Potential Santa Paula Creek Flood Impacts To East Area 1 Project To Receive Further Study

April 20, 2011 By admin Leave a Comment

Potential Santa Paula Creek Flood Impacts To East Area 1 Project To Receive Further Study

For Immediate Release: April 20, 2011.
Contacts: Alasdair Coyne, Keep Sespe Wild Committee (805) 921-0618, sespecoyne@gmail.com
Harold S. Edwards, President & CEO, Limoneira Company (805) 525-5541
Karen Kraus, Environmental Defense Center (805) 658-2688
Richard S. Zeilenga, Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger LLP (805) 446-1496

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Santa Paula, California – Limoneira Company and the Keep Sespe Wild Committee (KSW) have settled concerns over potential Santa Paula Creek flood impacts by ensuring that the issue will be further reviewed as the East Area 1 project moves through the City of Santa Paula for additional approvals.

Limoneira has agreed to pay all costs associated with the City’s preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), that supplements a 2008 EIR for the East Area 1 Project. The SEIR will be prepared in conjunction with the City’s processing of Limoneira’s tentative map application for the East Area 1 project. The City has also confirmed that an SEIR will be prepared.

The East Area 1 Project (“Project” or “EA1 Project”) is an approximately 500 acre project—including homes, retail, and open space—located in Ventura County, immediately east of the City of Santa Paula and Santa Paula Creek. The SEIR will evaluate potential Santa Paula Creek flood impacts, including the latest information about storm flow and sediment, and consider mitigation measures that may need to be implemented to reduce or avoid such impacts. It will also evaluate a project alternative or project revision that includes a greater setback along Santa Paula Creek, which could facilitate steelhead migration.

Alasdair Coyne, Director of the Keep Sespe Wild Committee stated, “This marks a positive step in addressing Keep Sespe Wild’s concerns about development along Santa Paula Creek, including our efforts to ensure that steelhead migration is not impeded.”

Mr. Harold Edwards, President of the Limoneira Company, commented: ”The Limoneira Company is very pleased that it was able to work cooperatively with Keep Sespe Wild to formulate a win/win solution to concerns about potential Santa Paula Creek flood impacts. The City’s current processing of a tract map for the East Area 1 Project, along with preparation of a Supplemental EIR, will create an opportunity for more productive dialogue about Keep Sespe Wild’s concerns, without delaying LAFCO’s recent approval of the East Area 1 annexation to the City.”

“This is a great outcome for everyone, as it ensures full public disclosure, analysis, and informed decision making about the effects of flooding on people, development, and the environment,” said Karen Kraus, staff attorney at the Environmental Defense Center.

Richard Zeilenga, legal counsel for Limoneira Company, stated: “We are very pleased to have helped the Limoneira Company and KSW find common ground. Both can achieve very positive results for the City of Santa Paula by working together on a project that has overwhelming community support.”

KSW had previously objected to LAFCO’s approval of the East Area 1 annexation to the City, because KSW sought additional environmental review of potential Santa Paula Creek flood impacts, and the impact of any future flood control improvements on steelhead migration.

The settlement agreement between Keep Sespe Wild Committee and Limoneira is available upon request to EDC or Limoneira (see contacts above).

The Keep Sespe Wild Committee, is a wilderness and wild river conservation organization based in Ventura County.

Limoneira Company, a 117-year old international agribusiness headquartered in Santa Paula, California, has grown to become one of the premier integrated agribusinesses in the world. The Company is a leading producer of lemons, avocados, oranges, and other specialty crops that are enjoyed throughout the world. For more about Limoneira Company, visit www.limoneira.com.

The Environmental Defense Center, a non-profit law firm, protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy, and legal action and works primarily within Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo counties. Since 1977, EDC has empowered community based organizations to advance environmental protection. Program areas include protecting coast and ocean resources, open spaces and wildlife, and human and environmental health. Learn more about EDC at www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org

Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger LLP (“SZR”) is a full service Ventura County based law firm, including lawyers specializing in land use and environmental compliance matters for landowners and residential and commercial developers. For more information about SZR, visit: www.szrlaw.com.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Seventh Consecutive Day Overtime Pay

April 15, 2011 By Adam Treiger Leave a Comment

California Labor Code section 510(a) provides that the first 8 hours of work on the seventh consecutive workday in a workweek will be paid at time and one half, and all time after that on that seventh consecutive day will be paid at double time.  That is clear enough.  What is sometimes unclear is when a workweek starts and ends.  Under California law, the employer has broad discretion to set the days included in its own workweek.  For example, if the employer sets the workweek as Sunday to Saturday, an employee who works seven consecutive days from Tuesday to Monday is not entitled to section 510(a) premium pay because she has worked only 5 days in one workweek and 2 days in a different workweek.  However, an employer’s discretion to set its own workweek is not unlimited.  That is, and as held in the recent case of Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (decided on April 14, 2011), an employer may not designate its workweek in a manner that is designed primarily, or solely, to evade overtime compensation.  Put another way, an employer may not engage in subterfuge or artifice designed to evade overtime laws.  See Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 893.  Thus, when an employer designates its workweek, it is safest if (i) its workweek is the same for all of its employees, and (ii) the employer can point to a business reason other than avoiding overtime pay that supports its choice of workweek.  –Adam K. Treiger

Filed Under: employee wages, Employment Law Tagged With: , , ,

Wages on Termination Day 2

April 7, 2011 By Adam Treiger Leave a Comment

Another issue facing California employers who terminate an employee is the timing of the final paycheck.  If the employer terminates the employee, the employee must be paid the final paycheck on the last day of employment.  The employer cannot wait for the regular payroll cycle to come to an end before paying the terminated employee.  If the employer uses a payroll service to process its payroll, the employer should call the service and obtain a withholding breakdown so that the employer can write a manual check on the termination date and provide the employee with a payroll advice showing all of the withholdings from the gross pay.  If the employee resigns with 72 hours notice or more, then the employer must also pay the employee his or her final paycheck on the last day of work.  If the employee resigns with less than 72 hours notice, the employer must pay the employee the final paycheck within 72 hours (clock hours, not business hours) after receiving notice of resignation.  If the employer is late in the final payment, there is a potential that the employer will owe the employee “waiting time penalties” under Labor Code section 203 (if the delay was “willful”).  Waiting time penalties equal one day’s pay for every day the final paycheck is late, up to a maximum of 30 days.  The California Supreme Court recently ruled (in the case of Pineda v. Bank of America) that the statute of limitations for section 203 waiting time penalties is 3 years.  –Adam K. Treiger

Filed Under: employee wages Tagged With: , ,
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26| flagyl generic name cytotec price pepcid coupon price of coumadin coupon for nexium amaryl price generic avelox buy micardis coupons for motrin clomid 150 mg asacol online grifulvin 500 mg compazine 10 mg indocin 25 mg diflucan 100mg nizoral generic famvir buy online ziac mg effexor 75 mg cheap lamisil buy levaquin abilify bipolar disorder estrace 1mg vantin 100 mg avalide generic name desyrel 25 mg flagyl 200 mg order bactrim buy detrol online order celebrex online