Chatten-Brown & Carstens

The following is general information about the law firm of Chatten-Brown & Carstens, the firm’s personnel, and a partial list of current and past clients.

Chatten-Brown & Carstens (“the Firm”) is a small, woman-owned law firm established in 1995 for the practice of environmental, natural resources, land use, municipal, and government law. The Firm offers a full array of litigation, counseling, and planning services. We take pride in providing responsive, individualized, creative, and cost effective legal services and have achieved a high degree of success in even the most contentious and widely watched endeavors.

The Firm was originally founded by an attorney with extensive government agency experience. We have experience in state and federal litigation, counseling, and planning gained in representing community and interest groups, individuals, and government agencies before various agencies in administrative processes as well as in the courts. Firm attorneys have provided legal services for clients in the areas of litigation and compliance involving land use, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), state and federal Endangered Species Acts, regulatory systems, and historic preservation, among others.

Our commitment to each client embraces a high standard of responsiveness to the client’s needs and objectives combined with a creative and flexible approach to achieving them. A brief summary of the background of each of the firm’s lawyers follows. Additionally, the following list of current and former clients of the Firm, as well as a summary of the services provided for each of them, provides further information about the Firm’s practice.

Jan Chatten-Brown

Jan Chatten-Brown has practiced almost exclusively in the area of environmental law, natural resources, land use, and municipal law since she graduated from UCLA Law School in 1971. For the first twenty-one years of her practice, Jan worked in various public law offices. She served in the California Attorney General's Environmental Unit in the early 70's; organized the first environmental prosecution program in the country in a local prosecutor's office in 1984; and served as Special Assistant for Occupational Safety and Health and Environmental Protection to the Los Angeles District Attorney from 1984-1992.

While employed by the City of Los Angeles for over ten years, Jan advised the City on compliance with various environmental laws, and managed a pro-active environmental protection program. While Special Assistant to the Los Angeles District Attorney and Senior Assistant Los Angeles City Attorney, she had substantial litigation experience and experience before administrative agencies and in drafting and commenting upon significant federal and state legislation and regulations. Additionally, Jan served as the Southern California Gubernatorial appointee to the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency during the time when their Regional Plan was being developed, which was widely considered one of the most innovative of its time.

In addition to practicing law, Jan has taught environmental law at UCLA, and frequently writes and lectures on the subject. She served as an adjunct professor of Land Use Law at USC Law School in the Spring of 2004 and 2005. She has testified twice before Congress, and frequently appears at local, state, and national bar programs, and business and public interest conferences and is a frequent presenter on CEQA at State Bar environmental conferences. For ten years, Jan served on the Board of Directors of the Coalition of Clean Air, three years as President. She has served as Chair of the State Bar Committee on the Environment, and is Regional Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Planning and Conservation League and Vice President of the Sierra Nevada Alliance. She was the winner of the first “Rivey” award by Friends of the Los Angeles River for her leadership in making the dream of a park at the Chinatown Cornfield and Taylor Yard come true, and received an award from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the same work.

Douglas Carstens is a graduate of Cornell University and UCLA Law School. Since joining Chatten-Brown & Carstens, he has participated in all land use and CEQA matters. Prior to attending law school, he served as an officer in the Navy. During law school, Doug worked as a Joseph Drown Foundation Fellow at the Lands Section of the California Attorney General’s office, and as a legal clerk at a business and entertainment litigation firm. He was a member of the Long Beach Naval Complex Restoration Advisory Board overseeing the implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure Act process for the Long Beach Naval Station and Shipyard. Doug has written articles and lectured on CEQA, environmental justice, and water quality issues.

Amy Minteer received her Juris Doctorate from University of Michigan in December of 2001. She took the California Bar in July 2002 and was admitted in December 2002. During law school, Amy worked as a law clerk for the Lake Michigan Federation, where she helped educate the public on beach health and fought to strengthen discharge permit standards. Amy also participated in the environmental law clinic by interning with the National Wildlife Federation. There she worked extensively on matters concerning the environmental effects of concentrated animal feeding operations. Amy was Vice President of the Environmental Law Society where she helped connect law students with community based environmental groups for volunteer opportunities. Her undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois was in Natural Resources and Environmental Science, and she brings a valuable technical and scientific background to the firm.

Katherine Trisolini graduated from Oberlin College, obtained a Master’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley and received a law degree from Stanford University. During law school, Katherine was associate editor of the Stanford Law Review, and worked for both NRDC and the EPA’s General Counsel’s office as well as the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project. After law school, Katherine practiced for two years at Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, LLP in San Francisco, where she worked on state actions under CEQA, federal actions under NEPA, and local land use issues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Subdivision Map Act, takings doctrine, and drafting a municipal land use ordinance. She presented research on the Subdivision Map Act to Smart Growth Committee of California Legislature.

Most recently, she clerked in the chambers of the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall of United States District Court, Central District of California and the chambers of the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where her duties included preparing bench memoranda, orders and opinions. With Katherine’s assistance, CBA has begun expanding its law practice in federal court by bringing enforcement actions under various federal environmental laws, as well as continuing its active state environmental and land use practice.

1. Friends of the Los Angeles River, Coalition for Clean Air, Anahuak Soccer Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing an industrial and commercial development by Lennar Corporation at the Taylor Yard, and supporting instead State acquisition of the property for a Park. We were lead counsel and prevailed in the lawsuit. Lennar subsequently negotiated with the State to sell the land, which the State acquired for development as a State Park. Approval of the funds for Park acquisition were announced by Governor Gray Davis at a press conference in December 2001, as part of the State’s largest urban park creation in recent history.

2. The Friends of the Los Angeles River, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Society of Los Angeles, Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, Environmental Defense, Latino Urban Forum, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Renaissance Corporation in opposing a variance and site plan review application for an industrial warehouse project in an area of Chinatown in Los Angeles referred to as the Cornfields and Riverstation. We were lead counsel and joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and numerous community groups in opposing Majestic Realty Corporation’s application on the grounds of CEQA, municipal code, and environmental justice violations. As a result of litigation and administrative action, Majestic agreed to sell the property to the Trust for Public Land, which sold the property to the State for development as a State Park. Governor Gray Davis announced this acquisition as part of the State’s largest urban park creation in recent history at the December 2001 press conference mentioned above.

3. The National Parks and Conservation Association and a number of local organizations and individuals opposing the proposed Eagle Mountain landfill, which would be the largest landfill in the country and is proposed to be located immediately adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park. In 1994, a lawsuit resulted in Riverside County having to prepare a new EIR on the proposed project. As a result of our objections to the EIR that was prepared in response to the 1994 court order, in February, 1998 the San Diego County Superior Court judge hearing the matter again set the EIR aside. Riverside County successfully appealed the decision, but the project is now being fought in federal court and, six years later, the project still has not been started.

4. Rescue Our Canyon and Friends of Runyon Canyon, litigating in federal court a suit against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The issue of concern was the proposed dewatering of the Santa Monica Mountains as part of construction of the subway from Hollywood to the Valley. We achieved a settlement that will protect wildlife and vegetation by eliminating dewatering under surface springs and will reduce the drawdown of the water table under Runyon Canyon Park, as well as the other areas along the route through the Santa Monica Mountains.

Coastal Resources and Tidelands

5. Wetlands Action Network, Sierra Club, Ballona Wetlands Lands Trust, and Coalition to Save the Marina in challenging a coastal development permit for a project to dam, drain and dredge a wetland, and then construct concrete walls along the intertidal area of the wetland, under the guise of being a wetland “restoration” project. The wetland is known as the Grand Canal, and is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area in the City of Los Angeles. We obtained a stay order from the San Francisco Superior Court to suspend the environmentally damaging portions of the Coastal Commission’s approval of the coastal development permit. Subsequently, the Superior Court ruled in our favor, holding that there was not substantial evidence that there were not feasible, less damaging alternatives to dredging and to construction of the walls.

6. Wetlands Action Network in a challenge to a Coastal Commission decision to approve the North Shores project in the Coastal Zone of Ventura County. We were co-counsel with the Environmental Defense Center, which represents the Native Plant Society and the Sierra Club in this matter. After the trial court denied the challenge, the matter was settled, with a substantial additional amount of mitigation of impacts on a threatened species being obtained.

7. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners’ Coalition, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc., and Coalition for Clean Air, Inc., in a challenge to the Port of Los Angeles’ approval of a significant expansion of dock capacity for China Shipping Company without conducting environmental review. We were co-counsel with NRDC attorneys in this case. While the trial court denied a writ, the court of appeal reversed the trial court and stayed further construction and all operations until an EIR is prepared. As a result, Petitioners were able to settle the litigation so that the Port committed to pay $50 million over five years for mitigation of air quality, traffic, and aesthetic impacts from terminal expansion in exchange for the right to operate the first phase of the terminal before completion of the new EIR.

8. The California Earth Corps in opposing an agreement between the City of Long Beach and the State Land Commission (SLC) in which SLC would remove public trust restrictions from three acres of tidelands to facilitate construction of a bookstore, a spa, and a movie theater as part of a private developer’s project called the Queensway Bay Development. The Sacramento Superior Court denied the petition for a writ, but we successfully obtained a reversal in the Court of Appeal. After the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Legislature amended Public Resources Code section 6307 in response to our lawsuit.

9. The California Earth Corps, an environmental organization, in administrative proceedings before the City of Long Beach regarding commercial development of a coastal area property and amendment of the City’s Local Coastal Plan, and before the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding thermal discharge from San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant.

10. Save Our NTC, a community group in San Diego opposing an agreement between the City of San Diego and the State Land Commission (SLC) in which SLC would remove public trust restrictions from more than 300 acres of tidelands at the north end of San Diego Bay. Contrary to the state Constitution, the City conveyed approximately 70 acres of the tidelands to a private developer for residential housing development. The case settled before a court decision.

Sensitive Natural Resources

11. Sierra Club, the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, and Friends of the Santa Clara River, in opposing the proposed Newhall Ranch housing development in northern Los Angeles County. The development would be one of the largest single housing developments proposed in California and cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Also opposing the project were the California Attorney General, Ventura County, and housing advocates. Our office concentrated attention on the inconsistencies of the proposed project with Los Angeles’ General Plan. We prevailed on this claim at the trial court, as did several other petitioners with their claims related to water supply, traffic, air quality, and other impacts. Rather than appeal the trial court’s decision, Newhall Land and Farm and the County of Los Angeles decided to conduct further work modify the project and produce and adequate environmental impact report. In January 2002, the County of Los Angeles chose to postpone its review of the project until water supply sources could be assured, then reapproved the project in May 2003.

12. Sierra Club and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign in protecting Sierra Nevada forests by challenging the implementation of the Forest Service’s plan for a post-fire harvest. The harvest would have only removed large trees and would have left smaller, more combustible trees and debris in place. As co-counsel with Sierra Club, we obtained a TRO, which is still in place.

13. The Surfrider Foundation, in an effort to mitigate the impact of the siting of a Carnival Cruise Line terminal at a location that would effectively preclude the removal of a breakwater in Long Beach which would improve water quality and restore more natural surf conditions. As part of a settlement of this matter, Carnival Cruise Line agreed to support a study for reconfiguration of the breakwater, and other mitigation for the impacts of the project.

14. The Bluewater Action Network, Surfrider Foundation, Environmental Law Foundation, and San Diego Baykeeper in an Unfair Competition Act lawsuit against four major cruise lines for violation of the Ballast Water Management for the Control of Nonindigenous Species Act. In settlement with three of the cruise lines, we obtained a commitment to future compliance with the law and created a fund to analyze alternative ballast water management practices. We obtained a stipulated judgment against the final defendant, Carnival Cruise Lines, for declaratory and injunctive relief.

15. The Orange County Coastkeeper, in challenging the waiver of water quality certification for an enormous development project located next to a state park and Area of Special Biological Concern, the Crystal Cove. A settlement with the developer was eventually achieved.

16. Friends of the Los Angeles River, Heal the Bay, TreePeople and eight other environmental and community groups in opposing construction of parapet walls along the Los Angeles River, and supporting the alternative of a comprehensive watershed management plan. This entailed extensive comments on two environmental impact reports. The first set of comments was instrumental in convincing the County of Los Angeles to prepare a Subsequent EIR. Unfortunately, the second document was still inadequate. We filed a writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against the County, and succeeded in having the matter remanded for reconsideration by the Board of Supervisors. Although the Board re-approved the project, it set up a process to evaluate alternatives to the parapet walls and agreed to initiate preparation of a watershed management plan.

17. Endangered Habitat League, Friends of Tecate Cypress, Hills For Everyone, and Tri-County Conservation League, community-based environmental organizations centered in Orange County in administrative review of an EIR prepared for the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 1998 Draft Regional Transportation Plan. Two roadways alignments opposed by our clients were eventually removed by SCAG from the Regional Transportation Plan.

18. Sierra Club during the administrative process in opposing development of the Gillette Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains by SOKA University based upon CEQA and planning laws.

19. People for Parks, advising them regarding issues relating to public access to Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy property in Escondido Canyon.

20. TAPPS, a Los Osos organization, opposing a traditional wastewater treatment plant, which would destroy sensitive habitat, and supporting an alternative technology that would also have the benefit of groundwater recharged.

Historic Resources

21. Long Beach Heritage, a community-based historic and preservation society, in challenging the Board of Harbor Commissioners’ approval for the Port of Long Beach’s Pier T Terminal project. The Pier T Terminal project proposed to demolish the Long Beach Naval Station which was designed by Paul Revere Williams, who is probably the best known and most accomplished African-American architect of all time. Long Beach Heritage wanted a review, prior to demolition, of possible reuses that would preserve the historic buildings. We prevailed in the trial court, and the City of Long Beach appealed. Subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the United States Navy and the City of Long Beach initiated preparation of a new, more comprehensive, combined EIR/EIS with a reuse plan. Our clients settled out of the case, but the City of Long Beach’s appeal continued and was opposed by the Cities of Compton and Vernon. This appeal was eventually successful. During the pendency of the appeal, Congress enacted legislation preventing a prospective tenant from using the Naval Station as a container terminal.

22. Along with the 1996 winner of the State Bar award for pro bono work for this District, Marcia Scully, and Jan Chatten-Brown represented the Lincoln Place Tenants Association in opposing the demolition of 795 units of affordable housing in Venice. The grounds for opposition were primarily that the project conflicts with the City Housing Element and the 1994 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, and that the Environmental Impact Report was inadequate. The Los Angeles City Council reversed the decision of the Advisory Agency and the Planning Commission, and denied the project. The developer challenged the denial, and the City’s denial was set aside as being inconsistent with the Ellis Act and in 2002, the City approved the project. The Lincoln Place Tenants Association challenged the approval on CEQA grounds, since the EIR ignored the cultural significance of the existing complex, which has now been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. We served as co-counsel with historic preservation specialist Susan Brandt-Hawley. We also represented 20^th Century Architecture Alliance, California Preservation Foundation, Los Angeles Conservancy and National Organization of Minority Architects in fighting the demolition of Lincoln Place based upon a violation of a local preservation ordinance and CEQA. Though we lost in the trial court, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, granting the writ we sought.

HOMEOWNERS’ AND COMMUNITY GROUPS

23. The Blair Hills Residents Association, in opposing a large residential development. Because we were successful in delaying commencement of the project, the State was able to use Proposition 12 funds to acquire the 65 acres for addition to the State Park in Baldwin Hills.

24. The Coalition for a Better Inglewood and the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy in challenging an initiative proposed by the Wal-Mart retail corporation to build a commercial retail complex in Inglewood. The initiative would have approved the construction of a project the size of seventeen football fields at a site next to the Hollywood Park Racetrack without environmental or administrative review by city officials and planning professionals. In response to a petition we filed, a judge chose not to evaluate the legality of the initiative before an election was held. At a special municipal election, the initiative was defeated by the opposition of over 60% of those voting on the measure.

25. The Greenlight Steering Committee in obtaining appropriate regulations to enforce an initiative passed by Newport Beach voters. The Greenlight initiative requires voter ratification of general plan amendments that allow significant new development in the City. This case is pending in Orange County Superior Court.

26. The Chatsworth Land Preservation Association in challenging a high-density residential development in the heart of horse country in the northern portion of the City of Los Angeles. The development as proposed threatened the continued viability of the Chatsworth area as a horsekeeping community and impeded the ability of the community to continue to enjoy recreational horse