Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jerome Lidz - 2'-- August 23, 2004 24. 'If located.within an [R-S], C-1 [T] or (30 zone, the r~.---~.~.;~., ...... ff'~ff~. -z ...... ~ .............. number of feet that is equal to the height of the [~] tower, ~d/~¢~t~~//~ [~]; ~ if/~¢~din the [~] PL, C'1 [~] ~rGO zone[s], .. ~ number o~ feet that is equal to the height of the tower,' ad]acenf pub/lc ~ee~/ and , ~. In all Other.zones, [t~ .~,~.~;. ~ .... ~; .... · -, ,~;- ~+.~.~ D ~ · ,, m,n:m.m of] 25 feet ~ ~ CommenCe.. Fhe ed~ition ora TOe, foot setback ~om pub~ sc~lsand an 800-foo¢ setback ~om residential zones could dramatic~l~ ~ A ~S' abili~'to provide wireless se~ice within Eugene. F~is impa~ couidrise to t~e /evel of ~ pro~ibition of se~ice in violation Federal Fe/ecommun/bations ~ 47 ~S C Locating wireless communication ~cili¢ies in neig~bor~ood commercialzones (Eugene ~ C- T zone) is o~en t~e best option ~r se~ing t~e surrounM~g residendal~reas. proposed 800-foo~ setback from residendalzones would ~e~ e~inete m~nX neig~bor~ood commercial op¢ion~ t~ereb~ making i~ more di~cul¢ for ~ ~S ~nd ot~er wireless ~rrie~ ¢o mee¢ ¢~e se~ice needs of t~eir custome~ in ~ugene. In ewlua#n~ t~ese proposed amendme~t~ i~ wouid be ~e~ful to unders¢and ~e po#cz c~oices underdog t~ese c~anges. For example, i¢ is ~o~ clear w~X t~e Ci~proposes pro~ibi¢in~ wireles~ transmission ¢owers w~in ~000 ~e¢ of Pub/ic schools. Prior e~edence /e~ds us ~o conclude t~at t~e Ci~ is a~empting ¢o ~llay concerns regar~g ~lleged ~e~lt~ e~ct~ of wireless ~cilities on c~ildren. As t~e Ci~ is aware, t~e Federal ~e/ecommUnica¢ions A~pro~ibi~ cities ~nd countie~ ~om regulating ¢~e p/acemen~ constru~ion or modi~c~tion of ~reless ~mmunicetion ~ciii¢ies b~sed on. ~ n~ms regarM~g ~dio fre~uenCX emissions w~ere t~e wireless ~c[li~ meets ~C s¢andards. 47 ~ C ~332(c]~][B][~ ~e Ci~ max not use setbacks to subve~ t~is provision of ~der~l /~ /n anX case, because ¢~ese setback re~uirements would ~pp~ on~ ~o new e~ended transmission ¢ower~ ¢~is proposed emendment wouid nor ~e~ wireless c~rriers' ~bili¢ to Ioca¢e wireless communication ~cili#es on b~ll ~eld ~ts or u#li~poles closer t~an. ~000 feet to ~ public school ~e proposed TOO~f°° t setback and BOO~foot se~ck become pa~i~r~pro~ibitive w~en applied in conjun~ion wit~ t~e separation requirements est~b~ed in existin~ subse~ion (7X~]. ~e combination off, ese ~o se~ions couldcre~te ~ cir~mst~n~ in w~ic~ ~ wireless c~rrier c~nno¢ ~//ocate on ~n existing ¢r~nsmission t~wer because i~ does no¢ meet t~ese setback ~uirement~ b~ ~lso c~nnot ~n~ e new f~dli~ outside of t~e setbacks because ~ ~cili~ would be within 2000 Fee¢ of t~e existing ~ci~ /oceted within t~e setbacks. ~e stend~rds for ~ wri~nce from eider t~ese setbecks ~r sep~retion requirement ~re ¢oo stringent to e~e~ive~ ~olve t~is con~i~ EC ~ ~7~O(PXb)[T) andproposed EC ~ 575~(~)(c). As ~ resu/~ we re~ues¢ end recommend t~e Ci~ modi~ t~e proposed emendmen¢s to address this issue, po~s/~ bX e~in~ting Y;~W~EUGEN~COMME~ L~ 0823~,~C' ~-46