CCMinutes - 12/06/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of Friends of Eugene, said he was a customer of the wireless industry. He felt one could look around the City of Eugene and see the negative visual impacts of cell towers. He recommended passage of a version of these amendments with strict setbacks and requirements for independent review that would ~hold the fort" and maintain the interests of the community while the ordinance was reviewed and comprehensively revised. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and opened the floor for council questions and comments. Councilor Nathanson said she was most concerned that there was not specific evidence indicating that citizens opposed wireless services. In fact, she observed, residents of the City of Eugene wanted the services. She indicated she would have liked to have seen a concise summary as to what the shortcomings of local wireless coverage were if such evidence was available. She noted there were ;;dead zones" in the city. Mr. Lidz responded that such shortcomings were unknown. Councilor Nathanson said the existing ordinance worked to encourage collocation of wireless services on cell towers. She asked if there had been any disagreement that the ordinance had worked in this capacity. Planning Division Manager, Susan Muir, replied that it had worked. Councilor Pap6 asked if cell towers presented health and safety issues. Councilor Nathanson reiterated that municipal governments were barred from considering health and safety concerns in regulations as it was the specific domain of the FCC. Councilor Pap6 surmised that the real issue was the esthetic degradation of neighborhoods. He wondered if the ordinance would force antennae to observe the setback. He could not support the ordinance as it was written. Councilor Pap6 asked if the ordinance would raise issues related to Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Lidz responded that it was possible, depending on circumstances. Councilor Kelly suggested the council explore a shorter setback with no variances. He did not think adequate consideration could be given to defining the setback prior to December 8. He clarified, for Councilor Pap6, that the ordinance was specific to cell towers and did not apply to antennae. Councilor Kelly did not interpret the proposed code as mandating technical review. He stated that the council had asked for this requirement and asked for clarification. To him, it seemed the ordinance only directed who should pay for such review. He supported a broader review of the ordinances governing cell towers. In closing, Councilor Kelly said he had not previously heard that the ordinance would affect Wi-Fi and WiMax services. He asked staff to speak to this at a later date. Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Kelly's comments. She requested staff to reword Section 11 so that it was clear that the technical review was a requirement in every case. She also asked that a motion be crafted to circumscribe the changes that should be made. She thought Councilor Nathanson's comments were succinct, especially regarding the identification of capacity gaps. She averred that the council did not speak of the cell towers in terms of health issues, but rather focused largely on the effects that cell towers would have on property values, and their dangers as attractive nuisances. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session