Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Jerome noted that the Homebuilders Association which had co-sponsored HB 3337 had also endorsed the staff-recommended motion. Mr. Zelenka believed more immediate investigations were necessary regarding various elements of the analyses involved in the ECLA process and hoped that such issues might be resolved before the council adopted the ECLA findings or implemented any policies recommended therein. Ms. Piercy commented that, in her conversations with various homebuilders and community members, she had recognized significant concern regarding the ECLA data and how it might be applied toward any future land use policy decisions. She appreciated the divergent viewpoints that had been brought to the discussions by various members of the community and hoped that the council might reach a consensus regarding the matter so that they could move forward. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support the staff-recommended motion so long as it contained the word “approval” as she believed such language might be misinterpreted as a tacit approval of the recommendations from the ECLA process. Ms. Piercy clarified for Ms. Taylor that the recommended motion did not say that the council would express approval of any ECLA policy recommendations, but provided for further information regarding the ECLA process to be brought before the council in December. Ms. Taylor asked why the council needed to pass a motion regarding the ECLA process. Mr. Ruiz said that staff had written the motion in response to requests from a variety of parties for more time to review the various ECLA methodologies and to determine a date-certain for the council to definitively adopt the findings of the ECLA process. Mr. Clark reminded Ms. Taylor that in a previous work session, the council had approved a motion for staff to return with a timeline for adoption of the ECLA findings. He noted that the staff-recommended motion under discussion would provide for such a timeline. Mr. Clark believed the timelines prescribed in the staff -recommended motion represented an acceptable compromise regarding the adoption of the ECLA findings. Mr. Clark hoped the council would have the opportunity before their winter break to review and respond to the questions and comments made to staff by the Citizen Advisory Committee before the council initiated the broader public process of refining the ECLA data. Mr. Ruiz responded that there would be one or two more council work sessions regarding the ECLA process before the winter break. Ms. Piercy recognized the prevalent belief that people wanted more time to review certain aspects of the ECLA process. Mr. Ruiz noted that neighborhood representative Paul Conte had reviewed the language of the staff- recommended motion and had offered his endorsement. Mr. Brown noted his support of the staff-recommended motion but suggested if it might be helpful to change any instances of the word “approval” in the motion to “acceptance.” Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Brown’s suggestion and felt that it might lead to a greater consensus regarding the matter. Ms. Jerome noted she had conferred with City Attorney Glen Kleine regarding the language of the staff- recommended motion and believed that it could be revised according to Mr. Brown’s suggestion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 4 Work Session