Opinion ID: 1115434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Time Period for Issuance

Text: [11, 12] Finally, WWV challenges the trial court's determination that the 30-day maximum approval period in TMC 5.52.080(a) is constitutional. Contrary to WWV's argument, 30 days is not necessarily too long a period, given the various inspections and investigations which must take place before licensing. In FW/PBS, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Dallas ordinance relating to regulation of sexually oriented businesses (including panoram-type businesses) because it [did] not provide for an effective limitation on the time within which the licensor's decision must be made. FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 606. The Court stated the following requirements: [1 T]he licensor must make the decision whether to issue the license within a specified and reasonable time period during which the status quo is maintained and [2] there must be the possibility of prompt judicial review in the event that the license is erroneously denied. FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 606. The Dallas ordinance, like the Tukwila ordinance, called for approval of license applications within 30 days after receipt of an application, FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 605; see TMC 5.52.080. In Dallas, as in Tukwila, certain health and safety inspections were required before a license might be approved. FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 605; see TMC 5.52.060(a), .080(b)(1). The Court found the Dallas ordinance unacceptable, not because of the 30-day time period, but rather because it provide[d] no means by which an applicant [might] ensure that the business [be] inspected within the 30-day time period within which the license [was] purportedly to be issued if approved. FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 605. The Supreme Court did not find the 30-day period inherently problematic. Its disapproval of the Dallas ordinance was instead based on the absence of any remedy if the City failed to issue a license within those 30 days. There is thus one crucial difference between the Dallas and Tukwila ordinances: The Tukwila ordinance contains provisions for appeal if a license is denied. The Supreme Court noted that the procedures described in the Dallas ordinance [do] not place any limits on the time within which the city will inspect the business and thereby make the business eligible for the sexually oriented business license. Thus, the city's regulatory scheme allows indefinite postponement of the issuance of a license. FW/PBS, 110 S.Ct. at 606. In contrast, TMC 5.52.100(a) provides for review by the city board of adjustment, or ... such other hearing body as may hereafter be established by the city council for the hearing of such appeals. The hearing must take place within 20 days after notice of appeal is timely filed, and [t]he filing of such appeal shall stay the action of the clerk, pending the decision of the hearing body. TMC 5.52.100(b). The Tukwila ordinance further provides that the decision of the hearing body may be appealed to the superior court. TMC 5.52.100(e). As long as these procedures for appeal are not used as a means of unreasonably delaying issuance of licenses, they are sufficient to satisfy the FW/PBS test.