CC Minutes - 10/14/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly suggested that the council needed to balance competing and challenging interests. There was a clear community desire for cellular phone service and a desire on the part of industry to provide that service to the community. There was also resident concern about property values and visual and noise pollution. He hoped the ordinance tune-up could help address those issues. Ms. Nathanson noted her service on the Local and State Government Advisory Committee to the Federal Communication Commission, which put her in a position of hearing about what was occurring at the national level. She said that Eugene's ordinance had been groundbreaking at the time it was adopted. It was a risky ordinance and the City was still paying the price of its adoption. She said that on the national level, there were tremendous battles being played out in regard to telecommunications, and local governments were often on the losing end. She cited the Anne Arundel County ordinance as an example, which was intended to ensure that telecommunications towers did not interfere with public safety communications. The ordinance had created a legal problem forAnne Arundel County. The telecommunications Industry argued that local government was getting in the way of progress. She said that if the City made additional adjustments to its ordinance, which she supported, many issues would be ultimately raised, including that of home rule. Ms. Bettman also thanked the councilors and staff involved in the development of the City's telecommunications ordinance. She said that things had changed to the point where it was appropriate that the City revisited the ordinance and made adjustments. Ms. Bettman asked if every application would be reviewed by a consultant. Mr. Jacobson responded that the City had the ability to retain a consultant on any application submitted, and he believed that such reviews would be routine in the future given the generally controversial nature of such applications. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could manage conflicts between cell towers and residents as it implemented nodal development and residential and commercial uses were increasingly proximate. Mr. Jacobson said that the placement of towers was according to zone; nodal developments with a variety of zones would complicate the issue. For example, the Verizon tower was in an area zoned commercial, but it was surrounded by a mix of uses, including residential. Because the ordinance was biased against cell towers in residential areas but not in mixed use areas, that became an issue. The level of controversy regarding an application was directly related to the amount of residential development nearby. Ms. Bettman hoped the City Council would choose to move forward with a reexamination of the ordinance, and that reexamination include setbacks and height standards so that conflicts could be further minimized. Ms. Taylor was glad to hear about the consultant evaluations. She expressed her thanks to Ms. Nathanson for her ongoing work on telecommunications. She commended the work the citizen group had done and wanted the council to consider the points the group raised with the goal of incorporating them into the ordinance. She thought the setback issue important and supported requiring cell tower owners to provide a bond to ensure the tower was removed when no longer in use. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Jacobson that the focus of the discussion was on cell towers, which had been the major concern of residents, but the ordinance addressed such elements as antennas as well. Mr. Jacobson confirmed that the federal 1996 Telecommunications Act MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 8 Work Session