Opinion ID: 3064921
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the height of the proposed tower,

Text: 2. the proximity of the tower to residential structures and district boundaries, 3. the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties, 4. the surrounding topography, 5. the surrounding tree coverage and foliage, 6. the design of the tower (with emphasis on features that reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness), 7. proposed ingress and egress, and 8. the availability of alternatives not requiring a tower. T-MOBILE USA v. ANACORTES 9211 existing development in the vicinity of 2201 “H” Avenue, which is predominantly single-family residences. The proposed wireless communications facility would negatively impact the views from single-family residences in the vicinity of the proposed site. The City further stated that the predominant land use in the vicinity of the proposed site was residential and that the “existing vegetation would not completely screen the proposed tower and the tower would be taller than the existing trees.” The City also concluded that “T-Mobile has not established that its proposal to locate a wireless communications facility tower at the 2201 ‘H’ Avenue site is the ‘least intrusive’ on the values that the denial of the application seeks to serve.” It determined: At least four alternative single sites are potentially acceptable to provide coverage as required by T- Mobile, and at least two two-site alternatives would work from an RF coverage perspective. These alternative sites are either on commercially or industrially zoned property, or would provide a site for [a] proposed wireless communications facility that is not in such close proximity to residences. T-Mobile also offers an in-home service technology that provides another alternative for “in-structure” cellular telephone service. If T-Mobile constructed a wireless communications facility at one or more of the alternate single sites or two-site alternatives, a significant gap in T-Mobile’s service coverage would no longer exist, even though that coverage would not be identical to that provided by a tower at the 2201 “H” Ave- nue site.