Laserfiche WebLink
13 <br /> <br /> <br />Given the misleading focus on LTE 700 in-building coverage, there is no factual basis for the <br />finding in the Planning Commission resolution that DA-2 residents “would benefit from the <br />improved wireless telecommunications service that the project would provide.” <br />In 2023, in New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of W. Covina,21 a federal judge granted <br />summary judgment West Covina and against AT&T because there, AT&T “declined to supply <br />information regarding the number of residents who might benefit from the Proposed Facility.” <br />Here too we do not know anything about the number or needs of any FirstNet subscribers in the <br />area. The Ninth Circuit has required applicants to assess the quality of service “relative to the <br />coverage available from existing WCFs”22 and demonstrate factually that the existing equipment <br />actually is unable to provide the services that were needed.23 <br /> The Applicant concedes that there is an AT&T macro towers within close proximity to the <br />site.24 The Applicant has not explained whether customers can receive LTE service from one of <br /> <br />21 No. 2:22-cv-01642-MEMF-JCx, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118114, at *29-30 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2023). <br />22 Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 727 (9th Cir. 2009) <br />(questioning whether the Telecommunications Act’s “anti-prohibition language even covers situations, <br />like that presented here, in which a telecommunications service provider seeks to replace existing WCFs, <br />as contrasted with the more typical situation in which the provider seeks to construct new WCFs.”). <br />23 Id. at 728. <br />24 Application, Attachment C, p.4. <br />Att B - Page 33 of 46