My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 1-23-19 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
CMO
>
2019
>
01-23-19
>
Agenda Packet 1-23-19 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2019 2:12:25 PM
Creation date
1/18/2019 2:08:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/23/2019
Signature_Date
1/23/2019
CMO_Effective_Date
1/23/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br /> <br /> <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 20 of 59 <br /> <br />S ignificant Issues: Evaluation Criteria <br />Items identified as “significant” are key issues that raise potential policy implications and were the items <br />brought to working groups for discussion. The Clear & Objective Significant items are organized in numerical <br />order. <br />Each issue includes a table of the possible concepts that were presented at the working groups, and also placed <br />in online surveys available to all interested parties . The possible concepts were generated by staff to seed <br />working group conversations and stakeholders were also encouraged to suggest possible concepts. In the table, <br />each of the possible concepts is evaluated based on evaluation criteria and the level of support expressed in <br />stakeholder responses. Evaluation criteria include the following: <br /> Efficiency – Does the concept reduce or mitigate existing land use code barriers <br />to housing development? Does the concept support reasonable and predictable <br />development of buildable lands for housing? <br /> Effectiveness – Does the concept effectively address the identified issue? Does <br />the concept address public health & safety, natural resource protection, and <br />neighborhood livability? <br /> Technical Feasibility – Is it easy to implement the concept? Is it realistic, practical <br />and prudent? <br /> Social Equity (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it promote positive community <br />relationships, effective government, social justice and overall livability? Does it <br />have equitable impacts on community members (vulnerable populations, specific <br />neighborhoods, distinct groups, other)? <br /> Environmental Health (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it have a positive effect on <br />environmental health and our ability to effectively address climate change? <br /> Economic Prosperity (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it have a positive effect on the <br />local economy and minimize costs to the community, now and over the long <br />term? Does it support responsible stewardship of public resources? <br />In evaluating the concepts according to the se criteria, the following scale was used: <br />As used to depict the level of stakeholder support, the scale can be interpreted as follows: <br />+ promotes – strong support, no or low opposition <br />o neutral – neutral support or roughly equivalent support and opposition <br />– inhibits – no or low support, stro ng opposition <br /> <br />+ promotes – the concept promotes a positive impact b ased on the specific evaluation criterion <br />o neutral – the concept either has no affect or no net positive impact based on the specific <br />evaluation criterion <br />– inhibits – the concept has an inhibiting affect based on the specific evaluation criterion <br />January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.