December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1000 FRIENDS NOTES & SUGGESTED CHANGES - DIVISION 38 <br />660-038-0040(2)(b) - Mobile home classification. We understand that mobile homes <br />can occur both on individual lots and within a mobile homes park, and available census <br />data does not distinguish between these situations. <br />Even though some are sited on individual lots, we think that mobile homes should be <br />treated as medium density, not strictly for density reasons, but also as a reflection of the <br />type of housing people need. Mobile homes, even when on individual lots, are generally <br />chosen because they are much less expensive. Therefore, a city with a higher percentage <br />of mobiles is probably a city with a higher need for affordable housing types. Going <br />forward, denser housing types are going to be the most affordable, and so we dont want <br />to shortchange those uses. <br />(a) For cities with a UGB population less than 2,500, single family detached dwellings <br />rMa;;446 ' N.w-P° shall be considered low density residential, and all other dwellings <br />shall be considered medium density residential. <br />(b) For cities with a UGB population greater than or equal to 2,500, single family <br />detached dwellings 4Hd H;06 -e . 9.;*Y° shall be considered low density residential, single- <br />family attached dwellings, mobile homes, and multiplexes with two to four units shall be <br />considered medium density residential, and multi family dwellings with five or more units <br />shall be considered high density residential. <br />660-038-0050(3) - Backsliding test. This change is necessary to protect against <br />backsliding when cities select lower density ranges than are appropriate for their actual <br />situation. It is important to note that this 20% increase is calculated on the overall city <br />density, not its recent density. UO research found that recent development in cities of all <br />sizes is an average of 22% more dense than it was 15 years ago. <br />Therefore, it is not a "push factor" - it will not even be as much as cities and town have <br />been experiencing recently. Rather it is merely an adjustment that's necessary to allow <br />this metric to serve as an accurate gauge of likely future development density. <br />(3) If necessary, adjust the density assumptions used in the residential land need analysis <br />so that the overall net density for all residential land need is at least eq+w~-e20% (Lreater <br />than the density determined in OAR 660-038-0050(2), up to a maximum of <br />(a) Eizht dwelling units per net acre for cities with population less than 10, 000 <br />(b) Ten dwelling units per net acre for cities with population ~°eater than or equal to <br />10.000. <br />660-038-0120(2) and -140(3) & (4) - Partiallv vacant & redevelopment capacity. <br />This change is necessary to properly inventory partially vacant land - which is not a <br />