Attorneys

Attorney Details

Kevin D. Siegel

Kevin D. Siegel

Partner - Oakland

510.273.8780 t
510.903.8806 d
510.839.9104 f

email ksiegel@bwslaw.com
vcard Download vCard
pdf Print to PDF

Kevin represents cities and other local agencies regarding a wide range of public law matters, including land use and planning, CEQA and environmental law, inverse condemnation and eminent domain, open meeting and public records, taxes and assessments, and due process, and other issues of constitutional law.  Kevin provides litigation as well as advisory services.

Kevin joined Burke, Williams & Sorensen in August 2012.  Prior to joining Burke, Kevin was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of Oakland, where he specialized in writs and appeals.  Previously, Kevin was a shareholder at McDonough Holland & Allen, where he litigated cases for public agencies across the State, and a Legal Research Attorney for the San Francisco Superior Court, where he advised judges regarding complex litigation.

Kevin endeavors to reach positive outcomes for the firm's clients, without litigation.  But when litigation is necessary, Kevin zealously pursues successful outcomes in court.

Results

The following is a representative list of cases Kevin has handled in the appellate and trial courts:

Published Appellate and District Court Decisions

  • Building Industry Association-Bay Area v. City of Oakland, 289 F.Supp.3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2018), appeal filed (March 6, 2018)—successfully moved to dismiss Takings and First Amendment challenges to ordinance requiring developers to incorporate art into projects or pay an in-lieu fee
  • San Bruno Committee for Economic Justice v. City of San Bruno, 15 Cal.App.5th 524 (2017), review denied (Jan. 10, 2018)—successfully defended City’s refusal to place referendum on ballot regarding City Council’s approval of an agreement to sell real property for development project
  • Jisser v. City of Palo Alto, 2016 WL 3456696 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2016)—successfully moved to dismiss Nollan/Dolan takings challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation to closure of mobile home park
  • Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oakland, 248 Cal.App.4th 410 (2016)—successfully defended against takings and due process claims for damages regarding city’s impairment of vested right to construct project following issuance of building permit
  • Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland, 195 Cal.App.4th 884 (2011)—successful defense of Environmental Impact Report for 3,000-unit mixed use project
  • Sacks v. City of Oakland, 190 Cal.App.4th1070 (2010)—successful defense of lawsuit seeking injunction and refunds of $20 million in annual taxes for alleged violations of provisions in special tax measure authorizing collection and governing expenditures
  • Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC v. City of Emeryville, 2007 WL 81911 (N.D.Cal. 2007)—successful defense of challenge to local living wage ordinance
  • North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 234 F.Supp.2d 1053 (N.D.Cal. 2002)—order granting motion for to dismiss due process challenge to city’s consideration of development project
  • Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Harcros Pigments, 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (2002)—successful defense of trial court rulings on business goodwill and evidence of fair market value in eminent domain proceeding

Superior Court Decisions

  • West Meadow Oaks, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-10-CV-165794—prevailed at trial and on appeal in action challenging inclusionary zoning (affordable housing) condition of approval
  • Bruzzone v. Town Clerk, Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N15-1376—successfully defended Town of Moraga’s decision not to place referendum on the ballot
  • Loeb v. City of Pacifica, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV 522741—successfully demurred to complaint seeking to enjoin City’s cooperation with a highway improvement project
  • Brandywine v. City of Oakland, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG11590075—prevailed a writ hearing/court trial in challenge to business license taxes
  • Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG15788084—prevailed in CEQA action challenging City of Oakland’s authority regarding redevelopment of former Army Base
  • Clean West Oakland Now v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG14740465—prevailed in CEQA action challenging City of Oakland’s approval of refuse and compost hauling and disposal agreements
  • Kaye v. City of St. Helena, Napa County Superior Court Case No. 26-67584—prevailed in suit for damages based on denial of a housing project
  • Sole v. City of Redwood City, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV 528621—successfully demurred to complaint for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief seeking to compel City to allow houseboat owner to connect to the City’s sewer system
  • Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV 252617—successfully moved for judgment in CEQA action challenging road improvement project
  • Lantz Properties LLC v. Vera, Napa County Superior Court Case No. 26-59545—successfully demurred on behalf of City of Calistoga in quiet title action
  • Friends of Knowland Park v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG11586554—successful defense of CEQA and General Plan challenge to City’s approval of 50-plus acre expansion of Oakland Zoo. 
  • Eco Green Cab v. Santana, City Administrator, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG12634130—denial of petition for writ of mandate to invalidate disqualification of applicant for taxicab permits
  • Fields v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG11556225—order on motion for summary adjudication regarding Proposition 218 challenge to a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
  • County of Alameda v. City of Oakland, San Francisco Superior Court Case no. CPF-11-511142—successful defense of claims to enjoin enforcement of tax ordinance at property jointly owned with county
  • Wells Fargo v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG10536087—successful demurrer to complaint seeking to invalidate code enforcement assessments
  • Sheppard Canyon Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG07343944—successful defense of breach of contract challenge to City decision regarding improvements to real property
  • Brown v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG07356843—successful defense to challenge to rent board decision
  • Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt v. City of Oakland, Alameda Superior Court Case no. RG06-280471—successful defense of challenge to the adoption of a Development Agreement for 3,000-unit mixed use project
  • City of Corona v. Moreno Valley et. al, Riverside Superior Court Case no. 351283—defeated effort to re-allocate tax revenue between cities

Presentations

  • Ballot Box Planning and Finance, League of California Cities City Attorneys' Conference, May 3, 2018
  • A Deep Dive into the Public Records Act, 2016 California Special Districts Association, California Special Districts Association, Board of Secretaries/Clerk Conference, November 16, 2016
  • Open Meeting Remedies, State Bar's 2016 Public Records & Open Meetings Conference, June 2, 2016
  • More...

Publications