1 <br />The application is riddled with flaws and shortcomings, which requires that the City <br />deny the application. The cell tower would be an eyesore in a residential area that is <br />2 <br />immediately adjacent to , adjacent to <br />parks and open space designation on the Metro plan, and adjacent to second-largest <br />3 <br />waterway (Amazon creek). Attempting to disguise the cell tower as a large monopine simply <br />makes the cell tower all the more conspicuous and degrades the aesthetics <br />and desirable features of the neighborhood and community. There are no existing tall trees in the <br />area to adequately screen the monopine, as was the case in prior approvals for cell phone towers, <br />4 <br />and any attempt to screen the proposed monopine will take decades, if not more, for the trees to <br />reach sufficient size. These comments incorporate by reference all issues raised in the staff <br />report that find fault with the application, the Center for Municipal Solutions (CMS) report, and <br />the oral testimony in opposition to the proposed tower. <br /> <br />City of Eugene Telecommunications Ordinance <br />5 <br />9.5750 Purpose. The provisions of this section are intended to ensure that <br />telecommunication facilities are located, installed, maintained and removed in a manner <br />that: <br />(a) Minimizes the number of transmission towers throughout the community. <br />(b) Encourages the collocation of telecommunication facilities; <br />(c) Encourages the use of existing buildings, light or utility poles or water towers <br />as opposed to construction of new telecommunication towers; <br />The current proposal is contrary to the purpose statements of the <br />telecommunications ordinance. First, the proposal needlessly proposes a new tower for an <br /> <br />1 <br /> To name just a few at the outset, the applicantthe c <br />related to view shed protection, height limitations, setback minimums, noise mitigation, <br />buffering requirements, color requirements, graphic simulations of the proposed structure, <br />structure capacity for collocation, inability to collocate on alternative sites, and evidence <br />demonstrating alternative sites are unfeasible. <br />2 <br /> See exhibits H, I, J (Adidas and Rexius trails information and tmaps). <br />3 <br /> See <br /> <br />4 <br /> Planting 15-20 ft evergreen trees does not even begin to screen ¼ of the tower. In the Rest <br />Haven case, the city adequately screened a monopine because the monopine would be placed <br />within a grove of similar-sized trees. <br />5 <br /> While purpose statements are generally not approval criteria, they can provide context for <br />interpreting other provisions of the c <br />2 <br /> <br />