May 27, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />hydrants and utility shut-offs unless there are no available alternative; HOA Ex <br />18 <br />• As the Pole Site Photos in the Hearing Power Point demonstrate, the visual impact of <br />such an installation is much greater than the stealth monopine being proposed. <br />In analyzing this very code section, LUBA, in Johnson v. Eugene, 42 Or LUBA 353(2002), <br />held that the this application requirement only requires AT&T to establish that the <br />tower, as it is proposed, cannot be collocated. It does not require AT&T to adjust its <br />business needs or reconfigure its proposal in order to attempt to demonstrate that a <br />different proposal, which would not serve its business needs, could potentially be <br />collocated on an existing structure. <br />In this case, no practical, less intrusive alternatives have been identified, nor has any <br />error been found in the RF analysis provided to the city. This criterion has been met. <br />IV. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT <br />Much of the public comment received to date has focused on the perceived health <br />effects, which cannot be considered, and the visual impact of the project, which is <br />addressed above. Due to the large volume of public comment provided just before the <br />hearing, AT&T requests the opportunity to submit responsive evidence into the record <br />after the hearing pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)c. <br />