2005_0214_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

environmental harm." (In addition we have argued that even if it can be a"stand alone" issue, that no significant impact is likely.) We have briefed but not argued the summary judgment motions with respect to the MEPA� case because a tenative settlement has been reached between the parties. The matter may be rescheduled for a summary judgment hearing based on the progress (or lack thereo� in getting a written agreement. 4. Save our Creeks v. Brooklyn Park. This is a MEPA claim (there is also a zoning challenge) challenging the City's approval of a residential subdivision within the City, but in reality challenges developme�t in a very large area of the City. The Plaitniffs challenges essentially that through development a creek in the �ot�ern part of the City has been destroyed. The City brought a motion to dismiss the case based on the 1 ��k of an attorney signature on behalf of the plaintiff (it is a corporation). The trial court allowed the matter to proceed without an attorney's signature, but certified the issue as an important and doubtful question, allowing immediate appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, but the Supreme Court granted review with arguments heard on March 1. 5. River Ravine Rescue v. South St. PauL While not under MEPA or MERA, these cases involve a federal Clean Water Action claims against the City relating to storm water. The first claim against the City was dismissed on the City's motion for summary judgement. The second case is slated for summary judgment shortly, based on the City's compliance with the Act and the implementation of a remediation plan In looking at the complaint, it appears that the MERA challenges are general, as they only assert general impacts on the environment. The MEPA claim is much inore detailed and generally deals with the interrelationship of the AUAR and the Cot�p. Plan, the use of the AUAR form as a substitute for an EAWIEIS and the AUAR failing to account for all of the development activity thus rendering it inadequate (requiring ai��endment) and that the analysis done is inadequate due to flawed assumptions. With the emphasis on the "misuse" of the AUAR, it bears some similarity to the St. Paul Park case above. If a decision is made to retain our firm, the primary lawyers involved would be Amanda Morken and myself. If you or the City would like further infonnation, please let me know. If Mr. Beets wants to contact anyone concerning our handling of cases I would suggest Barry Sittlow in St. Paul Park or Clint Gridley in Woodbury, as those cases are the most complicated and recent of the matters. George C. Hoff HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A 160 Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344