Laserfiche WebLink
15 <br /> <br />protected by the [Telecommunications] Act.”28 Consequently, the applicant has not carried its <br />burden of proving that the denial of the application would result in a violation of federal law. <br />B. The Applicant has an alternative site from which it could provide the same coverage. <br />Even if LTE 700 is a form of “personal wireless services”, which is it is not, federal laws <br />only allows overriding local zoning when there is an “effective prohibition” of personal wireless <br />services.29 Determining whether the City’s standards would impose an effective prohibition <br />“’involves a two-pronged analysis requiring (1) the showing of a 'significant gap' in service <br />coverage’” and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations.”30 The <br />feasibility prong is evaluated under a “least intrusive means” test, which “requires that the provider <br />show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in services is the least intrusive <br />on the values that the denial sought to serve.”31 The Ninth Circuit has explained that federal law <br />“does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small ‘dead spots.'”32 Without <br />defining the “nature and character of that area or the number of potential users in that area who <br />may be affected by the alleged lack of service[,]” AT&T provides no context or point of departure <br />for a meaningful discussion of alternatives.33 For instance, could the need be met with multiple <br />small cells? Why did AT&T constrain its search to the six sites listed in its Alternative Analysis? <br />Moreover, because the Applicant failed to even consider the site next door, where Mr. Russo is <br /> <br />28 Extenet Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Flower Hill, 617 F. Supp. 3d 125, 131 (E.D. N.Y. 2022) (holding no right of <br />Verizon to provide 4G LTE service given customers had sufficient signal strength to make voice calls). <br />29 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B). <br />30 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 731 (9th Cir. 2005). <br />31 T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). <br />32 MetroPCS, Inc, 400 F.3d at 733. <br />33 Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 727 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting <br />Powertel/Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Clarkston, No. 1:05-CV-3068, 2007 WL 2258720, at *6 (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, <br />2007). <br />Att B - Page 35 of 46