Committed To Legal Excellence

  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Environmental, Land Use And Development
  4.  » 
  5. CEQA, NEPA, Zoning
  6.  » CEQA, NEPA, Zoning Representative Matters

CEQA, NEPA, Zoning Representative Matters

Specific CEQA/ Land Use Public Law Experience

  1. BDG represented a nonprofit corporation in a CEQA action to set aside a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued in support of a proposed technology company development project that threatened to create a major negative impact on our client’s neighboring property. BDG challenged the EIR on the grounds that it failed to properly analyze traffic and transportation, energy quality, shade and shadow, and building mass impacts on the environment. On the eve of the hearing for our client’s petition for a writ of mandate, BDG negotiated a settlement that resolved all of our client’s concerns.
  2. In preparation for potential litigation, BDG was brought in by an urban municipality to peer review and redraft the mandatory water quality analysis work of another counsel before it was provided to the developer’s counsel for a large urban redevelopment project. Based on BDG‘s work product, the project’s water quality issues were resolved to the municipality’s satisfaction.
  3. BDG represented a school district in a CEQA action. Due to state budget cuts, the school district was forced to cut services, including busing. The local municipalities sued the school district under CEQA alleging that the district did not comply with CEQA when it cut bus services for students. BDG successfully settled the lawsuit in a manner that did not require the client to pay any monies or take any new actions.
  4. BDG represented a school district that proposed to relocate its bus yard to a new facility. Local residents and the local municipality complained about the possible negative impacts of the new facility and threatened to sue under CEQA. BDG was able to convince the complaining parties that they would not be successful in litigation, and no CEQA lawsuit was filed.
  5. BDG represented a school district in a CEQA action related to the closure of an elementary school. The local municipality sued the school district under CEQA alleging that the district did not comply with CEQA when it voted to close the elementary school. BDG won at trial and the plaintiff was required to pay the client’s costs.
  6. BDG represents a school district that is seeking to replace its diesel busses with more efficient compressed natural gas busses, including the construction of a compressed natural gas fueling station. BDG is advising the district on the local permitting and CEQA issues raised by the project.
  7. BDG represented a homeowners association that challenged an EIR for the expansion of a commercial shopping center in the center city of Los Angeles. BDG wrote a detailed comment letter and made presentations to the agency, and we achieved the homeowners association’s goals without having to file a writ action.
  8. BDG represented a private corporation who opposed an EIR. When the responsible agency was unwilling to compromise on program changes and the EIR was final and approved, BDG challenged the EIR by a writ on behalf of the private corporation. After fully briefing the issue, the responsible agency and the owner agreed during the mandatory settlement conference to the requirements of the private corporation, including set-backs and monetary compensation.
  9. BDG represented a large California municipality in several aspects of their general plan to redevelop approximately 238 acres of land into a new mixed-use development of 3,000 dwelling units and 720,000 square feet of retail and office/commercial space. BDG successfully counseled the municipality regarding their adoption of a Quimby fee ordinance development agreement.
  10. A large land owner filed suit against a municipality represented by BDG, seeking to have an interim zoning ordinance declared void and monetary damages for alleged restrictions imposed on their property. BDG vigorously defended the municipality. The land owner dismissed their lawsuit before any judicial determination was made as to the validity of the subject ordinance without receiving any monetary damages from the municipality or any other benefit. The municipality freely enacted a permanent ordinance that promoted uses in the area of the property that would most benefit those in the community.
  11. BDG drafted a municipality’s wireless facility ordinance and defended it from attack by wireless communication companies.