The Salinger Group v. City-Parish of East Baton Rouge ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2019 CA 0295
THE SALINGER GROUP, INC.
VG ILA' d vrh``
VERSUS
CITY -PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
Judgment Rendered. JUL 2 4 2020
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. C673111
The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Anderson O. " Andy" Dotson, III Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Parish Attorney City of Baton Rouge and Parish of
Gwendolyn K. Brown East Baton Rouge
Assistant Parish Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Gregory E. Bodin Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Christopher M. Vitenas Brennan T. Baldridge d/ b/ a
Baton Rouge, Louisiana The Salinger Group
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McDONALD, THERIOT, CHUTZ,
AND BURRIS, JJ.
THERIOT, J.
In this mandamus action, the defendant appeals a trial court judgment
making its alternative writ of mandamus peremptory in part and ordering the
defendant to issue a permit to plaintiff. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse
the judgment of the trial court and recall the writ of mandamus.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 27, 2017, the Metropolitan Council of the City of Baton
Rouge -Parish of East Baton Rouge (" City -Parish") adopted Ordinance # 16657, 1
amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of
East Baton Rouge (" Code of Ordinances") to add Title 2, Chapter 9, entitled Small
Wireless Facilities, " to establish policies and procedures for the placement of small
wireless facilities in rights- of-way within the City -Parish' s jurisdiction, which will
provide public benefit consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage,
and visual qualities of the City -Parish rights- of-way and the City -Parish as a
whole .,,2 The City -Parish' s expressed intent in enacting Chapter 9 was to establish
uniform standards to address issues presented by small wireless facilities, such as:
1) preventing interference with the use of streets, sidewalks, alleys, parkways, and
other public ways and places; ( 2) preventing the creation of visual and physical
obstructions and other conditions that are hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic; ( 3) preventing interference with the facilities and operations of facilities
lawfully located in rights- of-way or on public property, as well as public safety
vehicles; ( 4) protecting against environmental damage, including damage to trees;
5) preserving the character of the neighborhoods in which facilities are installed;
1 Ordinance # 16657 became effective on December 27, 2017, three months following the date of its adoption.
Ordinance # 16657 was later replaced by Ordinance # 16873, effective July 25, 2018. References herein to the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge are to the provisions in effect at the
time of the events involved in this case.
z Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 380( A).
2
and ( 6) facilitating rapid deployment of small cell facilities to provide the benefits
of advanced wireless services.'
Under the provisions of Chapter 9, a person wishing to place a small
wireless facility in a right- of-way must file a small wireless facility application and
obtain a permit before doing so.' The permit application must be made by the
wireless provider or its duly authorized representative on a form ( either paper or
electronic) provided by the City -Parish' and must be accompanied by a fee for the
actual, direct, and reasonable costs incurred by the City -Parish related to
processing the application.' Chapter 9 sets forth certain information required to be
included in a permit application, including the applicant' s name and contact
information, a general description of the proposed work, and the purpose and intent
of the small wireless facility.' The scope and detail of the general description to be
included in the application " shall be appropriate to the nature and character of the
work to be performed, with special emphasis on those matters likely to be affected
or impacted by the work proposed."' Permit applications must also comply with
all applicable codes. 9
Chapter 9 also sets forth the procedure for the City -Parish' s review and
processing of permit applications. Under these provisions, when a permit
application is submitted, the City -Parish must review the application in light of its
10
conformity with the applicable regulations of the Chapter. Within ten days of
receipt of the application, the City -Parish must determine and notify the applicant
3 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 380( B).
4 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 382( B).
5 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 382( C).
The amount of the application fee is not set forth in Chapter 9; however, § 2: 382( G)( 1) states that the fee shall not
exceed $ 500 each for up to five small wireless facilities and $ 250 for each additional small wireless facility, and
1, 000 per application for each wireless support structure or attachment to a City -Parish -owned pole.
7 Baton Rouge, LA Code of Ordinances § 2: 382( D).
8 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 382( D)( 3).
9 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 382( D)( 4). " Applicable Codes" means uniform building, fire,
electrical, plumbing, or mechanical codes adopted by a recognized national code organization or local amendments
to those codes enacted solely to address imminent threats of destruction of property or injury to persons to the extent
not inconsistent with the terms of Chapter 9. Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 381( B).
10 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 383( A)( 1).
3
whether the application is complete, and if the application is incomplete, the City -
Parish must specifically identify the missing information." The City -Parish must
make its final decision to approve or deny the application within sixty days and
advise the applicant in writing of its final decision. If the City -Parish' s final
decision is a denial, the written notification must document the basis for the denial,
12
including the specific code provisions upon which the denial is based. If the
City -Parish fails to act on a permit application within the sixty-day review period,
the applicant may " provide notice that the time period for acting has lapsed and the
3
application is then deemed approved."'
On February 20, 2018, almost two months after the effective date of
Ordinance # 16657, Brennan Taylor Baldridge, President of The Salinger Group,
sent an email to Ebony Brown in the City of Baton Rouge' s Code Enforcement
Office in an attempt to file a consolidated permit application14 for " 98 small cell
facilities" on behalf of The Salinger Group. Baldridge' s email stated, " We were
told no application form existed, so we prepared one using the application
requirements defined in [§ 2: 382( D)]." With regard to the required application fee,
Baldridge' s email stated " we are willing to pay for actual, direct, and reasonable
costs incurred by the City -Parish related to processing [ the] application subject to
the limitation in [§ 2: 382];" however, no application fee was ever tendered by
Baldridge. Attached to the email was the permit application created by Baldridge,
which outlined the application requirements from Chapter 9 and provided the
requested information in response.
11 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 383( A)( 1)( a).
12 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 383( A)( 1)( b) and ( c).
13 Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 383( A)( 2).
14 §
2: 383( A)( 3) provides that an applicant who seeks to construct a network of small wireless facilities may elect to
file a consolidated application for a single permit for multiple small wireless facilities.
L!
David Cobb, the City -Parish' s Building Official, responded by email to
Baldridge on February 28, 2018, informing him that the application " will not be
able to be processed at this time." Cobb' s email went on to state:
There are multi -departmental issues that are being addressed so the
application can be processed. Also please be advised that the
City/Parish does not own any telephone/ electric poles in the right of
way. Written permission would need to be obtained from whatever
utility companies [ sic] pole( s) would be utilized. Additionally, an
address for each location/pole would need to be obtained to use the
permitting software. These are not all inclusive of the [ sic] what may
be required for a permit to be issued but an indication of what is being
done to assist and fulfill the request.
Baldridge replied to Cobb' s email on March 1, 2018, noting that he was
seeking to use only " traffic poles" owned by the City -Parish, not telephone or
electric poles. In response to Cobb' s statement that an " address" for each location
or pole would be necessary, Baldridge replied that the ordinance did not require an
applicant to provide an " address" for each location or pole and that the information
he had submitted with the application was sufficient under Chapter 9. 15 Finally,
with regard to Cobb' s statement that the list of problems with the application was
not " all inclusive," Baldridge pointed out that the ten- day period for the City -
Parish to identify any additional missing information in the application under §
2: 383( A)( 1)( a) had expired and that " the ordinance does not allow for delays in
processing submitted applications ... for any reason."
Thereafter, on April 23, 2018, Baldridge emailed Brown, noting that no
response to the February 20, 2018 permit application had been received from the
City -Parish within the sixty- day application review period set forth in §
2: 383( A)( 1)( b), "[ t] herefore, we are providing this notice that the time period for
acting on the application has lapsed and the application is now deemed approved
15 Baldridge' s email stated:
T] he ordinance only requires the applicant to provide: " the latitude and longitude coordinates of
each small cell facility." We included as Exhibit I to the application a chart which provided the
geolocation ( latitude and longitude) for each pole. This information was obtained using the Ci ' s
open data portal which enabled us to include the City' s traffic signal inventory number for each
location. Additionally, we provided a listing for each location' s primary street and cross street.
5
per Sec. 2: 383( a)( 2), effective as of the date of this letter." Baldrige requested that
the City -Parish formally issue the consolidated permit.
On May 22, 2018, Ingolf Partenheimer, the City -Parish' s Chief Traffic
Engineer, contacted Baldridge by email, requesting a meeting so that he could get
more information from Baldridge in an attempt to help move the application
forward. Baldridge declined to meet with Partenheimer, stating that his application
had been " automatically approved" under the ordinance and that he would not
work with the City -Parish until they issued the permit.
On July 25, 2018, the City -Parish adopted Ordinance # 16873, which was
effective immediately and amended Chapter 9 in a number of ways. Most relevant
to this case, it extended the time periods for the City -Parish to review and act on a
permit application and removed the provision that allowed for an application to be
deemed approved" where the City -Parish failed to act on the application within
the designated review period. Ordinance # 16873 also expressly repealed any
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with its provisions.
The City -Parish did not issue a permit as requested by Baldridge, and on
August 24, 2018, The Salinger Group, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
requesting that the trial court compel the City -Parish to issue the permit. The City -
Parish filed a motion to dismiss The Salinger Group' s petition for writ of
mandamus, noting that " The Salinger Group, Inc." did not begin to exist as an
entity until its incorporation on August 20, 2018, and therefore it could not have
been an applicant under the provisions of Chapter 9. 16 The trial court dismissed
The Salinger Group' s petition for a writ of mandamus on the City -Parish' s motion,
and thereafter an amended petition for writ of mandamus was filed by " Brennan T.
Baldridge, doing business as The Salinger Group." The trial court issued an
16 The City -Parish' s motion to dismiss also raised other grounds for dismissal, which are not discussed here.
X
alternative writ of mandamus and rule to show cause pursuant to La. C. C. P. art.
3865, and the matter was set for hearing.
The City -Parish filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on the
following grounds: the plaintiff in the amended petition ( Brennan T. Baldridge,
doing business as The Salinger Group) lacks standing because he is separate and
distinct from the corporate entity that submitted the February 20, 2018
application;" neither Baldridge nor The Salinger Group is an " applicant" as
defined in Chapter 9, because an applicant must be a wireless provider;" the
February 20, 2018 request for a permit was not an application which would trigger
the City -Parish' s duty to respond because it was not filed on a form provided by
the City -Parish; the City -Parish satisfied any obligation it may have had to give
notice of denial through its February 28, 2018 email informing Baldridge that his
submission was being rejected; some of the locations identified by Baldridge' s
permit request were not owned by the City -Parish; the City -Parish had the
discretion to reject Baldridge' s request due to safety concerns, since the locations
identified in the purported application were actually in the middle of intersections;
Baldridge' s submission did not include the application fee required by Chapter 9;
and the provisions of the Code of Ordinances on which Baldridge' s request for
mandamus relief was based were repealed by Ordinance # 16873 prior to the filing
of the petition for mandamus.
A hearing was held on the amended petition for mandamus and the motion
to dismiss on November 8, 2019. After hearing arguments on the motion, the trial
court denied the motion to dismiss the petition for mandamus, noting that
17 An " applicant' is defined as " any person who submits an application and is a wireless provider." Baton Rouge,
LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 381( C). " Wireless provider" means " a wireless infrastructure provider or a wireless
services provider." Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 381( P). A " wireless infrastructure provider" is a
person, including a person authorized to provide telecommunications service in the state, who builds or installs
wireless communication transmission equipment, wireless facilities, or wireless support structures, but who is not a
wireless services provider. Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 381( 0). A " wireless services provider" is a
person who provides wireless services, i. e., any services, whether at a fixed location or mobile, provided using
wireless facilities. Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 381( Q) and ( R).
7
Baldridge was indeed an applicant, that he had submitted an application, and that
he did not have another legal remedy available to obtain a permit. The trial court
explained that although Baldridge could file another permit application, his
February 20, 2018 application was already deemed approved under Chapter 9, and
there was no assurance that a new application would be approved. After denying
the motion to dismiss, the trial court heard testimony and received evidence on the
issue of mandamus.
Baldridge testified that he initially contacted the City -Parish following the
adoption of Chapter 9 to request an application form. Because the City -Parish did
not yet have an application form available, Baldridge claimed he was specifically
directed " that the form could be produced [ by Baldridge] if all of the information
was contained that the ordinance required, and that that information should be sent
to Ebony Brown." Baldridge acknowledged that an application fee was required
by the ordinance, but explained that since the ordinance required the payment of
actual, reasonable costs" up to a maximum amount set forth in Chapter 9, he
believed that the City -Parish would instruct him at a later date of the exact amount
due. Although § 2: 382( G)( 1) also provides for a set fee of $ 1, 000. 00 per
application, Baldridge testified that he did not pay this amount because he was
unsure whether he owed a single $ 1, 000. 00 application fee for the consolidated
application, or ninety- eight $ 1, 000. 00 application fees ( one for each location
requested). Baldridge testified that he asked several City -Parish employees what
fees needed to be paid, but he did not receive an answer and never received a bill
from the City -Parish.
Although Baldrige received Cobb' s February 28, 2018 email response to his
application, identifying several deficiencies to be addressed, he did not consider
this to be a notice of denial, and furthermore, he believed that his response to this
email was sufficient to address the deficiencies noted. Although he did not supply
8
the " address for each location/pole" as requested in Cobb' s email, Baldridge
explained that he did not understand until much later that Cobb meant that he
needed the latitude and longitude for each specific location or pole, as opposed to
the latitude and longitude for the center of the intersection where the pole or poles
are located. Baldridge testified that if Cobb had given him more specific
instructions, he would have supplied the correct information.
Baldridge acknowledged that Partenheimer contacted him to request a
meeting so that he could get more information from Baldridge in order to try to
move the permitting process along, but that he declined because the sixty- day
review period had expired and his application was already deemed approved.
Baldridge told Partenheimer that he would not " work with the City" until the
permit was issued.
Baldridge filed a second permit application on June 6, 2018, for different
locations than those requested in the February 20, 2018 application. He testified
that in response to this second application, the City -Parish sent him very detailed
information and ordinance -specific citations of what exactly was wrong with his
application.
In the course of working with the City -Parish on the second
application, Baldridge learned what information the City -Parish had been
requesting on his first application ( the latitude and longitude for each individual
pole) that he did not understand at the time of his original application.
Cobb testified that Baldridge' s email application was the first one received
by his office following the adoption of Chapter 9, and it was submitted before the
official application was even created by the City -Parish. By the time of the
hearing, almost two years after the effective date of Ordinance # 16657, the City -
Parish had only received a total of four applications, including Baldridge' s two
applications. Cobb testified that his office' s procedures for processing the
applications were " getting better refined" and its responses more thorough as they
E
gained experience with the applications. Cobb' s role in processing a small
wireless facility permit application is to receive the application and confirm that
the application is complete ( including accurate locations) and that fees are paid
before forwarding the application to the traffic engineering department for further
review. Cobb does not have the authority to issue permits without a technical
review from the traffic engineering department.
Cobb testified that he did not take any further action on Baldridge' s
application after his initial February 28, 2018 email because he did not receive a
response from Baldridge with all of the necessary information to complete the
application ( e. g., the latitude and longitude for each of the ninety- eight individual
locations). Although he acknowledged that he did not send a final denial letter
within sixty days, Cobb explained that based on his understanding of the newly -
adopted ordinance, he satisfied his responsibilities under Chapter 9 when he
notified Baldridge that his application was incomplete, and he did not believe that
he had any further responsibilities under Chapter 9 unless and until Baldridge sent
additional information to address those identified deficiencies.
Partenheimer testified that his department is responsible for reviewing the
traffic side" of the permit applications. The applications do not come to his office
for review until all of the location information is accurate and complete, because
he cannot review the request without knowing exactly which pole at an intersection
the request pertains to. After conducting a technical review of the completed
application forwarded to his department by Cobb' s office, Partenheimer provides
comments from a traffic engineering perspective of issues to be addressed and
resolved by the applicant, such as " distance from roadway, incorrect right- of-way
widths, things of that nature."
Partenheimer explained that the location information in Baldridge' s
application was insufficient for his office to conduct its technical review because it
10
only allowed him to identify the intersections, but not the particular poles.
Partenheimer explained that the identifying information used by Baldridge in his
application came from a " traffic signal inventory" available to the public online,
which was developed for an entirely different purpose and did not list all traffic
poles located at the intersections. Of the intersections included in Baldridge' s
application, only three contained any city -owned poles; and although Baldridge
requested ninety- eight locations for small cell facilities in his application, there
were only eleven city -owned traffic poles in all of the intersections listed in
Baldridge' s application. Partenheimer further testified that although his
department maintains traffic signals on state- owned poles pursuant to an agreement
between the City -Parish and the state, based on his experience, the City -Parish
does not have authority to issue permits to third parties to install equipment on
state- owned property without the state' s permission.
Partenheimer anticipated a number of problems with issuing a permit based
on Baldridge' s application, and based on his review of the information submitted
with the application, he was concerned that Baldridge might not have a proper
understanding of the technical aspects of installing equipment on poles. According
to Partenheimer, Baldridge' s application did not give dimensions, weights, or even
identify some of the equipment. For instance, the application seemed to evidence a
plan to mount the equipment on the poles using an attachment device that was
actually meant for a roof. According to Partenheimer' s testimony, the application
did] not really have mounting information, thicknesses, what is going to be used,
how it is going to be done, how it is going to be laid out, where the power is
coming from, is there solar panels or not solar panels, because they are mentioned.
There is a lot of information that is just not there. It really appears that two cut
sheets got thrown together and that is it. There is no site plan or anything." One
big concern" with Baldridge' s application was that installing the devices as
11
requested could " pull the pole over, or make it fly" or " turn" the pole.
Partenheimer testified that the problems he identified pose a risk to public safety,
but when he contacted Baldridge on May 22, 2018 to discuss resolution of those
public safety concerns, Baldridge declined to discuss it with him because the sixty-
day review period had expired.
Michael Todd Donmyer, District Administrator for the State Department of
Transportation and Development, 18 confirmed that the latitude and longitude
coordinates listed on Baldridge' s application did not refer to individual poles, but
rather the center of individual intersections where one or more traffic signal poles
are located. Furthermore, Donmyer attested that all but three of the traffic signal
ID numbers identified by Baldridge in his application refer to intersections with
traffic signal poles either owned by the state or located within the state' s right-of-
way, and the City -Parish lacks the authority to issue permits for the installation of
third -party equipment on such poles.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered that the alternative
writ of mandamus be made peremptory as to the eleven locations identified in the
judgment, which the trial court concluded were not state- owned poles or poles
within the state right-of-way. The trial court ordered the City -Parish to issue a
permit to Brennan Baldridge, doing business as The Salinger Group, for those
eleven poles. The City -Parish appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in
denying its motion to dismiss and granting the writ of mandamus, ordering it to
issue a permit.
DISCUSSION
A writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty clearly required by law. La. C. C. P. art. 3863;
Bonvillain v. Department of Insurance, 2004- 0332, p. 3 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 16/ 05),
18
By stipulation of the parties, Donmyer's affidavit was admitted into evidence at the hearing.
12
906 So. 2d 596, 598. The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may
only be issued in cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or
where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice. La.
C. C. P. art. 3862; Gulfsouth Credit, Inc. v. Wiley, 2019- 0526, p. 1 ( La.App. 1 Cir.
1/ 9/ 20),--- So. 3d---, ---. In a mandamus proceeding against a public officer
involving the performance of an official duty, nothing can be inquired into but the
question of duty on the face of the statute and the ministerial character of the duty
he is charged to perform. Bonvillain, 2004- 0332 at p. 3, 906 So. 2d at 598.
A ministerial duty is a duty in which no element of discretion is left to the
public officer.
It is a simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or
proved to exist, and imposed by law. Hoag v. State, 2004- 0857, p. 7 ( La. 12/ 1/ 04),
889 So. 2d 1019, 1024. Mandamus will not lie in matters in which discretion and
evaluations of evidence must be exercised. Allen v. St. Tammany Parish Police
Jury, 1996- 0938, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 14/ 97), 690 So. 2d 150, 153, writ denied,
1997- 0599 ( La. 4/ 18/ 97), 692 So. 2d 455. Mandamus is not available to command
the performance of an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight.
Bonvillain, 2004- 0332 at pp. 3- 4, 906 So. 2d at 599.
Further, mandamus is to be used only when there is a clear and specific legal
right to be enforced or a duty which ought to be performed. It never issues in
doubtful cases. Wiginton v. Tangipahoa Parish Council, 2000- 1319, P. 4 ( La.App.
1 Cir. 6/ 29/ 01), 790 So. 2d 160, 163, writ denied, 2001- 2541 ( La. 12/ 7/ 01) 803
So. 2d 971. Although the granting of a writ of mandamus is considered improper
when the act sought to be commanded contains any element of discretion, it has,
nevertheless, been allowed in cases to correct an arbitrary and capricious abuse of
discretion by public boards or officials. City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 2016-
0655, p. 7 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 4/ 12/ 17), 218 So. 3d 158, 163; see also State ex rel.
Torrance v. City ofShreveport, 231 La. 840, 846; 93 So. 2d 187, 189 ( 1957) ( where
13
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that mandamus was appropriate in a case
involving the arbitrary refusal to grant a license). Generally, the action of a
governmental body is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable if it bears no relation
to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. In addition, the violation of a
specific city ordinance, rule, or regulation that prohibits a particular action by a
governmental body can constitute an abuse of discretion. City of Baton Rouge,
2016- 0655 at p. 7, 218 So. 3d at 163, citing Fire Protection District Six v. City of
Baton Rouge Department of Public Works, 2003- 1205, p. 3 ( La.App. 1 Cir.
12/ 31/ 03), 868 So. 2d 770, 772- 73, writ denied, 2004- 0299 ( La. 4/ 8/ 04), 870 So. 2d
270.
Generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court' s judgment on a writ of
mandamus under an abuse of discretion standard. City ofBaton Rouge, 2016- 0655
at p. 7, 218 So. 3d at 163- 64. The trial court' s findings of fact in a mandamus
proceeding are subject to manifest error review. Turner v. East Baton Rouge
Parish School Board, 2017- 1769, p. 6 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 6/ 4/ 18), 252 So. 3d 990, 993,
writ denied, 2018- 1127 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1299. However, questions of
law, such as the proper interpretation of a statute, are reviewed by appellate courts
under the de novo standard of review, and the appellate court is not required to
give deference to the lower court in interpreting a statute. Carver v. Louisiana
Department ofPublic Safety, 2017- 1340, p. 4 ( La. 1/ 30/ 18), 239 So. 3d 226, 230.
As noted above, mandamus is not an available remedy to compel
performance of a duty in which the public officer must exercise discretion or
evaluate evidence. It is clear from a review of the provisions of Chapter 9 that the
public officers must do both. The City -Parish' s review of a permit application is to
determine its conformity with the applicable regulations, which includes
compliance with uniform building, fire, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical codes,
or local amendments to those codes enacted solely to address imminent threats of
14
19
destruction of property or injury to persons. Cobb and Partenheimer both
testified that Baldridge' s application did not contain sufficient information for the
City -Parish to make this determination.
In addition, mandamus is only appropriate in situations where there is a clear
and specific legal right to be enforced or a duty that ought to be performed; it never
issues in doubtful cases. Baldridge' s entitlement to a permit under Chapter 9 was
not entirely clear. Although the City -Parish did not send a separate notice of denial
within sixty days of Baldridge' s application, Cobb' s email notified Baldridge that
his application was incomplete and identified certain information needed for
review of the application, which Baldridge did not supply in response. While
Cobb' s email arguably could have been clearer with regard to the information
needed, the email clearly expressed that the application was incomplete and could
not be acted upon in its current state.
Furthermore, although mandamus has been allowed to compel a public
official to perform a duty involving an element of discretion where there had been
an arbitrary and capricious abuse of that discretion by a public official, this
exception is only applicable where the public official' s exercise of discretion bears
no relation to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. That is not the
case here. Partenheimer' s testimony made clear that accurate and complete
location information was critical to his ability to perform the technical review of an
application, and the inaccurate and incomplete location information in Baldridge' s
application prevented Partenheimer from conducting his review and identifying
public safety concerns. Cobb requested this information from Baldridge, but
Baldridge declined to address the deficiency, instead arguing that the information
he sent should be sufficient. Because Baldridge' s failure to supply complete and
accurate location information prevented the City -Parish from thoroughly reviewing
19 See Baton Rouge, LA, Code of Ordinances § 2: 383( A)( 1) & ( D)( 4).
15
the application for any threats to public safety, the City -Parish' s denial of the
permit does not constitute an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.
For these reasons, we conclude that it was error for the trial court to issue a
writ of mandamus ordering the City -Parish to issue a permit to Baldridge. As
such, we reverse the trial court judgment and recall the writ of mandamus.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the trial court is reversed
and the writ of mandamus is recalled. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff -
appellee, Brennan T. Baldridge, doing business as The Salinger Group.
REVERSED; WRIT OF MANDAMUS RECALLED.
16
THE SALINGER GROUP, INC. FIRST CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
CITY -PARISH OF
EAST BATON ROUGE NO. 2019 CA 0295
CHUTZ, J., dissenting.
I disagree with the majority' s reversal of the trial court' s order that
defendant -appellant, The City of Baton Rouge -Parish of East Baton Rouge ( City -
Parish) issue a permit to plaintiff -appellee, Brennan Taylor Baldridge, President of
The Salinger Group (Baldridge), and the recall of the writ of mandamus. Under my
reading of Ordinance # 16657, the City -Parish simply failed to comply with the
provisions setting forth the framework for obtaining permits for small wireless
facilities in rights of way within the Parish.
The responsive email of City -Parish Building Official, David Cobb, on
February 28, 2018 to Baldridge' s February 20, 2018 emailed application cured any
possible deficiencies as a result of the requirements of Sec. 2: 382( C) that an
application be on " a form, paper or electronic, provided by the City -Parish" and
Sec. 2: 382( G) that an application be accompanied by a fee. More importantly,
although Cobb' s email may have, as the majority holds, " notified Baldridge that his
application was incomplete and identified certain information needed for review of
the application, which Baldridge did not supply in response," it falls short of the
requirements of Sec. 2: 383( A)( 1)( c) (" The City -Parish shall ... [ a] dvise the
applicant in writing of its final decision, and in the final decision document the
basis for a denial, including specific code provisions on which the denial was
based, and send the documentation to the applicant on or before the day the City -
Parish denies the application."). Finally, under Sec. 2: 383( A)( 1)( b), it appears that
t]he City -Parish shall ... [ m] ake its final decision to approve or deny the
application within sixty ( 60) days" and, under Sec. 2: 383( A)(2), regardless of
whether the application was complete, "[ i] f the City -Parish fails to act on an
application within the sixty ( 60) day review period, the applicant may provide
notice that the time period for acting has lapsed and the application is then deemed
approved."
Reading Sec. 2: 383( A)( 1)( b) in pari materia with Subsection ( A)(2), since
there is nothing in the record to establish that the City -Parish made its final
decision to approve or deny the application within 60 days as mandated under Sec.
2: 383( A)( 1)( b), it simply failed to act. There is no discretion given the City -Parish
under the provisions of the ordinance. Upon notice by Baldridge " that the time
period for acting has lapsed," the application was deemed approved. Therefore, the
trial court correctly ordered the City -Parish to issue the permit to Baldridge and
that the alternative writ of mandamus be made peremptory as to the eleven
locations identified in the judgment.
4