Source: http://www.meyersnave.com/attorney/edward-grutzmacher/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:54:30+00:00

Document:
Edward (Ed) Grutzmacher represents public entities and private clients in all stages of land use entitlements, from initial application through final administrative action. He also has extensive experience in litigation arising from land use entitlements, including cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Coastal Act, the Subdivision Map Act, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act and the Mitigation Fee Act.
Ed’s land use and litigation practices are complemented by his knowledge of the legal issues surrounding climate change legislation and policy. He regularly advises clients on climate change questions, and has been involved in both evaluating emerging greenhouse gas regulations and analyzing and developing strategies to address the impacts of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32, SB 32) on land use entitlement processing.
Ed is also involved in the burgeoning field of medical and recreational marijuana regulation, advising clients on land use regulations and environmental issues affecting these new industries.
Trans Bay Cable Project. Advised City of Pittsburg (CA) in processing land use entitlements for an approximately 57-mile, 400-Megawatt electricity transmission cable linking Pittsburg with the City and County of San Francisco.
Port of Los Angeles. Assisted the Port in environmental analysis of major infrastructure improvement of Port facilities as well as in litigation arising from that analysis.
Citrus Heights Infrastructure Pay-As-You-Go v. City of Citrus Heights. Successfully defended challenge under CEQA to City of Citrus Heights’ approval of a residential subdivision in trial court and on appeal.
City of Milpitas v. City of San Jose. Successfully prosecuted action on behalf of the City of Milpitas against the City of San Jose for violations of CEQA in analyzing extra-jurisdictional impacts of the North San Jose Area Plan.
Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol. Successfully defended City in challenge brought by developer under CEQA that sought to require the City to certify an EIR before the City had completed environmental review because the environmental review process had exceeded one year. The decision clarifies lead agencies’ rights and responsibilities to complete adequate environmental review despite exceeding CEQA’s direction to complete an EIR within one year.
HCSS v. City of Healdsburg (Saggio Hills). Defended approvals of development involving resort hotel and residential uses.
Baywood v. City of Petaluma. Defended City against claims for violation of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Ceres/Walmart. Defended approvals of a regional shopping center including a Walmart supercenter store.
Pinole General Plan Update. Assisted City in the update of its General Plan.
Marin County EOF. Assisted County in processing of approvals for an Emergency Operations Facility.
El Cerrito San Pablo Specific Plan. Assisted City in development of Specific Plan including form-based code for commercial thoroughfare.
Bombay v. City of Fresno. Defended City in challenge to collection of development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act from multiple developments.
City of Sonoma v. County of Sonoma (Dutra). Challenged County’s approval of an asphalt batch plant located just outside the city limits.
Heron Bay HOA v. City of San Leandro. Defended approval of wind power generation facility.
Nichols v. City of Modesto. Defended City in elections law challenge.
Windsor General Plan Update. Assisting City in processing of new General Plan.
Naraghi Lakes v. City of Modesto. Defended approval of shopping center anchored by new supermarket.
Sebastopol Alliance for Neighborhood Empowerment v. City of Sebastopol. Defended approvals of minor modifications to existing gas station and car wash.
SEIR Addendum for BART Silicon Valley Project. Assisted in CEQA processing of extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit into Silicon Valley.
Project Agricultural Land v. Stanislaus LAFCO. Defended LAFCO approval of annexation into the City of Ceres of large scale residential development project.
Grabisch v. City of Larkspur. Defended City’s collection and accounting of fees collected under benefit assessment district.
Moynihan v. City of Petaluma. Defended City in elections law challenge.
Teixeira v. UC Regents UCLA. Defended UC in public records act litigation.
Teixeira v. UC Regents San Diego. Defended UC in public records act litigation.
Linebarger v. Town of Los Altos Hills. Defending Town in dispute over residential project.
Save Valley Village v. City of Los Angeles. Defended City in CEQA challenge to approval of residential project.
MHC Chino v. City of Chino. Defending City against takings claim arising out of mobile home park conversion.
Simpson v. San Diego Unified School District. Defending District against CEQA challenge to approval of high school campus upgrades project.
Friends of Walnut Creek v. City of Walnut Creek. Defended approval of new shopping center against CEQA challenge.
UC Merced 2020 Project. Assist UC Merced in compliance for mitigation of impacts of campus development on endangered species.
Gonzalez v. City of Sacramento. Defended the City’s approval of deal to construct new basketball arena for the Sacramento Kings.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.