My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-12/06/04Mtg
>
Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:53:55 PM
Creation date
12/1/2004 2:43:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
12/6/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
172
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
However, based on past experiences with the chemical industry, for example, <br />many people believe the FCC limits are driven by the industry and are not <br />based on reliable science and may be too high, particularly for long-term <br />exposure to low levels of RF. <br /> <br />Other than MPE limits, the FCC regulations exclude health concerns from <br />consideration when establishing cell sites. This is because there are no <br />generally accepted scientific studies linking cell site RF radiation from sites in <br />compliance with MPE limits to negative health effects. However the 1,000' <br />setback from public schools and 800' setback from residences and <br />residentially zoned property are arbitrarily chosen limits added precisely for <br />that reason. These limits do not take any of the variables such as frequency, <br />power, focus of the antenna or distance from the antenna into account. <br /> <br />If this proposed ordinance had been in effect when the sites on the UO <br />campus were established, every one of the sites would have required a zoning <br />variance and, in all probability; virtually every existing cell site in Eugene <br />would have required one. Since there were not complying alternatives for <br />most of theie sites, most of them would have ultimately been approved but <br />only after the added expense of the variance process to both the companies <br />and the city. <br /> <br />In addition, there are new wireless technological changes coming within the <br />next two or three years that potentially will be very valuable to the <br />community and the University; a poorly crafted ordinance could either <br />greatly slow or eliminate all together our ability take advantage of them. <br />These wireless technolOgies -- generically known as WiFi and WiMax -- have <br />the potential to bring broadband internet access to homes, small businesses, <br />and public agencies throughout the community at a lower cost and with <br />simpler implementation than either the DSL or Cablemodem services offered <br />by the telephone and Cable companies, now. The City, County and University, <br />'as well as private companies, are all considering these technologies as <br />valuable tools to suPport our various constituencies. <br /> <br /> A WiFi/WiMax installation would require a dispersal of small transmitters <br /> and receivers throughout neighborhoods, probably two or three per square <br /> block. These devices would be about the size of a half-gallon milk container <br /> or smaller and would likely be mounted on existing utility poles or on street <br /> lights. The proposed ordinance does not distinguish between a small WiFi <br /> antenna and a 100 foot cell tower and could make implementation of this <br /> extraordinary service much more difficult. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.