Laserfiche WebLink
goals of the amendment she could not currently support it. <br />Ms. Piercy understood that the over-arching purpose of the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment was to address <br />greenhouse gas and carbon emissions and agreed that it was a viable strategy that should be supported. She believed <br />that while the funding issues in the amendment would need to be addressed, opposing the amendment indicated a lack <br />of commitment to the environmental concerns of the community. <br />Mr. Pryor noted that the amendments to the bill might not be the best course of action for the City of Eugene and <br />stated he would need more time to review the matter. He noted he would not currently support the proposed <br />amendments. <br />Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and indicated she was concerned with the speed with which the <br />amendments were moving forward as well as the funding issues that had been raised. She also noted that the <br />amendments might ultimately circumvent local authority regarding climate control initiatives and noted she would not <br />currently support the proposed amendments. <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the work session meeting by ten <br />minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy’s comments in support of the proposed amendments and noted that the MPC had <br />recently voted unanimously to approve environmental provisions similar to the proposed amendments to HB 2001 in <br />their draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) document. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the council could choose either a “support if <br />amended” or “oppose unless amended” position regarding the proposed amendments. <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a support position regarding the <br />proposed amendments to HB 2001 if amended to include full funding and a voice in the <br />modeling and setting of local standards regarding the same. <br />Ms. Wilson commented that 1000 Friends of Oregon had considered the local match provisions of the proposed <br />amendments to provide full funding for the pilot study described therein. Mr. Zelenka responded that the full funding <br />he referred to in his motion called for full and complete funding beyond the local match provisions. <br />Ms. Taylor reiterated her support of the proposed amendments. <br />Mr. Clark indicated concern that the votes cast by Ms. Piercy and Mr. Zelenka as members of the MPC were <br />supposed to be by agreement and representative of the general will of the Eugene City Council and further noted that <br />their recent votes regarding the UPWP might have been cast without proper consideration of the will of the council. <br />Mr. Clark stated he was unable to support the motion and felt there were several questions regarding the proposed <br />amendments and the funding mechanisms involved that he needed answered. He advocated for further discussion <br />regarding the matter. <br />Mr. Zelenka, responding to a point of order from Mr. Pryor, noted that his motion referred only to a support position <br />on the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and not to any provisions of the bill itself. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that it was likely that the proposed amendments would <br />be moved into HB 2001 in the near future and would apply to at least one of the three main MPOs. She believed HB <br />2001 would eventually be referred to the voters. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />