May 27, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />• EC 9.5750(6)(c)(2.): Documentation that Alternative Sites Have Been Considered: <br />AT&T Response: In Johnson v. Eugene, 42 Or LUBA 353(2002) , Oregon's Land Use <br />Appeals Board (LUBA) held this section of Eugene's code to require the carrier seeking a <br />conditional use permit consider alternative sites only in the zones listed in this section. <br />The proposed site here is zoned R1 and is largely surrounded by R1. (Zoning Map <br />included in Hearing PowerPoint). The only one of the listed zones within 2000 feet of <br />the site is PL containing city parks and 2 schools. The City of Eugene has refused <br />permission to site this facility in a city park. The school district has refused permission <br />to site at a school property. (HOA, Ex13). <br />While AT&T did explore alternative sites in the R1 zone, which were excluded due to <br />insufficient height allowed and unavailability, there is no code requirement to pursue <br />alternatives outside of the listed zones. City right of way, as the staff report notes, is <br />considered unzoned and is not included in the code's list of places where alternatives <br />must be considered. <br />• EC 9.5750(6)(c)(3.): Collocation on Other Structures and Towers <br />AT&T Response: <br />The city's assertion that multiple facilities at lower heights were required to be <br />eliminated as alternatives is not supported by the existing code. <br />This section requires AT&T to consider whether collocation on existing structures is <br />"impractical". The term, "impractical" is undefined by the Eugene code. Merriam- <br />Webster defines it as "not easy to do or use: not suitable for the situation". <br />Per Eugene's published ROW wireless standards, pole collocation options, even if <br />available, are impractical because: <br />• EWER, has a 10' separation requirement from any existing lines, and the City has an <br />18' height limit, which constructively limits the site to one rad center of <br />antennas. <br />• The City's guidelines (HOA, p. 288) requires flush-mounted antennas (antennas "shall <br />not extend out more than 2' horizontally from the pole"). This effectively limits <br />AT&T only to 3 total antennas per site. <br />• City owned poles cannot be used unless it is demonstrated that there are no <br />alternatives; (HOA, Ex 18) <br />• The City's written policy RD 7.302-d limits ground equipment in the right of way to <br />