Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Farr believed the TRG was working well together and he was optimistic about its ultimate product. <br />He thanked the TRG members present for what he termed the “ridiculous” amount of work they were <br />doing. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested Eugene needed a good and acceptable definition of “affordable” and “low- <br />income” so it was clear what was being talked about. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor also expressed appreciation for the work of the TRG and for its collaborative approach. The <br />TRG was providing the council with the technical analysis it needed to make challenging policy <br />decisions. He did not think there was a way to avoid the fact that the TRG’s recommendations were <br />going to come down to competing values. The council needed the TRG’s guidance in making the right <br />choices because he did not think they would necessarily be clear; instead, he anticipated the council <br />would face a choice between one good value over another good value. While he hoped there would be no <br />minority report, he did not expect the TRG’s work to be easy. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor and hoped the TRG was able to reach a consensus <br />position. He asked what the TRG had learned in regard to recent trends in housing and the housing mix. <br />Mr. Boles said the TRG was working with limited data about local housing trends because the data <br />available was limited to the years 2001-2008. He did not think the TRG would be able to secure much <br />more information. He anticipated that in the future the City would have data to help it gauge such trends. <br /> <br />Ms. Nelson suggested that while historic trends could be useful they were not always an indicator of the <br />future. The council would have to wrestle with that issue and in the end, make a judgment call. She <br />termed it “crystal ball stuff” and wished it was not, given its dramatic effect on the housing mix. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan emphasized the importance of monitoring the implementation of the outcome of Envision <br />Eugene so the City could make needed short-term changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka liked an approach where the City adopted aggressive assumptions about the mix and adjusted <br />them if necessary in the future. He asked what point in the range of single-family mixes triggered a need <br />to seek additional land for multi-family housing outside the UGB. Mr. Dedrick said there may be a <br />threshold at which a reliance on redevelopment did not realize sufficient land, but he was unsure of the <br />answer and would keep the question in mind. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked TRG members and expressed appreciation for their collaborative approach. She said <br />the TRG was providing the council with the data it needed to make a decision. She was happy to hear <br />there would be no minority report. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy observed that the Seven Pillars represented community values and there were natural <br />tensions between the values. However, she did not think the community should think of them as <br />competing values because they all mattered and the council needed to consider all of them in its decision <br />making. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner introduced the next section of the presentation, which regarded the industrial land supply. <br />She reported that the Community Resource Group (CRG) had heard presentations on the topic from a <br />range of private, public, and nonprofit experts. The CRG formed an Economic Development <br />Subcommittee and that group created a portfolio of needed sites. The CRG used that information to <br />discuss what the resulting need might look like without reaching a consensus. The CRG produced a <br />report that summarized the work of the subcommittee and staff used that information to propose adding <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2011 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />