Contact:
Robert L. Falk or
David A. Gold
Morrison & Foerster is one of California’s leading practitioners in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), assisting
clients in all aspects of compliance with CEQA and its federal counterpart, NEPA.
The firm assists private and public clients regarding the full spectrum of CEQA and NEPA issues. Morrison & Foerster regularly
advises businesses and public agencies in complying with environmental impact review requirements, in developing the best
strategy to minimize litigation risks, and in defending adopted environmental impact reports, environmental impact statements,
FONSIs and negative declarations.
The firm also defends, and occasionally prosecutes, litigation under CEQA and NEPA on behalf of developers, municipalities,
other governmental agencies, and property owners. In the course of this litigation, the firm has gained expertise in a wide
variety of issues related to the interplay of these laws and related laws such as the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Act, and federal and state endangered species and clean air acts.
Representative Matters
Town of Mammoth Lakes Airport Expansion and Related NEPA and CEQA Litigation. Morrison & Foerster is currently representing the Town of Mammoth Lakes in CEQA compliance regarding the proposed expansion
of the Mammoth airport, and in NEPA litigation challenging FAA approval of that expansion. Both the CEQA and the NEPA issues
relate to the required level of review following preparation of prior impact reviews under both federal and state law. The
firm successfully defended a CEQA challenge at the trial court level to an airport improvement plan to accommodate commercial
service. The matter is currently up on appeal.
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Emporium/Bloomingdales Redevelopment Project. Morrison & Foerster successfully defended the approved redevelopment plan and
related approvals for the conversion of the Emporium building into a new Bloomingdales store against a challenge by a citizens
group; the primary issue in our part of the case was the legal adequacy of the blight finding for the redevelopment plan amendment.
