Laserfiche WebLink
precluded the City of Eugene from banning cell towers altogether. He further confirmed that the <br />City had never received a land use permit application for a cell tower in a residential zone, and <br />that such facilities required a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he supported the current ordinance but he was concerned about what the City did <br />to make business difficult to do inside Eugene. He noted the high unemployment rates in Oregon <br />and said Eugene was a leader in making business difficult. He supported a review of the <br />ordinance to consider changes that might be needed, but was worried because of his concern <br />about the potential legal challenges that might arise from the passage of a stricter ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor observed that he was seeing antennas in many places around the community, <br />including on the City's parking garages. He wanted to institute additional livability standards in <br />terms of where a cell tower or antenna could be located. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Jacobson that the City could not regulate potential health <br />impacts but could regulate the aesthetics of a cell tower. He assumed that one would want to <br />avoid more intense radio frequencies for health reasons. He asked if the industry had a need for <br />dispersal and distribution, or if a company just needed "a spot in the community." Ms. Berrian <br />responded that dispersal depended on some degree to the spectrum a company purchased from <br />the Federal Communication Commission as well as topography. Some companies can install <br />fewer towers because their spectrum was "line of sight." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Jacobson that the County's ordinance included a different <br />setback than the City's ordinance. Mayor Torrey questioned the City's goal in reexamining the <br />ordinance: was the City was attempting to limit cell towers or balance their impacts to the degree <br />possible. He said that the question must be answered. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Farr's concerns, Mr. Kelly said that in addition to the business climate, the City <br />needed to be concerned about Eugene's liveability. He had received many calls from citizens <br />concerned about cell tower applications. He thought the City could model its ordinance on <br />ordinances successfully adopted elsewhere. He did not envision going beyond where other <br />communities had gone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly highlighted his priorities for the ordinance tuneup, including extending the setbacks to <br />resemble those of Lane County and codifying the consultant review. He also supported <br />incorporating several of the citizen group's recommendations, such as changes to the process of <br />looking for alternative sites in a way that made the location of such a site more likely, and taking <br />additional steps to improve the likelihood of successful colocation. <br /> <br />In terms of the concerns expressed by staff about increased costs to develop code changes, Mr. <br />Kelly suggested that the increased use of consultants could help to leverage staff time and save <br />money. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson wanted the City to track the Anarundel County situation as she wanted the <br />council to consider changing the ordinance to stipulate there would be zero tolerance for any <br />interference with public safety communications. She also wanted to address the issue of <br />abandoned equipment and who was responsible for removing equipment when a company went <br />out of business. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to hear more about the administrative <br />fees. She also was interested in further discussion of aesthetic considerations and how towers <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />