Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka maintained that the ECLA deadlines prescribed by HB 3337 represented a constrained process where <br />it might be difficult to weigh all relevant issues equally. He further commented he did not agree with Mr. Clark's <br />motion to add to Mr. Brown's motion but would support any reasonable timeline that would allow for a full <br />hearing of all pertinent land use issues related to the assessment. <br />Mr. Zelenka found the staff ECLA timeline included in the agenda item summary materials as Attachment C <br />agreeable to him. <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed she had been responsive to staff's requests to the council regarding the ECLA data. She <br />recognized that while it was important to adequately address the concerns of the CAC and the general public, it <br />was also important to ensure that the discussion and review of the ECLA data did not continue in perpetuity. She <br />noted she would not support either Mr. Brown or Mr. Clark's motion. <br />Mr. Clark commented he would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to his motion that called for one <br />additional week for the CAC to submit any further concerns regarding the ECLA process. <br />Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to Mr. Clark's previously stated motion to call for five <br />additional business days for the CAC to submit any further concerns regarding the ECLA <br />process. Mr. Clark, with the consent of Mr. Poling as the second, accepted the friendly <br />amendment. <br />Mr. Ruiz attempted to clarify the motions under discussion and confirmed that those motions would call for staff <br />to provide a detailed response to the CAC concerns for the council who would then act in accordance with that <br />staff response. <br />Ms. Jerome attempted to clarify the motions under discussion and understood that they were intended "to give the <br />CAC five days to give their comments to staff, staff to write a staff report, essentially, that responds to those <br />comments for council's October meeting and to come back with set timelines" for the rest of the adoption process. <br />Mr. Pryor requested clarification regarding the nature of what the City would be required to adopt with regard to <br />the ECLA process and the deadlines listed under HB 3337. Ms. Jerome responded that, according to State court <br />interpretations of HB 3337, the City of Eugene could not adopt the assessment without first determining how it <br />would address the land use demands described in the assessment. <br />Mr. Pryor asked if the City would be in conformity with HB 3337 if it accepted the report by December 31, 2009 <br />with the expectation that, on a timeline to be set, the City would come up with a final process for adoption. Ms. <br />Jerome responded that Mr. Pryor's statement was correct. <br />Ms. Jerome stated that HB 3337 did not call for a timeline for adoption of the ECLA process but rather that it <br />prescribed the initial steps necessary for the City to adopt the findings of the ECLA report. Mr. Pryor noted that <br />this seemed to allow the City to conduct a more thorough review of any community concerns regarding the ECLA <br />process. <br />Mr. Pryor expressed that the staff should be directed to respond only to the CAC's questions and not those of the <br />public at-large. <br />Mr. Pryor believed that agreeing on a timeline would give the City a better idea of how the ECLA process would <br />play out after December 31, 2009. He also believed that such a timeline would help prevent the City from making <br />any bad policy decisions as a result of the assessment. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />