I am following up on my call on Friday to see if you have some time this afternoon to discuss the city's position on <br />the consultant's response. <br />In addressing the consultant's response, with respect to 9.5750(6)(c)(3), we submitted no structural <br />analysis because none of the alternative sites were ruled out for reasons concerning structural <br />support capabilities. The code section contains a variety of reasons why a site can be impractical and <br />that list contains "or", not "and". In other words, a site can be infeasible for any one of the reasons <br />listed. <br />With respect to (c)(2), the code does not require a specific format for the information to <br />demonstrate infeasibilty and propagation maps have been historically accepted by staff as an <br />acceptable way to meet this code requirement. The consultant has not identified any inaccuracy in <br />the information we provided and has not specified what information required by code is missing. I <br />would like to get some clarity around what the city's position is on these issues and whether <br />additional information is being requested. <br />I would also like to get your input on the revised landscape plan adding the additional mature trees <br />requested in your April 3, 2015 letter.. <br />Please let me know if 3 today works for you. I am pretty flexible all day. <br />Thanks- <br />Kim <br />Kimberly Allen <br />Busch Law Firm PLLC <br />93 S. Jackson St. #75604 <br />Seattle WA 98104-2818 <br />425-628-2666 Office <br />kim.allenC«)wirelesscounsel.com <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />