5th Circuit Upholds "Shot Clock" Ruling: FCC's Time Limits for Processing Wireless Facility Siting Applications Remain in Force

Authored by:  Charles Maduell

In the first major challenge to the FCC’s November 18, 2009 Declaratory Ruling establishing timelines for state and local government to act on wireless facility siting applications, commonly known as the “Shot Clock” ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied and dismissed petitions for review brought by two Texas cities, Arlington and San Antonio, seeking review of the Declaratory Ruling on jurisdictional and other grounds. In its January 23, 2012 opinion in City of Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission(Case No. 10-60039), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Declaratory Ruling, holding that the FCC had statutory authority to establish time frames for state and local governments to take action on wireless facility siting applications, and that the time frames established in the Ruling constitute reasonable and lawful interpretations of its statutory authority. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that state and local governments act on an application to site a wireless communication facility “within a reasonable period of time,” and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) creates a cause of action for an applicant to challenge any such failure to act. In its 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the FCC established time frames within which state and local governments must act on applications to site personal wireless service facilities, declaring that a “reasonable period of time” for purposes of the Act is presumptively 90 days for collocations and 150 days for all other applications. The FCC further determined that a lack of decision within these time frames would constitute a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).

Washington Supreme Court: Statute Limiting Developer Charges Does Not Apply to Local Shoreline Master Programs

Authored by:  Clayton Graham

The Washington Supreme Court recently removed one vehicle for developers to challenge requirements imposed under local governments’ shoreline regulations. In Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning (CRSP) v. Whatcom County, the Court considered whether regulations in the County’s Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) could be challenged under a provision of RCW 82.02.020 which generally prohibits any local government from “impos[ing] any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on . . . the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land,” subject to certain exceptions. Since its enactment, the meaning of this provision has been litigated many times and has been found to limit local governments’ land use regulations. For example, the Division I Court of Appeals relied on this statute in striking down portions of a King County ordinance that limited the amount of clearing an owner could do on a rural lot, finding that these restrictions were “an in kind indirect ‘tax, fee, or charge’ on development.” See Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) v. King County.

Continue Reading...

Washington Supreme Court Holds that State Statutes of Limitations Do Not Apply in Arbitration

Authored by:  Jonathan Lloyd, Stephen M. Rummage, Daniel M. Waggoner, and Maya Yamazaki

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Washington state statutes of limitations do not apply to claims brought in arbitration, absent specific contractual language to the contrary. In particular, the Court found those statutes, which specifically require that "actions" be commenced or parties "sue" within a certain time, do not apply in the context of arbitration proceedings, which are not "actions" or "suits," unless the parties expressly provide for such applicability in their arbitration agreement. Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., No. 82311-1 (7/22/10).  Click here to read the full article.