Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dedrick maintained that it was sometimes difficult to maintain certain levels of precision with respect to the <br />data being collected on mixed-use land areas, but that he had the utmost confidence in the abilities of the staff and <br />consultant teams charged with collecting and analyzing the data. <br />Mr. Dedrick believed staff could indeed respond to the concerns raised in the CAC letter as referenced in Mr. <br />Brown's motion but suggested it would need to be made expressly clear what land areas and what data elements <br />were being called into question. <br />Ms. Piercy asked Mr. Brown which land areas and what data elements his motion and the CAC letters were <br />referring to. Mr. Brown answered that those elements had been described in CAC member Paul Conte's letter to <br />the council. He stated that there were most likely similar concerns from other CAC members but could not speak <br />specifically to any such concerns. <br />Mr. Clark noted a memorandum from CAC member Bill Kloos had also been circulated that had raised general <br />questions regarding the reliability of the data and methodologies used in the ECLA process. Mr. Clark added he <br />wanted to hear staff's responses to Mr. Kloos' concerns as well and asked Mr. Brown to accept a friendly <br />amendment to his previously stated motion that would allow Mr. Kloos' concerns to be addressed. <br />Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to Mr. Brown's previously stated motion and asked that <br />the word "two" be removed from said motion. Mr. Brown accepted the friendly amendment with <br />the consent of the second. <br />Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to the previously stated and amended motion to <br />additionally direct staff to return to the council in October 2009, with a specific timeline for <br />adoption of the ECLA findings. Mr. Brown did not accept Mr. Clark's friendly amendment. <br />Mr. Brown stated that although he agreed that a timeline needed to be formalized regarding adoption of the ECLA <br />findings he would not accept Mr. Clark's friendly amendment regarding the same. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to add to the previously stated motion as an <br />amendment that council direct staff to return in October 2009, with a specific timeline for <br />adoption of the ECLA findings. <br />Mr. Ruiz believed that staff should respond to the various concerns of the CAC but cautioned that such responses <br />might, if not handled judiciously, lead to a level of superfluous communications that could impede the progress of <br />the assessment. Mr. Ruiz stated it would be important for staff to carefully balance the concerns of the CAC and <br />the general public against the data and methodologies being used by staff in the ECLA process. <br />Mr. Clark maintained that the conversations surrounding the timelines and data analysis practices used in a land <br />needs assessment process such as ECLA needed to be undertaken of the City's own accord and not as part of any <br />directives handed down by the State legislature. <br />Mr. Poling agreed that the concerns of the CAC needed to be addressed but cautioned against any unnecessary <br />delays of the ECLA process that might violate the deadlines listed in HB 3337. <br />Mr. Poling stated he had also received an email from an individual with concerns regarding the ECLA process <br />which he intended to forward to the other council members. <br />Mr. Poling could not recall seeing the letter from Mr. Kloos listing his concerns regarding the ECLA process. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />