My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2015 4:11:17 PM
Creation date
6/18/2015 10:30:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Public Comments submitted after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
6/17/2015
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.
/
259
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
b <br />BUSCHLAWFII:. PLLC <br />June 16, 2015 <br />Via Email <br />Nick Gioello, Planner <br />City of Eugene <br />Planning and Development Department <br />99 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />mailto:nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us <br />Mr. Gioello: <br />AT&T hereby submits the attached 5 additional exhibits for submittal to the record. I <br />anticipate one additional exhibit for submittal before the close of business on June 17, <br />2015. <br />It should be noted that AT&T asserts that the proprietary technical data requested by <br />CMS is not, and has never been a submittal requirement under your code. The Rest <br />Haven matter was approved just last year based on the format of the information <br />already provided in this case and under the same code. To require public disclosure of <br />the underlying proprietary data for 4 different sites, as a prerequisite to seeking a <br />conditional use permit, is unduly burdensome, unnecessary and is not required for any <br />other use under the Eugene code. <br />EC 9.5750(11) requires the city to hire, at Applicant expense, a consultant to "verify the <br />accuracy of statements made in connection with an application for a building or land <br />use permit for a telecommunications facility." Implicit in this provision is the limitation <br />that the statements subject to verification are only those related to code criteria <br />needed for approval. The Eugene code criteria for telecommunications facilities do not <br />require that a gap in coverage be demonstrated to obtain CUP approval. It requires " A <br />statement providing the reasons for the location, design and height of the proposed <br />tower or antennas. " In the second and most recent CMS report, Mr. Monroe indicates <br />that this criterion has been met. <br />SEATTLE LOS ANGELES DENVER <br />93 S. Jackson St. #75604 Kim.Allen@wirelesscounsel.com <br />Seattle, WA 98104-2818 www.wirelesscounsel.com <br />PORTLAND BEND <br />t 425.628.2666 <br />f 206.219.6717 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.