Laserfiche WebLink
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 />Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City could possibly be sued in Circuit <br />Court to accept the ECLA report if it did not already do so by December 31, 2009, as described in HB 3337. Ms. <br />Jerome further stated that there were no sanctions the City might be subject to under any such lawsuit. <br />Ms. Taylor advocated against rushing the ECLA process and believed it was important for the City to solicit and <br />collect reports and input from the minority interests related to the assessment. <br />Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Clark's previously stated motion constituted a substitute motion or an amendment to Mr. <br />Brown's previously stated motion. Mr. Brown responded that it was an amendment. <br />Ms. Piercy believed that any timeline agreed upon by the council regarding the ECLA process would need to be <br />flexible. <br />Mr. Zelenka responded to comments previously made by Ms. Jerome indicating that the City could be subject to a <br />lawsuit if the provisions of HB 3337 were not met. Ms. Jerome clarified her earlier comments and noted that the <br />HB 3337 guidelines would allow the City to locally set and control a timeline for the completion of the next steps <br />of the ECLA process beyond December 31, 2009. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted he would not support the amendment to Mr. Brown's motion and believed that the City should <br />hold to the timeline included as Attachment C in the agenda item summary materials. He maintained it was too <br />early in the ECLA process to generate a timeline that would go beyond the end of 2009. <br />Mr. Clark reminded Mr. Zelenka that the staff timeline included as Attachment C did not include any specific <br />mention of the final adoption of the ECLA process. Ms. Jerome confirmed that the "Final Products" listed in that <br />timeline did not describe the final adoption of the ECLA process. <br />Mr. Clark commented he was not interested in stalling the adoption of the ECLA process. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />