Laserfiche WebLink
8 | P a g e <br /> <br />The LOC has been informed that the intention of this section is to require challengers to missing <br />middle housing applications pay for the developer’s attorney fees if they lose on an appeal to the <br />Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). However, as written, HB 2001 will only shift these fees to <br />cities because only cities can deny a land use application. Success on appeal, however, is not a <br />good measure because a decision to remand can occur for a variety of technical issues which the <br />local government can remedy. Technically, the applicant is the prevailing party, but the final <br />decision may remain the same. Mandatory fee shifting in these cases is not always justified if the <br />final decision to deny an application can be supported after remanded to the local government to <br />re-review. <br /> <br />Alternative Solutions <br />As stated at the beginning, cities are not opposed to increasing missing middle housing options, <br />and the LOC is working to best determine what cities need to provide increased options in ways <br />that are workable at the local level. Here are some options that will improve outcomes: <br /> <br />Change the definition of “Needed Housing” <br />Currently, ORS 197.303 outlines the housing types that must be included in housing plans. The <br />“middle housing” options are not listed explicitly as types that are “needed”. If the state wants to <br />see more of this housing allowed in single family zones, it would best to include it as a needed <br />housing type. Similarly to the requirement that cities account for manufactured housing on single <br />family residential lots, these types of units can be added in lower density or single family zones. <br />This would mean that when cities update housing plans, they would be required to include these <br />types of units in those areas. Essentially, the state would be requiring cities to include the <br />outcome in their local planning process and would prevent a city from outright banning this type of <br />development. <br /> <br />Increase Assistance to Cities <br />Cities number one request for changing housing development outcomes is increased technical <br />assistance. They are looking for assistance in a number of ways: 1) funding for planning <br />processes; 2) continued investment in updating housing needs analysis and development codes <br />for housing; 3) model codes for newer housing configurations like cottage clusters that can be <br />adapted to meet local needs; 4) increased capacity for local projects through investment by the <br />state; 5) assistance with determining what incentives will have the biggest impact in increasing <br />development; and 6) assistance with moving from long-term planning to implementation of <br />development plans. As the state is investing more in housing, including this type of assistance to <br />local governments will create the opportunity for better outcomes for developers because the <br />cities will be ready to work on the project. <br /> <br />March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1