1030 BROADWAY VOICESTREAM ANTENNAS 2018-01-02 MF Import

policies of the Ciry of Everett. Health impacts resulting from exposure to emissions from the facility are not considered by the City in its review of the Permit. (exhibit C-1) 11. The Appellant contended that the City, prior to the issuance of the Permit, should have considered altemative sites for the wireless communication facility. (Poulin testimony, Crumbaugh testimony) The contentions were that because the location of the facility was immediately adjacent to a Residential Zone developed with single-family residences, the City was required to consider the impacts of siting the facility and consider altemative sites. (Poulin testimony) 12. In Everett, above-ground utilities, such as proposed, are encouraged to be developed in a B-2 Commercial Zone. fiowever, the Zoning Code is silent as to what requirements or condition:; are to be imposed if the facilities abut properties zoned Residential. (Tyler testimony) 13. The Appellant argued that the Topper Motel, on which the antennas are located, is not a commercial structure but is a residential structure. Testimony submitted by witnesses was that guests at the Topper Motel are permanent residents and, therefore, the facility should not be designated as commercial. (Bertee testimony, Crumbaugh testimony) i The City rPsponded that the structure is a commerciai structur� allowed � in � Commercia! Zone. (Tyler testimony) i 14. During pre-application discussions with the Cih�, altemative locations for wireless communication facilities, inciuding a site in Legion Golf Course approximately 1/4 mile north of the subject property, were reviewed. Another site that was considered was in a parking lot northeast of the subject property. However, to develop a wireless facility at these locations would require a monopole cellular tower which the City discourages. (Tylertestimony) 15. The City contended that the Zoning Code does not authorize or require � analysis of altemative sites for wireiess communication facilities as � proposed by the Applicant. Review of altemative sites is only required when the proposal includes free-standing tower structures located within 300 feet of a Residential Zone, or within 200 feet of a Gateway Corridor, or within 200 feet of a designated shoreline. However, because no tower was proposed on this site, no analysis of altemative sites was required according to Everett law. (Tyler testimony) 8 I