Updates and Articles
Purchase of Property Creates Reserve Capacity for Waste Disposal
In 1992 the firm helps the Alameda County Waste Management Authority acquire land for reserve waste disposal capacity, composting, renewable energy generation, and carbon farming.
Read MoreIT Corporation Must Close Its Facility in Conformance With County Regulations
The firm advises the City of Benicia on the required environmental standards for closure of the Class I hazardous waste facility adjacent to the City, and files an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court arguing, as the Court rules, that the landfill operator is subject to County regulations. (IT Corporation v. Solano County, 1 Cal.4th 81 (1991)).
Read MoreChallenge to Santa Cruz County’s Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Is Time Barred
The firm prevails in arguing that the mobile home park owner's cause of action accrued when the County enacted the mobile home rent control ordinance, not when the ordinance was later amended or each time that a mobile home is sold to a new tenant. (De Anza Properties X v. County of Santa Cruz, 936 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1991).)
Read MoreProtected: Groundbreaking Commercial Housing Fee Upheld
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: Password:
Read MoreImportant Wetlands Protected
The firm represents Save the Bay and the National Audubon Association as intervenors in the successful defense, in the Ninth Circuit, of the Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction over property that government actions had helped make aquatic. (Leslie Salt Co. v. U.S, 896 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1990).)
Read MoreSMW Advises Sacramento on Reuse of the Railyards
In 1990 the firm begins representing the City of Sacramento in connection with ongoing site cleanup, adoption of specific plans, relocation of streets and infrastructure for mixed-use redevelopment of the historic terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. The firm's work continues for twelve years.
Read MoreAppellate Court Issues Landmark Decision Invalidating Approval of Industrial Project in Kings County
The firm prevails in challenging a coal-fired cogeneration facility in the City of Hanford. The court of appeal's landmark ruling holds that the environmental impact report must analyze the project's cumulative impacts on air quality. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990).)
Read MoreNinth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Takings Action Against Butte County
The firm obtains dismissal of action alleging that the County of Butte unlawfully denied developer's proposals for obtaining sewer service. The Ninth Circuit affirms the District Court's decision that developer's takings claims were not ripe for adjudication and the U.S. Supreme Court denies cert. (St. Claire v. City of Chico and County of Butte, 880 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1989).)
Read MoreCourt Prevents Town from Enforcing Code on Tribal Lands
The firm obtains a federal court order declaring that the Town of Parker lacked jurisdiction to enforce its building and zoning ordinances on lands owned by the Colorado River Indian Tribes. (Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town of Parker, 705 F.Supp. 473 (1989).)
Read MoreEnvironmental Review Required for Wetland Fill Permit
On behalf of Save the Bay and other environmental groups, the firm, together with the Attorney General's office, prevails in a federal case holding that the Army Corps of Engineers must prepare an environmental impact statement for a permit to fill wetlands at the Oakland Airport site. (People of State of Calif. v. Marsh, 687 F.Supp. 495 (1988).)
Read MoreBig Win for Marin County’s Agriculture Zoning
The Ninth Circuit rejects the expansion of urban land uses into Marin County's “beautiful rural landscape,” holding that the landowner's facial challenge and equal protection claim are barred by the statute of limitations and the County's zoning is neither arbitrary or irrational. (Barancik v. County of Marin, 872 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1988).)
Read MoreCourt of Appeal Rejects Redevelopment Agency’s Determination That Agricultural Area Is Blighted
The firm prevails in challenging a redevelopment plan that would have allowed industrial uses on productive agricultural land in Solano County. The appellate court reverses the trial court, holding that the Agency's approval violated both the Community Redevelopment Law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Emmington v. Solano County Redev't Agency, 195 Cal.App.3d 491 (1987).)
Read More