Best Best & Krieger News Feed

BB&K Attorneys Recognized as 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: July 4, 2014
Media Contact: Denise Nix • 213-787-2552 • denise.nix@bbklaw.com

SACRAMENTO, Calif _ Best Best & Krieger LLP congratulates its seven attorneys included in the 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. No more than 5 percent of California’s attorneys are included in the Super Lawyers lists each year, which is compiled from peer nominations and a research team. To be one of the 2.5 percent of attorneys included on the Rising Stars list, an attorney must either be 40 or younger or in practice for 10 years or less.

The BB&K attorneys named to this year’s list are:

Sarah Owsowitz, Super Lawyers, Land Use/Zoning, Walnut Creek
Sue Schoenig, Super Lawyers, Employment & Labor Law, Sacramento
Stacey Sheston, Super Lawyers, Employment & Labor Law, Sacramento
Harriet Steiner, Super Lawyers, State, Local & Municipal Law, Sacramento
Gene Tanaka, Super Lawyers, Environmental Litigation, Walnut Creek
Kara Ueda, Rising Stars, State, Local & Municipal Law, Sacramento
Sigrid Asmundson, Rising Stars, State, Local & Municipal Law, Sacramento

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. For more information, visit SuperLawyers.com.

Best Best & Krieger LLP is a national law firm that focuses on environmental, business, education, municipal and telecommunications law for public agency and private clients. With nearly 200 attorneys, the law firm has nine offices nationwide, including Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and Washington D.C. For more information, visit www.bbklaw.com or follow @BBKlaw on Twitter.

AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training (April 28)

28 Apr 2014 00:00:00 -0800

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, pursuant to AB 1825, requires that employers with fifty or more employees in California provide at least two hours of Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training every two years to any employee that has a supervisory role in operations. This presentation is designed to satisfy those requirements.

Joseph Ortiz presented the training from the Riverside office. All other BB&K offices participated in the training via state-of-the-art video conferencing. The video conference is interactive, allowing attendees to ask questions and participate in other ways.

What was covered:

What constitutes sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid it
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of sexual harassment

Audience:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private Business Professionals with 50 or More Employees

When:

Monday, April 28
9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.

Registration:

The training was also held via video conference at the following BB&K offices throughout California.

Indian wells
Irvine
Los Angeles
Ontario
Riverside – Joseph Ortiz presented from the Riverside office
Sacramento
San Diego
Walnut Creek

BB&K Presenter:

Joseph Ortiz, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group in Riverside office

QUESTIONS:

Contact Katey Lamke if you have any questions about this event and/or about BB&K upcoming seminars/events.

If you are not currently receiving our Legal Alerts and would like to be added to our email distribution list, please visit our subscription page.

AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training (January 13)

13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 -0800

Joseph Ortiz presented the training from the Riverside office. All other BB&K offices participated in the training via state-of-the-art video conferencing. The video conference was interactive, allowing attendees to ask questions and participate in other ways.

What was covered:

What constitutes sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid it
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of sexual harassment

Audience:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private Business Professionals with 50 or More Employees

The training was also held via video conference at the following BB&K offices throughout California:

Indian wells
Irvine
Los Angeles
Ontario
Riverside – Joseph Ortiz presented from the Riverside office
Sacramento
San Diego
Walnut Creek

BB&K Seminar: Statements of Economic Interests - Legal Requirements of Filing Officers & Officials

13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 -0800

This program addressed the statutory duties of public agency filing officers and officials regarding Form 700 Statements of Economic Interests (SEIs).

What was covered:

Legislative & Regulatory Changes
General Rules – What’s Your Role?
- Types of Public Officials – PRA vs. CIC
- Disclosure Requirements – Full vs. Limited
Guidelines – Notices, Fines & Waivers
SEI Reviews – Facial vs. Full
- What to Look For – Common Errors
SEI Records & Retention
Public Access – Two Days
Enforcement – Reporting Apparent Violations
What February 1 Deadline?

Audience:
City Clerks and Deputy City Clerks, Filing Officers and Filing Officials designated in agency conflict of interest codes; and assistant or backup personnel

Cost Per Person:
$75 for clients who participate in the Public Policy & Ethics program
$125 for non-participants in the Public Policy & Ethics program

BB&K Presenter:
Dianna Valdez, Senior Paralegal, Conflicts of Interest & Ethics Coordinator, Public Policy & Ethics Group

QUESTIONS:
Contact Katey Lamke if you have any questions about this event and/or about BB&K upcoming seminars/events.

If you are not currently receiving our Legal Alerts and would like to be added to our email distribution list, please visit our subscription page.

State Trying to Use Defeat to Stymie High-Speed Rail Foes

09 Oct 2013 00:00:00 -0800

California's high-speed rail authority is hoping a state appellate court will give it something many project developers would give their right arm for - an exemption from the state's powerful environmental review law.

Over the summer, the 3rd District Court of Appeal was set to hear argument in a case in which the wealthy enclaves of Palo Alto and Atherton, several community groups and the Planning and Conservation League allege the rail authority has violated the California Environmental Quality Act. They claim the state did a flawed analysis of the $68 billion project's planned route from the Central Valley into San Jose and north to San Francisco.

Such claims are common to many cases brought under the 1970 law, known as CEQA, which requires public agencies to analyze environmental impacts of projects and address any significant harms.

But the case took an unexpected turn in June after the state claimed the whole suit should be thrown out because CEQA no longer applies to the project. The appellate panel has now delayed oral argument to consider briefing on the matter. Town of Atherton v. Calif. High Speed Rail Authority, C070877 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist., filed April 13, 2012).

The state's move is like throwing an "atomic bomb" into the high speed rail dispute, said Sarah E. Owsowitz, a CEQA attorney with Best Best & Krieger LLP.

"The high-speed rail project is a really big deal and CEQA is the law that's used when you want to stall, kill or hold hostage a project," Owsowitz said. "CEQA was always going to be the way that opponents of high-speed rail were going to go after it."

It's a bold argument, and if they prevail it could avoid lengthy court battles and cut years off the construction process, she said.

The state's legal gambit is possible due to a setback it suffered in a different legal tussle instigated by high-speed rail critics. Central Valley politicians, led by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, and other rail opponents urged the federal Surface Transportation Board to exercise jurisdiction over the project. In response, the state argued the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, did not have a role because the rail line is completely within California. The STB ruled in June that it did have jurisdiction.

The state has now turned that loss into a weapon in the CEQA case. It argues that the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, or ICCTA, gives the federal agency exclusive jurisdiction over the project and preempts any state law that could interfere with construction, including CEQA.

....

Click here to read the entire article published on Oct. 7, 2013 in the Daily Journal. (subscription required).

AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training (August 27)

27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Joseph Ortiz presented the training from the Riverside office. All other BB&K offices participated in the training via state-of-the-art video conferencing. The video conference was interactive, allowing attendees to ask questions and participate in other ways.

What was covered:

What constitutes sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid it
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of sexual harassment

Audience:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private Business Professionals with 50 or More Employees

The training was also held via video conference at the following BB&K offices throughout California:

Indian Wells
Irvine
Los Angeles
Ontario
Riverside – Joseph Ortiz presented from the Riverside office
Sacramento
San Diego
Walnut Creek

Caught Between a CEQA Rock and a General Plan Hard Place

22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 -0800

By Sarah Owsowitz

California law imposes substantial obligations on cities and counties with regard to enforcement of general plans and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). These dueling obligations can come into conflict and result in a fundamental problem that often goes overlooked. If a city or county’s CEQA review for a project concludes that the project will result in an environmental imp act that is significant but unavoidable and that impact reflects a conflict with a mandatory policy in the city or county’s general plan, the city or county is, arguably, prohibited from approving the project. This result occurs despite the fact that CEQA permits a city or county to approve projects that have significant and unavoidable impacts. How did two laws focused on different goals come to be intertwined and is there any way out of this conundrum?

Click here to read the entire article.

* First published in the California Public Law Journal, a quarterly publication of the Public Law Section of the State Bar of California. Reprinted by permission of the State Bar of California.

Fourteen Best Best & Krieger Attorneys Selected as Best Lawyers in America for 2014

15 Aug 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Fourteen attorneys from Best Best & Krieger LLP offices throughout California were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2014 (Copyright 2013 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, SC). In addition, two attorneys were also named Best Lawyers' 2014 “Lawyers of the Year” for specific practices and geographic areas.

Best Lawyers, first published in 1983, is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which almost 50,000 attorneys cast nearly 5 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed.

Southern California

Michelle Ouellette, an environmental attorney in the firm’s Riverside office, has been named the Best Lawyers’ 2014 Riverside Litigation – Environmental “Lawyer of the Year” in addition to being selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2014 in the fields of energy, environmental, environmental litigation, and natural resources law.

Other BB&K attorneys based in Riverside who were selected include Eric L. Garner, a water rights attorney and managing partner of the nine-office law firm, for environmental litigation and water law; Gregory K. Wilkinson and Arthur L. Littleworth for energy, environmental litigation, natural resources and water law; and George M. Reyes for corporate law.

In the firm’s Ontario office, Stephen P. Deitsch, who serves as city attorney to Indian Wells, Arcadia, Big Bear Lake and Shafter, was named for municipal, land use and zoning law. Also named in the municipal law category was John E. Brown, who serves as city attorney to Ontario and as town attorney for Apple Valley.

In San Diego, Robert J. Hanna, a real estate attorney, was named for commercial litigation.

Northern California

Harriet A. Steiner, a municipal attorney in the firm’s Sacramento office and city attorney of Davis, has been named the Best Lawyers’ 2014 Sacramento Municipal Law “Lawyer of the Year” in addition to being selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2014 in the fields of municipal law and municipal litigation.

Other BB&K attorneys based in Sacramento who were selected were Edward J. Quinn, Jr. and Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. for municipal, land use and zoning law; T. Brent Hawkins for municipal law; and Iris P. Yang, city attorney of Paso Robles, for municipal, land use and zoning law, and municipal litigation.

In Walnut Creek, environmental attorney and former member of the California Attorney General’s office, Roderick E. Walston, was named for natural resources and water law.

Six BB&K Attorneys Named 2013 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

08 Jul 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Five Best Best & Krieger attorneys were named among the Northern California lawyers most respected by their peers. In addition, one BB&K lawyer is among the top up-and-coming attorneys in Northern California under 40 years of age or practicing less than 10 years.

The attorneys on the 2013 Northern California Super Lawyers list are Susan L. Schoenig and Stacey N. Sheston for employment and labor law, Harriet A. Steiner for government and municipal law, Sarah E. Owsowitz for land use and zoning law, and Gene Tanaka for environmental litigation. Super Lawyers’ 2013 Northern California Rising Stars includes Kara K. Ueda for government and municipal law.

Schoenig advises a diverse group of public and private employers in all types of employment and labor matters. She handles wrongful termination and unlawful harassment matters from the filing of the initial complaint through investigation, subsequent litigation and trial. She has served as the California Public Employees Retirement System’s litigation supervisor.

Sheston is a member of the firm’s executive committee. Her practice includes providing day-to-day employment advice to both public and private employers. Sheston also represents employers in employment-related mediations, arbitrations, administrative hearings and court proceedings.

Steiner, who is city attorney of Davis, also represents special districts and joint powers agencies as general counsel and special counsel. She focuses on land use, environmental law, telecommunications law and cable television franchising, wastewater and municipal water, and public financing.

Owsowitz’s practice focuses on advice and litigation regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, with a concentration on urban decay, climate change, water supply and cultural resource issues. She has substantial experience obtaining entitlements and preparing and defending environmental impact reports for large-scale development projects, hospital retrofits and renewable energy projects.

Tanaka is a public agency litigator. He has litigated many land use cases, including the successful Los Angeles Superior Court challenge to the Ward Valley Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility. Tanaka also represents clients in toxics cases for cleanup or damages. He has worked on the Stringfellow cleanup litigation in U.S. District Court.

Ueda specializes in municipal law, conflicts of interest, elections, land use, and the California Environmental Quality Act. She also assists public agencies on general plan updates, LAFCO matters, Proposition 218, and Brown Act and Public Records Act compliance. In addition, Ueda routinely litigates CEQA, land use and elections cases in state and federal courts.

About Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers rates outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers. Super Lawyers is published by Thomson Reuters.

The Courts Drag Parking Back into the California Environmental Quality Act

18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 -0800

By Sarah E. Owsowitz and Stephanie R. Straka

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a Californian in possession of a car must be in want of a parking space. And, of course, this space should be free, just steps from your intended destination and available 24 hours a day. But the harsh reality is that, in just about every densely populated area of California, the hunt for the perfect parking space (or any parking space!) is a frustrating and often highly expensive daily activity. As a result, when cities, counties and other public agencies consider proposals for new development in an urbanized area, they are commonly besieged with panicked cries of “But where will these new residents/customers/workers park? Where will I, my customers, or my employees park? Parking!!!”

Parking is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a new issue in California. But, in 2002, public agencies won a small victory that allowed them, if they choose, to keep parking battles mostly separate from one of the other stickiest widgets in California land use – the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA as it is widely known. In San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, a state appellate court considered a challenge to an environmental impact report’s discussion of the parking impacts of a massive redevelopment project in downtown San Francisco. The project proposed to restore the historic Emporium Building for use as a Bloomingdale’s department store as well as other retail and restaurant uses. There was no question that the project would greatly increase the demand for parking in the area, but the project did not include any new parking. The project’s opponents challenged the city’s decision not to identify the project’s parking deficit as an environmental impact. The First District Court of Appeal sided with the city, finding that its environmental analysis was adequate as the “social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is.” Thus, the court held that the lack of parking does not, on its own, need to be treated as a significant impact to the environment.

Since then, San Francisco and other cities in California have been following the court’s lead, finding in their CEQA documents that “the social inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce parking spaces, is not an environmental impact.” Thus, their consideration of parking issues has been limited to questions about whether there might be secondary environmental impacts from a lack of parking, such as increased traffic congestion at intersections and air quality impacts caused by that congestion. In 2010, there was another step in the right direction: The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA, deleted questions about whether proposed projects would result in inadequate parking capacity from the CEQA Guidelines.

But apparently nothing good in CEQA lasts forever. Another city haunted by parking problems, San Diego, is the subject of a new court case that drags the issue of parking back into the CEQA arena. In Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v San Diego Unified School District, a state appellate court considered the environmental review conducted by a school district for the installation of stadium lighting at a high school athletic field, lights which would allow for the playing of night football games. Neighbors complained that the high school’s parking was inadequate and that attendees to night games might park in their neighborhood, thus keeping residents from finding parking when they came home from work. On this basis, the neighbors argued, the school district should have prepared a lengthy environmental impact report, rather than the shorter, faster environmental review document known as a “negative declaration.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in its ruling issued this past March, sided with the neighbors, finding that the potential lack of available parking spaces during night games, by itself, could be a significant impact on the environment. It rejected the reasoning in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan and held that CEQA requires environmental review not just of the potential secondary effects associated with searching for parking, such as increased exhaust emissions from idling cars, but also of the “direct effects” of being unable to find a space in a parking lot, namely, parking somewhere else. The court stated: “cars and other vehicles are physical objects that occupy space when driven and when parked” and thus “naturally must have some impact on the physical environment,” even if the impact is only “temporary (e.g. only so long as the vehicle remains parked).” The court did not suggest what this temporary direct impact to the environment might be, but concluded that the neighbors’ concerns about finding a parking space when they came home from work constituted evidence that “the Project may have a significant impact on parking and thus the environment.”

Where does this new ruling leave cities, counties and other public agencies? The conservative approach will be to go back to the days when every CEQA document considered whether there were sufficient parking spaces to serve a proposed project. (Although what does sufficient parking even mean in dense areas where the existing zoning may not call for new developments to provide parking at all?) Arguably public agencies will be forced to call a lack of sufficient parking a significant impact to the environment. This impact, it would seem, can only be addressed (“mitigated” to use CEQA lingo) by providing more parking or making the project in question smaller. Does this mean that adding parking is now some sort of benefit to the environment? What about so-called “infill projects,” those projects most likely to be located on small parcels of land in dense urban areas where parking is already hard to find? Will they have to reduce the square footage of retail or office spaces or the number of housing units they propose in order to add parking spaces? And, if they cannot provide sufficient parking, will public agencies be forced to prepare otherwise unnecessary environmental impact reports (the only type of environmental review document that can be prepared for projects with unmitigated impacts)?

Attorneys for the San Diego Unified School District have petitioned the California Supreme Court to review this case, and we should know the results of their request by the end of the summer. But the Supreme Court grants review to only a tiny percentage of the cases and even if the court accepts this one, it could be a while before a hearing is scheduled and a ruling is issued. So, at the end of the day, it looks likely that parking will be crashing the CEQA party once again.

Sarah E. Owsowitz is of counsel in Best Best & Krieger LLP’s Environmental Law and Natural Resources practice group. Her practice focuses on California Environmental Quality Act advice and litigation for public agency and private clients. She also advises on state and local planning and zoning laws. She can be reached at sarah.owsowitz@bbklaw.com.

Stephanie R. Straka is an associate in BB&K’s Environmental Law and Natural Resources practice group in the firm’s Walnut Creek office. She advises public agency and private clients on the California Environmental Quality Act. She can be reached at stephanie.straka@bbklaw.com.

* This article was originally published in PublicCEO.com, on June 18, 2013. Republished with permission.