determined, as there was no structural analysis report provided. Based on this lack of evidence, <br />staff cannot verify the accuracy of the applicant’s statement and therefore has determined that <br />this standard has not been met. <br /> <br />3. Documentation demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing <br />electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards as set forth by <br />the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). <br /> <br />The applicant submitted a report (see Attachment 12) from Hatfield & Dawson, Consulting <br />Electrical Engineers regarding RF emissions resulting from the proposed antenna. As noted <br />previously, the analysis predicts that the maximum calculated power density produced at two <br />meters above ground level by the proposed facility is less than 1.3% of the applicable FCC <br />exposure limit at all ground locations. The City’s third party consultant Environanlysis, LLC, <br />reviewed the application and the submitted documents regarding RF exposure and provided a <br />report (see Attachment 4) that concludes, “the information in the applicant’s proposal is <br />sufficient to determine that the NIER [non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation] impacts of the <br />project fall well within the Federal and City regulatory limits”. Therefore, the proposed facility <br />falls well under the permissible standards for exposure and complies with the FCC’s NIER (aka: <br />RF) emissions standards. <br /> <br />There has been significant public testimony submitted regarding the negative health impacts <br />from RF emissions on people and wildlife. The City’s authority is limited and does not have the <br />ability to impose more stringent standards than the FCC regulations. The City also does not have <br />the authority to dictate a new location for the facility. The scope of the City’s review is limited to <br />whether the applicant’s proposal (i.e. the need, design and location) meets the applicable <br />approval criteria of the Eugene Code. Consistent with the Telecommunications Act (1996), <br />consistency with standards set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must be <br />demonstrated by the applicant, but a locality cannot further limit RF emissions or deny a request <br />for a telecommunications facility based on perceived health effects related to RF emissions. <br /> <br />4. A signed agreement, as supplied by the city, stating that the <br />applicant will allow collocation with other users, provided all safety, <br />structural, and technological requirements are met. This agreement <br />shall also state that any future owners or operators will allow <br />collocation on the tower. <br /> <br />A signed agreement by AT&T is required to allow collocation with other users, provided all <br />safety, structural and technological requirements are met. The applicant has agreed to sign <br />such an agreement, and in the event of an approval, the required agreement would be a <br />condition of the permit. <br /> <br />5. Documentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce sound <br />levels in excess of those standards specified in subsection (7) of this <br />section, or designs showing how the sound is to be effectively <br />muffled and reduced pursuant to those standards. <br />HO Agenda - Page 22 <br />