1339.05 CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
   (a)   City Owned Property First.
      (1)   In order to encourage the location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on property owned by the City, the City shall undertake an identification of City-owned properties that the City determines are suitable for such use. The City shall regularly update such identification and make the results of such identification available to the public.
      (2)   Persons locating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities upon such identified City-owned properties shall be exempted from the requirements herein regarding presentation of proof that co-location of facilities on Towers or structures owned by other Persons or in other locations is not available. However, Persons locating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on City-owned properties shall continue to be subject to the requirements contained in Paragraph B, below.
      (3)   In addition, Persons locating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on City-owned properties identified by the City to be suitable for such purposes shall be exempt from the requirement of Sections 1339.04(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(19)A., 1339.07 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), and 1339.09(a) [but shall not be exempt from 1339.09 (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3)].
   (b)   Availability of Suitable Existing Towers, Other Structures, or Alternative Technology. No new Tower shall be permitted unless the Applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission that no existing Tower, structure, or alternative technology is available to fill the communication requirements. An Applicant shall submit information to the Planning Commission relating to the availability of suitable existing Towers, other structures, or alternative technology. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing Tower, structure, or alternative technology can accommodate the Applicant’s proposed Antenna may consist of any of the following:
      (1)   No existing Towers or structures are located within the specific geographic limits which met Applicant’s engineering requirements.
      (2)   Existing Towers and structures do not have sufficient height to meet Applicant’s engineering requirements, and have insufficient structural strength to support Applicant’s Antenna and related equipment.
      (3)   The Applicant’s proposed Antenna would cause frequency interference with the Antenna on the existing Tower or structures, or the Antenna on the existing Tower or structures would cause interference with the Applicant’s proposed Antenna.
      (4)   The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing Tower structure or to adapt an existing Tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Cost exceeding new Tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
      (5)   The Applicant demonstrates, after diligent and good faith investigation and research, that there are other limiting factors that render existing Towers and structures unsuitable.
      (6)   The Applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of Towers or structures, such as cable microcell network using low-powered transmitter/receivers attached to a wireline, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new Tower or Antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
      (7)   The Applicant provides documentation that the owners or operators of currently existing Towers were contacted in writing inquiring about the availability of co-location on those currently existing towers that a bona fide, reasonable, and good faith attempt was made to co-locate on that existing Tower.
         (Ord. 43-02. Passed 11-25-02.)