location or combination of locations, to the exclusion of all reasonable alternatives locations, that <br />would enable the asserted gap to be filled; (3) that there is no viable alternative to filling the <br />asserted gap and improving overall coverage than by constructing a new tower; (4) or that the <br /> Within the context of the purpose statements, the applicant is <br />needlessly adding another wireless facility that is neither minimized nor collocated on existing <br /> <br />As noted above, tacilities to be <br />used for collocation has been shown to be incorrect. EWEB has clarified their position and does <br />not prohibit collocation in all instances. EWEB has allowed several collocations on their poles <br />throughout the City. <br />Staff encouraged the applicant to consider multiple collocation sites as an alternative to a <br />single tower. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to verify that such collocation <br />options were ever truly determined to be technologically infeasible. Therefore, the applicant has <br />not carried its burden of proof demonstrating that a 75-ft tall tower is the only option or that <br />. <br />(5) A statement providing the reasons for the location, design, and height of the <br />21 <br />proposed tower or antennas. <br /> been shown to be inaccurate. The <br />a-ft tall assumes that the applicant has coverage needs not <br />currently being satisfied, which is not supported by the record. The location of the proposed <br />tower makes little sense given that there is no existing screening and that proposed screening <br />would take decades to reach a sufficient height. The location is also misplaced because it is <br />adjacent to parklands, running trails, and residences, whereas other towers authorized within city <br />limits have been justified on their proximity to commercial uses. The height of the tower also <br />appears misplaced because the applicant has not demonstrated that one 75-ft tall tower is <br />necessary when existing facilities can be used that would not degrade views or aesthetics from <br />the popular parks, running trails, Amazon Creek, and residences. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />21 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary <br />to determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />12 <br /> <br />