My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-11/22/04Mtg
>
Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:42:10 PM
Creation date
11/17/2004 12:20:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
November 8, 2004 <br /> <br />City of Eugene <br />Planning Commission <br /> <br />Re: An ordinance concerning cell towers, and amending section 9.9750 of the Eugene code: <br /> <br />I am presenting this testimony on behalf of Mona Linstromberg, 87140 Territorial Rd., Veneta, OR. <br /> <br />Since January 2001, I have been involved in the issue of the appropriate placement of cell phone <br />transmission towers, first, and still, in Lane County and then, and still, in the City of Eugene. <br />Eugene's current ordinance was in response to the1996 Federal Communications Act. I agree with <br />the Eugene City Council that it is time to reassess some of the current code to address the concerns <br />expressed by the City's residents, most notably in the Garden Ave., Fairmount, University, River <br />Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> Given the directive by Eugene's City Council earlier this year, I had hoped suggested amendments <br /> would be on target and not just a slight of hand that would produce a cumbersome procedure ending <br /> up with pretty much the same results as now. The variance procedure, as written, essentially ensures <br /> that a variance will become the standard and not the exception. <br /> <br /> Mostly, I want to speak to the amended section on "Fees." As far as I am aware, the City of Eugene <br /> has never implemented this provision in its current form. Even with the proposed change from <br /> "may" to "shall", there are really no guarantees that anything more than the collection of fees upfront <br /> will be accomplished. There is no provision as to what criteria are used to trigger review by an <br /> independent telecommunications expert. Inthe application process assertions could be made or <br /> relevant data omitted that would be 'significant to an expert but would not even be noted by City staff <br /> untrained in this very technical field. The Federal Communication Act of 1996 does not give service <br /> providers carte blanche, as was recently determined in a US District Court decision (Feb. 2, 2004), <br /> VoiceStream PCS vs City of Hillsboro, Oregon (included in your information). <br /> <br /> At the very least, independent technical review at the expense of the applicant should be mandatory <br /> whenever a variance request is invoked. This is necessary to validate that ALL relevant technical <br /> information is provided to substantiate claims made by applicant and that all information provided is <br /> accurate. <br /> <br /> I request that staff be directed to re-write the setback provision from homes and schools so as to <br /> reflect the intent of the City Council's directive. Cfiven the possibility that the setback provision will <br /> not be applicable in all zones with residences and schools, I request that staff flesh out the provision <br /> for independent technical review so it can be implemented in a meaningful manner for the reasons <br /> discussed above. <br /> Thank you for your consideration, ~a~~~__~ <br /> Mona Linstromberg ~...,.~ <br /> 87140 Territorial Rd. <br /> Veneta, OR 97487 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.