June 16, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />CMS's second report claims that the requested data is needed only to verify compliance <br />with EC9.7570(6)b(2) and (3). <br />In Johnson v. Eugene LUBA No. 2002-031 (2002), LUBA gave a very specific <br />interpretation of what is required to be provided by the Applicant under these exact <br />code provisions. <br />With respect to sub 2: <br />"The zones listed in the second sentence of ECC 9.5750(6)(c)(2) permit <br />telecommunications towers outright. The zones listed in the third sentence of ECC <br />9.5750(6)(c)(2) permit telecommunications towers only after site review. Read in <br />context, it appears that the thrust of ECC 9.5750(6)(c)(2) is to require applicants to <br />consider alternative sites that have less restrictive zoning designations with respect to <br />telecommunications towers. With that understanding, we believe the hearings officer <br />correctly interpreted ECC 9.5750(6)(c)(2) to require consideration of alternative locations <br />within 2,000 feet of the preferred site only if alternative locations are zoned C-4, 1-1, 1-2 <br />or 1-3. Petitioner does not contest the finding that there are no properties with those <br />zoning designations within 2,000 feet of the subject property." <br />The PL zone has been added to the 3rd sentence of this section since the Johnson case <br />was decided and was the only listed zone, apart from C4, within the 2000 foot radius. <br />AT&T could not site in any of those zones because the owners of the Park, school, EWEB <br />substation and assisted living facilities would not agree to a lease. There is no technical <br />analysis needed regarding this criterion. <br />With respect to sub 3, LUBA agreed that the hearings official properly applied this <br />section with the following finding: <br />"With regard to [ECC] 9.5750(6)(c)(3), the [opponents] challenge the applicant's <br />evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light or utility <br />poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for <br />reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available space or failing to meet <br />service coverage area needs. The [opponents] argue, essentially, that the height of the <br />tower and the service area has been artificially determined in order to justify locating <br />[the tower and antenna on the subject parcel],_and that the applicant could collocate <br />additional facilities on other surrounding buildings with lesser height and achieve the <br />same objectives. <br />"This application requirement requires the applicant to establish that the tower, as it <br />is proposed, cannot be collocated. It does not require the applicant 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 />