My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 10/14/02 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2002
>
CC Minutes - 10/14/02 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:31:58 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 12:21:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Nathanson said that the City should tread carefully in the matter or it could be viewed as <br />obstructionist. She said that the ordinance would draw the attention of the industry and the State <br />legislature, with consequences to Eugene and beyond. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to <br /> indicate that the council was interested in looking at improvements and <br /> changes to the City's telecommunications ordinance and to direct staff to <br /> return to the council with a plan and timeline for processing amendments to <br /> the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for comments on the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested the amendment was in reality a substitute motion. Ms. Nathanson perceived <br />the amendment as giving staff more time to do the needed work. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because there was no time line established for the <br />ordinance examination. She believed that residents were very concerned about the placement of <br />cell towers and those concerns must be addressed soon. She said that in terms of the economy, <br />businesses wanted to locate in Eugene because there were a lot of people living there, and the <br />council needed to keep the livability of residents in mind. The council needed to stand up for <br />residents who stood to see the value of their largest asset, their house, diminished by the <br />location of a nearby cell tower. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Nathanson that the issues mentioned in the council's discussion <br />were implicit in her motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated reluctant opposition to the motion because it was his perception that even with <br />very directed motions to staff, momentum flags and projects were not started. Speaking to Ms. <br />Nathanson's concerns about the State legislature, he suggested nothing would occur before the <br />next session but research by a consultant. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the City experienced any issues with abandonment of equipment or <br />interference with public safety communications. Mr. Jacobson said no. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ acknowledged Ms. Childs' comments about the size of the project and suggested that <br />the issue be deferred to the council's goals process. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey deemed the motion on the floor a substitute motion and called for the vote. <br /> <br /> The substitute motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap8 <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the original motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked for the opportunity to offer a motion to the body. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to highlight to the <br /> Budget Committee for its information the Assessment Bond Fund Reserve <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.