Opinion ID: 3030701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Environmental Concerns

Text: [22] The last claim in this case is easily resolved. The TCA provides that localities may not base zoning decisions on concerns over radio frequency emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with FCC emissions requirements: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, METROPCS, INC. v. SAN FRANCISCO 2745 and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC]’s regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). There is no dispute that MetroPCS’s proposed facility for the Geary site complies with the relevant FCC regulations. The only issue is whether the City’s decision was impermissibly based on concerns over RF emissions. MetroPCS argues that the Board did base its decision on environmental considerations. In support of this claim it notes that “opponents of MetroPCS’s application made boisterous presentations before the Board regarding RF emissions, accompanied by argument, badges and t-shirts complaining about RF emissions.” MetroPCS also claims that “the Board’s denial motion expressly states that it was based on ‘all of the public comments made in support of and opposed to the appeal.’ ” Finally, MetroPCS notes that the Board’s decision stated the proposed facility would “not promote the health, safety and welfare of the city.” These observations are of little relevance to the issue here. As the district court correctly points out, the party actually challenging the MetroPCS CUP application before the Board (Mr. Blum) took pains to clarify that his appeal was not based on environmental concerns. Additionally, the Board’s formal decision against MetroPCS did not state that it was “based on” all public comments made in support of and opposed to the appeal. MetroPCS’s quotation on this point is misleading. The Board merely stated that it “reviewed and considered” all such comments, which is exactly what a local zoning board is supposed to do at a public hearing. (Emphasis added.) [23] Most crucially, the Board’s written decision does not once mention RF emissions as a motivation for denying 2746 METROPCS, INC. v. SAN FRANCISCO MetroPCS’s CUP application. Broadly stating (presumably as a recitation of the City’s Policy Principles) that the proposed facility “will not promote” public health, safety and welfare is not remotely equivalent to basing a zoning decision on a fear of RF emissions. Given the foregoing, the one case cited by MetroPCS on this issue (Telespectrum, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000)), which involved a straightforward application of the TCA’s RF provision, is inapposite. The district court was correct in granting the City summary judgment as to this claim, and we affirm that ruling.