Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, thought passage of the ordinance would not succeed in keeping the telecommunications situation under control. He felt the hospital building alone would deploy "all sorts of state of the art equipment." He thought the community had provided input. He supported getting an independent expert to provide input. He opined that the City was doing "way too little" and that "electro- smog" was an emerging issue. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, averred that a healthy economy arose from healthy neighborhoods. He said often a property owner's only investment was in his or her home. He suggested deploying a less stringent setback and eliminating the variance procedure. He supported having an independent technical review of applications. He said, in all fairness, the impact on the livability of neighborhoods, potential impacts on health, and the potential burden to taxpayers and their investments must be considered. Mona Lindstromberg, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, recalled that she and Martha Johnson had submitted a comprehensive review of the current cell tower code on October 2, 2002, including their suggestion for a model ordinance. She said after reviewing the minutes from the hearing on the Planning Commission she looked back in her own research to determine the genesis of the 1,000 foot setback for cell towers from schools. She provided an email to staff from the Planning Director from Concord, Massachusetts as well as its current telecommunications bylaws. She thought the bylaws did much to lay the foundation for process and rationale for its regulations. Ms. Lindstromberg felt the setbacks from homes and schools and meaningful use of the independent technical review provision would provide a "quick fix" to the ordinances governing cell tower placement that the City Council sought. However, she said the proposed variance procedure would require due diligence by Planning staff to ensure the needs of neighbors most impacted would be served. She related that she asked the City to approve the change from 'may' to 'shall' regarding independent review and to incorporate a section similar to that of Concord, Massachusetts, regarding documentation needed for technical review of an application. She asserted that there were independent radio frequency engineers available via the internet. She noted that the 4J School District already had a setback rule. She submitted testimony in writing. Ms. Lindstromberg cited a court case from Hillsboro, Oregon, in which the City had been able to write stringent rules regarding cell tower placement. Martha Johnson, 110 East Hilliard Lane, related that she and her neighbors had spent more than two years and several thousand dollars fighting the placement of a cell tower in their River Road neighborhood. She said she had a 100-foot tower within 150 feet of her house. She did not want other homeowners to face the same fight with the same outcome. She asserted that the current code left homeowners in mixed-use areas vulnerable to property devaluation, which was why she sought setbacks in the code. She felt allowing a variance rendered the setbacks meaningless. She noted that the City Attorney and the Planning Commission concurred that the variance would likely become a standard path taken to place a cell tower. She had thought the 800-foot number for a setback would be negotiated down. She sought to have a meaningful setback without a variance provision that gave the industry the green light to site towers anywhere in town. She wished the telecommunications industry would work as hard to be a good neighbor as it did to maximize its profits. Ms. Johnson approved of the independent technical review. She felt a lack of independent review would present conflicts of interest. She supported returning the ordinance to the Planning Commission for a comprehensive rewrite. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session