Planning Commission

AGENDA EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 682-5481 Web site: www.eugene-or.gov The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or 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 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682-5119. MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 9 and 31, 2009. 11:50 a.m. III. WORK SESSION: INFILL/COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635 NOTE: PLEASE BRING AGENDA MATERIALS FROM THE APRIL 27, 2009 MEETING 12:35 p.m. IV. PROJECT UPDATE: EUGENE COMPREHENSIVE LANDS ASSESSMENT Staff: Jason Dedrick, 682-5451 1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Commissioners: Heidi Beierle, Phillip Carroll, Chair; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, Vice Chair; John Lawless, Jeffery Mills PC Agenda, Page 1  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 11, 2009 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Jason Dedrick, Metro and Community Planning Subject: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Project Update ACTION REQUESTED This work session will be an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive an update on the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA). Progress to date will be discussed, as will the baseline assumption that is being developed. The attached technical documents are provided for review by the Planning Commission. BRIEFING STATEMENT Attachment A summarizes the primary components of the ECLA analysis. Attachments B & C provide an overview of the recommended values associated with the baseline assumption that will be utilized to determine land need. Attachments D and E provide a list of committee members and a timeline for the project. A City Council work session was held on April 27th where a motion was passed to move forward with the baseline assumption contained within Column 2 of Attachment B, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs. Staff also expects to be able to expand the baseline assumption discussion at the May 11 Planning Commission meeting to include items currently identified as “To Be Determined” (TBD) in Attachment B, but that have been recently discussed by the Community Advisory Committee. Staff is seeking comments and discussion on these items. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ECLA is one of several major projects in the current Planning Division work program recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in January 2008. Work began on the project in June 2008. To date, analysis and data associated with the Buildable Lands Inventory, Employment Land Need and Residential Land Need have been produced and discussed by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Agency Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Work has continued on the land supply and land need (demand) analysis since the Planning Commission’s March 30, 2009 work session. A summary of these components is presented in Attachment A. The current land supply is being determined through an analysis of lands within the UGB that are currently vacant or otherwise able to accommodate additional growth. This analysis continues to be refined and will be presented at a future date. The land need (demand) is being determined through an analysis of historic trends, current policies and forecasts for employment, housing and public lands. Recent work on land need includes analysis of preliminary data for each variable related to the employment land needs, residential land 1 PC Agenda, Page 2 needs, and public/semi-public lands needs. All preliminary data has now been presented to the TAC and CAC. Each of the variables presented in Attachment B comprise the baseline assumption for the ECLA analysis. The values provided for these variables represent a technical recommendation based on committee discussion and feedback as well as staff and consultant expertise. The baseline assumption will establish land need based on a continuation of existing trends and policies. While an analysis of the past in no means should predict the future, it will provide a benchmark for evaluating the land needed by Eugene over the next 20 years should we continue on our current trajectory. Next Steps Continued refinement of the values associated with the baseline assumption and the resulting preliminary findings will continue through the summer. If there is a broad range of uncertainty about some of the assumptions that comprise the baseline analysis, it may be appropriate to model some variations in these assumptions, provided that these variations are within the reasonable ranges provided in the table in Attachment B. This process will conclude with the land need determination by the end of the year. Additional Planning Commission updates are tentatively planned for July, September and November as products become available. Special presentations to community organizations will take place in late summer and public workshops are currently scheduled for September. An updated project timeline is included in Attachment E. The completion of the land needs analysis will address Eugene’s compliance with HB 3337, completing the technical phase of a larger planning process. If the study determines that additional lands will be needed to accommodate projected growth, the City will need to initiate a process for addressing these needs, either through infill and redevelopment policies, UGB modifications or some combination of both. This process would contain ample opportunities for engaging the community in a dialogue about how to accommodate future growth. ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Technical Analysis Components B. Summary of Baseline Assumption and Recommended Values C. Detailed Description of Baseline Assumption D. Project Committee Members E. Project Timeline FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact Jason Dedrick, Metro and Community Planning, by phone at (541) 682-5451, or by e-mail at jason.p.dedrick@ci.eugene.or.us 2 PC Agenda, Page 3  ECLA PROJECT COMPONENTS Housing Economic Public/ Semi- Need Need Public Need + +  Population growth  Employment  Schools Gross =  National and state growth  Parks and open housing trends  National and state space  Local housing economic trends  Public facilities Future development trends  Local economic advantages and operations  Churches Land Need  Demographic  Site needs  Public/Semi (Demand) changes  Current policies Public Lands  Housing  Economic Memo affordability Opportunities  Current policies Analysis report  Housing Needs Analysis report Current Land -   Supply GIS Data County Assessor’s Data  Current Policies  Buildable Lands Inventory report Net Future Attachment A = Land Need (Land Sufficiency) PC Agenda, Page 4  Attachment B Summary of Baseline Assumptions and Recommended Values The analysis to establish a baseline for future land need is built upon assumptions that are guided by statute and rely on historical trends, recent information and current policies. Variables used in the land needs analysis are organized into three categories: employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs. The table on the next page presents a summary of these variables for each of the three categories. Additional information on each of these variables is provided in Attachment C. It is important to note that some of the variables have not yet been discussed by the project committees. The cells for these categories contain “TBD” (to be determined). Input received from the CAC meeting on May 7 may allow staff to provide a recommendation for several of these items during our presentation at the May 11 Planning Commission work session. Below are definitions to assist with interpreting this data: Acronyms and Abbreviations PD – plan designation EPA – employees per acre du/acre – dwelling units per acre ac/pkp – acres per thousand people PROS – City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Column 1: Variable – Name of each key assumption in Attachment C. Column 2: Recommended Value – Current technical recommendation for the baseline assumption. This is a product of committee comments, staff input and consultant expertise. This is what staff is asking for Planning Commission input on. Column 3: Source of Data – In many cases there are multiple sources. For the sake of brevity, the primary source is shown in this table. Additional sources are provided in Attachment C. Column 4: Rationale – Reason for the data source or the value shown. In some cases safe harbor provisions in statute are utilized. Column 5: Reasonable Range – Statute implies that values utilized for determining land need be reasonable and defensible. Where possible, this column shows the potential range when there are multiple methods that can be utilized or some discretion involved. Column 6: Impact on Land Need – Each key assumption is an important variable in determining the land need in acres. Some of these variables have a larger impact on land need than others. A “high” impact on land need would indicate that changing the value for this variable could significantly decrease or increase overall land need, thus indicating its relative importance to the overall analysis. Column 7: Data Type – Point data is from a specific moment in time. Often this is census, state or City data with a date. Trend data indicates a longer period of time. 1 PC Agenda, Page 5  Attachment B This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2 PC Agenda, Page 6  Attachment B 3 PC Agenda, Page 7  Attachment C Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10th Ave Eugene • (503) 222-6060 info@econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3040 Seattle • (206) 622-2403 April 15, 2009 TO: Community Advisory Committee (CAC) CC: Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Terry Moore, Beth Goodman, and Bob Parker SUBJECT: LAND NEED ASSUMPTIONS AND TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 BACKGROUND ECONorthwest is conducting the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis (ECLA). Though there are many reasons for conducting such an analysis, the main one directing the content and timing of the analysis is Oregon House Bill 3337, which allows Eugene to establish its own Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) separate from the joint metropolitan UGB that Springfield and Eugene has shared for about 25 years. The full scope of work for ECLA is described elsewhere. It includes creating many products to comply with state requirements for LCDC Goals 9, 10, and 14: a Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), an Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA), and a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). Those pieces (and others) must eventually lead to a comparison of estimates of the need / demand for buildable land (to accommodate employment and residential growth) to the estimates of the amount of buildable land for the City of Eugene. That comparison would be the basis for a determination about whether land inside the Eugene portion of the existing metropolitan urban growth boundary is sufficient to accommodate Eugene‟s expected growth. That determination is where this project will end in December 2009. If the result is that land inside the UGB is unlikely to be sufficient to meet demand, the City of Eugene will subsequently evaluate policies that might expand the capacity of land inside the existing UGB (e.g., by increasing density), add land to the UGB, or both. House Bill 3337 requires that Eugene establish a UGB and “demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.”1 The scope of work for ECLA 1 House Bill 3337 was codified in ORS 197.304. Emphasis added. PC Agenda, Page 8 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 2 provides further direction. First, the Eugene City Council expanded the analysis to look not just at residential land (housing needs), but at employment land as well. Second, the scope is about collecting data and making extrapolations of land need based on existing policy and on market conditions and trends; it is not about researching, suggesting, or adopting policies that could change those trends. The written products for this project will ultimately comprise dozens of analyses, tables, and maps. Making sense of them as an integrated analysis is difficult enough for people involved in the analysis, and more difficult still for community members who want to understand the implications for City land-use policy at a general level. With that point in mind, ECONorthwest proposed in its work plan that the technical information be consolidated and represented in land-use scenarios. The most important land-use scenario, and the one that the staff technical work and CAC review will be focusing on, is the one related to historical trends and current policies in land use consumption. If there is a broad range of uncertainty about some of assumptions that compose the historical-trend scenario, then it may make sense to run some variations on that scenario. This memorandum describes the land need based on historical trends, which reflect the impact of current policies on residential development in Eugene. It presents the key assumptions about historical trends. Based on the CAC‟s and TAC‟s discussion of this material the consultant team will (1) do more work to refine the assumptions that define the need side the historical trend analysis (ECO), (2) make final adjustments to the buildable lands inventory (LCOG), and (3) combine the results of „1‟ and „2‟ to assess whether Eugene has enough land within the UGB to accommodate expected growth given existing policies. City staff will present a tentative schedule for that process to the City Council at the end of April. The remainder of this memorandum discusses key assumptions in the land needs analysis. 2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS In previous meetings and memoranda, ECONorthwest described the assumptions that are needed to model land need for the Eugene UGB over the 2010-2030 period. Table 1 lists these assumptions; underlining denotes what ECONorthwest believes to be a key assumption and one that the CAC, Planning Commission, or City Council may wish to comment on. Key assumptions are assumptions that (1) potentially have a large impact on land needs, and (2) are most likely to be affected by City policies. Subsequent sections of this memorandum provide information about those key assumptions as they relate to historical trends. PC Agenda, Page 9 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 3 Table 1. Assumptions for modeling land need Employment land Residential land needs Public and Semi-Public needs Population growth Land Needs Employment growth Population in group Park Land Share of employment by quarters Neighborhood Parks category Persons in household Community Parks Industrial Natural Areas Residential vacancy rate Commercial Other Parks Housing mix Retail Schools Single-family detached Government 4J School District Mfg home in park New employment in non- Bethel School District Duplex employment PD Public Operations and Single-family attached Facilities New employment in Tri- and Quadplex existing built space Apt. with 5-19 units Semi-public uses Commercial Apt. with 20+ units Redevelopment Housing density Employment Density Single-family detached Industrial Mfg home in park Commercial Duplex Retail Single-family attached Government Tri- and Quadplex Net to Gross Factor Apt. with 5-19 units Apt. with 20+ units Net to Gross Factor Residential infill and redevelopment 2.1 EMPLOYMENT LAND NEED: KEY ASSUMPTIONS The analysis of employment land need is driven by an analysis of employment growth, Eugene‟s competitive advantages, the types of firms that may locate in Eugene, and the site needs of the firms that may locate in Eugene. The employment land need must meet the State requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 600-009. The framework for conducting the housing needs analysis is described in detail in the memorandum to the CAC “Framework for Determining Land Needed for Employment in Eugene: 2010- 2030” (January 5, 2009). This section discusses the key assumptions necessary for determining the amount of land needed for employment over the 20-year planning period. PC Agenda, Page 10 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 4 Employment growth Employment growth is the amount of growth in jobs reasonably expected in Eugene over the 2010 to 2030 period. Changes in the forecast of employment growth directly result in changes in need for employment land. There is no single “right” way to forecast employment growth. There are, however, two methods for forecasting employment growth that, independent of their technical merits, are legally sanctioned as “safe harbors”: (1) assume that employment will grow at the same rate as population (OAR 660-024-0040(8)((a)(ii)), or (2) assume that employment will grow at the same rate as the Employment Department‟s forecast for Lane County. Potential range of assumption: Assuming that employment will grow at the same rate as population (a 1.0% annual growth) results in addition of about 27,000 jobs.2 Assuming that employment in Eugene will grow at the same rate as the one used in the Employment Department‟s forecast for Lane County (a 1.4% annual growth rate) results in the addition of about 40,000 jobs. CAC and TAC discussion: Several CAC and TAC members said the assumption that Eugene‟s employment will grow at the rate forecasted for Lane County (1.4% annual growth) is reasonable, and probably the more reasonable of the two growth rates. Eugene is the central city and employment center of the region: it is reasonable to expect employment to grow faster than population. On the other hand, a difference in growth rates suggests greater commuting to Eugene from outlying cities (e.g., Veneta). Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming 1.4% annual employment growth, based on: (1) the assumption that Eugene is the regional economic center of Lane County and likely to have the greatest employment growth, and (2) average employment growth in Lane County over the 1980 to 2007 was 1.7% average annual growth. Data source: The employment base is a point estimate for 2006 based on: Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department and Total Employment in Lane County from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Distribution of employment by land-use type The forecast of employment growth can be divided into broad categories of land use based on the characteristics of land needed: commercial, retail, industrial, and 2 The City has requested that Lane County adopt a population forecast based on the safe harbor in OAR 660-024- 0030, which allows a city to adopt a 20-year population forecast based on the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis‟ (OEA) long-term population forecast for the County. This forecast assumes that Eugene‟s population will grow at approximately 1.0% annually between 2010 and 2030. PC Agenda, Page 11 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 5 government. In 2006, the share of employment in each of these categories was: 54.3% commercial, 13.1% retail, 18.2% industrial, and 14.4% government. Potential range of assumption: There is no “correct” way to forecast the future composition of Eugene‟s economy. Possible approaches are: o Assume the future composition of Eugene‟s economy will look like the present and use the existing distribution of employment by land-use type; o Assume that employment in non-industrial sectors will grow more than employment in industrial based on County, State, and national historical trends. An example of the shift in the mix: 55% commercial, 15% retail, 15% industrial, and 15% government; or o Use the mix of employment forecast in the Employment Department‟s forecast for Lane County: 46% commercial, 13% retail, 23% industrial, and 18% government. CAC discussion: Some CAC members said that the current mix of employment seems more likely to continue into the future than the mix in the Employment Department‟s forecast for Lane County. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that the future mix of employment will be similar to or the same as the current mix of employment. The mix of employment forecasted by the Employment Department for Lane County, with greater growth in industrial sectors and decrease in share of commercial sectors, seems unlikely given long- term economic trends and recent economic trends in Eugene and Lane County. Data source: The employment base is a point estimate for 2006 based on: Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department and Total Employment in Lane County from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. New employment accommodated on land not designated for employment Some employment is now accommodated on land that is located in a residential or other non-employment plan designation. In 2006, about 15% of covered employment (“covered employment” means employment that the state tracks because it is covered by unemployment insurance and reported; covered employment was about 75% of total employment in 2006) was located in residential and other non-employment designations. This includes businesses located in non-employment plan designations (such as a corner store in a neighborhood) and people working from home. This estimate may be slightly low because it is based on covered employment, which excludes sole proprietors (who may be more likely to work from home and therefore in areas with non-employment plan designations). PC Agenda, Page 12 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 6 Potential range of assumption: There is little information available about the amount of employment accommodated on land not designated for employment in Eugene, beyond the data reported above. In work for other Oregon cities, ECO has generally found that between 10% and 20% of employment is accommodated in residential or other non-employment plan designations. CAC and TAC discussion: Some CAC and TAC members suggested that the share of employment accommodated on land not designated for employment uses may increase in the future, based on trends in working from home. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that 15% of non-industrial employment will accommodated on land not designated for employment. The basis for this recommendation is that the 2006 covered employment data are the best available and we have little data as a basis for assumptions about changes in the amount of employment that may locate in non-employment designations in the future. Data source: The estimate of 15% of covered employment on land not designated for employment is a point estimate. The data source for the employment base was Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department, overlaid with the LCOG GIS data showing the City of Eugene Plan Designations. New employment accommodated in existing built space As firms add employees they may fit many of them into existing office spaces, through filling vacant cubicles or offices or increasing density of use existing workspaces (e.g., by adding new cubicles). There is no study that quantifies how much employment is commonly accommodated in existing built space over a 20-year period in a city. Potential range of assumption: There are no data that documents the amount of employment located in existing built space. Clearly some employment is accommodated through this type of intensification of use but, equally clearly, not all employment can be accommodated this way. ECO typically assumes that 7% to 10% of employment will be accommodated in existing built space. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions from more than one committee member. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that 10% of new employment will locate in existing built space. Data source: ECONorthwest has typically assumed that about 10% of employment would locate in existing built space for similar studies in other cities. PC Agenda, Page 13 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 7 New employment accommodated in through infill and redevelopment Some employment growth will be accommodated through infill and redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial land. Determining how much redevelopment has actually occurred is difficult because data about redevelopment (or indicators of redevelopment) are not maintained. Potential range of assumption: We found no studies that attempt to estimate the amount of infill and redevelopment that occurred in Eugene over the past decade, it is clear that infill and redevelopment occurred, especially along Coburg Road. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions from more than one committee member. One TAC member suggested that the most appropriate places for redevelopment is in mixed use centers and downtown. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We do not currently have a recommendation on an assumption about the amount of employment that may be accommodated through infill and redevelopment. We will be discussing this issue with the CAC in May. Data source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department, overlaid with the LCOG GIS data showing the City of Eugene Plan Designations. Employment density Employment density is the density of employment locating in commercial and industrial plan designations. Forecasting employment land need based on forecasts of employment growth requires a conversion, either explicit or implicit, of employment growth to land need based on assumptions about employment density, which requires assumptions about the number of employees per acre (EPA). In 2006, employment densities in Eugene varied by use and mixture of uses, as follows: Industrial densities ranged from about 5 employees per gross acre (EPA) in heavy industrial areas to nearly 20 EPA in light or campus industrial. Commercial densities varied from 30 EPA in mixed retail and office sites to 93 EPA in downtown. Retail densities varied from about 20 EPA to about 37 EPA at Oakway Center. Existing employment densities are documented more completely memorandum “Preliminary Estimate of Employment Land Need in Eugene During the 2010-2030 Period” (dated February 5, 2009). Potential range of assumption: The potential ranges of assumptions are described above. PC Agenda, Page 14 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 8 CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not have many comments, questions, or expressed concerns about the employment density data presented. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend making the following assumptions about employment density, based on the average densities in Eugene: 13 EPA for industrial, 68 EPA for commercial, 23 EPA for retail, and 20 EPA for government. Data source: Employment densities are based on density trends from 2001 to 20008, which are based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department and City of Eugene Plan Designations. Converting net acres to gross acres The existing data about employment density is in net acres, which do not include land for public right-of-way. One way to estimate the amount of land needed for employment including public right-of-way is to convert from net to gross acres based on assumptions about the amount of land needed for right-of-way. Potential range of assumption: We examined net to gross ratios for existing commercial and industrial development on selected sites within Eugene. We found the following net to gross factors: o Commercial sites had a net to gross factor ranging from about 17% in community retail centers to 31% in Downtown and 34% in the area directly south of Downtown Eugene. o Industrial sites had a net to gross factor averaging about 14%, with no substantial different between light and heavy industry. Work with other cities has shown similar net to gross factors. ECO typically assumes a net to gross factor of 15% to 20% for employment lands. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not provide comments on the net-to-gross factor. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming a 20% net to gross factor for commercial land need and a 15% net to gross factor for industrial land need. Data source: The net to gross factors are point estimates based on Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department and City of Eugene Plan Designations. PC Agenda, Page 15 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 9 2.2 RESIDENTIAL LAND NEED: KEY ASSUMPTIONS The analysis of residential land need is driven by an analysis of housing need. The housing needs analysis must meet the State requirements of Goal 10, ORS 197.296, and OAR 600-008. The framework for conducting the housing needs analysis is described in detail in the memorandum to the CAC “Framework for Determining Land Needed for Housing in Eugene: 2010-2030” (February 5, 2009). This section discusses the key assumptions necessary for determining the amount of land needed for housing over the 20-year planning period. Population growth A 20-year population forecast (in this instance, 2010 to 2030) is the foundation for estimating needed new dwelling units. On June 25, 2008, the City of Eugene requested a safe harbor forecast from Lane County. The forecast was based on the safe harbor in OAR 660-024-0030, which allows a city to adopt a 20-year population forecast based on the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis‟ (OEA) long-term population forecast for the County, assuming that the city‟s share of the forecasted county population will be the same as the urban area's current share of county population. In other words, the safe harbor allows the City to assume that it will grow at the same rate as the OEA forecasted that the County will grow. The safe harbor forecast assumes that population inside the Eugene UGB will grow from 176,582 people in 2007 to 221,515 people in 2030. The forecast projects that population in the UGB will grow by 39,633 people between 2010 and 2030. Potential range of assumption: Lane County is in the process of developing coordinated population forecasts for the cities in the County. The County‟s population forecast may present other assumptions about population growth in Eugene but the County‟s forecast is not expected to be completed until this summer. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions from more than one committee member. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend using the requested safe harbor population forecast for Eugene. Data source: Letter to the Lane County Board of Commissioners from the cities of Eugene and Springfield, “Request for Adoption of Alternative Population Forecast for Eugene and Springfield,” June 25, 2008. Population in group quarters Persons in group quarters do not consume standard housing units: thus, any forecast of new people in group quarters is typically backed out of the population forecast for PC Agenda, Page 16 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 10 the purpose of estimating housing demand. Group quarters can have a big influence on housing in cities with colleges (dorms), prisons, or a large elderly population (nursing homes). In general, any new requirements for these housing types will be met by institutions (colleges, government agencies, health-care corporations) operating outside what is typically defined as the housing market. Group quarters, however, require land and are typically built at densities that are comparable to multiple-family dwellings. The U.S. Census tracks the number of people in group quarters. The share of Eugene‟s population living in group quarters was 5.5% in 1990, 4.4% in 2000, and 5.3% in 2007. Potential range of assumption: The U.S. Census‟ range of people in group households (between 4.4% to 5.5% of population) is a reasonable range for this assumption. The aging of the population may result in an increase in share of seniors living in group housing but trends in senior housing (away from nursing homes and towards assisted living) may hold the share of population in group quarters within the range reported by the Census. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that 5.3% of Eugene‟s 2030 population (2,180 people) will live in group quarters. Data source: The assumption about population in group quarters is based on a point estimate from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2007. Persons per household In 1990, traditional families (married couple, with one or more children at home) accounted for 25% of all households in Oregon. In 2007 that percentage had dropped to 20%. Consistent with that trend, the average household size has decreased over the past five decades and is likely to continue decreasing. The average household size in Oregon was 2.60 in 1980, 2.52 in 1990, and 2.51 in 2000 and 2.49 in 2007. One and two person households made up the majority of Oregon households in 1990. The direct impact of decreasing household size on housing demand is that smaller households means more households, which means a need for more housing units even if population were not growing. Average household size in Eugene followed the same pattern as the State: household sizes have decreased. In 1990, the average household had 2.30 persons per household, dropping to 2.27 in 2000, and 2.25 persons per household in 2007. OAR 660-024 established a “safe harbor” assumption for average household size—which is the figure from the most recent Census. Potential range of assumption: We could assume that household sizes will continue to decrease or we could use the safe harbor and assume that PC Agenda, Page 17 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 11 household sizes will continue at 2.25 persons per household. Note that the rate of decrease is relatively slow: from 1980 to 2007 the average annual rate of decrease was on the order of 1/10 of 1% per year. CAC and TAC discussion: Some CAC members seemed to think that we should assume that household sizes will change in the future. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend using the safe harbor assumption that household sizes will remain at 2.25 persons per household. Forecasting future household sizes requires considering a number of demographic and social shifts that are complex: continued aging of the population, changes in ethnicity, and changes in student housing preferences. The differences over a 20 year period will be relatively small. Data source: The assumption about household size is based on a point estimate from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2007. Residential vacancies Housing vacancy rates are cyclical. Low vacancy rates signal an excess of demand relative to supply, which brings new construction and, eventually, higher vacancy rates. Vacancy rates for rental and multiple family units are typically higher than those for owner-occupied and single-family dwelling units. In 1990 the Census reported a vacancy rate of 3.6%, increasing to 5.4% in 2000, and 6.3% in 2007. The Census‟ vacancy rate data is accurate for the date of the Census (April 1) but the vacancy rate may change significantly in the months following the Census. Since state law and this project requires a 20-year forecast, and one should expect several housing cycles during that period, this project should be looking for an average vacancy rate (the “natural” rate of vacancy). OAR 660-024 established a “safe harbor” assumption for average residential vacancies—which is the figure from the most recent Census. Potential range of assumption: Census data probably describes a reasonable range of vacancy rates: 3.5% to 6.5% vacancy. ECO has typically found vacancy rates of 2% to 9% in other cities, depending on the type of housing and local housing market conditions. CAC and TAC discussion: Several CAC members said the most reasonable vacancy rate assumption would be 5%. That is an average rate that ECO has used in other studies of this type. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that an average of 5% of new dwellings will be vacant, based suggestions from the CAC. PC Agenda, Page 18 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 12 Data source: The assumption about vacancy rate is based on a point estimate from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey. Housing mix Housing mix is the mixture of housing types (e.g., single-family detached or apartments) within a city. State law requires a determination of the future housing mix in the community and allows that determination to be based on different periods: (1) the mix of housing built in the past five years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is greater, (2) a shorter time period if the data will provide more accurate and reliable information, or (3) a longer time period if the data will provide more accurate and reliable information (ORS 197.296). This memorandum presents housing mix data for two periods (1) housing mix over the 2001 to 2008 period and (2) housing mix over the 1990 to 2007 period. Table 2 shows the housing mix for residential development over the 2001 to 2008 period. We selected this time period over the 1999 to 2008 period because it shows housing mix that occurred since the City‟s revised zoning ordinance went into effect in 2001. About 64% of housing developed was single-family detached, 10% was single- family attached, 5% was manufactured, 3% was duplex, and the remaining 18% were structures with 3 or more units. The share of single-family housing varied from a high of 84% in 2001 to a low of 43% in 2007. Table 2. Percent of housing by structure type, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB Tri- and Single- Single- Quad-plex Apts with Apts with family Manufact- family (3 or 4 5 to 19 20 or more Year detached ured home Duplex attached units) units units 2001 84% 2% 3% 2% 1% 8% 0% 2002 77% 8% 2% 0% 2% 11% 0% 2003 82% 8% 3% 1% 5% 1% 0% 2004 64% 3% 2% 1% 1% 20% 8% 2005 61% 8% 6% 4% 1% 1% 20% 2006 47% 4% 2% 36% 4% 5% 2% 2007 43% 2% 4% 26% 5% 3% 16% 2008 48% 6% 3% 1% 2% 34% 6% Average 64% 5% 3% 10% 2% 8% 7% Total Units 4,153 350 209 660 162 540 458 Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008 Table 3 shows changes in the mix of Eugene‟s housing stock from 1990 to 2007, based on U.S. Census data. The share of single-family detached housing was relatively stable over the seventeen-year period, accounting for about 55% of housing stock in Eugene. A caveat about the information presented in Table 3: the data about residential development is both complex and somewhat scant. Each development may have PC Agenda, Page 19 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 13 idiosyncrasies, such factors that limit development density or footprint (such as a stream). Moreover, it is typical to see cycles in building: for example, a lot of single- family units get built so then a lot of multifamily follows. We think it is more appropriate to look at building trends broadly and on average over a several-year period (e.g., for the entire 2001 to 2008 period) than on a year-by-year basis. Table 3. Dwelling units by type, Eugene city limits, 1990, 2000, and 2007 1990 2000 2007 New Units 1990-2007 Percent Percent Structure type Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units of total Increase Single-family detached 26,518 55% 32,870 54% 38,090 55% 11,572 55% 44% Manufactured Home 2,250 5% 3,281 5% 3,833 6% 1,583 8% 70% Duplex (2 units) 2,163 5% 2,426 4% 1,979 3% (184) -1% -9% Single-family attached 3,264 7% 4,011 7% 4,828 7% 1,564 7% 48% Tri- & Quad-plex (3 or 4 units) 2,723 6% 3,451 6% 4,794 7% 2,071 10% 76% Apartments with 5 to 19 units 6,345 13% 7,538 12% 8,456 12% 2,111 10% 33% Apartments with 20 + units 4,728 10% 7,755 13% 6,915 10% 2,187 10% 46% Total 47,991 100% 61,332 100% 68,895 100% 20,904 100% 44% Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000, American Community Survey 2007 Note: The decrease in duplex units between 1990 to 2007 may be the result of data anomalies, rather than an actual decrease in duplexes. Potential range of assumption: The assumptions of housing mix in the baseline analysis could be taken from the average mix over the 2001 to 2008 period or from the 2007 mix. The mixes are as follows: Mix for housing built from Mix for housing stock in 2001 to 2008 2007 Single-family detached: 64% Single-family detached: 55% Manufactured: 5% Manufactured: 6% Duplex: 3% Duplex: 3% Single-family attached: 10% Single-family attached:7% Tri- & Quad-Plex: 2% Tri- & Quad-Plex: 7% Apt. with 5-19 units: 8% Apt. with 5-19 units: 12% Apt. with 20+ units: 7% Apt. with 20+ units: 10% OAR 660-007 requires that cities of 50,000 or more people in the Metro UGB assume that 50% of new residential construction will be single-family detached housing types (including manufactured housing) and 50% multifamily housing types (including all housing attached housing where each dwelling unit is not on a separate lot). CAC and TAC discussion: We are working with the CAC and TAC on assumptions about future mix. Previous discussions with the CAC indicated that some members prefer a mix that assumes about 55% of new housing will be single-family attached, but this issue is not resolved. Additional discussion on this topic will occur at the May CAC meeting. PC Agenda, Page 20 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 14 Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We are working with the CAC, TAC, and DLCD to develop a recommended baseline assumption about housing mix. Data source: The assumption about housing mix could be based on development trends over the 2001 to 2008 period, based on LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data. Alternatively, assumption about housing mix could be based on the housing mix for Eugene‟s housing stock, shown in point estimates for 1990, 2000, and 2007 from the U.S. Census. Housing density Housing density is the density of housing by structure type, expressed in dwelling units per net or gross acre. Like housing mix, State law requires determination of housing mix based on analysis of data and suggests using analysis of housing density developed over the past five years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is greater, or for a shorter or longer time period. The U.S. Census does not track residential development density. Eugene City staff concluded that data prior to 1996 may not be accurate and consistent enough for an analysis of long-term housing densities. Staff recommends using housing mix based on development between 2001 and 2008 (rather than 1999 to 2008) because changes to the City‟s zoning code went into effect in 2001 that affect housing development. Table 4 shows average residential development by structure type for the 2001 to 2008 period. The average density for all residential development over the 2001 to 2008 period was 6.7 dwellings per net acre. Average residential densities ranged from 5.6 dwelling units per net acre for single-family residential to 26.3 for apartments with 20 or more units. These estimates are in the typical range and consistent with previous work by ECONorthwest and others for other cities in Oregon. PC Agenda, Page 21 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 15 Table 4. Average development density by structure type, dwelling units per net acre, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB Tri- and Single- Single- Quad-plex Apts with Apts with family Manufact- family (3 or 4 5 to 19 20 or more Year detached ured home Duplex attached units) units units Total 2001 5.8 4.1 8.6 31.2 9.4 4.8 na 5.8 2002 5.7 8.0 11.8 10.7 5.3 12.5 na 6.3 2003 5.3 2.4 1.8 15.3 6.3 19.5 na 4.7 2004 5.3 6.4 8.8 5.4 10.2 18.4 12.5 6.7 2005 5.4 2.9 11.2 33.7 14.7 32.3 27.7 6.5 2006 5.8 3.5 9.9 22.3 5.2 7.6 47.9 7.9 2007 6.1 9.2 8.2 18.5 18.4 68.3 47.4 10.0 2008 5.7 7.8 4.6 9.2 14.5 29.3 82.1 8.8 Average 5.6 3.9 6.8 20.2 7.8 13.1 26.3 6.7 Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008 Potential range of assumption: Table 4 shows the most recently data available about housing density in Eugene. OAR 660-007 requires that cities of 50,000 or more people in the Metro UGB assume that new residential construction will be average at least 10 dwelling units per net acre. CAC and TAC discussion: We are working with the CAC and TAC about assumptions about housing density. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We are working with the CAC, TAC, and DLCD to develop a recommended baseline assumption about housing density. Data source: 2001 to 2008 housing mix: The assumption about housing density is based on development trends over the 2001 to 2008 period, based on LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data. Converting net acres to gross acres The existing data about residential density is in net acres, which does not include land for public right-of-way. One way to estimate the amount of land needed for housing including public right-of-way is to convert from net to gross acres based on assumptions about the amount of land needed for right-of-way. Potential range of assumption: The net-to-gross factor for housing built between 2001 and 2008 in Eugene averaged about 20%, based on analysis of residential development that occurred in Eugene between 2001 and 2008. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not provide comments on the net-to-gross factor. PC Agenda, Page 22 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 16 Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend using a net-to-gross factor of 20%. Data source: The net to gross factor is a point estimate based on LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data. Residential infill and redevelopment Residential infill and redevelopment increases the intensity of development on land that is already classified as developed. If the forecasted growth in population and employment is held constant, then infill and redevelopment will reduce the need for vacant, buildable land to accommodate growth (other things being equal). Infill is defined in this analysis as residential development on a tax lot that already has existing development but is judged large enough (relative to the amount of existing development and the legally permitted maximum development) that more development could occur on it (i.e., that it has some unused capacity to accommodate new development). For example, a two-acre tax lot in an area that allows eight dwelling units per acre that has just one single-family house on a corner of the lot may have infill capacity for more single-family houses, depending on lot configuration and other factors. Redevelopment occurs when a residential structure is replaced with a denser residential structure, such as a single-family dwelling being replaced by a quad-plex. One-for-one replacement of a residential structure with a structure of similar density (such as a single-family detached dwelling being replaced with a new single-family detached dwelling) is not considered redevelopment in this project because it adds no new capacity. There is little information available, in Eugene or elsewhere, about residential infill and redevelopment. Analysis is complicated and time consuming because of the limited and ambiguous quality of the information available and the fact that each residential development may have special circumstances. Our analysis indicated that residential infill and redevelopment accounted for about 11% of new development in the 2001 to 2008 period, the majority of which was for multifamily housing types. We will work with staff to refine this assumption. Potential range of assumption: There is little data that documents the amount of residential infill and redevelopment that has occurred in Eugene since 1999. We are working with City staff to identify and best use existing sources of data. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption in enough depth to have any consensus about different assumptions. We will coordinate our efforts to identify trends in infill and redevelopment with staff working in related planning projects, most notably the Infill and Compatibility Standards project and the Opportunity Siting project. PC Agenda, Page 23 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 17 Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We are working with staff, the TAC, and CAC to develop recommendations about infill and redevelopment. Data source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data. 2.3 PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC LAND NEEDS: KEY ASSUMPTIONS Cities need to provide land for uses other than housing and employment. Public and semi-public facilities such as schools, governments, churches, parks, and other non- profit organizations will expand as population increases. The analysis of public and semi-public land needs is driven by needs identified by other agencies (e.g., school districts), needs identified by the City (e.g., parks), and historical needs. For the purpose of estimating land needed for other uses, these lands are classified into four categories: Land needed for schools. The 4J and Bethel school districts have plans for new schools by general location within the City and may have plans for selling surplus school properties. Land needed for parks and open space. This includes all land designated for park and open space use within the Eugene UGB. The Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan) defines four categories of parks: neighborhood parks, community parks, natural areas, and other parks. Land needed for public operations and facilities. This includes lands for city offices and maintenance facilities, county facilities, state facilities, federal facilities, and other related public facilities. Lands needed for semi-public uses. This includes churches, non-profit organizations, and related semi-public uses. The memorandum “Framework for Determining Land Needed for Public and Semi- Public Land Need in Eugene During the 2010-2030 Period” (March 5, 2009) describes the methods used to develop an estimate of public and semi-public land needs. This section discusses the key assumptions necessary for determining the amount of land needed for public and semi-public uses over the 20-year planning period. Schools As population grows, school districts may need additional land for new schools in the planning period. ORS 197.296 requires that cities coordinate need for new land for schools with public school districts. We discussed land need with officials from the 4J and Bethel School Districts. School land needs are based on the estimate of land need PC Agenda, Page 24 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 18 provided by the school districts. The 4J School District does not expect to need new land over the 2010 to 2030 period. 3 The Bethel School District expects to need two sites for future schools: (1) an 80-acre site for a high school and (2) a 40-acre site for a K-8 school. These needs could increase if the City expands the UGB and bring more residential land into the UGB in the School District. The District currently owns an 80-acre site that is located outside but adjacent to the UGB. The Bethel School District does not have surplus property.4 Potential range of assumption: The school districts provided input on their expected land needs. Unless the Council finds these needs unreasonable, there is no range of assumptions. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed school needs but did not have suggestions for alternative school land needs. CAC and TAC members discussed concerns about availability of existing sites within the UGB to accommodate the Bethel District‟s land needs. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that the 4J District will not need new land and that the Bethel District will need a 40-acre site and an 80-acre site. Data source: Interviews with school district officials. Parks and open space The CAC suggested basing parkland needs on the level of service identified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan), despite the fact that the City has not adopted this plan. The PROS Plan calls for a level of service of 20-acre per 1,000 people, broken into the following parks categories: 1.7 acres per 1,000 people for neighborhood parks, 1.5 acres per 1,000 people for community parks, 10.0 acres per 1,000 people for natural areas, and 6.8 acres per 1,000 people for other parks. Potential range of assumption: Based on the level of service standards, the City currently has a deficit of about 380 acres of parkland to serve the existing population. Based on the level of service standards and expected population growth, the City will need 820 acres to fill the existing parkland deficit and serve new residents. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed parkland needs but did not have suggestions for alternative parkland land needs. 3 This information was provided by Barb Bellamy, Communications Director at 4J in an interview on March 12, 2009. 4 This information was provided by Pat McGillivray, Communications Relations for the Bethel School District in an interview on March 12, 2009. PC Agenda, Page 25 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 19 Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We are still refining parkland need for natural areas, which may result in some adjustment to parkland needs. We recommend that the City base parkland need on the level of service in the PROS Plan and address existing parkland deficits, as well as future parkland need. Data source: City of Eugene Parks Department Public facilities and operations This category includes lands for city offices and maintenance facilities, county facilities, state facilities, federal facilities, and other related public facilities. It does not include right-of-ways, land used by the railroad, or land owned by the Bonneville Power Administration. The City currently has 6.6 acres per 1,000 people (1,174 acres) for public facilities and operations. Potential range of assumption: Based on the existing level of service (6.6 acres per 1,000 people) and expected population growth, the City may need about 260 acres of land for public facilities and operations over the planning period. This estimate seems high because Eugene already has many of the operations that are necessary for a city the size of Eugene, such as: a wastewater treatment facility, local and regional government office buildings, the University of Oregon‟s campus and related facilities, utility and other operations, and other public facilities. An alternative assumption might be that Eugene will need 100 new acres of land (2.5 acres per 1,000 people) for public facilities and operations. Among other things, this estimate of land need will address the University of Oregon‟s expected growth of 30-acres over the planning period. 5 CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed public facilities and operations land need and seemed to think that assuming a need for 6.6 acres per 1,000 people was too high. Some committee members were concerned about the availability of sites within the UGB to provide for needed public facilities. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming need for 100 acres of land for public facilities and operations. Data source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data 5 Christopher Ramey, Associate Vice President at the University of Oregon, said that the University expects to purchase and develop roughly 30-acres over the 20-year planning period. PC Agenda, Page 26 Recommendations for Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest April 2009 Page 20 Semi-Public uses This category includes lands for semi-public uses, such as churches, non-profit organizations, and related semi-public uses. The City currently has 1.3 acres per 1,000 people (232 acres) for semi-public uses. Potential range of assumption: The City could assume that future need for semi-public land will be similar to current uses, at 1.3 acres per 1,000 people. Under that assumption, the City will need about 50 acres for semi-public uses over the 20-year planning period. CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC had no comments on the need for future semi-public land needs. Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming need for 1.3 acres per 1,000 people or 50 acres of land for public facilities and operations. Data source: The assumption about need for semi-public land is a point estimate, based on LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department‟s building permit data. PC Agenda, Page 27  Attachment D Project Committee Members Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Community Advisory Committee Member List Jon Belcher At-Large Howie Bonnett Eugene Sustainability Commission Merle Bottge Developed Parks Community Norton Cabell Eugene Housing Policy Board Paul Conte At-Large Rick Duncan Eugene Planning Commission (non-CAC member attendee) Kim Hyland At-Large Carolyn Jacobs Eugene Neighborhood Leaders Council Bill Kloos Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Kevin Matthews City-Wide Local Advocacy Group Brent McLean Commercial/Retail Community Laura Potter Home Builders Association of Lane County Matt Powell Eugene Association of Realtors Erik Riechers Investment Community Jack Roberts Lane Metro Partnership John Winquist Natural Resource Community Agency Technical Advisory Committee Member List Barb Bellamy Eugene 4J Schools Neil Bjorklund Eugene PW Parks Savannah Crawford ODOT Terri Harding Eugene ICS & OS Projects Pat McGillivray Bethel Schools Ed Moore DLCD Steve Nystrom Eugene PDD Planning Jeannine Parisi EWEB Linda Pauly City of Springfield Chris Ramey University of Oregon David Roth Eugene PW Engineering Stephanie Schulz Lane County Tom Schwetz Lane Transit District Mike Sullivan Eugene PDD Development Bob Warren Oregon Economic & Community Development Department PC Agenda, Page 28  COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (meets monthly) Process and Policy Context Land Land Key Em l ploy. Land Supply Supply Assump. Need SHousing Need Supply Draft Results Need TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Process Land Land Draft and Policy Supply Demand Sce Results Context GENERAL PUBLIC Community Group Workshops Meetings WEBSITE PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL Planning City Planning City Planning City Planning City Planning City Planning City Commission Council Commission Council Commission Council Commission Council Commission Council Commission Council Work Work Work Work Work Check-In Work Check-In Work Check-In Work Check-in Session Session Session Session Session Session Session Session PLANNING STAFF PC Agenda, Page 29 Consultant Support Hold TAC Support Workshops CAC Support Project Managment PRODUCTS Draft Draft Draft Final Final Final i Land Employ. Housing Land Employ. Housing Final Supply Need Need Supply Need Need Products OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Timeline