THE CT' TTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOU- 'IONS <br />REt oRT OF APPLICATION REVI,. W <br />June 8, 2004 <br />IA TIRELESS TELECOMMIUNICATIONS FACILITY <br />VOICESTREAM W. 24TH & POLK (WESTMORELAND Park) <br />General Comments on the Status of the Application: <br />We have been asked to provide a report regarding our review and recommendations regarding <br />the above referenced application. This report will describe the reasons we feel that, based on the <br />information that we have received, the application is not complete. <br />Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis: The applicant has conservatively calculated <br />the emissions as if their antennas were mounted at fifty-five (55) feet above ground and has <br />calculated that the percent of the MPE limit is insignificant. We agree. <br />Need: Based on the information we received and reviewed, the applicant has not provided the <br />basis for which to establish whether or not the application meets criterion from the Eugene Code, <br />specifically, EC 9.5750(6)(c )(3). This code section requires the applicant to provide: "Evidence <br />demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light or utility poles, water <br />towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons of structural <br />support capabilities, safety available space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs." <br />The applicant simply states in their written statement (page. 8) in addressing this standard: <br />"There are no existing tall buildings or structures at the height needed to provide the necessary <br />coverage for the site. The Jefferson School building adjacent to the proposed site is <br />approximately 35' high, which is not high enough to provide coverage in the area. Voicestream <br />will replace an existing light pole at this location to acquire the height needed for this facility." <br />The application materials submitted are not consistent. The written statement notes that telecom <br />facility is needed for coverage. Yet in Exhibit 6 - the applicant states that the issue is not <br />coverage but a need to provide capacity for service needs. The applicant has not provided <br />documentation of the minimum height necessary for providing their capacity needs. Once the <br />minimum height is established through proper documentation and methodology, the applicant <br />can then demonstrate that there are no other collocation structures available at the height <br />necessary to provide capacity needs. In addition, regarding subsection (5), EC 9.5750(6) (c) (5), <br />the applicant has not provided documentation of the reasons for the location, design and height <br />of the.proposed tower. <br />Information Provided and Reviewed: <br />1. Vicinity Map of the site. <br />2. Aerial Photo of the site. <br />3. Eugene Code Site Review Permit Criteria and Telecommunication Devices Siting <br />Standards. <br />4. Copy of Completeness Review Evaluation dated January 27, 2004 of the original <br />application submitted on December 31,2003 with review notes from the 2°d <br />Completeness Review submittal. <br />5. Site Review Application form with the applicant's name & address, etc. <br />6. May 5th Application submittal with Exhibits <br />7, 11" x 17"copy of site plans <br />i <br />i~ <br />