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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. lqathanson, moved to amend the motion to include any other code amendments recommended by staff.. Ms. Nathanson welcomed the amendment because there were areas of concern such as siting the utility boxes on private property or public rights-of-way. She noted she had not liked what she had seen in other parts of the country. She wanted there to be more adequate safety measures as well as thorough screening prior to installation. Mr. Kelly did not support the amendment, noting there were few resources in the Planning Division to address it. He preferred achieving success on the three items before them before proceeding to broaden the burden on Staff. He noted Lane County had passed setback requirements. Ms. Bettman asked how much the amendment would increase the scope of work. Ms. Muir replied that, should the directive require a broad audit, it would be time-consuming. Mr. Meisner indicated he Would not support the amendment. He commented that he was unsure about the main motion due to the potential legal ramifications. Ms. Taylor supported the motion and was inclined to support the amendment. Ms. Muir stated that there was a provision in the existing code that may require the posting of an open- ended bond and there was also a requirement that the recovery of fees from the City's cost in retaining consultants for the pUrPoses of verifying applications. She added that the latter had not been consistently enforced, but the division was now enforcing it in all cases. Mr. Pap6'hoped to allow.staff the ability to do some research and craft the appropriate language so that it. WOuld not need to remm for revision in five years. Ms. Nathanson thought it would not take long for staff to do a "quick literature search" to fred out what other cities had done to shore up gaps in their cell tower ordinances. She indicated she intended the research to primarily focus on problems the cities had experienced. Mr. Kelly felt tightening the language could easily fall into minor updates to the Land Use Code, but if it was more substantive, he was concerned the amendment would "open things up too far." He added that Citizens for Responsible Placement of Cell Phone Towers (CRPCPT) had provided the council with a document in 2002 that could prove to be a goOd reference. Mr. Klein said, in response to Ms. Bettman, that legal counsel could craft language for such an ordinattce within 30 to '45 days. Ms. Bettman called for the vote on the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Nathanson, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Meisner asked staffto deiermine how many of the existing cell towers would not have been placed ' had the proposed requirements already been passed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 7 Work Session 1¥-5