Agenda Packet 10-28-19 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session October 9, 2019 Page 3 could take that as a means for limiting installation; inquired if limitation of towers to industrial and commercial areas would limit ability of service in residential areas; inquired what the “three prong test” means. •Councilor Yeh – Expressed appreciation for where the City is now in the process;clarified that it doesn’t matter who owns what poles, the outcomes are the same;clarified that there is no 5G in Eugene currently and there would be need for a newpermit for new radio frequency; asked about the usage of 5G products in residentialareas; discussed implications of banning technology in residential areas; expressedappreciation for Councilor Zelenka’s inquiry about Oregon HB 3375 and difficulty indoing research on one’s own; discussed fears surrounding new technology andappreciation for staff’s perspective. •Councilor Syrett – Expressed appreciation for Councilor Yeh’s clarifications andcomments; inquired about operational poles and use of current 4G technology;echoed Councilor Yeh’s comments about staff’s measured response and CityAttorney’s administrative approach to regulation to be more nimble in the City’sresponse to FCC regulation and citing; reiterated conversation about fearssurrounding new technology; asked staff to resend information sent to councilregarding a list summarizing what other communities have done. •Councilor Semple – Clarified permitting for turning on 5G technology on new andexisting poles; inquired what authority the council or the City has to regulateemissions; asked who has authority over determining aesthetic standards;discussed public frustration and fears of public; asked if council will have researchfrom HB 3375 before technology is upgraded. MOTION AND VOTE Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Evans, moved to extend the meeting. PASSED 8:0. •Councilor Clark – Clarified that most installations are on EWEB poles; clarifiedpermit requirements related to permission of placement on poles; clarified if poleowner has authority to deny permits and City’s role in facilitating placement. •Councilor Taylor – Referenced and discussed Councilor Pryor’s comments regardingaesthetics of current transformers; discussed aesthetic standards and whether it’spossible to remove a device if it is aesthetically displeasing; inquired if council caninitiate a requirement for separation and setbacks between devices and homes andif the regulation could be retroactive; discussed desire to know what council can doregarding permitting and installation; asked why exact like-standards are notapplied to each installation. •Councilor Zelenka - Discussed standards around aesthetics for various installationsof technology in the city; asked staff to send information on aesthetics especiallyrelated to the three-pronged test; asked several questions of the City Attorney aboutthe legal impacts of banning installations in residential areas for aesthetics reasonsand potential outcomes and timing. •Councilor Evans – Asked what is known about the status of the litigation against theFCC regarding usurping home rule, as well as the status of moving a bill addressingthe topic through the U.S. Congress. October 28, 2019, Meeting - Item 2A