As a former industry executive, the author finds it difficult to understand why there <br />was no in-person follow-up to the phone calls and why that response from the <br />person charged with making contact was considered acceptable. If the applicant <br />were truly serious about exploring and using this option, it surely would have done <br />so and explained the benefits to the property owner(s) so they could at least have <br />made informed decisions. The question also arises as to the number of attempts <br />that were made to reach each property owner by phone, as the number of attempts <br />is not stated.This raises the question of the reasonableness of the amount of effort <br />that was put into exploring this option. Was due diligence truly done? Because of <br />this, the response raises the bottom-line question as to just how seriously and <br />genuinely this option was pursued. <br />Conclusionre Compliance withSubsection 6(b)(2) <br />: For any one or all of the reasons <br />set forth above, it would appear that Subsection 6(b)(2) has not been complied with. <br />3.Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light <br />or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower <br />facility sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available <br />space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs <br />. <br />Comment <br />: The applicant states, “There are no existing buildings of sufficient <br />height that will meet AT&T’s coverage goals.” Again, this assumes the gap must be <br />filled from a single facility, which is an erroneous assumption. It also presumes that <br />the City must accommodate AT&T’s ‘goals’, as opposed to its‘technical needs’, <br />which it does not if it so chooses. <br />The applicant also states that “Existing light/utility poles in the search ringare of <br />insufficient height to meet service needs at +/-30’ “. Refer to the previous <br />discussion on this matter.Also, both the size and location of the search ring <br />strongly indicate that a single-facility approach was the only option considered. <br />There is no clear, convincing and verifiable evidence submitted in relation to this <br />requirement.Specifically, none of the following has been demonstrated by clear, <br />convincing and verifiable technical evidence. <br />That in this instance,for technical reasons,the asserted gap must be filled from a <br />single facility,to the exclusion of all reasonable alternatives; <br />That the selected location is the only location or combination of locations,to the <br />exclusion of all reasonable alternativelocations,that would enable the asserted <br />gap to be filled; <br />That there is no viable alternative to filling the asserted gap and improving overall <br />coverage than by constructing a new tower; <br />That the facility must be 75’ in height. <br />7 <br />