Archive for January, 2012


Litigation

January 14th, 2012 by admin

The attorneys of Remy Moose Manley, LLP, have extensive experience in environmental review and land use litigation, including but not limited to matters arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, and the Clean Water Act. We represent clients in both state and federal litigation, from the trial court level all the way up through the highest appellate courts. A complete list of the firm’s many reported cases can be found here.

In our view, a client receives the best service if the same team provides representation both during the administrative process and in litigation. During the administrative process, a client benefits by working with lawyers who understand, first hand, how to develop a record that will be defensible in the event of litigation. At the same time, during litigation, the client benefits by being represented by attorneys who understand the project inside and out by virtue of direct involvement during the administrative process. Thus, all of our lawyers know how to work with consultants and staff, and all of our lawyers know how to write legal briefs and argue a case.

We recognize that it is not always desirable or feasible to litigate a dispute all the way to a judicial resolution. Thus, in addition to our trial advocacy skills, our attorneys are also experienced in all forms of alternative dispute resolution.

Initiatives & Referenda

January 14th, 2012 by admin

Our attorneys regularly advise public agencies, private entities and citizen groups regarding local ballot measures, including initiatives and referenda involving land use and development matters. Our services include drafting initiatives and referendum petitions to ensure compliance with applicable state and local laws, assisting in the development of political strategies and public outreach, as well as challenging and defending such measures in litigation.

Chris Stiles

January 14th, 2012 by admin

Mr. Stiles joined the firm in 2012 as an associate.  His practice focuses on land use and environmental law, with emphasis on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Planning and Zoning Law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, air and water quality, natural resources, wetlands, and related matters. He handles all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, including administrative approvals and litigation.

Before joining Remy Moose Manley, LLP, Mr. Stiles worked as a graduate fellow at the California Energy Commission, where he worked on a number of land use and environmental issues relating to energy in California, including the siting and licensing of new power-plant projects. While in law school, he clerked with the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Fish and Game (now Department of Fish and Wildlife), and the Delta Stewardship Council.

Mr. Stiles has worked on an array of cases involving various state and federal land use and environmental laws. His representative matters include:

  • Associate counsel representing California Department of Water Resources in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study (EIR/EIS) and related litigation for a water conveyance project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta known as the California WaterFix.
  • Associate counsel representing California High-Speed Rail Authority in on-going preparation of multiple EIR/EISs for the statewide high-speed train project. Assisted in litigation defending EIR prepared for Merced-to-Fresno section of the project.
  • Represented GSW Arena LLC as associate counsel in litigation challenging an EIR and various entitlements for an event center and mixed-use development project proposed by the Golden State Warriors of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Assisted in successful defense on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160).
  • Represented the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency as associate counsel in challenge to Tahoe Area Regional Plan and associated environmental review. Assisted in successful defense on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (9th Cir. 2016) 840 F.3d 1106).
  • Associate counsel representing public agencies and private developers through environmental review and litigation for various commercial, residential, and mixed-use development projects.

Mr. Stiles teaches several land use and environmental law continuing education classes and seminars each year for professional organizations such as the Association of Environmental Professionals.

Brian J. Plant

January 14th, 2012 by admin

Mr. Plant joined the firm as Of Counsel in 1996 after his tenure with the United States Department of Justice, Land Use and Natural Resources Division, and practice in the private sector.  Mr. Plant advises public agencies and private project applicants regarding federal Clean Water Act, federal and state Endangered Species Acts, wetlands, water quality matters, and the National Historic Preservation Act.  His particular experience is with project permitting and environmental regulatory compliance for master planned communities, mining projects, alternative energy projects, business and industrial parks, and municipal facilities.

After graduating from U.C. Berkeley with a B.S. from the School of Conservation and Resource Studies with an emphasis in lake and stream ecology and resource management, Mr. Plant received his J.D. from McGeorge School of Law in 1986.  Mr. Plant served as a Trial Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. where he litigated environmental cases throughout the United States. Mr. Plant is currently a Board Member of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and a past Board Member of the American River Parkway Foundation.  He periodically teaches continuing legal education classes and seminars for Law Seminars International and Lorman.

Representative matters include:

  • Van Vleck Ranch Solar Project, Sacramento County:  Advise client with respect to federal and state environmental entitlements and permitting.  Review of project infrastructure siting and operations to develop project planning in conformity with requirements under the federal Clean Water Act, and federal and state Endangered Species Acts.
  • Various large scale residential/business park development, Central Valley: Provide analysis under CWA Section 404(b)(1) “Alternatives Analysis” and Corps’ public interest review.  Work with clients to develop effective permitting strategies and guide applicants through Corps permitting requirements, inclusive of Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 of the CWA, federal ESA, and CDFG Section 1600 stream bed alteration agreements.
  • Granite Construction Company – Walltown Quarry, Power House Quarry Expansion, Sacramento County: Assist with CWA Section 404 permitting including federal ESA compliance, CWA Section 404 “alternatives analysis,” NEPA compliance and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.  Advise client with respect to water quality compliance under state and federal laws.
  • Placer Vineyards Specific Plan, Placer County:  Assisted owners’ group in development of CEQA-related biologic mitigation measures.  Prepared strategies for CWA Section 404 permitting, on-site avoidance and minimization measures, and habitat mitigation requirements, and coordinated state/federal permitting. Plan Area encompasses over 5,200 acres with over 150 acres of wetland resources.
  • Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, Roseville:  Represent Brookfield Land in providing analysis under CWA Section 404(b)(1) “Alternatives Analysis” and alternatives for regional infrastructure. Work with clients to develop effective permitting strategies and guide applicants through federal and state resource agency permitting requirements, inclusive of Section 106 of NHPA, Section 401 of the CWA, federal ESA, and CDFG Section 1600 stream bed alteration agreements.

Maecenas convallis congue sed.

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Sed molestie commodo condimentum. Etiam nec dolor magna. Morbi eu augue leo, non rhoncus turpis. Etiam tristique adipiscing eros id tempus. Vestibulum nec turpis non est volutpat consequat in id felis! Sed porta ullamcorper nunc quis fringilla. Integer eu rutrum enim. Aenean sed orci leo, at bibendum sapien. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi dictum, tellus et ultricies pulvinar, tortor sem luctus tellus, quis egestas ante metus nec urna. Cras non neque magna.

Vestibulum ut nibh enim. Aliquam faucibus enim eu justo tempus eget tincidunt mi luctus. Aliquam urna risus; accumsan et rhoncus et, scelerisque vehicula felis. Donec ipsum mauris, placerat at viverra euismod, condimentum eu lectus. Morbi congue sollicitudin lorem, at sodales dolor egestas ac viverra fusce.

Water Quality, Water Supplies & Permitting

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Over the years, many of our attorneys have become extensively involved in some of the major water supply issues facing California. This work has been done on behalf of water providers, water users, and local agencies responsible for coordinating land use planning and water supply planning. We are intimately familiar with the complex regulatory and environmental issues facing the federally operated Central Valley Project, the state operated State Water Project, the water system operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, as well as less physically far-reaching systems operated by water districts, water agencies, and cities throughout California, both inland and in coastal watersheds. We are also very familiar with the 2001 legislation commonly known as Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, which in some circumstances require the preparation of documents known as “water supply assessments” and “water supply verifications.” Our attorneys have also been directly involved in several controversies resulting in some of the key court decisions laying out the steps proponents of land use plans and water supply projects must do in order to fully comply with CEQA.

Land Use & Permitting

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Remy Moose Manley, LLP, represents public agencies, private entities and public interest groups on a wide variety of matters related to land use planning and the acquisition of permits and other entitlements. Our many years of experience encompass a broad scope of activities and laws, including:

  • assistance with site acquisition and due diligence;
  • amendment and adoption of general plans, community plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans and zoning ordinances;
  • interpretation and application of the State Planning & Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, the Williamson Act, State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, the Coastal Act, and other related land use statutes;
  • advising and representing clients in Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) proceedings;
  • advising school districts with respect to special rules that apply to the acquisition of school sites and other school-related activities and projects;
  • drafting development agreements, finance plans, easements, memoranda of understanding, AQ-15 plans, and other development-related documents and entitlements.

Sabrina V. Teller

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Ms. Teller joined the firm in 2001 and became a partner in December 2006.  Ms. Teller represents public agencies, private applicants, and citizens’ groups in a wide variety of land use and environmental law matters.  Ms. Teller handles all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, from local agency administrative approvals through trial and appellate litigation.  Ms. Teller’s practice includes the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, the Williamson Act, the California Coastal Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the California Water Code provisions relating to water supplies for development, the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, and the federal Clean Water Act provisions associated with wetlands permitting.

Ms. Teller regularly teaches land use and environmental law continuing education classes and seminars for her client agencies and professional organizations such as the Association of Environmental Professionals. She served as an editor for the California Land Use & Policy Reporter from 2005 to 2008. She is currently a contributing author to the quarterly online Environmental Law Updates published by the California State Bar Environmental Law Section.

Representative matters include:

  • Jointly representing the California High-Speed Rail Authority with the California Attorney General’s Office in defending the Authority’s environmental review for the individual project segments of the future statewide high-speed train system. The case involving the first segment between Madera and Fresno was settled in April 2013 on the eve of the hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of mandate challenging the Authority’s EIR, allowing the Authority to proceed  with contracting and construction. Litigation regarding the Authority’s EIR for the Fresno to Bakersfield segment is currently stayed in Sacramento County Superior Court.
  • Successfully defended the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in litigation challenging the environmental review for the Board’s electrification and modernization project to improve the Caltrain commuter rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula.
  • Representing the City of Los Angeles in several ongoing cases defending the City’s compliance with CEQA for various development projects.
  • Representing landowners in Folsom and Roseville in the environmental review and subsequent implementation of specific plans for future residential and commercial development.
  • Defended the San Mateo County Community College District in cases challenging facility improvements at the College of San Mateo. In 2016, the California Supreme Court decided in the District’s favor a key question regarding the standard of review for agency decisions to rely on CEQA’s subsequent review provisions.
  • Defending the City of Monterey in litigation challenging the City’s CEQA compliance for its approval of a city-wide streetlight replacement project for energy efficiency. The case is pending in the Sixth District Court of Appeal.
  • Successfully defended the City of Folsom in litigation challenging the City’s environmental review of a lakeside trail improvement project.
  • Represented Renewable Energy Systems (RES) Americas in successfully navigating CEQA, CESA, and local land use entitlement processes to obtain a conditional use permit in November 2008 for a new 103-MW wind power project on private land in Shasta County.  Ms. Teller assisted RES in developing a strong biological and cultural resources mitigation program, working cooperatively with the County of Shasta, resource agencies, and environmental and tribal interests to avoid litigation following project approval.
  • Represented Save Our Water Resources, an unincorporated citizens association, in a successful petition for writ of mandate decided in Sacramento County Superior Court regarding the City of Orland’s CEQA compliance for approval of a new water bottling plant.

Reported cases:

  • Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596
  • Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937
  • Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 214 Cal.App.4th 694.
  • Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714.
  • Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College District (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572.
  • California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173.
  • Habitat and Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277.
  • Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281.
  • California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603.
  • Shasta Resources Council v. U.S. Dept of Interior (E.D.Cal. 2009) 629 F.Supp.2d 1045.
  • Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.
  • Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park and Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643.
  • Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288.
  • The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903.
  • Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490.

Whitman F. Manley

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Mr. Manley’s practice focuses on advising and representing public agencies, project applicants, and citizen’s groups both during administrative proceedings and in trial and appellate litigation. His practice encompasses California and Federal environmental and land use law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, California Planning and Zoning Law, Subdivision Map Act, Williamson Act, initiatives and referenda, air and water quality, solid and hazardous waste, forestry, natural resources, endangered species, wetlands and related matters.

Upon graduation from law school in 1987, Mr. Manley spent a year clerking for the late Chief Judge Robert F. Peckham of the Northern District of California. He then joined the environmental section of McCutchen Doyle (now Bingham McCutchen) in San Francisco. In 1991 he moved to Sacramento and joined Remy and Thomas as an associate. He joined the partnership in 1996, became a named partner in 2003, and served as managing partner from 2007 through 2011. He went of counsel on December 1, 2014.

Along with Tina Thomas and Jim Moose, he is co-author of Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (11th ed. 2007, Solano Press Books).

Published Decisions

  • Japanese Village LLC v. Federal Transit Administration, – F.3d – (9th Cir. 2016) [2016 Westlaw 7094018] (NEPA).
  • Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160 (CEQA).
  • Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 840 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2016) (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact).
  • Beverly Hills Unified School Dist. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans. Auth. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 627 (CEQA).
  • Defend Our Waterfront v. California State Lands Com. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 570 (CEQA).
  • Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 (CEQA).
  • California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 (CEQA).
  • North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614 (CEQA).
  • Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (E. D. Cal. 2013) 916 F.Supp.2d 1098 (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, CEQA).
  • Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481 (as Amicus Curiae) (CEQA).
  • Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Assn. of Governments (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113 (CEQA).
  • South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 237 F.R.D. 607 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Federal Endangered Species Act).
  • Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park and Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643 (CEQA).
  • Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288 (CEQA).
  • Association for Sensible Development at Northstar, Inc. v. Placer County (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1289 (CEQA).
  • Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004 (CEQA).
  • Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199 (as Amicus Curiae) (CEQA).
  • Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1134 (CEQA).
  • Western States Petroleum Ass’n v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 (as Amicus Curiae) (CEQA).
  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish and Game Comm’n (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104 (California Endangered Species Act).
  • Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n of Sacramento County (1992) 3 Cal.4th 903 (CEQA).
  • Ecodyne Corp. v. Shah, 718 F.Supp 1454 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (CERCLA).

Howard F. Wilkins III (“Chip”)

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Mr. Wilkins joined the firm in 2005 and became a partner in 2010.  His practice focuses on land use and environmental law.  Mr. Wilkins handles all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, including administrative approvals and litigation.  Mr. Wilkins’s practice covers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, the Williamson Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the federal Endangered Species Act, the federal Clean Water Act, waste management, water law, administrative law, as well as initiative and referendum law.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Wilkins worked as an attorney for the Arnold Law Firm representing clients in mediations, settlement conferences, court hearings and all aspects of the litigation process.  From 1999 to 2004, he was an associate attorney in the complex litigation and litigation groups at Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, where he represented public and private clients in state and federal court proceedings involving a broad range of matters, including inverse condemnation, eminent domain, contracts, products liability, unfair competition, and class actions.  While working at Kronick, Mr. Wilkins volunteered for a month at the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, handling hearings, bench trials and a jury trial.  Before entering law school, he served in various positions in the political arena, including research director for a state political party, political consultant and campaign manager.

Mr. Wilkins has taught several land use and environmental law classes and seminars including the September 2010 State Bar Conference “Introduction to CEQA” seminar, as well as at the State Bar of California Environmental Law Section, “Land Use Where the Forest Meets the Sea, Your Voice, Your Future” Conference in Arcata, CA in May 2008.

Representative matters include:

  • Represented County in defense of challenge to its adoption of General Plan and inverse condemnation claims.  Successfully settled the matter after filing a Motion for Summary Adjudication and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of County.   The case was settled on favorable terms for the County, and the General Plan remained valid.
  • Represented County in defense of two challenges to its CUPA Hazardous Waste Generator program fees and refund claims.  Successfully settled the matter after filing demurrer on behalf of County.   The case was settled on favorable terms for the County, and the fees remained valid.
  • Represented large retailer in successfully navigating CEQA and local land use entitlement processes to obtain a conditional use permit for home improvement store from Placer County.  Despite vocal opposition during the permitting process, the project did not draw any litigation.  The entitlements sought included a tentative parcel map, design review, demolition permit, grading permit, building permits, encroachment permit from Caltrans, Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan, approval for a piped canal, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and Nationwide 404 Permit.
  • Represented California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in defense of petition for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief claims relating to whether it was exempt from annual water-related assessments.  The case was settled on favorable terms for DFG as DFG was not required to pay any past or future assessments and incurred no financial obligations to the plaintiffs.
  • Representing water agency in defense of federal Endangered Species Act claims.  The case involves a challenge to several Biological Opinions regarding Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (“spring Chinook”), Central Valley steelhead (“steelhead”), and southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (“green sturgeon”) on the Yuba River.  The plaintiffs alleged separate Section 9 “take” violations against the Agency.
  • Represented clients in administrative hearings, including the California Energy Commission and State Water Resources Control Board.
  • Representing clients in navigating CEQA, the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, and land use entitlement processes to obtain permits from Placer County and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).
  • Representing start-up companies in connection with proposals to site and obtain entitlements for proposed anaerobic digester facilities that transform organic waste into biogas fuel (hydrogen, methane), as well as biofuel, solar, and other clean energy projects.  Assisting clients in consultations with stakeholders and advising on environmental review process.  Assisted clients in successfully obtaining millions in grant funding.

Published Decisions:

  • Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., July 7, 2014) 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7668. [only slip copy available]
  • Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
    • 2014 WL 1366253 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 7, 2014) and
    • 2013 WL 3070632 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2013). [Case No. 2:13–cv–00267 JAM EFB – only slip copies available]
  • Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 25.
  • Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency (E.D. Cal. 2013) 916 F.Supp.2d 1098. [Case No. CIV. 2:12–0044 WBS CKD]
  • Citizens for Open Government/ Lodi First v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296.
  • S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,
    • 851 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (E.D. Cal. 2012);
    • 629 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2009); and
    • 257 F.R.D. 607 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Laura M. Harris

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Ms. Harris joined the firm in 2006 and is a senior associate in the firm. Her practice focuses on land use and environmental law.  Ms. Harris handles all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, including administrative approvals and litigation. Ms. Harris’s practice covers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertberg Local Government Reorganization Act, air and water quality, natural resources, endangered species, wetlands and related matters.

Ms. Harris assisted in the successful defense of appeals in several published decisions, including: Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 187; Beverly Hills Unified School District v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 627; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296; and South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, as well as in the successful defense and prosecution of a cross-appeal in the published decision Planning and Conservation League et al. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency et al. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210. Ms. Harris is currently actively defending several lawsuits brought under CEQA.

Representative matters include:

  • Currently assisting the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority in its CEQA and NEPA review of and land use litigation over various public transit projects.
  • Currently representing Real Party in Interest, Friant Ranch, L.P., in the matter of Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno (Case No. S219783), which is pending before the California Supreme Court.
  • Currently defending the City of Los Angeles against CEQA and municipal code challenges to the City’s approval of the Archer Forward: Campus Preservation and Improvement Plan.

Elizabeth Pollock

January 13th, 2012 by admin

Ms. Pollock joined the firm in 2015 and is a senior associate. Her practice focuses on land use and environmental law. Ms. Pollock handles all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, including administrative approvals and litigation. Her practice covers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, natural resources, endangered species, air and water quality, and other land use and environmental statutes.

Ms. Pollock’s representative matters include:

  • Associate outside counsel assisting the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority in its CEQA review of several transit and transportation projects and in litigation challenging the approval of various public transit projects
  • Associate counsel representing the developer (real party) in litigation defending Napa County’s approval and environmental review of a winery project
  • Associate counsel representing the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in litigation challenging the environmental review for the electrification and modernization project to improve the Caltrain commuter rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula
  • Associate counsel representing the developer (real party) in litigation defending the City of Los Angeles’s approval of an environmentally sustainable mixed-use housing building

As a law student at University of California, Davis (King Hall), Ms. Pollock served as Editor-in-Chief of Environs, the Environmental Law and Policy Journal. She also interned for the California Council of Land Trusts and worked as a Summer Associate at Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo. Prior to joining Remy Moose Manley, LLP, Ms. Pollock worked for six years as a Deputy Attorney III for the California Department of Transportation, and for one year as an Environmental Circuit Prosecutor for the Circuit Prosecutor Project. During her time working for Caltrans, she did a one-year rotation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, where she assisted with drafting revisions to the CEQA Guidelines.

Michael H. Remy

January 12th, 2012 by admin

In 1982, Mr. Remy founded what has become Remy Moose Manley, LLP, when he, as the principal in Remy and Associates, invited Tina A. Thomas to become his partner. Since that time, the firm has grown to include seventeen attorneys. Until his death from cancer on April 2, 2003, Mr. Remy enjoyed his work at the firm representing clients in environmental and land use matters, with an emphasis on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Born in Posen, Poland in 1944, Michael Remy and his family moved to the Bay Area in 1958. After marrying his wife Trudy in 1964 and obtaining a bachelor’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1967, Mr. Remy attended law school at King Hall at the University of California at Davis and graduated in 1970. He spent the first four years of his law career as an attorney for the California Department of Water Resources. There, his work included helping to prepare statewide regulations implementing CEQA.

Mr. Remy served on the faculties of California State University, Sacramento, and the Consortium of California State Universities and Colleges, where he taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in environmental law, water law, planning, environmental impact reporting, environmental ethics, and contemporary issues. He was a tenured professor before deciding to devote full time to his law practice in 1986. Graduates of his courses can be found in planning departments all over California and in numerous state agencies, where his influence lives on.

Mr. Remy served as President of the Planning and Conservation League from 1980 to 1989. During that period, PCL became a proponent of several major voter initiatives that provided increased funding for transit infrastructure and the acquisition of open space and habitat. Mr. Remy also served as an advisor to the Environmental Law Section of the State Bar of California and as a Settlement Judge Pro Tem for the Sacramento Superior Court.

In his nearly thirty years of private practice, Mr. Remy represented a wide variety of public and private clients as well as nonprofit organizations. Mr. Remy assisted large corporations and small entrepreneurs alike in various permitting and environmental matters throughout the state. Many counties, cities, and special districts relied on Mr. Remy’s counsel in the processing, environmental review, and litigation of large and small projects. Some of his most notable environmental accomplishments were heading the successful political and legal efforts to shut down the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant and representing the Sierra Club and William Hewlett against the conversion of Shirley Canyon to a commercial ski run by the Squaw Valley Ski Corporation. In 1990, the Environmental Council of Sacramento named Mr. Remy “Environmentalist of the Year.”

Mr. Remy was widely admired and loved by his colleagues, friends and family, who regarded him as a man of extraordinary intelligence, personal integrity, kindness, and generosity. Mr. Remy’s warm presence is sorely missed by everyone at Remy Moose Manley, LLP but even in his absence, his memory continues to provide guidance and inspiration.

On September 22, 2011, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved the Crenshaw/LAX transit project. The 8.5-mile light rail line will connect the Metro Green Line and Expo Line currently under construction at Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards. The project has $1.715 billion in funding, and will serve the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, and El Segundo, and portions of Los Angeles County. Tiffany Wright and Laura Harris assisted Metro with the environmental review for the project.