Analyses of Alternate Site Locations <br />•AT&T Engineers evaluated 3 <br />other candidates to see if the <br />towers would work <br />•Alternate#1 is an existing 30-ft <br />light standard near the proposed <br />site with an 18-ft permitted <br />extension. Coverage is shown <br />in Exhibits D[1,2]. Antenna <br />Alternate Site# 2 <br />height is below the surrounding <br />tree height which significantly <br />Proposed <br />impacts the coverage of this <br />Candidate <br />site. It is ineffective as shown. <br />•Alternate#2 is an existing 45-ft <br />light standard near the proposed <br />Alternate Site# 1 <br />site with an 18-ft permitted <br />extension. Coverage is shown <br />in Exhibits E[1,2]. Antenna <br />height is below the surrounding <br />tree height which significantly <br />impacts coverage of this site. It <br />is ineffective as shown. <br />•Alternate#3 is an existing 30-ft <br />light standard near an assisted <br />living center with an 18-ft <br />permitted extension. Coverage <br />is shown in Exhibits F[1,2]. <br />Alternate Site# 3 <br />Site location is too far south <br />which significantly impacts the <br />coverage of this site. It is <br />. <br />ineffective as shown <br />In addition to the radio frequency analysis of these sites, <br />AT&T considered factors like zoning, space for ground <br />equipment, and lease availability in determining the location <br />AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only) <br />of the proposed site. <br />Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement <br />