Attachment B <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 />RESPONSE. A revised package of photo simulations that include balloon test photos is provided <br />at Att. 10 (Photo Simulations). The proposed 75 foot monopine is the least intrusive design <br />feasible. A monopole with enclosed antennas is not feasible at this location because this would <br />require about 6 feet of additional height to accommodate two tiers of flush-mounted antennas, <br />thus exceeding the 75 foot height limit for the R-1 zone. Fewer antennas fit around a pole when <br />flush mounted, so they would have to be separated into two tiers of 8 -foot tall antennas with up <br />to 10 feet of separation distance. Since the minimum antenna tip height of the bottom tier <br />would remain at 70 feet, the tip height of the antennas in the top tier would be 88 feet 13 feet <br />over the maximum height allowed. <br />2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 <br />feet have been considered and have been determined to be <br />technologically unfeasible or unavailable. For site reviews, <br />alternative sites zoned C-4,1-1,1-2, and 1-3 must be considered. For <br />conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, C-4, 1-1, <br />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 />RESPONSE: Based on an extensive RF design analysis, a search ring was issued to locate a site <br />to fill a significant low band 4G LTE (700 MHz) coverage gap and improve service in the area <br />around Fox Hollow and Amazon Drive. The area at the center of the search ring is zoned R-1, <br />with one Public Lands-zoned (PL) parcel at the northeast edge of center. This PL-zoned property <br />is Kincaid Park and is discussed in the table below. There is a C-2 zone west of the search ring, <br />which is also addressed below. <br />Significant deviation from the center of the search ring would make any attempt to fill the 4G <br />LTE coverage gap in the area ineffective. See the April 30, 2014 Statement of Compliance, <br />Section 3.2 (Site Selection), for further explanation about AT&T's site selection process. <br />The table below outlines the analyses of sites considered. The alternative sites considered <br />include sites zoned PL, C-2 and R-1. There are no C-3, C-4, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 or S-WS zones in or near <br />the search ring. <br />Alternative Sites Within 2000 Feet <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) 26 <br />