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

Home Browse Search

Jerome Lidz - 4 - August 2'3, 2004 q°mrnunications. As a result, .we request and recommend that the City e{iminate this provision ) from itsProposedamendments to its wireless ordinance. ' (9) Variance. (c) The city may grant a variance to the setback ~qu/reme##s of' .. subsect/on (Y)(d)! and2 onlyifthe applicant demonstrates to the f, That the applicant ia unable to Provide service to a substantial portion of the ci~y and also comply with the setback requirements; and R. That the requested setback variance complies as closely as possible with the required setback reqUirement~ for location or any other location in the ci~y from which It pos#ible to provide comparable service. ·. A T774IS Comments.. · A/though we acknowledge that variances are genera//y designedto be dif~cult to obtain, the amendments proposedin this section make obtaining a va#ance effect/re, impossible. ~reless service is typicaliyprovided through'a networ~ of interconnected and overlapping wire/ess communication facilities.. No singie facilityprovides service to a "substantial portion of the City"; it may, however, be critica/ to provic//'ng service to a particular area of the CIO/. As a result, we request andrecommend that the CiO/change the language of proposed subsection (9)(c)(f] to read as fo/lows: "That it is notpossible for the proposed wireless f~cility to satis~ its function within the applicant's wireless network and also comply with the setback requirements." · Furthermore, the standardofproof- "to the city's satisfaction "- effective/),negates the eftTcacy of this va#ance provision. Without some par~meters on the City's discretion, the City could deny any request for a variance under this subsection, lea~'ng to unnecessary disputes and litigation. · The secondphase in proposedsubsection (~(c)(2), Which provides "o,: any other location in the city from which it is possible to provide comparable service, "is unnecessarily confusing as dra~ed. We assume the intent of this subsection is to k'mit the variance from the setback standards to the minimum necessary to ensure the functioning oft he proposed wireless facility within the applicant's wireless network. We request andrecommend that the City mod[~ the language to make this intent clear (e.g., "any variance granted under this section shal{ be [imited to the minimum necessao, to ensure that the proposed wire]ess facility satisfies [ts function within the applicant's wire]ess network"). (d) The ci~y may grant a variance ~o:the setbac, kand undergrounding requirements of subsections (7)(d)$. 4, San~, or (8) upon finding that stealth design, proposed landscaping, configuration of the site, or the presence of mature trees obviates the need for compliance. IV-48 Y:\WFAA'I'~EUGENE~COMMENT LTR 082304.1:XJC