Buckeye workshop presents draft housing action plan, cites shortage of up to 11,000 units by 2029

At a commission workshop, city staff presented a draft housing action plan that they said is required by the state and that “supports the city council's strategic goal,” outlining a current shortage of roughly 2,840 housing units and a projection that the shortfall could grow to about 11,000 units by 2029.

The plan, presented by Andrea Marquez, a senior planner in Development Services, is intended as a guidance document rather than an immediate policy prescription. Marquez said the draft will guide future policies and implementation options and will be revised with commission and public input before being returned to the city council for formal adoption.

Marquez told the commission the housing needs assessment used 2024 data and found that Buckeye’s housing stock in 2022 was dominated by large single‑family homes (83 percent were three bedrooms or larger), with very limited small‑unit supply (about 2 percent zero‑ or one‑bedroom and 15 percent two‑bedroom units). The assessment also reported a 134 percent population increase since 2010 and cited a median household income of about $98,000. “This plan is required by the state and supports the city council's strategic goal,” Marquez said.

Why it matters: the draft is the city’s first housing action plan and is intended to inform decisions about housing diversity, affordability, and workforce needs as Buckeye grows. Marquez said the document identifies catalytic development areas, potential density bonuses in downtown and at the landing activity area, streamlining of final plats (moving some reviews to administrative processes per state statute), and possible funding or program options, including exploring down‑payment assistance.

Commission discussion and public input focused on several practical points. Commissioner Don Vassler asked how very large new projects — he referenced a development for “100,000 homes west of here” — fit with the plan’s goals. Marquez and other staff members responded that the city cannot compel private owners to build a particular product where zoning permits multiple uses; instead, the city’s levers are incentives, code updates, fee reductions, and programs that make targeted housing types easier or cheaper to develop. “Maybe homebuyer assistance, programs, down‑payment assistance programs, are the way to go,” a staff member said when discussing ways to encourage smaller ownership products.

Several speakers emphasized gaps in housing types. Marquez and others noted a shortage of senior‑living facilities and of “move up” housing for long‑time residents wanting to upgrade. The commission heard that most multifamily projects approved recently have been market‑rate; a small number were low‑income housing tax credit projects that reserve units for households below 50–60 percent of area median income (AMI). Marquez explained AMI thresholds in the draft — for example, units targeted to households at 80–90 percent of AMI are framed as “attainable,” while deeper subsidies would be needed for households at 30 percent of AMI.

Outreach and data notes: staff said outreach included an open house, a senior‑center meeting, and an online survey in English and Spanish; Marquez cautioned that some survey results were skewed by high senior participation. The draft and the housing needs assessment have been submitted to the Arizona Department of Housing and were compiled with support from consultants Matrix (Lainie Corey and Michael Wright), the League of Arizona Cities, and MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments).

Funding and implementation tools mentioned in the discussion included Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement (the city is currently under Maricopa County as a non‑entitlement jurisdiction), use of density bonuses in CMPs (concept/master plans), reduced fees in the downtown boundary, LIHTC (low‑income housing tax credit) projects, and possible down‑payment assistance funded by a mix of sources (staff noted CDBG or general fund as potential sources but that no program has been adopted).

No formal action was taken. The workshop format was advisory: commissioners provided feedback and asked staff to continue accepting comments; Marquez said consultants will provide a final draft at the end of October and that the plan will return to city council for potential adoption. Marquez summed up the document’s role: “the plan isn't supposed to...be policy. It's just it's more of a guide for us right now.”

Next steps: staff will continue outreach and revisions, incorporate commissioner and public input, and return a final draft to the city council for consideration; the plan and the underlying housing needs assessment remain public records filed with the Arizona Department of Housing and the League of Arizona Cities.