Planning Commission

AGENDA Phone: 541-682-5481 Meeting Location: www.eugene-or.gov/pc Virtual Meeting (Via Zoom) The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Due to Governor Kate Brown’s Stay Home, Save Lives Executive Order to combat the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held remotely using virtual meeting technology. Information about online or other options for access and participation is available on the last page of this agenda. For the hearing impaired, assistive-listening devices or an interpreter can be provided with 72- hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation may also be provided with 72-hour notice. These services may not be available during the Planning Commission meeting based on service availability but may occur as a follow up service. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, May 17, 2021 – Regular Meeting 11:30 am to 2:30 pm Commissioners: John Barofsky; Ken Beeson (Vice Chair); Tiffany Edwards; Lisa Fragala; Dan Isaacson; Chris Ramey (Chair); Kristen Taylor A. WORK SESSION: MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS UPDATE Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635, THarding@eugene-or.gov HOW TO ACCESS THE MEETING To watch a webcast of the meeting live: Visit: https://www.eugene-or.gov/2109/Planning-Commission-Webcasts To be able to participate in Public Comment join using one of the two following options: 1. Join on your computer, tablet or smartphone Visit: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/98939251956 Sign up to speak by clicking once on the “raise hand” icon 2. Join on your phone Page 1 of 34 Dial one of the below numbers and enter the Webinar ID: 989 3925 1956 +1 833-548-0276 (Toll Free); or +1 833-548-0282 (Toll Free); or +1 877-853-5257 (Toll Free); or +1 888-475-4499 (Toll Free); For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location. International numbers available: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/u/acRDLxDSxE Sign up to speak by dialing *9 (Star-9) Page 2 of 34  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 17, 2021 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Middle Housing Code Amendments Update (Implementation of House Bill 2001) ACTION REQUESTED At this meeting, the Planning Commission is asked to provide feedback on refined draft land use code recommendations for the Middle Housing Code Amendments project. This meeting will include a background presentation on exclusionary zoning, speakers from the Equity RoundTable and Healthy Democracy panel, and a discussion of refined code recommendations using straw polls to record each commissioner’s preferences. INTRODUCTION The Eugene Middle Housing Code Amendments project seeks to implement Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), which requires large cities such as Eugene to allow middle housing including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage clusters, and rowhouses, in more places across the city, in order to increase housing choice and supply. An important component of the project approach is the focus on equity and inclusion in the public outreach process. To support that focus, UO Professor Sarah Adams-Schoen will join the meeting to present her research on Oregon’s exclusionary land use policy and zoning. Dr. Adams-Schoen presented to the Healthy Democracy Panel in the fall of 2020 and participated in the state’s rulemaking advisory committee for House Bill 2001. The Commission will also have an opportunity to hear from Equity RoundTable and Healthy Democracy meeting participants about their experiences. The technical aspect of this work session is a follow up to the April 13 and April 26, 2021 work sessions, where the Commission discussed draft recommendations for the overall code approach, each of the housing types, and Special Area Zones. The packet from the April 26, 2021 meeting (provided as Attachment A) includes memos from Angelo Planning Group (APG) and ECONorthwest that staff and the Commission will reference during the meeting. The Commission will learn about the project team’s refined recommendations that respond to the public input gathered. Staff will walk the Commission through the major code topics and the refined recommendations, and ask for a straw poll on the preferences of the Commission to allow, encourage or incentivize. April -May Outreach Update Developer focus groups were held the last week of April and first week of May. As part of these discussions, market rate and affordable housing developers shared their feedback on the draft code recommendations and generally spoke in favor of the encourage and incentivize options and flexibility for projects to respond to different lot conditions and renter and homebuyer housing markets. A complete report of the developer focus groups is attached as Attachment B. Page 3 of 34 The Local Partners and Boards and Commissions RoundTables met on April 29, and the Equity RoundTable met on May 12. These groups discussed the draft code recommendations in terms of how well they support the project’s values and principles and how well they support housing affordability. Meeting summaries will be shared with the Commission once they are finalized. A participant of the Equity RoundTable, River, will be joining the Commission at this meeting to share observations from the Equity meetings and continue to elevate the voices of underrepresented communities in this process. The Healthy Democracy panel concluded its work on April 27. The group previously created a report on the draft code recommendations, which the Commission received in its April 13 meeting packet. At this meeting, a representative of the Process Committee will share the group’s broader Public Engagement Recommendations (Attachment C). The recommendations cover process lessons learned and hold potential for the City to apply a similar engagement model to future projects across different city departments. In addition, this 5 minute video highlights some of the panelists’ experience over the course of the panel’s work. Refined Code Recommendations Draft middle housing code recommendations have been developed in response to the broad public input gathered from October 2020 through May 2021, as well as cycles of technical analysis and review with outreach groups and the Planning Commission. Draft recommendations are summarized in the April 26 packet, which includes detailed memos from the project consultants. For this meeting, staff created a form (provided as Attachment D) for the Commission to record straw poll preferences for the 13 major recommendations from the project team. The Commission will have the opportunity to discuss each item and record their straw poll vote to help staff finalize the draft land use code language, which will be brought forward to the Commission at its June 14 and June 28 meetings. Additional information about the project team’s recommended approach to updating Special Area Zones is included in Attachment E. NEXT STEPS The project’s Engage Eugene and web page are frequently updated with opportunities to engage community members and provide information about middle housing in Eugene. Additionally, the overall project schedule for upcoming adoption phase is included below. The project team will present a project update to the Eugene City Council on May 24, 2021. At the next Planning Commission meetings on June 14 and June 28, the team will walk through groups of code language for all the middle housing types, as well as other land use code and plan amendments needed to complete the adoption package. ATTACHMENTS A. April 26 Planning Commission Packet B. Developer Focus Group Report C. Healthy Democracy Public Engagement Recommendations Report D. Middle Housing Code Recommendations Straw Poll Form E. Special Area Zone Memo (Angelo Planning Group) Page 4 of 34  Middle Housing Adoption Phase Timeline FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Terri Harding Telephone: (541) 682-5635 Staff E-Mail: THarding@eugene-or.gov Page 5 of 34  Attachment B Middle Housing Code Amendments Developer Focus Groups – Summary Report – May 2021 Background Two focus groups were held on Thursday, April 22, 2021 and Monday, May 10, 2021 via Zoom. Attendees included a mix of market-rate, workforce, and Affordable Housing developers and project leaders with experience delivering affordable and middle-housing types in this community. Better Housing Together facilitated the discussions and prepared this summary. The groups were convened to offer feedback on identified questions from City staff and the Planning Commission about development feasibility and the Middle Housing Code Amendments. Discussion focused on choices among various actions and efforts to align regulations and incentives with the project’s requirements, values, and goals. The requirements of HB 2001, the City’s implementation timeline, current project status, the “Allow/Encourage/Incentivize” options, and the Values & Principles established by the deliberative review panel and public involvement process were summarized at both meetings. Attendees Alec Dakers, Rainbow Valley Design and Construction Kellie Devore, Habitat for Humanity Lane County Emily Reiman, DevNW Andrew Heben, SquareOne Villages Jan Fillinger, Studio e-Architecture Dylan Lamar, Cultivate Development Bill Randall, former Planning Commissioner, Arbor South Architecture & Planning Dan Hill, Arbor South Architecture & Planning Richard Shugar, 2Form Architecture Nir Pearlson, Aligned Architecture Doug Bulski, Granite Property Management Greg Brokaw, Rowell Brokaw Frank Visconti, Rowell Brokaw Jacob Fox, Homes for Good Ela Kubok, Homes for Good Phil Farrington, CDC Management Paul Tanner, Hayden Homes Ryan Jennings, Hayden Homes Matt Powell, Gallic Financial Jennifer Knapp, City of Eugene Terri Harding, City of Eugene Kaarin Knudson, Better Housing Together, Facilitator EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 1 Page 6 of 34 General Comments Discussion of housing access, regulatory controls that guide housing development, incentives and additional City efforts that could support more cost-effective housing production. • Important to frame Middle Housing Code as “least restrictive to housing” rather than “least regulation.” Significant regulation exists for all housing types, including middle housing. Land use plays a role but there are also structural/building and energy codes, as well as requirements from lenders. • Our current residential zoning restricts certain people from having access to land (space and property ownership). Land should not be only accessible to the wealthy. The current code was developed and refined over time to restrict (block) certain people from having access to housing in certain areas. Important that this code addresses that exclusion. • Drawing from experience with middle housing development using the current code paths (PUD, subdivision, etc.), the fear of infill and multiple households per lot is unfounded. Outcomes are positive and desirable. New housing is high-quality and energy-efficient and many people are seeking smaller housing types. A mix of housing in neighborhoods make them more accessible to different types of households and more interesting places. Many older neighborhoods already have some mix of housing types. • More housing supply is needed at all incomes, not only Affordable Housing. All housing is valuable and contributes long-term community value in multiple ways. • Cost of on-site and project infrastructure needs to be addressed and value-engineered. We can only take so much out of the cost of a structure. Projects are spending $150,000 before getting to the foundations (site development costs for stormwater, parking, underground utilities, utility connections, etc.). Affordable targets for workforce housing (ownership) are $200-250,000 and current practices are generating $400,000 outcomes. Lot Coverage Summary Comments Specific questions regarding: the impact of 50% lot coverage on feasibility, open space and impervious surface area requirements, and code provisions or incentives that could encourage smaller and more affordable units. • 50% lot coverage seems like an unnecessary limit. • Small infill is a challenge. Should use a sliding scale: Smaller lot = increased coverage. • Allow ample height limit if lot coverage is a concern. • Don’t limit coverage and also squash heights. • More coverage would be helpful and more flexible to site conditions (trees, topo, etc.). EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 2 Page 7 of 34 Special Area Zone Summary Comments Questions regarding design standards in Special Area Zones and the exemption of middle housing from these standards, as well as a question as to whether this would encourage middle housing rather than allowable, higher-density projects. • New Middle Housing rules should apply City-wide. • Consistency and clarity is important in development process. • All middle housing should be exempt from SAZ-specific design standards. • Exclusivity and obstructionism in some neighborhoods is a problem. • “I got here first” should not be driving decisions about community-wide housing needs. • Some Special Area Zones are intentionally constructed to repel infill housing and this puts them at odds with intention and requirements of the law. Plexes – Attached and Detached Summary Comments Discussion of whether there is a financial or feasibility advantage (or disadvantage) to allowing plexes to be either detached or attached. In general, are attached plexes more or less financially viable to build and rent/sell, all other things (e.g., unit size, design, etc.) being equal? • Value in both attached and detached. Recommendation to keep both options open equally. • Attached is more affordable to build (shared structure), but currently drive projects into commercial building code. • Detached are more expensive to build and more complex, but have site flexibility and livability advantages. • Detached option could be route to keeping an existing structure on site. • Large, deep blocks/lots lend to infill of detached units behind existing homes. • Detached units can facilitate certain homeownership paths, which is desirable. • Can be difficult if condominium structure is required. Cluster subdivision is a good path. • Detached units could lead to incremental, neighbor-specific development rather than McMansion quads. Cottage Cluster / Smaller Unit Summary Comments Discussion of whether reducing the maximum/average size of cottages would impact feasibility; if cottages should be allowed on individual lots (ownership options, not only rental); and if allowing cottages on smaller lots near transit would encourage smaller units and more production. • General sense that development of smaller units will be addressed via site capacity studies and other regulations. EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 3 Page 8 of 34  • No strong objection, but overarching skepticism of this approach. Unnecessary. • Feasible types tend toward smaller units, so doesn’t seem to need code direction. • Restriction could repel some projects. Controls on sizes should be addressed via incentives or via density/unit bonuses. • A lot of people would love access to a smaller home. Townhouse Summary Comments Discussion of whether townhouses/rowhouses should require street frontage, and if maximum density or minimum lot size should control their development. • No need for frontage requirements. • Townhouse development is very lot dependent and doesn’t typically need density restrictions. • Deep blocks/lots have rear-lot potential that shouldn’t be discouraged. • Using max density (rather than lot size minimums) could steer away from small units. • Don’t try to direct or predict type: level the playing field and let other regulations guide. • Use incentives as leverage and bring affordability along. Parking Discussion of requirements, location, format, impact on feasibility, and relationship to financing and street standards. Discussion of attached garages with cottages and influence on feasibility. • Parking strategies/locations need to be flexible. Parking flexibility will increase options. • City can incentivize certain outcomes, but it shouldn’t restrict how parking is organized. • If private off-street parking is important to people, it will get built. Don’t require it. • Some lenders require parking with project financing, but banks will make loans in walkable neighborhoods. Lending practices will change with housing. • Some Affordable Housing funders offer incentives for reduced parking/GHG emissions. • City parking regulations should remain separate from current lending practices. • Requiring off-street parking will make many sites infeasible. Sloped sites, sites without alleys, sites with existing homes often are eliminated from candidate pool. • In older neighborhoods, many houses don’t have garages or off-street parking. • Many townhomes will want parking but amount should be flexible. • Quads could be 0.5/spaces per unit or less. • Reduce parking requirements and allow configurations like tandem parking (e.g., one car parked behind the other) to increase flexibility to accommodate on different sites. • Look at street width and fire code if on-street parking being used to meet requirements. • Consider new street standards so cottages can be developed as car-free zones. • Garages are often just used for storage. EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 4 Page 9 of 34 Attached Garages and Larger Footprint Cottages Summary Comments • Be flexible and allow a larger footprint for an attached garage. This will allow designers to respond to the unique characteristics of a site. • Alley access would allow for good design with attached garages. • Age-in-place designs need option to have cars accessible and close to units. Design Standards Discussion of modest design standards (entry orientation, driveways/access, articulation, etc.) and influence on feasibility and design quality of outcomes. • With access-related design standards, be careful not to disallow the best outcome while trying to encourage a different one. Portland has seen some unintended consequences with over-directing access standards. • Allowing entries/doors to open onto a shared open space or clustering units around a space is better and more flexible option. Opening to a shared space supports community and is more flexible. Many successful historic examples of doors not facing the street. • Better approach would be more flexible: allow front doors, porch elements or gateways to be part of entry. Front doors can orient to a courtyard and open to a porch, but not be required to face the street (example from Bend). • To have entries facing the street is especially difficult on narrow, deep lots. • Multi-family standards have many problems; should be entirely rewritten. Some good articulation requirements, but overall far too complicated. For a specific home to look good is more important than meeting generalized design standards. • Adjustment Review process can be onerous and it adds cost and time to projects. Different standards can conflict with each other and with site conditions. • Suggest Adjustment Review options built into code. Seek simple solutions and flexibility rather than cumbersome processes that require extra time and money. • Entries shouldn’t have to face busy streets. When street speed is over 40 mph, homes should not be required to have entries facing the street. Housing unit should not bear all of the burden. EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 5 Page 10 of 34 Incentives Discussion of various actions that could support more Affordable Housing, the construction of particular types of housing, and more housing in particular locations. • Pursue a “Deeper Affordability” option for Affordable Housing, with unit or density bonus beyond what is typically allowed. This type of approach can reduce public subsidy needed by a factor of 10. Look at what Portland has done and build on this locally. • Target small lot infill and locations with multiple challenges for housing development. • Some interest at incentivizing restoration of an existing structure when adding units to a site. Do not restrict to this scenario but incentivize it. Connection to preservation of “naturally occurring affordable housing” and energy-efficiency funds for maintenance. • Elephant in the room is utility connections and requirements. Can be in the $10s to $100s of thousands of dollars. City Public Works and EWEB should partner on incentives and MH utility approaches. • City should look at allowing shared utility connections. Look at developing an agreement with the utilities that would allow a private easement for a single, shared connection for sewer, water and electricity for multiple homes on a site. • Developing a Middle Housing MUPTE to increasing density or prioritize certain areas would align with sustainability goals and could be bundled with State incentives. • City needs to make sure advertised incentives are budgeted adequately. The SDC credit near transit and the SDC credit for Affordable Housing have a cap that is reached every year. Projects seeking this support are delayed or turned away. • A density bonus could be more manageable, would make more sense than an unfunded incentive program. Currently, one large project can consume the entire annual allocation of SDC waiver support. • SDC waivers are an influential tool to create more housing and housing in specific places. Other City Actions To Support More Affordable Housing Supply Discussion of actions outside requirements of Middle Housing Code Amendments project, but related to overarching goals of affordability and EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 6 Page 11 of 34  • Systems Development Charges (SDCs) need to be addressed. How they’re approached doesn’t make sense with other housing goals and these fees can kill projects. • City should make it clear they are taking a new approach to affordability and availability with this new code. Currently, it’s too difficult to get good/clear answers from the City on specific projects; developers need clear answers early. The longer reliable/good information is delayed, the greater the cost to the project and potential price of the housing. The new code presents the opportunity to upgrade this process and help housing projects find their best path through the code and permitting process. • City should implement a Master Builder program and pre-approved status. Architects carry the project liability already; this could facilitate better, swifter projects. • City should pursue pro-forma analysis to understand redevelopment feasibility of various sites and also the likelihood of tear-downs. There is a general misunderstanding about how easy or inexpensive it is to demolish an existing structure that has any value. It’s difficult to carry that additional cost in a project. Additional pro-forma analysis can also help assess whether the code is working as intended and help to illuminate barriers and understand feasibility/infeasibility. • To see real progress with opportunities facilitated by middle housing, several issues identified in the Housing Tools & Strategies process need to move forward (infrastructure specifically, but also paths and permitting speed, etc.). Closing Thoughts Discussion of things the City should be thinking about with these draft code amendments (see also General Comments on page 2). • The approach and engagement with this work is refreshing and appreciated. • Prioritize flexibility. Infill housing is already challenging. Flexibility is a strong incentive. • Work to address on-site and project-related infrastructure costs. Only so much can come out of the cost of the structure. EUGENE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY REPORT 7 Page 12 of 34  Attachment C Eugene Review Panel Report 3: Public Engagement Recommendations 23 February 2021 (updated 5 May with final votes from the Panel) The following Public Engagement Recommendations were created for the City of Eugene by the 29 Panelists of the 2020–21 Eugene Review Panel on Housing. In addition to the Review Panel’s primary mandate – to advise City staff on the implementation of HB 2001 – the Panel was asked a secondary question during its February 2021 sessions: What should the City consider when designing future public engagement? Given Panelists’ unique position as participants in a novel democratic format, City staff requested they offer lessons drawn from their experience that may apply to public engagement across the City. An initial list of public engagement recommendations was developed by members of the Panel’s Process Oversight Subcommittee. This Subcommittee reviewed end-of-day evaluations submitted by fellow Panelists throughout the Review and deliberated specifically on the Panel’s process. The Process Subcommittee also drafted a survey to better understand their fellow Panelists’ experience. The results of this survey are included as an appendix to this report. These initial ideas were then brought to the full Panel and augmented by substantial additions from other members of the Panel, working in small groups. Members of the full Panel then rated each recommendation on a four-point scale, from Strongly Agree to Disagree. Additional Notes This report represents concepts authored exclusively by Panelists themselves; this explanatory text (in italics) is the only content contributed to this report by staff. Due to time constraints, Healthy Democracy staff did assist the Process Subcommittee in summarizing its initial recommendations. This summary was checked by the Subcommittee for accuracy and completeness. All additions made by other Panelists were in their own words, and no final edits were made by either HD or City staff before publication. Due to time constraints, Panelists were able to complete only limited editing of the wording of this document. Recommendations are ordered by their overall “score,” a weighted average of all votes for that recommendation. For this score, “Strongly Agree” received 2 points, “Somewhat Agree” 1 point, “Don't Know / Neutral” 0 points, and “Disagree” -1 points. Sub-recommendations are kept with their parent recommendation, regardless of their score. Ties were broken by a random number generator. Rationales were not rated. Note: Agreement or disagreement with a recommendation does not necessarily indicate agreement or disagreement with any of the Rationales below it. Rationales simply provide additional explanation, in the eyes of one or more supporters of the associated recommendation. This project is a partnership between the City of Eugene (Oregon) and Healthy Democracy. The Review Panel prepared this report as advice to City staff. Panelists were randomly selected from across Eugene (including unincorporated areas within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary), to reflect a microcosm of the city in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic location of residence, disability status, renter/homeowner status, and educational attainment. For more information on the Panel, please visit: healthydemocracy.org/eugene. Page 13 of 34 Public Engagement Recommendations Recommendation 1: Statistical sampling is good to get an idea of what a sample of the population thinks. This kind of selection could also be useful for special committees, Boards, and Commissions. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 24 Somewhat Agree: ⬢ 1 Don’t Know / Neutral: 0 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.96 ○ Rationale: Random mailings might be more effective than other recruitment methods because they get a hold of people right where they already are - in their homes. ○ Rationale: Not everyone listens to the radio, reads the newspaper, knows the right people, or is on the right listserv to hear about openings and apply. ○ Rationale: In an informal poll, ⅘ Panelists on the process oversight task committee said they would not have responded to an email or an ad in the Register Guard to join this Panel. Recommendation 1a: If direct mailings are too expensive, prioritize underrepresented groups. This may require a creative process to find where those folks live. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 16 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 6 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢ 1 Disagree: ⬢⬢ 2 Average score: 1.44 2/19 Page 14 of 34 Recommendation 2: The City should devote a little more resources and more time to these processes. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 22 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢ 2 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢ 1 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.84 ○ Rationale: A process that includes residents of under-represented communities requires more support services that need to be prioritized by the city (Zoom, education, onboarding, stipend, internet access, translation, etc.). ○ Rationale: By front loading this democratic process you are more likely to save money/time/stress because of a better representative voice. Recommendation 3: Prior education should not be a requirement for engaging in public processes. It creates a fair environment when everyone starts with the same information. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 22 Somewhat Agree: ⬢ 1 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢ 2 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.8 ○ Rationale: Giving everyone the same opportunity/access to information is important. 3/19 Page 15 of 34 Recommendation 4: The City should adopt this process. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 21 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Don’t Know / Neutral: 0 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.76 ○ Rationale: There’s a tendency for the loudest voices to rule in town hall meetings organized by the City. This Panel is a part of our Great Democratic Experiment – a jury of our peers. ○ Rationale: Rules of civility create good and productive results. ○ Rationale: Panelists feel a certain weight of responsibility to speak up and be part of something productive. ○ Rationale: By getting a random selection of people, this Panel is much more diverse than who shows up to public meetings. ○ Rationale: Public officials like to get the real, raw story from everyday people. Usually you just get representatives of interest groups. Here Panelists are speaking from our own experiences. ○ Rationale: Processes like these are rewarding and educational! Listening to others on this committee has been educational and helpful to better appreciate the diversity of my neighbors. Recommendation 4a: The City should adopt this process either by the creation of its own moderation group or by the employment of Healthy Democracy and/or similar civic engagement organizations. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 20 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢ 4 Don’t Know / Neutral: 0 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.72 4/19 Page 16 of 34 Recommendation 5: Every committee involving residents should provide laptops, access to the internet, and a stipend (like this process did). Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 19 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 5 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢ 1 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.72 ○ Rationale: These are necessary for individuals who would not participate otherwise due to accessibility. ○ Rationale: A fair and even sample of the population is important. Accessibility is key to representative voice. Recommendation 5a: Provide childcare during meetings. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 10 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 9 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢⬢ 4 Disagree: ⬢⬢ 2 Average score: 1.08 ○ Rationale: Wider diversity of participants, especially for young families. Recommendation 6: Make these processes as apolitical as possible. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 21 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢ 2 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢ 1 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.72 ○ Rationale: Being free of political influence has been key to this Panel’s productivity. 5/19 Page 17 of 34 Recommendation 7: The City should figure out where the need for volunteers is and provide an inventory of different opportunities for members of this Panel to join. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 19 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.64 Recommendation 7a: Provide a map of the support systems that would funnel folks in to participate in those opportunities. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 21 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢ 2 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢ 2 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.76 ○ Rationale: Some people on this Panel were motivated by the topic, for others it was something else. So the City shouldn’t only offer housing opportunities. ○ Rationale: Volunteers are often expected to do all the legwork to find opportunities. Recommendation 8: Allow for individual input in addition to collective input; provide space for disagreement and free expression of individual opinions. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 17 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 7 Don’t Know / Neutral: 0 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.6 6/19 Page 18 of 34 Recommendation 9: Evening meetings are really good. Daytime meetings are really hard for folks who work during the day. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 14 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 9 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢ 2 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.48 ○ Rationale: Most are working during the day and Saturdays are tough. Recommendation 9a: Day time meetings may be beneficial, as well. This could allow a different demographic. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 7 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 8 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 10 Disagree: 0 Average score: 0.88 Recommendation 10: The City should think about what training they can provide to set folks from this Panel up for success in other engagement opportunities. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 14 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 8 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.44 ○ Rationale: Other Boards and Committees are less protected from political influence than this Panel is. People need to be prepared for that. ○ Rationale: Don’t assume the skills and roles from this Panel will translate exactly. ○ Rationale: This panel got trained/on-boarded together by presenters during the process, but this could be done before the process itself. Committees lose or don’t attract people when they don’t do on-boarding right away. 7/19 Page 19 of 34 Recommendation 11: There should be a mix of us into other processes = a mix of old and new folks. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 13 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 9 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.4 Recommendation 11a: Aim for 50/50 split. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 10 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 6 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 8 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1 ○ Rationale: This allows folks with more experience to mentor new folks and for fresh ideas to be infused with those who have experiences going through these processes. This prevents only a few people being the ones who always participate. Recommendation 12: Before rolling out any process like this, prototype it in advance. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 15 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 6 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.4 ○ Rationale: If you want wider adoption of this kind of process, you need to know the success rate, things that can go wrong, etc. ○ Rationale: A template would allow for more seamless adoption and productive outcomes. 8/19 Page 20 of 34 Recommendation 13: The City should help keep us involved and funnel us into other opportunities so this isn’t just a one-time engagement. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 12 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 9 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.28 ○ Rationale: The number of new people on this Panel is very high – maybe 90+% who have not participated before – so the city should not let us go. Recommendation 14: Offer translation and interpretation services. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 14 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 5 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 5 Disagree: ⬢ 1 Average score: 1.28 Recommendation 14a: Offer live captioning service for hearing impaired, and services that are available that do translations. Strongly Agree: ⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢⬢ 19 Somewhat Agree: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Don’t Know / Neutral: ⬢⬢⬢ 3 Disagree: 0 Average score: 1.64 9/19 Page 21 of 34 Appendix: Panelist Experience Survey Results The questions on this survey were authored by Panelist members of the Panel’s Process Oversight Subcommittee and unedited by staff. These are the unabridged results of that survey. Question 1 Question 2 Other free-response answers to this question: ● I care deeply about my community. ● A general inclination towards civc ● Family suggested applying together participation in order to contribute to the ● good opportunity to get involved, and grand experiment of American knowing that I would bring needed democracry. diversity to the panel ● Opportunities/knowledge useful for the ● Community participation future. 10/19 Page 22 of 34  ● I was under the impression that it was to ● Great staff help solve the problem of the unhoused ● Participating is my way of exercising population here in Eugene social responsibility ● The opportunity to understand better ● I was generally interested in the process how cities operate. Housing is such an and topic. I also wanted to be a part of the important and large topic and learning group who helped better the City that I about all the factors that inform the issue. love. ● Being able to have the opportunity to ● Desire to contribute to the community in voice my opinions about the city we live some way. I've admired public servants in and those who've gone out of their way to ● Figured it would be an interesting better the community, and wanted to go experience and learning opportunity for it! Question 3 Full text of answers to this question (the above chart is a summary of these): ● subject matter because it would not have been a fair ● Tech support sample of Eugene's population. ● i do not have a laptop with out i would not ● The stipend! As a student, this is wildly have done the panel important since a lot of my work right ● No now is internship-based and unpaid. This ● Stipend. I am a full time college student. is a wonderful relief from it all and allows Being compensated for my time made me to take seriously my activism and this accessible to me. advocacy work, as well as feel more ● At this point in my life, the stipend. empowered by it and engaged! ● Neither ● I would have volunteered without the ● i still would have volunteered. stipend, but most wouldn't. I believe you ● none, though the stipend made it feel should compensate people for their time "fun" if you expect the most productive results ● Nothing. I still would have volunteered. from this process. ● It was the accommodations. If it wasn't ● Out of these accommodations the listed that people could receive tech stipend was the deal-breaker for me support I would not have applied because I already had access to the other things. 11/19 Page 23 of 34  ● II agreed to help with the unhoused ● I still might have volunteered if these population. The stipend is an added services weren't offered, but at the same bonus time I was very skeptical that this ● I likely would only have volunteered opportunity might have been a scam at without a stipend if there were fewer the start, and without the support December sessions. Such a large time providing some legitimacy to the commitment with a high frequency of program I might not have joined for that meetings would have cut into my time reason. available for paid work. ● I would not have been able to volunteer ● The stipend is much appreciated. I didn't without the benefit of the loaner laptop. need assistance with tech ● I would have volunteered either way accommodations. (Given I received the information similar to ● If stipend had not been offered...that what i got in the mail. If it was an email or would most likely have been a a very brief overview I would not have deal-breaker taken the time to read about it) However ● The stipend definitely helped as I am I'm not sure I would have continued saving for a house. Not sure if I would throughout the whole process and have committed that much of my time applied myself in the same way without and energy just based on my interested the "Kick in the pants" that the stipend in the new experience alone. If I did not gave me. have a current job probably I would have, ● If i didn't have internet access, obviously! might still do, but a stipend definitely ● N/A. I would have happily volunteered made it an easier yes knowing that I will regardless, and I had everything I needed be sacrificing the free time that I have. to be able to participate. I love this stuff, ● Not being able to use zoom. personally. ● I did not need the accommodation. ● When I responded to the letter, I didn't Having said that, the timing in the evening realize that we would receive a stipend, it would have been the deal breaker. Also, just looked interesting to me. the fact that it was on Zoom (online) ● stipend was a bonus, but the subject meant that I did not have to matter was important to me travel/commute. The time volunteered ● Laptop for was exactly what was spent. Question 4 Note: All who chose to explain their answer of “other” referred to the previous question. 12/19 Page 24 of 34 Question 5 Other free-response answers to this question: ● Spanish language meeting on its own ● it may be helpful to a panel thats half day ● I am not certain that some would have people, with their own moderators responded to the letter simultaneously in order to represent other sections of the population. Question 6 As you’ve spoken to friends, family, and co-workers about this panel, is there something that they’ve said about them wishing they would have joined if only . . . ● sat morning would be hard for most of ● "if I only had the time..." she is very my friends interested and wants to know more about ● No, I don't discuss my work all to much the subject matter. with friends and family, so I don't know ● my friends and family didn't really care that they were informed enough to create one way or the other the desire to fill a similar role as me. ● If they had heard about it from someone, ● No. I haven't spoken with that many or notified in newspaper people about it, though. ● Friends and family would join if a panel ● they had the time was held online. Convenience was the ● they had received the initial mailing, lack key factor. of consistent work schedule would make ● To be honest, many of my family and it difficult friends think this panel is for show and ● they had the opportunity in their city. won't make much of a difference in the ● My parents both would have loved to be long term. here to help but the time didn't really ● They had received the invite. work for them because they are both very ● The people who i spoke with either were busy with work. not able to volunteer or were not ● No. They just championed me for selected, i have heard no comments participating. about "if they did this i would volunteer" ● We moved to Eugene near the start of the ● they knew about it also because they virus so I don't really know any locals. would have liked their voice to be heard. 13/19 Page 25 of 34  ● If only they had gotten notice sooner, ● None have said that it is very interesting checked their mail, had instead gotten an but did not say that they would want to email, phone call, was at a better time for do this. I am in the older age range, I them--which varied, etc. A few think that would be the reasoning for their connections of mine wished that there response was some other way they could have ● they lived in Eugene contributed since they hadn't been selected, because they showed interest in all of it. No / None / N/A: 10 (including those “no” answers further explained above) Question 7 Question 7a Please describe why or why not. ● Y'all need help ● I enjoy learning more about the local ● Depends on what I am asked to do. level of goverment ● i learned so much ● i appreciate the opportunity to put my ● Making my contribution and bring my two cents in and be in the loop about thoughts are important what changes are being made in my city ● This was meaningful and enjoyable work. ● This has been very positive, the I'd like it even more if it was in person! boarding/learning together has made it ● I've enjoyed being part of a democratic very accessible, joint experience as process beyond voting and dealing with opposed to just me going through it as issues on a deep level along with a team. the new person on the committee. 14/19 Page 26 of 34 ● Depending on the opportunity, if I felt I ● Because the people that makes decisions had something to contribute. are going to hear what we think about ● I enjoy being able to help the city as a those decisions, rules or restrictions. I whole. think is a noble principle, being able to be ● I am incredibly passionate about social heard. justice work, especially in my own ● Depends on what the subject matter is, community! I am always actively looking how much time I had available, when for ways to get involved and advise / they are meeting. I am lucky in that the affect / be a part of positive change that time periods for the zoom sessions works to ensure equity, accessibility, and worked with my work schedule, but that accountability. It has been such a joy to may not always be the case in which case be a part of this advisory panel - Working I would leave it open for someone else. on the community / policy level is really ● Learned how the city of Eugene cares interesting and for me and is something I about the city & citizens. am deeply passionate about, as I believe ● I answered yes, but with a qualification. It it is of utmost important that we invite, must be a subject matter that I am involve, and make welcome a diverse interested in, and it should be convenient, array of voices and lived experiences to like online meetings. engage in and represent/be represented ● It depends. I would love to be involved by this work and the policies that stem with a project I could work on with a small from it. group where I feel like I could have a ● Duty, progress, participation in productive conversation where people democracy, and improving our listened to each other. community. ● I love Eugene and her people. ● I have had a great experience on this ● I feel like my opinion matters and are panel and I feel like the work I am doing actually being heard, I don't feel like I'm actually matters and will be important for "lost in the herd". I also have really the future, so if there is an opportunity in enjoyed learning more about this topic the future like this I would most definitely and expanding my understanding of the take it. The subject of HB 2001 and city and the people who live here. housing in general was also something I ● I have always been community-minded didn't know a lot about so my eyes have and am always willing to volunteer where really been opened through this process. I may be of use. After participating in this ● Depending o my time and availability panel discussion (which I surprisingly outside of other commitments enjoyed!) it has given me the impetus to ● This has been an interesting and want to further participate. educational experience about a pressing ● I would volunteer because I enjoy being a issue. It has made me think about other public servant, volunteering, and helping ways to get involved in issues Eugene my community in anyway possible. faces, so yes, I would consider another ● I love the fact that we have a voice in our opportunity like this one. city government ● The process has been very informative ● Being able to hear diverse opinions and and I appreciate having my voice heard. being to express my own ● It's great to be of service to the public. 15/19 Page 27 of 34 Question 8 Question 9 Question 9a If you HAVE volunteered before, please list in what capacity. ● Not in Eugene. I served on the ● I have volunteered a little bit for FFLC Washington Co. 911 committee, Chaired (Food for Lane County). the Lincoln Co EMS Committee and was a member of the Tillamook Co. EMS Committee. 16/19 Page 28 of 34 Question 9b If you HAVE volunteered before, could you describe how your experience on this panel compares to your previous experience: ● The general aim was the same - advise a pandemic when I volunteered previously. government body on pertinent issues. I also did different work than we are doing ● The biggest difference with the here, and the work we are doing here is experience on this panel and my past definitely much more immersed with experiences volunteering would definitely information. be the online aspect, since there wasn't a Question 9c Other free-response answers to this question: ● I'm new to Eugene ● was never offered an opportunity and ● have not had an opportunity never had the drive to seek one out ● I volunteer for different non-profits myself. I might now non-affiliated with the city. ● Convenience. Subject matter was not of ● I am young, I am only starting out. interest. ● new to the city and had not yet figured ● I don't feel like i agree with everything the out what topic to to plug into city does and would be concerned my ● School work opinions would be completely ignored. ● I only moved here a year ago! ● Actually had something lined up with the ● Trying to find where my contribution feels Lane County History Museum in Spring meaningful. 2020 before shutdowns began. 17/19 Page 29 of 34 Question 10 Question 11 18/19 Page 30 of 34 Question 12 19/19 Page 31 of 34  Attachment D Eugene Middle Housing Code Straw Poll Form Planning Commissioner Name: May 17, 2021 Commissioner Project Team Shorthand Reference Material Code Topic Straw Poll Comments Recommendation Description Recommendation 1 Overall Approach Encourage‐Incentivize Remove barriers, encourage 4/26 Packet p. 7 more housing across Eugene Angelo Planning Group (APG) Memo (Attachment A) 2 Detached Plexes or Attached Only Encourage‐Incentivize Allow both attached and detached for flexibility 4/26 Packet p. 8 APG Memo 3 Cottages on Individual Lots or Common Lot Encourage‐Incentivize Allow both individual lots and common lots for flexibility 4/26 Packet p. 9 APG Memo Only 4 Lot & Development Standards ‐ General Encourage‐Incentivize Meet or exceed minimum standards for height, setbacks, and 4/26 Packet p. 8 APG Memo parking; incentivize near transit 5 Duplexes Incentivize near transit, Incentivize near transit with lot size, height, and parking; 4/26 Packet Encourage elsewhere generally encourage elsewhere p. 10‐13 APG Memo; p. 42‐46 ECONorthwest memo (Attachment B) 6 Triplexes and Fourplexes Incentivize near transit, Incentivize near transit with lot size, height, and parking; 4/26 Packet p. 23‐25 APG Memo; p. Encourage elsewhere generally encourage elsewhere 42‐46 ECONW memo 7 Cottage Clusters Incentivize near transit, Incentivize near transit with lot size; generally encourage 4/26 Packet p. 15‐16 APG Memo Encourage elsewhere elsewhere; ensure smaller units 8 Rowhouses Incentivize near transit, Incentivize near transit with lot size, height, and parking; 4/26 Packet p. 32‐35 APG Memo Encourage elsewhere generally encourage elsewhere 9 Rowhouse Density / Lot Size Incentivize near transit, Near transit: don't limit lot size or density; 4/26 Packet p. 32‐33 APG memo Encourage elsewhere Elsewhere: allow reduced lot size of 1,125 sf, but cap number of lots created at reduced size at 8 lots 10 Lot Coverage Allow Meet minimum standards, 50% lot coverage 4/26 packet p. 11, 24, 34 APG memo; and test fits for plexes 11 Design Standards Allow Use model code basic design standards 4/26 Packet p. 8, 19‐22, 27‐31, 36‐ 38 APG Memo 12 Special Area Zones Encourage Treat the whole city equitably; Exempt middle housing from 4/26 packet p. 39‐41 APG memo; SAZ development and design standards and 5/11 APG SAZ Memo 13 Affordability Strategies Encourage Reduce barriers to triplexes and quads especially parking and 4/26 packet p. 42‐46 ECONW memo lot size minimums Page 32 of 34  Attachment E LAND USE PLANNIN G TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM LAND USE PLANNIN G TRANSPORTATION PLANNING D AT E May 11, 2021 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TO Eugene Middle Housing PMT FROM Kate Rogers and Matt Hastie, APG LAND USE PLANNIN G RE SAZ Exemptions for Middle Housing TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CC PROJECT MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLANNIN G The project team’s recommended approach to updating special area T R ANSP zones O R Tis (SAZs) ATI toO N P LANNING exempt P R O Jto middle housing from SAZ standards. This way, middle housing would be subject ECT theM A NAGE same setM EofN T siting and design standards throughout the city. This memo summarizes a few issues related to exempting middle housing from SAZ standards, and provides example language that the City of LAND USE PLANNIN G Eugene could consider incorporating into the Eugene Code. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT SAZ Land Use and Permit Requirements Most SAZs that are subject to HB 2001 either already permit most middle housing types or refer to LAND USE PLANNIN G the land use regulations of a base zone (for example, Jefferson Westside [S-JW] points to the use TRANSPORTATION PLANNING regulations of the R-2 zone). However, no SAZs currently permit all middle housing types, because PROJECT MANAGEMENT cottage cluster is not recognized as a separate housing type in the Eugene Code. For the SAZs that permit some, but not all, middle housing types, the City will need to add the missing housing types to the Land Use and Permit Requirements tables. For example, the Chase NodeL A N SAZD U S E PLAN (S-CN) NING currently TRAN permits rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Cottage clusters willS P O needR T Ato TIO beN P L addedANN asI N G an allowed use. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SAZ Development Standards LAND USE PLANNIN G Most SAZs that are subject to HB 2001 have at least some standards T that R Ado not NSP comply ORTA with TION P State LANN ING rules, or that present barriers to middle housing development. The project P Rteam recommends OJECT M ANAGEMENT exempting middle housing from development and design standards that would otherwise apply in SAZs (lot coverage, setbacks, heights, parking, entry orientation, façade articulation, etc.) and instead subjecting middle housing to base zone standards. Below is an example of how a special area zone could be amended to exempt middle housing from its development standards. S-JW is used as an example. NOTE: It will be important to choose the right base zone to substitute for the SAZ standards. For example, S-JW points to the R-2 zone for use regulations; however, given how restrictive the current S-JW development standards are, it may be more appropriate to apply the R- 1 development standards, since they’re closer to the current standards than the R-2 standards. (For A N G E L O P L A N N IN G G R O U P angeloplanning.com 921 SW Washington Street, Suite 468 p: 503.224.6974 Portland, OR 97205 Page 33 of 34 f: 503.227.3679 SAZ Exemptions for Middle Housing 2 of 2 example, the R-2 zone allows a maximum building height of 35 ft, while R-1 only allows 30 ft. S-JW currently allows up to 30 ft.) 9.3625 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards. (1) Application of Standards and Adjustment. (a) Application of Standards. Except as provided in subsection (b) below, in addition to the special use limitations in EC 9.3615 and the development standards in EC 9.3625 to 9.3640 and EC 9.5000 to 9.5850, the General Standards for All Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 apply within this zone. In the event of a conflict between those general development standards and the development standards in EC 9.3625 to 9.3640, the provisions of EC 9.3625 to 9.3640 shall control. (b) Middle Housing Standards. All middle housing development in the S-JW special area zone shall be exempt from the development standards in EC 9.3625 to 9.3640, and shall instead be subject to the development standards established for the R-1 zone in EC 9.2750 to 9.2751. SAZ Lot Standards Similar to development standards, lot standards in many SAZs do not comply with the state rules for middle housing. Below is an example of how an SAZ could be amended to exempt middle housing from its special lot standards, again using S-JW as an example. 9.3630 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Lot Standards. The following Table 9.3630 sets forth S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone lot standards, subject to the special standards in EC 9.3631. All middle housing development in the S-JW special area zone shall be exempt from the lot standards in EC 9.3630 to 9.3631, and shall instead be subject to the lot standards established for the R-1 zone in EC 9.2760 to 9.2777. APG Eugene Middle Housing Code Update Page 34 of 34 May 11, 2021