City Council - workshop

Thank you.

2026 City Council work session. Thank you for joining us in this hybrid meeting format tonight for work sessions like this one where there is no opportunity for public comment. Those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website, the broadcast on Comcast Channel 21, or by calling into one of the phone numbers listed for this meeting on the public webcast and meetings materials page of the City of Eugene. website. In case of a medical emergency, an automated external defibrillator, an AED, is located on the counter behind staff, located on the left or west side of this room. And in case of an emergency evacuation, emergency exits are through the double doors located at the back of the room, and the doors to the patio can also be used as needed. Thank you all again. for joining us this evening. And I now call the September 14th, 2026 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. And I'm going to turn it over to City Manager Jenny Hirayama to introduce our first topic, which is a work session on the Urban Growth Strategies Adoption Package number one.

Thank you, Mayor. Planning staff will provide an overview of the Urban Growth Strategies adoption package number one, which was originally discussed in November of 2025 and April of 2026. The proposed code amendments are intended to remove barriers to jobs excuse me, housing and job development, increase housing choice and comply with state law requirements. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23rd and voted to recommend the proposed amendments on July 28th, 2026. Council will hold their own public hearing on these proposed amendments on October 19th, 2026 and must take action before the end of the year. With that, I'll turn it over to staff.

You're, is it on that?

I'm not sure if it's working. We'll assume that it is.

Much closer, yes. Closer? Yes, there you go.

Okay, very, very close. Hello, thank you for having us. My name is Rebecca Gershow. I'm a principal planner with Community Planning and Design, and I'm joined by my colleagues, Heather O'Donnell and Leah Rausch, and we're going to share with you tonight our first adoption package for Urban Growth Strategies. It is a package of housing and jobs actions, which is a required step in our urban growth boundary planning, and we're excited to start talking with you about it tonight. We will provide a quick overview, then share more details on the proposed housing and jobs actions included in Adoption Package 1. We're interested in hearing from you, any clarifying questions you may have as we prepare for your public hearing on October 19th. Urban Growth Strategies is a state and council directed suite of work that's identifying the actions, policies, and land needed in Eugene over the next 20 years in order to support living wage jobs and housing that everyone can afford. It identifies tools that can help Eugene grow more efficiently. As you know, we have an immense housing need. Eugene needs to support the production of almost 26,000 new dwellings over the next 20 years, including an urgent need for housing that's affordable for the lowest income households. UGS, or Urban Growth Strategies, is split into four main project components. Community engagement, policy development, housing and jobs actions, and land supply studies. Tonight we're focusing on our first set of housing and jobs actions, which are intended to remove barriers to housing and jobs development, increase housing choice, and comply with state law requirements. The housing and jobs actions the City Council will consider this year and next generally fall into the following priority areas. Increasing our capacity for housing, reducing regulatory barriers for both housing and jobs developments, and encouraging compact development for both jobs and housing in and around key corridors and centers. In response to our city's immense housing need and as part of our state-directed planning work, the City Council will be considering adoption of at least four packages of proposed actions over the next four years, and they're summarized here. Tonight's focus is on the first of our two 2026 packages. This first package primarily focuses on the state required housing and jobs actions that have end of year deadlines. The details are included in your attachments A, B, and C of your AIR. The adoption process for the second package will start with planning commission meetings next month. It'll be a joint city-county process, and it includes more housing and jobs actions, plus five new chapters of our Envision Eugene comprehensive plan and our Eugene-specific land use designation map. In 2027, we will bring forward to both the city and county a large package to consider for adoption by the end of next year. We're working on these components now, and we will share preliminary information with you in December. The adoption of our land supply studies by the end of 2027 is a state deadline and it'll allow us to move into analyzing potential UGB expansion areas with adoption of a new urban growth boundary if needed by 2030. So the formal process for this first Urban Growth Strategies adoption package began this summer with the Eugene Planning Commission. After a work session similar to this one, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23rd. They received a variety of written and verbal testimony from 38 members of the public. Then the Planning Commission held deliberations in July over two meetings and made a recommendation to City Council on July 28th. The Planning Commission recommendation, as described in your AIS, has been incorporated into these proposed amendments we're gonna talk about tonight. So with that, we'll get into the details, and I will hand it over to Leah.

Okay. Thanks, Rebecca. Good evening, counselors. Leah Rausch.

I'm a senior planner in the planning division.

One of the items in this first adoption package is a series of land use code changes to create new development standards for micro village housing and single room occupancies, or SROs. We've brought this topic to you in the past, so I'll keep my comments tonight pretty high level. You can review more details on the proposed changes in attachment B of your agenda packet beginning on page 14. Both single room occupancies and micro village housing would allow very small units to be built together on a shared lot with amenities provided in a shared building. Both housing types could respond to our housing needs in Eugene, especially for lower cost housing units and smaller units. Micro Village Housing responds to a need we've heard from affordable housing developers and shelter providers to create housing that is affordable by design and centers community living. It's modeled on an approach that has already been successful in a shelter setting like Everyone Village in Eugene, but also village style and community-minded middle housing and multi-unit housing developments like Jeffrey Commons and Peace Village pictured here. 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, or other services. The hope is that these dwellings are less expensive to develop and could reach a deeper level of affordability without as much or any subsidy. We've heard through community engagement that the village setting can provide both independence and community support, and detached units in particular can offer a sense of safety and comfort for residents who may have previously lived unhoused. In addition to micro village housing, we're proposing development standards for single room occupancies, or SROs. These standards respond to recent changes in state law to allow SROs as 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 share either bathroom or kitchen facilities with other units. Under state law, four to six SRO units will be allowed in low density areas and then anywhere that multi-unit housing is allowed. Generally, public testimony during the planning commission process was very positive on the microvillage housing proposal. We did have one commenter who provided more specific testimony on the draft code, including the minimum number of dwelling units on a site, the lack of a minimum lot coverage standard as compared to other housing types, and the minimum dimensions for indoor open space. For single room occupancies, public comment related to whether the proposed amendments comply with recent changes to state law allowing SROs anywhere that single unit development is allowed. Through their deliberations and in response to testimony, the Planning Commission recommendation includes some surgical revisions to clarify compliance with state law on SROs and an adjustment to the open space minimum dimensions for micro village housing to provide more developer flexibility.

As well as a few other staff recommended cleanups and to ensure clarity and consistency With that I will hand it off to Heather to talk about the rest of the package Good evening mayor and councillors My name is Heather O'Donnell and I'll go over the remaining pieces of adoption package one starting with updating the middle housing land use code Code concepts are in attachment C starting on agenda page 17. I So quick refresher, middle housing types include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters. And in 2022, in response to state legislation, the city amended Eugene's land use code to end decades of exclusionary zoning practices and land use regulations. It made middle housing types really difficult to build. Proposed land use code changes are based on new state requirements and other input as I'll discuss. Last year the state passed more middle housing legislation that cities must adopt by the end of this year. The state also adopted a new model housing code for large cities which the state defines as cities over 25,000 people and we relied heavily on this new code. Note that unlike the middle housing model code referenced during the 2022 middle housing code update, the new model housing code is not a baseline requirement. However, it does show how the state thinks new state law and state direction could be implemented and provides opportunity for more clarity in our own code. There's also the state's new climate-friendly walkable design standards. Feedback from staff and housing professionals on how to add design flexibility, reduce procedure and add clarity, and community feedback. We heard some things are working well, some things can be improved. So these proposed changes would apply to middle housing development across the entire city. Based on these resources, adoption package one includes a pretty big variety of proposed middle housing code changes, although there may also be additional code refinements in future adoption packages. Some of the key concepts in this package include a variety of technical fixes that I won't get into, but are intended to add clarity or align with the new model housing code. Creating additional places for people to live, like increasing the allowed building height, which we'll talk about later, and allowing larger cottages. Providing more design flexibility, like eliminating required architectural features for townhouses and retaining design flexibility. Reducing potential impacts like prohibiting trash and recycling collection areas in setbacks and several changes specifically to implement new state law, including making it easier to accommodate existing single units, accessory dwellings, and duplexes that will be retained in new middle housing developments. And state law also now requires a new bonus unit framework that incentivizes middle housing developments that choose to provide at least one unit that is fully accessible to people with disabilities. or provide at least one home ownership unit that's affordable to households earning less than 120% of the area median income, which is about $110,000 for a household of four. These qualifying projects can then add one to two additional bonus units. The framework must also allow increases in the developable area of the development site to accommodate the bonus units. So the proposed code amendments include reducing some regulations such as allowing 10 more feet or the equivalent of one story in building height, reducing building setbacks, and increasing the maximum amount of lot coverage. The proposed framework aligns with the minimum requirements of the state. During the planning commission process, testimony was received generally supporting removing barriers to housing. Some testimony also suggested specific changes, such as concerns about increased open space, window coverage regulations. cottage cluster parking, requesting more flexibility in townhouse access and parking, and suggesting broadening the applicability of the bonus unit framework. Also, since the initial publishing of the proposed code amendments, the state has again issued new rules, and these are related to some of the proposed cottage cluster code amendments. The Planning Commission's final recommendation included all the proposed changes plus updating some definitions, adding flexibility for townhouse access and parking areas, and updating the Cottage Cluster Code amendments to align with the new rules. Increasing the maximum allowed building height in the R1 low density residential zone is another component of adoption package one and this code concept is in attachment A starting on agenda page 13. The proposed code amendments would increase the maximum height from 30 feet to 35 feet in the R1 zone which under the current code would also allow an increase to 42 feet if using a steeper pitched roof. Increasing the maximum allowed building height by five feet is one of the many proposed amendments aimed at aligning with the state's recently adopted model housing code. We've also heard from design professionals that it would support more living areas, such as a third story. Most of the testimony received on adoption package number one has been directed at this proposed height increase, both against and in support. During the planning commission process, staff considered removing the proposal from adoption package one and bringing a new proposal back next year based on additional research and consideration of the different compounding height adjustments that are allowed under state law. The Planning Commission's final recommendation was to continue with the proposal to increase the maximum R1 building height to 35 feet. Adoption Package 1 includes several other proposed amendments to reduce barriers to housing and jobs and to address recent legislation. The proposed changes would allow daycare type uses and residential treatment type uses to be permitted outright in more zones. These concepts are in Attachment A, starting on Agenda Page 10. The amendments align with state law, and there is limited room for local policy decisions. The result is that smaller uses like daycare and residential care homes would be allowed where single unit housing is allowed, and larger uses like care centers and residential care facilities would be allowed where multi-unit housing is allowed. Limited testimony was received on these topics, including no specific concerns were raised. Planning Commission recommended the proposed changes with a minor update to the residential care definition. And the proposal also includes some changes to land use applications. These are in attachment A, starting on agenda page 13. State law now requires cities to streamline some residential land use applications, including zone changes to higher density, planned unit developments, and variances to residential development standards. The proposed amendments implement these requirements through a new expedited land use application process. In addition, in response to the housing crisis and to support economic development, the amendments also include temporarily extending the expiration date for certain land use approvals for three years. Specifically, this would apply to type two and type three land use approvals. So those are subdivisions, partitions, zone changes. It would also apply to expedited land divisions and middle housing land divisions. Council previously approved similar extensions in response to the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. This particular proposal is not a state mandate. Limited comments were received on these topics. No specific concerns were raised. Planning Commission recommended the proposed changes with a minor update to reduce the number of site plans required to be submitted for these applications.

Heather. So after tonight's work session, there will be a public hearing on this first adoption package on October 19th. The full public record ordinance with all the explicit code amendments will be available to counsel and to the public prior to the public hearing. Following that, on November 23rd, will be deliberations and adoption consideration. And just a quick reminder that the components of this adoption package that are state mandated are required for action by the end of the year. So we thank you for your time. And that's the end of our presentation. We'll open it up.

Thank you, staff, for that presentation. I now open the floor for council questions and discussion. And then Councillor Kishinsky.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much for the presentation. I just want to confirm, has the state building code, I know you talked about the state and SROs and bringing those in to the full. Is all that work done now, or are there still pieces that need to be completed?

The state required changes to single room occupancies are included in this package. So these draft code amendments that we're hoping to pass by the end of the year. So that is allowing single room occupancies in more places around the city and allowing detached SROs, four to six units in single unit and then at a density ratio in multi-unit areas.

Thank you. I understand we have work to do still here locally, but the state, have they completed everything they need to do so that when we hopefully move forward with this, because I think SROs are a legitimate option. I don't think it's the answer for everything, but I think that needs to be another arrow in our quiver. Are we going to be ready to go, or is the state going to be ready to go should we pass this later?

Yeah, so the state legislation has gone through. The Department of Land Conservation and Development is working on a model code for single room occupancies that will be a part of the housing model code that Heather talked a little bit about. So that draft language is out for public comment right now. I don't think there's anything else we're waiting on the state for, but we did review their draft model code just to make sure we were in alignment with that.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Another question I have, which is all part of us actually developing housing, have we made any movements on wetland mitigation? I think of my ward in particular, and pretty much all the flat open spaces that you can build on are wetlands, and that's kind of pinching down the pipeline here.

The question, part of this analysis doesn't get into specific site wetland analysis, but we will be looking at wetlands when we do our UGB expansion. We know which are identified as protected and which are identified as able to mitigate or be developed on. And so at that point, we'll be identifying whether we need to do additional analysis, site-specific, and work with the city parks department on their wetland mitigation banks and how much land is available there and how we might work with the community on... ensuring that that land that we identify as developable could really be developed.

I appreciate that, and I understand that this is not all falling in your department, but you're in front of us, so I wanted to ask the question. In particular, I'm thinking about Everyone Village, which is a proven model that's lifting people from the street into self-sufficiency and independence, which I think we need to be looking at. And they've got half of their three and a half acre site that was donated by the Rexius family, A good portion of that is considered wetlands, and if we can somehow get that mitigated, they'll be able to add 80 more units, which that's at least 80 more people off the street.

Yeah, I don't have a specific update on the Everyone Village site. I know that the Community Development Division is working closely with them to see what resources and support the city can provide our homeless services team and our affordable housing teams both. And so I know they're looking into it and seeing what needs to happen. The wetlands on their site, I believe, are state wetlands, but not locally protected wetlands. So it would just be going through the process with the Department of State Lands.

Thank you. I appreciate that. That's something I'm very interested in. If anything develops on that, I'd appreciate being informed on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilor Kuczynski.

Thank you and thank you for all the work on this. I've got a number of different questions. I'm always very appreciative when we're removing barriers that make it hard for people to build housing. And so some of these are thinking about what are the things that like two years from now we're going to have someone come up to the permanent office and be like, well, why can't I do this thing? That seems to make sense, and we just left a line in somewhere that kept this thing as a barrier. So a couple of different questions. The change in size to the cottage, is that state law required, the cottages?

Yes. Okay. They, so, yep, yes. I'll just stop there.

I asked because it feels like, you know, when you start talking like that size, it starts to feel like a cottage to me.

We have had that conversation as well. But part of the state rules include a specific definition for cottage cluster dwellings, which also now includes the size measurement. And so we're kind of stuck with that.

Are SROs and the micro villages considered middle housing at all? So like if we have a place in our code that says these standards don't apply in this area, the middle housing standards apply, the standards in that section would still apply to SROs or they wouldn't?

SROs and microvillage housing are proposed as their own housing types, so they are not considered middle housing. They're their own thing.

Okay. And I noticed when some of the Planning Commission recommendations were to look at specifically some very specific bedroom limitations in the university area, And I know that similar bedroom limitations exist in some of our special area zones. Have we done any looking to see how those bedroom limitations might impact the SROs? I'm not sure that they would, but I could, it was hard to interpret how those bedroom limitations would apply to the SROs.

We proposed amending the university area limitation on bedrooms just so it's super clear that it wouldn't apply to single room occupancies. That's, I think, being like extra clear and extra safe. We can look into bedroom limitations in other areas. I don't know of them off the top of my head, but we can double check that. I think it was Just making sure it's crystal clear, but I would agree. The bedroom limitation shouldn't be applied to single room occupancies, so just making sure.

Yeah, it's the one that I'm familiar with the most is the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. And it's complex because it has like, if you have this number of bedrooms, it's considered this number of units and density. And so it's an interesting way to regulate it. And so I just wasn't able to parse out how that might overlap with the SROs. The SRO size is listed as, there's a minimum that's saying it's aligning with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Is that a standard to get HUD funding or is that? What's the sort of standard there?

I believe that standard is specific to using any sort of like housing assistance vouchers it would need to meet specific the unit itself needs to meet specific requirements, but that requirement is also in alignment with the building code so it shouldn't be an issue. I'm just making that very clearly stated.

Okay, the reason I ask is because it says here the 110 is the HUD standard and 70 is the building code standard.

Thank you for flagging that. Yeah, I could follow up with you. I don't remember exactly off the top of my head where it comes from. I think it's related to housing assistance vouchers.

Okay, if it's related to vouchers, that makes a lot more sense to me than if it's related to the... like building assistance, right? Because if someone wants to build without HUD money, great, go ahead, build a smaller unit. If it's okay this unit exists and I can't use my HUD voucher for it, that's a very different scenario. And I will probably want a second round, thank you.

Other councilors? Councilor Zelenka.

Following up on Councillor Kaczynski's question, so recommendation two said clarify that the university area number of bedroom limitation does not apply to SROs. Code establishes a maximum count of three bedrooms in a dwelling in the university area. and clarify that the bedroom count does not apply to SROs. So what is the rationale for doing that and how many bedrooms can there be in a dwelling? Is it unlimited by removing this criteria?

Are you asking if the rationale behind the current limitation on bedrooms?

No, for removing it.

Okay.

The change, right, the proposed change.

Yeah, so it's clarifying that that provision doesn't apply to single-room occupancies. We, per state law, need to allow four to six SRO units anywhere that single-unit development exists. is allowed. So just making it very clear that you could still build four to six SRO units on a lot in the university area.

So maybe it'd be clear if this said change the maximum of three to four to six.

Theoretically, but that would then apply to other housing types as well. And so what we drafted in the code is just saying SROs are specifically carved out. And that provision of no more than three does not apply to single room occupancies. It doesn't change how it is applied to single unit dwellings, for example.

But it could be increased to four to six.

It could be.

Okay. General comment about the urban growth standards package. To date, all of this has been abstract and about rule changes. And the creases in density and allowable housing has not really manifested itself in neighborhoods. But we're starting to see the physical manifestations of these in our neighborhoods. I'll pass this around, but this is a picture of a building in my neighborhood on Orchard Street. And what it shows is a huge, this is a huge three-story tall building that dwarfs the house next door and dwarfs the house in front of it. It's put on the back lot. I counted 12 air conditioning units, so I'm assuming it's 12 people. Little to no parking on this. I doubt this is what people had in mind. It wasn't certainly what I had in mind when we were talking about increasing the housing density. Council's already allowed a seven-story dorm in the Fairmont neighborhood without any analysis or acknowledgement of the impacts on the neighborhood from that kind of development. That should be taken note by neighborhoods. And as well, there's other hidden gems in all of this. Turns out that the proposed affordable housing development that's occurring in the Floral Hill Road in Laurel Hill neighborhood no longer requires a public hearing. It can now just be developed and approved by the planning director. That's a pretty big change. So these are just two examples in the name of housing, more housing. that are going to impact our neighborhoods significantly. Neighborhoods already feel that the process is stacked against them. They see the council as very pro-development, without concern for protecting neighborhoods. And what we're protecting is the most important, largest investment these people make in their lifetimes. A place where they're raising their children, go to create quality of life and community. And if we don't do anything about this, I think it's just a matter of time before we see a dramatic change in how they react to this in the form of a significant backlash against this stuff. And the council could consider like a neighborhood development bill of rights to address some of these concerns. But I just don't see, I see this going down a road that's not gonna end well.

Councillor Leitch.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for putting together this package. I am generally really excited about the addition of these two different types of housing. I wanted to ask about the conversions. SROs cannot be added to a site with an existing dwelling, but dwellings can be converted to an SRO. Can someone convert a dwelling to an SRO and then add SROs?

It depends on where it was located, kind of the situation specifically. If we were talking about kind of a single detached home in an R1 low-density area and they decided they wanted to convert that into a six-bedroom, they wouldn't be able to add any more units to the six if let's say there's four SRO units in the single unit dwelling and then they add two detached SROs that would be adding to get to that six maximum in a low density area. So it kind of depends on the situation.

Okay, thank you. parking maximum, if a lot already has parking and has more than the allowed maximum, so say it says eight SRO units would be allowed up to three off-street parking spaces, if that lot already has four parking spaces, do they have to destroy a parking space to

I don't think so. I don't review the actual land use proposals, so I can definitely confirm that, but I don't think so. Okay, thank you.

You know, in the line of Alan's comments, or Councillor Slinka's comments, the thing I get communication about from my constituents the most is the proximity and the height of these units coming in right up against their backyards, and they feel it's so imposing on their family and their privacy, because if you have a six-foot tall fence and you have a 35-foot long fence, home being built, you really can just look straight into your windows in your backyards. So that's a lot of communication I'm getting. I'm a little hesitant to support the additional height that we're discussing today because of wanting to preserve our neighborhoods to the point where, yes, I want housing. I want to add in these micro villages and these different types of housing. I know we're gonna get a lot of communication and a lot of disgruntled folks in our neighborhoods who also want housing, but I often hear, I really support this, and this is rough, and I don't really wanna live here anymore. because of it. So I want us to be able to balance those two things as well. So I'm interested in understanding kind of that differential between the 30 feet and the 35 feet and what that actually looks like. Is it an additional, describe that for me.

Yeah, we actually have some illustrations, if it works for you all. These are trying to illustrate the current R1 building height, and then we have a second slide that illustrates. So I think I did a pretty good job of that you can kind of toggle back and forth with if you go back, Leah. So the building on the, let's see, the first building that says typical existing is trying to get similar to the picture that was passed around. Oftentimes we see one and a half exists one and a half stories for existing homes in Eugene and then the middle is showing more of a building envelope so not necessarily a typical 30 foot hitting the 30 foot max but more of the building envelope to the five foot interior yard setback kind of getting at your point of how far you can actually build out under the current standard and then The current standards also allow with a steeper pitched roof, an additional seven feet above the 30 foot max. And so that's what the third building is showing is that steeper pitched roof, you can go up to 37 feet and that's measured to the highest point just like the 30 and then if you flip over to the proposed that typical existing is staying exactly the same and then you see that with the 35 feet with the just a typical roof pitch you get that full three stories whereas on the last one in the middle you didn't have the full three stories and then with as currently written with that additional seven feet because that comes off of the base max. So it was seven feet onto 30. on the last slide, and the proposed changes aren't touching that provision, so it would be seven feet on top of the 35. And then, so that's kind of, we can flip back and forth as much as you want. The other information that is included in the table at the top is, As I mentioned, we are required to accommodate bonus units for middle housing specifically, and that includes increases, so those would be on top of these maximums. And then we also have other rules, other state laws. You'll see Senate Bill 1537 up there, which requires us to allow another additional story. So the heights do start to stack, at least on paper. But right here, what we're showing is just that base maximum for current versus proposed.

They're an estimate on how many additional people can live in. this building with that extra five feet?

Oh, yeah, no. I mean, because it would really depend on the size of the building, the number of units, if it's divided up or if it's just one structure, a lot of different things. So we were just showing more of the building envelope, the max building that they could build out to under the difference about the capacity in there.

Councillor Evans.

Thanks, Mayor. A thought came to me about, in some of these cases, couldn't we require and code privacy screens? In other words, so that the view would be mitigated, you know, based on the height of the building and the proximity next door of the other units that are around it.

Lauren wants to jump in, feel free. Just as far as that, I know that there are state rules around how we treat single unit and middle housing that you have to generally be as permissive as you are with single unit that you are with middle housing. And so for instance, You couldn't require a lower height with middle housing than you are with single unit, just as an example. That's not what you're asking. So whether or not we could then require non-single unit housing, so in this case, let's say middle housing, to have privacy screens and not also then require it for a single unit that's of this size. I'm not sure if we would be able to do that under the law. I would also wonder, as far as privacy screens, if you'd actually be able to get them tall enough to meet what I'm kind of hearing.

Is there a first round from any councilors? I know Councilor Kuczynski would like a second round. Okay, Councilor Kuczynski and then Councilor Groves.

Yes, thank you. The vast majority of the changes that we've been making to our code surrounding middle housing, SROs, accessory dwelling units over the past five, six years, those have been state mandated, correct? Not all of them, but the majority of them. Is that right? I'm seeing, not in?

I think that's a fair characterization, yeah.

Okay, thank you. And when we're talking about how many people could live, especially when we're talking about the height limits, this is, we're talking about this for R1, and so the number of units would be based on the requirements of the R1 code, so you could have four units in a fourplex, IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO COTTAGES, SO WE ARE TALKING FOUR HOUSEHOLDS PROBABLY?

YEAH, SO WITH THE BONUS UNIT FRAMEWORK, THE MATH THAT STARTS TO get kind of funny in that if you qualify for being able to do bonus units, a triplex could have up to four units, so it's four triplex units. A fourplex could have two additional bonus units, so it's So all of that is to say that the numbers get a little bit wonky. But yes, we're still subject to density in the R1. And I will say that middle housing is not subject to a maximum density, and that's per state law, so.

And from a practical perspective, do we have a sense of how many folks are building to the lot lines? Just because if you start doing the math and you have a 4,500 square foot lot and this amount of open space requirement, if you're filling it all up at these number of stories, it feels like you're getting into some pretty large unit sizes. If you're only saying that there's four units and

Right. I think that the code uses a number of things that I think limit the developable area against kind of setting aside the bonus unit framework, which requires us to expand the developable area. But there's setbacks, there's maximum lot coverage, there's storm water requirements, there's a bunch of things that you put together that you may not actually be able to build all the way to a five foot setback. So I don't have numbers on how many folks are doing that, but I know that during the last middle housing code, process, we did run some numbers about the feasibility of all the way out to the five foot setbacks. And so we could dig some of that back up.

Okay, thank you. Speaking of the SRO conversion language, I understand that some of the intent of that is to keep someone from just building like a shack in their backyard and being like, it's an SRO, come use my bathroom. But I do feel like there might be a better, more flexible way to address that, because I'm thinking if somebody has a single family home, right now they could put a triplex in the backyard, make it a fourplex, and provide that housing that way. I wouldn't want to prohibit someone who wants to do something with a four unit SRO where it's not necessarily them coming into the main house to use the kitchen or the bathroom, but there's a separate facility set up for that SRO. And so I think looking at maybe a different way to meet that need to Continue to not prevent like something just being like oh, this is substandard housing, but also providing that additional flexibility the with height One thing I am particularly concerned about if we do Adjust the height limit is making sure that we adjust that in the special area zones also or making sure that because as it stands right now, I'm in a special area zone that is designated as medium density, and if we don't address that, then the height limits for the R1 low density zones will be higher than in the medium density area I am in. So I would like us to look at that, and finally, if someone's permitting something, how do we know if it's an SRO or a multi-unit dwelling of some type? Thank you, one second left.

They would have to clarify that on the site plans that they submit to the city. SROs are required to share either kitchen facilities or sanitary facilities, so they would need to kind of show which of those that they're sharing versus having kind of full dwelling units with both sanitary and kitchen facilities in the dwelling unit.

I think a clarification follow-up.

I guess I'm thinking about some of our student housing complexes where they have a unit that's like a five-bedroom unit and they're renting each unit out separately. How do we know the difference between that and renting each bedroom separately? How do we kind of know from a permitting? It's just up to them which one they pick.

That's a good question. I can do some digging on our land use team. I think it would be whatever they call it on their site plans, but we can confirm that.

Councillor Groves.

Thank you, Mayor. I have several questions about livability, neighborhood livability. First of all, I did vote in support of the UO in the Fairmont area with their petition, but not without some consternation. Now that the UO has paused that process, are there any active meetings going on between the UO and the Fairmont neighborhood group?

not that I know of, but we can find out and get back to you.

That'd be good. Alan, do you know about that? There aren't any. There aren't any. It'd be nice if we could encourage them to keep trying to work through this issue, because those were some legitimate concerns that the neighbors had. That was one. Second is, on my way to council tonight, I had business in the Whitaker area, and in the process, I was driving down West Fifth Avenue and drove by the new five-story apartment complex. And I noted that that stretch, there's no parking on the south side of Fifth Avenue, only on the north side. The street was full of vehicles. There were no parking spaces open. The side streets I looked down, they seemed to be pretty darn full as well. And that structure isn't even occupied yet. I also understand there's only six parking spaces for that whole apartment building, is that correct?

I don't know offhand the parking space number for that.

Well, I guess my question is, where's everybody going to park? Because they're going to have cars too. I realize it's a state legislative issue, but I mean, it's affecting our residents. And I mean, this is in Councilor Leach's ward, but it just made me pause to consider that. That's going to be a problem. And we already hear about parking all the time. And then I have one in my ward, too, that I'm sure you're very familiar with, the Vidara Oak Meadows development. The roadways going into that, I realize they're gonna be private streets. They aren't wide enough. In fact, I was on a Zoom call for a public hearing on that, and I raised the question, how's fire gonna operate? And the response was, well, it's wide enough that the trucks can fit down the street. My point, having done that work, once you hit the brakes, you've gotta be able to open your doors to get out of the cab, and then you have to be able to operate off both sides of the truck to get equipment, stretch hose lines, put a supply line in. It takes space, and that just isn't enough room. I think we need to rethink our roads. If we're gonna be having skinny streets, And then we have curb cutouts for driveways, we have fire hydrants. Where's everybody going to park? I mean, we live in this utopia that everybody's gonna ride the bus. Well, in my neighborhood, it's a mile and a half to the closest bus stop, down a steep hill and then back up a steep hill to get home. I just don't think we're being realistic about this. And again, I understand this is a state that's presenting this. But we're the ones that have to live with it. And I think we need to come up with some strategies to address that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Other discussion from Councillors? Councillor Keating.

Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the presentation and the direction with a little bit of hesitation and consternation. I'll share those with you now. I have several points of editorialization and then a few points of clarification, and so in no particular order. If anyone is interested to hear how residents respond to height in their neighborhood, take a drive down 32nd between Donald and Willamette in South Eugene. I voted no on the aforementioned vote to allow for the university to expand so aggressively into the Fairmont neighborhood because I wanted the university to collaborate better with the neighborhood. I'm saddened to hear that that's not happening. And if there are some patches of wetlands that are protected in this community and some patches of wetlands that are not, I'd submit we need to do a better job of protecting wetlands rather than mitigating that protection for the sake of building. And on the topic of building, I want to present a wish list, if I may, to the Planning Commission, if any Planning Commission members are keeping score at home tonight. I wish the Planning Commission would take up rezoning in the UGB to incentivize building on current commercial land or industrial land, commercial on the bottom and residential on the way up, especially along tier one transportation corridors. I don't see that in this option one package at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Instead, it feels as if it's a foregone conclusion that councils ultimately come options two or three down the road to expand our UGB, something I am wholly unenthusiastic about. I would much rather see us strategically build, incentivize or rezone, incentivize and appropriately build up and not out. And then feel free to comment at any time to cut me off. But I also recognize that there are buckets of state mandated AND THEN THERE ARE TWO, THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND THE STREAMLINING OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESS. NO, I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT THAT ONE. IT'S THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATES. ARE THOSE THE ONLY TWO THAT ARE NOT STATE MANDATED IN THIS OPTION ONE PACKAGE?

MICROVILLAGE HOUSING IS ALSO NOT STATE MANDATED.

THANK YOU.

And I do have comments on your upzoning comment when you're done with your comments.

Now batting, go ahead. I'd love to hear it. Thank you for the time and thank you for the presentation.

You are correct that we aren't talking about upzoning along corridors or around centers as part of this package, but we are bringing that forward as part of our third package next year, before the end of next year. So part of what our job is, is to look at how to HOW TO REGULATE AND WORK WITH OUR EXISTING LAND INSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IN AS EFFICIENT WAY AS POSSIBLE BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR UGB OR LAND MORE EFFICIENTLY. AND SO WE WILL BE DOING THAT. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU IN DECEMBER TO TALK ABOUT OUR LAND SUPPLY STUDIES AND HOW where we think we're going with that. And we'll need to get you to help us initiate this adoption package probably in January. So we'll be looking at land around our commercial centers and along our key corridors and how we can consider upzoning some of that low density residential land to higher density residential land looking at how we can more use our centers for mixed use housing and commercial lands. So that work has started internally, we just haven't brought it to you yet.

Other discussion from council or additional questions? Seeing none, I'll just add a few thoughts. One is a lot of appreciation for the work that staff has been doing to track the interface between changes in state law and the work that we have been doing to maintain compliance with successive years of work and the work that has been happening locally to try to meet our housing needs and one of the things I appreciate about the discussion and the presentation of these materials and this package is the emphasis on affordability and accessibility and I just want to offer a few framing thoughts related to that. One of them is from a recent event that I attended with Thousand Friends of Oregon and several other local organizations and regional groups. Some of the materials that have been shared broadly and that we know statewide in Oregon that we really need to focus our housing production on units that are affordable to households earning 120% AMI and below. And that I think the working understanding is that out of these many tens of thousands of units we need to produce statewide and even locally, that that focus on housing for our workforce being at the center of concerns and that housing that's appropriate for smaller households, one- and two-person households, and that is accessible to people who might have needs that are not most of us living in this relatively small window of time when we have all of our physical abilities in many cases and in other cases perhaps not and we have not produced nearly enough accessible housing within the existing stock that we have in our community. So I just want to underscore that because I think that the emphasis in the discussion today about bonus units and opportunities, that the focus of those bonuses being around issues of affordability and accessibility are critical to the work that we have to do to meet our community's housing needs. in a not abstract way, but that in talking with people who are a member of a small household, a person who has mobility needs or accessibility needs or has a particular very narrow window of affordability for their family, these types of units are going to be incredibly important. I also want to say that I really appreciate it and will continue to appreciate the conversation we'll have leading to the public hearing. and potential action before your end on this work as it relates to the number of complexities around allowable heights within R1. And I really want to appreciate the staff, the clarity of the information that you've shared to us, of the conversations and the visual information shared with Planning Commission and with the public. That's incredibly important. And in the second paragraph of our AIS summary, the number of opportunities that are in flux depending on different bonuses that could be qualified for, and I think that that's an important area of continued discussion. Because we want for our neighborhoods to feel like home, and we want for a diversity of units to be present, but there's work that we can do to navigate that gracefully. One question, which is just to clarify the existing allowable building height in our R1. If I just wanted to build a very large house just for myself with 10 bedrooms just for me, what would the allowable envelope for that structure be and how would it compare to the version that might house eight people or four different households?

So if we're talking about the R1 zone, right now the code would allow up to 30 feet in height measured at the highest point. And so that would be for a flat roof or anything less than a 612 pitch, which is that really steep pitch that we were showing in the third building on those graphics. Then there is an allowance for an additional seven feet if you do that 612 pitch. And so that is seven feet on top of the 30 feet and that's measured to the high point of the pitch of the roof. So you were saying just for a single unit, that's what's allowed. If you're doing and I know you didn't ask this, but if you're doing middle housing or anything that's 10 units or greater, there are allowances for additional building height through state law that we're currently implementing that we're required to implement. But at its core, for a single unit, that's what is allowed in R1.

Thank you very much. I think that that is an important reference point. I'm going to give myself another round unless there is a counselor who would like to jump in. The next question I have relates to package three and what was described about a focus on transit-oriented development and walkable opportunities for people expanding the transportation options that people might easily have access to. In so many cases, indeed in every case, people use what is available to them and if that is only driving, that it's going to mean a lot of driving for that household and probably more vehicle costs and transportation costs. We already know in our community that transportation costs are on average almost 25% of the average household's income. And so expanding the options for some of those trips to be not driving, but to be walking or using a bus or riding a bike, that's a really important part of not just our climate action planning, but our affordability planning. planning. Given the context we have when you describe corridors and some contexts and corridors where you have relatively shallow commercial zoning that exists along those corridors, how is our team thinking about the connection between this first package of work and a desire to see more housing options that are affordable and that are accessible within close proximity to corridors that would have frequent transit, transit access, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. How are we thinking about that transect or gradient of the development pattern between our large areas of R1 zoning and those areas where we know that we want for higher density mixed use buildings to occur but that there's sort of very little mediating or between those options and there are very few places in our community where that transition occurs because we had so few parcels and places where any of our medium density housing was ever allowed to be built prior to the middle housing changes. How are we looking at that transition and the connection between package one and package three?

Great question. I don't know that we're far enough along in the process to have a satisfactory answer on that. I mean, I think it's a great point and something we can be intentional about as we're bringing back concepts to you all. Right now we're looking at, you know, upzoning around centers. So around that existing commercial zoning and along our key corridors, I think there's Certainly still an outstanding question of how far from the corridor, how far from a center. Is there some sort of step down? I think all of those are valid options that we'll bring to you based on how much buildable land there might be, how much capacity we think we can get out of that, how it impacts the housing need that we have. So in addition to upzoning, there could be proposed development standards changes around density and height that might get at some of that transition that you're talking about, but we're not quite far enough along on the actual concepts.

We will, however, also be bringing some of this to you in package two, so you don't have to wait until package three. We're gonna bring our climate-friendly areas to you for adoption as part of package two. We're gonna start talking to you about our comprehensive plan chapters, which include our centers and key corridors, maps, and concept and policies, so we're starting to work towards the code work that goes into that. So there will be opportunities sooner.

Just so I can also add something in. I guess as far as adoption package one, you know, we're trying to make it easier to do middle housing and middle housing is coming in at a higher density. And so in the interim, you know, we may see more middle housing around centers or near corridors that would provide some of that, you know, medium like, you know, higher end low density, lower end medium density. around centers and corridors in the interim.

Thank you all very much. Councilor Evans.

Okay, so I'm going to go back to the privacy issue because I have a two-story house and our bedrooms and my office is on the second floor and I can look out my window and see into my neighbor's backyard, a couple of neighbors' backyards, but Are there best practices maybe from some other communities across the country that we can be able to borrow from that we can incorporate into our code to be able to, for lack of a better term, privacy standards?

Yeah, I mean, I think my answer would be the same. Apologies that I don't know, particularly given state law where we are in Oregon right now with the middle housing requirements. I would also say that any additional standards that we add will be adding costs to that housing development. So that is some consideration. But we can follow up and respond to you with better information than I don't know.

Yeah, I would appreciate us getting back some additional information that could better inform how we proceed with this and also looking at what additional costs would be incurred if we decided to implement something that would be more in line with protecting the visual access that we're most concerned about on this.

And just to be clear, you're saying for all housing?

I would say, yeah, for all housing, because, again, I mean, like I said, I can look out my back window and, you know, look, if my neighbor is tanning, I don't have that problem. But if my neighbor is tanning or something like that, I don't want to look down and see them, you know, doing their thing or whatever the case may be. But, you know, they're... There are some ways, or should be some ways, that we can protect privacy, hopefully without incurring major costs to do that. I have a two-story house, not three, so...

Any other discussion or questions from council? I'm going to resist the urge to encourage our community to seek out Friends of Trees and many other tree planting organizations that exist because we have an extraordinary opportunity to add to our urban forest canopy on private property and that is one very effective way. of doing some screening in some circumstances and I never miss a chance to encourage someone to plant some trees. But with that, I want to say thank you again to our staff that's here and to all of the staff that has been working on this material. and these several packages of work. It's presented very succinctly as packages, the complexity of the work and the interrelationship of this work with many requirements and our local goals and values is quite complicated and complex and I just want to appreciate all the effort that goes into that. Thank you to our Planning Commission as well for all of their work. With that, that concludes our agenda for this work session today, and I now close the September 14th, 2026 City Council Work Session. We are adjourned.