Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. 8 application. We were informed that the City could not seek independent review .... because no mechanism was in place to hire expert review at that point in the process. We also learned that the .City had NEVER used the existing provision for independent technical review. It is well established in Oregon land use case law that when there is question as to whether a proposal will meet application criteria, the burden of proof rests solely upon the apPlicant. Nonetheless, it was up to the FairmoUnt Neighborhood to seek out an acoustics analyst to refute Sprint's noise analysis. This study, paid for by the Fairmount NeighbOrhood, figured in the hearings officer's denial of Sprint's appeal. EC 9.5750 (11) as currently written provides only lip service. A method is needed to ensure it can be implemented and used. The following is from correspondence with Martin Connor, AICP, City Planner, Torrington, CT: "Your ordinance or fee' Schedule should be written to allow you to hire experts at the applicant's expense to review the application. We hire an RF Engineer to .review the application and be available dudn8 the public hearing process. That was key in a denial which went to litigation when I worked for the ToWn of Litchfield, CT. Our denial held up in Federal Court as the technical information Was woefully inadequate. We would not have known that without our own-RF Engineer." Independent technical review of ALL applicatiOns for construction of new transmission towers by a qualified RF engineer is of critical importance to the effectiveness of Eugene's telecommunications cOde. Planning staff lacks the technical expertise to verify statements in applications regarding RF coverage footprints; height needed to achieve adequate coverage; potential for collocation on existing structures in the area, etc. The FCC's publication A Local GOvernment Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RadiO Frequency Emission' Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance, p. 11, .states, "Many larger dries and counties, and most states, have radio engineers on staff or under contract.'" This indicates that independent review is common practice in many jurisdictions. As regards the expense of such review, current cOde correctly requires that the applicant shall pay the cost of the .r. eview. In conClusion, we propose the addition of some provisions which existing code does not address at all. First, telecommunications applicants will insist that they need blanket RF coverage for their networks tO function. This is not true, nor does the FCC require towns and cities to guarantee blanket coverage for service providers. See Attachment F, excerpt from FCC Fact Sheet City code should modified to specify that there may be gaps in' service coverage areas. Second, the applicant should be the service provider, or in cases where the applicant is a tower contractor building a transmission tower for lease, he should have a signed lease agreement with at least one service provider. This ensures that new towers will not be built on speculation, .but to meet an existing need. IV-81