Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, C-4, I-1, I-2, I-3 and S-WS must be considered. The applicant submitted a list of potential alternative sites within 2,000 feet of the proposed site. This information indicates there are no C-3, C-4, I-1, I-2, I-3 or S-WS zones in or near the defined search ring. Alternative sites in PL, C-2 and R-1 zoning districts were considered according to the applicant’s materials. Six potential locations were identified: EWEB poles Light poles in rights-of-way along West Amazon Drive, Dillard Road and Fox hollow Road Kincaid City park Parker Elementary School Emerald Valley Assisted Living Residence The applicant cited reasons such as agency policies against collocations, heights above the 75- foot limit, more visual obtrusiveness, and lack of interest as various reasons to exclude all of these locations. To the extent these alternatives constitute collocation opportunities staff further addresses this issue under the following standard (subsection 3). The City’s third-party consultant, CMS has provided in depth responses for each of these areas of discussion (dated April 16, 2015, see Attachment 2, pages 5 – 7). The CMS report points out that the applicant’s assertion, that utilizing utility or light poles does not provide adequate overall height, is “simply not true” because it “assumes that the gap in 4G LTE service must be allowed to be filled from a single facility”. The CMS report questions the applicant’s assertion that the only viable option to achieve the coverage desired for this area is with a single tower at 75 feet in height. CMS states “it is virtually impossible for a 52’ foot height [antenna] not to enable the entire intended area to be served if it were done in combination with another new facility, such as a substantially shorter mono-pine and/or attaching to another utility pole”. The applicant’s legal counsel, in their response comments (see Attachment 18) states, “The Consultant offers nothing that controverts the evidence provided that the alternative sites are either technically infeasible or unavailable, nor does the report identify other feasible alternative locations”. In the CMS response to those comments (dated May 11, 2015, see Attachment 3) it was reaffirmed that the applicant has not demonstrated by verifiable technical evidence that it is technologically “impossible” to locate on one or more sites, one of which may be further than 2,000 feet from the proposed site, and still provide the intended service to at least a portion(s) of the intended service area. Based on the CMS analysis which concludes that the applicant has not provided any verifiable evidence to demonstrate compliance, including the necessary modeling and technical variables used to generate their propagation maps for showing coverage needs, or that is was technologically unfeasible to use a series of smaller collocation facilities to meet those coverage needs, it is not clear that the applicant has met its burden of proof under this standard. The applicant’s legal counsel simply asserts that the City does not have the authority to require alternative technologies and apparently declines to provide the evidence requested by the City HO Agenda - Page 26