HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 3-13-19 Work SessionMarch 13, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 13, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of March 13, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1. WORK SESSION: Renter Protections
2.WORK SESSION: Housing Tools and Strategies
March 13, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, 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 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Renter Protections Meeting Date: March 13, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Stephanie Jennings
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5529
ISSUE STATEMENT City Council requested a follow-up work session to further discuss the experiences of Eugene renters and better understand current rental housing issues including affordability, availability, access, quality and stability. As a part of this work session, council will receive an update on proposed state legislation related to renter protections.
BACKGROUND City Council previously discussed renter protections during a work session on February 21, 2017. The presentation provided an overview of Eugene’s rental housing market, conditions, and trends; an overview of existing programs, local policies and programs that affect renters. Next steps that emerged from this work session were for staff to work with the Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board to conduct outreach to renters to better understand rental housing affordability, availability, access, quality and stability. In 2018, the Housing Policy Board formed a task team to learn more about current market conditions affecting renters and to identify tools and strategies to protect renters and prevent displacement in areas with changing housing market conditions in Eugene. The task team created the Renters’ Experiences Survey and have held four listening sessions. The results of the survey and listening session are summarized below.
Renters’ Experience Survey – The task team developed and designed a survey with 17 questions. The survey was administered city-wide online during the month of January. Links to the survey were provided on the City’s website and notices of the survey were emailed to Eugene neighborhood leaders, Neighborhood Leadership Council, Human Rights Commission interested parties, and Housing Policy Board interested parties. Print copies of the survey were distributed by task team members in various ways, including local food pantries and during the renter listening sessions held November 2018 through February 2019. A total of 851 surveys were completed. Renters Listening Sessions – The task team facilitated listening sessions with four groups of renters, including a session with students at University of Oregon and meetings organized in
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
partnership with the Jefferson Westside, Whiteaker, and Bethel neighborhood associations. In all, approximately 112 community members participated in the listening sessions. While the meetings were targeted to renters, any interested person could participate.
Highlights from the Survey and Listening Sessions Of the 851 survey respondents, 98 percent reported living in Eugene zip codes. The other 2 percent included persons who identified as previously renting in Eugene, unhoused individuals and families who recently rented in Eugene, respondents who did not identify any zip code, and two zip codes near Eugene without further explanation. Overall, household types were made up of families with children (28 percent), families without children (28 percent), individuals living alone (25 percent), and non-family households (19 percent). In addition, 60 percent of respondents were employed full-time, 20 percent were employed part-time, and 18 percent reported that they were not currently employed. Full-time students made up 13 percent of respondents, while an additional 3 percent were part-time students.
Affordability – Over half (56 percent) of survey respondents reported that they are not satisfied with their current rental home. When presented with a list of reasons why renters are not satisfied, 68 percent indicated the rent is too high. In other questions on the survey, 51 percent of respondents indicated they had experienced a rent increase while 15 percent said that rent increases were so high they had to leave a previous rental. Respondents were offered the opportunity to provide additional comments about the current rental housing market in Eugene and over 53 percent commented about the high cost of rent or increasing rent. Some renters indicated they are unable to save for home ownership because of the high cost of rent. In addition, comments included that local wages are low and do not match current market-rate rents. Another issue of affordability included was the unexpected high cost of utilities. According to Strategic Economics’ January 2019 report, Eugene Housing Tools and Strategies
Evaluation, the median rent in multifamily rental buildings is $1058, which requires a minimum income of $42,300 to be considered affordable. The median renter household in Eugene has an income of $26,000. The majority of renter households in Eugene are rent-burdened, with 58 percent paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent, and—of the total—36 percent are considered severely rent-burdened and pay more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Availability – Renters were asked to describe their experiences in finding their current rental home, and 71 percent described it as competitive and stressful. While 15 percent described the process as quick and easy, some respondents noted they had been in their homes for years or found their home through family or friends. Renters commented on the difficulties of finding a rental that is affordable, habitable and in their desired location.
Access – About one-third of survey respondents indicated that they felt they had experienced discrimination while searching for housing or renting. Renters belonging to the following protected classes reported more discrimination: legal source of income, disability, familial status, age, and marital or domestic partner status.
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
In addition, renters reported barriers to accessing housing due to credit scores, income, and ability to pay deposits and application fees. Renters shared that saving the first month’s rent, the last month’s rent, the security deposit (sometimes set at three times the monthly rent), and multiple application fees were significant barriers for accessing housing. In addition, some renters described being “stuck” in substandard housing because they could not afford moving expenses along with the financial requirements to obtain new housing. In addition, numerous renters said that their property managers kept security deposits despite cleaning the unit and leaving it without damage. Other barriers to accessing housing that renters identified included having a criminal background or having pets. Many noted that monthly pet rent is excessive, reporting up to $50 additional per month. Quality – Of the 661 renters who indicated that they are not satisfied with current housing, nearly 38 percent of respondents indicated that the rental home’s condition/habitability/maintenance is substandard. Some renters reported making requests about maintenance, but that maintenance or repair work was not completed. Many renters indicated they were living in substandard housing by choice because it is what they could afford. Multiple renters on the survey and in the listening sessions stated they would not make maintenance requests for fear of receiving a no-cause lease termination (no-cause eviction), or fear of increased rent due to the maintenance performed. Stability – When asked if they had ever been asked or forced to leave a rental home in Eugene, 25 percent indicated they had. Specifically, 128 left due to significant rent increase, 100 people experienced no-cause lease termination (no-cause eviction), 33 reported their rental home was sold, 15 indicated their rental home was foreclosed upon. Others reported that property owners or their family members moved back in, or that they experienced displacement due to renovations being made on the rental home. Awareness and Use of Current Programs – The survey asked renters about their familiarity with current housing resources. Of the 486 renters who answered the question, the majority were familiar with the Eugene Rental Housing Code, nearly a third were familiar with Fair Housing Council of Oregon, and more than a quarter were familiar with the City’s Human Rights Office. Despite knowing about these resources, throughout the survey and listening sessions, renters expressed fear and concern with utilizing them. Renters explained that they were concerned that if they reported housing discrimination, complaints about a landlord, or substandard living environments, they would experience potential retaliation including no-cause lease terminations (no-cause evictions) or rent increases.
Potential Next Steps At this time, there are several significant legislative items under consideration at the state level that would impact the issues described above. Staff will review these legislative items as a part of the presentation.
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
During this work session, City Council may identify one or more areas where they would like staff to develop recommendations for potential actions. Staff would work with Housing Policy Board and other interested parties to develop these recommendations.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION February 21, 2017, Work Session and presentation Council received a presentation from staff about Renter Protections and requested market research and information on proposed state legislation related to housing.
COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Provide direction to City of Eugene staff to work with the Housing Policy Board to develop recommendations for consideration relating to expanding or adding new rental housing policies and programs aimed at increasing renter protections. 2. Take no further action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendation at this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION No motion applicable.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Stephanie Jennings Telephone: 541-682-5529 Staff E-Mail: sjennings@eugene-or.gov
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Housing Tools and Strategies Meeting Date: March 13, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Anne Fifield
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5659
ISSUE STATEMENT Housing affordability and availability is a long-standing and growing problem in Eugene. Council directed staff to implement a process to identify potential tools and strategies available to the City to address housing affordability, availability, and diversity for all income levels. The resulting Housing Tools and Strategies process used technical research and stakeholder input to identify a variety of actions the City could pursue to reduce costs and/or barriers to building more housing. Staff will present summary information on the potential actions that were identified, provide an update on the body of work currently underway and discuss where staff will focus the next phase of work.
BACKGROUND Eugene’s housing supply has not kept pace with demand. Between 2000 and 2016, the number housing units increased by 15 percent and the population grew by 17 percent. Using an average household size of 2.3 people, the data show that new demand for housing exceeded new supply by over 1,100 units. The community and council have clearly stated, in a variety of public engagement processes and policy documents, that an adequate supply of housing is a high-priority goal. One of the seven Envision Eugene Pillars is Provide housing affordable to all income levels. In 2018, council directed staff to implement a process that would tie together the many overlapping initiatives and proposals that address housing issues. Staff implemented the Housing Tools and Strategies (HTS) project to meet this council directive. The HTS project included stakeholder engagement and technical analysis. The engagement process focused on assembling a working group of 36 stakeholders representing diverse interests and perspectives. In all, the working group discussed and identified over 80 specific actions that the City might take to increase the availability, affordability, and diversity of housing in Eugene. In addition to the direct engagement with the working group, staff conducted research regarding best practices to address housing affordability. Staff looked both at best practices from other cities and collaborated with Better Housing Together, a community-led initiative with over 40 member-organizations working to address housing issues in Lane County.
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Staff presented a summary of the engagement process and a full list of the different actions at the December 10, 2018, Work Session. On December 12, council directed staff to move forward items that were identified as administrative in nature with the potential to reduce the cost of constructing housing in Eugene.
Work in Progress Staff have consolidated the actions identified with the HTS working group, Better Housing
Together, and other technical research into a single document, the Housing Tools and Strategies
Action Inventory (Attachment A). This document is the first step towards implementing “a housing action plan” identified through the HTS process. The HTS Action Inventory organizes the identified potential actions into three categories: 1. In-progress actions 2. Recommended actions 3. Not recommended actions For each action, the document provides a brief explanation and the level of support the action had from the HTS working group. If an action emerged from outside the HTS process, that is noted. The document also provides a brief description of the potential impact that each action would have on housing affordability, availability, and/or diversity. The document is intended to be used as an inventory of potential actions that can affect housing affordability, availability, and diversity of type. It is a large menu of actions that can be implemented over time, many of which require additional research to understand impacts, resources required, and how best to implement to be effective. It is a work in progress—it will be modified as new ideas emerge, as actions are implemented, and actions found to be ineffective are removed from the inventory. A substantial body of work identified in the HTS Action Inventory is “In-Progress” and involves multiple projects and initiatives with the potential to address housing affordability, availability, and diversity of type. The work is in various stages, from early evaluation and analysis to scheduled work sessions, public hearings, and council action. The projects and initiatives include both items that involve internal process and staff decisions as well as those that will require council action to implement. Work has been initiated on the following actions identified in the HTS Action Inventory, organized into four broad strategies.
Remove Land Use Code Barriers Complete land use code audit of regulatory and process barriers to housing production. Improve Clear and Objective standards
Reduce the Time and Cost Burden for Development of Housing Streamline/speed up the permitting process Clarify requirements for stormwater treatment and erosion-control standards Streamline trench inspection process Advocate to change liability requirements for condominium projects Review tree removal policy Automatically create an account for a project with EWEB when City permit is initiated
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Increase Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units Identify new revenue sources for affordable housing/Charge a CET Shift money from the General Fund to Affordable housing Reduce delays for environmental reviews of affordable housing projects Expand Eugene’s land banking program
Additional Options Use data to improve decisions and understand impacts Allow more types of temporary housing Create a housing action plan/implementation strategy Protect renters and availability of rental properties Please see Attachment A for brief explanations of the different in-progress actions. Staff will provide an overview of the in-progress items at the work session.
Next Steps In addition to the work currently in progress, staff have identified two key actions to prioritize next: 1. Complete and adopt the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Complete and adopt the Comprehensive Plan Map, with parcel-specific data.
These two items will ultimately lead to the alignment of the Zoning map with the Comprehensive Plan map, which will clarify citywide policies about housing and reduce uncertainty about allowed housing types throughout Eugene. Implementing these items lays a foundation that will make it simpler to implement many other actions identified in the HTS Action Inventory. Completing and adopting these policy documents will reduce the need for some administrative processes, which will reduce costs for building housing. For a description of the policy framework, please see
Attachment B.
Future work will include changes to the land use code. Staff intend to analyze and organize the remaining recommended actions in the inventory into logical packages to bring back to council for consideration once the land use code audit is completed by summer 2019. The remaining actions recommended to reduce builders’ cost and time burden will be focused on as staff work through the current list of in-progress items. Consideration will be given to unintended consequences of changes in fee structures and programs, while ensuring the City’s goals for health, safety, and service are not compromised. Staff are committed to systematically working through all the recommended actions listed in the inventory. Like the housing challenge before us, the work is complicated with no quick, easy solutions and requires multiple approaches to be effective. Given the number of moving parts and complexity of this work, communication is critical. Staff will provide quarterly updates to council and stakeholders on the progress addressing recommended actions in the inventory.
March 13, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION January 14, 2019, Work Session Move to direct the City Manager to prepare a draft ordinance for council consideration and schedule a Public Hearing to create a Construction Excise Tax to support an Affordable Housing Fund. (Motion passed) December 12, 2018, Work Session Move to direct the City Manager to address housing affordability, availability and diversity by implementing 12 administrative actions items. (Motion passed) December 10, 2018, Work Session No action. May 30, 2018, Work Session Move to direct the City Manager to identify tools and strategies that: reduce the cost to build diverse housing types at various levels of affordability; establish a local funding source for affordable housing; and support the Envision Eugene pillars in a process described in Attachment C and to bring back budget authorization for council consideration. (Motion passed)
COUNCIL OPTIONS No action required from council.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No action required from council.
SUGGESTED MOTION No action required from council.
ATTACHMENTS A. Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory B. Housing Tools and Strategies Framework for Policy Implementation
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Anne Fifield, Community Development Division Telephone: 541-682-5451 Staff E-Mail: afifield@eugene-or.gov
Attachment A
Housing Tools and Strategies
Action Inventory
February 2019
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Contents
1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2. In-Progress Actions ............................................................................................................................... 3
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code ............................................................................................. 3
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden .......................................................................................................... 4
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units ............................................................... 6
D. Additional Options ............................................................................................................................ 8
3. Recommended Actions ................................................................................................................... 10
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code ........................................................................................... 10
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden ........................................................................................................ 15
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units ............................................................. 19
D. Additional Options .......................................................................................................................... 22
4. Not Recommended Actions ................................................................................................................ 23
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code ........................................................................................... 23
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden ........................................................................................................ 24
C. Increase Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units .................................................................... 24
D. Additional Options .......................................................................................................................... 25
5. Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 26
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 1 Overview
1. Overview
Housing affordability and availability is a long-standing and growing problem in Eugene. The
community and City Council have clearly stated, in a variety of public engagement processes and
policy documents that an adequate supply of housing is a high-priority goal. One of the seven
Envision Eugene Pillars is:
Provide housing affordable to all income levels.
In 2018, Council directed staff to implement a process that would tie together the many
overlapping initiatives and proposals that address housing affordability, availability, and diversity
for all income levels. Staff implemented the Housing Tools and Strategies (HTS) project to meet this
Council directive. The HTS project is intended to tie together the various initiatives and address the
issues in a comprehensive way, that provides City Council and the community with an objective,
fact-based work product that is informed by stakeholder perspectives and guides future policy
decisions to achieve those outcomes.
The HTS project included stakeholder engagement and technical analysis. The engagement process
focused on assembling a working group of 36 stakeholders representing diverse interests and
perspectives in the fall of 2018. In all, the working group discussed and identified over 80 specific
actions that the City might take to increase the availability, affordability, and diversity of housing in
Eugene.
In addition to the direct engagement with the HTS working group, staff conducted research
regarding best practices to address housing affordability. Staff looked both at best practices from
other cities and collaborated with Better Housing Together, a community-led initiative with over 40
member-organizations working to increase the affordability, diversity, and supply of housing in
Lane County.
The stakeholder engagement and technical analysis was supported by analysis conducted by
Strategic Economics, an economics consulting firm, to assess market conditions and demographics
that affect housing issues.
This document is an inventory of the potential actions available to the City of Eugene that can be
used to address housing affordability, availability, and diversity. It is a working document that will
change over time. The actions listed in it emerged from the HTS working group, Better Housing
Together, which conducted interviews with builders in 2018 to identify specific time and cost
hurdles, and staff research. The tools and strategies are organized into three categories:
1. In-progress actions includes projects and initiatives currently underway that will address
housing affordability.
2. Recommended actions includes those that could be implemented in the future. Many of
these will be more effective if other preliminary steps are completed first.
3. Not recommended actions includes actions that emerged from the HTS working group
and had very little support or are technically infeasible. They are included in this document,
to show that they were discussed by the group but not supported.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 2 Overview
Each section is organized into four different strategic categories:
Remove barriers in the land use code. This strategy includes actions that require some
change to the City’s land use code (Chapter 9 of the City Code). The economic analysis found
that Eugene’s land use code is inflexible and that although the City of Eugene prioritizes
“missing-middle housing” types in Envision Eugene and other long-range planning
documents, in practice the City’s planning priorities don’t translate into enabling missing-
middle units.
Changes to the land use code to accommodate the actions in this document range from an
administrative order, to a Type IV land use code change, to a redesignation and rezoning to
align with the Metro Plan, to a state legislative decision. Almost all these solutions come
with a process that requires City Council decision and direction and public input. While
these solutions can provide a big ‘bang for the buck’ they do not come without a heavy
administrative lift from the Planning and Development Division.
Reduce cost and time burden for development of housing units. This strategy includes
actions that reduce or remove financial and regulatory barriers. The economic analysis
found that barriers to housing production include City-imposed fees, project delays and
uncertainty in the City process, including those caused by appeals, and high costs for
building material, labor, and land. The City can play a role in reducing or removing financial
and regulatory barriers to housing, but tradeoffs include City revenues and constraints on
financial resources.
Increase inventory of and access to Affordable units. This strategy includes actions that
can lead to a larger supply of explicitly subsidized, income-qualified, Affordable housing
units. Ensuring that people are safely housed creates a multitude of public benefits
including increased public safety, increased wellbeing for children and families, and
decreased carbon emissions from out-of-town commuters.
Additional options. Some ideas didn’t fit into the three main strategies listed above, but
they may be impactful. This category is a catch-all for these ideas.
This document should be considered a work in progress. It can be used as a repository of ideas that
may help address housing issues in Eugene. The list of actions will change over time, as some of the
actions are implemented and some actions are dropped from the list as we learn more about each
action’s potential impacts and consequences. New actions can be added to the inventory as new
ideas come forward, as laws change, and as new problems arise.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 3 In-progress Actions
2. In-Progress Actions
The City of Eugene is actively engaged in multiple projects and initiatives, that impact housing affordability, availability, and diversity.
This section of the Action Inventory identifies and describes those projects and initiatives.
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action Explanation Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
LU-1 Complete land use code
audit of regulatorry
barriers to housing.
An audit will identify barriers in Chapter 9 of
Eugene’s code that limit the use of a lot or
development site. The City received a state grant
to audit the land use code and work is expected to
be completed by July 2019.
HTS working
group supported
this option (89%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
No - An audit can identify where in the land use
regulations we can allow flexibility to achieve
housing diversity. The audit will lead to
recommended changes to the land use code, but the
changes will need to be implemented for the audit to
increase housing affordability, availability, and
diversity.
LU-2 Complete land use code
audit of process barriers
to housing production.
An audit will identify barriers that stem from
processes, such as allowed appeals. The City
received a state grant to audit the land use code
and work is expected to be completed by July
2019.
HTS working
group supported
this option (89%)
with 11%
opposing.
No – An audit can identify processes that add time
and create uncertainties in the land use approval
process. The audit will lead to recommended changes
to the land use code, but the changes will need to be
implemented for the audit to increase housing
affordability, availability, and diversity.
LU-3 Improve the Clear and
Objective standards.
Eugene’s land use code includes a “Clear and
Objective” path to approval for land use
applications for housing. This is a set of approval
criteria that are intended to be objective and
measurable, which is useful for straightforward
developments that don’t require flexibility.
The City is working in 2019 to revise the Clear
and Objective housing approval criteria to ensure
they are working effectively and efficiently.
HTS working
group supported
this option (89%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes - By improving the Clear and Objective standards
the process for approvals of needed housing projects
will be faster and thus lower cost.
Since Clear and Objective standards apply to needed
housing, and all housing types are identified as
needed (including single family) this could result in
an increase in housing diversity. Most likely, single
family homes will result from this action.
LU-4 Allow for concurrent
subdivision and PUD
applications.
Currently subdivisions and PUDs are completed
through two independent, non-concurrent
processes. These processes individually can
result in timely review periods, extending the
length of time prior to beginning a development
project.
From BHT Yes - By improving the Clear and Objective standards
the process for approvals of needed housing projects
will be faster and thus lower cost.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 4 In-progress Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action Explanation Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
This action is related to the improvements to the
Clear and Objective standards currently
underway at the City. City Council approved of
the concept to allow these planning processes to
run concurrently. Concept approval is step one. In
May 2019, City Council will be able to initiate the
changes.
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Cost-
1
Streamline/speed up the
permitting process.
The City issues land use and building permits in
the order the applications come in. The time
required to review and approve a permit depends
on the volume of applications, staff capacity, and
the completeness of the permit application.
Previously, the City utilized internal processes to
prioritize and expedite green buildings. This
means that green building applications got
bumped to the front of the line when submitted
for permits.
HTS working
group strongly
supported this
option (93%). No
one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes – The length of time a permit is processed by City
staff affects a builder’s costs. Reducing the time can
reduce costs. The City’s permitting staff have made
strides to improve the permitting process, notably
with the recently implemented eBuild program.
Prioritizing staff dedicated to the building and land
use permitting processes for certain housing types
could expedite review times. To reduce the approval
time for missing-middle types, the City could
explicitly move those applications to the ‘front of the
line.’ This would move other non-prioritized projects
further back in the line. BPS and Public Works are
reviewing the practicality and equity of
implementing such a program.
Cost-
2
Clarify requirements for
stormwater treatment for
rehabilitation and infill
developments
Stormwater treatment requirements are largely
based on federal and state regulations.
From BHT. Unknown - Builders perceive that the City interprets
those regulations in a way that makes it
unnecessarily costly to construct housing on infill
sites. City staff are working to clarify if there is an
opportunity to meet regulations in less costly ways.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 5 In-progress Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Cost-
3
Clarify requirements for
erosion-control
standards.
Builders perceive that the City interprets erosion-
control standards inconsistently.
The City’s erosion program is outcome based.
Erosion control standards are interpreted by
inspectors to achieve identified outcomes on the
site versus a universal solution. This means that
there are many options presented to the builder
to meet the same outcome. The builder can
choose the best option for their site.
The options can be complex for smaller builders
to understand. Even for big builders the options
can be challenging to understand because the
topography of Eugene varies widely. The solution
implemented at one site will likely be different at
another site.
From BHT. Unknown - The existing program allows flexibility,
which requires more decisions to be made by
builders. City staff are working to improve
communications with builders.
Cost-
4
Streamline trench-
inspection process
Builders perceive that the City inconsistently
implements the process to inspect trenches
during the construction process.
From BHT. Unknown - City staff are working to identify
inconsistencies and develop a process that has clarity
and is predictable.
Cost-
5
Advocate to change
Oregon law to reduce
liability requirements for
condominium projects.
Current liability laws for faulty construction for
condominiums (that is, owner-occupied multi-
family) are viewed by builders as onerous. They
have increased the cost of insurance and builder
risk for ownership multi-family projects, which
results in less development.
HTS working
group somewhat
supported this
option (54%) in
the preliminary
vote.
Yes - Development of condominiums (owner-
occupied apartments) has been limited in Oregon due
to the high risk of lawsuits for construction defects.
The City is supporting legislation at the state level in
the 2019 legislative session that would create more
reasonable limits on builder liability
Cost-
6
Develop City processes
and culture that guide
housing projects to
successful outcomes, not
only regulate
Local builders perceive that some parts of the
City could work with builders to proactively solve
problems, and not focus only on identifying
problems.
From BHT. Yes - Negative perceptions about the City’s process
discourage builders from choosing to build housing
projects in Eugene. Some will choose to invest in
other communities.
Cost-
7
Review tree removal
policy.
To develop a parcel larger than 20,000 SF,
builders must pay a permit fee to remove more
than five undesired existing trees of any species.
Additionally, a permit fee is required to remove
From BHT. Unknown - The tree removal policy adds cost to
housing construction. However, the fee for tree
removal permits goes towards the process of
assessing the permit. The cost recovery of this permit
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 6 In-progress Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
any species of street tree, even trees not on the
approved tree list.
fee does not cover the quantity of time needed to
assess most applications.
Cost-
8
Automatically ‘create an
account’ for a project
with EWEB when a
permit is initiated in the
City’s e-build system.
Builders must file permits and pay fees at both
the City’s permitting counter and EWEB’s
permitting counter. If the City and EWEB
coordinated fee collection, permitting, and
inspections, the 2 agencies could create a ‘one-
stop shop’ for all construction-based permits and
fees.
A substantial effort would be required to create
custom computer systems for the automation of
City and EWEB permitting processes.
From BHT. Yes – Builders must currently manage permit and fee
processes at 2 agencies, adding administrative cost.
Coordination between the City and Eugene could
slightly reduce costs.
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Aff-1 Identify new Revenue
sources for Affordable
housing units.
Existing federal resources have diminished have
many administrative requirements. This action
emerged from the HTS working group, and it has
multiple sub-options.
HTS working
group strongly
supported this
action (93%) with
no one opposing.
Yes – Additional resources could enable the
community to provide more units for very low
income households.
Aff-2 Charge a construction
excise tax (CET) to raise
resources for Affordable
housing developments.
A CET is a tax on new development. Oregon law
allows local governments to impose a CET on new
development projects to generate funding to
support Affordable housing projects. The CET can
be up to 1% of the construction value for
residential projects and there is no limit for
commercial and industrial projects. Funds can be
used to pay for incentives for builders to create
and preserve Affordable housing, rental
HTS working
group supported
this action (68%)
with 14%
opposing it. A
sliding scale had a
higher level of
support, at 75%.
Yes - A CET would generate revenue that could be
used to increase the supply of Affordable housing
units. However, the economic analysis conducted by
Strategic Economics to support the HTS process
found that a 1% CET will negatively impact the
financial feasibility of multi-family apartment and
cottage clusters.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 7 In-progress Actions
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
assistance, and home-ownership assistance
programs.
The HTS working group also suggested a CET
have a sliding scale, with more costly residential
developments having a higher rate than lower
cost developments. In January 2019, City Council
initiated the process to create a CET.
Aff-3 Shift money from the
City’s General Fund,
which would shift
funding from other City
services, to support
Affordable Housing.
No local funds directly support the development
of Affordable housing. The City offers exemptions
to Affordable housing developments, for SDCs
and a 20-year property tax exemption. Money
could be shifted from other parts of the City
budget and applied directly for the development
of Affordable housing efforts.
In the January 2019 draft ordinance to create a
CET, the draft ordinance directs the City’s General
Fund to contribute $500,000 annual to an
Affordable Housing Fund.
HTS working
group somewhat
supported this
action (54%) with
25% opposing it.
Yes – The funds could be used to increase the supply
of Affordable housing units.
Aff-4 Help low and moderate-
income households keep
their homes safe or stay
in their home, such as
emergency home repair
and foreclosure
assistance (homeowner
assistance).
The City currently has a program for emergency
home repairs. Demand for the program is much
greater than federal funds can support. NEDCO
offers limited foreclosure assistance, funded by
the state.
HTS working
group supported
this action (81%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes – These programs are able to help small numbers
of households stay in their homes.
Aff-5 Create process for timely
completion of
Environmental Review
for Affordable housing
projects to reduce delays.
Federally funded Affordable housing
developments require an Environmental Review
be conducted to ensure the proposed
development will not have any unexpected
environmental hazards for its future residents.
From BHT. Yes – Reducing the time to complete Environmental
Reviews contributes to the development of new
Affordable housing units.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 8 In-progress Actions
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
The City is responsible for completing these
reviews. In partnership with local Affordable
housing providers, the City recently created a
new staff position devoted to Environmental
Reviews.
Aff-6 Expand Eugene’s land
banking program for
Affordable housing.
In a land bank, a City buys land and then offers
the land to Affordable housing builders at a
greatly reduced cost. By providing the land, the
City lowers the overall cost of development of
Affordable housing on the site. The City is
actively seeking to acquire more sites.
HTS working
group strongly
supported this
option (93%) in
the preliminary
vote.
Yes - Eugene has had a land bank program since the
1970s and the program has resulted in the
development of 895 Affordable rental units and 25
Affordable homeownership units. Existing funding
sources limit the City’s ability to purchase sites.
D. Additional Options
Action Explanation Level of Support Impact
Does this action increase housing
affordability, availability, and/or diversity
Other-
1
Use data to improve
decisions and
understand impacts.
Staff in Planning, BPS, and ISD are currently
working to build a growth monitoring database
so the staff and community can better
understand trends in housing development and
demographics.
HTS working group
supported this option
(96%). No one in the
WG opposed it.
No – The action will not directly affect the supply
of housing, but it will allow the City and builders
to make better-informed decisions.
Other-
2
Encourage participation
in Neighborhood
Associations so they are
more representative of
the people living in the
neighborhood.
Eugene’s City-recognized Neighborhood
Associations have many functions. Part of their
mission is to establish two-way communication
between neighborhoods and the City, and
between neighborhoods and other external
agencies. It also includes advocating the
association’s position on issues such as land use.
HTS working group
supported this option
(89%) and 4% opposed
it.
No- Currently, Human Rights and Neighborhood
Involvement (HRNI) funds and supports
neighborhood associations (NAs) to do outreach
for meetings such as email listservs, meeting
notice mailings, newsletters, and meeting space
rentals. HRNI also holds two neighborhood
leaders trainings every year to educate and
inform the leaders on process, tools, resources,
and different ways to make the group a success.
HRNI commits funds and support to NAs to
provide an avenue for representation, and it is up
to members of the neighborhood to participate. It
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 9 In-progress Actions
D. Additional Options
is up to the NAs and neighbors to determine how
representative the group is. HRNI facilitates in
raising the bar in this effort.
Other-
3
Allow for more types of
temporary housing. The City, County and other community partners
continue to provide and potentially increase the
amount of temporary housing in Eugene for
those experiencing homelessness.
HTS working group
supported this option
(89%). No one in the
WG opposed it.
No - Any temporary housing that exists or is
developed would not be considered “housing” by
HUD and would not help to meet housing unit
needs outlined in Envision Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary analysis.
Other-
4
Create a housing action
plan, also known as a
housing implementation
strategy.
A housing implementation strategy could
incorporate many of these actions along with
additional tools and strategies. It can be a
comprehensive approach to address housing
affordability, availability, and diversity.
HTS working group
supported this option
(86%). No one in the
WG opposed it.
No - The document provides an administrative
tool to track action that do increase housing
affordability, availability, and diversity. This
Action Inventory is the first version.
Other-
5
Build capacity within
building industry to
encourage missing
middle housing.
Most residential builders in the region are
familiar with single-family detached housing
and only a portion build smaller housing types.
Smaller housing types require a different
approach to design, infrastructure, financing,
and the market. The City could sponsor
workshops to increase the local expertise on
issues specific to smaller housing types.
From BHT. Unknown.
Other-
6
Mobile home conversion
controls.
Mobile homes are less expensive housing
options. By preserving these, the City can keep
these types of affordable units available. The
City has such an ordinance in place, but it does
not address rising rents for the spaces nor
physical condition of the units.
Preliminary voting
showed 38% support.
No – Preservation of mobile homes keeps existing
low-cost housing available but does not expand
the supply.
Other-
7
Protect renters and
availability of rental
properties-Advocate to
State for stronger tenant
protections (rent
stability, eviction
protections).
Renter protections been shown to reduce the
development of new housing supply in the long
term. In early 2019, the Housing Policy Board
completed a survey of renters and held focus
groups to understand issues facing renters.
A Council Work Session on Renter Protections is
scheduled for March 13, 2019.
HTS working group
weakly supported this
option (52%) in the
preliminary voting.
No – This action protects renters, but does not
increase the supply of housing.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 10 Recommended Actions
3. Recommended Actions
This section lists actions that emerged from the HTS process and other outreach and research conducted by City staff. These actions are
not being pursued at this time, but could be in the future. Many of the ideas are preliminary in nature, and the implications of
implementing them have not been fully researched.
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
LU-5 Enable more multi-family
development along key
corridors.
Key corridors in Eugene are generally Major
Arterial roads that provide the backbone of
connectivity. They have public transit stops and
bring cars and buses from neighborhoods into
and out of central areas. They typically include a
mix of residential and commercial uses, including
retail that serves the surrounding neighborhoods.
The Metro Plan Diagram shows high-density
residential along portions of the key corridors,
and current zoning allows for denser residential
development on some, but not all, of Eugene’s key
corridors. In some places the two maps conflict.
The HTS WG
identified 3
different options
to allow for
additional
housing units on
major streets. All
3 had strong
support from the
WG, ranging from
93% to 100%
support and no
one opposing the
options.
Yes - The City could create a ‘key corridor overlay’
(with design standards), which allows multi-family
development on all key corridors. This would require
Metro Plan redesignations and rezoning. This action
would enable multi-family development, by right, in
areas currently zoned for single-family use along
portions of Coburg and River Road. Allowing these
types of developments outright eliminates the need
for builders to go through a lengthy land use process
to use the land in a previously-approved way,
reducing time and administrative costs.
LU-6 Allow for additional
housing units on minor
arterials.
This is similar to Action LU-5 above but would
expand housing options on major streets that are
not key corridors, for example Hilyard, 24th,
Irvington, or Harlow.
HTS working
group supported
this option (89%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes - By allowing additional housing types such as
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, cottage
clusters, small apartments, or any subset of these
actions. This action would require Metro Plan
redesignations and rezoning. This action could
increase the quantity of housing options along minor
arterials, allowing residences to be close to amenities
and transit in an appropriate scale to the rest of the
neighborhood. Allowing these types of developments
outright eliminates the need for builders to go
through a lengthy land-use process to utilize the land
in this way, reducing time and administrative costs.
LU-7 Allow for more tiny
homes (typically less
The land use code restricts where collections of
tiny homes, such as Emerald Village, are allowed.
HTS working
group supported
Yes - By allowing more locations for tiny homes the
diversity of housing could be increased. A tiny home
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 11 Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
than 400 SF) and tiny-
home communities.
Such developments must go through an
appealable land use process such as a Planned
Unit Development (PUD), adding time,
uncertainty, and cost.
This action would require a land use code change
and a determination of what zoning would be
most appropriate for this type of small
multifamily development.
this option (93%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
ordinance could be created that allows tiny homes or
tiny-home communities in more places and with less
process. By establishing an ordinance to dictate a
process for tiny home implementation, the length of
time and cost of the project is diminished.
However, tiny homes are single-family detached
units, so they consume more land per unit than multi-
story dwelling units and require individual water and
sewer connections, which can be costly.
LU-8 Revise land use code to
ease development
standards for adaptive
re-use (i.e., converting an
existing non-residential
building into residential)
and improve the
adjustment review
process.
Current code limits how much one can change the
use of existing buildings. By changing these rules,
builders would have more flexibility in design
and construction.
The HTS WG had
2 options
pertaining to
adaptive re-use:
revise the code
and improve the
review process,
with 82% to 89%
supporting the
ideas.
Yes - This would allow existing non-residential
buildings, such as churches, in residential areas to be
remodeled into housing units more easily. Because
these structures are preexisting, this would require
changing the land use code to acknowledge the
existing setbacks and parking requirements so that
property owners wouldn’t need to go through a
costly process to adjust standards or additional
permit requirements to approve existing conditions.
LU-
9A
Align Zoning map with
Comprehensive Plan
map—Adopt Housing
Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan map documents
Eugene’s long-term plan for using land within the
UGB. Eugene’s current Comprehensive Plan map
is the Metro Plan Diagram which is not drawn at
the parcel level.
The Zoning map is a parcel-specific map that
shows current zoning across Eugene. The Zoning
map does not completely align with the
Comprehensive Plan map—typically the
Comprehensive Plan map allows higher densities
than the Zoning map.
HTS working
group supported
this option (89%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes - This action is the most impactful of a range of
actions that would implement the Envision Eugene
community vision more incrementally (e.g., Actions
LU-5, LU-6). Aligning the two maps would impact
land all over the city, not just on corridors.
Some cities, including Bend, have aligned their Plan
map and their Zoning map, effectively handling zone
changes for property owners to remove time and cost
barriers to development envisioned by the city.
To get to this step, the City must first complete the
draft policies for housing in Envision Eugene. These
LU-
9B
Align Zoning map with
Comprehensive Plan
map—Adopt Parcel-
specific Diagram.
LU-
9C
Align Zoning map with
Comprehensive Plan
map—Adopt
Comprehensive Plan
designation updates.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 12 Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
LU-
9D
Align Zoning map with
Comprehensive Plan
map—Amend
Comprehensive Plan
designations and/or the
Zoning Map to resolve
conflicts between the
two.
Property owners can apply to have the zone
changed to match the Comprehensive Plan map,
but it is a lengthy land use process that adds cost,
time, and uncertainty, on a case-by-case basis.
policies will be adopted and provide direction on
how to change the map.
To completely align the Zoning Map with the
Comprehensive Plan, multiple steps must be taken. It
would require extensive staff time and would be a
time-consuming process. But in the long term, the
alignment will reduce administrative work for
builders and City staff and will provide clarity about
the allowed locations for various housing types and
densities for the whole community.
LU-
9E
Align Zoning map with
Comprehensive Plan
map—Create path to
automatically rezone land
inside the UGB upon
annexation.
LU-
10
Allow for development of
more diverse “missing
middle” housing types.
The current land use code limits construction in
many residential areas to single-family homes. If
someone wants to build something different, they
must go through a lengthy and complex land-use
application process.
The audit of the Eugene’s land use code (Action
LU-1) will identify barriers to these housing
types in the Eugene code.
In the 2019 legislative session, the Oregon
Legislature is considering HB 2001, which
requires cities with population greater than
10,000 to allow missing-middle housing on lands
zoned for single-family dwellings within the UGB.
The HTS WG had
3 options
pertaining to
enabling ‘missing
middle’ housing.
Final vote tallies
ranged from
82%to 86%, with
11% to 18%
opposing the
options.
Yes - If diverse housing types are allowed by-right,
meaning they are explicitly allowed to be built, more
duplexes, triplexes, cottage clusters, and smaller
homes could be built in single-family zones,
increasing the diversity of housing.
By allowing these types outright the barrier to
development is lower and there is no opportunity for
the permit to be appealed, reducing time and
administrative costs for the builder.
Another action to encourage different building types,
would be to reduce regulatory barriers such as
minimum lot sizes and setback requirements, and
simplify requirements for proposals under a certain
number of units.
LU-
11
Encourage Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in
all single-family zones.
An ADU is a secondary dwelling unit on a single-
family residential lot. Sometimes called ‘granny
flats’ or ‘mother-in-law units’, they include small
free-standing units, converted garages, and
HTS working
group supported
this option (82%)
Yes - The City could encourage more ADU
development specifically by removing or altering
current regulations that require owner-occupancy of
either the primary or accessory unit, an off-street
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 13 Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
separate space within the primary unit’s
structure.
A 2017 state law requires all cities in Oregon to
allow ADUs in all single-family zones.
with 7% opposing
the option.
parking space for the ADU unit, minimum lot sizes for
a lot to be eligible for an ADU, and other regulations
that make it difficult to convert existing structures
into an ADU.
Removing or editing these regulations will increase
the number of parcels that allow an ADU. Strategic
Economics analysis for the HTS process stated that if
owners of 5% of potential ADU lots were to build one,
the number of units added would be 2,150, which is
equivalent to about 1/3 of all dwelling units
permitted in Eugene from 2008 through 2017.
LU-
12
Reduce parking
requirements for certain
multi-family housing
types along key corridors.
Multi-family parking requirements include a
parking ratio of one space per dwelling unit
unless in the South University or West University
neighborhoods. Developments are granted a 50%
reduction by way of adjustment review for
demonstration of alternative modes to the site in
a parking-traffic study.
Accommodating parking can be an expensive and
resource-intensive requirement. Builders are
required to balance number of units with how
many parking spaces can be accommodated.
Surface parking increases stormwater
requirements; structured parking dramatically
increases construction costs.
HTS working
group supported
this option (70%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes - Lowering the required number of spaces
reduces development costs (as the development can
construct fewer parking spaces). That land can be
utilized for additional units, stormwater treatment,
or green space.
Lowering the required number of parking spaces
could encourage the development of more multi-
family housing by eliminating the adjustment review
process for parking, which adds time and
administrative costs.
However, a lower parking ratio can cause the number
of cars parked on nearby streets to increase. A recent
housing development on River Road received a 0.5
parking ratio and it has caused issues with overflow
in the surrounding neighborhoods.
LU-
13
Revise the land use
appeal process to include
shared costs for recovery
of legal fees by the
prevailing party.
Eugene’s land use code allows any party to appeal
a land use decision. If a housing project requires a
land use application, there is an opportunity to
appeal that decision. The appeal process adds
time, legal fees, and uncertainty for the builder.
HTS working
group supported
this option (56%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes – There is evidence that appeals which lack legal
merit have stopped housing developments, as they
have created delays and added legal costs.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 14 Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
The City’s local laws allow for reduced appeal
fees from the appealing party if it is a City-
recognized Neighborhood Association but only
for decisions made at the local level (at the
Hearings Official and Planning Commissions
levels). The appealing party covers their own
legal fees. The builder must cover legal fees,
without any cost reduction, to defend the appeal.
There are no negative financial consequences for
the appealing party if the appeal has no legal
merit.
The cost and process of land use appeals varies
depending on the type of land use application and
the appealing party.
The appeal process is based on state law. It is not
clear at this time if the appeal process could be
altered to reduce uncertainty to new housing
developments.
LU-
14
Allow Single-Room
Occupancy (SROs) by-
right in all residential
zones.
SRO’s are defined as a building with individual
bedrooms that share bath and kitchen facilities.
SRO’s are currently only allowed outright in R-3,
R-4, C-2 and C-3 zones and a conditional use
permit or an approved PUD is required in R-2 and
Commercial (for assisted living and day care use).
This action requires a land use code change.
Less than half of
the HTS working
group supported
this option (44%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes - SROs are affordable options for individuals with
very low incomes. Eugene has seen very limited
demand for this housing type in the past and what
has been built is primarily group homes for elderly
individuals or for homeless veterans.
Due to the limited demand for this type of
development, the required administration for the
land use code changes would likely not result in a
large housing impact.
LU-
15
Allow construction
permits for as many
homes as legal lots
concurrent with open
planning action.
With the current processes this is possible but
not encouraged. If building permits are submitted
prior to subdivision tentative application, the
building permits can be ready when the
subdivision is approved. While this option may
save the project time, it also comes with a lot of
risk for the builder.
From BHT Unknown – Builders have reported that concurrent
permits could reduce time and administrative costs.
But the existing process is designed to eliminate the
need for any back-tracking, if changes are required to
the land use permit.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 15 Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action
Impact
Explanation
Level of
Support
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
If changes are necessary for approval of the
subdivision application, the building permits no
longer have the accurate site information and will
need to be edited to reflect the approved
subdivision plan, meaning that the time the
builder saved by early permit submission
resulted in needing to resubmit for permits.
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Cost-
9
Allow pre-approved
building plans for ADUs
ADUs can be built in a variety of styles and shapes
to fit different lots in Eugene. Hiring a design
and/or engineering professional can be an
expensive and daunting process for a
homeowner. ADUs are complex enough that the
average homeowner would have trouble
designing to meet building, plumbing, structural,
mechanical, and electrical code without the
assistance of a professional.
HTS working
group strongly
supported this
option (93%). No
one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes - A set of building plans for different styles could
be developed and pre-approved by the City, reducing
time and complexity of the building code and permit
process. A set of building plans can also save
individual property owners expensive design and
engineering costs.
This action would likely have a small impact on the
overall housing need but would be a likely benefit to
some individuals who want to build an ADU. It would
be more impactful if ADUs were allowed in all single-
family zones.
Cost-
10
Delay the collection of
SDCs until a property is
ready to receive its
certificate of occupancy.
SDCs are currently collected at the time of
building permit issuance (EC 7.720 (1)) and
account for roughly 2/3 of the payment required
at this time.
The City prefers to collect SDCs at the same time
all permit fees are collected. If collection is
delayed to the time of construction completion,
and the builder or homeowner is unable to pay
HTS working
group supported
this option (82%)
with 4% opposing
the option.
No - This action will not reduce the quantity of
money collected for a project. However, it will spread
it out, requiring a smaller amount of costs early in a
development project. For smaller builders this can
make a difference in if and when they build again.
The City offers an SDC financing plan, outlined in EC
7.190 and 7.725, with interest levels based on Prime
Rate and a very small monthly administrative cost
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 16 Recommended Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
the charge, the City would be asking for a fee in
order to allow occupancy.
($1.75). Builders rarely use the City’s financing plan,
as it can add complexity to other loans taken out to
finance construction.
Cost-
11
Provide funding
assistance to connect
infrastructure to
residential land identified
in Eugene’s Buildable
Lands Inventory.
Eugene’s Buildable Land Inventory was an
analysis of land identified as ‘developable’ in
Eugene. Some of these parcels are not served by
urban infrastructure (such as roads, water, and
sewer). Builders have reported that the cost of
extending infrastructure to these sites is so costly
that it makes it not financially feasible to
construct housing.
Publicly constructed infrastructure to serve
undeveloped land is traditionally funded by a
combination of SDCs and assessments on the land
owners. The City used to extend services to land
before development was proposed using SDCs
and assessments. A policy change was made to
stop installing new infrastructure and focus on
maintaining existing infrastructure.
To install these utilities now, builders must go
through the PEPI process and pay for the
installation to serve sites. Major planned
infrastructure built by developers would qualify
for SDC credits.
HTS working
group supported
this option (70%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes – The cost of constructing of new infrastructure
adds cost to development and can make increase the
cost so that it makes it financially infeasible to
develop housing in areas that need that
infrastructure.
Public funds would need to be used to provide
additional financial assistance and incentive.
Cost-
12
Reduce SDCs for multi-
family developments in
the downtown and along
key corridors.
The City recently updated the Transportation
SDC, and the new fee structure offers the
following cumulative incentives for new
developments: a 30% reduction within the
downtown plan boundary, a 15% reduction along
Envision Eugene key corridors, and a 5-10%
reduction along the frequent transit network.
HTS working
group supported
this option (68%).
No one in the WG
opposed it.
Yes - SDCs account for a large portion of City-
imposed financial costs. By reducing the SDCs for
large developments, builders will see a reduction in
overall project cost.
A reduction in SDCs developers can make multifamily
more feasible financially. It could also serve to
incentivize building multifamily developments along
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 17 Recommended Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
A reduction in SDCs charged of any new
development will negatively impact the City’s
ability to generate adequate revenue in SDC
Funds.
key corridors versus single family developments
elsewhere.
Cost-
13
Adjust SDCs to reduce
development costs for
market-rate housing that
are smaller and lower
cost and have a lower
impact on the City’s
infrastructure needs.
SDCs are calculated based on methodology set by
the City (EC 7.700), and the methodology varies
for each SDC type. For housing, a small house (i.e.,
an ADU or cottage cluster) pays the same SDC as a
larger single-family detached house. For the
smaller units, the SDCs make up a higher portion
of total construction costs and limit the ability of
builders to construct low-cost housing that is
financially feasible.
Most of these SDC fees have a direct nexus to the
size of the structure being built. A smaller
structure will utilize less dependency on
stormwater, wastewater, and water services.
A reduction in SDCs charged of any new
development will negatively impact the City’s
ability to generate adequate revenue in SDC
Funds.
The HTS WG
identified 4
different options
to reduce SDCs for
smaller housing
types. Of the 2
that had a final
vote, support
ranged from 61%
to 64%. No one
opposed 1 of
those options and
7% opposed the
other.
Yes - Because smaller houses have a lower impact on
city infrastructure, lowering the SDCs required for
smaller housing types would lower the cost for a
builder and increase the likelihood that more of these
types of smaller homes would be built.
The City recently updated the Transportation SDC,
and the new fee structure offers a 100% reduction in
transportation fees for secondary dwelling units,
with an annual cap on the total allowed citywide.
Cost-
14
Extend the MUPTE
boundary to include key
corridors.
The MUPTE program exempts new multi-family
housing developments from property taxes of the
construction value for up to 10 years (taxes are
still due on the land). The exemption lowers the
operating costs for new developments in the
early years of operation and can help shift a new
development from not financially feasible to
feasible.
The program is currently available in the
downtown, but its boundary has shifted over the
HTS working
group supported
this option (65%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes -The MUPTE lowers the new development’s
operating costs, which could impact the project’s
financial feasibility. The property continues to
generate taxes for the land value during the
exemption period.
By expanding the boundary to include key corridors
more sites become eligible for the tax exemption,
which could shift more multi-family development
projects to be financially feasible.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 18 Recommended Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
last 3 decades. The program sunsets on January 1,
2022.
Cost-
15
Simplify the criteria that
must be met to receive a
MUPTE exemption.
The current MUPTE program, established in
2015, requires the applicant show the
development has green building features, makes
a ‘moderate income housing’ contribution, shows
that local subcontractors are being considered for
use, and that the project would not be financially
feasible without the property tax exemption.
A recent assessment of the program found that
local builders find the program’s administrative
requirements add cost and uncertainty. Current
rules make it possible that an applicant pays the
fees, conducts required analysis, and meets the
criteria, yet can have the application rejected by
City Council.
Since the 2015 overhaul, two development
projects have applied for a MUPTE. One applicant
decided to back out of the project, after
determining that the project was not financially
feasible. The second project is under construction
now.
HTS working
group supported
this option (58%)
in the preliminary
vote. The working
group also voted
on a less
descriptive option
to revise the
MUPTE program,
which received
48% support in
the preliminary
vote.
Yes - The program’s administrative costs and
uncertainty have been a hindrance for builders. By
simplifying the criteria, the program could see a
higher use and could lead to housing constructed in
the downtown.
The primary identified drawback of the exemption is
that the City and other taxing districts don’t collect
taxes on the new development during the exemption
period. However, if new housing doesn’t get built, the
City never collects taxes on new development.
Cost-
16
Activate “Opportunity
Siting” Program.
The City’s Opportunity Siting Program was
envisioned to proactively identify sites for multi-
family development. It could increase successful
multi-family housing in certain areas through
collaborative design review (directly involving
Neighborhood Associations in the approval
process) and apply incentives such as SDC
reductions or a density bonus to those sites.
In 2009, the Opportunity Siting task team made
recommendations for this program. Agreement
HTS working
group somewhat
supported this
option (50%) in
the preliminary
vote.
Unknown – It is unclear if such a program would
have an impact. It is possible that property owners of
‘Opportunity Sites’ have no interest in developing
their property as recommended by the Neighborhood
Association.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 19 Recommended Actions
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
was not reached about acceptable process and
incentives.
Cost-
17
Create process to provide
placeholders for
infrastructure
connections at
developable sites.
For land designated as ‘buildable’ in the Buildable
Lands Inventory, the City should leave stubbed-
out infrastructure connections when building
new roads so that subsequent development can
access underground utilities without tearing out
the newly built road.
From BHT. Maybe – For some areas, stubbed-out infrastructure
could decrease costs for builders.
Cost-
18
Review infrastructure
standards.
The City’s established standards for new
infrastructure are designed to meet regulatory
requirements, ensure improvements are
compatible and consistent with the systems they
integrate with, and meet City goals for health,
safety and service. There may be opportunities
for some standards to be changed to better define
when full improvements are required to benefit
long-term system goals and when a lesser
standard could be applied, given the context of
the improvement. (E.g., requiring
undergrounding of utilities to an infill lot that is
on a corridor with existing overhead utilities may
not be in alignment with the system level design
for undergrounding utilities on that corridor).
From staff review. Unknown – City review of some standards could lead
to changes that reduce infrastructure costs and still
meet the intention of the standard.
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Aff-7 Help low and moderate-
income households
purchase a home, such as
navigators to support the
purchase process and
The City could allocate funding to assist with
down-payment assistance or to fund staffing to
serve as housing navigators.
HTS working
group strongly
supported this
option (86%) in
Yes – Such a program could have an impact, if
funding were available.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 20 Recommended Actions
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
down-payment
assistance.
The City previously offered a down-payment
assistance program, however market conditions
and HUD requirements were impacting
utilization of funds. The program was
discontinued because its administrative costs
outweighed the benefits.
the preliminary
vote.
Aff-8 Increase density bonus
for qualified Affordable
housing
A density bonus program allows more dense
development (more units per acre) than is
typically allowed in that zone in exchange for
meeting some criteria. Eugene currently offers a
density bonus for Affordable Housing—an up to
50% increase over what is allowed in the base
zone.
HTS working
group supported
this option (79%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Unlikely – It is unlikely that increasing the allowed
density bonus over the existing allowance would
increase the supply of new housing units.
Aff-9 Create a community land
trust as a tool to provide
Affordable, ownership
housing.
Community Land Trust is typically a non-profit
entity that provides permanently Affordable
ownership housing by maintaining long-term
limits over the land.
HTS working
group supported
this option (68%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Unknown – It is not clear if this tool would have a
notable impact over existing organizations and their
programs.
Aff-
10
Waive System
Development Charges
(SDCs) entirely for
qualifying Affordable
units.
The City allows up to $226,000 in SDC waivers
per year for qualifying Affordable units (including
qualifying ADUs). Unused funds can roll over for
use in following years. Projected demand is
expected to exceed the allowed cap.
A reduction in SDCs charged of any new
development will negatively impact the City’s
ability to generate adequate revenue in SDC
Funds.
HTS working
group supported
this option (67%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Yes – Increasing the cap would help lower the cost of
construction for new housing units.
Aff-
11
Loan guarantees-use City
funds as backing for loans
to help fund Affordable
housing developments.
Getting a loan to pay for a new construction
project stops some forward progress for home
builders. The city could “back” qualified loans to
help support building projects that a bank would
not otherwise approve.
HTS working
group supported
this option (63%)
in the preliminary
vote.
Unknown – Understanding the impact requires
further research.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 21 Recommended Actions
C. Increase the Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation
Level of
Support
Impact
Does this action increase housing affordability,
availability, and/or diversity
Aff-
12
Establish a community
fund to help new renters.
The City could allocate funds to provide
assistance to renters (advance money for
deposits, first month rent, etc.).
HTS working
group somewhat
supported this
option (50%) in
the preliminary
vote.
Maybe - To be effective, this may require a significant
amount of funding.
Aff-
13
Advocate to the State to
change laws regarding
residential prevailing
wage rates for Affordable
housing with ground
floor commercial uses
(allow for split
determination from
BOLI).
Oregon law requires that construction projects
pay workers ‘prevailing wage’ rates if public
funds are used. Prevailing wage rates are higher
for some workers than market rate wages,
making the construction cost of publicly funded
projects relatively high.
For publicly funded Affordable developments, the
housing portion is exempt from prevailing wage
rates. But if it includes a commercial portion
(such as ground-floor retail), the prevailing wage
rates do apply to the commercial portion. If the
entire development were exempt, it could lower
total construction cost.
HTS working
group somewhat
supported this
option (41%) in
the preliminary
vote.
Yes – This could lower construction costs for mixed-
use developments that combine Affordable housing
with other uses, giving developers of Affordable
housing more flexibility to blend their projects with
market-rate uses.
Aff-
14
Use local government
bonds to fund the
construction of
Affordable housing
developments.
Local government bonds are a way that local
governments can raise money to pay for special
projects. A bond is essentially a loan taken out by
a government agency. To use a bond, a City’s
voters must approve a bond (for some dollar
amount) and the City borrows that dollar amount.
The City’s taxpayers pay off the bond through
property taxes.
Oregon voters passed Measure 102 on November
6, which enables local governments to issue
bonds for Affordable housing developments that
may be owned by non-governmental entities.
HTS working
group supported
this option (82%)
with 4% opposing
it.
Yes – This could be a tool to fund affordable housing.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 22 Recommended Actions
D. Additional Options
Action Explanation Level of Support Impact
Does this action increase housing
affordability, availability, and/or diversity
Other-
8
Develop a homeless
shelter
The City and County are currently examining
the development of a homeless shelter.
HTS working group
supported this option
(86%). No one in the
WG opposed it.
No - While an important part of the housing issue
in Eugene, any shelter beds would not be
considered “housing” by HUD and would not help
to meet housing unit needs outlined in Envision
Eugene Urban Growth Boundary analysis.
Other-
9
Create promotional
materials for assistance
programs/make
information on process
more readily available.
Invest in communication and education of the
programs the City and partners currently offer.
Make sure that using the services the City offers
is as accessible and easy as possible for our
community members and builders alike.
HTS working group
supported this option
(70%). No one in the
WG opposed it.
No – Improving communication could help
reduce misunderstandings between the
regulatory agency (the City) and builders. It may
not reduce costs, but could help each party
understand the reasons for different regulations.
Other-
10
Encourage employer-
assisted housing
programs.
Public and private employers have the ability to
provide down payment assistance, develop new
housing, or provide land for new housing. The
City could promote and educate local
employers, create match funding programs, or
offer tax credits to employers.
HTS working group
weakly supported this
option (59%) in the
preliminary voting.
Unknown – Understanding the impact requires
further research.
Other-
11
Protect renters and
availability of rental
properties-Support and
expand landlord/ tenant
arbitration/mediation.
Provides support to tenants in the event that a
dispute with the landlord arises. The 2019
Oregon Legislature passed a tenant protections
bill.
HTS working group
weakly supported this
option (52%) in the
preliminary voting.
No – This action protects renters, but does not
increase the supply of housing.
Other-
12
Regulate short-term
rentals, such as Airbnb’s.
While short-term rentals help property owners
earn income, they also take units off the market
that might otherwise be rented to residents.
More strictly regulating short-term rentals
could make more units available for long term
rental.
HTS working group
weakly supported this
option (44%) in the
preliminary voting.
Unknown – Understanding the impact requires
further research.
Other-
13
Advocate for an increase
to the minimum wage
with closing the housing
affordability gap as a
key rationale.
Regardless of housing costs, if wages stay low,
people will continue to be priced out of housing.
In addition to focusing on the supply of housing,
the City could advocate that the state and/or
federal government increase the minimum
wage.
HTS working group
weakly supported this
option (42%) in the
preliminary voting.
Maybe – Higher incomes increase what is
affordable to households, but if the number of
units does not keep pace with demand, the lowest
income households will continue to be priced out
of housing.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 23 Not Recommended Actions
4. Not Recommended Actions
This section documents actions that have emerged in the HTS process, but staff do not recommend that the City implement them. Some
had very little support from the HTS working group, and others are not technically feasible. These actions are in this document as way to
record that the options have been brought forward, but they are not feasible.
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action Explanation Level of Support
Review, evaluate, and adjust
neighborhood-specific zoning.
Several areas of the city include zoning that was developed to apply to only a
small portion of the city. Over time, the land use code has grown in size and
complexity as more neighborhood-specific or special-area zones were completed.
In some cases, these zones include barriers to housing production, such as more
specific design and density requirements, that don’t exist citywide. A review of
these zones, through a code audit, could uncover barriers that would be
worthwhile to consider removing.
The HTS WG had 2 options pertaining to
neighborhood-specific zoning. Preliminary
voting showed support ranging from 13%
to 41%.
Re-write the land use code. It would be a monumental undertaking to re-write the entire land use code. In
2018, the City began an audit of the land use code will identify barriers to housing
affordability, availability, and diversity, which can lead to strategic changes in the
code.
The HTS WG had 2 options pertaining to
over-hauling the land use code. Preliminary
voting showed support ranging from 11%
to 32%.
Replace current code with a
form-based (or design-based)
code.
Traditional land use codes separate specific uses (commercial, residential, etc.).
Form-based codes focus on building form and how the building interacts with the
public space (streets and sidewalks) around it. Form-based codes don’t regulate
what happens inside buildings, only how they look from the outside.
For a more complete explanation of form-based code see
https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/. Rewriting the entire land use code as a
form-based code would be a very large undertaking, involving extensive public
involvement, legal review, and a formal adoption process. Impact on housing
availability and diversity would be long term and limited because the form-based
code would only apply as redevelopment or new development occurs.
Eugene has two form-based codes that apply to specific neighborhoods. Codes
that include form-based standards already exist in the Franklin
Boulevard/Walnut Street area, and at the Downtown Riverfront. These codes are
typically developed to implement a visioning and master planning process for
special areas of the city.
The HTS WG had 3 options pertaining to a
form-based code. Preliminary voting
showed support ranging from 19% to 31%.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 24 Not Recommended Actions
A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code
Action Explanation Level of Support
Create transitional zone as a
buffer between commercial and
residential
Preliminary voting showed 36% support.
B. Reduce Cost and Time Burden
Action Explanation Level of Support
Change state law regarding
SUPTE.
Single Unit Property Tax Exemption. A property tax exemption for new single-
family development, similar to MUPTE. State laws allow the City to enact a
property tax exemption for multi-family housing; it does not allow an exemption
for single-family housing.
Preliminary voting showed 12% support.
C. Increase Inventory of and Access to Affordable Units
Action Explanation Level of Support
Place a cap on the SDC waiver. The City waives SDCs for Affordable housing developments. A large development
can use the full value, precluding other developments from access to the waiver.
There is a currently a cap on the SDC waiver.
Preliminary voting showed 12% support.
Charge an Affordable housing
impact fee.
Charge a fee (similar to SDCs) when builders create market-rate housing. The
amount of the fee is calculated based on the increased demand for affordable
housing generated by the development of market-rate housing. Fees are typically
charged on a per unit or per square foot basis and revenue may be deposited to
an Affordable housing fund. May require legislative action at the state level to
implement.
Only 7% of the working group supported
this.
Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
(IZ).
Oregon law enables local governments to offer IZ, which requires (or encourages)
new housing buildings with 20 or more units have up to 20% of the units be
affordable to households earning 80% of area median income and above.
The builder can pay a fee in lieu of including the units in the building.
No one on the working group supported
Mandatory IZ, and 56% supported
voluntary IZ.
Require that housing meets
needs identified by specific
populations.
There are no legal mechanisms to do this. The City can offer incentives but a
“requirement” would not be legal. Existing Affordable units are developed to meet
the needs of specific groups based on income.
21% of the working group supported this.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 25 Not Recommended Actions
D. Additional Options
Action Explanation Level of Support
Preserve “naturally occurring”
affordable housing.
There is no legal mechanism to do this. If a home-owner wants to fix-up or even
“flip” a run-down home, the city cannot realistically stop this.
HTS working group weakly supported this
option (56%) in the preliminary voting.
Create tools that require
residency for housing, to
incentivize home ownership
over investor-acquisition of
housing units.
Since the 2008 recession, many of the houses that went into foreclosure were
purchased by investors and then rented out. Some investors are able to outbid
homebuyers, making it difficult for households to purchase homes. While there
are ways to incentivize this, there are no legal mechanisms to require it.
Preliminary voting showed 30% support.
Invest in grants or low interest
loans for people to attend trade
school, to increase the number
of skilled trades-people for
construction jobs.
A lack of skilled laborers to do the work of building new homes limits the pace at
which construction can actually happen. By giving grants (scholarships) or low
interest loans to people who would like to work in construction, the City could
both help those individuals (so they can get good jobs) as well as boost the local
labor supply. This could lower the cost of construction in the long-term.
Preliminary voting showed 27% support.
De-sanction the Neighborhood
Associations.
Eugene’s City-recognized Neighborhood Associations have many functions. Part
of their mission is to establish two-way communication between neighborhoods
and the City, and between neighborhoods and other external agencies. It also
includes advocating the association’s position on issues such as land use.
Preliminary voting showed 26% support.
Develop a home-sharing
program.
This would likely be outside of the City’s scope of programming, but private
individuals (Ex: via Craigslist) or an organization could take this on.
Preliminary voting showed 26% support.
Condominium conversion
controls
Before a property owner can convert a rental property into a condominium
(ownership), the owner must give existing residents an opportunity to purchase a
unit. The City has such an ordinance in place. This action does not increase the
supply of housing.
Preliminary voting showed 20% support.
Use Eminent Domain in
targeted cases to increase
density.
Eminent Domain is a law that allows governments to force a property owner to
sell his/her land for public use. It is often used when roads need to be expanded
into private property. Property owners do not have a choice, they must sell, but
the government has to pay them a fair price. Eminent Domain could be used to
purchase properties to develop Affordable housing.
Preliminary voting showed 15% support.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 26 Glossary
5. Glossary
Assessments- Assessments are a tool used to fund public infrastructure. This tool charges land
owners for their portion of the new infrastructure based on linear feet of lot frontage.
BHT- Better Housing Together is a local coalition focused on bringing housing affordability and
availability to the greater Eugene area.
BPS- Building Permit Services is the division within the Planning and Development Department at
the City of Eugene that processes, reviews, and approves building permits and associated
applications.
HTS- Housing Tools and Strategies is the term used to identify the process and project of increasing
housing diversity, affordability, and availability. The HTS process has resulted in the creation,
investigation, and implementation of these recommended actions.
LDR- Low Density Residential is a zoning term used to identify where single-family homes and a
limited range of non-residential uses are permitted within the city limits. LRD is also referred to as
R-1 in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code.
MDR- Medium Density Residential is a zoning term used to identify where medium density housing
and a limited range of non-residential uses is permitted within the city limits. MDR is also referred
to as R-2 in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code.
MUPTE – Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption. The MUPTE program exempts new multi-family
housing developments from property taxes of the construction value for up to 10 years (taxes are
still due on the land).
PEPI- A Privately Engineered Public Improvement is a process and permit that occurs when a
developer is responsible for engineering and installing infrastructure utilized by the public such as
wastewater infrastructure. Upon completion, the infrastructure will become the City’s asset and
responsibility. Public improvement includes but is not limited to a local improvement or other
structure or facility constructed upon or under a public way or private property. A PEPI assures
that privately built infrastructure is developed correctly.
SDC – System Development Charges. SDCs are fees imposed on new development. In Eugene, new
development pays SDCs for transportation, parks, wastewater, stormwater, and water (water SDCs
are collected by EWEB). A new development imposes new costs on these infrastructure systems.
For example, a new 50-unit residential building will use capacity at the wastewater treatment
facility. The treatment facility will not expand to accommodate that individual development, but it
will add capacity in the future when enough new development has used up all existing spare
capacity. The SDC is designed to cover the proportional cost of new construction.
UGB- An Urban Growth Boundary is a tool used to control where the city expands and preserve
agricultural and natural areas. The UGB is defined through a comprehensive planning and land
utilization analysis. Development cannot occur outside of the UGB.
March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
Vision
Envision Eugene Pillar:
Provide housing aordable
to all income levels
Policy
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan -
Housing Chapter
Comprehensive Plan -
Parcel-Specic Diagram
Construction Excise Tax
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Remand
Clear & Objective Housing
Approval Criteria Update
Housing Code Audit
River Road Corridor Study
Consolidated Plan
Monitor House Bill 2001 -
Missing Middle Housing
Ongoing Code Improvements
Projects - Current
Housing Tools and Strategies - Framework for Policy Implementation
Expand Aordable Housing Programs
Comprehensive Plan - Designation Updates
Zoning Map Updates
Code Updates - Implement Code Audit Findings
Code Updates - Accessory Dwelling Units Phase 2
KEY
Completed Work
Projects in Progress
Projects - Future
February 2019March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2