Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Comments 5-15-15 to 5-25-15
JANISCH Amy C From:Robin B <missrb1969@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 25, 2015 1:48 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:New Antenna on Amazon Creek in Eugene Mr Gioello, I DO NOT want this antenna in my neighborhood! My cellphone coverage is just fine right now so there is no need for another ugly tower in this neighborhood, even if it DOES look like a monster tree surrounded by smaller natural trees. Find another place to put it! Robin Bee Eugene, Oregon 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Jonni Foley <jonni.cora@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:21 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:upgrading network We want to show our support for much needed upgrades to our present cell service. Hopefully a upgrade will prevent our AT&T service from coming in and out, and give us faster connections. Jonni and Dennis Foley 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Steve <sschjoll@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 3:09 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Cell service improvement Mr Gioello My cell carrier ATT has informed me that additional equipment would improve the service in my area. We have had spotty reception since the beginning of cell phones in the 49th and Willamette St area. For safety and convenience I am in full support of adding equipment that makes the phones in my neighborhood more reliable. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely Steve Schjoll 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Artie Gilad <artieg@rltycon.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 9:17 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:NO CELL TOWER ALONG AMAZON CREEK NOCELLTOWERALONGAMAZONCREEK ArtieGilad 1845W.11thAvenueEugene,OR97402 5413451222 email:artieg@rltycon.com 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Clinton Fear <mojo8risin8@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 3:02 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:I support Greetings, AsacitizenofEugene,andafilmmaker,whoneedstheconnectiontotheworldandoncemoreofthecommunityin question,Ihearbyannouncemysupportfortheat&tcellulartowertobeerectedtostrengthenmyconnectiontonotonly otherlocalsinmyimmediatecommunity,butmyconnectiontotheworld.Sincerely, ClintonFear SentfrommyiPhone 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Sharon Cahn <sharon.cahn@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 6:42 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Eugene Wireless Tower I support a new wireless tower in Eugene. We need the coverage. Please make this happen. -- Sharon 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Kathie Bruscia <klbruscia@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:29 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:att tower DearMr.Gioello, Iaminfullsupportoftheartificialtreetowerproposedinourarea./͛ŵnotsurewhytherearenotmoreofthesearoundthe country,butIvoteyesforthisone. Thankyou, KathieBruscia Eugene,Or97405 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Cindy Allen <cindyallen21@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 3:54 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Dangers of WiFi Radiation According to my research into WiFi power antennas that I cunducted at the University of Oregon, I have concluded there is a large body or meta research that evidences the dangers of proximity sources of EMF signals. In Europe, clear regulations are in place which prohibit locating these antennas near schools and other institutions. The signals may not be visible but disturb all life from plants to bees and even humans. Children are at an increased risk as they are still developing their brain connections. I have personally moved my home WiFi device out of my bedroom to minimize my own exposure to EMF radiation. These powerful sector antennas penetrate buildings and can not be easily sheilded. -D. Klette 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Cindy Allen <cindyallen21@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2015 3:43 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R; SORENSON Pete Subject:(Crossfire-CU-14-0) Attachments::HVW$PD]RQ&HOO7RZHU²3UH$SSOLFDWLRQ&RPPXQLW\0HHWLQJ6RXWKHDVW1HLJKERUVSGI In the file-Crossfire reported that there were 35 people at the Pre-Application Community Meeting on Jan. 2014 and that there were as many people for as against the tower. This number is incorrect; Kathy Ging and I counted 90 people in the room and there were many more speaking against the tower than for it. When I looked at the list of names presented by Crossfire-I was saw only a short list with many of the names not of Eugene-possibly these are the church members who drive in from Springfield and Harrisburg to attend church here. I did not see many on the list who were at the meeting and who are neighbors. Before the meeting-Kathy Ging, Mike Carter and I made calls to Steve Ochs at the Eugene Planners.' After speaking to the representative of the church-Steve called us to say that this was not the official meeting required in the Eugene code but an unofficial meeting to see how neighbors felt about the tower. A little or an hour before the meeting- Steve Ochs called Kathy Ging, Mike Carter and I again saying that the representative of the church had called back and this was the official Pre-Application Meeting required by the Eugene code. 3 AT&T representatives from Portland and Seattle were introduced at the meeting led by the Lead Pastor. My letter telling of the meeting did not come until several days after the event. Several neighbors at the meeting commented that it was the ""fast-thinking"" of local neighbors that went ""door to door'' that alerted them to the meeting and that they did not receive a letter. In the Southeast Neighbors letter by David Saul-he reports that attendance was high at the West Amazon Cell Tower-Pre-Application Community Meeting located at Calvary Chapel; at that time Crossfire was still using the name Calvary Chapel. Also-please note the picture that the applicant gave for the projected appearance of the monopine-the deciduous maples at the site are only 20-25 tall-yet the 75ft. simulated monopine appears to be of a similar height. Thank you. Cindy Allen 1 ;IWX%QE^SR'IPP8S[IV§4VI%TTPMGEXMSR'SQQYRMX]1IIXMRK`LXXT WSYXLIEWXRIMKLFSVWSVK[IWXEQE^SRGIPPXS[IVTV 7SYXLIEWX2IMKLFSVW )YKIRI3VIKSR ,SQI%FSYX'EPIRHEV'SRXEGX9W1ETW2I[WPIXXIVW:SPYRXIIV ;IWX%QE^SR'IPP8S[IV §4VI%TTPMGEXMSR 'SQQYRMX]1IIXMRK (EZMH7EYP.ERYEV] %XXIRHERGI[EWLMKLEXXLI.ER QIIXMRKXSHMWGYWWETVSTSWIH TVSNIGXPSGEXIHEX'EPZEV]'LETIP SJ)YKIRIEX;%QE^SR (VMZI)YKIRI 8LITVSTSWEPMWJSVXLIMRWXEPPEXMSR SJERI[[MVIPIWWJEGMPMX]MRSVHIV XSFVMRK+WIVZMGIXSXLMWEVIESJ )YKIRI8LMWTVSNIGX[MPPMQTVSZI GSRRIGXMZMX]JSVZSMGIHEXEERH XI\XIRWYVMRKEWXVSRKIVERHQSVI VIPMEFPIRIX[SVOMRXLIEVIE8LI TVSTSWIHJEGMPMX]MWHIWMKRIHXS %8 8MWTVSTSWMRKXLIMRWXEPPEXMSRSJERI[[MVIPIWW PSSOPMOIERIZIVKVIIRXVII JEGMPMX]MR)YKIRIHYIXSKETWMR+GSZIVEKIMRXLI ©QSRSTMRIª MRSVHIVXSFPIRH SJ 41 ;IWX%QE^SR'IPP8S[IV§4VI%TTPMGEXMSR'SQQYRMX]1IIXMRK`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´REP HIGMWMSRSRLS[XSTVSGIIH[MPPFI QEHIJSVEXPIEWXX[S[IIOW 7SYXLIEWX2IMKLFSVW[MPPFIRSXM´IH F]XLIGMX][LIRER]PERHYWI ETTPMGEXMSRMWVIGIMZIHERH[I[MPP VITSVXMXLIVI2IMKLFSVWI\TVIWWIH WIVMSYWGSRGIVRW[MXLXLITSXIRXMEP IRZMVSRQIRXEPERHLIEPXLMQTEGXWSJ XLIQMGVS[EZIVEHMEXMSRXLIMQTEGX SRWGIRMGZEPYIWJSVXLIRIMKLFSVW EW[IPPEWXLIRIEVF]%QE^SR +VIIR[E]ERHMQTEGXWSRTVSTIVX] ZEPYIWJSVRIEVF]RIMKLFSVW 0MOI &IXLI´VWXXSPMOIXLMW .ERYEV]MR'IPP8S[IV'SQQYRMX])ZIRXW 6IPEXIHTSWXW &EPPSSR*PSEX4YFPMG,IEVMRK'IPP8S[IV7MXMRK 7GLIHYPIHJSV6IUYMVIQIRXW 2I['IPP8S[IVERH4VSGIHYVIW EX'VSWW´VI%0IXXIVXSXLI 1MRMWXV]1E]SVERH'MX] 'SYRGMP %QE^SR'VIIO8VII4PERXMRK VIWGLIHYPIH (VEJX1MRYXIW .ERYEV]7)21IIXMRK SJ 41 JANISCH Amy C From:Mary Wood <marywood@naturestrust.us> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 10:56 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:please deny cell tower permit - AT&T CUP app. 14 - 003 DearMr.GioelloIamamotherofthreeschoolagedboys.MyfamilylivesintheAmazonneighborhood.Iamstrongly opposedtoanycelltowerattheCrossfirechurch.IurgeyoutoDENYtheantennapermitasbeingincompatiblewiththe standardsinthecitycode. WewalkalongtheAmazonpathdailyforexercise.Weusethebusstopatthechurchseveraltimesaweek.Webicyclebythe churchdaily(fourofus,oncommutestoschoolandwork).Weresideneartheproposedsite.Oneofourchildrenattends schoolneartheproposedsite.Wedonotwantacommercial/industrialcorporateusesitinginthisquietresidentialarea.Ido notbelievethecelltowerinanywayfitswithintheambitoftheconditionalusestatusoriginallygrantedforchurchpurposes. Suchauseisinherentlyincompatiblewiththeresidentialnatureoftheneighborhood. Thecelltowerwouldalsoseriouslydegradethenaturalaestheticsandwildlifeofthearea.Thisareaexperienceshighusebythe publiconadailybasis.Theopenspaceandnaturalconditionofthecorridorwouldbeblemishedbyanartificial,towering, pretendfaketreeintheparkinglot.Thetreetowerdesignembodiesuglinessanddistortion./ƚ͛Ɛheightfarexceedsthe buildings.ItwouldbeablightthatcityresidentscouldnotignoreaslapinthefacetothosewhocometotheAmazonpathto enjoyanauthenticvegetativecorridor.Theverypresenceofsuchatowerwoulddetractfromtheemotionalandmental experiencenowenjoyedbycountlessmembersofthepublic.Moreover,recentstudies(intherecord)showtheharmfuleffect ofcellradiationonthetypesofmanyspeciesthatusetheAmazoncorridorforhabitat.Thecityhasadutytoprotectpublic experiencesnowprovidedbytheAmazoncorridor. Ialsohavegraveconcernabouttheeffectofacelltoweronthehealthandwelfareofourchildrenandallthechildrenofthe area.Thechurchisonthemainroutetoschoolsinthearea(EdgewoodandSpencerButte).Weareappalledatthethoughtof ourĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛexposuretoproximateradiationonadailybasis.WestrictlylimitourĨĂŵŝůLJ͛Ɛexposuretocellradiationand abhorthethoughtofbeingexposedinvoluntarilytosuchradiationsothatAT&Tcanincreaseitsprofits.Wealsobelievea ͞ƚƌĞĞ͟towerintheparkinglotisanattractivenuisance(climbing)forteenagersandchildren.Thataspectposesauniqueland usedanger,andweurgeyoutoconsideritinapplyingstandardsdesignedtosafeguardthehealthandwellbeingofthe community. Finally,thereisaconstantdangertoworkerswhomustservicethetower.Frontlinehasdocumentedalarmingnumbersofcell towerdeaths,seehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/celltowerdeaths/.Adeathoccurredonacelltowerplacedat thecemeteryonWillametteStreet.Thetowersalsoposethreatstopoliceandfireresponsepersonnel.Asamatteroflanduse compatibility,anyinfrastructurerequiringsuchdangerousmaintenanceactivitiesshouldnotbelocatedinasafeandquiet residentialarea. IseenojustifiablecounterveilingbenefittothecitizensofEugeneandresidentsoftheareafromsitingthetower.Thereis amplecellserviceinthearea,andwhilesomeresidencesmaynothavetheidealreception,theaddedincrementalbenefitfora veryfewinnowayjustifiesbringingharmtoanentireneighborhoodanddemeaningtheAmazonexperienceforregularvisitors fromotherareas.Thecityshouldnotuse"peakĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ͟asanewstandardforissuinglandusepermits.Rather,Iurgeyou toadheretothetraditionalstandardofprotectingthehealthandwelfareofthecommunity. Insum,Iurgeyoutodenythispermitonthebasisthatitwouldallowanincompatiblelanduseinthisarea.Pleaseletmeknow youhavereceivedthisemailandthatitwillbedulyrecorded. Respectfully, MaryWood 1 JANISCH Amy C From:David Sokoloff <sokoloff@uoregon.edu> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 3:29 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:ATT wireless service for South Eugene Dear Mr. Gioello: I am writing to add my support to grant ATT approval to construct a new wireless tower in South Eugene, in the vicinity of Amazon Parkway/Dillard Rd. This is one area of Eugene in which ATT service is dismal, and the addition of this tower is necessary to improve it. I urge the approval of this low environmental impact installation. Best regards, David Sokoloff 1430 E 43rd Avenue Eugene, OR 97405 541-221-6543 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Susan Simonton <scs@curtisresteq.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 3:35 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:WIRELESS SERVICE PleasehelpthoseofusinEugenegetbetterservicefromAT&Tbyokayingtheproposedantaesite.Therearemanydeadspots inmyneighborhoodandwithlandlineusedecreasingitisveryimportantthatthosewhoneedservicetohaveservice.The EdgewoodTownhouseAssociationinEugenehasalargenumberofelderlypersonslivingtherewhousetheircellservicefor connectingtotheoutsideworld. Pleaseapprovesite. Thankyou 6XVDQ Susan C Simonton Accounting Manager Curtis Restaurant Equipment Inc| CurtisRestEq.com 555 Shelley Street | Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 746-7480 ext 208 | (541) 746-7384 PHFX Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association 2012 Vendor of the Year 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Steve <sschjoll@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 8:41 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Cell service improvement Mr Gioello My cell carrier ATT has informed me that additional equipment would improve the service in my area. We have had spotty reception since the beginning of cell phones in the 49th and Willamette St area. For safety and convenience I am in full support of adding equipment that makes the phones in my neighborhood more reliable. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely Steve Schjoll 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Comcast <rospry@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 11:11 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Cell tower IsupporttheproposedcelltowerThankyou. RosemaryPryor 2671EWilshiredr.,EugeneOregon. Rospry@comcast.net SentfrommyiPhone 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Carla Orcutt <carlagerman@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:AT&T Request for new Cell Tower Dear Mr. Gioello, opposition As a resident near the proposed new cell tower, I like to register my to the proposal. NO My reception is just fine right now. There's need to add additional coverage. NOT Church properties, being tax exempt because they do not engage in commercial activities, should be a site to locate equipment used to run a business and generate commercial revenue. Thank you for your consideration Carla Orcutt 5020 Talisman St. Eugene, OR 97405 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Carla McShane <carla.mcshane@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 1:47 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Cell service upgrade IaminsupportofcellantennaeatthecornerofAmazonwestandfoxhollow. CarlaMcShane SentfrommyiPhone 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Bill <wsloomis@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 1:04 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:AT&T wireless tower Pleasesupporttheconstructionofthistower.Enhancedservicewillbegreatlyappreciated.Thankyou. 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Mike Cramer <mhcr1234@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2015 3:44 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:cell tower Itlooksgoodbutwhereisitgoingtobelocated? 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Mona Linstromberg <lindym@peak.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:40 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:CU-14-003 Crossfire AT &T Attachments:Mona's balloon update.pdf Nick,pleaseenterintotherecordtheattached.EbenFodorsubmittedtestimonyreferencingmyexperiencewith balloonfloats.Theattachedsupportshisstatement. MonaLiinstromberg SentviamytotallysafeHARDWIREDinternetconnection 1 3(1:7IEP6SGO 81SFMPI %GXMZITEVXMGMTERXETTPMGEXMSRHIRMIH 7IEP6SGO 'ETWXSRIEWEKIRXJSV%88 %GXMZITEVXMGMTERXETTPMGEXMSRHIRMIH JANISCH Amy C From:Eben Fodor <eben@fodorandassociates.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:18 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Supplemental Testimony 1 on #CU 14-3 Attachments:Supplemental Testimony #1 by Fodor&Assoc.pdf Hi Nick, Attached is supplemental testimony for the case record which shows that the depiction of the monopine in the application was not correctly scaled and misrepresents the tower as being 5-10 feet below the actual height. Eben Eben Fodor Fodor & Associates LLC Eugene, OR 541-345-8246 www.fodorandassociates.com 1 ͓ͳ ͓ͳͶǦ͵ Testimony regarding Conditional Use Application #CU 14-3 for a new cell tower at 4060 W. Amazon Drive in a residential (R1-zoned) neighborhood. Submitted: May 19, 2015 Submitted to: Nick Gioello, nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us This testimony is provided to supplement testimony submitted previously on May 18, 2015 in order to address the following decision criteria in Eugene Code: 9.5750 (6)(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall include the following information: 1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at least 5 points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the provider with review and approval by the planning director to ensure that various potential views are represented. Some of the photo depictions provided in Attachment 2 of the CUP application to meet the criteria of EC 9.5750(6)(c)(1) appear to represent a monopine tower that is smaller than the actual proposed 75-foot tower. To check this, a photo was taken from the identical location shown in the application as Viewpoint 16 while a balloon was floated by Friends of Amazon Creek on the morning of April 18, 2015. According to Mona Linstromberg, who deployed the balloon, the height was carefully measured from the ground to the top of the balloon to accurately 541/345-info@fodorandassociates.com reflect the total 75-foot height of the proposed tower. Ms. Linstromberg has considerable experience with the balloon and has used it to accurately demonstrate cell tower heights on many other occasions. It is noteworthy that there was a slight wind blowing at the time and the balloon was often not at the full height, so multiple photos were taken in order to try and capture an image of the balloon at full height and an actual elevation of 75 feet. In other words, the photographed balloon may be slightly lower than the height of the proposed tower due to the wind pushing the balloon sideways. The application photo from Viewpoint 16 with the tower representation was then overlaid on the newly-taken photo (with the balloon for reference) and scaled to match the new photo using a partially transparent layer in Photoshop. From this overlay the balloon height can be compared with the tower representation prepared by the applicant. It can clearly be seen that the monopine tower representation is 5 to 10 feet below the top of the balloon (see attached photo analysis). In other words, the application misrepresents the visual height of the tower by portraying it as being 5 to 10 feet lower than it will actually be. This is a fairly significant discrepancy and raises questions about the veracity of the other visual representations prepared by the applicant. w photo simulations have been to provide the new tower design and landscaping with a very high degree of accuracy [sic, emphasis added] The applicant has failed to describe the method used to obtain these representations and has failed to explain why they would have a inaccurate statements cast a poor light on the quality and integrity of the application. By misrepresenting the tower height, the applicant has failed to meet EC 9.5750(6)(c)(1) and the application should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Eben Fodor Principal Photo analysis attached. Fodor & Associates - Page 2 Fodor & Associates - Page 3 JANISCH Amy C From:Eben Fodor <eben@fodorandassociates.com> Sent:Monday, May 18, 2015 5:28 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Testimony on CU 14-3 Attachments:Cell Tower Testimony by Fodor&Assoc.pdf Hi Nick, Please include the following testimony in the record for the Crossfire Cell Tower application. Can you please confirm that you have received this pdf for an 18-page document? As noted in the document, I plan to submit supplemental testimony on the property value impacts before the record closes. Thanks, Eben Eben Fodor Fodor & Associates LLC Eugene, OR 541-345-8246 www.fodorandassociates.com 1 TestimonySubmitted͓ͳͶ-3 Testimony regarding Conditional Use Application #CU 14-3 for a new cell tower at 4060 W. Amazon Drive in a residential (R1-zoned) neighborhood. Submitted: May 18, 2015 Submitted to: Nick Gioello, nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us The application is evaluated in the context of the applicable decision criteria as described below: 9.5750T - Procedures. 9.5750 (1) Purpose. The provisions of this section are intended to ensure that telecommunication facilities are located, installed, maintained and removed in a manner that: (a) Minimizes the number of transmission towers throughout the community; (b) Encourages the collocation of telecommunication facilities; The applicant has failed to meet the purpose of this code section by failing to evaluate the larger network of existing cell towers for potential collocation options, and by selecting a proposed site that has minimal utility for other service providers due to its poor location in a valley that will limit signal transmission distances. 541/345-info@fodorandassociates.com The application should be denied because it is not needed to provide service in the area. As stated in the Center for Municipal Solutions report, the applicant must provide substantial evidence demonstrating an actual gap in service to justify the need for a new cell tower. Evidence of adequate service coverage is provided below under discussion of EC 9.5750(6)(c)3. 9.5750 (6)(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall include the following information: 2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 feet have been considered and have been determined to be technologically unfeasible or unavailable. For site reviews, alternative sites zoned E-1, E-2, I-2, and I-3 must be considered. For conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, E-1, E-2, I-2, I-3 and S-WS must be considered. While the applicant made an effort only to meet the minimum analysis range of 2000 feet required by 9.5750(6)(c)(2), they have failed to fully comply with Eugene Code by not examining alternative sites with the suitable zoning indicated which must be considered. Because this is an exclusively residential neighborhood, the applicant must do a much better alternative location analysis over a larger distance. They must identified alternative sites away from residential areas that could provide a high level of service to this area. While it is not the job of opponents to identify suitable alternative sites for a cell tower, it may be helpful to the Hearings Official to know that such sites do exist. One possibility would be to locate the cell tower in the area used by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) powerline easement that runs through the south hills between Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road. This easement is already heavily impacted by tall transmission towers and high-voltage powerlines. Another powerline easement in the area is owned by EWEB. Both easements are elevated, allowing for good signal dispersion and potential for collocation by other service providers. 9.5750 (6)(c)3. Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available space, or failing to meet Fodor & Associates - Page 2 service coverage area needs. The applicant has failed to meet Eugene Code requirements in EC 9.5750(6)(c)3 by demonstrating that co-location is impractical on the existing network of transmission towers. To comply with the Code, the applicant should provide a map of all cell towers in South Eugene and provide factual evidence demonstrating that the applicant cannot provide adequate service using the same towers that other service providers use to provide excellent service to this same area (Verizon, for example). The failure of the applicant to fully evaluate alternative sites and to consider co- location on existing transmission towers with other providers that are rendering excellent service in this same area, is an indication that the applicant is unreasonably fixated on this one location because the owner of the property wishes to make money from the site rental, regardless of the impact on the community. The application must be denied for failure to provide evidence complying with the Eugene Code. Insufficient Evidence for Lack of Service CMS has stated that there is not sufficient evidence of the lack of service in this area. Our own tests have verified that there is adequate cell phone service at this site and in this area. below. Note that this is factual and empirical evidence of service. Onsite Test of Coverage/Service At&T phone service was tested at the Crossfire Church parking lot on 4/18/15 using an iPhone with AT&T service. Service showed one to three bars of reception at all times. A phone call was placed on the first attempt and phone service was verified with good voice quality in both directions (send and receive). To check data transmission at this location, a website was opened and browsed with the same cell phone with website pages loading quickly. This test verified both adequate cellular phone service and adequate data service from the location of the proposed cell tower. This application should be rejected because there is no lack of service and a new cell tower is not needed Existing Cell Tower Infrastructure Already Adequate In addition to AT&T service, T-Mobile and Verizon service were also verified at Fodor & Associates - Page 3 the proposed tower site. T-Mobile, which is notoriously one of the weaker services in Eugene, had two to three bars of signal strength. Neighbors reported excellent Verizon service in the area. To verify the quality of Verizon service, a colleague with Verizon service drove up and down the length of West Amazon Drive on 4/21/15 and reported four to five bars of reception throughout the corridor. The high quality of service offered by other service providers (i.e., Verizon) indicates that they have been able to provide service to this area with the existing cell tower infrastructure. If AT&T needs to boost its signal in the area, it should be able to co-locate with existing cell towers used by other carriers to achieve similar result without adding a new cell tower. AT&T must provide evidence that the existing infrastructure that other service providers, like Verizon, use to provided excellent service, is not capable of being used by AT&T. this evidence is the basis for denying this application. AT&T Cell Phone Coverage Maps AT&T cell phone coverage maps were reviewed for the area around the proposed tower site at the Crossfire Church. The maps are available on the AT&T website and show prospective customers where the company has coverage and what level or quality of coverage is offered. These maps show full cell phone coverage and full data coverage with full 4G LTE service. data. The solid orange color indicates full coverage. The entire area well beyond proposed cell tower location is solid orange for voice and data. The third graphic shows that full 4G LTE data coverage is available from AT&T for the entire South Eugene area, and beyond. Fodor & Associates - Page 4 Fodor & Associates - Page 5 Fodor & Associates - Page 6 s that AT&T already has full coverage of this area, the applicant cannot claim that there is any coverage gap that needs to be filled by a new cell tower. Case Law on Service Coverage Issue The following case law citations show that the applicant for a cell tower must demonstrate that there is a significant gap is service that requires the new tower Fodor & Associates - Page 7 to fill. This is the same general conclusion found in the Center for Municipal Solutions report. Cellular Wireless Antennas: Federal Appeals Court Case Law - Citations and Excerpts (Source: http://www.antennafreeunion.org/article_appeals.htm) Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth 176 F.3d 360 (2nd Cir. 1999) "We do not read the [Telecommunications Act of 1996] to allow the goals of increased competition and rapid deployment of new technology to trump all other important considerations, including the preservation of the autonomy of states and municipalities." "A local government may also reject an application that seeks permission to construct more towers than the minimum required to provide wireless telephone services in a given area. A denial of such a request is not a prohibition of personal wireless services as long as fewer towers would provide users in the given area with some ability to reach a cell site." "Furthermore, once an area is sufficiently serviced by a wireless service provider, the right to deny applications becomes broader." precludes denying an application for a facility that is the least intrusive means for closing a significant gap in a access to land-lines." APT Pittsburgh Partnership v. Penn Township 196 F.3d 469 (3rd Cir. 1999) ". . . [A]n unsuccessful provider applicant must show . . . that its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network. . . . Not e a gap in the service available to remote will thus have to include evidence that the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider." Cellular Telephone Co. v. Zoning Board of Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus 197 F.3d 64 (3rd Cir. 1999) Fodor & Associates - Page 8 Local governments can consider "quality of existing wireless service" in rejecting an application. 9.5750(f) Noise Reduction. In R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, and GO and in all other zones when the adjacent property is zoned for residential use or occupied by a dwelling, hospital, school, library, or nursing home, noise generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce sound level measured at the property line to 45dBa. The applicant is incorrectly treating this a cell tower as if AT&T was going to be the only company to locate antennas and equipment on this site. In fact, if it is permitted, at least one, and potentially many, companies will legally be able to use this same facilities. Therefore the applicant must demonstrate that the 45dBA noise limitation can be met with the maximum potential number of co-locating companies operating simultaneously on this tower. 9.8090 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General. A conditional use permit shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria: (1) The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. See 0HWUR3ODQ&RPSOLDQFH section of this testimony for response to this criteria. (2) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following factors: (a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and density of use being proposed. While the Eugene Code section 9.5750(7)(b)(5) limits the maximum height of a cell tower to 75 feet in the R-1 zone, this section requires reasonable compatibility and minimal impacts on livability and use of surrounding property in terms of mass and scale. Since this requirement is supplemental to Fodor & Associates - Page 9 EC9.5750(7)(b)(5), and does not conflict with it, this section applies fully to the current application. The critical issue with this application is its location within an entirely residential neighborhood. As such, the area is especially sensitive to the physical height of the proposed tower. The maximum building height in the R-1 zone is 30 feet (per Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards). Disguising a building by painting it green or adding artificial branches to the outside of the building would still not allow a building to be constructed beyond this height limit and certainly not at 75 feet. The applicant has failed demonstrate that a structure 75 feet in height is compatible with residential neighborhood with a 30-foot height limitation. Efforts by the applicant to disguise the tower as an artificial tree will not hide the obvious fact that it is a transmission tower from surrounding property owners. A tower of this scale is inherently incompatible with the immediately surrounding residential neighborhood. In order for the mass and scale of the tower to be reasonably compatible and have minimal impact, it would need to be contained entirely within a structure that is dimensionally consistent with the zoning and building codes for the R-1 zone. (7) The proposal does not create any significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. While Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that personal wireless service facilities may not be regulated on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, this section of Eugene Code preserves some consideration of significant public health and safety risks. Due to the precarious location of this proposal, it places undue health and safety risks on a very vulnerable segment of the population: elementary school children. The proposed cell tower site is directly across the street and approximately 1000 feet from the Parker Elementary School site which will be occupied by 350 students from the Charlemagne Elementary School starting this fall. These children, ages 5 to 11 years old, will be involuntarily subjected to 6 hours of daily exposure to cell tower radiation for up to 6 years. As shown in the following figure, Ridgeline Elementary School would be within 1500 feet of the proposed tower, Spencer Butte MS would be 2200 feet away, and Edgewood Elementary Fodor & Associates - Page 10 would be 2800 feet away. Thus, four public schools are within close proximity to the proposed site. This location is simply not suitable due to proximity to a large and vulnerable population of young children. Metro Plan Policy E.4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity. This element is described as follows in the Metro Plan (emphasis added): Fodor & Associates - Page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learly, the context of Metro Plan Policy E.4 is intended to refer to the broad range of characteristics affecting local quality of life in the neighborhood. Specifically, it states that private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity. Since quality of life and desirable features are something perceived by individuals, they are ultimately a subjective gauge which is difficult to measure directly with any precise numbers or data. However people have a general sense of what is meant by these terms. A suitable proxy which can objectively measure positive or negative impacts to quality of life and the desirability of a neighborhood, is the impact to property values. Relative property values, and changes to property values, measure differences in the desirability of a neighborhood. Therefore, if cell towers can be shown to have a negative impact to property values, then this can serve as an objective and factual basis for demonstrating that desirable features have not been preserved and enhanced, as required to comply with Policy E.4. This argument is made in part to legitimize all testimony submitted into the record for this case related to property value diminution caused by new cell Fodor & Associates - Page 12 towers. It is also made to establish the basis for supplemental testimony to be submitted under separate cover showing a factual basis for negative property value impacts caused by cell phone towers. This supplemental testimony will provide substantial factual evidence based on the best available research and data. Limitations of Past Local Decisions In a past local decision regarding the application and interpretation of Policy E.4, the Eugene Planning Commission made an erroneous interpretation in their memo of March 4, 2013 (regarding second remand in LUBA No.2013-028, page 6, http://www.eugene-or.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/490) when they stated that a cell tower complied with the Metro Plan policy because As a telecommunications facility, it enhances the one neighborhood feature it is designed to address, communication. This is reductionism in the extreme. The policy cannot be interpreted as being met merely because a single feature or quality has been slightly enhanced. Many other, more-significant factors may have been degraded. The policy requires consideration of a broad context of factors, just as stated in the cited context for the policy above. In the case of Martha Johnson v. City of Eugene (LUBA No. 2002-031, affirmed 07/10/2002), the hearing official did not believe that evidence submitted into the record on negative property value impacts of cell phone towers would necessarily apply to the cell tower under consideration. The basis for this was the HOs opinion that the evidence showing a general impact resulting from cell towers is not applicable to a specific cell tower. This is a rationally absurd conclusion. It is like saying just because lead exposure has been shown to generally cause brain damage in children, does not mean lead exposure should be limited for any particular child. That is expressly what factual evidence is supposed to do: provide an understanding of the impact of a decision before that decision is made. To conclude otherwise would be to require the neighborhood to allow the cell tower and then determine if property values were diminished. Of course this would be a ridiculous scenario and would have no recourse. The South Hills Study is the applicable refinement plan. There is some disagreement about whether the SHS applies, since it is stated to apply to the Fodor & Associates - Page 13 th Avenue, above an proposed tower is 465 to 470 feet based on topo maps. However, the 75-foot tower would enter into and impact the area above 500 feet. There is nothing in the SHS stating that it applies only to the surface of the land. Therefore, any proposed development above 500 feet in elevation is included in the plan. D. Development Standards II. Specific Recommendations 5. That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to insure that development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills area. A principal natural characteristic of the south hills area is Amazon Creek which emanates from the flanks of Spencer Butte. Amazon Creek is celebrated with a parkland riparian corridor (Amazon Parkway) and the popular Rexius Trail system which connect directly with the Amazon Headwaters area and the Ridgeline Trail system (see Figure below). As such it is an integrated system providing a wildlife corridor, a recreational corridor, a water quality and flood control system, and an attractive natural amenity that supports the local quality of life and adds value and character to the community. Fodor & Associates - Page 14 A 75-foot tower is not compatible in term of scale and height with the natural characteristic of Amazon Creek corridor. The tower would dominate, rather than blend in to these natural characteristics due to its great height and proximity to the corridor (about 100 feet). It would degrade the views and natural qualities enjoyed by trail users, drivers, bikers, and residents living along the corridor. Fodor & Associates - Page 15 Even if the applicant is able to make the 75-foot tower look like a giant artificial tree, this will not disguise that fact that it is a fake tree and little more than a massively tall artificial construct in the middle of a tranquil residential neighborhood park system dominated by the Amazon Creek corridor. Seeing a fake tree and realizing that the natural views you had been enjoying have been wantonly degraded and compromised would significantly detract from the enjoyment and appeal of this area. Another natural characteristic of this south hills area is Kincaid Park, which is directly across the road from the proposed cell tower site. This small neighborhood park is another area where people enjoy the natural views and qualities of the Amazon Creek corridor. This park serves many local families and provides extra recreation area for school children at Charlemagne Elementary School, which is located right next to the park. The proposed 75-foot cell tower would be highly visible from Kincaid Park and would detract from enjoyment of the natural characteristics of this area. o The siting of a cell tower on church property is a commercial enterprise which will result in the loss of any tax exemption on that part of the property used for this purpose, as stated in ORS 307.140 (below). Oregon Revised Statutes § 307.140 Property of religious organizations. Upon compliance with ORS 307.162 (Claiming exemption), the following property owned or being purchased by religious organizations shall be exempt from taxation: (1) All houses of public worship and other additional buildings and property used solely for administration, education, literary, benevolent, charitable, entertainment and recreational purposes by religious organizations, the lots on which they are situated, and the pews, slips and furniture therein. However, any part of any house of public worship or other additional buildings or property which is kept or used as a store or shop or for any purpose other than those stated in this section shall be assessed and taxed the same as other taxable property. In addition to the area on which the tower and its ancillary facilities are directly located, there is the parking and access areas required to service the facilities. Fodor & Associates - Page 16 Additionally, there is a 75-foot radius around the tower which is the require setback distance from the property lines and serving as a fall-zone for the tower. All of these structures, parking, access areas, and the required setback area should be treated as taxable and non-exempt property. This legally-required change in tax status should be described and defined as a condition in the CUP decision. Taking Measure 47, issued by the State Legislature and approved by voters assures that property values losses resulting from new government regulations must be compensated. DLCD maintains that Measure 49 claims are only valid for enactment of land use regulations that restrict use of a property. However, approval of this application could meet this criteria in the context of its impact on neighboring properties. Therefore, the argument is presented here in order to preserve the right to future litigation of the matter. When people decide where to live and invest in their homestead in an entirely residentially-zoned neighborhood, they have a reasonable right to expect that only residential uses will occur around them. The city has already made an exception to this by allowing a church to be built on the site under consideration. No neighbors objected to this. Now the city is considering allowing a cell phone tower to be built on the church site right in the middle of an exclusively residential neighborhood on a site surrounded by homes. This sort of action by the city could not be too much further from the reasonable and orderly process of land development and land use that zoning and the entire panoply of land use regulations are intended to ensure. If this cell tower is approved by the city, it will constitute a regulatory taking of property values for all nearby property owner. Negative property value impacts resulting from cell towers is intuitively obvious to any rational and informed individual, however it is also established elsewhere in this testimony using factual and objective data combined with the best available scientific research. Each nearby resident will be eligNew Measure 49 Claim their lost property values. Eben Fodor is a professional planner and the Principal of Fodor & Associates LLC, Fodor & Associates - Page 17 a consulting firm based in Eugene, Oregon. He has more than 20 years of experience in community planning and land use consulting. He represents businesses, individuals and community groups in land use appeals and applications and helps resolve land use and development conflicts. He has worked on all types of land use matters in Oregon and many other states. He is a published author and researcher and member of the American Planning Association. He holds a M.S. degre Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Oregon and a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Respectfully submitted, Eben Fodor Principal Fodor & Associates - Page 18 JANISCH Amy C From:Melissa Beard <melissabeard22@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 18, 2015 10:07 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Deny ATT CUP 14-003 IamacitizenofEugeneandIDONOTsupporttheATTCUP1400375footcelltowerproposedfor4060W.AmazonDrive.Iam askingplannerstoDENYtheATTCUP14003. ThankYou, MelissaJ.Beard ConcernedEugeneCitizen SentfrommyiPhone 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Susan Klein <susanluvseugene@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2015 11:33 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R; rgletters@registerguard.com; Donya.Burns@WirelessCounsel.com; eugenelivability@gmail.com; Letters Subject:CROSSFIRE CELL TOWER--A big fat NO To whom it may concern--ALL!: AGAINST I am submitting a letter the building and placing of a cell tower in my neighborhood. I live within a ten minute walk of this supposed Crossfire Church. (I never see anyone there!) As an artist, AVID walker, bicyclist and nature lover—this is not acceptable, to me. It will be a visible eyesore not to mention my physical sensitivity to this communication means. As it is, I live close to cell towers located on Spenser Butte. I am seeing continuously bees and other insects flying rigidly into my studio windows repeatedly, as though they are lost or cannot see it. This has happened since the building of those cell towers! Reasons to DENY! 1 . Incompatibility of neighborhood values because of decreased property values for homeowners in an R-1 residential zoned neighborhood, while a pastor from out of the neighborhood profits personally. (!!!!!) 2. Natural environment aesthetics (visual, auditory and psychological) violated. Visually and psychologically intrusive. 3. Stewardship of the natural environment, birds, and wildlife across the street in the Amazon Corridor municipal park land violated. 4. Incompatibility with local taxpayers' rights to unobstructed skyline views, a non-commercial atmosphere, and peaceful beautiful recreation while on the walking trails in park space financed by taxpayers. NO WAY!!!!!!!! 5. Mostly 1 or 2-story house heights incompatible with a 75-ft. corporate monolith. No adequate screening of Amazon Creek by standing trees. 6. Incompatibility of a corporate profit-making venture with a neighborhood church's purpose to promote spirituality andgood neighbor relations. 7. Incompatibility with the stewardship intentions of the Audubon Society of Lane County, theEugene Track Club, and especially the Be-NobleFoundation, all of whom donated much 1 money to preserve the environmental habitat and to attract and protect the birds and wildlife of Amazon Creek and the surrounding natural area. GO here: friendsofamazoncreek.org for full information PS. I have been collecting signatures to oppose this on all levels. I walk the Amazon Parkway and past this bogus "church". * Love is all there is! Susan Klein www.susankleindesign.com facebook.com/susanluvseugene 541.513.5314 2 JANISCH Amy C From:laila pettersson <barragona@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 15, 2015 9:57 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:ATT,s tower DearPerson, IhavetoletyouknowhowupsetIamovertheproposedcellphonetoweronW.amazononchurchproperty. IownahousewhereIliveclosebytheproposedtower.Ifthetowerisputupmypropertyvaluewillgodown! WhyshouldIbesubjecttoATT'shungerformoreprofit?Wehaveperfectcellphonereceptionhereandveryfast internet,soinallrealityATT'stowerisnotnecessaryforuslivinghere. They,ATT,arejustoutfortheirprofit.ItwillnotbenefitourSouthEugencommunityatall.Whatitwilldoislower ourpropertyvalues,andmakethisplaceuglywithabigtower. Iurgeyoutolistentouswholivehereandwillbeaffectedbythetower. 1.WEDON'TNEEDIT.WEHAVEPERFECTCELLPHONEANDINTERNETALREADY. 2.ITWILLLOWEROURPROPERTYVALUES. 3.ITDOES'NTFITINWITHOURAREAOFNATUREANDRUNNINGTRAILS. 4.IHAVE'NTEVENGOTTENINTOTHEHEALTHEFFECT.ITHINKMOSTPEOPLEUNDERSTANDWHATITDOESALREADY. 5.ALLISDOESISGIVINGPROFITTOATT. ThankyousomuchforreadingthisandconsiderwhatwethinkhereinSouthEugene. Sincerely,LailaPettersson 950Larchst.Eugene,Or.97405 5413430394 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Joey Clemmons <joeyclemmons@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, May 15, 2015 12:04 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:jjclemmons@yahoo.com Subject:AT&T CUP App. 14-003 DearMr.Gioello, MynameisJoeyClemmonsandmywifeandIownourhomeonLarchStreetoffofEastAmazonDriveinEugene. IamadamantlyopposedthecelltowerproposalattheCrossfireChurchat4060WestAmazonDriveand/͛ŵwritingtoaskthat theAT&TCUPApp.14003bedenied. MyunderstandingisthattheMetroPlanE.4statesthat͞ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐshouldsupportandenhancethebestqualitiesandunique characteroftheneighborhoodandsurroundingĂƌĞĂ͘͟ A75foottallcelltowersadlycamouflagedasatreeclearlydoesnotsupportandenhancethebestqualitiesofour neighborhood. Irespecttherightofapropertyownertoimprovehisproperty,butnotwhenitisadetrimenttohisneighbors.Thiseyesore wouldlowerthevalueofmypropertysimplybecauseofthenegativevisualimpactitwouldhaveonourneighborhood.We soughtoutthispartofEugenewhenmywifeandmovedherein2005forexactlythatreasonʹŝƚ͛Ɛabeautifularea,awonderful neighborhoodthatdrawstheresidentsintooutdooractivitiesduetothenaturallandscapeswithinitandsurroundingit.The presenceofanugly75foottoweradjacenttotheprimaryparklandandtrailsystemthatanchorstheneighborhoodcorridorof recreation,exercise,andsocialinteractionwilldiminishtheexperienceofanyoneusingthisEugeneasset. IaskthatthecitydenytheAT&TCUPApp.14003. Pleaseacknowledgethereceiptandrecordingofmycommentswithareturnemail. Thankyou, JoeyClemmons 935LarchStreet Eugene,OR97405 5033510452 1 JANISCH Amy C From:Cindy Allen <cindyallen21@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 15, 2015 7:05 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R; FLOCK Gabriel; NYSTROM Steven A; SORENSON Pete; Kathy Ging; FODOR Eben (SMTP); PhD William Collinge Subject:40 towers and 372 antennas within 3 miles of Crossfire site Attachments:Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.35.07 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.38.57 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.39.31 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.41.31 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.42.08 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.42.26 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.42.46 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.43.02 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.43.22 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.43.46 PM.png; Screen shot 2015-05-15 at 6.44.00 PM.png The CMS independent review found that the 75 ft. cell tower at Crossfire Church was not needed. When I put in the 4060 W. Amazon address on antenna search.com -there were 40 towers and 372 antennas within 3 miles of the site. According to the Eugene code-there are to be as few towers as possible and co-location on existing towers. Sprint 124 ft. tower-1.20 miles, Clearwire 102 ft. tower-1.31 miles, Verizon 115 ft. tower-1.33 miles, AT&T 125 ft. tower-1.33 miles, US West Wireless 121 tower-2 miles, Combined Communications Inc. 453 ft tower-2.01 miles, Verizon 66 ft tower-2.07 miles, AT&T 85ft. tower-2.08 miles, Voicestream Wireless 140 ft. tower-2.15 miles, Sprint 120 ft. tower-2.15 miles, Cricket Communications 102 ft. tower-2.16 miles, etc. Please add this information to the Crossfire Cell Tower review. Thank you. Cindy Allen 1