Buckeye holds workshop on draft housing action plan; no formal action taken

Andrea Marquez, senior planner in Development Services for the city of Buckeye, presented a draft housing action plan at a Planning Commission workshop and described the document as a policy guide rather than a binding regulation. "The plan isn't supposed to, you know, be policy. It's just it's more of a guide for us right now," Marquez said, adding the plan was produced with consultant Matrix and reported housing-needs data to the Arizona Department of Housing.

The workshop reviewed findings from Buckeye's housing needs assessment and invited Commission feedback for council. Marquez said the assessment shows Buckeye faces an immediate shortage of 2,840 housing units and a projected shortage of about 11,000 units by 2029. The assessment noted Buckeye's housing stock in 2022 was dominated by larger single-family homes — 83% of units had three or more bedrooms — with smaller units (zero to one bedrooms) comprising about 2% and two-bedrooms about 15% of the stock.

Why this matters: Marquez told commissioners the housing action plan is required by state law for jurisdictions that have reached a population threshold and supports the City Council's strategic housing goals. She said the plan compiles data, proposes policy options, and identifies potential funding and implementation steps but does not itself change zoning or require development in any particular location.

Commissioners and attendees pressed staff on definitions used in the draft. Commissioner Teddy Burke questioned how the document uses the terms "affordable" and "attainable," asking, "Because what's affordable to me may not be affordable to the next person. So what does that mean?" Marquez and other participants explained the plan frames affordability through area median income (AMI) metrics and commonly used housing-cost benchmarks (for example, the 30%-of-income affordability guideline). The draft cites a median household income in Buckeye of roughly $98,000 and uses AMI bands to identify needs for lower-income renters or buyers as distinct from broader "attainability" measures for workforce and move-up housing.

Participants discussed outreach and data sources. Marquez said the planning process included a public survey (English and Spanish), an open house at The Landing and a separate senior meeting at the senior center; she noted the senior outreach influenced the plan's emphasis on accessible and senior-serving housing. The consultants' work included demographic analysis, market data and a GIS site-suitability analysis. Marquez said Matrix expects to deliver a final draft at the end of October and staff continue to accept comments.

Possible implementation tools reviewed in the draft include identifying catalytic development areas, density bonuses within targeted areas (notably downtown and the Landing activity area), accessory dwelling unit provisions (already reflected in the city's code), potential down-payment assistance programs, and incentives that might make certain housing types more feasible. Marquez said the city is exploring receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement status (currently CDBG funds come via Maricopa County) as one possible funding source.

Questions from the public and commissioners addressed how the city can influence private development. Don Basler, a workshop participant, asked how large new development tracts fit into the plan; Marquez and other staff responded that the city cannot compel specific private development types on allowable-zoned property but can use incentives, fee reductions or assistance programs to encourage desired housing products. Jim Tedberg asked, "Where does the down payment assistance come from?" to which staff replied that funding sources are not yet decided and could include CDBG funds, general-fund allocations or partnerships with nonprofits; no program funding was adopted at the workshop.

Staff and planning representatives noted coordination needs and partnerships. Marquez said staff have been meeting with Habitat for Humanity and other training partners such as BuildStrong Academy to explore workforce and homebuyer programs. The city has a newly formed Human Services division that staff identified as a likely home for social-service and some housing-support programs, though the final assignment of program administration remains open.

Procedural and statutory notes discussed at the workshop included state-driven changes to development-review steps. Marquez and planning staff referenced a recent state requirement that shifts certain preliminary-plat reviews to administrative processes; final plat streamlining was also discussed as a way to reduce time to build, though commissioners expressed concern about reducing public review opportunities.

Outcome and next steps: The Commission provided feedback and asked staff to refine priorities and clarify funding and program administration. No motions or formal votes were taken; Marquez said a final draft will go to the City Council for consideration and possible adoption after further staff edits and comment collection.