The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem A: Envision Eugene ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Envision Eugene - Single-Family Housing and Industrial Lands Meeting Date: July 27, 2011 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5208 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session will focus on two important components of Envision Eugene and the resulting effects on the City’s projected 20-year land need:  Future land need for single-family homes, and  Future land need for industrial lands. Technical Resource Group members will be present at this work session to continue the discussion of future land need for single-family homes based on new work completed in the last month. BACKGROUND Land Need for Single-Family Homes The Technical Resource Group (TRG), a subcommittee of the Community Resource Group, has been meeting weekly to discuss housing need and to review data and assumptions that went into the City’s initial analysis. A number of factors make up the information required to understand our future land need as it relates to single-family homes. These factors include:  Number of single-family homes needed, including housing mix;  Vacant land capacity;  Partially vacant land capacity;  Efficiency strategies that promote smaller homes such as secondary dwelling units and alley access homes; and  Re-designating select parcels to accommodate single-family homes. Since the June 29 work session, a subcommittee of the TRG has continued its work to refine the methodology used to determine the capacity of partially vacant lands, particularly related to lots larger than one acre in size. The results of this analysis will be presented at the work session. Having this additional information regarding partially vacant land provides the opportunity to look more closely at housing mix and the specific affect it has on the future land need for single-family homes. Attachments A, B and C provide background information on the housing mix discussion to-date. Work will continue throughout the summer on the potential re-designation of select parcels from medium-density to low-density, which may result in the accommodation of additional single-family homes. Exploratory letters have been sent to these property owners and staff has offered to meet with \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110727\S110727A.doc them to gauge interest and answer questions regarding possible impacts or benefits of potential re- designation. The results of this work are anticipated to conclude this fall. Land Need for Industrial Lands On March 9, the council directed staff to begin analyzing lands outside the current urban growth boundary (UGB) for industrial land development and to schedule a council work session to review the results of this analysis. Staff and members of the Community Resource Group Economic Development subcommittee reviewed maps and information associated with possible expansion areas outside the UGB. Based on this work, a preliminary wetlands analysis has been completed for a specific area of northwest Eugene. Letters have also been mailed to property owners in this area to identify interests and concerns. The results of this work to-date will be reviewed at the work session. Next Steps Public Open Houses th A summer open house series is being held in the Atrium Building at 99 West 10 Avenue on the first Wednesdays of July, August and September from 3 - 6 p.m. The first open house, on July 6, provided an opportunity for the public to review maps and information related to single-family housing. The August 3 open house will focus on industrial land strategies and potential expansion areas; and the September 7 event will feature updated information on both single-family and industrial land need and expansion. Housing Land Need Work will continue over the summer to refine the single-family land need based on additional analysis and public outreach. A City Council public hearing will be held in the fall to invite comment on the single-family land need recommendation and any resulting need for a UGB expansion. Industrial Land Need Work will continue over the summer to refine the industrial land need and the analysis of potential expansion areas. Conversations with property owners in these areas will also continue through the summer, as requested. Technical Resource Group The Technical Resource Group is expected to continue its work, reviewing multi-family, mixed-use and commercial capacity assumptions; industrial land need analysis; and monitoring and implementation issues that address many of the strategies outlined in the Adaptable and Flexible Implementation pillar. RELATED CITY POLICIES Growth Management Policies COUNCIL OPTIONS No formal action is required at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager. \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110727\S110727A.doc SUGGESTED MOTIONS No action is required on this item. Therefore, no motions are suggested. ATTACHMENTS A.Technical Resource Group Housing Mix Comparison B.Housing Policy Board Memo re: Housing Mix C.Sustainability Commission Memo re: Housing Mix D.Register-Guard Guest Viewpoint: Ed McMahon, Homebuilders Association of Lane County E.Register-Guard Guest Viewpoint: Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon F.Technical Resource Group and Subcommittee Membership FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner, 541-682-5208 Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us Project Website: www.envisioneugene.org \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110727\S110727A.doc Ø±«·²¹ Ó·¨ Ý±³°¿®·±² Ì¸· · ¿ «³³¿®§ ±º ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¿¬»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿ ½±³°·´¿¬·±² ±º ¼¿¬¿ ¿²¼ ¬«¼·» ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¾®±«¹¸¬ º±®©¿®¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ·«» ±º ©¸¿¬ ³·¨ ¬± °´¿² º±® ±«® ²»© ¸±«·²¹ ¬±½µò Ì¸» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² · ½¿¬»¹±®·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ¬©± ¾±±µ»²¼ ±º ¬¸» ¼·½«·±²ò Ñ¬¸»® ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨» ·² ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» êðûÍÚñìðûÓÚ ìðûÍÚñêðûÓÚ ³·¨» ¸¿ª» ¿´± ¾»»² ¼·½«»¼æ Ì¸» Ø±«·²¹ Ó·¨ «¾¹®±«° ±º ¬¸» Ý±³³«²·¬§ Î»±«®½» Ù®±«° »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ ¿ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ®¿²¹» ±º ¾»¬©»»² êðûÍÚñìðûÓÚ ¬± o ëëûÍÚñìëûÓÚò ÛÝÑÒ±®¬¸©»¬ Ö«´§ îðïð ³»³± ±² ²»»¼»¼ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ¿²¼ ¼»²·¬§ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¿ °®»´·³·²¿®§ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ±º ëëûÍÚñìëûÓÚò o ööö Ì¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ¸±³» ½·¬»¼ «²¼»® »¿½¸ ³·¨ · ®±«²¼»¼ò Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ Ø±«·²¹ Û¨·¬·²¹ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬æ êèôéêî øìïôéçðÍÚñîêôçéîÓÚ÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬æ êèôéêî øìïôéçðÍÚñîêôçéîÓÚ÷ Ò»»¼ Ò»© ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬æ ïìôçëï øèôçéïÍÚñëôçèðÓÚ÷ Ò»© ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬æ ïìôçëï øëôçèðÍÚñèôçéïÓÚ÷ Þ®»¿µ¼±©² Ì±¬¿´ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾§ îðíïæ èíôéïí øëðôéêïÍÚñíîôçëîÓÚ÷ Ì±¬¿´ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾§ îðíïæ èíôéïí øìéôééðÍÚñíëôçìíÓÚ÷ Ñª»®¿´´ ø²»© ¿²¼ »¨·¬·²¹÷ Ó·¨ Ñª»®¿´´ ø²»© ¿²¼ »¨·¬·²¹÷ Ó·¨ Ì¸» ½«®®»²¬ ¿²¼ ÛÝÔß ¿«³»¼ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ · êïûÍÚñíçûÓÚ Ì¸» ½«®®»²¬ ¿²¼ ÛÝÔß ¿«³»¼ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ · êïûÍÚñíçûÓÚ Ë²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨ô ¬¸» ¸¿®» ±º ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¿ ¿ °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º ¬¸» Ë²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨ô ¬¸» ¸¿®» ±º ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¿ ¿ °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º ¬¸» ±ª»®¿´´ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ¼»½®»¿» ¾§ ´» ¬¸¿² ïû ø±® ïìç ²»© «²·¬÷ ±ª»®¿´´ ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ¼»½®»¿» ¾§ ìû øíôïìð ²»© «²·¬÷ ¾§ îðíï ¾§ îðíï Ñª»®¿´´ ³·¨ ¾§ îðíïæ ëéûÍÚñìíûÓÚ Ñª»®¿´´ ³·¨ ¾§ îðíïæ êïûÍÚñíçûÓÚ Ñª»®¿´´ Ó·¨ øîðíï÷ Ó·¨ ±º ²»© ¸±«·²¹ ±²´§ Ñª»®¿´´ Ó·¨ øîðíï÷ Ó·¨ ±º ²»© ¸±«·²¹ ±²´§ ëñïèñïï °¹ò ï Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ Ø±«·²¹ · ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ¿ º±´´±© «²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨æ Ø±«·²¹ · ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ¿ º±´´±© «²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨æ Ü»³¿²¼æ ïìôçëï ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ Ü»³¿²¼æ ïìôçëï ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ Þ§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬§°»æ Þ§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬§°»æ ÍÚÜæ èôçéï «²·¬ ÍÚÜæ ëôçèð «²·¬ ÍÚßæ ïôðìé «²·¬ ÍÚßæ ïôéçì «²·¬ îóì ¼«æ ïôìçë «²·¬ îóì ¼«æ îôîìí «²·¬ ëõ ¼«æ íôìíç «²·¬ ëõ ¼«æ ìôçíì «²·¬ Þ§ °´¿² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²æ Þ§ °´¿² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²æ ÔÜÎæ çôîéé ¼« ÔÜÎæ êôèðí ¼« ÓÜÎñØÜÎñÝ±³æ ëôêéì ¼« ÓÜÎñØÜÎñÝ±³æ èôïìè ¼« Ø±³» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ±² ª¿½¿²¬ ´¿²¼ ø«²¼»® ÛÝÔß Ø±³» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ±² ª¿½¿²¬ ´¿²¼ ø«²¼»® ÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±²÷æ ¿«³°¬·±²÷æ Ê¿½¿²¬ ÔÜÎ ´¿²¼æ ìôêðð ÍÚ «²·¬ íðð ÓÚ Ê¿½¿²¬ ÔÜÎ ´¿²¼æ ìôêðð ÍÚ «²·¬ íðð ÓÚ Ê¿½¿²¬ ÓÜÎ ´¿²¼æ îðð ÍÚ «²·¬ ïôéðð ÓÚ Ê¿½¿²¬ ÓÜÎ ´¿²¼æ îðð ÍÚ «²·¬ ïôéðð ÓÚ Ê¿½¿²¬ ØÜÎ ´¿²¼æ ð ÍÚ «²·¬ ïôìðð ÓÚ Ê¿½¿²¬ ØÜÎ ´¿²¼æ ð ÍÚ «²·¬ ïôìðð ÓÚ Ñª»®¿´´ ¼»²·¬·» ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ·³°´»³»²¬·²¹ Ñª»®¿´´ ¼»²·¬·» ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ·³°´»³»²¬·²¹ ¬¸· ³·¨ò ¬¸· ³·¨ò Î»³¿·²·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬ ¬± ¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ø«²¼»® ÛÝÔß Î»³¿·²·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬ ¬± ¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ø«²¼»® ÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±²÷æ ¿«³°¬·±²÷æ Î»ó¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ñ Î»ó¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ñ Û¨°¿²·±²æ Î»ó¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ñ Î»ó¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ñ Û¨°¿²·±²æ ìôíðð ÍÚ «²·¬ îôìðð ÓÚ ïôíðð ÍÚ «²·¬ ëôëðð ÓÚ Ý±²¬»¨¬ Í·³·´¿® ¬± ¸·¬±®·½ ³·¨ ¿²¼ ³·¨ ±º ¿´´ ¸±«·²¹ ¿ ±º îððé ß«³» ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¸·º¬ ·² ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ ¿²¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ¿²¼ »½±²±³·½ º¿½¬±® ¬±©¿®¼ ³±®» ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ß«³» ¿ ½±²¬·²«¿¬·±² ±º °®»ª·±« ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ ¿²¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ¿²¼ »½±²±³·½ º¿½¬±® Í¬®¿¬»¹·» Í±³» ´¿²¼ «» »ºº·½·»²½§ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ©·´´ ¾» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ Í±³» ´¿²¼ «» »ºº·½·»²½§ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ©·´´ ¾» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ Ò»»¼»¼ ®»¹¿®¼´» ±º ¬¸» ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¾»½¿«» ±º ¬¿¬» ´¿© ®»¹¿®¼´» ±º ¬¸» ¸±«·²¹ ³·¨ ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¾»½¿«» ±º ¬¿¬» ´¿© ¿²¼ ½±³³«²·¬§ ª··±²·²¹ô ¾«¬ ¬¸» ¿¹¹®»·ª»²»ñ·²ª»¬³»²¬ ¬± ¿²¼ ½±³³«²·¬§ ª··±²·²¹ô ¾«¬ ¬¸» ¿¹¹®»·ª»²»ñ·²ª»¬³»²¬ ¬± ©¸·½¸ ¬¸»§ ¿®» °«®«»¼ ½±«´¼ ¾» ´» ©¸·½¸ ¬¸»§ ¿®» °«®«»¼ ©±«´¼ ¾» ³±®» «½¸ ¿æ ëñïèñïï °¹ò î Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ ×²½»²¬·ª» ¿²¼ ½¸¿²¹» ¬± µ»§ ¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±® ¿²¼ ½±®» o ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿®»¿ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ·²½®»¿» ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ×²½®»¿»¼ º´»¨·¾·´·¬§ ·² Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ¦±²» ¬± º¿½·´·¬¿¬» ³«´¬·ó o º¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ É·´´ ²»»¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬®¿¬»¹·» ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» §»¬ ¬± ¾» o ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Ô¿®¹»® Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ô¿®¹»® Ý±³³«²·¬§ ×³°´·½¿¬·±² Ú»©»® ´¿²¼ «» ½¸¿²¹» ²»»¼»¼ ø½±¼» ±® °´¿² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²÷ ©·¬¸·² Ô¿²¼ «» ½¸¿²¹» ²»»¼»¼ ¬± º±½« ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿´±²¹ µ»§ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ËÙÞ ¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±® ¿²¼ ½±®» ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿®»¿ «½¸ ¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ½±¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ô ¿®»¿ °´¿²²·²¹ô »¬½ò Ú»©»® ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ½±®®·¼±® ²»»¼»¼ Ú±½«» ¼»²»® ¸±«·²¹ ¿´±²¹ µ»§ ¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±® ¿²¼ ½±®» ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿®»¿ô °±·¾´§ ®»´·»ª·²¹ ·²º·´´ °®»«®» ·² »¨·¬·²¹ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¿®»¿ Ó¿®µ»¬ Ó¿®µ»¬ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ¸±«·²¹ º±® ³¿®µ»¬ »¹³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¼»·®» Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ¸±«·²¹ º±® ³¿®µ»¬ »¹³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¼»·®» ¯«·½µ»® §¿®¼ñ°¿½» ¿²¼ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ø¿ ½±³°¿®»¼ ¬± ³«´¬·ó¿½½» ¬± »®ª·½» ø»ò¹ò ¬®¿²·¬ô ®»¬¿·´ô ¼¿·´§ »®ª·½»÷ º¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹÷ ×²½®»¿» ¬¸» ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ¸±«·²¹ ¬§°» ·² ¬¸» ¸±«·²¹ ¬±½µ ×º ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»³¿²¼ ¼»½®»¿»ô ¬¸» »²¬·®» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ Ý¸¿²¹» ³¿§ ¾» ¬±± ³«½¸ º±® ³¿®µ»¬ ¬± «°°±®¬ ®»«´¬·²¹ ·² »¨°¿²·±² ¿®»¿ ³¿§ ²±¬ ¾» ²»»¼»¼ «²¼»®¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ´¿²¼ Í·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¸±³» ·² ¿² »¨°¿²·±² ¿®»¿ ½±«´¼ ¾» ª«´²»®¿¾´» ¬± ¸·¹¸»® ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ½±¬ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» ¿²¼ Û²»®¹§ Ë²½»®¬¿·²¬§ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» ¿²¼ Û²»®¹§ Ë²½»®¬¿·²¬§ ×º ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¼»³¿²¼ · ²±¬ ³»¬ ·² Û«¹»²»ô ·¬ ³¿§ ¾» Þ»¬¬»® °®»°¿®» ½±³³«²·¬§ º±® ½´·³¿¬» ¿²¼ »²»®¹§ ½¸¿²¹» ¿²¼ ³»¬ ·² ±«¬´§·²¹ ½±³³«²·¬·»ô ·²½®»¿·²¹ ¬¸» ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ½±¬ ®»¼«½·²¹ ¹®»»²¸±«» ¹¿ »³··±² º®±³ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² °»® ¾«®¼»² ¿²¼ ª»¸·½´» ³·´» ¬®¿ª»´»¼ øÊÓÌ÷ º±® ¬¸±» ¸±«»¸±´¼ Í»²¿¬» Þ·´´ ïðëç ¾§ ·²½®»¿·²¹ ¼»²·¬§ ²»¿® ¬¸» ½±®»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿®±«²¼ ¬®¿²·¬ ¿²¼ »®ª·½» ø½±«´¼ ´±©»® ÊÓÌ÷ Ô·µ»´§ ¬± ®»«´¬ ·² ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·¬¸ ´±©»® »²»®¹§ «»ô ½±¬ ¿²¼ ¹®»»²¸±«» ¹¿ »³··±² °»® ½¿°·¬¿ ø³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ¿®» ±² ¿ª»®¿¹»ô ·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ³±®» »²»®¹§ »ºº·½·»²¬ ¬¸¿² ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¼©»´´·²¹ ±º ¬¸» ¿³» ¯«¿®» º±±¬¿¹» ¿²¼ ±½½«°¿²½§÷ ëñïèñïï °¹ò í Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ Ð«¾´·½ ×²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» Ð«¾´·½ ×²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Ý«®®»²¬ °«¾´·½ ·²ª»¬³»²¬ ´»ª»´ ©·´´ ²»»¼ ¬± ½±²¬·²«» º¿½·´·¬¿¬·²¹ Ó±®» ·²ª»¬³»²¬ · ²»»¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½·¬§ ¬± ®»³±ª» ¾¿®®·»® ¬± ×³°´·½¿¬·±² ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ø«½¸ ¿ ½±²¬·²«»¼ º·²¿²½·¿´ ·²ª»¬³»²¬ ·² ¼»²»® ¸±«·²¹ ¿²¼ ³·¨»¼ «» ø»» Í¬®¿¬»¹·» Ò»»¼»¼ ¿¾±ª»÷ ¼±©²¬±©²÷ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ËÙÞ Ó±®» ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» ²»»¼»¼ º±® ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ «¬·´·¬§ Ô» ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» ²»»¼»¼ º±® ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ «¬·´·¬§ ¬± »®ª» »¨¬»²·±² ¬± »®ª» ¸±«·²¹ ·² »¨°¿²·±² ¿®»¿ ¸±«·²¹ ·² »¨°¿²·±² ¿®»¿ Ý±³°¿½¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» ½±®» ¿²¼ ¿´±²¹ ¬®¿²·¬ ½±®®·¼±® ³¿§ ·²½®»¿» ®·¼»®¸·° ¿²¼ ³¿µ» »¨·¬·²¹ ¬®¿²·¬ ®±«¬» ³±®» º·²¿²½·¿´´§ º»¿·¾´» ßºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ ßºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ Ð®»«³» ¬¸¿¬ ±¬¸»® º¿½¬±® ¿²¼ °±´·½·» ©·´´ ¿¼¼®» ¬¸» ©·¼»²·²¹ Ì¸» ÌÎÙ ¸¿ ²±¬ §»¬ ¾»»² ¿¾´» ¬± »¬¿¾´·¸ º·²¼·²¹ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¸±«·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ ¹¿° ¿ºº»½¬ ±² ¸±«·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ Ì¸» ÌÎÙ ¸¿ ²±¬ §»¬ ¾»»² ¿¾´» ¬± »¬¿¾´·¸ º·²¼·²¹ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¿ºº»½¬ ±² ¸±«·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ ËÙÞ ËÙÞ Ô¿®¹»® ËÙÞ »¨°¿²·±² º±® ¸±«·²¹ô ¹®»¿¬»® ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» ²»»¼ Í³¿´´»® ËÙÞ »¨°¿²·±² º±® ¸±«·²¹ô ¹®»¿¬»® ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» ²»»¼ ¿²¼ ½±¬ ±«¬·¼» ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ËÙÞ ¿²¼ ½±¬ ·²·¼» ¬¸» ½±®» ¿®»¿ ß ¿² »¨¿³°´»ô «²¼»® ¬¸» ÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±²ô ¿² ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ß ¿² »¨¿³°´»ô «²¼»® ¬¸» ÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±²ô ¿² ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ èêð ¿½®» »¨°¿²·±² ©±«´¼ ¾» ²»»¼»¼ º±® ÔÜÎ ¸±«·²¹ îèð ¿½®» »¨°¿²·±² ©±«´¼ ¾» ²»»¼»¼ º±® ÔÜÎ ¸±«·²¹ Ñª»®¿´´ Ü»²·¬§ Ñª»®¿´´ Ü»²·¬§ Ô» ¬¸¿² ïû ·²½®»¿» ¬± ±ª»®¿´´ ¿ª»®¿¹» ²»¬ ¼»²·¬§ º®±³ ¬¸» ß°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ îíû ·²½®»¿» ·² ±ª»®¿´´ ¿ª»®¿¹» ²»¬ ¼»²·¬§ º®±³ ½«®®»²¬ñÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±² ±º éòí ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® ²»¬ ¿½®» ¬± éòì ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ñÛÝÔß ¿«³°¬·±² ±º éòí ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® ²»¬ ¿½®» ¬± ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® ²»¬ ¿½®»æ çòð ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® ²»¬ ¿½®» ø¾»½¿«» ¬¸»®» ¿®» ³±®» ³«´¬·ó º¿³·´§ «²·¬ ©¸·½¸ «¬·´·¦» ´» °¿½»÷æ Þ§ Ð´¿² Ü»·¹²¿¬·±²æ Þ§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬§°»æ Þ§ Ð´¿² Ü»·¹²¿¬·±²æ Þ§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬§°»æ ÔÜÎ ëòì ÍÚÜ ëòì ÔÜÎ ëòë ÍÚÜ ëòì ÓÜÎ ïíòë ÍÚß îðòî ÓÜÎ ïíòë ÍÚß îðòî ØÜÎ íïòê îóì ¼« èòê ØÜÎ íïòê îóì ¼« èòê Ý±³ îðòè ë ±® ³±®» îìòï Ý±³ îðòè ë ±® ³±®» îìòï Ì±¬¿´ éòì Ì±¬¿´ éòì Ì±¬¿´ çòð Ì±¬¿´ çòð ëñïèñïï °¹ò ì Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ Ó«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ¼»²·¬·» ³·¹¸¬ ·²½®»¿» ´·¹¸¬´§ ø¬¸« Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ ·²½®»¿» ±ª»®¿´´ ¿ª»®¿¹» ´·¹¸¬´§÷ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¿´´ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ×³°´·½¿¬·±² ·²·¼» ¬¸» ËÙÞ ßª»®¿¹» ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® §»¿® ßª»®¿¹» ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ °»® §»¿® Ø·¬±®·½¿´´§ô º®±³ îððïóîððèæ Ø·¬±®·½¿´´§ô º®±³ îððïóîððèæ ÍÚÜæ ëîê ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÍÚÜæ ëîê ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÓÚæ îïè ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÓÚæ îïè ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® Ë²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨æ Ë²¼»® ¬¸· ³·¨æ ÍÚÜæ èôçéï ñ îð §® ã ììè ÍÚÜ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÍÚÜæ ëôçèð ñ îð §® ã îçç ÍÚÜ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÓÚæ ëôçèð ñ îð §® ã îçç ÓÚ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® ÓÚæ èôçéï ñ îð §® ã ììè ÓÚ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¾«·´¬ °»® §»¿® Û«¹»²»ñÔ¿²» Õ»§ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ º¿½¬±® ¿²¼ °±·¾´» ¿ºº»½¬ ±² ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ Õ»§ ¼»³±¹®¿°¸·½ º¿½¬±® ¿²¼ °±·¾´» ¿ºº»½¬ ±² ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ Ý±«²¬§ Û«¹»²» ¸¿ ¿ ´¿®¹»® ¸¿®» ±º ½±´´»¹» ¿¹»¼ °»±°´» ¬¸¿² Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ Û«¹»²» ¸¿ ¿ ´¿®¹»® ¸¿®» ±º ½±´´»¹» ¿¹»¼ °»±°´» ¬¸¿² Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ Î»´»ª¿²¬ ¿ ¿ ©¸±´» ¿ ¿ ©¸±´» Ü¿¬¿ ©·¬¸ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ º±® ½±´´»¹» ¿¹»¼ °»±°´» ±º ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» o Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ ³¿¶±®·¬§ ®»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿®» ³±®» ´·µ»´§ ¬± ´·ª» ·² ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ×³°´·½¿¬·±² Û«¹»²» °±°«´¿¬·±² · ¹®±©·²¹ ±´¼»® Û«¹»²» °±°«´¿¬·±² · ¹®±©·²¹ ±´¼»® Û«¹»²» ±´¼»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ¸±«·²¹ ½¸±·½»æ Û«¹»²» ±´¼»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ¸±«·²¹ ½¸±·½»æ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¸±³» º±® ±´¼»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ø±ª»® ¿¹» Ð®±ª·¼» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±® ³±®» ¸±«·²¹ ¬§°» ®»°±²¼·²¹ ¬± o o ìë÷ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ¬§°·½¿´´§ ¸±³»±©²»® ±´¼»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¼»½®»¿·²¹ º®±³ ´·ª·²¹ ·² ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ Û«¹»²» §±«²¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ¸±«·²¹ ½¸±·½»æ ¿º¬»® ¿¹» êëó éðò Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ º±® §±«²¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ o Û«¹»²» §±«²¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ¸±«·²¹ ½¸±·½»æ ¬¸¿¬ ©¿²¬ ¬± ´·ª» ·² ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ Ð®±ª·¼» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±® ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ¸±«·²¹ ¬§°» ¬± ±©² º±® o §±«²¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ø«²¼»® ¿¹» îë÷ ¬¸¿¬ ¬§°·½¿´´§ ¸¿ª» ´±©»® ·²½±³» Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ º±® §±«²¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¬¸» o ³¿¶±®·¬§ ±º ©¸·½¸ ´·ª» ·² ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ëñïèñïï °¹ò ë Ú¿½¬±® êðû ÍÚ ñ ìðû ÓÚ ìðû ÍÚ ñ êðû ÓÚ Û«¹»²» ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ³¿´´»® ø¬¸¿² ¸·¬±®·½¿´ Û«¹»²» Û«¹»²» ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ³¿´´»® ø¬¸¿² ¸·¬±®·½¿´ Û«¹»²» Û«¹»²»ñÔ¿²» ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ½«®®»²¬ Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ Í¬¿¬» ¸±«»¸±´¼ ·¦»÷ ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ ½«®®»²¬ Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ Í¬¿¬» ¸±«»¸±´¼ ·¦»÷ Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ Û«¹»²» ¸¿¼ ³±®» ²±²óº¿³·´§ ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ º»©»® ¿²¼ Û«¹»²» ¸¿¼ ³±®» ²±²óº¿³·´§ ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¿²¼ º»©»® Î»´»ª¿²¬ ¸±«»¸±´¼ ©·¬¸ ½¸·´¼®»² ¸±«»¸±´¼ ©·¬¸ ½¸·´¼®»² Ü¿¬¿ ©·¬¸ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±® ³±®»ô ³¿´´»® ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±® ³±®»ô ³¿´´»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ ¬§°» oo Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ ¼©»´´·²¹ ×³°´·½¿¬·±² Û«¹»²» · ¾»½±³·²¹ ³±®» »¬¸²·½¿´´§ ¼·ª»®» Û«¹»²» · ¾»½±³·²¹ ³±®» »¬¸²·½¿´´§ ¼·ª»®» Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±® ´¿®¹»® ¸±«»¸±´¼ Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ º±® ³±®» ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¸±«·²¹ oo Õ»§ ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ Õ»§ ¸±«·²¹ ¬®»²¼ Í·²½» îðððô ¸±«·²¹ ¬¿®¬ ·² ¬¸» »´»½¬»¼ ½·¬·» ©·¬¸·² Ô¿²» Í·²½» îðððô ¸±«·²¹ ¬¿®¬ ·² ¬¸» »´»½¬»¼ ½·¬·» ©·¬¸·² Ô¿²» Ý±«²¬§ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¼±³·²¿¬»¼ ¾§ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¬§°» Ý±«²¬§ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¼±³·²¿¬»¼ ¾§ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¬§°» Î»°±²¼ ¬± ½±²¬·²«»¼ ¼»³¿²¼ º±® ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ Î»°±²¼ ¬± ¼»³¿²¼ º±® ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ©¸·½¸ ¬§°·½¿´´§ ¸¿°°»² oo ¿º¬»® ¿² ·²½®»¿» ·² ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¼»³¿²¼ Û«¹»²» ¸±«·²¹ ¾»½¿³» ´» ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» º±® ®»²¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ±©²·²¹ Û«¹»²» ¸±«·²¹ ¾»½¿³» ´» ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» º±® ®»²¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ±©²·²¹ ±ª»® ¬¸» ´¿¬ ¼»½¿¼» ±ª»® ¬¸» ´¿¬ ¼»½¿¼» Þ®·²¹·²¹ ²»© ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ±²¬± ¬¸» ³¿®µ»¬ ³¿§ º®»» «° Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» ¬± ·²½®»¿» ¬¸» ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ¸±«·²¹ oo »¨·¬·²¹ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¹»²»®¿´´§ ®»²¬ ±® »´´ º±® ´» ¬§°» ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¬± ´±©»® ¿²¼ ³·¼¼´» ·²½±³» ´»ª»´ ¬¸¿² ·³·´¿® ²»©´§ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¼©»´´·²¹ò Þ®·²¹·²¹ ²»© ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ±²¬± ¬¸» ³¿®µ»¬ ³¿§ º®»» «° o Ð®±ª·¼» ³±®» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ©¸·½¸ ¿´´±© ¬¸±» ©¸± ½¿² »¨·¬·²¹ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¹»²»®¿´´§ ®»²¬ ±® »´´ º±® ´» o ¿ºº±®¼ ¬± ³±ª» ¬± ²»© ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¬± ª¿½¿¬» »¨·¬·²¹ ·²¹´»ó¬¸¿² ·³·´¿® ²»©´§ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¼©»´´·²¹ò º¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ º±® ¬¸±» ©·¬¸ ´» ·²½±³» Û«¹»²» ¸¿ ¿ ´±© ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ª¿½¿²½§ ®¿¬» ± ²»© ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ o ¸±«·²¹ ³¿§ ·²½®»¿» ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ±°¬·±² Õ»§æ ÓÚæ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¸±«·²¹ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ÍÚßô îóì ¼«ô ë õ ¼«÷ ÍÚæ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«·²¹ ÍÚÜæ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«·²¹ ëñïèñïï °¹ò ê ÍÚßæ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸±«·²¹ îóì ¼«æ îóì ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ë õ ¼«æ ë ±® ³±®» ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ Ð´¿² ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²æ Ó»¬®± Ð´¿² ¼·¿¹®¿³ ´¿²¼ «» ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² Î»ó¼»·¹²¿¬·±²æ Ì± ½¸¿²¹» ¬¸» ´¿²¼ «» ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ±º ¿² ¿®»¿ º®±³ ©¸¿¬ ·¬ · ½«®®»²¬´§ ¼»·¹²¿¬»¼ ±² ¬¸» Ó»¬®± Ð´¿² ¼·¿¹®¿³ ëñïèñïï °¹ò é øÛÈ×èÇ×ÉØÛÃòÇÎ× èÍô×ÛÈÔ×ÊítøÍÎÎ×ÐÐðÛÎØçÉ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕø×ÌÛÊÈÏ×ÎÈ öÊÍÏòîÍÊÈÍÎùÛÚ×ÐÐÙÔÛÓÊóÎÈ×ÊÕÍÆ×ÊÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐôÍÇÉÓÎÕìÍÐÓÙÃúÍÛÊØ Sustainability Commission Sustainability Office th 99 W. 10 Avenue, Suite 116 Memorandum Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5017 (541) 682-5221 FAX www.eugene-or.gov/sustainability June 22, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sustainability Commission RE: Envision Eugene: Housing Mix In light of our role in advising Council on policy matters, the Sustainability Commission recently discussed the housing mix options under consideration by the Envision Eugene Technical Resource Group. We applaud the work of the Technical Resource Group to systematically assess the many ways in which housing affordability and livability may be affected by housing mix goals. The following represents our consensus feedback at this time, though we expect to weigh in further in September as well. Our comments are intended to provide a suggested direction by drawing attention to the consistency of one mix or another with the seven pillars that Council has advanced for public discussion, as well as with the previously adopted Climate and Energy Action Plan. The Sustainability Commission does not recommend a particular numerical ratio for the future housing mix in Eugene. We do, however, recommend a set of questions for staff, advisory committees and advocates of specific housing mix ratios. If the future of Eugene is to align with our vision and resolve the inherent tradeoffs among the seven pillars, the optimal housing mix ratio should be driven by a long view of impacts. There are indications that many drivers of the housing market are changing -- including generational differences in housing preferences, availability of mortgages, cost of transportation energy and building energy, and community commitments to tackling climate change and local energy security. We recommend that you ask advocates of specific housing mix values to look into the future as they make their arguments, and to be creative about how to reconcile such goals as density, affordability, and livability. As we understand the pillars, they tell us that our community must shift toward compact mixed-use development focused on transit corridors. Retaining the status quo 60:40 mix of single family and multi-family housing will block our ability to achieve our shared vision as represented by the pillars. Even the 40:60 (single family: multi-family) housing mix option makes this shift only slowly and modestly over the timeframe under consideration. We see a mix closer to the 40:60 alternative as much more consistent with the seven pillars. We look forward to a follow up work session with Council to discuss broader implications of Envision Eugene and to respond to questions raised at our work session with you in April. The Register-Guard http://www.registerguard.com/ GUEST VIEWPOINT: Eugene’s choice of right housing mix can help the recovery BY ED MCMAHON Sunday Published: ,Jul 3, 2011 05:01AM It’s hard not to notice the world of difference between the housing-led recoveries that consistently have pulled the economy out of recessions for decades and the economic recovery we are experiencing today. Anemic job creation, slow and vacillating economic growth, sagging consumer confidence — it’s painfully evident by now that something has gone wrong with a recovery that barely feels like a recovery at all. So maybe it’s encouraging, even if it’s a bit late, that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and a growing number of other leaders in Washington are starting to make the connection between a languishing housing industry and a recovery that just can’t work up a good head of steam. But the truth of the matter is that little has been done to address the issues preventing housing from getting back on its feet. It’s frustrating that not enough thought has been given to housing lately — not only because housing can provide the boost the economy so sorely needs, but also because Americans value it highly. In a recent national survey conducted on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders by leading political pollsters Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies, three-quarters of the 2,000 people likely to vote next year who responded were bullish about home ownership even considering market fluctuations, and 73 percent of those who do not currently own a home said owning is one of their goals. Among younger voters who are most likely to be shopping for housing in the next few years, home ownership was valued even more. The NAHB economists estimate that the recession has created a lag of 2 million household formations as individuals doubled up with friends and family until conditions improve. Looking at the demographics, a record number of Americans moving into their 20s and 30s will need places to live, starting out with rentals and then moving into homes they own. That’s not even the whole picture — leaving out aging baby boomers and immigrants — but it suggests a powder keg of housing demand that can emerge quickly if government policies move in the right direction. Building to that demand would provide just the lift the economy needs. Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that building 100 average single-family homes generates more than 300 jobs, $23.1million in wages and business income and $8.9million in taxes and revenue for local, state and federal governments. And there’s a tremendous ripple effect from there. Is Eugene going to be ready to benefit from the pent up housing demand? That question will be answered in the near future when the Eugene City Council votes on a housing mix. The suggested housing mix being presented to the council ranges from 55 percent to 60 percent single family detached housing, and 45 percent to 40 percent multifamily housing. It has been established that 15,000 dwelling units will be needed for the 20-year planning period. Depending on the housing mix, the need for single family detached housing will range from 6,000 to 9,000 units. Hopefully the council will decide on a minimum of 60 percent single family detached housing and 40 percent multi-family housing mix, which would mean building an average of approximately 450 single family detached housing units per year. That would be far below what we’ve experienced in the past. Eugene averaged 773 single family detached housing units per year from 1990 through 2007. A 60 percent single-family and 40 percent multi-family mix represents a 59 percent decrease from historical trends. Knowing that the housing bubble we experienced is not likely to return, and considering the tightened mortgage standards in place today, a decrease in single family detached housing is expected. However, a 59 percent decrease from historical trends will continue to push a large portion of the housing demand to surrounding bedroom communities, increasing vehicle miles traveled in the process. Hopefully the Eugene City Council will make the right housing mix decision. It’s time to kick-start the recovery and put housing back to work. Ed McMahon, the executive vice president for the Home Builders Association of Lane County for 16 years, is participating in the Community Resource Group, the Technical Resource Group and the Partially Vacant Land Group of the Envision Eugene process. Copyright © 2011 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA The Register-Guard http://www.registerguard.com/ GUEST VIEWPOINT: Yesterday’s housing mix won’t prepare Eugene for future BY MIA NELSON Sunday Published: ,Jul 17, 2011 03:38PM In his July 3 guest viewpoint, Ed McMahon urged Eugene to plan 60 percent of its new housing as detached single-family homes, to “kick-start the recovery.” Because this is the least dense form of housing, such a plan would lead to a larger urban expansion. But does the raw land supply have anything to do with the housing crisis? Nationwide, some of the most troubled areas have the fewest land use controls. Over the next 20 years, a ratio of 60 percent detached single-family would require planning for roughly 9,000 new units. Eugene already has room for more than 4,000 single-family homes on its vacant lands alone; preliminary work indicates partially vacant lands could accommodate up to 3,000 more. Clearly, there is no emergency on the land supply end of things. What is the problem, then? William Lucy, professor of urban and environmental planning at the University of Virginia, places most of the blame not on dysfunctional lending and speculative overbuilding, but on something more long-lasting and harder to solve: demographic changes that have greatly increased the number of older sellers while decreasing the number of younger purchasers. “These changes have created more than five homeowners 55 and over who are potential sellers for each household age 30 through 44 which is not a home owner but might like to buy,” Lucy says. This imbalance will only grow worse as the baby boomer generation ages, and increasing numbers of older homeowners try to sell. At the same time, younger potential homebuyers — facing persistent unemployment and tightened credit markets — may be less able to buy costly detached single-family homes from downsizing retirees than in the past. Despite these demographic changes, population will continue to rise, albeit at reduced rates. Over the last 20 years, Eugene added an average of 1,100 new dwelling units a year; growth over the next 20 years is projected to slow to just 750 units per year. As McMahon correctly observed, even if detached single-family were given 60 percent of the growth pie, the slice would still be much smaller than in past years. However, if Eugene focuses on delivering the lion’s share of the growth-planning pie to detached single-family homes, other housing types will be shorted, and this could leave our community unprepared to serve tomorrow’s evolving markets. During the recent housing boom, a great deal of Eugene’s new construction was traditional detached single-family on lots 7,000 square feet and larger. Planning for a continuation of this pattern may be unwise. According to Arthur Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah, in the long term this housing type is severely oversupplied, with about 20 million more units existing now, nationwide, than will be needed in 2030. He predicts that 88 percent of our country’s growth through 2030 will be households without children, and that demand will be strongest for higher density housing in close-in, walkable neighborhoods served by good transit. Planning for these housing types can pay big dividends. The construction phase yields high-paying jobs, while added foot traffic in mixed-use developments can revive deteriorating commercial areas. Live-work options encourage entrepreneurism. Less car-reliant developments reward residents with transportation cost savings, better health and improved quality of life. While the housing mix determines the amount of land provided for each housing type, it also directs Eugene’s planning program. Much work is needed to create a thriving local housing market and affordable, livable choices for all residents. This work includes comprehensive area planning, code changes to allow live-work arrangements in industrial zones, provision of high quality transit along key corridors, code changes and rezonings to encourage mixed-use development in commercial areas and near transit stops, and carefully targeted incentives. The work also includes anticipating coming market pressures on existing neighborhoods that could result in poorly designed infill projects. Better planning for student housing, stronger infill compatibility standards, and an opportunity siting process that empowers affected neighbors are important pieces of the planning puzzle. Eugene’s neighbors recognize the benefits of expanded housing choices. Springfield and Albany are planning for only 52 and 47 percent detached single-family homes, respectively, despite current mixes of more than 60 percent. Corvallis is planning for only 50 percent single-family home construction. These forward-looking cities will not be caught flat-footed, unprepared for the coming shifts in demography and preferences. Like it or not, we are entering unfamiliar waters. Instead of trying to re-create the past, Eugene should embrace the inevitable changes of the 21st century, and step boldly forward with planning activities that fully prepare our community to meet the coming demand for a wide range of housing types. Mia Nelson, the Willamette Valley advocate for 1000 Friends of Oregon, is a Realtor, a residential subdivision developer, and a member of the Community Resource, Technical Resource and Partially Vacant groups of the Envision Eugene process. Copyright © 2011 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA Technical Resource Group Committees Envision Eugene Technical Resource Group Member List Shawn Boles* Eugene Sustainability Commission Rick Duncan* Eugene Planning Commission Erin Ellis Our Money Our Transit Roger Gray Eugene Water & Electric Board Kevin Matthews* Friends of Eugene Ed McMahon* Home Builders Association of Lane County Mia Nelson* 1,000 Friends of Oregon Gretchen Pierce Hult & Associates Laura Potter* Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Sue Prichard* Former Infill Compatibility Standards Co-Chair Other participants: Joshua Skov Eugene Sustainability Commission Barbara Mitchell Cal Young Neighborhood Association Randy Hledik Eugene Planning Commission * denotes active members TRG Partially Vacant Lands Subcommittee Rick Duncan Eugene Planning Commission Kevin Matthews Friends of Eugene Ed McMahon Home Builders Association of Lane County Mia Nelson 1,000 Friends of Oregon TRG Spreadsheet Subcommittee Shawn Boles Eugene Sustainability Commission Rick Duncan Eugene Planning Commission Kevin Matthews Friends of Eugene