1 STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT 2 3 Defendant and Cross-Complainant City of San Buenaventura (“City”) submits this Status 4 Conference Report (“Report”) in advance of the Status Conference scheduled for August 17, 5 2020 at 1:30 p.m. In accordance with the Court’s order at the June 24, 2020 Status Conference, 6 the City has made a good faith effort to solicit input from interested parties prior to submission of 7 this Report. Specifically, counsel for the City sent a draft of this Report via email to all counsel 8 of record and to all parties for which the City has an email address on August 3, 2020 and again 9 on August 7, 2020. The City has attempted to include all requested edits received and to identify 10 for the Court any areas of dispute identified by the parties. 11 12 1. PROPOSED SCHEDULE 13 14 At the June 24, 2020 Status Conference, the City and other consumptive users (the 15 “Proposing Parties”) informed the Court that they were working collaboratively on a proposed 16 stipulated judgment and physical solution (“Physical Solution”). The Proposing Parties have 17 prepared a proposed schedule for negotiating with the other parties about the proposed Physical 18 Solution and, if necessary, a potential contested hearing thereon. The City sent a draft of the 19 proposed schedule to counsel for Casitas Municipal Water District on July 22, 2020. The City 20 sent a draft of the proposed schedule to counsel for Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
21 (“Channelkeeper”), the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”), and the 22 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) on July 23, 2020. The City sent a draft of 23 the proposed schedule to all counsel of record and to all parties for which the City has an email 24 address on August 3, 2020. 25 The proposed schedule sets forth a plan for (1) the sharing of the proposed Physical 26 Solution and subsequent meet and confer thereon; (2) in the event all parties cannot agree to a 27 Physical Solution, a proposed discovery plan and pretrial proceedings; and (3) a proposed 28 evidentiary hearing. A copy of the current working draft of the schedule proposed by the - 1 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Proposing Parties is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 The City conducted telephonic conferences with Channelkeeper, the State Board, and 3 CDFW regarding the proposed schedule on July 28, 2020 and July 31, 2020. Channelkeeper, the 4 State Board, and CDFW explained that until they have been able to analyze and evaluate the 5 proposed Physical Solution, they cannot estimate the likely scope of an evidentiary hearing or the 6 time necessary to prepare for that evidentiary hearing. The Proposing Parties understand why 7 Channelkeeper, the State Board, and CDFW feel that they cannot agree on a schedule until they 8 see the Physical Solution. On August 3, 2020, the State Board and CDFW provided the City with 9 their own proposed schedule (which is attached as Exhibit B) (and provided that schedule to the 10 other represented parties on August 5, 2020, after a draft of this Report was circulated). The State 11 Board and CDFW believe their schedule provides more realistic timing given the potential 12 complexities of this comprehensive adjudication and also takes into account the timing of the 13 studies of the water flow needs of wildlife in the Ventura River and the interaction of 14 groundwater and surface water in the Ventura River Basin that CDFW and the State Board, 15 respectively, have been conducting over the past few years. The parties are continuing to meet 16 and confer. In light of this meet and confer process, the Proposing Parties agreed to modify their 17 proposed schedule to provide more time to meet and confer on the Physical Solution and the 18 schedule, and to finalize the schedule at a proposed further status conference in November. 19 Specifically, the Proposing Parties have agreed to provide their proposed Physical 20 Solution to all parties by the close of business on September 15, 2020. The parties will then meet
21 and confer until October 30, 2020 about the Physical Solution and a schedule that will be 22 presented to the Court at the next Status Conference for a discovery plan, pretrial proceedings, 23 and, if necessary, evidentiary hearing regarding the Physical Solution. The Proposing Parties 24 believe that the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is reasonable and provides a 25 workable framework for the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on all terms, and in the 26 event the parties cannot reach an agreement on the Physical Solution, for the parties to then 27 conduct discovery, and ultimately try the matter in a contested hearing. However, the Proposing 28 Parties appreciate that the other parties need time to review the Physical Solution before they can - 2 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 be in a position to meet and confer on such a proposed schedule. The parties request the Court set 2 a further Status Conference, for the week of November 16, 2020, to facilitate this process. 3 4 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CROSS-DEFENDANTS TO 5 RESPOND 6 7 In light of the plan to provide the Physical Solution to all parties on September 15, 2020, 8 the City requests an additional extension of time for Cross-Defendants to file a responsive 9 pleading to the City’s Third Amended Cross-Complaint. This will allow them time to evaluate 10 the Physical Solution and determine whether they want to participate in the case. On February 11 27, 2020, the Court extended the time for Cross-Defendants to file and serve their answers or 12 other responsive pleadings to September 8, 2020. City requests that the Court grant a further 13 extension to October 30, 2020 and is filing an application for extension of time concurrently with 14 this Report, attached hereto as Exhibit C. No party has objected to this request as of the filing of 15 this report. 16 17 3. CITY AND CHANNELKEEPER MEET AND CONFER 18 19 At the June 24, 2020 Status Conference, the Court ordered counsel for the City and 20 counsel for Channelkeeper to meet and confer regarding Channelkeeper’s potential motion
21 practice for interim relief and to post a message as to whether setting a hearing date on 22 Channelkeeper’s motion is necessary. City and Channelkeeper met via telephone on serval 23 occasions throughout July; posted updates for the Court on the case message board on July 6, 24 2020 and July 13, 2020; and have resolved this issue and eliminated the need for motion practice. 25 A term sheet setting forth the terms of this resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 26 27 28 - 3 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 4. SERVICE OF THE THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND NOTICE 2 OF COMMENCEMENT OF GROUNDWATER AND WATERSHED 3 ADJUDICATION 4 5 On or around July 15, 2020, City sent correspondence regarding its Third Amended 6 Cross-Complaint to those property owners who either were not personally served or did not return 7 a return receipt of the Notice of Commencement of Groundwater Basin and Watershed 8 Adjudication (“Notice of Commencement”). During the week of August 10, 2020 City will 9 commence mailing service packets and Notice of Commencement packets, requesting return of 10 the notice and acknowledgment form or the return receipt, as applicable. If a notice and 11 acknowledgment is not received for the remaining Cross-Defendants, City will ask the Court for 12 permission to serve them via publication pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 415.50. If a 13 return receipt is not received for a noticed property, City will take other action to complete the 14 notice process, including as a last resort physically posting the Notices of Commencement on any 15 remaining parcels pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 836(d)(1)(C). 16 On January 29, 2020, City received a list of California Native American tribes who may 17 have an interest in the Ventura River Watershed from the Native American Heritage Commission 18 (“NAHC”). Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Section 835(a)(5), on July 10, 2020, City mailed 19 the requisite notice letters via First Class Mail to the entities on the NAHC’s list. 20 The Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency and the State Board sent City lists of
21 persons reporting extractions in the Watershed on December 30, 2019 and January 23, 2020, 22 respectively. Pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 835(a)(8), during the week of 23 August 10, 2020, City will mail the requisite notice letters via First Class Mail to persons and 24 entities reporting extractions whom City believes have not otherwise been noticed or served. 25 City continues to maintain and update the neutral adjudication website, available at: 26 https://www.venturariverwatershedadjudication.com/. 27 28 - 4 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 5. NEWLY APPEARING PARTIES 2 3 The following additional party has filed an answer to the City’s Third Amended Cross- 4 Complaint: Brian A. Osborne, July 15, 2020. 5 6 6. REQUEST OF CROSS-DEFENDANT VOOGD 7 8 Cross-Defendant Anthonie M. Voogd requests that the case be set for trial forthwith. The 9 case is at issue as to him. He has no interest in settling and does not contemplate conducting 10 discovery. 11 7. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF REQUESTS 12 13 Based on the above Report, the parties request that the Court consider taking the following 14 actions:
15 Extend until October 30, 2020 the time for Cross-Defendants to file and serve their 16 answers or responsive pleadings; and
17 Set a further Status Conference, for the week of November 16, 2020, to provide an 18 update on the parties’ efforts to meet and confer about the Proposing Parties’ 19 proposed Physical Solution and potentially to set a schedule and process for the 20 Court’s and parties’ consideration of the Physical Solution.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 5 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Dated: August 10, 2020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 2 3 By: 4 SHAWN HAGERTY CHRISTOPHER M. PISANO 5 SARAH CHRISTOPHER FOLEY Attorneys for Respondent and 6 Cross-Complainant CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA 7 Dated: August 10, 2020 SYCAMORE LAW, INC. 8 9 By:/s/Daniel Cooper (with permission) 10 DANIEL COOPER 11 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 6 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 EXHIBIT A 1 SHAWN HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to [email protected] Cal. Gov’t Code § 6103 2 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 West Broadway, 15th Floor 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-1300 4 Facsimile: (619) 233-6118 5 CHRISTOPHER M. PISANO, Bar No. 192831 [email protected] 6 SARAH CHRISTOPHER FOLEY, Bar No. 277223 [email protected] 7 Best Best & Krieger LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor 8 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-8100 9 Facsimile: (213) 617-7480 10 Attorneys for Respondent and Cross-Complainant 6
9 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA 0 5 9 4 3
9 11
P
L E A L T I
I N R U F E R S 12 O SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
, G O S T F E I I E E L R E C A I K R 13 F C COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
T & , F
S K
T O
E S N I E W E
A 14 A
M L C
T
. S T N
E U 1
B 15 N 0 L 0 SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER, a Case No. 19STCP01176 2 A W 16 California non-profit corporation, Judge: Honorable William F. Highberger 17 Petitioner, CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED 18 v. SCHEDULE FOR THE SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL 19 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, a California State Agency; CITY SOLUTION 20 OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, a California municipal corporation, etc., 21 Respondents. 22 Action Filed: September 19, 2014 23 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, a Trial Date: Not Set California municipal corporation, 24 Cross-Complainant 25 v. 26 DUNCAN ABBOTT, an individual, et al. 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 - 2 - CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL SOLUTION 1 PROPOSED SCHEDULE 2 3 At the June 24, 2020 Status Conference, the City of San Buenaventura (“City”) and other 4 consumptive users (the “Proposing Parties”) informed the Court that they were working 5 collaboratively on a proposed stipulated judgment and physical solution (“Physical Solution”). 6 The Proposing Parties indicated that by August 2020, they would be ready to propose a schedule 7 by which they would provide the Physical Solution to all parties for review, as well as a schedule 8 and process for the Court’s consideration of the Physical Solution. The Court ordered a further 9 Status Conference for August 17, 2020, and it ordered that the parties meet and confer in advance 10 of the Status Conference regarding a proposed schedule. 6 9 0 5 9 4 3
9 11 The parties met and conferred over the course of multiple days between July 28, 2020 and
P
L E A L T I
I N R U F E R S 12 August 3, 2020. Based on this meet and confer process, the Proposing Parties submit the O
, G O S T F E I I E E L R E C A I K R 13 following proposed schedule to the Court. F C
T & , F
S K
T O
E S N I E W E
A 14 A R B
M L C
T
. S T N
E U 1
B 15 1. EXCHANGE AND SUBMISSION OF PHYSICAL SOLUTION AND N 0 L 0 2 A W 16 SUBSEQUENT MEET AND CONFER THEREON: 17 The Proposing Parties ask the Court to move the current response date for Cross- 18 Defendants from September 8 to October 30, 2020. 19 The Proposing Parties will exchange the Physical Solution with all parties by the close of 20 business on September 15, 2020.
21 Following the exchange of the Physical Solution, the parties will have a period until 22 October 30, 2020 during which time they will meet and confer regarding the terms of the Physical 23 Solution. During this time, the parties receiving the Physical Solution will assess whether they 24 will support it, in whole or in part, whether they require more information about it, or whether 25 they will oppose the Physical Solution. To facilitate this analysis, the Proposing Parties will 26 make their expert consultants available once per week for a telephone call or other virtual meeting 27 of at least one hour in length, during which time all other parties will be able to ask questions 28 regarding the scientific bases for the specific terms in the Physical Solution. The telephone calls - 2 - CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL SOLUTION 1 with the Proposing Parties’ expert consultants will only be available to those parties who agree in 2 writing that all such communications will be for settlement purposes only, and that the 3 communications with the Proposing Parties’ consultants shall not be deemed a waiver of the 4 attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 5 In addition to the telephone calls with the Proposing Parties’ expert consultants, counsel 6 for all parties shall also meet and confer in good faith on a regular basis during this time period, 7 and assess whether the Physical Solution can be agreed upon by all, or at least a majority, of the 8 parties. The parties shall also discuss whether there are any proposed modifications to the 9 Physical Solution that would otherwise result in additional parties agreeing to its terms. All 10 parties who participate in the meet and confer calls must agree in writing that all such 6 9 0 5 9 4 3
9 11 communications will be for settlement purposes only.
P
L E A L T I
I N R U F E R S 12 During the meet and confer period, the discovery stay currently in place shall remain in O
, G O S T F E I I E E L R E C A I K R 13 effect. The meet and confer period shall end on October 30, 2020. The court day after the meet F C
T & , F
S K
T O
E S N I E W E
A 14 and confer period ends, the City shall lodge the Physical Solution with the Court, as well as a A R B
M L C
T
. S T N
E U 1
B 15 status report indicating whether all parties were able to agree to the Physical Solution. N 0 L 0 2 A W 16 The Court shall conduct a further Status Conference on November ___, 2020 at ____m., 17 or at such other date and time as is convenient for the Court. At this Status Conference, the 18 parties will discuss the results of the meet and confer efforts, and will identify those parties that 19 are agreeing to the Physical Solution, those parties who require additional information, and those 20 parties that are objecting to it. The parties will also discuss at the Status Conference any
21 foreseeable discovery issues, as well as potential dates for the Court’s viewing of the Ventura 22 River, as is discussed in Section 2 herein, and the logistics associated with the Court’s viewing of 23 the Ventura River, e.g., the locations of the River to be viewed and times of viewing. 24 25 2. PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN AND PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS: 26 In the event the parties are unable to agree to a Physical Solution, the case will proceed to 27 a discovery phase, and then ultimately an evidentiary hearing. 28 The discovery phase shall commence on November 16, 2020, and shall close at the end of - 3 - CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL SOLUTION 1 the day on March 22, 2021. During the discovery phase, any party may serve percipient-based 2 written discovery and notices of deposition in accordance with the Civil Discovery Act. All such 3 discovery must be completed by the close of discovery. 4 The parties shall not be bound to provide initial disclosures to all parties in accordance 5 with Code of Civil Procedure Section 842. The parties agree that during the discovery phase the 6 parties and the Court shall jointly view the Ventura River on at least one mutually agreeable date. 7 At the November 2020 Status Conference, the parties and Court will discuss the date(s) for such a 8 viewing, and will discuss the locations that will be viewed. The parties will meet and confer and 9 attempt to agree to a mutually agreeable date or dates, and the locations for the Court and parties 10 to view the Ventura River. 6 9 0 5 9 4 3
9 11 For expert discovery, the parties shall comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section
P
L E A L T I
I N R U F E R S 12 2034.010, et seq., based upon the proposed trial date as set forth herein. Any party may serve a O
, G O S T F E I I E E L R E C A I K R 13 demand for exchange of expert witness information at any time during the discovery phase until F C
T & , F
S K
T O
E S N I E W E
A 14 February 10, 2021. The exchange of expert witness information shall occur on March 2, 2021, A R B
M L C
T
. S T N
E U 1
B 15 and parties exchanging information shall include all information required under Code of Civil N 0 L 0 2 A W 16 Procedure Sections 2034.260 and 2034.270. The exchange of any supplemental expert witness 17 information shall occur on March 22, 2021. The parties may conduct depositions of expert 18 witnesses in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.410, et seq., with all expert 19 witness depositions concluding no later than April 6, 2021. 20
21 3. PROPOSED EVIDENTIARY HEARING: 22 The Court shall conduct a Final Status Conference on April 9, 2021 at ______m., or at 23 such other date and time as is convenient for the Court. The Court will hear all motions in limine 24 at the Final Status Conference, which shall be filed and served in accordance with Code of Civil 25 Procedure Section 1005, and L.A.S.C. Local Rule 3.25(f). On April 5, 2021, the parties shall file 26 and serve trial briefs, trial witness lists, and trial exhibit lists. The parties shall meet and confer 27 regarding the exchange of trial exhibits, and shall work to submit a joint list of exhibits that omits 28 duplicate copies of the same exhibit. Trial briefs shall be a maximum of 25 pages in length. - 4 - CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL SOLUTION 1 The Court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the Physical Solution 2 commencing on April 21, 2021 at ______.m., or at such other date and time as may be 3 convenient for the Court. The total number of court days assigned for the hearing will depend 4 upon the number of parties who do not agree with the Physical Solution, and the issues that 5 remain to be resolved. The total number of court days will be determined at the Final Status 6 Conference. 7 8 Dated: August 3, 2020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 9 10 6 9
0 By: 5 9 4 3
9 11
P
SHAWN HAGERTY L E A L T I
I CHRISTOPHER M. PISANO N R U F E R S 12 O
, G O SARAH CHRISTOPHER FOLEY S T F E I I E E
L Attorneys for Respondent and R E C A I K R 13 F C
T Cross-Complainant & , F
S K
T O
E S
N CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA I E W E
A 14 A R B
M L C
T
. S T N
E U 1
B 15 N 0 L 0 2 A W 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 5 - CONSUMPTIVE USERS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A PHYSICAL SOLUTION EXHIBIT B SB Ch’Keeper v. SWRCB revised proposed schedule on City’s partially-stipulated proposed judgment Confidential Settlement Communication (Evid. Code, § 1152) 8-3-20
9-13-20 City releases its proposed judgment 9-13-20 City provides any written backup information it is prepared to provide, under settlement privilege 9-21-20 SB Ch’Keeper, SWRCB, CDFW, and Casitas meet with City via video and under settlement privilege to provide initial reactions to City’s proposed judgment 9-28-20 to 10-30-20 City holds one or two information sessions for the general public, via video, to explain its proposed judgment and answer any questions from general public; City also makes experts available, via video, and under settlement privilege, to answer questions about basis for proposed judgment 11-6-20 City provides CMC statement to Court (after meeting and conferring with other parties) with update on service, update on form answers, and report on proposed judgment discussions to date; other parties may supplement 11-13-20 CMC 1-15-21 Revised initial disclosure deadline 3-1-21 SB Ch’Keeper, SWRCB, CDFW, Casitas, and any other party provide redline counter-offers on proposed judgment 4-1-21 City provides counter-offer on proposed judgment 4-15-21 Settlement conference via video 5-7-21 City provides CMC statement to Court (after meeting and conferring with other parties) with update on service, update on form answers, report on proposed judgment discussions to date, and proposal as to future settlement discussions and/or judicial process; other parties may supplement 5-7-21 City takes default of all parties that have not answered the complaint 5-14-21 CMC
Optional additional dates [subject to change at 11-13-20 CMC or 5-14-21 CMC]:
5-19-21 City files motion to set evidentiary hearing on partially-stipulated proposed judgment, accompanied by evidence supporting a prima facie showing on the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 850, subdivision (a), accompanied by evidence supporting thresholds in Code of Civil Procedure section 850, subdivision (b), and seeking a court finding under Code of Civil Procedure section 833, subdivision (c) 6-24-21 Hearing on City’s motion [all future dates being subject to motion being granted or subject to change at hearing] 12-24-21 Deadline for fact discovery 1-17-22 Deadline for filing of motions regarding fact discovery 2-28-22 Expert disclosures 3-28-22 Supplemental expert disclosures 6-27-22 Deadline for expert depositions 7-18-22 Deadline for filing motions regarding expert discovery
1 10-3-22 Pre-trial statements (including trial witness lists and trial exhibit lists), filing of all direct testimony via declaration, motions in limine, and trial briefs due 10-10-22 Responses to motions in limine due 10-17-22 Pre-trial status conference 11-7-22 Evidentiary hearing (first day)
2 EXHIBIT C CM-020 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Shawn Hagerty, Bar No. 1824435/Sarah Christopher Foley, Bar No. 277223 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 West Broadway, 15th Floor San Diego, California 92101 TELEPHONE NO.: (619) 525-1300 FAX NO. (Optional): (619) 233-6118 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR (Name): City of San Buenaventura SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles STREET ADDRESS: 312 North Spring Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, CA 90012 BRANCH NAME: Spring Street Courthouse PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: State Water Resources Control Board
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE CASE NUMBER: 19STCP01176 PLEADING AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Note: This ex parte application will be considered without a personal appearance. HEARING DATE: August 17, 2020 (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1207(2).) DEPT.: TIME: 1. Applicant (name): City of San Buenaventura (City) SS10 1:30 p.m. is a. plaintiff b. cross-complainant c. petitioner d. defendant e. cross-defendant f. respondent g. other (describe):
2. The complaint or other initial pleading in this action was filed on (date): January 2, 2020 3. Applicant requests that the court grant an order extending time for service of the following pleading: a. Complaint b. Cross-complaint c. Petition d. Answer or other responsive pleading e. Other (describe): 4. Service and filing of the pleading listed in item 3 is presently required to be completed by (date): September 8, 2020
5. Previous applications, orders, or stipulations for an extension of time to serve and file in this action are: a. None b. The following (describe all, including the length of any previous extensions): The Court previously extended the time to answer from 30 days to 60 days by Order dated 11/27/19 and further extended time to answer to 09/08/20 by Order dated 02/27/20.
6. Applicant requests an extension of time to serve and file the pleading listed in item 3 on the following parties (name each): City requests that all cross-defendants have until October 30, 2020 to file and serve their answers or other responsive pleading.
Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Cal. Rules of Court, Judicial Council of California rules 3.110, 3.1200–3.1207 CM-020 [Rev. January 1, 2008] TO SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS www.courtinfo.ca.gov American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com CM-020 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board 19STCP01176
7. The pleading has not yet been filed and served on the parties listed in item 6 for the following reasons (describe the efforts that have been made to serve the pleading and why service has not been completed): Many cross-defendants are not represented by counsel and have requested additional time to determine whether they need to retain counsel and/or file an answer or other pleading.
Continued on Attachment 7. 8. An extension of time to serve and file the pleading should be granted for the following reasons: Settlement negotiations have continued to be productive during the extension period. Good cause exists to further extend the time to respond to allow additional time for negotiating parties to finalize a proposed settlement and physical solution and make it publicly available for cross-defendants to evaluate and determine a need to participate in the lawsuit.
Continued on Attachment 8. 9. If an extension of time is granted, filing and service on the parties listed in item 6 will be completed by (date): October 30, 2020
10. Notice of this application under rules 3.1200–3.1207 has been provided as required (describe all parties or counsel to whom notice was given; the date, time, and manner of giving notice; what the parties or counsel were told and their responses; and whether opposition is expected) or is not required (state reasons): City provided a draft copy of this application via email to all known counsel of record and all parties who have appeared on August 3, 2020 and requested notice of any opposition. Many parties support this application. No party has stated opposition as of the filing of this application.
Continued on Attachment 10. 11. Number of pages attached: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: August 10, 2020
Sarah Christopher Foley ► (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF APPLICANT OR ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT) (SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT)
Order on Application is below on a separate document. ORDER 1. The application for an order extending time to serve and file the pleading is granted denied. 2. The pleading must be served and filed no later than (date): October 30, 2020 3. The case management conference is rescheduled to: a. Date: b. Time: c. Place: 4. Other orders:
5. A copy of this application and order must be served on all parties or their counsel that have appeared in the case. Date:
JUDICIAL OFFICER
CM-020 [Rev. January 1, 2008] EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Page 2 of 2
TO SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com EXHIBIT D TERM SHEET FOR AMENDMENTS TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1. When daily average flows as measured at the VR-1 gage fall below 4.0 CFS for 3 consecutive days, the City will shut down wells Nye 7 and 8 before noon on the following business day.
2. If daily average flows as measured at the VR-1 gage fall below 3.0 CFS on any day of the time period in 1 above, the City would also shut down the subsurface intake at the same time as the shutdown in 1 above.
3. If the daily average flows as measured by the VR-1 gage fall below 4.0 CFS for 3 consecutive days, but stay above 3.0 CFS during that period, the City would shut down wells Nye 7 and 8 but would be permitted to continue to operate the subsurface intake until the daily average flows fall below 3.0 CFS for three consecutive days.
4. The City shall monitor the impact of pumping on instream flows for the life of this agreement. The City shall specifically evaluate the impact of continued pumping at the subsurface intake after the shutdown of wells Nye 7 and 8 pursuant to paragraph 3 above. If monitoring at station VR-2 downstream demonstrates a sustained impact on instream flows after the shutdown of wells Nye 7 and 8, or after the shutdown of the subsurface intake, the parties shall meet and confer on or before 30 June of the following year to discuss whether continuing to pump groundwater when instream flows fall below 4.0 CFS may occur or whether all production should stop at 4.0 CFS. If the parties are unable to agree, either party may pursue any available legal remedy they have related to this issue by seeking resolution of the issue via the Court.
5. Other than as provided in paragraph 4, Channelkeeper agrees not to seek other interim relief regarding flow. This settlement relating to interim flows in no way impacts Channelkeeper’s ability to comment on, support, or challenge the physical solution proposed by any party in this action.
6. The City shall continue to implement this revised flow regime at least until entry of the stipulated judgment and physical solution.
7. The revised flow regime may be temporarily modified or suspended under emergency conditions. Emergency conditions include Act of God, unforeseen pipe failure, and the inability of the City to obtain sufficient usable replacement water from Casitas Municipal Water District or other sources to serve its customers. The City shall promptly notify Channelkeeper in writing whenever such an emergency condition exists. The notification shall include the justification for the modification, and supporting documentation. If necessary, the parties shall meet and confer about the modification or suspension to limit its impact on Southern California Steelhead and other impacted species.
8. If the City seeks to modify the flow regime pursuant to paragraph 6 above because it is unable to obtain replacement water from Casitas Municipal Water District, the City shall provide Channelkeeper with 30 days written notice, if such notice is feasible in light of water management plans or testing trends, or as much advance notice as is feasible when the inability results from an unexpected event. If the modification is based on the inability to obtain replacement water from Casitas, the City shall implement the following specific water conservation measures in the impacted service area during the emergency period of modification or suspension: City Actions.
1. Encourage maximum conservation by all customers and users in the impacted area.
2. No outdoor irrigation using potable water will be allowed.
3. All water use not required for health and safety is prohibited.
4. Suspend the issuance of any new development approvals and new water connections in the impacted area other than those required to be processed by state law. Building permits which do not create new demand for water or which are for emergencies, public safety and water conservation may be exempted by the City Manager.
Water Customer Actions
5. Comply with mandatory water conservation regulations.
6. Prohibition of all outside water use unless necessary for the preservation of health and safety and the public welfare.
7. Watering with hand-held five gallon maximum bucket, filled at exterior hose bib or interior faucet (not by hose) shall be allowed at any time. This will assist in preserving vegetable gardens or fruit trees.
8. The filling of swimming and wading pools is prohibited.
9. Channelkeeper acknowledges that the City currently plans to construct the Foster Park notching project this fall in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. In the unlikely event that the implementation of the notching project impacts the City’s ability to implement the revised flow regime, or in the possible event that the notching project temporarily impacts the City’s ability to use VR-2 to monitor downstream impacts of the pumping regime, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss any modifications or suspensions of the flow regime or the monitoring process as necessary to complete the notching project.
10. The City and Channelkeeper will work in good faith to prepare a joint press release regarding this amendment to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the City and Channelkeeper will meet and confer on whether they can work collaboratively on other public relations efforts to raise awareness of the need to protect the Ventura River Watershed and its habitat, including protections for the Southern California steelhead. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and 3 not a party to the action herein; my business address is Best Best & Krieger LLP, 300 S. Grand 4 Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. On August 10, 2020, I served the following 5 document(s): 6 STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT 7 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek, California addressed as 8 set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and 9 processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in 10 the ordinary course of business. 11 I caused such envelope to be delivered via overnight delivery. Such envelope was deposited for delivery by United Parcel Service following the firm’s ordinary 12 business practices. 13 by transmission via E-Service to File & ServeXpress to the person(s) set forth 14 below. Local Rules of Court 2.10 (P).
15 By e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable 16 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 18 Daniel Cooper Matthew Bullock Sycamore Law Deputy Attorney General 19 1004 O'Reilly Ave. California Department of Justice San Francisco CA 94129 Natural Resources Law Section 20 Tel: (415) 360-2962 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 [email protected] San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 21 Tel: (415) 510-3376 [email protected] 22 23 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant State 24 Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Water Resources Control Board 25 26 27 28 - 1 - Proof of Service 82470.00018\32240721.1 1 Marc N. Melnick Eric M. Katz 2 Deputy Attorney General Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorney General's Office Noah Golden – Krasner 3 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 70550 Carol Boyd 4 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Deputy Attorney General Tel: 510-879-0750 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 5 [email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90013 Tel. (213) 269-6343 6 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant Fax (213) 897-2802 State Water Resources Control Board [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor California 9 Department of Fish & Wildlife 10 Edward J. Casey Paul Blatz 11 Clynton Namuo Ryan Blatz Alston & Bird LLP Blatz Law Firm 12 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor 206 N. Signal St. Suite G Los Angeles, CA 90071 Ojai, CA 93023 13 Tel: 213.576.1000 Tel: (805) 646-3110 [email protected] [email protected] 14 [email protected] [email protected] 15 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants Bentley Attorneys for Cross-Defendants Troy Becker, Family Limited Partnership and AGR Janet Boulten, Michael Boulten, Michael 16 Breeding, Inc. Caldwell, Joe Clark, Michael Cromer; Linda Epstein, Etchart Ranch, Lawrence Hartmann, 17 Ole Konig, Krotona Institute of Theosophy; Stephen Mitchell; North Fork Springs Mutual 18 Water Company, Rudd Ranch, LLC; Shlomo Raz, Sylvia Raz, Senior Canyon Mutual Water 19 Company, Siete Robles Mutual Water Company, Soule Park Golf Course, Ltd., Telos, 20 LLC, Victor Timar, John Town and Trudie Town 21 Anthony Lee Francois 22 William G. Short, Esq. Jeremy Talcott Law Offices of William G. Short David Deerson 23 Post Office Box 1313 Pacific Legal Foundation Ojai, California 93024-1313 930 G Street 24 Tel: (805) 490-6399 Sacramento, CA 95814-1802 Fax: (805) 640-1940 Tel: (916) 419-7111 25 [email protected] Fax: (916) 419-7111 [email protected] 26 [email protected] Attorney for Cross-Defendant Robin [email protected] 27 Bernhoft [email protected] 28 Attorney for Cross-Defendant Robin Bernhoft - 2 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Robert N. Kwong Patrick Loughman Dennis O. La Rochelle Cristian Arrieta 2 Arnold Larochelle Mathews Vanconas & Lowthorp, Richards, McMillan, Miller & Zirbel, LLP Templeman 3 300 Esplanade Dr Ste 2100 300 Esplande Drive, Suite 850 Oxnard, CA 93036 Oxnard, CA 93036 4 Tel: (805) 988-9886 Tel: 805.804.3848 [email protected] [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Casitas Attorneys for Cross-Defendants Ernest Ford Municipal Water District and Tico Mutual Water Company 7 8 Gregory J. Patterson Lindsay F. Nielson Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Law Office of Lindsay F. Nielson 9 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 845 E Santa Clara Street Westlake Village, CA 91361 Ventura, CA 93001 10 Tel: (805) 418-3103 Tel: 805-658-0977 Fax: (805) 418-3101 [email protected] 11 [email protected] 12 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants Robert C. Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Meiners Oaks Davis, Jr., James Finch, Friend's Ranches, Water District and Ventura River Water 13 Inc., Topa Topa Ranch Company, LLC, The District Thacher School, Thacher Creek Citrus, LLC 14 Jeanne Zolezzi Neal P. Maguire 15 Herum Crabtree Suntag Ferguson Case Orr Patterson LLP 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 1050 South Kimball Road 16 Stockton, CA 95207 Ventura, CA 93004 Tel: (209) 472-7700 Tel: (805) 659-6800 17 Fax: (209) 472.7986 [email protected] [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Rancho Matilija Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Meiners Mutual Water Company 19 Oaks Water District and Ventura River Water District 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 3 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Thomas S. Bunn III Michael J. Van Zandt Elsa Sham Nathan A. Metcalf 2 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney & Kruse LLP Sean G. Herman 301 N. Lake Avenue, 10th Floor Hanson Bridgett LLP 3 Pasadena, CA 91101-5123 425 Market Street, 26 Floor Tel.: (626) 793-9400 San Francisco, CA 94105 4 Fax: (626) 793-5900 Tel: 415-777-3200 [email protected] Fax: 415-541-9366 5 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 6 [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant St. Joseph’s Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Ventura County Associates of Ojai, California, Inc. Watershed Protection District 8 9 Scott Slater Joseph C. Chrisman Bradley Herrema Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers, Chrisman 10 Christopher Guillen & Gutierrez Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 5450 Telegraph Road 11 1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor Ventura, CA 93003 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 644-7111 12 Tel: (805) 963-7000 [email protected] Fax: (805) 965-4333 13 [email protected] [email protected] 14 [email protected] 15 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Wood- Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Wood- Claeyssens Foundation Claeyssens Foundation 16 17 David B. Cosgrove Thomas E. Jeffry Jeffrey M. Oderman Debra J. Albin-Riley 18 Douglas J. Dennington Stefan Bogdanovich Jeremy N. Jungreis Arent Fox LLP 19 Rutan & Tucker, LLP 555 West Fifth Avenue, 48th Floor 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 20 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 Tel: 714-641-5100 (213) 629-7400 21 Fax: 714-546-9035 (213) 629-7401 [email protected] [email protected] 22 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 23 [email protected] 24 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Casitas Attorneys or Community Memorial Health 25 Municipal Water District System 26 27 28 - 4 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Guy C. Nicholson Andrew Brady Matthew L. Venezia DLA Piper LLP (US) 2 BROWN GEORGE ROSS LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2400 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2618 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel. (213) 330-7700 Tel. (310) 274-7100 Fax: (213) 330-7701 4 Fax (310) 275-5697 [email protected] [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Petrochem Development I, Attorneys for Integritas Ojai, LLC LLC 7 Jennifer T. Buckman David R. Krause-Leemon 8 Andrew J. Ramos BEAUDOIN & KRAUSE-LEEMON LLP Bartkiewicz Kronick & Shanahan, PC 15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 9 1011 Twenty-Second Street Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Sacramento, CA 95816-4907 Tel. (818) 205-2809 10 Tel. (916) 446-4254 Fax (818) 788-8104 Fax (916) 446-4018 [email protected] 11 [email protected] 12 Attorneys for City of Ojai Attorneys for RDK Land, LLC 13 Eric J. Schindler Brian A. Osborne Michelle J. Berner Osborne Law Firm 14 Kroesche Schindler LLP 674 County Square Drive, Suite 308 2603 Main Street, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93003 15 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel. (805) 642-9283 Tel. (949) 387-0495 Fax (805) 642-7054 16 Fax (888) 588-0034 Fax [email protected] [email protected] 17 [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Oak Haven, LLC
19 Hermitage Mutual Water Company Julie A. Baker Attn: J. Roger Essick 2193 Maricopa Hwy 20 2955 Hermitage Road Ojai, CA 93023 Ojai, CA 93023 (805) 646-8700 21 Tel. (805) 320-1406 [email protected] [email protected] 22 The Joseph Fedele 1995 Living Trust, T&D Nevada Trust 23 Oriana Marie Fedele, Trustee Dennis and Antoinette Mitchell Attn. Oriana Fedele Mitchell Homes Inc. 24 P.O. Box 298 P.O. Box 360 Lahaina, HI 96767 Ojai, CA 93024 25 Tel. (818) 601-3161 (805) 340-2890 [email protected] [email protected] 26 27 28 - 5 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4 1 Michaela Boehm Anthonie M. Voogd 12293 topa Lane 918 Palomar Road 2 Santa Paula, CA 93060 Ojai, CA93023 Tel. (323) 493-3737 Tel. (805) 646-1512 3 [email protected] [email protected] 4 Lawrence S. Mihalas Heather Blair Trustees of the Mihalas Family Trust 556 So. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste 101 5 419 21st Place Box 356 Santa Monica, CA 90402 Pasadena, CA 91105 6 Tel. (310) 739-0700 Tel. (626) 755-6566 [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] 8 Via First Class Mail 9 Del Cielo LLC Attn. Tim Carey, Managing Member 10 22410 Hawthorne # 5 Torrance, CA 90505 11 Tel. (310) 787-6569 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 above is true and correct. 14 Executed on August 10, 2020 at Los Angeles, California. 15 16 17 18 Joy Oates 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 6 - Status Conf. Report 82470.00018\33142441.4