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