Laserfiche WebLink
(j) To the extent provided by law, the City may require utiliry or <br /> communications service provider to allow up to t�vo additional service <br /> providers to be localed on shared facilities to discourage the proliferation <br /> of tower slructures, consistent with technoloc�ical feasibility. <br /> (k) Communications facilities which require towers for which safety lights are <br /> reyuired by the FAA shall not be pem�itted unless the Applicant <br /> �emonstrates thal such a facility in the proposed location and at such a <br /> height is necessary to adequately serve the needs of Ihe public for the <br /> proposed utilily or communications service. <br /> (I) The Planniny Director may require review Dy an expert third party when <br /> needed for review of site-specific data subr,,itted by the Applicanl <br /> concerninc� technical aspects related to specific(acilities and locations. <br /> 18. No tower struct�res will be built. The antennas will be placed on a PUD pole, <br /> eliminating any new cellular communication tower or monopole. (exhibit i) <br /> 19. The Applicant did consider alt�rnate sites but alternate sites were not available <br /> because of lack oi interest on the owner's part, unavailable space for Ihe <br /> equipment compound, or future development plans of ihese site. (exhlbit 1) <br /> 20. Because oi tho technology involved, lhe utility pole and the antennas cannot be <br /> underground. The support equipment will be located on grade wilhin a cabinet. <br /> (exhibit 1) <br /> 21. The Applicant tostified that its equipment would be removed if there were any <br /> financial failures of ihe company. The facility wouid also bs removed if the use <br /> was discontinued for 120 days or more. (exhibits 1 & 3) <br /> 22. Because of the location of the PUD pole, the facility is not a potential site for <br /> cullocation of other communication facilities. The Appiicant has collocated with <br /> the PUD. (exhibit 1) <br /> 23. No liqhts are proposed (or this pole. (exhibit 1) <br /> 24. The City Planning Director determined that an independent technical analysis of <br /> the application was not needed. (exhiUit 1) <br /> 25. No testimony was received opposinc� this project. <br /> Jurlsdlcflon: The Heanny Exc�rninor ol the City uf Everett has jurisdiclional au(honry to <br /> I,�Id a heariny und to issue tho decision. Thaf authority is sef lorlh in EMC 2.23.120. <br /> Based on the abow� Findings o/Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following <br /> Conclusinns' <br /> CONCI.USIONS <br /> G <br />