents; (3) review and analysis other ancillary documents related to the project; and (4) representing the CITY in all challenges to this project, including but not limited to, hearings before MTA.
With the approval of the City Manager or City Attorney, ATTORNEY may retain for the CITY’s benefit the services of consultants and experts to 2 facilitate the review and analysis of the environmental compliance and other project documents.
3. Compensation. ATTORNEY shall be compensated as follows:
3.1 Amount. ATTORNEY fees for legal services provided by attorneys shall be $425.00 per hour and Law Clerks / Legal Assistants/ Paralegals shall be $155.00 per hour.
3.2 Payment. For work under this Agreement, payment shall be made per monthly invoice.
3.3 Records of Expenses. ATTORNEY shall keep accurate records of time and expenses. These records shall be made available to CITY.
CITY will be responsible for all other out of pocket expenses incurred on its behalf, such as consultants, experts, travel, meals, parking, transcripts of proceedings and services such as messenger/delivery service and large photo-copying jobs. Expenses will be separately itemized in billing statements as “Costs.” ATTORNEY will not charge for telephone charges, postage, small photocopying jobs, and telecopying service (incoming or outgoing).
3.4 Hours. No specific number of hours of work is guaranteed. It is expected that ATTORNEY's services will be on an as needed basis depending upon the work load.
3.5 Termination. CITY and ATTORNEY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving fifteen (15) days written notice.
4. Insurance Requirements.
4.1 Workers' Compensation Insurance. ATTORNEY shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance where applicable.
4.2 Insurance Amounts. ATTORNEY is not authorized to drive an automobile for the CITY or on CITY business.
4.3 Malpractice Insurance. ATTORNEY shall maintain malpractice insurance in an amount satisfactory to the City’s Risk Manager.
5. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.
3 6. Non-Discrimination. ATTORNEY covenants there shall be no discrimination based upon race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, national origin, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.
7. Independent Contractor. It is agreed to that ATTORNEY shall work as an independent contractor and not as employee of CITY, and shall obtain no rights to any benefits which accrue to CITY's employees.
8. Compliance with Law. ATTORNEY shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and local government.
9. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by ATTORNEY in the course and scope of work for the CITY shall be the property of CITY. ATTORNEY shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.
10. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. ATTORNEY shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement. ATTORNEY agrees to complete and file a California State Form 730 disclosure statement if required by the City Attorney.
11. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed addresses. These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process.
a. Address of ATTORNEY is as follows:
Leibold, McClendon & Mann
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 230
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: John McClendon
b. Address of CITY is as follows:
City of Redondo Beach
City Attorney’s Office
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Attention: Michael W. Webb, City Attorney
4 12. Licenses, Permits, and Fees. ATTORNEY shall obtain and maintain a current California State Bar License, and all permits, fees, or licenses as may be required by this Agreement.
13. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, ATTORNEY warrants that: (1) he has investigated the work to be performed, (2) he has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) he understands the difficulties, and restrictions of the work under this Agreement. Should ATTORNEY discover any conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY and shall not proceed, except at ATTORNEY'S risk, until instructions are received from CITY.
14. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
15. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any portion shall be assigned by ATTORNEY without prior consent of the CITY ATTORNEY.
16. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement.
17. Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be modified on provisions waived only by subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and ATTORNEY.
18. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action commenced about this Agreement shall be filed in the central branch of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
19. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared by both parties.
20. Preservation of Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found invalid or unenforceable, the decision shall affect only the provision interpreted, and all remaining provisions shall remain enforceable. 5 IN WITNESS THEREOF, these parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH “ATTORNEY”
_______________________ By:_____________________________ James A. Light, Mayor David Mann, Managing Shareholder
Date:_____________ Date:________________
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _______________________________ Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk Michael W. Webb, City Attorney APPROVED:
__________________________
Diane Strickfaden, Risk Manager
4/9/2024 | 2:08 PM PDT
JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
CEQA and entitlement work on over 22,000 homes plus
commercial/office/retail/industrial developments
City of Lake
Elsinore
1997 - present (latest project: 1,400 acre specific plan for over 8,000 homes and more than 4 million square feet of commercial/institutional) major CEQA, NEPA, ESA, ACOE, etc., issues
General Counsel to the Designated Local Authorities of
Los Banos, Mendota, Merced, Pismo Beach, Riverbank
and Santa Paula
Six “orphaned”
Redevelopment
Agencies
2011 - present; overseeing the final dissolution of six of the seven California redevelopment agencies that were “orphaned” when their cities declined to assume responsibility for terminating them with approval of California’s Department of
Finance, appointed general counsel to six former
redevelopment agencies
Special CEQA counsel to the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency
Inland Empire
Utilities Agency
2021 - present; serve as CEQA counsel to Agency oversee CEQA document preparation and provide litigation defense of $250M+ water project
Save Redlands Orange Grove v. City of Redlands
(San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. CIVSB2200943)
Petitioner action filed January 7, 2022; settled in Petitioner’s favor by developers abandoning housing project
action challenging Mitigated Negative Declaration
for a project that would eliminate the city’s last
remaining historic grove estate
Coalition to Save Redlands Orange Grove v. City of
Redlands (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. CIVSB2200943)
Petitioner action filed November 5, 2021; settled in Petitioner’s favor by developer offsetting loss of designated prime farmland
action challenging Mitigated Negative Declaration
that failed to address the project resulting in the
loss of 58 acres of prime farmland
Arcadians for Environmental Protection v. City of
Arcadia (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 318
Petitioner action filed September 9, 2020; petition for California Supreme Court review denied May 17, 2023
CEQA action challenging City’s continued
“mansionization” of historic neighborhood
City of South Gate v. County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCP02807)
City of South Gate action filed September 1, 2020; settled and dismissed April 209, 2021 action challenging Environmental Impact Report for project on 74-acres of County-owned property
Friends of Upland Wetlands v. City of Upland
(San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. CIVDS2010521)
Petitioner action filed March 29, 2020; won at trial court, stopping project action challenging City’s failure to comply with CEQA in approving housing project on wetlands
Save Our Access– San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed
Conservation Authority (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8
Petitioner action filed November 28, 2018; petition for California Supreme Court review denied December 15, 2021
action challenging EIR that provided a single
project alternative: the “No Project” alternative
Irvine Coalition for the Environment v. City of Irvine
(Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-
00975774)
Petitioner action filed February 23, 2018; settled October, 2018 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving massive housing project
North Tustin Coalition v. County of Orange (Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00966627)
Petitioner action filed January 11, 2018; settled March, 2018 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging County’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving housing project
1 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
(2017) 2 Cal.5th 918
Petitioner after petitioner won at trial court, Court of Appeal reversed in a published decision; petitioner’s Petition for Review was granted and thereafter prevailed in a unanimous California Supreme Court decision action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA by refusing to identify environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) in Coastal Zone
Cudahy Citizens Challenging Council Corruption v. City
of Cudahy (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 174212)
Petitioner action filed July 17, 2018; petitioner lost at trial court; action mooted while on appeal by re-election of improperly removed council member action challenges City Council’s violation of the
Ralph M. Brown Public Meetings Act
California Taxpayers Action Network v. City of
San Diego, et al. (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2016-00030603)
Petitioner action filed September 1, 2016; petitioner lost at trial court and appealed; Court of Appeal affirmed in unpublished decision
validation action challenging City’s imposition of
a “voluntary” hotel tax without voter approval
California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis
Obispo (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 666
Association of
California Water
Agencies (amicus)
action filed July 28, 2016; petitioner lost at trial court; Court of Appeal affirmed in published decision but California Supreme Court granted “review and hold” pending decision in lead case
action challenged County’s long-standing practice
of ministerially granting well drilling permits
without CEQA review
San Clemente Vacation Rental Alliance v. City of
San Clemente (Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 30-2016-00858999)
Petitioner action filed June 20, 2016; parties agreed and participated in mediation by Honorable Judge Robert L. Moss; action settled April, 2018 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA and Coastal Act in approving ordinances
banning short-term living units (STLUs)
Highland Springs Conference and Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267
Petitioner after trial court’s denial of petitioners’ joint alter ego motion, Court of Appeal reversed in published decision and on remand the trial court granted their motion
post-judgment action to add alter ego judgment
debtor to petitioners’ 2008 money judgments
awarding them “Private AG” attorneys’ fees
Barbara Leibold as City Attorney for the City of Lake
Elsinore v. Dana Mark Coon (Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. RIC 1603718); Dana Mark Coon v.
Barbara Leibold as City Attorney, et al. (Riverside
County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1603819)
City Attorney actions filed March 29 and April 1, 2016; trial court denied Coon’s request for immediate relief, and he filed writs of supersedeas and mandate to the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court, respectively; both writs denied after which the parties settled and dismissed their respective actions as moot
City Attorney refused to approve ballot title and
summary for voter initiative for a development
agreement; City Attorney’s position was later
vindicated in Center for Community Action &
Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley
(2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 689
City of Walnut v. Mt. San Antonio Community College
District (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 159593 [Master File Case No. BC 576587])
City of Walnut action filed December 21, 2015; settled 2018 trial court granted writ of mandate ordering community college district to set aside project approvals and awarded City $543,731 in “Private AG” attorneys’ fees action challenging District’s approval of a 10-acre
solar project without complying without adequate
CEQA review
Coalition to Keep Baldy Wild v. County of San
Bernardino (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. CIVDS 1516724)
Petitioner action filed November 19, 2015; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering San Bernardino County to set aside project approvals; real party in interest voluntarily paid petitioner’s “Private AG” attorneys’ fees action challenging County’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving cell tower facilities in
environmentally sensitive area
2 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Coalition for the San Leandro Shoreline v. City of
San Leandro (Alameda County Superior Court Case
No. RG 15782404)
Petitioner action filed August 18, 2015; settled July, 2017 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving massive project
San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State
University Research Foundation, et al.
(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 76
Petitioner action filed April 9, 2015; petitioner lost at trial court; Court of Appeal affirmed in published decision but California Supreme Court granted “review and hold” pending decision in lead case
petitioner alleges government entities and
professor violated state conflict of interest laws in
approving a contract with professor’s entity
City of Walnut v. Mt. San Antonio Community College
District (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 154389 [Master File Case No. BC 576587])
City of Walnut action filed March 26, 2015; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering community college district to set aside project approvals action challenging District’s claim that its
development of a massive parking structure is
exempt from City’s land use and zoning laws
Save the Arcadia Highlands v. City of Arcadia (Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS 154327)
Petitioner action filed March 12, 2015; settled October, 2015 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging City’s continuing approval of
“mansionizations” in historic neighborhoods
Standard Pacific of Orange County, Inc., et al. v. City of Walnut, et al. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 151140)
City of Walnut action filed October 1, 2014; settled January, 2016 on terms acceptable to City
action challenging City’s sale of 16.5-acre parcel
claiming violations of Planning and Zoning Law,
Map Act, CEQA and inverse condemnation
CUMV v. City of Moreno Valley (Riverside County
Superior Court Case No. RIC 1403052)
Petitioner action filed March 27, 2014; trial court denied petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate and Court of Appeal affirmed in unpublished decision action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving warehouse/regional HQ
Coalition for Land Use Equity v. City of West Covina
(Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 144547)
Petitioner action filed May 12, 2013; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering City to set aside project approvals; real party in interest appealed but later requested its appeal be dismissed. City Council subsequently reconsidered the project and rejected it
action challenging City’s failure to take action on
petitioner’s appeal of planning commission’s
project approval
Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Montebello, et al. (2014) 234 Cal.App.4th 382
City of Montebello action filed August 20, 2012; trial court granted City’s demurrer without leave to amend and petitioner appealed. Court of Appeal affirmed in a published decision
Petitioner sought writ of mandate commanding
City to reconsider and approve petitioner’s new
waste hauling contract
City of Montebello v. Vasquez, et al. (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 1084
City of Montebello action filed July 23, 2012; City brought conflict of interest action against former City officials; trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, Court of Appeal affirmed denial in published decision and California Supreme Court granted review and reversed in a 5-2 decision City claimed defendants violated state conflict of
interest laws in approving a $150 Million waste
hauling contract
3 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
West Covina Improvement Association v. City of
West Covina (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 135923)
Petitioner action filed February 21, 2012; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering City to set aside project approvals; City initially appealed but later abandoned it. In 2015, California’s State Controller’s audit of the City concluded the City wasted over $1 million on an illegal project action challenging City Council’s approval of sale
of publicly-owned civic center property to private
developer after planning commission rejected
project’s adverse environmental impacts
Inland Oversight Committee v. County of San Bernardino, et al. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 671; (2015) 239
Cal.App.4th 679; (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 689
Petitioner action filed February 6, 2012; petitioner prevailed against defendants’ demurrers and defendants filed writs to Court of Appeal which granted writs and ordered action dismissed in three published decisions action challenging County’s approval of a $102
Million settlement with a developer on a 3-2 vote
after one County Supervisor voting affirmatively
subsequently pled guilty of selling his vote
Coalition to Make the Fairplex Play Fair v. City of
Pomona [RPI Los Angeles County Fairgrounds] (Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS 135163)
Real Party in
Interest “Fairplex”
action filed December 21, 2011; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering City to set aside project approvals despite client formally abandoning plans to develop it
action backed by business [Public Storage Inc.]
challenged City’s approval of client’s reuse of
fairground stables for public storage facilities
Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of
Kern (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360
Petitioner action filed October 19, 2011; trial court denied relief and petitioner appealed; appellate court affirmed in published decision action challenging County’s approval of massive
wind turbine project in the path of airport runway
Fallbrook Public Utilities District v. Eastern Municipal Water District & United States of America [MCB Camp
Pendleton] v. Eastern Municipal Water District, et al.
Eastern Municipal
Water District
2003 - 2011 - represented Eastern Municipal Water District as special environmental counsel in CEQA and water law litigation filed in federal court
successfully thwarted plaintiffs’/petitioners’ efforts
to enjoin use of effluent pipeline
Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange
(2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1322
Petitioner action filed April 14, 2011; petitioner won at trial court, but Court of Appeal reversed in part; County’s Board of Supervisors rescinded project approval thereby mooting action
first published decision in California holding that
“spot zoning” includes preferential spot zoning as
well as discriminatory “reverse” spot zoning
Pasadena Coalition for Responsible Development v. City
of Pasadena (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BS 130039)
Petitioner action filed January 11, 2011; trial court granted writ of mandate ordering City to set aside project approvals and City and real party in interest appealed; appellate court and Supreme Court rejected appeal action challenging City’s failure to take action on
petitioner’s appeal of planning commission’s
project approval
Oso Viejo Neighbors Association v. City of Mission Viejo (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-
00319861)
Petitioner action filed November 12, 2009; settled May, 2010 on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging City’s failure to comply with
CEQA in approving dog park
Citizens for Honesty and Integrity by Calexican Officials v. Heffernan Memorial Healthcare District, et al.
(Imperial County Superior Court Case No. ECU05585)
Petitioner action filed October 2, 2009; healthcare district and property seller changed terms of contested land purchase agreement to provide for CEQA compliance and give district an option to forego purchase and obtain full return of its deposit; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner action challenging healthcare district’s approval to
purchase 15 acres without complying with CEQA
4 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Quartz Hill Cares v. City of Lancaster (Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. BS 122336)
Petitioner action filed August 26, 2009; petitioner lost at trial court and won reversal on appeal in unpublished decision
action challenging City’s conversion of
residentially-zoned land to commercial retail use
Save Our Neighborhood Group v. City of Lancaster (LA
County Superior Court Case No. BS 121501)
Petitioner action filed July 2, 2009; petitioner lost at trial court and won reversals on appeals in two unpublished decisions
action challenging City’s conversion of
residentially-zoned land to commercial retail use
Coalition for Honesty and Integrity in Calexico v. City of Calexico (Imperial County Superior Court Case No.
ECU05244)
Petitioner action filed June 5, 2009; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner CEQA action challenging adequacy of EIR City prepared for a private development; worked with
City Attorney and Developer’s counsel to resolve
Citizens for Honesty and Integrity in Residential Planning v. City of Murrieta, et al. (Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. RIC526341)
Petitioner action filed May 11, 2009; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner CEQA action challenging adequacy of MND City prepared for a private development; worked with
City Attorney and Developer’s counsel to resolve
Mike Torres v. City of Montebello, et al. (2014) 234
Cal.App.4th 382
City of Montebello action filed April 23, 2009; City conceded petitioner’s claims and trial court granted writ of mandate. Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner claims City violated a number of laws in
approving a new waste hauling contract
Coalition for Environmental Integrity in Yucca Valley v.
Town of Yucca Valley (San Bernardino County Superior
Court Case No. CIVSS 810232)
Petitioner action filed July 30, 2008; after petitioner obtained a favorable tentative from the court, the developer agreed to settle action on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging adequacy of EIR Town
prepared for a private development project
Defend the Bay v. City of Newport Beach (Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 30-2008-00180005)
Petitioner action filed January 18, 2008; City and The Irvine Company agreed to settlement on terms acceptable to petitioner
CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law action
challenging City’s approval of private
development
Coalition for Honest Environmental Evaluation and
Timely Analysis in Highland v. City of Highland
(San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVSS
800276)
Petitioner action filed January 11, 2008, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge Donald Alvarez; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging adequacy of MND City
prepared for a private development; worked with
City Attorney and Developer’s counsel to resolve
Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 939
Petitioner action filed November 11, 2007; city subsequently revoked entitlements after developer declined to continue its indemnity of city in litigation, and petitioner later obtained reversal on appeal in a published decision CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law action
relating to City’s approval of a regional shopping
center
Coalition for Honest Environmental Evaluation in Perris v. City of Perris (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC477811)
Petitioner action filed August 10, 2007; settled on appeal on terms acceptable to petitioner
CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law action
relating to City’s approval of a regional shopping
center
5 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Coalition for Environmental Justice in Pomona v. City of Pomona (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
BS110029)
Petitioner action filed July 19, 2007, and assigned to Los Angeles County designated CEQA Judge Thomas I. McKnew, Jr.; parties stipulated to issuance of court order setting project approvals aside and awarding petitioner its attorney’s fees
action challenging adequacy of EIR prepared for
waste transfer station
His Light Investments, et al. v. County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. CIVSS 702996)
Petitioners action filed June 25, 2007; petitioners’ appealed and appeal was denied in unpublished decision
action challenged County’s violation of specific
provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law by
reversing the County Planning Commission’s prior
approval of Petitioners’ affordable housing project
County of San Bernardino v. Alison Law-Mathisen, et al. (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. SCVSS
147767)
Defendants County filed action March 7, 2007, and assigned to Judge J. Robert Fawke; after defendants forced County to amend its Complaint three times; 1½ years later, County dismissed its action against them County disputed defendants’ claim that their land
use complied with County’s Development Code
per provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
Banning Bench Community of Interest Association v. City of Banning (Riverside County Superior Court Case No.
RIC461069 [Consolidated with Case No. RIC 460950
Petitioner action filed November 22, 2006, and assigned to Riverside County designated CEQA Judge Thomas H. Cahraman; court issued peremptory writ of mandate directing City to set aside its approval of 1,500 home development on 1,500-acre site and later issued ruling awarding petitioners their attorneys’ fees at full lodestar with a 2.0 multiplier action challenged adequacy of EIR prepared for
SunCal Company’s proposed Black Bench
Community
Highland Concerned Citizens United to Protect the
Environment v. City of Highland (San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 142901)
Petitioner action filed October 13, 2006; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner action challenged adequacy of MND for private development project; convinced City Attorney to
support petitioner’s position and prevail on real
party to delete portions of project
Citizens for Political Responsibility in Pico Rivera v. City of Pico Rivera Redevelopment Agency, et al. (Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS104265)
Petitioner action filed July 20, 2006, and assigned to Los Angeles County designated CEQA Judge Dzintra Janavs; court issued ruling denying peremptory writ of mandate; appeal later dismissed
action challenged City’s administrative approval of
private development project without complying
with Redevelopment Plan requirements
Affordable Pasadena Housing in Distress v. City of
Pasadena (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
BS 110029)
Petitioner action filed June 9, 2006, and assigned to Los Angeles County designated CEQA Judge Dzintra Janavs; court issued peremptory writ of mandate ordering City to set aside ordinance and case thereafter settled on terms acceptable to petitioner
CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law action
challenging City’s downzoning in response to
NIMBY complaints
Interim District Counsel and Prosecutor, Los Osos
Community Services District (San Luis Obispo County)
Los Osos
Community
Services District
October 2005-June 2006 Defended District in Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ACL Complaint and court
regarding wastewater treatment facility
6 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust v. City Council of
the City of San Marcos, et al. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 614 referendum
sponsors
elections law litigation: defended City’s placement of referendum on ballot [electorate subsequently approved referendum by a vote of 2-to-1] appeal affirmed the right of prevailing defendants
to recover their “private Attorney General”
attorney’s fees
Emerald Meadows Ranch Owner Participation &
Disposition and Development Agreement
County of
Riverside EDA
negotiated agreement for redevelopment of 270-acre mixed use private development project
University Village Student Housing Towers R.D. Olson
Development
Fall, 2004 - negotiated and structured Owner Participation Agreement for client’s takeover and completion of $40 Million “University Village Student Housing Towers” project near U.C. Riverside
City of Riverside waived conflict
Redlands Residents for Rural Living v. City of Redlands (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. SCVSS
96182)
Petitioner action filed July 27, 2005, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge John P. Wade; following courts issuance of tentative ruling in petitioner’s favor, the parties stipulated to a settlement on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenging adequacy of EIR prepared in
connection with City’s approval of intensive
private development project in environmentally
sensitive area
Communities Against Blight v. City of San Jacinto
(Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 416034)
Petitioner action filed July 29, 2004, and assigned to Riverside County designated CEQA Judge Gloria Conner Trask; court issued ruling denying peremptory writ of mandate; judgment sustained on appeal action challenging adequacy of EIR for private
development project
The Redlands Association v. City of Redlands and County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Superior
Court Case No. SCVSS 96959)
Petitioner action filed November 20, 2002, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge John P. Wade; petitioner abandoned action action challenged tax sharing agreement between
City and County entered into without CEQA
compliance
The Redlands Association v. City of Redlands and San
Bernardino County Flood Control District (San
Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. SCVSS
107472)
Petitioner action filed September 5, 2002, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge John P. Wade; petitioner abandoned action action challenged sale of City-owned property to
County Flood Control District without compliance
with Planning and Zoning Law
The Redlands Association v. City of Redlands (San
Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. SCVSS
102032)
Petitioner action filed April 7, 2002, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge John P. Wade; court denied petition for writ of mandate and no appeal was taken
action challenged City’s provision of water and
wastewater outside its jurisdiction in violation of
voter-enacted amendment to City’s General Plan
People for Environmentally Responsible Construction v.
City of Stanton (Orange County Superior Court Case No.
02CC00379)
Petitioner action filed December 24, 2002, and assigned to Judge C. Robert Jameson; settled on terms acceptable to petitioner
action challenged adequacy of MND for private
development project; convinced City Attorney to
support petitioner’s position and prevail on real
party to provide additional mitigation measures
7 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
The Redlands Association v. City of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Superior Court case No. SCVSS
96182)
Petitioner action filed October 25, 2002, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge John P. Wade; court issued peremptory writ of mandate directing City to set aside its approval; City subsequently paid petitioner’s attorney’s fees
action challenging City’s agreement to provide
services outside its jurisdiction without complying
with CEQA
Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore 291
F.Supp.2d 1083 (C.D.Cal. 2003)
City of Lake
Elsinore
obtained District Court ruling favorable to City; that ruling reversed by Ninth Circuit; action settled while Petition for Certiorari was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court
one of the first reported RLUIPA decisions
Westgate DDA project (Beach Blvd. at Lincoln Ave.) City of Anaheim 2003-prepared all CEQA and NEPA compliance documents for commercial redevelopment of former landfill site nicknamed “Sinkin’ Stinkin’ Lincoln”
major CEQA, NEPA, toxics, and water quality
issues
City of Garden Grove Redevelopment Plan and EIR City of Anaheim 2002 - opposed proposed redevelopment plan and EIR in adjacent city opposition successful and project was abandoned The Redlands Association v. City of Redlands and County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Superior
Court Case No. SCVSS 86680)
Petitioner action filed February 7, 2002, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge (now Justice) Jeffrey King; action induced County to abandon deal, and the court later awarded petitioner its attorney’s fees
action challenged agreement between City and
County for failure to comply with CEQA and
Planning and Zoning Law
Jeffrey-Lynne (Disneyland) Housing Project City of Anaheim 2001 - prepared Addendum to prior EIR for major housing project no litigation filed, and project was completed San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Development
v. City of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 80404)
Petitioner action filed August 10, 2001, petitioners lost at trial court and action settled on terms acceptable to petitioner following appellate court’s issuance of written Tentative ruling in petitioner’s favor action challenged adequacy of MND for private
development project; real party offered settlement
after reading appellate court’s Tentative
The Redlands Association v. City of Redlands and County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Superior
Court Case No. SCVSS 79374)
Petitioner action filed July 2, 2001; California Supreme Court denied Petition for Review
action challenged settlement agreement among
City, County and Majestic Realty for failure to
comply with CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law
Coalition to Save San Timoteo Creek v. County of San
Bernardino, et al. (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 74111)
Petitioner action filed January 23, 2001, and assigned to San Bernardino County designated CEQA Judge (now Justice) Jeffrey King; court issued two peremptory writs of mandate
CEQA and water law action challenging County
Flood Control District’s approval of flood control
improvements along San Timoteo Creek
Jobe v. City of Orange (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 412 Real Party in Interest Lutheran
High School of
Orange County
vindicated the City’s approval of a MND for a private high school expansion, but appellate court denied real party in interest’s attorney’s fees request it had a nonpecuniary interest in the litigation California Supreme Court subsequently rejected
Jobe’s holding that nonpecuniary interests
disqualify fee awards in In re Conservatorship of
Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206
8 JOHN G. McCLENDON’S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE/MUNICIPAL LAW MATTERS
MATTER ENTITY
REPRESENTED
STATUS/OUTCOME COMMENTS
Proposed Maranatha Christian High School campus at
1 Carter Avenue, Sierra Madre, CA
City of Sierra
Madre
2000-2001 - served as special counsel for the City on controversial foothills development project; City Council denied project approval the high school subsequently mooted controversy
by relocating its campus to the City of Pasadena
In the Matter of the Application of the Southern
California Water Company (U 133 W) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1001 to Extend its West
Orange County System to the Bolsa Chica Planned
Community (PUC Application No. 9311003)
City of Huntington
Beach
1999-2000 - represented protestant City of Huntington Beach before the PUC in opposing Southern California Water Company’s application to provide water and wastewater service to Bolsa Chica
PUC approved Southern California Water
Company’s application by a 3-to-2 vote, rejecting
the City’s protest
9