submitted materials donot give staff the ability to determine the veracity of the <br />evidence provided and to adequately assess the proposal to determine the visual <br />impacts to the neighborhood. Staff has deemed the submitted visual materials as <br />insufficient for this application. (see Staff Report Pages 24–25) <br /> <br />EC 9.5750(6)(c)(2.): Documentation that Alternative Sites Have Been Considered: The <br />City’s third-party consultant concludes that the applicant has not provided any verifiable <br />evidence to demonstrate compliance, including the necessary modeling and technical <br />variables used to generate their propagation maps for showing coverage needs, or that <br />it is technologically unfeasible to use a series of smaller facilities to meet those coverage <br />needs, and therefore it is not clear that the applicant has met its burden of proof under <br />this standard. As such, the City cannot determine the veracity of their information. The <br />City’s third-party consultant also points out that either within or beyond the 2,000 foot <br />radius, no verifiable evidence was provided by the applicant that might have shown <br />whether an existing tower or other type of support structure could or could not be <br />structurally modified to accommodate this provider’s needs. Since the applicant has not <br />adequately demonstrated that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2,000 feet are <br />technologically unfeasible or unavailable, this standard is not met (see Staff Report <br />Pages 25–27). <br /> <br />EC 9.5750(6)(c)(3.): Collocation on Other Structures and Towers: It has not been <br />demonstrated by verifiable technical evidence that the use of one or more existing <br />facilities/structures at other locations cannot be attached to, in order to achieve the <br />approximate coverage this proposed facility is intended to provide. The applicant has <br />not provided reliable, probative and substantial evidence to demonstrate that multiple <br />locations and multiple antenna (collocation) facilities were considered instead of a <br />single antenna facility, and therefore the applicant has not met the requirements of this <br />section of the code(see Staff Report Pages 27–28). <br />The above summary is provided for ease of reference; the following staff evaluation of the <br />applicant’s request provides more detailed findings addressing each of the applicable approval <br />criteria and related standards below. <br /> <br />Background/Present Request <br />The subject property is approximately 2 acres in size and located on the northwest corner of <br />West Amazon Road and Fox Hollow Road. The subject site abuts West Amazon Road to the <br />east, abuts Fox Hollow Road to the south, and abuts single-family dwellings to the north and <br />west. The property is currently developed and used as the Crossfire Ministries church. The <br />applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approval to install a new <br />telecommunications tower, designed to look like a pine tree (a “mono-pine”), in order to fill a <br />significant coverage gap in 4G LTE technology (700 MHz) and improve AT&T service in the area. <br />The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the associated ancillary equipment to be <br />placed above ground, and housed in a building addition to the existing church building. A <br />vicinity map and a detail of the area of request are included as Attachment 1. <br /> <br />HO Agenda - Page 3 <br />