Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Jerome Lidz ,i 2 } Noveml3er 8, 2004 I:ug he's wireless code. Specifically, five °fthe locations are in residential zones, and one location is in a Community Commercial zone within 1000 feet of two schools. All six o~cthese facilities most Iii<ely will need to be new freestanding transmissions.towers. This is 13ecnuse there are few tall structures in Eugene's residential zones, and Because the Eugene water and Electric Board does not offer utilitY Poles taller than 53 feet in height, which is inadequate due to Eugene's topography and vegetation. Similarly, with regard to the Community Commercial location, ATTWS recognizes there is an existing transmission tower in this area; however, all of the collocation spaces on the existing tower are occupied. Mr. Fowler intends to bring a map identifying .these six locations to today's Planning Commission meeting and to explain the effect of the proposed amendments on ATTWS' ability to provide wireless data and voice services in Eugene. Ultimately, these six sites represent a significant portion of the City. to which the proposed code amendments would prohibit ATTW$ from providing service. !1. Wireless Users Want Service in Their Homes The results of A'r'Fw$' technical analysis highlight a key consideration seemingly absent from the proposed amendments: wireless users want service//~ the//-~ornes. The proposed code amendments make meeting t~at demand much. more di~cult and 'potentially impossible. It has been years since the only people relying on wireless phones were business users whose service needs could be satisfied by facilities in commercial and industrial zones. Wireless services are now used by virtually every segment of society and are increasingly used as a substitute for traditional land lines. Consequently, wireless carriers, now more than ever, need access to residential areas. The Eugene Code currently permits wireless transmission towers in some residential zones. -~ee EC 9.57=i0($)(a) and (9)(d). The proposed amendments to EC 9,5750(7)(d)(2) would not only create a conflict with these existing code sections, but, more importantly, would thoroughly .undermine wireless carriers' ability to provide .the wireless voice and data services demanded by their customers in residential zones. This is not good policy for ~e myriad wireless users in Eugene and is unnecessary. IlL So,backs ~r~rn Schools A'i-I'WS previously expressed its concern, through my August 23, 2004 letter, that the proposed amendment prohibiting new and extended wireless transmission towers within 1000 feet of schools was an illegal proxy for health concerns. Since then, I have not received any alternative explanation for this proposed amendment. As you Enow, restrictions based on alleged health impacts are prohibited by the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.5.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). Moreover, wireless facilities are common on school campuses throughout the country. Wireless carriers regularly replace ~ootball and soccer field light standards at elementary, middle and high schools with wireless facilities capable of serving the duel purposes of light pole and wireless facility. The City has not provided any legitir~ate explanation for prohibiting these options in Eugene. COMMENT LTR 1101~4.D0C 1.1/08/04 ~ON 10:43 [TX/RX NO 8271]