Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

Page 4 - Special Issue ZB. f. ~:- . inevitably reject the application again. The only difference would be that the city would reject the application in a fonnal written decision, with some sort of written record. Congress intended the Telecommunications Act to aV0id multiple rounds of litigation. Any other decision would further prolong the process, and do nothing to protect Wireless' rights. . see also: Nextel Partners Inc. v. Kingston Township, 286 F.3d 687 (2002). see also: Preferred Sites LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210 (2002). Permit denied for 'unnecessary' antenna Company argues denial violates Telecommunications Act Citation: MetroPCS Inc. v. The City and County of San Francisco, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 03-16759 & 03-16760 The 9th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. CALIFORNIA _ MetroPCS Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to install a new telecommunications antenna facility within the Richmond District of the city of San Francisco. . Local residents opposed the proposed facility. More than 80 local property owners, 60 percent of the surrounding area, and hundreds of other city resi- \",' dents signed a petition to stop the construction. The residents asserted the antenna was not necessary, would create visual blight, and would produce harmful emissions. Ultimately, the board of supervisors denied the permit, finding the pro- posed antenna was unnecessary. MetroPCS sued, and the court ruled in. favor of the board. MetroPCS appealed, arguing the board's denial was not supported by the substantial evidence necessary under the TelecomInumcations Act. DECISION: Affinned. 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 pre- cisely because it had to compete with other providers who had coverage in the area. MetroPCS's statements were supported by testimony and numerous peti- @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For,more information please call (617) 542-0048. 50