Opinion ID: 204051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternative Solutions

Text: Once a court has found a coverage gap exists, it must determine whether local authorities have prevented a carrier from closing that gap so as to amount to an effective prohibition. See Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 635 (noting even if a gap is found to exist carriers must still show that there are no alternative sites which would solve the problem). Two articulations have emerged in the circuits for the second prong of effective-prohibition claims. This court and the Seventh Circuit have used the language of the only feasible plan. St. Croix, 342 F.3d at 835; Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 630; Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14. The Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have articulated the question as whether the proposed solution is the least-intrusive means. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 995; Nextel W. Corp., 282 F.3d at 266; Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643. The Fourth Circuit has held courts should simply apply the language of § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to the facts of a case. 360 Degrees Commc'ns, 211 F.3d at 87. Nevertheless, in 360 Degrees Communications, the court quoted our standard from Town of Amherst to reject one carrier's claim. Id. at 88. It is unclear how much these different articulations of the tests truly differ. This court's opinion in Town of Amherst first used the language of only feasible plan. In that case we held that a carrier could claim a single zoning decision effectively prohibited it from providing wireless service. Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14. But the carrier had the heavy burden to show from the language and circumstances not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts [to find another solution] are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try. Id. To prevail, the carrier could not insist on one, ideal way to provide service; the TCA required it to consider alternatives more palatable to local zoning authorities. Id. at 14-15. Were [its] existing proposal the only feasible plan, we noted, then prohibiting its plan might amount to prohibiting personal wireless service. [8] Id. The underlying question is whether, under the facts of a case, a zoning decision effectively prohibited providing wireless service. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II); Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 630 ([T]here can be no general rule classifying whether there is an effective prohibition. It is a case-by-case determination.); see also 360 Degrees Commc'ns, 211 F.3d at 87 (refusing to adopt one analytic approach for such claims because doing so would unduly limit[] what is essentially a fact-bound inquiry). When evaluating such claims we are in the realm of trade-offs between the carrier's desire to efficiently provide quality service to customers and local governments' primary authority to regulate land use. Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 15. A carrier may think ... its solution is best, but, subject to an outer limit, such choices are just what Congress reserved to the town in § 332(c)(7). Id. The effective prohibition clause does not stand alone; it is also part of the TCA's larger goal of encouraging competition to provide consumers with cheaper, higher-quality wireless technology. See id. at 13. As cell phone use increases, carriers need to build more facilities, especially in populated areas, to continue providing reliable coverage, and local regulations can present serious obstacles. [9] See Sw. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 57 (1st Cir.2001) ([A]s Congress found, `siting and zoning decisions by non-federal units of government [] have created an inconsistent and, at times, conflicting patchwork of requirements which will inhibit the deployment of [wireless technology]....' ( quoting Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Pine Grove Twp., 181 F.3d 403, 407 (3d Cir.1999) (second alteration in original))); J. Berger, Efficient Wireless Tower Siting: An Alternative to Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 23 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 83, 88 (2004). The themes in the TCA of promoting competition in the wireless communications market and of relatively speedily effectuating the purpose of the Act, including the elimination of significant gaps, underlie the determination of feasibility and impose their own constraints. Just as carriers must present evidence of their efforts to locate alternative sites, once they have done so there are limits on town zoning boards' ability to insist that carriers keep searching regardless of prior efforts to find locations or costs and resources spent. Any feasibility analysis balances these competing interests. Nat'l Tower, 297 F.3d at 20. A carrier cannot win an effective-prohibition claim merely because local authorities have rejected the carrier's preferred solution. Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 635; Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14-15; accord St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35. On the other hand, if local authorities reject a proposal that is the only feasible plan, that denial could amount to prohibiting personal wireless service. Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14. The burden is on the carrier to prove it investigated thoroughly the possibility of other viable alternatives before concluding no other feasible plan was available. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35. When we have held the carrier has not met its burden, the evidence has been essentially undisputed that the carrier had other alternatives. In Town of Amherst, the carrier did not present serious alternatives to the town other than the most efficient solution, a network of four 190-foot towers, one located in a historic district. 173 F.3d at 11, 15. The town, although willing to allow wireless facilities, opposed the towers' height and some locations. Id. at 14. We held the carrier did not show it was entitled to summary judgment because it practically admitted that somewhat lower towers were technically feasible and it was unclear that locating a tower within the historic district was technically essential. Id. at 15. Similarly, in Second Generation Properties, the carrier presented no explanation why its proposal was the only feasible site. 313 F.3d at 635. Indeed, the carrier's own experts acknowledged that its land was not the only location where a tower could provide coverage in the alleged gap. Id. We noted the TCA gives local authorities an opportunity to consider any feasible alternatives before courts launch the heavy artillery of federal preemption. Id. The Seventh Circuit, in St. Croix, also found a carrier had not met its burden because it presented no evidence it investigated alternative solutions other than conclusory statements. 342 F.3d at 835-36. Whether the carrier proves an effective prohibition has occurred is a factual question for the trial court to resolve. See Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 631 (explaining effective-prohibition claims are largely fact-driven). As with most such questions, the district court may consider a number of facts relevant to the conclusion it must reach. What facts are relevant may vary with the case. It is clear that the technical feasibility of the proposed solution or alternative solutions is important. See Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 15. Town of Amherst does not say that technical feasibility is the only criterion, nor would we adopt such a rule. The fact that a carrier's proposed solution to the gap is technologically optimal does not, under Town of Amherst, end the inquiry. Nor does the inquiry end with the solution preferred by town officials other than the zoning board. Town of Amherst discussed, inter alia, the overall cost to the carrier, whether the solution was technically efficient, whether other technically adequate solutions were in evidence, whether the town could prefer other solutions on aesthetic grounds, and whether local authorities were willing to cooperate with carriers. See id. at 14-17; see also Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 635 (Nothing in the Town's actions thus far shows an unwillingness to acknowledge a problem or permit the crafting of a solution.). Ultimately the question is a practical inquiry into feasible, available alternatives. See, e.g., City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 997-98 (considering the availability of proposed alternatives). In Town of Amherst the carrier's rigid insistence on its optimal plan proved fatal. By contrast, in this case, Omnipoint presented evidence its final plan, which was plainly not its optimal plan, was the only feasible one. In light of evidence of Omnipoint's efforts to investigate[] thoroughly the possibility of other viable alternatives, St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35, the district court did not clearly err in finding that constructing a new tower at the Solid Rock Church site was the only feasible way to close the Phenix Avenue coverage gap. The evidence described earlier showed that Omnipoint had in fact systematically searched for solutions to the gap problem using technologically reliable criteria and methodologies. Omnipoint considered different types of solutions: adding to existing wireless towers; adding to existing structures of the needed height, including utility poles; and new construction of facilities on unoccupied land. Further, Omnipoint showed it had made financial offers according to its usual rates, increased its rates, and then offered an extraordinary bonus in an effort to reach a contract with the country club but was unsuccessful. After Luutu designed the search ring, it took Omnipoint two years to work through the various options, reach an agreement with the church, and apply for a variance. There was no meaningful contrary evidence. The trial court could permissibly conclude that Cranston's proposed alternatives rebutting this evidence were not feasible. Cranston suggests that Omnipoint was required to go back to the country club a fourth time to try to make a deal by, presumably, sweetening the pot further than it had before when it increased its usual rate and added a bonus payment. That is pure speculation. Cranston offered no evidence that the divided owners of the country club would have agreed, particularly as they had previously rejected any digging up of the fairway, which most of the proposals entailed. Nor did Cranston offer any evidence that Omnipoint had been commercially unreasonable. Omnipoint does not argue, and this case does not turn on, a claim by a carrier that economic infeasibility alone makes an alternative site unavailable. The court, having found Maxson's testimony neither supported by fact nor by experience, was warranted in rejecting his view that Omnipoint should have adopted an alternative technology that the company did not use or, in the case of the fire department museum, that provided largely repetitive coverage with another tower to solve the gap. On this evidence, the district court did not err by finding the Solid Rock Church site was Omnipoint's only feasible option. Affirmed.