3. Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, <br />light or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing <br />tower facility sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available <br />19 <br />space, or failing to meet service coverage needs. <br /> The applicant has not shown that collocation is impractical on existing facilities for the <br />reasons provided. Specifically, the applicant relies on the last rationale (i.e., failing to meet <br />service coverage needs) to excuse the collocation requirement, but, as has been stated already, <br />standard. <br />As pointed out by CMS, buildings <br />of sufficient height <br />for the proposed facility. Indeed, despite arguing that the proposal is intended to fill a coverage <br />gap in LTE technology (700 MHz) and improve the applicaervice in the area, the applicant <br />has not shown that there is a significant gap coverage that would require a 75-ft tower. See <br />exhibit W (comment evidence that there is no significant gap). To demonstrate a significant <br />that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on <br />the values that the denial sought to serve. MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 <br />F.3d 715, 730 (9th Cir. 2005). A significant gap does not exist simply because an area with <br />is <br />lower than the minimum level for reliable service). Voicestream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro, <br />wireless telecommunications antenna does not prohibit the provision of personal wireless <br />services, even if the site in question provides the best coverage for the least expense, where other <br />less ideal sites are available. Airtouch Cellular v. City of El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.2d 1158 (SD Cal <br />2000). Therefore, under federal law, there is no requirement that the gap be filled. <br />The applicant has narrowly focused its attention on the subject property for a 75-ft tower, <br />20 <br />and, according to CMS, <br />single- More specifically, the applicant has <br />not demonstrated that (1) for technical reasons, the asserted gap must be filled from a single <br />facility, to the exclusion of all reasonable alternatives; (2) the selected location is the only <br /> <br />19 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary <br />to determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />20 <br /> ncing <br />telecommunications facilities and not in legal standards. <br />11 <br /> <br />