HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED Agenda Packet 3-6-19 Work Session - postMarch 6, 2019, Work Session
AMENDED AGENDA
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
March 6, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of March 6, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors
Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President
Mike Clark Greg Evans
Chris Pryor Claire Syrett
Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
Note: This agenda has been amended to reflect the addition of Item 2.
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1. WORK SESSION: Oregon HB 2001 (2019 Regular Session)
2. WORK SESSION: Community Safety Initiative
March 6, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish‐language
interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at
541‐682‐5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later
in the week.
El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene
acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con
48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación.
Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541‐682‐5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por
Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541‐682‐5010
or visit us online at www.eugene‐or.gov.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Oregon HB 2001 (2019 Regular Session) Meeting Date: March 6, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Planning and Development Department Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5508
ISSUE STATEMENT This work session was requested by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to allow the full City Council to review and discuss HB 2001, a bill under consideration by the 2019 Oregon Legislature.
BACKGROUND HB 2001 was introduced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tina Kotek. The Speaker’s office has identified the goal of HB 2001 as: “increase housing choice for households of different ages, sizes, and incomes in single-family neighborhoods.” HB 2001 is provided as Attachment A. The bill includes these main elements: 1. Defines “middle housing” as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and cottage clusters; 2. Requires cities with populations greater than 10,000 to allow, within their urban growth boundaries, in areas zoned for detached single family dwellings, the development of at least one “middle housing” type on each lot, subject to reasonable regulations related to siting and design. 3. Requires cities with populations greater than 10,000 to update their land use regulations before January 1, 2021, to allow middle housing as required by the bill. Cities that do not update their land use codes before January 1, 2021, will be required to apply the model middle housing code developed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. 4. Directs the Department of Consumer and Business Services to adopt changes to building codes related to middle housing types. 5. Provides that local governments may not require that a system development charge for middle housing be paid prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the dwelling. 6. Provides that an applicant to develop middle housing is entitled to attorney fees if the middle housing application is denied by the City but the applicant appeals and prevails at the Land Use Board of Appeals. 7. Clarifies that owner occupancy requirements and requirements to construct off-street parking are not reasonable regulations related to siting and design of accessory dwelling units.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Several of the City’s adopted 2019 Legislative Priorities may affect the council’s consideration of this bill. On the one hand, one of the adopted 2019 Land Use legislative priorities provides that “Eugene opposes state or federal legislative or regulatory pre-emption of local land use laws and authorities.” As written, HB 2001 would pre-empt some local authority around the development and implementation of land use regulations related to middle housing. On the other hand, the 2019 Legislative Priorities also include directives that align with the proposed legislation, including:
• Eugene supports the preservation and expansion of programs and tools to fund the development and preservation of housing affordable to low-income persons.
• Eugene supports the preservation and expansion of land use and community planning tools that enable the development of affordable housing. Finally, the following legislative priority may indicate support for HB 2001, if the bill is amended to provide more clarity and to increase local control:
• To the extent the legislature establishes mandates that require Eugene to take certain actions, Eugene supports legislation that provides clarity, and incorporates flexibility to the extent possible. Eugene also supports timely and efficient state technical support and funding to provide assistance in implementation of such mandates. Envision Eugene includes recommendations calling for expanding housing variety and choice by facilitating the building of smaller, clustered and attached housing. Participants in the recent Housing Tools & Strategies process voiced strong support for by-right housing options, including duplexes, triplexes, cottage clusters, and smaller homes on smaller lot sizes in all single-family zones and revision of the land use code to allow for development of more diverse “missing middle” housing types The City’s Intergovernmental Relations Manager continues to work with the Eugene Area Legislative Delegation and other key lawmakers under the direction of “Oppose, unless amended” received at the IGR meeting on February 13, 2019, by requesting clarification and by working with the League of Oregon Cities staff on potential amendments.
Relevant Meetings
• HB 2001 was introduced onto the House Floor on 1/14/19, referred to House Committee on Human Services and Housing on 1/18/19, and a Public Hearing was held on 2/11/19. The League of Oregon Cities Provided Testimony as part of the Public Hearing, provided as Attachment B.
• League of Oregon Cities meeting with Speaker Kotek was held on 1/31/19. Councilor Pryor attended the meeting and represented Eugene. At the meeting, Speaker Kotek provided an outline of the bill’s main items, provided as Attachment C.
• City of Eugene IGR Meeting was held on 2/13/19. The IGR Committee discussed HB 2001 with staff from the Planning Division, the City Attorney’s office and the IGR Manager. The IGR Committee unanimously voted to “Oppose, HB 2001 unless amended.” The IGR Committee also unanimously agreed that a City Council work session should be scheduled to discuss HB 2001.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION City Council has not had previous discussions or decisions on HB 2001.
COUNCIL OPTIONS City Council can vote to take any of the following positions on the bill:
• Oppose
• Oppose unless amended
• Support
• Support with amendments
• Neutral The current position adopted by the IGR Committee is “Oppose, unless amended.”
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends to maintain the “Oppose, unless amended” position.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the position on HB 2001 of “Oppose, unless amended” and direct the City Manager or designee to provide regular updates on the progress of HB 2001 to the IGR Committee and City Council.
ATTACHMENTS A. HB2001 – Introduced B. HB2001 – League of Oregon Cities written testimony from 2/11/19 Public Hearing C. HB2001 – Middle Housing Detailed Outline, from Speaker Kotek 1/31/19
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen Telephone: 541-682-5508 Staff E-Mail: ahansen@eugene-or.gov Staff Contact: Ethan Nelson Telephone: 541-682-5245 Staff E-Mail: enelson@eugene-or.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2019 Regular Session
House Bill 2001
Sponsored by Representative KOTEK (Presession filed.)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the
measure as introduced.
Requires cities with population greater than 10,000 and counties with population greater than
15,000 to allow middle housing in lands zoned for single-family dwellings within urban growth
boundary. Requires Land Conservation and Development Commission to draft model code. Requires
cities and counties to amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations to conform with
requirement by December 31, 2020, or to directly apply model code developed by commission. Re-
quires Department of Consumer and Business Services to amend Low-Rise Residential Dwelling Code
to apply to low-rise middle housing and to amend State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code to not
apply to low-rise middle housing.
Allows attorney fees, beginning January 1, 2021, for prevailing applicant whose proposal to de-
velop middle housing is denied.
Prohibits conditioning approval of accessory dwelling unit within urban growth boundary on
off-street parking availability or owner occupancy.
Prohibits local governments from requiring system development charges to be paid by developer
of middle housing before occupancy permit is issued.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to housing; creating new provisions; amending ORS 197.312; and declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.Section 2 of this 2019 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197.
SECTION 2.(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Cottage clusters” means groupings of no fewer than four detached housing units per
acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each and that include a common courtyard.
(b) “Middle housing” means:
(A) Duplexes;
(B) Triplexes;
(C) Quadplexes; and
(D) Cottage clusters.
(2) Each city with a population greater than 10,000 and each county with a population
greater than 15,000 shall allow, within its urban growth boundary in areas zoned for detached
single-family dwellings, the development of at least one middle housing type on each lot,
subject to reasonable local regulations related to siting and design.
SECTION 3.No later than December 31, 2020:
(1) Notwithstanding ORS 197.646, each local government subject to section 2 of this 2019
Act shall update its comprehensive plan and land use regulations to implement section 2 of
this 2019 Act.
(2) The Land Conservation and Development Commission, with the assistance of the
Building Codes Division of the Department of Consumer and Business Services, shall develop
a model middle housing code.
(3) A local government that has not adopted its own comprehensive plan and land use
NOTE:Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 2887
ATTACHMENT A
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
HB 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall directly apply the model code developed
by the commission under subsection (2) of this section under ORS 197.646 (3).
SECTION 4.(1) It is the policy of the State of Oregon to reduce to the extent practicable
administrative and permitting costs and barriers to the construction of middle housing, as
defined in section 2 of this 2019 Act, while maintaining safety, public health and the general
welfare with respect to construction and occupancy.
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 455.035, on or before January 1, 2021, the Department of Con-
sumer and Business Services shall adopt changes to:
(a) The Low-Rise Residential Dwelling Code to apply the code to all middle housing types;
and
(b) The State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code to exempt all middle housing that is
three stories or less above grade from requirements of the code.
SECTION 5.Section 6 of this 2019 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 223.297 to
223.314.
SECTION 6.A local government may not require that a system development charge for
middle housing, as defined in section 2 of this 2019 Act, be paid prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit for the dwelling. The local government may enforce the system develop-
ment charge by an encumbrance against the property, but may not charge any interest on
the system development charge prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit.
SECTION 7. ORS 197.312, as amended by section 7, chapter 15, Oregon Laws 2018, is amended
to read:
197.312. (1) A city or county may not by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or
detached single-family housing, multifamily housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manu-
factured homes. A city or county may not by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose
additional approval standards on government assisted housing that are not applied to similar but
unassisted housing.
(2)(a) A single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker’s immediate family is a
permitted use in any residential or commercial zone that allows single-family dwellings as a per-
mitted use.
(b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance
of a single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker’s immediate family in a residential
or commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a
zoning requirement imposed on other single-family dwellings in the same zone.
(3)(a) Multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers’ immediate families is a permitted
use in any residential or commercial zone that allows multifamily housing generally as a permitted
use.
(b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance
of multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers’ immediate families in a residential or
commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a zoning
requirement imposed on other multifamily housing in the same zone.
(4) A city or county may not prohibit a property owner or developer from maintaining a real
estate sales office in a subdivision or planned community containing more than 50 lots or dwelling
units for the sale of lots or dwelling units that remain available for sale to the public.
(5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than
15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single-
[2]March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
HB 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-
family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.
(b) As used in this subsection[,]:
(A) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that
is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling.
(B) “Reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design” does not include owner-
occupancy requirements of either the primary or accessory structure or requirements to
construct additional off-street parking.
(6) Subsection (5) of this section does not prohibit local governments from regulating
vacation occupancies, as defined in ORS 90.100, to require owner-occupancy or off-street
parking.
SECTION 8. Section 2 of this 2019 Act is amended to read:
Sec. 2. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Cottage clusters” means groupings of no fewer than four detached housing units per acre
with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each and that include a common courtyard.
(b) “Middle housing” means:
(A) Duplexes;
(B) Triplexes;
(C) Quadplexes; and
(D) Cottage clusters.
(2) Each city with a population greater than 10,000 and each county with a population greater
than 15,000 shall allow, within its urban growth boundary in areas zoned for detached single-family
dwellings, the development of at least one middle housing type on each lot, subject to reasonable
local regulations related to siting and design.
(3) An applicant whose proposal to develop middle housing under this section is denied
is entitled to attorney fees if the applicant is the prevailing party on an appeal to the Land
Use Board of Appeals.
SECTION 9.(1) Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 of this 2019 Act and the amendments to ORS 197.312
by section 7 of this 2019 Act become operative on January 1, 2020.
(2) The amendments to section 2 of this 2019 Act by section 8 of this 2019 Act become
operative on January 1, 2021.
(3) The Land Conservation and Development Commission, the Department of Consumer
and Business Services and the Residential and Manufactured Structures Board may take any
actions before the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section necessary to en-
able the commission to exercise, on or after the operative date specified in subsection (1) of
this section, the duties required under section 3 of this 2019 Act.
SECTION 10.In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro-
priated to the Land Conservation and Development Commission, for the biennium beginning
July 1, 2019, out of the General Fund:
(1) The amount of $ for the purpose of enforcing section 3 (1) of this 2019 Act
through enforcement actions as provided in ORS 197.319 to 197.335; and
(2) The amount of $ for the activities of the commission under section 3 (2) and
(3) of this 2019 Act.
SECTION 11.This 2019 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2019 Act takes effect
[3]March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
HB 2001
1
2
on its passage.
[4]March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
February 11, 2019
Chair Keny-Guyer, Vice-Chairs Noble & Sanchez, Members of the House Human Services and
Housing Committee:
As you know the League of Oregon Cities represents all 241 incorporated cities in the state of
Oregon. As an organization, we advocate for cities to be able to solve issues at the local level.
This allows locally elected officials to hear how problems like housing shortages are impacting
local residents, approach the issue with a collaborative and locally focused process, and be held
directly accountable when they are not addressing the problems. Cities across the state have
expressed significant concerns about the need for housing, and they are looking to increase
partnership with the state in addressing the complex, multi-dimensional issue of increasing
housing construction.
However, in conversations across the state, with cities of varying sizes, the solutions to the issues
in each city looks different. Some areas are seeing a lot of interest in development, with large
developments and experienced developers coming to the table. Others do not have enough
labor force to see more than a few units develop each year, and the developers that are working
are smaller scale with limited experience beyond single family unit development. Each city that is
investing local resources into housing are balancing a variety of needs, interests, and goals for
the city. None have found a single fix that will address either the supply or price issues, but many
are working their way through the process to reduce local barriers, increase incentives, and
leverage the development opportunities to get a variety of housing types.
HB 2001 presents a proposal for a solution to a few aspects of the issues surrounding the
development on certain types of units, but cities are concerned that its one-sized solution fails to
account for the realities that cities wrestle with when they make decisions about zoning, fiscal
policy, and community involvement. However, we do not believe it should be the end of this
conversation. Instead, our goal is to see how cities and the state can better work together toward
their shared goal of increasing housing supply that is affordable to a variety of incomes. State
mandates like that proposed in HB 2001 do not often lead to the best outcomes because they
cannot address the circumstances that prevent the goals from being attained.
Cities are also investing in finding local solutions, looking to update their current codes and plans,
updating the information on which we make decisions, and starting community conversations to
determine how to improve development outcomes. Cities are looking for assistance in their
efforts, not mandates that direct significant resources to implement. The LOC has also been
working to find ways to partner with the state to provide additional information and assistance
from the current state resources to see improvements for all cities.
ATTACHMENT B
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
2 | P a g e
Below are our primary concerns with HB 2001, as introduced, and some alternatives that might
create opportunities to see an increased planning for a variety of unit types.
Concerns
Overall, cities are concerned about the lack of clarity related to many terms of this bill. In
addition, while there is a line for appropriations for the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) to implement their role, there is no consideration of the fiscal impacts to
cities. To enact the updates to the codes called for by this legislation will take resources and
staff, and without proper funding from the state, we will not be able to meet this mandate.
Section 2: Mandatory Zoning Changes
The Oregon statewide land use planning process is governed by statute, goals and rules, and is
an ever changing process that cities and counties must follow when planning for future growth.
The land use planning system requires an overall framework that guides and limits local decisions
for growth patterns. The 19 Land Use Goals govern the expectations of what local governments
do in their plans. There are a number of goals that impact planning for housing development:
Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement); Goal 2 (Land Use Planning); Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 11 (Public
Facilities and Services); Goal 12 (Transportation; and Goal 14 (Urbanization). Other goals also
come into consideration when you are looking at developability such as Goal 6 (Air, Water and
Land Resources Quality) and Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Hazards).
One of the keys to land use system is that cities must plan 20 years out for their development
based on research, analysis, and vision. These decisions are codified in each city’s
comprehensive plans, which lays out the expectations for development and redevelopment of all
areas of the state. This includes, but is not limited to, zoning areas within the city’s jurisdiction. It
also requires the establishment of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and the expectations of for
development levels as a city’s boundary’s expand. However, control of development in the UGB
remains a county determination unless the city and county reach and agreement on urban growth
within the area. These are complicated issues that require coordination between local
governments.
This process is deliberate, and time consuming. It does not encourage cities to work at market
speed. Since cities are planning twenty years out, the codes and plans do not always anticipate
shifts in the market that can come with time. As market trends change and cities see demands
for new or different housing types, it can take time to do the proper work to provide for these units
in long-term plans. However, cities want to be inviting to development, and they can and will
adapt to new markets when they have the resources to do so.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
3 | P a g e
Goal 1
The proposal in HB 2001 section 2 to mandate an increased density in single family zoning
impacts a number of these goals and the planning requirements that come with them. First, Goal
1, which was vital at the time the land use system was developed, requires that cities provide
citizens with the opportunity for meaningful participation in the land use process. Cities that
provide a good process for citizen involvement have to commit to providing opportunities for
residents to influence outcomes and design their communities. When done correctly it increases
long-term success when plans turn into development. When a community in invested in the
outcomes and understands the reasoning for the decision, they are less likely to oppose change.
By placing a state-wide mandate on larger cities, the result is less trust from the citizens that they
have a meaningful opportunity to participate. Short timelines, like 16 months, might allow for
proper notice, but they do not account for the time that many cities spend with their community to
garner community support for a change as significant as this. This in turn leads to more citizens
upset that the state can come in and determine what their community must look like. This
undermines trust and increases the sense in many communities that the land use system is
nothing more than the state acting as the planning commission and avoiding citizens in the land
use process.
The reason for Goal 1 was to address the deep mistrust many communities had with the
implementation of Senate Bill 100 in 1973. While Oregonians have learned how to work within
the land use system and support it’s preservation goals, mandate that undermine their ability to
influence the process and decisions will only lead to questions about the utility and viability of the
land use system.
Goals 11 & 12 and the price of infrastructure
Goals 11 and 12 require cities to go beyond making zoning decisions about where housing and
economic development types of uses will go. There is a requirement that cities plan for and
provide adequate services are provided for the site. Services include water, sewer, stormwater,
and roads. These are hard infrastructure systems that require significant work to ensure they will
meet future needs. Changes in the amount of use an area is therefore not accounted for when
the systems are originally planned. Infrastructure is placed in or on the ground to meet the needs
that is planned for at the time. Redevelopment plans must also account for changes in need, and
provide plans for accomplishing any upgrades needed to the system
Not only must the capacity of the local infrastructure be constructed to the potential need if an
area is completely develop, there must also be plans for financing the needed infrastructure
under Goals 11 and 12. Because of the limited tools for paying for infrastructure improvement,
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
4 | P a g e
many cities have adopted system development charges (SDCs) to determine how much new
construction will pay for the capacity they require from each infrastructure system (water, sewer,
stormwater, transportation, and/or parks). The methodology for SDCs requires cities to make
capital improvement plans, determine what costs will be by project, and determine the capacity
that is used by each development type. Then the city establishes a rate for each type of unit
constructed. Each city can then set a policy of how much of these costs will be paid by
developers and how much will not be charged, which means the funds are provided by the city’s
general fund or current user fees. These SDCs are set using complex methodologies and
intentional conversations about what cities can afford to forego if they do not charge the total
cost. They are also dependent on knowing the capacity needs for future development.
All of this means that if a city did not plan for a potential doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of
capacity, it is unclear that new units added into older neighborhoods will be serviceable. There
may be some capacity left in the infrastructure, but it is finite. The pipes are a certain size; the
roads are built to an expected level of travel. Too much redevelopment may require upsizing this
infrastructure and there are not plans or funds to do this. SDCs are unlikely to account for this
type of development and are based on area-wide projects set out in the capital improvement plan.
Many of our cities are currently struggling to find the funding from many sources to provide for
maintenance and improvement of their current systems. The 2017 legislature opened up a large
amount of funding for transportation projects, but that is only part of the infrastructure question. A
2016 survey by the LOC found that the 120 cities that responded to the survey identified $7.6
billion in water related projects, including drinking and wastewater treatment plants, water
storage, stormwater improvements, and water and wastewater line repair or replacement. And
that was at 2016 levels of expected development and growth.
To comply with comprehensive planning processes, cities need to plan for these services.
Without local knowledge of where these infrastructure deficiencies might make it impossible to
allow for the infill required by this legislation, cities cannot plan for the infrastructure facilities that
are required under Goal 11 or the transportation systems that need to be in place under Goal 12.
The rules that guide cities under the land use system require cities to not set goals for
development that cannot be properly serviced, but HB 2001 does not account for the time and
need for such planning.
Smaller communities impacted
While there is a population threshold for cities required to do this work, smaller communities will
still be impacted. Counties over 15,000 in population are also required to provide for this level of
development inside their urban growth boundaries, and those UGBs include all of the cities within
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
5 | P a g e
the county regardless of the population size. However, the counties are not responsible for
providing the services or preparing these areas for development. Often the urban growth
management agreements require the planning and development of these areas to be city
responsibilities. The comprehensive plan of these cities must account for the services and
development patterns allowed under the zoning established by the county. Therefore, smaller
cities without much capacity will be required to do some of this work too.
Impacts to cities already working on improving housing outcomes
In the last two years, cities have been required to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for all
detached houses that exist within their boundaries (SB 1051 (2017)). Many cities are trying to
recover the planning time lost to making changes to the zoning and development codes required
to ensure that the regulations around these units would be considered reasonable. Some cities
are struggling with how they will permit these units based on undersized infrastructure in these
neighborhoods. Anecdotally, cities have not seen a large increase in ADUs as a result, but
further research is needed to see if this will change over time.
Other cities were required to examine the city’s rental picture because they are “heavily rent
burdened” under HB 4006 (2018). While city staff had to use time to finalize reports and conduct
meetings, they are also using it as an opportunity to inform their policies to improve the rental
market. They are focusing on policies identified by the work of local housing committees,
research or the direction of council. These cities are at the beginning of these efforts and shifting
focus to address another new mandate will be disruptive.
The state also provided significant funding to help cities to update the information that supports
their housing plans (their housing needs analysis (“HNA”)) or update local codes to reduce barrier
to housing types. These reviews are scheduled to be completed by the end of this fiscal year,
and the next steps for many of these communities will be adopting or implementing the new code.
The desire for this type of assistance was so popular that the Department of Land Conservation
and Development had to turn away more than half the applicants. We are supporting efforts to
create a dedicated program to help more communities meet these needs in the next biennium
(HB 2075 (2019)).
Cities in the Metro region are working to address the requirements of Metro’s 2040 plan and
finding ways to ensure that the newly passed Metro housing bond can be used in these cities to
increase affordable housing. These planning efforts require planning staff and housing
specialists to focus on how to meet the needs of the hardest to house: very-low and low income
residents.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
6 | P a g e
HB 2001 section 2 will take away from the time and staff capacity on these ongoing projects. The
efforts mentioned above are often just underway in the last couple of years, and this new
mandate will slow them down or put them on pause. This can prevent more robust work of
removing locally identified barriers from while they focus staff capacity on changing zoning codes
and land use regulations to ensure it is clear what may be built based on lot dimensions.
No guarantee units will be built or affordable
Finally, if the purpose is to increase housing choice for moderate income families, there is no
guarantee that any new units will be produced or that they will be sold or rented at prices
affordable to moderate incomes. Nothing provides cities with the ability to control for these
needs, only that they allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and cottage clusters be built. Without
any assurance that the market is going to produce these units at moderate prices, many officials
question if the work is worth the result.
Cities that have recently adopted similar provisions within their code are still too early in the
process to see if there is a change in developer behavior. One of the reasons to support local
control of land use is that allows cities to experiment with these concepts and see what changes
actually move the needle on housing type diversity. For example, it appears that zoning is not the
only impediment to triplex and quadplex development. There are many proposed reasons that
these units are not being developed where they are currently allows including: cost to build based
on building code requirements; limited number of developers familiar with construction –
particularly outside of the Metro area; and risk adverse financial markets limiting funding for
construction of these units. More needs to be done to address the variety of issues around the
difficulty to get these particular unit types developed.
Section 3: Model Code Development
While model codes have been used to provide guidance for local jurisdictions as they implement
land use planning codes. In fact, guidance for cities that try to help conversations and analysis
related to land use planning are often welcomed by cities as a strong starting point for local
implementation. Having this type of product provided by the state is often exactly what cities are
asking for.
However, they are often not suited to direct implementation. A model code developed to apply to
all cities cannot properly account for natural hazards, serviceability, and other vital pieces of the
land use system as they apply on the ground. The purpose of this section is clearly to ensure
that cities enact local codes or else find themselves implementing another code, but it fails to
account for the ability of the appeals process from being used to delay implementation. It leaves
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
7 | P a g e
citizens further outside the process and leaves cities in the position of trying to enact a code that
does not relate to local conditions.
Section 6: SDC Deferral
As outlined above, the SDC process requires a lot of particular work by a local government to
keep capital improvement plans and cost estimates updated. But, the policy choices about how
to structure payments and cutting costs also require an important balance of needs. Cities that
have enacted a deferral program have to balance their ability to ensure the collection of the fee,
timing the repayment to help prevent buyers from being charged an unexpected SDC bill, and
preservation that the SDC payments are consistent enough to assure bonding agencies that the
fees will be collected to repay bonds.
If SDCs are not payed, cities must find other funds from either property taxes or user fees to
make up the difference. Deferred SDCs leave cities at greater risk if projects are abandoned
before the developer has fully constructed the project and a lien on the property is of limited value
if the project is half constructed. When local jurisdictions implement deferral programs they can
plan to have funding to cover this possibility.
In addition, cities are not the only local government to charge SDCs and are not always the
building official in charge of providing a certificate of occupancy. This will complicate the
problems with this section. We respectfully request that this section be removed from the bill so
that we can have a conversation about the variety of pieces that fit into this complex issue.
Section 7: ADU regulations
Cities implement restrictions on parking and owner/occupancy for a variety of reasons. The
primary reason is to reduce conflicts between neighbors. Parking and having an owner on the
property reduce these issues. Similarly, cities are trying to address ongoing concerns that these
unit types will not be used for long-term occupancy and instead be used as a short-term rental.
Regulations like these might be the only means of increasing the likelihood that these units will
used for long-term rentals and that conflicts with neighbors is reduced. This reduces the barriers
to ADUs being an excepted as additional units in a city’s overall housing supply.
Section 8: Attorney Fees
LUBA currently has the authority to shift attorney fees in two instances. LUBA may shift fees in
some instances, but LUBA must award attorney fees if a non-prevailing party presented a
position without probable cause to believe the position was well-founded in law or on factually
supported information.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
8 | P a g e
The LOC has been informed that the intention of this section is to require challengers to missing
middle housing applications pay for the developer’s attorney fees if they lose on an appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). However, as written, HB 2001 will only shift these fees to
cities because only cities can deny a land use application. Success on appeal, however, is not a
good measure because a decision to remand can occur for a variety of technical issues which the
local government can remedy. Technically, the applicant is the prevailing party, but the final
decision may remain the same. Mandatory fee shifting in these cases is not always justified if the
final decision to deny an application can be supported after remanded to the local government to
re-review.
Alternative Solutions
As stated at the beginning, cities are not opposed to increasing missing middle housing options,
and the LOC is working to best determine what cities need to provide increased options in ways
that are workable at the local level. Here are some options that will improve outcomes:
Change the definition of “Needed Housing”
Currently, ORS 197.303 outlines the housing types that must be included in housing plans. The
“middle housing” options are not listed explicitly as types that are “needed”. If the state wants to
see more of this housing allowed in single family zones, it would best to include it as a needed
housing type. Similarly to the requirement that cities account for manufactured housing on single
family residential lots, these types of units can be added in lower density or single family zones.
This would mean that when cities update housing plans, they would be required to include these
types of units in those areas. Essentially, the state would be requiring cities to include the
outcome in their local planning process and would prevent a city from outright banning this type of
development.
Increase Assistance to Cities
Cities number one request for changing housing development outcomes is increased technical
assistance. They are looking for assistance in a number of ways: 1) funding for planning
processes; 2) continued investment in updating housing needs analysis and development codes
for housing; 3) model codes for newer housing configurations like cottage clusters that can be
adapted to meet local needs; 4) increased capacity for local projects through investment by the
state; 5) assistance with determining what incentives will have the biggest impact in increasing
development; and 6) assistance with moving from long-term planning to implementation of
development plans. As the state is investing more in housing, including this type of assistance to
local governments will create the opportunity for better outcomes for developers because the
cities will be ready to work on the project.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
9 | P a g e
Enforcement of Current Standards
Many cities that are working on updating their housing planning do not want to be facing
mandates based on cities that are failing to meet current standards. If cities are not meeting the
requirements of the land use system, there are tools available to seek enforcement of the law.
The LOC recognizes that DLCD works primarily as a partner in development and has spent a
number of years improving relationships with cities to increase the opportunity to move cities
through the land use process and meet requirements. Therefore, the enforcement tools are less
likely to be used. However, all cities are being impacted by mandates proposed but only some
cities are failing to act. If the enforcement tools are not sufficiently diverse to allow for a gentle
push before significant enforcement mechanism, then there is room for improvement in the
system.
Infrastructure Investment
Second to technical assistance, investment by the state in infrastructure is vital to development of
new, different units. Historically, there were resources from the federal and state government that
could be used to increase development of infrastructure and to make sure it has the capacity to
service increased density in all areas of the city. This is a vital component to successful
development, but there has been a disinvestment in infrastructure financing by the federal and
state government that has left cities to try to find the means of building, maintaining and
improving services. Given revenue limitations and the difficulty of charging current users for
future user’s infrastructure, shifting these costs onto developers is the only means of insuring the
new capacity is paid for. Investment by the state in programs like the Special Public Works Fund
or creating a program for SDC payment by the state would have a significant impact on housing
development and housing prices.
Conclusion
We share the goal of seeing more housing developed across the state, but we insist that it be
done using locally informed processes that reflect the needs, desires, and will of our
communities. We are happy to continue working toward better housing outcome that will be
successful in seeing more units developed.
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
ATTACHMENT C
March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1