2005_0214_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: iit�31i�7�a;1it�I�.t?��1}k��t�+�.�i+iiF Sent: Thursday, February 03,2005 4:42 PM To: Gronli, Doug; Grundhoefer, Tom Subject: RE: Friends of Twin Lakes v Raseville.pdf I received your emaii and attachments conceming the above matter. We would be interested in handling the matter for Roseville. It appears that the City is going to meet with you, and in conjunction with LMCIT, determine which law firm will represent them in the case. Specifically the City is looking for experience with environmental claims of the type asserted here. We have represented Roseville on several occassions in the past (most recently in Roselawn Cemetery v. Roseville), and I think that they are acquainted with our general experience and reputation in representing Minnesota Cities, particularly with regard to land use/development matters. If it would be helpful to provide a listing and description of some those cases that we have handled for cities, we would be happy to provide that. However, it appears that the City is interested in our experience with environmental cases. In reviewing the complaint it has both a MEPA and MERA claim (along with a zoning claim), with much more detailed allegations concerning the M�PA claim and the use of an AUAR as reviewing tool. Consequently, I have listed below the more recent environmental cases we have been involved in: 1. Blooinington v. Bumsville. We represented the City of Bumsville in a MEPA claim (however trying to use MERA standards) challenging the City's construction of an amphitheater. We won the case at the trial court, but the case was reversed at the Court of Appeals finding that the City's EAW statement concen�ing capacity required a mandatory EIS. The City chose not to seek review by the Supreme Court and the proponent declined to proceed with the proj ect. 2. MCEA v. St. Paul Park & D.R. Horton. This case involves a challenge to a large n�ulti use development on the Mississippi. It had a MERA claim and also a MEPA ciaiin challenging the use of an AUAR as inappropriate for environmental review in light of the development proposed. The MEPA claim also alleged that the environmental review done under the AUAR was inadequate and tlaat further environmental review needed to be done. After discussions with the Plaintiff, the MERA claim was dismissed without prejudice, and the challenge to the ability to use the AUAR as the "form" of review was dismissed with prejudice. The primary challenge remaining was that the general level of analysis was not sufficient; specifically, that the AUAR was not adequate with respect to the impact on water quality, both on the River, from surface water runoff and the acquifer, due to the presence of "seeps and springs" on the site, wildlife impact and cumulative impacts. Cross motions for summary judgment have been brought and were argued a couple of weeks ago, but the Judge has not yet issued an order. 3. Tamarack v. Woodbury& Opus. Involves two separate cases, one a"zoning" challenge and the other a MEPA claim. The MEPA claim involves two separate EAW's, the first dealing with a city roadway proj ect and the other with the retail shopping center. The primary claims challenged by the Plaintiff in this case relate to the impact of traffic on th enviroinei�t. We have taken the position in the case that traffic standing along is not an environmental issue under MEPA and thus whatever is shown by way of congestion cannot rise to the level of "singificant