|
Description of Practice:
Michael Shonafelt is a land use partner in our Los Angeles office. His practice focuses on the representation of private and public sector clients in all matters pertaining to the securing of land use entitlements and environmental compliance.
Michael has extensive experience in providing counsel to both public and private sector clients regarding the Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Clean Water Act, among others. He has represented clients before local governmental bodies in numerous jurisdictions and in federal and state court.
He has represented both developers and local governments in the area of ballot box land use planning, including acting as special counsel to the County of Monterey on a hotly contested slow growth initiative. His counsel extends to guiding clients through the initiative and referendum process and providing counsel regarding pre and post-election challenges.
Michael has successfully litigated on behalf of wireless telecommunications companies in many areas of first impression for the courts on the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and California Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1. He has represented the wireless industry in negotiating access to rights of way and easements with local governments and obtaining land use approvals from state and local regulatory agencies in connection with the permitting and construction of telecommunications facilities.
Representative Cases:
Sprint v. La Cañada Flintridge, 435 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2006). Represented Sprint in an action against the City of La Cañada Flintridge involving the denial of permits for two wireless facilities. The court determined that cities and counties cannot regulate the use of public rights-of-way on aesthetic grounds. The decision is grounded in the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and California Public Resources Code Section 7901. This is the first case in which a court has weighed in on the issue of whether a local government can rely on its full slate of traditional land use powers to deny a permit for a public rights-of-way telecommunications facility based on the aesthetic impacts of that facility.
Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. Palos Verdes Estates, et al., Case No. SACV03-825 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Represented Sprint PCS in an action against the City of Palos Verdes Estates. The case involved the denial by the City of two of Sprint's wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way. The United States District Court, Central District of California, held that the City violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Supremacy Clause, and the Civil Rights Act by denying permits to build telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way on aesthetic grounds. The case represents the first time a federal court applied California Public Utilities Code section 7901 -- a hundred-year-old state statute providing for a statewide franchise to construct telephone facilities in the public rights-of-way -- to a wireless telecommunications company.
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency v. Superior Court (2004). Represented the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency in a writ of mandate proceeding involving the enforcement of toll evasion penalties on the Orange County toll roads. The court held in favor of the agency, and affirmed the ability of toll agencies to secure civil judgments for outstanding toll evasion penalties under Vehicle Code section 40267, without an evidentiary hearing.
People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Woodson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 954 [113 Cal.Rtpr.2d 559]. Represented owners of a mobile home park in an appeal from an eminent domain action filed by Caltrans. Clients won a testimonial jury verdict but trial judge refused to award attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses. The Court of Appeal reversed. On remand, client was awarded the full amount requested for litigation expenses associated with both the trial court and appellate proceedings.
His publications include:
Towering Inferno, (discussing wireless telecommunications siting bill SB 1627) Daily Journal, September 19, 2007
"City Aesthetics Can’t Impede The Wireless Age," Daily Journal, February 15, 2006.
"The Wireless Revolution and Local Land Use Controls: Clash or Cooperation?" The Orange County Planner, January, February and March 2005 issue.
"An Old Law Meets a New Technology," Wireless Business & Technology Magazine, December 2004.
"The Local Threat to Wireless Technology: Aesthetics Standards Constrain Development," Wireless Business & Technology Magazine, April 2003.
His speaking engagements include:
Plat and Subdivision Law -- a seminar sponsored by Lorman Education Services, Santa Ana, August 28, 2007, Long Beach, August 31, 2006.
"Local Government and the Wireless Revolution: Clash or Cooperation" -- CLE Seminars sponsored by Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP on June 1, 2005 (Los Angeles), June 8, 2005 (San Francisco), and June 15, 2005 (Orange County).
"The Wireless Revolution and Local Land Use Control: Clash or Cooperation?" a seminar sponsored by the American Planning Association, Orange County Chapter, November 4, 2004.
Michael is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, a member of the Board of Directors, California Wireless Association; International Right of Way Association, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council.
Educational History:
He received his J.D. from Loyola Law School in 1996, where he was a member of the Loyola Law Review. He received his M.A. from California State University, Dominguez Hills in 1992, and his B.A. from California State University, Dominguez Hills in 1989. |
