Eugene planners outline policies and incentives to meet 26,000‑unit housing need

EUGENE, Ore. — At a June 17 work session, the Eugene Planning Commission heard staff present draft housing goals, 29 policies and a package of actions intended to increase housing production and affordability over the next 20 years.

The staff presentation cited the 2025 Oregon Housing Needs Analysis numbers that show Eugene must accommodate more than 26,000 new dwelling units over the next 20 years. Rebecca Gershow, senior planner, told commissioners the city’s current pace — about 960 new units a year over the past decade, roughly 100 of which are subsidized — is far below the roughly 1,600 units per year the analysis indicates is needed, including about 700 annually affordable to the lowest‑income households.

Why it matters: staff said the shortfall requires a package of regulatory changes, incentives and site‑specific rezonings to increase capacity inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) before any UGB expansion. The proposed near‑term actions are meant to be measurable inputs to the land supply study and the city’s urban growth strategies recommendations to city council next year.

Staff described the housing chapter as organized around four goals: production, affordability, choice and fairness. “Develop and facilitate tools that increase the production of new housing,” the production goal reads; policy examples include removing barriers to housing production, offering incentives to increase access, and tools to increase housing near centers, staff said.

Among the actions staff proposed for possible adoption in 2026–27 are: - Create a new code‑defined housing type called “microvillage housing” — clusters of detached very‑small units with private sleeping quarters and in‑unit bathrooms plus a shared common building for cooking, laundry and services. Staff said developers and shelter providers have identified this model as a faster, lower‑cost option to serve people transitioning from homelessness. - Explore a pilot to defer or reduce system development charges (SDCs) and other fees to accelerate developments, and to design an array of financial incentives (loans, tax exemptions, fee assistance) targeted to moderate‑income and subsidized housing. - Update zoning and land use designations for selected nodes (for example, the Royal Avenue node) and pursue surgical, site‑specific rezonings in 2027 after the land supply study clarifies precise gaps. - Increase average residential densities in low‑density residential zones (R‑1) by options such as minimum densities, smaller lot sizes, lower maximum lot sizes on partitions and permitting increased building area. - Review and revise the city’s multiunit design standards and other code provisions that can add time and cost to multiunit housing, with minor changes included in 2026 and a fuller revamp in 2027. - Advance strategies to encourage voluntary annexation of unincorporated but serviced parcels inside the UGB, including waivers or incentives tied to annexation applications.

Rebecca Gershow framed the actions as a sequential approach required by state law: first quantify the capacity on vacant and partially vacant land and redevelopment potential inside the UGB; then identify how much additional capacity can be unlocked through efficiency measures and incentives; and finally, if a remaining gap remains, proceed to a UGB expansion analysis and public review toward adoption by 2030. "By the end of 2026, we will ask for you to recommend a first UGS package of housing and jobs actions recommended to the city council," Gershow said.

On affordability and household targets, staff noted the state’s rules segment need by area median income (AMI). Gershow said the lowest‑income category (under about 80% AMI) will require subsidized production and that the city currently lacks many tools targeted at middle‑income “workforce” housing (often described as households earning in a range above subsidized thresholds but below market‑rate affordability).

Commissioners and attendees pressed for more detail on impacts and measurement. Commissioner Isaacson asked whether staff can break down current pipeline numbers by year; staff agreed to provide annual permit figures and said that where actions can be quantified they will prepare estimates of additional housing capacity attributable to each efficiency measure for the land supply analysis next year. Several commissioners urged the city to consider building height as a lever for density; Commissioner Beeson said small increases in allowable height can produce substantially more units on constrained urban lots.

Other discussion points included the limits of local authority. Staff cautioned that building code requirements are largely set at the state level and that some potential changes therefore require state‑level advocacy. They also noted several pieces of state legislation under consideration that could affect future tools, including provisions in middle‑housing and housing bills that address covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).

Next steps: staff will present largely the same materials to city council at a June work session and will continue to refine the draft policies and the 2026–27 action packages this summer, incorporate planning commission input, complete the land supply studies in 2026, and return with quantified estimates and a recommendation for a first UGS package by the end of 2026.

Commissioners and staff provided numerous specific edits and requests for follow‑up, including: more detail on financial tools and administrative costs for incentives; the yearly permit pipeline numbers; clarity on which actions staff expect to be quantifiable for the land supply study; and coordination with sustainability and public‑facilities planning.