bit of non-boilerplateor non-cookie-cutterengineering. <br />For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the propagation map provided and <br />2 <br />labeled as Exhibit D.2 is accurate;and that it reflects a design maximizing the <br />capabilityof a facility on the light pole listed as Alternate Site #1 (e.g. using Hi-Gain <br />antennas and the maximum allowed Effective Radiated Power), it is virtually <br />impossible for a 52’ foot height not to enable the entire intended area to be served <br />if it were donein combination with another new facility, such as a substantially <br />shorter monopole and/or attaching to another utility pole. <br />3)Kincaid City Park: One of the reasons put forth by the applicant for not locating a <br />facility at Kincaid Park is the lack of a process of the City for leasing space to <br />wireless carriers. That issue could easily be resolved and result in an efficient and <br />profitable use of City-owned property. <br />The other reason listed for not locating a facility at Kincaid Park is that “staff atthe <br />pre-application meeting indicated that this location would not be ideal, as it would <br />be more visually impactful than the site proposed”. There are several concernswith <br />this response, including but not necessarily limited the following. <br />“Ideal” is a virtually impossible standard to meet, as almost nothing related <br />to planning and land use is “ideal”. <br />Mitigating or minimizing the visual impact could be dealt with in several <br />ways. These include, but are notlimited to, using a shortercamouflaged <br />support structure, if a new support structure can be proven to truly be the <br />only viable option, in combination with a pole-mounted facility elsewhere in <br />the service area, if needed. It is likely that such a support structure, if <br />camouflaged properly such as a 40’ –50’ tall well-donemonopine (or other <br />species of tree), would have virtually no visual impact and be virtually <br />indistinguishable from other existing trees. <br />4)Parker Elementary School: The reason stated by the applicant for not using this <br />location is that “. . . the 4J School District is not interested in leasing space for <br />wireless facilities on any of their properties.”. <br />It is recommended that the City verify this policy decision by having the applicant <br />obtain a letter signed by the Superintendent or the President of the School Board <br />formally stating this policyand the reason for it. <br />5)Emerald Valley Assisted Living Residence: The response by the applicant as <br />regards whytheEmerald Valley Assisted Living option was rejected was the <br />“Property owners did not return our multiple calls regarding leases.”. <br />2 <br />This is something that cannot be determined, i.e. verified, based on the information provided. See previous <br />discussion related to Propagation Maps. <br />6 <br />