r~ <br />Planning & Development <br />Planning <br />City of Eugene <br />99 West 10'" Avenue <br />Eugene, Oregon 97401 <br />(541) 682-5377 <br />(541) 682-5572 FAX <br />www.ci.eugene.or.us <br />June 23, 2004 <br />James C. Barta <br />Voicestream/T-Mobile Wireless <br />1500 NE Irving St. Suite 530 <br />Portland OR 97232 <br />RE: Site. Review Permit for Voicestream/Westmoreland Park site near Chambers Street & <br />West 24'h Avenue, Eugene, OR, city file (SR 03-16) <br />As per the completeness review comments, a technical consultant was hired to review the <br />technical documents submitted. The results of that review are attached for your use in revising <br />the technical information presented in your application in Exhibits 5 and 6. <br />As noted in the original completeness review comments provided by City of Eugene staff on <br />January 28, 2004, and in subsequent completeness review comments of the revised application <br />on June 4, 2004, the photo-simulations and Exhibits 5 and 6 in the application are not accurate. <br />The consultant's review of the application also confirms this determination. As a specialist in <br />the field of telecommunication facilities, the consultant has provided more detailed information <br />that is needed to document the need for the facility at the height requested to provide additional <br />capacity to the Voicestream network in this area of the city. <br />Exhibits 5 and 6 are necessary components of the application in order to meet the application <br />requirements for site review permits stated in Section 9.5750 (6) (c) (5) and in Section 9.5750(6) <br />(c) (3) of the Eugene Code: <br />EC 9.5750 (6) (c) (5): A statement providing the reasons for the location, design and height of <br />the proposed tower or antennas. <br />EC 9.5750(6) (c) (3): Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall <br />buildings, light or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission <br />towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons of structural support <br />capabilities, safety, available space, or failing to meet service coverage <br />area needs. <br />The information provided in the statement submitted, Exhibit 6, does not justify nor provide <br />documentation for the need for location and height of the proposed facility. The design of the <br />proposed facility, a sleek monopole that combines park ball field lights, is an excellent design <br />and is discussed in the written statements provided with the application. The reasons for the <br />location and height must be provided and the consultant's report provides direction as to how the <br />