Agenda Packet 10-28-19 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session October 9, 2019 Page 2 2.WORK SESSION: Small Cell Technology in the Right-of-WayPublic Works Director Sarah Medary and Public Works Maintenance Director ScottMilovich presented to council an overview of the existing small cell technologyinstallation program to regulate and permit small cell installations in City right-of-wayas well as a description of current and pending installations.Council Discussion: •Councilor Taylor – Inquired about the two locations permits were denied; discussedneighborhood placement of poles and asked why the City did not consider aestheticlimitations before permitting new towers; discussed council’s role in discussingaesthetics as well as the public’s input; inquired why property owners are notnotified of placements in neighborhoods citing an example in a local neighborhood;inquired if council can ascertain the preferences of property owners; discussed ifnotices should be able to affect the outcome of a placement of a tower; discussedregulation of aesthetics particular to neighborhoods; supported further discussionof what power council has to regulate aesthetics of towers. •Councilor Clark – Discussed intention for work session and potential outcomes, i.e.,“what can we do”, “what can’t we do”, and “what should we do” when it comes toregulating placements; expressed desire for better information from staff aboutwhether council should be regulating placements, and what the opportunity costsare for regulating or not regulating; discussed with the City Attorney the challengesof regulating towers based on health standards which the City does not have theauthority to regulate. •Councilor Evans – Inquired about EWEB’s standard for permitting as compared withthe City of Eugene standards; discussed EWEB’s process and the City’s need foralignment; asked staff how the public can determine if a pole belongs to EWEB orthe City; inquired if EWEB poles are those in front of homes and schools; inquiredwhether EWEB is required to comply if the council puts out a new aestheticrequirement; asked staff if, based on placement standards, the City can deny orreroute a pole in other locations that do not impact residents as directly; inquiredabout the impact of an ordinance that would regulate placement of towers toindustrial and commercial areas as opposed to residential areas; asked what wouldhappen if council drafted an ordinance prohibiting placements of towers inresidential areas. •Councilor Pryor – Expressed confusion about regulation due to aesthetic standardsversus banning technology; inquired if staff has assembled any authoritativeinformation to determine if technology needs to be banned; discussed desire to talkabout the technology before making decisions; discussed aesthetics of differentutility pole installations; discussed desire to have further conversation deliberately;discussed nuances of conversation surrounding banning installations based onaesthetics. •Councilor Zelenka – Inquired how many poles are owned by the City versus EWEB;discussed City’s current role in challenging FCC regulations and state legislationregarding health effects of 5G technology; inquired if staff has any sense of whenstate research would surface for the City to use; inquired of staff what “aesthetic”means related to the City’s limitation of regulation to aesthetics and how far the City October 28, 2019, Meeting - Item 2A