Bridget K. McDonald

Associate

Bridget K. McDonald is an associate attorney in the Sacramento-based boutique law firm of Remy Moose Manley, LLP, which specializes in environmental law, land use and planning, water law, initiatives and referenda, and administrative law generally. Ms. McDonald joined the firm in 2019.

Ms. McDonald’s practice focuses on land use/zoning, environmental, and housing law, handling all phases of the land use entitlement and permitting processes, including administrative approvals and litigation. Her practice includes issues arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Law, the State General Plan Law, the California Coastal Act, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and other state and federal environmental, land use/zoning, housing, and municipal statutes.

Ms. McDonald received her Bachelors and Masters of Arts degrees in environmental studies from the University of Southern California, and her Juris Doctorate from the University of California at Davis. Prior to law school, Ms. McDonald oversaw the Los Angeles events and outreach department for the national nonprofit organization, Best Friends Animal Society. During law school, Ms. McDonald was the managing editor of Environs, the Environmental Law and Policy Journal, the symposium chair for the Environmental Law Society, and the co-founder of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund. As a student, Ms. McDonald practiced in the Aoki Water Justice Clinic, externed for the California Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Office of Enforcement, and worked as the firm’s 2018 summer associate.

Ms. McDonald’s representative and advisory matters include:

• Outside counsel to the City of Los Angeles in several ongoing litigation matters defending the City’s compliance with CEQA for various development projects.
• Outside counsel to the County of Humboldt in several ongoing litigation matters defending the County’s compliance with CEQA for various approvals and cannabis matters.
• Outside counsel to the Marina Coast Water District in several ongoing litigation actions relating to a large desalination plant.
• Outside counsel to Rogal Partners and Eldridge Renewal in connection with the Sonoma Developmental Center Specific Plan housing development project.
• Advise and assist the City of Alameda in connection with reviewing and commenting on CEQA and NEPA documents prepared for projects proposed at the Oakland International Airport and the Port of Oakland.
• Advise and assist the Port of Los Angeles with its CEQA review of various projects.
• Provide pro-bono legal assistance to the non-profit organizations of We Are Up, Keep the Code, Inc., and the Tahoe Prosperity Center.
• Selected Cases:
• • United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1075 (counsel of record for the City of Los Angeles in CEQA action challenging the City’s approval of the Whitley Hotel project).
  • Marina Coast Water District v. County of Monterey (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 46 (assisted with trial and appellate litigation representing Marina Coast Water District in CEQA action challenging the County’s approval of development permits to construct a proposed desalination plant).
  • East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226 (assisted with trial and appellate litigation representing the Oakland Athletics Investment Group LLC in CEQA action challenging new MLB ball-park and mixed-use development project at Howard Terminal in the City of Oakland).
  • HUM CPR Affiliates v. Couty of Humboldt (Cal. Ct. App., 2022 [A161918]) (counsel of record for County of Humboldt; successfully upheld denial of petition based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies in action challenging County’s approval of zoning text amendments).
  • Lehman v. County of Humboldt (Cal. Ct. App., 2022 [A162986]) (counsel of record for County of Humboldt; successfully cross-appealed denial of motion to dismiss due to petitioner’s failure to comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.4).