Laserfiche WebLink
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 />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 /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />