My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 05/24/10 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2010
>
CC Minutes - 05/24/10 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 11:45:37 AM
Creation date
3/3/2011 12:53:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/24/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
facilitate an easy transition between processes. She believed it would be a challenge to staff to identify <br />the areas where the processes came together and should be more carefully interwoven. <br />Mayor Piercy reiterated her concerns about doing something through one process that was counter to the <br />goals of another process. She acknowledged that it was difficult to anticipate that. Assistant City <br />Manager Medary suggested that the triple bottom line tool was a way to ensure that such issues were <br />considered. <br />Responding to a request from Mr. Brown, Assistant City Manager Medary indicated she would provide <br />the council with copies of the questions included in the triple bottom line analysis. <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged the work that had been done and the work still to come. He suggested that the <br />council needed to also accept that there was conflict ahead. He hoped the council worked through that <br />conflict and came out with something better than it originally considered. He did not think those conflicts <br />would be unique to Eugene and they could be positive, rather than negative. Mr. Pryor anticipated a <br />conflict between reasonable values and suggested that the council owed the community an informed, <br />thoughtful, deliberative discussion when it made its choices, which some people would not support. <br />Mayor Piercy perceived the Envision Eugene process as an opportunity for the community to have a <br />comprehensive discussion about the future. She said the challenge for participants would be to overcome <br />the initial skepticism that would arise, and while that would not be easy she thought that the council <br />would be pleased with the results of those efforts. <br />C. WORK SESSION: <br />Envision Eugene — Project Approach <br />The council was joined by Planning Division Director Lisa Gardner, Metro Community Planning Manager <br />Carolyn Weiss, and City Attorney Emily Jerome for the item. Ms. Gardner provided an update on the <br />process and presented a short video on the project. <br />Ms. Jerome provided a brief overview of the legal framework for the process. Mr. Zelenka arrived. <br />Ms. Weiss referred the council to Attachment A in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for a listing of issues <br />raised by advisory committees, members of the public, and staff. She recommended that the process <br />address 13 of the 19 listed issues. Items 1 -5 were legally required and items 6 -13 had a high level of <br />demonstrated community interest. <br />1. Transportation findings <br />2. Nodal development <br />3. Housing mixlaffordability <br />4. Market trends <br />5. Economic development strategy /site needs <br />6 More integrated land use and transportation <br />7. Underbuildlutilization <br />8. Climate and energy action plan <br />9. Development standards <br />10. District scale modeling <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 24; 2010 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.