Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor reiterated her concern that Item 41 would not be addressed. Mr. Coyle assured her that it was not ~way down" the list as items 20 to 42 had not been ranked. Ms. Bettman called for the vote to affirm the work program in Attachment A. The motion passed unanimously, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Cell Tower Siting Ms. Muir reviewed the purposes of the Telecommunication Ordinance code language, adopted in 1997, that addressed cell tower siting, as follows: - to minimize the number of towers throughout the community; - to encourage collocation facilities; - to encourage the use of existing buildings and poles as opposed to constructing new ones; - to recognize the need of providers to build out their systems; - to ensure that facilities were designed to minimize the visual impacts on the immediate surround- ings and throughout the community, and minimize public inconvenience and disruption. Ms. Muir indicated, with the assistance of tables, there were 27 cell towers permitted to be constructed since the advent of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Ms. Muir referenced a map on display that showed buffers currently in the Lane County code applied to the City. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to initiate amendments to Section 9.5750 of the Eugene Code to 1) extend setbacks for new cell towers to 1,000 feet from the nearest school and 800 feet from the nearest residences; and 2) codify the requirement for independent consultant review and verification; and 3) codify zero tolerance for interference with public safety commu- nications. Ms. Nathanson stated from her experience with this issue at a national level that the key drivers were capacity and coverage. She stressed that more people wanted cellular phone service everywhere. She noted that the city of Eugene posed topographical challenges to the provision of adequate coverage. She recognized there would be new requests to build cell towers as providers sought to keep abreast of demand. She felt more staff analysis was needed on proposed setbacks. Ms. Nathanson said she was a big proponent of the Third Amendment. She warned that there could be extensive legal work due to a lawsuit in another county which had attempted to adopt a zero interference ordinance. She related that the Federal Communi- cations Commission (FCC) had insisted the federal government should be in charge of who should regulate broadcasting. She disagreed, stating that it should be a local matter. Mr. Pap~ said he had not seen evidence that cell towers posed a safety hazard. He suggested that a safety hazard posed by cell towers would also be posed by telephone lines and electro-magnetic fields generated by large power lines. He commented that there was no analysis before the council with regard to the 1996 federal act and without this information it would be difficult to anticipate the legal ramifications of the motion to initiate amendments. Mr. Pap~ noted that there were providers willing to work with the City and the City had yet to work with them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 6 Work Session