HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2005-01-16
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DRAFT
Affordable Housing Task Force Final Report
June 16, 2005
RESERVE PAGE FOR
List of Task Force Members
Staff
Other acknowledgements…..
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………… 4
Priority Recommendations……………………………………………………… 5
Letter of Introduction……………………………………………….(to be inserted)
Analysis of Need………………………………………………………………… 8
Introduction……………………………………………………………… 8
Definition of Affordable Housing………………………………………… 8
Constraints or barriers to affordable housing in Lake Oswego…………… 9
State Requirements………………………………………………………… 9
Metro Requirements……………………………………………………… 9
Adopted Comprehensive Plan…………………………………………… 10
Samples of Data Collected………………………………………………… 11
Lake Oswego Census Data………………………………………… 11
Employment and Income Data…………………………………… 12
Data from Lake Oswego School District………………………… 14
Services Provided by the Lake Oswego Transitional Shelter Ministry…… 15
Analysis of Existing Housing Supply…………………………………………… 16
Introduction………………………………………………………………… 16
Single Family Homes……………………………………………………… 16
2-4 unit residences in zip codes 97034 and 97035………………………… 17
Apartment buildings (rental units) containing five units and more…………17
Condominium Conversions……………………………………………… 18
Information from other communities……………………………………… 18.
Neighborhood Participation……………………………………………………… 19.
Opposition to the Work of the Task Force……………………………………… 21
Affordable Housing Options………………………………………………….…. 22
Appendices
Appendix A: Council Resolution 04-28
Appendix B: Definition of Affordable Housing, Indicators of Need and Inventory
Appendix C: Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Appendix D: Summary of Neighborhood Comments
Appendix E: Demonstration of Need for Subsidy for Affordable Rental Housing
in Lake Oswego
Appendix F: Matrix
Appendix G: Panel discussion sponsored by the Task Force on August 11, 2004
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the final report of the Lake Oswego Affordable Housing Task Force. It represents more
than a year of study, debate, and careful consideration by the members of the Task Force and
many other members of the community.
On April 20, 2004, the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-28 (Appendix
A), establishing the Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Task Force. The Council directed the task
force to identify the segments of the population that need housing assistance, identify efforts
that would benefit these populations, research the efforts of other communities, consult with
metropolitan area housing experts, and make recommendations to achieve compliance with
Title 7 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
As a result of this process the Task Force has reached a number of conclusions. These include:
• There is a need for more affordable housing in Lake Oswego. Many existing
residents pay an excessive amount for the housing that they have. Also, many
people who work in the community cannot afford to live here. Five segments of the
population have been identified by the Task Force for focused attention:
1. First-time homebuyers, including the children/grandchildren of current
residents;
2. Single parents;
3. Senior citizens;
4. Employees of local businesses, organizations, public agencies and schools;
and
5. Low income individuals with disabilities, and families of people with
disabilities, who have special housing needs and want to live independently.
• There are a surprising number of affordable housing units in the community, but
many (probably most) of those existing units are threatened with destruction and
replacement by more expensive housing.
• The trend of tearing down and replacing existing housing is a matter of serious
concern to many members of the community. This issue overlaps concerns about
affordability and is also a quality of life issue in many neighborhoods.
• The portion of the City of Lake Oswego that is zoned for residential development is
almost entirely built out. This fact contributes to higher prices and adds to the
pressure for infill development – including the destruction of existing affordable
units.
4
• Conventional housing, receiving no government subsidy or assistance, can be
provided at affordable prices in other parts of the region. Given the land values of
Lake Oswego, however, it is extremely unlikely that new housing can be
constructed here and made available to households earning less than 80% of the
region’s median income level without some form of subsidy.
• The City’s Comprehensive Plan has for some years contained language supporting
housing diversity and encouraging affordability. Those Comprehensive Plan
provisions have been only partially implemented.
• Federal funding for housing programs is being reduced, at the same time as the
demand for such funds is increasing.
• There is a limited amount that the City can do to support the development or
maintenance of affordable units in the community. This report lists a number of
options that should be considered by the City Council. Some combination of these
proposals could have a positive effect on affordability for at least some households
in the targeted demographic groups. What the City can do to address the housing
needs of the community, it should do.
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following list represents the actions recommended by the Task Force for priority
consideration. A more complete list of the options considered by the Task Force can be found
beginning on page 22 of this report. The Task Force also requests that this report be read in
full by anyone interested in housing affordability, and that all options to increase housing
affordability be considered:
Establish an affordable housing trust fund that could be used to create, preserve, or
maintain affordable housing in the community. Consider all possible sources of money
that might contribute to the fund.
Implement our existing Comprehensive Plan policies to support a wide range of
housing options. This includes a creative approach to both the types of housing and the
manner of ownership. Complete a thorough review of all Community Development
Code standards to determine whether they unnecessarily limit or preclude the provision
of affordable housing. Having a more user-friendly Code would be of benefit to the
providers of affordable housing and to the community overall while helping to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. Maintain a commitment to periodically review
and update both the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, even if
the State no longer requires such reviews.
The Affordable Housing Task Force was formed as an ad hoc group to offer
recommendations. Given that the Task Force has been meeting for a year in the
preparation of this report, it is clear that an on-going housing effort is needed within the
5
City. The Task Force has suggested that a Housing Board or Commission be formed
and that it be a broad-based community group, with adequate staff assistance, to carry
out the implementation of this report and to continue to recommend housing policy to
the City Council.
Work with and support the efforts of community development corporations or other
non-profit housing providers. The Clackamas County Housing Authority, Northwest
Housing Alternatives, Clackamas Community Land Trust, Lake Oswego Transitional
Shelter Ministry, Innovative Housing, Inc., and Habitat for Humanity are among the
organizations providing these services in our area. Form partnerships with schools,
service groups, or other organizations that may share an interest in affordable housing
and the people it serves. A local foundation could be created, using the assistance of
these groups. We can also seek the assistance of service clubs. They often have time,
money, and expertise that can be used -- especially with such things as self-help
housing, or housing rehabilitation programs.
Encourage the City Council (as the Redevelopment Agency Board) to set a minimum
percentage of affordable units in all developments that receive the assistance of the
Redevelopment Agency. Note that the Portland Development Commission has set its
standards for affordable units as high as 36% (and typically requires 20%) in its urban
renewal areas.
Work towards a goal of “no net loss” of existing affordable housing and explore
incentives to preserve the community’s existing stock of affordable housing. Consider
imposing a “tear-down fee” for housing that is razed. If affordable housing units
cannot be retained, find ways to assure that displaced tenants with modest incomes are
able to find equivalent housing in the community. Consider conditioning the
conversion of rental housing to unit ownership on the availability of adequate
replacement units for those tenants. Consider the same sort of dislocation/relocation
program for the tenants of any affordable housing that is torn down or converted in a
way that makes it no longer affordable to the tenant. Note that the City does not yet
have a complete baseline of information about all of the affordable units that exist
within the community. Such information will need to be retained and regularly updated
if the City is to implement this sort of policy.
Replace the current discretionary process in the review of secondary dwelling units
(SDUs) with a set of ministerial (clear and objective) standards that address
neighborhood differences. The only discretion in the current system really has to do
with assuring the privacy of neighboring properties and that could be addressed through
clear and objective standards. The current discretionary process unnecessarily
discourages property owners from applying for SDUs. When the Code standards for
SDUs are met, these units often go unnoticed in existing neighborhoods. Note the need
for housing units to accommodate one or two-person households. Also note
Recommended Action Measure XIV of Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 which supports
the creation of SDUs. Note that a sub-committee has been formed by the Task Force
6
and is expected to recommend a comprehensive program to assist property owners in
the creation of secondary dwelling units.
In implementing the Comprehensive Plan, assure that the differences from one local
neighborhood to another are addressed in the process. Given the diversity of Lake
Oswego neighborhoods, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not likely to be successful.
Support local efforts to establish employer-assisted housing to accommodate people
who are employed in the community. A growing number of employers are realizing
that assisting their employees to secure good quality, affordable housing near the
workplace is good for business and good for the community. Note that Home Street
Bank, with a branch in Lake Oswego, provides loans that help employers with these
programs.
7
ANALYSIS OF NEED
Introduction
Although the average household incomes in Lake Oswego are considerably higher than the
regional average, the fact remains that many Lake Oswego residents have difficulty affording
suitable housing. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
determines the median income of each region of the country. For 2005, HUD established the
official household income in the Portland area, for a family of four as $67,900. In Lake
Oswego, the median household income for a family of four is now believed to be in excess of
$95,000 ($94,587 in the 2000 census).
The statistics also show that the income range of the population is wider than generally
perceived. The 2000 Census noted that 223 Lake Oswego families had incomes below the
poverty level. In addition, the 2000 census showed that 161 individuals over the age of 65 are
living in Lake Oswego with incomes below the poverty level. Public elementary schools in the
Lake Oswego School District provide lunches to lower income students as part of the federally
funded National School Lunch program. Three schools provide lunches through that program
to at least 10% of their students and one school within the district provides those meals to more
than 15% of the student body. These facts are indications that high average incomes do not
mean that every Lake Oswego resident has the ability to afford quality housing without some
sort of assistance.
Based on the needs analysis presented below, the Task Force has identified five major
population groups who have special housing needs and would benefit from housing assistance
initiatives in Lake Oswego. These groups include low- and moderate-income persons
including first-time homebuyers, single parent households, senior citizens, employees of
businesses, service organizations, public agencies and schools, and persons with disabilities
who have special housing needs.
Definition of Affordable Housing
“Affordable housing,” for purposes of this study, is defined as housing that costs no more than
30% of the gross income of households making no more than 80% of the regional medium
income. For example, affordable housing for a family of four earning 80% of the $67,900
regional median income, or $54,320/year, would not exceed $1,358/month. (.8 x $67,900 =
54,320 x .3 = $16,296 divided by 12 = $1,358.)
For households earning 50% of regional median income, or $32,900, housing that is affordable
does not exceed $822.5/month. Those households earning a minimum wage (in 2005), or
approximately 21% of regional median income, can only afford housing that at or below
$356/month. Finally, households living off of social security income alone, or roughly 17% of
regional median income, cannot afford housing above $289/month.
8
Constraints or barriers to affordable housing in Lake Oswego
The single biggest impediment to the development or retention of affordable housing in Lake
Oswego is the value of local real estate. Because the land costs so much, a large portion of the
funds that could otherwise go for the development of new affordable units would have to be
used on property acquisition. The few remaining affordable units face the prospect of
demolition and replacement by more expensive homes. Even extremely solid and relatively
expensive homes in Lake Oswego are routinely demolished and replaced by larger and more
expensive units.
Partly because of the frequency with which smaller, older homes have been replaced by newer,
larger units, Lake Oswego neighborhoods have become very sensitized to “infill development.”
This also tends to complicate any efforts to provide new affordable units.
Lake Oswego also provides a limited range of geographic options for housing developers.
With a limited, and largely developed Urban Growth Boundary area outside the current City
limits, and relatively few vacant properties within the City, all sorts of housing development
tend to be more expensive here than in communities where outward expansion can meet
growth needs.
State Requirements
Statewide Planning Goal 10 (Housing) requires every city and county in Oregon to provide
opportunities for housing at varied price ranges and rent levels, based on local needs. This goal
specifies that each city and county must plan for and accommodate needed housing types
(typically, multifamily and manufactured and subsidized housing). It requires local
governments to inventory buildable residential lands, project future needs for such lands, and
plan and zone enough buildable land to meet those needs. It also prohibits local plans from
discriminating against needed housing types.
Metro Requirements
Metro requires local governments in the region to:
• Adopt voluntary affordable housing production goals; the goals would serve as a guide
to measure each local government’s progress. *
• Adopt comprehensive plan changes that ensure a diverse range of housing types,
maintain the existing supply of affordable housing, increase opportunities for new
affordable housing and increase opportunities for households of all income levels to
live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing; each local government
determines how these are accomplished and could include the specific tools listed
below.
9
• Consider adopting affordable housing land-use tools and strategies such as:
1. allowing density bonuses;
2. providing for replacement housing;
3. encouraging voluntary inclusionary zoning;
4. allowing for transfer of development rights;
5. addressing elderly/disabled housing needs;
6. correcting existing regulatory constraints; and
7. reviewing surface parking requirements.
• Provide affordable housing progress reports to Metro.
* The voluntary affordable housing production goals established by Metro for Lake
Oswego between 2001 and 2006 were 185 housing units for households with incomes less
than 30% of the regional median income and 154 units for households in the 30% to 50%
income category. None of those units are anticipated to be provided by the end of that five-
year period. Depending on the specific actions implemented by the City Council after the
acceptance of this report, it should be possible to adopt a set of affordable housing
production goals for Lake Oswego over the next 20 years. Many variables will have to be
considered. For instance, is a given area going to be redeveloped as part of an urban
renewal district? If so, will the Redevelopment Agency require that a minimum percentage
of housing units in the area be available at specific prices or rent levels? If so, how many
units will be developed in the area?
Adopted Comprehensive Plan
The following are the housing goals of City of Lake Oswego’s adopted Comprehensive Plan:
The City shall:
a. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in locations and environments to
provide an adequate supply of safe, sanitary, energy efficient housing at price and rent
levels appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of present and future city residents;
b. Protect the character of existing neighborhoods; and,
c. Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, using land
and public facilities as efficiently as possible, and facilitating greater use of alternative
transportation modes.
The complete text of the Goals, Policies and Recommended Action Measures of the Housing
section of the adopted Comprehensive Plan can be found in Appendix C.
10
Samples of Data Collected
In order to get a more precise picture of the affordable housing needs in Lake Oswego, the
Task Force gathered data and information from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census,
real estate databases, the Lake Oswego School District, and local churches who provide
services to people in need. The following sections are a summary of the findings.
Lake Oswego Census Data
The 2000 U.S. Census provides ample information about the actual need for affordable housing
for Lake Oswego residents: According to the U.S. Census, there were a total of 17,776
households (family and non-family) in Lake Oswego in 2000. The following is additional
detail pertaining to need among the population in Lake Oswego:
• 2,033 households, or 22% of homeowners, had monthly homeownership costs that
exceed 30% of household income.
• 1,461 households, or 35% of renters, had monthly rental costs that exceed 30% of
household income.
• 223 families were living below the federal poverty level.
• 1,864 persons between the ages of 21 and 64 were disabled.
• 1,253 persons over age 64 were disabled.
• 1,163 households were headed by persons over age 64, up from 904 in 1990, a 29%
increase.
• 4,121 households (28% of the total) consisted of a single person.
The following is additional 2000 Census data focused on housing for the 97034 and 97035 zip
codes combined:
• Total Housing Units: 18,866
• Units in Structure: 67% of residential structures are detached single-family dwellings.
The second highest percentage is 5-9 unit structures at 7%.
• The most common rent range is $800-899 at 17%, followed by $1,000-1,249 at 15%.
• The median gross rent in 97034 was $853 and in 97035 it was $824.
Household Size Census data:
• The biggest percentage increase in households from 1990 to 2000 is of one-person
households. From 1990 to 2000, the number of one-person households has increased
from 3,164 to 4,121, from 25% to 28% of all households.
• From 1990 to 2000, the number of two-person households increased from 4,584 to
5,303, but they dropped in percentage from 37% to 36% of all households. Still two-
person households are the highest percentage of households in Lake Oswego.
• From 1990 to 2000, the number of family households has increased from 8,544 to
9,665, but their percentage of all households has decreased from 68% to 65%.
11
• From 1990 to 2000, the number of non-family households has increased from 3,943 to
5,104 or from 32% to 35% of all households.
Employment and Income Data
Average annual employment in Lake Oswego totaled 17,578 in 2002 according to the Oregon
Employment Department. That same year, the sectors employing the largest numbers of
people in Lake Oswego were administrative and support services at 1,781, according to the
2002 Economic Census, followed by retail trade with 1,610, and accommodations and food
service with 1,573. An undetermined number of these persons cannot afford to live in Lake
Oswego, close to their places of employment. Census data reveals in fact that more than 84%
of full-time City employees and 64% of School District employees live outside of the Lake
Oswego area (97034 or 97035 zip codes).
This data spurred the Task Force to review the annual compensation of 17 typical occupations
based on data provided for the Portland-Salem area by the U.S. Department of Labor’s
National Compensation Survey. The data revealed that median homeownership costs in Lake
Oswego would be unaffordable for persons in all 17 categories, and median rental costs in
Lake Oswego would be unaffordable for persons in 11 of the 17 categories.
12
Affordable Monthly Housing Budgets for Selected Occupations
Compared to Median Monthly Rental and Hom eownership Costs in Lake Oswego
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000
Executive, Administrative and Managerial
Professional, Technical and Specialty
Public Safety
Public Education (elementary/secondary)
Construction Tr ades
Truck Driving
Bookkeeping
Sales
Secretarial
Cashiers
Manufacturing - Machine Operation
Manufacturing - Assembly
Health Service (exc nursing)
Cleaning and Building Ser vices
Food Service
Stock Handling and Bagging
Private Security Service
Notes:
Housing Budgets based on 30% of monthly mean compensation as reported by the US Department of Labor for Portland-Salem for
September 2003.
Mediam Rental and Homeownership Costs based on US Census data for 2000 for Lake Oswego, Oregon
M edian M onthly Rental
Costs
M edian M onthly
Homeowner Costs
Note: Assumes a single income source per household.
13
Data from the Lake Oswego School District
At stated in the introduction, four public elementary schools in the Lake Oswego School
District provide lunches to lower income students as part of the federally funded National
School Lunch program. To gather additional detail about this program, the Task Force looked
at Title I data from the Lake Oswego School District to identify the percentage of
disadvantaged students in the community and their needs. Title I is a federally funded program
to help disadvantaged students meet the same high expectations of all students.
In Lake Oswego, there is one school which qualifies and receives this funding, the River Grove
Elementary School, because it has the largest population of students who receive free and
reduced lunches in the school district. The percentage of students at River Grove who receive
free and reduced cost lunches is 20%, or 58 students out of a total of 296. The district average
of students who received free and reduced cost lunches is 6.5%. Students qualify for free or
reduced lunches based on household income. For example, a student in a household of four
qualifies if the household annual income is $34,873 or below.
At River Grove, the school is considered a “targeted-assisted school,” meaning that specific
areas are targeted for student improvement. Reading and math have been designated as targets
for supplemental instruction. In addition, the school provides social services to students in
need as part of this program.
Statistics show that the number of students in Lake Oswego who qualify for this program is
steadily increasing but the program’s budget is decreasing. The budget for Lake Oswego’s
targeted assisted school program is $164,000 for the current school year, while three years ago
the budget was $220,000. However, seven years ago, the percentage of students qualifying for
this program at River Grove was 7% as opposed to today’s 20%. In addition, seven years ago,
the district average of students receiving free and reduced cost lunches was 2%; today it is
6.5%.
Another component of the program is that school districts receiving Title I funding are required
to collect data on the number of students who are homeless. Homelessness is defined as
including a family living with another family because they do not have a home of their own.
According to the Lake Oswego School District, there were 31 homeless students enrolled in
January 2005.
The information from the Lake Oswego School District described above demonstrates that
there is a growing population of households that would benefit from greater availability of
social services and affordable housing opportunities.
14
Services provided by the faith-based community
The Task Force has found that local churches in our community play an important role in
providing assistance to families in need. Representatives of the Lake Oswego Transitional
Shelter Ministry (LOTSM) and other local churches made a presentation at the February 10,
2005 meeting of the Task Force, where they described the requests for assistance they receive
along with the services they provide to low-income residents of Lake Oswego and Clackamas
County.
The Lake Oswego Transitional Shelter Ministry is a volunteer-run coalition of seven local
churches that operates two transitional housing units for families referred by Clackamas
County Social Services. The typical stay for each family is usually three to six months.
Volunteers work with the families throughout their stay and there is also a mentoring program
where volunteers regularly keep in contact with the families after they leave the shelter. It was
noted that while all of the families are placed in permanent housing in the region, there is
virtually no rental housing available in Lake Oswego that is affordable to them.
In addition to the transitional shelter, the churches on an individual basis provide one-time
financial assistance to households in need; the funding is provided by donations from
congregations. To cite an example, one church provides $2-3,000 per year in financial
assistance.
The churches regularly receive calls for assistance for a variety of needs. Among the key needs
they identified in our community are:
• One church receives 2-4 requests a month for rent assistance and twice as many calls
for utility assistance.
• Even though local churches do not advertise their services, they receive a steady stream
of requests for assistance.
• One church has doubled its food giving in the past year.
• The majority of people who call are from Lake Oswego and surrounding areas of
Clackamas County.
• The majority of calls for assistance are from families and single parents, while 25% are
elderly.
• A significant percentage of the requests are from people who are employed, or are in a
transitional situation (e.g., starting a new job).
• Medical bills and lack of health insurance are key reasons assistance is requested.
LOTSM would like to expand its programs further in order to provide opportunities for
housing within Lake Oswego for families that are ready to move out of their transitional
shelters.
Another group has formed a working group to begin the process of applying for funding for the
development of housing in Lake Oswego for low income seniors, such as federal Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 funds. The needs of an aging population were
15
identified as a key issue for the community, particularly the need for housing that is both
affordable and geared to their needs. To demonstrate the need, the Clackamas County Housing
Authority has 5,339 people on the waiting list for subsidized housing (Section 8 housing
vouchers) and there are three subsidized housing communities for seniors countywide.
Nationwide, 20% of seniors depend solely on Social Security for income.
The possibility of the City of Lake Oswego working in partnership with LOTSM and the
group working on a senior housing development in implementing these efforts is currently
under discussion. It should be noted that, although a faith-based organization could be playing
a lead role in this effort, a development receiving HUD funds or City support would be open to
all qualifying people regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Introduction
One key source of information needed to determine future affordable housing needs is an
analysis of the existing housing stock in Lake Oswego. To accomplish this, the Task Force
conducted an inventory of the existing supply of housing in Lake Oswego, ranging from
single-family homes to apartment buildings. A priority for the Task Force in this effort was to
gather data on the existing stock of multi-family rental housing, which in many communities,
including Lake Oswego, is a primary source of affordable housing for low to moderate-income
households.
The data below was gathered by a combination of methods, including the retrieval of real
estate records provided by both the City of Lake Oswego and private realtors, and U.S. Census
data. In addition, a telephone survey was conducted of managers of rental properties
containing five units or more. It should be noted that the information presented below should
not be considered a “definitive” housing inventory of Lake Oswego, as the data was gathered
from several sources using different methods.
Single Family Homes
The 2000 Census showed that the housing values in Lake Oswego were among the highest in
the region. For instance, the median housing value in Lake Oswego was $296,200 and in
Portland it was $157,900. According to Portland Oregon Housing Information and Statistics,
the average sales price in May 2001 was $201,400. In the Lake Oswego/West Linn area the
average price was $320,000. The same source reported that the Portland average sales price in
March 2005 was $264,300. In the Lake Oswego/West Linn area the average price was
$401,300. More recent reports indicate that the disparity between housing prices in Lake
Oswego and those of the region continues to widen.
16
Additional findings for Lake Oswego based on 2005 GIS data provided by the City:
• There are a total of 13,310 single-family residences within the Lake Oswego Urban
Services Boundary (USB).
• 473 residences are valued less than $150,000 (located in Lake Forest, Rosewood,
Palisades and McVey)
• Average building sizes range from 1,629 square feet in Rosewood to 4,030 square feet
in Stafford.
• Average lot sizes range from 7,375 square feet in Oak Creek to 54,511 square feet in
Stafford.
• There are 1,200 condominium units.
• Average year built ranges from 1948 to 1990, depending on the neighborhood.
• 2,450 residences have land values in excess of building values.
• 2,157 residences were built prior to 1954
2-4 unit residences in zip codes 97034 and 97035
The following summarizes the total number and average values of duplexes, tri-plexes and
four-plexes located in the 97034 and 97035 zip codes. According to this list, these residences
fall within an affordable price range.
Duplexes 81 total. Average value per unit: $118,029
Triplexes 2 total. Average value per unit: $76, 185
Fourplexes 36 total. Average value per unit: $118,420
Total 312 units
Average value per unit: $117,000
Apartment buildings (rental units) containing five units and more
A telephone survey was conducted by the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department of
managers of apartment buildings in Lake Oswego that contain five units or more. Given the
informal nature of the survey and the fact that a few managers could not be reached, these
findings should be considered a reasonable estimate and not a 100% accurate inventory of
rental units.
A total of 3,438 rental units were counted. There are 138 studios, 1,353 one bedrooms, 1,731
two bedrooms, and 154 three bedrooms. The rents range from $425-590 for a studio, $450-
1300 for a one-bedroom, $555-1600 for a two-bedroom and $750-1400 for a three-bedroom.
The averages are $497 for a studio, $647 for a one bedroom, $771 for a two-bedroom, and
$1014 for a three-bedroom. This list combines both subsidized and market-rate units, and
senior/assisted living units with very high rents were not included in the rent ranges and
averages listed above.
17
Of the 46 buildings surveyed, 36 were built in 1985 or earlier, with the oldest building dating
back to 1925. In general, the older the building, the lower the rents. This survey highlighted
the consequences of demolishing older rental units or the conversion of such units to
condominiums—the loss of some of Lake Oswego’s most affordable housing units and the
need for preservation strategies.
Condominium Conversions
The State of Oregon Real Estate Agency provided the Task Force information on the number
of filings for condominium conversions since 1998 in Lake Oswego. According to this data,
162 units have converted from rentals to condominiums since 1998. This breaks down to two
buildings in 1999, one in 2001 and two in 2000. Given the limited affordable rental housing
stock, these conversions over time are resulting in a loss of affordable housing, especially for
those who cannot afford homeownership.
Information from other communities.
Systems Development Charges
There are three cities in Oregon that have adopted several measures to defer systems
development fees for affordable housing developments. Other cities with SDC waivers
include:
• Ashland. The City currently defers SDCs for affordable housing projects for the initial
developer/buyer. The SDC is secured by a second mortgage that is recorded, treated as
a loan and accrues interest each year. If the home is sold to a subsequent non-qualified
buyer the principal and interest are due.
• Salem. SDCs are waived for housing provided by the Salem Housing Authority and
any unit that receives city administered federal housing funds and is affordable to
families below 80% of the city’s median household income (MHI).
• Eugene. SDCs are waived for rental housing for low-income persons (less than 60%
MFI) and owner-occupied housing for persons with less than 80% MFI.
More information on Portland Urban Renewal Areas and affordable housing:
In Portland’s Interstate URA, the URA Plan targeted 25% of the urban renewal resources for
housing-related developments.
The River District Urban Renewal District divided its affordable housing goals by income
groupings, a 20-year target of 20-25% of units affordable to low and extremely low income
households (1-50% MFI), and 20-30% of units affordable to moderate income households (51-
80% MFI). According to a PDC report, 293 more units are needed to meet their production
goals for households at 0-80% MFI.
18
Neighborhood Participation
On January 26, 2005, the Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) held a public meeting to
receive comment and learn more about the perspectives of neighborhood associations and
community leaders. At that public forum over two-dozen interested citizens provided feedback
on fifteen neighborhoods. Profiles of the types of housing unique to each area and the
neighborhood association issues and concerns are summarized under Summary of
Neighborhood Comments included in Appendix D. That initial meeting has been followed by
active emails and regular attendance at subsequent AHTF meetings by neighborhood
representatives. Clearly, their feedback and support have helped the process and provided
clarity for a larger strategy for the City of Lake Oswego going into the future.
The themes and concerns listed below and in Appendix D demonstrate that the range and
differences of neighborhoods in Lake Oswego are significant, yet commonalities are evident as
well. There is particular sensitivity to the development and redevelopment of the Foothills,
First Addition and Lake Grove areas. While these areas may provide opportunity for
development of affordable housing, there are neighborhood concerns that the City will focus
on the development of affordable housing solely in these areas.
The common themes and concerns heard from the neighborhood representatives have included:
1) Tear-downs. There is increasing pressure to destroy serviceable homes on extremely
valuable land in order to build very large new homes. There is also the recognition
that some tear-downs are removing dilapidated homes beyond repair, and are
justified.
2) Diversity. A number of representatives affirmed the City’s Comprehensive Plan to
assure a variety of housing types to serve a more diverse citizenry. As one
Neighborhood Association president said “I don’t want to be part of a city that
doesn’t honor a diversity of residents by ethnicity and income.”
3) SDUs. There was general resistance to Secondary Dwelling Units, primarily in
defining any changes to the current code without significant dialog. Feedback was
more to the “how” rather than the “why” of SDUs. There was also concern about
secondary dwelling units evolving into non-owner occupied residences and about
duplexes in SFR zones.
4) Smaller Units for Seniors. On several occasions, seniors made a strong plea for “right
sizing” of housing that would allow elderly residents to stay in Lake Oswego and live
independently, but in smaller, affordable units.
5) Growth Boundaries. There is concern that, as unincorporated areas are brought
within the city limits and receive extended City services, many of the existing
affordable homes would become “targets” for replacement. Also, the costs of system
19
development charges and sewer hookups may have a significant negative impact on
long-time, elderly residents.
6) Density. There is a strong sense that minimum density requirements are placing
increasing pressures on property values, resulting in more tear-downs of existing
affordable units.
7) Preservation. There was a strong voice for preservation of existing housing in the
neighborhoods. The pressure of tear-downs and larger new homes is a major concern
of the neighborhoods.
8) Outside Pressures. Representatives noted increased solicitation activity in First
Addition, Evergreen, and Uplands by developers soliciting homes for renovation and
new development.
9) Living Wage Definition. There was an interest in clearly defining income levels for
the City’s residents and employees and an alignment of living wages and modest
incomes to available housing within the City limits.
10) Existing Multi-Family. Several neighborhoods have considerable density of multi-
family housing, including both rentals and condominiums. Neighborhood
representatives asked for more information and clarity on the current inventory of
affordable rental units. There was also concern about the conversion of existing
multi-family inventory to condos and a strategy to preserve the existing inventory of
affordable multi-family housing.
11) Neighborhood Plans. Representatives recognize there is a lot of work to be done
establishing neighborhood plans that align with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
neighborhoods want to be part of the discussion on citywide affordable housing.
12) Neighborhood Sensitivity. Because of the range and diversity of neighborhoods in
Lake Oswego, representatives asked for sensitivity and flexibility on any changes in
housing preservation strategies, zoning changes, secondary dwelling units, and
concentration of affordable units.
Overall, the neighborhood associations have been supportive of the work and goals of the Task
Force, and for maintaining a diversity in population and housing options in Lake Oswego.
20
Opposition to the work of the Task Force:
Responses from some Lake Oswego residents attending the open house meeting of the
Affordable Housing Task Force on Tuesday May 31, 2005, are such that they do not see the
need for affordable housing in our community. A group came to the meeting specifically to
challenge the City’s motivation and process for addressing affordable housing. Here are some
of the comments made at that meeting:
- The City of Lake Oswego should not be addressing affordable housing.
- This process is a sham as you already have your agenda and minds made up.
- The input at this meeting will not change anything you’ve already planned.
- We don’t need affordable housing in Lake Oswego.
- Has anyone calculated the cost if we have affordable housing – crime?
- Building affordable housing will attract all the wrong elements.
- With affordable housing crime will go up, and we’ll pay for that.
- If someone can’t afford to live here, they can live somewhere else.
- It’s not our responsibility to provide affordable housing to folks who work here.
- If a fireman works here, he can live somewhere else. It’s his choice.
- This City does not need to be making handouts to the poor.
- People have a choice of what they can afford and where they live.
- No one gave me a hand-out, I made it on my own. Others can too.
- Property is expensive in parts of Portland; Lake Oswego is a bargain.
- We have no obligation to assure local workers live in Lake Oswego.
- There’s no reason to be writing this stuff about diversity.
- The majority of Lake Oswego residents are opposed to affordable housing.
- Let the free market decide what is and is not affordable.
- I live here but work out in Gresham. That’s my choice.
- This is social engineering by the City, the Mayor and this task force.
- If some people receive housing assistance, others suffer a competitive disadvantage.
- This work needs to stop now.
- There is no way I will increase my taxes to subsidize “affordable housing.”
- Public funding for housing puts restrictions on the community that will not be conducive to
the character and growth of this community for over 60 years.
- This has been a well-hidden secret by the City, with a great deal of time and energy by the
Task Force and City Council and staff to slide this through. By the time it goes to the
Council, they will grease this even more.
The people expressing these views were encouraged to participate in the process and they were
assured that their comments would be conveyed in this final report.
21
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS
The following is a list of possible options to encourage the provision of more affordable
housing. It is by no means a list of all possible options, but it does represent the wide range of
options discussed by the Task Force. Some of the options are more likely to be viable and
effective than others. The list of options has been discussed in some length by the Task Force
and all are offered for consideration by the City decision-makers.
These options have been divided into the following six categories:
A. Preserving Existing Affordable Housing
B. Developing New Affordable Housing
C. Organizing Effective Partnerships and Increasing Public Awareness
D. Financing Affordable Housing Initiatives
E. Developing Housing Policies/Administering Housing Programs
F. Advocacy Options
Note: The options are organized in a different format (a matrix addressing the targeted
demographic groups) in Appendix E.
A. Preserving Existing Affordable Housing
1. Work towards a goal of “no net loss” of existing affordable housing and explore
incentives to preserve the community’s existing stock of affordable housing. Consider
imposing a “tear-down fee” for housing that is razed. If affordable housing units
cannot be retained, find ways to assure that displaced tenants with modest incomes are
able to find equivalent housing in the community. Consider conditioning the
conversion of rental housing to unit ownership on the availability of adequate
replacement units for those tenants. Consider the same sort of dislocation/relocation
program for the tenants of any affordable housing that is torn down or converted in a
way that makes it no longer affordable to the tenant. Note that the City does not yet
have a complete baseline of information about all of the affordable units that exist
within the community. Such information will need to be retained and regularly updated
if the City is to implement this sort of policy.
2. Consider changes to our home occupation business standards. More and more people
are working at home. We may be able to help some people to pay for their housing
while also reducing their other costs of living (especially transportation costs, if they
don’t have to drive to work). It has been estimated that each car costs a family an
average of about $7,000/year. By reducing the number of vehicles per household, that
22
amount could go towards the cost of housing. At the same time, businesses operated
out of homes should be subject to standards that protect the livability of neighboring
properties.
B. Developing New Affordable Housing
1. Support local efforts to establish employer-assisted housing to accommodate people
who are employed in the community. A growing number of employers are realizing
that assisting their employees to secure good quality, affordable housing near the
workplace is good for business and good for the community. Note that Home Street
Bank, with a branch in Lake Oswego, provides loans that help employers with these
programs.
2. Replace the current discretionary process in the review of secondary dwelling units
(SDUs) with a set of ministerial standards that address neighborhood differences. The
only discretion in the current system really has to do with assuring the privacy of
neighboring properties and that could be addressed through clear and objective
standards. The current discretionary process unnecessarily discourages property
owners from applying for SDUs. When the Code standards for SDUs are met, these
units often go unnoticed in existing neighborhoods. Note the need for housing units to
accommodate one or two-person households. Also note Recommended Action
Measure XIV of Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 which supports the creation of SDUs.
Note that a sub-committee has been formed by the Task Force and is expected to
recommend a comprehensive program to assist property owners in the creation of
secondary dwelling units.
3. Continue to work with Metro and the State of Oregon to establish a region-wide system
to encourage the development of affordable housing. As with many other issues,
housing affordability is an issue that goes beyond the city limits. It should be noted that
a given sum of housing money will result in significantly more housing units in one
part of the region than another. Given Lake Oswego’s land costs, housing funds spent
here will tend to create or preserve fewer affordable units than in some other parts of
the region.
4. Expand the density bonus provisions for affordable housing units in our Community
Development Code, if the development meets special design criteria that can be
specified (and made clear and objective). Provide a density bonus for housing
developments accommodating the elderly, persons with disabilities, and others with
special housing needs. Allow for reduced parking standards where the demographics of
the proposed use do not warrant the typical parking standards.
5. Allow lot-size averaging in new subdivisions and land partitions, where affordable
housing is to be provided. Such averaging is currently only permitted in Planned
Development subdivisions. A way to increase housing diversity would be to allow lot
size averaging while still requiring the development to meet applicable minimum and
23
maximum density standards. (Instead of a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size in R-7.5,
the City could require a range of lot sizes from 5,000 to 10,000 -- averaging 7,500.)
Conditions of approval would need to assure the continued affordability of the subject
housing units over time.
6. Encourage higher residential densities in mixed-use commercial areas. This could go
beyond allowing such housing, to providing incentives to promote housing above
commercial uses in more areas than Lake Oswego’s downtown. Another option would
be to require such mixed-use development in certain locations.
7. Encourage the conversion of under-utilized commercial or industrial areas to residential
uses or mixed uses. This is now under consideration in parts of the Foothills and Lake
Grove neighborhoods.
8. Within a given development, allow a mix of housing types or financing alternatives that
meet density standards. (Instead of ten detached single-family dwellings on two acres,
we might end up with ten townhouse units and a day care center on one acre, with the
other acre retained as a park or open space). Allow for maximum flexibility in housing
types, as long as density requirements are met. Note that Lake Oswego has examples
where this sort of clustering of development has proven to be very successful.
9. Publicly-owned or church-owned properties may provide opportunities for the
development of affordable housing. The City could research these opportunities and
ask local churches for their assistance. Although property tax foreclosures by
Clackamas County are rare in Lake Oswego, the City should monitor these things for
future housing opportunities.
C. Organizing Effective Partnerships & Increasing Public Awareness
1. Work with and support the efforts of community development corporations or other
non-profit housing providers. The Clackamas County Housing Authority, Northwest
Housing Alternatives, Clackamas Community Land Trust, Lake Oswego Transitional
Shelter Ministry, Innovative Housing, Inc., and Habitat for Humanity are among the
organizations providing these services in our area. Form partnerships with schools,
service groups, or other organizations that may share an interest in affordable housing
and the people it serves. A local foundation could be created, using the assistance of
these groups. We can also seek the assistance of service clubs. They often have time,
money, and expertise that can be used -- especially with such things as self-help
housing, or housing rehabilitation programs.
2. Support the provision of transitional shelters for families. If properly managed, they
are indistinguishable from other homes. Note the success of the Lake Oswego
Transitional Shelter Ministry in operating church-based shelters. Provided that they
have no more than one family, these units are not regulated any differently than other
dwelling units. It should also be noted that transitional shelters are only successful
24
where there is more permanent affordable housing available to the occupants when they
are ready to move out of the shelter. On-going programs are also needed to assist
shelter families.
3. Work with developers who are seeking to obtain low-income housing tax credits for
providing affordable units in this community.
4. Continue to seek the assistance of housing experts. This could mean consultants, non-
profit organizations, the State Housing office, nearby cities, or the County Housing
Authority.
5. Work with local builders, developers, lenders, realtors, neighborhood representatives,
and others with expertise in this field to identify obstacles to housing development. If
the experts tell us that changes to City regulations or programs would result in more
affordable housing, we should seriously consider their suggestions.
6. Continue to work with the community to improve the design of individual housing
developments. Many of the objections raised about affordable housing developments
in other communities have been design-based.
D. Financing Affordable Housing Initiatives
1. Establish an affordable housing trust fund that could be used to create, preserve, or
maintain affordable housing in the community. Consider all possible sources of money
that might contribute to the fund.
2. Encourage the City Council (as the Redevelopment Agency Board) to set a minimum
percentage of tax increment funds to be used for affordable housing in or near in
redevelopment (urban renewal) areas. Note that the State of California requires that a
minimum of 20% of tax increment funds generated by redevelopment agencies in that
state be used to assist in the provision of affordable housing.
3. Continue to explore the use of HUD funds and other State or federal funds for housing.
Support current efforts to establish a housing development for lower income seniors
through the HUD 202 program. Explore the Risk Sharing Loan Program for elderly
and disabled housing provided by Oregon Housing and Community Services and other
financial programs offered by that agency.
4. Pension and public investment funds can be a source of housing money. Such funds
are being used to finance housing for the elderly in many cities and could also be used
to provide workforce housing. Lake Oswego land costs will tend to discourage these
investments, but it could happen here under the right set of circumstances.
5. Bequests or donations could provide another source of money or land that could help to
provide affordable housing.
25
E. Developing Housing Policies/Administering Housing Programs
1. Implement our existing Comprehensive Plan policies to support a wide range of
housing options. This includes a creative approach to both the types of housing and the
manner of ownership. Complete a thorough review of all Community Development
Code standards to determine whether they unnecessarily limit or preclude the provision
of affordable housing. Having a more user-friendly Code would be of benefit to the
providers of affordable housing and to the community overall while helping to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. Maintain a commitment to periodically review
and update both the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, even if
the State no longer requires such reviews.
2. In implementing the Comprehensive Plan, assure that the differences from one local
neighborhood to another are addressed in the process. Given the diversity of Lake
Oswego neighborhoods, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not likely to be successful.
3. In order to promote the preservation of affordable housing, create a low-interest (or
possibly deferred payment or zero-interest) loan program for rehabilitating the homes
of lower income persons. This can help to postpone or prevent those units from
becoming “tear-downs.” A successful rehab program can also keep those units from
becoming eyesores and can help the occupants to feel invested in the community
(financially and otherwise). Clackamas County has such a program in place, using
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, but the CDBG program is now
in danger of being removed from the federal budget. The City could contribute
financially to replace or augment CDBG funds and join in efforts to secure continued
funding for the federal CDBG program, especially to fund housing programs to assist
people with modest incomes.
4. Monitor and analyze the effects of growth in all Lake Oswego neighborhoods over
time. This includes consideration of the density of development, tear-downs of existing
units, displacements (especially of modest income households), conversions (e.g.,
rentals to condos), housing types, rent levels and prices. Study changing demographics,
cultural changes, changes to family structure, and local employment/income structures.
Consider national, state, and regional changes, as well as changes to local
circumstances. Note, for instance, that most of the households in the region contain
either one or two persons; yet relatively little of the new housing that is being
constructed is intended for very small households. Take a long-term view of housing
needs without losing sight of immediate circumstances.
5. Provide priority processing of development applications that include a given percentage
of affordable units. If possible, use other funds to defray the permit costs for
affordable units.
6. Encourage the City Council (as the Redevelopment Agency Board) to set a minimum
percentage of affordable units in all developments that receive the assistance of the
26
Redevelopment Agency. Note that the Portland Development Commission has set its
standards for affordable units as high as 36% (and typically requires 20%) in its urban
renewal areas.
7. The Affordable Housing Task Force was formed as an ad hoc group to offer
recommendations. Given that the Task Force has been meeting for a year in the
preparation of this report, it is clear that an on-going housing effort is needed within the
City. The Task Force has suggested that a Housing Board or Commission be formed
and that it be a broad-based community group, with adequate staff assistance, to carry
out the implementation of this report and to continue to recommend housing policy to
the City Council.
8. If the City establishes a program that requires affordable rent levels or prices for a
period of time, a commitment must be made to the long-term administrative processes
that go with such programs. For instance, it is common for programs that assist people
in buying homes to require that a certain percentage of the equity be returned to the
program if the house is later resold (equity sharing), rather than creating a windfall
profit for the seller at the public’s expense. Such programs require an on-going
administrative commitment from the City.
9. Study the potential for using property tax abatement or tax deferral as a means of
encouraging the development of affordable units. These tools are in common usage in
other communities as a way to increase the affordability of specific housing
developments.
10. As much as possible, make sure that affordable units are spread throughout the
community, rather than having those units concentrated.
11. Continue to allow developers of affordable units to pay off Systems Development
Charges (SDCs) and other fees over time, rather than requiring them to be paid before
the start of construction. Allow for fee waivers or deferrals where warranted by the
number and cost of affordable units to be provided.
12. Develop sliding scales, fee waivers or grant programs to reduce the costs of obtaining
City permits for qualified housing projects.
13. Support affordable housing efforts such as self-help housing, first-time buyer
programs, co-op housing, co-housing, renter buy-outs, etc. Housing co-ops and co-
housing developments are creative approaches that could help to provide affordable
units in the future, along with the wide range of other housing choices.
14. We currently allow for density transfers on a given site, in order to work around
natural barriers or other development constraints. We could expand this to allow for
such transfers to adjoining properties under some circumstances. Although it would be
a major administrative commitment, consider the creation of a transfer of development
rights (TDR) system that supports the creation of affordable housing and allows the
27
transfer of development densities from one part of the community, or region, to
another.
15. Provide a clearinghouse of housing information. In some cases, elderly people living
alone would prefer to live in smaller, less maintenance-intensive housing, thereby
making a bigger, older home available to a family. If the City establishes an on-going
housing program, that program should include referral services and information on both
housing availability and social service programs. Note that some people lack the
necessary information and do not know how to live independently without some
assistance. Also note that some of the people who would benefit from this
clearinghouse information may not have access to computers, cell phones, or other
communication devices.
16. Review standards for day care in residential areas and allow for adult day care on the
same basis as day care for children. (Remember the high percentage of single-parent
households, and households with one or more dependent parent that need these
services.) Having day care services in close proximity to housing can increase the
employment and housing options for people of nearly all income levels. Adult foster
care is also an important aspect of housing that needs to be available in the community
at affordable rates.
17. Remain open to creative options that would alter the Community Development Code
for common sense. There may be types of housing that become popular in the future
that are not even anticipated in our current Code.
18. The City regularly reviews the language of proposed deed restrictions (CC&Rs) for
new developments to assure compliance with City requirements. The review of
proposed deed restrictions (CC&Rs) could be expanded to assure that they do not
prevent small homes, secondary dwelling units, affordable housing, etc.
19. Continue to enforce the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Given both national and local demographics, it is clear that a growing segment of the
population will need the access accommodations provided by the ADA and that
housing, generally, will need to accommodate an aging population. Consider providing
incentives to the developers of affordable housing as a means of assuring that housing
is developed (beyond that which is required by the law) to accommodate persons with
special needs.
F. Advocacy Options
1. Advocate for the State to expand the options available to local governments that are
attempting to expand affordable housing opportunities.
2. Advocate for the State to allow for more different funding options for affordable
housing programs.
28
3. Seek changes to the regulations applying to the use of public investment funds to
encourage community reinvestment in affordable housing, even if greater financial
return on those investments could be achieved by investing elsewhere.
4. Advocate for Clackamas County to focus the investment of Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds on affordable housing, rather than on other grant-qualifying
activities.
5. Advocate for the continued allocation of CDBG funds for housing-related activities
from the federal government.
6. Work with Metro and the State of Oregon to fund affordable housing programs at the
regional level.
29
Appendix A: Council Resolution 04-28
Charge Statement:
The Task Force serves at the request and direction of the City Council, for the purpose of
providing the Planning Commission (and City Council) with information, advice and
recommendations regarding affordable housing.
The City Council directs the Task Force to:
Make recommendations to achieve compliance with Title 7 of the Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan.
Determine which segment of the population, if any, are in need of assistance in order to find
affordable housing in Lake Oswego.
Determine if there are segments of the population who would benefit from specific efforts or
programs that can be administered by the City of Lake Oswego or other groups working
cooperatively with the City, and recommend such efforts or programs.
Study the efforts made by other communities to address these issues and determine whether
any of them could serve as models for local actions.
Draw upon the expertise of housing providers in the Portland area, and elsewhere, if available.
Decision Process:
Consensus among Task Force Members, while desirable, is not necessary. Rather, it is
important to have the Task Force develop well-reasoned options and alternatives for Planning
Commission and City Council deliberation. It is expected that the Task Force members will
address issues in a timely manner and will report to the Planning Commission at a regular
meeting in fall 2004.
All meetings will be open to the public, but public participation in Task Force deliberations
will be managed with an allotted time specified for public comment.
Member Responsibilities:
Responsibilities and procedures of the Task Force include:
Members will meet with their constituent groups outside of Task Force meetings to identify
positions and resolve issues.
Members will be expected to attend Task Force meetings
30
Members will be committed to development of reasonable recommendations for Planning
Commission and City Council consideration.
If votes are taken, each member will have one vote. Members must be present to vote.
31
Appendix B: Definition of Affordable Housing and Indicators of Need
Housing is considered affordable when the costs are no greater than 30% of the gross
income of a household earning no more than 80% of median household income in the
metropolitan Portland region. Housing costs include rents or mortgage payments,
insurance premiums and utilities. The following table reports the maximum affordable
housing costs for a family of four based on various household income levels:
Family of Four earning…
Gross Annual
Household Income
Maximum Affordable
Housing Costs per
Month
80% of Regional Median Income (MHI) $54,320 $1,358
50% of Regional Median Income (MHI) $33,950 $849
Minimum Wages (21% of MHI) $14,259 $356
Social Security Income (17% of MHI) $11,543 $289
Examples of what is affordable to low and moderate income households in Lake Oswego:
• $174/month is an affordable rent for an individual living on SSI disability benefits
at $579 per month.
¾ According to our research, there are 0 rental units available in LO at
$174/month.
• $377/month is an affordable rent for an individual working full-time earning
minimum wage at $1,257/month (Oregon minimum wage is $7.25/hour).
¾ According to our research, there are 0 rental units available in LO at
$377/month.
• $767/month is an affordable rent for an individual working as a first-year teacher
for the Lake Oswego School District at $30,701 per year.
¾ According to our research, there are approximately 138 studios, 1015 one-
bedrooms, 602 two-bedrooms, and five 3-bedrooms under $767/month.
• $1053/month is an affordable rent for an individual working as a full-time Lake
Oswego first-year Police Officer at $42,120 per year.
¾ There are approximately 138 studios, 1215 one-bedrooms, 1500 two-
bedrooms, and 138 3-bedrooms under $1053/month.
32
Indicators of Need
The 2000 US Census for Lake Oswego reports the following statistics…
2033 households had monthly homeownership costs that exceed 30% of
household income.
1461 households had monthly rental costs that exceed 30% of household income.
223 families were living below the federal poverty level.
1864 persons between the ages of 21 and 64 were disabled.
1253 persons over age 64 were disabled.
1163 households were headed by persons over age 64.
4121 households consisted of a sole person.
Homeownership costs grew 46% faster than household income from 1990 to
2000.
Rental cost grew 16% faster than household income from 1990 to 2000.
The percentage of households in Lake Oswego in unaffordable housing was only
13% lower than the Oregon average despite the fact that household income in
Lake Oswego was 76% greater.
Local public agencies report low levels of local residency among employees…
84% of full-time City employees do not live in Lake Oswego.
64% of Lake Oswego School District employees live outside the 97034/97035
zip code areas.
Other local employment impacts…
Homeowner costs are unaffordable for average employees in 17 regional job
categories.
Rental costs are unaffordable for average employees in 11 regional job
categories.
School enrollment and special needs indicators…
Between October 1997 and October 2004, school attendance grew 2.2% in
Oregon and 6.1% in Clackamas County. In Lake Oswego, public school
enrollment fell by 4%. Participation in LO school lunch programs increased
by 62%.
444 children receive free or reduced school lunches in Lake Oswego public
schools.
In 1998, the percentage of participating children was 2%. In 2005, the
percentage is 6.5%.
33
Housing Inventory
Total Single Family Residences
13,310 residences within the Urban Services Boundary
Average Lot Sizes range from 7375 SF in Oak Creek to 54511 in Stafford
Average Building Sizes range from 1629 in Rosewood to 4030 in Stafford
Average Year Built ranges from 1948 in Old Town to 1990 in Westlake
Average Land Values per Square Foot range from $5.37 in Stafford to $37.70 in
Lakewood
Average Land/Building Value Ratio runs from 40% in Westlake to 240% in
Lakeview-Summit
473 residences are valued less than $150,000 (Lake Forest, Rosewood, Palisades,
McVey)
2,450 residences have land values in excess of building values (Bryant, Blue Heron,
FAN)
2,157 residences were built prior to 1954 (FAN, Lake Forest, Bryant, McVey)
Multi-Family Housing Developments
65 developments within the Urban Services Boundary (USB)
Concentrations in Waluga, FAN, Bryant and Mountain Park
7 Retirement Developments, 2 Low Income Housing Developments and nearly
1200 Condominium Units.
Vacant Lots
1,152 vacant properties within the USB
Concentrations in Palisades, Bryant, Oak Creek and Forest Highlands
Lot Sizes average 63,830 square feet – Median Size is 15,000 square feet
Average Land Value per Square Foot ranges from $2.56 in Stafford to $13.12 in
Oak Creek
Survey of 2 to 4 Unit Parcels in the 97034 and 97035 zip code areas…
312 housing units have an average assessed property value of $117,000.
81 duplexes have an average value of $118,029 per unit.
2 triplexes have an average value of $76,185 per unit.
36 fourplexes have an average value of $118,420 per unit.
34
Appendix C: Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Note: the Comprehensive Plan is the City’s official policy document to guide the growth
and development of the community. Lake Oswego’s Comprehensive Plan was originally
adopted in 1978 after four years of public involvement. The Plan has been periodically
amended through a public process involving the Planning Commission, City Council, and
all citizens who have chosen to take part since 1978. The last major revision of the
Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1994.
Goal 10: Housing
Summary of Major Issues
Following are some of the issues and changed circumstances and conditions that were
considered in the update of this element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Many of the directives in the Housing Element of the original Plan have been accomplished
and are now contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Development Code and other standards.
GOALS, POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
GOAL
The City shall:
Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in locations and environments to provide
an adequate supply of safe, sanitary, energy efficient housing at price and rent levels
appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of present and future city residents;
Protect the character of existing neighborhoods; and,
Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, using land and
public facilities as efficiently as possible, and facilitating greater use of alternative
transportation modes.
POLICIES
1. Maintain the following residential land use designations and locational criteria which
support the above goal:
a. Low Density Residential
Density Classification Minimum Square Feet of Area per Unit
R-15 15,000 sq. ft. R-10 10,000 sq. ft. R-7.5 7,500 sq. ft
35
Low Density is intended for areas:
i. Which are currently developed at low density;
ii. Where transportation routes are primarily limited to collectors and local streets;
iii. Where public services are adequate but development constraints may exist; and,
iv. Where sensitivity to the natural environment or the existence of natural hazards indicates a
reduced density.
b. Medium and High Density Residential [PA 1-96/ZC 1-96-1187; 12/17/96]
Density Classification Minimum Square Feet of Area per Unit
R-6 6,000 Sq. ft.
R-5 5,000 Sq. ft.
R-3 3,375 Sq. ft.
R-2 and R-0 (FAR) Maximum
Medium and high density residential areas may be designated in areas:
i. Which are currently developed at medium and high density;
ii. Where there are public services and few development constraints; and,
iii. Near arterials or major collector and transit service, and particularly for high density
residential, areas in close proximity to commercial areas and/or employment concentrations.
2. Require design review to determine the actual number of units permitted on a development
site through an inventory of site conditions which demonstrates how proposed development is
compatible with the site, surrounding uses, other Plan policies and capacity of public facilities.
3. Assure that residential densities are appropriately related to site conditions, including slopes,
potential hazards and natural features.
4. Require mitigation of adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics, on
differing, adjacent land uses through site and building design.
5. Require mitigation of adverse impacts such as traffic noise, degraded air quality and
congestion, on all residential development along freeways, major and minor arterials and major
collectors, through site and building design and other measures.
6. Assure that residential density is appropriately related to the capacity of public facilities,
especially residential streets. Developments shall not generate traffic exceeding the capacity of
adjacent streets or intersections. (Also see Transportation Chapter, Goal 1, Policy 1, Goal 4 and
Figure 16.)
7. Provide for safe, comfortable, visually attractive streets in new developments.
8. Link housing density and location to reduce automobile travel by locating high density
residential (R-0, R-2 and R-3) and mixed use developments within walking distance of bus
36
lines or transit centers, and preferably clustered so as to avoid strip development. [PA 1-96/ZC
1-96-1187; 12/17/96]
9. Encourage energy efficient site and building design, and use of renewable building
materials.
10. Provide for an interconnected street system to encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit
travel and to reduce vehicle miles traveled to local destinations thus reducing energy use,
pollution and congestion.
11. Place higher density residential, employment and shopping opportunities and public
facilities, such as transit and parks, within close proximity where feasible.
12. Assure an orderly transition from one residential density to another through design and
development standards such as landscaping, buffering and screening.
13. Provide for the active involvement of neighborhood residents and property owners in
decisions affecting their neighborhood.
14. Provide a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of various lifestyles and family
types.
15. Provide low to moderate cost housing opportunities to meet Lake Oswego’s fair share of
local and regional housing needs including single family, multifamily, manufactured housing,
special use housing and residential care facilities.
16. Assure equal access to housing for all.
17. Support public and private actions which increase housing choices and reduce housing
construction costs.
18. Actively participate with Metro and Clackamas County in formulating and carrying out the
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.
19. Allow special use housing for elderly, including frail elderly, persons with medical
disabilities, disabled families and other special needs populations identified in the Clackamas
County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, in all zones in proportion to the local
share of regional need.
20. Maintain a cooperation agreement with Clackamas County authorizing provision of rent
supplement assistance within the City and enter into agreements with the County Housing
Authority* to control rents in assisted units, if opportunities arise.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
i. Encourage primary access to a collector or arterial street for R-0, R-3, and R-5 developments.
37
ii. Require developers to be responsible for their proportionate share of costs of providing
required public facilities and services including recreation facilities and park land.
iii. Comprehensively evaluate all major developments to adequately analyze site design, solar
access, building placement, significant features, factors relating to surrounding uses, pedestrian
and traffic circulation, drainage and energy conservation, plus any special protections needed
to mitigate any adverse impacts of increased density.
iv. Encourage site and building design considerations for developments which are proposed
adjacent to differing land uses which include use of building materials for noise reduction,
visual screening through use of increased setbacks, building bulk and height modulation,
building placement or landscaping and analysis of traffic patterns.
v. Encourage site and building design considerations for residential developments proposed
adjacent to major streets which include noise mitigation through the use of appropriate building
materials, landscaping, sound deadening structures, appropriate setbacks or other measures to
assure a quality living environment.
vi. Design residential streets to accommodate residential speeds and volumes, to reduce noise
levels, increase land use efficiency and reduce impervious surface.
vii. Preserve natural features, avoid hazard areas and reduce development costs by allowing
new development to:
a. Cluster units;
b. Utilize flexible lot sizes;
c. Construct a variety of housing types; and,
d. Transfer density to more suitable areas of a site.
viii. Actively pursue an effective enforcement program to enforce the City’s zoning,
development, tree and sign standards as a means of maintaining and enhancing livability.
ix. Monitor and regulate home occupation* activity to prevent adverse impacts on residential
areas caused by incompatible activities or appearance problems.
x. Utilize screening and buffering, setbacks, landscaping and modulation of building bulk
between different residential densities within neighborhoods to reduce the potential for
conflicts such as noise and visual encroachment.
xi. Require increased setbacks for residential uses along Boones Ferry and Kruse Way and
require trees and other vegetation which will provide a compatible living environment.
xii. Promote the planting and maintenance of street trees and other landscaping in residential
areas, and require walkways, where appropriate, to provide for pedestrian comfort and safety.
38
xiii. Consider traffic management devices and other traffic management techniques for
established residential areas which have experienced decreased safety and increased traffic
volumes over the years which exceed those recommended in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
xiv. Allow secondary (accessory) dwelling units* to provide opportunities for affordable rental
units, offset housing costs for the primary unit or act as transitional housing without changing
the character and quality of single family areas.
xv. Cooperate with the Clackamas County Housing Authority in locating sites suitable for
special use housing. Provide density bonuses, where and when appropriate, to encourage
special use housing.
xvi. Establish an agreement with Clackamas County to allow the development of federally
assisted low-to moderate cost housing units.
xvii. Encourage Clackamas County to utilize federally funded Community Development Block
Grants for provision of housing assistance and housing rehabilitation for which individual Lake
Oswego residents could be eligible.
xviii. Encourage elimination of barriers which limit housing choice for the handicapped.
xix. Encourage innovative housing construction technologies which decrease development
costs.
xx. Encourage and assist the continuing maintenance of existing residential properties for
safety, sanitation and structural integrity.
xxi. Encourage neighborhood cleanup and maintenance of the exterior of dwellings and
landscaping.
xxii. Encourage home occupations and develop regulations requiring home occupations to be
compatible with the character of residential neighborhoods.
39
Appendix D: Summary of Neighborhood Comments
The following is an additional summary of the themes that were heard at the January 26, 2005
public meeting:
Neighborhood Themes
• Each neighborhood is unique and their unique characteristics should be addressed in
terms of the recommendations of the Task Force.
• Density requirements are taking away affordability, driving up housing costs
• There is a lack of hard data available regarding neighborhood housing characteristics.
• There is a mix of housing types in the neighborhoods.
• There are concerns about tear-downs, resulting in a loss of affordability.
• Preserve existing housing stock.
• Aging population and fewer children.
• SFD is most common housing unit.
• Rapid increase in land values.
• Older apartment buildings threatened with redevelopment.
• A mailing list of neighborhood chairs needs to be compiled to send out information.
• There is a concern about owner/renter balance in some neighborhoods.
• There is absentee ownership in some neighborhoods.
• There are many commercial conversions.
Recurring Themes
• The impact of tear downs on affordability.
• The increases in land values in recent years.
• The final report must be based on high-quality data that clearly support the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
• The Task Force needs to seek ways to retain the existing affordable housing that exists
in the community, rather than focusing solely on the construction of new affordable
units.
• Recognize that the neighborhoods are unique and that there should not be a “one size
fits all” approach.
• Funding for affordable housing is needed and the Task Force should look at what other
communities are doing.
• The need to add housing preservation/retention to the Matrix.
• Increasing density is causing higher housing costs.
• Save existing modest/affordable housing stock.
• Rezoning to R 7.5 upon annexation may work to encourage re-development and large
expensive homes where there were affordable ones!
40
Summary of Neighborhood Comments (Organized by Neighborhood)
Evergreen
• Mix of housing types—some housing types are not obvious.
• Suggested the Task Force contact service providers to get more information from those
serving special needs populations.
First Addition
• It was noted that the following numbers are a few years old:
• Number of Single Family Dwellings (SFDs): 515
• Multi-family dwellings/duplexes: 215
• Commercial/institutional: 140
• Concerns about owner/renter balance.
• It was suggested that the Task Force get information on the Morton Development at 5th
& A as an example of affordable housing.
• There are new units on the east side of 2nd, at B St.
• There are a lot of tear-downs but some older places are being renovated.
• The market for FAN houses goes all the way to Phoenix, AZ
Westlake
• MFDs: 525
• SFDs: 516
• There is an aging population, but also a demographic mix.
• Those living in apartments are primarily singles and couples.
Old Town
• It is the smallest neighborhood in LO.
• It has a diverse population
• 2:1 renters to owners.
• There are a lot of replacements happening and concerns about tear-downs.
• The apartments at Church and Durham may be threatened.
• There was a question on what constitutes affordable housing.
Lake Forest
• It is considered an unincorporated area: 60% county, 40% city.
• Old (1920s) big lots
• Mostly SFDs—many rent for $800 to $1300/month, generally.
• It is a diverse neighborhood, which is part of the appeal.
• Not all of L.O. is high income.
• Decisions need to be based on data and facts, not assumptions.
Rosewood
• 815 properties, mostly SFDs.
• It is considered a more affordable area.
Lake Grove
• Predominately SFDs.
• Cost ranges from $210K to $1.2 million sales.
41
• Large lots are in demand.
• Most tear downs are small houses that are not maintained, without foundations. These
“fall downs” are selling for $250K and up.
• Land values are pushing against affordability.
Blue Heron
• Mostly owner occupied homes.
• The most expensive homes are at the lake front.
• There are a few granny flats.
• There are expensive waterfront houses.
• Dry-rot problems are common.
• There is new development on small lots. Houses sell for $700K and up, and are being
bought by families.
Lake Oswego School District
• It is facing declining enrollments, other than Forest Hills Elementary.
• Young families are selecting more affordable suburbs to live in.
• 30% of school district staff lives in the school district.
Forest Highlands
• In 1995, change began from affordable to big lots being divided up.
• There are many new families; up until 8 years ago there was an older population.
• There are concerns about taxes and sewer costs.
• There is a lack of connector roads and paths.
• Erosion concerns.
• Mostly SFDs.
• Annexation triggers higher density zoning.
Foothills
• Big demand by young families—rentals are $800 to $1300 per month.
• There are 112 owner-occupied condos, and the complex is 80% occupied.
• There are more children on the school bus.
• Oswego Point, rental apartments, was developed in response to demand for higher
densities.
• Most condos are not subject to FEMA flood standards.
Palisades
• There are 1500 households and 6,000 residents.
• It is almost entirely SFDs.
• Rentals range from $1100 to $1400 per month.
• Most housing in the neighborhood was built in the last 25 years.
• The least expensive homes sell for 225-250K.
• There is a lack of hard data.
Birdshill
• 360 tax lots, mostly SFDs.
• Homes were built in 3 time periods, starting in the 1920s.
• Land values are far exceeding house values, especially homes built on “sweat equity.”
42
Waluga
• There are a lot of commercial conversions
• SFDs near the center of the neighborhood, surrounded by MFDs and commercial
development.
• 20% of homes are rentals.
• Housing stock is being bought by out of state speculators.
• 4:1 ratio MFD:SFD
• Aging population and few children.
• $350K town homes proposed adjacent to park.
• There is a high absentee ownership, but they are investing in remodeling.
Uplands
• Mostly SFDs on 1/3 to 1/2 acres
• Rapid price escalation, especially in land value.
• More teardowns.
• Several parcels available for density but likely to go to another large home.
43
Appendix E: Demonstration of Need for Subsidy for
Affordable Rental Housing in Lake Oswego
A former Affordable Housing Task Force member presented data that assessed the impact
various programmatic tools would have on the affordability of a hypothetical rental
development project. Appendix E demonstrates how rental prices in this hypothetical
development could be reduced through the use of various tax and fee waivers, an interest rate
subsidy, and a land contribution. One obvious conclusion that can be reached as a result of this
analysis is that it is not possible in Lake Oswego to construct new affordable rental units of the
type proposed in this model without some form of subsidy.
This theoretical development project, which is based on estimates, includes:
• 100 housing units at 950 square feet in size with a total development size of 105,000
square feet.
• Total construction costs of $7,875,000 and total indirect development costs (SDCs, etc.)
of $13,685,206.
• Total financing cash flow of $1,158,843.
At market rate, the average monthly apartment rent comes out to $1,794, which is 106% of
regional Median Household Income (MHI). This market rate can be reduced through
programmatic tools. Below are example programmatic tools and their cumulative impacts on
the rental price.
• Exemption from property taxes reduces the monthly rent to $1,627, or 96% of regional MHI.
• SDC exemptions further reduce the rent to $1,547, or 91% of regional MHI.
• A land contribution reduces the rent again to $1,253, or 74% of regional MHI.
• Finally, an additional 3.5% interest rate subsidy reduces the rent to $1,050, or 62% of MHI.
Five tables describing these subsidies in detail are shown on the following pages:
44
45
46
47
48
49
Appendix F: Matrix
Housing Strategies for Lake Oswego, Oregon
Recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force
1. Land Use and Community Development Strategies
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Comprehensive Plan
All
Policy
Development
CDD
Budget
Implement our existing Comprehensive Plan
policies to support a wide range of housing
options. This includes a creative approach to
both the types of housing and the manner of
ownership
Community
Development Code
All
Policy
Development
CDD
Budget
Complete a thorough review of all Community
Development Code standards to determine
whether they unnecessarily limit or preclude the
provision of affordable housing. Having a more
user-friendly Code would be of benefit to the
providers of affordable housing and to the
community overall while helping to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Periodic Review
All
Policy
Development
CDD
Budget
Maintain a commitment to periodically review
and update both the Comprehensive Plan and
Community Development Code, even if the
State no longer requires such reviews.
Work with local builders, developers, lenders,
realtors, neighborhood representatives, and
others with expertise in this field to identify
obstacles to housing development. If the
experts tell us that changes to City regulations
or programs would result in more affordable
housing, we should seriously consider their
suggestions.
Remain open to creative options that would
alter the Community Development Code for
common sense. There may be types of
housing that become popular in the future that
are not even anticipated in our current Code.
Neighborhood Plans
All
Community
Diversity
CDD
Budget
In implementing the Comprehensive Plan,
assure that the differences from one local
neighborhood to another are addressed in the
process. Given the diversity of Lake Oswego
neighborhoods, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is
not likely to be successful.
Geographic Balance
All
Accessibility
CDD
Budget
As much as possible, make sure that affordable
units are spread throughout the community,
rather than having those units concentrated.
Priority Processing of
Development
Applications
All
Regulatory
Reform
CDD
Budget
Provide priority processing of development
applications that include a given percentage of
affordable units. If possible, use other funds
to defray the permit costs for affordable units.
No Net Loss
All
Preservation
CDD
Budget
Work towards a goal of “no net loss” of
existing affordable housing and explore
incentives to preserve the community’s
50
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Operating and
Maintenance
Costs
existing stock of affordable housing.
Consideration of imposing a “tear-down fee”
for housing that is razed.
If affordable housing units cannot be retained,
find ways to assure that displaced tenants
with modest incomes are able to find
equivalent housing in the community.
Consider conditioning the conversion of rental
housing to unit ownership on the availability of
adequate replacement units for those tenants.
Consider the same sort of
dislocation/relocation program for the tenants
of any affordable housing that is torn down or
converted in a way that makes it no longer
affordable to the tenant.
Note that the City does not yet have a complete
baseline of information about all of the affordable
units that exist within the community. Such
information will need to be retained and regularly
updated if the City is to implement this sort of
policy.
Lot Size Averaging
All
Development
Costs
CDD
Budget
Allow lot-size averaging in new subdivisions and
land partitions, where affordable housing is to be
provided. Such averaging is currently only
permitted in Planned Development subdivisions.
A way to increase housing diversity would be to
allow lot size averaging while still requiring the
development to meet applicable minimum and
maximum density standards. (Instead of a 7,500
square foot minimum lot size in R-7.5, the City
could require a range of lot sizes from 5,000 to
10,000 -- averaging 7,500.) Conditions of
approval would need to assure the continued
affordability of the subject housing units over
time.
Secondary Dwelling
Units
All
Development
Costs
CDD
Budget
Replace the current discretionary process in the
review of secondary dwelling units (SDUs) with a
set of ministerial standards that address
neighborhood differences. The only discretion in
the current system really has to do with assuring
the privacy of neighboring properties and that
could be addressed through clear and objective
standards. The current discretionary process
unnecessarily discourages property owners from
applying for SDUs. When the Code standards for
SDUs are met, these units often go unnoticed in
existing neighborhoods. Note the need for
housing units to accommodate one or two-person
households. Also note Recommended Action
Measure XIV of Comprehensive Plan Goal 10
which supports the creation of SDUs. Note that a
sub-committee has been formed by the Task
Force and is expected to recommend a
comprehensive program to assist property owners
in the creation of secondary dwelling units.
51
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Rezoning of
Commercial/Industrial
Areas
All
Regulatory
Reform
CDD
Budget
Encourage the conversion of under-utilized
commercial or industrial areas to residential
uses or mixed uses. This is now under
consideration in parts of the Foothills and
Lake Grove neighborhoods.
Americans with
Disabilities Act
Enforcement
Special Needs
Livability
CDD
Budget
Continue to enforce the standards of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given
both national and local demographics, it is clear
that a growing segment of the population will
need the access accommodations provided by
the ADA and that housing, generally, will need
to accommodate an aging population. Consider
providing incentives to the developers of
affordable housing as a means of assuring that
housing is developed (beyond that which is
required by the law) to accommodate persons
with special needs.
Mixed Use
Developments
All
Development
Costs
Regulatory
Reform
TBD
Encourage higher residential densities in
mixed-use commercial areas. This could go
beyond allowing such housing, to providing
incentives to promote housing above
commercial uses in more areas than Lake
Oswego’s downtown. Another option would
be to require such mixed-use development in
certain locations.
Flexible Residential
Development
Alternatives
All
Development
Costs
Regulatory
Reform
TBD
Within a given development, allow a mix of
housing types or financing alternatives that meet
density standards. (Instead of ten detached
single-family dwellings on two acres, we might
end up with ten townhouse units and a day care
center on one acre, with the other acre retained
as a park or open space). Allow for maximum
flexibility in housing types, as long as density
requirements are met. Note that Lake Oswego
has examples where this sort of clustering of
development has proven to be very successful.
Density Bonuses
All
Development
Costs
CDD
Budget
Expand the density bonus provisions for
affordable housing units in our Community
Development Code, if the development meets
special design criteria that can be specified
(and made clear and objective). Provide a
density bonus for housing developments
accommodating the elderly, persons with
disabilities, and others with special housing
needs. Allow for reduced parking standards
where the demographics of the proposed use
do not warrant the typical parking standards.
Home Occupation
Standards
All
Development
Costs
Operation and
Maintenance
CDD
Budget
Consider changes to our home occupation
business standards. More and more people are
working at home. We may be able to help some
people to pay for their housing while also
reducing their other costs of living (especially
52
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Costs
transportation costs, if they don’t have to drive to
work). It has been estimated that each car costs
a family an average of about $7,000/year. By
reducing the number of vehicles per household,
that amount could go towards the cost of
housing. At the same time, businesses operated
out of homes should be subject to standards that
protect the livability of neighboring properties.
Day Care for Children
and Seniors
Single Parents
Seniors
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
Regulatory
Reform
CDD
Budget
Review standards for day care in residential areas
and allow for adult day care on the same basis as
day care for children. (Remember the high
percentage of single-parent households, and
households with one or more dependent parent
that need these services.) Having day care
services in close proximity to housing can increase
the employment and housing options for people
of nearly all income levels. Adult foster care is
also an important aspect of housing that needs to
be available in the community at affordable rates.
Technical Assistance
to Individuals
All
Development
Costs
CDD
Budget
Continue to work with the community to improve
the design of individual housing developments.
Many of the objections raised about affordable
housing developments in other communities have
been design-based.
2. Partnerships
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Community
Development
Corporations
Non-Profit Housing
Providers
Lake Oswego School
District
Community Service
and Faith-Based
Organizations
Local Housing
Foundation
All
Financing Costs
Development
Costs
Operations and
Maintenance
Costs
TBD
Work with and support the efforts of
community development corporations or other
non-profit housing providers. The Clackamas
County Housing Authority, Northwest Housing
Alternatives, Clackamas Community Land
Trust, Lake Oswego Transitional Shelter
Ministry, Innovative Housing, Inc., and
Habitat for Humanity are among the
organizations providing these services in our
area.
Form partnerships with schools, service
groups, or other organizations that may share
an interest in affordable housing and the
people it serves.
A local foundation could be created, using the
assistance of these groups. We can also seek
the assistance of service clubs. They often
have time, money, and expertise that can be
used -- especially with such things as self-help
housing, or housing rehabilitation programs.
53
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Transitional Shelters
for Families
Single Families
Seniors
Homeless
Financing Costs
Development
Costs
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
TBD Support the provision of transitional shelters
for families. If properly managed, they are
indistinguishable from other homes. Note
the success of the Lake Oswego Transitional
Shelter Ministry in operating church-based
shelters. Provided that they have no more
than one family, these units are not regulated
any differently than other dwelling units. It
should also be noted that transitional shelters
are only successful where there is more
permanent affordable housing available to the
occupants when they are ready to move out
of the shelter. On-going programs are also
needed to assist shelter families.
Housing Alternatives
Ladder
All
Financing Costs
Development
Costs
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
TBD
Support the provision of transitional shelters
for families. If properly managed, they are
indistinguishable from other homes. Note
the success of the Lake Oswego Transitional
Shelter Ministry in operating church-based
shelters. Provided that they have no more
than one family, these units are not regulated
any differently than other dwelling units.
It should also be noted that transitional
shelters are only successful where there is
more permanent affordable housing available
to the occupants when they are ready to
move out of the shelter. On-going programs
are also needed to assist shelter families.
Employer-Assisted
Housing
Local
Employees
Support local efforts to establish employer-
assisted housing to accommodate people who
are employed in the community. A growing
number of employers are realizing that
assisting their employees to secure good
quality, affordable housing near the
workplace is good for business and good for
the community. Note that Home Street
Bank, with a branch in Lake Oswego, provides
loans that help employers with these
programs.
Regional and
Statewide Initiatives
Continue to work with Metro and the State of
Oregon to establish a region-wide system to
encourage the development of affordable
housing. As with many other issues, housing
affordability is an issue that goes beyond the city
limits. It should be noted that a given sum of
housing money will result in significantly more
housing units in one part of the region than
another. Given Lake Oswego’s land costs,
housing funds spent here will tend to create or
preserve fewer affordable units than in some
other parts of the region.
Continue to seek the assistance of housing
54
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Housing Specialists
and Experts
experts. This could mean consultants, non-
profit organizations, the State Housing office,
nearby cities, or the County Housing
Authority.
3. Financing Strategies
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
Establish an affordable housing trust fund that
could be used to create, preserve, or maintain
affordable housing in the community. Consider all
possible sources of money that might contribute
to the fund.
Subsidized City
Permits and Charges
Develop sliding scales, fee waivers or grant
programs to reduce the costs of obtaining City
permits for qualified housing projects.
Loans for System
Development Charges
and other City fees
Continue to allow developers of affordable
units to pay off Systems Development
Charges (SDCs) and other fees over time,
rather than requiring them to be paid before
the start of construction. Allow for fee
waivers or deferrals where warranted by the
number and cost of affordable units to be
provided.
Low—Interest
Rehabilitation Loans
In order to promote the preservation of affordable
housing, create a low-interest (or possibly
deferred payment or zero-interest) loan program
for rehabilitating the homes of lower income
persons. This can help to postpone or prevent
those units from becoming “tear-downs.” A
successful rehab program can also keep those
units from becoming eyesores and can help the
occupants to feel invested in the community
(financially and otherwise). Clackamas County
has such a program in place, using Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, but the
CDBG program is now in danger of being removed
from the federal budget. The City could
contribute financially to replace or augment CDBG
funds and join in efforts to secure continued
funding for the federal CDBG program, especially
to fund housing programs to assist people with
modest incomes.
Minimum Housing
Goals for Urban
Renewal Areas
Encourage the City Council (as the
Redevelopment Agency Board) to set a minimum
percentage of affordable units in all developments
that receive the assistance of the Redevelopment
Agency. Note that the Portland Development
Commission has set its standards for affordable
units as high as 36% (and typically requires 20%)
55
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
in its urban renewal areas.
Dedicated Tax
Increment
Investments
Encourage the City Council (as the
Redevelopment Agency Board) to set a minimum
percentage of affordable units in all developments
that receive the assistance of the Redevelopment
Agency. Note that the Portland Development
Commission has set its standards for affordable
units as high as 36% (and typically requires 20%)
in its urban renewal areas.
Federal and State
Funding
Continue to explore the use of HUD funds and
other State or federal funds for housing. Support
current efforts to establish a housing development
for lower income seniors through the HUD 202
program. Explore the Risk Sharing Loan Program
for elderly and disabled housing provided by
Oregon Housing and Community Services and
other financial programs offered by that agency.
Income Tax Credits
Work with developers who are seeking to
obtain low-income housing tax credits for
providing affordable units in this community.
Property Tax
Abatements and
Deferrals
Study the potential for using property tax
abatement or tax deferral as a means of
encouraging the development of affordable units.
These tools are in common usage in other
communities as a way to increase the affordability
of specific housing developments.
Pension and Other
Private Investment
Funds
Pension and public investment funds can be a
source of housing money. Such funds are
being used to finance housing for the elderly in
many cities and could also be used to provide
workforce housing. Lake Oswego land costs
will tend to discourage these investments, but
it could happen here under the right set of
circumstances.
Bequests or donations could provide another
source of money or land that could help to
provide affordable housing.
Transferable
Development Rights
We currently allow for density transfers on a
given site, in order to work around natural
barriers or other development constraints.
We could expand this to allow for such
transfers to adjoining properties under some
circumstances. Although it would be a major
administrative commitment, consider the
creation of a transfer of development rights
(TDR) system that supports the creation of
affordable housing and allows the transfer of
development densities from one part of the
community, or region, to another.
56
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
3. Ongoing Policy Development and Administration
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
Establish a Lake
Oswego Housing
Commission
All
All
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
The Affordable Housing Task Force was
formed as an ad hoc group to offer
recommendations. Given that the Task Force
has been meeting for a year in the
preparation of this report, it is clear that an
on-going housing effort is needed within the
City. The Task Force has suggested that a
Housing Board or Commission be formed and
that it be a broad-based community group,
with adequate staff assistance, to carry out
the implementation of this report and to
continue to recommend housing policy to the
City Council.
Monitor Housing
Supply
All
All
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
Monitor and analyze the effects of growth in
all Lake Oswego neighborhoods over time.
This includes consideration of the density of
development, tear-downs of existing units,
displacements (especially of modest income
households), conversions (e.g., rentals to
condos), housing types, rent levels and prices
Monitor Demographic
Patterns
All
All
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
Study changing demographics, cultural changes,
changes to family structure, and local
employment/income structures. Consider
national, state, and regional changes, as well as
changes to local circumstances. Note, for
instance, that most of the households in the
region contain either one or two persons; yet
relatively little of the new housing that is being
constructed is intended for very small households.
Take a long-term view of housing needs without
losing sight of immediate circumstances.
Administer Housing
Programs
All
All
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
If the City establishes a program that requires
affordable rent levels or prices for a period of
time, a commitment must be made to the long-
term administrative processes that go with such
programs. For instance, it is common for
programs that assist people in buying homes to
require that a certain percentage of the equity be
returned to the program if the house is later
resold (equity sharing), rather than creating a
windfall profit for the seller at the public’s
expense. Such programs require an on-going
administrative commitment from the City.
Support affordable housing efforts such as self-
help housing, first-time buyer programs, co-op
housing, co-housing, renter buy-outs, etc.
Housing co-ops and co-housing developments
57
Policy or Action Population Strategy Funding Discussion
are creative approaches that could help to
provide affordable units in the future, along
with the wide range of other housing choices.
The City regularly reviews the language of
proposed deed restrictions (CC&Rs) for new
developments to assure compliance with City
requirements. The review of proposed deed
restrictions (CC&Rs) could be expanded to
assure that they do not prevent small homes,
secondary dwelling units, affordable housing,
etc.
Operate a
Clearinghouse of
Housing Information
and Services
All
All
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
Provide a clearinghouse of housing information.
In some cases, elderly people living alone would
prefer to live in smaller, less maintenance-
intensive housing, thereby making a bigger, older
home available to a family. If the City establishes
an on-going housing program, that program
should include referral services and information
on both housing availability and social service
programs. Note that some people lack the
necessary information and do not know how to
live independently without some assistance. Also
note that some of the people who would benefit
from this clearinghouse information may not have
access to computers, cell phones, or other
communication devices.
58
Appendix G: The following is an excerpt of the notes taken during
a panel discussion sponsored by the Task Force on August 11, 2004.
Affordable Housing Task Force
Panel Discussion
Meeting Notes
August 11, 2004, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, Lake Oswego City Hall
Members In Attendance: Dan Vizzini (chair), Paul Lyons, Brad Holland, Ardis
Stevenson, Ernie Platt, Ron Johnson, Beckie Plaza, Rob Wagner, Diane Luther, Emogene
Waggoner
Staff In Attendance: Stephan Lashbrook
Panelists: Norma Heyser Peterson, Trell Anderson, Martha McLennan, Nancy Yuill, Betty
Dominguez, and Diane Luther
Guests In Attendance: Councilor Lynn Peterson, Councilor Ellie McPeak, and others
I. Welcome
AHTF Chair Dan Vizzini opened the meeting and welcomed guests and panelists. Dan also
“framed” the issue of affordable housing in Lake Oswego by citing examples of such things
as numbers of households below the poverty level, increasing numbers of service sector jobs
(and other jobs) where local workers cannot afford to live in Lake Oswego, unique housing
needs of seniors, and the need for housing for first-time buyers. Task Force members
introduced themselves. Dan explained that the purpose of the evening’s panel discussion was
to hear from six panelists who bring with them a wealth of creative ideas and personal
experiences.
II. Panelists
Norma Heyser Peterson – Lake Oswego resident and neighborhood activist, Norma
presented her plan to encourage the development of small detached homes in clusters,
within single-family neighborhoods. Norma showed photos of existing large and small
homes in the First Addition Neighborhood. She also showed examples of older homes
that fit the model, including Craftsman styled homes of 600 to 900 square feet, built in
the 1920s and before. Norma pointed out that most families actually use a relatively
small portion of their homes on a daily basis and can live comfortably in homes that are
smaller.
Trell Anderson – Senior Program Manager for Portland’s Bureau of Housing and
Community Development, Trell spoke about many different programs in use by the City
59
of Portland to encourage the construction and retention of affordable housing. He
recommended that Lake Oswego create an “affordable housing infrastructure” including
converting the Task Force to a standing committee to deal with these issues over the long
term. Trell emphasized that the Task Force will need to choose some areas as a focus and
not allow itself to be pulled in too many different directions. Portland’s housing
programs are funded primarily by HUD programs and tax increment funds (TIF --
generated through urban renewal programs). He also talked about the potential to use a
one-time bond as a source of “seed money” to leverage other housing investments. He
mentioned the potential for tax abatement programs as an incentive, saying that the State
allows for five different types of tax abatement programs for different situations. Trell
talked about using the City’s resources as collateral to secure the financing needed by
non-profit housing providers. He also suggested possible zoning changes to allow more
housing options (including clusters such as suggested by Norma, skinny lot subdivisions,
allowing duplexes on corner lots, etc.)
Betty Dominguez – Regional Advisor to the Director of Oregon’s Department of Housing
and Community Services, and past President of the Portland Habitat for Humanity
operation, Betty made a number of suggestions about housing programs that could be
implemented in Lake Oswego. She stressed the importance of using architects and other
skilled design professional to make sure that any new housing looks attractive and fits in
with neighborhoods. Betty also pointed out that successful housing programs have to
include other services (e.g., training programs for first-time buyers or people with
disabilities, etc.). She said that she thinks Lake Oswego has great opportunities for future
housing, including affordable housing, in the Foothills area. She suggested working with
the Oregon Downtown Development Association as we consider options for downtown
redevelopment. Betty said that the City may wish to lobby for the creation of a
“community incentive fund” through the State Legislature. She supported Trell’s
comments about tax abatement programs, recommended funding SDC waivers, and use
of TIF funds for affordable housing. Betty pointed out that it is politically difficult, but
sometimes the City Council must be willing to condemn property for public purposes,
including housing development.
Martha McLennan – Executive Director of Northwest Housing Alternatives (NHA) said
that her organization would consider it to be a major accomplishment to develop some
affordable housing in Lake Oswego. NHA has developed over 1200 rental housing units
serving different segments of the population in 14 counties. Martha pointed out that the
increasing density of development and increasing traffic congestion throughout the region
are reasons why we need to be concerned about providing affordable housing near places
of employment. She referred to “cohousing” as one approach to the types of clustered
housing advocated by Norma. Martha talked about three ways to increase housing
affordability: 1) provide funds (including different forms of debt/equity packaging,
leveraging investments, etc.); 2) reduce costs of development (including fee waivers,
providing land, etc.); and 3) reduce costs of long-term maintenance or operation
(including tax abatements, etc.). Martha went on to talk about different ways that the
City may be able to leverage affordable housing development. These included using tax
foreclosed properties, land owned by the City or by private utilities, and air rights over
60
other properties. Martha noted that developers often seek the City’s assistance and when
that happens the City should use its leverage to negotiate for affordable housing.
Nancy Yuill -- Executive Director of the Clackamas Community Land Trust, an
organization that provides an opportunity for lower income households to purchase
homes, where the land trust continues to hold title to the land under the homes. Nancy
explained the details of how the Land Trust works, noting that her organization was spun
off of NHA about five years ago, to focus on affordable home ownership. She talked
about the problems facing lower income renters, including their tendency to move often,
which also leads to problems for the schools and poorer education for the students. The
Land Trust model helps to provide more stability for such households, at not much more
cost than rentals. Nancy said that most of their clients have been single mothers who are
employed and who qualify for conventional mortgages. Nancy added that Lake Oswego
should be looking to models from other communities to address our housing situation.
She recommended that we consider charging a “tear down fee” (based on a Chicago
requirement) to generate housing funds when homes are torn down and replaced with
new houses. She also recommended that we study “employer assisted housing” such as
that being used by the school district in the San Juan Islands.
Diane Luther – Housing Director for Multnomah County and Task Force member,
focused on the regional responsibilities shared by all local governments in the region.
She said that everyone ought to be able to live in the community where they work. She
also emphasized the unmet need for “special needs housing” in Lake Oswego. Diane
pointed out that many people with disabilities must live on a total income of $560/month,
when that will not even the cost of rent in most places. Diane agreed with many of the
comments of the other panelists.
61