CCMinutes - 12/08/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

say "include this in the list when the Planning Division work plan was re- viewed." Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon echoed the comments of Ms. Nathanson. She felt a piecemeal review would make the ordinance vulnerable to unintended consequences. She thought the message was clear from the Planning Commission because the issue had been clearly identified as needing to be comprehensively reviewed. Mr. Papd agreed with Ms. Nathanson as well. He recommended that if there would be a review, it should be a comprehensive review of it in its entirety. Ms. Bettman thought the council had asked for such a review. She asserted that staff had responded to many questions by indicating they did not know the answer or did not have the resources to find it. She felt, in terms of what she had heard at the December 6 meeting, people were concerned about the resources involved in a comprehensive review and decided to pull those items that seemed to be of greatest concern out of the ordinance and review them. She said she would be happy to add on language that would indicate that it would include recommendations from staff for areas of further review. She also was amenable to changing the motion to call for a comprehensive review of the ordinance. Ms. Muir reiterated that staff had tried to meet the assignment as best it could, given existing resources. She reported that the City Attorney's office had indicated that a quick surgical fix to address setback issues and a limited review would be workable. She said the City Attorney's office had prepared most of the technical work on the item because they had the resources to do so. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to undertake a comprehen- sive review that included these issues and any other issues recommended by staff and that the City Manager return to the council with the scope of this work. Mayor Torrey asked how this motion differed from the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir replied that it was the same as that recommendation. Mr. Kelly said he was inclined to oppose the motion. He thought, on balance, the ordinance was reasonable in many areas. He supported taking a more surgical approach. In response to a question from Mr. Papd, City Manager Taylor said the council, should it not pass this motion, would pass the minor surgical items in the code and then they would be an item for consideration in the PDD priority setting within the context of its work plan. Ms. Taylor preferred the first motion, but said she would support the one on the table. She thought it important to take care of the more urgent elements of the cell tower ordinance. Ms. Nathanson opined that a better order of events would be to return with a scope of work and then to undertake a comprehensive review of the ordinance. She did not perceive the urgency as towers were not being built every month and, in fact, were being constructed very infrequently. She averred the ordinance was working to discourage the placement of new cell towers. Ms. Nathanson stated that the motion sought to propose solutions when the problems were unclear. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session