Megan A. Jennings

Associate

San Francisco, (415) 268-7336

Download vCard

Education

University of Montana (B.A., 2001)
;
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (J.D., 2007)

Practices

Land Use + Development

Environmental Regulation

Environment + Energy

Bar Admissions

California

Megan Jennings is an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s Environment and Energy Group. Her practice involves advising clients on a broad range of land use and environmental transactions and compliance issues. Ms. Jennings counsels project developers throughout the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and land use entitlement process. She has particular experience advising on complex permitting, development, and zoning compliance issues for corporate campuses, renewable energy projects, and other large-scale facilities.

In addition to land use matters, Ms. Jennings counsels clients on compliance with state and federal environmental regulations, in particular the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, endangered species laws, and emerging California regulations addressing climate change, and on environmental and land use aspects of real estate financing and acquisitions. Her practice has also focused on litigation of California and federal land use and environmental laws, including pro bono litigation on claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Shorenstein Properties/SKS Investments Life Sciences Campus Project in South San Francisco

Represent a joint venture of Shorenstein Properties and SKS Investments in a public/private collaboration with the City of South San Francisco and its redevelopment agency to redevelop an outmoded business park, an adjacent reclaimed former municipal waste site for a $1.5 billion life sciences campus, upgraded Marina, and public park along San Francisco Bay in South San Francisco. We assisted in negotiating the property acquisition, public and private financing, environmental review, planning entitlements, and the infrastructure development.

Gilead’s Headquarters Expansion

Obtained final approval from Foster City in connection with Gilead’s proposal to double the size of its headquarters/R&D campus. The city approvals included a new corporate campus master plan for the 40-acre campus, environmental impact report, rezoning for greater density and less parking, and a 20-year development agreement to protect Gilead’s rights under those approvals. Contemporaneously, Foster City agreed to transfer to Gilead roadways and water and wastewater facilities that run through the property, allowing Gilead to create a compact and unified campus. During this process, we also represented Gilead in its acquisition of Electronics For Imaging’s 30-acre corporate campus, which borders Gilead’s campus, including the transfer of EFI’s development entitlements for possible future Gilead expansion.

BRE Properties’ Walnut Creek BART Project

Assist BRE Properties with the entitlement of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development project at the BART Station in Walnut Creek, California. This 16-acre site will be developed with a replacement parking garage for BART parking, a 30,000-square-foot commercial building, approximately 590 multi-family residential units, approximately 8,000 square feet of retail use, and associated parking. (ongoing, 2012)

In the Matter of Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Co.

Defended The Mauna Loa Nut Company (a subsidiary of The Hershey Company) in administrative enforcement litigation brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. After six months of litigation and briefing an evidentiary motion, the EPA accepted the company’s settlement offer rather than submitting the matter for a ruling by an administrative law judge.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Represented the National Resources Defense Council (on a pro bono basis) in a federal environmental lawsuit against the U.S. Navy and National Marine Fisheries Service concerning failure to mitigate the effects of a low frequency sonar tracking system. Prevailed on preliminary injunction motion and then settled the remainder of the case based on an agreement by the government agencies to provide additional mitigation measures, and reimburse our pro bono client's fees.