The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within 15 days <br />following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, <br />the applicable quasi-judicial hearing procedures are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. <br /> <br />Summary of Staff Recommendation <br />As outlined in the statements below, staff is recommending denial of the applicant’s request. <br />The staff recommendation is based on the following key areas of noted inadequacies and <br />deficiencies in the applicant’s submission and materials(specific page numbers in this report <br />are referenced): <br /> <br />EC 9.8090(1):Consistency with Metro Plan Policy E.4 (Page III-E-3): Various <br />deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence appear to undermine the applicant’s case that <br />Policy E.4 is met, such as failing to show the full extent of visual impact from antennas <br />and other appurtenances in the required photo simulations. The application fails to <br />meet some of the telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750 and the CUP approval <br />criteria at EC 9.8090. To the extent that the application fails to meet the applicable <br />telecommunications standards and CUP approval criteria related to these concerns, it <br />fails to meet the intent of Policy E.4 (see Staff Report Pages 7–11). <br />EC 9.8090(2)(a) and (b): Mass and Scale.Substantial Off-Site Impacts: The visual impact <br />of the proposed mono-pine has not been adequately mitigated due to inconsistent <br />submittal materials and photo simulations, and a lack of tall mature varietal trees in <br />close proximity to the proposed location of mono-pine cell tower facility(see Staff <br />Report Pages 11–15). <br /> <br />EC 9.8090(3): Attractive as the Nature of the Use and Setting Warrant: The applicant <br />has not adequately demonstrated that this criterion is met. In addition to potential <br />significant negative visual impacts on the surrounding area (as noted above), there is a <br />lack of evidence to conclude that less intrusive collocation alternatives have been <br />demonstrated to be technologically unfeasible. The applicant has not met its burden of <br />showing how this proposal is as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and <br />setting warrant (see Staff Report Page 15). <br /> <br />EC 9.5750(6)(b)(2.): Capacity to Accommodate Additional Antennas: The structural <br />capability of the proposed tower to accommodate additional carriers’ facilities cannot <br />be determined, as there was no structural analysis report provided. Based on this lack of <br />evidence, staff cannot verify the accuracy of the applicant’s statement and therefore <br />has determined that this standard has not been met (see Staff Report Page 21). <br />EC 9.5750(6)(c)(1.): Visual Study, Photo Simulations: Staff has noted multiple <br />inconsistencies throughout the applicant’s photo simulations that depict different styles <br />of simulated mono-pine trees, and that portray the antenna panel array as sometimes <br />visible and sometimes with no array visible through the branches, as well as <br />discrepancies in the actual site location of the structure. The inconsistencies among the <br />HO Agenda - Page 2 <br />