319 76TH PL SW 2016-01-01 MF Import

(i) Maintenance or replacement of existing utility or communications facilities, and the installation of new utility poles, light poles or standards, switch cabinets, pad mount transformers or other similar utility of communications facilities of a minor rature and small scale are a ...pt from this section. (, To the extent provided by law, the City may require utility or communications service provider to allow up to two additional service providers to be located on shared facilities to discourage the proliferation of tower structures, consistent with technological feasibility. (k) Utility or communication facilities which require tcwt:rs for which safety lights are required by the FAA shall not be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates that such a facility in the proposed location and at such a height is necessary to adequately serve the needs of the public for the proposed utility or communications service. (1) The Planning Director may r,.quire review by an expert third party. These criteria are similar to the General Evaluation criteria. The findings for the General Evaluation criteria apply to the Specific Evaluation criteria. 24. As part of its Review Process III, the City required the Applicant to provide alternate sites for the proposed facility. The Applicant reviewed ten locations involving existing towers and monopole facilities. Although these sites were reviewed in industrial and commercial zones, it was determined that they could not provide the height or the technology for the needed 800 megahertz emergency response system. Only the proposed site could provide the services for coverage for such things as the Snohomish County Airport, the City of Even-'t south of Casino Road, the Evergreen Way/Broadway Avenue corridors, and the Merrill Creek area. In addition, the facility will provide services to the Eastmont neighborhood, portions of the Snohomish River valley, and the northern areas of the City of Mukilteo. Based on this information, it appears that the alternative sites identified by the Applicant are not reasonable, and the subject property is the most reasonable location for the placement of the proposed facility. (exhibit 1, Sladky testimony) 25. Most of the criteria in this Special Evaluation are applicable to new tower structures or ground mounted utility structures. The proposal is classified as neither. (exhibit 1) 8/0