Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the December 9th, 2025 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 Edwards uh to read the city's land acknowledgement statement.

All right. Thank you. This time at memorial, the Calipula people have been indigenous stewards of our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance with wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement and is is a way of resisting the eraser of indigenous histories and to honor native communities by inviting true and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Halapolia people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government and forcibly removed to the coast reservation 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 Calipolia. I illegal descendants are citizens of the confederated tribes of Grand Ron community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Silence 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 the 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 Edwards. Thank you to everyone joining us in this virtual meeting format. Today, our meeting will begin with public comment followed by a work session on the city's urban growth strategies, policy, and action updates. 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, haven't already done so, please raise your virtual hand now. Join the speakers queue in one of two ways. For those viewing the meeting on a computer, laptop, or other device, please click once on the blue hand icon. Those listening to the meeting on a phone, please 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 is already closed. As a reminder, your hand must be raised in order to enter the queue for public comment. Crystal, do we have anyone wishing to provide public comment tonight?

We do not. All right. As always, feel free to contact staff if there are comments you weren't able to provide or you wish to get to us in a different manner. I'll now cl close public comment and we'll move on to our next agenda item which is a work session on urban growth strategies policy and action updates. So for that decision to turn it over to Terry Harden to begin the staff presentation on the city's urban growth strategies. Following the presentation commission will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Great. Thanks Commissioner Leier. Uh I think Heather is going to be sharing her screen. So we'll let her get the presentation up. Uh meanwhile I'll introduce myself. My name is Terry Harding. I'm the principal planner for the city's community planning and design team. And tonight we'll have presentations. I'll have a portion of the presentation followed by Heather O'Donnell and Elena Domingo. There it comes. My portion will be a brief overview of the 2026 adoption package which you have heard before but bears repeating. Um and then Elena and Heather will provide more details on some of the key jobs and housing code amendment concepts. We will be breaking for your questions and discussion after each agenda item. There's the agenda. Thanks, Heather. Um, so we'll have some time in between to discuss what you've just learned about.

As a reminder, UGS or urban growth strategies has four phases. They are community engagement where we solicit input from the community to identify needs and priorities for growth and development. The policy development phase which is about the envision Eugene comprehensive plan and a land use designation map. Uh the housing and jobs actions phase where we're going to be focusing this evening and the land supply study phase which we're not quite to but will be coming up shortly. Attachment A in your pocket is the overall project timeline. There's a lot going on on this graphic, but I'd like to call your attention to the green bar in 2026 that says adoption. So, that's what we're working towards is adoption of a number of themes and we've been bringing you components over several meetings to focus in on different topics. The research, analysis, and engagement has been underway for two years for this project, and we're poised to begin the formal adoption process for components that will be adopted in 2026. In fact, we just received initiation of the adoption package from both the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. So, [clears throat] as part of our UGB analysis work within urban grow strategies, we must demonstrate how we'll accommodate our 20-year housing need through oops. Oh, no.

First, our existing land capacity in the current urban growth boundary. And we do that on existing vacant and partially vacant land as well as through redevelopment. Then uh we ad we find or look for new capacity on our existing lands in the urban growth boundary by taking actions to increase the expected capacity of new development. Finally, our remaining need will be accommodated through an urban growth boundary expansion. This process is sequential as required by state law. I've outlined in black the step of finding new capacity within our urban growth boundary. When we talk about housing and jobs actions, this is the step that we're focused on. We don't yet know the scale of each of these steps or numbers associated with everything. Those will emerge through our land supply study work next year. focusing in on 2026 and 2027 adoption packages. We do have some work already underway in 2025, but the 26 and 27 adoption packages will each have policy and action components as listed on the slide. In 2028 to 2035, we'll be implementing our housing production strategy. And then by 2030, we'll be bringing any needed UGB expansion back through this group and the local adoption process with council and board. The 2026 and 2027 packages of housing and jobs actions generally fall in 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.

Some of the actions we'll propose are true land use efficiency measures that we can quantify the impact they'll have on our current land supply. Other actions are ones that reduce barriers or costs but may not be easily quantified. And you can find more information on all of our proposed actions in your attached summary of actions, which is attachment B. Today, we'll be highlighting some key code amendment concepts proposed for 2026. We last previewed these for you in June and additional code amendments for 2026. Adoption will be coming to the planning commission in February and March. So today we're focusing in on a few jobs actions and housing actions with Elena and Heather. I think we're starting with Elena, so you get the clicker. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Elena Domingo, an associate planner on the community planning and design team. Um, in the last few I think urban growth strategies presentation, I know we've really focused a lot on addressing our housing need. Um, but tonight I want to focus on some of the key land use code amendment concepts we've identified related to removing barriers to job development. While the some of these jobreated amendments may not be required to be adopted in 2026, planning for jobs and economic development is an important companion to planning for and being able to afford housing. We've also gotten feedback about some provisions in our code that relate to these proposals, such as how the employment zones are or aren't working and having more child care opportunities. We preview these options for you in June. Um, but there and they're also included as attachment C and D in your packet. Okay, got to click two things. Um, so you have all seen this as before. These

first two actions are compact development actions and then the last three are our jobs actions. The two that are highlighted are what I'll be focusing on tonight. Um, and they both include updates to the land use code to remove barriers to job development. Um so I wanted to give a little bit of background about how we got here. Um our growth monitoring data shows that development in E1 and E2 is not occurring as much as we had anticipated. We looked at which development standards have been the most frequently requested to be adjusted. So, um, an adjustment review application is a land use application that allows for the modification of some development standards if they meet certain criteria. And so, um, if standards that are frequently requested to be adjusted may be an indicator that that standard isn't really working, um, or could instead be addressed in the code so that an adjustment application wouldn't be required in the future. We also spoke with commercial and employment development professionals as well as city staff working on building permits and land use applications. We looked at how other communities are regulating their employment zones. And then lastly, there's some recent legislation that either requires us to update our code or that we want to update our code to be consistent with. Um, staying at the high level for a minute, um, I wanted [clears throat] to talk about our biddable lands inventory or our BLI, um, and highlight our industrial plan designations. So, our BL requires that we have a certain amount of land designated for industrial uses. And these industrial designations include heavy industrial, which you can see in the darker purple um, along

Highway 99 and West 11th. Um and then light medium industrial and employment um which is in the lighter color purple as well as our campus employment um which is the black and white crisscross patches. Um so one of the reducing barriers to jobs actions included reviewing and enhancing these E1 and E2 zones, employment zones. Um, but these zones while designated industrial are intended to allow for a mix of uses. However, there are limitations to removing barriers in these zones because they must continue to align with their industrial designations. So, I wanted to start with that sort of highle uh background. So the last time we adopted our UGB, we adopted the new employment zones E1 and E2, which were intended to provide more flexibility for developing employment that is a mix of commercial and industrial uses. I've highlighted the purpose um for both E1 and E2. So the purpose of E1 campus employment is to provide large areas for a mix of light industrial and office uses in a campuslike setting. And the purpose of E2 mixeduse employment is to provide areas for a mixture of compatible employment opportunities, industrial, office, and commercial that benefit from multimodal transportation access. So the following code concepts try to implement the purpose of these zones and increase flexibility for jobs while staying in alignment with their industrial plan designations. So the first concept relates to what properties can be zoned to E2. Currently, a property can resone to E2 when it's either contiguous to parcels

zoned E2 or C2 or when the property has frontage on an arterial street. We're proposing to expand where E2 zoning can be cited to instead allow property within a half mile of an arterial street measured along the public rideway to be zoned E2. So for example, an E1 zoned property that is not on an arterial street but is within a half mile of an arterial could now reszone to E2. We're also proposing um adding additional uses to both E1 and E2. Um the proposed use list amendments which are in your packet. I didn't do a deeper dive here really, but um reflect consideration of external impacts, similarity to other uses already being allowed in each zone and recognition of continuing size restrictions for non- primary uses in these zones. So, I wanted to note that we have heard a desire specifically for more retail and lodging in the E1 campus employment zone. Um, however, after reviewing those uses, um, staff had determined that they weren't really compatible with the intentions and the purpose of E1 zone or supporting the industrial uses in that zone. Um, however, we have tried to build in some additional flexibility for commercial uses as I'll discuss on the next slide. Um so as I mentioned when I touched on the bli is it's important that the non- primary uses which are generally more commercial in nature are limited so that we continue to have a certain amount of land available for industrial. We wanted to add clarity to the special use limitations as well as provide some additional flexibility for these non- primary uses.

We're proposing removing the current requirement that certain non-primary uses in E2 are only allowed on property along arterial streets. So these uses are include eating and drinking, entertainment, financial, personal service, trade, and other commercial. Um these uses however will continue to be limited to 30,000 square ft. Um, we also wanted to simplify requirements regarding the percentages of uses on a site. Um, currently the code addresses both the primary and the non-primary use percentages which got a little hard to navigate um when you're looking at it in a table. But um so we wanted to focus the requirements on the non- primary uses. Um, and then we're also proposing increasing the percentage limits for the non-primary uses in both E1 and E2. And I'll dive a little bit more to the next slide. So, um, [clears throat] this means that these non- primary usage would be limited as follows. So in the column on the left uh it shows that for retail trade uses that are related to the primary use in E1, E2, I2 and I3, we're proposing that the non-primary use be less than 50% of the development site whereas currently it's restricted to less than 50% of the primary use. And then the maximum 30,000 square feet limitation uh for these uses would remain. And I do have some diagrams on the next slide to help wrap our heads around what that could look like. Um in the right column for uses in E1, including eating and drinking,

entertainment, financial, personal service, trade, and other commercial. We're also proposing that the non-primary use be less than 50% of the development site whereas currently it's restricted to less than 20% of the primary use and then again we would um maintain the maximum 5,000 square feet for each establishment limitation for these uses. So this is a very unrefined uh not to scale uh illustrative chart that I tried to diagram that I tried to put together. Um and so these are examples of how the non- primary use examples could play out. So for retail, so again repeating myself, but for retail trade uses that are related to the primary use in E1, E2, I1, and I3, they are on the left show that they're currently restricted to less than 50% of the primary use. So in this example, we have a 60,000 ft lot, 15,000 square ft of the primary use, which is manufacturing widgets. And so therefore, the non-primary use, which is which it sales, is limited to less than 7,500 square feet. We're proposing that the non- primary use be less than 50% of the development site as opposed to 50% of the primary use. So in this example on the right, it shows that the non- primary use would be limited to less than 30,000 square ft, which is 50% of the development side. Um, and also even if the lot was larger, that non- primary use would continue to be limited to 30,000 square feet. Um, but essentially with this proposal, more than half of the development site is used is still used is used or available for the primary use or uses

and then I will move along. So for uses that include eating and drinking, entertainment, financial, personal service, trade, and other commercial in E1 campus. We're also proposing that the non- primary use be less than 50% of the development site, whereas it's currently restricted to less than 20% of the primary use. Non- primary uses are still limited to less than 5,000 ft per establishment. So in this example in the current code on the left we again have a 60,000 foot lot with 15,000 square ft of the primary use and therefore the non- primary use is limited to less than 2500 square ft or 20% of the primary use. So, illustrating the proposed ranges on the right, the non- primary uses are limited to less than 50% of the de development site and are also limited to 5,000 square ft per establishment. So you can see um and we recognize that that means that it's possible as shown um for there to be more non-primary square footage developed on a lot than the primary use, but want to emphasize that more than 50% of the site remains available for the primary use. All right. And then a couple other development standards um related to E1 and or E2 is making clear that a dwelling is only allowed when there is a primary use on the lot. Making some clarifications in the code related to landscaping and outdoor storage. Adding some flexibility to parking requirements and allowing more standards to be adjusted like setbacks, building orientation, building entrances, and pedestrian circulation. And then a few other non-E1 E2 um land

use code updates. Uh recent legislation requires the city to allow child care facilities in more zones without special conditions. So we'll be making updates to comply with that. Um and we're also planning to address adult daycare facilities in the same manner as we are going to address the child care um facilities in our code. We also um are going to allow and regulate veterinary clinics where medical clinics are currently allowed. Um, and then we'll be updating development standards related to bike parking and vehicle access, which Heather's going to talk a little bit more related to housing. All right? Oops. Questions and discussion.

Commissioner Edwards, thank you. Um, one question and just one comment. It sound it looks like much more like you're adding a lot of flexibility. I love that's great. I'm wondering if you can speak to any specific scenarios or situations that maybe came up in the in the um whatever called the the the focus group kind of conversations that that this might be in response to just because I'm aware of a couple situations. I feel like this addresses some of those. And so I'm just curious if you if in this process you're actually specifically responding to, you know, desire to

the hotel over here and you know, I'm just curious or if it was just sort of like, okay, let's try this.

Um, I mean, I think I can't think of a specific this happened and we couldn't build this situation. I don't know if you have any off the top of your head, but Um, but we've definitely heard like this code provision is a problem or this, you know, for us because it's not as flexible and we could, you know, we could have done something different if, but like I don't know the specifics necessarily. Um, we, you know, we definitely have heard we want more uses in E1 that are currently allowed in E2. Um but also we're going to be you know expanding lots that are available to reszone to E2. Um so um yeah I think we have heard some situations on Chad Drive. Yep. Where um where they wanted to do um some additional uses that were not um industrial focused um and just making that a little bit more flexible. We've also heard that that's one of the reasons folks have been wanting to reszone to E2 is because there's more uses allowed in there. Um and that has been both in Chad Drive and um out west 11th in the business park um the Edome business park. So um those are a couple of examples

that that's super helpful only because like I'm aware of that scenario and this helps if this is kind of taking care of that. I just wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to to look at that opportunity if this wasn't already on on your all's radar. So, yeah.

And the lo you mentioned the lodging, so I just wanted to clarify on that. Um while um we didn't add lodging as an um allowable use in E1 because of that business campus setting um purpose of E1. um E2, more lots will be eligible to go to E2, which does allow lodging. Um so it's a little bit of a um not fully what um we had heard some suggestions for, but does move in that direction a little bit more. And then I'll also add that um it's currently clear in the code that for E2 uses um that the square footage limitation should shall only apply to new development. And we're also going to make that clear for E1 as well so that they maybe can utilize more existing buildings.

Commissioner Isacson. Uh thank you. I I I have a question on on the proposed increases. If we're agreeing that loosening the restrictions is a good thing and flexibility is a good thing, can you speak to what the argument was to not allow development for the entire site uh to be usable? So, for example, we're you know what about 30,000 ft that is good is no longer good at 40,000 feet. Is it an infrastructure issue? Does does that make sense?

So, asking why the square footage limitations are going to remain. Is that what you're asking? Yeah. So, if you go back to your map, for example, um you know, on the proposed, you're there's potentially another 15,000 square feet available on that lot on the proposed 60,000t lot that is a whole another business or a whole another series of of smaller businesses that are available. And if we're agreeing that expand the use is good and you know, two is better than one, what makes the limit um and ceiling what we're proposing and not higher? the industrial designation of these zones. So that's kind of what I had started with was we basically need to maintain these zones as an industrially designated and we have to keep a certain amount of land as industrially designated. And so the majority, so more than 50% of the lot does need to uh be sort of, you know, in line with the intention of the industrial designation of the lot.

Got it. Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Remy. I have a I have a series of questions. microphones anymore. That will have I hope you can all hear me. Stop talking. We'll eventually have project. Okay. Um from the from the greatest scale, we don't usually get to work at this scale. So, it's kind of interesting. And I was looking at the land use designation and then I was trying to get that to E1 E2. How how did these can they be anywhere in the purple dark purple zones or and how many do we have now?

The let me think about this for a second. Um [clears throat] so E1 I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong but E1 can be um zoned in the campus employment designation. Okay. And then E2 can be zoned in the light, medium, industrial, and employment designation. And so they would have if it were not in either of those designations, they'd have to also do a redesignation in order to res, right? And that's a metrop plan adjustment. That's first thing, right?

Okay. So that's helpful. Thank you. I was a little confused by that. Um secondarily we're the first thing was moving the just the half a mile dimension. Is that a transportation issue? Is that why we're doing that?

Yeah. So the purpose of the E2 zone like does very much highlight that those uses are or that zone is intended to be near transit. Um and so in keeping in line with that um as well as we had during some of our outreach, we had talked to um the Wednesday Wheelers and some people who use wheelchair and transit and they had said a half mile was sort of the farthest um like like reasonable but the farthest um that they would maybe go for goods or services

um from from you you know, transit or from um and so that was sort of where we landed a quarter mile. We looked at a quarter mile and it just really didn't touch enough lots to be significant. Um and so that is why that's where we So I might have missed it, but art it's did it say arterial with the transit or did it just say arterial? It just said arterial. Um and are those two the same? They're not [laughter] okay. Um, but I mean I think yeah,

that's why I was going down the transportation road is I didn't get the transit piece of it because it doesn't say transit, it says material. Um, then the the last thing I have is is probably not going to be helpful, but you are calling these um um development sites, correct? Is that the term you were using? a development site. That is the term. Yeah. And that's what that really means is property line. In this case, it Yeah,

it can. Um, but if they're under the same if you have a group of properties that are under the same ownership, then that um per our land use code can be a development. So we've defined development site as contiguously owned because that's why I can see how these could be on different property line that be a whole bunch of redrawing property lines that maybe not helpful but if you can do contiguous you can call the development zone as long as they're contiguous right um yep a development site as long as the properties are contiguous and under the same ownership.

Okay. They might also be kind of a development site if they were under this land use approval, but maybe they're under different ownerships now, but they're governed by the same land use approval. Okay. Um, yeah. Well, that's great. That seems like it gives a lot of flexibility. Okay. Uh, [laughter] any other questions about this part of the population? I have a couple questions. Uh one of them is that you know um in the presentation you talk about the development um in E1 and E2 has been slower than expected.

Do you have um any data or idea why that's a reason? What I'm thinking about is these proposals are they robust solutions to the issue I have.

Sure. Um well we did we you know that data was obviously telling us something but I think pe developers in our community have also been telling us something. Um and so we I mean really just tried to engage with them and tried to see where what hiccups are you having? Why haven't why hasn't this land developed? What flexibility are you looking for? Um so yeah we adopted E1 and E2 in 2017. So they're newer zones. Um so I think it it makes sense that you know even if Yeah, I think I think it makes sense that we're like okay did we did we hit it out of the park in this first try or is this you know an opportunity to to work on them? Um, so I guess I think that we we I mean we're and also as I mentioned like we're talking to staff down who work in permit processing and ladies processing and what they're asking what they're hearing or what they're seeing as barriers. Um, and you know, as I mentioned, there were some limitations we needed to work within, but I think that I think that what we're proposing is um definitely going like probably not going to make everyone 100% happy, but is definitely addressing some of the flexibility and and hopefully result will result in more development.

Yeah, in your presentation, you you commented that uh those are some of the most common requests on code changes. So that at least from a qualitative standpoint, I think that that makes sense to me. Yeah. Yeah. So we had looked at

Yeah. some adjustment reviews and seeing what are what are people asking to get adjusted when they're developing in these zones and should we should we make those changes related to that? Yeah. My second question is that in your in your um diagram uh about switching from 20% to 50% and not not uh addressing the minimum requirement of the primary use but rather the maximum non-primary use.

I guess I wasn't envision potentially that kind of big shift could be. So my question to you is that if we intend to relax that requirement um is there a um is it a priority at all to try to ensure that the primary use remain the dominant use on the particular site? I mean I think you know in what we're proposing we're at least ensuring that the land is available to be the dominant prime the do the land is available for the primary use to be dominant or to be take up the majority of the site but as I mentioned it it could be that at any given time as things are developing there is technically more non- primaries developed than the primary use. Um, but I mean I I think if we're seeing that I think yeah it would be great to see that development usage.

Yeah. I I'm just thinking that, you know, uh in theory you could, you know, but then if you could potentially look at a landscape where the primary use that's designated for for the area it's it's a it's not a dominant use at all. It that is that is possible. Yes. Okay, that's a that's two question.

Follow up quickly to the questions from you want to go first. Go ahead. Well, I just had to follow up another part of the answer for are the solutions robust enough? I really appreciate that point and question because we all know that the code can't fix everything. [laughter] We try to make the code as good as it can possibly be and there are other barriers to development and so I would just point out that infrastructure is one of the barriers to particularly the Clear Lake expansion area out near the airport is not yet served with all the infrastructure it needs to develop. And so we're we're doing the code project and as much as we can there we're also working to plan for infrastructure extension and and other things that will help development happen.

Yeah, I had a follow to the questions from commissioners Yang and Isacson which is is there something in state law that requires a percentage of industrially zone land to be reserved for that purpose? What was where was the genesis of that? Well, the I mean, so um this is a good precursor um to when we do the land supply studies and the economic opportunities analysis next year. Um but essentially when you're doing your planning, you need to much like we talk about um how much land we need for different types of housing, we do the same thing for different types of jobs. Um it's not quite as um black and white in the bean counting um because jobs are a little bit more squishy and you know we can't exactly predict or I mean we can't exactly predict anything but we can't exactly map out you know what we think is going to happen with jobs. So it's a little bit higher level a little bit more gray. Um but essentially when we do that we say okay we have this land that is generally focused for industrial use and this land is generally focused for commercial even though we know housing happens on commercial it's generally focused for commercial development. It's like at that level. Um and so this is then we have to write code that tries to implement that um those higher level goals. And so whether it's 50%, if it's 30,000 square feet is the limitation. I mean those are all policy lever choices. Um whether or not those numbers are exactly right, you know, is from looking at other cities and you know starting at like well we we don't think it should be more than half of the site. So where

where do you go from there? Right? And so it's um it's not precise um but we have to identify some parameters for those uses but it's not those numbers aren't in um state law. Okay. And I'm just trying to understand kind of the philosophy behind it is you know we're trying to reserve a certain amount of land for for jobs and so we think roughly that means we need this much industrial acreage and we want to sort of protect that for industrial purposes. That's kind of the y the basic thrust of it.

Yep. And that mix of jobs that we're assuming on that industrial land does assume some percentage of those jobs or employment development would be office, commercial, maybe a little retail. Um so we are assuming that I mean it's just yeah why why pick non- primary use can be 50% rather than 75 or some other number

the not because again we're trying to make the non- primary use not primary and so for me like a majority is 51% right and so if you start with that idea that being less less than a majority is 49% or less then you have like 49% down to 1% is your area. Um and so you know I think we looked at other jurisdictions um again when we um were looking at these parameters and didn't really have anyone that had a real good percentage that we could use. Um but yeah, it's um I think we would I would feel uncomfortable allowing the non-primary uses which are not the overarching goal for industrial land is not for industrial to be dominated by commercial. And so for me starting at less than half is is the starting point and then working from there for those

I guess I guess I'm really genuinely curious. Yeah. is the concern that you know at some point there won't be any industrial land and we'll lose access to future industrial exactly yeah we have to provide land for industrial jobs commercial jobs um uh medium density housing low you know all of those things and so yeah it's it's figuring out how to um reserve the land for that but it seems like there's some implication that maybe the market is picking more commercial uses.

So I think that with our next employment opportunities analysis where we're looking at what the what where we're trying to predict what the demand is going forward. We're working with the demand that was adopted, you know, that started in 2012. We're still working with that as our adopted estimate, but next year we'll have a new estimate with new needs. Um, and so I do think that there will be an opportunity to reook at what our employment land needs are and like can they be more squished together? Um, do we need to have these silos? Um, [clears throat] you know, I think there will be, but for now we're trying to um move towards more flexibility um until we get those questions resolved.

Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner B your hand up.

Yeah, I don't have so many I don't really have a question so much as a couple of comments. I um appreciate the material. I uh generally am supportive of all of this that you're suggesting and I I as I understand kind of your process um I think it's been good that we established E1 and E2 a number of years back seven or eight or nine or whatever it was and the way that it's represented development hasn't occurred the way we might have expected and I think the idea of going out into the the world of people who have a stake in this kind of stuff or are knowledgeable about it and so on and conferring with them and getting their input which seems to be generally the process we did. Um uh and then I think I guess from a land use code perspective making these kinds of suggested amendments u ought to it feels like really ought to allow for more development I guess if all the other criteria is there for somebody making those kinds of decisions. And I'm staring at your slide um it's numbered page 18. I when I went through the material, I thought it was all pretty clear. I I kept reading the part about the percentages. I'll admit I kept reading that things about. Okay. And so I appreciate your diagram a lot. Um, and I think just kind of looking at it, if you get this this kind of development begins to occur that with these um some of the non-primary uses and so on, you're going to have kind of more opportunity for employment. There's going to be more opportunity for additional business to site out in these areas. And if kind of one of the bottom line purposes of all this is to increase employment opportunity in the in the city, it feels like this

is really responsive to that and does that. So I uh I'm in favor of it. Thanks. Any other questions from commissioners? I think this is our only agenda item tonight. We have [laughter] good time for I'm trying to [laughter] I'm excited about the second point.

So, I'm going to share my screen again.

Um, no, that's fine. Okay. All right. So, now we are well, first, good evening, commissioners. I know I've already talked a little bit, but I'm Heather O'Donnell, a senior planner on the community planning and design team. Um, and so we are going to switch gears um to talk about housing again. So, we previewed the 2026 through 2027 actions for you at your June meeting. Um, the 2026 housing code concepts that we're discussing tonight are included as attachment E in your packet.

Yeah, this is going to go. [laughter] Um, so I know you just had a meeting on housing needs, but it bears repeating regarding the scope of the housing crisis that we're trying to address. So we have discussed previously how the new Oregon housing needs analysis rules or the ONA significantly changes how cities plan for future housing needs within the urban growth boundary. Using the 2025 ONA projections, we know that Eugene will need to support the production of more than 26,000 new dwelling units in the next 20 years. To meet this housing need, Eugene should produce 70% more units annually for the next 10 years as compared to the last 10 years. So again, using data from our growth monitoring program, we know that Eugene saw an average of about 960 new dwelling units per year over the last decade. And of those, about a hundred each year were subsidized affordable housing. To meet our new housing need projection, Eugene needs to see closer to 1,600 new units each year for the next decade, including 700 each year that are affordable to households within the lowest incomes income brackets. Okay. So, um you've seen this list of housing actions that we've identified to help address this need. Tonight, we are focusing on the action land use code updates highlighted at the bottom. We are bringing some of these land use code concepts to you tonight and then other

concepts are coming to you in early 2026 such as regarding commercial centers, multi-unit design standards, etc. Also highlighted um in the lighter green is the action to increase average densities. And I wanted to call this out because some of the code amendments under this action were anticipated to be part of the 2026 adoption package and that's what we're focusing on tonight. However, after further review, we think these would be better suited for the larger 2027 adoption package. This will allow us to have the results of our land supply studies which we were just talking about um and hopefully avoid the avoid us needing to amend our density standards both now and in 2027. So we would kind of do it all at once. So I just wanted to call that out. Um we're still working on this but not bringing those to you um tonight. Okay. It's a similar format as with jobs. Um, we're going to talk a little bit about how we got here. So, the housing code concepts we're discussing tonight are the result of several factors. Different from jobs, as we just reviewed, we actually do have an estimate of how big our na our need is for housing from the owner projection. Um, so we know we need to look for both big and small land use code amendments. Some of these concepts that we're going to talk about um individually seem pretty small, but taken together they have a more substantial impact. Similar to the process Elena discussed for the jobs code concepts to identify the housing code concepts, we looked at what development standards have been the most frequently requested to be adjusted. We gathered ideas from city staff who review building permits and

land use applications. and we heard from housing professionals and a stakeholder working group. And again, some of these comments are things that we've been hearing over the years, not just recently. So, I want to emphasize that. And that's the same with jobs. In addition, the state has two model development codes that we consulted. The climate friendly and equitable communities walkable design code. I don't want to have to say that again. and the housing model code for long for large cities. Um, and also similar to jobs, there's recent housing related legislation that either requires us to update our code or that we want to better align with. The first group of code concepts is about expanding the residential uses that are allowed. All of these proposed code concepts respond to recent legislation. They include allowing residential treatment homes and facilities in more zones, allowing recreational vehicles to be considered a dwelling in a manufactured home park or or an RV park. Um, which means they wouldn't be required to be relocated after a specific amount of time. Um the third bullet. So um most residential zones in the city already allow manufactured home parks. Um with the exception of the Elmyra special area zone. They're not um identified as an allowed use, but actually there is a manufactured home park in the Elmyra special area zone. So this is really a a cleanup amendment. Um and that would bring this zone into consistency with other residential zones. And then finally allowing detached

single room occupancy units or SRO's. Eugene's code currently specifies SRO rooms as being within a building. So this amendment would allow the rooms to be detached and located in separate buildings from each other. So this might sound familiar. Um, this update will also be coordinated with the micro village housing action that Leah's talked with you about. Um, I think she reviewed that with you on uh, October 28th and they're very similar. So, we're coordinating um, this work together, but this is um, in response to legislation. So, okay. So, switching to development standards. Um these are standards that are applied at the time of building permit. There are some university area specific standards in the land use code that are intended to minimize certain types of infill development and which may no longer be in alignment with recent legislation or state direction. So, for the 2026 package, we're proposing to address one of these standards, and that is um removing the limit of three bedrooms per dwelling and the requirement for a deed restriction. So, the reason that is is that this standard actually hasn't been applied since House Bill 2538 went into effect in 2021. Um, which prohibit prohibits the city from establishing, this is going to be a mouthful, prohibits the city from establishing a maximum occupancy based on the familial or non-familial relationships among any occupants. So essentially um this means that the city can't limit the number of bedrooms. Um and because of that it made the

requirement for a deed restriction to limit the number of bedrooms um pretty useless and a a useless requirement on new housing. Um so we w and also we we can't enforce that based on the um house bill. So, um, we're proposing to get rid of that in the code. And the reason 2538 is, um, underlined there is cuz I had a typo in the packet. Um, other university, there are several other, um, university area specific standards. Um, and again, we'll be reviewing those as part of the 2027 adoption package. The city's bicycle parking standards are also commonly requested to be adjusted and those adjustment review approvals have demonstrated that flexibility can actually be added to the code as a clear and objective objective off option, excuse me, eliminating the need for an adjustment application process in the first place, which reduces time and money um or cost. These flexible options include allowing parking in apartments that are on the ground floor or that have access to a bike friendly elevator. Allowing stacked or vertical storage of bikes with a mechanical assist system. So those adjustment, we've seen a number of adjustments that have approved um those kinds of facilities. And then reooking at our bicycle parking space dimensions. So these changes are also consistent with the climate friendly and equitable communities model code. So we have some guidance which is great. Okay, now moving into flag lots. Um flag lot standards are another area we've heard issues with over the years. And

with middle housing infill now being allowed without needing to create a flag lot at all, it makes sense to revise flag lot standards so that um development can happen at the same level on flag lots as non- flag lots. So let's orient ourselves to what a flag lot is. As shown on the image um from the land use code, a flag lot is generally shaped like a flag um where the majority of the lot is behind another lot and a pole portion of the flag lot connects to the street. The revisions we're proposing for flag lot building standards include making the side and rear building setbacks the same as they are for non- flag lots. So, this would be a five-foot setback. And um there's actually already an exemption in the code for lots, wag lots that were created before 2002. They already are allowed to have a 5-ft setback. So, this would be um making newer lots available to that 5-ft setback as well. Um we'd also be eliminating the driveway paving requirement um for one and two unit homes. Again, this is something that already isn't required on a non- flag lot for single unit and duplexes. They're not required to pave um their dragways. For land divisions with flag lots, we're proposing to reduce the minimum lot size to match that of non flag lots. So, it' be 4500 square ft. and during property line adjustments allowing a non flag lot to be reshaped into a flag lot as the result of a property line adjustment that's currently prohibited. So just providing some more flexibility

there. Um this is just another kind a couple of illustrations to um kind of help illustrate the comparison of what can happen on a flag lot um and what is already allowed with middle housing. Um so flag lot again on the left, middle housing illustration on the right. Um the image on the right shows two dwellings in the front and two dwellings in the back. Even if this middle housing lot wasn't on a corner, which is what it's showing right now, um it does show how development can happen in the on the back. Um just like a basically what a flag lot creates to happen. So we're essentially just bringing these um things into alignment. And maybe um maybe we'll see less flag lots. I don't know. But um just trying to create some consistency between these two development scenarios. Okay. So, the um next area is um incorporating what we're calling mandatory adjustments into the development code. So, this is in response to recent legislation, House Bill 1537, which essentially states that developments of 10 dwelling units per acre or more can request an adjustment to a specific standard and those um topics are listed here and that cities are required to approve the adjustment at the whatever the level for that standard is identified in the bill. So for example, the bill requires cities to approve an additional one story for a requested adjustment under the bill to the maximum building height. So it's very these um mandatory adjustments are

very specific. Um we are referring to these as mandatory adjustments because the city is required to approve them. These are different from our current adjustment review processes that Elena talked about earlier in that our our current stand our standard adjustment review process is subjective. Um the standards are adjustable to whatever extent is proposed as long as the criteria is met. So in our adjustment review process, we don't have the um strict bookends that the mandatory adjustments do. Um it's a type two land use application process. So it has public notice, can be denied, and is appealable. Um so it's very different than these mandatory adjustments. We are actually processing mandatory adjustments. were required to um process those requests consistent with the House bill that adding at least some of them into our code would reduce confusion and be more transparent in the development process that these types of adjustments are allowed with very little process. Okay. And then moving on to land use applications. Um, Senate Bill 974 requires cities to have specific streamlined processes for some types of residential land use applications. And so those in um we'll need to make some amendments to um address zone changes to higher density planned unit developments for housing and um variances for a residential standard. And so we haven't looked at these too much, but I did want to flag that that is something that we're going to have to look into. Um we are also proposing to extend the

expiration deadline um deadlines of housing land use approvals such as by extending the approvals for another 5 years. Um we've done this before. Um the last time we did this was um in response to the pandemic just to give people more time to implement their um land use approval. And with that, we'd love to hear your questions and discussion. Thank you, Heather. Appreciate that. Um planning commissioners, any questions about this last segment of the presentation? I have one. [laughter]

Well, a g a general comment and I think on all of it overall I I like the direction it's going. I think that over the last couple of years we've seen what's going on with housing and our our work being um focused on looking at land use code at least in part and how what we can do in that area to allow more flexibility for development. I think this is good. Um, one very specific question right here. um when you were talking about flag lots, you did you say um that in in order kind of to bring them into alignment with how I guess street fronted lots of the criteria there

um that we wouldn't require paving on the pole driveway. You said that

that just you talk about that a little more. I it it strikes me as um I know this is going to be really inconsistent with the other things I've said about providing flexibility so cautious here but the idea of you know 100 or 150 foot long driveway in a residential area where it's either gravel or I don't can you dirt or just seems the idea of paving feels like something that would be a better fit in almost any neighborhood.

Yeah. So, currently, um, just to take that example you were providing, if you had a non flag lot and they had 150 foot length driveway, they would not be required to pave it.

Um, if it was a duplex and they had, you know, whatever the length of that driveway is, they wouldn't be required to pave it. And so we're proposing um I think the question is um if you're not requiring that for a non flag lot, why do you have to require it for a flag lot? It's um we're just trying to bring some equity to um one unit and two unit. Now, if they were doing more units than that, then that would um kick in the paving just like it would for middle housing. If it was doing more units, I believe that kicks in the paving requirement.

Well, I don't know. I have a good argument against I I I guess I understand on a single parcel somebody could have a driveway back to the back part of it somewhere and it wouldn't necessarily it wouldn't have to be paid. this situation when you make this subdivision and do this partition it I suspect they can be sold and then you have different owners and so I don't know did you just comment I believe with middle housing um that that is the same situation so if you did middle housing in the back then you wouldn't have to and it was like two detached dup it became two detached duplexes you wouldn't have to do paving to

okay that either. So, we're just trying to basically um yeah, create the same situation whether you're doing a flag lot or not. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Other questions? Maybe if you were just because we've talked a lot about housing lately. Yeah.

I think it's just it's really great to see some concrete ideas. I know something we always ask for a lot is what kind of cocaine can be made to help these things. So, um probably a lot more discussion on this in the next few years, but it's neat to see some of those things bubbling up as concrete ideas.

Yeah, great. Um I appreciate your questions and you know, these are the hard um the hard things that uh you know, we're trying to address the percentages and the paving. I mean those are getting right into the the details and you know what happens on you know your neighbor's property or your property. So um yeah these are these are um tough conversations and also um it is exciting to um actually be not just talking about removing barriers but actually hearing about these things as being a financial barrier or a um development barrier. Um, I have one more section. Um, it's just one slide. Um, so I'm just going to share that really quickly here. Everyone's favorite next steps. If I can get to it, if it will let me. It doesn't want to. It wasn't meant to be. Um I can just read it for you which is hopefully um so oh maybe if I okay I'm just going to read it. Um so dece so as Terry mentioned um we just asked and received um approval from the city council on November 24th and the board of um county commissioners on December 2nd to um formally initiate the 2026 adoption package. Um on December 16th Lane County Planning Commission work session. So that will be focused on the 2026 adoption package um but focused on the county adoption components. So

there will be some um code amendments that they'll need to um adopt as well as um some plan amendments. Um in January through March of 2026, we'll have some more work sessions with you all with more concrete um code amendment concepts. And so some of those areas will be commercial centers, climate friendly areas, multi-unit standards, and um there is there was legislation last year to that we have to respond to regarding middle housing. So we're going to have to open that code back up a little bit again. Um and so those there will be a couple of work sessions um in early 2026 to address those. That's it.

Excellent. [laughter] I was gonna mention B, you know, it's because in property management, we see that a lot where it's not paved to the back lot is when there's u manufactured homes. And I do think and that that's one example where it probably saves a ton of money not to have to do a long driveway. It allows it to be created some some housing for a little bit less. So that might be be one example. Like that's the only place where I can think of it where there's flag lots where it's two manufactured homes on [clears throat] separate lots. That would save money. Um well items from commission and staff. Uh unless anyone had any further questions about next steps. Um any items from commissioners?

My items actually related to the next steps.

Perfect. So it's about the middle housing. We heard a comment at our last meeting about development in the South University neighborhood and I drove by it. So I'm curious to see if how we're doing. I don't want to pull that one out of context and say whoops and maybe that's perfect what it is there but it looks very different from everything around it. So, I just want to maybe use this as when we get into this middle housing conversation and we have case studies or I don't want to make a lot of work, but we can have two or three that say, well, here's two or three that went really well and here's this one that was controversial, what whatever. So, we can kind of see a better range rather than just what people are calling up and complaining about. we could see sort of how does that all fit in in context because we must have a dozen or so done by now close to being done see might be a chance to see how we're doing.

Yeah. And I will just also say that um because we'll be responding to a house bill and we'll be responding to um climate friendly areas and or sorry climate friendly and equitable communities walkable design standards. um and the new uh housing model code um we are going to have more provisions that we're going to be constrained by. Um so I just want to kind of mention that. Sure. Yeah. Still I think that's it's helpful to get the things when they're not

in in context or maybe you just don't cherry pick the one and go boy that's a bad idea. Let's see how we're doing with all of them. Um, and maybe it's a map. I doubt it, but it's hard to know. Sometimes you only hear there's only one squeaky wheel. Great. Thank you for that suggestion. Any other questions on this topic or other items from commissioners? Anything to share from staff?

Just um a reminder that your last meeting of the year is a week from tonight. Um it's virtual. going to start with a public hearing and possible action on a site specific refinement plan amendment and a zone change. Um the packet just came out today, but just a reminder that that one is quasi judicial and then the second half of the meeting will be continuation of your deliberations on public health standards.

Then you've got a a break. Um, and right now your January meetings are the second and fourth Tuesday. We don't have an agenda item for the first one at this point. So, it's possible that that meeting gets cancelled and then we will fill out the rest. We're still working on slotting the rest of the meetings, but you hold your second and fourth Tuesdays per usual and then we'll pull you with if there's other dates we need. And we'll also be looking for a retreat because I think I think our time is about ready for that as well. I have a question related to the the public hearing for next week that's quasi judicial. I did happen to just look at the packet. Um what would be the rationale? I know that we sometimes do this where we have a public hearing and we deliberate right after. I mean is that and then there's times where we'll hold the record open because

and we put possible action when it's we think it is actually possible like if there's not been a lot of testimony if we think it's not particularly controversial. It doesn't mean that we assume you will but if we write it if we put it in the agenda then that means there's the option and there are others where we know there is no way you're going to get a lot of testimony. there's already a lot of testimony, right? And you're going to need more time. Okay. So, it it may be that somebody asked to do the record open and then clearly no no action that night. So,

okay. Yeah, that's it. I mean, it's like sometimes, you know, you're trying to take it all in and there's testimony and you're trying to and then you're also trying to deliberate that night and I'm I never know are we actually going to deliberate. Is this possible or it is? Why is sometimes possible? It's possible because it tends to be ones that are less complex or less controversial. Okay, that's helpful. We're going to get one more batch of testimony for next Tuesday. [clears throat] We've already Yeah, batch four should have been the last batch of testimony. Yeah, because that

Well, great. Anything else from staff? Thank you for the presentation tonight. This meeting of the planning commission is now adjourned.