My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 1 - ATT Additional Testimony (5/27/15)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments: Hearing Ex. 1 - ATT Additional Testimony (5/27/15)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2015 4:05:57 PM
Creation date
5/28/2015 9:45:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
5/27/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
204
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 significant gap because each of them fail to provide service in the following significant areas: Hilyard <br />2 St., the north end of Amazon Drive, and Amazon Drive south of 431 Ave. <br />3 The three alternative sites are not feasible because they are not tall enough to allow AT&T to <br />4 install its antennas above the prevailing tree line. As discussed above, AT&T's antennas must be <br />5 installed above the surrounding clutter in order to provide quality service throughout the desired <br />6 coverage area. <br />7 In addition to the three alternative sites discussed in the RF Justification, there are several <br />8 EWEB electric utility transmission and distribution poles in the search ring. I understand that EWEB <br />9 does not allow the installation of PCS antennas on transmission poles, so none of the transmission <br />10 poles are feasible alternative sites. Concerning EWEB's distribution poles, none of the distribution <br />11 poles are feasible alternatives for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the height is too low to allow <br />12 AT&T to install its antennas at 75', which would be above the prevailing tree line; (2) the distribution <br />13 pole is located in a utility easement on private property, which is a more intrusive option than the <br />14 proposed site; (3) AT&T is not able to install its two levels (rad centers) of 6' tall antennas in the 18' of <br />15 space available above the distribution line while maintaining EWEB's 10' of separation between AT&T's <br />16 antennas and the electric distribution lines, or (4) the installation of all 6 antennas on mounting arms at <br />17 the top of a utility pole is a more intrusive option than the proposed site. Therefore, none of EWEB's <br />18 transmission or distribution poles are feasible alternatives and it is impractical for AT&T to install its <br />19 antennas on EWEB's poles in the area. <br />20 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true <br />21 and correct. <br />22 <br />23 DATED this May 27, 2015 at Bend, Oregon. <br />24 <br />25 <br />Declaration of Vicki Littlefield Page 9 <br />CU 14-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.