Attachment B <br />no marking or lighting are necessary for aviation safety. <br />(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to <br />the application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, <br />applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall <br />include the following information: <br />1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation <br />showing the appearance of the proposed-tower, antennas, and <br />ancillary facilities from at least 5 points within a 3 mile radius. <br />Such points shall be chosen by the provider with review and <br />approval by the planning director to ensure that various <br />potential views are represented. <br />The initial visual study provided is insufficient. The photo simulations provided cast serious <br />doubt about compatibility with the surroundings. The quality is poor, looking more artificial and <br />even "cartoonish" than an actual, accurate representation. The number of photos and locations <br />is also deficient. The applicant needs to provide more extensive analysis of the visual impact <br />from nearby homes and other potential viewpoints in the area. In addition to photo simulations <br />of the tree design, that applicant should also consider including scenarios for an alternate <br />stealth design such as a monopole with enclosed antennas. Elevations should also be verified <br />with balloon testing as well, to provide a more credible photo simulation and analysis. <br />2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least <br />2000 feet have been considered and have been determined to <br />be technologically unfeasible or unavailable. For site reviews, <br />alternative sites zoned C-4,1-1,1-2, and 1-3 must be considered. <br />For conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, <br />C-4,1-1,1-2,1-3 and S-WS must be considered. <br />Does the table provided on pages 10 and 11 of the applicant's statement include all sites zoned <br />PL, C-2, or C-2 within 2,000 feet? <br />3. Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall <br />buildings, light or utility poles, water towers, existing <br />transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons <br />of structural support capabilities, safety, available space, or <br />failing to meet service coverage area needs. <br />The reference to utility pole height "guidelines" is not an absolute barrier. This should be <br />investigated further. <br />4. A current overall system plan for the city, showing facilities <br />presently constructed or approved and future expansion plans. <br />Provided <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 5 of 10 <br />