Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

la.

Heat. Heat. Yeah. Yeah. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Yeah. Heat. and welcome to the March 10th, 2026 Eugene Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Jason Leer and I'm chair of the Eugene Planning Commission. To begin this evening, I'd like to call on Commissioner Bon for the city's land acknowledgement statement. Since time in memorial, the California people have been the indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the eraser of indigenous histories and to honor native communities by fighting truth and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Calapouya people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government, forcibly removed to the coast reservation in western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength and the resiliency displaced indigenous people. The city of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as Calapouya. Halapouya descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes Grand Brun community of Oregon. Confederated tribes of the Seleletes Indians Oregon. They continue to make contributions to our communities here and across the lands. We express our respect for the inherent political sovereignty of all federally

recognized tribal nations and indigenous people who live in the state of Oregon and across the nation. Therefore, the planning commission recognizes that what we do today will affect the many generations who will come after us. Thank you, Commissioner Bon, and thank you to everyone joining us in this hybrid meeting format. Uh, today our meeting will begin with public comment, followed by anformational work session on urban growth strategies, actions to support middle housing. Anyone wishing to join the meeting online can do so by following the instructions listed on the agenda for this meeting. Planning Commission meetings can also be viewed by watching the live stream available on our website or the broadcast on Comcast channel 21. For those who join the meeting via computer, device or phone, your microphone, webcam, and phone are automatically muted when you enter the meeting as an attendee. If you wish to participate during the public comment portion of the meeting and haven't already done so, please raise your virtual hand now to join the speaker queue in one of two ways. For those viewing the meeting on a computer, laptop, or other device, you can click once on the hand icon. For those listening to a meeting on the phone, uh you can press star 9. Public comment is an opportunity for individuals to speak to the planning commission on any topics except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. As a reminder, your hand must be raised to be in the queue for public comment.

We do. Moderator, do we have any public comment? Do we have any Okay, I was just going to ask if there are any planning commissioners joining virtually so I can keep an eye out. Commissioner Isacson is here. As always, feel free to contact staff if there are comments that you are not able to provide or wish to get to us in a different manner. I'll now close public comment and move on to our next agenda item which will be a work session on urban growth strategies actions to support middle housing. I'd like to turn it over to Heather O'Donnell to begin a staff presentation following which the commission will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you. share my screen. Good evening, commissioners. Great captions on. Um, so before we get into our agenda, we have a group of folks here tonight to discuss this topic. Um, so myself, Heather O'Donnell, a senior planner in the planning division.

Jeff Keer, principal planner and planning division. Reed Verer, landing supervisor in the building and permit services division. Lauren Summers, the assistant city attorney. Great. Um, and so Jeff and I will be doing the presentation, but we're all available for questions. Um, so, uh, for tonight's meeting on removing barriers to middle housing, we'll start with a brief overview like we usually do of the 2026 adoption package and then and the project, urban growth strategies project in general. and then Jeff and I will provide more details on the key middle housing code amendment concepts that we're bringing forward tonight. At the end of the presentation, we'll just have one slide on next steps and then we'll identify some key concepts we're particularly interested in hearing feedback on and then we'll move into questions and discussion for the majority of the meeting. So, um as a reminder, urban growth strategies has four phases. community engagement, policy development, housing and jobs actions, and the land supply studies. And tonight we're talking about housing actions and specifically those related to middle housing. So this is attachment A in your packet um which has not changed since the last couple of times we've provided it. It is the overall urban growth strategies project timeline. So research and analysis and engagement have been underway for at least two years. Um we are about to begin the formal adoption process for the components that are ready to be adopted in 2026. And that's

shown in the um dark green bars is where adoption is anticipated for each component. The housing and jobs actions work are highlighted on the slide and again that's the focus tonight. Um this work will result in several different adoption type packages. Um some of the efforts or actions that um we have been looking at started moving forward in 2025. We are focusing now on the 2026 and 2027 adoption packages which will have both policy and action components. And then um after that from 2028 to 2035 we will adopt and implement um actions various actions in our 8-year housing production strategy. And then by 2030, we will bring any needed urban growth boundary expansion through the local adoption process. So again, focusing on the 2026 and 2027 packages of housing and jobs actions, they generally fall into four priority areas. increasing our capacity for housing and reducing regulatory barriers for both housing and jobs development and encouraging compact development for both jobs and housing in and around centers. A summary of the 2026 and 2027 housing and jobs actions list is in the attachment B of your packet that has been lightly updated from the last time you saw it. And again, today we'll be highlighting the middle housing code concepts um that we're suggesting for 2026 adoption and that we want feedback

on. So now I'm going to pass it to Jeff.

Awesome. Thanks, Heather. Again, Jeff Kapper, principal planner for the planning division. And uh this is firstly my first meeting in person with the planning commission since 2019, which is super exciting for me. Um, and the last time I got to talk to the planning commission about middle housing was, uh, in 2022. So, uh, it's wild to be back here, but we're back here talking about more middle housing and thinking about ways, uh, to further reduce barriers to it and just think about middle housing uh, in the context of some new rules as well. So, uh, first just thinking about what is middle housing? Like, let's regground oursel in that. And, and only made this presentation about 17,000 times at this point. Um, so middle housing is really that space in between singleunit dwellings uh, and you know, multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings. It's that space in between. Um, and that consists of anything from duplexes, triplexes, or forplexes. That's, you know, two units on a lot, three units on a lot, four units on a lot. Uh, but also includes things like town houses. Those are, you know, attached units that are all on their own individual pieces of property. Uh, and then you have cottage clusters, which is, uh, four or more kind of detached units on a property surrounding typically a common courtyard area. Um, so, you know, like I said, the last time I we talked about this was really in 2022. While it feels like months, we're now years away from the original middle housing uh implementation. And so we've been hearing things um and we've been gathering some of that feedback help from Reed Heather and her team um as well as just what we kind of hear from the development community and others. So just to highlight a few of those things, uh you know, one is one of those topics is building height. um you know on the development communities side and from

architects we hear that uh the height limitation in R1 of 30 feet it makes it difficult to build a three-story structure due to that limitation. Um and then on the other hand from some of the neighbors you hear people say that it it feels out of character with the neighborhood sometimes because it feels very tall. Um so like I said we've been hearing things on both sides of the table. I'm only going to touch lightly on these because similar, you know, solar setbacks. Uh folks have expressed that those are difficult standards to meet at times and others feel like they're highly valued standards that they would like to see remain in place. Uh middle housing land divisions, this has been a uh really neat process to see evolve as a new type of land division. uh but has presented some unique barriers to uh that we didn't quite anticipate that we've been working through and look forward to potentially streamlining some of that process. Um other development standards uh that we've seen and identified as um potential, you know, barriers to uh metal housing development are things like our standards for accesses, driveways, spacing standards. Um some of the utility requirements, storm water requirements, things of that nature. All of which, you know, we'll do our best to identify ways in which those are being either streamlined or updated through this process. And then lastly, I do just want to touch on other feedback. Um, you know, this isn't the first time that we've talked about middle housing and and gathered public comment on it. And throughout the original process, we heard a lot about the effects that or perceived effects that it was going to have on neighborhood character, um, things of that nature. And we've continued to hear those sentiments expressed, uh, and we expect those to continue to occur throughout this process. And so we want to just uh consider those and take those into consideration as we are are continuing to move through this. And so with that kind of highlighted, I'll hand it back

to Heather.

Okay. So that's kind of uh the previous code amendments and what we've been hearing. Um now we're going to talk a little bit about how we got building on that, how we got um where we are with these concepts before you tonight. Um, so similar to other key code concepts that we've been discussing with you over the last several months, these middle housing code concepts are the result of several factors. As we previously discussed, Eugene's projected housing needs from the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis or the PUNA requires Eugene to almost double the amount of housing that's historically been produced in order to meet the need over the next 20 years. Um so because of that great need um we know we need to look for both big and small land use code amendments to reduce regulatory barriers and enable more housing. Uh we again looked at what development standards have been the most frequently requested to be adjusted or for developers to receive um relief from. We gathered ideas from city staff um who have been reviewing building permits and land use applications. Um we heard from housing professionals and a stakeholder working group. Um unique a little bit to the middle housing code amendments. There was legislation in 2025 that was specific to middle housing and that is House Bill 2138 and that requires us to update our code or we can um make some amendments to our code to be in better alignment. Kind of a long slide doesn't look like it but um so the concepts we'll discuss tonight primarily reflect the top two bullets listed here. They reflect the specific requirements identified in

House Bill 2138 which must be adopted by the end of the year. These required provisions are highlighted in yellow like it is on this slide um on the following slides throughout this presentation. And then due to the short time frame for complying with House Bill 2138, these concepts lean heavily on the state's new middle house or sorry model housing code for large cities which was adopted in 2025 um because it attempts to address the requirements of House Bill 2138. So um it provides guidance for that. Um and you might be wondering why we're using the model code for large cities. Eugene meets the state's definition of a large city, which is any population over um 25,000.

Oh, so it's pretty good. Um, however, a couple notes about this newer model code. Um, it is different than the middle housing specific model code that was referenced during the um code update that Jeff was just talking about. First of all, um the new model housing code, as the name implies, um includes provisions for all housing types. So, we used the model housing code um to we relied on that for the multi-unit concepts that we discussed with you in February. Second, the model housing code is optional and it's not required. um the p the specific provisions in it are not required to be used as a baseline which was more what the middle housing model code was required um when we did that code update last time. Um that said alignment with the and I'm just trying to make sure I'm saying the right thing. The model housing code presumably um provides clear and objective standards that we can use. It provides again guidance on how to implement House Bill 2138 in a short time frame. Um most of the concepts that are listed in these slides reflect alignment with the model housing code. And so there's no indication on the slide um like I did for um what's yellow is required. Um but just know that and if you have questions we can cut back to that. Whereas um we also looked at the climate friendly and equitable communities walkable design guidelines and we looked at um as I mentioned earlier the adjustment review requests that we've received um for opportunities that we could change the

code to reduce those adjustment review requests. And so just as a reminder what um adjustment reviews are. Um they're land use application process that allows for flexibility from what the specific standard states. Um but again most of those require a land use process which adds time, money, and uncertainty to the development process for everyone. Um so just looking for those opportunities. It's the same thing we did with the multi-unit um design standards and the commercial zone standards that we brought to you. Um co-concepts related to adjustment reviews or that are more staff only suggestions are indicated with a staff recommendation footnote um that you see on the slide there. um there's only a few and and so I will try to um remember to call those out. And then finally, as a reminder, um so this is a little bit different from when we talked about the multi-unit design standards. Um in that case multi- we were talking about making the multi-unit design standards only applicable in residential zones and um there would be different standards for all development including multi-unit and commercial zones. In this case the middle housing standards would continue to apply in commercial and residential zones. So so a little bit different than how we talked about things in February. So, um, moving into the code concepts, again, you can follow along in more detail in attachment C. The concepts for updating the land use code definitions include the following. So, kind of grouped these. Um, we're

looking at updating or adding some middle housing specific definitions. So this will include making it clear that duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, and cottage cluster dwelling types can all be attached or detached dwellings. That's something we already do in practice, but is required. That is the those are the definitions used in House Bill 2138. Um, we would be adding a hard surfaced definition for um the requirements for pedestrian connections in the middle housing code to make that more clear. Um, and staff are recommending adding clarity regarding town houses with a new townhouse site definition and updating the townhouse project definition. House Bill 2138 also requires the city to allow bonus units. And so that's we'll talk more about bonus units in a minute. Um but basically it requires the city to allow bonus units if the middle housing development includes accessible units like a ADA units um or affordable units. So affordable with a capital A. So um they're income qualified units. Um because of this, we need to add definitions for these types of units into our code and also rectify those new definitions with our other affordable housing terms that are already in the code. Um which could include removing or revising or some combination um of the two related to those new definitions and um the two that you see listed on the slide. And then there are some other definitions we think should be updated or added so they can continue

to apply more broadly not just to middle housing but also to multi-unit and commercial. Um the goal is for consistent application of these um these definitions and how they are used. Um that way we're reviewing development the same um across the spectrum. And so far um the definitions we've identified are building facade, street facing building facade, that would be new window and door area. So kind of uh describing how a window and door area measurements should occur. Um and a definition for main entrance. Okay. So, moving into what I labeled here as the base zone requirements related to middle housing. And so, what I mean by that, what I mean by base zone is standards for middle housing that are in the residential and commercial zone development standards. So, they're not in the middle housing section of the code. Um the concepts listed here um are all required under House Bill 2138. That's why they're highlighted in yellow. So allow an existing single unit or duplex that was legally established such as prior to the date of these code amendments to be retained as part of a new middle housing development but still allow the new development to be reviewed under the middle housing standards. So kind of regardless of your total number of units, the new development is still under your middle housing. Exempt these these retained units from

maximum density just like middle house new middle housing is exempt um and from the middle housing standards. So you don't have to retrofit your um retained units. allow the retained units to be on their own lot at the time of the middle house of land division. Um and then oh yeah and then to that point um so the example shown here is um the Grant Street grow homes. So um on the top and kind of on the bottom you can see the lavender house. That's an existing dwelling unit. And then on the bottom you can see the bottom image you can see um the new units that are added to the back. So it's just an example of existing with new units and um existing an existing unit that was retained with new units in the back.

All right. So, next we're going to get into bonus units, which is uh something that Heather just touched on a little bit, but some of you may recall during the 2022 process, um we actually incorporated into our code incentives for incomequalified housing. Um and so if you look back at that, this is similar to but going a little bit further than what that is. And this is actually a requirement of HB238 like we've talked about. Um, and actually like the I'll get into what it is, but like the city of Portland's actually implementing this now. This was something that people were looking into. Not everybody stepped all the way up to do this. We kind of met them right in the middle. So, what is a bonus unit? Essentially, imagine that you are going to go out and you want to build a forplex and you say, you know what, I'm actually going to have one of those units. I'm going to have that be an a capital A affordable unit or I'm going to have that be an accessible unit, meaning it meets the American for Disabilities Act require or ADA requirements. Um, if you do that, you get an extra unit. So, you would go from a forplex to five units, but we still from from the permitting perspective would look at that and put you under the rules of a forplex. And so all the same window coverage requirements, the allowance of where the forplex can be located, the lot sizes and all that. A bonus unit is really allowing that opportunity to add additional units to a middle housing project if they are affordable or accessible, which is explicitly defined as mentioned. Um, and making it easier to have those still fall under the allowances for rental housing. And so like I mentioned, you still review this all under the middle housing lens. And then additionally, there's um

uh requirements for there to be relief from some development standards. Um so for example, if you're going to go out and build a forplex plus a bonus unit, it may be difficult to do that on a traditional lot due to things like height cover or height or lot coverage or um certain standards. And so these bonus shoots, bonus units, if you're going to do those, they're granted some relief to those standards based on uh we're we're the concepts are based on the model housing code, kind of how they're approaching allowing bonus units. And so um we figured there might be a lot of questions on these, but this is one tool to really try to incentivize those strictly affordable or accessible units.

Yeah. All right. And moving on to some uh base zone development standards. Um so these are coming from the model housing code and some of them are uh really just tackling our basic provision. So something like building height. So like R1 or building height limitation is 30T currently. And under this proposal, it would just raise that building height limit in R1 from 30 ft to 35 ft. And that's for all housing. So not just limiting that to middle housing, but uh as the under the current concept, that would be single unit dwellings as well. Um or any housing that gets built. Um the front yard setback for middle housing would be reduced from 10 feet to 5t. and the required outdoor area which is something that's required in our higher density zones R2, R3 and R4. Um that would be increased from 10% to 15% for triplexes, forplexes or townes. Um and like I said, these are a lot of this is these concepts are coming straight from the model housing code. And uh just as a note, one of the reasons why I wanted to highlight building height was As a planning commission, you may remember that uh this was something that we talked about a lot. Um building height and lot coverage were two uh hot topics. Uh building height in particular, the planning commission recommended 35 ft for middle housing. Um and the city council uh brought that down to 30 uh to kind of see how middle housing went as we went on. And so now we have uh the LA housing code setting out at 35 ft. And I'll hand it back to Heather. Okay. So, now moving into the part of

the code that is specific to middle housing development standards. Um, starting with driveways, access, and vehicle use areas. Um because the land use code prohibits vehicle use, access, maneuvering areas, garages in between the new middle housing dwellings and the street. Um we've seen adjustment requests in order to allow existing garages, existing parking areas, and existing driveways to be utilized. Um so this concept would allow these existing areas um to be utilized which would provide more flexibility and res reduce costs by not having to um alter those areas or um

get rid of them and build new.

Um this concept is not in the model housing code but you can see I have the little staff recommendation footnote there. Um, for lots that are on more than one street, like a corner lot, um, this concept would clarify that vehicular access must come from the street with the lowest classification. So, if for instance, the lot is on both a local street and a collector street, access must be from the local street. This is consistent with you um, another part of the Eugene code, chapter 7, for public improvements. Um, and this is the same code concept we brought to you um, for multi-unit development and commercial zones. So, just kind of making that all in alignment. This is also consistent with the model housing code, which is um, why it doesn't just say stack recommendation there. Okay. Um, so moving on to entrances, windows, and doors. These concepts again are all from the model housing code um and also align with the code concepts discussed for multi-unit and commercial zones. So for main entrances requiring a main entrance to be within 8 ft of the front um lot line. 8 ft of the front lot line. Yeah. and adding minimum porch and patio dimensions for main entrances that are opening onto porches and patios. For windows, the current requirement in our code is for 15 a minimum of 15% of um windows and doors on each floor on all street facing facades. And this concept would change the measure me measurement to 15% of the entire facade street facing

facade. Um and while that does we do think that that increases the amount required 15% of the whole facade results in more window coverage needed than 15% per floor which is a little bit counterintuitive but um it kind of depends on the shape of your building facade. Um we're also proposing or or a concept we've um from the model housing code is to um require only 10% of the other street facing facades instead of 15% on all street facing facades. Um and we are looking at adding exceptions. Um so the exceptions to this requirement would be updated. There's already an exception for if there's a dwelling between the building, the street facing building facade and the street. You don't have to meet that um windows and doors requirement. This would add another exception for if there is a buildable lot between the street facing buildable building facade and the street. Um, so to visualize that, for example, this would help when middle housing is proposed on a flag lot that is located behind a vacant lot that's on the street. Um, and so the idea there is is that um the vacant lot, the future development on the vacant lot would need to meet the street facing the side requirements, not the lot behind it. And um those are all from the model housing code. All right, town houses. Um, so again, town houses are those uh attached units that are on their own individual lots. And you know, these concepts that I'm going to talk about today, uh, minus couple noted on the screen there are mostly from the model housing code. And

then just as a note like staff has identified a lot of like cleanup we can do within the code, but these are kind of the higher level concepts of things that are proposed to change. So um the first is the maximum number of attached units. So that's literally like how many attached units can be in one single block. Uh currently in our code that is 10 whereas the um model housing code actually has that listed at six. Uh so for consistency we would take it down to six but allow up to 10 uh to be attached if they include bonus units. So those are those affordable or accessible units. Um access and driveways is another area where uh some changes are proposed like reducing a lot of driveway widths uh to limit that to 12 feet or 60% of the frontage um depending on whichever is less. Uh another thing would be limiting corner lots to access one street. This is um both to be consistent with code but also consistent with the model housing code but also our own code Eugene code in different chapters requires developments to take access from lower classifications roads. Um, and then also just clarify when a shared access is allowed versus required. And this is actually a staff recommendation um because this has been a topic that's come up a number of times is to really make it clear uh within our own code when access should be shared or when it is required to be shared. And finally, um, another item is, and some of you may remember this figure from the code. This is our townhouse unit features, and it used to be that town houses had to include a combination of those unit features. Um, and one of the things that came out through the model housing code is that they actually removed this requirement for unit features. And that was uh identified as

kind of a effort to just continue to reduce barriers and also try to reduce cost to the development of housing. Um and there is upcoming rule making regarding uh limiting requirements to reduce housing costs. So this is kind of like right in line with that. The one thing I will note about this though is while unit features are not would not be required under this concept, uh the window requirements are still there. This doesn't have to go requirements that come with for uh all metal housing types except for two. Then moving on to our wonderful cottage clusters, which we've got some awesome pictures of cottage clusters that have been developed around town. We've had a few. Um we would be under this changing the maximum number of units from 8 to 12 consistent with the the model housing code. Uh and then an interesting provision um to wrap our heads around for a minute was changing the maximum unit footprint from uh 900 square f feet to an option. So you so the footprint of the cottages it was said you had to have that be 900 ft or less and you were limited in that way to try to manage the cottage scale of it. Um, in the new model housing code, they've actually added some additional flexibility that says you can have a larger footprint if you have a shorter cottage. And so, uh, in the model housing code, it is said if you have a 15 foot high or lower cottage, you can have a larger footprint. If you're going to have a taller cottage, you have to go back to that 900 square foot footprint. Um and so we we're recommending the same um uh proposal under this category as well. And then we've got a few more. Um so again for the model housing code, uh a requirement for all cottages to

connect the main entrance to the courtyard. Right now, this is um there's just a kind of odd optional provision in the code that kind of forces you into this, but now it's just clear that all cottages must connect their main entrance to the courtyard. Um it provides an option of 50% of the main entrances uh facing a courtyard to be up to 20 ft away. And this is in response to the fact that just from a design standpoint, cottage clusters are often on tight sites. And this provision in particular while in the model housing code is something that we've actually heard and seen issues with uh under the current code. So this is really allowing main entrances to be more flexible with how those main entrances can orient to the common courtyard currently. Um and then another one to require cottages on two sides of the courtyard. So that's just saying if you have a common courtyard you well you're required to have a common courtyard and this is saying that at least on two sides of that common courtyard you need to have cottages that are uh using that as to meet the requirements. Um and then finally the parking area prohibition uh would which right now you are not allowed to have a parking area for cottage clusters within 10 ft of a street lot line. Um and this would expand that to say you can't have it within 20 ft of a street lot line. So it's kind of pushing that parking area back. And that's it for couch cluster. Yeah. Okay. So, a couple other things. Um, currently middle housing is exempt from trash and recycling standards. And this is something we've heard some comments about. Um, so this would add the screening require would add screening requirements for all shared trash and

recycling areas that are adjacent to other residential lots or the street. Um so within 20 ft for all middle housing except duplexes. Um and this the concept is from the model housing code. We'll have to look at how that works because um we already have screening requirements for trash and recycling but for other areas. Um, regarding chapter 7 public improvements, which I mentioned earlier, we are coordinating with public works and building staff regarding issues we've heard where there is some overlap or um connection between chapter 7 requirements and chapter 9 land use code. So, generally chapter 9 is the private portion of the property. Chapter 7 goes is the public area. So, this public sidewalk, the public street, that sort of thing. Um, similar to the concept earlier about allowing developments to use existing driveways, the first concept listed here would um allow an existing access to be used under certain circumstances rather than the applicant having to request an adjustment, which often gets approved anyway. So just trying to reduce the process there. Um and then for the last bullet, this concept is to align the triggers for meeting new access requirements. Um regardless of if the units are attached or detached. So just looking at the number of units, regardless of if they're attached or detached, requiring the same standards. So now um talking about concepts not suggested at this time. Um so as I mentioned most of the concept almost all

of the concepts here are in alignment with the um model housing code for large cities. Um there are some provisions um and these are kind of the higher concept ones that um we're not suggesting to include at this time. So the first two bullets are regarding density uh density exemption for conversions of units to other units and um requiring or having your density provisions be by housing type. So a specific density for each type of housing rather than for the zone in general. So, we suggest holding off on adjusting the density provisions because we anticipate that we will need to review all of our density provisions, not just for middle housing, over the next year as part of the 2027 housing actions and adoption package. um specifically in responding to what our um our specific housing need is by housing types and plan designations um and what our land supply studies say. So that's why we suggest holding off on that. Um the model housing code also includes additional development standards for single unit and duplexes and updates to the accessory dwelling unit standards. Um and they're pretty similar to what you have already heard about. Um some you know so some of those may add costs um like like entrance transition requirements. Um others would be allowing bonus units. Um since we're not required to update the code by the end of the year for these other housing types like we are for um under HB 2138, we're not proposing to make those changes at this time. Um, the model housing code rei we're not

suggesting it. The model housing code relies on a maximum floor area which is the total amount of building um square feet that you can have on the property. So if you add up your floors for all of your buildings, Eugene's land use code uses the maximum lot coverage that you can have. So it's like one plane versus multiple planes. um and then also requires a minimum outdoor area. And together those kind of regulate help regulate the extent of the development versus the floor area. They're similar concepts, not exactly the same. Um and they don't result in they don't exactly result in the same outcomes. Um but um we're not proposing to like pivot at this time because of our um short time frame. And then the last two bullets requiring main entrance standards like trees and short walls, which I just mentioned about not adding that to single unit or duplexes. Um, and not requiring a specific type of pedestrian connection for all housing types. Um, we're not proposing to add those. Um, again, just to keep some flexibility um, in how the applicant may reduce costs. Um, and frankly, as far as these last two, some version of these are likely to be done anyway. So, um, it doesn't seem like there's a need to add those at this time. And then I will switch to Deb.

Yeah. And I will, um, Oh, thanks.

No. Um, middle housing land division is one of my favorite topics. Uh, and I mean that actually seriously. Um this is uh just as a refresher, middle housing land divisions are were a tool and companion piece to the original middle housing uh house bill requirements um that came forward as a way to not only just say, "Hey, go develop more housing," but also grow home ownership opportunities beyond just creating more housing units. So middle housing land divisions are that tool that says if you go build a forplex on a lot uh or if you want to build have four units on a lot later you can do a middle housing land division where each unit of middle housing gets to be owned separately by somebody who buys it in the future. Um that process has been really successful. We've seen a lot of people do that here in Eugene. Um but uh under HB238 uh there's been some required changes um uh many of which we are very supportive of um as we've seen the issue arise for ourselves. One of those is to allow retained units to exist on their own lot. So um that's an example where let's say you have a property there's already a duplex on the front of the property and you want to build one more house on the back of the lot to make it a triplex. You want to sell off that rear uh rear unit back there, but the duplex is stacked, which means that they can't be middle housing. You can't divide those through middle housing land division. This would allow you to say, "Hey, that duplex is already existing. That can stay on its own middle housing lot, remain a duplex there, and you can sell off that other part of your triplex." And so it allows you to it really just expands the ways that middle housing land division can be used when there's already units on the land. Um which we think would be a big benefit. Uh it would the other changes are

clarifying requirements for separate wastewater and water utilities. Um and then uh a big port a big kind of part of HB 2138 uh is requiring clarification and um amendments to the actual process and we people are actually availing themselves of this process now. Um and what it does is it really it means that the decision uh when issued by the planning director is done at the final level. There's no local appeal process. it's get if somebody wants to appeal it, it gets appealed straight to the Oregon Ladies Board of Appeals or LUBA. Um just kind of trying to streamline that appeals process whereas current under the current provisions, it goes to the hearings official first and then would go to LUBA after that. Um and then finally, it's that only the applicant can make that appeal. So it removes the ability of uh um other parties to appeal somebody else's mental housing plan. you're only allowed to peel your own.

Um really, and I think that's largely recognizing that middle housing land divisions aren't creating development opportunities. They're just allowing people to divvy up the middle housing units that that are already allowed to be there. Um and so with that, I'll hand it to Heather for next steps.

Yeah. Okay, great. So next steps. Um, so the 2026 adoption package received formal initiation from the city council on November 24th of last year and the board of commissioners on December 2nd. Um, so we just published um a March project update which included all of the code um concepts that we've been bringing to you over the last few months. Um, this concept, it included basically a a PDF for each of the code concept areas, topic areas, and then also a feedback form and the email to send it to. This went in the March 8th um Eugene planning newsletter. It's on the engrave Eugene web page, and we'll be circling back with um topic working group folks to give them that information. Um we're asking for feedback um from oops I put feedback from feedback form um through March 27th. Um and then you know again this is kind of ahead of the formal process which um we anticipate sending VLCD notice um in late spring to start the formal process which would be initiating or getting ready for um public hearings, public comment, that whole um process with the goal of adoption for the 2026 package by the end of the year. Um, we have a council we have a work session work session scheduled with city council on the 2026 adoption package in April. Um and then again while the 2026 adoption package

formal process is going on later this year we'll be also we'll be kind of going back and forth between the 2026 package and the 2027 package um because we'll be developing actions and bringing those to you for adoption in 2027. So there's going to be a little bit of leaprogging going. Okay. So key um questions on some of these concepts um before we head into questions and discussion. As I mentioned, we've got a couple areas that we'd be particularly interested in feedback on though obviously we would be interested in any feedback you have on any of these com concepts. So um feedback on the concept of increasing the R1 building height from 30 to 35 ft in general that concept and then also thoughts on is it for all housing just middle housing other ideas um feedback on the concept of providing um commensurate relief to certain development standards. That's the actual terminology used in House Bill 2138 um to accommodate density provided by um those bonus units. And so right now what we've talked about is lot coverage potentially building height. These are the things identified in the model housing code. Um reducing cottage cluster courtyard um requirement amounts. And then the other thing I forgot to put on here is um allowing town houses to um more town houses to be attached if you're doing the bonus units than it would otherwise be allowed. Um and then kind of the catchall, is there anything that you didn't hear discussed that you would like to hear about or

thoughts you have? Um and anything that you think should be considered for inclusion? So, that was a live. Thank you for listening. Thanks, Heather and Jeff. Um, Commissioner Edward, you want to start us off?

Thank you. Well, I it's more of a question. Um, thank you guys. Uh, this is this is great. I actually remembered this bill like vaguely and I looked it up and I thought, "Oh, I had testimony and some word of it." So, always uh nice to see how it, you know, kind of plays out. Um my my question is really more about the what the city has at its discretion to be able to because I know that when we you know when the middle housing first came down it was really difficult to communicate to the community that there are certain things that the state is requiring requiring us to do and then there are certain things that we could kind of you know customize to our own community and I think I'm already hearing from some of our members. I I got an email earlier this week and I actually responded with we're having a work session on this in planning commission so let me kind of understand and get my bearings and and try to kind of you know parse this out a bit but I think it's always hard to figure out what um and I I'm curious as in your role as staff I mean are there those those distinctions that you're able to make in this process because I know when this goes to council they're also going to hear from community that likes some things doesn't like things and I I just you know I just want to know like how much of this is even up for up for discussion as far as like what is required.

Yeah, I can start. So what is absolutely required is everything that was in yellow those yellow highlights. So allowing the bonus units, allowing the retained units, addressing the fact that you know and this is where the model code comes in, but um trying to provide that relief from development standards to accommodate the bonus units. um why you know the types of housing like um that you the qualifying types of housing to get you the bonus units, the number of bonus units um those are all in HB238. the um land division requirements that Jeff was talking about. Um everything else mostly those things are in the mo are addressed in the model housing code and everything else that was pretty much that was not color not highlighted um is just from the model housing code and is you know an indicator of how to address the requirements not only in HB238 but um climate friendly areas for walkability um those kinds of things. So, it's definitely a May. We don't have to use the model housing code. Yeah.

Great. It's a little bit um Commissioner Edwards like the the way we used the middle housing model code last time around where we had a set of requirements that we had to meet and you could rely on the model code to meet those requirements. um or the city could try to kind of craft its own code provisions to meet those requirements. If you rely on the model code, it's a pretty good bet that um at least the Department of Land Conservation and Development who that adopted and developed the model code would agree that they meet the stand the legal standards that you're trying to meet. Um, if you craft your own, there's a little bit more risk, but there's a little bit more flexibility in terms of tailoring it to Eugene. So, it's a a riskreward calculation. So, that the yellow highlights are the the legal criteria that we need to meet. There is a little bit of flexibility in terms of how they are met, but there is some safety in using the model code to meet those requirements.

Yeah. And we can try to as we kind of continue to go through the iterations of code adoption be clear about what is truly a requirement, what is a proposal to meet that requirement and where there's flexibility to make changes.

That's helpful. I you know I think um I I think the experience we had with the with the middle housing you know original um I think in retrospect just given the years of litigation that we had to endure in order to you know I think sometimes just relying on um kind of meeting the requirements and I mean I I sensed from council after all of that that that really was the appetite that they they tend they tended to land on and um so I'd be curious to see you know kind of how their conversation goes with how far and we might go to meet certain requirements and how what are the options to meet certain requirements as somebody who doesn't work in the code every day it's not something that I do it's always difficult because I'm I'm looking at some of these scenarios even talking about the window coverage it's like what does that look like to me I I'm a visual person and so seeing here's what it is now here's how it would be changed or could be changed and this is the requirement that it's intended to meet distances from the the the drive or the parking areas from the arterials. I'm trying to figure out what would be the rationale. Like to me that's the pieces that as a lay person I struggle with just a little bit just trying to figure out well you know because there's always these unintended consequences and that's sort of when you start hearing from the community and well that didn't work very well. So it's mostly just feedback and just bas basic question but I just thought I'd start with asking that. So yeah but thank you. I was going to jump in and then I saw Commissioner Heisson stand up for a little bit. I had a couple of questions. Um I know you asked for some specific feedback on those items and I think that the 35 foot limit makes a lot of sense. It's pretty tough to get three floors in to 30 ft. Um

some of the questions I had were a little bit more nitpicky. For example, on the town houses, do we need to reduce the max attached units from 10 to six according to the model code or is that more of a suggestion? That was baked in there based on consistency with that model code. So, that's a good example, I believe, of one of those options where we would if you wanted to keep it at 10 where it currently is, I think that would be the main option. Yeah. I guess I just don't see I mean even with the potential for bonus units, you know, why restrict housing density if kind of we're going in the the opposite direction.

Um it's really challenging I think to build affordable units when it's like a homeowner or a lot owner on middle housing. A developer might be a different story, but those are also kind of tough to make pencil at smaller scale. So, I don't know if that's going to be like a widely utilized option even though there are some cool projects, you know, that are that are underway or um that have been built that are are affordable. I will just um jump in there too. Affordable or accessible. So, what's what's what's the definition? Is it fully accessible, type A, type B? It's type A, I believe. Yeah.

Okay, gotcha. Um and then uh was also curious about you know whether the maximum unit size could be increased to 1400 square ft for all types of cottages. Um 900 is a little bit tighter you know but you get a lot more options especially for manufacturing stuff once you get up to that 11200. So, I think it can make a lot of difference in terms of especially allowing families to have access to those. Um, and then also just had the question about why pushing the the parking area back to seems like make it a little harder to provide parking for cottage clusters. Is that kind of more of an environmental goal or

we can try to dive into why the state proposed that um as an expanded area like I said that in that case that was just a reflection of consistency with the model code and we're happy with yeah and I remember well I think it also aligns with the walkable the climate friendly yeah

and equitable communities walkable design standards um but we can follow up on that. So, I think I think that's where it's coming from is trying to reduce the generally for development, trying to put the h, you know, put more of the parking behind and um bring the structures up closer to reduce the um make it more walker walkable friendly, reduce the um potential conflicts between cars and pedestrians.

Yeah. Yeah, and I guess it just all goes to the idea all those questions about just providing as much flexibility as possible. I think the biggest challenge with the infill housing, the middle housing is that at least in our community, it's it's still terribly expensive to build. And so it remains a project that's not at least doesn't make it as much economic sense as it may make maybe social sense or kind of long-term investment sense for a lot of people. So, some of those things seem like they could make pretty big difference in terms of what makes it viable to build on the lot. And I'll pass it on to Commissioner Isacson.

Hi. Uh, sorry, I'm still working on a pretty decent cold, so I'm going to keep my camera off. Um, I wrote down my my questions because my my voice is kind of coming in and out. Hope you can hear me. Um, one element that stood out to me in the college cluster updates is the strengthening of the courtyard relationship, requiring clusters to be um, about the courtyard that connects enhances it. It seems like that's a kind of shared space that naturally supports community connection and neighborhood interaction goals that we were just talking about with Envision Eugene. And I was wondering if that was part of the thinking or just happened to be coincidence or whether that was uh, maybe part of the state mandate. in the model housing code that requirement. I think generally the model housing code approach does strengthen um the connections in general to the courtyard.

Awesome. Thank you. Um and I was wondering we were just talking about how there were and I want to get the the terminology correct here. Um the ability to let me scroll up here. allow retained units uh for some of the of the properties. I was wondering if that extends out or if there's any plan to extend it out on the cottage clusters from when we go from 8 to 12. In other words, if you have a a property that's big enough you could have uh 12 cottage clusters, are those going to be at some point individually able to be sold um so people could own their own home or is this going to have to be more of an investment opportunity for for people to ex expand um kind of their portfolio? Uh thanks for the question. Yeah, so middle housing land divisions currently are available to cottage clusters. And so um under the new provisions regarding retained units, um if you had say a a single unit dwelling up at the front of the property and you wanted to uh keep that and then get the cottages on their own lots, you'd be able to do it that way. Um, currently, and Heather, correct me if I'm wrong on this, currently the the way that we've drafted the concept is that that would be available to um any retained units that are middle housing. So, it's like if there was a duplex on the front and you wanted to put a cottage cluster in the back, you'd be able to also put that duplex on its own lot um and have that be sold off as a duplex uh and have the rest of it be a cottage cluster. again uh relying on those retained unit requirements. Is that correct? That's the way we wrote it.

Yep. The House bill requires us to allow it for one unit and duplexes and we added

we we just said we just said middle housing generally. If it's retained middle housing then then you can have add additional things like a couch cluster to the back and have that be. Is there any thought or plan to extend it out more more broadly? The reason I ask is if we're trying to increase home ownership and increase people having access the ability people to buy a small home uh that would be a college cottage cluster as opposed to three or four of them um in a portfolio is going to be broader, right? I don't know if that is something that's being considered or if that's just not in in the guards for right now. Commissioner Isacson. Um, people already can buy a single cottage in a cottage cluster and that will continue to be true after these amendments.

Okay. Um, and then the last question I had was if we adopted all of these proposed ages tomorrow, now that we're several years in on on middle housing, what are some of the biggest challenges that are that you believe are a barrier to mental health production? That's an interesting question. You can see all of our wheels turning. We can see

I can hear it in the pause. I this is conjecture on on just my anecdotal experience. Um we've also heard similar things to this, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's exactly one development standard or another. I would say it's usually a combination of those factors whether that's an access connection that requires an adjustment plus having to separate the utilities. Um those things combined are often times so it's actually it's just providing that clarity in the code and removing as many barriers as we can within the development code is probably the factor that uh weighs most heavily. Reed do you have any thoughts on that as well? Yeah, the one that uh the issue that comes up um that we hear from people is um uncertainty a lot. So when we had we passed our version of the model code, we were remanded, we moved to the or sorry the middle housing code, we moved to the states model code and then back twice that created a lot of uncertainty with developers because they didn't know what standards to be designing for. So they kind of had to be ready to pivot as they were planning their projects. Um,

so I think like as we're adapting our code standards, um, kind of finding a solution that is going to meet the state's model code requirements so that we can kind of get in that groove and have consistent requirements that are going to be protected from any challenges that they're not clear and objective or or challenges they don't comply with the state codes so that we can kind of have consistent code standards that developers can continue to rely on when they're building out their projects. I think that would be one barrier that we could remove. um we're kind of thinking ahead of how we do these changes and making sure that we're we're picking um changes that matches what what the state wants us to be doing. Thank you.

I have a lot of uh kind of little questions like you did. Um, but first Jeff, I wonder if increasing height from 30 to 35, does that address the concerns of the developers you've spoken to who wanted to see a height increase or are they looking for more or uh during the previous process that we went through, what we heard from most architects and folks who build these things during that process was basically saying once you add the space in between a floor plus the space you actually need to live all of a sudden

it's it was causing everybody to basically design a three-story structure with a flat roof which in Oregon is not exactly always an ideal scenario when there's a lot of rain. Um and so that additional five feet offered enough flexibility to make um designs a little more feasible for the actual construction of the house. So you think that'll be sufficient? That's our feeling based on the feedback that we've pursu we we received previously that that would be sufficient in that case.

All right. And I'm in favor of that. I also agree with not reducing the number of town homes from 10 to six. And um I have questions about windows and doors. I wonder what was behind the requirement to begin with and why it's only on the building facade because I've done a lot of work with fenistration and 10 and 15% is very low. So why do we have a requirement at all? What's it about? That's that. Yeah. Um I'm trying not to put words in the mouth of the state who who originally required that. I can say that within our own multi-unit standards which already existed and required windows. It's about having that presence facing the street, right? So that it's not just a blank wall. Um and I I would I would surmise that the state was kind of viewing that in the same way that it's about providing some presence, some feeling of li um life within the structures so that you don't end up with just a big blank wall facing the road.

Okay. And so it's about that urban form I think eyes on a street. Yeah. Do we have any anywhere any requirements with regard to allowing light? Any building fenistration requirements?

The only requirements we have on light are as our solar requirements. And so those are solar setbacks which essentially means in certain cases where your lots are oriented in a certain way kind of looking some coming from the south you know uh your building is prohibited from providing shade onto other structures and so you get additional setbacks to ensure that they have access solar access to that. Um, and so those still apply to all and multi-unit and commercial um require a minimum percentage of windows.

Yeah. And um I would like to hear uh how you define cottage because it seems to me that it's anything that's not a single family home on an individual lot. Now if it's multi-units, we're calling them cottages. Is there any other distinction? I can read it if you want. Sure.

So right now dwellings. So we have dwellings listed in the code and then dwelling, cottage cluster right now is a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwellings per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square ft each that includes a common courtyard. Cottage clusters are not forplexes or multi-unit dwelling. And so that's one of the definitions that we would need to update to say that it's dwellings that are detached or detached. Yeah.

Okay. Well, as far as I'm concerned, still a bunch of homes on on in one lot, right? Around a courtyard. Yeah. Yeah. And with the footprint and they're individual homes. Okay. Um,

that's it. Thank you,

Mr. Mason. Uh, broadly speaking, I I I think all of this is great. I'm kind of on the same team I've been on the last several meetings as we've gone through this material. I think everything that's coming together here really helps kind of form a I guess a a foundation for us as a community going forward next 10, 15, 20 years to be able to try to add housing and do it in a flexible way. Do it in a way that allows it to be built so we can meet the needs um all the way through here. All of it. Um I I I definitely agree with the 30 to 35 feed. Um and I I think um two things about that. I mean when I thought about it over since we did it during middle housing, we had all that discussion. The idea across the entire R1 zone of adding an additional five feet of capability for construction adds this capacity, I guess, for lack of a better word, capacity across the entire community for what I think would end up being more cost-effective, efficient housing. and it would take decades to play out or to to work out. But um I I just think it's a tremendously kind of coste effective thing for a community to do. Um the de detailed comment I remember a bunch of discussion at that time around you were talking a little bit about the distance between floors and all of that. um 30 ft was definitely not I I I didn't think it was enough to get three stories in of what I'd call livable space. And there may be different definitions when you

talk about the height from the surface from the from the floor up to the ceiling. But when I think about a normal kind of a place where people can live and be comfortable, uh it seems like you need more than that to get three stories. And I guess I my comment would be that as we go along um and maybe you've done this, but there there'd be some really detailed discussions with architects or with builders and really get into that and be sure we don't need 36 or you know I mean kind of what people think if you're if you're really we're going to push that forward in the community and talk about that we get it right and 35 feet may be the number. It's just kind of convenient that we're doing it in five foot increments. That's a comment. Um I'm I also I guess kind of a just a general just question. I had the the same thought about the town houses. We were we were going from 10 to six and then you can go back to 10 if you do some affordable and you get four bonus units. And I asked about bonus units last time and I'm I'm still probably going to take couple of months to get it through my head, but I when I'm thinking about it now as you guys you guys talk about bonus units and I read all this material, it really seems to have to do with maybe this is obvious has to do with affordable units. So we can say, yeah, we're going to let you build six town houses under this rule if it pass. And if you add some affordable units, we'll let you go to 10. And um I that that kind of threads through a number of different places in here. You can have additional units. You might be doing a triplex, but you could do a quad if you had one more that was portable. However it is that it's all

worth it. I I'm and I haven't quite figured this all out yet. I just want to kind of throw it out. I we have such an I'm going to be hyperbolic here a little bit. We have such an overwhelming shortage of housing in our community and in the state. I I find myself thinking whenever I think about this bonus thing, I I sort of feel like we should enable developers, builders, and owners and so on to build, I guess, as much housing as we can under this code as we put it together with the idea that we right now in 2025 to 2030 are in a kind of a a a situation that we have just never been in. and it's going to take an incredible amount to get out of it. So, I'm I don't know. You know, I'm I'm just kind of thinking the idea of bonus units to do affordable makes sense. I think we should be trying to enable as many units as we can.

That's a comment. No. And and the one thing I do want to stress too is that you know staff are here as a resource and this is extremely nuanced and extremely like I don't want to you know these are lifted up higher level concepts but as we work through this process I just want to encourage you all to like if you do have a question reach out to staff. We're happy to clarify or walk you through the thinking on things or it might be something that we say oh that'd be really great for everyone to know. Let's make sure we get that back to the the whole group. So really appreciate those comments and it helps us kind of navigate uh a lot of these topics moving forward and just uh the lens that we should be looking at.

I had another question for you. I know you had this all the way at the end, but you couldn't dangle this without getting a little bit of excitement. So it mentions a code concept not proposed at this time which would be requiring density by housing type rather than zone. You know, I could see that being a fairly controversial proposition in our community, but I mean, definitely a very bold idea. It seems like it would have the potential to significantly change the amount of housing that could be built in certain areas. So, I'm just curious to hear more about that. Um, you know, is there any possibility of exploring that sooner rather than later? Is that something that's that's coming in the state code? Maybe you could just educate me a little bit. Yeah, I mean it's in that's how it is in the model housing code. It is um each basically each housing type has its own set of standards including the density that is targeted for that the average density targeted for that housing type. Um, you know, I guess what I would say is that, um, there are things we would need to look at like ease of implementation. What happens when you have a development that has multiple h a development site that has multiple housing types. I mean, you really um even with these code amendments, you start to look at it and go, what is the difference like with the bonus units? So, a triplex can add a bonus unit. It becomes four units, but it's not a forplex, it's a triplex, right? You know, and so it just starting to like blend together. So, in a way, it honestly makes an argument for just having housing densities by zoning because it's just like do your housing and meet this density, you know, instead

of like having these specific requirements for each housing type. So, that would be kind of the the argument for keeping our code the way it is. Um, and I and I understand that there have been some discussions about whether or not um there could be an allowance in the state rules that make it clear that you could continue to do housing by density by zone um rather, you know, and these provisions would have to change a little bit to um to make that more clear, but just allowing that as an alternative path. So, I'm not really answering your question other than to say like that's kind of the other side of keeping the density the way it that it is. And I don't know to that question. How is all this going to play out when you're doing the capacity analyses later in the year? I mean, isn't density going to be a factor because that

Yeah.

So, we're going to have to have an answer to the question sooner rather than later. Well, so when we do the land supply studies and we're trying to forecast how much future development capacity there is, the first thing we do is we look back at um past develop recent past development trends. So past um growth monitoring data from our past building permits and um we are gathering density by housing type. Um but gathering but then you have to think about like you know you would then have to forecast the future capacity by housing type on land.

Yeah. um instead of bringing it up a level which is the way we have traditionally done it and I think is the same for most cities which is forecasting development at an average density by plan designation and then you're not trying to get you know what the plan designation is of the property and you know historically um what your average density is by land designation and so that's a much easier um projection ction to make than trying to say, okay, this is low density residential and how much do I think is going to be town houses versus cottage clusters versus, you know, um getting to that level of precision is challenging.

I wonder how useful it will be. Yeah, I mean we I I think right now we are proposing um to project housing capacity at average densities by plan designation which is what we've done in the past and might continue that forward. Did one thing to add on density and maybe Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe with exceptions of town homes that all the other middle housing types are typically exempted from the maximum density in our code. So that was kind of built in when we initially did middle housing. So we're not really seeing the maximum intensity as being issue in most middle housing projects currently.

Yeah, I think that's I think that's correct. And it's right now it's built in a really quite simple way where it just says my lot is 40 4,500 ft. I'm allowed to do a duplex, triplex or forplex or cottage cluster. Oh, I have a 3,000 foot lot. What can I do with that? Oh, I can do a duplex or triplex. You know, it's like very just kind of like direct. Um, and so I think from an implementation standpoint, I I'll be curious once we get into the studies kind of next year if maybe a different option does present itself, but right now from an implementation standpoint, that seems to be pretty um, speaking of ease of implementation, that's like people people get that. So, okay. Any other questions from commissioners tonight? Anything else you all wanted to cover as part of this presentation? Thank you all. Thank you for your work. Thanks very much. Yeah.

Yes. Thank you very much.

I just wanted to say I I uh I want to echo a lot of the things that have been said. I know that I kind of didn't I didn't give you the feedback exactly what you were looking for, but um I would my my feedback would be consistent with whatever what I'm hearing from everyone else. But yes, on the heights and no I to Commissioner Bon's point I think we need to do everything we can within reason to knowing that this happens incrementally. It's not an overnight thing. I know that's people fear that and especially when suddenly it's their backyard when you know all of a sudden a 35 foot forplex and you know it's like I know but I do think that um that the need is and I I'm the sentiment is really strong in the community and I think it people are starting to actually repeat it back that even folks who aren't experiencing any kind of housing insecurity themselves they're they they acknowledge and will say, gosh, we have a housing crisis and there there's a lot more willingness to everybody do their own part. So, I do think that I'm hoping that the the push back from the public is a little bit less um you know, than before. I'm I'm hoping that people are starting to kind of adjust to a new way of building our communities and especially when they see these like beautiful well-designed, you know, nice buildings and that bring social elements to the community and I think it's really helpful and I think the more I came from a community that had a lot of development really quickly and it just became just everyone was used to it to the point where it's like, oh, something's something's coming coming in. What is it? What's that going to be? And I think that we just the more we do that, I think the more the community will start to just embrace the change and see the benefits. So,

and Commissioner Isacson.

Yeah, I just want to echo that as well. I I I I think that, you know, when we started u back with HB201, um there's a lot of acrimony and a lot of, you know, fear about what this is going to bring. And I I think that the city's kind of proved and through its staff and and that's a huge amount of thanks and accolades. You guys should be patting yourselves on the back and about always looking to um expand the pie and look beyond outside the circle and how we take what is being asked of us and tailor it to Eugene's needs to try to hit that insanely large number of housing that we need. Um and that you should be proud of every time there's a new family that's being moved into a new a new housing as as a result of the actions that you guys take place. I think that you should be proud of that. Um, and that's why I asked that question previously is is as we look at expanding the pie further, if there are things that we can do that other communities have done or if we want to reinvent the wheel a little bit um to to make it easier for folks. I think we've proven that the the sky has not fallen and that um more density hasn't led to um some of the our worst fears, but there are still challenges that we're facing and that everything we can do to bridge the needs of of the community as well as um what our capacities are and know what our limits are um that I think that's how we're going to get to whatever our whatever the number is of the housing units that we actually end up building. So, thank you very much. And next on our agenda is items from commission and staff. Are there any items or info to share from planning commissioners?

Staff checking with you first, Terry. Yeah, thanks. Um, just kind of the rundown of your next meeting that you have on top. So, we didn't have any agenda items for March 24 and 4th, so we canled that meeting. And, uh, it's during spring break as well. So, some folks are off doing other things.

Um, we may have some follow-up items to bring you back in April, but no land use items that need to be scheduled. We we've got a pretty clear schedule right now while we're pulling things together as Heather was saying for the upcoming formal adoption process for the urban growth strategies work. Uh the other Oh, I think this has been removed from your schedule, but the joint public hearing on the go wastewater expansion was postponed by the county. That was that was their application and um they needed some more time, so they postponed that and we don't have a new date yet. So nothing really on your calendar for April at this point. Then the council update as also as Heather mentioned there is a work session on the calendar for urban growth strategies in April when

uh the 15th is that work session date and last night at council the direction was given to schedule a couple of second public hearings for the east campus plan amendments and the public health standards. So those will be both on April 20th at council. That's all I have. Thank you. Don't mention any other items from staff. Appreciate everyone's participation tonight. This meeting of planning commission is now journal.