Item A: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment

Home Browse Search

ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 19 ? Potential range of assumption: Census data probably describes a reasonable range of vacancy rates: 3.5% to 6.5% vacancy. ECO has typically found vacancy rates of 2% to 9% in other cities, depending on the type of housing and local housing market conditions. ? CAC and TAC discussion: Several CAC members agreed the most reasonable vacancy rate assumption would be 5%. That is an average rate that ECO has used in other studies of this type. ? Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend assuming that an average of 5% of new dwellings will be vacant, based on historical vacancy data and suggestions from the CAC. ? Data source: The assumption about vacancy rate is based on a point in time estimate for 2007 from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey. Housing mix Housing mix is the mixture of housing (structure) types (e.g., single-family detached or apartments) within a city. State law requires a determination of the future housing mix in the community and allows that determination to be based on different periods: (1) the mix of housing built in the past five years or since the most recent periodic review, whichever time period is greater, (2) a shorter time period if the data will provide more accurate and reliable information, or (3) a longer time period if the data will provide more accurate and reliable information (ORS 197.296). This memorandum presents housing mix data for two periods (1) housing mix over the 2001 to 2008 period and (2) housing mix over the 1990 to 2007 period. Table 4 shows the housing mix for residential development over the 2001 to 2008 period. We selected this time period over the 1999 to 2008 period because it shows housing mix that occurred since the City’s revised zoning ordinance went into effect in 2001. About 64% of housing developed was single-family detached, 10% was single- family attached, 5% was manufactured, 3% was duplex, and the remaining 18% were structures with 3 or more units. The share of single-family housing varied from a high of 84% in 2001 to a low of 43% in 2007. A caveat about the information presented in Table 4: the data about residential development is both complex and somewhat scant. Each development may have idiosyncrasies, such factors that limit development density or footprint (such as a stream). Moreover, it is typical to see cycles in building: for example, a lot of single- family units get built so then a lot of multifamily follows. We think it is more appropriate to look at building trends broadly and on average over a several-year period (e.g., for the entire 2001 to 2008 period) than on a year-by-year basis.