Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Eugene City Council and Mayor Torrey; Pam Berrian; Jerry Jacobson; Jan Childs From: Citizens for Responsible Placement of Cell phone Transmission Towers Regarding: Revisions needed to Eugene Code 9.5750 { 0/2/2002 Ladies and Gentlemen: · Over twenty mOnths ago, we became involved in the issue of appropriate placement of wireless transmission facilities. Our group, Citizens for Responsible Placement of Cell Phone Transmission ToWers, has ~c~cused on working with Lane County to craft a meaningful ordinance. This has NOT been about stopping any and all new towers. This HAS been about protecting the residents of Lane County from the intrusive impact · of these facilities while still enabling.service providers to provide adequate coverage. We are close to achieving that goal - Lane County, s TelecommunicatiOns Ordinance with soon to be approved amendments. However, we have not limited our efforts to rural Lane County. Ms. Linstromberg personally was active in opposing the SBA/Sprint application for the proposed site on Villard Street (SR 01-32). Martha Johnson has led ·opposition to the proposed Master Towers site on 'Oakleigh off River Road {SR 01-33). Because we are familiar with the City's existing Code 9.5750 as written and as it has been applied, we urge the Eugene City Council to revisit an ordinance that was innovative'in 1997. That ordinance now needs revision to protect Eugene's neighborhoods from the intrusive nature of telecommunications infrastructure. ^tthe time Eugene's telecommunications ordinance was enacted, most local cell towers were being appropriately placed in heavy commercial or industrial zones. Since then, several factors have combined to bring more applications into residential areas. First, the newer digital PCS systems operate on a different frequency, and transmission facilities must be placed closer together than with the old cellular systems. Second, the wireless telephone industry has experienced explosive growth, and multiple providers have raced to compete for market share, and set up infrastructure. However, current market activity seems to indicate that the telecom industry has over-anticipated the demand for all things wireless. In light of this recent downturn, our area may already have adequate coverage and a surfeit of fadlities. In the following proposal for revisions to EC 9.5750, there are three major themes: stronger regulation; increased setbacks from homes and schools; and independent technical review of applications. We are Well aware of the restrictions placed on local governments by Section 704 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA). Section 704 of the TC^ has been used by service providers to bully local jurisdictions. Closer reading of Section 704 finds that local jurisdictions, if they are proactive, can still protect their citizens from the intrusive nature of these facilities. The revisions we propose require much larger setbacks from homes and schools than current code, but ' will not be in violation of the TC^. This is because the rationales for larger setbacks are: IV-72