CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked why minor amendments to the Land Use Code were not an ongoing work program item. Mr. Coyle acknowledged that it was good planning practice, but it was an unfunded work task. He recommended that periodic updates to the code should occur. Ms. Bettman said ~ifthey're minor, they're minor," and should not be raised to the level of a high priority. She reiterated her support for the amend- ment as she believed there was an %asy fix" to be achieved and the impact on the division would be minimal. Ms. Nathanson said that if councilors continued to move their favorite priorities to the top of the priority list, it would create havoc within the organization. Such additions were not without their impact on City resources. While she appreciated the suggestion for a supplemental budget request, she considered the idea of such funding out-of-context with other City funding priorities, such as public safety. She said that the funding competed for resources as well as the council and public's time. Ms. Nathanson said that the problem was not just cell towers, but other devices that were placed in the right-of-way such as telecommu- nication devices. She questioned why cell towers were singled out. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Ms. Bettman that the solution could be a quick fix. She asked Ms. Muir if the solution was so simple it could be considered a minor amendment to the Land Use Code. Was it a matter of changing setbacks, and what about the other protections neighborhoods need? Ms. Muir said that was part of the difficulty in determining the resources required for each project on the list. Without more background on each item, it was unclear to her what issues existed at this point, and taking the subject through the public process helped identify the issues involved. She said staff could start by reviewing the ordinances of other communities. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the City already had protections and setbacks in its current ordinance and questioned whether such review was needed. She suggested that some minor adjustments were required. Ms. Solomon thought the council was attempting to micromanage the division. The Planning Division had presented a reasonable plan into which all councilors had input. The division had recommended that, to be strategic, the council remain flexible in prioritizing and balancing resources. She believed the work program did so, and in addition it left room to address emerging issues. Ms. Solomon did not intend to support any additions to the work program and suggested changes could be made in the future. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council could identify its top five priorities and then examine the remainder of the list carefully to ensure the next priorities that came to the top of the list were appropriate. He believed the council had fixed the first two priorities through the budget process and thought if any changes were to be the funds involved should be reallocated. Mr. Pap~ encouraged the City Manager to let the council know when staff could not accomplish all the council wished it to. Referring to the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Meisner found it discouraging to be told that staff could not provide cost estimates or identify funding sources unless the council made that a separate work item. Mr. Meisner disagreed with the manager's statement that work on the other items would occur when time and resources allowed, pointing out that many of the items on the list, such as the Region 2050 study and the College Hill Modem Context Statement, were underway or ongoing. He asked if that meant work was being done on those efforts rather than other high priorities. Ms. Muir said that staff was essentially working without a priority list and was ~all over the list," trying to accomplish many things. Mr. Meisner questioned MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session