1871 ROSS AVE VERIZON ANTENNA 2016-01-01 MF Import

20. The proposal is subject to the development standards of the City Zoning Code and must obtain all required City, St�te, and Federal permits. Tl�e Applicant indicated those permits would be secured. (exh;bit 1, Tyler testimony) 21. Because tfie proposed facility would be unmanned, there is no need for accessibility to public lransit. (exhibit 1) 22. In addition to lhe General Evaluation criteria, as listed in finding #9, the proposed project is also subject to Special Property Use Permit Specific Evaluation criteria as set forlh in EMC 19.41.150.D.1(b). These criteria are not restzted in this decision. The reader is directed to the ordinance as set forth above. 23. Because there are no existing facilities in the general area, lhe proposed antenna would be located on a new tower. The new tower would Lie designed to provide co-location for other facilitators of wireless services. The City determined that the Applicant provided sufficient lechnical information addressin� coverage objectives and lhe location of other existing facilities to warrant a recommendation of approval of the proposed facility. (exhibit 1, Tyler testimony) 24. The Applicant conducted an analysis of alternative sites to determine if lhere are other sites with fewer negative impacts lhan the proposed site. One of the aiternatives was lo construct two additional facilities, one located on I3urlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad property near tlie Della Junction, and a second site located further north in the vicinity of 42"d Place N.E. Tliese two siles, however, could encounter site procurement, soils contamination, wetlands, as weli as being r.loser to residences. The allernatives available lo tl�e Applicant are no( : s appropriate for lhe development of the sile wilh a cell lower, as is the subjecl property. (exhibit 1,Hirsclitestimony, Tylertestimony) � 25. Some of lhe criteria of the Specific Evaluation criteria are not applicable lo the instant application. These include criterion #4 and criterion #5. (exhibit 1J 26. The maximum building height for structures in an M-2 zone is 80 feet. However, utilily structures can exceed this maximum height without a variance if it can be demon�traled thal such height is necessary lo provic+e adequate services. Based on the Narrative Statements of the ApplicUnt (exhibil 6) lhe 150-foot height is requir�d in order to provide !lie services necessary. The height of 150 (eet is needed to provide sufficient coverage in order to o(f-load to other existing sites tlial are at a higher elevation than the proposed site. Due to lhe topography and relalively low elevation of the proposed site, a lov✓er tower heighl would not be feasible. (exhibit 6, Hirsch testirnony) 27. The proposed structure would comply with ail setback provisions as set forth in the [MC. (exhibit i, Tyler testintony, Hirsch testimony)