HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1183

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As Reported by House Committee On:

Technology & Economic Development

Title: An act relating to wireless communications structures.

Brief Description: Regarding wireless communications structures.

Sponsors: Representatives Morris, Smith, Habib, Crouse, Morrell, Magendanz, Freeman, Kochmar, Walsh, Tarleton, Dahlquist, Vick, Zeiger, Maxwell, Hudgins, Upthegrove, Ryu and Bergquist.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:

Technology & Economic Development: 1/22/13, 1/31/13 [DPS].

Brief Summary of Substitute Bill

  • Modifies the requirements under which a State Environmental Policy Act categorical exemption applies to siting wireless service facilities.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 14 members: Representatives Morris, Chair; Habib, Vice Chair; Smith, Ranking Minority Member; Dahlquist, Hudgins, Kochmar, Maxwell, Morrell, Stonier, Tarleton, Vick, Walsh, Wylie and Zeiger.

Staff: Jennifer Thornton (786-7147).

Background:

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) establishes a review process for state agencies and local governments to identify possible environmental impacts that may result from governmental decisions, including the issuance of permits or the adoption of or amendment to land use plans and regulations. The information collected through the SEPA review process may be used to change a proposal to mitigate likely impacts, or to condition or deny a proposal when adverse environmental impacts are identified.

Provisions in the SEPA generally require a project applicant to complete an environmental checklist that includes questions about the potential environmental impacts of the proposal. This checklist is then reviewed by a designated lead agency to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. If the lead agency determines that a proposed project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment, it must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

For some projects, including the types of projects that have been "categorically exempt" from the SEPA review process, no environmental review under the SEPA is required. Categorical exemptions to the SEPA review are identified in both state statute and rule. The siting of wireless service facilities that meet specific conditions is categorically exempt in statute from the SEPA review process. The Department of Ecology (DOE) is also required to adopt rules for this categorical exemption.

Among other provisions, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6406 from 2012, required the DOE to update the rule-based categorical exemptions to the SEPA, as well as update the environmental checklist.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Summary of Substitute Bill:

The conditions under which siting wireless service facilities are exempt from the SEPA review process are changed. The requirement for the facility to meet one of the following two exemption requirements is removed: (1) a microcell attached to an existing structure that does not contain a residence or school; or (2) wireless service antennas attached to an existing structure that does not contain a residence or a school, and is located in a commercial, industrial, manufacturing, forest, or agricultural zone. The exemption requirement that the project does not consist of a series of actions, some of which are not categorically exempt, or that together may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, is also removed.

The exemption instead applies to mounting, installing, removing, or replacing transmission equipment that does not:

Additionally, no more than two categorical exemptions related to structure height, width, or boundaries for a specific wireless facility may be granted within a six-year time period.

Wireless service providers granted a SEPA exemption must to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020, on the number of permits issued, the number of SEPA exemptions granted, and the total dollar investment in wireless service facilities.

Definitions are added and clarified.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:

The exemption requirement barring a project from consisting of a series of actions, some of which are not categorically exempt, or that together may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact is removed. A new requirement that no more than two categorical exemptions related to structure height, width, or boundaries for a specific wireless facility may be granted within a six-year time period is added.

Two additional exemption conditions for mounting, installing, removing, or replacing equipment are added, which prohibit:

Wireless service providers granted an exemption must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020.

The term "personal wireless service facilities" is changed to "wireless service facilities" throughout the bill.

"Existing structure" is defined as any existing tower, pole, building or other structure capable of supporting wireless service facilities.

The definition of "wireless services" is clarified to mean wireless data and telecommunication services.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Available.

Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) Washington hasn't done a lot of work in telecommunications in a decade. It is time to take a look at what needs to be updated, to make sure the infrastructure is in place in order to have the amount of wireless service needed. This bill resulted from legislation last year asking the DOE to update the SEPA guidelines. Local governments and the DOE asked for help from telecommunications companies to clean this statute up. This is also an economic development issue, as it is important to get that investment here.

(Opposed) None.

Persons Testifying: Representative Morris, prime sponsor; Steve Gano, AT&T; and Ken Lyons, AT&T and Busch Law Firm.

Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: None.