AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner Arthur Firstenberg sought enforcement of a Santa Fe City Code provision against AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (AT&T), arguing that AT&T's switch from 2G to 3G signals at its Santa Fe base stations constituted a change in use intensity, requiring a new special exception from the City of Santa Fe’s Board of Adjustment. Firstenberg, claiming to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, argued this change adversely affected him and thus, he was beneficially interested in the enforcement of the Code (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Firstenberg's petition for a writ of mandamus against the City of Santa Fe and AT&T, holding that AT&T's switch from 2G to 3G signals did not violate the Santa Fe City Code and did not require a new special exception (para 9).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico: Affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that Firstenberg failed to demonstrate a clear-cut mandatory duty by the City to require AT&T to apply for a new special exception before emitting 3G signals (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that AT&T's switch from 2G to 3G signals increased the intensity of use of its base stations, requiring a new special exception under the City Code. Claimed that his condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity made him beneficially interested in the enforcement of the Code (paras 3, 5-6).
• Respondents-Appellees (City of Santa Fe and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC): Contended that the switch from 2G to 3G signals did not constitute a change in use intensity that would require a new special exception under the City Code. Argued that the City Code does not regulate radio-frequency emissions in the manner claimed by the Petitioner (paras 9, 14-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether AT&T's switch from 2G to 3G signals at its Santa Fe base stations constituted a change in use intensity requiring a new special exception under the Santa Fe City Code (para 13).
• Whether the City of Santa Fe had a clear-cut mandatory duty to require AT&T to apply for a new special exception before emitting 3G signals (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of Firstenberg's petition for a writ of mandamus (para 25).

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  The Court held that Firstenberg failed to demonstrate a clear-cut mandatory duty by the City to require AT&T to apply for a new special exception before emitting 3G signals, affirming the District Court's denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus (para 2).
  The Court found that the special exceptions under which AT&T operated did not limit AT&T to emitting a 2G signal, nor did the City Code regulate the intensity of radio-frequency emissions in the manner claimed by Firstenberg (paras 14-16, 18-20).
  The Court deferred to the City's interpretation of its Code, concluding that the City had no clear-cut mandatory duty to regulate AT&T's alleged increase in radio-frequency emissions from its existing facilities (para 20).
  The Court rejected Firstenberg's argument that the District Court's decision was marred by unethical judicial conduct, finding no evidence that the District Court abdicated its judicial responsibility or that Firstenberg was prejudiced by the District Court's reliance on the City's and AT&T's proposed decision (paras 22-24).