Opinion ID: 1450050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The City failed to rebut T-Mobile's showing of a lack of available and feasible alternative sites.

Text: In determining whether T-Mobile met its burden of demonstrating that the Church site was the least intrusive means, we examine the City's stated ground for concluding otherwise. The City's findings and conclusions stated: At least four alternative single sites are potentially acceptable to provide coverage as required by T-Mobile, and at least two two-site alternatives would work from an RF coverage perspective. These alternative sites are either on commercially or industrially zoned property, or would provide a site for proposed wireless communications facility that is not in such close proximity to residences. T-Mobile also offers an in-home service technology that provides another alternative for in-structure cellular telephone service. If T-Mobile constructed a wireless communications facility at one or more of the alternate single sites or two-site alternatives, a significant gap in T-Mobile's service coverage would no longer exist, even though that coverage would not be identical to that provided by a tower at the 2201 H Avenue site. Initially, we agree with the district court that T-Mobile's in-home service technology (HotSpot@Home) is not relevant to a determination of the least intrusive means. This service is not a global system for mobile communications (GSM), must be separately purchased by individual customers, requires a broadband Internet connection, and only works within the homes of subscribing customers. Accordingly, the availability of HotSpot@Home has no effect on the significant gap in T-Mobile's cell phone coverage of Anacortes, which it offers in competition with other cell phone service providers. We next consider the adequacy and technological feasibility of the six alternatives advanced by the City. The City's consultant noted four single antenna alternatives: (1) Anacortes Middle School, (2) Anacortes Police Headquarters, (3) Washington National Guard Building, and (4) Island View Elementary School. However, the consultant noted that these alternatives are all lower in ground elevation, would require at least the same antenna height and would have somewhat lower signal levels in the resident areas that are at the northern and western portions of T-Mobile's coverage area of interest. The consultant also found two two-site combinations that could work from an RF coverage perspective ... a combination of the city water tank at the end of 29th St ... with either the Whitney Elementary School (12th St & M Ave) or the Guemes Island communications tower. He noted that use of the Guemes Island communications tower would have the advantage of improving T-Mobile's coverage along Oakes Avenue and the San Juan Islands ferry docking. However, he also commented that a two-site solution may not be feasible because it would require two sites be constructed instead of one, which would raise both the impact of the WCF's on the community as well as the construction and operational costs that T-Mobile would have to bear. [11] The consultant concluded that T-Mobile has chosen the best possible location ... to improve the radio coverage of their PCS GSM network and that few, if any, viable alternative locations exist for T-Mobile in vicinity of their proposed location. T-Mobile did not rest on the consultant's equivocal report, but presented the City with evidence showing that most, if not all, of the possible alternative sites were not available. T-Mobile told the Planning Commission that the Police Chief had said that an antenna adjacent to the police headquarters would never be approved due to the proximity to the hospital across the street and the flight patterns of emergency helicopters, and because a tall antenna would meet with great resistence due to the views from the west looking east and the lack of trees in the area to screen a taller pole. T-Mobile also asserts that because the National Guard site is next to the police station, these concerns preclude the placement of an antenna there. Moreover, it is questionable whether any public school site was available. T-Mobile's first choice for the location of a WCF was Anacortes High School. It entered into negotiations with the school district, but the school district declined its proposal. The City argues, however, that during the application process, the school district indicated that it would consider allowing T-Mobile's facility at the high school, and that T-Mobile improperly declined to pursue this option asserting that it came too late in the process. T-Mobile responds that because the school district had multiple grounds for declining its initial offer, further negotiations with the school district were not likely to be fruitful. Finally, T-Mobile asserts that the two-site combinations are not feasible because there is no evidence on the record indicating that T-Mobile would have access to or be approved to use the `Guemes Island' site. It further asserts that Guemes Island is within the jurisdiction of Skagit County, and the City has no jurisdiction to determine whether a facility there would be permitted. The issue then is whether the City's claim that school sites and Guemes Island are available is sufficient to allow it to decline T-Mobile's proposal. We approach this issue by applying the standard set forth in Sprint II. We must determine whether T-Mobile has shown an effective prohibition on the provision of telecommunications services, or only that the denial of its application could potentially prohibit the provision of telecommunications services. Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 579. Furthermore, the determination should be made in a manner that allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application is needlessly repeated, and gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications. MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 735. As we have previously indicated, the provider has the burden of showing that the denial of its proposal will effectively prohibit the provision of services. Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 579. A provider makes a prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed WCF is the least intrusive means of filing a significant gap. A locality is not compelled to accept the provider's representations. However, when a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives. The provider should then have an opportunity to dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality. Here, the City has failed to show that there are any available alternatives. The possibility of locating a WCF at the high school or any other public school in Anacortes is too speculative to be considered a viable alternative. In declining to entertain T-Mobile's proposal to locate the WCF at the high school, the school district cited three reasons: upsetting our neighbors, allowing T-Mobile total 24/7 access to our high school site, [and] committing the property to this particular `long term' project. It is by no means clear that an increase in compensation by T-Mobile would overcome any of these concerns. In light of the opposition to the Church site, and T-Mobile's experience in other localities, [12] no school site appeared to be sufficiently available to support the denial of T-Mobile's Church site application in favor of forcing T-Mobile to pursue a new application with the school district in order to close the significant gap in its coverage. The alternative of the combination of the city water tank and the Guemes Island communication tower presents a closer question. The City offered to allow T-Mobile access to the water tank free of charge, and T-Mobile did not really deny that it could use the Guemes Island communications tower. [13] Accordingly, unlike the other alternatives, this combination may have been viable. However, in light of the environmental impact and additional costs identified by the City's own consultant as being inherent in the two-site combination, as well as the City's failure to present any evidence concerning the availability of the Guemes Island communications tower, we do not think that the possible viability of this combination defeats T-Mobile's showing that the Church site is the least intrusive means of closing its significant gap. [14] We conclude that T-Mobile made a prima facie showing that placing its WCF on the Church site was the least intrusive means of closing its significant gap in service coverage and that the City's denial of the application without showing the existence of some potentially available and technically feasible alternative constituted an effective prohibition of service, which the district court properly enjoined. Because we conclude that the City failed to show that there were any available alternative sites, we need not determine whether the proposed alternative sites would have provided sufficient coverage to close the gap in T-Mobile's coverage. We would address this issue in the same manner as we addressed the availability of alternative sites. The provider's application would have to show how the proposed site would close the gap, supported by data showing the coverage afforded by other sites. The locality could then investigate and determine whether the provider's representations were sound and persuasive. The provider would then have an opportunity to reply to the locality's challenges. Indeed, this is how T-Mobile and the City proceeded in this case. T-Mobile supported its application with considerable data showing the coverage of the Church site and the other alternatives. The City responded by questioning some of T-Mobile's data and arguing that T-Mobile's propagation maps did not delineate the coverages offered by the alternatives when combined with T-Mobile's existing WCFs. The resolution of this disagreement over the adequacy of the propagation maps and the potential coverage of alternative sites is not necessary because we have determined that the City failed to show that any alternative sites were available. In sum, applying our statement in Sprint II that a plaintiff must establish an effective prohibition on the provision of telecommunications services, 543 F.3d at 579, we conclude that T-Mobile's application made a prima facie showing of effective prohibition, and that the City in denying the application failed to show that there were any potentially available and feasible alternatives to the Church site. Accordingly, the City's denial of T-Mobile's application violates 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).