Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you you

Welcome to the July 14th, 2026 Eugene Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Diane Bailing and I am the vice chair of the Eugene Planning Commission. To begin this evening, I'd like to call on Commissioner Yang for the city's land acknowledgement statement.

Since time immemorial, the Kalapuya people have been the indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance with wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the erasure of indigenous histories and to honor native communities by inviting truth and reconciliation. Following the treaties between 1851 and 1855, Kalapuya people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government and forcibly removed to the coast reservations in western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength and resiliency of displaced indigenous people. The city of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as Kalapuya Ilihi. Kalapua descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Celeste Indians of Oregon. They continue to make contributions in 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 Yang. And thank you to everyone joining us in this hybrid meeting format. Today our meeting will begin with welcoming our newest commissioner, congratulate a commissioner's reappointment, elections, and then we will move on to deliberations for the urban growth strategies adoption package number one. City file number CA26-01. 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. We'd like to take a moment to welcome and congratulate two of our commissioners. As of July 1st, we welcome Ethan Clevenger as our newest Planning Commissioner, And congratulations to Commissioner Edwards on her reappointment to the Planning Commission. I'd like to give Commissioner Clevenger a few minutes to introduce himself to the Planning Commissioner. The floor is yours.

Thanks for having me, everyone. Quickly, my name is Ethan Clevenger. I own a small web design and development business as well as Porterhouse Clothing and Supply on Broadway in downtown Eugene. I have been the president at Downtown Eugene Merchants. I believe this is my third term doing that. And so I am excited to be here and join you all here at Planning Commission and hopefully help make a difference in our fair city. That's, I think, all I have to say about that. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Clevenger. We're excited to have you on board. For our next agenda item on elections, I'd like to turn this over to Terry Harding, Planning Director.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Terry Harding. I'm the planning director, and I'm glad we have such a full room here tonight to do our elections and then start our deliberations on urban growth strategies. So for tonight, we're holding our annual elections. We do this every year. and we vote for a chair and a vice chair. The role of the chair is to run the meeting, and the vice chair will step in when the chair is not available. The duties for the chair and vice chair are outlined in your bylaws. Traditionally, the vice chair is promoted to chair if they're interested and so desire. And the one last thing is that the chair, the newly elected chair, will assume these duties upon election. So whoever you vote in tonight will be chairing the meeting. And I'll turn it back to Commissioner Behling to ask for nominations.

All right. So the first is, do we have any nominations for chairperson? Commissioner Beeson?

I'd like to nominate Commissioner Behling. to be the chair in the next year.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. And I accept the nomination. Are there any other nominations? Can we vote by a show of hands?

Yes. And a reminder to use your microphone, Ken.

Your what? Thank you. I will.

Sure. I'll repeat for the recording that Ken Beeson, Commissioner Beeson made the nomination of Commissioner Bailing and Commissioner Bailing accepted. Oh, Commissioner Ramey seconded as well. Thank you. Okay. So now we'll ask for support.

Show of hands. I guess we're all, we're, As unanimous as we can be. You're unanimous. Thank you. Excellent. Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. And I'd now like to ask for nominations for Vice Chair. Commissioner Yang.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Edwards to be our Vice Chair. I'm new to the Commission, but from this past year, through our interactions at meetings and outside, I felt that Commissioner Edwards had very deep roots in our community, had very extensive close relationship working with the local business partners, and I just felt that she really had good sense of the pulse of what's going on in our community. And I really value her expertise and opinion. So I would like to nominate her as the next vice chair. Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second. Just once. There you go.

Second. I'll get it. I'll get it.

Are there any other nominations for vice chair? Commissioner Edwards.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Clevenger for Vice Chair. And I'll just say when I first came on to the Planning Commission, I was very new and I served as vice chair and I felt like I had a good runway in stepping into the chair the second year. So I think that Commissioner Clevenger could very easily do the job if he so desires. So I just want to put it out there as a nomination.

Is there a second? Does there need to be a second? Yes. Yes? Well?

Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Fletcher could both also speak to whether they are interested.

No, that's correct.

All right.

Well, I should say I am very happy to accept the nomination. So that goes without saying. But I just, you know, I felt like spreading the role around a bit. I thought that if there was support, then. But, of course, you've got several years on the commission. So you will have a turn to be considered for chair. But I'm happy to accept the nomination as vice chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I look forward to get to know Commissioner Clevenger and learn from you. Thank you, only because I don't know you.

Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? I'd like to nominate Commissioner Yang for Vice Chair.

Second.

Thank you. Second. And do you accept the nomination?

Thank you. I'm very honored. Perhaps not at this time. I look forward to more opportunities to get to know the commission and our work this next year. But thank you. I am truly honored. Yeah.

Thank you. vote on Commissioner Edwards as Vice Chair. All those in favor? Unanimous, thank you. Moving on to our next agenda item, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Rebecca Gershow to begin the staff presentation. Following the staff presentation, the Commissioner will have the opportunity to ask questions and begin deliberations. And from what I saw in the presentation, it looks like there will be conversation throughout. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. I'm Rebecca Goschow, Principal Planner with the City's Long Range Team. I'm joined by a whole row of colleagues who can introduce themselves. when the time comes, we have, yes, we have a presentation and I will, I'm gonna do the short introduction and talk about process in a couple of slides. So we will start with a brief background, mostly for folks Listening in on the project and we are going to begin deliberations as you know on this adoption package tonight we're gonna walk through section by section of our proposed code amendments and then we'll talk really briefly at the end about next steps. So Urban Growth Strategies, as you know, is identifying the tools, actions, policies, and land needed for the next 20 years to support living wage jobs and housing in Eugene that everyone can afford. Building off of years of planning and community engagement through Envision Eugene, Urban Growth Strategies is evaluating the land needed for housing, jobs, parks, infrastructure, and schools, and identifying tools that can help Eugene grow more efficiently. So as a reminder, Urban Growth Strategies has four phases. community engagement, policy development, housing and jobs actions and land supply studies. This package of code amendments is focused on our housing and jobs actions. Because of our immense housing need and the amount of work involved in urban growth strategies, and because of our state-directed planning work, the Planning Commission will be recommending at least four packages of proposed actions over the next four years, as you can see on this slide. So tonight's focus is on the first of our two 2026 adoption packages. It primarily focuses on the housing and jobs actions that have end of year state directed deadlines. Leah, Heather, and Elena will get into those details of those code amendments in a few minutes. In the fall, the second package you will be considering will include Lane County. So there will be additional meetings and joint public hearings on those amendments. And those include our comprehensive plan policies and our land use designation map. Then next year, we will bring forward to both the city and county a large package to consider for adoption by the end of 2027. It will include the adoption of our land supply studies, which have an end of year state deadline for 2027, and it will allow us to move into analyzing our potential UGB expansion areas. with adoption of a new urban growth boundary if needed by 2030. So tonight, what we're proposing as the process for this meeting and the next meeting is going through each of our code amendments as proposed, each section, talk a little bit about the input that we've received, and the preliminary staff recommendations. Then pause in between each topic area for planning commission discussion and a straw poll after each group of amendments so we can get a sense of where the planning commission is with direction and questions or changes requested from staff. So we'll pause in between each and take a straw poll. It's not your formal recommendation. That'll be at the end of the next meeting, hopefully. It's just to sort of get a pulse. We expect not to get through everything tonight. We hope to get through most of our middle housing code amendments. And we're definitely... waiting to discuss the potential height increase in the R1 zone for the next meeting. We have a memo that we're putting together for you and we will share that for you for the next meeting. Yeah, and then we will have time for your recommendations for city council at the next meeting. So with that, I am going to pass it over to Leah for

Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Good evening, commissioners. It's been a long day. My name is Leah Rausch. I'm a senior planner on the long-range planning team. I'm going to talk to you all a little bit about the first set of code amendments, which is a series of code changes to create new development standards for micro village housing and single room occupancies or SROs. You can review the detailed code amendments in attachment A of your packet, which is not the first attachment in your packet today. They got a little out of order. So the actual code details in attachment A start on page 19, but right before that is attachment F, which is the actual memo from staff. So that's a great reference to have kind of available if you're looking at your packets. That's the first thing. after the AIS in your packet tonight. Okay. So just briefly, I'll review these again from our last meeting. Um, both single room occupancies or SROs and micro village 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. Um, and both housing types could respond to our housing needs in Eugene, especially for lower cost housing options and smaller units. As a reminder, again, microvillage housing responds to a need we've heard from affordable housing providers and shelter providers to create housing that is more affordable by design and centers community living. Microvillage housing as a new housing type in our land use code would allow very small dwelling units with an in-unit bathroom at under 400 square feet with a size bonus for accessible units or affordable units. Common buildings would provide shared kitchen and eating facilities for residents, and other services or facilities could be offered based on the needs of the residents, things like laundry, storage, daycare, and other services. In addition to micro village housing, we're proposing development standards for SROs. These standards respond to recent changes in state law to allow SROs as either attached or detached units, as well as to allow SROs 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 either share a bathroom or kitchen facilities with the other units. And under state law, Eugene must allow up to six SRO units in our low density areas and then anywhere that multi-unit housing is allowed. Well, there's several key similarities between these two housing types. We're recommending adding microvillage housing as a new housing type as a more Eugene-specific solution that's a little bit more flexible and meets some of our local needs. Some of the key differences that I'll highlight, so we're proposing that both SROs and microvillage housing use the same approach to calculating maximum density that currently exists in our code for SROs. So every four SRO units or micro village dwellings would equal one dwelling for the purposes of calculating maximum density. So for example, 12 SRO units would be treated as three dwellings. This density ratio would only apply to SROs in zones other than R1 where only four to six SRO units would be allowed. And while SROs must be independently rented, micro villages could be built as a community land trust, which mode allow for a more affordable home ownership options. Um, another difference SROs must either share a bathroom or a kitchen while micro village allows for shared kitchens, but each unit could be built as a complete dwelling. We're also proposing a limited set of neighborhood commercial uses to be allowed within a microvillage. This could, if a developer chose, could provide workforce development opportunities for residents or other on-site services. If it were built in a commercial zone, a mixture of residential and commercial uses would be allowed outright. But if it were in a residential zone, it would require a conditional use permit. Finally, we've envisioned micro villages as larger developments, partly to differentiate them from cottage clusters or SROs in our low density areas. So we've recommended a minimum of eight dwelling units and at least one community building. So as I mentioned, attachment F of our packet tonight, which is the first attachment, includes a memo that staff have developed to support your deliberations this evening. It includes responses to some testimony and some proposed updates to the code amendments that you've seen as well. So I'm going to start with a couple of pieces of testimony we wanted to respond to as it relates to state law requiring the allowance of SROs. One of the questions you all received in the testimony was about whether the proposed amendments comply with recent changes to state law allowing SROs anywhere that single unit development is allowed. Specifically, the draft code amends our clear and objective planned unit development or PUD standards for property located within the South Hill study boundary, allowing SROs above 901 feet on lots that existed As of August 1st, 2001, there's a really lengthy explanation in your staff memo that I will not, um, totally explain again tonight. It starts on page 10 of your agenda packet, but the short answer is that yes, staff do believe that these code amendments comply with state law. The statute specifically requires the city to allow the development of SROs of up to six units, wherever single unit dwellings are allowed. In the South Hill study area, the clear and objective PUD approval criteria prohibit all development over 901 feet, whether that development is a single unit dwelling, middle housing, or SRO units, unless that lot existed as of August 1st, 2001. Currently, either one detached single unit dwelling or middle housing may be built above 900 feet on these lots that existed as of August 1st, 2001. And under the proposed amendments, SROs of up to six units would also be allowed on these same lots. And we can answer questions about that as there are any. Um, an additional comment, um, kind of objected to the lack of requirements for a minimum duration of tenancy of at least one month for SRO units. Um, and the land use code currently doesn't regulate the tenancy of dwelling units, whether, you know, they're available for long-term rental or short-term rental or home ownership. Um, so we've not proposed to do so here. Again, happy to answer more questions on those kind of specific responses. On micro village housing, generally our public testimony has been very positive. Um, we did have one commenter who provided more specific testimony on the draft code, including on staff's recommendation on the minimum number of dwelling units on a site, the lack of a map, a minimum lock coverage standard as compared to other housing types and the minimum dimensions for indoor open space. At this time, staff aren't recommending. any changes based on these specific pieces of testimony and we've responded to them in more detail on page 11 of your memo. Again, happy to answer questions on any of those proposed requirements. We do have a couple places where we are recommending some updates to the draft code based on the testimony we've received on both SROs and microvillage housing. First one is an easy one. We, we missed a zone. Uh, we missed the Whitaker special area zone in our code draft. Um, so we'll recommend additional updates, um, as a staff recommendation, which would allow SROs and micro village housing in the special Whitaker zone, just like kind of treating it exactly the same as we're treating other special areas zones in the amendments. And then the second item is related to the university area. Um, this area, which includes a couple of different neighborhoods have area specific interim protection measures, including a limitation on accessory dwellings on lots and on the number of bedrooms on a lot. Um, as we've stated state law requires the city to allow SROs where other housing types are allowed. So we will propose an update to the draft code to include language that the bedroom count limitation. in particular does not apply to SROs, just to make sure that's super clear in the code. With that, that is what we wanted to share with you in terms of updates and proposed changes. And happy to answer any questions on those updates or the testimony we've received and support your discussion as we work towards a straw poll.

Thank you. I have a quick question of the meaning of indoor open space since to me open space means without a ceiling or walls or something. How could that be indoor?

Yeah, that's a good clarifying question. Open space is pretty extensively defined especially for multi-unit housing in the code and it includes kind of common usable open spaces both indoor and outdoor. And there are specific standards of like how much of that open space can be counted through indoor spaces, like a community room or something like that. So common space being like the global term, and then that is broken into indoor and outdoor within that, if that makes sense. I just don't understand indoor open space. It could be shared uses, shared facilities. If you think about a traditional apartment complex where they have a community kitchen and a community room and a place that you could use a lounge area, that would be considered common space for all of the residents to use. That is inside of the building. Okay, I got that.

It's like communal space.

Yeah, exactly.

Other questions? Commissioner Ramey.

I have about the 30-day situation. As I read that, I thought, of course, I thought about VRBOs and Airbnbs and other things, but I also thought about hotels and motels. So how do we differentiate between a micro-housing unit and a hotel unit?

Yeah. They are kind of separated in the use tables, so like those more transient lodging uses are not a part of kind of residential use. uses in the use tables in each zone. So they're different uses. They're regulated differently. They're regulated in the building code differently too, but just kind of separate uses in the land use code.

So they're considered commercial uses? So they're not in residential?

They're under lodging. So they would be allowed in commercial zones, but they're not a commercial use either.

So if there wasn't a 30-day, then somebody could build a micro... unit thing and do it for whatever, weekends or during the week?

I think theoretically. There's nothing in the land use code preventing that.

Okay, thanks.

Unless I'm missing something, Lauren, you'll let me know.

Other questions?

Commissioner Young?

I have a quick question about the minimum unit for the micro village, the eight units. Is there a reason that the eight units was the number that the staff proposed? If we allow to do smaller lots, is it still, I guess, cost effective to have those communal spaces set up for the micro village? I'm trying to understand how we come about the eight units versus small lot that can accommodate six units or four units.

It's a great question. And there's, there's some flexibility there. I would say, um, part of it was that we wanted to differentiate micro village in a little, you know, in some ways from SROs in low density areas, which are that four to six unit SRO unit range. Um, we allow cottage clusters right in low density areas. Um, and so trying to define, um, microvillage housing as kind of these larger sites with more units, with the community buildings and potentially more onsite services or other resources. We have heard that this is specifically a need for affordable housing providers that kind of transition from shelter into deeply affordable housing and so thinking about trying to craft this in a way that makes the most sense for larger sites where you're encouraging kind of a service provider to be on site without kind of directly requiring it. So that was part of our logic. We also thought about, you know, average lot sizes and kind of what might fit reasonably, including on smaller lots. But there's certainly some flexibility there.

Other questions, commissioners?

All right. I may have missed it, but I wrote down some of the differences that you outlined between a microvillage and an SRO. In a short form, what are the things that microvillages can do that SROs cannot do?

Yeah, I'd be happy to say that in a different way. So microvillages can be built as complete dwellings. So an SRO cannot have both a kitchen and a bathroom. That's an important difference, I would say. Um, we've also carved out this special allowance for commercial uses on the micro village site. Um, SROs, if you built an SRO in a commercial zone, you could still do a mixed use development. Um, but in, we've made that special allowance specifically in residential zones for micro village. Um, SROs are also defined as independently rented, um, in kind of the state statutes and in our definition. Um, So they are kind of rooms that are rented versus a micro village. I think we want the opportunity for it to be built as a community land trust if a developer was interested in that. So it could be like an affordable shared home ownership model as well.

Okay. I'm just thinking about simplicity. There's not enough flexibility in what the state requires out of SROs for them to meet some of the extra needs that a micro village as defined meets. Is that correct?

Yeah, I think so. We started down the path of developing Micro Village kind of as the state statute changed around SRO. And so we thought it made sense to keep both paths just to make sure we could really craft something that met the needs that we are hearing from affordable housing developers and service providers around micro village. We certainly have flexibility to kind of go beyond the minimum requirements that the state establishes for SROs, but kind of starting from where we want micro village to look like rather than trying to make it fit into the box of what the state defines SROs as. So there certainly are similarities. They're not perfectly distinct from each other. And depending on what a developer wanted to do, they might go one path or another just depending on their design and their site. But kind of starting from what are we hearing from the community and what do we want this to look like, knowing that it's not, microvillage is not mandated by the state. So knowing we have to do the SRO path. while we're kind of crafting this more Eugene-specific path. Hopefully that answers your question.

Commissioner Yang?

I have another question about the 15-foot minimum dimension for the indoor open space. So why do we recommend to side with the 15-foot minimum? That's the local kind of consistency versus the state code that's the 10. Isn't it more restrictive in a way and potentially could become a barrier?

It is more restrictive in that you're requiring a slightly larger dimension, so could be more restrictive towards design. We have kind of extensive open space requirements in the multi-unit design standards, and so we looked at those standards in developing something comparable, but trying to make sure it wasn't too restrictive for micro village housing. So that 15 foot in open space dimension is consistent with other parts of our code. You're right that it is the state's new model code establishes a 10 foot minimum dimension. So that's something the planning commission could certainly recommend is that we reduce it to 10 feet. I don't know if you want to say anything, Heather, from the multi-unit standards.

Yeah, we are working on those standards, updating the multi-unit design standards for your next adoption package that you'll be considering it. And I think I want to say that we were looking at a minimum dimension of 10 for that. But let me, I'll see if I can find it.

Did you have a question, Commissioner Ramey?

So I would just say that as a general approach to this, if the state model is something, that's probably where I want to go. Because that's, it's the state model. And I understand we have our own experience on our own codes. 10 feet is fine and there would definitely be some instances where that could be a problem, could be restrictive. So I'd be okay with going consistent with the state code to 10.

I put myself in the queue. read just let me know thanks read that um cottage clusters um which we'll be talking about later but those have a minimum dimension for their common area of 15 feet um and uh we do have some Minimum dimensions for open space in the multi unit design standards. But they are not for the entire open space area there for like the private area or. some types of open space, like if you want to use lawn or hard surface to count as your open space, it has to be a minimum of 10 by 10. So we actually do have a bit of a variety, I guess is what I want to say.

Other questions? All right.

Just to clarify, if we were to go to 10, that would argue that we would be allowing more flexibility?

Yes, by having a smaller minimum dimension. Right.

Same overall size.

I would probably be in favor, unless there's some reason that staff has, of going to the 10, kind of following what Commissioner Ramey said, Being consistent with the state model and allowing for the flexibility. I don't know if you have these different dimensions in various parts of the code, if that makes it harder to administer on the part of the staff or anything like that. But if that's not an issue, I'd probably be in favor of the 10th.

Is this a dimension for open space? Say that again. This 10 or 15, is that for the open space? That is for the indoor open space as a minimum dimension. Ten feet is not much space in my opinion.

Right. There's still, I could pull up the exact code language in there, but I think there's both a minimum dimension and a minimum total area for that. So what the Planning Commission could recommend is the minimum dimension reducing from And basically the total area was calculated based on like a 15 by 15 square, assuming that the minimum dimension is 15 feet on either side. So you could reduce it to a 10-foot minimum dimension, but still keep the 225 square feet minimum size.

So then you'd have 10 by 22.

Right. It creates just more flexibility in the shapes that that open space could take. Yeah. Did you have a question?

I was going to say that there must be value of having the local consistency because that was what was brought up. If you can comment on that.

Yeah, it's definitely where we start. We always start on like, do we already have this defined somewhere in the code? Do we already have this, you know, a way that we measure this thing? And so that's always where we start. Is it difficult to administer a slightly different minimum dimension for micro village versus cottage clusters? I don't think so. So I don't think that's like a constraint on staff's part. It's just kind of the how we got there, I guess.

Then is there a value in differentiation? Like, to keep it 15, say, as that's the minimum, to differentiate, you know, the microvillage versus the college cluster. Like, is there value in having that differentiation, I guess?

I think that our hope in developing the micro village standards was to create a model that is flexible, um, that can be, um, affordable to developers that can reach that deeper level level of affordability. So I think flexibility is good. Um, I also think we, as we go through. I need development standards, but these ones in particular thinking about, you know, if this is a. group of folks living together. Do they have adequate amenities? Do they have adequate quality of life is always something we're thinking about too. And that's kind of where open space comes in. But the difference between 10 feet and 15 feet might not be meaningful in determining that. So just the things we're thinking about. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm not sure I have a lot of passion about this either way. But all the way through this, for me, we are in an unusual time, and it's good for us to remind ourselves of that all the way along. So anytime we have some opportunity in here to allow for more flexibility and arguably allow for more development and more affordable housing and so on, I think... That's kind of where I would go.

And maybe I should just say clearly, I don't think staff has a concern about going to 10 feet as a minimum dimension. So if that's the direction Planning Commission wants to go, I don't have any concerns.

And as a minimum, it allows the designer or developer to go larger if desired?

Mm-hmm.

Other questions, Commissioner?

This minimum is in the shared space in the microvillage format, not in the individual units.

Correct.

Yeah, shared common spaces.

All right.

Sorry. Okay, so part of the micro villages benefit is that it does allow for the CLT format. In a consideration, if somebody decides that's a path they want to go down for home ownership in this community, the community space is going to be part of that consideration. And I want to make sure that we're obviously we want flexibility, but I also don't want us to be in a position where we're like building things that, you know, oh, we were greatly successful. We built ourselves out of this problem and nobody wants this now. We're going to bulldoze it. I don't think that's likely, but I do think about that as like, what do folks expect out of this? And what do we consider like minimum livability?

Commissioner Edwards.

Thank you. I would support the maximum flexibility at 10. I think the way I see it is similarly to the way I looked at our parking restrictions where when we removed parking from the code it just meant that it didn't mean that no parking would happen. It just meant that rather than the code determining where and how much parking it would be development and you know, the lenders and all the other components of it. And so I think that that was a positive. It didn't mean we stopped building parking, obviously. So I see it that way and I would support, um, I would support 10. So just put it out there.

Any other questions or do we take a vote or

Yeah, I think our hope would be to work towards a straw poll. So if there's no other discussion from the planning commissioners on this or questions for staff, um, what I heard was a desire to, um, include have staff, um, reduce the minimum dimension for the indoor open space. Um, we've also proposed staff has proposed to changes, um, around the special the Whitaker Special Area Zone and clarifying that SROs the university area bedroom limitation does not apply to SROs. So I guess those three potential changes, we can vote on them separately if there's an interest in doing that. And just general support of moving forward with those three changes. And you can help me if that's wrong.

Or all three? Do we need to vote on them separately?

I think all three together is fine unless the commissioners want to separate them for any reason in their straw poll.

All right.

So I think if we could get a show of hands of support for the micro village and SRO changes with the three proposed changes around reducing the minimum dimension of indoor open space, allowing SROs and micro village in the Whitaker special area zone and clarifying that the university area bedroom limitation does not apply to SROs.

All right. Okay. Unanimous.

Fabulous. Thank you all. Thank you. And Heather's computer is working again. But I'm going to hand it off to Lena, actually, I think.

Should I use the clicker? Do you want to do it for me? Okay, so this first 2026 adoption package includes several other proposed code amendments. Introduce yourself, please. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I'm Elena Domingo. I'm an associate planner on our long-range planning team. Thanks to Ann. So this first package includes several other proposed code amendments to reduce barriers to housing and jobs and to respond to recent legislation. I'll do it. I'll do it, Rebecca. Okay. So, uh, the first topic I'm going to talk about is daycare centers and homes, which is in attachment C of your AIS, which starts on page one 49. So state law, and in some cases, federal law requires cities to allow certain uses that provide care in more places throughout the city. So the proposed code amendments would allow adult and child daycare centers and daycare homes to be permitted outright or with limited restrictions in more zones. These uses provide supervised daytime care. They do not provide room and board or other services. We know that daycare is an important service to support Eugene's workforce, allowing caregivers to work, pursue education, and maintain economic stability. We did receive some testimony that was supportive of these daycare code amendment changes and no specific concerns were raised in the testimony that we received. These changes are also in alignment with the state mandated rules to allow child care homes and centers in specific zones. I wanted to note that there is not a state requirement to do so for adult care, but staff recommends treating adult care the same as child care since they are providing similar services. And then we do not have any proposed changes to the code amendments since the previous version. That is all I have, so I will take any questions or discussion.

I personally feel we should not have residential treatment facilities and homes in industrial areas. I would hate to have a relative inhaling all that pollution.

Are we talking about daycare centers? Any of them. We will also talk about residential treatment centers.

Well, on page 156, it was something about residential treatment facilities and residential... treatment homes, I think, allowed in industrial areas.

OK. I'll at least respond. Let me respond to day care for now. So the state bill, let me pull up my sheet. Does say that we need to allow child care centers in industrial areas except for heavy industrial areas and that we cannot restrict those uses more than other uses in those zones.

All right. Other questions? Commissioner Beeson.

I want to go down the same road Commissioner Bailink's going down. I guess I just wanna, when I read through this, it talks about these different facilities being allowed in residential zones, commercial zones, and so on. And what I guess I wanna clarify is the way this is written and the way that you're proposing it or the way that the state's looking at it, it would be allowed in any zone where we allow housing? Is that kind of the way they're thinking about it? So when you talk about if we have particular zones that would allow housing, they could go there. Or am I simplifying it too much? Let me also before, when I stare at the language here, it talks about residential, commercial, and certain special area zones. And I get hung up on that word certain, and I'm wondering, well, does that mean special area zones that allow housing? Is it some other kind of special area? Are there some special area zones in Eugene where we would not allow this?

I believe most of the special area zones would allow it and it would be related to whether single unit dwellings are allowed to have daycare homes or whether multi-unit of a density of at least 12 units would be allowed, then we would also have to allow okay out care centers. Okay, so I think it's most special area zones that would allow residential.

Well, so let me I'll let you respond to my first question that I are we saying that these would be allowed in our city wherever housing is allowed.

So let me pull up the bill. Um, so Childcare centers is a permitted use on land zone primarily for multi-unit residential uses and in areas zoned for, to allow for resident, sorry. And then zoned primarily for commercial or industrial use except in areas specifically designated for heavy industrial use. And then in residential areas, if the centers are co-located. So that's daycare centers. And then there's also daycare homes, which need to be allowed in... Why am I missing it? Basically, where single unit development is allowed.

Okay, okay.

So I don't know if I answered your question.

Well, we're single unit development is allowed. That's where we would allow these.

Daycare homes.

Daycare homes. Okay. All right.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

What is the difference?

So a daycare center is... Not a daycare home. They would be certified by the Oregon Department of Early Learning and Care. Be a parent cooperative, a preschool. So not located in a home would be a childcare center. And then a childcare home And this is, I'm saying childcare, but I'm also talking about adult daycare centers and adult daycare homes would be located in a dwelling. And then they're limited by how many people are allowed in each. I don't know if I'm answering your question.

If I can add to what you've been saying too, it's the way I've been thinking about is like scale. So small, generally a smaller scale daycare is in a, is in a home is how they're talking about it. And that really needs to be allowed anywhere that single unit is allowed. Bigger facilities, which we're calling centers, which I think is what, bill calls them as centers need to be allowed in pretty much everywhere except for heavy industrial which Elena said the one I was thinking about what are the special area zones that we aren't allowing like and we'll talk about residential treatment centers but we have some special area zones that have sub special areas within them. So you might have a special area zone of downtown riverfront and then it has a sub area zone of parks. I think it might be PRO. So we're not going to add daycare or residential treatment facilities to a parks zone. So that's an example of a special area zone and actually a base zone that we're also not adding those uses to. So I hope that is helpful.

Other questions?

Okay. I think we also want to do a straw poll for the daycare code amendments.

Did you want to talk about adult? Separate or after?

So the child and adult are treated the exact same in the code. Okay. And then I'll talk about residential treatment facilities next.

Okay, and you want a straw poll now about?

About day care, child and adult day care.

Adding them in more areas, all right. Show of hands.

Yep.

Great, thank you. All right. Moving right along. Moving right along. To residential treatment facilities and homes. So this is also covered in attachment C of the AIS on page 149. So it's the same code amendments as the adult and child daycare. So this code would also allow residential treatment facilities and homes, residential training facilities and homes, and similar uses to be permitted outright in more zones. These uses do provide room and board in conjunction with services like physical assistance with daily living or training. Although the law allows for some nuance between where these uses are allowed, the proposal is to treat care uses providing similar services the same. So essentially, kind of what we were talking about before, Smaller daycare and residential care type homes would be allowed in zones where single unit housing is allowed. And larger care centers and residential care type facilities would be allowed in zones where multi-unit housing is allowed. And so same with these, we got generally supportive input and no specific concerns raised. about these code amendments. However, since the proposed code amendments were published, staff did find a couple of typos which we detailed in the deliberations memo that we just would like to fix. And then we also identified some concerns with the proposed residential care facilities and homes definitions. So the proposed code amendments use the terms residential care facility and residential care home as broad umbrella terms that include residential treatment facilities, residential training facilities, and similar uses. The proposed code amendments limit residential care facilities as serving six or more and residential care homes to serving less than six people. However, ORS 443 .400 defines residential care facility in part as serving both six or more people and fewer than six people, depending on the circumstances. Since the proposed definition of residential care facility doesn't exactly align with the definition in the ORS regarding the number of people, staff is recommending that a pretty minor revision to the definition of residential care home be changed to add clarification that it also includes uses that meet the ORS definition of residential care facility regarding serving less than six people. And so our recommendation is that those typos and that update to the care home definition are updated in the proposed code amendments.

Comments or questions? I'm back to my objection to residential care in industrial zones. I probably need to understand the differences between heavy industrial and all the other industrial. But residential care provides support for people in need in some way, so not perhaps as fully healthy and robust as many of us are. And to add that additional environmental stress just rubs me the wrong way. Do you want choice?

Yeah. Um, I've got the bill up if you want me to read it. So, um, for a facility siting, it says within an urban growth boundary, a local government shall allow a residential treatment facility or residential treatment home with citations to the definitions, which we just talked about, without requiring a plan amendment, a zone change, or a conditional use permit for property that is owned by a public body or is zoned for residential uses, commercial uses, employment uses, public lands, but not including parkland, or industrial uses. And for industrial uses, it says provided that if that property industrial property is publicly owned or owned by a public benefit corporation, is within 200 feet of land zone for residential use, and not specifically designated for heavy industrial use. So we did not add the provision, or wait, did we add the provision about, sorry, I just, let me just check that. Let me double check that. We did add it? Okay, that's what I thought. I don't know why I was thinking we didn't add it. So for the industrial, it does say in the code amendments, it can't be heavy industrial and it needs, what did I just read? that it needs to be within 250 feet. Thank you. I have too many tabs open. Maybe it wasn't good that my computer started working. So it says, and this is the special use limitation section of the industrial use portion of the code. So special allowances for residential treatment facilities and residential treatment homes In I-2, residential treatment facilities and homes are allowed in I-2 if the property meets the following criteria. The property is publicly owned or owned by a public benefit corporation. The property is within 250 feet of land zone for residential use and the property is not designated heavy industrial. So we took that straight from the provisions. We don't have those same limitations in E1, E2, or I2, because E1 and E2 are employment zones. They're not industrial zones. And I1, we don't have anymore. And that's why we don't have it. Oh, it is in I2? And it's not allowed at all. Okay. E2 and I2 are the two similar ones.

And was it within 200 or 250 feet?

I thought you said 200 before and now you said 250. 250? 250. Yeah. Matching what's in the bill. We would match what's in the bill. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. E1, E2. And so residential care, home, and facility, both of those are permitted outright in E1 and E2. And in I2, they're permitted subject to the provisions that I just read off. And so that is on page 156 and 157 of your packet.

Thank you, Rita. Do we have a choice to modify it? No. No. All right. Commissioner Beeson.

You would have to.

What am I doing here now?

It's only three mics can be on at a time.

Okay.

I just kind of to clarify it.

On this particular one that we're talking about right now, residential treatment facilities, do we have anything, the way that you guys have drafted the code, do we have anything in here that's not required by the state? I mean, generally what we're trying to do here is we want to put all this into place and also be complying with what the state is requiring.

Yeah. Yeah, we alluded to that a little bit, that if you, we have a wonderful crosswalk of the definition of residential care facility in the ORS of residential care home, residential care and residential, or sorry, residential treatment home, residential treatment facility, residential care home. And yes, there is a lot of definitions. And if you ask me, they all kind of point back to each other. They kind of go like this. But all of that is to say that there were different bills passed that used different terminology. Some of them used residential care. Some of them used residential treatment. facility, if you look at the definition, and I'm getting to an answer to your question, if you look at the definition of residential care, it includes residential treatment facility, residential training facility, and if I'm remembering correctly, residential training refers to serving a certain portion of the community and then residential treatment facility is the same definition except for it's talking about serving a different portion of the community and when I say portions of the community they refer to and I could pull up the definitions but Oh, yeah. Okay. So residential treatment for individuals with mental, emotional, or behavioral disturbances or alcohol or drug dependence. And then residential training is for... um, individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. And so, but then when you look at the rest of the definition, it's very similar. It's talking about, um, uh, self-care and development and independent living skills and, um, uh, rehabilitation. They're very, it's all very similar. And so, um, One could say that there might be a zone that you would be required to allow a residential training home or a residential training, let's say, facility and not a residential treatment facility. Actually, I think it would be more the other way around because residential treatment facility is definitely required in the most places. But that, to me, is splitting hairs. It is difficult. I think it would be uncomfortable to try to put somebody in or the services in one of those places. try to say which bin they fall into when really they're providing the same services and arguably you could say people would meet both the clientele being served are meeting both definitions. And so then what do you do? And so all of that is to say is that I think there are a couple of zones where you wouldn't necessarily have to allow a residential training facility outright, but you'd have to allow a residential treatment facility outright, and so I think you'd get there anyway. We have a lot to say about this because we went around and around, and as you can see, we still ended up needing to make a tweak to one of the definitions, as Elena pointed out, because unfortunately, when the two different legislations were passed at different times, it doesn't feel like there was a lot of cleanup that was done that maybe could have been done to align terms better.

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. Are there other comments or questions?

Just a quick question. Where does, say, elderly memory care fall into the category here? Would it be the treatment or care home? Just curious.

We would probably need to know more information about that. Because we have those definitions. We also have nursing home as a separate use from this in the code. A lot of times uses like that are mixed together. And so it's like predominantly nursing. individual apartments for seniors, but then they have a memory care, a smaller memory care portion of it. So I don't know if you would have anything to add, Reed.

I'm Reed Verner, Landy's supervisor. Memory care is a tricky one, but I think what we're trying to get out with these changes is to treat everybody that needs a place to live that has a disability in the same classification. Because previously the code it separated out to residential treatment or assisted care and then that caused land use staff to ask like what kind of home, what kind of disability is the people that you want to have these homes for and then we're making some sort of qualitative judgment about that type of disability where the idea here is that if you are having either a home whether it be in a facility or a home home like just a house that was converted to a residential treatment home we're treating all those homes for people with the disabilities the same.

Do all of them have sort of density requirement or like, because I heard like total number of people served at the location, but not like a density, like, you know, how many... staff or trainer or whatever that's at that location. It sounds like it's number of persons served at the facility. Is that right? But they all consistently have the requirement, it sounds like.

There we go. Thanks. So yeah, my understanding of how this works is if it's in a home, so there's a low density residential home that is converted to one of these facilities, we just look at it, that's a single home. However, if it's a facility that goes above those five people and it's actually a facility built and not co-located in a home, that's when the density calculations come into play and the bed calculations are in effect. And then that would effectively, if you're wanting to propose a larger facility, you need to make sure that you had a larger lot in order to accommodate that number of beds. But it's just based on the individuals being served by the home, not the employees providing services there.

And I would add on to that too that, right, two different things. One is about aligning with the bill to define kind of, again, the scale of is it a home or is it a facility based on the number of units. And then for larger facilities, we're adding that density equivalent conversion which will also somewhat address the scale of the facility, particularly in low density residential. So that is not in the bill, but it is something that we were already doing in our code with relation to assisted care homes and facilities.

Any other questions? Did you want us to drop that? No? Yes, please. Basically, if I understand, we're looking to increase a lot of the areas where these facilities are allowed. That is correct. All in agreement, in favor? Raise your hands. All right. Thank you, Elena. Thanks.

Okay, on to our next topic, expedited application process. So I've already been jumping in a little bit, apologies, but I'm Heather O'Donnell, I'm a planner with the city's planning division. So the next item in adoption package one is the expedited application process. This is covered in attachment D beginning on page 184 of the packet. The proposed code changes include that cities are required, so this is another requirement area, to streamline some types of residential land use applications, and those include zone changes to higher density, planned unit developments, and variances to residential development standards. So as you saw in the code amendment package, this will be a new process, a new expedited land use application process for these specific types of applications. We received limited comments on this. They were mostly related to generally supporting the package in general. No specific concerns were raised. These changes are in alignment with the new process mandated by the state under Senate Bill 974. As mentioned in the memo, staff have identified one minor update to the proposed code revisions, and that's to reduce the number of site plans an applicant is required to be submitted. at the time of submittal of their application from four to three copies. The smallest change that you can think of, just changing one number. This is something we actually want to update in other places of the code because we actually don't need four copies anymore of land use applications. We're starting now with updating that. That's the only recommended update to these proposed code amendments.

So available for questions. I think you might just want to mention I had the question about site review since it appears in the section and we've had previous conversations about site review will be eliminated and I think you responded that that will be in a later package or a later update. Because right now it's still there.

Sorry, it's still there. It's still in this process. Oh, yes.

So I think if I can jump in, perhaps what you're asking is there was some public testimony and we've talked about removing the site review overlay zone on certain properties. That's something we're proposing in your next package in climate-friendly areas, specifically in certain centers. The application type itself is not proposed to go away. We'll just be removing that requirement from proposing to remove that requirement from some specific properties. Okay. Does that clarify? Is that kind of what you're getting at? Okay.

Thanks. Okay. But that's not for this expedited application process that the site review doesn't impact that. Yeah. Okay. That's why I was getting confused. Thanks.

Other questions? Did you want to take a vote?

That would be great. Yeah, if we could do a straw poll on the proposal with the minor update recommended by staff to reduce the number of copies of land use applications to three from four. That is our only update. All in favor? Thank you. Great, thank you. Okay, so moving on to our next topic. So another component, oh. Nope, you're good. Okay, thank you, whoever did that. Another component of adoption package one is the proposal to extend certain land use approvals. This is covered in attachment E beginning on page 199 of your packet. so the proposed code change is in response to the housing crisis and to further support economic development and would temporarily extend the expiration date for certain land use approvals for three years so specifically this would apply to type 2 and type 3 land use approvals like subdivisions partitions applications that you're dividing land and zone changes, expedited land divisions, and middle housing land division approvals. City Council previously approved similar extensions in response to both the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. So again, similar to the previous item, limited comments were received on this. They were more related to just broadly supporting the package in general. No specific concerns raised on this. I do want to point out this is not a state mandated requirement and staff has no suggested updates for this proposal. So any questions about that proposal?

I'm just wondering how you arrived at three years, two or two and a half or three and a half or four.

That's what we did before. So the last two times that we've done it is three years. I think that's kind of doubling the expiration Yes, the length of the approvals, so it's just basically doubling them again. Thank you. Yep. Ready for a vote?

Sure. All those in favor? Approval? We have it.

Great. All right. So moving on to middle housing standards. Let's see. So as a refresher, the proposed code amendments for middle housing are in response to state legislation, the recently adopted state model housing code, and feedback since we last amended the code. Several middle housing code changes are proposed for this adoption package. First, there are a variety of technical fixes proposed throughout the code that I'm not going to get into. Hopefully you saw them in the attachment, which I was supposed to say, and that was attachment B, beginning on page 56 of your packet. So there are a variety of technical fixes. They're specifically to add clarity to existing regulations or to align with the state's model housing code. Other proposed changes could create additional spaces for people to live, like increasing the allowed R1 building height and allowing larger cottages, or some of the changes could provide more design flexibility, like eliminating the architectural features required for townhouses and not decreasing the maximum number of townhouse units that can be attached. allowing the current amount that's in the code is more permissive than reducing the amount that can be attached. And then other changes could help reduce the impacts of some middle housing developments on surrounding neighbors, for instance, by prohibiting trash and recycling collection in setbacks. In addition, several 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 as part of the middle housing development. There are also new incentives for middle housing developments. They choose to provide... at least one accessible unit. And I'm running out of battery. I guess the updates that were going on. There's a box button. One more thing, one more technology thing tonight. Okay. Thank you, Crystal. There are also new incentives for middle housing developments that choose to provide at least one accessible unit or one home ownership unit that is affordable to households earning less than 120% of the area median income. Per House Bill 2138, these developments can add, this is required to allow them to add one or two additional bonus units and get reductions in development standards to accommodate these units, like allowing taller building heights, increasing the area available to develop, and allowing larger cottages with smaller courtyards. So, For the proposed Middle Housing Code amendments, much of the testimony received included support for making it easier to do more housing types. There were also a few commenters that identified specific concerns or specific specific code changes that were either of concern or that they specifically supported. The proposal to increase the maximum R1 building height, which would actually apply to more than just middle housing, but I'm talking about it here, received the most overall comments and that was both in opposition and support. And so As Rebecca mentioned earlier, some of the proposed middle housing code changes and the R1 building height proposal will be part of your July 28th deliberations, so not for tonight. This will allow staff to continue working through these items and provides commission with more time to discuss some of these more complicated issues. So as shown on this slide, the July 28th topics include for middle housing, the bonus unit framework, the townhouse requirements, and any other middle housing topics we don't get through today. And then also for the R1 maximum building height proposal, we are working on a memo that will discuss some of the research we've been doing and then present some options for your consideration. In addition, the testimony received also included a few suggestions in response to the Middle Housing Code amendments that need further exploration later. One comment under the proposed changes to expedited and middle housing land divisions suggested increasing the expiration timeline for all Type 2 land use approvals. We talked about what those are, subdivisions, partitions, and increasing it from 18 months 36 months, which would be similar to what the expiration timeline is for middle housing land divisions. I'll just mention that there's new legislation that is not addressed in this package regarding expediting more land use applications for housing. So we propose to look at that suggestion as part of that upcoming work. Comments were also received suggesting Chapter 7 access management standards, so these are standards not in Chapter 9 but in Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code, be modified for middle housing development, and the comments identified specific Chapter 7 barriers. And we have been hearing about those. This is not the first time. So staff have been discussing these issues, and we propose to continue problem solving regarding these issues. And we can come back to the commission at some point in the future when we get closer to resolution on resolving those. And those may include some updates to Chapter 9 as well. So what we can talk about tonight. For tonight's deliberations, we identified a few recommended updates to the proposed middle housing code amendments. Staff have identified a few typos and formatting cleanups. Those will be reflected in a new version of the code amendments for your July 28th meeting. We've also identified a few minor clarification updates. One is to clarify how to delineate a pedestrian path that's adjacent to a driveway. The proposed code amendments add an allowance to exclude an adjacent path from the maximum width of the driveway for a triplex or fourplex. So you have your driveway, you have a path next to it. You don't have to count that path in the maximum width that your driveway can be. Staff recommends updating the proposed language to better match other similar language that's in the code that clarify that to be excluded from the maximum width, the path must be distinct from the driveway, such as with different color or materials, but doesn't have to be actually separated from the driveway. Another minor update is to clarify that a pedestrian path that meets ADA requirements qualifies as a quote unquote hard service path for the required cottage cluster pedestrian paths. And the purpose of adding that into the provision is that this update would allow for like a well compacted gravel path to qualify as a required pedestrian path and a compacted gravel path is gonna be less expensive than requiring concrete or something like that. But if it meets ADA requirements, you're still achieving a good solid path. And then another update is to revise the proposed accessible dwelling and adaptable dwelling definitions and references to those types of units. to better reflect building code terminology. So this is detailed in the memo attached to the AIS in much more detail, but that's just a minor update to align with the building code. And then, since the publishing of the proposed middle housing code amendments, the state has issued draft rules related to some of the proposed cottage cluster code amendments. And these draft rules, when they get adopted, the city will be required to comply with these rules by January 1st, 2027, or we have to do some other things like use their model code for the cottage cluster provisions, which we don't want to do because talk about complicated. So, um, while the state's rules are not yet final, we are proposing to update our proposed to cottage cluster code amendments to align with these draft rules that are out right now and then update them again for council when the final rules are adopted at the state level if needed. So what does this mean? It means that first we have to revise the proposed cottage cluster definition to add that subgroupings of attached dwellings are limited to four or less units, that there is no limit on the number of detached dwellings, and that there is no limit on the total number of cluster units. and that their total, a cottage cluster's total average footprint or floor area is limited to 1400 square feet. Now, we are waiting for an interpretation on whether that impacts that last provision about the total average footprint or floor area is limited to 1400, if that impacts just the maximum footprint or both the maximum footprint and the maximum size, because we have both of those provisions in our code. But at minimum, it impacts the maximum footprint. So the new 1,400 square foot limitation in the definition has a ripple effect in the proposed code amendment, proposed code amendments. The first thing is that the proposed maximum average footprint standards need to be updated. So how we originally proposed that there would be an average maximum of 900 or 1400 square feet for the cottages in the development, depending on the height of the cottage. And this was from the state model housing code. So we were just mimicking that. And basically you got to have a higher average if you had shorter cottages. If you had taller cottages, then you had to have a smaller average footprint. Now, based on the draft definition, we would need to revise that. So it's just a flat maximum average footprint of 1,400 square feet, regardless of the heights of the cottages. The maximum footprint for additions onto retained cottages would also need to be revised because we have that same language of if the cottage was short or tall, then your maximum footprint was 900 or 1400, so that would change to 1400. And then flagging for your July 28th work session, when we'll talk more about the bonus unit framework, there will also need to be some revisions in that area related to the maximum size for bonus cottages. That felt like a mouthful. Any clarifying, and then I wanna talk about, my next slide is about testimony received on items that we aren't proposing to update. But before I get to that, I just wanted to see if there were any clarifying questions on what I just presented.

I don't know if this relates to exactly where you're talking, but I had a question come up in reading the section this attachment about parking for triplex and fourplex. Should I ask you that question or is that a separate or different person?

We could do larger, like broader code questions after we talk about the next slide if that works for you because there might be other questions that are related to things I didn't cover in these slides. Okay. Does that work for you? Fine with me. Okay. Okay. Then I'll just move through these really quick. So there were some specific suggestions identified in the testimony regarding the code amendments that we're not recommending to modify. The proposed code amendments in these bullets, just to be clear, are not state mandated. are not state mandated, but they are proposed for alignment with the state's model housing code for large cities, which indicates at least what the state would suggest we do to meet the house bills that have been passed or the requirements and the intent of certain rules. So for example, the minimum open space, we're proposing to increase that from 10% to 15% in all residential zones. except R1. R1 currently doesn't have a minimum open space requirement for middle housing. This aligns with the state model code. I will note that the state model code would actually apply the minimum open space requirement to R1 as well. They actually require it for any middle housing, but we were not proposing to add that into the code. um because it felt like an additional barrier um so but the comment was to not increase the open space minimum from 10 to 15 percent uh window coverage area um the minimum The definition of the window and door coverage area says that you cannot include windows that look into storage areas mechanical and utility areas and garbage and recycling areas to count as your minimum window area. We're not recommending to change that proposal. We think that that is, again, from the model housing code and thinking about the intent of um window coverage it's not just articulation it's also interaction with the street um and so it feels um reasonable to say that those windows that you're that are counting towards your minimum can't go into a storage area or a mechanical area but again that's something that you all could make a different recommendation on. Retained units. So retained, again, like I mentioned, we are required to allow one unit ADUs and duplexes as retained units. There's nothing in the House bill that says that further defines what a retained unit is. How long does it need to be in existence to be considered a retained unit? The model housing code uses five years. The model housing code doesn't say that you need to have a certificate of occupancy. We have other parts of the code where we have certificate of occupancy as a minimum requirement to establish a threshold for an existing dwelling. So we're just proposing to use that again. The importance of establishing not the importance of adding some length of time to what counts as a retained unit is that those units are kind of held harmless in the development. So they get to be on their own lot under the new house bill, which is something that you're currently not allowed to do for retained units. They don't have to comply with new middle housing standards. They don't change the development proposals. So they're just kind of doing their own thing and they're held kind of harmless. So If you don't include a minimum number of years that the unit has been in existence, for instance, someone could build a middle housing unit this year and then next year come in and say, well, it's an existing unit, hold it harmless, count it as a retained unit, and now get it out of any middle housing requirements. And so we feel like we recommend that there be some sort of threshold and five years is consistent with the model housing code. And then cottage clusters, again, the model housing code has a 20-foot limitation on parking spaces of five or more for cottage clusters. So you can't basically have larger parking areas within 20 feet of the front property line. We don't have a lot of cottage cluster developments to look at to test what this would do. The ones that I looked at, or I did look at the ones that we have approved since the Middle Housing Code was approved in 2022, none of them had larger parking areas within 20 feet of the front yard setback some of them didn't propose any parking at all the other ones it was just like a driveway or one or two units so So we did want to kind of look at that and didn't see a lot of concern there. But again, that's something in alignment with the model housing code. It is more restrictive. So that's something the commission could also recommend differently.

Okay.

Thank you for letting me get through that.

All right. Thank you. Should I ask you my question about parking now? This was... I made a note on page 85 and 86 for a fourplex, for example. If I read it correctly, it showed four driveways, but said that there could not be more than 32 feet along the frontage. And I thought, wow, four driveways, 32 feet, hmm, eight foot wide? My car, I just have an old sedan, and my car is seven feet wide, counting the mirrors, and eight foot access seems really small to me. I'm not sure where that number came from. And for townhouses, 12 foot is allowed. So I had a question about that stated requirement.

Yeah, so it's a combined. The total width of all access connections does not exceed 32 feet. And so I'm not sure. So you're looking at the figure and the...

The figure for four-plexes, it was like A1 plus A2 plus A3 plus A4 or something like that.

Mm-hmm.

So four driveways at a max of 32 feet gives you only eight feet each. What's that?

If you go to page 88 of the packet, isn't it two driveways for a maximum of 32 feet on one frontage?

So Bray is pointing out that on page 88, so it is hard to read this for sure in track changes. So lots or parcels with frontages only on local streets, two access connections not exceeding 32 feet in width on one frontage. Whereas if they are doing, if they're splitting them up, then they can have a maximum of 16 foot wide access connection per frontage. So I am looking to see what the difference here is with what you are looking, pointing out, which is on... A diagram on... 85.

85 of 201.

Yeah. No, that's a triplex. That's triplex and fourplex.

86. 86? Okay.

See, that one shows four.

But that one's being deleted, the one on page 86, and we're replacing it with the one on page 85. Okay. Okay. It is really hard to read, yeah. So if there's a line.

Oh, that's what this line means.

Yes, yep. A line through anything means that it's being deleted, and it is really hard to show that with the figures because the figures themselves have lines in them. Yeah. Gotcha.

All right.

Wow, good catch, though.

I know. I was like, wait, what did we do? I went out with my measuring tape and measured my car. It was an old sedan. I was like, gosh. That can't be right. Seven feet. Similarly... Can we talk about townhouses or is that delayed?

I would like to wait on townhouses if it's related to parking or access because we are coming up with some, we're working on some options for that based on the testimony we've received. But if it's something else. No, it was related to access. That's fine. Okay, great.

Questions? Comments? Anybody? Did you want any kind of a poll on any of this at this point?

It's kind of up to you. I mean, we can do a poll on... you know the items that we're not proposing to update um that that previous slide um we could do as probably a separate poll that is about the changes the proposed updates to the code amendments um that were the two earlier slides um clarifying the pat definition of paths and accessible and adaptable units and then updating the cottage clusters related to the draft rules that are out right now so that could be one straw poll and then the second one could be about the ones not being proposed to be updated would that work best for y'all or would you rather

That would be great.

Okay. I think it would be great to get a sense of what the Commission thinks about what Heather just presented.

Yeah. Any comments? So one was agreement to those issues not changed?

Right. These and then the next slide. Or, yeah, okay. Do it as all three of the things.

So if the commission is comfortable with all of the things that staff is proposing to change and all of the things that staff is not proposing to change, you can indicate your comfort by raising your hand, and then what comes back to you for the next deliberations will include the things that staff is proposing to change and not include the things that staff is not proposing to change.

All right. That makes sense. All in agreement? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You'll continue to amaze me. You're so incredible and the work is awesome.

You do a wonderful job. Thank you so much. This is our very last slide.

Can I say it takes a village? It really does. It really does.

And a tape measure, apparently. Thank you so much. I think we already have this covered, but I just wanted to reiterate that we will come back in two weeks with a staff memo with more details, specifically on the R1 height considerations. plus some of the middle housing pieces we did not get to tonight. We'll continue your deliberations, ending with a recommendation to council. We will be bringing some adjusted code amendments to you in that packet. Other recommendations may be to make changes to the code that you're not seeing, but you're directing us to do that for the council to review. So it'll be a variety of things, but... I'm very impressed with how you got through tonight, so I'm confident we can get through our next meeting as well.

I'm very impressed we got through all of this tonight, too. Great job.

And we're available if folks have questions before the next meeting as well.

So thank you for your time. Thank you all. Next on our agenda is items from commission and staff. Are there any items or information to share from commissioners? No, no, no. Anything from staff?

Sure. I just have a couple of quick things. I sent you a July Planning Commission updates email and in that I listed upcoming council meetings of interest and one of them is tomorrow and I had the time wrong. So I want to mention that. Tomorrow at noon, actually, council will be... hopefully taking action on the housing production incentives which are very very much a part of this body of work so that got put on their agenda for the last meeting before their summer break and then council will be off until mid-september great thank you the other update i wanted to say is um crystal has worked very hard on updating your nope Your notebook is now about this tall if you print it out. Ethan got to see it at his orientation. In that updated notebook, which I believe you sent a link or will be sending a link to the whole commission, there will be an update to the planning division's work plan and I will send that out in an email also. And then on the other thing that we can discuss at a future meeting is the Commission has a variety of roles in terms of liaising to other commissions and boards, such as the Historic Review Board, Sustainability Commission, the ETAC, the Envision Eugene Technical Advisory Committee, and some other roles. And so that is something we can discuss at a future meeting to allow new commissioners and people to join those or serve in those additional capacities in the future.

Yeah.

And if there's questions about that, we didn't get to introduce Bray. Thank you, Bray Black and also Reed Verner for being at this meeting to support all of this code work. It does take a village. Questions?

Thank you all. All right. Thank you. This meeting of the Planning Commission is now adjourned.