Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n-8-o4 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: I am here today because my neighbors and I spent over 2 years and thousands of dollars fighting a cell phone tower in our River Road neighborhood. Since January of 2oo4 I have been living in the shadow of a so-called stealth design tower less than 15o feet from my house. Let me tell you that there is nothing stealthy about a xoo foot tall tower in such close proximity to your home. I don't want other homeowners to face this same kind of fight with the same outcome, thus I have been lobbying the Eugene City Council to amend its current code for 3 years. On first reading I found the draft code revision that came out of the City Attorney's office disappointing, and on closer reading, I got more than a little angry. The City Attorneys admit in their comments that the variance provision is likely to make the setbacks illusory. So the City Attorneys have drafted a code amendment that gives the illusion of protection for the homeowner while handing the telecom industry a loophole large enough to drive a Mack truck through. How dumb do they think we are? This re-write of the existing code is not what the citizens asked for. In fact, I consider it a waste of City funds, since it essentially preserves the status quo in terms of giving the greater advantage to industry. The City Attorney's rationale for this variance is a broad and conclusory interpretation of parts of section 7o4 of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act (PTA). The FTA does not restrict local governments from regulating where towers can be placed, nor does it say that a local government is required to give the industry the right to achieve certain standards of coverage. It only says you cannot ban the'provision of personal wireless service outright. If the City Attorneys are concerned that setbacks would prohibit cell towers in certain zones of the city, they should go back and read the existing EC9.575o (5), under "prohibited zones". Current code prohibits new towers in the AG, R-~, R-3, R-4, H, NR, and PRO zones, as well as the winamette Greenway, on Gillespie Butte above 45o ff elevation, and on Judldns Pont. I am also bewildered by the proposal to reduce the setback in the &x and GO zones. This will have the effect of undermining the City Nodal Development Program by allowing towers in mixed use areas, thus making these areas less livable and less desirable. If the City even considers a reduction of the setback in certain zones, the heavy industrial and commercial zones are the 0nlY reasonable ones to consider. This would maintain the purpose of setbacks, which is to preserve residential property values, and avoid attractive nuisance. In light of the passage of Measure 37, the City should consider the prospect of compensating an entire neighborhood for lost residential property value every time a tower is built in a mixed use area. In summary, I find the proposed revision for the most part unsatisfactory. I urge the Planning Commission to revise this draft so that setbacks apply equally in all zones of the city. Respecffttlly, Martha F Johnson no East Hilliard Ln Eugene OR 974o4