HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
Meeting Date: August 10, 2009 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Jason Dedrick
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5451
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to receive a project update on the Eugene
Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA), and approve the remaining baseline assumptions that are
used to estimate future land needs.
BACKGROUND
The goal of ECLA is to determine whether Eugene has a sufficient supply of land within the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) to meet the projected demand for residential, commercial, industrial and
public/semi-public land over the next 20 years. This study addresses Oregon House Bill 3337, which
directed the City of Eugene to undertake a study of residential lands sufficiency. The scope was
expanded by the City Council to assess all land types, including employment lands (commercial and
industrial) and public/semi-public land needs. In April, the council held a work session on ECLA to
review many of the assumptions associated with the analysis. This work session is an opportunity for the
council to review the remaining assumptions.
Project Update
land supplylandneed
Work has continued on the and (demand) analysis since the City Council’s April
27, 2009, work session. A summary of these components is presented in Attachment A. The current
land supply
is being determined through an analysis of lands within the UGB that are currently vacant
or otherwise able to accommodate additional growth. This analysis continues to be refined and will be
presented to the council at a future date.
land need
The (demand) is being determined through an analysis of historic trends, current policies and
forecasts for employment, housing and public lands. Recent work on land need includes analysis of
preliminary data and assumptions related to the employment land needs, residential land needs, and
public/semi-public land needs. All preliminary data and assumptions have now been presented to the
groups that are advising staff on this, the Agency Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the
Community Advisory Committee (CAC). Attachment B provides a list of committee members.
Key Assumptions
The analysis to establish baseline assumptions for land need is built on:
?
key assumptions that are guided by state statute;
?
historical and recent trends;
?
recent data and forecasts (city, state, etc.); and
?
current policies.
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090810\S090810A.doc
The baseline assumptions used in the land needs analysis are organized into three categories:
employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs. A summary of
the baseline assumptions and recommended values is presented in Attachment C. This is an update to
the same summary that you received in April, with the addition of information that was not available at
that time. Further detail on each of these assumptions is provided in Attachment D. Committee
New
comments, staff input, and consultant expertise helped produce the values for each key assumption.
information has been provided in both Attachments C and D, on the following items: new
employment accommodated by infill and redevelopment, housing mix, housing density, residential
infill and residential redevelopment.
Next Steps
The baseline assumptions will become the foundation of determining the land need. Variations on these
assumptions will be developed for a few variables where committee input was divergent, provided that
these variations are within the reasonable ranges provided in Attachment C. This process will conclude
with the land need determination by the end of the year.
Additional council updates are tentatively planned for September and November as products become
available. Special presentations to community organizations will take place in late summer and public
workshops are currently scheduled for September. An updated project timeline is included in
Attachment E.
Two components of ECLA have been funded by a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) that concludes this summer. Draft versions of the Economic Opportunity
Analysis and the Housing Needs Analysis produced by our consultants must be approved by the City to
receive these grant funds. Acceptance of these documents is scheduled as a consent calendar item on
August 10. Although each of these documents will be presented in draft format at this time, they will be
presented again with more complete information this fall after opportunity for public involvement.
The completion of the land assessment will address Eugene’s compliance with HB 3337, completing the
technical phase of a larger planning process. If the study determines that additional lands will be needed
to accommodate projected growth, the City will need to initiate a process for addressing these needs,
either through infill and redevelopment policies, UGB modifications or some combination of both. This
process would contain ample opportunities for engaging the community in a dialogue about how to
accommodate future growth.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
?
The City Council has included ECLA as a priority item on the Planning Division Work Program.
?
Growth Management Policies are related to ECLA, most notably policies 1, 2, and 5.
Policy 1 – Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase
o
density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently.
Policy 2 – Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
o
Policy 5 – Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other
o
nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban
growth boundaries.
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090810\S090810A.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Option A: Move forward with the baseline assumptions, expressed as recommended values in column 2
of Attachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs,
and public and semi-public land needs.
Option B: Amend the baseline assumptions, expressed as recommended values in column 2 of
Attachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and
public and semi-public land needs.
Option C: Direct the City Manager to provide additional information regarding baseline assumptions,
expressed as recommended values in column 2 of Attachment C, for the analysis of future
employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Option A: Move forward with the baseline assumptions, expressed as
recommended values in column 2 of Attachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs,
residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move todirect the City Manager to move forward with the baseline assumptions, expressed as
recommended values in column 2 of Attachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs,
residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of Technical Analysis Components
B. Project Committee Members
C. Summary of Baseline Assumptions and Recommended Values
D. Detailed Description of Baseline Assumptions
E. Project Timeline
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Jason Dedrick
Telephone: 541-682-5451
Staff E-Mail: jason.p.dedrick@ci.eugene.or.us
Project Website: www.eugene-or.gov/ECLA
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090810\S090810A.doc
ECLA PROJECT COMPONENTS
Housing Economic Public/ Semi-
Need Need Public Need
+ +
Population growth Employment Schools
???
Gross
=
National and state growth Parks and open
??
housing trends National and state space
?
Future
Local housing economic trends Public facilities
??
Land Need
development Local economic and operations
?
trends advantages Churches
?
(Demand)
Public/Semi
Demographic Site needs ?
??
Public Lands
changes Current policies
?
Economic
Housing ?Memo
?
Opportunities
affordability
Current policies Analysis report
?
Housing Needs
?
Analysis report
Current Land
-
Supply
GIS Data
?
County Assessor’s
?
Data
Current Policies
?
Buildable Lands
?
ATTACHMENT A
Inventory report
Net Future
=
Land Need
(Land Sufficiency)
ATTACHMENT B
Project Committee Members
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
Community Advisory Committee Member List
Jon Belcher At-Large
Howie Bonnett Eugene Sustainability Commission
Merle Bottge Developed Parks Community
Norton Cabell Eugene Housing Policy Board
Paul Conte At-Large
Rick Duncan Eugene Planning Commission (non-CAC member attendee)
Kim Hyland At-Large
Carolyn Jacobs Eugene Neighborhood Leaders Council
Bill Kloos Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
Kevin Matthews City-Wide Local Advocacy Group
Brent McLean Commercial/Retail Community
Laura Potter Home Builders Association of Lane County
Matt Powell Eugene Association of Realtors
Erik Riechers Investment Community
Jack Roberts Lane Metro Partnership
John Winquist Natural Resource Community
Agency Technical Advisory Committee Member List
Barb Bellamy Eugene 4J Schools
Neil Bjorklund Eugene PW Parks
Savannah Crawford ODOT
Terri Harding Eugene ICS & OS Projects
Pat McGillivray Bethel Schools
Ed Moore DLCD
Steve Nystrom Eugene PDD Planning
Jeannine Parisi EWEB
Linda Pauly City of Springfield
Chris Ramey University of Oregon
David Roth Eugene PW Engineering
Stephanie Schulz Lane County
Tom Schwetz Lane Transit District
Mike Sullivan Eugene PDD Development
Bob Warren Oregon Economic & Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Baseline Assumptions and Recommended Values
The analysis to establish a baseline for future land need is built upon key assumptions
that are guided by statute and rely on historical trends, recent information and current
policies. Key assumptions used in the land needs analysis are organized into three
categories: employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public
land needs.
The table on the next page presents a summary of these key assumptions for each of the
three categories. Additional information on each of these assumptions is provided in
Attachment D. Below are definitions to assist with interpreting this data:
Acronyms and Abbreviations
?
PD – plan designation
?
EPA – employees per acre
?
du/acre – dwelling units per acre
?
ac/pkp – acres per thousand people
?
PROS – City of Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space
The highlighted
Column 1: Variable – Name of each key assumption in Attachment D.
variables are those that staff is asking for Council action on at this time.
Column 2: Recommended Value – Current technical recommendation for the baseline
assumption. This is a product of committee comments, staff input and consultant
expertise.
Column 3: Source of Data – In many cases there are multiple sources. For the sake of
brevity, the primary source is shown in this table. Additional sources are provided in
Attachment D.
Column 4: Rationale – Reason for the data source or the value shown. In some cases safe
harbor provisions in statute are utilized.
Column 5: Reasonable Range – Statute implies that values utilized for determining land
need be reasonable and defensible. Where possible, this column shows the potential range
when there are multiple methods that can be utilized or some discretion involved.
Column 6: Impact on Land Need – Each key assumption is an important variable in
determining the land need in acres. Some of these variables have a larger impact on land
need than others. A “high” impact on land need would indicate that changing the value
for this variable could significantly decrease or increase overall land need, thus indicating
its relative importance to the overall analysis.
Column 7: Data Type – Point data is from a specific moment in time. Often this is
census, state or City data with a date. Trend data indicates a longer period of time.
1
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Baseline Assumptions and Recommended Values
Reasonable Impact on
VariableRec. ValueSource of DataRationaleRangeLand Need
Employment Land Needs
Employment growth1.4%State of OregonSafe harbor0.9% or 1.4%High
Share of Emp by TypeState of OregonCurrent mixVariesLow
Industrial18.2%15.0% - 23.0%
Commercial54.3%46.0% - 55.0%
Retail13.1%13.0% - 15.0%
New Employment in Non-employment PD15%State of OregonCurrent 10% - 20%Low
New Employment in Existing Built Space10%City of EugeneOther cities5% - 15%Low
Employment RedevelopmentCity of EugeneOther cities10% to 35%High
Industrial10%
Commercial15%
Retail35%
Employment DensityState of OregonCurrent averageVariesModerate
Industrial13 EPA5-20 EPA
Commercial68 EPA30-93 EPA
Retail23 EPA20-37 EPA
Converting net to gross20% (15%)City of EugeneCurrent average15% - 20%Moderate
Residential Land Needs
Population Growth0.9%Lane CountyAdopted ForecastNoneHigh
Population in Group Quarters5.3%US CensusCurrent average4.4% - 5.5%Low
Persons per Household2.25US CensusSafe harbor Difficult to Moderate
Residential Vacancy Rate5%US CensusRecent data3.5% - 6.5%Low
Housing mixCity of EugeneHistoric data & VariesModerate
Single-family detached55%recent trends45% - 64%
Mfg home in park6%5% - 8%
Duplex3%3% - 5%
Single-family attached7%7% - 10%
Tri- and quadplex7%2% - 7%
Apt. with 5-19 units12%8% - 13%
Apt. with 20+ units10%7% - 13%
Housing Density6.7City of EugeneRecent trendsAverage of High
Single-family detached5.66.7-10.0
Mfg home in park3.9Dwelling units
Duplex6.8per acre
Single-family attached20.2
Tri- and quadplex7.8
Apt. with 5-19 units13.1
Apt. with 20+ units26.3
Residential redevelopment11%City of EugeneRecent trends11%High
Net to Gross Factor20%City of EugeneCurrent average15% - 20%Moderate
Public and Semi-Public Land Needs
Park Land20.0 ac/pkpCity of EugenePROS PlanN/AHigh
Neighborhood Parks1.7 ac/pkp
Community Parks1.5 ac/pkp
Natural Areas10.0 ac/pkp
Other Parks6.8 ac/pkp
SchoolsSchool DistrictsN/ALow
4J School District0 acres4J
Bethel School District120 acresBethel
Public Operations and Facilities100 acresCity of EugeneHistoric data100 - 260 acresModerate
Semi-public uses50 acresCity of EugeneHistoric data25 - 75 acresLow
Shading denotes those variables that will be discussed at today’s work session
3
ATTACHMENT D
Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices
th
FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10 Ave Eugene • (503) 222-6060
info@econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3040 Seattle • (206) 622-2403
July 8, 2009
TO: Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
FROM: Terry Moore, Beth Goodman, and Bob Parker
SUBJECT: BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS AND PRELIMINARY LAND NEED
ESTIMATES
1 B
ACKGROUND
ECONorthwest is conducting the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis (ECLA).
Though there are many reasons for conducting such an analysis, the main one directing
the content and timing of the analysis is Oregon House Bill 3337, which requires Eugene
to establish its own Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) separate from the joint
metropolitan UGB that Springfield and Eugene has shared for about 25 years. The full
scope of work for ECLA is described elsewhere. It includes creating many products to
comply with state requirements for LCDC Goals 9, 10, and 14: a Buildable Lands
Inventory (BLI), an Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA), and a Housing Needs
Analysis (HNA).
Those interim products (and others) must eventually lead to a comparison of
estimates of the need / demand for buildable land (to accommodate employment and
residential growth) to the estimates of the amount of buildable land for the City of
Eugene. That comparison of land need to land supply will be the basis for a
determination about whether land inside the Eugene portion of the existing
metropolitan urban growth boundary is sufficient to accommodate Eugene’s expected
growth. That determination is where this project will end in December 2009. If the result
is that land inside the UGB is unlikely to be sufficient to meet demand, the City of
Eugene will subsequently evaluate policies that might expand the capacity of land
inside the existing UGB (e.g., by increasing density), add land to the UGB, or both.
House Bill 3337 requires that Eugene establish a UGB and “demonstrate, as required
by ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within
an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to
accommodate estimated needs for 20 years.” The scope of work for ECLA
housing
1
House Bill 3337 was codified in ORS 197.304. Emphasis added.
1
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 2
provides further direction. First, the Eugene City Council expanded the analysis to look
not just at land (housing needs), but at land as well. Second, the
residential employment
scope is about collecting data and making extrapolations of land need based on existing
policy and on market conditions and trends; it is not about researching, recommending,
or adopting policies that could change those trends.
That last point led to a scope of work for 2008-2009 that is only part of a full UGB
evaluation. It makes the analysis sequential rather than simultaneous. It does not work
back and forth between estimates of land need, new policies that might change land
need (e.g., policies to increase density), and new estimates of land need. Rather, it aims
at making a determination of whether historical trends in growth and the type of land
development that accommodates that growth (or divergences from those trends based
on reasonable expectations about changes in market conditions) would result, over 20
years, in an amount of buildable land consumption that is equal to or less than the
amount of buildable land estimated to be in the existing UGB now.
If so, then the City can use that determination to meet the requirements of HB 3337. If
not, the City will probably need to do additional work to either (1) identify land-use
efficiency measures to accommodate expected growth, (2) expand the UGB, or (3) both.
The discussion of land-use efficiency measures or UGB expansion is beyond the scope
of this project and beyond 2009. The scope of this project is limited to the collection and
assessment of existing data to (1) estimate the existing supply of buildable land inside
the Eugene portion of the current UGB, and (2) forecast the need for buildable land
based on an extrapolation of recent market trends in the context of existing City policy
(or reasonably expected changes in those market trends in the context of existing
policy).
If the analysis in this study demonstrates that the City is unlikely to have sufficient
land within the UGB, that does mean that the City must expand its UGB. Rather, it
not
means that the City must take another step to make that determination: it must identify,
evaluate, and discuss policies it could adopt to reduce the land deficiency. The City’s
ultimate determination of whether the UGB needs to be expanded must be done in the
context of policies that it will adopt that can reasonably be assumed to reduce the need
for that expansion (these policies are referred to collectively as “land –use efficiency
measures”). Evaluation of efficiency measures, if required, will occur in 2010 and
beyond.
The written products for this project will ultimately comprise dozens of analyses,
tables, and maps. Making sense of them as an integrated analysis is difficult enough for
people involved in the analysis, and more difficult still for community members who
want to understand the implications for City land-use policy at a general level. With
that point in mind, ECONorthwest proposed in its work plan that the technical
information be consolidated and represented in land-use scenarios. The most important
land-use scenario, and the one that the staff technical work and CAC review has
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 3
focused on, is the one related to historical trends and current policies in land use
consumption (referred to as scenario). Where there is uncertainty or
the baseline
reasonable differences of opinions about some of the assumptions that compose the
baseline scenario, then the intent is to run some variations on this scenario to test how
the need / supply comparison is affected. Those variations will be tested soon, but staff
hope to have some direction from City Council that the information presented in this
memorandum about the baseline assumptions provides a reasonable foundation from
which to build those variations.
This memorandum describes the land need based on historical data, which reflect the
impact of current policies on development in Eugene. It presents the baseline
assumptions based on historical data. Based on the CAC’s and TAC’s discussion of this
material the consultant team will (1) do more work to refine the assumptions that define
the need side the historical data analysis (ECO), (2) make final adjustments to the
buildable lands inventory (LCOG), (3) define reasonable variations on the baseline
assumption, and (4) combine the results of steps 1 – 3 to assess whether Eugene has
enough land within the UGB to accommodate expected growth, given existing policies.
The remainder of this memorandum discusses baseline assumptions in the land needs
analysis. For each of the key assumptions it provides some introductory text to explain
what the assumption is and how it fits into the needs analysis, and then summarizes
information under four headings:
?
Potential range of assumption: What is a reasonable, defensible range, and on
what basis is that claim made?
?
CAC and TAC discussion: What did the ECLA Community Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee have to say about this
assumption?
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: Given the
previous two points, what is this memorandum recommending as the baseline
assumption?
?
Data source: More information about the basis for the recommendation.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 4
2 B
ASELINE ASSUMPTIONS
In previous meetings and memoranda, ECONorthwest described the assumptions
that are needed to model land need for the Eugene UGB over the 2010-2030 periods.
Table 1 lists these assumptions; underlining denotes what ECONorthwest believes to be
a key assumption. Key assumptions are those that (1) potentially have a large impact on
land needs, and (2) are most likely to be affected by City policies. Subsequent sections of
this memorandum provide information about baseline assumptions as they relate to
historical data.
Table 1. Baseline assumptions for modeling land need
Residential land needs
Employment land Public and Semi-Public
needs Land Needs
Population growth
Employment growth Park Land
Population in group
Neighborhood Parks
quarters
Share of employment by
Community Parks
category
Persons in household
Natural Areas
Industrial
Residential vacancy rate
Other Parks
Commercial
Housing mix
Retail Schools
Housing density
Government 4J School District
Net to Gross Factor
Bethel School District
New employment in non-
Residential redevelopment
Public Operations and
employment PD
Facilities
New employment in
Semi-public uses
existing built space
Commercial
Redevelopment
Employment Density
Net to Gross Factor
2.1 E:B
MPLOYMENT LAND NEED ASELINE ASSUMPTIONS
The analysis of employment land need is driven by an analysis of employment
growth, Eugene’s competitive advantages, the types of firms that may locate in Eugene,
and the site needs of the firms that may locate in Eugene. The employment land need
must meet the State requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 600-009. The framework for
conducting the employment needs analysis is described in detail in the memorandum
to the CAC “Framework for Determining Land Needed for Employment in Eugene:
2010-2030” (January 5, 2009). This section discusses the baseline assumptions necessary
for determining the amount of land needed for employment over the 20-year planning
period.
Table 2 summarizes the evaluation of employment land need based on historical data
and the rate of employment growth. The key assumption regarding the need for
employment land is the forecast of the amount of employment growth, excluding
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 5
government employment growth (which is addressed through public land needs).
Table 2 shows two columns of numbers for two different assumptions about the rate of
employment growth. Those assumptions are discussed below. Employment land needs
ranges from 598 to 887 acres.
Table 2. Employment land need based on historical data,
Eugene UGB, 2010-2030, for different assumptions about
average annual growth rates (AAGR)
Slower
Historical Emp.
DataGrowth
1.4% 0.9%
AAGRAAGR
Variable
Employment Forecast
Total Employment Growth 34,477 20,360
Increases in Employment Density
% of new emp. accomodated on land not designated for employment
Industrial0%0
Commercial15%15%
Retail15%15%
% of new employment accomodated in existing built space
Industrial10%10%
Commercial10%10%
Retail10%10%
% of new employment accomodated through infill & redevelopment
Industrial10%10%
Commercial15%15%
Retail35%35%
Total Employment on New Land 21,096 12,457
Number employees not requiring new land(13,381)(7,902)
% employees not requiring new land-39%-39%
Employment Density (employees per net acre)
Industrial1313
Commercial6868
Retail2323
Net to Gross
Industrial15%15%
Commercial20%20%
Retail20%20%
Land Need (Gross Acres)
Industrial 531 313
Commercial 241 142
Retail 115 68
Total Gross Acres Needed 887 524
Difference from Historical Trend0(363)
Percent Change from Historical0%-41%
Source: ECONorthwest
Note: We excluded government employment growth from the calculations in Table 2 because
government land need is accommodated through public and semi-public land needs.
Note: Numbers in red and parentheses are negative.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 6
The bottom lines of Table 2 illustrate an obvious point: if one assumes that there will
be a lot less employment growth, then a lot less land will be needed. We are not ready
to make a firm statement about whether Eugene has enough land to accommodate
expected employment growth because we are still refining the buildable lands
inventory. But combining the acreage requirements at the bottom of Table 2 with the
draft results of the BLI shows a net deficit of buildable land for commercial land and a
surplus for industrial land (but special site needs are considered, which could
before
lead to a conclusion that the existing UGB lacks sites of a size and location suitable for
certain types of employment growth).
Those conclusions are only as good as the assumptions they are based on. The origin
and assessment of the baseline assumptions in the employment land need estimate in
Table 2 are described below.
Employment growth
Employment growth is the amount of growth in jobs reasonably expected in Eugene
over the 2010 to 2030 period. We exclude government employment growth because
government land need is accommodated through public and semi-public land needs,
evaluated separately. Changes in the forecast of employment growth directly result in
changes in need for employment land.
There is no single “right” way to forecast employment growth. There are, however,
two methods for forecasting employment growth that, independent of their technical
merits, are legally sanctioned as “safe harbors”: (1) assume that employment will grow
2
at the same rate as population (OAR 660-024-0040(8)((a)(ii)), or (2) assume that
employment will grow at the same rate as the Employment Department’s forecast for
Lane County.
?
Potential range of assumption: Assuming that employment will grow at the
same rate as population (a 0.9% annual growth) results in addition of about
20,000 jobs. Assuming that employment in Eugene will grow at the same rate
3
as the one used in the Employment Department’s forecast for Lane County (a
1.4% annual growth rate) results in the addition of about 34,500 jobs, not
including government jobs, which are accounted for in public and semi-public
land needs.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: Several CAC and TAC members said the
assumption that Eugene’s employment will grow at the rate forecasted for
Assumptions that serve as amulets that can be raised against the gale of future legal challenges to protect a
2
jurisdiction from being blown out of the water.
This assumption is based on the population forecast for the Eugene UGB presented in the “Lane County Rural
3
Comprehensive Plan General Plan Policies 1984”, updated June 2009. Population in the Eugene UGB is forecast to
grow at about 0.88% annually.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 7
Lane County (1.4% annual growth) is reasonable, and probably the more
reasonable of the two growth rates. Eugene is the central city and employment
center of the region: it is reasonable to expect employment to grow faster than
population. On the other hand, a difference in growth rates suggests greater
commuting to Eugene from outlying cities (e.g., Veneta).
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming 1.4% annual employment growth, based on: (1) the assumption that
Eugene is the regional economic center of Lane County and likely to have the
greatest employment growth, and (2) average employment growth in Lane
County over the 1980 to 2007 was 1.7% average annual growth.
?
Data source: The employment base is a point in time estimate for 2006 based
on: Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR
Employment Department and Total Employment in Lane County from the US
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Distribution of employment by land-use type
The forecast of employment growth can be divided into broad categories of land use
based on the characteristics of land needed: commercial office, commercial retail,
industrial, and government. In 2006, the share of employment in each of these
categories was: 54.3% commercial, 13.1% retail, 18.2% industrial, and 14.4%
government.
4
?
Potential range of assumption: There is no “correct” way to forecast the future
composition of Eugene’s economy. Possible approaches are:
Assume the future composition of Eugene’s economy will look like the
o
present and use the existing distribution of employment by land-use
type;
Assume that employment in non-industrial sectors will grow more than
o
employment in industrial based on County, State, and national
historical trends. An example of the shift in the mix: 55% commercial,
15% retail, 15% industrial, and 15% government; or
Use the mix of employment forecast in the Employment Department’s
o
forecast for Lane County: 46% commercial, 13% retail, 23% industrial,
and 18% government.
?
CAC discussion: Some CAC members said that the current mix of employment
seems more likely to continue into the future than the mix in the Employment
Department’s forecast for Lane County.
Growth in government employment is accounted for through the public and semi-public land needs process,
4
rather than through the employment land needs analysis.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 8
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that the future mix of employment will be similar to or the same as
the current mix of employment. The mix of employment forecasted by the
Employment Department for Lane County, with greater growth in industrial
sectors and decrease in share of commercial sectors, seems unlikely given long-
term economic trends and recent economic trends in Eugene and Lane County.
Note that the effect of this assumption is diminished to some degree by the fact
that the of employment does not change—the changes.
amountcomposition
Thus, the same number of employees will need built space to work in, which
will need land be constructed. The difference is that the density of employment
growth will be different for some types of development. But the differences in
density among commercial office, retail, and government are relatively small,
so shifting among those has little impact on land need. The bigger effect comes
from shifts between those categories and industrial, which has lower density.
?
Data source: The employment base is a point in time estimate for 2006 based on
Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment
Department and Total Employment in Lane County from the US Bureau of
Economic Analysis.
New employment accommodated on land not designated for employment
Some employment is now accommodated on land that is located in a residential or
other non-employment plan designation. In 2006, about 15% of covered employment
5
was located in residential and other non-employment designations. This includes
businesses located in non-employment plan designations (such as a corner store in a
neighborhood) and people working from home. This estimate excludes workers that are
not covered by unemployment insurance, such as sole proprietors. Although these
workers may be more likely than covered employees to locate on land with non-
employment designation, we do not have information about where non-covered
workers are located. In the absence of this information, we assumed that covered and
non-covered workers will locate on land in non-employment plan designations in the
same proportions and that 15% of all employment will locate on land in non-
employment plan designations.
?
Potential range of assumption: There is little information available about the
amount of employment accommodated on land not designated for
employment in Eugene, beyond the data reported above. In work for other
employment is employment that the state tracks because it is covered by unemployment insurance and
Covered
5
reported. Covered employment information is available at the city-level. employment, which includes all
Total
employment, is tracked by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and is not available at the city-level. Comparison of
covered and total employment in Lane County showed that covered employment was 75% of total employment in
the County in 2006.Covered employment excludes sole proprietors and other workers not covered by unemployment
insurance.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 9
Oregon cities, ECO has generally estimated or assumed that between 10% and
20% of employment is accommodated in residential or other non-employment
plan designations.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: Some CAC and TAC members suggested that the
share of employment accommodated on land not designated for employment
uses may increase in the future, based on trends in working from home.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that 15% of non-industrial employment will accommodated on land
not designated for employment. The basis for this recommendation is that the
2006 covered employment data is the best available and we have little data as a
basis for assumptions about changes in the amount of employment that may
locate in non-employment designations in the future.
?
Data source: The estimate of 15% of covered employment on land not
designated for employment is based on employment data from 2006. The data
source for the employment base was Quarterly Census of Employment and
Workforce from the OR Employment Department, overlaid with the LCOG
GIS data showing the City of Eugene Plan Designations.
New employment accommodated in existing built space
As firms add employees they may fit many of them into existing office spaces. That
would occur if current vacancy rates were much higher than average (because future
employment growth could then be partially accommodated in existing space until and
natural, frictional vacancy rate was reached). It could also occur in occupied buildings
through filling vacant cubicles or offices or increasing density of use existing
workspaces (e.g., by adding new cubicles). There is no study that quantifies how much
employment is commonly accommodated in existing built space over a 20-year period
in a city.
?
Potential range of assumption: There is no data that document the amount of
employment locate in existing built space. Clearly some employment is
accommodated through this type of intensification of use but, equally clearly,
not all employment can be accommodated this way. ECO typically assumes
that 5% to 10% of employment will be accommodated in existing built space.
Obviously, such an assumption cannot apply indefinitely, so it presumes that
(1) the use of existing space is not so intense that it cannot be economically
increased, and (2) economic conditions, competitiveness, and standard
business practices for reducing cost make a 5% to 10% increase in space
utilization reasonable.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption
in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions from
more than one committee member.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 10
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that 10% of new employment will locate in existing built space.
?
Data source: ECONorthwest has typically assumed that about 10% of
employment would locate in existing built space for similar studies in other
cities. The rationale for this assumption is: (1) in the short-term, commercial
vacancy rates are likely to be higher than normal (because of the current
recession) and (2) existing firms have a large incentive to accommodate new
employees in their existing offices because of the cost of moving and leasing
additional office space.
New employment accommodated through redevelopment
Goal 9 strongly encourages cities to develop policies to encourage redevelopment of
commercial and industrial land, especially brownfields. Redevelopment is
any
development that happens on land that has been classified as developed (i.e., not
vacant). This definition is consistent with the definition of developed land in OAR 660-
009.
For the purposes of this study, we define redevelopment as development that (1)
occurs on land with existing development, (2) results in a net increase in
and
employment density. The second condition means that the replacement of a building
used for employment by a new building with similar employment density would not be
counted as redevelopment. This definition includes infill on partially vacant land.
We can see that redevelopment has occurred in Eugene over the last 20-years. Retail
redevelopment is especially common, such as the redevelopment that has occurred
along Coburg Road, like Oakway Center. We can reasonably assume that some
employment growth will be accommodated through redevelopment of existing
commercial and industrial land over the next 20-years.
Determining how much redevelopment has actually occurred is difficult because data
about redevelopment (or indicators of redevelopment) are not maintained. While the
City collects data for industrial and commercial building permits, there is no way to
determine which if these permits was issued for redevelopment of a site, short of
sorting through the permits one-by-one. We could estimate redevelopment using
assumptions about land value and potential to redevelopment (a method that is similar
to the method describe for residential redevelopment in Appendix C), this methodology
provides a gross indicator of redevelopment potential but little indication of how much
redevelopment is to occur over the planning period.
likely
As a result, we do not have a factual basis to estimate the amount of employment
growth that may be accommodated through redevelopment. In previous studies
conducted by ECONorthwest and other organizations, redevelopment has been
addressed by assuming that a certain percentage of employment growth will be
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 11
addressed through redevelopment, generally from 5% to 20% of new residential
development.
6
?
Potential range of assumption: We found no studies or data that attempt to
estimate the amount of commercial and industrial infill and redevelopment
that occurred in Eugene over the past decade. It is clear, however, that infill
and redevelopment occurred, especially along Coburg Road. A 2002 study in
the Portland Metro area suggest that about 26% of employment land would be
accommodated through redevelopment over the 2002-2022 period.
7
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption
in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions from
more than one committee member. One TAC member suggested that the most
appropriate places for redevelopment is in mixed use centers and downtown.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: Our preliminary
recommendation is to assume redevelopment of 10% of forecast industrial
employment, 15% of commercial employment, and 35% of retail employment.
?
Data source: No data about commercial and industrial redevelopment is
currently available.
Employment density
Employment density is the density of employment (measured in employees per acre)
locating in commercial and industrial plan designations. Forecasting employment land
need based on forecasts of employment growth requires a conversion, either explicit or
implicit, of employment growth (number of new employees) to land need based on
assumptions about employment density. This can be accomplished through use of
assumptions about the number of employees per acre (EPA). In 2006, Eugene’s overall
employment density was 22 employees per acre. Employment densities in Eugene
varied by use and mixture of uses, as follows:
?
Industrial densities ranged from about 5 employees per gross acre (EPA) in
heavy industrial areas to nearly 20 EPA in light or campus industrial.
?
Commercial densities varied from 30 EPA in mixed retail and office sites to 93
EPA in downtown.
?
Retail densities varied from about 20 EPA to about 37 EPA at Oakway Center.
ECONorthwest used this method in studies for the following cities: Ashland, McMinnville, The Dalles,
6
Pendleton, Ontario, and Sandy. Metro uses a “refill”rate to account for employment accommodated through
redevelopment. In Metro’s 2002 Urban Growth Report, they assumed a refill rate of about 26% for commercial and
industrial lands.
Metro’s “2002-2022 Urban Growth Report: an Employment Land Needs Analysis,” December 2002. Accessible
7
from http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/ugr-employment.pdf
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 12
Existing employment densities are documented more completely memorandum
“Preliminary Estimate of Employment Land Need in Eugene During the 2010-2030
Period” (dated February 5, 2009).
?
Potential range of assumption: The potential ranges of assumptions are
described above.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not have many comments or
questions about the employment density data presented.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
making the following assumptions about employment density, based on the
average densities in Eugene: 13 EPA for industrial, 68 EPA for commercial, and
23 EPA for retail.
?
Data source: Employment densities are based on employment in 2006 from the
Quarterly Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment
Department, City of Eugene Plan Designations, and LCOG GIS data about land
in employment plan designations.
Converting net acres to gross acres
The data about employment density presented above is in acres, which does not
net
include land for public right-of-way. Future land need for employment should include
land in tax lots needed for employment plus land needed for public right-of-way. One
way to estimate the amount of land needed for employment including public right-of-
way is to convert from to acres based on assumptions about the amount of land
netgross
needed for right-of-way. A net to gross conversion is expressed as a percentage of
8
gross acres that are in public right-of-way. For example, a net to gross conversion factor
of 15% means that 15% of gross acres are in public rights-of-way.
?
Potential range of assumption: We examined net to gross ratios for existing
commercial and industrial development on selected sites within Eugene. We
found the following net to gross factors:
Commercial sites had a net to gross factor ranging from: about 17% in
o
community retail centers, 31% in Downtown, and 34% in the area
directly south of Downtown Eugene.
Industrial sites had a net to gross factor averaging about 14%, with no
o
substantial different between light and heavy industry.
OAR 660-024-0010(6) uses the following definition of net buildable acre. “Net Buildable Acre” consists of 43,560
8
square feet of residentially designated buildable land after excluding future rights-of-way for streets and roads.
While the administrative rule does not include a definition of a gross buildable acre, using the definition above, a
gross buildable acre will include areas used for rights-of-way for streets and roads. Areas used for rights-of-way are
considered unbuildable.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 13
Work with other cities has shown similar net to gross factors. ECO typically
assumes a net to gross factor of 15% to 20% for employment lands.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not provide comments on the
net-to-gross factor.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming a 20% net-to-gross factor for commercial land need, based on the
assumption that future commercial employment will be in areas more like
community retail centers and less like Downtown. These areas will need less
land for public rights-of-way.
We recommend assuming a 15% net-to-gross factor for industrial land need,
which is consistent with observed need for public rights-of-way in industrial
areas in Eugene.
?
Data source: The net-to-gross factors are based on data from the 2006 Quarterly
Census of Employment and Workforce from the OR Employment Department
and City of Eugene Plan Designations. This assumption is generally consistent
with the assumptions in the MetroPlan about land needed for public rights-of-
way.
2.2 R:B
ESIDENTIAL LAND NEED ASELINE ASSUMPTIONS
The analysis of residential land need is driven by an analysis of housing need. The
housing needs analysis must meet the State requirements of Goal 10, ORS 197.296, and
OAR 600-008. The framework for conducting the housing needs analysis is described in
detail in the memorandum to the CAC “Framework for Determining Land Needed for
Housing in Eugene: 2010-2030” (February 5, 2009). This section discusses the baseline
assumptions necessary for determining the amount of land needed for housing over the
20-year planning period.
Table 3 shows land need using for two variations of housing need: (1) using the
housing mix from housing development over the 2001 to 2008 period and (2) using the
housing mix for Eugene’s housing stock in 2007. Based on the assumptions used in
Table 3, Eugene will need between approximately 2,400 to 2,500 acres of residential
land. Key assumptions in Table 3 are still under discussion, such as the rate of
redevelopment. In addition, the categories of housing type are also under discussion
(see page 20 of this memorandum) and may change in subsequent analysis.
We are not able to determine whether Eugene has enough land to accommodate
expected residential growth yet. Based on the preliminary results of BLI, it is likely that
Eugene does not have enough residential land to accommodate expected growth given
the assumptions in Table 3.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 14
Table 3. Residential land need based on historical
trends, Eugene UGB, 2010-2030
Historical Data
Housing Housing
Mix 2001-Mix in
20082007
Variable
Population growth34,00834,008
Population in Group Quarters1,8701,870
Population in Households32,13832,138
Avg HH Size2.252.25
Occupied Dwellings14,28314,283
Vacancy rate5.0%5.0%
Total Needed Dwellings14,99814,998
Housing mix
Single-family detached64%55%
Manufactured home in park5%6%
Duplex3%3%
Single-family attached10%7%
Tri- and Quad-plex (3 or 4 units)3%7%
Apartments with 5 to 19 units8%12%
Apartments with 20 or more units7%10%
Average Density (DU/gross ac)
Low Density Residential4.24.1
Medium Density Residential8.57.6
High Density Residential25.623.8
Average5.35.5
Land Need Accomodated through Infill and Redevelopment
Low Density Residential11%11%
Medium Density Residential11%11%
High Density Residential11%11%
Total Land Needed for Housing (acres)
Low Density Residential2,1421,944
Medium Density Residential284355
High Density Residential76112
Total Gross Acres Needed 2,502 2,411
Difference from Historical Trend0(91)
Percent Change from Historical
0%-4%
Source: ECONorthwest
Note: The housing density for the variation using the housing mix for residential development
over the 2001 to 2008 period is slightly higher for development in the LDR and MDR designations
than the variation using the housing mix for all housing in 2007.
The reason the density is higher using the 2001-2008 mix is that mix assumes that there will be
more single-family attached units, which have comparatively high historical densities,
and fewer tri- and quad-plex units, which have comparatively low historical densities.
The result is that the average density in the LDR and MDR is higher when using the 2001 to 2008 mix.
The overall average density for all housing is lower when using the 2001 to 2008 mix.
The baseline assumptions in the residential land need estimate in Table 3 are
described below.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 15
Population growth
A 20-year population forecast (in this instance, 2010 to 2030) is the foundation for
estimating needed new dwelling units. On June 17, 2009, Lane County adopted a new
coordinated population forecast for this period. The city will be initiating a Metro Plan
Amendment process to formally adopt this forecast for use in all future planning
efforts. The forecast projects that population inside the Eugene UGB will grow from
177,775 people in 2010 to 211,783 people in 2030, an increase of 34,008 people between
2010 and 2030.
9
?
Potential range of assumption: The adopted Lane County population forecast
is the only assumption about population growth currently under consideration
in ECLA.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC were not asked for different
assumptions about population growth because this is a policy decision based
on the Lane County coordinated population forecast, which the City Council is
expected to adopt.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
using the Lane County population forecast for Eugene.
?
Data source: Lane County adopted coordinated population forecast,
Lane
, updated June 2009.
County Rural Comprehensive Plan
Population in group quarters
Persons in group quarters do not consume standard housing units: thus, any forecast
of new people in group quarters is typically backed out of the population forecast for
the purpose of estimating housing demand. Group quarters can have a big influence on
housing in cities with colleges (dorms), prisons, or a large elderly population (nursing
homes). In general, any new requirements for these housing types will be met by
institutions (colleges, government agencies, health-care corporations) operating outside
what is typically defined as the housing market. Group quarters, however, require land
and are typically built at densities that are comparable to multiple-family dwellings.
The U.S. Census tracks the number of people in group quarters. The share of Eugene’s
population living in group quarters was 5.5% in 1990, 4.4% in 2000, and 5.3% in 2007.
One of the factors that will affect the amount of Eugene’s population housed in group
quarters is enrollment growth at the University of Oregon and the University’s
provision of dormitory space. The University projects growth of about 3,700 students
The population forecast is from Table 1.1 in the revised
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan General Plan Policies
9
, updated June 2009.
1984
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 16
over the 2009 to 2019 period (from 20,300 students in 2009) and plans to build an
10
additional approximately 1,500 bed spaces over the 2007 to 2017 period.
11
?
Potential range of assumption: The U.S. Census’ range of people in group
households (between 4.4% to 5.5% of population) is a reasonable range for this
assumption. There are two main factors that may affect the share of population
in group quarters: (1) the aging population and (2) growth in the University of
Oregon’s student body.
The aging of the population may result in an increase in share of seniors
o
living in group housing, especially nursing homes. Housing types for
the aging population range from congregate facilities (e.g., assisted
living) to age restricted active adult retirement communities, which
have a range of single-family and multifamily housing types. The age
and health of seniors impact the their hosing choice. Younger,
independent seniors have a preference for aging in place or choose
housing that allows them greater independence, such as age restricted
communities. As seniors age or their health deteriorates, housing
choices may include assisted living facilities and nursing homes. It is
difficult to estimate how much the aging of the population and greater
housing choice for seniors will affect the share of population in group
quarters.
Growth in the University of Oregon’s student population may result in
o
an increase in the share of population in group quarters. The affect of
growth in the student body at the University on the share of Eugene’s
population in group quarters will depend on actual growth in the
student body and whether the University builds as much student
housing as has been proposed. If the University builds as much housing
as proposed, it may result in an increase in population in group
quarters, which would result in a decrease in need for new housing
units.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC have not discussed this assumption
in great enough depth to have suggestions for different assumptions. Some
CAC members have expressed concern that the assumption account for growth
in the student population at the University of Oregon and the University’s
plans for building additional dorm rooms.
University of Oregon Draft Academic Plan, 1/12/09. Accessed on 2/9/2009 from:
10
http://provost.uoregon.edu/files/provost/uploads/Academic_plan_1_12_09.pdf
University of Oregon memorandum, Strategic Housing Plan Consultant’s Report, March 26, 2008. Accessed on
11
2/9/2009 from:
http://uplan.uoregon.edu/projects/Project%20Sums%20for%20Web/HousingPlan/UO%20HSP%20FINAL%20MAI
N.pdf
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 17
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that 5.3% of Eugene’s 2030 population (1,870 people) will live in
group quarters.
?
Data source: The assumption about population in group quarters is based on
the share of Eugene’s population in group quarters in 2007 according to the
U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2007. This assumption considers
long-term trends in share of population in group quarters in 1990, 2000, and
2007, based on U.S. Census data in those years.
Persons per household
In 1990, traditional families (married couple, with one or more children at home)
accounted for 25% of all households in Oregon. In 2007 that percentage had dropped to
20%. Consistent with that trend, the average household size has decreased over the past
five decades and is likely to continue decreasing. The average household size in Oregon
was 2.60 in 1980, 2.52 in 1990, and 2.51 in 2000 and 2.49 in 2007. One and two person
households made up the majority of Oregon households in 1990. The direct impact of
decreasing household size on housing demand is that smaller households means more
households, which means a need for more housing units even if population were not
growing.
Average household size in Eugene followed the same pattern as the State: household
sizes have decreased. In 1990, the average household had 2.30 persons per household,
dropping to 2.27 in 2000, and 2.25 persons per household in 2007. OAR 660-024
established a “safe harbor” assumption for average household size—which is the figure
from the most recent Census.
?
Potential range of assumption: We could assume that household sizes will
change over the planning period or we could use the safe harbor and assume
that household sizes will continue at 2.25 persons per household.
The historical change in household size in Eugene over the last quarter-
century is a relatively slow decrease: from 1980 to 2007 the average annual rate
of decrease was on the order of 1/10 of 1% per year. If Eugene’s household
th
size continues to decrease, Eugene will need more dwelling units than the
current forecast projects to accommodate Eugene’s expected population
growth.
Trends in student housing suggest that Eugene’s household size may increase
slightly over the planning period. One type of student housing that has been
built more frequently in Eugene are large units with five or more bedrooms
and shared common space and kitchen facilities. These dwellings are most
common in neighborhoods near the University and may have five or more
students living in them. While it seems that the market for this type of housing
is limited by student housing demand and student housing preferences,
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 18
continued growth in this type of housing could increase average household
size slightly across the City. The result of increased household size would be
an decrease in the number of new dwelling units needed to accommodate
Eugene’s expected population growth.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: Some CAC members think that we should assume
that household sizes will change in the future. CAC members have expressed
concern at development of buildings with more than the usual number of
bedrooms (five or six bedrooms) in the same dwelling unit. This creates higher
than normal persons per household in the neighborhoods with this type of
development, which creates other policy challenges for these neighborhoods
(e.g., parking availability). The housing needs analysis will discuss this trend.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
using the safe harbor assumption that household sizes will remain at 2.25
persons per household. Forecasting future household sizes requires
considering a number of demographic and social shifts that are complex:
continued aging of the population, changes in ethnicity, and changes in
student housing preferences. The differences across the City over a 20 year
period will be relatively small.
?
Data source: The assumption about household size is based on a point in time
estimate based on 2007 U.S. Census, American Community Survey, data.
Residential vacancies
Housing vacancy rates are cyclical. Low vacancy rates signal an excess of demand
relative to supply, which brings new construction and, eventually, higher vacancy rates.
Vacancy rates for rental and multiple family units are typically higher than those for
owner-occupied and single-family dwelling units.
In 1990 the Census reported a vacancy rate for all housing of 3.6%, increasing to 5.4%
in 2000, and 6.3% in 2007. While it may appear that Eugene’s vacancy rate has increased
over the 1990 to 2007, Eugene’s vacancy rate has probably fluctuated throughout each
year. The Census’ vacancy rate data is accurate for the date of the Census (April 1) but
the vacancy rate may change significantly throughout the year based on activities at the
University of Oregon. For example, Eugene may have a higher vacancy rate in July,
when most students have left town, and a lower vacancy rate in October, with the start
of the University’s school year.
Since state law and this project requires a 20-year forecast, and one should expect
several housing cycles during that period, this project should be looking for an average
vacancy rate (the “natural” rate of vacancy). OAR 660-024 established a “safe harbor”
assumption for average residential vacancies—which is the figure from the most recent
Census.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 19
?
Potential range of assumption: Census data probably describes a reasonable
range of vacancy rates: 3.5% to 6.5% vacancy. ECO has typically found vacancy
rates of 2% to 9% in other cities, depending on the type of housing and local
housing market conditions.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: Several CAC members agreed the most reasonable
vacancy rate assumption would be 5%. That is an average rate that ECO has
used in other studies of this type.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that an average of 5% of new dwellings will be vacant, based on
historical vacancy data and suggestions from the CAC.
?
Data source: The assumption about vacancy rate is based on a point in time
estimate for 2007 from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey.
Housing mix
Housing mix is the mixture of housing (structure) types (e.g., single-family detached
or apartments) within a city. State law requires a determination of the future housing
mix in the community and allows that determination to be based on different periods:
(1) the mix of housing built in the past five years or since the most recent periodic
review, whichever time period is greater, (2) a shorter time period if the data will
provide more accurate and reliable information, or (3) a longer time period if the data
will provide more accurate and reliable information (ORS 197.296). This memorandum
presents housing mix data for two periods (1) housing mix over the 2001 to 2008 period
and (2) housing mix over the 1990 to 2007 period.
Table 4 shows the housing mix for residential development over the 2001 to 2008
period. We selected this time period over the 1999 to 2008 period because it shows
housing mix that occurred since the City’s revised zoning ordinance went into effect in
2001. About 64% of housing developed was single-family detached, 10% was single-
family attached, 5% was manufactured, 3% was duplex, and the remaining 18% were
structures with 3 or more units. The share of single-family housing varied from a high
of 84% in 2001 to a low of 43% in 2007.
A caveat about the information presented in Table 4: the data about residential
development is both complex and somewhat scant. Each development may have
idiosyncrasies, such factors that limit development density or footprint (such as a
stream). Moreover, it is typical to see cycles in building: for example, a lot of single-
family units get built so then a lot of multifamily follows. We think it is more
appropriate to look at building trends broadly and on average over a several-year
period (e.g., for the entire 2001 to 2008 period) than on a year-by-year basis.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 20
Table 4. Percent of housing by structure type, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB
Tri- and
Single-Single-Quad-plex Apts with Apts with
family Manufact-family (3 or 4 5 to 19 20 or more
Yeardetachedured homeDuplexattachedunits)unitsunits
200184%2%3%2%1%8%0%
200277%8%2%0%2%11%0%
200382%8%3%1%5%1%0%
200464%3%2%1%1%20%8%
200561%8%6%4%1%1%20%
200647%4%2%36%4%5%2%
200743%2%4%26%5%3%16%
200848%6%3%1%2%34%6%
Average64%5%3%10%2%8%7%
Total Units 4,153 350 209 660 162 540 458
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008
Table 5 shows changes in the mix of Eugene’s housing stock (all housing in the City)
between 1990 and 2007, based on U.S. Census data. The share of single-family detached
housing was relatively stable over the seventeen-year period, accounting for about 55%
of housing stock in Eugene.
Table 5. Housing stock by structure type, Eugene city limits, 1990, 2000, and 2007
199020002007New Units 1990-2007
Percent Percent
Structure typeUnitsPercentUnitsPercentUnitsPercentUnitsof totalIncrease
Single-family detached26,518 55%32,870 54%38,090 55%11,572 55%44%
Manufactured Home 2,250 5% 3,281 5% 3,833 6% 1,583 8%70%
Duplex (2 units) 2,163 5% 2,426 4% 1,979 3% (184) -1%-9%
Single-family attached 3,264 7% 4,011 7% 4,828 7% 1,564 7%48%
Tri- & Quad-plex (3 or 4 units) 2,723 6% 3,451 6% 4,794 7% 2,071 10%76%
Apartments with 5 to 19 units 6,345 13% 7,538 12% 8,456 12% 2,111 10%33%
Apartments with 20 + units 4,728 10% 7,755 13% 6,915 10% 2,187 10%46%
Total47,991 100%61,332 100%68,895 100%20,904 100%44%
Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000, American Community Survey 2007
Note: The decrease in duplex units between 1990 to 2007 may be the result of data anomalies, rather than an actual decrease in
duplexes.
Several CAC members have expressed concerns about the categories of housing
shown in Tables 4 and 5. Suggestions for changes to mix include: (1) combine some
categories of structure type, such as apartments with 5 to 19 units and apartments with
20 or more units and (2) consider other structure types, such as student housing with
more than four bedrooms and shared common areas or small affordable single-family
dwellings. City staff is in the process of determining whether and how to consolidate
the existing categories of structures. Data about the other structure types is not
commonly available across the City. The housing needs analysis will discuss these
housing types and present available data for these housing types.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 21
?
Potential range of assumption: The assumptions of housing mix in the baseline
analysis could be taken from the average mix over the 2001 to 2008 period or
from the 2007 mix. The mixes are as follows:
Mix for housing built from Mix of housing stock in
2001 to 2008 2007
Single-family detached: 64% Single-family detached: 55%
Manufactured: 5% Manufactured: 6%
Duplex: 3% Duplex: 3%
Single-family attached: 10% Single-family attached:7%
Tri- & Quad-Plex: 2% Tri- & Quad-Plex: 7%
Apt. with 5-19 units: 8% Apt. with 5-19 units: 12%
Apt. with 20+ units: 7% Apt. with 20+ units: 10%
OAR 660-007 requires that cities of 50,000 or more people in the Portland
Metro UGB assume that 50% of new residential construction will be single-
family detached housing types (including manufactured housing) and 50%
multifamily housing types (including all housing attached housing where each
dwelling unit is not on a separate lot). Although OAR 660-007 does not apply
to Eugene (because the City is not in the Portland Metro UGB), this rule does
illustrate the housing mix that cities in the Metro UGB are expected to achieve.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: Discussions with the CAC indicate that they favor
assuming that the housing mix that Eugene will achieve over the planning
period is the mix for Eugene’s housing stock in 2007. CAC members are
concerned that the housing mix achieved over the 2001 to 2008 period was
anomalous, with development of more single-family detached housing than
Eugene can reasonably expect over the next 20 years. CAC members generally
agreed that future housing mix will more closely resemble the mix of the City’s
housing stock.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
basing Eugene’s forecasted housing mix on the mix of housing stock in 2007.
?
Data source: The assumption about housing mix could be based on
development trends over the 2001 to 2008 period, based on LCOG GIS data
and City of Eugene Planning Department’s building permit data.
Alternatively, assumption about housing mix could be based on the housing
mix for Eugene’s housing stock, shown in point in time estimates for 1990,
2000, and 2007 from the U.S. Census.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 22
Housing density
Housing density is the density of housing by structure type, expressed in dwelling
units per net or gross acre. Like housing mix, State law requires determination of
12
housing density based on analysis of data and suggests using analysis of housing
density developed over the past five years or since the most recent periodic review,
whichever time period is greater, or for a shorter or longer time period.
The U.S. Census does not track residential development density. City staff
recommends using housing density based on development between 2001 and 2008
(rather than 1999 to 2008) because changes to the City’s zoning code went into effect in
2001 that affect housing development. Eugene City staff concluded that data prior to
1996 is not accurate and consistent enough for an analysis of longer-term housing
densities.
Table 6 shows average net residential development by structure type for the 2001 to
2008 period. The average density for all residential development over the 2001 to 2008
period was 6.7 dwellings per net acre. Average residential densities ranged from 5.6
dwelling units per net acre for single-family residential to 26.3 for apartments with 20 or
more units. These estimates are in the typical range and consistent with previous work
by ECONorthwest and others for other cities in Oregon. Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix
B show average density by plan designation and zoning district.
Table 6. Average development density by structure type, dwelling units per net
acre, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB
Tri- and
Single-Single-Quad-plex Apts with Apts with
family Manufact-family (3 or 4 5 to 19 20 or more
Yeardetachedured homeDuplexattachedunits)unitsunitsTotal
20015.84.18.631.29.44.8na5.8
20025.78.011.810.75.312.5na6.3
20035.32.41.815.36.319.5na4.7
20045.36.48.85.410.218.412.56.7
20055.42.911.233.714.732.327.76.5
20065.83.59.922.35.27.647.97.9
20076.19.28.218.518.468.347.410.0
20085.77.84.69.214.529.382.18.8
Average5.63.96.820.27.813.126.36.7
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008
OAR 660-024-0010(6) uses the following definition of net buildable acre. “Net Buildable Acre” consists of 43,560
12
square feet of residentially designated buildable land after excluding future rights-of-way for streets and roads.
While the administrative rule does not include a definition of a gross buildable acre, using the definition above, a
gross buildable acre will include areas used for rights-of-way for streets and roads. Areas used for rights-of-way are
considered unbuildable.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 23
?
Potential range of assumption: Table 6 shows the most recently data available
about housing density in Eugene.
OAR 660-007 requires that cities of 50,000 or more people in the Metro UGB
assume that new residential construction will be average at least 10 dwelling
units per net acre. Although OAR 660-007 does not apply to Eugene (because
the City is not in the Portland Metro UGB), this rule does illustrate the housing
density that cities in the Metro UGB are expected to achieve.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC made no suggestions for alternative
housing density assumptions.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
using Eugene’s current housing density in the baseline analysis. Assumptions
about future housing density may be revised based on direction from the City
Council.
?
Data source: 2001 to 2008 housing mix: The assumption about housing density
is based on development trends over the 2001 to 2008 period, based on LCOG
GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s building permit data.
Converting net acres to gross acres
The existing data about residential density is in acres, which does not include land
net
for public right-of-way. One way to estimate the amount of land needed for housing
including public right-of-way is to convert from to acres based on assumptions
netgross
about the amount of land needed for right-of-way.
13
?
Potential range of assumption: The net-to-gross factor for housing built
between 2001 and 2008 in Eugene averaged about 20%, based on analysis of
residential development that occurred in Eugene between 2001 and 2008.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC did not provide comments on the
net-to-gross factor.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
using a net-to-gross factor of 20%.
?
Data source: The net to gross factor is a point in time estimate based on LCOG
GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s building permit data.
OAR 660-024-0010(6) uses the following definition of net buildable acre. “Net Buildable Acre” consists of 43,560
13
square feet of residentially designated buildable land after excluding future rights-of-way for streets and roads.
While the administrative rule does not include a definition of a gross buildable acre, using the definition above, a
gross buildable acre will include areas used for rights-of-way for streets and roads. Areas used for rights-of-way are
considered unbuildable.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 24
Residential redevelopment
The City of Eugene has a legal obligation to inventory the supply and estimate the
capacity of buildable land within the UGB. The inventory must consider land that may
be used for residential infill and redevelopment. The City does have an obligation
not
14
to “create a map or document that may be used to verify and identify specific lots or
parcels that have been determined to be buildable lands” to show residential infill and
15
redevelopment.
OAR 660-008-0005(6) defines redevelopable land as “land zoned for residential use on
which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected
market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be
converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period.” The
administrative rule does not define what constitutes a “strong likelihood” for
redevelopment.
Moreover, neither Goal 10, OAR 660-008, nor ORS 197.296 define “infill.” Planners
and Oregon land-use policy have seemed to define infill as either (1) development that
occurs in areas that are already largely developed, or (2) development that occurs on
“partially vacant” land. Both of those informal definitions have problems. The first one
has no agreed upon, much less legally adopted, way of being measured. The second one
requires a definition of partially vacant (generally agreed to mean taxlots that have
some development, but less—perhaps substantially less—than plan and zone
designations would allow, and some amount of vacant acreage—perhaps as little as a
quarter acre that might be feasibly developed).
For the purposes of this study, we define residential redevelopment as development
that (1) occurs on land with existing development, and (2) results in a net increase in
dwelling units. The second condition means that the replacement of one dwelling unit
with one other dwelling unit would not be counted. This definition includes infill on
partially vacant land where there is no demolition, as well as redevelopment that
requires demolition of existing structures. Examples of residential redevelopment
include: (1) demolition of a single-family dwelling and development of a duplex or
apartment building, and (2) partitioning a lot with a single-family house and building a
new single-family dwelling on the newly created lot.
16
Appendix C describes potential methodologies for evaluating the amount of
redevelopment that occurred historically, as well as discussion with the CAC about the
The legal requirements are described in ORS 197.296(3)(a) and (4)(a)(D).
14
Quoted from ORS 197. 296(4)(c).
15
Subdividing a lot and building an additional dwelling is sometimes referred to as infill. For the purposes of this
16
study, we have categorized this type of development as redevelopment.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 25
issues with and merits of different methodologies. After evaluating different
approaches projecting future redevelopment rates and discussing this issue with the
CAC at several meetings, City staff directed the consultants to proceed as follows
regarding redevelopment:
1.Treat “infill” as a subset of “redevelopment.”
2.Measure the combined amount of historical redevelopment using the methods
described in Appendix C. In summary, use data from LCOG’s address file to
estimate the number of new residential addresses that were added between 2001
and 2008 to tax lots identified as developed in 2001. There are some assumptions
we will have to make to do that, but they are explainable and defensible. LCOG
believes that the address file is very accurate and that this method of estimating
redevelopment makes sense. We (ECO) believe that this will be the first study to
have used this advanced method, that it will give accurate results, and that it will
be the best information available in any study of this type about the actual
amount of residential redevelopment (as defined by state rules) that occurred
over a specific, identified period.
3.Use the estimate of the amount of historical redevelopment to create a rate that
can be used as a baseline forecast for estimating future redevelopment. For
example, if 800 new dwelling units (as identified by new residential addresses)
were added over an eight-year period (2001 to 2008, inclusive), then
redevelopment accounted, historically for an average of 100 dwelling units per
year; if that rate is used for the baseline forecast, then about 2,000 new dwelling
units will be built on developed land over the 20-year planning period.
4.Subtract the units estimated to be provided via redevelopment during the
planning period (in the example above, 2,000 dwelling units) from the total
needed (based on calculations described earlier in the memorandum) to get an
estimate of
the number of new dwelling units that will be built during the 20-year
.
planning period on land defined as “vacant” in the LCOG BLI
The next section describes results of our implementation of the first two sets, and the
resulting estimate of the historical rate of redevelopment.
Results
Historical residential redevelopment includes lots that had addresses coded before
2001 and received additional addresses after 2001. ECO used the following criteria to
identify residential redevelopment: (1) lots that had one or more address prior to 2001;
and (2) lots that had additional addresses on the lot after 2001. Plan designation and
zoning were not used as selection criteria. Rather, new residential units were identified
by land use categories and improvement type. This methodology is consistent with the
definition of redevelopment presented in the previous section.
Beth du/650 infill du)The infill rate (based on this definition) is about 10% (6500 interested in that type of development.The data seem suspect, and I don't think we are that I eliminated
some classes of DU: all mobile homes and hotels. increase might be of interest.The densities don't really mean much, although the marginal
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 26
Table 7 shows that between 2001 and 2008 a total of 722 new dwelling units occurred
on tax lots that already had dwellings. Of these, 213 were on lots that had retirement
homes, and 220 were on lots that had single-family dwellings. All of the remaining
units were on lots with some type of multi-family dwellings.
Table 7. Residential redevelopment: new dwellings on
developed lots, Eugene UGB, 2001-2008
Existing
Existing Unit TypeDUNew DU
Apartment With 1 To 4 Units13381
Apartment With 20 Units or More33944
Apartment With 5 To 19 Units38977
Condominiums or Townhouses352
Quad1110
Retirement Home170213
Single Family Housing230220
Two Family Housing Unit-Duplex7275
Total1379722
Source: LCOG taxlot and address data; analysis by ECONorthwest
Based on the results we estimate that about 722 new dwellings were constructed
between 2001 and 2008 that could be considered redevelopment. This is about 11% of all
housing production during the 2001 to 2008 period. New dwellings constructed on lots
with pre-existing development is among the best indicators of redevelopment available
because it provides an actual unit count of new housing by housing type for the
analysis period. This number may overestimate the actual redevelopment on these lots;
some new dwellings may have been part of a phased development—particularly
apartments. Despite these limitations, we feel this indicator is one of the more reliable
redevelopment indicators.
?
Potential range of assumption: The data suggest that approximately 11% of all
housing production during the 2001 to 2008 period were the result of
redevelopment.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC has discussed the redevelopment analysis at
the May and June CAC meetings. These discussions are on-going but expected
to be concluded soon.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming about 11% of all new housing will be accommodated through
redevelopment, about 1,650 new dwelling units.
?
Data source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s
building permit data.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 27
2.3 PS-PLN:B
UBLIC AND EMIUBLIC AND EEDS ASELINE ASSUMPTIONS
Cities need to provide land for uses other than housing and employment. Public and
semi-public facilities such as schools, governments, churches, parks, and other non-
profit organizations will expand as population increases. The analysis of public and
semi-public land needs is driven by needs identified by other agencies (e.g., school
districts), needs identified by the City (e.g., parks), and historical needs. For the purpose
of estimating land needed for other uses, these lands are classified into four categories:
?
Land needed for schools. The 4J and Bethel school districts have plans for new
schools by general location within the City and may have plans for selling
surplus school properties.
?
Land needed for parks and open space. This includes all land designated for
park and open space use within the Eugene UGB. The
Parks, Recreation & Open
defines four categories of parks:
SpaceComprehensive Plan (PROS Plan)
neighborhood parks, community parks, natural areas, and other parks.
?
Land needed for public operations and facilities. This includes lands for city
offices and maintenance facilities, county facilities, state facilities, federal
facilities, and other related public facilities.
?
Lands needed for semi-public uses. This includes churches, non-profit
organizations, and related semi-public uses.
The memorandum “Framework for Determining Land Needed for Public and Semi-
Public Land Need in Eugene During the 2010-2030 Period” (March 5, 2009) describes
the methods used to develop an estimate of public and semi-public land needs. This
section discusses the baseline assumptions necessary for determining the amount of
land needed for public and semi-public uses over the 20-year planning period.
Table 9 shows the estimate of nearly 1,100 acres of land needed for public and semi-
public uses.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 28
Table 9. Estimate of existing public and semi-public land,
Eugene UGB, gross acres, 2010-2030
Assumed Need Estimated need
(Ac/1,000 (gross acres)
Persons)2010-2030
Type of Use
Schools 3.5 120
4J School Districtnonenone
Bethel School District 3.5 120
Parks and Open Space 20.0 822
Neighborhood Parks 1.7 149
Community Parks 1.5 79
Natural Areas 10.0 47
Other Parks 6.8 548
Public Facilities and Operations 2.9 100
Semi-Public 1.3 44
Total 24.2 1,087
Source: 4J and Bethel School Districts, Target Level of Service: Lane Council of
PROS Plan,
Governments GIS data
We are not able to determine whether Eugene has enough land to meet public and
semi-public land needs. Based on the results of the preliminary BLI, it appears that
Eugene does not have enough residential and employment land to accommodate
expected need for public and semi-public land given the assumptions in Table 9.
Schools
As population grows, school districts may need additional land for new schools in the
planning period. ORS 197.296 requires that cities coordinate need for new land for
schools with public school districts. We discussed land need with officials from the 4J
and Bethel School Districts. School land needs are based on the estimate of land need
provided by the school districts. The 4J School District does not expect to need new land
over the 2010 to 2030 period.
17
The Bethel School District expects to need two sites for future schools: (1) an 80-acre
site for a high school and (2) a 40-acre site for a K-8 school. These needs could increase if
the City expands the UGB and bring more residential land into the UGB in the School
District. The District currently owns an 80-acre site that is located outside but adjacent
to the UGB. The Bethel School District does not have surplus property.
18
This information was provided by Barb Bellamy, Communications Director at 4J in an interview on March 12,
17
2009.
This information was provided by Pat McGillivray, Communications Relations for the Bethel School District in
18
an interview on March 12, 2009.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 29
?
Potential range of assumption: The school districts provided input on their
expected land needs. Unless the Council finds these needs unreasonable, there is
no range of assumptions.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed school needs but did not
have suggestions for alternative school land needs. CAC and TAC members
discussed concerns about availability of existing sites within the UGB to
accommodate the Bethel District’s land needs.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming that the 4J District will not need new land and that the Bethel District
will need a 40-acre site and an 80-acre site.
?
Data source: Interviews with school district officials.
Parks and open space
The CAC suggested basing parkland needs on the level of service identified in the
despite the fact that the
Parks, Recreation & Open SpaceComprehensive Plan (PROS Plan),
City has not adopted this plan. The PROS Plan calls for a level of service of 20-acre per
1,000 people, broken into the following parks categories: 1.7 acres per 1,000 people for
neighborhood parks, 1.5 acres per 1,000 people for community parks, 10.0 acres per
1,000 people for natural areas, and 6.8 acres per 1,000 people for other parks.
?
Potential range of assumption: Based on the level of service standards, the City
currently has a deficit of about 380 acres of parkland to serve the existing
population. Based on the level of service standards and expected population
growth, the City will need 820 acres to fill the existing parkland deficit and
serve new residents.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed parkland needs but did
not have suggestions for alternative parkland land needs. The CAC and TAC
both agreed that we need to consider the identified land need for natural areas
in further detail because it does not make sense for a need for natural areas to
contribute to the need for additional lands within the UGB.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We are still
refining parkland need for natural areas, which may result in some adjustment
to parkland needs. We recommend that the City base parkland need on the
level of service in the PROS Plan and address existing parkland deficits, as well
as future parkland need.
?
Data source: City of Eugene Parks Department
Public facilities and operations
This category includes lands for city offices and maintenance facilities, county
facilities, state facilities, federal facilities, and other related public facilities. It does not
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 30
include right-of-ways, land used by the railroad, or land owned by the Bonneville
Power Administration. The City currently has 6.6 acres per 1,000 people (1,174 acres) for
public facilities and operations.
?
Potential range of assumption: Based on the existing level of service (6.6 acres
per 1,000 people) and expected population growth, the City may need about
260 acres of land for public facilities and operations over the planning period.
This estimate seems high because Eugene already has many of the operations
that are necessary for a city the size of Eugene, such as: a wastewater treatment
facility, local and regional government office buildings, the University of
Oregon’s campus and related facilities, utility and other operations, and other
public facilities. An alternative assumption might be that Eugene will need 100
new acres of land (2.5 acres per 1,000 people) for public facilities and
operations. Among other things, this estimate of land need will address the
University of Oregon’s expected growth of 30-acres over the planning period.
19
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC discussed public facilities and
operations land need and seemed to think that assuming a need for 6.6 acres
per 1,000 people was too high. Some committee members were concerned
about the availability of sites within the UGB to provide for needed public
facilities.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming need for 100 acres of land for public facilities and operations.
?
Data source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s
building permit data
Semi-Public uses
This category includes lands for semi-public uses, such as churches, non-profit
organizations, and related semi-public uses. The City currently has 1.3 acres per 1,000
people (232 acres) for semi-public uses.
?
Potential range of assumption: The City could assume that future need for
semi-public land will be similar to current uses, at 1.3 acres per 1,000 people.
Under that assumption, the City will need about 50 acres for semi-public uses
over the 20-year planning period.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC and TAC had no comments on the need for
future semi-public land needs.
Christopher Ramey, Associate Vice President at the University of Oregon, said that the University expects to
19
purchase and develop roughly 30-acres over the 20-year planning period.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 31
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming need for 1.3 acres per 1,000 people or 50 acres of land for public
facilities and operations.
?
Data source: The assumption about need for semi-public land is a point in time
estimate, based on LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s
building permit data.
2.4 S
UMMARY
This memorandum has presented preliminary baseline assumptions for estimating
land need as part of the ELCA project. We presented a factual basis for those
assumptions, the potential range of assumptions, CAC discussion about the
assumptions, and our recommendation for which assumption to use. The analysis of
buildable land supply is documented in a memorandum by LCOG and is under review
by City staff. Once the baseline assumptions for land need and buildable lands
inventory are finalized, we will compare land need with land supply.
ATTACHMENT D
3 AA:SA
PPENDIX UMMARY OF SSUMPTIONS AND
RVLNA
ECOMMENDED ALUES FOR THE AND EED NALYSIS
Reasonable Impact on
VariableRec. ValueSource of DataRationaleRangeLand Need
Employment Land Needs
Employment growth1.4%State of OregonSafe harbor0.9% or 1.4%High
Share of Emp by TypeState of OregonCurrent mixVariesLow
Industrial18.2%15.0% - 23.0%
Commercial54.3%46.0% - 55.0%
Retail13.1%13.0% - 15.0%
New Employment in Non-employment PD15%State of OregonCurrent percentage10% - 20%Low
New Employment in Existing Built Space10%City of EugeneOther cities5% - 15%Low
Employment RedevelopmentCity of EugeneOther cities10% to 35%High
Industrial10%
Commercial15%
Retail35%
Employment DensityState of OregonCurrent averageVariesModerate
Industrial13 EPA5-20 EPA
Commercial68 EPA30-93 EPA
Retail23 EPA20-37 EPA
Converting net to gross20% (15%)City of EugeneCurrent average15% - 20%Moderate
Residential Land Needs
Population Growth0.9%Lane CountyAdopted ForecastNoneHigh
Population in Group Quarters5.3%US CensusCurrent average4.4% - 5.5%Low
Persons per Household2.25US CensusSafe harbor Difficult to Moderate
Residential Vacancy Rate5%US CensusRecent data3.5% - 6.5%Low
Historic data &
Housing mixCity of EugeneVariesModerate
recent trends
Single-family detached55%45% - 64%
Mfg home in park6%5% - 8%
Duplex3%3% - 5%
Single-family attached7%7% - 10%
Tri- and quadplex7%2% - 7%
Apt. with 5-19 units12%8% - 13%
Apt. with 20+ units10%7% - 13%
Average of
Housing Density6.7City of EugeneRecent trendsHigh
6.7-10.0
Single-family detached5.6
Dwelling units
Mfg home in park3.9
per acre
Duplex6.8
Single-family attached20.2
Tri- and quadplex7.8
Apt. with 5-19 units13.1
Apt. with 20+ units26.3
Residential redevelopment11%City of EugeneRecent trends11%High
Net to Gross Factor20%City of EugeneCurrent average15% - 20%Moderate
Public and Semi-Public Land Needs
Park Land20.0 ac/ppCity of EugenePROS PlanN/AHigh
Neighborhood Parks1.7 ac/pp
Community Parks1.5 ac/pp
Natural Areas10.0 ac/pp
Other Parks6.8 ac/pp
SchoolsSchool DistrictsN/ALow
4J School District0 acres4J
Bethel School District120 acresBethel
Public Operations and Facilities100 acresCity of EugeneHistoric data100 - 260 acresModerate
Semi-public uses50 acresCity of EugeneHistoric data25 - 75 acresLow
Note: Note: We excluded government employment growth because government land need is accommodated through public and
semi-public land needs.
ATTACHMENT D
4 AB:A
PPENDIX DDITIONAL DATA TABLES
Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B show average density by plan designation and
zoning district.
Table B-1. Average development density by plan designation and structure type,
dwelling units per net acre, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB
Manufact-Tri- and Aptss
Single-ured Single-Quad-plex Apts with with 20 or
family home in family (3 or 4 5 to 19 more
Plan Designation
detachedparkDuplexattachedunits)unitsunitsAverage
Low Density Residential3.94.53.7na5.2
5.435.5na
Medium Density Residential7.212.17.010.59.9
10.516.47.1
Medium Density Res Mixedna14.610.7na
12.0
6.2na30.6
High Density Res Mixed Usenananana
5.8
5.8nana
High Density Residentialna9.422.532.2
29.0
15.236.732.8
Mixed Usena5.36.6na7.2
11.4nana
Average3.96.87.826.36.7
5.620.213.1
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008; analysis by ECONorthwest
Table B-2. Average development density by zoning district and structure type,
dwelling units per net acre, 2001-2008, Eugene UGB
Manufact-Tri- and Apts with
Single-ured Single-Quad-plex Apts with 20 or
family home in family (3 or 4 5 to 19 more
Zoning
detachedparkDuplexattachedunits)unitsunitsAverage
AG5.8nanana2.2
2.0nana
C-1nana4.1na4.1
nanana
C-2nana3.6na7.9
5.833.8na
GOnananana20.0
nana20.0
I-3nananana1.4
nana1.4
R-13.74.29.3na5.2
5.335.5na
R-1.5nananana11.1
11.1nana
R-2na13.56.6na9.8
9.316.45.7
R-3na8.717.718.322.4
10.536.630.9
R-4na9.428.644.727.4
11.829.792.9
S10.45.36.627.724.2
6.741.526.9
S-C/R-1nana5.0na7.2
12.4nana
S-C/R-2na9.512.1na8.3
7.3nana
S-Hnananana4.8
4.8nana
Average3.96.87.826.36.7
5.620.213.1
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008; analysis by ECONorthwest
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 34
Table B-3. Residential development by structure type and year, 2001-2008,
Eugene UGB
Tri- and Apts with
Single-Single-Quad-plex Apts with 20 or
family Manufact-family (3 or 4 5 to 19 more
Yeardetachedured homeDuplexattachedunits)unitsunitsTotal
Number of Permits Issued
2001 to 2008 4,131 241 149 176 56 38 10 4,801
Number of Dwelling Units
2001 624 17 21 16 8 57 - 743
2002 691 73 17 4 15 100 - 900
2003 560 56 18 10 32 7 - 683
2004 588 29 22 12 11 185 74 921
2005 732 91 67 49 15 8 240 1,202
2006 517 48 27 391 40 50 21 1,094
2007 282 16 26 173 35 20 103 655
2008 159 20 11 5 6 113 20 334
Total DU 4,153 350 209 660 162 540 458 6,532
Net Acres Developed
2001 107.4 4.2 2.4 0.5 0.8 11.8 - 127.1
2002 121.4 9.1 1.4 0.4 2.8 8.0 - 143.1
2003 105.2 23.6 10.1 0.7 5.0 0.4 - 144.9
2004 111.4 4.6 2.5 2.2 1.1 10.1 5.9 137.8
2005 136.8 31.4 6.0 1.5 1.0 0.2 8.7 185.6
2006 89.7 13.6 2.7 17.5 7.7 6.6 0.4 138.2
2007 46.6 1.7 3.2 9.4 1.9 0.3 2.2 65.2
2008 27.8 2.6 2.4 0.5 0.4 3.9 0.2 37.8
Net Acres 746.2 90.7 30.8 32.6 20.8 41.2 17.4 979.8
Density (DU/Net Ac)
2001 5.8 4.1 8.6 31.2 9.4 4.8 na 5.8
2002 5.7 8.0 11.8 10.7 5.3 12.5na 6.3
2003 5.3 2.4 1.8 15.3 6.3 19.5na 4.7
2004 5.3 6.4 8.8 5.4 10.2 18.4 12.5 6.7
2005 5.4 2.9 11.2 33.7 14.7 32.3 27.7 6.5
2006 5.8 3.5 9.9 22.3 5.2 7.6 47.9 7.9
2007 6.1 9.2 8.2 18.5 18.4 68.3 47.4 10.0
2008 5.7 7.8 4.6 9.2 14.5 29.3 82.1 8.8
DU/Net Ac 5.6 3.9 6.8 20.2 7.8 13.1 26.3 6.7
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008; analysis by ECONorthwest
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 35
Table B-4. Residential development by decade, Eugene UGB
Avg Den
Number (DU/Net Avg Lot Size
DECADEof DUTotal AcresAC)(SF
Before 1900 36 9 3.9 11,232
1900-1909 130 31 4.3 10,221
1910-1919 388 86 4.5 9,648
1920-1929 1,393 255 5.5 7,981
1930-1939 1,373 310 4.4 9,828
1940-1949 4,370 1,066 4.1 10,623
1950-1959 6,703 1,616 4.1 10,502
1960-1969 8,660 1,974 4.4 9,931
1970-1979 8,841 1,883 4.7 9,278
1980-1989 2,134 425 5.0 8,682
1990-1999 6,028 1,217 5.0 8,794
2000-2009 4,615 830 5.6 7,837
Source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department, 2008; analysis by ECONorthwest
ATTACHMENT D
5 AC:R
PPENDIX EDEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
The City of Eugene has a legal obligation to inventory the supply and estimate the
capacity of buildable land within the UGB. The inventory must consider land that may
be used for residential infill and redevelopment. It is our opinion that the City does
20
have an obligation to “create a map or document that may be used to verify and
not
identify specific lots or parcels that have been determined to be buildable lands” to
21
show residential infill and redevelopment.
OAR 660-008-0005(6) defines redevelopable land as “land zoned for residential use on
which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected
market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be
converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period.” The
administrative rule does not define what constitutes a “strong likelihood” for
redevelopment.
Moreover, neither Goal 10, OAR 660-008, nor ORS 197.296 define “infill.” Planners
and Oregon land-use policy have seemed to define infill as either (1) development that
occurs in areas that are already largely developed, or (2) development that occurs on
“partially vacant” land. Both of those informal definitions have problems. The first one
has no agreed upon, much less legally adopted, way of being measured. The second one
requires a definition of partially vacant (generally agreed to mean taxlots that have
some development, but less—perhaps substantially less—than plan and zone
designations would allow, and some amount of vacant acreage—perhaps as little as a
quarter acre that might be feasibly developed).
To distinguish between infill and redevelopment, some studies have defined infill as
new construction on a developed tax lot that occurs without demolition of existing
development, and redevelopment as new construction on a developed tax lot that
includes the demolition of some existing development (or perhaps the physical
connection of new development to existing development). These definitions would
require data that are not now collected to be operative, and have no basis in state
statute.
Given these problems, we recommend basing the definitions directly on OAR 660-
008-0005(6). The definition we propose is not only legally defensible; it is also logically
consistent. Our conclusion is that the OAR definition of redevelopment subsumes infill:
infill is one type of redevelopment. Redevelopment is development that happens on
any
land that has been classified as developed (i.e., not vacant). Infill is one way that
redevelopment can occur.
The legal requirements are described in ORS 197.296(3)(a) and (4)(a)(D).
20
Quoted from ORS 197. 296(4)(c).
21
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 37
There is a practical reason for fussing about these definitions: we have a way to
measure redevelopment (including infill), but no good way to measure infill itself,
total
and no legal definition of infill to give clarity about what we should be trying to
measure.
For the purposes of this study, we define residential redevelopment as development
that (1) occurs on land with existing development, (2) results in a net increase in
and
dwelling units. The second condition means that the replacement of one dwelling unit
with one other dwelling unit would not be counted. This definition includes infill on
partially vacant land where there is no demolition, as well as redevelopment that
requires demolition of existing structures. Examples of residential redevelopment
include: (1) demolition of a single-family dwelling and development of a duplex or
apartment building, and (2) partitioning a lot with a single-family house and building a
new single-family dwelling on the newly created lot.
22
Two CAC meetings have focused on redevelopment. The CAC members are divided
about the assumption that the City should make about future redevelopment. Some
CAC members are concerned about the amount of redevelopment that has already
occurred in established neighborhoods and would like to see policies to limit future
infill and redevelopment in some areas. Other CAC members are concerned about the
amount of residential land need that Eugene will have over the 20-year period and want
policies that increase the efficiency of residential land use (i.e., increase density) within
the City’s UGB—one way to reduce need for a UGB expansion is to make and defend
the assumption that a larger amount of growth will be accommodated by
redevelopment (thus, reducing the need for vacant land).
M
ETHODS
In previous studies conducted by ECONorthwest and other organizations,
redevelopment has been addressed by assuming that a certain percentage of residential
growth will be addressed through redevelopment, generally from 5% to 20% of new
residential development. Metro assumed that “refill” (its term for the combination of
23
infill and redevelopment) would account for 26% of new residential development in its
2002 study and is currently developing a refill rate assumption for their on-going
24
residential land needs study.
Subdividing a lot and building an additional dwelling is sometimes referred to as infill. For the purposes of this
22
study, we have categorized this type of development as redevelopment.
ECONorthwest used this method in studies for the following cities: Redmond, Madras, Ontario, Lebanon,
23
Coburg, Ashland, and McMinnville.
The Metro study is accessible from: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/ugr-residentialland.pdf
24
DEMAND OtherSize of Materials# of BuildersLaborOther Public PolicyParcelizationOTHER FACTOR DEMAND This exposition substantially oversimplifies the National Changes Rate of ZoningService
/ tax policyPublic servicesPhysical Constaints: SUPPLY OF
COST OF LANDCONSTRUCTION COSTS
PRICE OF BUILT SPACE
FOR LANDBuildersSTRUCTURECOSTSFOR SPACE complexity of the land market. A model would economic in real household and e.g., Topography
0F EXISTING
(e.g., Housing, Offices)
LAND have to be disaggregated by types of uses (e.g., incomeformationemployment e.g., Wetlands
HOUSING
growth residential, industrial) and types of products
within those uses (e.g., SF, MF) and types of
households with effective demand for those uses
(e.g., by size of HH, age of head, income).
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 38
In addition to estimating the amount of redevelopment that will occur over the
planning period, the administrative rule requires the city to estimate what land has a
“strong likelihood” for redevelopment. One commonly used method to estimate
25
capacity for infill and redevelopment is by arraying residential tax lots on the basis of
the ratio of their improvement value to their land value ratios. In this methodology,
26
“strong likelihood” can then be defined by the value of that ratio. A ratio of less than
1::1 (i.e., where the improvement is worth less than the land) is a typical threshold.
While that method is reasonable, convenient, and relatively inexpensive, people
familiar with the process of redevelopment correctly point out that the redevelopment
decision is affected by many other factors (see Figure C-1), and that many parcels with
ratios less than 1::1 will redevelop during the 20-year forecast period, and many
not
parcels with ratios greater than 1::1 redevelop. The ratio is hardly a definitive
will
measure of “strong likelihood.”
Figure C-1: Some of the factors that fact the price of built
space and, by implication, the rate of redevelopment
There is no guidance on what “strong” is or how it might be measured.
25
An improvement to land value ratio compares the assessed value of the improvements with the assessed value
26
of the land. For example, an improvement to land value ratio of 0.75:1 shows that the improvement is worth the less
than the land (75% as much as the land). A ratio of 2:1 shows that the improvement is worth twice the value of the
land.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 39
The professional literature of planning, urban economics, real estate, and appraisal
does not have much to say about redevelopment rates. Conceptually, the factors likely
to influence redevelopment (broadly, the conditions of demand, supply, and price for
built space and the factors that go into creating that built space) are clear enough, but
the magnitude of the empirical relationships has few studies and no professional
consensus. The property owner / developer decision to redevelop is not simply
deterministic, but complexly probabilistic. The requirements of Oregon law
withstanding, no real estate analyst would have any confidence in making a property-
specific assessment for every property in an urban area of the likelihood that the
property would redevelop over a 20-year period.
Fortunately, Oregon law has not yet been interpreted as requiring such a speculative
exercise. Many studies related to Goals 9, 10, and 14 have taken a more pragmatic
approach. They start with the question “Why does the state care about redevelopment?”
The answer, in state law, is that redevelopment implies that we are accommodating the
same amount of growth with development of a smaller amount of vacant land (other
things being equal), which implies (a) more efficient use of land and urban
infrastructure, (b) less need for UGB expansions, and (c) more resource land preserved.
In short, redevelopment means that some of the growth of population and employment
that would otherwise go on land now does not have to—that growth has been
vacant
accommodated on land (that is the definition of redevelopment).
developed
Thus, these studies reason, in the context of a UGB evaluation, what one needs to
know is how much of the total forecasted population and employment growth is likely
to be accommodated on developed land. If one can estimate that amount, then it can be
subtracted from the total forecast of growth, and the remaining growth can be
compared to the supply of vacant land to see if it is sufficient (given assumptions about
the density of development) to accommodate that growth. Portland Metro, among other
jurisdictions, uses this method.
That method is sometimes referred to as dealing with redevelopment on the
demand
. In contrast, a attempts to identify what land (either specifically
sidesupply-side method
27
or by class) is forecasted to redevelop and then calculates the amount of growth that
land would accommodate. A supply-side method has all the problems noted previously
about how to estimate which parcels are going to redevelop.
The CAC spent some time discussing these contrasting methods. The consultants’
previous reports did not explain the differences as clearly as we have attempted to
here—our motivation for this longer explanation is in part the desire to reduce the
In a supply-side method the amount of growth that can be accommodated is derived from some estimate of the
27
supply of land that is forecasted to redevelop.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 40
confusion about what is possible, practical, and required for an evaluation of
redevelopment.
A few CAC members preferred that redevelopment be estimated on a tax-lot basis:
this got referred to at CAC meetings as a supply-side approach to redevelopment. ECO
and City staff met with Paul Conte, a CAC member and advocate of this method, at the
end of June to clarify the option. All parties generally agreed that:
28
?
It would be desirable that any method used to make estimates of future
redevelopment have some empirical basis, and one derived from the experience
of the City of Eugene would be preferable. In other words, it would be desirable
to have some information about the historical rate of redevelopment in Eugene.
?
Per the discussion of definitions above, a desirable measure of residential
redevelopment would be the number of dwelling units built on land
that was
(i.e., was not classified as vacant).
already classified as developed
?
If one had a measure of the of redevelopment for some historical period,
amount
then one could convert that amount to some type of in several different
rate
ways. One way would be to divide the amount of dwellings considered to be
redevelopment by the total number of dwelling units built for the same period.
That is what ECO did in its previous report (and what has been referred to as a
demand-side treatment of redevelopment), estimating that between 11% and
14% of all housing units built between 2001 and 2008 could be classified as
redevelopment. Alternatively, one could divide the same estimate of
29
redeveloped dwelling units by some measure of the total (theoretical) capacity of
Eugene’s developed land to accommodate greater density. Such a measure
would say something like “between 2001 and 2008 Eugene used X% of the
theoretical capacity of its developed residential land.” That is more of a supply-
side ratio.
?
The request by some CAC members for a more detailed supply-side analysis of
redevelopment is a request that the likelihood of redevelopment over the 20-
not
year planning period be estimated for every developed tax lot in Eugene, or that
some analysis be done to define and identify a subset of specific developed tax
lots that have a “strong likelihood” of redevelopment. Such an analysis would be
expensive, speculative, and beyond what has been done in any other Oregon
planning exercise that we know of.
Paul Conte sent a memorandum describing his proposed methodology in detail on July 7, 2009. We are still
28
reviewing the details he proposes. Based on the methods he discusses, it seems that there is general agreement about
the logic, data, and methods for doing the redevelopment analysis the way that ECO has proposed.
As noted later in this memorandum, because we have changed (improved) the definition of redevelopment as
29
part of work subsequent to making that calculation, those estimates change a little, but in concept they are calculated
the same way.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 41
?
The supply-side analysis is not required by state law. Its potential value is that it
may provide a more detailed tracking of the categories of tax lots that are
assumed to be contributing to redevelopment, which could help respond to
questions about UGB capacity in the event that some of those tax lots are re-
zoned in the future. Ideally, a complete supply-side analysis might create
multiple redevelopment rates: rates that might be specific to plan designation, lot
size, or other characteristics.
Where there may not be agreement among all CAC members and City staff is
30
whether supply-side analysis has benefits that exceed its costs. Depending on the
amount of disaggregation desired, generating redevelopment rates for many
combinations of zoning and land attributes could take quite a bit of time. More
important, even if it were no extra effort, that level of detail creates yet more detail for
debate and challenge. We noted at a CAC meeting that this type of analysis is like
fractals: turning up the magnification does not reduce complexity or uncertainty.
Assume that a good-faith effort was made to describe historical amounts of
redevelopment by plan designation (e.g., LDR, MDR) and to compare those amounts to
the total theoretical capacity by plan designation. How does that theoretical capacity get
estimated? A simple technique would be to multiply all land in a zone (say, LDR) by the
maximum allowed capacity. But we know that there are many reasons that much of that
land will not develop to its maximum. It may be constrained by slopes, for example: we
could bring in a slope layer from the GIS and make some assumptions. It may be
constrained by other policy overlays, for example: we could try to identify all those,
map them where possible, and from the some assumptions about the impact on
capacity. Both of those types of issues are ones we have dealt with for vacant land. But
the land may be constrained by parcel configuration, the location and size of the
building footprint, or the types and locations of uses in surrounding parcels: we have
no easy way to deal with those issues globally—they require parcel-specific analysis.
And, finally, it is clear that market conditions affect the likelihood of redevelopment
and thus, by definition, the capacity of any developed tax lot to contribute new
dwelling units to the housing stock. The concern of City staff and the consultants is that
what may start as a relatively simple exercise to estimate capacity in some
theoretical
aggregated and generalized sense will become, little by little, a complicated exercise to
get to a more estimate of capacity, with no clear technical end to the
refinedactual
legitimate debate and the analysis that could inform it.
Given all these points, and after evaluating them in more detail than this summary
provides, City staff directed the consultants to proceed as follows regarding
redevelopment:
We cannot say, because we are writing this memorandum in response to CAC comments, but in advance of
30
having met with the CAC to get its reaction to the points we are making.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 42
1.Treat “infill” as a subset of “redevelopment.”
2.Measure the combined amount of historical redevelopment using the methods
described in earlier memoranda. In summary, use data from LCOG’s address file
to estimate the number of new residential addresses that were added between
2001 and 2008 to tax lots identified as developed in 2001. There are some
assumptions we will have to make to do that, but they are explainable and
defensible. LCOG believes that the address file is very accurate and that this
method of estimating redevelopment makes sense. We (ECO) believe that this
will be the first study to have used this advanced method, that it will give
accurate results, and that it will be the best information available in any study of
this type about the actual amount of residential redevelopment (as defined by
state rules) that occurred over a specific, identified period.
3.Use the estimate of the amount of historical redevelopment to create a rate that
can be used as a baseline forecast for estimating future redevelopment. For
example, if 800 new dwelling units (as identified by new residential addresses)
were added over an eight-year period (2001 to 2008, inclusive), then
redevelopment accounted, historically for an average of 100 dwelling units per
year; if that rate is used for the baseline forecast, then about 2,000 new dwelling
units will be built on developed land over the 20-year planning period.
4.Subtract the units estimated to be provided via redevelopment during the
planning period (in the example above, 2,000 dwelling units) from the total
needed (based on calculations described earlier in the memorandum) to get an
estimate of
the number of new dwelling units that will be built during the 20-year
.
planning period on land defined as “vacant” in the LCOG BLI
The next section describes results of our implementation of the first two sets, and the
resulting estimate of the historical rate of redevelopment.
R
ESULTS
Historical residential redevelopment includes lots that had addresses coded before
2001 and received additional addresses after 2001. ECO used the following criteria to
identify residential redevelopment: (1) lots that had one or more address prior to 2001;
and (2) lots that had additional addresses on the lot after 2001. Plan designation and
zoning were not used as selection criteria. Rather, new residential units were identified
by land use categories and improvement type. This methodology is consistent with the
definition of redevelopment presented in the previous section.
Table C-1 shows that between 2001 and 2008 a total of 722 new dwelling units
occurred on tax lots that already had dwellings. Of these, 213 were on lots that had
retirement homes, and 220 were on lots that had single-family dwellings. All of the
remaining units were on lots with some type of multi-family dwellings.
Beth du/650 infill du)The infill rate (based on this definition) is about 10% (6500 interested in that type of development.The data seem suspect, and I don't think we are that I eliminated
some classes of DU: all mobile homes and hotels. increase might be of interest.The densities don't really mean much, although the marginal
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 43
Table C-1. Residential redevelopment: new dwellings on
developed lots, Eugene UGB, 2001-2008
Existing
Existing Unit TypeDUNew DU
Apartment With 1 To 4 Units13381
Apartment With 20 Units or More33944
Apartment With 5 To 19 Units38977
Condominiums or Townhouses352
Quad1110
Retirement Home170213
Single Family Housing230220
Two Family Housing Unit-Duplex7275
Total1379722
Source: LCOG taxlot and address data; analysis by ECONorthwest
Table C-2 shows residential redevelopment by plan designation for the period
between 2001 and 2008. The results show that the majority of residential redevelopment
(78%) occurred in the Low-, Medium-, and High-density residential plan designations.
About 16% occurred in commercial plan designations.
Table C-2. Residential redevelopment by plan designation, Eugene UGB, 2001-
2008
Existing DwellingsNew Dwellings
Plan DesignationNumberPercentNumberPercent
Low Density Residential28421%19627%
Medium Density Residential84661%22531%
High Density Residential13410%14520%
Medium Density Res Mixed131%101%
Mixed Use101%71%
Commercial594%11216%
Commercial Mixed Use121%91%
Government & Education121%101%
Parks and Open Space91%81%
Total1379100%722100%
Source: LCOG taxlot and address data; analysis by ECONorthwest
In summary, ECO identified 722 new dwellings that were constructed on lots with
existing dwellings between 2001 and 2008. New dwellings constructed on lots with pre-
existing development is among the best indicators of redevelopment available because
it provides an actual unit count of new housing by housing type for the analysis period.
This number may overestimate the actual redevelopment on these lots; some new
dwellings may have been part of a phased development—particularly apartments.
ECLA: Baseline Assumptions ECONorthwest July 2009 Page 44
Despite these limitations, we feel this indicator is one of the more reliable
redevelopment indicators.
Based on the results we estimate that about 720 new dwellings were constructed
between 2001 and 2008 that could be considered redevelopment. This is about 11% of all
housing production during the 2001 to 2008 period.
?
Potential range of assumption: The data suggest that approximately 11% of all
housing production during the 2001 to 2008 period were the result of
redevelopment.
?
CAC and TAC discussion: CAC has discussed the redevelopment analysis at
the May and June CAC meetings. These discussions are on-going but expected
to be concluded soon.
?
Current technical recommendation for baseline assumption: We recommend
assuming about 11% of all new housing will be accommodated through
redevelopment, about 1,650 new dwelling units.
?
Data source: LCOG GIS data and City of Eugene Planning Department’s
building permit data.