Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Brown which outside agencies or individuals he would recommend to perform a review of <br />the ECLA work to date. Ms. Gardner stated that the EcoNorthwest consulting firm and its sub-consulting <br />partners currently involved in the ECLA process were considered eminently qualified, both regionally and <br />nationally, to conduct peer reviews in the manner indicated by Mr. Brown's motion. <br />Ms. Gardner stated there might also be other firms qualified to conduct such a review but suggested that it might <br />be premature to engage any such firms or individuals until the assessment report had been completed. <br />Mr. Dedrick commented that, with the assistance of the EcoNorthwest consulting firm, the ECLA process was <br />already subject to a peer review process by qualified experts. Mr. Dedrick further commented that the <br />EcoNorthwest consulting agreement included two additional sub-consulting firms to help ensure that the current <br />review process was as thorough and objective as possible. <br />Mr. Dedrick reminded the council that the ECLA process also included a review by the DLCD to help provide an <br />additional level of expert opinion with respect to both the assessment report and the implementation of policies <br />recommended therein. <br />Mr. Dedrick had a great deal of faith in the current ECLA review strategies and stated the manner in which the <br />consulting teams had been set up provided for "multiple arms" of expert reviews that could evaluate the ECLA <br />process both on its own merits and in relation to similar processes in other cities. <br />Mr. Dedrick commented that the CAC had been designed as a panel of local experts with stakeholders who could <br />bring a broad understanding of local land use issues to the work of that committee. He noted that the involvement <br />of the CAC had significantly improved the quality of the ECLA process and its products. He further noted that <br />the ECLA consultants had commented to staff that the level of rigor in the input provided to them by the CAC had <br />been "beyond anything that they had ever received in the community." <br />Mr. Dedrick noted that the CAC's input had "raised the bar" for the ECLA process well beyond what had been <br />called for by State statutes. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted he would feel more comfortable supporting Mr. Brown's motion if it had described precisely <br />who would perform an ECLA review as well how such a review would be conducted, when it would be <br />completed, and how much it would cost the City. He noted that without such information he was inclined to agree <br />with Mr. Dedrick's estimation of current ECLA peer review strategies. <br />Ms. Piercy added it seemed necessary to consider the staff responses to the various concerns of the CAC before <br />considering if additional peer review strategies were called for. <br />Mr. Brown agreed that Mr. Dedrick, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Piercy's comments were valid and admitted he would <br />need to bring more detailed information regarding additional peer review strategies to the council. <br />Mr. Brown, with the consent of the second, withdrew his previously stated motion. <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to hear input from any dissenting members of the CAC who might have disagreed with the <br />majority opinions and recommendations of that group. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />