Sheppard Mullin

Subscribe to Sheppard Mullin's Posts
Contact:Read more about Sheppard Mullin

San Francisco Beautiful v. City & County of San Francisco (1st. Dist., Div. 4, 5/30/2014)

The First District Court of Appeal held that AT&T’s proposed installation of new utility cabinets in the City of San Francisco fell within CEQA’s Class 3 categorical exemption for the “installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures.”  The court rejected the applicability of any exceptions to the exemption and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition.  The court acknowledged the split of authority regarding the applicable standard of proof and standard of review but stated it would reach the same result under either standard.Continue Reading CEQA Class 3 Categorical Exemptions Permitted for AT&T Installations

A recent Supreme Court case may have a far-reaching impact on many of the United States’ “rails-to-trails” biking and jogging paths.  In March, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that rights of way granted to railroad companies during the nineteenth century were mere easements without reversionary interests to the United States government, triggering constitutional Takings Clause issues.
Continue Reading Trails-to-Rails-to-?: The Brandt Case and its Potential Impact on the Nation’s Trails

Under District of Columbia law, organizations that own buildings in D.C. used for purposes of public charity principally in the District are entitled to property tax exemptions.  (D.C. Code § 47‑1002(8)).  However, in light of recent actions by the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR), non-profit organizations currently benefiting from the exemption should periodically evaluate how their buildings are being used to ensure that they continue to qualify for the exemption.
Continue Reading D.C.’s Less Charitable Approach to Property Tax Exemptions for Non-Profits

[Petition for review granted by the Supreme Court.  The court limited review to the following issue: Under what circumstances, if any, does the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? ]

In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA) (Case No. A135335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st, August 13, 2013)), the First District Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and held that the thresholds of significance adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were not subject to CEQA review for two reasons. First, “the CEQA Guidelines establish the required procedure for enacting generally applicable thresholds of significance such as those at issue in this case, and a prior CEQA review of the thresholds is not a part of this procedure.” CBIA, at pg. 11. Second, “the environmental change posited by CBIA as the basis for requiring CEQA review is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable,” thus adopting the thresholds is not considered a “project” pursuant to CEQA. Id.Continue Reading Adopting Thresholds of Significance Under CEQA Not Subject to CEQA Review

On July 11, 2013, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 116 (Bocanegra) automatically extending by 24 months the expiration date of any tentative map, vesting tentative map, or a parcel map which was approved on or after January 1, 2000, and that has not yet expired. It further specifies a process for the extension of tentative map, vesting tentative map, or a parcel map approved on or before December 31, 1999. Assembly Bill 116 (AB 116) amends Section 65961 of the Government Code.
Continue Reading Assembly Bill 116, Extending Life of Subdivision Maps, Signed by the Governor

Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, et al. (August 5, 2013, S202828) ____ Cal.4th ____

On August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a split decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, et al. The court held that a lead agency may choose to avoid using an existing conditions baseline only where (1) the departure is justified by “unusual aspects of the project or surrounding conditions”; and (2) where “an analysis based on existing conditions would be uninformative or because it would be misleading to decision makers and the public.” Neighbors for Smart Rail, at pg. 11 (lead opinion of Werdergar, J.). Thus, an agency may use a future conditions baseline for analyzing a project’s impacts in lieu of the conditions existing at the time a CEQA analysis is prepared, but only if it makes the specific determinations above and supports them with substantial evidence in the record.Continue Reading Unusual Circumstances: California Supreme Court Upholds Limited Use of Future Conditions Baseline Under CEQA

San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, No. F064930 (5th Dist., May 31, 2013)

By Eric DiIulio

In San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that the Merced County Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by adopting a CEQA mitigated negative declaration without specifically noticing it on the Commission’s agenda. The agenda had indicated consideration of a subdivision application, but the court found consideration of the MND accompanying the application to be a separate action requiring separate notice under the Brown Act. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ CEQA notice violation claims because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.Continue Reading Failure To Separately Notice Consideration Of CEQA Document Violates Brown Act

Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District, No. D060999 (4th Dist. Div. 1, April 25, 2013) 

By Claudia Gutierrez 

In Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) __ Cal.App.4th __ (Case No. D060999) the Court of Appeal for the 4th District held that the San Diego Unified School District (the “District”) must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) on installation of new stadium field lighting and other improvements at Hoover High School to permit nighttime events because there was a fair argument that impacts on neighborhood parking could be significant. The court specifically declined to follow earlier case law to the contrary. The court also held that the District was prohibited from using proceeds of a school bond other than for the purposes specifically listed.Continue Reading Bright Lights Not a Significant Impact; Lack of Parking May Be

By Claudia Gutierrez

In Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District, the California Court of Appeals considered whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) must be prepared where the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and eminent domain law intersect. Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC, the owner of the property in question, argued that the East Bay Regional Park District, tasked by the California Legislature to complete the Eastshore State Park (“Eastshore Park”), had to complete environmental review prior to taking any action, including adoption of the resolution of necessity for the condemnation of a portion of Golden Gate’s property. The court sided with the District holding that commencement of the eminent domain proceedings prior to completion of the EIR did not violate CEQA.Continue Reading EIR Not Needed Before Starting Eminent Domain Proceeding

By Claudia Gutierrez

In MHC Limited Financing v. City of San Rafael, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered, among other things, whether the City of San Rafael’s mobilehome rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) constituted either a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City or an impermissible “private” taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. With respect to Penn Central, the court held that economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the Ordinance all led to the conclusion that the Ordinance did not constitute a taking. The court also rejected plaintiff’s “private taking” theory, novel in this context, in which MHC argued that the Ordinance did not qualify as a “public” use and therefore the taking was prohibited, regardless of compensation.Continue Reading Déjà Vu All Over Again: Ninth Circuit Rejects Yet Another Challenge To Rent Control, Including “Private Takings” Argument