<br />Key Questions/Issues and Answers <br /> <br />Having dealt with the issues of fact as regards the actual contents of the application in the context <br />of what is required under the City’s Code, we would recommend that the City not to lose sight of, <br />or allow its focus to be distracted from matters of actual fact and the primary issues and concerns, <br />9.5750Telecommunication Devices-Siting Requirements <br />specifically as set forth in Section <br />and Procedures <br />. Key to these issues and concerns in the context of Section 9.5750 are the <br />following questions and their answers. <br /> <br /> <br />1. Does the City have the burden of proving that what is proposed is the only (sole) <br />means of accomplishing what is intended, or does the applicant bear the burden of <br />Answer: The applicant bears the burden of <br />proving its claims and assertions? <br />proving its case to the City vis-à-vis compliance with Section 9.5750, unless the <br />City decides otherwise. <br /> <br /> <br />2. In this instance is the City prohibited from requiring that the information contained in <br />and provided in support of an application be submitted in a manner that is verifiable, <br />using information provided by the applicant to assure a valid the comparison of ‘apples <br />Answer: NO. <br />to apples’. <br /> <br />3. Is the City prohibited from requiring additional information from an applicant if such <br />was not provided in the application and is needed for purposes of verification, i.e. to <br />Answer: NO <br />verify the truth, accuracy and correctness of submitted information? <br /> <br />4. Is the City’s right to do its due diligence limited by being required to accept submitted <br />materials as truthful, accurate and correct on their face without specific technical <br />Answer: NO <br />information and details to enable [independent] verification? <br /> <br />5. Location: Is the proposed location the only (sole) location, to the exclusion of all <br />others, singly or in combination, at which a facility(s) can be located to provide the <br />Answer: There was no <br />geographic coverage, type and level of service intended? <br />information provided that would enable verification or the determination <br />factual <br />of this. <br /> <br /> <br />6. Support Structure: Is a new tower the only type of structure, to the exclusion of all <br />others, which would be able to accommodate the needed equipment to enable the <br />geographic coverage, type and level of service intended, either singly or in <br />Answer: There was no technical information <br />combination with other sites? <br />provided that would enable verification or the determination of this. <br />factual <br /> <br />7. Height: Is the proposed 75’ height the only height that would enable the provision of <br />Answer: There <br />the type and level of service intended, i.e. from one or more locations? <br />was no technical information provided that would enable the verification or the <br /> determination of this <br />factual. <br /> <br />8. Does the 1996 Telecommunications Act expressly state that a wireless carrier must be <br />allowed to do what is needed or desired in the least costly, i.e. most economically <br />Answer: NO <br />efficient, manner possible? <br /> <br />9. Is the City required to permit a new tower so as to enable the entire intended service <br />area to be served from a single facility, as opposed to using one or more less visually <br />sensitive, controversial or intrusive sites? In other words, must the City allow a carrier <br /> Answer: NO <br />to cover the entire intended service area from a single facility? <br />4 <br /> <br />