Author: Stephanie Hill

AB 5: Clarity for Some Employers, Uncertainty for Others

On September 18, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) into law, which codifies the California Supreme Court’s unanimous 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles.  AB 5 will take effect on January 1, 2020. The landmark legislation is intended to reduce the misclassification of workers by adopting and expanding the “ABC” test established in Dynamex for determining whether a worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. The law makes it more difficult for employers to improperly classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. In California, it is estimated that AB 5 may impact over one million workers currently classified as contract workers. Unlike employees, independent contractors are not entitled to minimum wage, rest breaks, overtime pay, unemployment and disability insurance, mandatory leaves of absence, workers’ compensation, and are not protected by anti-discrimination and retaliation laws.

Which Employing Entities Are Affected?
The Legislature’s intent was to clarify which industries will be subject to the new “ABC” test. While AB 5 targets ride-share companies, it has the potential to regulate virtually every private sector employer in the state. However, the new law expressly excludes certain occupations from its purview, including, but not limited to, doctors, dentists, psychologists, insurance agents, stockbrokers, lawyers, accountant, architects, private investigators, real estate agents, and some classes of engineers, among many more classifications. Whether public entities are exempt from the new law is not specifically addressed, although AB 5’s empowerment of the Attorney General and specified “local prosecuting agencies” to enforce the law suggests that its provisions may not apply to public employers. In addition, public entities are exempted from numerous provisions in the labor code and wage orders. Accordingly, there is ambiguity surrounding the law’s application to public employers.

What Does This Mean for Employers?
Under the “ABC” test, to prove that a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, the putative employer must establish all three of the following elements:

  1. The worker is free from the employer’s control and direction in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact.
  2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the employer’s business.
  3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

For professions that are exempt from AB 5 or otherwise outside the bounds of coverage as determined by the courts, the pre-Dynamex common law standard will be used to assess a worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor.

What to Watch Out For
It is important to note that methods for enforcing AB 5’s provisions have been added, authorizing California’s Attorney General, local prosecutors, and specified city attorneys to take legal action against entities violating AB 5. The new law also broadens the Dynamex ruling by applying the “ABC” test to all claims brought under California’s Labor Code, unemployment insurance laws, and wage orders.

What’s Next
The provisions of AB 5 will prospectively apply to work performed on and after January 1, 2020, but for existing claims and actions, AB 5 will apply retroactively. Though AB 5 will take effect on January 1, 2020, it will likely face legal challenges which could delay the implementation of its key provisions. It is expected that new legislation will be introduced in January 2020 to further clarify AB 5’s applicability and potentially grant additional exemptions. All employers, particularly public entities, need to consult with legal counsel and carefully review AB 5’s potential application.

Three Meyers Nave Attorneys Selected as “Super Lawyers” in Southern California

Meyers Nave proudly announces that three attorneys are included in the 2020 list of Southern California Super Lawyers. Their legal expertise and professional accomplishments also reflect the high regard of numerous Meyers Nave practices, including Appellate Law, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, and Land Use and Zoning Law.

We congratulate the following attorneys:

Southern California Super Lawyers

Julia Bond – Environmental Litigation, Land Use/Zoning, Appellate (2018-2020)
Deborah Fox – Constitutional Law, Land Use/Zoning, Environmental (2017-2020)
Amrit Kulkarni – Environmental Litigation, Land Use/Zoning (2012-2020)

About Super Lawyers®: Super Lawyers® evaluates attorneys from firms of all sizes in more than 70 practice areas throughout the United States. Super Lawyers® selects lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Super Lawyers Magazine, which publishes the lists, is distributed to attorneys and ABA-accredited law schools.

Appellate Court Clarifies Parameters of Describing a “Project” Under CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), or other environmental review document, must describe and analyze the impacts of a project – and the project itself must be consistently described, throughout the process of local agency consideration, in terms that are “accurate,” “stable” and “finite.” Local agencies and developers regularly face the question of how to formulate the description of a proposed project in a CEQA document that meets this standard. On July 31 in Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (“Millennium”), the Second Appellate District added to the growing body of recent case law that answers this question. Millennium follows and expands upon the guidance provided in Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 (“Washoe Meadows”) and South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321 (“South of Market”). Together, these three cases assist local agencies and developers in understanding what is and is not adequate or permissible for a project description under CEQA.

Millennium – Analyzing a set of environmental impacts vs. impacts for a defined project
Millennium involved a large construction project on Vine Street in the City of Los Angeles (“City”). As noted by the Court, the Millennium project described and analyzed impacts of an “illustrative scenario” for a “potential development program” that would implement certain land use and development standards, but which provided the developers with “flexibility regarding the final arrangement and density of specific land uses, siting, and massing characteristics” of the project. The Millennium Court found that the project description was “not simply inconsistent” but also that it failed “to describe the siting, size, mass, or appearance of any building proposed to be built at the project site.” The Court held that this did “not meet the requirement of a stable or finite proposed project.” The City and project proponents argued that the EIR was adequate under CEQA because it examined maximum environmental impacts of any of the potential development scenarios. However, the Court rejected this argument, concluding that “[a]nalyzing a ‘set of environmental impact limits,’ instead of analyzing the environmental impacts for a defined project, was not consistent with CEQA.”

Washoe Meadows – Describing range of possible projects vs. preferred or actual project
Millennium relied, in part, on Washoe Meadows, which addressed an EIR that did not meet CEQA’s requirements for a stable and finite project description. The EIR in Washoe Meadows identified five “very different” alternatives as potential projects, did not identify a preferred or proposed project, and left the selection of the preferred alternative until after receiving public input. As in Millennium, the local agency in Washoe Meadows argued that it had complied with CEQA because it thoroughly analyzed the environmental impacts of the alternative the agency ultimately selected as the project. The Court held, however, that the CEQA flaw was not with the “informative quality of the EIR’s environmental forecasts,” but rather that a “description of a broad range of possible projects, rather than a preferred or actual project, presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives that may not be in any way germane to the project ultimately approved.” The Washoe Meadows Court did allow that “there may be situations in which the presentation of a small number of closely related alternatives would not present an undue burden on members of the public wishing to participate in the CEQA process,” but that in the case under review the differences between the five alternatives were “vast” with each option creating a different set of impacts and requiring different mitigation measures, resulting in an impermissible project description.

South of Market – Describing and evaluating substantially similar project options
Finally, Millennium distinguished South of Market, which involved a mixed-use development project. The South of Market EIR examined two “schemes” for the project, consisting of different allocations of uses (the “Residential Scheme” and the “Office Scheme”) within the proposed project buildings. The two options involved substantially the same overall square footage , though the Office Scheme had a larger building envelope and higher density than the Residential Scheme. The Court rejected petitioners’ challenge that the EIR failed to provide an accurate, stable project description because of the use of the two options. In reaching this decision, the South of Market Court noted favorably that the two options were substantially similar, that the EIR fully evaluated the impacts of each option independently, and that information presented in the EIR was not confusing.

Project description check list
Taken together, these three cases provide agencies and developers with bookends on the degree of flexibility that may be built into a project description under CEQA. Under South of Market, some degree of flexibility is permissible, and the EIR may go so far as to include project “options,” so long as the options are independently evaluated, represent true variations on a single project rather than vastly different projects, and do not confuse the reviewing public. Conversely, under Millennium and Washoe Meadows, excessive vagueness or uncertainty in the description of the proposed project may be a violation of CEQA and courts are unlikely to find that examination of “maximum environmental impacts” of any proposal corrects this flaw. As such, agencies and developers should avoid indefinite project descriptions, though carefully crafted options for project implementation may be acceptable.

California Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes a “Project” Under CEQA

In a decision released on August 19, Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the California Supreme Court addressed the definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and clarified the appropriate scope of review for when an activity constitutes a “project.” As a practical matter, the decision will likely result in fewer findings that actions are not “projects” and a greater reliance on findings that projects are exempt from CEQA.

CEQA defines a “project” as an activity that (1) is a discretionary action by a governmental agency and (2) will either have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21065.) Petitioners argued that a second CEQA statute controlled, which states that CEQA “shall apply” to a list of discretionary projects including, but not limited to, the “enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances.” Petitioners’ position was that this meant all zoning changes were subject to CEQA regardless of whether those changes would have any environmental impacts. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (a).)

  • Actions Subject to CEQA — In the first part of the opinion, the Court concluded that the separate list of actions was not a list of actions that would automatically be subject to CEQA. Rather, the Court held, the specific definition of “project” controls, and actions by governmental agencies must both be discretionary and have a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, impact on the environment.
  • Test to Determine a “Project” — In the second part of the opinion, the Court clarified that the test for whether an action constitutes a “project” must take place in the abstract. The Court held that the “likely actual impact of an activity is not at issue in determining its status as a project.” Instead, “a proposed activity is a CEQA project if, by its general nature, the activity is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This determination is made without considering whether, under the specific circumstances in which the proposed activity will be carried out, these potential effects will actually occur.”

What It Means for Government Agencies
The much-anticipated decision arose in the context of whether proposed new or changed zoning ordinances must first undergo CEQA review, particularly those that concentrate or shift property uses within a jurisdiction. However, the decision has wider application. Following this opinion, government agencies examining whether an action constitutes a project under CEQA should be sure to focus on whether the activity could, in general, have a direct or indirect environmental impact and not on whether the action is likely to have specific impacts.

Construction Law Attorneys Who Actually Try Cases

The Meyers Nave Construction and Facilities (CFG) Practice Group launched in July 2013 to provide specialty construction law expertise from lawyers who know the construction industry – the issues, the technologies, the language. We understand the challenges faced by owners, designers, contractors, subcontractors, construction managers, and specialty consultants. In addition to the information outlined below, please visit our Construction and Facilities Practice page for more details about our experience, expertise and results. The statewide practice is led by Principal Eric Firstman.

We Try Cases. That’s What Sets Us Apart.

In its first six years, CFG already tried five complex construction disputes to final judgment or award – more than 80 “in court” days of witness examination, more than 130 depositions and more than one million separate documents. Prior to joining, the trial experiences of our CFG lawyers includes trials involving power plants, wastewater treatment plants, water conveyances including tunnels and associated power facilities, libraries, and detention facilities, adding another 100 “in court” days in trials of complex construction cases. With construction trial experience comes efficiency in case preparation and depth of judgment in making assessments of case value, cost and utility of discovery, managing experts, assessing strategies and settlement points.

Since opening, CFG has also settled construction claims throughout the litigation and arbitration process, often following dispositive motions, including a summary judgment on an eight-figure contractor claim on a state highway and a dismissal in the face of a summary judgment on a seven-figure contractor claim on a college facility. CFG has defended eight figure claims through discovery that then settled at the amount of the pre-litigation settlement offer, recovered seven figure settlements in mediation, and counseled clients through default terminations, litigation and settlements of claims exceeding $100 million.

Project Counseling

CFG attorneys devote a substantial amount of time to project oversight and pre-litigation counseling on troubled projects, procurement and bidding disputes. We understand each client’s objectives and recommend pragmatic solutions to help move the project forward, whether the goal is project completion, revenue generation, or cost management. Every construction project is different and every construction dispute involves unique facts, technology, processes and contracts. CFG reviews the drawings, walks the project, meets the staff in the trailers, and studies the job photos.

CFG provides realistic assessments of entitlement, damages, litigation costs, litigation risks and uncertainties, and measures these costs against the value of prompt dispute resolution. In project counseling, CFG considers the litigation option as the option of last resort. Just as cost and schedule drive construction projects, cost and timely resolution drive construction disputes. Whether by face-to-face negotiations, facilitated negotiations, mediations, mini-trials, referees or arbitrations, CFG evaluates each case and recommends solutions for cost-effective resolution.  We share our clients’ sense of urgency to find the best solutions to construction problems.  We provide legal solutions that make business sense.

Structuring Construction Projects and Contracts

CFG has worked with clients to plan, structure, and draft baseline construction contract documents for design-bid-build, design-build and construction management at risk; equipment procurement; and design and consulting contracts. CFG attorneys advise on the use of construction contracts on construction projects and how construction contracts work in dispute resolution.  Simple language, express risk allocations and straightforward concepts work. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to contracts, and while CFG has forms of contracts it recommends, it also has in depth experience with the various standard industry and government forms-including the contracts of the American Institute of Architects, Consensus DOCS, the Engineers Joint Contracts Documents Committee and the Construction Management Association of America.

Representative Matters

  • Hospital Project – CFG represented a hospital owner in a complex arbitration following a default termination of a design-build contractor on a $300 million hospital construction project approximately 30% complete. The case required more than 50 depositions and 20 full days of hearing testimony from more than 30 witnesses, including 20 engineering, design, schedule and damage experts. The final award granted the contractor zero on $130 million in contractor claims for lost profits and quantum meruit.
  • State Highway – After construction delays and more than $10 million in change orders, the contractor on a $60 million construction contract to rebuild a state highway filed suit seeking more than $14 million in disputed changes, delays and measured mile lost productivity claims. CFG secured a summary judgment on the contractor’s affirmative claims for failure to comply with contractual administrative dispute procedures. The matter thereafter settled in a mandatory judicial conference under CCP §664, with the project owner retaining the contract retention and the contractor receiving zero on its affirmative claims.
  • Reservoir Construction – CFG represented the public owner of a reservoir in the defense of $14 million in claims for delay, differing site conditions, extended overhead and lost productivity damages. The case involved more than 30 depositions and 32 days of hearing testimony from more than 20 witnesses. The initial award granted the contractor approximately 25% of the amounts claimed, however CFG tried certain defenses to the superior court by petition to vacate, resulting in a tentative ruling granting a full defense to the State. The matter was remanded for further findings on the project owner’s objections regarding pre-litigation claim requirements and the California Contractor’s License Law, and then further review by the Superior Court after remand. CFG won a second and final ruling denying the contractor’s theories of substantial compliance for a full defense on contractor claims. Appellate proceedings and disgorgement litigation continues.
  • Bridge Dispute – CFG represented a public owner in a bridge construction project by navigating the owner through the general contractor’s default and termination for cause at the midpoint of construction, recovering over $450,000 in a settlement with the performance bond surety for the completion of the project by a replacement contractor, and then defending against over $2.0 million in various claims asserted against the owner. After three years of litigation, the CFG team defended against all claims and affirmatively recovered an additional $935,000 for the owner in settlement for a total recovery of over $1.38 million, approximately 98% of the original $1.44 million construction bid amount. The matter included delay and differing site conditions claims.

Deborah Fox selected among the “Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers” in Los Angeles

Meyers Nave proudly announces that the Los Angeles Business Journal selected Deborah Fox to its 2019 list of the “Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers” in Los Angeles. The Journal selected 74 lawyers from 320 nominations. As the publication explains, “There is a very special breed of attorney that needs to transcend expert comprehension of the legal system – the litigator. Attorneys who go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients before judges and jury have their own unique sets of skills. These are the lawyers you want in your corner in court. Congratulations to the attorneys who made this list of superb litigation specialists!”

The Journal’s description of Deborah’s professional expertise is excerpted below.

Deborah Fox is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Meyers Nave and a member of the firm’s three-person Executive Committee. Fox founded, built and leads two of the firm’s most prominent statewide practices – Trial & Litigation Practice and First Amendment Practice.

The cases that Fox handles confirm her reputation as a go-to attorney for “bet-the-government” litigation, particularly involving man-made or natural disasters. Fox is selected by government entities, such as cities, counties and special districts, to handle their highest profile, most complex and often most controversial litigation matters. She is well known for handling matters that are already front-page news or likely to become a headline as the case unfolds and after it concludes.

Fox’s complex litigation experience includes multi-party and multi-district cases, civil litigations that are intertwined with pending criminal actions, and matters that require managing, researching, reviewing and interpreting extensive electronic information.

Please click here for Deborah’s profile on the 2019 list.

Three Meyers Nave Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America 2020

Meyers Nave proudly announces that three of our attorneys are recognized in the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Their legal expertise and professional accomplishments reflect the high regard of numerous Meyers Nave practices, including eminent domain, environmental law, land use, litigation, municipal law and natural resources law. Their recognition also demonstrates Meyers Nave’s reputation for excellent client work from our offices throughout California.

We congratulate the following attorneys:

Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based on nomination, voting and evaluation by peers in the same practice area and geographic region. Best Lawyers® assesses the information and checks each attorney’s status with local bar associations. Lawyers do not pay to be included. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers® “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” First published in 1983, The Best Lawyers in America is regarded as a definitive guide to excellence in the legal profession.

Knight v. Trump: Second Circuit Sets Rules on Blocking Followers from Social Media Accounts

In the highly anticipated case involving President Trump’s Twitter account, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the President’s blocking of followers on his @realDonaldTrump account was unconstitutional viewpoint based discrimination. In its unanimous opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court in full, finding the account to be a public forum because it was opened as an “instrumentality of communication” for “indiscriminate use by the general public.” In deciding whether the President’s Twitter account constituted a public forum, the Court examined the policy, practice and intent in operating the account.

What does the decision mean?
The Second Circuit’s decision makes clear that where government officials open their social media accounts to the public as a way of communicating about official business, then their accounts will be analyzed under the public forum doctrine, which prohibits selectively blocking “persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

What doesn’t the decision mean?
The Second Circuit opinion clearly points out that not every social media account operated by an elected official will necessarily be a public forum. The outcome of that inquiry will be informed by how the official describes and uses the account, to whom features of the account are made available, and how others, including government officials and agencies, regard and treat the account.

What should elected officials and government entities do next?
Elected officials and government entities that wish to regulate participation on social media accounts should draft guidelines for posting and removing comments. To pass constitutional muster, factors to consider include making sure that comments will not be hidden or deleted based on viewpoint, users will be blocked only for repeated violations and for a limited period of time, and personnel responsible for managing social media accounts will implement guidelines in a viewpoint-neutral and non-discriminatory manner.

For more information about this case and the state of the law regarding this nuanced area of constitutional concern, please click here to read the article authored by Meyers Nave attorneys Deborah Fox and Meg Rosequist that was published in the August 2019 issue of North County Lawyer magazine.

Meyers Nave Named Tier 1 Among “Best Law Firms” in Oakland for Environmental and Natural Resources Law by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® in 2020

Meyers Nave proudly announces that our statewide Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law practice groups have been recognized as Tier 1 among “Best Law Firms” in the metropolitan Oakland, California region by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® in 2020. The ranking process requires a Firm to have at least one attorney who is recognized in the current edition of the Best Lawyers in America, and Meyers Nave is proud to announce that six of our attorneys are recognized as “Best Lawyers” in their fields. The “Best Law Firms” ranking process also includes a confidential evaluation survey completed by clients, professional references and peer attorneys. Data is also collected from “Best Lawyers” ballots and the information that each law firm provides about the strengths of its areas of expertise. The quantitative and qualitative data is then combined into an overall Tier score for each firm.

Meyers Nave congratulates its Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law Practice Groups on this important recognition.

Best Law Firms in America by US News-Best Law Firms Report

Tier 1, Environmental Law (metropolitan Oakland, 2020)
Tier 1, Natural Resources Law (metropolitan Oakland, 2015-2020)

Meyers Nave Proudly Serves as Go-To Land Use and Environmental Counsel on High-Profile, Large-Scale Projects Throughout California

Our Land Use and Environmental Law Practice attorneys are well known for working on many of California’s most prominent civil infrastructure projects, industrial sites, mixed-use developments, and sports and entertainment facilities. We provide sophisticated transactional, litigation and regulatory compliance assistance to public agencies, business entities and public-private partnerships that develop, plan, build, operate and maintain these large-scale projects throughout the state. The team is led by Amrit Kulkarni, a member of Meyers Nave’s Executive Committee and chair of the Land Use, Environmental Law, and Transportation & Infrastructure Practice Groups.

Our expertise has been recognized since 2014 when Law360 described Meyers Nave as “one of the leading firms for local governments and public agencies throughout the state as well as private clients focused on complex, public-facing transportation and development projects. Meyers Nave’s ability to get large projects completed, secure major litigation wins and resolve crises landed the firm a spot among Law360′s California Powerhouses.” Meyers Nave attorneys are recognized in the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in America in Land Use and Zoning Law, Land Use and Zoning Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, and Environmental Litigation. Meyers Nave also received Tier 1 recognition in the 2020 edition of The Best Law Firms in America in the areas of Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law for the Oakland Metropolitan region.

We work on projects that are high-profile, mission-critical, economically and regionally significant, and often involve overlapping jurisdictions of multiple state and federal government agencies. Our work on these projects includes:

  • Providing strategic legal guidance to navigate large-scale projects through CEQA, NEPA and other land use and environmental approval processes, including extensive assistance during the master planning stages.
  • Coordinating proactively with government regulators, decision-makers, communities and other key stakeholders to avoid and resolve disputes in the project planning and approval phases.
  • Litigating hundreds of cases challenging development projects throughout the state and at every level of the judicial process, including the California Supreme Court, with an outstanding track record of success.
  • Advising on options for streamlining the CEQA process.

Representative Experience

P3 For $2 Billion Passenger Rail Infrastructure Project
In a precedent-setting undertaking, Facebook and infrastructure developer Plenary Group have jointly established a public-private partnership with the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) to develop a massive transportation infrastructure project that will create a new commuter rail corridor between Silicon Valley and the East Bay. The project’s estimated cost is $2 billion. Meyers Nave serves as lead land use, environmental and CEQA/NEPA counsel to the private partner for the project, including advising on all local, state and federal permitting issues. The P3 project is a game-changing approach to creating commuting alternatives that help solve metropolitan area traffic congestion between residential neighborhoods and job centers. It will serve as a model for how the public and private sectors can partner on critical infrastructure projects.

Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)/Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
For more than a decade, Meyers Nave has served as land use and environmental counsel in connection with development and implementation of the Los Angeles International Airport Master Plan’s $13-billion expansion. Our work includes defending the Master Plan against four consolidated lawsuits alleging NEPA, CEQA and California Coastal Act claims. We have also worked with CARB and SCAQMD and advised on state and federal regulatory and permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act and California’s State Implementation Plan. Currently, we represent LAWA in CEQA and NEPA review of the Airfield and Terminal Modernization Program, which includes airfield enhancements, new terminal facilities, and an improved system of roadways leading to the central terminal area. We are also advising on the development of plans to modernize existing air cargo facilities along the Century Boulevard corridor. Our team also advised LAWA in the preparation of Part 161 Studies for LAX and the Van Nuys Airport, and served as outside counsel for the environmental review of the $240 million South Airfield Improvement Project, the first to be implemented under the LAX Master Plan. We also provide LAWA with advice on operations that involve diesel-fueled equipment, mobile sources of emissions, and enforcement issues, as well as legal analysis with respect to regulation of taxis to meet emission requirements focusing on SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.

Port of Los Angeles Master Plan and Project Implementation
Meyers Nave serves as lead outside counsel in connection with environmental compliance and land use permitting for multiple large‐scale cargo, shipping and transportation projects for container terminals and dockside intermodal railyards. We have reviewed major project EIRs and EISs for CEQA and NEPA compliance, and our representation includes working with the California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Coastal Commission. We have also advised the Port on multiple long‐term planning projects, including the Port Master Plan Update. Meyers Nave has also represented the Port in several major CEQA cases in both the trial and appellate courts and have an outstanding track record of litigation victories on POLA’s behalf. Our work includes the (1) Pacific L.A. Marine Terminal, Tank Farms, and Pipelines Project, (2) Berths 302-206 (APL) Container Terminal Project, (3) Berths 97-109 (China Shipping) Container Terminal Project, (4) Clean Trucks Program, (5) Trapac Container Terminal Project, and (6) Ultramar Inc. (Valero) Marine Terminal Lease Renewal Project. All shipping terminal projects we advise on also involve regional and local air quality concerns due to emissions from shipping, on‐dock vehicles, and train and truck traffic.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad’s Southern California Gateway Project
Meyers Nave represents BNSF in seven consolidated lawsuits and related appeals challenging the company’s planned $700 million rail yard transfer facility on CEQA and other environmental impact and environmental justice grounds, as well as federal preemption issues. The Project will transform the process for moving imported shipping containers from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to a new state‐of‐the art near‐dock rail yard, reducing regional air pollution and traffic by eliminating 1.3 million short-haul truck trips per year. We also are advising BNSF on partnering with the California High‐Speed Rail Authority for CEQA and NEPA review of a project to redevelop existing rail corridors, in coordination with multiple jurisdictions, to operate high‐speed passenger service on a segment of BNSF‐owned track from Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. The project includes coordinated NEPA and Section 404 consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP)
Meyers Nave serves as outside counsel for LADWP on land use, environmental and water rights matters, as well as CEQA litigation defense.  We represent LADWP on the environmental review of the Elysian Reservoir Water Quality Improvement Project and the Stone Canyon Reservoir Water Quality Improvement Project—two projects to bring open reservoirs into compliance with updated Environmental Protection Agency drinking water quality standards. Our representation of LADWP in numerous litigated matters includes (1) complex statewide litigation filed by the San Diego County Water Authority challenging the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s adoption of rates and charges for imported water, (2) litigation over LADWP’s water rights to Mammoth Creek and the Owens River, and (3) litigation regarding changes to a mitigation measure in an EIR that analyzed a historic water agreement for the City’s aqueduct and transfer of water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles.

Our work has also included guiding LADWP through the regulatory process for implementation of a multi-billion dollar dust control program on Owens Lake, involving thousands of acres of federal property owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). providing sophisticated and complex air quality advice to guide LADWP through the SIP-approved regulatory framework that requires a multi-billion dollar dust control program on Owens Lake, involving thousands of acres of federal property owned by the Bureau of Land Management. We have worked in consultation with interested tribal groups and coordination with This work includes ongoing consultation with interested tribal groups. Meyers Nave has worked in coordination with BLM, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other federal agencies to obtain necessary approvals, prepare air quality and SIP review, CEQA/NEPA review, and negotiate lease/access agreements to implement the project. Meyers Nave is also advising LADWP on a plan for management of City-owned lands in the upper Owens River basin, which includes habitat for the federally protected Sage Grouse.

Oakland A’s MLB  Stadium and Mixed-Use Development Project
In addition to providing general CEQA advice to the City of Oakland on major development projects, Meyers Nave serves as outside land use and environmental counsel to the City for a waterfront ballpark and mixed-use development project at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal. The project includes a 35,000-seat ballpark, 3,000 residential units, 1.5 million sq. ft. of office, 270,000 sq. ft. of retail, a 400-room hotel and a 3,500-seat performance venue. We are advising on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (CEQA), land use entitlements, and project-related agreements including the Development Agreement and Community Benefits Agreement. We also are advising on compliance with special streamlining legislation (AB 734). The project straddles jurisdictions of several agencies with different regulations and permitting processes, including the State Lands Commission (tide and submerged land issues) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (San Francisco Bay Plan issues).

City of Anaheim’s “Big A 2050” Plan for Orange County’s only MLB Stadium
Meyers Nave serves as lead land use and CEQA counsel to the City of Anaheim for a mixed-use development and stadium project, known as Big A 2050, on the site of an existing Los Angeles Angels stadium. The project envisions redevelopment of the stadium site to introduce large-scale residential, office, and retail/entertainment uses to create a year-round use. The plan is designed to keep major league baseball in Anaheim for the next 30+ years. Meyers Nave is advising on all entitlements and environmental review required to bring the plan to fruition including a Disposition and Development Agreement, site plans, tentative maps and other required approvals. The project is a key element to the City realizing its vision for the development of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use area which is located adjacent to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center which provides rail, bus, taxi and other services for daily commuters and visitors.

Sacramento’s $477 Million Downtown NBA Arena and Mixed-Use Development Project
Meyers Nave defeated every legal challenge against the new $477 million downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings NBA team, ensuring completion on schedule to keep the team from moving to Seattle.  Our victories included: (1) an eminent domain victory giving the City of Sacramento permission to take over the final piece of downtown property, (2) a published appellate decision denying a CEQA-based challenge to the project, (3) a published appellate decision denying a constitutional challenge to the special statute passed to streamline the City’s CEQA review of the proposed arena (the first appellate decision concerning the constitutionality of project-specific CEQA streamlining statutes), and (4) an 11-day trial alleging that the public-private partnership engaged in a “secret subsidy,” collusion, fraud, concealment, waste and illegal expenditure of public funds, along with alleged illegalities in the City’s bond financing. The trial victory was recognized by The Daily Journal among the “Top Defense Results” of the year.

Mixed-Use Development Project and Transit Station Adjacent to SAP Arena
Since 2011, Meyers Nave has assisted the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on land use and environmental matters for implementation of long-range plans to expand public rail transit into the South Bay and Silicon Valley, including bringing BART from Fremont through San Jose to Santa Clara. Our cases currently include representing VTA in a lawsuit filed by the San Jose Sharks alleging violations of CEQA and NEPA relating to BART’s multi-year four-station extension into downtown San Jose and Santa Clara. Meyers Nave has advised VTA on multiple transit expansion projects, such as the Eastridge to BART Connector/Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project, a three-mile extension of an elevated transit line and accessory passenger station, and a multi-phased six-station project to bring BART from Fremont through San Jose to Santa Clara, which runs through several jurisdictions and spans the CEQA and NEPA process, Section 404 permitting, and coordination with numerous local, state and federal agencies.

UC Multi-Campus Long-Range Development Plans and Implementation
For more than a decade, Meyers Nave has served as lead land use and environmental counsel to the University of California on high-profile and complex capital development and public-private partnership projects across the statewide system. We currently advise UC on the CEQA review of a new generation of Long Range Development Plans to guide future development to accommodate enrollment growth of over 20,000 new students on campuses throughout the UC system, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside, and UC San Diego. For the planning process, we help guide the campuses through the CEQA and regulatory approval process for individual projects that add and expand administration offices, student and workforce housing, student services, academic buildings, research centers and healthcare facilities often using public-private partnerships and innovative funding mechanisms. We also represent UC in the Merced 2020 project, implementing the preliminary aspects of an innovative public-private master development plan to accommodate a planned increase in students from 6,800 to 10,000. The pioneering project involves negotiating a range of new and innovative agreements, such as utility services and transportation agreements with the City of Merced and Merced County, as well as agreements to implement wetland mitigation requirements.

Crossroads of the World Redevelopment Project
Meyers Nave represents the City of Los Angeles in CEQA litigation over redevelopment of the iconic Crossroads of the World site on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. We prevailed at the trial court in expedited CEQA litigation for this significant transit-oriented development project, including 950 apartments and condos, 308‐room hotel, and 190,000 square feet of commercial space in three buildings of up to 32 stories. The Governor certified the project as an Environmental Leadership Development Project under AB 900, entitling it to a compressed litigation schedule that requires resolving trial and appellate litigation in an expedited 270-day timeframe. The project preserves 1930s-era buildings and transforms a prominent Hollywood site with new affordable housing and open space.

8150 Sunset Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project
Meyers Nave serves as a primary outside land use and environmental litigation counsel to the City of Los Angeles in a number of cases challenging land use and CEQA approvals for a wide range of projects that are part of the City’s long-range efforts to revitalize the downtown area. Governor Brown has designated many of these projects as Environmental Leadership Development Projects, the regulations for which require that all legal challenges be expedited by the courts to be resolved 270 days after project approval. One project is the innovative Frank Gehry-designed project that will create a gateway to Hollywood on the Sunset Strip. We defeated the expedited CEQA litigation challenges for the 330,000-square-foot sustainably designed, mixed-use high-rise development project. The project features five interrelated structures, including two residential buildings (which include affordable and low-income housing), distinct buildings for retail and entertainment, and open spaces for public gathering. Four different CEQA lawsuits were brought against the project, which is designated an Environmental Leadership Development Project.

City of Rancho Cordova’s Largest Land Development Project
Meyers Nave assisted the City of Rancho Cordova in the planning, development and approval of the City’s largest land development project. The 3,828-acre master-planned community consists of 12,189 residential units, nine schools, 247 acres of commercial space, 269 acres of industrial park, 510 acres of wetland preserve, 178 acres of community parks, and 16 miles of trails. Our work also included land use entitlements, an EIR/EIS, development agreement, specific plan, affordable housing agreement, and finance plan. The project will transform a mine tailings site into a community with schools, parks and retail.

Oyster Point Life Science and Technology Campus and Marina Ferry Village
Meyers Nave served as lead negotiator for the City of South San Francisco and its former redevelopment agency for a public-private partnership for a 2.25-million-square-foot life sciences and technology campus, including office and research facilities, two hotels, retail marina and public recreation open space on the San Francisco Bay waterfront. We advised on the preparation and negotiation of (1) a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, zone change, subdivision map and owner participation agreements, (2) disposition and development agreement that involved the sale of land owned by the City and provided public and private financing for public infrastructure improvements valued at more than $70 million, and (3) agreement with the harbor district regarding facility improvements.