E-1, E-2, I-2, I-3 and S-WSmust be considered. <br />Comment <br />: Based on our understanding of the situation gleaned from the information <br />provided, we can find no technicalreason why facilities in the public rights- <br />of-way (PROW) could not be used to accommodate antennas and the <br />associated equipment in order to significantly mitigate the asserted <br />situation. <br />1)Utility Poles: The applicant’s reason for not attaching to utility poles is an asserted <br />policy of EWEB prohibiting wireless facilities to be attached to utility poles that <br />have live power attached. This is an extraordinarily unusual policy. In fact, in <br />having reviewed more than 4,000 applications in more than 800 communities in 34 <br />states over almost 2 decades, this is the first time we have encountered such a <br />policy anywhere. It is suggested that the City ask what is so unusual about the <br />situation in Eugene that it would warrant such a policy. <br />We are also not aware of anyinstance where an injury or fatality, or even a loss of <br />electrical service,was caused by attaching a wireless facility to utility poles. While <br />there may have been such an instance somewhere that wasn’t reported, it would <br />be so rare as to be considered an aberration or ananomaly. <br />Since pole attachment agreements can and do normally contain [categorical] <br />indemnificationsof the pole owner(s), we would recommend asking for a copy of <br />the written policy prohibiting the use of any pole with live electrical wires attached <br />andan explanation of the reasoning behind the policy. Perhaps working with <br />EWEB would result in a change in its policy; especially if it resulted in a new <br />incremental on-going revenue source. <br />With the carrier industry having acknowledged the number of facilities that will be <br />needed going forward, especially in residential neighborhoods, it will become <br />extremely problematic to provide the services offered (and demanded by the <br />public)in many (if not most) communities without extensive use of utility poles and <br />light poles. In fact, knowing this, the FCC’s recent rulemaking expressly addresses <br />this issue. <br />2)Existing Light Pole in ROW along Dillard & Fox Hollow Roads: The applicant <br />asserts that limiting an extension of the height of a utility or light pole to 18’does <br />not provide adequate overall height. As addressed previously, this assumes that <br />the gap in 4G LTE service mustbe allowed to be filled from a singlefacility. This is <br />simply not true. At the very least, the situation could be significantly mitigated and <br />the relatively small areas remaining unserved asdenoted on Exhibit D.2 could be <br />addressed in any of several ways, including but limited to the following. <br />Designing/Engineering and/or (slightly) relocating planned adjacent <br />facilities to serve the small fringe areas represented on Exhibit D.2 as <br />being remaining unserved areasafter construction of the proposed <br />facility; specifically i) along Hillyard St. in the northwest portion of the <br />gap, ii) across the northern portion of the gap from Hilyard St. east to <br />Onyx St.; and iii) the very southern-most portion of the overall gap <br />th <br />from approximately East 44Avenue and Pinecrest Dr. southeast to <br />Garnet St. <br />In the context of the overall gap these are relatively small ‘fringe’ areas and it <br />would be difficult (virtually impossible) to imagine that there is not a way to serve <br />them other than with the erection of a 75’ tall tower. It would simply require a little <br />5 <br />