five points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the provider <br />with review and approval by the planning director to ensure that potential views <br />are represented." <br />The staff report explains that the applicant originally provided 12 viewpoints of the prosed <br />mono-pine, 11 from surrounding streets and one from the parking lot of the church. Staff expressed <br />concern that the viewpoints were not representative of the views neighbors, particularly the <br />neighbors living adjacent to the church, would have of the mono-pine. The applicant subsequently <br />provided additional viewpoints. Staff continued to express concern that the provided viewpoints <br />were not representative of the views the immediate neighbors would have of the proposed mono- <br />pine. The applicant replies that it has provided more than twice the number of viewpoints required <br />by the EC and that it cannot provide the viewpoints requested by staff because it would involve <br />trespassing on the neighbors' property. I tend to agree with the applicant that it has provided what <br />viewpoints it is capable of providing without trespassing. In any event, the nearby neighbors have <br />provided pictures that fill in the information staff was requesting. The point of the requirement is <br />to ensure that the decision maker has an idea of what the visual impact of the proposed tower <br />would be, and I believe there is more than adequate information in that regard. EC 9.5750(6)(c)(1) <br />is satisfied. <br />EC 9.5750(6)(c)(2) requires an alternative sites analysis. A number of opponents argue that <br />the applicant should site its tower somewhere else. In particular, an industrial area to the northwest <br />was suggested. As the applicant explains: <br />Verizon initially considered new site options in industrial, commercial and <br />public land zones within the target area not only because it is required to do so <br />under EC 9.5750(6)(c)(2), but also because it is substantially easier, less <br />expensive and less time consuming to site a new facility in these zones. Verizon <br />considered the industrial area west of the Northwest Expressway, but it is too far <br />to provide the desired coverage and capacity to this area. Verizon considered the <br />industrial zoned parcel located at 860 Irving Road, but it was ruled out because <br />it includes an existing residential use and therefore is prohibited per the City <br />code. Verizon also considered the City reservoir site located at 1000 Ruby <br />Avenue, but this site was ruled out because it is a secured facility and would <br />require extensive excavation of the earthen embankments supporting the <br />reservoir structure. As explained in the revised staff report and City RF <br />consultant's report, dated September 30, 2015, staff agrees that there are no <br />industrial, commercial and public land zones options available for this facility," <br />October 14, 2015 Letter 3. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 4 <br />249