City of Gardena v. State Water Resources Control Bd. CA4/3

Filed 1/28/21 City of Gardena v. State Water Resources Control Bd. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CITY OF GARDENA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058540

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00833722)

STATE WATER RESOURCES OPINION CONTROL BOARD et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

CITY OF WEST COVINA et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenda Sanders, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Appellants’ request for judicial notice. Denied. Respondent’s motion to augment. Denied.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorney General, Gary E. Tavetian, Daniel M. Lucas and Jennifer Kalnins Temple, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants. Casso & Sparks, John J. Harris; Locke Lord and Susan A. Kidwell for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jones & Mayer and Bruce A. Lindsay for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents City of West Covina, City of Santa Fe Springs, City of Lakewood, and City of Claremont. Aleshire & Wynder and Christine M. Carson for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents City of Lawndale, City of Signal Hill, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and City of Glendora. George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney, and Susan Y. Cola, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent City of Santa Monica. * * * INTRODUCTION The facts and issues in this case are identical to those in City of Duarte v. State Water Resources Control Board et al. (Jan. __, 2021, G058539) __ Cal.App.5th __ (Duarte). The cases were tried together, and the trial court issued a single amended decision for both cases. Based on the analysis and conclusions we reached in Duarte, we reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to deny the petition for writ of mandate and enter judgment in favor of Appellants the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. BACKGROUND At issue in this case is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (the Permit) that sets numeric effluent limitations on the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) operated by 86 municipal entities in Los Angeles County (the Permittees).