JANISCH Amy C <br />Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower @ Crossfire Church <br />From: David Berger [mailto:hykrzCayahoo.com] <br />Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 5:42 PM <br />To: TAYLOR Becky G <br />Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower @ Crossfire Church <br />Hi Becky, <br />I just want to let you know that my wife and I are opposed to this cell tower proposal. We do not want a large cell <br />tower built near our house or in our neighborhood. I hope the City of Eugene ultimately rejects the applicants permit. <br />From research I found information from a company that tries to get cell towers built that cities can reject <br />construction/build permits for cell towers based on some very key but general rules such as; <br />- no cell tower permit should be accepted if said tower diminishes the neighborhood and surroundings in any <br />way. basically that if there's a strong hint that a cell tower will diminish the aesthetics and beauty of the area it can be <br />rejected. <br />- the second key rule is that a city can reject a new cell tower application, if again, the proposed site is not ideal, and <br />there are other site(s) that are better suited for said cell tower. sticking a cell tower in plain view in the heart of <br />Amazon Drive/ Amazon Creek Watershed etc...is not ideal or a well-suited site in anyway. It's purely a money grab by <br />the applicant (my confident opinion). From what I've heard the applicant does not live near this proposed site and I <br />question why they really purchased this church except to increase their revenue. There are strong indications the <br />applicant will sell the church since they can continue to receive payments for the proposed cell tower which is pretty <br />clear indication of their intentions. Regardless the proposed site is not ideal, does detract from the neighborhood, AND <br />there are clearly other potential sites further up Dillard, or further up Foxhollow that would allow a cell tower there to <br />be far away from homes/businesses, that are clearly better suited. <br />- thirdly cities can reject proposed cell tower applications if there is a better way of providing a similar service, <br />meaning generally, that like the site itself and that there are other potential sites that are better suited for a cell tower, <br />the technology itself must pass this criteria. this company that actually tries to get more cell towers built acknowledges <br />that these "large" 50-70-80-100+ foot cell towers are falling out of favor as they are pretty agreed upon eyesores that <br />per the first rule DO NOT enhance a neighborhood and detract or diminish the aesthetics of established neighborhoods <br />like that of Amazon Drive/ Amazon Creek Watershed. for example they note that smaller 5-10 ft. tall booster type <br />towers are better options vs. the "old" technology of large >10 ft. type towers and this 70-80 ft. proposed tower is <br />totally within that old style that is not favorable even within the industry. <br />Thank you for your time. <br />Sincerely, <br />David Beraer <br />