A. For a pole other than 1-3 in §34-79, the applicant must address the City’s preferred locations with a detailed explanation justifying why a site of higher priority was not selected. The City’s location preferences must be addressed in a clear and complete written alternative sites analysis that shows at least three (3) higher ranked, alternative sites considered that are in the geographic range of the service coverage or capacity objectives of the applicant, together with a factually detailed and meaningful comparative analysis between each alternative candidate and the proposed site that explains the substantive reasons why the applicant rejected the alternative candidate.
B. A complete alternative sites analysis provided under this subsection may include less than three (3) alternative sites so long as the applicant provides a factually detailed written rationale for why it could not identify at least three (3) potentially available, higher ranked, alternative sites.
C. For purposes of disqualifying potential collocations or alternative sites for the failure to meet the applicant’s service coverage or capacity objectives the applicant will provide (a) a description of its objective, whether it be to address a deficiency in coverage or capacity; (b) detailed maps or other exhibits with clear and concise Radio Frequency (“RF”) data to illustrate that the objective is not met using the alternative (whether it be collocation or a more preferred location); and (c) a description of why the alternative (collocation or a more preferred location) does not meet the objective.