HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1-23-19 Work SessionJanuary 23, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 23, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of January 23, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1. WORK SESSION: Clear & Objective Housing – Approval Criteria Update
2. WORK SESSION: Rest Stop Program Update and Siting Policy Discussion
January 23, 2019, Work Session
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Clear & Objective Housing – Approval Criteria Update Meeting Date: January 23, 2019 Agenda Item: 1 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 remaining draft concepts (Batch 2) and provide direction to advance these 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 action:
• 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 land inventory and housing needs analysis).
• Target for City consideration of proposed updates: within 1 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 UGB
• 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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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. The project was kicked off in 2018 and consists of four phases. The Summary of Key Issues Report produced at the end of Phase 1 of the project was provided to council in an email sent September 11, 2018. The project is nearing the end of the Phase 2 with the Draft Preferred Concepts report, as detailed below.
Draft Preferred Concepts The Draft Preferred Concepts report (provided with the November 26, 2018, agenda) 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. An excerpt from the Draft Preferred Concepts Report of Batch 2 recommendations is provided as Attachment A. 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. 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, staff divided the key issues into two batches. The intent was to allow stakeholders and the Planning Commission extra time on the more complex issues in Batch 2, to ensure sufficient consideration and vetting. Maintenance issues and the less complex significant issues made up Batch 1 (which was advanced to draft code writing at the November 26, 2018, council work session). The draft report was provided to stakeholders and the general public on November 13, 2018, with feedback on Batch 2 issues requested by December 3, 2018. No public comments were received by December 3, 2018.
Planning Commission Review Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed recommendations for Batch 2 issues, listed below, from the Draft Preferred Concepts Report at two work sessions held on December 10 and December 11, 2018. Each issue and recommendation was presented to the commission, followed by discussion and finally a straw poll to determine support for each recommendation.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Batch 2 Items: • 20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition for subdivisions and planned unit development (issue #COS-03) • One Acre Accessible Open Space For PUDs (issue #COS-04) • Limitation Over 900 Feet For PUDs (South Hills) (issue #COS-05) • Ridgeline Setback For PUDs (South Hills) (issue #COS-06) • 40 Percent Open Space Requirement For PUDs (South Hills) (issue #COS-07) • Tree Preservation Consideration (issue #COS-11) • Geotechnical Requirement (issue #COS-13) • Street Standards Modifications (issue #COS-19) The Planning Commission’s feedback is summarized in Attachment B. With the exception of COS-07, the 40 Percent Open Space Requirement for PUDs in the South Hills, they supported moving forward with draft code writing for Batch 2 issues according to the recommendations outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report. For COS-07, they supported a hybrid option that would remove the requirement and rely on COS-04 (Accessible Open Space for PUDs) and existing open space requirements for multi-family developments combine (possible concepts D and E from the draft report). The draft proposed solutions are conceptual only. Actual code language will be crafted in the next phase of the project (Phase 3). This approach is designed to narrow the focus of the code writing process. As part of the incremental review approach taken for this project, community members, the Planning Commission and City Council will be asked to review the draft code language during Phase 3.
Next Steps Phase 3 will involve drafting proposed land use code changes based on the Preferred Concepts Report and feedback received from Planning Commission and City Council. Once drafted, proposed land use code changes will be provided to interested parties for review and comment. Next, the proposed draft code language will be brought to Planning Commission and 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 we are in the process as well as project resources as they are available. All documents associated with this project are available on the project website.
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,
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability,” and “Provide for Adaptable, Flexible and Collaborative Implementation.”
COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS, as supported by Planning Commission, to the draft land use code writing phase. 2. Advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS, as supported by Planning Commission, to the draft land use code writing phase with specific modifications. 3. Decline to advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS, as supported by Planning Commission, to the draft land use code writing phase.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS, as supported by Planning Commission, to the draft land use code writing phase.
ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Preferred Concepts Report Excerpts of Batch 2 Issues B. Eugene Planning Commission Feedback Summary on Batch 2 Issues
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jenessa Dragovich, Senior Planner Telephone: 541-682-8385 Email: jdragovich@eugene-or.gov
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING APPROVAL CRITERIA 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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING APPROVAL CRITERIA 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 reflects 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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL CRITERIA 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 and
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).
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL CRITERIA 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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE
November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Significant Issues Page 20 of 59
S ignificant 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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL CRITERIA 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 applications 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 space 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 requirements
Efficiency,
Effectiveness
COS‐06 Ridgeline Setback For PUDs Revise to make setback applicable 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 applications;
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 to COM‐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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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)
––+oo ––
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+oo+o o –
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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)
+++oo 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 oo
E. Eliminate if mapping jus tifies that most vacant and
partially vacant properties are generally within ¼
mile from open space
+++oo o–
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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 + oo
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.
+–+oo o–
C. Revise to allow less intensive developm ent (i.e.
lower density) above 901 feet+++oo oo
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
+–+oo oo
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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;
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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 +–+oo 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+oo oo
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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 oo
B. Reduce percentage requirement for open space +–ooo oo
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)
oo+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+oo o+
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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)
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
ooooo ++
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
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 oo
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.
+++oo o+
C. Add an adjustment review option to allow for
modifications if the standard cannot be met.+++oo o+
+ promotes o neutral – inhibits
Possible Concepts
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Eugene Planning Commission Feedback Summary on Batch 2 Issues
Planning Commission Work Sessions: December 10 and December 11, 2018
Draft proposed preferred concepts are conceptual only. Preferred concepts are intended to narrow the focus of the
code writing process. Additional feedback from the Planning Commission offered guidance, suggestions, and flagged
potential concerns without modifying the proposed preferred concepts as outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts
Report. This input will be considered when drafting proposed land use code changes as part of Phase 3.
Significant Issue Proposed Preferred Concept Planning Commission Feedback
COS-03 20 Percent Slope
Grading Prohibition
Remove and rely on COS-13 Support for proposed preferred
concept
COS-04 One Acre Accessible
Open Space For PUDs
Revise required distance from open
space from ¼ mile to ½ mile and make
onsite requirement scalable
Support for proposed preferred
concept
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
requirements
Support for proposed preferred
concept
COS-06 Ridgeline Setback For
PUDs
Revise to make setback applicable to
areas above 900’ elevation.
Support for proposed preferred
concept
COS-07 40 Percent Open
Space Requirement
For PUDs
Revise to 30% and clarify language
based on intent of relevant South Hills
Study policy
Support to remove requirement and
rely on COS-04 (Accessible Open Space
for PUDs) and existing open space
requirements for multi-family
developments
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.
Support for proposed preferred
concept
COS-13 Geotechnical
Requirement
Revise existing criterion to address
additional risk factors
Support for proposed preferred
concept
COS-19 Street Standards
Modifications
Add clear exceptions and add
adjustment option
Support for proposed preferred
concept
Attachment B
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Rest Stop Program Update and Siting Policy Discussion Meeting Date: January 23, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: City Manager’s Office Contact: Jason Dedrick
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5033
ISSUE STATEMENT At the work session on November 26, 2018, City Council directed staff to prepare a set of options for amending or revising the rest stop program that have the potential to expand the number of sites. This work session is an opportunity for council to discuss and potentially take action on the options staff have prepared (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND The rest stop program was initiated by the City Council in September 2013 by Ordinance 20517 (Attachment B) 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 C 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 D). 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 B) 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 E). The current process flow chart for identifying and approving potential rest stop locations is included as Attachment F.
January 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
At the November 26, 2018, City Council work session, councilors approved a motion that the “City
Manager prepare for council’s consideration a set of options for amending or revising the rest stop
program and ordinance that have the potential to expand the number of sites established by the City.”
Attachment F contains some options related to key program and ordinance elements. Staff will be
prepared to discuss these options in more detail at the work session. 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 rest stop program policies and ordinance language. 2. Make changes to the current rest stop program policies and ordinance language.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager does not have a recommendation for this item.
SUGGESTED MOTION None.
ATTACHMENTS A. Options for Amending or Revising Rest Stop Policies and Ordinance B. Permitted Overnight Sleeping Ordinance C. Administrative Order No. 53-17-03-F D. Rest Stop Program Outreach Handbook E. Considerations and Criterial for Potential Rest Stop Sites F. Rest Stop Site Identification Process Flow Chart
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jason Dedrick, City Manager’s Office Telephone: 541-682-5033 E-Mail: jdedrick@eugene-or.gov
Options for Amending or Revising Rest Stop Program and/or Ordinance Language
At the November 26, 2018 City Council Work Session, councilors approved a motion that the “City Manager
prepare for Council’s consideration a set of options for amending or revising the rest stop program and
ordinance that have the potential to expand the number of sites established by the City.” Below are some
options related to key program and ordinance elements.
Criteria Considerations Options
Proximity to
Schools
•Sites should not be located “close to a school”
•Rest stops near schools could be designated for families
•Regardless of the criteria, staff will always conduct outreach
with school officials for sites near schools
•This criteria has not been a significantly limiting factor to date
•Remove this criteria
•Amend the criteria to
specify that sites near
schools are designated
for families
•Retain this criteria
Proximity to
Transit
•Sites should be in proximity to transit
•This criteria has not been a significantly limiting factor to date
•Remove this criteria
•Retain this criteria
Proximity to
Residential
•Sites may not be located “in a residential area”
•Very few complaints from neighbors near existing sites have
been received
•No increases in criminal activity associated with any rest stops
have been documented
•Regardless of the criteria, staff will always conduct outreach
with residents in surrounding areas
•This criteria has been a moderately limiting factor
•Remove this criteria
•Retain this criteria
Site
Characteristics
(flat, good
access)
•Sites ideally will be flat, well drained and have good access for
servicing and emergency personnel
•Much of Eugene is flat and finding sites with good access has
not been an issue
•Several sites have been removed from consideration due to
wetland issues
•This criteria has been a moderately limiting factor, but there
are no Council options that would have an impact
•Remove this criteria
•Retain this criteria
Council
Approval
•Sites require City Council approval
•The process to locate, review and conduct outreach on sites
would be unchanged regardless of changes to this criteria
•This criteria has not been a significantly limiting factor to date
•Amend this criteria to
specify that the City
Manager approve sites
•Retain this criteria
Operating
Provisions
•All sites require operators who must adhere to contractual
obligations regarding how the sites are operated
•There likely is a finite amount of capacity in the community
for operators of additional sites
•This criteria has not been a significantly limiting factor to date
•Remove this criteria
•Amend this criteria
•Retain this criteria
Ownership •While there are no criteria regarding ownership, staff efforts
to date have focused on publically owned properties in order
to expedite site designation
•Staff efforts could be expanded to include private properties,
however this could impact staffing for other homeless
services
•This approach has been a moderately limiting factor
•Provide policy guidance
ATTACHMENT A
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
ATTACHMENT B
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
ATTACHMENT C
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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 January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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 January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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 January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
3. Guests shall be selected by the property provider/site manager and may stay on the
property until the property provider/site manager 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 thei r
property disposed of.
4. 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.
5. Guests shall use bathroom facilities provided by the property provider/site
manager, or available to the public off-site .
6. Guests must comply with any additional rules or regulations not covered here but
established by the property provider/site manager.
C. Dusk to Dawn -Closure of Site by the City Manager.
The City Manager may close a site at any time upon determining that allowing camping at
a site would create or continue dangerous conditions or a threat to the public health, safety or
welfare, or if the property provider/site manager fails to comply with these regulations or the
provisions adopted by the City Council.
Dated this 2 f'7lAl ay of March, 2017.
JonR.Ruiz ~
City Manager
Administrative Order -Page 5 of 5 January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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 D
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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 ........................................................................................................................................
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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!
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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:
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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: ________
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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. January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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. January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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!
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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.
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
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
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
3
,
2
0
1
9
,
W
o
r
k
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
-
I
t
e
m
2
Meeting Tracking Sheet
Date Time Location Type (Open to
Public or Invite
Only)
Meeting Purpose Attendees (number or names depending on size)
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Meeting Tracking Sheet
Date Time Location Type (Open to
Public or Invite
Only)
Meeting Purpose Attendees (number or names depending on size)
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
3
,
2
0
1
9
,
W
o
r
k
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
-
I
t
e
m
2
Social Media Posts
Date Type (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Message
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Social Media Posts
Date Type (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Message
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
News Blast Sign-Up
Want to keep up with our efforts? Sign up to receive e-news updates.
Name Neighborhood Email
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
News Blast Sign-Up
Want to keep up with our efforts? Sign up to receive e-news updates.
Name Neighborhood Email
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
ATTACHMENT E
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
ATTACHMENT F
January 23, 2019, Work Session - Item 2