June 29, 2018 Press Release – For Immediate Release
Lawsuit Filed Challenging Adequacy of Environmental Review of Winters Putah Creek Park Project
The Lawsuit - On June 18, a lawsuit was filed by Davis Attorney Don Mooney, Esq. on behalf of his client, the 501(c)3 non-profit Friends of Putah Creek. The defendants named in the lawsuit are the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) and the Central Valley Flood Control Board (CVFCB). The lawsuit alleges that the CVFCB improperly approved an Encroachment Permit allowing the SCWA to continue to perform radical stream alterations on Putah Creek though the City of Winters and immediately downstream without doing appropriate environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lawsuit demands that the CVFCB require the SCWA to perform the requisite environmental review before proceeding with further work in the Putah Creek floodplain.
Background of the Winters Putah Creek Park "Restoration" Project and Lack of Environmental Compliance - The Winters Putah Creek Park project is a so-called stream “restoration” that as initially proposed would have minimally disturbed the Putah Creek floodplain through the City of Winters by removing only invasive plant species and replanting the floodplain with native species. A Master Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration that covers the Winters Putah Creek Park project was prepared by the City of Winters over a decade ago and is the only CEQA-related environmental review of the project.
These original plans were to be the guiding documents for all subsequent work and primarily focused on improvement of the riparian forest along the Creek by defining what plant species were to be preserved and lists invasive species to be removed. The plan stated that all native trees should be protected from damage, and only removed if deemed a hazard or “an impediment to approved renovation projects”. Annual work plans were to be provided for public review but, to date, no specific plans documenting what native trees and shrubs were to be removed have been submitted.
In addition to not removing native plant species, the Master Plan also specified that no foreign soil was to be imported into the floodplain. Further, a new swimming hole was to be provided for the enjoyment by the youth of Winters to replace that removed by the restoration project and improved and handicap access to the project by the public was to be provided. The Master Plan also specified that any substantial modification from the original plan was to be preceded by a full environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Subsequent to the development of the original Master Plan, however, large amounts of grant money became available through state bond funds and the entire scope of the project changed drastically. Instead of discrete removal of only invasive plants, more than 90% of all native trees and vegetation in the riparian forest were bull-dozed and cleared. Instead of minor ground preparation for native replanting along the existing stream, the SCWA imported thousands of truckloads of fill which large earth-movers used to completely change the entire course of the stream bed through the project. This radical alteration of the floodplain was called “geomorphological engineering” by its proponents. They claimed it would improve habitat for fish, plants, and other native wildlife. In fact, not only has this Creek alteration utterly failed to improve wildlife habitat on the Creek but it was done entirely without appropriate public environmental review as required by CEQA.
Why the Winters Putah Creek Project Has Failed - Riparian stream and creek realignments have been successfully used to restore habitat in a few Northern California rivers in broad, comparatively flat riparian river floodplains that were previously dredged for gold in the late 1800s to early 1900s. These projects used the original cobble material dredged from the river as fill to restore the river to its natural “pre-dredged” alignment. Many of these projects have proved reasonably successful in removing invasive vegetative species and functionally improving riparian habitat for all wildlife species.
Unfortunately Putah Creek lacks such a broad floodplain and dredged cobble to move back into the channel to restore the floodplain. It is a deeply incised U-shaped channel which lacked any naturally occurring material from the original floodplain to reshape it. During the "restoration" of the Winters Putah Creek project, bulldozers stripped virtually the entire floodplain of all vegetation, both native and non-native, from bank to bank. Then instead of restoring original creek contours with naturally occurring cobble and floodplain materials, over 85,000 cubic yards of fill was excavated from distant ancient sterile sediments which lacked the mineral and organic material needed for successful riparian plant growth. This fill was deposited in a layer from 2 to 12 ft thick over the original floodplain and further mechanically compacted. It then quickly hardened into an adobe brick-like material.
Because neither water, air, nor roots could penetrate this impervious layer to allow new plant growth, thousands of native seedlings intended to reestablish the previously destroyed riparian forest were planted by great volunteer effort year-after-year only to die within the first 12-18 months. Now the only riparian vegetation in the project area occurs immediately adjacent to the new artificial Creek channel. Virtually all the rest of the highly disturbed floodplain is vegetated exclusively by extensive swaths of invasive grasses and herbaceous weeds like Bermuda grass, Italian rye-grass, cockle bur, and star thistle.
And, because all of the natural pools providing habitat and shelter for a variety of native fish were destroyed by the projects, fish populations plummeted in the Putah Creek sections affected by the project. Additionally, mammalian species like river otter, beaver, and mink that once thrived in the floodplain’s former slow-moving pools were driven out to other undisturbed sections of the Creek. The destroyed pools also formerly provided critical habitat for Western Pond Turtle, a listed species specifically protected in the Yolo Habitat Conservancy’s recently completed HCP/NCCP (Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan).
Further, calculations from the SCWA’s own Creek flow data confirm that up to 4,000 acre-ft/year of groundwater recharge through the formerly porous floodplain has almost completely stopped because of the impervious hard-pan deposited by the project. This loss of aquifer replenishment jeopardizes the well water availability upon which the City of Winters and local farmers depends.
From any objective perspective, the project has failured and without extensive mitigation it is doubtful that the floodplain can ever recover from these adverse impacts. Add all of this work has been done without any public environmental review as required by CEQA.
Why Friends of Putah Creek Opposes This Project - Friends of Putah Creek is resolved that further extreme alteration of the Creek using disproved methods and without environmental review cannot continue unchallenged. This has resulted in the filing of this lawsuit demanding that proper environmental review of this project be performed as required by California law and that proper mitigation be implemented to repair the damage that has been done.
Friends of Putah Creek wholeheartedly supports removal of invasive plant species, replanting with native species, and improved public access to the Creek, including handicap access. We support judicious and selective improvement of salmon spawning habitat. We also strongly support the continued stable water flows into the Creek from Monticello Dam resulting from litigation with the SCWA 15 years ago as it has clearly improved Creek health.
But we do NOT support wholesale bulldozing of the Creek’s mature riparian habitat and its radical realignment based on speculative, unproven assumptions that put its ecological health at risk. We believe thorough scientific evaluation of Phases 1 and 2 project failures would result in complete stoppage of geomorphological engineering of the Creek. Radically changing the natural shape of the channel is misguided and destructive to the environmental health of Putah Creek.
We look forward to our day in court.
For more information contact: Friends of Putah Creek, info@friendsofputahcreek.org
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY
DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN 153721)
417 Mace Boulevard, Suite J-334
Davis, California 95618
Telephone: (530) 758-2377
Facsimile: (530) 758-7169
Attorneys for Petitioner
Friends of Putah Creek
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO
FRIENDS OF PUTAH CREEK )
Petitioner ) Case No._______________________
)
v. ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
) OF MANDATE
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD )
PROTECTION BOARD; AND DOES )
1 THROUGH 21 )
)
Respondents )
___________________________________________)
)
SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY; )
CITY OF WINTERS; and, DOES 21 )
through 100 )
)
Real Parties in Interest )
__________________________________________)
1. By this action, Petitioner FRIENDS OF PUTAH CREEK challenges Respondent CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL BOARD'S (“Board”) approval of Permit Nos. 19027 and 19047-1 for Real Party in Interest SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY for the Putah Creek Floodplain Restoration Project.
2. Petitioner seeks a determination from this Court that Respondent’s actions are invalid and void as Respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.
PARTIES
3. Petitioner Friends of Putah Creek is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation working to protect and improve the environmental quality of Putah Creek and its adjoining ecosystems. Its members include neighborhood groups, and individuals. Friends of Putah Creek has expressed particular concern for the environment in which its members live, including Solano and Yolo County. Friends of Putah Creek and its members have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondent complies with CEQA. Friends of Putah Creek submitted written and oral comments on the to the Board prior to the Board’s approval of the Permits.
4. The environment and residents of Solano and Yolo County will be directly affected by the impacts of the Project. Friends of Putah Creek’s members live, work, travel, and enjoy recreational activities in Solano County and Yolo County. These members have a particular interest in the protection of the environment of Solano County and Yolo County, and are increasingly concerned about worsening environmental and land use conditions that detrimentally affect their well-being and that of other residents and visitors of Solano County and Yolo County. Friends of Putah Creek and its members have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in ensuring that Respondent complies with laws relating to environmental protection. Friends of Putah Creek and its members are adversely affected by Respondent’s failure to comply with CEQA.
5. Respondent Central Valley Flood Protection Board (“Board”) is the state agency charged with ensuring that appropriate standards are met for the construction, maintenance, and protection of the flood control system that protects life, property, and wildlife habitat in the Central Valley from flooding. Board issues encroachment permits and works with other agencies to improve the flood protection structures, enforces removal of problematic encroachments, and keeps watch over the Central Valley’s continually improving flood management system.
6. Petitioner is unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents identified as Does 1-20. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Respondents Does 1-20, inclusive, are individuals, entities or agencies with material interests affected by the Project with respect to the Permits or by the Board’s actions with respect to the Permits. When the true identities and capacities of these Respondents have been determined, Petitioner will, with leave of Court if necessary, amend this Petition to insert such identities and capacities.
7. Real Party in Interest Solano County Water Agency was formed in 1951 by an Act of the State Legislature and represents all the local agencies involved in water and flood management. (Wat. Code, Appendix Chapter 64, as amended.) Solano County Water Agency is a political subdivision of the State of California and a body corporate and politic exercising government power. SCWA is a wholesale water supply agency that provides untreated water to cities and agricultural districts in Solano County from the Federal Solano Project and the North Bay Aqueduct of the Water Project. SCWA also performs flood management and habitat conservation activities. SCWA is the lead agency for the Upper Reach Program.
8. Real Party in Interest City of Winters is a political subdivision of the State of California. The City of Winters served as the lead agency for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) (SCH No. 2008042018, April 2008) for the Winters Putah Creek Nature Park/Floodplain Restoration and Recreational Access Project, which is the environmental document relied upon by the Board in approving Permit Nos. 19047 and 19047-1.
9. Petitioner is unaware of the true names and capacities of Real Parties in Interest identified as Does 21-100. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Real Parties in Interest Does 21-100, inclusive, are individuals, entities or agencies with material interests affected by the Permits with respect to the Permits or by the Board’s actions with respect to the Permits. When the true identities and capacities of these Real Parties in Interest have been determined, Petitioner will, with leave of Court if necessary, amend this Petition to insert such identities and capacities.
BACKGROUND FACTS
A. The Project
10. The Project before the Board consists of the approval of three encroachment permits – Permits Nos. 19027, 19047 and 19047-1.
11. The Project is in Yolo County and Solano County along Putah Creek in the City of Winters, starting approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Railroad Avenue Bridge and continuing 7,900 feet downstream. The Project under Permit 19047-1 is located north of Putah Creek Road and north of Race Course Land in the town of Winters, at 38.52261N 121.96313W, Putah Creek Solano County, California.
12. The permits allows SCWA to realign 1,100 linear feet of low-flow channel, recontour the floodplain, remove some native vegetation and invasive vegetation species, and replant with native grasses, shrubs, and tree species. Spawning gravel will be placed at riffle locations.
13. The Project includes the removal of existing native and non-native vegetation prior to grading activities and after grading is complete planting native vegetation along the floodplain.
14. The Project also includes the issuance of an encroachment permit (Permit # 19047) for work that SCWA completed in 2011 without the required encroachment permit from Board. That work realigned and narrowed 3,800 linear feet of existing low-flow channel, 20.5 acres of floodplain that was re-graded, removal of invasive weeds, planted vegetation, and placement of spawning gravel.
15. The Project purportedly includes a series of phased restoration activities intended to restore Putah Creek to a more natural condition that is self-maintaining and supports native plant and animal species.
15. The Winters Putah Creek Nature Park Project approved by the City of Winters covers the most upstream Project area and includes Phase 1 and 2 (Permit No. 19047), and Phase 3 for the channel segment between Phase 1 and 2 (Permit No. 19047-1). The North American Wetlands Conservation Act 3 (“NAWCA 3”) Project approved by SCWA covers the most downstream Project area (Permit No. 19027).
B. History of the Project
16. Putah Creek is a Regulated Stream as defined in Table 8.1 of Title 23, Division 1, Article 8 of the California Code of Regulations. (See also Title 23 Cal. Code Regs., § 6.)
17. On September 9, 2013, Board staff authorized the Lower Putah Creek 2 North American Wetlands Conservation Act Project (NAWCA 2), which is located approximately one and a half mile upstream of the current Project. That authorization included the clearing of trees and the planting of native plants, removal of accumulated sediment, and seeding of native grass all within the Putah Creek floodway. NAWCA 2 is located approximately 12 miles upstream of the closest flood control Project Levee.
18. On July 18, 2015, Board staff directed SCWA to submit a permit application as agreed to in the SCWA authorization request letter. SCWA submitted an application on July 24, 2015 to authorize the work that was completed under the 2013 authorization and the Board issued Permit No. 19052 on January 5, 2017.
19. On March 26, 2015, SCWA submitted Application No. 19027 to the Board for the NAWCA 3. NAWCA 3 Project is located adjacent to Putah Creek Road between Johnson Road an Boyce Road, in the town of Winters. NAWCA 3 provides for SCWA to re-grade the floodplain to a uniform 1-2% slope, fill and narrow segments of the existing low-flow channel, and create a low-flow side channel. Prior to grading activities, SCWA will remove existing native and non-native vegetation. After grading is complete, SCWA intends to plant native vegetation along the floodplain. Board staff completed their review and sent to the application to United States Army Corps of Engineer’s Flood Protection and Navigation Section (Section 408) on April 30, 2015 for its review.
20. On June 4, 2015, SCWA submitted to the Board Application No. 19047-1 for Phase 3 of the Winters Putah Creek Nature Park Project (“WPCNP”). SCWA mobilized for construction of Phase 3 without obtaining an encroachment permit form the Board. Board staff received a call from an adjacent landowner, Mr. Jeff TenPas, about SCWA’s unauthorized activities. The Board staff discovered that SCWA’s had completed Phase 1 and 2 of the Project without obtaining a permit or authorization from the Board. Board staff directed SCWA cease activity associated with Phase 3 and to submit Application No.19047 to authorize the previously completed work for Phases 1 and 2.
21. On August 11, 2015, SCWA requested that Board staff grant SCWA authorization to commence WPCNP Phase 3 work without a permit. The proposed work included clearing and grubbing, grading, and native grass revegetation while the Board processed Application No. 19047-1. On the same day as the request, Board staff granted SCWA authorization to commence work without obtaining the required permit. In response to a complaint from Mr. Tenpas and Winters Friends of Putah Creek, the Board rescinded the authorization.
C. Environmental Review
22. The City of Winters prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) (SCH No. 2008042018, April 2008), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) for the Winters Putah Creek Nature Park/Floodplain Restoration and Recreational Access Project. On December 4, 2008, the City of Winters approved the IS/MND and MMRP and filed a Notice of Determination. In approving the IS/MND, the City of Winters found that with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the Project’s significant and potentially significant environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for all affected environmental resource areas.
23. SCWA prepared an IS/MND (SCH No. 2015032094, March 2015) and MMRP for NAWCA 3. The SCWA adopted the IS/MND and MMRP and on June 22, 2015 filed a Notice of Determination. SCWA found that with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the NAWCA 3 Project’s significant and potentially significant environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for all affected environmental resource areas.
24. The United State Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) prepared an Environmental Assessment for the Putah Creek Channel Restoration Project (December 2015, revised August 2017).
D. The Board’s Approval of the Permits/Project
25. On May 18, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing on the applications for Permit Nos. 19047, 19047-1 and 19027.
26. On May 22, 2018 the Board filed Notices of Determination with the Office of Planning and Research.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27. This Court has jurisdiction over the matters alleged in this Petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and Public Resources Code section 21168. In the alternative, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and Public Resources Code section 21168.5.
28. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394(a), venue is proper in this Court because a portion of the Project is located in the County of Solano.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
AND INADEQUACY OF REMEDY
29. Petitioner has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing the instant action and has exhausted any and all available administrative remedies to the extent required by law.
30. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code, section 21167.5 by sending via facsimile and Federal Express written notice of this action to the Respondents. A copy of this written notice and proof of service are attached as Exhibit A to this Petition for Writ of Mandate.
31. Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.6 by concurrently filing a request concerning preparation of the record of administrative proceedings relating to this action.
32. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary law unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require the Board to set aside its approval of the Permits. In the absence of such remedies, the Board’s approval will remain in effect in violation of State law.
33. This action has been brought within 30 days of the Board’s filing of the Notice of Determinations as required by Public Resources Code section 21167(c).
STANDING
34. Petitioner has standing to assert the claims raised in this Petition because Petitioner and its members’ aesthetic and environmental interests are directly and adversely affected by the Board’s approval of the permits for the SCWA’s Putah Creek Floodplain Restoration Project.
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
35. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, of this Petition, as if fully set forth below.
36. Respondent committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed in a manner required by law by relying on an IS/MND that does not address Phase 3 and by failing to prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental document as required by CEQA. In approving Permit 19047-1 for Phase 3 of the Winters Putah Creek Nature/Park/Floodplain Restoration and Recreation Access Project, the Board failed to prepare a supplemental or subsequent environmental document as the City of Winters’ IS/MND did not address in particular the extensive vegetation clearing, earthmoving, and importation of fill in Phase 3.
37. The inclusion of Phase 3 as part of the “the Project” constitutes a substantial change to the Project. CEQA requires that a responsible agency prepare a subsequent environmental review document when there are changes to a project or its circumstances occurs after adoption of a negative declaration and the responsible agency grants the next discretionary approval for the project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(c).) Changes in a project require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR when the following conditions are found to exist:
(1) the change in the project is substantial;
(2) the change involves new or more severe significant environmental impacts;
(3) the change will required major revisions to the previous environmental
document based on the new or more severe impacts; and
(4) the new or more severe impacts were not considered in the previous
environmental document. (Id.)
38. The IS/MND makes no reference to Phase 3 of the Project. The Project
Description states:
The proposal is divided into two phases, based on the sequencing needed to accomplish
the project efficiently. Phase I includes the establishment of a monitoring program;
percolation dam removal; stream recontouring; and, in-channel structural improvements
including weir construction, bank stabilization, and habitat enhancement. Phase II includes
the development of recreational amenities. (IS/MND at p. 1; see also IS/MND at pp. 6, 12,
and Notice of Determination.)
39. In responding to comments on the IS/MND, the City of Winters stated:
The Master Plan and its associated activities are guidance and planning documents, but
should not be confused with specific or operational plans.
The various proposed restoration activities involve minor material moving within the
floodplain and intermittent heavy equipment use.
***
Future project may require tiering from the WPCNP IS/MND or separate documents
depending on the nature and extent of possible impacts.
40. Thus, the only existing CEQA environmental document and review, done by the City of Winters in 2008, was an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a conceptual Master Plan. The Master Plan was conceptual, lacking in detail, was not project specific, and did not include disclosure or analysis of the major importation fill or any significant vegetation clearing this project involved.
i. The proposed use of unsuitable fill, material that will limit riparian forest growth and
health to perpetuity.
ii. The proposed excessive compaction of fill.
iii. Impacts on humans and their aesthetic enjoyment of scenic views of riparian forest,
stream, and especially aquatic wildlife.
iv. Plans for floodplain topography that will reduce wetland and channel habitat
without mitigation.
41. The cumulative effect of Phases 1 and 2 (previously constructed without permit) and Phase 3 will result in the cumulative importation of approximately 70,000 cubic yards of fill according to the project proponent’s estimates. The Board failed to consider the cumulative effect of the currently proposed project and past projects. This amount of fill would yield a net increase in floodplain elevation of approximately 1 foot extending for approximately 4000 feet of floodplain and channel, while also significantly reducing channel cross-section.
42. Phase 3 consists of grading the existing floodplain to a uniform 1-2 percent slope to improve water conveyance. Phase 3 construction includes the importation of 10,000 yd3 of clean fill. The IS/MND’s Project Description, however, makes no reference to the Phase 3 construction or the quantity of fill that will be placed in the floodplain. It certainly makes no reference using an excavator for clearing and grubbing within floodplain. Nor does it describe the amount of fill that would be brought into the floodplain. Phase 3 also now includes a paved trail adjacent to the stream to provide access to views of the stream and wildlife. The 2008 IS/MND simply did not address these parts of the project. The IS/MND also makes no reference to the Board’s approval of an encroachment permit.
43. The implementation of Phase 3 will result in impacts to groundwater recharge and vegetation due to the compaction of the imported fill and the alteration to floodplain structure and groundwater flow paths. The result is that Phase 3 will impact the most diverse, most occupied and most valuable instream wildlife habitat in Winters. Additionally, Phase 3 will not support a healthy riparian forest and will not provide replacement for the loss of open waters and wetlands; and there will be loss of enjoyment of view of the creek and wildlife to the people of Winters.
44. Specific actions of clearing, filing and effects on groundwater are not covered in Phase 3, and these actions are not analyzed or addressed in any environmental document. As such, approval of Permit 19047-1 for Phase 3 would constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as there is no environmental document that addresses the activities of Phase 3.
45. The change to the Project is substantial as it was not previously discussed or disclosed in the IS/MND. The change involves new severe environmental impacts regarding impacts to the flood plain and vegetation and groundwater processes. Additionally, the changes to the Project and potential significant impacts require revisions to the IS/MND and mitigation measures. The impacts associated with the expanded project were not discussed or addressed in the IS/MND.
46. As the City of Winters’ IS/MND never analyzed or discussed Phase 3, the Board must also address the cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge and riparian vegetation of Phases 1, 2 and 3, as well as the cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge and riparian vegetation from the implementation of NACWA 3 (Permit 19027.)
47. Based upon the foregoing, the Board’s failure to conduct subsequent environmental review regarding Phase 3 (Permit 19047-1) and/or NACWA 3 (Permit 19027) constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and fails to comply with CEQA’s requirements.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
1. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondents to:
(a) vacate and set aside Permit Nos. 19047-1 and/or 19027 on the grounds that issuance/approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.
(c) withdraw the Notices of Determination;
(d) prepare, circulate and consider a legally adequate environmental document for the Project;
(e) suspend approval of any and all implementation and activities under the permits until the Respondent is in compliance with CEQA;
(f) suspend all activity that could result in any change or alteration to the physical environment until Respondents have taken such actions as may be necessary to bring their determination, findings or decision regarding the Project into compliance with CEQA;
2. For Petitioner’s costs associated with this action;
3. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: June 18, 2018. Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY
By - __________________________________________
Donald B. Mooney
Attorney for Petitioner
Friends of Putah Creek
VERIFICATION
I, Jeff TenPas, the undersigned, certify and declare that I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. I am a member of Friends of Putah Creek, the Petitioner in this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true and correct based on my knowledge, except as to the matters that are stated therein on information and belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of June, 2018, at Davis, California.
___________________________________
Jeff Tenpas