6 <br /> and that could otherwise be sited on existing <br />facilities. Second, though the ordinance contains a requirement to allow for collocation, the <br />current proposal will not permit collocation because (a) the noise impacts from one carrier <br />exceed applicable noise standards (see exhibits E, F, G), and, therefore, a second carrier would <br />also exceed the applicable noise standards -generating <br />equipement, as set forth below; (b) the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed cell <br />tower is structurally capable of collocation; and (c) the record demonstrates that collocation is <br />7 <br />limited when the monopine design is utilized, which calls into question the graphic <br />representations of the proposed monopine. See exhibit B (comment stealth monopine and <br />collocation tower). Because the proposal refuses to seek reasonable alternative sites that would <br />use existing facilities or multiple smaller facilities, the applicant is needlessly constructing a <br />new, obtrusive tower that will not be sufficiently screened. <br />Importantly, the purpose statements above implicate whether the applicant has exhausted <br />its alternatives to collocate on existing facilities, so as not to increase the number of transmission <br />towers throughout the community, a community that is rife with towers, including 40 towers and <br />372 antennas within 3 miles of the subject property. See exhibit C (Cell tower locations in <br />Eugene); exhibit D (antenna search results). The subject area, however, because of its desirable <br />features as running trails, parklands, significant waterways, and residential character, has not <br />been subject to the aesthetical intrusion of cellular towers and even without the intrusion, there <br />Therefore, absent a showing <br />that a new monopine cell tower is the only (and most aesthetically intrusive) option, the <br />application must be denied. <br /> <br />(e) Ensures that all telecommunication facilities, including towers, antennas, and <br />ancillary facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual impact on the <br />immediate surroundings and throughout the community, and minimize public <br />inconvenience and disruption. <br /> Far from minimizing the visual impact, the proposed monopine needlessly maximizes the <br />visual impact on immediate surroundings and throughout the community, failing to preserve and <br />enhance the desirable features of the neighborhood. There is nothing in the way of substantial <br />evidence in the record to demonstrate that the applicant considered anything less obtrusive than <br />the 75-ft tall cell tower in the middle of a residential area, immediately adjacent to world-class <br /> <br />6 <br /> Indeed, not only has the need not been established, but evidence in the record demonstrates that <br />See exhibit A <br />(comment on AT&T misrepresentations). <br />7 <br /> In other words, prior cases demonstrate that it is more difficult to adequately shield or disguise <br />a monopine when there are additional carriers or antennae as a result of the collocation <br />requirement. <br />3 <br /> <br />