Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of Friends of Eugene, said he was a customer of the wireless <br />industry. He felt one could look around the City of Eugene and see the negative visual impacts of cell <br />towers. He recommended passage of a version of these amendments with strict setbacks and requirements <br />for independent review that would "hold the fort" and maintain the interests of the community while the <br />ordinance was reviewed and comprehensively revised. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and opened the floor for council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson said she was most concerned that there was not specific evidence indicating that <br />citizens opposed wireless services. In fact, she observed, residents of the City of Eugene wanted the <br />services. She indicated she would have liked to have seen a concise summary as to what the shortcomings <br />of local wireless coverage were if such evidence was available. She noted there were "dead zones" in the <br />city. Mr. Lidz responded that such shortcomings were unknown. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson said the existing ordinance worked to encourage collocation of wireless services on <br />cell towers. She asked if there had been any disagreement that the ordinance had worked in this capacity. <br />Planning Division Manager, Susan Muir, replied that it had worked. <br /> <br />, Councilor Papfi asked if cell towers presented health and safety issues. Councilor Nathanson reiterated <br />that municipal governments were barred from considering health and safety concerns in regulations as it <br />was the specific domain of the FCC. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~ surmised that the real issue was the esthetic degradation of neighborhoods. He wondered <br /> if the ordinance would force antennae to observe the setback. He could not support the ordinance as it <br /> was written. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~ asked if the ordinance would raise issues related to Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Lidz <br /> responded that it was possible, depending on circumstances. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly suggested the council explore a shorter setback with no variances. He did not think <br /> adequate consideration could be given to defining the setback prior to December 8. He clarified, for <br /> Councilor Pap~, that the ordinance was specific to cell towers and did not apply to antennae. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly did not interpret the code as mandating technical review. He stated that the council had <br /> asked for this requirement and asked for clarification. To him, it seemed the ordinance only directed who <br /> should pay for such review. He supported a broader review of the ordinances governing cell towers. <br /> <br /> In closing, Councilor Kelly said he had not previously heard that the ordinance would affect Wi-Fi and <br /> WiMax services. He asked staff to speak to this at a later date. <br /> <br /> Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Kelly's comments. She requested staff to reword Section 11 so that <br /> it was clear that the technical review was a requirement in every case. She also asked that a motion be <br /> crafted to circumscribe the changes that should be made. She thought Councilor Nathanson's comments <br /> were succinct, especially regarding the identification of capacity gaps. She averred that the council did <br /> not speak of the cell towers in terms of health issues, but rather focused largely on the effects that cell <br /> towers would have on property values. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />