The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 11-26-18 Work SessionNovember 26, 2018, Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 26, 2018 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Meeting of November 26, 2018; Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding Councilors Mike Clark, President Betty Taylor, Vice President Greg Evans Chris Pryor Emily Semple Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue 1.Committee Reports and Items of Interest 2.WORK SESSION: Clear & Objective Housing– Approval Criteria Update 3.WORK SESSION: Rest Stop Program Update and Siting Policy Discussion November 26, 2018, Work Session The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana. For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Clear & Objective Housing– Approval Criteria Update Meeting Date: November 26, 2018 Agenda Item: 2 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Jenessa Dragovich www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8385 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will be provided with a project update of the Clear & Objective Housing: Approval Criteria Update, including the Draft Preferred Concepts Report. The City Council is requested to review the draft concepts and provide direction to advance concepts forward to drafting land use code changes. BACKGROUND As part of the Envision Eugene urban growth boundary process, in 2015, City Council initiated several projects. These included establishing a baseline UGB, establishing urban reserves, growth monitoring, and updating the City’s needed housing (clear and objective) regulations. Related to the City’s needed housing regulations, the council specifically directed the following actions: - Update the City’s procedures and approval criteria for needed housing applications (applications to develop housing in areas identified for housing in the City’s buildable lands inventory and housing needs analysis). - Target for City consideration of proposed updates: within one year of State acknowledgement of the baseline UGB. Through this project, Eugene’s existing clear and objective approval criteria are being reevaluated and updated. Proposed updates must meet the following goals: • accommodate housing on lands available within our current urban growth boundary • provide a clear and objective path to land use approval for all housing as required by State law • guide future housing development in a way that reflects our community’s values The project will identify land use approval criteria and procedures to be updated, added or removed to improve efficiency in complying with State requirements for clear and objective regulations, while still effectively addressing development impacts. As a reminder, state law requires that local governments adopt and apply clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of all housing. The intent of this November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 requirement is to ensure that communities provide a predictable path to approval for housing projects and that path does not rely on discretionary or subjective criteria. This may include development standards such as setbacks and building height that apply to housing at the time of building permit as well as land use application criteria that apply to land use applications for the development of housing. Cities that provide a clear and objective land use application approval path may also adopt alternative or “discretionary” approval criteria that developers may elect to follow to, for example, allow greater flexibility in housing development proposals. On May 8, 2018, staff provided the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the Clear & Objective Housing: Approval Criteria Update. Staff presented the project to the Eugene City Council on May 30, 2018, and returned to Planning Commission for approval of the Public Involvement Plan on June 25, 2018. In email communications dated September 11, 2018, staff provided the Commission and City Council the Summary of Key Issues Report produced at the end of Phase 1 of the project. On November 19, 2018, staff presented the proposed preferred concepts to the Planning Commission. All of the documents associated with this project are available on the project website. Draft Preferred Concepts The Draft Preferred Concept report (provided as Attachment A) is the outcome of Phase 2 of this project. The report presents staff recommendations on how to address the 37 key issues identified during Phase 1 of the project (and described in the Summary of Key Issues Report). The report is organized to present the preferred concepts for 18 maintenance issues followed by preferred concepts for the 19 significant issues that were discussed with stakeholder working groups. • Maintenance Issues represent procedural changes or amendments that can improve consistency between the clear and objective and discretionary review tracks, improve consistency with other sections of the land use code, or otherwise improve efficiency or effectiveness. They require code revisions that are relatively straightforward. These maintenance level issues were not addressed as part of the working group sessions as they offer readily-available solutions that require less attention and discussion relative to the larger, more challenging issues that were discussed by the working groups. • Significant Issues represent core challenges identified in the clear and objective approval criteria that involve larger policy questions affecting a range of stakeholders. Due to the limited timeframe to consider issues and the already high demand on participant time, working group time was focused on addressing the significant issues. The recommendations in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report were derived using: input from working groups; research into the issues and possible concepts; consultation with internal staff who work with the land use application review process daily; and a concept evaluation rubric for the 19 significant issues. For these reasons, in some cases recommendations may not reflect the apparent preference of the working group. In these instances, an explanation for the discrepancy is provided. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 Public Outreach As part of Phase 2 outreach, a series of four working group meetings were held to engage stakeholders in discussions related to significant key issues identified during Phase 1 of the project. Over the course of Phase 2, the interested parties list has grown to over 80 members. Meeting invites and reminders were sent to all interested parties. In addition, an outreach flyer was provided to various City committees such as the Housing Policy Board, the Sustainability Commission, Historic Review Board, and the Active Transportation Committee, and project updates were included monthly in the Envision Eugene e-newsletter that reaches over 1,500 community members. The project was also highlighted at the October 10, 2018, Planning Project Fair, which was attended by over 100 people. Over 40 stakeholders representing neighborhood associations and residents, housing builders and developers, design professionals, housing advocates, and affordable housing providers attended some or all of the four three-hour working group meetings. Meeting videos and materials, along with online surveys, were provided on the project website so that anyone wanting to participate had access to the required resources. Staff also offered four two-hour drop-in “office hour” sessions for anyone wanting to ask more questions about the project, the land use process, or the issues and possible concepts discussed at the working groups. Planning Commission Review Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Preferred Concepts Report at a November 19, 2018, work session. In an effort to be both responsive and responsible to City Council’s direction while also addressing concerns raised by some stakeholders about lack of time, Planning Commission was asked by staff to focus its review on the maintenance issues and the less complex significant issues (identified in italics below). The intent is to allow stakeholders and the Planning Commission to take extra time on the more complex significant issues over the next month or so to ensure sufficient consideration and vetting, while the maintenance issues and less complex significant issues continue to move forward. • Compatibility for CUP, SR & PUD (COS-01) • 30-Foot Buffer Requirement For PUDs (COS-02) • Emergency Response (COS-08) • Conditional Use Requirement (COS-09) • Partition Tree Preservation (COS-10) • Site Review Requirement (COS-12) • 19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal (COS-14) • PUD Requirement (COS-16) • Arborist and Landscape Architect Requirement (COS-18) • Pedestrian Definition(COS-20) • 20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition for ST & PUD (COS-03) • One Acre Accessible Open Space For PUDs (COS-04) • Limitation Over 900 Feet For PUDs (South Hills) (COS-05) • Ridgeline Setback For PUDs (South Hills) (COS-06) • 40 Percent Open Space Requirement For PUDs (South Hills) (COS-07) November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 • Tree Preservation Consideration (COS-11) • Geotechnical Requirement (COS-13) • Traffic Impact (COS-15) • Street Standards Modifications (COS-19) The draft proposed solutions are conceptual only. Actual code language will be crafted in the next phase of the project (Phase 3), after the conceptual solutions have been vetted. This approach is designed to narrow the focus of the code writing process. Community members, the Planning Commission, and City Council will be asked to review the draft code language during Phase 3. Staff will provide a summary of feedback received at the November 19, 2018, Planning Commission meeting as well as public feedback. Next Steps At the November 26, 2018, work session, City Council will be asked to advance the maintenance concepts and the less complex significant concepts forward to the draft land use code writing phase (Phase 3). For the more complex significant issues, staff will ask for additional feedback from stakeholders and the Planning Commission before returning to City Council to proceed on those issues. Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a work session on these issues on December 11, 2018. Phase 3 will involve drafting proposed land use code changes based on the Preferred Concepts Report. Once drafted, proposed land use code changes will be provided to interested parties for review and comment. In early 2019, the proposed draft code language will be brought back to Planning Commission and to the City Council for review prior to the start of the formal adoption process. The formal adoption process will include a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to City Council, followed by City Council public hearing and action. The project website is updated regularly with information about where the process is at as well as resources, as they are available. RELATED CITY POLICIES Envision Eugene Pillars The most pertinent pillars from Envision Eugene are: • Provide Housing Affordable to all Income Levels • Promote Compact Urban Development and Efficient Transportation Options • Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability • Provide for Adaptable, Flexible and Collaborative Implementation COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Advance the maintenance concepts and the significant concepts identified in this AIS as less complex to the draft land use code writing phase. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 2. Advance the maintenance concepts and the less complex concepts with specific modifications 3. Decline to advance the maintenance concepts and the less complex significant concepts. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council advance the maintenance concepts and the significant concepts identified in this AIS as less complex to the draft land use code writing phase. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to advance the maintenance concepts and the significant concepts identified in this agenda item summary as less complex to the draft land use code writing phase. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Preferred Concepts Report FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jenessa Dragovich Telephone: 541-682-8385 Staff E-Mail: jdragovich@eugene-or.gov August 21, 2018 DRAFT Summary of Key Issues: Introduction Page 0 of 59 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING APPROVAL CRITERIA UPDATE This report is a compiled set of recommended preferred concepts for addressing the issues identified by interested parties during Phase 1 outreach efforts. Significant issues were discussed in a series of Working Group meetings during Phase 2 that informed these recommendations. DRAFT PREFERRED CONCEPTS REPORT Dated November 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT A November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Introduction Page 1 of 59 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report Introduction As part of the Envision Eugene urban growth boundary (UGB) process, in 2015, the Eugene City Council provided direction on housing by initiating several projects. These included establishing a baseline urban growth boundary (UGB), establishing urban reserves, growth monitoring, and updating the City’s needed housing (clear and objective) regulations for land use applications. Related to the City’s needed housing regulations, the Council specifically directed the following: Update the City’s procedures and approval criteria for needed housing applications. Target for City consideration of proposed updates: within 1 year of State acknowledgement of the baseline UGB. Multiple factors contribute to the need to update the City’s existing land use application approval criteria and procedures for housing developments. As identified in 2012, during the Envision Eugene process, Eugene will need to accommodate approximately 15,000 new homes within our urban growth boundary (UGB) by 2032. We will need to find a way to efficiently accommodate this growth while preserving the community’s values regarding livability, public health and safety, and natural resource protection. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.307(4) requires that housing developers must have access to an approval process that applies only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of housing. In addition, ORS 197.307(4)(b) requires that the clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures may not discourage housing through unreasonable cost or delay. Standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing include development standards such as setbacks and building height that apply to housing at the time of building permit, as well as land use application approval criteria that apply to the development of housing. In 2001-2002, as part of a major update to the City’s land use code, the Eugene City Council adopted a two -track system for the following types of land use applications: partitions, subdivisions, site reviews, conditional use permits and planned unit developments. One track allows applicants to use the “clear and objective” approval criteria required by ORS 197.307(4). In Eugene’s land use code, these clear and objective tracks are called the “Needed Housing” tracks. The Needed Housing tracks are intended to offer a predictable path to approval for housing projects that meet the approval criteria contained in the track. The City also offers land use applicants an alternative process that includes discretionary (i.e. subjective) approval criteria. The discretionary track is designed to allow more flexibility in how projects may meet development standards. In Eugene’s land use code, these discretionary tracks are called “General” tracks. Housing applicants are entitled to choose either track. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Introduction Page 2 of 59 Through this project, Eugene’s existing clear and objective land use application approval criteria and procedures will be evaluated and may be updated to meet the following goals: accommodate growth on lands available within our current UGB continue to provide a clear and objective path to land use approval for all housing as required by State law guide future development in a way that ref lects our community’s values The Clear & Objective Housing: Approval Criteria Update kicked off earlier this year, following State acknowledgement of the baseline UGB in January 2018. As detailed in the project charter and public involvement plan, this project will be completed in four phases. Phase 1 included outreach to stakeholders, an external land use code audit, and an internal legal analysis that helped to identify the range of issues to be addressed within the scope of this land use code update. Phase 1 culminated in the Summary of Key Issues report. Phase 2, the current phase, used the Summary of Key Issues to engage stakeholders in a series of Working Group meetings where participants dove into the details of the code, responded to possible concepts and brainstormed new options. About This Report As part of Phase 2 outreach, a series of four working group meetings were held to engage stakeholders in discussions related to 19 significant key issues identified during Phase 1 of the Clear & Objective Housing Approval Criteria Update. Over the course of Phase 2, the interested parties list has grown to over 80 members. Meeting invites and reminders were sent to all interested parties. In addition, an outreach flyer was provided to various City committees such as the Housing Policy Board, the Sustainability Commission, Historic Review Board, and the Active Transportation Committee and project updates were included monthly in the Envision Eugene e- newsletter that reaches over 1,500 community members. Over 40 stakeholders representing neighborhood associations and residents, housing builders and developers, design professionals, housing advocates and affordable housing providers attended some or all of the working group meetings. The following is a list of meeting attendees: Zoe Anton Bill Aspegren Steve Baker Ron Bevirt Alexis Biddle Gwen Burkard Erik Burke Renee Clough Seda Collier Paul Conte Ted Coopman Michael DeLuise Eric Dil John Faville Jan Fillinger Tresa Hackford Laurie Hauber Susan Hoffman Maureen Jackson Carolyn Jacobs Margie James Kaarin Knudson Mary Leontovich Colin McArthur Ed McMahon Jonathan Oakes Keli Osborn Darcy Phillips Tom Price Bill Randall Kevin Reed Kelly Sandow Rick Satre Carol Schirmer Kevin Shanley Kristen Taylor Nathaniel Teich Tash Wilson Sue Wolling Pam Wooddell Jan Wostmann Stacey Yates Kelsey Zievor This project was designed to be accessible to everyone. Meeting videos and materials along with online surveys were provided on the project website so that anyone wanting to participate had access to the November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Introduction Page 3 of 59 required materials. We also offered four two-hour drop-in “office hour” sessions for anyone wanting to ask more questions about the project, the land use process, or the issues and possible concepts discussed at the working groups. A compilation of the written comments received is included in Appendix A . This report is organized to present the preferred concepts for maintenance issues first followed by preferred concepts for the significant issues that were discussed with working groups. As a reminder, the items identified as maintenance issues represent procedural changes or amendments that can create consistency between the clear and objective and discretionary review tracks , consistency with other sections of the land use code, or otherwise improve efficiency or effectiveness. They require only maintenance-level code revisions that are relatively straightforward. These maintenance level issues were not addressed as part of the working group sessions as they offer readily-available solutions that require less attention and discussion relative to the larger, more challenging issues that were discussed by the working groups. In contrast the significant issues represent core challenges identified in the clear and objective approval criteria, and solutions raise larger policy questions that will affect a range of stakeholders. Due to the limited timeframe to consider issues, and the already high demand on participant time, working group time was focused on addressing the significant issues. The recommendations contained in this report were derived using input from the working groups, research into the issues and possible concepts, consultation with internal staff who work with the land use application review process daily, and a concept evaluation rubric for the 19 significant issues (COS- XX). For these reasons, in some cases recommendations may not reflect the apparent preference from the working group results. In these instances, an explanation for the discrepancy is provided. The draft, proposed solutions are conceptual only. Actual code language will be crafted in the next phase of the project (Phase 3), after conceptual solutions have been vetted. This approach is designed to narrow the focus of the code writing process. Community members, the Planning Commission an d City Council will be asked to review the draft code language during Phase 3. This review and feedback will help determine the finer details and appropriate amounts for implementing specific requirements. All recommendations in this report are subject to Planning Commission review and modification, and ultimately require approval by City Council in order to move ahead to Phase 3, drafting proposed code changes. Organization of this report includes a summary table provided at the beginning of each section, followed by the following information for each issue: Description : Includes a brief explanation of the particular key issue. Applies to : Identifies the type of the land use application(s) that the issue applies to. Currently, there are clear and objective approval criteria for five types of land use applications: conditional use permits, site reviews, partitions, planned unit developments and subdivisions. Existing Code Section(s): Provides the pertinent section number(s) of Eugene Code Chapter 9 (land use code). November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Introduction Page 4 of 59 Existing Code Language : Includes excerpts of the relevant land use code sections. Concept Evaluation Table : Table showing the evaluation of each possible concept according to the described evaluation criteria. Recommendation : Explains the recommended solution, including the rationale behind the recommendation. This section may also include additional background or supporting information that resulted from researching the issue and the possible concepts. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 5 of 59 Maintenance Issues: Summary Table of Preferred Concepts Several identified issues represent procedural changes or amendments that would create consistency between the clear and objective and discretionary review tracks, consistency with other sections of the land use code, or otherwise improve efficiency or effectiveness. They require only maintenance-level code revisions that are relatively straightforward. These maintenance level issues were not addressed as part of the working group sessions as they offer readily-available solutions that require less attention and discussion relative to the larger, more challenging issues that were discussed by the working groups. Maintenance Issue Preferred Concept Reason COM-01 Needed Housing Criterion For conditional use, partition, planned unit development, site review, and su bdivision applications , remove criterion that requires applicant to demonstrate that the proposed housing is needed housing . Consistency with State Law COM-02 Applicable Standards Reference for CUPs For conditional use, revise the language to require compliance with all applicable standards (instead of using “including but not limited to”) and add additional development standards to the list of standards, including public improvement and street standards. Consistency with other clear and objective application types COM-03 Bonding Requirement For conditional use permits and site reviews, revise the timing specified to construct or bond for required public improvements to be prior to issuance of a development permit. For final planned unit developments no t associated with land divisions, add a criterion, similar to that required for final subdivisions, to require that public improvements be completed or bonded prior to approval of the final application. Effectiveness COM-04 Overlay Zone Standards Revise the clear and objective track approval criteria for the five application types to include compliance with the lot dimensions and density requirements in overlay zones. Use the same language provided for the discretionary track applications to require compliance with: “Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions and density requirements.” Consistency with discretionary track COM-05 Planned Unit Deve lopment Adjustment/Modification Replace criterion that requires compliance with “all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application except where the applicant has shown that a modification is consistent with the purposes as set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development” with a requirement for compliance with “all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application” and continue to allow for adjustment reviews. Efficiency, Effectiveness November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 6 of 59 Maintenance Issue Preferred Concept Reason COM-06 Non-Conforming Reference for ST & PT No change Efficiency, Effectiveness COM-07 Access Management Requirement Remove criterion Efficiency, Effectiveness COM-08 Perpendicular Lot Sides No change Efficiency, Effectiveness COM-09 Natural Resource Protection Requirement Remove Criterion Efficiency, Effectiveness COM-10 Solar Lot Standards For planned unit developments, remove standard that requires compliance with solar lot standards, if subdivisions and planned unit developments are reviewed concurrently (See Issue # COM-11, below). Consistency, Efficiency COM-11 PUD/Subdivision Concurrent Review Revise to allow concurrent review of tentative planned unit development and tentative subdivision or partition applications. Efficiency COM-12 Review Track Renaming Rename the review tracks “Clear and Objective” (instead of Needed Housing) and “Discretionary” (instead of General). Change references to these review tracks and to “Needed Housing” throughout Chapter 9 as needed. Consistency with State law COM-13 Site Review Street Standards For site reviews, add compliance with Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (EC 9.6800 through 9.6875) as an approval criterion. Consistency with discretionary track COM-14 Duplicate Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting Provide an exception under the neighborhood/applicant meeting requirement at EC 9.7007 for subdivisions and partitions when processed in conjunction with a planned unit development. Efficiency COM-15 Special Safety Requirements Reference No change Consistency with discretionary track COM-16 Off-Site Bike/Ped Connections For site reviews and conditional use, add the requirement for off -site connections for bike and pedestrian ways that already applies to partitions, planned unit developments and subdivisions. Consistency with other clear and objective application types COM-17 Application Requirement Criterion No change at this time. Effectiveness COM-18 Does Not Hamper Provision Of Public Open Space For subdivisions, add new criterion that requires connection to adjacent City owned park land, open space or ridgeline trail, unless Public Works Director determines such a connection is not necessary. Consistency with discretionary track November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 7 of 59 COM-01 (N EEDED HOUSING CRITERION) Description : Each of the five land use application types includes an approval criterion that requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed housing is “needed housing” as defined by State statutes. Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8100(1), EC 9.8220(1), EC 9.8325(1), EC 9.8445(1), EC 9.8520(1) Existing Code Language : (1) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes. Recommendation : Remove criterion that requires applicant to demonstrate that the proposed housing is needed housing from the approval criteria for conditional use, partition, planned unit development, site review, and subdivision applications. This criterion is no longer relevant, because, as a result of recent changes to State law, all housing, not just needed housing, must have access to a clear and objective review track. Senate Bill 1051, which became effective in August 2017, amended ORS 197.307(4) to require local governments “adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and proc edures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing.” Previously, the statute only applied to “needed housing on buildable land.” With the revision to the statute, it is clear that all housing in Eugene is entitled to a clear and objective path to approval. COM-02 (APPLICABLE STANDARDS REFERENCE) Description : One of the conditional use permit approval criteria under the clear and objective track requires compliance with “all applicable standards including, but not limited to” those stand ards listed in the subsection. This wording is inconsistent with similar criteria for other application types, which require compliance with “all of the following” standards and include a comprehensive list of standards. In addition, the list of standards for clear and objective conditional use applications does not include several standards addressed under the discretionary track. Applies To : Conditional Use Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8100(4) Existing Code Language : (4) The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including, but not limited to: (a) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards. (b) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (c) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. (d) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. (e) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 8 of 59 (f) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. (g) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (h) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. (i) An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. Recommendation : Revise the language to ensure compliance with all applicable standards , instead of “all applicable standards, including, but not limited to .” Add the following additional development standards to the above list at EC 9.8100(4): EC 9.2000 through 9.4170 regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and density requirements for the subject zone and overlay zone; EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards; and EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways This project provides a valuable maintenance opportunity to address small inconsistencies between the existing clear and objective review tracks. This change will make the conditional use language consistent with the code language used in similar criteria for other review tracks. Bringing consistency between the review tracks adds clarity and avoids the need to determine whether the difference in language indicates a difference in meaning. COM-03 (B ONDING REQUIREMENT) Description : One of the clear and objective approval criteria for conditional use permits and site reviews requires that public improvements be constructed or bonded before the application is approved. The final planned unit development criteria do not include a requirement to complete or bond for public improvements. Instead, this is listed as an application submittal requirement. Applies To : Conditional Use, Site Review, Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): 9.8100(5), 9.8445(5), 9.8360(4) Existing Code Language : (5) Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative plan approval have been completed, or: (a) A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the completion of all required public improvements; or (b) A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the conditional use permit, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer. Recommendation : For conditional use and site review, revise the timing specified to construct or bond for required public improvements to be prior to issuance of a development permit . For final planned unit developments not associated with land divisions, add an approval criterion to require that public improvements be completed or bonded prior to approval of the final application (similar to that required for final subdivision). November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 9 of 59 This project provides a valuable maintenance opportunity to address small inconsistencies between the existing clear and objective review tracks. Revising the criterion for conditional use and site review is recommended as the existing criterion is written for application types that go through a two-step approval process (tentative followed by final). Conditional use and site review both follow a one-step approval process and do not have a tentative plan approval phase like subdivisions or planned unit developments. The timing of this criterion is problematic as it requires that improvements be constructed or bonded at the time an application is submitted for review, when those improvements are not required or specified in the conditions of approval until issuance of the decision. It would be more accurate and effective to change the timing requirement to be prior to issuance of a development permit. For planned unit developments, adding the approval criterion will make stand-alone planned unit development review consistent with subdivision review when public improvements are proposed or required. As brought up in COM-17, application submittal requirements are not approval criteria. Approval of an application can only be based on compliance with approval criteria. Moving this requirement from application requirements to approval criteria will be more effective at ensuring required public improvements be completed or bonded. COM-04 (O VERLAY ZONE S TANDARDS) Description : The discretionary tracks for partitions, planned unit developments, site reviews, and subdivisions include a criterion that requires compliance with lot dimensions and density requirements in the base and overlay zones. However, the clear and objective tracks limit compliance with the lot dimensions and density requirements to the base zones, and do not explicitly require compliance with lot dimension and density requirements in overlay zones. Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8220(2)(a), EC 9.8325(7)(a), EC 9.8445(4)(a), EC 9.8520(3)(a) Existing Code Language : (2) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: (a) Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding applicable parcel dimensions and density requirements. . . Recommendation : Revise the clear and objective track approval criteria for all five clear and objective application types to include compliance with the lot dimensions and density requirements in overlay zones. Use the same language provided for the discretionary track applications to require compliance with: “Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions and density requirements.” This project provides a valuable maintenance opportunity to address small inconsistencies between the existing clear and objective track and the discretionary review track. This change will make the clear and objective language match the discretionary language, which is more inclusive as it includes compliance with lot dimension and density requirements in overlay zones. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 10 of 59 COM-05 (P LANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT/MODIFICATION) Description : The clear and objective track for planned unit developments include a criterion that requires compliance with “all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the appl ication except where the applicant has shown that a modification is consistent with the purposes as set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development.” This criterion appears to overlap with the option to modify standards that apply to planned unit developments through an approved adjustment pursuant to EC 9.8015. EC 9.8325(7) (provided below) requires compliance with a list of standards, and also states that an “approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard.” Many of the development standards are adjustable. Since an approved adjustment —according to approval criteria specific to the standard being adjusted—expressly constitutes compliance with the required standard, these subsections (7) and (11) largely overlap. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(7), EC 9.8325(11) Existing Code Language : (7) The PUD complies with all of the following: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1.The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2.The /WQ Management Area. (b) EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. (c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards. (d) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. (f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. (g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. (i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. (11) The PUD complies with all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application except where the applicant has shown that a modification is consistent with the purposes as set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. Recommendation : Remove the criterion at EC 9. 8325 (11) that requires compliance with “all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application except where the applicant has shown that a modification is consistent with the purposes as set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development,” add November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 11 of 59 a requirement at EC 9.8325(7) that requires compliance with “all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the application” and continue to allow adjustment reviews. During public engagement, confusion and/or disagreement emerged around how al lowing for an adjustment review process could be consistent with having a clear and objective path to approval. State law allows for an alternative discretionary process as long as an applicant retains the option of proceeding under the clear and objective process. As such, discretionary adjustment approval is allowed, because the applicant is only subject to the discretionary adjustment process when they choose this discretionary option as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective standard. Adjustment review is a valuable tool to seek an efficient and effective alternative solution when particular situations or site characteristics do not fit (or were not anticipated) in a one- sized-fits all regulation or to allow creative proposals that meet or exceed the intent of development standards. Subsection (11) is largely redundant with subsection (7), and it causes confusion when some standards can be adjusted and others can be modified, but by different means and metrics. Limiting the path to modify standards to the adjustment review process will provide clarity in the PUD review. In addition, the adjustment review approval criteria specifically address the standard to be adjusted, as compared to the modification, which only requires compliance with the high level purpose statement of the PUD section. COM-06 (N ON-CONFORMING REFERENCE) Description : As part of a clear and objective partition or subdivision, new non-conforming situations must not be created, meaning that any existing dwelling or structure on the property must continue to comply with applicable development standards, such as setbacks, lot coverage, density, use and parking, after the land is divided. Applies To : Partition, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8220(3), EC 9.8520(4) Ex isting Code Language : 9.8220(3) The proposed partition will not cause any existing improvements on proposed lots to be inconsistent with applicable standards in this land use code. 9.8520(4) The proposed subdivision will not cause any existing improvements on proposed lots to be inconsistent with applicable standards in this land use code. Recommendation : No change to existing criteria. This issue was identified in the land use code audit as a possible change to add clarity. There are limited cases where a land division could create a new non-conforming situation (such as an existing building located closer to proposed lot lines than allowed by setbacks), and the existing criterion is sufficient to address those. Given the number of higher-priority issues to address and the absence of known problems, this issue does not merit additional consideration. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 12 of 59 COM-07 (A CCESS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT) Description : There is a clear and objective track criterion for partitions that requires compliance with access management guidelines of the agency having jurisdiction over the street. Applies To : Partition Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8220(4) Existing Code Language : (4) Partitions abutting collector and arterial streets comply with access management guidelines of the agency having jurisdiction over the street. Recommendation : Remove criterion. After checking with City of Eugene Public Works staff, our conclusion is that this criterion is redundant and unnecessary . This criterion pre-dates the City’s adoption of access management standards, which partitions are also required to meet. Additionally, compliance with access management guidelines of other jurisdictional agencies is required under the respective agency’s authority and regulations. Adding an informational item to the decision when a partition abuts collector and arterial streets under the jurisdiction of an outside agency would be simpler and just as effective. COM-08 (P ERPENDICULAR LOT SIDES) Description : The discretionary criteria for partitions and subdivisions include a requirement that "As far as is practicable, lot side lines run at right angles to the street upon which the lots face, except that on curved streets they are radial to the curve .” This requirement is not included in the clear and objective criteria. Applies To : Partition, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : No change. (Do not add new criterion) This issue was identified in the land use code audit as a possible change for consistency with the discretionary tracks. There are no apparent past issues or concerns with not having a clear and objective version of this criterion; therefore, it would not be efficient or effective to add a new criterion in the absence of a demonstrated need. COM-09 (N ATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENT) Description : There is discrepancy between how the clear and objective criterion for protecting natural resource areas is written for various application types. The criterion for conditional use includes a minimum 50 foot buffer beyond the perimeter of the natural resource areas, whereas the criterion for planned unit developments, site reviews and subdivisions do not include this additional protected buffer. Additionally, this criterion is not included in the clear and objective approval criteria for partitions. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 13 of 59 Applies To : Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8100(3)(b), EC 9.8325(4)(b), EC 9.8445(3)(b), EC 9.8520(7)(b) Existing Code Language : 9.8100(3)(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as “Natural Resource” are protected. Protection shall include the area of the resource and a minimum 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the natural resource area. 9.8325(4)(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as “Natural Resource” are protected. 9.8445(3)(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as “Natural Resource” are protected. 9.8520(7)(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as “Natural Resource.” Recommendation : Remove criteria. Currently there are only two sites formally designated as Natural Resource areas on the adopted comprehensive plan (Metro Plan) diagram. These sites, which are the “Willow Creek Natural Area” and the “Bertelsen Nature Park,” are already effectively protected by way of public ownership and long -term management for natural resource values, as well as through other land use regulations. More specifically, the sites are designated for protection as high value wetlands in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, with /WB Wetland Buffer zoning overlays that provide 100-foot development setbacks and use regulations, making these land use application approval criteria superfluous and redundant. As such, these criteria should be removed for the sake of efficiency and to eliminate regulatory redundancy. COM-10 (SOLAR LOT STANDARDS) Description : The solar lot standards apply to the creation of lots within subdivisions in the R-1 Low Density Residential and R-2 Medium Density Residential zones. Compliance with the solar lot standards is specifically called out as an approval criterion in the clear and objective track for tentative planned unit developments, even though standards apply at the time of subdivision (when the lots are created). This ensures that any lot layout proposed in a planned unit development will be consistent with the solar lot standards at the time of subdivision, as planned unit developments and subdivisions cannot currently be reviewed concurrently. Applies To : Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(10), EC 9.8520(3)(a), EC 9.2790 Existing Code Language : 9.8325(10) Lots proposed for development with one-family detached dwellings shall comply with EC 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards (these standards may be modified as set forth in subsection (11) below). 9.8520(3) The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following, unless specifically exempt from November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 14 of 59 compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. . . 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards. (1) Applicability. Solar lot standards apply to the creation of lots within subdivisions in R-1 and R-2 zones. (2) Solar Lot Requirements. In R-1 and R-2, at least 70% percent of the lots in a subdivision shall be designed as “solar lots” and shall have a minimum north -south dimension of 75 feet and a front lot line orientation that is within 30 degrees of the true east-west axis. For purposes of this subsection, a lot proposed for more than one dwelling unit shall count as more than one lot, according to the number of units proposed (e.g. a lot proposed for a fourplex shall be considered 4 lots). (See Figure 9.2790(2) Solar Lot Requirements.) *** Recommendation : Remove standard from planned unit development approval criteria (EC 9.8325(10)) based on related recommendation to allow tentative subdivisions and tentative planned unit development reviews concurrently (see issue # COM-11). Solar lot standards only apply to the creation of lots within subdivisions in the R-1 Low-Density Residential and R-2 Medium-Density Residential zones. Without concurrent review for subdivisions and planned unit developments, as is currently the process, the requirement in the planned unit development criteria is intended to ensure that the lot layout approved in the tentative PUD will be approvable under the tentative subdivision. While the solar lot standards do not apply directly to PUDs, having this criterion makes sense given the order of application processing, i.e., tentative planned unit development followed by tentative subdivision. If the recommendation to allow concurrent review of tentative planned unit developments and tentative subdivisions is implemented, then the need for this criterion under the planned unit development will no longer exist; therefore, removal is recommended if the concurrent review option is implemented. COM-11 (PUD/SUBDIVISION CONCURRENT REVIEW) Description : Planned unit developments are a two-step process (tentative, followed by final). When there is an associated land division (subdivision or partition) to create new lots, the tentative planned unit development must be finalized prior to submittal of the tentative partition or subdivision. (EC 9.8205 and 9.8505) Together this means three stages of review for many developments: tentative planned unit development review, followed by final planned unit development and tentative subdivision or partition plan review combined, and finally, review of the final subdivision or partition plan. Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8205, EC 9.8505 Existing Code Language : 9.8205 Applicability of Partition, Tentative Plan Applications . Requests to create 2 or 3 parcels shall be subject to the partition provisions of this land use code, following a Type II application procedure. A partition application that also involves a PUD request may not be submitted until a decision on the tentative PUD approval is final. (Refer to EC 9.8305 Applicability.) No November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 15 of 59 development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the tentative partition application. 9.8505 Applicability of Subdivision, Tentative Plan Applications. Requests to create 4 or more lots shall be subject to the subdivision provisions of this land use code under a Type II application process. A subdivision application that also involves a PUD request may not be submitted until a decision on the tentative PUD approval is final. (Refer to EC 9.8305 Applicability.) No development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the subdivision tentative plan application. Recommendation : Revise code to allow concurrent review of tentative planned unit development and tentative subdivision or partition applications. This issue was brought up in the land use code audit, by staff and by stakeholders. The criteria for tentative planned unit development and land divisions have significant overlap and it is feasible that they be reviewed concurrently. Allowing concurrent review would add efficiency to the process when both application types are required. The current order of operations involves tentative PUD approval followed by tentative subdivision or partition concurrent with final PUD, then review of the final subdivision or partition. A concurrent review would consolidate this process into two stages of review. Additionally, the recommendation for the previous issue, COM-10, is related to this proposed change as allowing concurrent review would eliminate the need for a criterion in the PUD track that is solely necessary to prevent tentative PUD approval of a lot configuration that might not meet all subdivision requirements. Concurrent review would prevent that outcome. Allowing concurrent review would provide added efficiency for applicants, promote more efficient use of staff resources and provide clarity for interested parties. COM-12 (R EVIEW TRACK RENAMING) Description : Using the terms "Needed Housing" and "General" to identify the “Clear and Objective” track and the “Discretionary” track, respectively, is confusing now that State law mandates that all housing (not just needed housing) is entitled to clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures. Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): Multiple code references will need to be revised. Example provided below for EC 9.8220. Existing Code Language : Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a partition based on compliance with the following criteria: Recommendation : Rename the review tracks “Clear and Objective for Housing” (instead of Needed Housing) and “Discretionary” (instead of General). Change references to these review tracks and to “Needed Housing” throughout Chapter 9 as needed. State law now mandates that all housing—not just needed housing —is entitled to clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures. Considering this change in State law, calling the State mandated clear and objective November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 16 of 59 review track “needed housing” is confusing. Renaming the tracks “Clear and Objective for Housing” and “Discretionary,” respectively, will add consistency with State law and clearly identify the separate review options. COM-13 (SITE REVIEW STREET STANDARDS) De scription : The clear and objective criteria for site review does not include compliance with the Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (EC 9.6800 through 9.6875); however, it is included under the discretionary track. Applies To : Site Review Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : Add compliance with Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (EC 9.6800 through 9.6875) as an approval criterion for site reviews. Adding a criterion to the clear and objective site review track to require compliance with EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways will provide consistency between the discretionary and clear and objective tracks for site review applications . COM-14 (DUPLICATE NEIGHBORHOOD/APPLICANT MEETING) Description : A second neighborhood/applicant meeting is required for tentative subdivisions or partitions in cases when one was already required for an associated tentative planned unit development . Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.7007 Existing Code Language : 9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings. (1) This section applies to the following types of applications: (a) Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions, tentative cluster subdivisions and design reviews; (b) Type III: Only conditional use permits and tentative planned unit developments; (c) Type IV applications that are not city-initiated; (d) Metro Plan amendments that are not city-initiated. (e) Within the /CL Clear Lake Overlay zone: development permits for a new building, change of use, building expansion that exceeds 25 percent of the existing building square footage on the development site, and land use applications (except Type I applications). (2) Prior to the submittal of an application listed in subsection (1) above, the applicant November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 17 of 59 shall host a meeting for the surrounding property owners. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a means for the applicant and surrounding property owners and residents to meet to review the proposal, share information and identify issues regarding the proposal. The applicant may consider whether to incorporate solutions to these issues prior to application submittal. (12) Applications shall be submitted to the city within 180 days of the neighborhood/applicant meeting. If an application is not submitted in this time frame, or if the site plan submitted with the application does not substantially conform to the site plan provided at the meeting, the applicant shall be required to hold a new neighborhood/applicant meeting. *** Recommendation : Provide an exception under the neighborhood/applicant meeting requirement at EC 9.7007 for subdivisions and partitions when processed in conjunction with a planned unit development. The requirement for a separate neighborhood/applicant meeting for partitions and subdivisions that are implementing a site plan approved through the tentative planned unit development process is redundant and unnecessary. The purpose of the neighborhood/applicant meeting is to “provide a means for the applicant and surrounding property owners and residents to meet to review the proposal, share information and identify issues regarding the proposal. The applicant may consider whether to incorporate solutions to these issues prior to application submittal.” In the circumstance where a land division is implementing a site plan that already has tentative planned unit development approval, the land division must be consistent with the approved tentative planned unit development, which has already held a neighborhood/applicant meeting and public hearing process. Removing the requirement for a second meeting would promote efficiency in the development process. Note that if the recommendation to allow concurrent review of tentative planned unit development and tentative land division is implemented (see COM-11), then the need for this proposed change may no longer exist. COM-15 (SPECIAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS REFERENCE) Description : Partitions, planned unit development, and subdivisions require compliance with EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways; however, housing projects reviewed under clear and objective tracks are exempt from one of the standards within that range (EC 9.6845, Special Safety Requirements). Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8220(2)(b), EC 9.8325(6)(a), EC9.8520(3)(b), EC 9.6845 Existing Code Language : 9.8220(2) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 18 of 59 (b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements. Except for applications proposing needed housing, where necessary to insure safety, reduce traffic hazards and promote the welfare of the general public, pedestrians, bicyclists and residents of the subject area, the planning director or public works director may require that local streets and alleys be designed to discourage their use by non- local motor vehicle traffic and encourage their use by local motor vehicle traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents of the area. Recommendation : No change. This issue was identified in the land use code audit as a possible change to add clarity. The standard within the referenced range that does not apply to proposals using the clear and objective track clearly states the exception. Given the number of higher-priority issues to address , the absence of known problems related to this issue, and the desire to keep consistency between the two tracks were possible, staff suggests that this issue does not merit additional consideration. COM-16 (O FF-SITE BIKE/PED CONNECTIONS) Description : Bike and pedestrian circulation/connectivity is not addressed for conditional use and site review under the clear and objective tracks. In contrast, partitions, planned unit developments, and subdivisions require connections to "nearby" residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements . “Nearby” means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. Applies To : Conditional Use, Site Review Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : Add a clear and objective criterion to require off-site connections for bike and pedestrian ways to site review and conditional use permit, similar to partitions, planned unit developments and subdivisions. Adding the same criterion as used in partitions, planned unit developments, and subdivisions will increase consistency among the clear and objective review tracks and improve effectiveness in addressing bike and pedestrian circulation and connectivity for these application types. COM-17 (APPLICATION REQUIREMENT CRITERION) Description : Application submittal requirements are not required to be met as part of the approval of an application. Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): N/A November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Maintenance Issues Page 19 of 59 Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : No change at this time —requires more investigation. Adding an approval criterion to each application type that requires that all application submittal requirements have been met is a good idea and may be beneficial for both review tracks. However, this would require more in-depth analysis of existing application requirements to ensure that no unintended consequences occur when making them mandatory approval criteria. While the scope and timing of this land use code update process limit the ability to address this issue now, it is strongly suggested for consideration as part of future code improvement efforts. COM-18 (DOES NOT HAMPER PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE) Description : The clear and objective track for subdivisions does not have an equivalent requirement to "not hamper" provision of public open space as found in the discretionary track. Applies To : Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : For subdivisions, add a new clear and objective criterion that requires connection to abutting city owned park land, open space or ridgeline trail (provided constitutional findings can be made) unless the Public Works Director determines such a connection is unnecessary. Adding a new criterion addressing access to public open space would improve consistency with the discretionary track. City of Eugene Parks and Open Space staff were consulted regarding the existing discretionary track criterion. They noted that while this criterion is not useful for park acquisition, it can be useful when a bike/pedestrian connection is needed to connect the overall park and passive transportation system. This could apply to land next to the river that is not yet connected to the river path system, connections through the South Hills, either from park to park or from parks to the Ridgeline Trial, or connections from a subdivision to adjacent park lands. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 20 of 59 Significant Issues: Evaluation Criteria Items identified as “significant” are key issues that raise potential policy implications and were the items brought to working groups for discussion. The Clear & Objective Significant items are organized in numerical order. Each issue includes a table of the possible concepts that were presented at the working groups, and also placed in online surveys available to all interested parties . The possible concepts were generated by staff to seed working group conversations and stakeholders were also encouraged to suggest possible concepts. In the table, each of the possible concepts is evaluated based on evaluation criteria and the level of support expressed in stakeholder responses. Evaluation criteria include the following: Efficiency – Does the concept reduce or mitigate existing land use code barriers to housing development? Does the concept support reasonable and predictable development of buildable lands for housing? Effectiveness – Does the concept effectively address the identified issue? Does the concept address public health & safety, natural resource protection, and neighborhood livability? Technical Feasibility – Is it easy to implement the concept? Is it realistic, practical and prudent? Social Equity (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it promote positive community relationships, effective government, social justice and overall livability? Does it have equitable impacts on community members (vulnerable populations, specific neighborhoods, distinct groups, other)? Environmental Health (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it have a positive effect on environmental health and our ability to effectively address climate change? Economic Prosperity (Triple Bottom Line) – Does it have a positive effect on the local economy and minimize costs to the community, now and over the long term? Does it support responsible stewardship of public resources? In evaluating the concepts according to the se criteria, the following scale was used: As used to depict the level of stakeholder support, the scale can be interpreted as follows: + promotes – strong support, no or low opposition o neutral – neutral support or roughly equivalent support and opposition –inhibits – no or low support, stro ng opposition + promotes – the concept promotes a positive impact b ased on the specific evaluation criterion o neutral – the concept either has no affect or no net positive impact based on the specific evaluation criterion –inhibits – the concept has an inhibiting affect based on the specific evaluation criterion November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 21 of 59 Significant Issues: Summary Table of Preferred Concepts Significant Issue Preferred Concept Reason COS-01 Clear & Objective Compatibility Add compatibility criterion to site reviews, conditional use and planned unit development applicat ions that applies to higher - intensity development abutting lower intensity development — include transition buffers (setbacks, height limitation areas, and landscape screening) that are scalable Effectiveness, Consistency COS-02 30-Foot Buffer Requirement For PUDs Replace with new criterion from COS-01 Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-03 20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition Remove and rely on COS-13 Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-04 One Acre Accessible Open Space For PUDs Revise required distance from open spa ce from ¼ mile to ½ mile and make onsite requirement scalable Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-05 Limitation Over 900 Feet For PUDs Revise to allow less intensive development above 900’ (2.5 units/acre) and include more stringent tree/vegetation preservation requirement s Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-06 Ridgeline Setback For PUDs Revise to make setback a pplicable to areas above 900’ elevation. Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-07 40 Percent Open Space Requirement For PUDs Revise to 30% and clarify language based on intent of relevant South Hills Study policy Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-08 Emergency Response Add criterion to require letter from Fire Marshal’s office stating that project complies with Eugene Fire Code for site reviews, conditional use and planned unit development applicati ons; apply criterion to partitions and subdivisions per COS-14 Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-09 Conditional Use Requirement Keep process, add compatibility criterion from COS-01 Effectiveness COS-10 Partition Tree Preservation Remove criterion Efficiency, Consistency COS-11 Tree Preservation Consideration Add criterion that requires minimum preservation and mitigation and implement a rating scale that takes into account tree type, health, size and location. Effectiveness COS-12 Site Review Requirement Keep process, add compatibility criterion from COS-01 Effectiveness COS-13 Geotechnical Requirement Revise existing criterion to address additional risk factors Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-14 19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal Rely on COS-08 (apply COS-08 to partitions and subdivisions) Efficiency, Effectiveness COS-15 Traffic Impact Defer to Public Works Transportation project getting underway Effectiveness COS-16 PUD Type III Process Hold for future land use code improvement project Efficiency COS-17 Does Not Hamper Provision Of Public Open Space Moved t o C OM -18 Effectiveness COS-18 Arborist And Landscape Architect Requirement No change (Continue to require arborist on PUD design team) Efficiency COS-19 Street Standards Modifications Add clear exceptions and add adjustment option Efficiency COS-20 Pedestrian Definition Use ORS definition with minor refinement Effectiveness November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 22 of 59 COS-01 (C LEAR & O BJECTIVE C OMPATIBILITY ) Description : Unlike the discretionary tracks, the clear and objective tracks for conditional use and site review applications do not address compatibility, including the need to address transitions or buffers between different uses or zones. Planned unit developments include a 30 foot wide landscaped buffer requirement (see COS-02) but this may not be a preferred strategy to enhance compatibility between properties, or an efficient use of land. Applies To : Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, Site Review Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : Add a compatibility criterion that applies to higher-intensity development abutting lower- intensity development (e.g. multi-family development adjacent to single family development in R-1 Low Density Residential zone). (Options B and D) Employ scalable transition buffers that may include: setbacks height step-downs landscape screening requirements There was strong support from stakeholders to add a compatibility criterion to the clear and objective tracks for conditional use, planned unit development and site review. While the strongest support was for option B, option A. No Changeo –+–o o – B. Develop requirement for transition buffers (screening, height step backs, setbacks) when higher intensity uses are proposed near lower intensity uses (e.g., multi-family next to single- family) o ++++o + C. Develop minimum transition buffers around the perimeter for all conditional use, planned unit development, and site review projects regardless of size or use  o ++o +o – D. Develop scalable transition buffers around the perimeters for all conditional use, planned unit developme nt, and site review projects that are proportional to the size of the development site o + + + + o + + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 23 of 59 D also received moderate support, and a combination of B and D was strongly preferred in feedback from the working group open house . The two options rated identically in evaluation. To best support compact urban development, while protecting and enhancing neighborhood livability a nd natural resources, combining options B and D is recommended. The clear and objective review track currently does not have a means to address compatibility impacts and implementing these concepts would improve effectiveness. To promote efficient use of our buildable land supply, and in line with stakeholder support, it is recommended that the compatibility criterion apply only when separating different-intensity uses (such as between multi-family and single family) and be scaled so that smaller infill developments are not disproportionately burdened. This would support compatibility with emphasis on gradual transitions to lower intensity uses and efficient use of space . Transitional buffering would be accomplished using increased building setbacks, height step-downs (a reduction in building height as a means of transitioning between the higher and lower intensity uses), and required landscape screening. This will require drafting new code language to guide specific application of the requirements, which will require moderate time (relative to a simpler code revision) but is technically feasible and offers significant benefit to the community if implemented. In addition, there are three related issues that are affected by the outcome of this issue —COS-02 (30-Foot Buffer Requirement for PUDs), COS-09 (Conditional Use Requirement) and COS-12 (Site Review Requirement). If this recommendation is implemented, then replacing the existing 30-foot buffer requirement for planned unit developments with this criterion is also recommended. It would also improve effectiveness of the conditional use track as currently it largely points to general development standards that do not address compatibility. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 24 of 59 COS-02 (30-FOOT B UFFER R EQUIREMENT FOR PUDS) Description : The clear and objective approval criteria for planned unit developments require a 30-foot wide landscape buffer between a new planned unit development and surrounding properties. This may not be a preferred strategy to enhance compatibility between properties, or an efficient use of land. Where a planned unit development for single-family housing provides a buffer from existing single-family housing properties, it is not clear that there are significant differences between residential development within the planned unit development and the surrounding residential area to warrant buffering over and above the typical setbacks for the residential zones (typically 5 feet). The 30-foot buffer may instead isolate the planned unit development, making it less compatible and less integrated into the neighborhood. Dedication of a 30-foot perimeter buffer requires a large amount of land, and a disproportionate amount of land on smaller and/or narrow sites, significantly decreasing development potential by putting land into a buffer that could otherwise be developed with housing. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(3) Existing Code Language : (3) The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7). A. No Change – o + – + o – B. Reduce the required landscape buffer to a lower set amount (such as 10 feet) and clarify where buffer is required (such as not along a street) +o+o+o– C. Require scalable buffer--smaller buffer for smaller development sites and clarify where buffer is required (such as not along a street) +++++o o D. Require buffer (30 foot or smaller) only to separate uses of different intensities (e.g., multi- family next to single -family) and clarify where buffer is required (such as not along a street) +++++o + E. Eliminate and rely on new compatibility criteria (transition buffer) implemented by COS -01 +++++o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 25 of 59 Recommendation : Replace with new compatibility criterion proposed under COS-01 Clear and Objective Compatibility. (Option E)  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) Requiring a 30-foot buffer around all sites subject to a planned unit development inhibits compact urban development, especially when applied to smaller infill developments. The discretionary track does not contain a similar requirement as it more specifically addresses the compatibility impacts that this requirement is intended to alleviate. While a 30-foot setback may be somewhat effective in some situations, in many instances the developments that go through the planned unit development process are subdivisions that require the planned unit development due to an overlay zone or their location. In these cases, what would otherwise be a standard five-foot residential setback between neighboring low-density properties along the border of the development site must be 30-feet. In recognition of this and the disproportionate impacts on smaller development sites, stakeholders supported retaining a scalable buffer criterion related to planned unit developments (PUD) when a new development of higher intensity is proposed near lower intensity uses or zones (i.e. multi-family next to single-family). A combination of support for C and D was expressed as well as E which would rely on the new criteri on from issue # COS-01 to address compatibility. Given the similarity in the direction on COS-01—to apply specifically in transitions between different intensity developments and be scalable —replacing this criterion with the new compatibility criterion will promote both efficiency (eliminate a criterion that is a blunt effort to address compatibility in a clear and objective manner) and effectiveness (the new criterion will more specifically and effectively address compatibility impacts). November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 26 of 59 COS-03 (20 P ERCENT S LOPE G RADING PROHIBITION) Description : The clear and objective track for planned unit development and subdivision approval includes a requirement that prohibits grading on slopes that meet or exceed 20 percent. This may not be the most effective and efficient way to address potential impacts to steep slopes. It may have the effect of precluding development under the clear and objective track for sites with significant slopes, particularly for properties subject to the South Hills Study, or sites with unusual configurations where a portion of the site over 20 percent slope prevents the development potential of the remainder under the clear and objective track. There is no maximum slope where grading is prohibited under the discretionary track, and slope impacts are reviewed through a geological report. State standards presume that up to 25 percent slopes are developable for purposes of calculating buildable lands for development (OAR 660-008-0005(5)), and Eugene’s Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) classifies lands up to 30 percent slopes as potentially developable. Applies To : Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(5), EC 9.8520(5) Existing Code Language : (Planned Unit Development only provided below) 9.8325(5) There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. Recommendation : Eliminate the existing criterion and rely on the geotechnical requirements. Ensure that revisions to the geotechnical requirements proposed under COS-13 (Geotechnical Requirement) address A. No Change – – + o o –– B. Increase percentage limit to 25% or 30%––+o o –o C. Retain 20% grading prohibition, but exempt certain grading activities. Codify how slope is measured (e.g., using 2’ contours over a minimum run of 10) ––+oo –– D. Eliminate 20% grading prohibition and rely on geotechnical review requirements that ensure development will not impact geological stability, or that any impacts will be mitigated ++++o ++ E. Replace with new requirement to address soil erosion and slope failure+oo+o o – + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 27 of 59 impacts and mitigation requirements related to slope stability in the context of road layout and lot locations. (Option D)  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) A provision based on a particular slope (such as 20%, or 30%) does not account for other relevant factors such as historic landslide information, depth and type of soil, soil moisture and drainage characteristics. These risk factors may actually limit development on less steep slopes; therefore the existing prohibition is likely ineffective as well as inefficient—it limits development where it may be feasible and may not address other relevant risks. Stakeholder support was strongest for D, which would require site specific analysis for each development under the geotechnical requirements . This option has the greatest potential to ensure appropriate siting, construction, and development practices are used to mitigate potential risks of slope failure. Minor revisions proposed under COS-13 (Geotechnical Requirement) will increase its effectiveness by adding additional risk factors and clarifying that the certification from the licensed engineer must address proposed lot and road locations. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 28 of 59 COS-04 (ONE A CRE A CCESSIBLE O PEN S PACE FOR PUDS) Description : The clear and objective planned unit development criterion that requires open space to be located within ¼ mile of the site can limit development to sites near existing open spaces such as public parks, which may reduce those areas of the city that can be developed under the clear and objective track. Sites that have to provide open space internal to the development to satisfy this criterion may lose a significant amount of land due to the one-acre minimum requirement. This decreases housing development potential of the site and affects smaller sites disproportionately. This criterion might not be the most effective and efficient way to ensure access to recreation and open space for residents. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): 9.8325(9) Existing Code Language : (9) All proposed dwellings within the PUD are within 1/4 mile radius (measured from any point along the perimeter of the development site) of an accessible recreation area or open space that is at least 1 acre in size and will be available to residents . A. No Change – – + – o –– B. Adjust the maximum distance requirement based on review of location of public parks/schools. List what qualifies as accessible recreation area or open space (i.e. private open space, public park, schools) +++oo o + C. Revise to scale requirements based on average lot sizes or density (i.e. require more open space for higher density projects)  ++++o ++ E. Eliminate and rely on existing lot coverage requirements for single-family development in the R-1 zone (50%) and open space requirements for multi-family developments (20% of development site) +–+–o oo E. Eliminate if mapping jus tifies that most vacant and partially vacant properties are generally within ¼ mile from open space +++oo o– + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 29 of 59 Recommendation : Revise the required distance from existing public open space from ¼ mile to ½ mile and use a scalable requirement for the onsite open space provision for proposed developments that are over ½ mile from public open spaces like parks and schools. (Options B and C)  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) Maps provided to working groups showed Eugene’s Buildable Lands Inventory overlaid with ¼ mile radii from existing schools, parks and open space revealed that several parts of Eugene already meet this requirement. However, some areas exist where only smaller undeveloped or underdeveloped lands remain, in which case the one-acre onsite open space requirement is onerous. Stakeholders mostly supported options B and C, and while a hybrid option was not discussed, a combination of both concepts is technically feasible and more efficient and effective than either option on its own. This direction is consistent with City of Eugene Parks and Open Space guidelines which strive to provide neighborhood parks ¼- to ½- mile from all properti es (roughly a five to ten minute walk). For underserved areas, allowing a scalable on-site open space requirement would address the need for residents to have convenient access to open space without posing a barrier to development, especially for smaller sites, and better promoting compact urban development. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 30 of 59 COS-05 (LIMITATION OVER 900 FEET FOR PUDS) Description : The clear and objective planned unit development criterion that limits development on land above an elevation of 900 feet to one dwelling on lots in existence as of August 1, 2001 significantly limits development feasibility of sites. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(12)(a) Existing Code Language : (12) For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, the following additional approval criteria apply: (a) No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 900 feet except that one dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001. Recommendation: Revise to allow less intensive development (limit density to 2.5 units per acre) above 900 feet elevation and include additional tree /vegetation preservation requirements to more effectively address relevant South Hills Study policy language. (Option C with refinements)  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills A. No Change – – + o + oo B. Revise to add language similar to COS -06, to allow for development if the City Manager determines that the property is not needed for park land or connection to the ridgeline.  +–+oo o– C. Revise to allow less intensive developm ent (i.e. lower density) above 901 feet+++oo oo D. Eliminate -- intent met through City acquisition of ridgeline park land within the urban growth boundary, and existing density limits (5 dwellings per acre east of Friendly Street and 8 per acre west of Friendly) ensure that intense development will not occur +–+oo oo + promotes o neutral – inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 31 of 59 Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) The feedback from stakeholders related to this standard was mixed, with the exception of option B which received no support. There is interest in ensuring that the visual integrity of the south hills is retained, and that space for public recreation is preserved along the ridgeline, as the south hills are a visual and recreational amenity benefiting the entire community. Through the Envision Eugene process and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion additional residential land was not brought into Eugene’s UGB. Based on existing patterns of development, vacant and partially vacant land over 900 feet was assumed to support development at a density of 2.5 units per acre, based on a review of past development. This is a lower intensity than allowed in the south hills area below 900 feet and in low density residential zones city-wide —west of Friendly Street 8 units per acre is allowed, east of Friendly Street 5 units per acre are allowed, and in the R-1 Low-Density Residential zone generally 14 units per acre are allowed. The Summary and Recommendations from the South Hills Study (1974) acknowledge the area between the then city limits and the ridgeline for future growth: “Since there is adequate area already within the city limits to accommodate presently anticipated growth, the property remaining between the city and the ridgeline is particularly valuable as a safeguard in the event actual growth exceeds present expectations. In this sense, that property represents a contingency reservoir which should on ly be utilized in case of need.” At the time the study was written, this area was mostly undeveloped, “a substantial amount of the property presently within the city limits of the south hills area remains vacant” and the existing ridgeline trail system had not yet been acquired. This particular limitation to development near the ridgeline appears to come from policy related to the ridgeline park: That all vacant property above an elevation of 901’ be preserved from an intensive level of development, subject to the following exceptions: 1.Development of individual residences on existing lots: and 2.Development under planned unit development procedures when it can be demonstrated that a proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this section. The purpose section provides as follows: The south hills constitute a unique and irreplaceable community asset. The strong dominant landforms and wooded character present there combine to provide distinct areas of contrast in terms of texture and color from the normal pattern of urban development. By virtue of this contrast, the south hills function as a strong visual boundary or edge for the city. The ridgeline of the south hills also marks the most southerly extension of the urban services areas . Further, there are areas within the south hills that are especially suitable for park sites for recreational use by present and anticipated population . In view of these factors, any areas recommended for preservation or park usage should serve one of the following purposes: 1.To ensure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community; 2.To protect areas of high biological value in order to provide for the continued health of native wildlife and vegetation; 3.To ensure provision of recreational areas in close proximity to major concentrations of population; 4.To provide connective trails between major recreational areas; 5.To provide connective passageways for wildlife between important biological preserves; November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 32 of 59 6.To contribute to Eugene’s evergreen forest edge; and 7.To provide an open space area as a buffer between the intensive level of urban development occurring within the urban service area and the rural level of development occurring outside the urban service area. It is worth noting that the current criterion does not address the second part of this recommendation. The South Hills Study authors considered major subdivisions and planned unit developments “an intensive level of development.” Still, part 2 of the recommendation allows for both under the planned unit development procedures. The intentions of the recommendations appear to be to ensure the City’s ability to acquire park land as the hills developed, to guide the selection of park lands, and to require private areas proposed for preservation through the planned unit development process to serve similar purposes as those expected for potential park land . As shown in Eugene’s Parks and Recreation System Plan, there are no remaining ridgeline sites identified for acquisition within the UGB. However, factors such as view potential, geological stability, and biological value remain reasons to prevent “an intensive level of development” in higher elevation areas. Precedent exists to assist in defining that intensity threshold. Development has been occurring under planned unit development review at an average of the recommended 2.5 units per acre. In addition to applying a lower density limitation to areas above 901’, other restrictions could be used to further promote the revised criterion’s effective ness. Limits on the allowable building footprint, building height, and vegetation removal could help insure “maximum preservation of the natural character of the south hills” and “adequate review of the public consequences of development in the south hills” consistent with the intent of the study. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 33 of 59 COS-06 (RIDGELINE S ETBACK FOR PUDS) Description : The clear and objective planned unit development track includes a requirement for a 300-foot setback from the ridgeline for properties within the South Hills Study. This can impact residential development feasibility of subject sites by reducing site area that may be developed. This is especially impactful on smaller sites. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): 9.8325(12)(b) Existing Code Language : (12) For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, the following additional approval criteria apply: (b) Development shall be setback at least 300 feet from the ridgeline unless there is a determination by the city manager that the area is not needed as a connection to the city’s ridgeline trail system . For purposes of this section, the ridgeline trail shall be considered as the line indicated as being the urban growth boundary within the South Hills Study plan area. Recommendation : Revise to make setback applicable to areas above 900’ elevation.  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) Feedback from stakeholders was somewhat mixed. Several preferred no change, some support changes to allow the setback to be scalable , and some want the setback eliminated altogether. Comments from the stakeholders A. No Change – – + – o o+ B. Reduce setback requirement to a lesser amount +–+oo o– C. Revise to make the setback requirement scalable based on the size of the development site (smaller setback for smaller sites) +–++o +o D. Eliminate -- intent met through City acquisition of ridgeline park land within the urban growth boundary +o+oo oo + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 34 of 59 indicated interest in the preservation of the ridgeline as a shared community asset, while others questioned the necessity of the standard given the number of land acquisitions by the City for ridgeline trail expansion that are effectively preserving areas over 900’ elevation. The South Hills Study emphasizes preservation of the area above 901-feet and the policy identified as the possible source for this criterion reads as follows: That all development shall be reviewed for potential linkages with or to the ridgeline park system. As identified in Eugene’s Parks and System Plan, no land inside the UGB is identified for the ridgeline park system expansion. In further analysis of the South Hills Study, it appears that the 300-foot setback may have been an attempt to apply a clear and objective standard to address a stated expectation (not a recommendation) in the study that “preservation of the area above 901 feet would provide a buffer averaging several hundred feet along significant portions of the urban service area” [emphasis added]. If this is the case, the intent was not that the buffer be created on properties below 901 feet as currently would be required. This also indicates that the existing UGB (roughly the prior ‘urban service area’) was not intended to be the marker for the buffer, but rather that the topographic area above 901 feet recommended to be “preserved from an intensive level of development” would effectively provide a buffer averaging several hundred feet (presumably based on the average width of the areas over 901 feet). Map analysis revealed that there are significant portions of the UGB that go through property below 900-feet elevation to which this setback requirement applies . For these reasons, the recommendation includes adding clarifications on the applicability of the requirement to make it more consistent with the intent of the South Hills Study. The ridgeline is a visual and recreational amenity of the community that most people agree should be protected. However, the existing criterion is problematic. The criterion is ineffective. The UGB does not follow the ridgeline precisely, and therefore, this requirement does not effectively promote ridgeline preservation. The requirement may be redundant given the limitation over 900 feet that prevents an intensive level of development. Without qualifiers to ensure that what is being protected within the 300-foot setback is actually within the viewshed sought to be preserved, the requirement inhibits efficient use of land on affected properties. The requirement also inhibits efficient use of buildable land as demonstrated by properties that slope toward the UGB, meaning the slope facing away from the City would be preserved while the portion of the site facing toward the City falls outside the setback area—in this case the setback may actually push development onto the more visible portion of the site. Vacant and partially vacant lands on the City’s Buildable Land Inventory are designated for housing, and as the City grows, will need to be developed to accommodate Eugene’s growing population. In terms of effectiveness, it is questionable whether this requirement is necessary in addition to other requirements that limit high elevation development and given that the ridgeline parks system within the UGB has been acquired. If the criterion is kept, in addition to the other recommendations, a scalable setback could also be considered to mitigate impacts to smaller infill development sites. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 35 of 59 COS-07 (40 P ERCENT OPEN S PACE R EQUIREMENT FOR PUDS) Description : The clear and objective planned unit development track includes a criterion that requires a minimum 40 percent of the development site be retained as open space for properties within the South Hills Study. This can impact residential development feasibility by limiting area available for development. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8325(12)(c) Existing Code Language : (12) For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, the following additional approval criteria apply: (c) Development shall cluster buildings in an arrangement that results in at least 40% of the development site being retained in 3 or fewer contiguous common open space areas . For purposes of this section, the term contiguous open space means open space that is uninterrupted by buildings, structures, streets, or other improvements. Recommendation : Revise to reduce common open space requirement to 30 percent and more accurately implement the intent of the relevant South Hills Study policy language.  This issue is one of six related to the clear and objective criteria for planned unit development that contribute to limiting development feasibility of many sites. The cumulative effect of these six requirements is particularly limiting for those properties subject to the South Hills Study and additional criteria at EC 9.8325(12). The six criteria include the 30-foot buffer, 20% slope grading limitation, one-acre accessible open space, South Hills A. No Change – – o o o oo B. Reduce percentage requirement for open space +–ooo oo C. Develop criterion that defines specific characteristics to be preserved (e.g., areas 1/4 acre or more with X or more significant trees, not to exceed XX% of the development site) oo+o+o– D. Eliminate and rely on COS -04 (Accessible Open Space for PUDs)  +–+o–o+ E. For multi -family developments, rely on existing open space requirements (20% of development site). +o+oo o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 36 of 59 Study limitation over 900 feet, 300-foot ridgeline setback, and 40% common open space and clustering. (See related Issues COS-03, COS-04, COS-05, COS-06 and COS-07) Some of the members of the working group saw this requirement as redundant and supported options D or E, while others supported retaining the existing criterion. Other concepts suggested included revising the criterion to scale open space requirement relative to the size of lots (reduced lot size requires greater open space); revise to align contiguous open space areas for planned unit developments where the ridgeline buffer and park connections are in place; and to revise to scale open space requirement relative to the slope of the development. This criterion appears to come from the following South Hills Study recommendations: That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes: 1.To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: a. Shallowest slopes b. Lowest elevations c. Least amount of vegetation d. Least amount of visual impact. 2.To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by: a. Intermediate and steep slopes b. Higher elevations c. Significant amounts of vegetation; d. Significant visual impact. That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open space. The requirement for sites to retain an area of at least 40% in three or fewer contiguous common open spaces may be unnecessary and overly burdensome for less visible lower elevation sites. Because areas for preservation were intended to include high elevation, steeply sloped, significantly vegetated areas with high visual impact, overlap with COS-04 may not fully address policy direction . While the requirement may be less problematic for large sites that have greater options to cluster buildings in creative arrangements, for smaller sites the standard can create design complications, as they may have limited places to locate structures, streets, and utilities. When the South Hills Study was written, as mentioned previously in COS-05, the south hills area was largely vacant. In addition, since that time, the City has acquired and preserved many acres of the ridgeline trail system and other high-elevation parks. The following reasons further support the recommendation to reassess the suitability of this criterion: the 40% figure was an arbitrary attempt to quantify the “maximum amount” of con tinuous open space to be preserved it may be ineffective as it applies broadly to sites regardless of view potential , vegetation coverage, and steepness it may inhibit the efficient use of land , as it may lead to unnecessary preservation of large areas of buildable land (e.g., when applied to lower elevation, less visible sites suitable for more dense development) November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 37 of 59 COS-08 (EMERGENCY R ESPONSE ) Description : The clear and objective tracks for conditional use, planned unit development, and site review applications do not include a criterion for protecting emergency response. Applies To : Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, Site Review Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : Add criterion that requires the applicant submit a letter from the Fire Marshal’s office stating that the proposal complies with the applicable Eugene Fire Code requirements regarding fire apparatus access roads and fire protection water supply. (Option C) Option C received the most stakeholder support, with option B receiving moderate support. Implementation of option B is less technically feasible as it would require periodic updates to the land use code to ensure the adopted version stay consistent with the current version of Eugene Fire Code. This would also create an undesirable redundancy in code as the Eugene Fire Code already applies. Option C would allow the Fire Marshal’s office to determine whether it is feasible to provide services to proposed development and would ensure that this coordination occur early in the design process. The Fire Marshal’s office is the best party to evaluate whether a particular development can be served and the requirement of a letter is consistent with other methods used to demonstrate compliance with standards (as for geotechnical and tree standards). The Fire Marshal’s office supports this o ption as a more effective and efficient way to accomplish their review of new proposals. For these reasons, option C was the clear recommendation. A. No change + – + o o –– B. Add criterion that adopt the same standards as the Eugene Fire Code pertaining to fire apparatus access road and fire protection water supply –––oo o+ C. Add criterion to require that the applicant submit a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating that the proposal complies with the applicable Eugene Fire Code requirements regarding fire apparatus access roads and fire protection water supply  +++oo ++ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 38 of 59 COS-09 (CONDITIONAL U SE R EQUIREMENT) Description : The clear and objective conditional use approval criteria largely cross-reference other standards already applicable to development —in other words, standards that would already be applied at time of building permit. There are only limited provisions for traditional consideration of the compatibility of the proposed conditional use and surrounding properties. Conditional use permits for housing are rare as they are only required for limited types of housing (assisted care, boarding and rooming houses, campus living organizations, and single room occupancy (SRO)). Applies To : Conditional Use Existing Code Section(s): 9.8100 Existing Code Language : 9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria- Needed Housing. The hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the conditional use permit application . Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the hearings official shall approve or approve with conditions a conditional use based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes. (2) If applicable, the proposal complies with the standards contained in EC 9.5500 Multiple- Family Standards. (3) For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the proposal will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following: (a) The proposal complies with EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. (b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as “Natural Resource” are protected . Protection shall include the area of the resource and a minimum 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the natural resource area. (4) The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including, but not limited to: (a) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards. (b) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (c) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. (d) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. (e) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (f) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. (g) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (h) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. (i) An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. (5) Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative plan approval have been completed, or: (a) A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has been filed November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 39 of 59 with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the completion of all required public improvements; or (b) A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the conditional use permit, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer. Recommendation : Retain existing Type III process and add new compatibility criterion from COS-01. (Option D) Stakeholder support was mixed. Some supported eliminating the need for conditional use for all housing types, some supported downsizing the process to a Type II (see below) site review, adding a compatibility criterion received moderate support, and some preferred a combination of change to a site review requirement with the new compatibility criterion . The types of housing that require a conditional use permit are often coupled with an employment component. For example, assisted care facilities are allowed in the low-density residential zone with an approved conditional use permit. Assisted care facilities provide housing coupled with services like dining, medical care, recreational programing, and administrative staff that may require employees 24 hours a day. No conditional use applications have been processed using the clear and objective track. The process a land use application follows is related to the amount of discretion required to render the decision. Type I applications are administrative. Types II, III, and IV are quasi-judicial with increasing discretion from: Planning Director decision (Type II) Hearings Official decision, includes public hearing (Type III) Planning Commission recommendation/City Council decision, includes two public hearings (Type III) In the context of the State requirement for a clear and objective path to approval for housing applications, discretion is consequently limited, making the Type II process appropriate. On the other hand, the more A. No Change + + + + o o– B. Eliminate conditional use requirement fo r the limited housing types that require a conditional use permit +–+–o o+ C. Change the requirement for housing that currently requires a conditional use (Type III) to site review (Type II) +o+oo oo D. Add criteria that address compatibility (related issue # COS-01 Clear & Objective Compatibility) o++++o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 40 of 59 subjective discretionary track option, requires and benefits the more rigorous Type III process. Below is an excerpt from the land use code describing the types: 9.7045 Description of Quasi-judicial Decisions Type II, Type III, Type IV. Quasi-judicial decisions follow either a Type II, Type III or a Type IV process. A quasi-judicial decision concerns a specific site or area, and involves the exercise of discretion in making a decision. (1) A Type II process is based on a review of criteria that requires a limited amount of discretion. The Type II process includes public notice of the application and an opportunity for citizens to provide comments prior to the decision. The process does not include a public hearing unless the decision is appealed. Notice of the decision is provided to allow the applicant or an adversely affected person to appeal the decision to a higher local review authority. (2) A Type III process is a decision-making process in which a hearings official or the historic review board makes the initial decision. The Type III process includes public notice and a public hearing, as well as the opportunity for a local appeal to be filed by the applicant, an individual who testified orally or in writing during the initial public hearing, or affected neighborhood group. While the Type III process is generally intended for decisions requiring more discretion, the process affords other benefits for potentially impacted surrounding properties: more review time, greater noticing radius, and a public hearing. Given mixed feedback from stakeholders regarding option C (many supported/many opposed), and the operating characteristics of the uses subject to condition al use review, the recommendation is to retain the Type III process. To address compatibility impacts it is also recommended that the new compatibility criterion proposed under COS-01 also consider these impacts. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 41 of 59 COS-10 (P ARTITION T REE P RESERVATION) Description : For partitions, there is an inconsistency between the two review tracks regarding tree preservation. The clear and objective track requires compliance with EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards, whereas the discretionary track does not. The discretionary track is more commonly used, likely due to this difference. The partition is a tool for infill development that has a longstanding practice and intent of allowing minor land divisions to encourage development. Tree preservation and removal standards at EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 already apply to development of housing at the time of building permit, based on the size of the parcel. Applies To : Partitions Existing Code Section(s): 9.8220(2)(k) Existing Code Language : 9.8220(2) The proposed partition complies with all of the following: … (k) EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. Recommendation : Remove criterion. (Option B) Option B received the most support from stakeholders, in addition to strong opposition to option A. A few people expressed a desire to add stronger tree preservation requirements and also add tree preservation to the discretionary track for partitions. Partitions involve minor land divisions (creation of 2-3 parcels) that support infill development and accomplish the orderly development of land within the community . Lots are often small and the requirement to preserve trees may inhibit the ability to support compact urban development. Likely for this reason, the discretionary track does not require tree preservation; therefore, removing the requirement from the clear and objective track promotes consistency and efficiency. The standards at EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 apply broadly and still limit tree removal on newly created parcels based on square footage as follows: lots under 20,000 square feet may not remove any trees without a tree removal permit unless already occupied by a single family dwelling or duplex, or once a building permit for one has been issued lots over 20,000 square feet are limited to removal of 5 significant trees within a 12-month period A. No Change – o + o o –– B. Remove tree preservation criterion from clear and objective track for partitions +o+oo + + + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Con cepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 42 of 59 COS-11 (TREE P RESERVATION C ONSIDERATION ) Description : Under the clear and objective track for all application types, the written report required from a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect must only show that “consideration" has been given to preservation of significant trees (defined term). Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.6885(2)(a) Existing Code Language : (2) Tree Preservation and Removal Standards . No permit for a development activity subject to this section shall be approved until the applicant submits plans or information, including a written report by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect, that demonstrates compliance with the following standards: (a) The materials submitted shall reflect that consideration has been given to preservation in accordance with the following priority: 1.Significant trees located adjacent to or within waterways or wetlands designated by the city for protection, and areas having slopes greater than 25%; 2.Significant trees within a stand of trees; and 3.Individual significant trees. Recommendation : Revise criterion to require tree preservation or mitigation and implement a rating scale that takes into account tree type, health, size, and location. (Option D) A. No Change o – + – –o– B. Require preservation of 30% of significant healthy trees on a development site. Define healthy (significant is already defined as a living, standing tree having a trunk with a minimum cumulative diameter at breast height of 8 inches). +++o+o– C. Require preservation of 30% of significant healthy trees on a development site, or allow for payment into a tree planting & preservation fund to provide mitigation option when preservation is not feasible ++++++– D. Revise to address tree preservation by implementing a rating scale based on tree type, health and size. +++o+o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 43 of 59 Stakeholders expressed a preference for option D, a revision to create a rating scale based on tree type, size, and health. Tree location was brought up as an additional factor important when considering appropriate preservation requirements. Mitigation options were also brought up as a desirable component of any proposed changes. The existing requirement is ineffective as there is no minimum amount of preservation required—the written certification must only state that “consideration” for preserving trees was given. Eugene’s urban forest, which is predominantly located on private lands, is a significant community asset. It is clear from feedback that tree preservation is considered an important livability , compatibility, and natural resource protection issue. Staff reviewed a variety of codes from other cities to understand other ways in which tree preservation can be addressed. Based on this research, it is feasible to move forward with a rating scale as recommended. A rating scale system could require preservation based on lot coverage, square footage of development, density, existing trees or other factors identified as being important. While the provision to implement a rating scale would be more complex than a set preservation standard, it would better promote efficient use of land and effective tree preservation. As it is not intended to create a requirement that would be prohibitive of housing development, in addition to preservation, options for tree replacement are also recommended. While support was not expressed to establish a mitigation bank (option C), it appears to be a feasible option that could promote: social equity – development in highly-ve getated areas that pay into the mitigation bank could support planting of trees in areas where the need is greatest environmental health – mitigation bank plantings could focus on adding climate resilient species given projected changes to our local environment, and economic prosperity – by supporting the urban forest system and alleviating a potential barrier to housing development November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 44 of 59 COS-12 (S ITE R EVIEW R EQUIREMENT ) Description : The clear and objective criteria for site review are limited in scope compared to the discretionary track, largely relying on compliance with other land use code standards. Many multiple-family residential projects are allowed outright and reviewed for compliance with land use code standards such as Multiple Family Standards (See EC 9.5500) at the time of building permit review. Site review has limited applicability for residential projects and is usually triggered by site-specific /SR overlay zoning rather than a blanket requirement for certain types of housing. The site-specific criteria that were historically addressed as part of site review were codified as development standards during the 2001 Land Use Code Update. Applies To : Site Review Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8445 9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria- Needed Housing. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval Criteria - General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a site review based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes. (2) For a proposal for multiple family developments, the proposal complies with the standards contained in EC 9.5500 Multiple Family Standards. (3) For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the propo sal will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following: (a) The proposal complies with EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. (b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagra m as “Natural Resource” are protected. (4) The proposal complies with all of the following standards: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. (b) EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. (c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards. (d) EC 9.6710 (6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. (f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. (g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. (h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. (i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. (j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. (k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. (5) Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative plan approval have been completed, or: (a) A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has been filed with the November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 45 of 59 city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the completion of all required public improvements; or (b) A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the subdivision, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer. Recommendation : Retain existing process and add new compatibility criterion from COS-01. (Option C) Comments from stakeholders supported the removal of the site review process for housing (option B), and also expressed an interest in adding criteria that addressed compatibility of developments (option C). Without a compatibility criterion, elimination of the site review requirement would streamline the process for housing development by allowing proposal to go directly to a building permit application. As the existing clear and objective track applies the same development standards as those applicable at time of the building permit, the existing review is largely redundant. There are no housing types that require a site review. Site review is only required where a site review overlay zone exists; however, that still affects many properties. Removing the site review requirement from these properties might be technically feasible, and would promote efficiency, but it would take extensive research and evaluation on a site-by-site basis and likely require amendments to refinement plans that placed site review overlays on specific sites. The amount of time to identify all sites that have site review overlays, or are designated by refinement plans to have site review overlays, and to determine whether existing code sections sufficiently address the initial concerns that lead to the overlays, render this option practically infeasible at this time. In addition, if the new compatibility criterion from COS-01 is implemented, then it will provide added benefit to the existing clear and objective site review process. The new compatibility criterion will be more effective at addressing impacts from higher-intensity developments when located near lower-intensity developments than existing multifamily standards . A. No Change o o + o o o– B. Eliminate site review requirement for housing +o––o o+ C. Add criteria to address compatibility (Related issue # COS-01 Clear & Objective Compatibility)o+++o o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 46 of 59 COS-13 (GEOTECHNICAL R EQUIREMENT) Description : The standards for geological and geotechnical review for projects developed under clear and objective criteria are “one -size-fits all,” requiring certification from a licensed engineer that the development activity either will not be impacted by geological instability problems, or that design methods may be used to safely address any such impacts. The review standards for discretionary projects include three levels of review with increasing complexity depending on potential for impacts. Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): 9.6710(6) Existing Code Language : 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. (6) Needed Housing. Unless exempt under 9.6710(3)(a)-(f), in lieu of compliance with subsections (2), (4), and (5) of this section, applications proposing needed housing shall include a certification from an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer with geological experience stating: (a) That the proposed development activity will not be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the following site conditions: springs or seeps, depth of soil bedrock, variations in soil types, or a combination of these conditions; or (b) If proposed development activity will be impacted by any of the conditions listed in (a), the methods for safely addressing the impact of the conditions . If a statement is submitted under (6)(b), the application shall include the applicant’s statement that it will develop in accordance with the Engineer’s statement. A. No Change o o + o o o+ B. Establish a clear and objective multi -level review approach similar to the current discretionary criteria with increasing complexity depending on potential for impacts.  ooooo ++ C. Revise current requirement to further address a site’s geologic formations, soil types, the presence of open drainage ways, and the existence of undocumented fill. Include requirement that report use Lidar map and SLIDO (Statewide Landslide Information Database of Oregon) map information. o++++++ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 47 of 59 Recommendation : Revise existing requirement to include additional risk indicators. (Option C) There was strongest stakeholder support for option C, moderate support for option B, and support for option A was offset by opposition . Minor revision to the existing requirement could improve its effectiveness without impacting efficiency. Adding known risk factors will help ensure that they get addressed in the geology professional’s statement and recommended mitigation methods. Additionally, the recommendation for COS-03 (20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition) is predicated on this revision also adding language to clarify that the certification must address proposed lot and road locations. This option also allows an exploratory look into the feasibility of using newer risk assessment tools. For example, the Department of Geology and Mining Industries (DOGAMI) recently released new draft landslide history and susceptibility maps for Eugene based on lidar (which stands for Light Detection and Ranging). Here is what their website says about this new tool: The technology of spotting landslides by use of aerial photography and new laser based terrain mapping called lidar is helping DOGAMI develop much more accurate and detailed maps of areas with existing landslides and we are now able to create landslide susceptibility maps, that is, maps that show where we think different types of landslides may occur in the future. Revising the existing requirement has the greatest potential to ensure appropriate siting, construction, and development practices are used to mitigate potential risks of slope failure. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 48 of 59 COS-14 (19 L OT R ULE —MOTOR V EHICLE D ISPERSAL) Description : The clear and object track criterion for partitions, planned unit developments and subdivision that requires the dispersal of motor vehicles onto more than one street when more than 19 lots or parcels take access from a local street was found to be discretionary by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). As such, the City can no longer apply this criterion to applications under the clear and objective track. Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8220(5)(c), EC 9.8325(6)(c), EC 9.8520(6)(b) Existing Code Language : (partition only) 9.8220(5)(c) The street layout of the proposed partition shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the sum of proposed partition parcels and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. Recommendation : Remove criterion and rely on the new criterion from COS-08 (Emergency Response)— include the new criterion for partitions and subdivisions. (Option A) Option A received the strongest support from stakeholders. Public Works staff agree that the criterion can be eliminated without affecting their ability to address street connectivity and transportation concerns. The origin of this criterion is not certain, but appears to have come from an old fire code requirement. The current fire code has a similar requirement, however, it is less restrictive and does not require secondary access until 30 dwellings (single family or duplex) or 100 multi-family units. Several comments from individuals suggested that the fire code should be used for regulating emergency services to developments. Option A is also the most efficient and technically feasible option. Since the existing criterion applies to partitions and subdivisions , the new requirement from COS-08 will need to also apply to the partition and subdivision review tracks (in addition to conditional uses, planned unit developments, and site reviews). A. Eliminate criterion and rely on street connectivity and new emergency response criteria (see COS -08) + o + o o o+ B. Revise to make the criterion clear and objective –oooo oo + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 49 of 59 COS-15 (TRAFFIC I MPACT) Description : Compliance with Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) review is explicitly required as an approval criterion under the discretionary tracks for conditional use, planned unit development and subdivision, but not for projects under the clear and objective tracks. Separate TIA review can also be triggered by projects meeting the TIA applicability standards, including generating over 100 peak hour vehicle trips. Due to the discretionary nature of the TIA criteria, they are not suitable for projects using the clear and objective track. Applies To : Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): N/A Existing Code Language : N/A Recommendation : De fer to more detailed Public Works Transportation project currently getting underway. The working groups supported all options for a change that would require traffic impacts be considered for approval of an application under the needed housing approval criteria. The split support highlights the complexity of this issue. Since the Clear & Objective project began, Public Works Transportation has received grant funding to update the transportation demand management program and traffic impact analysis process. Public Works has confirmed that this issue can be addressed within the scope of this new project. Given the A. No Change o o + o o o– B. Add a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that all intersections within a certain distance of the project site not drop below the city’s minimum level of service as a result of the proposed project, or that impacts will be mitigated. o+ooo o+ C. Add requirement to use crash rate data to require applicants to pick from a menu of crash reduction measures when crash rates exceed a given threshold. ooooo o+ D. Increase use of transportation demand management (TDM) plans to reduce demand on the transportation system and reliance on the use of cars, and encourage more walking, biking, transit and ridesharing. oooo+o+ + promotes o neutral –inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 50 of 59 technical nature of this issue, the opportunity to be addressed more thoroughly by transportation specialists will yield a much better outcome than any attempt to create a criterion as part of the Clear & Objective update. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 51 of 59 COS-16 (PUD T YPE III P ROCESS ) Description : For housing applications that trigger a planned unit development, a Type III quasi-judicial application process (Hearings Official decision, appealable to Planning Commission) may not be necessary or warranted since the approval is based on clear and objective criteria. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.7305, (EC 9.7045(1) and (2) included in recommendation below) Existing Code Language : 9.7305 Type III Application Requirements and Criteria Reference. The following applications are typically reviewed under the Type III review process according to the requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning reference column in Table 9.7305. To accommodate a request for concurrent review, the city may instead review multiple applications according to the highest applicable type. Table 9.7305 Type III Application Requiremen ts and Criteria Type III Applications Beginning Reference Adjustment Review (when part of a Type III Application) EC 9.8015 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) EC 9.8075 Historic Landmark Designation EC 9.8150 Planned Unit Development, Tentative Plan EC 9.8 300 Willamette Greenway Permit EC 9.8800 Zone Changes* EC 9.8850 Recommendation : No change for now. Hold for future code improvement project. A. No Change o o + o o o– B. For single family housing opting for the clear and objective track, drop the planned unit development requirement by adding special South Hills Study cri teria to standards subdivision requirements when a planned unit development would otherwise be required  +o+oo o+ C. For multi -family, drop the planned unit development requirement and require site review to implement the planned unit development criteria +o+oo o+ + promotes o neutral – inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 52 of 59 Options B and C received moderate support, with minimal support for A. The planned unit development application is the mos t costly and lengthy of the land use application types and the purpose is “to provide a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site .” Many people have questioned the appropriateness of having a clear and objective Planned Unit Development given these inherent characteristics of PUDs. However, because PUDs are not strictly voluntary, the State mandate that housing applications have a clear and objective path to approval led to the implementation of the existing clear and objective track. PUDs may be required for the following reasons:  properties that have /PD Planned Unit Development overlay zoning,  particular uses, such as multifamily developments in R-1 Low-Density zones, require a PUD  proposed developments in the South Hills Study area In addition, a property owner can choose to go through the PUD process. As discussed previously under COS-09 (Conditional Use Requirement), the process a land use application follows is related to the amount of discretion required to render the decision. Type I applications are administrative. Types II, III, and IV are quasi-judicial wi th increasing discretion from:  Planning Director decision (Type II)  a Hearings Official decision, includes public hearing (Type III)  Planning Commission recommendation/City Council decision, includes two public hearings (Type III) In the context of the State requirement for a clear and objective path to approval for housing applications, discretion is consequently limited —making the Type II process more appropriate for applications choosing the clear and objective track . The discretionary track option necessarily requires the more rigorous Type III process because it is more subjective. Below is an excerpt from the land use code describing the types: 9.7045 Description of Quasi-judicial Decisions Type II, Type III, Type IV. Quasi-judicial decisions follow either a Type II, Type III or a Type IV process. A quasi-judicial decision concerns a specific site or area, and involves the exercise of discretion in making a decision. (1) A Type II process is based on a review of criteria that requires a limited amount of discretion. The Type II process includes public notice of the application and an opportunity for citizens to provide comments prior to the decision. The process does not include a public hearing unless the decision is appealed. Notice of the decision is provided to allow the applicant or an adversely affected person to appeal the decision to a higher local review authority. (2) A Type III process is a decision-making process in which a hearings official or the historic review board makes the initial decision. The Type III process includes public notice and a public hearing, as well as the opportunity for a local appeal to be filed by the applicant, an individual who testified orally or in writing during the initial public hearing, or affected neighborhood group. There seems to be support or openness to changing the clear and objective track for planned unit developments from a Type III to a Type II review. This option woul d promote efficiency in processing these applications and, since discretion is already limited, effectiveness is determined more by the quality of approval criteria than the process under which the application is reviewed. This would be a significant change; however, and staff have not November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 53 of 59 had sufficient time to fully vet the technical feasibility of implementation. For this reason, the recommendation at this time is to defer this change to a future code improvement project. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 54 of 59 COS-17 (DOES N OT H AMPER P ROVISION OF P UBLIC O PEN S PACE ) MOVED TO COM-18 This item has been moved to Maintenance and renumbered COM-18 November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 55 of 59 COS-18 (ARBORIST AND L ANDSCAPE A RCHITECT R EQUIREMENT) Description : The professional design team for a planned unit development requires both a licensed arborist and a licensed landscape architect. Considering that a tree preservation report can be prepared by either an arborist or landscape architect, as specified in the tree preservation written report requirements in EC 9.6885(2), there is inconsistency between the two requirements. Applies To : Planned Unit Development Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.8310(2)(b) Existing Code Language : (2) Project Coordinator and Professional Design Team . The tentative PUD application shall identify the PUD project coordinator and the professional design team and certify compliance with the following: (b) Professional Design Team Designation . Unless waived by the planning director, the professional design team shall consist of at least the following professionals: 1. Oregon licensed arborist. 2. Oregon licensed architect. 3. Oregon licensed civil engineer. 4. Oregon licensed landscape architect. 5. Oregon licensed land surveyor. Recommendation : No change. (Option A) The working groups expressed divided support (and opposition) for both A and B. While the Eugene Code allows for a landscape architect or arborist to write the report required by the tree preservation and removal criteria at EC 9.6885(2), there were polarized opinions on whether allowing just a landscape architect on the planned unit development design team is as effective as having an arborist too. Planned unit development s occur predominantly in the south hills where there are often significant tree concerns. In addition, if the recommendation for COS-11 (Tree Preservation Consideration) is implemented, there may be greater justification for requiring an arborist. This particular issue would also be unnecessary if a future code improvement changes the clear and objective track for planned unit developments from a Type III to a Type II process. A. No Change o o + o o oo B. Allow for a landscape architect to substitute for an arborist on a PUD design team.oo+oo oo + promotes o neutral – inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 56 of 59 COS-19 (S TREET S TANDARDS M ODIFICATIONS ) Description : Currently, projects can vary stated maximums for block length, street connectivity, and cul-de- sac/emergency vehicle turnarounds where physical conditions, such as topography or natural resources, or existing physical development precludes compliance with the standard. Applies To : Partition, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): EC 9.6810, EC 9.6815(2)(g), EC 9.6820 Existing Code Language : 9.6810 Block Length. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless an exception is granted based on one or more of the following: (1) Physical conditions preclude a block length 600 feet or less . Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or the existence of natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. (2) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a block length 600 feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment. (3) An existing public street or streets terminating at the boundary of the development site have a block length exceeding 600 feet, or are situated such that the extension of the street(s) into the development site would create a block length exceeding 600 feet . In such cases, the block length shall be as close to 600 feet as practicable. (4) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer demonstrates that a strict application of the 600- foot requirement would result in a street network that is no more beneficial to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic than the proposed street network and that the proposed street network will accommodate necessary emergency access . 9.6815(2) Street Connectivity Standards. (g) In the context of a Type II or Type III land use decision, the city shall grant an exception to the standards in subsections (2)(b), (c) or (d) if the applicant demonstrates that any proposed exceptions are consistent with either subsection 1. or 2. below: 1. The applicant has provided to the city, at his or her expense, a local street connection study that demonstrates: a. That the proposed street system meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of this land use code as expressed in EC 9.6815(1); and b. How undeveloped or partially developed properties within a quarter mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts. 2. The applicant demonstrates that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a. Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street . Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 57 of 59 b. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. 9.6820(5) As part of a Type II or Type III process, an exception may be granted to the requirements of (1), (3) and (4) of this section because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street . Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat areas, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. (b) Buildings or other existing development on the subject property or adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. Recommendation : Revise to allow clear and objective exceptions and allow adjustment review option. (Options B and C) The working groups expressed support for both B and C and a combination of the two . Both options received the same rating in all categories. Both options may promote efficiency and effectiveness . An adjustment review option is feasible; however, providing clear exceptions to avoid a discretionary process when conditions clearly call for an exception is desirable. It is recommended that the existing code language be revised to include specifically identify circumstances that allow for an outright exception. For other alternative designs, the adjustment review process would ensure that proposals respond to the intent of the code. References to the allowable adjustments and adjustment criteria will also be required. A. No Change o o + o o oo B. Define specific circumstances that qualify for an exception to the block length, street connectivity, and cul-de-sac/turnaround standards for clear and objective projects.  +++oo o+ C. Add an adjustment review option to allow for modifications if the standard cannot be met.+++oo o+ + promotes o neutral – inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 58 of 59 COS-20 (P EDESTRIAN D EFINITION) Description : There are many references in the land use code to the word “pedestrian .” However, the term is not defined in the definitions section of the land use code at EC 9.0500. Applies To : Conditional Use, Partition, Planned Unit Development, Site Review, Subdivision Existing Code Section(s): Multiple Existing Code Language : Below is one example: 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria - Needed Housing (6) The proposed subdivision provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following: (a) Provision of pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation among buildings located within the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. Recommendation : Add definition for ‘pedestrian’ based on modified version of that provided in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). There was strong stakeholder support for using the definition of pedestrian provided in State statutes at ORS 801.385[Oregon Vehicle Code]. This would provide clarity when the term pedestrian is used in the clear and objective approval criteria. It was suggested that changing “confined to a wheelchair” to “using a wheel chair” A. No Change o o + o o o B. Define pedestrian as "non -motorized use(r)s of transportation facilities, including, but not limited to bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, child strollers, and individuals who have sight, hearing or mobility impairme nts or any other condition that affects their safety when travelling on public or private transportation facilities.” oo–oo o C. Define pedestrian using the definition provided in state statue at ORS 801.385 [Oregon Vehicle Code]: “any person afoot o r confined in a wheelchair.” o++oo o + promotes o neutral – inhibits Possible Concepts November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 59 of 59 was more inclusive. In addition, several felt that the definition should cover both motorized and non-motorized wheelchairs. The recommended definitions is “any person afoot or using any type of wheelchair.” November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2 November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 3 EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Rest Stop Program Update and Siting Policy Discussion Meeting Date: November 26, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Jason Dedrick www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5033 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is an opportunity for staff to update council on the Rest Stop Program and to discuss potential changes to the rest stop siting policy. BACKGROUND The Rest Stop Program was initiated by the City Council in September 2013 by Ordinance 20517 (Attachment A) as a pilot program. Council approved yearly extensions to the program four times before voting to remove the program’s sunset date on February 27, 2017 (see Attachment B for permanent Administrative Rules and Regulations for the program). The program provides certain council-approved sites where up to 20 individuals who are experiencing homelessness may safely and legally sleep and keep their belongings while they work to obtain more stable, permanent housing. Managing non-profits have been responsible for the costs to establish and operate each location. The City contributes to the program through the council-enacted ordinance, by providing council-approved properties for sites, financial resources for materials and supplies, and staff support to the program. Eugene currently has four rest stops, three of which are managed by Community Supported Shelters and are located in Ward 7, with the fourth managed by Nightingale Health Sanctuary and located in Ward 2. Per council direction, City staff have engaged in efforts to increase education and outreach around the program with the goal of potentially identifying additional sites. Most importantly, staff have created an Outreach Handbook for Community Members on the Rest Stop Program (Attachment C). The handbook is an in-depth, how-to guide that includes detailed program information, an outline of the process and criteria for potential site identification, and tools for conducting outreach. The enacting ordinance (Attachment A) specifies that any potential rest stop site that is proposed by the City Manager must be approved by City Council. Currently, the City Manager examines a series of consideration and criteria, some specified in ordinance, prior to proposing a site for consideration (Attachment D). The current process flow chart for identifying and approving potential rest stop locations is included as Attachment E. November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 3 Triple Bottom Line The Triple Bottom Line is primarily addressed on this program through siting efforts (environmental and social equity considerations) and the social equity and economic prosperity dimensions of helping community members achieve housing and economic stability by providing safe, supported places to sleep. RELATED CITY POLICIES 1. Eugene Code 4.816 Permitted Overnight Sleeping 2. Council goal for a safe community: A community where all people are safe, valued and welcome. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Maintain the current policy. 2. Make changes to the current policy. ATTACHMENTS A. Permitted Overnight Sleeping Ordinance B. Administrative Order No. 53-17-03-F C. Rest Stop Program Outreach Handbook D. Considerations and Criterial for Potential Rest Stop Sites E. Rest Stop Site Identification Process Flow Chart FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jason Dedrick Telephone: 541-682-5033 Staff E-Mail: jdedrick@eugene-or.gov COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 20517 COUNCIL BILL 5098 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PERMITTED OVERNIGHT SLEEPING; AMENDING SECTION 4.816 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING A SUNSET DATE FOR UNCODIFIED PROVISIONS. ADOPTED: September 25, 2013 SIGNED: September 25, 2013 PASSED: 6:2 REJECTED: OPPOSED: Clark, Poling ABSENT: EFFECTIVE; September 25, 2013 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 ORDINANCE NO. 20517 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PERMITTED OVERNIGHT SLEEPING; AMENDING SECTION 4.816 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING A SUNSET DATE FOR UNCODIFIED PROVISIONS. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. Section 4.816 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC) provides for the regulation of overnight sleeping. B. In order to create additional sleeping options for people who are homeless, Ordinance No. 20484 was adopted temporarily allowing overnight sleeping in a tent where overnight sleeping would be allowed in a vehicle. The sunset date of that provision was extended to December 31, 2014 by Ordinance No. 20501. Ordinance No. 20503 was adopted allowing overnight sleeping in a "Conestoga hut' where overnight sleeping would be allowed in a vehicle. That Ordinance will sunset on October 1, 2013. EC 4.816 should be amended to make those provisions permanent. C. In addition, a pilot program expanding the permitted overnight sleeping provisions should be established and remain in effect until March 31, 2014, which will allow the City to monitor the program to determine whether it should be made permanent, revised or abandoned. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The findings set forth above are adopted. Section 2 . Subsection (1) of EC 4.816 is amended to provide as follows: 4.816 Permitted Overnight Slee 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code: a) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle in a parking lot of a religious institution, place of worship, business or public entity that owns or leases property on which a parking lot and occupied structure are located, with permission of the property owner. The property owner may not grant permission for more than six vehicles used for sleeping at any one time. For purposes of this subsection (1), the term "vehicle" includes a car, tent, camper, trailer, and Conestoga hut. b) Persons may sleep overnight in the back yard of a single family residence in a residential zoning district, with permission of the owner and tenant of the residence. Not more than one family may sleep in any back yard, and not more than one tent or camping shelter may be used for sleeping in the back yard. As an alternative, but not in addition to sleeping overnight in the back yard, not more than one family may sleep Ordinance - Page 1 of 3 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 in a vehicle, camper or trailer parked in the driveway of a single family residence in a residential zoning district, with permission of the owner and tenant of the residence. For purposes of this subsection, "family" means persons related by blood or marriage, or no more than two unrelated adults. c) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, on a paved or graveled surface located on a vacant or unoccupied parcel, with the permission of the property owner, if the owner registers the site with the city or its agent. The city may require the site to be part of a supervised program operated by the city or its agent. The property owner may not grant permission for more than six vehicles used for sleeping at any one time. Section 3 . The following provisions are adopted as a pilot program and shall sunset and be repealed on March 31, 2014, unless extended or made permanent by future Council action: Permitted Overnight Sleeping Pilot Program 1) Up to 15 persons may sleep overnight in vehicles, as that term is defined in section 4.816(1)(a) of this code on property authorized pursuant to Section 4 of this ordinance. 2) No site may be used for overnight sleeping pursuant to subsection (1) of this section unless one or more entities enters into the agreement with the City referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance and one or more entities other than the City provides, at no cost to the City, adequate garbage, toilets and supervision. The entity providing supervision shall work with surrounding and nearby neighbors (businesses or residences) to address any concerns. Section 4 . The City Manager shall recommend to the City Council one or more proposed sites for the pilot project authorized by Section 3 of this Ordinance. Any such site may not be located in a residential area or close to a school, and must be owned or leased by the City of Eugene, a religious institution, a non - profit organization, or a business if the business is located on property zoned commercial or industrial. Before a proposed site may be used, the site must be approved by the City Council by motion and an agreement must be executed between the City and the entity referred to in subsection (2) of Section 3 above. Such an agreement may include but is not limited to provisions concerning (a) supervision, (b) selection of the individuals who may camp at the site, (c) number of continuous days that someone may camp at the site, d) hours that people may stay at the site in addition to 9:00 p.m. to 7 a.m., (e) structures and Ordinance - Page 2 of 3 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 other items that may be placed on the site, and (f) closure of the site for non - compliance with the terms of the agreement. Section 5 . Due to the inclement weather and the need to provide assistance to homeless persons as soon as possible, pursuant to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Eugene Charter of 2002, with the affirmative vote of two - thirds of the members of the City Council, upon adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor, or passage over the Mayor's veto, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately. Passed by the City Council this 25 day of September, 2013. Approved by the Mayor this 25 " day of September, 2013. ij I/U VJ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 3 of 3 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 53-17-03-F of the City Manager ADOPTION OF PERMANENT RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE REST STOP AND DUSK TO DAWN OVERNIGHT SLEEPING PROGRAMS. The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Section 2.019 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC) authorizes the City Manager to adopt rules for administration of provisions of the Eugene Code. B. On September 25, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20517 which established a temporary permitted overnight sleeping ("Rest Stop") Pilot Program allowing persons to sleep overnight at approved City locations until March 31, 2014. The Rest Stop Program has since been amended by Ordinance No. 20547, and the sunset date extended, most recently by Ordinance No. 20563. C. On November 26,2013, I issued Administrative Order No. 53-13-13 establishing temporary regulations to implement the Rest Stop Pilot Program until March 31, 2014. The regulations have since been amended by Admin Order No. 53-14-03, and the sunset date extended, most recently by Administrative Order No. 53-16-12. D. On November 23, 2015 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20559 which established a temporary permitted overnight sleeping ("Dusk to Dawn") Pilot Program allowing persons to sleep overnight between specified hours at approved City locations until March 31 , 2016. The Dusk to Dawn Program has since been amended and sunset date extended, most recently by Ordinance No. 20563. E. On December 16, 2015, I issued Administrative Order No. 53-15-18 establishing temporary regulations to implement the Dusk to Dawn Pilot Program. The regulations have since been amended by Admin Order 53-16-06, and the sunset date extended, most recently by Administrative Order No. 53-16-13 . F. On February 27,2017, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20576 repealing the sunset date of the Rest Stop Program and Dusk to Dawn Program which were set to expire on March 31, 2017 . . G. Due to Council's repeal of the sunset date of the Rest Stop Program and Dusk to Dawn Program, on March 3,2017, I issued Administrative Order No. 53-17-03 proposing to adopt the temporary Rest Stop and Dusk to Dawn Program Rules and Regulations as permanent Rules. H. Notice of the proposed Rule adoption was given by making copies of the Notice that was attached as Exhibit A to Administrative Order No. 53-17-03 available to any person who Administrative Order -Page 1 of 5 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 had requested such notice and b y publication of the Notice in the Register Guard new spaper on March 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 , 2017 . Copies of the Notice were also provided to the Mayor and City Councilors , and to persons operating Rest Stop and Dusk to Dawn sites. The Notice provided that written comments be submitted within 15 day s of the first date of publication of the Notice. No comments were received within the time or in the manner provided in the Notice. BASED UPON the above findings and the findings in Administrative Order No. 53-17- 03 , and pursuant to the authority contained in Section 2.019 of the Eugene Code, 1971, effective March 31, 2017, the Rest Stop Program and Dusk to Dawn Program Rules and Regulations are adopted to provide as follows: PERMITTED OVERNIGHT SLEEPING PROGRAM RULES AND REGULATIONS I. REST STOP PROGRAM A. Rest Stop -Property Provider/Site Manager Responsibilities: 1. The property provider/operator shall designate a site manager who shall be responsible for providing supervision when provider is not present. Designation of a site manager does not relieve the property provider/operator of responsibility to ensure compliance with the Contract and these regulations. 2. A contract shall be executed providing for one or more portable toilets with weekly cleaning, and weekly trash/recycling pick up. 3. The property provider/site manager shall maintain a roster. of individuals who are authorized to be at the property. 4. The property provider/site manager shall ensure that guests and visitors comply with all provisions of these rules, the site agreement, and provisions adopted by City Council. B. Rest Stop -Guest Responsibilities: 1. The following activities/items are prohibited from the property: .Alcohol; illegal drugs • Weapons .megal activity .Open flames, unless approved by the Fire Marshal. .Loud music or other disruptive noise .Overnight visitors .Physical violence, intimidating or threatening behavior or language while on or in the vicinity of the property ; damage or harm to the property or property in the surrounding area. Administrative Order -Page 2 of 5 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 eEngage in behavior on or near the property that may negatively affect the peace and enjoyment of the property and surrounding property for other overnight sleepers or for neighbors. eChildren, except children who are accompanied by a parent or guardian during daytime hours. 2. Only tents are permitted on the property, unless specifically approved in writing by the City Manager or the Manager's designee. 3. The provider, guests and visitors shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws, including the requirements of the fire code. 4. Guests shall keep personal property in the permitted tent. 5. Visitors are allowed only between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. and are not permitted to bring animals onto the property . Guests shall be responsible for the behavior of visitors while on the property, and visitors shall adhere to all of the obligations of guests under these regulations. Not more than 20 people, counting both guests and visitors, may be on the property between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. 6. Guests shall be selected by the property provider and may stay on the property until the provider revokes that permission. If permission to remain on the property is revoked, the guest(s) must immediately remove themselves and their property or risk citation for trespassing, having their vehicle towed, at the owner's expense, and their property disposed of. 7. Guests shall deposit all garbage in waste receptacles provided by the property provider/site manager or transport it off site and dispose of it lawfully, and shall keep the area where they are sleeping clean. 8. Guests shall use bathroom facilities provided by the property provider/site manager, or available to the public off-site. II. DUSK TO DAWN PROGRAM A. Dusk to Dawn -Property Provider/Site Manager Responsibilities: 1. A property provider/site manager will be designated who shall be responsible for providing supervision during site operating hours. 2. Site will be occupied no earlier than 4:30 p.m. and no later than 7:30 a.m. in a 24 hour period. The City Manager, may adjust site operating hours upon considering, among other things, the seasonal sunset. However, the City Manager may not adjust operating hours such that sites are open earlier than 4:30 p.m. or later than 7:30 a.m. Administrative Order -Page 3 of 5 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 3. Personal property will be stored in compliance with criteria set by the property provider/site manager and must be taken with guests when they vacate the site each day. 4. Provide one or more portable toilets with weekly cleaning, and weekly trash/recycling pick up. 5. Keep the site and surrounding property free from accumulation of trash or items left behind by guests. 6. Maintain a current roster of individuals who are authorized to be at the property (" guests"). 7. Shall open a site only after the City Manager has provided written authorization allowing the site to open. The written authorization shall include the number of people permitted to use the site, and any other regulations applicable to the specific site. 8. Make sure that the number of people at the site(s) between 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. does not exceed the number of people permitted by the City Manager's written authorization. 9. Ensure that guests comply with all provisions of these regulations and provisions adopted by City Council. 10. All applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws will be complied with, including the requirements of the fire code. B. Dusk to Dawn -Guest Responsibilities: 1. The following activities/items are prohibited from the property: eAlcohol; illegal drugs eWeapons eIllegal activity eOpen flames, unless approved by the Fire Marshal. eLoud music or other disruptive noise eOvernight visitors ePhysical violence, intimidating or threatening behavior or language while on or in the vicinity of the property; damage or harm to the property or property in the surrounding area. eBehavior on or near the property that may negatively affect the peace and enjoyment of the property and surrounding property for other overnight sleepers or for neighbors. eChildren. 2. Compliance with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws, including the requirements of the fire code. Administrative Order -Page 4 of 5 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Outreach Handbook Eugene’s Rest Stop & Car Camping Programs a how-to guide for community members City Manager’s Office 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene OR 97401 541-682-5010 ATTACHMENT C November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ Purpose of the Handbook ........................................................................................................................................ Housing and Homelessness in Lane County .................................................................................................... Homelessness Efforts in Eugene .......................................................................................................................... Roles of Community Members and the City..................................................................................................... Program Information ............................................................................................................................................................ Rest Stop Program Information ............................................................................................................................ Car Camping Program Information ..................................................................................................................... Site Searches ............................................................................................................................................................................... Potential Rest Stop Site Identification Process Flow Chart ....................................................................... Considerations and Criteria for Potential Rest Stop Sites ......................................................................... Considerations for Potential Car Camping Host Sites ................................................................................. Outreach Strategies ................................................................................................................................................................ Outreach Strategies and Actions .......................................................................................................................... Considerations for a Community Meeting ........................................................................................................ Sample Script for Door-to-Door Outreach ........................................................................................................ Tracking Outreach Efforts ....................................................................................................................................... Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Sample Car Camping Agreement between Hosts & Campers ................................................................... Frequently Asked Questions .................................................................................................................................. Helpful Links ................................................................................................................................................................. Outreach Materials ................................................................................................................................................................. Rest Stop Flyer ............................................................................................................................................................. Car Camping Flyer ...................................................................................................................................................... Potential Rest Stop Site Evaluation Form ......................................................................................................... Accessing maps of City-owned property........................................................................................................... Door-to-Door Tracking Sheet ................................................................................................................................ Meeting Tracking Sheet ............................................................................................................................................ Social Media Posts Tracking Sheet ...................................................................................................................... News Blast Sign-Up Sheet ........................................................................................................................................ November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 1 Nightingale Health Sanctuary rest stop residents during Everyone Matters Day event, April 2016 Photo courtesy of City of Eugene Community Supported Shelters “Safe Spot” rest stop residents Photo courtesy of Community Supported Shelters Purpose of this Handbook In February 2017, the Eugene City Council directed the City Manager to work with task teams of interested community members to identify potential new sites for rest stops. The Rest Stop and Car Camping Programs provide safe and legal places for people who are unhoused to sleep overnight and keep their belongings. While the Car Camping Program has existed for over a decade, the Rest Stop Program began in 2013 and recently moved from a pilot phase to a permanent program with the Council’s decision to remove its sunset date. The programs have been extensively community- driven—an important component of their success. This handbook is intended to support these community-led efforts and improve prospects for finding new places to site rest stops or car camps. City staff will help support and be a resource to these groups, while the handbook allows teams of neighbors to continue to move this work forward and grow awareness and opportunities for these programs.  The purpose of this handbook is to help prepare interested community members and groups to talk about the City of Eugene’s Rest Stop and Car Camping Programs with others in their neighborhoods and work with City staff and the community to identify eligible rest stop sites for consideration and potential approval by the City Council.  The intent is to assist and enable community members to conduct this work and outreach in a way that engages them actively in different aspects of the process, increases transparency, strengthens relationships, and builds trust and collaboration among neighbors, advocates, the City, and the broader community. As the process and guidelines for establishing a rest stop tend to be more circumscribed than those for establishing car camping sites, the reader will find more detailed information about rest stops in the handbook. Primary differences between the programs include: 1) rest stops can have capacity for up to 20 people, while car camping sites allow up to 6 vehicles as defined by applicable City code; 2) rest stop sites must be approved by the City Council, while car camping sites do not require Council approval; and 3) establishing new rest stop sites requires more extensive outreach in the immediate neighborhood. We will update this handbook in the future to keep it relevant and accurate. Overall, we hope it is a useful tool for community members who are interested in these programs and in engaging and working with their neighbors to better understand and address homelessness in our community. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 2 Housing & Homelessness in Lane County Eugene, like many other cities across the country, is grappling with homelessness and insufficient access to housing. In October 2015, the Eugene City Council approved a resolution that recognized the urgency of the housing and homelessness crisis in our community and the need for state assistance to address it. There are many causes of homelessness. Some of them are:  Housing costs that are rising faster than wages;  A lack and loss of affordable housing;  Mental health and addiction services that do not meet the need;  Domestic violence; and  Circumstances of personal trauma, abuse and hardship. Homelessness has significant impacts on the individuals who experience it and on the larger community as well. While efforts are being made on many fronts to address both the root causes and the consequences of homelessness, the need is still great. There are over a thousand people sleeping unsheltered at night in Lane County. In addition, the graph below illustrates that many in our community are struggling to afford basic needs and may only be a missed paycheck or medical emergency away from potentially losing their housing. How many households in Lane County are struggling? “ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed are households that earn more than the U.S. poverty level, but less than the basic cost of living for the county. Combined, the number of poverty and ALICE households equal the total population struggling to afford basic needs”.1 43% of households in Lane County are struggling to afford basic needs. 1 United Ways of the Pacific Northwest. (2015). ALICE Report – Pacific Northwest. UnitedWayALICE.org/PNW. “AT” in the graph refers to ALICE Threshold, the average level of income that a household needs to afford the basics defined by the Household Survival Budget for each county in the Pacific Northwest. By the Numbers 1,529 people were counted as homeless in Lane County during the Homeless Point-in-Time Count conducted on January 25, 2017. Of these: 164 were veterans 269 were families with children 640 were experiencing chronic homelessness 1,003 were unsheltered In addition to the one-night count numbers, 1,616 unduplicated individuals were served at Egan Warming Centers during 24 nights of operation during the winter season 12, 998 homeless individuals sought social services through Lane County Human Services funded programs in 2016 2,388 homeless students attended public school in Lane County during the 2015-2016 school year. People experiencing homelessness utilize emergency services and jail beds at a proportionally higher rate than those who are housed. It costs $237-$1,900 per visit to the Sacred Heart Hospital Emergency Room and $171 per day to house an inmate at the Lane County Jail. In Lane County, there are: 462 year-around emergency shelter beds 330 seasonal shelter beds November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 3 Homelessness Efforts in Eugene Eugene and Lane County are fortunate to have a number of social service providers in our community who offer needed services to the unhoused with compassion, resourcefulness, effectiveness, and innovation. From housing, mental health services, job skills, benefits assistance and addiction recovery to showers, laundry, clothing, meals and help obtaining IDs, these social service providers are vital for providing the on-the-ground services that people need to get back on their feet, and most of them operate with substantial help from volunteers. Local, county, state, and federal government agencies all contribute funding to affordable housing and social services in our area. The Lane County Human Services Commission and Human Services Department are the primary coordinating and decision-making entities for the bulk of funding that is directed toward human services. In addition, the Poverty & Homelessness Board (PHB) consists of representatives from Lane County, the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and a variety of stakeholder groups. It provides policy leadership and guidance and pursues strategies related to increasing housing and shelter, promoting awareness and advocacy, and preventing homelessness in the region. The City of Eugene is also involved in a variety of targeted efforts related to homelessness, such as increasing and preserving our city’s affordable housing and social service facilities, addressing youth homelessness, and developing alternative approaches and options to the traditional law enforcement and criminal justice system for those who need it. Another specific effort the City is involved with—and the subject of this handbook—is providing additional safe spaces for unhoused people to sleep. The Rest Stop and Car Camping Programs were approved by the City of Eugene as permitted overnight sleeping. These programs provide safe and legal places for people who do not have shelter to stabilize and work on transitioning to more permanent housing. The Rest Stop and Car Camping Programs are not the City’s only approach or solution to homelessness, but they help to fill a gap, both for individuals who are transitioning off the streets and into housing, and for the agencies and partners working toward long-term solutions. In addition to the Rest Stop and Car Camping Programs, the tiny home village model and the Dusk to Dawn program (which provides places where unhoused people can sleep overnight but must vacate during the day) illustrate additional efforts to provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness in our community. While not the focus of this handbook, City staff can provide more information about these programs and others upon request. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 4 Neighborhood groups and task teams can be either an informal group of neighbors or a more formal designated group such as a neighborhood association. Roles of Neighbors and the City in the Process of Identifying New Potential Rest Stop Sites Ne i g h b o r s •Conduct evaluations of potential sites based on criteria •Conduct onsite inspection of potential sites •Submit forms for suggested sites •Communicate with City staff •Conduct outreach •Increase dialogue and collaboration Ci t y •Provide information about sites •Help define process •Provide information, education, presentations and outreach materials •Facilitate the process and neighborhood success •Increase dialogue and collaboration November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 5 What is a rest stop? A rest stop is a designated area within city limits where up to 20 people are allowed to sleep in tents or Conestoga huts. Unless for security or health reasons, residents vacate the site during the day and a limited number of visitors are permitted during designated hours. Each site is approved by the Eugene City Council. The City then enters into an agreement with a nonprofit organization to operate and manage the rest stop. There are currently four rest stops in Eugene that provide temporary, safe, legal places for people who are experiencing homelessness to sleep at night. How are sites selected? There are many factors that are considered in site selection. They include the site’s suitability for camping, proximity to schools and residential areas, road access for trash and restroom servicing, environmental sensitivity, and proximity to public transportation. Who pays for the rest stops? The costs of establishing and operating each rest stop are paid for and managed by a nonprofit organization. The Eugene City Council approved $25,000 in funding for the program in Fiscal Year 2017. The land is currently provided by the City of Eugene and the Eugene Mission. Who stays at rest stops? Individuals 18 or over who are experiencing homelessness are eligible to apply for a space at a rest stop. Applicants are screened to determine if they are a good fit. Rest stops are intended to be a temporary respite, and the managing nonprofit works to connect residents with support and resources to help them move toward more sustainable housing. How are rest stops kept healthy and safe? Residents sign agreements with the rest stop providers that they will abide by the rules and program expectations. On-site managers provide supervision. Best practices for water, handling and preparing food, cooking and cleaning, heating, waste management and illness prevention are followed. There is zero tolerance for violent behavior or drug or alcohol use onsite. Children must be supervised and are prohibited from staying overnight. Operators provide portable restrooms and trash collection. Residents are expected to keep the site tidy, refrain from disruptive behavior and be good neighbors. The sites are fenced to control access and promote safety. Why is the City allowing rest stops? There is not enough affordable housing for the number of people experiencing homelessness in our area. Rest stops are an option to help alleviate this need and reduce the impacts of unsanctioned camping. Residents report that having a secure and safe place to sleep is crucial as they work to access services and find long-term, stable housing. Eugene’s Rest Stop Program Findings from the University of Oregon’s Community Planning Workshop Review of Rest Stops Neighborhood impacts: Police data has shown no considerable increase in reported activity. 84% of neighboring residents and businesses were supportive of rest stops. 62% of neighboring residents and businesses described the neighborhood as “safe” or “very safe”. Resident statistics: 92% were not unhoused by choice. 62% were Eugene/Springfield residents when they first became unhoused. 86% indicated that they had an increased ability to provide for themselves. 71% felt that staying at the rest stop is helping them transition to permanent housing. Source: Providing for the Unhoused: A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene. 2015. Community Planning Workshop. Community Service Center, University of Oregon. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 6 Rest Stop Rules and Governance For residents, living in a rest stop camp community comes with responsibilities. While the City outlines rules and regulations for rest stops, the nonprofits managing the sites instill camp governance structures and additional rules that residents must follow. These rules reflect best practices in camp management and maintain the rest stop as a safe and stable environment. Managing Nonprofit Camp Governance and Rules Managing nonprofits design camp governance structure. Broadly, these structures dictate the responsibilities of each resident to the site, its volunteers, other residents and surrounding neighbors. This may include mandatory camp meetings, work service, and other duties. While site rules may differ from camp to camp, the following examples from Community Supported Shelters (CSS) provide an idea of what is expected from residents to ensure rest stops are maintained as safe and stable sites. At CSS rest stops:  Residents are expected to adhere to camp rules. Failure to do so could lead to immediate eviction or written notice of violation. Three written violations lead to eviction.  Length of stay is limited to 10 total months and begins with a 30-day trial period. If the trial is successful, the stay can be approved for an added 6 months. Residents may apply for an extension of up to 3 months, if necessary.  Camp sites are closed 10 am – 4 pm Monday - Friday and residents are expected to leave the camp during these hours. Residents may return to the camp between 4 and 10 pm. At 10 pm the camp gate is locked. Residents are allowed to stay in the camp on Saturdays and Sundays.  Quiet hours are in place from 10 pm – 7 am.  Guests of residents are only allowed during open camp hours and are not allowed to stay overnight. No minors are permitted on camp property.  Alcohol and drugs are NOT permitted in the camp. Use of either on camp property is grounds for immediate eviction.  If requested, residents must comply with a background check or urine analysis testing. Eugene Administrative Order No. 53-17-03-F Site regulations: Portable toilet and trash/recycling service must be provided. Roster of individuals authorized to be on property must be kept. Visitors allowed from 9 am to 9 pm totaling no more than 20 people on site. The following activities/items are prohibited from the property: Alcohol, illegal drugs, weapons, and illegal activity. Open flames, unless approved by the Fire Marshal. Loud music or other disruptive noise. Overnight visitors. Physical violence, intimidating or threatening behavior or language; damage or harm to the property or property in the surrounding area. Engagement in behavior on or near the property that may negatively affect the peace and enjoyment of the property and surrounding property for other overnight sleepers or for neighbors. Children, except children who are accompanied by a parent or guardian during daytime hours. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 The Car Camping Program 7 What is the Car Camping Program? The Car Camping Program provides safe and legal places for unhoused people to sleep in vehicles, camper trailers, tents, Conestoga huts, or tiny homes on wheels. How are sites selected? Car camping sites can be located on property owned or leased by public entities, non-profits, businesses, or religious organizations. The property owner may grant permission for up to 6 vehicles, which, by applicable City Code, includes camper trailers, tents, Conestoga huts, or tiny homes on wheels. Who operates the sites, and who pays for the program? The majority of car camping sites are managed by St. Vincent de Paul through their Overnight Parking Program. They oversee more than 70 permitted spots at 43 addresses in the Eugene/Springfield metro area. There are also churches, non-profits and businesses who host and oversee their own car camping sites. The City of Eugene provides funding for the Overnight Parking Program operated by St. Vincent de Paul through a contract agreement. Funds are used to supply the portable restrooms and trash service and for St. Vincent de Paul staff to administer the program. Hosts who are not part of St. Vincent de Paul’s program pay their own program costs. How are the sites kept healthy and safe? Car camping sites must have sanitary facilities, garbage disposal services, and a storage area for campers to store any personal items so that they are not visible from any public street. St. Vincent de Paul provides siting, camper screening and placement, garbage disposal, portable restrooms, and linkages to services for participants in their program at no cost to the host site. How does someone get on the waiting list? Families and individuals experiencing homelessness may apply to receive a slot at one of the sites. Single adults in need of assistance should call (541) 461-8688 or visit the Eugene Service Station at 450 Highway 99 N. Families should visit First Place Family Center at 1995 Amazon Parkway, open 7 days/week. Where can I find more information about becoming a host site? St. Vincent de Paul manages car camping sites at no cost to the host. Individuals or businesses who are interested in more information about their program can visit https://www.svdp.us/what-we-do/homeless- services/overnight-parking-program/ or call (541) 461-8688. You can also reach the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682-8442 to find out more information about becoming a host site. Where do Conestoga huts come from? A local nonprofit, Community Supported Shelters, constructs the Conestoga huts for use in homeless programs in Eugene and the surrounding area. For more information, visit www.communitysupportedshelters.org. Last year, the Overnight Parking Program operated by St. Vincent de Paul helped 81 individuals, 27 families, and 41 children November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 9 Rest Stop Potential Site Identification: Process Flow Chart *Note this flow chart illustrates the way the process would ideally work. Each site will have particular characteristics that may require the process to deviate from what is outlined below. It may be found at any point in the process that a site is not viable for a rest stop. *Neighborhood groups can be either an informal group of neighbors or a more formal designated group such as a neighborhood association. City staff review site submitted and provide their analysis as well as additional information such as ownership info or site background. Neighborhood-based groups evaluate potential sites based on criteria and submit Site Evaluation Form for a site they find to be viable. Neighborhood group may decide to conduct outreach in nearby area and work with City staff to connect with potential operators and determine other potential next steps. Following outreach, staff may bring site, outreach feedback, and information about potential operators to the City Manager. At this time, City Manager may bring the site to the City Council. City Council may take a vote on whether or not to approve the site. If approved, additional outreach will be conducted in immediate areas around the site before beginning of rest stop operations. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 11 Considerations and Criteria for Potential Rest Stop Sites Many factors and needs influence the identification and operations of a potential rest stop. For example, each rest stop resident requires an 8x10 foot sleeping space, and sites also generally have additional common space for residents to eat, prepare food and meet together. Trucks must be able to access the site in order to service the portable restrooms and trash bins, and rest stops are authorized under ordinance by the City of Eugene, so potential sites must be in City limits. Although rest stops are allowed to serve up to 20 individuals, it is not a requirement if the site does not have space or capacity to serve that many people. These are some items to consider when evaluating the viability of a potential rest stop site: The site must be within City limits. You can determine whether a specific site is within City limits at https://www.eugene-or.gov/2125/Do-I-Live-in-the-City. The site must be suitable for camping and for a rest stop-type use. Therefore, characteristics such as whether the site is flat or sloped, grassy or gravel, its seasonal wetness or dryness, and surrounding vegetation or elements that may add to or detract from its privacy should be considered. Access onto and off of the property need to be considered for residents who may have mobility issues and for emergency vehicle personnel. The site must have road accessibility for trucks to service the portable restrooms and trash collection bins. Proximity to schools and to houses or residential areas must be considered. The availability of water or power may not be a precluding factor but should be considered. Sites should be in proximity to bus lines or public transportation. Rest stops must not be on wetlands or property that is environmentally sensitive. A Potential Rest Stop Site Identification Form is included in the Outreach Materials section at the back of this handbook to help community members use the criteria above to assess different sites that may be viable for a rest stop. Copies of the form can be requested through the City Manager’s Office by emailing Regan.S.Watjus@ci.eugene.or.us or calling (541) 682-8442. Completed forms should be submitted to City staff for further site analysis. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 13 Considerations for Car Camping Host Sites By Community Supported Shelters Dear friends, Thank you for taking the time to consider becoming a ‘Host site’ for homeless people to live in a car, tent, vehicle, or Conestoga Hut on your property. How you design your site and resident/host interface is ultimately up to you. Through the work of Community Supported Shelters we have developed this list of considerations. It's important to understand that being a successful host site depends on you having a developed host/resident interface plan. This plan must be clearly communicated with hut residents. Give the new residents a copy of the host plan. Be sure they understand, agree to, and sign the designated plan. This protects host site and provides a means of accountability if problems do arise. Considerations in developing your Host/Resident Interface plan: 1.What is your motivation for becoming a Host site? What do you have to offer as a Host? 2.Do you have any experience with disadvantaged populations of people? How will your organization interact with residents? 3.How many Conestoga hut residents will you start with? 4.How long will you want residents to be able to stay at your site? 5.Will your site provide electricity? Will residents have access to water? 6.Will your residents have access to site facilities? If so, when? Who will be there to oversee use during these times? What are the limitations (i.e. kitchen, shower, internet/computer access, telephone, etc.)? What are the guidelines for use of these amenities? Who will ensure facilities are used responsibly? 7.What will your resident do to give back to your organization? How will residents plug in to host site activities and support host site? CSS encourages a 2-hour per week minimum of resident participation in host site. Gardening, cleaning, picking up trash in neighborhood, maintenance needs, administrative needs, security, and yard work are the kinds of tasks that could be addressed by a host site resident. 8.CSS recommends that each site have at least three people with the organization be tasked with being the direct contact persons for the new residents. Weekly or every other week check-ins can help your residents feel supported and help them to settle into getting focused on their life. During these check-ins, you can review host agreements, check on resident needs, check in on the tidiness and cleanliness of the host space. 9.Conestoga Huts are built by Community Supported Shelters. Many huts are on church or business property and administered through the St. Vincent de Paul Overnight Parking Program. Conestoga Hut repairs and upgrades must be approved and coordinated by Community Supported Shelters. 10.Each host site can choose to sign up with St. Vincent de Paul car camping program. St. Vincent will provide free trash and porta-potty service to you for being a host site. Hosts can choose to run their own program, create their own rules, and pay for trash and porta-potty service. 11.Selecting the right resident for your unique Conestoga Hut situation. What type of resident are you seeking? Here are a few resident scenarios to be considered. You could pick one of these or come up with one of your own (Service Veterans only, Recovering from surgery, Help out with gardening at your site, Short-term periods (i.e. less than three months, someone with a clear plan and motivation to carry it out), On-site presence to help with security, Elderly with no family, Student) Good Luck on your journey! November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 14 Conestoga Hut Information Sheet Community Supported Shelters manufactures the Conestoga Hut micro-shelters in our workshop in Eugene, Oregon. The shelter is designed to keep someone safe, dry, and out of the elements. Each Conestoga Hut includes: Organization and coordination of your Conestoga Hut build Minor site work preparation, if needed On-site build with trained volunteer labor – 2 hours Insulated 6 x 10 enclosed space Lockable door with a peephole Bed frame and mattress Lockable window with curtains 4 x 4 covered porch Wooden entry step Smoke Alarm and CO Detector Handmade coat rack Small oil radiant heater, for host sites providing electricity Hut repairs, moves, and/or upgrades – Must be approved by CSS Conestoga Hut Host Support - More information about Conestoga Huts, including a Conestoga Hut Construction Manual recently released and available by purchase from CSS, can be found at the CSS website at http://communitysupportedshelters.org/conestoga-huts. - Contact other Conestoga Hut Site Hosts Wesley United Methodist Church John Porter (541) 345-8175 South Hills Center Kassy Daggett (541) 484-6100 First Christian Church Pastor Dan Bryant (541) 344-1425 - If you have any questions, contact the Community Supported Shelters offices at (541) 683- 0836. Prepared by: Fay de Buhr Community Supported Shelters (CSS) January 28, 2016 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 15 Outreach Strategies and Actions Outreach efforts come in many forms and what may work well for one group, may not for another. Which efforts you employ will depend on where you are in the process, who has joined your task team and if your task team is associated with a larger group such as a Neighborhood Association. If your team is working through a recognized Neighborhood Association, resources for outreach are available through the Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement office (HRNI). Contact 541-682-5177 for more information on Neighborhood Associations and available resources. The table below is to help you begin to consider what strategies will work best for you considering your specific context and where you may be in the process. Some efforts, like door-to-door and community wide meetings, are more time consuming and City staff can help you strategize these and other outreach efforts so your time is used most effectively. HRNI’s Outreach Tools and Materials guide is a helpful resource and can be found at www.eugene-or.gov/documentcenter/view/3608. Description Timing Considerations Living room meetings Have a meeting with neighbors at home. These can be one-on- one or small groups. Use as a tool to build your task team at the beginning of the process and to brainstorm and strategize. Bring materials such as current site pictures, news blast sign-up sheets (see below), maps, and flyers. Share the Rest Stop video Share the video produced by the City about the Rest Stop Program with other individuals or groups. You can do this by sharing the link to the video or the video itself during a meeting or presentation. Anytime during the outreach phase, and in conjunction with other strategies listed here. Introduce the video by sharing your purpose in showing it to the particular person or group. It is helpful for viewers to have some context and to know how it fits into your conversation with them. Think about when you decide to show it during a meeting or presentation. Organize Tours Organize a group tour of a current site. Anytime during the outreach phase. Organize a tour for your task and outreach teams, or your Neighborhood Association Board and members. Call Community Supported Shelters at 541-683- 0836 or Nightingale Health Sanctuary at 541-485-1755 to schedule a tour. Online tools such as Eventbrite can be used to track RSVPs, as a headcount will be beneficial for the tour hosts. Groups may also want to coordinate or offer rides to make it easier for people to participate. Presenting to other groups Reach out to other community groups to see if you can get 20 minutes to talk about what you are trying to do. Other groups may include non-profit boards, faith communities, local business groups, neighborhood associations, or service organizations. You can use the site Meetup.com to find local groups as well. Anytime during the outreach phase. This may be a good way to get others to join your task team or be a voice of support for your work. Create a presentation that can be used by any member of the task team. Creating visuals is a good way to keep people interested. Make sure to have news blast sign-up sheets and informational flyers, handouts, or brochures. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 16 Community Meeting Organize your own community meeting. Anytime during the outreach phase. If you are early on in the process, consider framing the meeting more broadly as ways to reduce homelessness. If you are considering a particular site, having a skilled facilitator to lead the meeting may be beneficial. Give yourself enough time to plan the meeting. Review the Outreach Tools and Materials guide mentioned above and the Considerations for Community Meetings sheet below. Make sure to have news blast sign-up sheets and informational flyers, handouts, or brochures. Social media posts Use various social media tools to garner support, encourage participation, and publicize any meetings. You can also encourage partner organizations to post info to their websites or social media feeds. Anytime during the outreach phase. Use it in the beginning to grow the task team and during the project to keep the community informed and engaged. There are many different tools available, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Use visuals, post often and encourage everyone you know to share what you have posted. There are many sites online that offer ideas about making your social media campaign effective. Newsletter Item Provide a write-up on your efforts for publication in a neighborhood association newsletter or for other organizations that may be willing to include it in their newsletters. Throughout the outreach phase. Several Neighborhood Associations produce newsletters. The HRNI office (541-682-5177) can help you connect with the right person. Meeting with nearby stakeholders Meet with businesses and other stakeholders near a site being considered. Once a site has been identified and reviewed by City staff, and staff has provided their analysis. Make sure to schedule enough time and set an agenda. You may want to bring materials such as flyers or maps. In order to avoid overwhelming a stakeholder, it is a good idea to not bring more than two or three of your group members to the meeting. Door-to- door Knock on doors to speak with neighbors and businesses within 500 feet of the identified site. City staff can provide you with a map. Contact Regan Watjus at (541) 682-8442 before you begin. Once a site has been vetted by City staff, staff has provided feedback, and a managing nonprofit has been found. This step could also occur following Council approval of a site. Be sure to communicate with City staff before going door-to-door for a particular site. Canvassers should go in pairs and ideally are residents of the neighborhood. It is also beneficial for the potential operators to participate. Bring flyers about the program and a postcard with information specific to your group, the site under consideration, and future opportunities to comment. City staff can assist with a postcard template. News Blast Sign-Up Template This is a way to collect email addresses from individuals who are interested in staying updated on the progress being made. Name Neighborhood Email November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 17 Considerations for a Community Meeting Community meetings are an effective way to educate and engage residents. They should be structured in a way that is efficient but that also creates ample space for all voices to be heard. Here are a few considerations for planning and hosting a community meeting. The Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement Office also has a helpful Outreach Tools and Materials guide available on their website at www.eugene-or.gov/documentcenter/view/3608. 1.Allow enough preparation time. Give yourself at least a month to prepare for and advertise the meeting. Preparation includes finding a venue, creating an agenda, publicizing the meeting, getting copies of informational materials, contacting potential speakers, etc. o Potential speakers may include representatives from nonprofits currently operating rest stops and car camping sites, Regan Watjus from the City Manager’s office or other City representatives, neighbors or others experienced with rest stops or car camps, involved community members, and other entities that serve the unhoused population. 2.Identify the purpose of the meeting. Think about where your task team is in the process of finding a rest stop location. o If you are early on in the process, use a community meeting to build support and awareness by framing it broadly as a discussion on homelessness reduction efforts supported by the City. o If a site you have found has been deemed viable by City staff, frame the meeting to be more informative and conversational about the rest stop program and the potential for having a site in the nearby neighborhood. Having a skilled facilitator to help lead the meeting may be beneficial in order to make sure that space is given for all people to be heard and that a respectful and productive meeting environment is maintained. 3.Create an agenda for the meeting. Be realistic about how much time each agenda item will take. If you have speakers, make sure they are aware of how much time they have. Leave enough time for questions. Keep the meeting on track and respect participants’ time. 4.Give an opportunity for introductions depending on the size of attendance and purpose of the meeting. Discussion based meetings should always start with introductions. 5.Do not use jargon specific to homelessness issues or programs. Begin meetings by explaining the homelessness issue in Eugene and the program or programs you are interested in discussing or pursuing. 6.Do not dictate the outcome of the meeting. Homelessness intervention can be a contentious issue. Make sure community members feel heard when they voice a concern. Even if you do not agree with what someone says, thank them for their time and willingness to participate. As these conversations can be very difficult, it may also be helpful for meeting organizers to participate in a training with City staff on how to have difficult conversations, to have City staff present at the meeting to help answer questions, or to have a skilled facilitator facilitate the meeting. If interested in one of these options, you can contact City staff for assistance. 7.Provide comment cards that allow for attendees to participate if they are uncomfortable speaking in the group. 8.Bring flyers, maps, and news blast sign-ups with you. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 19 Sample Script for Door-to-Door Outreach for Rest Stops Outreach Volunteer: Hi, good afternoon. My name is _____________ and this is _____________. We’re community members who live in the area, and we’re hoping to chat with you briefly about an effort we’re involved in to create more safe shelter for those in our community who are experiencing homelessness. We’re interested in hosting some safe shelter spots nearby at _________________. Do you have a minute to talk with us about the idea? Neighbor: Sure. Outreach Volunteer: The City of Eugene created a program a few years ago called the Rest Stop Program. Have you heard of it? Neighbor: No. Outreach Volunteer: Ok, can I tell you a little bit about it? Neighbor: Ok. Outreach Volunteer: The Rest Stop Program helps people who are homeless by providing safe and legal places for up to 20 people to sleep and keep their belongings at designated, approved sites. Local non-profit agencies oversee the sites and help the residents connect with social services. The sites are fenced and have portable toilets and trash service. Each site also has a site manager who stays there and is responsible for making sure everyone obeys the rules and that the sites are kept clean. There is zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol, weapons, or disruptive behavior. Rest stops have been around for over three years now and they’ve been successful at helping people stabilize and move into permanent housing. They’re not permanent places to stay for people but a way for folks to get back on their feet. And the residents also volunteer in the parks system. They’ve provided over 550 hours of maintenance and clean-up work for the parks. Neighbor: How do people get in, do they just walk up and get to stay? How do you tell who might be dangerous? Outreach Volunteer: Not everyone who is homeless is a good fit for a rest stop, so people have to apply and go through a screening process in order to get in. During intake, the operators learn about an applicant’s background and behavioral history to make sure they will be able to follow the rules, be good neighbors, and work well with others who are already there. They can be evicted if they don’t abide by the rules. The operators are also really well connected to service agencies in the community and hold residents accountable to accessing resources and working to improve their lives. They have to be willing to make an effort to fit in to the rest stop structure. Many do, and the support they receive ultimately helps them get into housing. The Police Department has also reported that there hasn’t been an increase in police calls or illegal activity in the areas where rest stops have been operating. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 20 ADDITIONAL TIPS Go in pairs and use a tracking sheet to take notes and track where you’ve been. Have potential operators as well as people who live in the area participate if possible, creating a situation where neighbors can talk to neighbors. Look to the FAQ in this handbook for other potential questions that may be asked. If no one answers the door, leave a flyer. If someone wants to talk, it’s good to give them the space to do so and listen to their concerns. If someone doesn’t want to talk, that’s fine too. Just let them know there is a number on the flyer they can call if they have questions or concerns later. Sometimes it also just helps to remind people that you are a volunteer who cares about this issue because ___. Some may get off topic and discuss broader or separate issues all together. You may find it helpful to say something like, “I hear you. While we care about all issues that affect [the neighborhood or the community], we’re community members who are working more specifically on this effort right now. On that other topic, you may want to talk to [your neighborhood association, your City Councilor, the City Parking Office, etc.]” Refrain from getting into an argument with someone. If a conversation becomes unproductive or argumentative, just leave it. Have a contact or response prepared for how someone may become involved. Leave any residence or business where you are or become concerned for your safety. Neighbor: Will people just be hanging out and roaming around my neighborhood? There are lots of kids here. Outreach Volunteer: Good question. People are expected to be off site during the day and taking that time to meet with service providers, run errands and progress on their plan towards stable housing. They’re expected to leave the neighborhood around the rest stop unless they’re accessing a service nearby, and to take paths into and out of the site that are least invasive to the neighborhood. We completely understand concerns about safety, and the operators and managers are well-trained and committed to making sure the sites run safely and successfully. The rules and close oversight help them do that. We haven’t had previous issues with people lingering around the neighborhood or making it feel unsafe. Neighbor: Who are some of the people that these rest stops have helped? Outreach Volunteer: There are a variety of people who experience homelessness and utilize the rest stops. Some of the sites have prioritized more veterans, women or people with disabilities. Some people have just recently become homeless and might not stay in the rest stop very long before they get back into housing, while others have been experiencing homelessness for a while and work closely with social service providers on their particular barriers and challenges for transitioning back into housing. So it really varies. Neighbor: Who do I talk to if I have more questions? Outreach Volunteer: You can call the City Manager’s Office. The staff person who serves as the liaison for this program is Regan, and her direct number is here on the flyer. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 21 Tracking Outreach Efforts Community outreach should be coordinated to maximize volunteer time and avoid redundancy. Here you will find outreach tracking templates that you can adapt to fit your needs. Full-page versions of these tracking sheets can be found in the Outreach Materials section at the end of the handbook, and community members may contact the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682-8442 to request additional copies for use. Meeting Tracking Sheet Date Time Location Type (Open to Public or Invite Only) Meeting Purpose/Agenda Attendees (number or names depending on size) Social Media Posts You can use the following template to create and plan consistent social media posts. Date Type (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Message Door-to-Door Tracking Sheet [Site Location] [Date] Time Address Type (home, business, etc.) Talked with or Left Flyer Notes/Comments Contact Info (if follow up needed) Initials November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Sample based on Agreement Forms for First Christian Church Trailer Shelter Program 23 Sample Car Camping Agreement between Hosts & Campers Sign-up and Release of Claims Agreement Adults: Children: Name Age Sex For any child listed above, please give the name and number of any parent/s who is not staying in the trailer. N/A Emergency Contact (Name & Phone/Address): Other relevant information: N/A  I will cooperate with the host representatives to the fullest extent possible, and will actively participate in a plan that is intended to result in my greater self-sufficiency.  I agree to stay on the property and in the shelter provided (if applicable) at my own risk and will make no claim against the host if personal injury, loss of personal belongings or damage of personal property occurs while on the premises.  I consider my stay on the property to be transitory and not subject to the Oregon tenant laws. I understand that this shelter is being provided on a trial basis and that I may be asked to leave at any time. Camper Signature: Date: Host Signature: Date: November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Sample based on Agreement Forms for First Christian Church Trailer Shelter Program 24 Sample Car Camping Agreement between Hosts & Campers Policy Agreement I will adhere to the following rules and policies while participating in the Car Camping Program at [location]. I will: 1. Allow only those listed on the Program Sign-Up and the Release of Claims Agreement at the trailer. 2. Treat [staff, volunteers, employees, etc.] with respect. 3. Maintain the trailer and surrounding area in a clean and tidy manner. 4. Refrain from asking for money, goods, or services from [staff, volunteers, employees, etc.]. 5. Remember that I am at someone’s church and will respect their beliefs. [if applicable] 6. Refrain from physical, verbal, or emotional abuse toward any man, woman, or child. [Optional:] Any person convicted, under investigation, or suspected of sexual offenses is disqualified from receiving services from this program. 7. Not engage in confrontational behavior while on or near the property. 8. Illegal drugs or alcohol are strictly prohibited. If suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I will agree to submit to a drug test upon request. 9. Smoke only in designated outside areas. Absolutely NO smoking in the trailer. 10. Not bring weapons of any kind onto property. I understand that violation of these rules may result in a written warning, suspension of services, or immediate termination of services. I further understand that if I am asked to leave and do not do so or become disruptive, I will be subject to arrest for criminal trespass. Signature: Date: Signature: Date: Host Signature: Date: ________ November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 25 Frequently Asked Questions Why would the City or community spend time and money on this? In October 2015, the Eugene City Council formally recognized, via Council resolution, the housing and homelessness situation in Eugene as a crisis. Eugene and the surrounding community face a severe lack of housing for people with low or extremely low income. Over 1,000 people in Lane County sleep without nightly shelter. While the City works with partners on long-term solutions, like preventing homelessness, supporting human services and increasing access to housing and good-paying jobs, programs like the rest stops, car camping, and providing other forms of basic shelter are needed to increase health and safety for those who are homeless as well as for those who are housed. These programs are not only successful at providing unhoused people with stability and better opportunities for taking steps out of homelessness, but they also reduce the impacts of unsanctioned camping on our environment and neighborhoods. What is the difference between a rest stop, car camping, and other programs like Dusk to Dawn and tiny home villages?  Car camping, or sleeping overnight in vehicles in designated areas, has been permitted for nearly two decades and allows up to six vehicles to be used for sleeping at a site owned or leased by a religious institution, business or public entity. The definition of vehicles has been expanded over the years to include car, tent, camper, trailer, and Conestoga hut. Sanitary facilities and garbage disposal services must be provided. Although not required, most sites in Eugene are managed by St. Vincent de Paul, who provides screening and placement of participants in the program as well as portable restrooms and trash service at no cost to the property owner. St. Vincent’s currently manages over 70 spots at 43 addresses in Eugene and Springfield.  The Rest Stop Program was established in 2013 to provide additional temporary emergency shelter options for the unhoused. It allows up to 20 people to camp in tents or Conestoga huts at a designated site that must be approved by the Eugene City Council. The City enters into an agreement with an operator to oversee the site. The operator is then responsible for providing sanitary facilities, garbage disposal services, placement and screening of residents, onsite management of each site, a liaison to work with nearby neighbors to address any concerns, and support and assistance to residents to help them transition to permanent housing. Sites are fenced, and while residents typically leave the site during the day, they are able to leave their belongings at the site.  The Dusk to Dawn Program was established in 2015 and provides overnight emergency shelter to unhoused members of the community. Dusk to Dawn sites are for overnight sleeping only, so residents come with their belongings in the evening and leave with their belongings the following morning. Dusk to Dawn sites must be approved by City Council.  Tiny home villages can take different forms and follow different processes to establish. Opportunity Village Eugene (OVE) consists of basic small bungalows and Conestoga huts for sleeping, and shared community infrastructure such as showers, restrooms, kitchen, laundry area, and heated communal yurt for meeting space and computer access. OVE was permitted on industrial land under a Conditional Use Permit filed and approved through the City’s Planning Department. The non-profit organization who operates OVE is also establishing a more permanent tiny home village in which each unit will be considered a permanent dwelling with its own kitchenette and bathroom. For this project, the organization purchased the property, and the project is permitted as multi-family housing.  All sites have rules and policies that govern behavior and conduct to help ensure that sites are clean and orderly and that people participating in the program are good neighbors. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 26 What does the screening or vetting process of applicants to these programs involve?  Potential residents must submit an application to be considered. Applicants are expected to check in periodically in order to stay on the wait list.  Once an application is reviewed, operators invite the applicant in for an intake and interview process, during which the operator inquires about the applicant’s background including criminal and behavioral history; employment and housing status; his or her individual needs and challenges in finding housing; and his or her strengths and abilities to contribute, follow rules, and abide by the structure of the program. The interview and intake process is in-depth and meant to gauge whether the applicant will be a successful member of a rest stop or car camping site, can work well with others, and be a good neighbor.  Some operators also utilize Service Point, the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), in order to learn which social services the applicant is accessing and how often. This provides operators with a better picture of the applicant and what their activities and needs may be.  Some operators or sites also require that residents recovering from or struggling with addiction be actively enrolled in treatment in order to stay. Operators may also conduct a criminal background check or a urine analysis for an applicant or resident at any time. Refusal to comply can result in a 24-hour eviction from the site.  Once the vetting process is complete and an applicant is accepted, he or she is required to engage in an orientation process to learn more about the program and its structure, meet fellow residents, and acknowledge that they understand all rules and protocols.  Operators are focused on potential behavioral problems and how likely it appears that the applicant will be able to adjust to the requirements of a rest stop or car camping site. This entails a devoted amount of time spent on evaluating, assessing and monitoring a person and their individual challenges and needs both before approving them as a resident and within the first month probationary period. What are Conestoga huts? Conestoga huts are inexpensive and simple-to-build shelters for temporary emergency shelter. The hut uses minimal materials to provide durable shelters that are well suited to the Pacific Northwest climate, emphasizing keeping people dry and secure. The founders of Community Supported Shelters (CSS), a non-profit organization that operates rest stops in Eugene and also builds the Conestoga huts, developed the original design. Erik de Buhr of CSS recently published a book titled “How to Build a Conestoga Hut.” The non-profit continues to build the huts for unhoused people to use for shelter across the community. You can find more information and view photos of the huts at http://communitysupportedshelters.org/conestoga-huts. Conestoga huts can be used at both rest stops and car camping sites. Would a rest stop offer shelter to the people who are living without housing in the neighborhood already? Anyone experiencing homelessness can apply to stay at a Rest Stop and will be considered if willing and able to follow the rules of the rest stop. Rest stop operators or community members may be able to help encourage someone who sleeps in the nearby neighborhood to apply and help them see the benefits of entering into the program. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 27 Who monitors and makes sure campers follow rest stop rules? The City enters into an agreement with a non-profit organization or entity to supervise an individual rest stop site. This non-profit is responsible for providing or arranging for the supervision of the site at all times. Each site has one or more site managers who make sure all rules are followed. Both the City and non-profit work with neighbors to address any issues that may arise. When campers aren’t there, will they be roaming around my neighborhood? Residents are expected to use their time at rest stops to stabilize and connect with social service providers who can help them get into housing. While residents are expected to be off the site during the day in order to carry out this work, they are expected to leave the area around the rest stop unless accessing a service nearby and to take a path into and out of the rest stop that is least invasive to the neighborhood. Rest stop operators, managers, and residents work hard to minimize impacts to the neighborhood and be good neighbors. Won’t a rest stop make more people come into my neighborhood? Rest stops can often have the opposite effect. While the residents of the rest stop will be there, the success of the site depends upon the peace, health and safety of the area and the rest stops being good neighbors, so site managers and residents work hard to maintain and promote these qualities in the site and surrounding area. In addition, rest stop rules limit the number of visitors to the site and prohibit overnight visitors. Won’t crime go up in my neighborhood? Police reports indicate that neighborhoods where rest stops have been located have experienced no noticeable increase in crime in those neighborhoods. A study by a University of Oregon Community Planning Workshop found that the majority of nearby residents and businesses were generally supportive of the program, experienced little to no negative impacts from it and continued to feel that their neighborhoods were safe. Won’t my property value go down? We cannot speculate on whether a property’s value will increase or decrease in the future or the reasons that that may happen, and we have no data or reports of property values increasing or decreasing due to the siting of a rest stop nearby. What are the costs of operating a rest stop? The costs for operating a rest stop vary, but an estimate that includes two portable toilets, trash service, water, fuel, and program oversight and counseling is about $900/month, or $10,800/year for one rest stop. This does not include office supplies or shop space, transportation expenses, additional program coordination costs, or insurance costs. In addition, site set up can cost over $8,000. The Eugene City Council approved $25,000 to the Rest Stop Program in the Fiscal Year 2017 Supplemental Budget 1 process. This is the first time the City has designated funding to the program. The non-profit organizations who run the rest stops are responsible for the costs of their operations. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 28 How long do people stay?  Resident stays vary depending on where each resident is on their journey to permanent housing. Some stay as little as one month, while others stay several months to over a year.  Community Supported Shelters, which operates four rest stops, implements a 10-month program, where residents have one month of probation during which they create an individualized plan for how they will make progress over the following months. Then they have six months to implement their plan, with the possibility of a three-month extension.  Due to the training and knowledge necessary for managing a site, site managers can stay a year or longer.  In 2015, 80% of rest stop residents stayed for six months or less. Where do people move to after leaving? Some residents move into permanent housing, such as a rental house or apartment, public housing, Section 8 housing, permanent supportive housing, or permanent situations with family or friends. Some residents move into a form of temporary housing, such as transitional housing for the homeless, an inpatient drug or alcohol treatment facility, or a temporary situation with family or friends. And some who leave rest stops remain homeless.  Of those who departed Rest Stops in 2015, 44 transitioned into permanent housing (including 27 to a rental house or apartment), 43 transitioned to temporary housing, and 44 remained homeless. Why would I want a rest stop in my neighborhood?  Rest stops have proven effective at helping people who are experiencing homelessness find stability, support, community, independence, services, and housing.  Rest stops have proven to be good neighbors.  Rest stop residents also perform community service projects in parks and neighborhoods.  The current housing, homelessness, and poverty issues we face are community issues, and they require the entire community to contribute to the solution. Having a rest stop nearby gives each neighborhood a chance to interact with, learn from, and possibly offer assistance to help better the lives of their fellow community members. What are some ways that I can help?  You can volunteer your time or donate money to one of the non-profits who operate rest stops or to any of the social service providers in the area. (There is a Social Services List on the Links page of this handbook.)  You can talk to your neighbors, friends, family, schools, businesses, and churches about the issue to raise awareness or find out if there are ways they could help through land for sites, in-kind donations, or financial contributions.  You can contact your public officials to provide input on your concerns, ideas and suggestions. Visit www.eugene-or.gov to find your City Councilor. Who do I talk to if I have concerns or questions? You may contact Regan Watjus, Policy Analyst in the City Manager’s Office, at (541) 682-8442 or Regan.S.Watjus@ci.eugene.or.us if you have questions or concerns. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 29 Helpful Links City of Eugene Resources City of Eugene Rest Stop page www.eugene-or.gov/reststops City of Eugene 2015 Rest Stop Report http:/www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30317 Camping Options Allowable by City of Eugene Code 4.816 https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31959 Rest Stop Program Video https://youtu.be/7ReMVKibT LU Service Providers List of Social Services in Lane County http://www.eugene-or.gov/socialserviceslist Community Supported Shelters http://communitysupportedshelters.org/ Nightingale Health Sanctuary Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvQwZrpOS4 St. Vincent De Paul http://www.svdp.us/what-we-do/homeless-services/ Square One Villages – Tiny Homes http://www.squareonevillages.org/ Reports and Plans Lane County 2017 Point in Time Count Highlights https://www.eugene-or.gov/documentcenter/view/34566 Providing for the Unhoused: A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31978 ALICE Report http://unitedwayalice.org/PNW/ Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan, 2015-2019 https://www.eugene-or.gov/871/HUD-Consolidated-Plan Poverty & Homelessness Board Strategic Plan Summary, 2016-2021 https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31629 November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Outreach Materials Available This section contains documents that may be useful to share or utilize during the outreach and site search process. Copies of these materials are available upon request. Please contact Regan Watjus in the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682-8442 or via email at Regan.S.Watjus@ci.eugene.or.us to make requests. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Eugene’s Rest Stop Program What is a rest stop? A rest stop is a designated area within city limits where up to 20 people are allowed to sleep in tents or Conestoga huts. Unless for security or health reasons, residents vacate the site during the day and a limited number of visitors are permitted during designated hours. Each site is approved by the Eugene City Council. The City then enters into an agreement with a nonprofit organization to operate and manage the rest stop. There are currently four rest stops in Eugene that provide temporary, safe, legal places for people who are experiencing homelessness to sleep at night. How are sites selected? The City tries its best to find workable rest stop sites that minimize impacts to neighbors and sensitive areas. There are many factors that are considered in site selection. They include the site’s suitability for camping, proximity to schools and residential areas, road access for trash and restroom servicing, environmental sensitivity, and proximity to public transportation. The City tries to balance the needs and views of all community members when selecting sites. Who pays for the rest stops? The costs of establishing and operating each rest stop are paid for and managed by a nonprofit organization. The Eugene City Council also approved $25,000 in one-time funding for the program in its FY2017 budget. Land for rest stops is currently provided by the City of Eugene and the Eugene Mission. Who operates the rest stops? Two local organizations have been responsible for day-to- day oversight of rest stops: Who stays at rest stops? Individuals 18 or over who are experiencing homelessness are eligible to apply for a space at a rest stop. Applicants are screened to determine if they are a good fit. Rest stops are intended to be a temporary respite, and the managing nonprofit works to connect residents with support and resources to help them move toward a more sustainable housing solution. How are rest stops kept healthy and safe? Residents sign agreements with the rest stop providers that they will abide by the rules and program expectations. On-site managers provide supervision. Best practices for water, handling and preparing food, cooking and cleaning, heating, waste management and illness prevention are followed. There is zero tolerance for violent behavior or alcohol or drug use onsite. Children must be supervised and are prohibited from staying overnight. Portable restrooms and trash collection are provided. Residents are expected to keep the site tidy, refrain from disruptive behavior and be good neighbors. The sites are also fenced to control access and promote safety. Why is the City allowing rest stops? There is simply not enough affordable housing for the number of people experiencing homelessness in our area. The rest stop concept is not a permanent nor the City’s only solution but a way to help alleviate the need and reduce the impacts of unsanctioned camping. Residents report that having a secure and safe place to sleep is crucial as they work to access services and find long-term, stable housing. To view a video about the Rest Stop Program, visit eugene-or.gov/reststops. Questions or concerns? Call 541-682-8442. For additional information, visit eugene-or.gov/reststops. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Steve “Ziggy” Lawsha’s stay at the Community Supported Shelters (CSS) Veterans Safe Spot was relatively short, but it came at a critical juncture of his life. Lawsha found support and assistance from the CSS staff and was able to move into a one-bedroom apartment in Eugene with help from the HUD-VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) program. He says of his stay at the Safe Spot, “It was more like a community. It was great to be there, trying to help out other guys even at the same time I needed help.” Aaron says his Hut at a Community Supported Shelters Safe Spot has helped him stay clean and sober. “This Hut and the help I’ve gotten from ShelterCare has given me a reason to care and a structure.” The people in these sites have been my neighbors for a couple years now and I can say, unequivocally, that I have not noticed them causing any problems or having any deleterious effect on the neighborhood. Overall, they've been good neighbors. These sites are always clean and well organized when I see them. I've noticed no increase in littering or vandalism in the neighborhood. The police crime data shows no increase since they've moved in. Given the vetting process and the camp rules for the occupants, I'm not surprised at the lack of problems. I would say to my fellow Eugenians who might be nervous about one of these sites moving into their neighborhood, you have nothing to fear. The existing sites have demonstrated their good citizenship. I believe these residents are people who are serious about trying to improve their situation. As such, they deserve a little help from the rest of us, because in these times it's too easy to fall into their situation. Jim Stauffer Eugene, OR Neighborhood impacts:  No considerable increase in reported criminal activity due to rest stops.  84% of neighboring residents and businesses were supportive of rest stops. Resident statistics:  86% indicated that they had an increased ability to provide for themselves.  71% felt that staying at the rest stop is helping them transition to permanent housing. Source: Providing for the Unhoused: A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene. 2015. Community Planning Workshop. Community Service Center, University of Oregon. Over 110 people have transitioned from a rest stop into permanent housing in the last two-year reporting period, and over 60 have moved into other types of transitional housing. Samantha and Thomas, a mother and son team, lived at the Nightingale Health Sanctuary (NHS) rest stop for one year. Thomas is in his late 20s and has a developmental disability. After diligently applying and working with housing agencies to find stable housing, Samantha and Thomas are now living in an apartment, where Thomas has a case worker who visits him regularly, and Samantha has found employment as a caregiver. NHS site managers write that “they are still working hard each day and so incredibly grateful to be in a home that is their own.” Rest stop residents also contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of City parks, with over 555 volunteer hours logged in 2015! NHS residents contributing to a City park November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 The Car Camping Program What is the Car Camping Program? The Car Camping Program provides safe and legal places for unhoused people to sleep in vehicles, camper trailers, tents, Conestoga huts, or tiny homes on wheels. How are sites selected? Car camping sites can be located on property owned or leased by public entities, non- profits, businesses, or religious organizations. The property owner may grant permission for up to 6 vehicles, which, by applicable City Code, also includes camper trailers, tents, Conestoga huts, or tiny homes on wheels. Who operates the sites, and who pays for the program? The majority of car camping sites are managed by St. Vincent de Paul through their Overnight Parking Program. They oversee more than 70 permitted spots at 43 addresses in the Eugene/Springfield metro area. There are also churches, non-profits, and businesses who host and oversee their own Car Camping sites. The City of Eugene provides funding for the Overnight Parking Program operated by St. Vincent de Paul through a contract agreement. Funds are used to supply the portable restrooms and trash service and for St. Vincent de Paul staff to administer the program. Hosts who are not part of St. Vincent de Paul’s program pay their own program costs. How are the sites kept healthy and safe? Car camping sites must have sanitary facilities, garbage disposal services, and a storage area for campers to store any personal items so that they are not visible from any public street. St. Vincent de Paul provides siting, camper screening and placement, garbage disposal, portable restrooms, and linkages to services for participants in their program at no cost to the host site. How does someone get on the waiting list? Families and individuals experiencing homelessness may apply to receive a slot at one of the sites. Single adults in need of assistance should call (541) 461-8688 or visit the Eugene Service Station at 450 Highway 99 N. Families should visit First Place Family Center at 1995 Amazon Parkway, open 7 days/week. Where can I find more information about becoming a host site? St. Vincent de Paul manages car camping sites at no cost to the host. Individuals or businesses who are interested in more information about their program can visit https://www.svdp.us/what- we-do/homeless-services/overnight-parking- program/ or call (541) 461-8688. You can also reach the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682- 8442 to find out more information about becoming a host site. Where do Conestoga huts come from? A local nonprofit, Community Supported Shelters, constructs the Conestoga huts for use in homeless programs in Eugene and the surrounding area. For more information, visit www.communitysupportedshelters.org. Last year, the Overnight Parking Program, operated by St. Vincent de Paul, helped 81 individuals, 27 families, and 41 children Questions or concerns? Call 541-682-8442. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Potential Rest Stop Site Identification Please turn completed forms into Regan Watjus, City Manager’s Office, 125 E. 8 th Ave., 2nd Floor Regan.S.Watjus@ci.eugene.or.us. Your Name: ______________________________________Today’s Date:________________ Contact information (email and/or phone):__________________________________________ Are you working with a community group on this effort? ___________ If so, who? __________________________________________________ Site address, taxlot number, or detailed description of location: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Ownership & Council Ward (if known):____________________________________________ Site characteristics. Check all that apply. The site is in City limits.Yes No Not sure Approximate size of lot.___________________ *Criteria below reflect some of the needs and factors that influence the identification and operations of a potential rest stop. Each resident requires an 8x10 foot sleeping space, and sites generally have additional common space for their residents to eat, prepare food and meet together. Service trucks must be able to access the site in order to service the portable restrooms and trash bins. Rest stops are authorized under ordinance by the City of Eugene, so potential sites must be in City limits. *This checklist is a tool to help community members consider some of the different factors used to evaluate a site’s potential. City staff will review submissions and follow up with the person who submitted the form. *The Lane County Deeds and Records office may be a useful tool to find out more information about a specific property. The Public Research Library’s hours are 8 am – 5 pm at 125 E. 8th Ave. You can also look online at http://lanecounty.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=3585881&pageId=5145461. City-recognized Neighborhood Associations also have access to RLID (Regional Land Information Database). Contact the Office of Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement at (541) 682-5177 for more information about how to access and use this tool. *This is a site evaluation form for potential rest stop sites. Although it can also be used to consider potential car camping sites, car camping sites generally have more flexibility, and the CSS Considerations for Host Sites in the handbook has helpful information on identifying viable car camping locations and hosts. Thank you for your efforts! November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 The site is on a road or has a driveway that is accessible for emergency vehicles, trash pickup and portable restroom service.Yes No Not sure The site is flat.Yes No Not sure Proximity to nearest bus stop.___________________ Distance to nearest school.___________________ Proximity to residential development.___________________ This site appears to be relatively dry in all seasons, without periods of standing water. Yes No Not sure Potential for access to potable water.___________________ Potential for access to power.___________________ Parts of the site may be environmentally sensitive.Yes No Not sure **Please include a picture of the site. **Please add additional descriptive information you think is important in considering this specific site and potential next steps, questions, or considerations that may need to be addressed moving forward. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 City-owned Property by Ward Maps with corresponding information about City-owned property are available by ward upon request (sample illustration below). Due to the size in which maps need to be printed in order to be legible and the length of the lists of properties, they have not each been included in the handbook. Please contact Regan Watjus in the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682-8442 or via email at Regan.S.Watjus@ci.eugene.or.us in order to make a request for this information by relaying which wards you and your team are interested in. November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Outreach Volunteer Names ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Door-to-Door Tracking Sheet Proposed Rest Stop Site Location: ____________________________ Date: ______________ Time Address Type (home, business, etc.) Talked to (TT) or Left Flyer (LF) Notes/Comments Contact Info (if follow up needed) Initials November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Outreach Volunteer Names ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Time Address Type (home, business, etc.) Talked to (TT) or Left Flyer (LF) Notes/Comments Contact Info (if follow up needed) Initials N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 , W o r k S e s s i o n - I t e m 3 Meeting Tracking Sheet Date Time Location Type (Open to Public or Invite Only) Meeting Purpose Attendees (number or names depending on size) November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Meeting Tracking Sheet Date Time Location Type (Open to Public or Invite Only) Meeting Purpose Attendees (number or names depending on size) N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 , W o r k S e s s i o n - I t e m 3 Social Media Posts Date Type (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Message November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 Social Media Posts Date Type (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Message November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 News Blast Sign-Up Want to keep up with our efforts? Sign up to receive e-news updates. Name Neighborhood Email November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 News Blast Sign-Up Want to keep up with our efforts? Sign up to receive e-news updates. Name Neighborhood Email November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 ATTACHMENT D November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3 ATTACHMENT E November 26, 2018, Work Session - Item 3