communication facility existing on or before the effective date of these guidelines, RURA shall take appropriate action pursuant to the terms of these guidelines. 4.2 Site sharing for communication facilities 4.2.1 Siting alternatives hierarchy Development of a facility use shall be in accordance with the following siting alternatives hierarchy. The order of ranking from highest to lowest shall be 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3. Where a lower ranked alternative is proposed, the applicant must demonstrate by substantial evidence that higher ranked options are not technically feasible or available. 4.2.1.1 Co-location on existing communication tower 4.2.1.2 Co-location on existing building/ other structure 4.2.1.3 Development of new communication tower 4.2.2 Co-location requirements 4.2.2.1 Placement of antennas on existing towers or other structures shall be preferred as opposed to the construction of a new tower. An application for administrative review to co-locate on an existing wireless communication facility or other structure shall contain proof of the intent of the existing owner to permit the applicant’s use. 4.2.2.2 Certification from a licensed engineer that certifies that the structure can support the additional load due to the co-location of facilities. 4.2.3 Co-location guidelines 4.2.3.1 Wherever feasible, the facility owner shall provide for future colocation on the facility by other service provider and for public purposes or demonstrate by substantial evidence that it is not feasible. 4.2.3.2 The design, construction and installation of towers over 30 meters shall be done in such a way as to accommodate a minimum of three service providers. Towers whose height is between 18m and 30m will accommodate at least 2 service providers. The power rating of grid access, as well as the power rating of (backup) generator shall be dimensioned to accommodate (or allow for easy upgrade to accommodate) a minimum of three service providers. 10