to consider every conceivable alternative, but rather only reasonable alternatives. Here, the <br />application contained an explanation of the service goal (Letter from Ken Seymour, July 6, 2011) <br />and a series of maps showing coverage plots and options. It appears to the hearing official that <br />the applicant looked at several other sites. What was missing, however, was a clear discussion <br />about the nature of each alternative, what service each alternative could provide and why that <br />alternative was rejected to understand that the applicant did more than just "look at" sites it <br />already knew would not work. This information would also be useful for demonstrating <br />compliance with sub-subsection 3 (concerning collocation), the evidence for which the staff <br />report correctly stated was "minimal." And, the benefit of conducting a more robust <br />alternatives analysis might be to find a site with less neighborhood opposition. <br />In sum, the requirement to consider alternatives here is an application requirement; there is no <br />requirement that the applicant select the alternative that meets some substantive standard. <br />Similar minimal analysis for another application in a different context might not be sufficient. <br />3. Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall <br />buildings, light or utility poles, water towers, existing <br />transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons <br />of structural support capabilities, safety, available space, or <br />failing to meet service coverage area needs. <br />The applicant notes that potential sites were evaluated on buildings, utility poles and water <br />tanks. The written statement generally notes that potential pole locations were evaluated along <br />Gilham Road, Norkenzie Road and Cal Young Road and that ground space was not available at <br />these locations (making collocation impractical). While the level of evidence supporting this <br />assertion provided by the applicant is minimal, the City does require vaulting in the right-of-way <br />or on private property which requires vacant area to support this. The areas surrounding <br />Gilham Road, Norkenzie Road and Cal Young Road are developed areas with little vacant land <br />along the rights of ways. <br />4. A current overall system plan for the city, showing facilities <br />presently constructed or approved and future expansion plans. <br />Testimony provided by Bill Kloos on behalf of the Oakway Neighbors Association asserts that a <br />system plan was not provided. The applicant has provided the locations of existing towers <br />within the City (See Exhibit U) and noted the locations of future planned towers. Additionally, <br />they have provided a coverage plot plan which shows locations of existing towers and their <br />coverage (see applicant's Exhibit T). Given that the information provided shows existing and <br />proposed facilities, the information provided suffices to meet this standard. <br />A statement providing the reasons for the location, design and <br />height of the proposed tower or antennas. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 31 <br />