towers. It is also made to establish the basis for supplemental testimony to be <br />submitted under separate cover showing a factual basis for negative property <br />value impacts caused by cell phone towers. This supplemental testimony will <br />provide substantial factual evidence based on the best available research and <br />data. <br /> <br />Limitations of Past Local Decisions <br /> <br />In a past local decision regarding the application and interpretation of Policy E.4, <br />the Eugene Planning Commission made an erroneous interpretation in their <br />memo of March 4, 2013 (regarding second remand in LUBA No.2013-028, page 6, <br />http://www.eugene-or.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/490) when they <br />stated that a cell tower complied with the Metro Plan policy because As a <br />telecommunications facility, it enhances the one neighborhood feature it is <br />designed to address, communication. This is reductionism in the extreme. The <br />policy cannot be interpreted as being met merely because a single feature or <br />quality has been slightly enhanced. Many other, more-significant factors may <br />have been degraded. The policy requires consideration of a broad context of <br />factors, just as stated in the cited context for the policy above. <br /> <br />In the case of Martha Johnson v. City of Eugene (LUBA No. 2002-031, affirmed <br />07/10/2002), the hearing official did not believe that evidence submitted into the <br />record on negative property value impacts of cell phone towers would necessarily <br />apply to the cell tower under consideration. The basis for this was the HOs <br />opinion that the evidence showing a general impact resulting from cell towers is <br />not applicable to a specific cell tower. This is a rationally absurd conclusion. It is <br />like saying just because lead exposure has been shown to generally cause brain <br />damage in children, does not mean lead exposure should be limited for any <br />particular child. That is expressly what factual evidence is supposed to do: <br />provide an understanding of the impact of a decision before that decision is <br />made. To conclude otherwise would be to require the neighborhood to allow the <br />cell tower and then determine if property values were diminished. Of course this <br />would be a ridiculous scenario and would have no recourse. <br /> <br />‘—–Š ‹ŽŽ•–—†› <br /> <br />The South Hills Study is the applicable refinement plan. There is some <br />disagreement about whether the SHS applies, since it is stated to apply to the <br /> <br />Fodor & Associates - Page 13 <br />