Laserfiche WebLink
could be better concealed. Ms. Nathanson called for council discussion of potential regulation of <br />telecommunications equipment in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson cautioned the council to be careful as it proceeded in light of the upcoming <br />legislative session. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> pursue amendments to Ordinance 9.7550 for inclusion in the 2003 Land Use <br /> Code amendments process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported further examination of the issues raised by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly. <br />She noted that the Planning Commission was processing Land Use Code amendments on an <br />annual basis, and could include the ordinance in that process. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart indicated opposition to the motion as he did not think the timing was right. He <br />determined from Ms. Childs that the City's amendments to Chapter 9 relative to the topic had not <br />been challenged in court. Mr. Fart reiterated his remarks about his concerns about the council <br />acting to make it more difficult for a person to do business in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs determined that Ms. Bettman was referring to calendar year 2003 rather than fiscal <br />year 2003. <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the commission could accomplish the work required. Ms. Childs did not think <br />the ordinance review could be easily bundled with the other code amendments. She thought it <br />would be a major project for the commission, particularly if it were to follow-up on all the <br />suggestions that had been made by the council. Ms. Childs said that the lack of challenges to <br />the City's ordinance had been the result of hard work and consultation with many parties. She <br />believed that changes that were perceived as strengthening the ordinance would be challenged <br />by the industry. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the motion on the floor as he thought the issues mentioned by other <br />councilors were problems that needed to be addressed. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said the ordinance could be improved upon, but reiterated that it was not a small <br />project. She suggested that the desired examination be initiated as a stand-alone project. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a final round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested the intent of the motion was to ensure the work was done in a similar time <br />line as the other code amendments and that it enjoyed the review of the commission. He asked <br />if the use of a consultant to leverage staff time made sense. He also asked if the project could <br />be completed in one year. Ms. Childs said that if the council allocated funding for a consultant, <br />the work could be done over the next fiscal year; otherwise, staff would have to request council <br />direction on items to be dropped from the commission's work program. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered as a friendly amendment, which Ms. Bettman accepted, dropping the reference <br />to "2003" and substituting the phrase "over the next year." <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought it urgent the City do something to address the problem of cell towers. She did <br />not think fear of a legal challenge should deter the City from doing the right thing. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />