Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 8, 2004 City of Eugene Planning Commission Re: An ordinance concerning cell towers, and amending section 9.9750 of the Eugene code: I am presenting this testimony on behalf of Mona Linstromberg, 87140 Territorial Rd., Veneta, OR. Since January 2001, I have been involved in the issue of the appropriate placement of cell phone transmission towers, first, and still, in Lane County and then, and still, in the City of Eugene. Eugene's current ordinance was in response to the1996 Federal Communications Act. I agree with the Eugene City Council that it is time to reassess some of the current code to address the concerns expressed by the City's residents, most notably in the Garden Ave., Fairmount, University, River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. Given the directive by Eugene's City Council earlier this year, I had hoped suggested amendments would be on target and not just a slight of hand that would produce a cumbersome procedure ending up with pretty much the same results as now. The variance procedure, as written, essentially ensures that a variance will become the standard and not the exception. Mostly, I want to speak to the amended section on "Fees." As far as I am aware, the City of Eugene has never implemented this proVision in its current form. Even with the proposed change from "may" to "shall", there are really no guarantees that anything more than the collection of fees upfront will be accomplished. There is no provision as to what criteria are used to trigger review by an independent telecommunications expert. In.the application process assertions could be made or relevant data omitted that would be significant to an expert but would not even be noted by City staff untrained in this very technical field. The Federal Communication Act of 1996 does not give service providers carte blanche, as was recently determined in a US District Court decision (Feb. 2, 2004), VoiceStream PCS vs City of Hillsboro, Oregon (included in your information). At the very least, independent technical review at the expense of the applicant should be mandatory whenever a variance request is invoked. This is necessary to validate that ALL relevant technical information is provided to substantiate claims made by applicant and that all information provided is accurate. I request that staff be directed to re-write the setback provision from homes and schools so as to reflect the intent of the City Council's directive. Given the possibility that the setback provision will not be applicable in all zones with residences and schools, I request that staff flesh out the provision for independent technical review so it can be implemented in a meaningful manner for the reasons discussed above. Thank you for your consideration, Mona Linstromberg 87140 Territorial Rd. Veneta, OR 97487