City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hello.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. everyone and welcome to the May 18th 2026 city council work session. Thank you for joining us in this hybrid meeting format. For work sessions like this one, there is no opportunity for public comment and those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website, the broadcast on Comcast channel 21 or by calling into one of the phone numbers listed for this meeting on the public webcast industry materials

page of the city of Eugene website. In case of a medical emergency, an automated external defibrillator and AED is located on the counter behind staff on the left side or the west side of this room. And in case of an emergency evacuation, emergency exits are through the double doors located at the back of the room and the doors to the patio can also be used as needed. Thank you all again for joining us this evening. And I will just make a general note to council and also to staff that we are using the ceiling mics. Um, as you've probably noticed, no microphones in front of you. And that should uh perfectly amplify and connect what we're sharing with our listening audience and others in the room. But please do project a bit and keep that in mind today.

Um and I now call the May 18th, 2026 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. And I'll turn to the city manager to introduce our first topic, which is a work session on urban growth strategies, the adoption update.

Uh thank you, mayor. Uh you said just that. Uh tonight uh is a work session on the urban growth strategies. There will be a focus on the proposed land use regulations that's included in this first adoption package. Um the first package of proposed code amendsments are in are intended to remove barriers to increased housing choice and job development to align the Eugene code with state law. So with that turn it over to staff you city manager, mayor, city council. Uh, thanks for having us here tonight to talk about urban growth strategies. My name is Rebecca Gershow. I'm a principal planner and I'm joined by Leah Roush and Heather O'Donnell in the planning division. Uh, so we're going to do a quick overview on what Earth Strategies is, a project refresher, why we're doing this work, and then Leah and Heather will share more details on the first adoption package that we're bringing forward in 2026. So, urban growth strategies is identifying the tools, actions, policies, and land that's needed for the next 20 years in Eugene to support living wage jobs and housing that everyone can. As a reminder, urban growth strategies has four phases shown here. Tonight, we're focusing on our first set of housing and jobs actions that we're bringing. So you have seen this slide before but it bears repeating um that Eugene's um housing need is steep and serious. The Oe housing needs analysis or ONA identifies that almost 26,000 new dwelling units will need to be produced in Eugene over the next 20 years. That means that 70% more units will need to be produced annually compared to the

last 10 years. So another way of looking at this is that Eugene saw an average of 953 new units per year built over the last decade. And of those, about only 100 each year were subsidized affordable housing. To meet our new housing need, 1,600 new units each year will need to be produced, including 700 each year that are affordable to household with the lowest incomes. So, this next slide um shows how the ONA segments our housing need by affordability. This chart breaks down those 26,000 new dwellings into affordability bins based on area median income or AMI. The bars in green are units needed for households making less than 80% of the median income, typically a level of affordability that can only be provided through subsidized affordable housing. Next is moderate income housing for households earning between 80 and 120% AMI. And the bar on the right is our need for market rate housing, which serves households earning more than 120% AMI. We have an immense housing need here in especially housing that is affordable to households with the lowest incomes. And at the same time, we're seeing declining federal resources for affordable housing. a challenging market and the funding we do have is not going far enough. So that's just setting the stage a little bit. Um in response to this housing need and as part of our state directed planning work, council will be considering at least four packages of proposed actions over the next four years and they're summarized here. Tonight's focus is on

the first adoption package we're bringing forward. It will focus on housing and jobs actions that have endofear deadlines. Leah and Heather will get into those details in a few minutes. They are also included in attachments A, B, and C of your AIS. The details on this first housing package. The second adoption process this year, package two, will start in the fall. It'll include Ling County also. So there will be additional meetings and joint public hearings on those amendments. Then in 2027, we'll bring forward to both the city and county a large package to consider for adoption by the end of the year. The adoption of our land supply studies in 2027 is a state deadline and it will allow us to move into analyzing potential urban growth boundary expansion areas with adoption of a new UGB if needed by 2030. Attachment D in your packet is a summary of all of the proposed actions that are underway currently. The housing and jobs actions council will consider this year and next generally fall into four categories. Increasing our capacity for housing, reducing regulatory barriers for both housing and jobs development and encouraging compact development for both jobs and housing in and around mixuse centers. So, now I'm going to hand it off to Leah to talk about the first of our housing actions.

Thanks, Rebecca. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, counselors. Again, I'm Leah Roush. I'm a senior planner in the planning division. Um, one of the first items in the first adoption package is a series of land use code changes um to create new development standards for micro village housing and single room occupancies or SRO's. We've brought micro village housing to you in the past, so I'll keep my comments there pretty high level tonight. Um, and as Rebecca said, you can review the code concepts in more detail in attachment B of your agenda packet. Both single room occupancies and microvillage housing would allow very small units to be built together on a shared lot with amenities provided in a shared building. The two types of housing are similar with some key differences that I'll highlight tonight. And both housing types could respond to some of our housing needs in Eugene, especially for lowerc cost housing options and smaller units. Microvillage housing responds to a need we've heard from affordable housing developers and shelter providers to create housing that's affordable by design and centers community living. It's modeled on an approach that's already been successful in a shelter setting like everyone village here in Eugene, but also village style and community-minded middle housing or multi-unit developments like are shown in the photos. Microvillage housing is a new housing type in our land use code would allow very small dwelling units with an in-unit bathroom at under 400 square ft with a size bonus for accessible units or affordable units. Common buildings would provide shared kitchen and eating facilities for residents and other services could be offered based on the needs of the residents such as laundry, storage, daycare or other services. The hope is that these dwellings are less expensive to develop and could reach a deep level of affordability without as much or any. We've heard through community engagement that the village setting can provide both independence and community support and that detached units in particular can offer a sense of safety and comfort

for residents who may have previously lived unhoused. In addition to micro village housing, we're proposing development standards for single room occupancies or SRO's. These standards respond to recent changes in state law to allow SRO's as detached or attached units as well as to allow SRO's in more places. Single room occupancies are made up of at least four attached or detached units that provide living and sleeping space and that are independently rented. Each unit must share either a bathroom or kitchen facilities with the other units. Under new state law, up to six SRO units are allowed in lowdensity areas and then anywhere that multi-unit housing is allowed. While there are a lot of similarities between these two housing types, we're recommending adding micro village housing as a new housing type and a Eugene specific solution that is a little bit more flexible and meets some of our specific needs. Some key differences that I'll just highlight tonight. Um, SRO's must be independently rented, but micro villages could be built as a community land trust, allowing for affordable home ownership options. SRO's must share either a bathroom or kitchen, while a micro village allows for shared kitchens, but each unit could be built as a complete dwelling. We're also proposing to allow a limited set of neighborhood commercial uses within a micro village. And so this could provide workforce development opportunities for residents or provide needed on-site services. I've included an image here of the market garden at Everyone Village where residents grow food to sell to local vendors. Everyone village also has a clinic on which could be allowed at future micro village developments. While a mixture of residential and commercial uses would be allowed outright for developments in commercial zones, it would require a conditional use permit in residential zones. Finally, we've envisioned micro village sites as larger developments, so with a

minimum of eight dwelling units and at least one community building for every 20 dwellings. So, with that, I'll hand it off to Heather to talk about the remainder of the package.

Great. Thanks, Leah. Good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Heather O'Donnell. So, another way the city is proposing to remove barriers to housing is by providing more support to middle housing development. In 2022, some of you may remember that in response to state legislation, the city amended the land use code to end decades of exclusionary zoning practices that made middle housing types really difficult to build. Middle housing is an important housing type for creating more housing choice in all neighborhoods throughout the city. For a quick refresher, middle housing includes the types on the um slide there, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, town houses, and cottage clusters. Since adoption of the new regulations, Eugene has seen a significant increase in middle housing building permits as shown on this graphic. So since 2023, the first full year that uh since the code adoption, uh Eugene saw a 294% increase in middle housing permitting and increasing the annual average of new middle housing units from 26 to 102 permitted per year. And even with that, because of the size of our housing need, we continue to look for more ways to get even more housing production. So that's why we're looking at a variety of means to further support middle housing production. The first two bullets on the screen are about city process and city communication. As more middle housing has developed in Eugene, staff across city divisions have identified the need for and have been working to improve the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of building

commit plan review and communications. Additionally, in coordination with part agencies, the city is also working to strengthen communication with potential developers, homeowners, and agency partners that are interested in middle housing development. Tonight we're focused on the last bullet, land use code amendments. Last year the state passed another legislation um related to middle housing. This is House Bill 2138. The proposed land use code amendments that are um going to be before you later this year are aimed at complying with these recent changes and improving clarity in the land use code. The proposed changes stem from a few really specific requirements and some additional resources. First, as I mentioned, the requirements of House Bill 2138 must be adopted by the city by the end of this year to support implementation of those requirements. The state put forward a new model housing code for cities over 25,000 people which we relied heavily on in drafting the co proposed code amendments. Note that this is this new model housing code. This new model code, excuse me, is somewhat different than the middle housing specific model code that was referenced during the 2022 middle housing code amendments and is not a baseline requirement like that code was. So, that's a distinction we want to make sure we point it out. Um, we have also integrated state guidance on walkable design, feedback from staff and housing professionals on how to reduce procedural and regulatory barriers. And we looked for ways to provide just generally more flexibility such as adding exceptions to standards

and then also reviewing the standards that are most often requested to be adjusted. Also, of course, community feedback. We heard things that are working well. We've heard some things that could be improved. And so trying to address those things to the extent we can. Um and just flagging that these changes would apply to middle housing across the city. So based on these resources, um several middle housing code changes are proposed for the 2026 adoption package number one. Um I do want to note that there may be additional code refinements in subsequent adoption packages. So for this package um just to talk a little bit about some of the key concepts which were also in your um AIS packet. First, there's a variety of technical fixes proposed throughout the code that I'm not going to get into. Um but they're specifically to add clarity to existing regulations or to align with the state's new model housing code. Um, some of the other changes could create additional places for people to live, like increasing the allowed maximum building height and allowing larger cottages. Um, others could provide more design flexibility, such as eliminating the architectural features for town houses and not decreasing the maximum number of townhouse units that can be attached. and then others could help reduce the impacts of some middle housing developments on surrounding neighbors. For instance, by prohibiting trash and recycling collection areas in setbacks. In addition, a number of the proposed changes are specifically to implement the requirements of House Bill 2138. They include making it easier to accommodate existing single units,

accessory dwellings, and duplexes that will be retained in the middle housing development. There are also new incentives for middle housing developments that choose to provide either at least one accessible unit or one home ownership unit that's affordable to households earning less than 120% of the area median income which for a household of four is about 110,000. These developments can add one or two additional bonus units and then get reduced development standards to accommodate the units. So, for example, allowing taller building heights, increasing the area that's available to develop and allowing larger cottages with smaller courtyards. Okay. Now, there's another set of additional changes that are in this first package that are also proposed not only to reduce barriers to housing and jobs, but also to again respond to recent legislation. So, the first group um state law and in some cases federal law requires cities to allow certain uses that provide care in more places throughout the city. So these include allowing child daycare centers and daycare homes to be permitted outright or with limited restrict restrictions in more zones. Um so these specific uses provide supervised daytime care. They do not provide room and board or other services and are an important service to support Eugene's workforce. Additionally, allowing residential treatment facilities in homes,

residential training facilities and homes and similar uses um must be allowed or permitted outright in more zones. These uses do provide room and board often in conjunction with services like physical assistance with daily living activities and training. Although the law does allow for some nuance between where these uses are allowed, the proposed approach is to treat uses that are providing similar services the same in the zoning code. So that results in smaller daycare homes, whether they're for ch for children or for adults. Um, and residential care type homes would be allowed in areas zoned to allow single unit housing, whereas larger daycare centers and residential care type facilities would be allowed in areas zoned to allow multi-unit housing. Um, the proposed changes also include increasing the maximum building height in the R1 lowdensity residential zone by 5T from 30 to 35 ft. This would allow a full third floor of living space and would and would apply to all housing types in R1, but for instance would make it easier to stack triplex or forplex units on smaller sites. This is not specifically statemandated, but it does align with the maximum height in the state's model housing code and with several other cities. Cities are however required to streamline um some residential land use applications including zone changes to a higher density, planned unit developments, and uh residential variances. This will be a new expedited land use application process added to our land use code. And finally, in response to the housing crisis and to

support economic development, we are proposing to temporarily extend the expiration date for certain land use approvals. Um the council previously approved similar extensions in response to the great recession uh COVID 19 pandemic. So this is the after tonight's work session, we are moving on to our formal adoption process with the planning commission for this week. We will be issuing public notice for the planning commission public hearing. That's in June. Then in July, the planning commission will be deliberating and making a recommendation to council. So you will be seeing this package or a similar package as refined by public input and the planning commission coming back to you in the fall. We have a work session scheduled in September. And then we uh have a public hearing in October with deliberations by the end of the year to meet our end ofear state required deadlines. So thank you for listening and we welcome your questions for that presentation. Okay. Um, yeah, thank you for the presentation. Um, I want to go back to uh slide 22. Um, we're talking about increasing the maximum height um for building in R in low density R1 zones.

So, I have a couple of issues in my work right now where I have um what was previously uh homes that were built on property that um uh let's put it to you this way. It was a little bit challenging. And now those buildings have been removed from one site and there is a proposal although I know it hasn't hit the planning commission yet or the the uh uh permit department yet um for the new owners to build uh twostory housing maybe even above that with this uh 30 30 35 foot limit. Um the neighbors around there that this is a very mature neighborhood are uh a bit worried and upset because they don't want um a residential structure uh being built next to them where somebody can look out their window and down into their uh their property particularly when they expecting some level of privacy for their own property. So, um, my question is on this is, um, how do you determine in concert with, uh, the character of the neighborhood whether or not, um, you know, this kind of building is appropriate with R1?

Yeah. I mean, well, let's step back to what is already allowed in R1. So, right now you can go up to 30 feet. Um, which if you do a flat roof, my understanding is that that will already get you a threestory building. And that's um kind of regardless of the housing type. So, even if it was just a single unit, they would potentially be able to do that. Um, so we're not treating going up to 35 really um is allowing a little bit more flexibility essentially around the roof line. Um, and you can actually go up to 37 feet right now if you do a a pitched roof. Um, so I just want to kind of flag that because I don't know the specifics of what the zoning is if it's a special area zone and has different standards. Um, but generally in R1 across the city, those are already you already could technically do a three-story building. This would just add a little bit more flexibility with kind of the roof line area. So if you have nothing there at this point

Yeah. and you you know the developer comes in and more or less can we encourage them to do a cottage cluster and then you know um a lower uh height uh then to you know try to squeeze in more units where um this could be problematic for the neighbors and and other folks. Yeah, the proposed changes that we're looking at um would if they did, for instance, um they might be able to actually get more units if they did a cottage cluster because um the rule, the new state legislation requires us to allow up to two additional cottage units in a cottage cluster. Um, if one of the units in the cottage cluster is either an accessible unit or is a homeownership unit that is available for purchase for household that makes up to 120% of um of the area median income. And so in that way we're trying to incentivize um middle housing. And so that would be something we could share with them. I don't know what their proposal is, but if they're depends on what they're trying what kind of housing they're trying to provide, but they could potentially get more units with going through that cottage cluster avenue

or single Yeah. units. And you're right, cottage clusters are require right now they're 25 foot is their maximum height. And that's not proposing to change

because again, I know that this hasn't come up as a proposal yet with this particular property, but I was um over on Echo Hollow on Saturday and and had some very robust discussions with the neighbors over there and they're, you know, concerned about having a height on that that is not going to be compatible able with the neighborhood as it exists.

Yes. Thank you and thank you for the presentation and um all of your work you're doing on this. I'm very very excited about this project and I have like a lot of questions. So I'm just going to dive right in. Um with the height, I know you're talking about it in low density residential. Are you also looking at special area zones at other places where we might have like I know for example there are multiple special area zones that have height limits that are 30 feet or less. Um and wanting to know is that being looked at as part of that as well.

Yeah, the um I would have to go back and look at each one because they're all different, but the but many of the special area zones uh refer back to R1. And so, um, it would apply if it goes back to R1, it would apply to that. If they have their own provision, then we're not changing that.

I I would I would be interested in looking at some of those um because I think especially when I think about the ones where I know that that exists. Basically what we're doing is people who were confronting the challenges that councelor Evans neighbors and constituents were and were fortunate enough to get a special area back doing those wouldn't be affected by this. And so I feel like it's from a sort of a fairness perspective applying this citywide and not basing it on whether someone happened to do a special area or not at a particular time. Um and then I have a bunch of questions about the single room occupancies. Uh I find it interesting that part of the definition of a single room occupancy is that it has to be rented. I I know that that's not usually whether it's renter or ownership is not usually something that shows up in zoning code. Is there anything in the sort of state laws that we're having to adopt and like how do how do we know?

Yeah, it's a good question. Um it is part of kind of how SRO's are defined in state law is they're just defined as kind of units that are independently rented. So um we're kind of in our proposal for the development standards for SRO, we're really just kind of staying with exactly how it's been defined in state law um and the requirements there. Whereas Micro Village, we have some more flexibility as kind of a union specific solution. But no, we don't necessarily track after building permit what that looks like outside of the kind of rental housing registry, I guess, would be a place for Okay. So, if someone built an SRO and then for whatever reason decided to sell it 20 years later, they wouldn't they wouldn't be like prohibited from doing

Yeah, I think the theory is that it was doesn't have um all of the features that would make up a complete dwelling unit. So, you might be limited in um converting it to a condo later on, for example, because it um might not have a bathroom in unit. It might have the bathrooms on the on a shared floor or something like that.

And when we're talking about um the shared facilities, is there surrounding like what consists of a kitchen? Like is that something that's clearly defined? We um at this point in the draft standards didn't go as far as setting um standards what must be in the shared facility. We kind of went defer to the building code and what is required based on building code review. Um so not currently. Um we have seen that in um other SRO codes like in other cities and other states. Um so it's certainly an option but we thought the building code was kind of the best place for those requirements. Yeah, because I know there are some SRO's that I'm familiar with where they do have that shared kitchen, but the units are sized and configured in such a way that most units have like a mini fridge and microwave

and so that would probably still be fine. Yes. Um and then I noticed that one of the rules surrounding conversions uh says that an SRO can't be added to an existing site with a a site with an existing dwelling. Is there what's is that part of the state regulation or is that like what's the rationale behind that?

It's a good question. I uh it's not necessarily part of the state regulation. No. Um I think our concern is now that SRO's are can be a detached unit having a detached unit where the existing single unit dwelling provides shared services. um and the stickiness of potentially having someone um in a backyard unit without a full kind of all of the components of a dwelling like you would get in an ADU relying on that single family home, single unit dwelling to use for the kitchen or even for a bathroom um and some of the stickiness between folks living in those different units. So, um, with the idea of it being more of a detached room, um, without potentially all of those facilities, um, we thought it might be cleaner, um, and provide better outcomes for the folks living there, um, if it's they're not relying on a single unit dwelling for those facilities. because I could I could think of sort of scenarios where someone maybe has a single family home and then wants to add a three four unit single room occupancy with with not using their kitchen but their own single room occupancy kitchen

and so seeing if there's like flexibility there and then uh with 15 seconds left I will say I was really glad to hear about the uh community education pieces and the coordination with partners because I feel like helping people particularly for these small scale developments navigate some of the complexities is going to be very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you mayor and thank you very much for the presentation. I think we've all been looking forward to hearing this and seeing where we're uh regarding the height limits. You know, it's hard for me to to start jumping on that when we just voted to let the UFO build 75 foot tall buildings or 85 foot tall buildings next to a a residential area. I I think what we're doing, we're seeing a lot of the push back from the community that I would expect when we're changing neighborhoods. Um, you know, speaking to what councelor Kashinsky just talked about with uh discrepancies and fairness, I mean, we're also we have differences with CCNRs in uh planned unit developments. We have differences in a lot of areas and how we make this as fair as we can for all people, I think, is is going to be something I'm looking for and hopefully we can achieve. um the uh the SRO's and using I love that you use everyone village example. That's in my award. That's something I've been involved in before it was a village and it's incredible what they are doing there and the living that they're giving people from the streets and lifting them up. We've got some other things that are about to happen there as well. But a question with that, how are we doing with wetland mitigation, wetland banking? uh because they've got half of their property they want to develop 75 to 100 more micro houses on the site, but they're also wrestling with the wetland aspect. So, and I know it's probably more of a public works question, but this seems like the appropriate place to at least ask and make sure that's in the discussion. I know that ARCs is looking into more property for an additional wetland

mitigation bank because I believe the current banks are getting to capacity. Um, but that's the extent of my knowledge and uh we can follow up if you want more information.

Well, that that's something I think we need to figure out because it's in my ward you can't throw a baseball about if wetland. I mean, it's they're everything is pretty much considered wetland even though Some of it's never wet, but you know what I mean. It's it is a problem. And I know it costs us more money to deliver services around an area that's designated wetland. You still need the streets, sewer, water, electricity response corridors for emergency responders. All that stuff still adding to the cost. So, I would be interested in learning some more about about that. Um, but I I do think those SRO's are a really good option. And for my colleagues, if you haven't been out to everyone village and you want to see what those look like, they're very nice and they've done a great job with that. They have a common kitchen and they have some common bathrooms right now for what's everyone village, but the new area they want to build, they want to make those with small uh bathroom. And so just the kitchen would be shared space. And that's all I have time for now. I'll wait and see if I like a second round. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councelor Leech.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, and thank you for all the work um in this package. I'm really supportive of moving this forward and look forward to seeing more detail um that comes out of your um engagement in the planning commission. Um I don't know how to say this I guess delicately or my question um but a lot of the units that are being built right now, right? Sometimes I think, okay, yes, we need housing, housing, housing, housing, and we're trying to push forward on that. But I'm hearing a lot of complaints from people who are living in units that the quality is not really up to what you think the standard would be and that the the units are degrading very quickly. Um, and so I mean, we're talking about like plastic veneer that's just melting and chipping away. And you know, especially when we incentivize some of these projects, um I'm concerned that when we actually start getting tax revenue from these projects, I mean, there's not going to be as much revenue because these units are even being uh like not used. So, is there anything that we can do to have quality control in some of the code? so that we're not seeing some of these issues that I'm I'm seeing a lot from from my constituents and organizations.

I I can take a first run at it. Um typically kind of what you're talking about in terms of quality of the building is regulated through the building code. Um and so through the land use code, we can't go beyond what the building code requires there. Um or we try and keep it in the realm of the building code. Um there are certainly ways the city can um incentivize, you know, better quality housing through our different funding um and incentive programs and kind of um what types of housing we choose to invest in as a city. Um there's also certainly a lot around preservation of older housing um especially kind of affordable housing that we might want to preserve, putting resources towards that work. um the habitability and kind of safety of existing units through that's kind of monitored through the rental housing program and co- compliance is another piece and tool that the city has. And all of putting all of that together, one of the things we'll be bringing to you all in 27 is a housing production strategy. And while production is in the name, it's um all the actions we can take to support production, affordability, and choice. And that includes preservation and kind of fair housing. Yeah.

experiences and making sure that the housing folks do have is meeting their needs and is safe and habitable. So, um, actions like that are things we'll certainly be looking at with our partners across the city this year. Thank you. Um, I'm I'm also interested in councelor G's vet and banking and um, maybe having another work session about wetlands and and our development moving forward. um because I think it's going to be a big issue for us um as we look at our buildable land and what's not buildable. So, thank you again. Excited to see the detail.

Thanks, Greg. Interesting. you're concerned about 35 foot heights when you should try 85 foot heights of buildings in your backyard which is what the council did last week uh to the Fairmont neighborhood. Um in addition the council's actions last week apparently preserving the quality and stability of existing neighborhoods as the comprehensive plans that were supposed to do is no longer a development criteria can be ignored as we did last week as well. So, I hope neighbors are paying attention to what the council did last week because it potentially have pretty big impacts on neighborhoods, huge impacts on neighborhoods, especially if you live in the Fairmont neighborhood. Um question I had was about uh many years ago when I made the motion to create the first opportunity village. We couldn't do it the way that we initially thought but because the little little housing units didn't meet building code. Um and so we called them temporary to get around that um and it's not been a problem. So uh it was merely a rules um convenient to get around the rules. So my question is what's changed? What what is it about micro village housing that allows us to put it in the code now?

Yeah. Um we worked closely with the building official in kind of formulating this concept and understanding what uh opportunities and roadblocks might be in the building code. um he um was supportive you know requiring a bathroom in unit I think is a big part of um the model and making sure um they have ready access to a bathroom but also um those kitchen facilities within the development and making sure it's at scale um with the number of residents the number of dwellings but I think that bathroom in unit was kind of a key piece there the other thing was heating and lighting weren't available in those units Is that requirements too?

Yeah. So, it would need to meet the the building code for those pieces. Yes. So, bathroom heating and light.

Thank you, Mayor. On slide 22 and the and thank you for the presentation. Slide 22 under the notmandated uh realm. Additional changes that you indicated were were not mandated. Has there been discussion, conversation, exploration about building up, but not out, not necessarily throughout our neighborhoods in R1, but building up um along transportation routes that may be in on land where in that it's not currently zoned residential. that rather than a height increase that disrupts a neighborhood or I could point to in South Eugene on East 32nd between WAMIT and Donald a forplex cottage cluster that may have hit that 37 foot slope and disrupted uh not only the views of the neighbors uh uh to the the the west and or the east but um there's no off- streetet parking on such a narrow street. Regard though, this council uh took actions uh appropriately to mitigate um such off- streetet parking uh encouragement from the state. State superseded our own local authority when it comes to no off- streetet parking. That's what prompts me to ask what exploration if any is has there been to to look at maybe even some of our student housing for examples along Franklin and Hillyard wherein it might not have been R1 but there was a zone change and what we could be doing either out 11th out uh Coberg uh or out

Highway 99 to reszone and build up there so we're lessening the impact act on the neighborhood, but we're spreading the amount of maybe commercial on the bottom and residential on the way up. Where's that conversation or or have you had that conversation? And if so, what what walls have you come up against?

Yeah, we probably all want to take a we probably all want to um talk about that. That's definitely part of the conversation. Right now, what you're seeing is a package that's focused on the state mandates. Um, and you know, middle housing, I mean, you all just approved, it feels like middle housing not that long ago, right? And then the state come came in and said, you know, it's it wasn't enough. We need to do more. And so, that's definitely the direction it's going. Um, our I totally hear what you're saying. And R1 is our biggest um housing land supply across the city. And so I think the intent of the legislature is to as you all had that conversation with middle housing is is to to your point spread it across um across the city. So um I just want to kind of mention that because um you're right we do have limited medium density even medium high density um limited commercial. Those those are all pretty small um amounts of land that we have in the city and these folks can talk about um our cent's discussion which you'll be hearing more about. Um but we do have a need for all housing types and um putting those throughout the city and not just on your corridors actually helps with providing housing choice across the city. So, I just I kind of want to just like ground it back in where we were with why we went forward and why the state was directing us to go forward with middle housing and really kind of open up that R1. And so, what we're what we're talking about now is I think we talked about revisiting things and we are revisiting things based on not just state direction but challenges we've been hearing. So, I just want to let my colleagues talk about centers and

corridors.

Heather hit a lot of the highlights that I wanted to hit um around housing choice and kind of the need for all types of housing um with that significant need ahead of us. Um in the next two packages, we're bringing to you all um that Rebecca highlighted. um within the comprehensive plan um continuing to have policies around centers and key corridors and encouraging development in and around centers and key corridors. That continues to be a priority. That next package will also have our climate friendly areas adoption which is focused on um mixed use um and higher densities in a couple of our key areas including lower Cobberg and greater downtown. Um and then when we get through our land supply studies, that'll be part of the process of looking at our need um at different designations, so low density, but also medium density and high density um and where we might need to make some changes to zoning citywide um which will likely include along corridors and around centers. I will add one other quick thing that our colleagues in the community development division are bringing to you in June for public hearing. Two packages of potential incentives for market rate housing along all bus corridors a quarter mile from all bus corridors and market rate housing incentives. Am I getting it right?

Almost. moderate income housing along within a quarter mile of all transit lines and then um market rate in our not public. Okay. Exciting. Yeah. Does does the city own any property in R1 that's not a park? Um it's not a park. Right. Yeah. because I think we I think a a number of our park land is owned our it's not a park to be um I don't know the answer to that that just was clarifying your question. There is one property in South Eugene along Hillyard and 34th that's zone R1 and

is it a natural area? Uh it is in the I'm not the expert on this. This would be our community development team but it's part of the land banking program right now. So looking for future housing affordable housing development on that site. Right. That's the one where it's it's there's wetland con uh concerns. There are some wetlands there. Yeah.

To end this round and then over to councelor Evans for a one minute round and then council ready. We'll move to our second agenda item though we a little bit more than

um thank you all for being here today. I would be remiss to not mention that um former counselor Betty Taylor taught me a lot about SRO's when she was on council and I had not really known much about them before and she's probably at home thinking it's about time we're here. Um and and she's right. Um so I'm sure she'll be glad to hear us talking about this. I hope she she gets updated. Um uh I don't have a lot of questions. They've already been asked by my colleagues which is fantastic. Um, I did want to say that I am also in favor of taking a look at our special area zones and if there is not a clearly artic art articulable reason to not make things the same, I I it doesn't make sense to leave them just because I, you know, I feel like we need a reason otherwise um I agree if it's good for one area, why is it not good for another? So, and also just as a note, I think it's really exciting that we're able to expand where we can have daycare homes and residential treatment homes. That's something, you know, we don't often talk about, but is really important for our community. So, I'm really glad to see that in here with the with the other housing things and uh yeah, be interesting to see as we look go back, does that make an effect? Are we able to see more of these places cited um when we take a look? So, thank you Can you talk a little bit about um mitigation strategies that um are applied in in R1 zoning when we have structural conflicts like sighteline issues and those kinds of things because all of our neighborhoods have unique characteristics that have to be addressed as they are continuing to evolve. olve and develop

and not everything is the same across the board. So, one of the things we found out several years ago was the push back that we got about planning for South Wamtt and having additional uh height restrictions or not having height restrictions because of sighteline issues uh between what was proposed to being built terms of residences versus uh the commercial strip which Um, so your question, if I could re I was getting distracted, sorry, by the time um was flashing and I wasn't sure what was going on there, but um your question is whether or not we do anything around if there's any um dealing with the ability to continue to have sightelines um and not allow buildings to be too too large essentially in neighborhoods. that if I were to summarize,

u there are certain uh mitigations that um address some of those issues. Can you elaborate on that? I I can. The one that's coming to mind is we do have high transition standards. So if you have a R1 low density next to um a zone with a higher height limit, there's kind of a step back um in the R1 area height next to commercial next to commercial. So that would we're not proposing to change that.

And they I think south um sorry you said South um Walnut Station I think has um step back slope step back height um transitions. Um I think there's uh road I think has adopted something like that. Yeah. So we have that in a couple of areas. We also have um solar setbacks. We're not proposing to change those. Those don't affect every property, but they do require some setback from the northern property line. Um if your property is applicable to that, not not a ton. But it's there

not and not in all places. Yeah, I think it's it's pretty limited. It's depending on the character of the neighborhood.

Um I don't know if I'd use the term character. Um I mean the the um setback, the slope setback um that Leah was mentioning is applicable if you're R1 throughout the city um and you're adjacent to commercial. then on that commercial property, you have to be um you can't be taller than what's allowed on R1 within 50 ft of that R1 property. So that that is just a citywide requirement unless you're in a special area zone. Councelor Zanka

or if you're in the Fairmont neighborhood where the neighbors wanted to step back and didn't get one. I just sent everybody an email of a picture of an infill project that's in the back. See picture of it. And it's twice as big as the houses on either side of it. And that's not what I thought was going to happen. But apparently that one's totally legit. So people protect their neighborhoods. I think it's gonna be a tough road to hope.

Thank you. Um I'll just offer to staff thank you for the update on what we expect is going to continue to be a very robust conversation and the process with our planning commission. Um, I know how much this council cares about equitable development policies and efforts across our community and climate work and um, economic development and affordability and how we approach housing policy is of course central to the ways that cities can be influential in all of those different areas. And I know we're talking about structures and um buildings, but um I'm always reminded that really who we're talking about are young professionals and empty nesters and small families and renters and uh hopeful homeowners and people who'd like to be a part of our workforce and people who are hoping to have access to amenities and uh long-term housing stability and options that they don't currently have. And so, thank you for helping to walk us into this conversation because it is really about planning for our future and addressing our current needs. And as your first slides indicated, we have an enormous amount of work ahead of us that we are capable of doing that work. So, thank you for helping us to have a very well-informed conversation um and to bring back um what we're looking forward to in our next discussion about this topic. Um with that, I'll say just thank you one more time. will conclude our first agenda item. Now turn to city manager to our second agenda item which is work session and addition zero update and council justified the time about 30 minutes and this is a continued conversation from a work session in midappril. Um if we need more time we can always find time for another work session about this topic. So it does not need to be constrained and we have a little bit less time than planned for but we'll wrap up on time at 7 o'clock that we have to wrap up. still wrap up at time at 7 o'clock tonight. Uh, city manager,

mayor, you did a great job of teeing it up. Um, it's just my opening comments were on the 15th you had a work session on this item and it was so great that we're back for another round to um, answer your questions, provide some more updates. So, part two and I think let's go ahead and hit it off this time. a moment to slides up.

Great. Well, hi Mayor and council. Thank you all for having me back. Um, as you all know, my name is Logan Telus. I'm an associate transportation planner with public works engineering. Um, and I was here on April 15th. We had a work session on vision zero and we talked about ongoing uh work in the community to improve traffic safety outcomes. Uh, we had a presentation and a lot of great discussion. Uh, but it felt like we ran short on time at the end. Uh, so we're back today to have a bit of an extension of that discussion. Um, but before we open it up to new questions, I do have a few slides I want to walk through. Um, first and foremost, in case anyone's listening who's not familiar with the term vision zero, it generally refers to an approach to transportation safety that's focused on eliminating traffic deaths on our roadways. It's an umbrella term that can apply to a wide range of work that the city does, including our street design efforts, the traffic enforcement activities EPD does, public education on safety topics, and also the postc crash care that fire and EMS staff are out um administering every day. A few reminders from our April 15th session. Uh we started by talking about fatal crash trends over the last several years and highlighted that the 2022 through 2024 time frame represented a really substantial increase in traffic deaths within the Eugene urban growth boundary. Uh 2025 we did see our first reduction in traffic deaths since 2020 and it was a fairly sizable reduction. Uh we went on to talk about safety funding and we talked about the fact that the city estimates that uh between 2020 and 2025 over $27 million was spent on walking and biking infrastructure and we believe we have nearly 22 million secured uh for 2026 through 2028 to continue delivering that type of infrastructure to the community. Uh we walk through several upcoming projects including capital safety

projects on high crash corridors such as the highway 99 streetlight project, uh the sidewalk infill on Highway 99, bike facility improvements on River Road, bus facility improvements on River Road, a couple of uh intersection redesigns on 18th Avenue, and more. And then we went on to touch on some of the other important areas of safety work that are happening our in our community including some policy improvements the city's working on such as uh work on the speed management strategy uh the complete streets design standards and more. We also talked about regional safety education campaigns that are underway, including regional DUI mitigation public information campaigns and regional speed reduction campaigns that we're doing in partnership with ELCOG. Uh, and then we also talked a bit about the work that EPD is out doing in our community every day. Um, enforcing traffic safety laws and educating the community on what safe behaviors are. Now, with those reminders in mind, I want to start by revisiting a small handful of questions um from our last session that we wanted to follow up with more detail on before opening things up to new questions. Um the first topic would be street lighting. Uh councelor Evans, you brought this up within the context of Highway 99 and wanting to uh talk a bit about uh dark skies advocates. Um, and I do uh we are planning some Highway 99 specific engagement on this topic, but I also wanted to take this opportunity to zoom out a little bit and just speak to the fact that the city of Eugene has collaborated with dark skies advocates on many projects over many years and we've baked some of those underlying concerns about light pollution into our standard practices when it comes to lighting. I've listed some mitigation measures here. Uh the two most utilized are probably the the color temperature

standards um for our street lights lights and our path lights. Um and those are designed to help mitigate impact on a variety of species. Um in addition to that, the use of shields on street lights to help physically block light from traveling in directions that it's not supposed to travel is a mitigation tool that we use on a frequent and ongoing basis. um and converting to LEDs is generally more directional lighting and we lose less lighting upwards. Um so those are just a handful of highle um mitigation measures that I wanted to highlight. I also wanted to touch briefly on a comment made last time about wanting more information on common crash causes. Um, and I want to emphasize for everyone that the vision zero action plan, uh, which we have the updated finalized version on our website available right now, has a lot of great information in it about, uh, common crash causes at the citywide scale. We don't have time to go through all of the crash statistics in the plan because it is such a long document, but just to share a couple of key uh, charts from the document. This is a this is a chart that's showing common crash causes flagged in fatal and serious injury crashes from the analysis period for the updated action plan which was 2014 2022. Um and we see uh a lot of similar trends from the first vision zero action plan including failure to yield, speeding, reckless driving, disregarding traffic signals as being common occurrences. Um, I will also call out that non-motorists illegally in roadway designation is an ODOT crash data term um that can really describe a wide range of behaviors. Sometimes that can look like someone uh misjudging a gap in traffic if they're crossing at a big block location, but also it can refer to a lot of unexpected behaviors that we see on our roadway network. Just wanted to give that context because sometimes we get

questions about that. And then alcohol and drugs uh are a really substantial factor in our fatal crash history. From the analysis period in the updated action plan, 68% of the fatal crashes involve drugs or alcohol. Um so it's definitely a very concerning prominent factor. I wanted to say a bit more about quick build style projects and pop-up events. This came up last time. Um, and I gave the example of the Clark and Adams roundabout that is constructed out of Ballards. Um, and there's an image of it right there from when it was first built. But I just wanted to take this opportunity to say there are many other locations where we have done improvements um, sooner using cheaper bulk down materials such as ballards. You can see an example here of a median refuge island at a crosswalk constructed out of Ballards. We've done Ballard curb extensions. Um, so it's certainly something we do. Many of the installations we've done have been in conjunction with a larger construction project that was already happening in the area. So it was sort of an opportunistic add-on. Uh, there are some examples where we've done these in a standalone fashion, including the two images I've shown. Um, but that being said, there is still a lot of planning and coordination that goes into that work. a lot of uh coordination between engineering, between maintenance, coordination with the community, coordination with fire. Um so while these do look like fairly simple straightforward installations, there is a lot of work put into uh preparing for them. And to speak to even shorter term, more temporary styles of installations, um I will say there have been examples where the city of Eugene has gone and done uh things with with non-bolt down cones. Uh this is an example of the open streets program that we were running earlier in the pandemic where we essentially added temporary traffic diverters to certain neighborhood

streets to create more outdoor space for people to walk and bike in a socially distanced manner. Um unfortunately we did have issues with folks uh moving the installations, moving the cones. In some cases we left them out for a few weeks at a time. Uh so that's a program uh that we we gave a shot and um it had some challenges but it also had its successes. And another example is we do a lot of event-based street closures. This is from the Sunday streets events the city used to used to run. Um but another example of us doing a a temporary popup style closure to make space for people walking and biking. And then another uh question from last time I want to quickly touch on is a request to see more graphics that include uh project distribution. Um so this map here and there uh is a link to a larger version of this map in the AIS from April 15th. Um but this here shows the 2025 uh or excuse me the 2020 through 2025 projects um that I referenced earlier. And we also have a map with the 2026 through 2028 projects included in those those funding totals I referenced. Um so if anyone wants to see larger versions of these maps, there are links available in the AIS from April 15th. And I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that. And so those are my uh slides for today. I do have all of the slides from our last presentation in the deck. If there's something we want to flip to from last time, that's that's available. Uh but with that, I'll turn it over for questions.

Thank you, staff. I have councelor Evans and then councelor Gro say thank you.

Yeah. Uh thank you for the presentation. I think this um helps to illuminate what you uh presented earlier. I want to go back to um the street lighting issue um because I've already kind of emphasized before in other other work sessions and conversations my issues and concerns with um the lack of directional value highway 99. But I also would like to ask a question about lighting within residential um neighborhoods, residential streets that are, you know, flowing into uh like Highway 99 or West 11th or whatever the case may be. And um what are we doing about lighting in some of these areas? because I had to go back and do a little ancient history with a couple of neighbors. And I was told when my subdivision was was created that um the idea was for the individual houses in that subdivision to have lights at the end of the driveway that was giving out light going up. But our problem is is that we don't have street lighting that will create the kind of safety um that we're looking for in terms of people traversing neighborhood whether it's driving, walking, walking your dog or whatever. Can you speak to that?

Not necessarily to the specific location that you're referencing. Well, there are a number of locations all over the city, trust me.

Sure. Sure. But just zooming out and talking a little bit about funding for street lighting. Um, so we're typically funding the addition of street lighting through the transportation bonds and in some cases opportunistically with other projects. Um, so as we're looking to add more street lighting out in the community, I think the first question is how are we funding it? um because in some cases that dictates uh the locations that we can really look at for street lighting edition, especially if we're looking at something like a grant opportunity. We want to make sure we're choosing a location and designing a competitive application that's a fit for the funding program. Um now with the bond, there is a bit more flexibility in choosing what we go for. Uh but that being said, there's always there's always the constraint of trying to get things get all of our priorities to fit within the amount of funding that we have available. So there is uh a need for strategic project prioritization. And so that is that is a factor in in which locations get selected for funding as well. So, you're saying that uh when you have a a a main project and then we're looking at uh some additional things that come along with the within that uh funding cannon that that's when we get additional um infrastructure added based on what that funding is for in the original project.

Yeah. And it's like more of an afterthought than actually part of the strategy originally

sometimes. But there are examples where we've gone and we've specifically program funding for street light infill. Um for example, in the last bond we funded uh street light infill for River Road and that's kind of its own standalone bucket of money. Um so so it can be both. Okay. Thank you, mayor. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'd like to go back to slide seven if we could. My time's still ticking away while they're pulling.

Crashes crashes. Oh, there we go. Clear. Yes. Okay. So, pedestrians and the non-motorist illegally on the roadway and pedestrians in the failure to yield. Can you tie those two together for me? Surf fatalities.

Surf fatalities. Yeah. So um non-motorist illegally in roadway um would more commonly be applied to a circumstance like like I pointed out like the let's imagine someone crossing at a midblock location um away from intersections away from a marked crosswalk um and they are trying to cross the street um in that instance the pedestrian is um supposed to yield to motor vehicle traffic. Now, sometimes, like I said, people have a difficult time judging when they have a safe gap in traffic. Um, and if a collision occurs, then that might be marked as non-motorists illegally in roadway. Um, if you look at failure to yield, I expect most of those incidents um would be a pedestrian crossing in a legal location and a vehicle failing to yield to the pedestrian. So the mode that you see listed on the chart does not it's it's not an indication of who specifically did what. It's an indication of what the what mode was affected by the crash. So like the blue columns would be all pedestrian fatal or serious injuries, not necessarily saying what behavior the pedestrian was uh engaging in.

Right? Because we don't collect data on that. I it is possible to do crash analysis that looks at who specifically did what. It is it is uh it is a little bit more complicated with how the crash data is organized by the state, but it is possible.

Yeah. Well, I mean this this is fatal accidents and serious injuries. My point is we have people going into travel lanes that shouldn't be there. Whether it's transfer of goods and money, which this council didn't agree with that voted it down, but we do have a problem with pedestrians getting hit roadways. Correct. Yes. And that's one of our leading causes of just people being in the roadways, right?

That is that is something that has caused fatal crashes in recent history. Yeah. And by allowing transfers, we are basically enticing people to come into travel lanes where vehicles are. And that never has good outcomes. Correct. I'm sorry. When you say enticing transfers, can you say a little bit more?

People are people are pulling people in the streets so they can hand them money. So, I I don't believe I have any firsthand knowledge of a fatal crash that was immediately preceded by someone doing that. But I um I usually hear like get the narrative details of crashes that rise up to a certain severity level. So, if we were in a room full of law enforcement officers, they might have responded to lower level incidents that involve that. And with pedestrians, I will say um you know even minor changes in like the speed or the impact angle can have a big impact on the survivability of the incident.

So I you know I would really want EPD to be able to speak to whether they have experience with lower level pedestrian crashes that were immediately preceded by that. And there's no place on incident reports to put that. There's not a box you check. I mean I know that. I'm not that's not a question, that's a statement. Um, and I know our our responders do understand this is a problem. What are we doing to try to keep people separated from vehicle traffic as much as possible?

Well, there's uh a lot of different treatment types that get at that. The sidewalk infill projects we do are related to that. We do signal projects all about improving the separation between people walking and biking and the vehicle movements through intersections. Um, you know, and a lot of the crossing infill projects we do are also really oriented at giving people safe opportunities to get AC across and and minimizing that exposure and maximizing their their visibility so collisions don't occur.

Approximately what are we spending a year to make those physical infrastructure improvements? I I would need to get back to you on those spec pulling those specific treatment types out of the overall total. I'd be interested in seeing that. Well, thank you. I just wanted to make that point. Council,

thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the the the presentation um and and addressing our our u our concerns from a previous work session on that slide seven that uh the common crash slide. Um I I I just need some help answering trying to visualize who uh which cohort this is. On my way to council tonight, I I drove from South Eugene and I passed uh a person who who I think might be a non-motoriist illegally in the roadway on 30th and Hillyard and uh passed another uh coming down Hillyard or I guess had down Hillyard uh into downtown on the corner of 13th in Hillyard. one way. Of course, um there's some construction there uh right by the old hospital. Um and there's a person literally in a lawn chair, not in the median, but in um in in traffic, uh a lawn chair waiting for people to stop at the corner of 13th and Hillyard and to to ask for whatever. Um, are is are those two examples of persons that I passed on my way to council tonight persons who are non-motorists illegally in the roadway?

Um, I I I didn't I didn't quite catch your first description. Was the person crossing? No, the person was sitting down. Okay. In the median with a sign. Okay.

Uh, for traffic that's that's coming from South Eugene. If you're coming from Hideway Bakery right onto Hilliard or Amazon and you're coming down Hilliard on the corner of Hillyard and 30th person right in the in the median is that would would a person in the median or the second example on 13th and Hillyard be a person who is a non-motorist illegally in the roadway? I think in those are pretty unique circumstances and uh there would be a certain amount of discretion on the part of Ed about how that especially the median one that's a little obscure to me. Um I thank you

but but no one you you are correct that people can't be sitting in the roadway. That's that's something that would be marked out. I appreciate I I would just respectfully submit that those instances are not they're actually quite quite quite freaky. on slide uh slide 10, page five, the quick build projects and popup events. Um I I visually this is a bit confusing for me. Um is the lane uh on the right uh a bike lane?

It is. And I was under the impression that Eugene um um we were I Let me ask this way. What percentage of our bike lanes are painted green? I I don't have a percentage for you. 25% 50% 75. Not that much. Definitely not that much. Do we have a goal to to paint them? No. We're we're typically using the green pavement markings in bike lanes to highlight conflict points. So like common locations where a vehicle might be merging across a bike lane to get into a right turn lane, right? Um so it's usually treated as a as a conflict point visibility improvement versus just uh having a goal of having our bike lanes be green.

Okay? Because the albido, maybe I'm using that term incorrectly, but the the 14 seconds. So I'll editorialize just visually approaching this uh it it's a a little confusing for me whether I'm a bicyclist, pedestrian or or motorist. I might be in the minority, but I would long for a uh increased opportunity to visualize uh be a pain of of lanes, what separates from cyclists in this particular instance and more throughout the city. Kashinsky.

Uh yes. Um, looking at the common causes, if I'm remembering correctly this data, like a single crash could have multiple causes. Is that right? So, you could have someone who both failed to yield and was speeding at the same time. That's true.

Um, and I know this is data going up to 2022. We've had multiple fatal crashes um over the past uh few months that involved uh if I understand them correctly um someone crossing at a crosswalk where there was a double uh double oneway double lane oneway street and someone going around um and and hitting them in the crosswalk. Um and that's happened multiple times recently. How would that and that is not in this data set because this data set doesn't include the past year or so. Um but how would those kinds of of crashes shown here?

Uh I would expect failure to yield in many circumstances because if the pedestrian or cyclist was in the crosswalk um I would expect that to be marked as a failure to yield if they were cross crossing in illegal behavioral manner. And when you all are thinking about strategies and tactics and things we want to focus enforcement on and things we want to uh where we want to put these projects, how do you sort of prioritize that? Like how do you say this is the street that we're gonna we're going to put this on? because I get folks that call all the time calling me and like you know I this intersection here is dangerous and it's not and and you know there like 80 this list of intersections to look at and so how do you do how do you do that kind of prioritization of where to where to focus?

So our vision zero action plan is a really great reference document. It identifies our high crash corridors and it looks at our top 15 high crash corridors for people driving, top 15 for people walking, top 15 for people biking. As you can imagine, there's a lot of overlap because in many cases, a single street is dangerous for multiple modes. Um, and so that's a great reference document for us to help identify priorities for where we want to do work in the future. Um, and then on top of that, like I've like I've mentioned previously, we do utilize grant funding. so heavily that oftent times we're looking for uh like a strategic fit for each grant funding opportunity that we're applying for. So to give you an example um we utilize the ODOT all roads transportation safety grant on a regular basis and that looks at um the most recent five years of data. It opens three every threeish years. And so oftentimes we're going we're looking in the crash data years that the grant funding opportunity is targeting. And we're trying to identify among all of our problem areas which ones are the best strategic fit for this funding opportunity and maximize our chances at bringing in more resources for safety work.

So some of it is based on sort of where we're seeing the biggest problems, what are the things that are causing the most trouble. And then some of it's based on because that list is way longer than we would have money to fix. Some of it is based on where can we get money to fix it because better better to get the money and fix it than not. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you.

Uh councelor Yay and then council. We have just about five minutes left with this work session but multiple counselors who would like another round and multiple rounds of work that will continue with this. So, I would suggest that we will wrap um our session unless there's a motion to extend, but I think there'll be an opportunity to come back and continue this conversation in a robust way as we know that this is also an area of focus with EPD in this entire calendar year. There's enormous community interest in this topic. Um but of course all all options open. Uh counselor Yay,

thank you. Thanks for coming back guys. Really appreciate it. Um, you know, so when I'm looking at this information, similar to your first meeting, my one of my hugest takeaways is that uh drug and alcohol use are one of our leading problems when it comes to fatal crashes and probably a lot of the serious injuries. And I'm wondering, are you seeing are we seeing this as an increasing problem, a decreasing problem? Is it kind of plateau over time at this level? So, as you've heard me say, 2025 was our first reduction in traffic deaths since 2020, right? And I will say, I mean, it's a it's a really limited sample size of crashes to be speaking so soon about what is driving the reduction, but it is notable that a decrease in drug and alcohol involve fatal crashes stands out to me as being a component of that. Um so take take that as you with a grain of salt but um that's that's kind of my current state of thinking about about whether um seeing a reduction there

and if we are seeing one is it too early to say if this is um a factor of our infrastructure is better keeping people separated so that when these uh when folks are driving impaired maybe the impact is less or are we enforcement is doing a better job or do we know?

I think there's still a role for both. I mean, and even in instances where um someone is impaired and driving on the roadway, street design can still help mitigate risk um through things like speed reduction. Uh because we know that speeds are one of the primary determining factors in how severe injuries are when crashes do occur. Um, so even if someone's judgment is compromised, street design still has a role to play in in helping reduce risk as much as possible. Thank you.

Insert myself into the queue now and suggest that we continue this conversation because there's a lot more to cover and I have at least two counselors with more to discuss. Uh but just want to briefly highlight something that I just alluded to which is that um the focus on traffic safety by EP in this calendar year and some of the engagements even at this past uh few weeks in terms of awareness and also accountability when uh people are driving in a way that's not consistent with laws and maybe aren't aware but also may need to know when they are um driving unsafeely. I think that that is a really important part of the work that we're doing because there's an infrastructure and design component but also an enforcement component and I really appreciated the effort that staff made to publicize uh the fact that EPD was going to be uh doing that work and raising awareness around safe interface between vehicles and pedestrian crossings and having essentially a um decoy pedestrian interfacing with the right of way to help people learn about that in in real time. I also want to highlight something that's happening this week which underscores the community interest in this conversation and that is on Wednesday May 20th at 9:00 am at Rosetta Place Park out on River Road there will be a safe streets for news conference and gathering and this is an event I will be um a part of this event our city staff Logan thank you for attending and joining at this event um others as well uh but also community organizations including better Eugene Springfield transportation Springfield safe roots to uh Greater Eugene area riders, gears, river community organizations, shifts community cycles, LTD, ASU from the University of Oregon, as well as the GTF, UO transportation services, and also Chief Skinner and our city executive leadership and city manager Riyama really underscoring the fact that there is a lot to talk about in the community about the work that your team is doing and that uh collectively are striving to do to ensure that our

streets are safe for all modes and that people can use our transportation system to access what they need. My one question for you related to this is that um you've showed us some examples of quick build projects and pop-up events and we know there is an interest in our community to see us scale up this work and make investments over time but also intervene when areas are dangerous as soon as we possibly can. And I'm just curious if you have um any advice for how we might strategize um community conversations related to quick build projects and these types of interventions or if they are already uh feathered in so to speak with the longer range infrastructure investments that that you've outlined.

Yeah, that's a great question. Um first before I dig into that, I just want to highlight that EPD did share some data from the crosswalk enforcement on Patterson. I've gone ahead and pulled it up on the screen for anyone who might be interested. Um, but getting back to your question on the quick build piece, um, yeah, as as I alluded to earlier, the installations do require more planning and preparation than I think the average person would assume. Um, you know, and depending on the treatment type we're trying to construct out of quick build materials, there could be a lot of coordination with LTD or buyer. Um and so and so that's something that I just want to highlight is that there there is a lot of staff time considerations associated with the installations and and also there is the need to to not just procure the materials but also um hire a contractor to install them because in many cases um our maintenance staff do not have the availability to go out and install those materials themselves because they're out maintaining our existing roadway assets. Um, so I think those are those are two big uh constraints that affect our ability to take on this work in an ondemand on demand manner. Um, we hear the urgency that the community um is is feeling right now and and we understand and I think that our approach thus far has really oriented on on trying to emphasize that we're working on it. Um, in the case of Patterson, we're looking into a a number of potential options, some of which utilize quick build materials, and we're doing the leg work to figure out what is feasible and coordinate with all the partners we need to coordinate with. Um, so it's it's it's difficult to know exactly what to say. Um, but um because there's the locations where we have these incidents are are so um different from each other. you know, the the treatments that might be appropriate for a two-lane local

street are very different from a fivelane arterial. And these types of installations um may be more appropriate in one context versus the other. So, we're trying to take this on a case- by case basis, but also, you know, um give give it due consideration when it is um when it is potentially an option. Thank you to staff. Thank you for that work. consideration. I have councelor Evans and councelor Keading at the top of the queue the next time we continue uh work session on vision zero. And with that I will say thank you and this concludes our agenda for today and I now close the May 18th 2026 city council work session. We are a journal and I