Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Page 8 2_August 1996 Z.B. personal wireless-service facilities. However, local regulations couldn't unrea- sonably .discriminate against service providers or prohibit wireless services. Also, governments had to act within a reasonable time on requests to build or modify service facilities. The city of Medina, Wash., was a prime location for wiretess-telecommu- nications providers because of its proximity to a state highway and bridge. Already, :several receiving and transmitting facilities were in the city; many more were expected as a result of the Act's passage. Five days after the Act was passed, the City Council adopted a six-month moratorium on the issuance of new special-use permits for wireless-communications facilities. The mora- torium was intended to give the city time to process the expected barrage of applications, and to make certain determinations about the nature of the facili- ties (e.g.,: about health and aesthetic concerns). The moratorium would end Aug. 12, 1996 and would not be renewed. Sprint Spectrum L.P. owned the licensing rights to a radio frequency in 21 Washington counties, including the city's. To fully operate its communication system, it~needed base stations throughout the state. According to Sprint, which hoped to place a facility in the city, the moratorium would cause it a significant financial loss. On April 11, Sprint applied to the city for a permit for a 100-foot antenna tower; it needed a zoning variance before it could get the permit. Sprint then sued the city, claiming the moratorium violated the Act and several other statu- tory and constitutional provisions. Sprint asked the court to declare the mora- torium invalid under the Act and other federal laws, and also for damages caused by the delay. Sprint claimed the moratorium effectively prohibited wireless services. Also, it said, the city unreasonably discriminated among service providers, and failed to act on its application within a reasonable time. DECISION: Order denied. The city's moratorium did not violate the Act or any other state or federal provision. The moratorium did not have a prohibitive effect on wireless facilities; it was simply a short-term suspension on issuing permits while the city processed applications and made factual determinations. The moratorium would not pre- vent Sprint's application from being granted. By waiting six months to issue any permits, the city was not failing to act on applications within a reasonable time. Zoning decisions generally required some degree of investigation, especially when they involved "rapidly evolving technology:" The city was entitled to prepare itself for an onslaught of wire- less-facilities applications. It did not have to give preferential treatment to ser- vice providers. There Was no evidence the city discriminated among service providers in processing applications. Every other new service provider also would be delayed by the moratorium. Providers that already had facilities in the city would be subjected to the delay if they submitted new applications.