GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership v. City of Los Altos

Background

GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, identified in the opinion as Verizon, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, identified as AT&T, challenged the City of Los Altos's denials of applications to install small-cell wireless facilities under the City's 2019 wireless ordinance.

Verizon submitted an application for a facility at an existing utility pole near Los Altos High School. The City denied the application under the 2019 ordinance because the proposed site was within 500 feet of the school. AT&T submitted twelve applications, which the City denied because the proposed facilities were in prohibited residential zones and/or within 500 feet of schools.

The plaintiffs alleged that the denials and the 2019 ordinance violated the federal Telecommunications Act. Verizon also alleged that the ordinance violated California law. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the ordinance was not supported by substantial evidence, was preempted by federal law, effectively prohibited wireless service, and was adopted to address concerns about radio-frequency emissions.

Change in ordinance

On June 30, 2022, the City Council repealed the 2019 ordinance and adopted the 2022 ordinance, which took effect on July 30, 2022. The new ordinance entirely replaced the 2019 ordinance's location rules. Unlike the former ordinance, it did not prohibit wireless facilities in residential areas, did not retain the prohibitions involving parks and schools, and removed the 500-foot buffer from residential units. It instead created preferred and less-preferred locations, with facilities categorically permitted in significant portions of the City and potentially allowed in less-preferred locations when a nearby preferred location was not technically feasible.

Mootness analysis

Mootness means that a live dispute no longer remains for the court to resolve. The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent providing that repeal, amendment, or expiration of challenged legislation generally makes a case moot unless the record shows a reasonable expectation that the legislative body will reenact the challenged provision or a substantially similar one.

The court held that the plaintiffs' challenges were tied to the repealed 2019 ordinance. It found no evidence that the City Council was reasonably likely to reenact the same or substantially similar restrictions. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the 2022 ordinance was merely a reconstituted version of the earlier prohibitions or that the plaintiffs would be denied permits under the new ordinance. The court emphasized that the 2022 ordinance imposed new and different requirements and that the City was entitled to a presumption of good faith.

Disposition

The court granted the City's request for judicial notice of the 2022 ordinance. It dismissed the two actions as moot, terminated the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment, and directed the Clerk to close the files. The court did not decide whether the 2019 ordinance or the permit denials violated the Telecommunications Act or California law.