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

Home Browse Search

Jerome Lidz - 2'-. AuguSt 23, 2004 ~,/, 'If located.within an [R I], C-1 [7] or GO zone, the [?:n:m!c:ion tawar ......................... J ...... ~, ~,-z ...... ~ mm:mum] number of feet that is equal to the height of the [~] tower, ~ number of feet that is equal to the height of the tower,' ~ m.:,,:mum ~ ] 25 feet ~om a cen~ A ~S Commen~; .. The ad~tion ora YOO~foot setback ~om pub~b schools'and an 800-~ot setback ~om residential zones could dramatical~ a~ A ~S' abili~'to provide wireless s~ice within Eugene. This impa~ couldrise to the level ofa prohibition of se~ce in violation ofthe Federal Telecommunications A~ 47 ~ C ~332(c)(~(B)(1~ · Locating wireless communication ~c#ities in neighborhoodcommerciaizones (Eugene ~ C- T zone) is o~en the best option for se~ing the surroun~g residentialareas. The proposed 800-foot setback from redde ntialzones would~e~ eb~inate many neighborhood commercial optiO n~ thereby making it more di~cult fora ~S and other- wire[ess ~rriers to meet the se~ice needs of their custome~ in Eugene. ·. In eva[uating these proposedamendme~ts, it W°u[dbe he~fu[ to understand the policy choices underdog these changes. For example, it is not clear why the Ci~proposes prohibiting wireless transmiss~bn towers within ~0 ~et of public schools. Prior experience leads us to conclude that the Ci~ is a~empting to allay ~ncerns regar~g the alleged health e~cts of wireless ~c#ities on children. As the Ci~ is aWam, the Federal Te[ecommunicatlons A~prohib[~ cities anti,unties ~om regulating the p[acemen~ con~ru~ion or modi~cation of wire[ess ~mmunication ~cilities. based on. c° n~rns regar~g radio frequency emissions where the ~reless ~cili~ meets FCC standards. 47 · ~ C ~332{c)~)(B)(~. The Ci~ maynot use setbacks to subve~ thisprovision of~dera[ [a~ In a~y case, because these setback requirements wouldapp~ on~ to new and e~ended transmission tower~ this proposed amendment would not a~e~ ~reless carrie~' abili~ to locate wireless communication facilities on bail ~eld~hts or utiii~poies closer than ~000 ~et to a public school · The proposed fOO~foOt setback and 800~ot setback he,me pa~ular~o~bitive when app[ied in conjun~ion with the separation mquiremen~s estab~hed ln existin~ subse~ion (7](a). The combination of these ~o se~ions could create a d~mstan~ in ~ which a wireless carrier cannot collocate on an existing transmission tower because it does not meet these setback ~quirement~ but also cannot ~n~m~ a new ~d[i~ outside of the setbacks because that ~ci[i~ would be within 2000 ~et of the existing ~ci~ located within the setbacks. The standards for a variance ~om e~er these setbacks'or the separation requirement are too stringent to e~e~ive~ ~solve this con~i~ EC ~ 5750(g)(b](f) andproposed EC ~ 5750{g)(c). As a resul~ we request and recommend that the Ci~ modi~ the proposed amendments to address this issue, po~sib~ by eb~inating