Planning Commission
Regular MeetingEugene, OR · August 9, 2010
Minutes
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Bascom-Tykeson Rooms—Eugene Public Library—100 West 10th Avenue
August 9, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
William Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Kayre Axe, Alissa Hansen, Terri
Harding, Rene Kane, Heather O’Donnell, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Engineering;
ABSENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; members.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES--March 29, April 20, April 26, May 10, May 17, 2010
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved that the minutes of March
29 and April 20, 2010 be approved as submitted, and the minutes of
April 26, May 10 and May 17, 2010 be approved as corrected. The
motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III. ENVISION EUGENE
Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 1
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Bascom-Tykeson Rooms—Eugene Public Library—100 West 10th Avenue
August 9, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
William Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Kayre Axe, Alissa Hansen, Terri
Harding, Rene Kane, Heather O’Donnell, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Engineering;
ABSENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; members.
Mr. Hledik convened the Planning Commission at 11:40 a.m.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one who wished to offer public comment.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES--March 29, April 20, April 26, May 10, May 17, 2010
There were no corrections to the March 29 and April 20, 2010 minutes.
Ms. Warnes offered the following correction to the April 26 minutes: Add Lisa Warnes to those
commissioners present.
Ms. Warnes offered the following correction to the May 10 minutes: Add Lisa Warnes to those
commissioners present.
Mr. Hledik offered the following correction to the May 17 minutes: Page 8, paragraph 9,
sentence 6 should read: He shared Mr. Mills’ concerns that the road classification would be
reduced to level C and D.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved that the minutes of March
29 and April 20, 2010 be approved as submitted, and the minutes of
April 26, May 10 and May 17, 2010 be approved as corrected. The
motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III. ENVISION EUGENE
Ms. Weiss explained a community resource group consisting of about 50 people with varying
perspectives on growth, the urban growth boundary (UGB) and Envision Eugene had met on July
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 2
22 and would meet again on August 10, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was collaborative
learning about some of the big issues that had surfaced in the Envision Eugene project. The
group reviewed education, growth in general, neighborhood character, climate and energy,
housing affordability, and mixed use redevelopment.
Mr. Duncan opined there was a lot of common ground but the community had been polarized for
so long that no one was willing to listen to the other side. The session helped identify those issues
people agreed upon and were willing to move forward on. He noted people defined growth
differently, and he left the meeting feeling the question of what growth was to different people
had not been answered.
Mr. Mills arrived at 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Duncan said the affordability discussion was interesting. The community had challenges
around housing affordability. The group had moved past the idea of continually redefining the
data and saw it as more important to move forward with Envision Eugene to determine what the
community wanted to look like over the next 20 years and to develop the strategy to support the
vision from a regulatory perspective. There were good discussions related to schools and an
aging community with fewer school aged children, and what would happen if a community
school system could not be maintained. Eugene School District 4-J Superintendent George
Russell participated in the discussion. He commented that a scenario that could work but that no
one wanted was one with one or two large elementary schools because neighborhood schools
could no longer be supported. The group discussed how to get children and thriving families
back into all of the City’s neighborhoods.
Mr. Belcher said Jim Torrey had raised the issue of keeping schools alive and brought the
question of housing affordability for minorities, homeless people, and young families into a
different perspective. If the community did not find a way to provide affordable housing the
school system as currently envisioned, would be in trouble. Mr. Belcher was impressed with
efforts to find common ground where people held uncommon beliefs. The discussion about
global warming was now a discussion about climate uncertainty, which brought more people to
the discussion. He thought the people in the group wanted to do the right thing for Eugene and
were trying to find a way to do it together.
Mr. Duncan said it appeared that the concept of the UGB was becoming less important as the
focal point, and people were moving toward what they wanted Eugene to look like and what was
important for Eugene’s future.
Ms. O'Donnell saw the relationship building that had occurred which was very powerful.
Mr. Belcher said three Planning Commissioners were on the group and asked if that was an issue
for those who were not.
Mr. Mills said it was an issue for him because the selection process was not open and had not
been discussed by the commission.
Ms. Warnes concurred with Mr. Mills.
Ms. Weiss explained the City Manager’s Office had created the list with input from Bob
Chadwick and staff. She noted there were quorum issues with more than three commissioners in
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 3
attendance.
Mr. Mills did not think selection by staff was a good way to determine which commissioners
would participate. The decision should be made by the commission.
Mr. Belcher expressed concern that he was a member of both the community resource group and
the Planning Commission, which would be making decisions based on the resource group’s
recommendations.
Ms. Weiss said the community resource group was not a decision making body, but a way to get
input, especially during the summer months when broad public outreach was not productive. The
public workshops would commence again in the fall. She added staff continued to work with the
consultants on technical aspects.
Ms. O'Donnell said Envision Eugene needed to plan for housing mix and housing density. The
housing mix consisted of the percentage of single family detached housing units and the
percentage of multi-family housing units. The Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
(ECLA) reviewed housing mix and density from 2001 through 2008, and determined 61 percent
of new housing was single family detached and 39 percent was multi-family, with an average
density of 7.3 dwelling units per acre. The State of Oregon required planning for all income
levels which required a review of income levels and demographic trends to determine what types
of housing were needed for each income level. Trend information was included in the Agenda
Item Summary (AIS). Eugene had a gap of affordable housing for low to moderate income
levels. She said the Housing Needs Assessment included in the ECLA document was on the
division’s website and provided income and demographic data. She directed commissioners to
Table 1, Needed housing density and mix, 2011-2031, Eugene UGB on page 13 of the AIS. She
noted the consultant, ECONorthwest (ECO), recommended adjusting the housing mix to 55
percent single-family detached and 45 percent multi-family. ECO recommended adjusting the
housing density from 7.3 to 8.9 dwelling units per acre. She said this AIS had been presented to
the Housing Policy Board (HPB) which raised no objections. One HPB member had stated that
changing the housing mix to a 50/50 ratio would be too much of a change.
Ms. Warnes stated there were currently many foreclosed homes in the area, which resulted in
more people living in apartments or being homeless. She asked if information was available on
what types of houses were in foreclosure, whether affordable homes were sitting vacant and how
that would impact procuring more land to build more affordable homes.
Ms. O'Donnell had seen nothing in the literature about that foreclosure information. Those
houses were already included in the housing supply calculation which ultimately showed a deficit
of affordable homes. The State wanted the City to plan for more affordable housing opportunities
and would not allow that deficit to be carried forward.
Mr. Hledik asked if the housing mix and density level addressed 100 percent of the gap.
Ms. O'Donnell said it did not because there were factors planning could not control. Although
the City could plan and offer incentives for affordable housing, it could not mandate the type of
housing developers built.
Mr. Hledik said the planned increase in density was a 22 percent increase, which was very
aspirational and problematic. He said there had been consistent public criticism about density
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 4
during his six year tenure on the Planning Commission, noting most neighborhoods, particularly
the university, River Road and Whiteaker area, had expressed concern about density, especially in
the single family detached category. He understood there was immigration to the cities of
Junction City, Veneta, Coburg and Creswell for single family units because people could not
afford to buy them in Eugene. He asked if the type of development occurring in the outlying
communities was due to policies in the metro area and if it was a myth or reality that it was
largely single family. He said the opportunity siting exercise included a market feasibility report
that indicated financial feasibility of higher density development was unlikely in many cases. He
said any increase in multi-family density should be tempered by the lessons learned from the
opportunity siting market feasibility analysis. He was troubled by increasing the density
significantly. He suggested staff needed to research whether the stormwater and sewer systems
could handle the proposed increase in density.
Mr. Randall observed the data was through 2008 and there had been many changes since then.
He asked if new employment and income data was available to indicate trends during the last two
years. He added much of the multi-family housing had been built around the University of
Oregon (UO) and asked if that information was included in the housing mix information. He
asked if newer developments were going on lots smaller than 7,800 square feet, and if lots smaller
than 4,500 square feet should be considered. He asked if people who were moving to the
outlying communities because of costs or because they could find larger lots on which to build
housing.
Ms. O'Donnell said ECO used 2008 information and staff used that data to be consistent with
ECLA. Additional information would be available when the new census data was available but
some information would not be available until much later, maybe 2012. More current
information was available through the building permit data. She said smaller lot sizes were more
common for subdivisions. Higher density in R-1 zoning generally required a Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Lot sizes varied depending on the area of the development and the
typographical features in the area.
Mr. Belcher said multi-family housing was not necessarily cheap and it appeared larger houses
were being built on smaller lots. Although there was more multi-family housing in the university
area, the UO projected enrollment would increase by 8,000 students in the next 20 years. The UO
was unable at the present time to house all freshmen in the dormitories. There were some
estimates that gasoline would rise $1.00 per gallon per year during the next four years, which
would discourage people from moving to the outlying cities. He thought the current discussion
about how Eugene should grow included implications of what would happen if we do not find a
way to live within the UGB. He asked if other Oregon communities had already looked at this
and developed solutions that may work for Eugene. He asked Ms. O'Donnell to research whether
exclusionary zoning was allowed in Oregon to require affordable housing on UGB expansion
areas. He said there was a lack of private-public partnerships in Eugene similar to the Portland
Development Commission.
Ms. O'Donnell commented that the needed housing mix and density may still be achievable but
with incentives for development of affordable housing or creating smaller lots to reach higher
densities, or to change some code restrictions that would allow for a greater variety of housing
with fewer regulatory requirements.
Mr. Mills expressed concern that 2007 data was used to determine the split between single and
multi-family dwelling units but the same data was dismissed when examining housing
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 5
affordability. He also questioned the inputs and conclusions related to the affordability gap and
the need for higher density to improve affordability.
Ms. O'Donnell iterated 2007 data was used for the housing mix and density in the ECLA study
because the consultant and the ECLA citizen advisory committee (CAC) agreed that the
information in 2001-2008 was skewed due to the single family housing boom that occurred
during that time period. However, the affordability analysis included information for the 2001-
2008 period, thus including 2007. Land costs would be directly related to market factors as well
as the characteristics of the land. The housing mix was being changed to address affordability
issues for low-moderate income levels, with an assumption to change to more multi-family
housing, which ends up reducing the land. Whereas some jurisdictions had determined their
housing gap was for luxury detached single family housing, which would shift the amount of land
those jurisdictions needed to bring into their UGBs, probably to more land for more single family.
Mr. Duncan said the strata of foreclosed homes was generally falling in the $350,000 to $700,000
range in the local area. There had been a growth in value of lower valued homes during the past
couple of years, due to federal homebuyer program and historically low interest rates. He opined
that almost 100 percent of all construction in the outlying communities had been single family
dwellings due to lower land value and the high demand for single family homes. He concurred
with Mr. Hledik that the planned increase in density of 22 percent was huge. He did not foresee a
significant change in lifestyles during the next 20 years. He added the City of Eugene did not
have enough money to offer incentives that would make a difference. Multi-family housing in
the community had only penciled out a few years throughout the last 30 years, in the early and
late 1990’s, through a push by Freddie and Fannie Mae to build more multi-family housing. He
doubted money would be available for five to eight years for additional multi-family housing.
Multi-family housing was not more affordable than single family housing. He asserted a two
bedroom apartment that would rent for $700 per month per unit was not financially feasible.
Rents would not cover construction costs. He would refrain from any change in the baseline
proportions for single and multi-family housing. There were areas of town such as River Road
that did not want to see additional density. Other areas, such as the south hills, required
significant resources for conservation areas and construction on the terrain. He thought density in
the community had been pushed as high as the community would accept and it would take place
in small steps over the next 20 years.
Ms. Warnes noted River Road residents thought three houses per acre was dense enough, but they
did not want to see the farm land used for housing. She doubted the 2002-2007 Lane County
economy growth of 15,500 new jobs was valid, noting half of those jobs were lost in 2009, which
was not reflected in the report. She asked what the current maximum lot size was and if it could
be reduced. She asked how much commercial land was underutilized and if it could be
considered for redevelopment.
Ms. O'Donnell said the maximum lot size was 13,500 square feet, and reduction was on the
efficiencies strategies list for consideration. ECLA identified all of the vacant land. Staff would
provide a link for commissioners to the information on the City’s website.
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. O'Donnell said manufactured homes were
included the data for single family detached dwellings in the ECLA study.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Duncan confirmed that manufactured homes were
included in the reduced mix in the current ECO study.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 6
Mr. Hledik thought mobile homes placed on small lots would be more affordable housing than
some apartments. He asked how that would fit into the percentage reduction for single family
detached land. He thought the amount of space allocated for manufactured homes should be
looked at closely in the mix. He shared Mr. Mills’ concern with the level of confidence in the
ECO report. There was a big concern in Springfield related to elimination of manufactured home
parks, and he thought the City of Eugene should look at the issue. He thought it difficult to
project need from an economic versus a financial feasibility standpoint and it needed to be
deliberated with care. He questioned why the consultant focused on what the community wanted
rather than what it needed.
Mr. Mills asked what the status of industrial properties was. He saw industrial properties as an
essential land need and understood this was lagging behind some of the other processes. It was
important to understand the need and make conscious decisions about that need.
Mr. Belcher said economics was an important element of Envision Eugene. He said this task was
important so that our children and minorities could live in the community.
Mr. Duncan was concerned that the commission was talking about densities and percentages of
detached and attached, from a State regulatory side. He wanted to push that aside for the time
being and talk about what we wanted Eugene to look like. Although the State wanted everyone to
live on 8.9 units per acre, was that the vision that community members who lived here had. He
said there needed to be opportunities to grow up in terms of high rise buildings, but there had not
yet been a real conversation on the components of how schools should be structured and were
there enough parks. Although there were plans for parks and stormwater, the community had
never looked at how all of the plans worked together. He thought it was time to put the numbers
aside and determine where the community wanted to be in twenty years, and decide how the
desired plan matched the numbers. He said if Eugene would need 2,000 acres in the next 50
years, it should look at the urban reserve land that was eliminated and now could not be
developed. He said the development of the UGB was not a scientific process but was seen as a
sacred cow that needed to be held onto.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Hledik said he was appointed to be on the 2010 Neighborhood Summit that was scheduled
for October 2, 2010. He requested that commissioners keep their calendars open for the event.
Mr. Duncan observed a majority of the public sessions occurred on the south side of the river, and
asked if other people would attend if the sessions were held throughout the community.
Mr. Mills apologized for his late arrival. He said he and Mr. Belcher were scheduled to meet
with Josh Skove and Josh Bruce to discuss the Planning Commission/Sustainability Commission
joint subcommittee on August 11, 2010. He added the Historic Review Board (HRB) was
experiencing tough times, with staffing limitations and the retirement of Ken Guzowski. The
HRB would meet six times annually and would be redefining its role and staff involvement. It
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 7
would look at what other resources were available in the community to continue its work.
Mr. Belcher invited other commissioners to attend the Planning Commission/Sustainability
Commission joint subcommittee meeting in his place if they had an interest in the topic. He
suggested a future discussion item for the Planning Commission would be how commissioners
were assigned or appointed to committees.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the Planning
Commission adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 9, 2010 Page 8
Agenda
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: 541‐682‐5481 Bascom‐Tykeson Rooms, Downtown Library, 100 W. 10th
www.eugene‐or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401
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 541‐682‐5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are
available at 541‐682‐5119.
MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.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 29, April 20, April 26, May 10, May 17, 2010
11:50 a.m. III. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE
Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541‐682‐5488
1:00 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; William Randall; Lisa Warnes
PC AIS, p1
PC AIS, p2
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
August 9, 2010
To: Eugene Planning Commission
From: Heather O’Donnell, City of Eugene Planning Division
Subject: Envision Eugene
• Technical Analysis (Housing Mix and Density)
ACTION REQUESTED
This work session is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to discuss the draft Housing Mix and
Density Assumptions memorandum.
BRIEFING STATEMENT
During the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA), City staff and consultants worked with
stakeholders (including a Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and City
Council) to develop baseline assumptions about Eugene’s future growth. These assumptions are
largely based on data about development in Eugene that took place during the 2001‐2008 period.
Future development, however, may be different from past development as a result of multiple
factors, including changes in market conditions or in public policy. Through the ECLA work, some of
the assumptions were identified as assumptions that could be adjusted during Envision Eugene to
better reflect the future.
Two of the assumptions, housing mix and housing density, particularly warrant further analysis.
Housing mix is the percentage of residential land that is needed for single‐family housing (single‐
family detached housing) and the percentage of residential land that is needed for multi‐family
housing (single‐family attached, two‐five housing units, and five or more housing units). In other
words, housing mix is the split between single‐family and multi‐family for new construction. Housing
density is the (average) amount of density assumed for new construction on vacant land. A change in
the housing density assumption can be influenced, in part, by a change in the housing mix, e.g., an
increase in the percentage of multi‐family housing will usually result in some increase in overall
housing density, other things being equal.
Additional analysis of these two assumptions is warranted because the residential land analysis in
ECLA established a baseline projection of land need based on the actual housing density and mix
achieved in Eugene (i.e., analysis of what was actually built during the 2001‐2008 period). However,
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.296 requires that cities base their residential land estimates on
what the city’s needed density and mix are to provide housing for households at all income levels for
the 20 year planning period.
To identify what the City’s needed housing mix and housing density will be, City staff and the ECLA
consultants have analyzed the factors that might affect what Eugene’s needed housing is, including
housing costs and income, housing density and mix trends, and changing demographics. A draft
memo detailing these assumptions, as well as the implications of adjusting them, is attached. This
memo was provided to you in July, but has since been revised to include a new table (Table B‐3).
1
PC AIS, p3
This information was also shared with the Housing Policy Board on July 12th.
If time permits, we may engage the Planning Commission in a discussion regarding the land use
efficiency strategy of providing a transition area along neighborhood edges. This strategy aims to
provide more housing options such as small lots and attached housing in R‐1 Low Density Residential
neighborhood edges.
NEXT STEPS
The Community Resource Group will meet on August 10, 2010.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ‐
Heather O’Donnell, Technical Team Leader, heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us
Attachments
A. July 28, 2010 Draft Memo from ECONorthwest re: Housing Mix and Density Assumptions
2
PC AIS, p4
Attachment A
Draft
Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices
FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10th Ave Portland • (503) 222-6060
info@econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3040 Seattle • (206) 622-2403
July 28, 2010
TO: Heather O’Donnell
FROM: Beth Goodman and Bob Parker
SUBJECT: PROCESS FOR LOCAL DETERMINATION OF HOUSING NEEDS
PROJECTION IN EUGENE INCLUDING HOUSING DENSITY AND
MIX
The City of Eugene is conducting an assessment of land within its Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) to determine whether Eugene has enough land within its UGB to
accommodate expected population growth. The first part of the assessment, the Eugene
Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA), provided a baseline analysis of residential
land sufficiency within the UGB. The key residential land assumptions used in ECLA
were: Eugene’s adopted population forecast, analysis of long-term trends in housing
mix, analysis of housing density achieved over the 2001 to 2008 period, and other recent
and long-term residential trends (e.g., household size or residential vacancy).
ECLA was accepted by the City Council as the baseline analysis for the second phase
of the land assessment: Envision Eugene. The residential land analysis in ECLA was
based on the actual housing density and mix achieved in Eugene achieved between the
2001-2008 period. ORS 197.296 requires that cities base their residential land estimates
on needed density and mix to provide housing for households at all income levels for the
20 year period. This memorandum presents ECO’s analysis of Eugene’s needed density
and mix based on factors that may affect housing need over the planning period. The
changes in density and mix presented in this memorandum do not take the potential
affects of land-use efficiency measures into account for land need. Some of the land-use
efficiency measures that the City is considering may help the City achieve the needed
density and mix presented in this memorandum.
EVALUATING ACTUAL AND NEEDED DENSITY AND MIX
The language of Goal 10 and ORS 197.296 refers to housing need: it requires
communities to provide needed housing types for households at all income levels. Goal
10's broad definition of need covers all households—from those with no home to those
with second homes. In the context of Goal 10 and the Goal 10 Administrative Rule
(OAR 660-008), housing need is addressed through the local “Housing Needs
Projection.” OAR 660-008(4) defines the Housing Needs Projection as follows:
PC AIS, p5
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 2
(4) “Housing Needs Projection” refers to a local determination, justified in the plan, of
the mix of housing types and densities that will be:
(a) Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and future area
residents of all income levels during the planning period;
(b) Consistent with any adopted regional housing standards, state statutes and
Land Conservation and Development Commission administrative rules; and
(c) Consistent with Goal 14 requirements.
Thus, the determination of housing need must be based on analysis of a range of data.
We addressed this issue in some detail in Appendix C of the ECLA report. State policy
does not make a clear distinction between need and demand. Following is our
definition, which we believe to be consistent with definitions in state policy:
• Housing need can be defined broadly or narrowly. The broad definition is based
on the mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities to plan for housing that
meets the needs of households at all income levels. Goal 10, though it addresses
housing, emphasizes the impacts on the households that need that housing. Since
everyone needs shelter, Goal 10 requires that a jurisdiction address, at some
level, how every household will be affected by the housing market over a 20-year
period. In short, housing need is addressed through the local Housing Needs
Projection.
• Housing market demand is what households demonstrate they are willing to
purchase in the market place. Growth in population means growth in the
number of households and implies an increase in demand for housing units. That
demand is met, to the extent it is, primarily by the construction of new housing
units by the private sector based on its judgments about the types of housing that
will be absorbed by the market. ORS 197.296 includes a market demand
component: buildable land needs analyses must consider the density and mix of
housing developed over the previous five years or since their most recent
periodic review, whichever is greater. In concept, what got built in that five-year
period was the effective demand for new housing: it is the local equilibrium of
demand factors, supply factors, and price.
The direction provided by the Statutes and Administrative Rules imply that the
Housing Needs Projection is largely a technical exercise that involves evaluating the
relationship between income, demographic characteristics, housing choice, and housing
cost. The state does not provide much direction on how to make the determination. The
determination, in our view, is not solely a technical exercise—it also includes a policy
component that considers what communities want. The difference between what
communities want and what the data suggest often creates tension in making the local
determination.
PC AIS, p6
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 3
ACTUAL AND NEEDED DENSITY AND MIX
Appendix A describes the framework for determining whether residential land
within the Eugene UGB is sufficient within the context of State planning requirements
from Goal 10 (ORS 197.295 to 197.314, ORS 197.475 to 197.490, and OAR 600-008). This
memorandum focused on two steps of the residential land need analysis: (1)
determining actual mix and density of existing housing and (2) determining average
density and mix of needed housing. These steps are described in Appendix A and Figure
A-1 (in steps 4 and 5).
Actual density and mix
ORS 197.296 requires the analysis of housing mix and density to include the past five
years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is greater.1
Eugene completed periodic review in 1999. The City, however, made significant
changes to the residential densities allowed in its zoning code in August 2001. The
period used in ECLA for the analysis of housing density was 2001 to 2008 because
residential development prior to 2001 was not subject to the new standards in the
zoning code.
Housing density
Eugene had residential development on 4,727 tax lots had residential development
during the 2001 to 2008 period, adding 6,532 new dwelling units. Some tax lots had pre-
existing multifamily dwelling units. The average density for all residential development
over the 2001 to 2008 period was 7.2 dwellings per net acre.2 The average housing
density for each housing type was:
• 5.4 dwelling units per net acre (du/net) for single-family detached
• 20.2 (du/net) for single-family attached
• 8.6 (du/net) for structures with 2 to 4 units
• 24.1 (du/net) for structures with 5 or more units
1 Specifically, ORS 197.296(5) (b) states: “A local government shall make the determination described in paragraph
(a) of this subsection using a shorter time period than the time period described in paragraph (a) of this subsection if
the local government finds that the shorter time period will provide more accurate and reliable data related to
housing capacity and need. The shorter time period may not be less than three years.”
2 The average housing density over the 2001-2008 period (7.2 dwelling units per net acre) was based on a housing
mix of 69% single-family detached and 31% multifamily housing types. The housing density in the baseline analysis
for the 2011-2031 period uses the same housing densities by housing types as in the 2001-2008 period but uses a
different housing mix (61% single-family detached and 39% multifamily types). As a result, the average density for
all housing types in the baseline analysis assumes more multifamily housing and is slightly higher (7.3 dwelling units
per net acre) than the average housing density for the 2001-2008 period (7.2 dwelling units per net acre).
PC AIS, p7
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 4
Housing mix
The actual housing mix achieved over the 2001 to 2008 period for new construction
was 69% single-family detached (including manufactured homes) and 31% for attached
housing types. The mix of Eugene’s entire housing stock in 2007 was: 61% single-family
detached (including manufactured homes), 7% were single-family attached, 10% was
structures with 2 to 4 units and the remaining 22% were structures with 5 or more units.
The baseline forecast of new housing in ECLA used the long-term mix of Eugene’s
housing stock (61% single-family housing types and 39% attached housing types) rather
than the actual mix achieved over the 2001 to 2008 period for the following reasons:
• The achieved mix over the 2001 to 2008 period (69% single-family housing
types and 31% attached housing types) was the result of an unusual housing
market bubble, which is not likely to be repeated over the 20-year period.
• The analysis presented in Appendix C of the ECLA report suggests that
housing affordability is a problem in Eugene. The ECLA analysis also
concludes that higher density housing types tend to be more affordable. The
achieved mix over the 2001 to 2008 period does not provide enough affordable
attached housing types necessary to meet the need for more affordable
housing.
Needed density and mix
Cities are required to determine the average density and mix of needed housing over
the next 20-years (ORS 197.296(7)). The determination of needed density and mix
should consider the following factors that may affect future housing need:
• The number, density and average mix of housing types of urban residential
development that have actually occurred;
• Trends in density and average mix of housing types of urban residential
development;
• Demographic and population trends;
• Economic trends and cycles; and
• The number, density and average mix of housing types that have occurred on
the buildable lands.
ECLA determined Eugene’s actual housing density (average of 7.2 dwelling units per
net acre) and actual housing mix (61% single-family housing types and 39% multifamily
housing types). ECO concludes that Eugene’s needed future housing density and mix
for the 2011 to 2031 period is different than actual housing density and mix, based on
the following factors (as specified in ORS 197.296(5)(a)):
PC AIS, p8
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 5
• Eugene has a need for housing of all types, including single-family detached,
single-family attached, structures with 2 to 4 units, and structures with 5 or
more units.
• Lane County and Eugene are growing, with most growth resulting from in-
migration. The County grew by 62,966 people between 1990 and 2008. More
than two-thirds of this growth occurred in Eugene, which grew by 41,951
people over the 18-year period. Seventy-four percent of population growth in
Lane County was the result of in-migration to the County.
• Eugene’s adopted forecast projects that population inside the Eugene UGB will
grow by about 33,900 people between 2011 and 2031.
• Lane County and Eugene’s economy have grown. Between 2002 and 2007,
Lane County added more than 15,500 jobs and the average wage increased by
18% (about $5,300). While the economy and the housing market are currently
experiencing a downturn in growth, Eugene can expect to experience one to
two complete economic cycles (from faster growth to little or no growth) over
the planning period.
• The share of single-family housing types held relatively steady over the 1990 to
2007 period, increasing slightly from 60% in 1990 to 61% in 2007. The share of
multifamily housing decreased slightly from 40% in 1990 to 39% in 2007.
Single-family housing accounted for 69% of permits issued for the 2001 to 2008
period.
• Eugene provided approximately 44% of the region’s multifamily housing
between 2000 and 2008.
• Fifty-four percent of housing in Eugene was owner-occupied in 2007, up from
51% in 1990. Eugene’s homeownership rate was lower than the County
average of 63% or the State average of 65% in 2007.
• Future housing demand will be driven by in-migration and changes in age-
demographics. It is likely that households that move to Eugene in the future
will have characteristics similar to those that moved to Eugene in the recent
past (since 2001). New households and existing households are likely to
undergo similar changes in age-demographics. The Office of Economic
Analysis projects that Lane County’s share of people over 60 years will
increase from 17% in 2000 to 26% in 2030, adding nearly 56,000 people 60 years
and older over the thirty year period.
• Changes in Eugene’s composition will affect the types of housing needed. The
composition of Eugene’s households has changed over the last two decades,
with household size decreasing slightly, from 2.30 persons per household in
1990 to 2.25 persons per household in 2007, a change of 2.2% over the 17-year
period. Single-person households became more common, with 31% of
households in one-person households in 1990 and 34% in 2007.
PC AIS, p9
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 6
• The average net density for all residential development occurring in Eugene
between 2001 and 2008 was 7.2 units per net acre. The net density in the Low
Density Residential designation (LDR) was 5.2 dwelling units per net acre, the
Medium Density Residential designation (MDR) had an average of 13.2
dwelling units per net acre, and the High Density Residential designation
(HDR) had an average of 31.0 dwelling units per net acre.
• Average net density for single-family detached housing increased from an
average of about 5.0 dwelling units per net acre built during the 1980’s to an
average of about 5.6 dwelling units per net acre built during the 2000’s, a
density increase of about 10%.
• Average lot sizes for single-family detached housing decreased from an
average of about 8,700 square feet built during the 1980’s to an average of
about 7,800 square feet built during the 2000’s, a decrease in lot size of about
10%.
• Eugene’s housing became less affordable for renting and owning over the last
decade. Some indicators that illustrate this decrease in affordability include:
o Between 1999 and 2008, growth in homeownership costs outpaced
growth in income. Median owner value increased by 71% between 1999
and 2008, while median household income increased by 13% and
median family income increased by 18%.
o Average sales prices increased by at least 50% over the 2001 to 2008
period in most areas within Eugene, increasing by between $56,500 (in
Danebo) to $147,800 (in East Eugene) per unit over the eight year period.
o Between 1999 and 2008, growth in renter costs outpaced growth in
income by a small margin. Median gross increased by 25% between 1999
and 2008, while median household income increased by 13% and
median family income increased by 18%.
o Forty-five percent of Eugene households were cost burden in 2008.3 The
rate was much higher for renters (58%) than for homeowners (33%). In
comparison, 42% of Lane County’s households and 39% of State
households were cost burdened in 2008.
• In 2008, Eugene had a gap in affordable housing for households that earn less
than 50% of Lane County’s Median Family Income (MFI) of about $27,700.
o Eugene had a deficit of about 9,000 dwelling units that would be
affordable to households earning $25,000 or less based on the U.S.
3 Cost burden is a typical standard used by HUD to determine housing affordability, which says that a household
should pay no more than a 30% of household income for housing, including payments and interest or rent, utilities,
and insurance.
PC AIS, p10
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 7
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) affordability
guidelines.
o About one-fifth of Eugene households could not afford a studio
apartment at HUD’s fair market rent level of $495, and one-third of
households could not afford a two-bedroom apartment at HUD’s fair
market rent level of $760.
o A household earning median family income ($55,500) could afford a
home valued up to about $138,750.
The implications from the preceding analysis are, in our opinion, unequivocal: the
needed housing density and mix for new housing is different than the actual housing
density and mix. In short, the affordability gap described above (e.g., cost burden for
renters or owners, as well as the affordability gap for households making 50% less than
the median income) implies that Eugene needs to shift towards higher densities and
more multifamily housing types, which are typically more affordable because land costs
are lower and service costs for multifamily are spread out over multiple units. While the
City will not be able to fill the housing affordability solely through land use policy, the
residential land use strategy will need to create opportunities for development
additional affordable housing. The implications of Eugene’s housing affordability gap
on needed housing density and mix are:
• The City will need to provide opportunities for additional affordable housing;
this will require planning for more multifamily dwellings of any type.
• The City can, to some degree, influence housing costs by requiring higher
housing density, which will reduce the amount of land needed per dwelling.4
• The City can affect single-family housing costs by developing policies that
allow or require building single-family units on smaller lots.5
Table 1 shows Eugene’s needed density and mix for needed new housing between
2011 and 2031 based on these factors. Table 1 shows the following changes between the
needed density and mix and the ECLA Baseline:
4 There are limits to the amount that increasing housing density can increase housing affordability. Housing that
requires less land is generally more affordable. The affordability of multifamily housing depends, in part, on the
construction techniques and materials used to build the structure. For example, multifamily structures that are less
than four or five stories tall are generally wood-framed structures and are generally less costly than multifamily
housing taller than four or five stories, which are generally steel-framed structures.
5 With respect to single-family housing, land accounts for a higher percentage of the overall cost, but does not
account for the majority of costs. For example, a lot valued at $50,000 might have a home worth $250,000; the land
accounts for 20% of the total value of the dwelling. A recent study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy indicates
that land accounted for 26.8% of total home value in Oregon during the first quarter of 2010
(http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/land-values/metro-area-land-prices.asp)
PC AIS, p11
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 8
• Change in housing mix from 61% single-family detached housing types and
39% multifamily housing types to 55% single-family detached housing types
and 45% multifamily housing types.
• Change in average housing density from 7.3 dwellings per net acre to 8.9
dwellings per net acre, an increase of 1.6 du/net acre or 22%. About one-
quarter of the change in density resulted from the change in housing mix
because increasing the share of multifamily housing increased the average mix.
The remaining three-quarters of the density increase resulted from increases in
the assumptions about housing density by structure type.
• A nearly 500 gross acre decrease in Eugene’s deficit of residential land within
the UGB.
PC AIS, p12
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 9
Table 1. Needed housing density and mix, 2011-2031,
Eugene UGB
Needed
Density ECLA
Assumptions and Mix Baseline
Housing Mix
Single-family detached 55% 61%
Single-family attached 8% 7%
Two to four units 12% 10%
Five or more units 25% 22%
Number of Units
Single-family detached 7,565 8,390
Single-family attached 1,100 963
Two to four units 1,650 1,375
Five or more units 3,439 3,026
Total 13,754 13,754
Housing Density
(dwelling units per net acre)
Single-family detached 6.2 5.4
Single-family attached 21.0 20.2
Two to four units 10.0 8.6
Five or more units 30.0 24.1
Total Average 8.9 7.3
Housing Density by Plan Designation
(dwelling units per net acre)
Low Density Residential 6.1 5.4
Medium Density Residential 15.9 13.5
High Density Residential 35.3 31.6
Commercial Designations 24.6 20.8
Total Average 8.9 7.3
Land Deficit by Plan Designation
(gross acres)**
Low Density Residential 750 1,243
Medium Density Residential 78 72
High Density Residential 94 93
Commercial Designations* 36 42
Total residential land need 958 1,451
Source: ECONorthwest
*Note: The 36 acre deficit in commercial plan designations is for residential development
that is expected to occur in commercial plan designations, not residential plan designations.
**Note: The gross acres estimate for Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential
and High Density Residential plan designations includes the acreage needed for housing as
well as public and semi-public uses as shown in Table C-45 of the Preliminary Eugene
Comprehensive Land Assessment document.
Table 1 presents ECO’s analysis of housing needs; or in the language of the Goal 8
rule, the Housing Needs Projection. This is our assessment of what the minimum
overall density and mix of new housing units built between 2011 and 2031 is to meet
identified housing needs. The City has the discretion, within limits, to adopt a more
aggressive housing density and mix. These limits are the results of three main factors:
(1) market demand for housing, based on households’ purchasing choices and
PC AIS, p13
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 10
preferences; (2) the community’s preferences for both accommodating growth within
the UGB and for protecting the quality and characteristics of existing neighborhoods;
and (3) the requirements of Goal 10 for the City to show that it can achieve the needed
density and mix.6
Given these considerations, what is the reasonable upper bound on housing density
and mix? We address this question in more detail below:
• Would it be reasonable for the City to plan for a 100% increase in density, from
an average of 7.3 dwellings per net acre to an average of 14.6 dwellings per net
acre? That would require a change in mix to about 40% single-family detached
and 60% multifamily housing types, with densities for all types of units
increasing by 50% or more.7
• Would it be reasonable for the City to plan for a 50% increase in density, from
an average of 7.3 dwellings per net acre to an average of 10.9 dwellings per net
acre? That would require a change in mix to about 45% single-family detached
and 65% multifamily housing types, with densities for all types of units
increasing by about 30% or more.8
These assumptions do not seem reasonable because there is no precedence for these
magnitudes of change in a suburban city of Eugene’s size in Oregon. In addition, these
housing types are in the upward bounds of housing density developed in Eugene over
the last decade and representative of housing demand for a portion of the market but
not a broad range of the market. By comparison, Portland Metro sets density targets for
cities within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. For larger cities, the target is 10
dwelling units per net acre and a 50/50 housing mix split. Eugene would need to
establish a robust policy framework like Metro’s to achieve an average density of 10
dwelling units per net acre.
In our opinion, a reasonable upper bound of the increase in overall housing density
over the next 20 years would be on the order of 25% to 30%. A 30% increase in overall
6 Those limits result from the requirement that the city provide evidence that demonstrates that it can achieve the
needed density and mix. In short, as the density and mix deviates more from the actual observed results, the higher
the burden of proof that policy initiatives will result in the needed density and mix.
7 For example, single-family detached units would have a density of 8.6 du/net acre and structures with five more
units would have a density of 39.7 du/net acre. The average gross lot size for all units would be 2,980 square feet and
5,056 square feet for single-family units.
8 For example, single-family detached units would have a density of 6.8 du/net acre and structures with five more
units would have a density of 31.3 du/net acre. The average gross lot size for all units would be 3,981 square feet and
6,406 square feet for single-family units.
PC AIS, p14
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 11
density would result in an average housing density of 9.5 dwellings per net acre and a
50% single-family and 50% multifamily mix. 9
9 For example, single-family detached units would have a density of 6.3 du/net acre and structures with five more
units would have a density of 31.3 du/net acre. The average gross lot size for all units would be 4,589 square feet and
6,914 square feet for single-family units.
PC AIS, p15
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 12
APPENDIX A: FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
RESIDENTIAL LAND IS SUFFICIENT (STATE REQUIREMENTS)
This appendix presents the framework for determining residential land sufficiency
within the UGB used in ECLA. The land need analysis in ECLA determined the amount
of new housing necessary to accommodate expected population growth over the 2011 to
2031 period, based on actual density (achieved over the 2001 to 2008 period) and actual
housing mix (over the 1990 to 2008 period). ECLA did not determine the needed
housing density and mix for the 2011 to 2031 period.
The purpose of this appendix is to describe the entire process that the City will need
to complete through Envision Eugene. This memorandum focused on Step 4
(Determine actual mix and density of existing housing) and Step 5 (Determine average
density and mix of needed housing) shown in Figure A-1.
The passage of the Oregon Land Use Planning Act of 1974 (ORS Chapter 197),
established the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), and the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The Act required the
Commission to develop and adopt a set of statewide planning goals. Goal 10 addresses
housing in Oregon and provides guidelines for local governments to follow in
developing their local comprehensive land use plans and implementing policies.
At a minimum, local housing policies must meet the requirements of Goal 10 (ORS
197.295 to 197.314, ORS 197.475 to 197.490, and OAR 600-008). Goal 10 requires
incorporated cities to complete an inventory of buildable residential lands10 and to
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units in price and rent
ranges commensurate with the financial capabilities of its households.
Goal 10 defines needed housing types as “housing types determined to meet the need
shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and
rent levels.” ORS 197.303 defines needed housing types:
(a) Housing that includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single-family
housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy;
(b) Government assisted housing;11
(c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to
197.490; and
(d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family
residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured
dwelling subdivisions.
10 The definition of buildable residential land from OAR 660-008 is presented in the glossary in Appendix A.
11 Government assisted housing can be any housing type listed in ORS 197.303 (a), (c), or (d).
PC AIS, p16
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 13
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) provides guidance
on conducting a housing needs analysis in the document “Planning for Residential
Growth: A Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas,”12 referred to as the Workbook. Figure
C-2 provides a graphic representation of the housing needs analysis process as defined
in ORS 197.296 and the Workbook.
Figure A-1. Process for assessing the sufficiency of residential land used in
ECLA
Source: ECONorthwest
The steps in this assessment are:
1. Inventory of residential land. Cities are required to demonstrate that its
comprehensive plan or regional plan provides sufficient buildable lands within
the urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to
accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years (ORS 197.296(2)). Cities must
12 “Planning for Residential Growth: A Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas” was prepared for the State by
ECONorthwest and Lane Council of Governments in June 1997.
PC AIS, p17
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 14
develop an inventory of vacant, partially vacant, mixed-use, and redevelopable
residential lands (ORS 197.296(3)). The residential lands inventory was prepared
by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The methods and legal context for
the BLI are described in Appendix A.
2. Population forecast. Cities are required to have a 20-year coordinated
population forecast (ORS 195.036). The population forecast can be developed and
coordinated by the county or it can be based on a safe harbor for population
forecasting (OAR 660-024-0030). This study uses the coordinated population
forecast for Eugene adopted by Lane County in June 2009.
3. Housing Needs Analysis. Cities with a population of 25,000 or more are
required to comply with ORS 197.296 and must conduct an analysis of housing
need by housing type and density range to determine the number of needed
dwelling units and amount of land needed for each needed housing type in the
next 20 years (ORS 197.296(3)(b)). The statute defines needed housing types as
including (but not limited to): single-family detached, single-family attached,
multifamily (for rental and ownership), mobile or manufactured housing in
parks, manufactured housing on lots, and government assisted housing. Other
housing types may be considered in the housing needs analysis. The steps in the
housing needs analysis are:
A) Project housing units needed. The projection of needed housing units is
based on the growth in population from in the population forecast over
the 20-year period. The projection considers other factors, such as number
of people expected to live in group quarters, household size, housing mix,
and vacancy rates. These assumptions are typically based on historical
trends.
B) Identify trends that may affect housing mix and density. These trends
include relevant national, state, and local demographic and economic
trends and factors that may affect the 20-year projection of structure type
mix. Examples of these trends include: mortgage rates, homeownership
rates, or population growth and in-migration. The housing needs analysis
also considers demographic characteristics and housing trends that relate
to demand for different types of housing. Examples of these trends
include: regional and local trends in housing mix, the aging of the baby-
boomers, or household income and housing affordability.
C) Determine types of housing that are likely to be affordable. Cities must
consider the housing needs of all households, from low-income
households to affluent households. Cities are required to determine what
types of housing are likely to be affordable to new households based on
household income and housing costs. The assumption implicit in this
analysis is that some housing types are more affordable than others. For
PC AIS, p18
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 15
instance, renting an apartment is often more affordable than purchasing a
single-family detached dwelling.
D) Estimate the number of units needed by housing type. The estimate of
needed units by housing type is based on the projection for needed
housing units, trends that may affect housing density and mix, and types
of housing that are likely to be affordable. This estimate generally breaks
down housing need into housing types and estimates the number and
type of dwelling units needed in each plan designation.
4. Determine actual mix and density of existing housing. The analysis of actual
mix and density of housing is based on residential development within the UGB
since the last periodic review or five years, whichever is greater (ORS 197.296(5)).
This determination is typically based on an analysis of building permits and land
that was developed with each building permit.
5. Determine average density and mix of needed housing. Cities are required to
determine the average density and mix of needed housing over the next 20-years
(ORS 197.296(7)). The needed average density and mix of housing is based, in
part, on the historical mix and density described in Step 4. If a range of densities
is allowed within the plan designation, decision makers may give direction on
the density assumptions that are used.
A) Compare needed density and mix to actual. Cities are required to
compare needed density and mix for housing over the 20-year period with
actual density and mix (Step 5). If the needed density or mix is greater
than the actual density or mix, cities are required to adopt land-use
efficiency measures (Step 8) to increase the likelihood that residential
development will occur at the identified density and mix (ORS 197.296(7)).
ECLA did not include determining needed density and mix of housing.
6. Determine capacity of buildable residential land. Cities are required to estimate
the capacity of buildable residential land within the UGB (ORS 197.296(5)).
Determining capacity is typically done by comparing the estimate of buildable
land (both vacant and partially vacant) in residential plan designations with the
density allowed in the residential plan designation. The result is an estimate of
the number of dwellings that could be built on vacant residential land.
Determining residential land capacity is complicated by a number of factors,
such as: (1) development density on residential lands with constraints (such as
steep slopes) may be lower than on lands without constraints, (2) plan
designations often allow a wide range of densities and determining the capacity
of residential land requires assuming a specific density target, (3) different
housing types are likely to develop at different densities within the same plan
designation.
7. Determine residential land sufficiency. Cities must compare the need for
residential land (Step 5) with the capacity of buildable residential land within the
PC AIS, p19
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 16
UGB (Step 6) to determine whether there is enough land in the UGB to meet
expected housing need (ORS 197.296(6)).
8. Consider land-use efficiency measures. Cities are required to consider land-use
efficiency measures if the housing needs analysis finds that the City may not
meet identified housing needs (ORS 197.296(6) and (7)). The statute requires that
the City evaluate land use efficiency measures when needed density and mix are
different than actual density and mix.
ECLA did not include assessing or adopting land-use efficiency measures.
9. Designation of lands for residential uses. Cities that identify a deficiency of
residential land (Step 7) must either adopt land-use efficiency measures and/or
amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to
accommodate housing needs for the next 20-years (ORS 197.296(6)).
ECLA did not include potential amendments to the UGB.
The analysis of residential land sufficiency within the UGB from Envision Eugene
may be different from the analysis in ECLA based on the analysis of needed density and
mix, as well as the potential adoption of land-use efficiency measures.
PC AIS, p20
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 17
APPENDIX B: DATA AND ADDITIONAL TABLES
This appendix presents additional data and tables, which supplements the discussion
about variations on Eugene’s housing density and mix in this memorandum. This
appendix presents historical housing density and mix data that support the
assumptions about density and mix used in ECLA.
Table B-1 shows average net residential density by structure type for the 2001 to 2008
period. Table C-6 shows that 4,727 tax lots had residential development during the 2001
to 2008 period, adding 6,532 new dwelling units. Some tax lots had pre-existing
multifamily dwelling units. The average density for all residential development over
the 2001 to 2008 period was 7.2 dwellings per net acre. 13
Table B-1. Average development density by structure type, dwelling units per net
acre, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB
Dwelling Units on Lots with
Development between 2001-2008
Multifamily All DU Built
Tax built prior to 2001 to Total Net DU/Net
Structure Type Lots 2001 2008 DU Acres Ac
Single-family detached 4,335 NA 4,503 4,503 837 5.4
Single-family attached 173 NA 660 660 33 20.2
Structures with 2 to 4 units 178 75 371 446 52 8.6
Structures with 5 or more units 41 412 998 1,410 59 24.1
Total 4,727 487 6,532 7,019 980 7.2
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008, ECLA Housing Needs Analysis
Note: The density of 7.2 units per net acre accounts for all development on the 4,727 tax lots shown in Table B-1. While the density
analysis focuses on development that occurred between 2001 and 2008, we would underestimate density on these tax lots if we did
not account for multifamily dwellings built in phased development prior to 2001.
Housing mix is the mixture of housing (structure) types (e.g., single-family detached
or apartments) within a city. Table B-2 shows changes in Eugene’s housing mix from
1990 to 2007. Between 1990 and 2007, the City’s mix of housing did not change
substantially. The share of single-family detached units (e.g., single-family houses and
manufactured homes) remained at 61% over the 17 year period. The share of attached
structures did not change substantially, accounting for 40% of dwellings in 1990 and
39% of dwellings in 2007.
13 The density of 7.2 units per net acre accounts for all development on the 4,727 tax lots shown in Table B-1. While
the density analysis focuses on development that occurred between 2001 and 2008, we would underestimate density
on these tax lots if we did not account for multifamily dwellings built in phased development prior to 2001.
OAR 660-024-0010(6) uses the following definition of net buildable acre. “Net Buildable Acre” consists of 43,560
square feet of residentially designated buildable land after excluding future rights-of-way for streets and roads.
While the administrative rule does not include a definition of a gross buildable acre, using the definition above, a
gross buildable acre will include areas used for rights-of-way for streets and roads. Areas used for rights-of-way are
considered unbuildable.
PC AIS, p21
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 18
Table B-2. Dwelling units by type, Eugene city limits, 1990, 2000, and 2007
1990 2000 2007 New Units 1990-2007
Percent of Percent
Structure type Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units total Increase
Single-family detached 28,768 60% 36,151 59% 41,923 61% 13,155 63% 46%
Single-family attached 3,264 7% 4,011 7% 4,828 7% 1,564 7% 48%
Two to four units 4,886 10% 5,877 10% 6,773 10% 1,887 9% 39%
Five or more units 11,073 23% 15,293 25% 15,371 22% 4,298 21% 39%
Total 47,991 100% 61,332 100% 68,895 100% 20,904 100% 44%
Source: U.S. Census 1990 SF3 H020, U.S. Census 2000, SF3 H30, American Community Survey 2007 B25024
Note: Single-family detached housing includes manufactures homes. The Census does not distinguish between manufactured
homes in parks or on single lots.
Table B-3 shows needed density and mix in comparison to the ECLA baseline. Table
B-3 also shows a version of residential land need with the needed mix (55% detached
housing types and 45% attached housing types) but with the ECLA average density by
housing type (e.g., single-family detached 5.4 dwelling units per net acre, single-family
attached 20.2 dwelling units per net acre, etc.).
When the mix is changed to the needed mix (55%/45%), the average net density
increases because of the increase in percent of denser housing types (e.g., structures
with 5+ units) and the decrease in less dense housing types (e.g., single-family
detached). The change is an increase of 0.4 dwelling units per net acre (a 5% increase),
from 7.3 dwelling units per net acre in the ECLA Baseline analysis to 7.7 dwelling units
per net acre.
PC AIS, p22
Eugene needed housing density and mix ECONorthwest July 2010 Page 19
Table B-3. Needed housing density and mix, 2011-2031,
Eugene UGB
Needed Needed Mix
Density & Baseline ECLA
Assumptions and Mix Density Baseline
Housing Mix
Single-family detached 55% 55% 61%
Single-family attached 8% 8% 7%
Two to four units 12% 12% 10%
Five or more units 25% 25% 22%
Number of Units
Single-family detached 7,565 7,565 8,390
Single-family attached 1,100 1,100 963
Two to four units 1,650 1,650 1,375
Five or more units 3,439 3,439 3,026
Total 13,754 13,754 13,754
Housing Density
(dwelling units per net acre)
Single-family detached 6.2 5.4 5.4
Single-family attached 21.0 20.2 20.2
Two to four units 10.0 8.6 8.6
Five or more units 30.0 24.1 24.1
Total Average 8.9 7.7 7.3
Housing Density by Plan Designation
(dwelling units per net acre)
Low Density Residential 6.1 5.3 5.4
Medium Density Residential 15.9 13.4 13.5
High Density Residential 35.3 30.9 31.6
Commercial Designations 24.6 21.1 20.8
Total Average 8.9 7.7 7.3
Land Deficit by Plan Designation
(gross acres)**
Low Density Residential 750 1,046 1,243
Medium Density Residential 78 114 72
High Density Residential 94 112 93
Commercial Designations* 36 42 42
Total residential land need 958 1,314 1,451
Source: ECONorthwest
*Note: The 36 acre deficit in commercial plan designations is for residential development
that is expected to occur in commercial plan designations, not residential plan designations.
**Note: The gross acres estimate for Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential
and High Density Residential plan designations includes the acreage needed for housing as
well as public and semi-public uses as shown in Table C-45 of the Preliminary Eugene
Comprehensive Land Assessment document.
PC AIS, p23
Get email alerts for Eugene
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.