Item A: Envision Eugene - Housing Mix and Industrial Lands

Home Browse Search

On one end of the scale, a plausible argument can be made based on historical data pertaining to housing mix, rates of development for green field and infill sites, and dwelling unit densities. By planning for the upper end of projected acreage needs, i.e., 60 percent single family/40 percent multi-family new housing ratio (which is slightly denser development than we have experienced in recent years), we would allow ourselves leeway to adjust to the vagaries of the housing market, stimulate competition among builders, and provide choices for home buyers and renters. As part of this approach, amending our development code to permit alley access lots and promote the construction of secondary dwelling units could further our goal of compact development and conceivably produce more affordable homes. Numerous other code as part of our land efficiency strategies to reduce the time and expenses associated with permitting requirements. Importantly, if demand for the types of single family homes does not continue as it has in the past, land designated for development would remain vacant and useable for agriculture, forestry or open space for some additional time beyond the planning period, serving essentially as an urban reserve. Conversely, by designating a lower amount of land for housing, we run the risk of constraining land supply, thereby potentially increasing land cost and adversely affecting affordability. This approach has the potential for driving development to outlying communities with the attendant consequence of increased commuting, vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gases emitted. On the other end of the range, in recognition of whatever challenges the future holds, and to guard against unbridled sprawl and the inefficient use of urbanizable land, it is incumbent upon us to proactively manage the development of land located both within the existing, and potentially an expanded, UGB. Our current annexation policy that limits can be annexed, is the first safeguard we already have in place for conserving both natural and financial resources. A more robust and transparent review process of our Capital Improvement Program on at least a biannual basis would ensure opportunity for public involvement and City Council control of the timing of the extension of key urban services into expansion areas, thereby phasing annexations and managing growth. Coupled with public/private partnership programs and incentives designed to facilitate development/redevelopment of infill sites and increase density along transit corridors and in core commercial areas, the City would be able to balance annexations with the rate of development of vacant and partially vacant land inside the existing UGB and to facilitate higher density development. In this regard, a 50 percent single family/50 percent multi-family new housing mix is perhaps a justifiable, although aggressive, ratio toward which to manage housing development. Monitoring programs outlined th in the 7 Pillar of Envision Eugene provide further assurance that adjustments could be made in a timely manner to policies regarding the housing mix and land designations as future circumstances deem appropriate. Because state mandate requires that we establish a specific percentage target housing mix, our bookends or parameters are insufficient. At our meeting on September 20, 2011, we took a poll among ourselves to determine the level of support for a particular housing mix for new housing development. After considerable discussion, the result was: four members favor a 60 percent single family / 40 percent multifamily mix, and three members favor a 55 percent single family / 45 percent multifamily mix. As the final decision makers on this point of housing mix, we applaud your perseverance in making this