Planning Commission

AGENDA EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION McNutt Room, City Hall, 777 Pearl Street Phone: 541‐682‐5481 100 W. 10th Avenue 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, May 23, 2011 – 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. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE Staff: Lisa Gardner, 541‐682‐5208 1:15 p.m. III. 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  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 23, 2011 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Lisa Gardner and Carolyn Weiss, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Envision Eugene Update ACTION REQUESTED This work session provides the Planning Commission with an opportunity to discuss and provide input on the Envision Eugene project update prior to the City Council work session on May 25. BRIEFING STATEMENT Envision Eugene is a collaborative community-based effort to balance the sustainability triple-bottom line framework of social equity, environmental stewardship and economic prosperity in planning for 34,000 new residents anticipated in the next 20 years. The following topics will be addressed at this work session: Proposed revisions to the Envision Eugene Draft Proposal Concepts regarding single-family housing land need Code amendments to begin implementation of key strategies State law requires the City to provide enough residential, commercial and industrial land to accommodate 20 years of growth, and establish a Eugene-only urban growth boundary (UGB). Equally important, Envision Eugene is describing how we want to grow; creating a picture of what Eugene will look like in the future, and how we will accomplish Council and community goals for social equity, environmental stewardship and economic prosperity. Proposed Revisions to Envision Eugene Proposal On March 9th, the City Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing on the Envision Eugene Draft Proposal, dated March 2, 2011. The Council held that public hearing on April 25 th. Additional outreach and opportunities for public input on the Draft Proposal were provided through an on-line survey, a public open house, individual meetings, and a report from the Sustainability Commission. In response to this feedback, staff recommend revisions to the March 2 nd Draft Proposal. While many of the revisions can be characterized as clarifications, some of the more significant revisions are described in Attachment A. A revised Envision Eugene Proposal will be presented to council for final approval at a work session later this year. Single-Family Housing Land Need At the March 9th work session, Council also directed staff to schedule a work session in May to discuss single-family housing land need. The Technical Resource Group (TRG), a sub-committee of the Community Resource Group, has been meeting regularly to discuss housing need and to vet 1 some of the data and assumptions that went into the City’s preliminary findings. This group has prepared a spreadsheet that compares and contrasts two housing mix scenarios for the future (Attachment B). Both of the TRG’s scenarios begin with the assumption that the City will need 15,000 new homes in the next 20 years. The first housing mix scenario plans for the 15,000 new homes at a ratio of 60% single-family to 40% multi-family. The next scenario plans for those same 15,000 new homes at a ratio of 40% single-family to 60% multi-family. While our final housing mix may reside somewhere in between the two scenarios presented, it was thought to be most useful at this time to highlight the scenarios at either end of the spectrum that is being considered. In addition to housing mix, other work is continuing that will inform the single family land need. This includes the partially vacant lands analysis, and work on efficiency strategies such as re- designation of property to low density residential, and promoting small homes such as attached and clustered housing, Secondary Dwelling Units and Alley Access homes. This work is being done collaboratively among staff, consultants, and the TRG. Staff will also introduce for discussion a phased approach to making urban growth boundary expansion areas available for housing development. This approach, which is intended to address the concerns raised with respect to the two housing mix scenarios, would ensure that the development of single-family units is closely monitored and that supplies of new developable land are made available for development based on market demand. Code Amendments In order to implement many of the strategies identified through the Envision Eugene process, a variety of code amendments will ultimately be required. While many of these potential amendments will be fleshed out further as the Envision Eugene process continues, there are certain themes which have already emerged through on-going community discussions. Code amendments related to Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) have been specifically requested in public testimony, and other amendments represent areas where there is strong momentum and the potential for fairly straight- forward solutions. Rather than wait to bundle these amendments with the remaining Envision Eugene implementation measures, staff would like to continue this momentum by moving a small number of code amendments forward at this time. As the Eugene Code requires, staff will request the City Council to initiate a code amendment process that would address the following: Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS): While there are several elements included under ICS, staff is proposing to focus first on the multi-family development standards, given the on-going development activity occurring in the University area. Opportunity Siting (OS): One of the tactics for implementing the Opportunity Siting program is the creation of a flexible review process to help provide flexibility and an opportunity for public input on future projects. This code amendment would establish a new streamlined process for qualifying projects similar to the recently adopted downtown flexible adjustment review process. 2  Mixed Use Development: Removing barriers to mixed use development has been a consistent theme we have heard throughout Envision Eugene. These barriers include existing code requirements which discourage successful mixed use development, particularly in downtown. Staff will address a few discrete amendments with the goal of removing unnecessary barriers. The scope of these amendments will be limited to ensure this work can be accomplished in a timely manner and without sacrificing progress on the larger Envision Eugene efforts. Staff anticipates that these amendments could be ready for City Council action as early as this fall. NEXT STEPS The work of the Technical Resource Group that will inform staff’s recommendation on a single-family land need is anticipated to be complete in June. At that time, a Council work session will be scheduled to present that information. A Council public hearing will be held when the City Council reconvenes in September to invite comment on the single-family land need recommendation and any resulting need for a UGB expansion. In later September, Council will be asked to take action on the single-family land need recommendation and to accept the revised Envision Eugene Proposal. Regarding industrial land need, staff will begin having preliminary conversations with property owners in potential expansion areas to identify interest and concerns. Staff will notify property owners and schedule in-person meetings during May and June. In July, staff will update the Council on the outcome of these meetings and share information regarding emerging preferences for industrial land expansion locations. The Technical Resource Group is expected to continue its work with a focus on monitoring and implementation issues that address many of the strategies outlined in the Adaptable and Flexible Implementation pillar. FOR MORE INFORMATION Lisa Gardner, Planning Director, 541-682-5208 or lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us Carolyn Weiss, Long Range Planning Manager, 541-682-8816 or carolyn.j.weiss@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed revisions to March 2, 2011 Envision Eugene Draft Proposal B. Technical Resource Group Housing Mix Comparison 3 Proposed Revisions to March 2, 2011 Envision Eugene Draft Proposal For Council action in July 2011 General: Provide a matrix that cross-references strategies with pillars to illustrate the overlap and inter- relatedness of strategies and pillars (see attached matrix) Provide ample economic opportunities for all community members: Include specific mention of downtown as a focus of commercial development Include specific mention of future industrial development aligning with the outcomes of the Sustainable Business Initiative Promote compact urban development and efficient transportation options: Include specific mention of downtown as a focus of commercial and residential development Protect, repair and enhance neighborhood livability: Include specific mention of River Road/Santa Clara Transition Plan in relation to neighborhood planning efforts Include language that addresses the distinction between multi-family housing and student housing in relation to neighborhood planning efforts Protect, restore, and enhance natural resources: Include specific mention of the opportunity natural resources can afford to provide green infrastructure Provide for adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation: Revise language to facilitate more frequent adjustments than the currently stated 10 years Revise language to include phased implementation approach to making urban growth boundary expansion areas available for housing development. May 16, 2011  Housing Mix Comparison This is a summary of community statements and a compilation of data and studies that have been brought forward related to the issue of what mix to plan for our new housing stock. The information is categorized by the two bookends of the discussion. Other housing mixes in between the 60%SF/40%MF – 40%SF/60%MF mixes have also been discussed: o The Housing Mix subgroup of the Community Resource Group established a housing mix range of between 60%SF/40%MF to 55%SF/45%MF. o ECONorthwest’s July 2010 memo on needed housing mix and density identified a preliminary recommendation of 55%SF/45%MF. *** The number of homes cited under each mix is rounded. Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF Housing Existing dwelling units: 68,762 (41,790SF/26,972MF) Existing dwelling units: 68,762 (41,790SF/26,972MF) Need New dwelling units: 14,951 (8,971SF/5,980MF) New dwelling units: 14,951 (5,980SF/8,971MF) Breakdown Total dwelling units by 2031: 83,713 (50,761SF/32,952MF) Total dwelling units by 2031: 83,713 (47,770SF/35,943MF) Overall (new and existing) Mix Overall (new and existing) Mix • The current and ECLA assumed housing mix is 61%SF/39%MF • The current and ECLA assumed housing mix is 61%SF/39%MF • Under this mix, the share of single-family as a percentage of the • Under this mix, the share of single-family as a percentage of the overall housing mix decreases by less than 1% (or 149 new units) overall housing mix decreases by 4% (3,140 new units) by 2031 by 2031 • Overall mix by 2031: 57%SF/43%MF • Overall mix by 2031: 61%SF/39%MF Overall Mix (2031) Mix of new housing only Overall Mix (2031) Mix of new housing only 5/18/11 pg. 1 Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF Housing is accommodated as follows under this mix: Housing is accommodated as follows under this mix: Demand: 14,951 dwelling units Demand: 14,951 dwelling units By building type: By building type: SFD: 8,971 units SFD: 5,980 units SFA: 1,047 units SFA: 1,794 units 2-4 du: 1,495 units 2-4 du: 2,243 units 5+ dus: 3,439 units 5+ dus: 4,934 units By plan designation: By plan designation: LDR: 9,277 du LDR: 6,803 du MDR/HDR/Com: 5,674 du MDR/HDR/Com: 8,148 du Homes accommodated on vacant land (under ECLA Homes accommodated on vacant land (under ECLA assumptions): assumptions): Vacant LDR land: 4,600 SF units 300 MF Vacant LDR land: 4,600 SF units 300 MF Vacant MDR land: 200 SF units 1,700 MF Vacant MDR land: 200 SF units 1,700 MF Vacant HDR land: 0 SF units 1,400 MF Vacant HDR land: 0 SF units 1,400 MF • Overall densities could be affected by strategies implementing • Overall densities could be affected by strategies implementing this mix. this mix. Remaining deficit to be accommodated (under ECLA Remaining deficit to be accommodated (under ECLA assumptions): assumptions): Re-development / Re-designation / Expansion: Re-development / Re-designation / Expansion: 4,300 SF units 2,400 MF 1,300 SF units 5,500 MF Context • Similar to historic mix and mix of all housing as of 2007 • Assumes a significant shift in housing trends and environmental • Assumes a continuation of previous housing trends and and economic factors towards more multi-family housing environmental and economic factors Strategies • Some land use efficiency strategies will be implemented • Some land use efficiency strategies will be implemented Needed regardless of the housing mix determination because of state law regardless of the housing mix determination because of state law and community visioning, but the aggressiveness/investment to and community visioning, but the aggressiveness/investment to which they are pursued could be less which they are pursued would be more such as: 5/18/11 pg. 2 Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF o Incentives and changes to key transit corridors and core commercial areas required to increase multi-family housing o Increased flexibility in Commercial zones to facilitate multi- family housing o Will need additional strategies that have yet to be determined Potential Larger Community Larger Community Implications • Fewer land use changes needed (code or plan designation) within • Land use changes needed to focus redevelopment along key the current UGB transit corridors and core commercial areas such as through code • Fewer changes to corridors needed amendments, area planning, etc. • Focuses denser housing along key transit corridors and core commercial areas, possibly relieving infill pressure in existing single-family areas Market Market • Provides more housing for market segment that desires • Provides more housing for market segment that desires quicker yards/space and single-family detached (as compared to multi- access to services (e.g. transit, retail, daily services) family housing) • Increases the variety of housing types in the housing stock • If single-family demand decreases, the entire single-family • Change may be too much for market to support resulting in expansion area may not be needed underdevelopment of multi-family lands • Single-family homes in an expansion area could be vulnerable to higher transportation costs Climate Change and Energy Uncertainty Climate Change and Energy Uncertainty • If single-family detached demand is not met in Eugene, it may be • Better prepares community for climate and energy changes and met in outlying communities, increasing the transportation cost reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation per burden and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for those households Senate Bill 1059 by increasing density near the core, including around transit and services (could lower VMT) • Likely to result in buildings with lower energy use, cost and greenhouse gas emissions per capita (multi-family dwellings are on average, significantly more energy efficient than single-family detached dwellings of the same square footage and occupancy) 5/18/11 pg. 3 Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF Public Infrastructure Public Infrastructure Potential • Current public investment levels will need to continue facilitating • More investment is needed by the city to remove barriers to Implications redevelopment (such as continued financial investment in denser housing and mixed use (see Strategies Needed above) downtown) within the current UGB • More infrastructure needed for transportation and utility • Less infrastructure needed for transportation and utility to serve extensions to serve housing in expansion areas housing in expansion areas • Compact development in the core and along transit corridors may increase ridership and make existing transit routes more financially feasible Affordability Affordability • Presumes that other factors and policies will address the widening • The TRG has not yet been able to establish findings regarding the housing affordability gap affect on housing affordability • The TRG has not yet been able to establish findings regarding the affect on housing affordability UGB UGB • Larger UGB expansion for housing, greater infrastructure need • Smaller UGB expansion for housing, greater infrastructure need and cost outside the current UGB and cost inside the core area • As an example, under the ECLA assumptions, an approximately • As an example, under the ECLA assumptions, an approximately 860 acre expansion would be needed for LDR housing 280 acre expansion would be needed for LDR housing Overall Density Overall Density • Less than 1% increase to overall average net density from the • Approximately 23% increase in overall average net density from current/ECLA assumption of 7.3 dwelling units per net acre to 7.4 the current/ECLA assumption of 7.3 dwelling units per net acre to dwelling units per net acre: 9.0 dwelling units per net acre (because there are more multi- family units which utilize less space): By Plan Designation: By building type: By Plan Designation: By building type: LDR 5.4 SFD 5.4 LDR 5.5 SFD 5.4 MDR 13.5 SFA 20.2 MDR 13.5 SFA 20.2 HDR 31.6 2-4 du 8.6 HDR 31.6 2-4 du 8.6 Com 20.8 5 or more 24.1 Com 20.8 5 or more 24.1 Total 7.4 Total 7.4 Total 9.0 Total 9.0 5/18/11 pg. 4 Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF • Multi-family housing densities might increase slightly (thus Potential increase overall average slightly) to accommodate all multi-family Implications inside the UGB Average dwelling units per year Average dwelling units per year Historically, from 2001-2008: Historically, from 2001-2008: SFD: 526 dwelling units built per year SFD: 526 dwelling units built per year MF: 218 dwelling units built per year MF: 218 dwelling units built per year Under this mix: Under this mix: SFD: 8,971 / 20 yrs = 448 SFD dwelling units built per year SFD: 5,980 / 20 yrs = 299 SFD dwelling units built per year MF: 5,980 / 20 yrs = 299 MF dwelling units built per year MF: 8,971 / 20 yrs = 448 MF dwelling units built per year Eugene/Lane Key demographic factors and possible affects on housing trends Key demographic factors and possible affects on housing trends County Eugene has a larger share of college aged people than Lane County Eugene has a larger share of college aged people than Lane County Relevant as a whole as a whole Data with o Provides more multi-family for college aged people of which the Potential Implications majority rent and are more likely to live in multi-family Eugene’s population is growing older Eugene’s population is growing older Eugene’s older households and housing choice: Eugene’s older households and housing choice: o Provides more single-family homes for older households (over age o Provides opportunities for more housing types responding to 45) that are typically homeowners older households decreasing from living in single-family detached Eugene’s younger households and housing choice: after ages 65- 70. o Provides more single-family residential for younger households Eugene’s younger households and housing choice: that want to live in single-family o Provides opportunities for alternative housing types to own for younger households (under age 25) that typically have lower incomes o Provides more multi-family housing for younger households the majority of which live in multi-family 5/18/11 pg. 5 Factors 60% SF / 40% MF 40% SF / 60% MF Eugene’s households are generally smaller (than historical Eugene Eugene’s households are generally smaller (than historical Eugene Eugene/Lane households and current Lane County and State household sizes) households and current Lane County and State household sizes) County and Eugene had more non-family households and fewer and Eugene had more non-family households and fewer Relevant households with children households with children Data with o Provides more opportunity for more, smaller single-family o Provides more opportunity for more, smaller household types Potential dwellings Implications Eugene is becoming more ethnically diverse Eugene is becoming more ethnically diverse o Provides more opportunity for larger households o Provides more opportunity for more affordable housing Key housing trends Key housing trends Since 2000, housing starts in the selected cities within Lane Since 2000, housing starts in the selected cities within Lane County have been dominated by single-family types County have been dominated by single-family types o Responds to continued demand for single-family detached o Responds to demand for multi-family which typically happens after an increase in single-family detached demand Eugene’s housing became less affordable for renting and owning Eugene’s housing became less affordable for renting and owning over the last decade over the last decade o Bringing new single-family dwellings onto the market may free up o Provides more opportunities to increase the variety of housing existing single-family dwellings that generally rent or sell for less types affordable to lower and middle income levels than similar newly constructed dwellings. o Bringing new multi-family dwellings onto the market may free up o Provides more single-family detached which allows those who can existing multi-family dwellings that generally rent or sell for less afford to move to new single-family to vacate existing single- than similar newly constructed dwellings. family detached for those with less income o Eugene has a low multi-family vacancy rate so new multi-family housing may increase multi-family options Key: MF: multi-family housing (including SFA, 2-4 du, 5 + du) SF: single-family detached housing SFD: single-family detached housing 5/18/11 pg. 6 SFA: single-family attached housing 2-4 du: 2-4 dwelling units 5 + du: 5 or more dwelling units Plan designation: Metro Plan diagram land use designation Re-designation: To change the land use designation of an area from what it is currently designated on the Metro Plan diagram 5/18/11 pg. 7