Research for Glendale’s anticipated cell site ordinance has been underway while judicial rulings have redefined the rights and obligations of municipalities.
At the beginning of summer 2009, Sunroom Desk reported that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Sprint’s appeal of a Ninth Circuit ruling allowing the County of San Diego to enforce its wireless ordinance.
Toward the end of July 2009, though, the Ninth Circuit ruled in a separate case, T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes, Washington, that “[a local government is] required to show the existence of some potentially available and technologically feasible alternative to the proposed location” once the wireless carrier meets its burden of proof regarding alternative locations.
According to the Anacortes decision, “We conclude that because the City failed to adequately rebut T-Mobile’s prima facie showing that no other location was available and feasible, the district court properly found that the denial of the permit constituted an effective prohibition of coverage.”
T-Mobile in this case had evaluated and rejected numerous alternative sites, while the city hadn’t proposed an acceptable alternative. The Ninth Circuit Anacortes decision, in contrast to the San Diego County decision, constrains local governments by requiring them to identify a less intrusive alternative to a proposed wireless installation, where previously the burden was entirely on the applicant.
One legal analysis of the case is here.
Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers and Glendale city staff have been closely following these legal developments over the summer. Stay tuned for the announcement of a draft wireless ordinance for Glendale.