Laserfiche WebLink
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br /> <br />Pubic Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Cell Towers, and Amending Section 9.9750 of <br /> the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />Meeting Date: December 6, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 6 <br />Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Susan Muir and Jerome Lidz <br />www. ci. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5208 or 682-5080 <br /> <br />ISSUE STATEMENT <br />This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to EC 9.5750, regulating the siting of cell towers. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />At a work session on April 14, 2004, the City Council directed staff to initiate amendments to EC <br />9.5750 to 1) extend setbacks for new cell towers to 1000 feet from the nearest school and 800 feet from <br />the nearest residence; 2) codify the requirement for independent consultant review and verification; and <br />3) codify zero tolerance for interference with public safety communications. <br /> <br />The City Attorney drafted the proposed amendments and advised the Planning Commission about legal <br />risks associated with two of the three provisions. The Planning Commission recommendation follows <br />the discussion below which summarizes the recommendations by subject: <br /> <br /> 1. Setbacks. Federal law places substantial restrictions on cities' ability to regulate siting of <br /> telecommunications facilities, but in many cases the extent of those restrictions is not well <br /> settled. It is clear, however, that cities may not adopt regulations that either "prohibit or have <br /> the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." <br /> <br /> The new setback provisions, proposed as additions to EC 9.5750(7)(d), would prohibit siting a <br /> cell tower within 1000 feet of any public school and within 800 of any residential zone or any <br /> residence. In some cases, those provisions may prevent a wireless company from providing <br /> adequate service to a substantial portion of the City. Accordingly, it is the City Attorney's <br /> opinion that federal law requires some kind of process to allow siting a transmission tower <br /> within the setback area if the service provider can establish that the tower is necessary to enable <br /> the provider to provide general service to the proposed service area. The variance provisions in <br /> the proposed amendments to subsection (9)(c) incorporate that standard. <br /> <br /> Staff has at least two concerns with the setback and variance provisions. First, the availability of <br /> a variance, coupled with the large portions of the City that the setbacks make unavailable for <br /> siting cell towers, means that the setbacks are, to some extent, illusory. The variance may <br /> become the rule rather than the unusual circumstance. Second, the standards for granting a <br /> variance are imprecise in nature, which makes them difficult for the community to rely upon as a <br /> <br /> L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041206\S0412066.doc <br /> <br /> <br />