Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

May 10, 2005 -- Page 3 MetroPCS appealed, arguing the board's deniat was not supported by the ~t:bstantial evidence necessary under the Telecommunications .Act. DECISION: A ~rmed. The board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The San Francisco Planning Code explicitly authorized the consideration of community need in evaluating conditional use permit applications. Thus, the board could clearly consider local need for the telecommunications services. The record clearly established the Richmond District was amply served by at least five other major wireless service providers and did not "need" the proposed facility. One of MetroPCS's own representatives testified every major carrier had coverage and an antenna in the neighborhood. In fact, MetroPCS argued before the board that it needed' the proposed facility precisely because it had to compete with other providers who had coverage in the area. MetroPCS's statements were supported by testimony and numerous peti- tions from local residents reporting that the district already enjoyed excellent. wireless coverage. Finally, the record contained a site map showing the loca- tions of SprintPCS facilities in the district, with one antenna installation just 0.2 miles away from the proposed site. Taken together, the record satisfied the substantial evidence provision of the Telecommunications Act. see aiso: New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F. 3d 390 (2002). see also: S.W. Bell Mobile Systems Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51 (2001). Signs -- Ordinance makes distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech City amends ordinance while lawsuit makes its way through the courts Citation: NationalAdvertising Co. v. City of Miami, IJth U.& Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-15593 (2005) The llth U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. FLORIDA (03/21/05) ~ In 1990, Miami adopted a zoning ordinance dealing with billboards. Importantly, the ordinance had different rules for commercial and noncommercial signs. National Advertising Company leased billboards, and had been operating in Miami for 40 years. Most of National's billboards displayed commercial mes- sages. However, a few of them displayed noncommercial, public interest messages. After nearly a decade of no enforcement, the city started issuing notices to owners of nonconforming billboards. National sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. However, after Na- tional filed its suit, the city amended its zoning code. Specifically, the amend- ments stated noncommercial speech, could be placed on any sign where com- mercial speech was permitted. .,., 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is proi~ibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 123