HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Memo 03-04-20 PC Update w-Attach PP 19-0008 MEMORANDUM
�REGp�
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: HB 2001 and HB 2003 Rulemaking Update— March 2020 (PP 19-0008)
DATE: March 4, 2020 MEETING DATE: March 9, 2020
In late 2019, the City Council requested that staff monitor the State of Oregon's rulemaking
process for implementation of House Bill 2001 (referred to below as HB 2001 or the "middle
housing" bill) and House Bill 2003 (HB 2003, or the "housing production" bill). The Council
expects to be kept informed of the process and for the City to participate in it as needed to
ensure that the City's interests are known and can be addressed. The following summary, the
third memo prepared for this purpose, highlights some of the key policy and regulatory issues
that have been identified to date.
Executive Summary
In November of 2019, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
initiated rulemaking to begin implementation of HB 2001 and HB 2003. This included
establishing a Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) to ensure that a broad group of
stakeholders and interested persons is involved in the rulemaking process. The RAC relies on
technical advisory committees to develop and refine detailed recommendations, and such
committees have been formed regarding the Middle Housing Model Code, Infrastructure-Based
Time Extension Request process, and Housing Production Strategies process.
As of March 3, 2020, the RAC has met four times, the Middle Housing Model Code Technical
Advisory Committee (MCTAC) and the Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request Technical
Advisory Committee (IBTERTAC) have met twice, and the Housing Production Strategies
Technical Advisory Committee (HPSTAC) has met once. Staff has attended the most recent
meetings of each committee, with plans to attend future rulemaking meetings in coming
months. Key issues discussed at recent meetings include:
• Definition of"duplex": The RAC discussed the MCTAC's recommendation to define
"duplex" as "a building that contains two dwelling units on one lot" at their most recent
meeting. This definition would be in the model code, and cities would be allowed to
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 2
adopt the same or a similar definition to the model code in order to meet minimum
compliance.
The proposed rules would allow for alternative approaches that consider detached units
to be a "duplex" to meet the minimum standard as well. The idea is to allow
jurisdictions such as Bend, which have building codes that consider detached units to be
"duplexes", to continue to apply their definition of the term without impacting the
ability of other jurisdictions to use the more conventional "attached" definition.
The RAC has received input from some cities that allowing definitions of duplex to
include two detached dwellings on a lot could create confusion, including potential
conflicts with building codes. Staff notes that the recommendation is not intended to
require that cities adopt a definition that would allow two detached buildings on one
lot, but would allow cities to do so if desired. Staff will continue to track this issue.
The RAC also discussed whether it was appropriate to allow flexibility in instances where
a building can meet both a jurisdiction's definition of a "duplex" and an "accessory
dwelling unit" (ADU). The RAC agreed to consider whether jurisdictions would be
legally obligated to delineate the difference between an ADU and duplex unit prior to
making a formal recommendation. (Lake Oswego would want to maintain the
distinction if for no other reason than to continue exempting ADUs from paying SDCs).
• Parking requirements: The RAC spent a large portion of the meeting continuing the
MCTAC's discussion of the model code and minimum requirements related to parking.
Similar to the draft discussed at the last MCTAC meeting, the RAC reviewed draft rules
that contained three different options for minimum off-street parking requirements to
reach compliance with HB 2001. While each option would place a cap on the amount of
parking that jurisdictions can require, none of the options would act as an actual cap on
the number of parking spaces that could be proposed for a middle housing
development. The RAC continued to recommend that the rules for minimum
compliance should not require jurisdictions to allow credit for on-street parking.
It remains unclear whether the proposed minimum requirements would preempt any
of the City's existing parking standards. Though the current recommendation
continues to propose a limit to the amount of spaces that cities are allowed to require
for duplex development, the RAC is still tackling the larger question of whether this
limit is appropriate. Such a cap on parking, if lower than Lake Oswego's existing
standard, may conflict with the City's comprehensive plan, which requires that it
maintain regulations requiring adequate levels of parking be provided. Staff will
continue to monitor this issue.
• Redevelopment assumptions for infrastructure-based time extension requests: The
IBTERTAC and the RAC both met in February to discuss and refine a draft of the rules for
the infrastructure-based time extension request process. At both meetings, committee
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 3
members discussed the redevelopment assumptions cities may use as a basis for
infrastructure-based time extension requests. The IBTERTAC recommended establishing
different redevelopment assumptions for existing neighborhoods than for green-fields
or undeveloped areas, and clarified how to calculate redevelopment assumptions in
each type of area.
For green fields or undeveloped areas, the assumed redevelopment rate would be set at
3% - the growth assumption contained within the language of HB 2001. For existing
neighborhoods, the IBTERTAC clarified that the 3% growth assumption limit in HB 2001
is intended to be evaluated over a 20-year timespan; using this guidance, the growth
assumption in Lake Oswego would be a redevelopment rate of approximately 0.225%
over the 1.5-year analysis period.
This rate assumes that only a very small fraction of additional housing units would be
developed as a result of implementing middle housing provisions. Using these lower
redevelopment assumptions for existing neighborhoods will mean that IBTER requests
will primarily apply to areas that have existing or looming service capacity issues, and
other areas that are not eligible for IBTER could experience infrastructure deficiencies
as a result of HB 2001.
The proposed redevelopment assumptions limit the ability of cities to project the
impacts of implementing middle housing provisions over a longer time horizon for the
purposes of IBTER, but do not preclude cities from using other redevelopment
assumptions for their own infrastructure master planning efforts.
• Infrastructure-based time extension request framework: At the recent IBTERTAC
meeting, members discussed a few items in need of clarification related to the
infrastructure-based time extension request process:
o The current draft of the rules would not allow cities to request an extension
based on the need for master planning alone.
o The current draft of the rules would allow for extensions of up to five years
based on infrastructure deficiencies, and would allow jurisdictions to extend
their requests by an additional five years if needed. The combined time
extension could not last for more than 10 years.
Members were concerned that small jurisdictions would have a lot of difficulty
accommodating infrastructure remedies within this time period, as they would need to
secure a funding method and potentially arrange for agreements with outside service
providers—depending on the circumstance.
IBTERTAC members also advised that the rules should consider the impact of the bill
with respect to potential moratoriums on development in areas where infrastructure
constraints exist. Members cautioned that, without a thorough consideration of the
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 4
interaction between the IBTER process and the declaration of a moratorium, the bill
could inadvertently incentivize cities to pursue moratoriums in areas where single-
family dwellings are currently permitted.
Staff has previously proposed a June/July 2020 check-in with the Planning Commission
and City Council to develop a strategy for addressing the IBTER and other critical path
decisions under HB 2001.
• Draft Waste and Wastewater Rules for IBTER: Committee members also reviewed draft
rules for the infrastructure-based time extension request process related to water and
sewer systems.
While there are still many details that need to be clarified, members were concerned
about running into legal issues with the strains on infrastructure that could potentially
result from allowing additional density. For instance, the potential for sewer systems to
overflow into a river, or over-development in areas with inadequate water pressure for
fire protection, could produce a risk to public safety. Though the IBTERTAC covered a lot
of ground in this meeting, there are still many unanswered questions regarding how the
process will be implemented. Staff will continue to monitor this topic.
Summary of Recent Rulemaking Meetings
A. State Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC)
1. Recent Meeting(s) and key issues discussed: RAC Meeting#4— February 27, 2020
a. Draft Middle Housing Model Code and Minimum Requirements—The RAC was
presented with a draft of the Medium Cities Model Code, which had been
revised based on the discussion at recent MCTAC Meetings. The RAC reviewed
and provided input on this draft, focusing on the following questions:
i. Definition of"duplex"—The RAC was asked to consider the MCTAC's
recommendation to define "duplex" in the model code and minimum
standards as "a building that contains two dwelling units on one lot".
The proposed rules would also allow for alternative approaches that
consider detached units to be a "duplex" to meet the minimum standard
as well. This would allow jurisdictions such as Bend, which have building
codes that consider detached units to be "duplexes", to continue to apply
their definition of the term without impacting the ability of other
jurisdictions to use the more conventional "attached" definition.
Further, the RAC discussed whether it was appropriate to allow flexibility
in instances where a building can meet both a jurisdiction's definition of a
"duplex" and an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU). While the current
proposal would allow an applicant to choose to define the dwelling unit as
a duplex or single-family residence with an ADU based on their
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 5
preference, some members of the RAC advocated for a definition that
would acknowledge the "accessory" nature of an ADU as fundamentally
different than a duplex unit. The RAC agreed to consider whether
jurisdictions would be legally obligated to delineate the difference
between an ADU and duplex unit prior to making a formal
recommendation. Staff will continue to track this issue.
ii. Parking—The RAC spent a large portion of the meeting discussing the
model code and minimum requirements related to parking.
Similar to the draft discussed at the last MCTAC meeting, there were three
different options proposed for minimum off-street parking requirements
to reach compliance. The first option would not allow jurisdictions to
require more than one additional off-street parking space for a duplex, in
addition to the minimum spaces required for a single-family dwelling in
the zone. The second option would not allow jurisdictions to require more
than a minimum of three parking spaces for a duplex, and the third would
not allow jurisdictions to require more than a minimum of two parking
spaces for a duplex. Staff notes that, though these options could place a
cap on the amount of parking that jurisdictions can require, neither of
these options would act as an actual cap on the number of parking spaces
that could be proposed to accommodate middle housing. Further, the
proposed minimum requirement for compliance would not require
jurisdictions to allow credit for on-street parking.
With respect to the draft model code, the recommendation continues to
be for jurisdictions to require a minimum of one off-street parking space
per dwelling unit, with the ability to count off-street parking spaces
towards this requirement. Under the draft model code, no additional
spaces would be required for the conversion of a single-family home to a
duplex. Staff notes that the City of Lake Oswego would not be required to
adopt the provisions in the model code unless the City fails to adopt
regulations that meet minimum compliance by June 30, 2022.
RAC members expressed a variety of perspectives about how parking
should be handled through the model code and minimum requirements.
Many members were supportive of reducing parking requirements, and
others thought it could potentially avoid unnecessary conflict if the
minimum requirements were silent on parking. One RAC member
mentioned that it would also be helpful to define "unreasonable cost or
delay" prior to making a recommendation, as parking requirements could
be construed as contributing to cost or delay.
While the RAC did not reach a consensus at the meeting, members
conveyed numerous comments and DLCD indicated that those comments
would be considered or addressed prior to the next iteration of the draft.
It remains unclear whether the minimum requirements will preempt any
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 6
of the City's existing parking standards,though the current
recommendation continues to propose a limit to the amount of spaces
that jurisdictions may require for middle housing. Staff will continue to
monitor this issue.
See the attached Duplex Model Code (Revised Draft)for more detail.
b. Draft Rules for Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Requests—Next, the RAC
reviewed and provided comment on a draft of the rules for the Infrastructure-
Based Time Extension Request, which had been revised based on the discussion
at recent IBTERTAC Meetings.
The RAC summarized recent decisions regarding the redevelopment assumptions
that may be used as a basis for infrastructure-based time extension requests.
The group discussed a recent memo from the IBTERTAC, which established
different redevelopment assumptions for existing neighborhoods than for green-
fields or undeveloped areas. For green-fields or undeveloped areas, the assumed
redevelopment rate would continue to be set at 3% -the growth assumption
contained within the language of HB 2001.
The memo from the IBTERTAC clarified that, unlike green-fields and undeveloped
areas, for existing neighborhoods the 3%growth assumption limit in HB 2001 is
intended to be evaluated over a 20-year timespan. This means that, for existing
neighborhoods, the 3%growth rate assumption would need to be modified to
apply to the period of time between the adoption date of middle housing
regulations and December 31, 2023.
Because Lake Oswego is considered a "large city" under HB 2001, the required
adoption date is June 30, 2022, and there would be a 1.5-year time period
between this adoption date and December 31, 2023. Thus, because 1.5 years
represents 7.5% of the full 20-year timespan, the redevelopment rate for
existing neighborhoods in Lake Oswego would be 0.075 x 3%, or 0.225%, using a
similar redevelopment assumption. Because the RAC has yet to discuss IBTER
rules for large cities, it remains unclear whether the assumed redevelopment
rate for large cities would also be rounded up to 1%for existing neighborhoods,
as is proposed for medium cities.
These rates assume that only a very small fraction of additional housing units
would be developed as a result of implementing middle housing provisions.
While the rates may seem low, they are based on housing trends and an analysis
of cities with "hot" housing markets that have adopted similar middle housing
provisions—such as Portland and Vancouver, B.C. Though it may seem logical to
assume that density would be doubled when jurisdictions begin allowing
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 7
duplexes in single-family areas, the proposed growth assumptions are intended
to present a realistic redevelopment rate that is grounded in precedent.
Using lower redevelopment assumptions will mean that IBTER requests will
primarily apply to areas that have existing or looming service capacity issues. It
also limits the ability of cities to project the impacts of implementing middle
housing provisions over a longer time horizon for the purposes of IBTER, but
does not preclude cities from using other redevelopment assumptions for their
own infrastructure planning efforts. Staff will continue to track this issue.
See the attached IBTERTAC Meeting#2 Supplemental Memo for more detail.
c. Housing Production Strategies— Lastly, the RAC was provided with an update
regarding recent discussions at the Housing Production Strategies TAC, and was
offered a chance to ask questions and provide further guidance.
While the RAC asked a few questions and made some helpful suggestions, the
urgency around this topic was less immediate than some of the other topics—
which have more stringent timelines. Because most jurisdictions will not need to
tackle their housing production strategies for several years, the RAC did not
dedicate as much time to this subject.
See the attached HPSTAC Meeting# 1 Summary for more detail.
2. Next RAC Meeting and expected topics to be discussed: RAC Meeting#5—April 2, 2020
a. Continue review of draft medium city rule and code
b. Continue review of draft infrastructure deficiency time extension rules
c. Review draft housing production strategy rules
3. Does the Planning Commission have any questions or comment?
The RAC is still defining issues and topics to be discussed throughout the rulemaking
process, and has indicated that they intend to continue their review of draft rules and
language at their next meeting. Staff will monitor the April 2nd RAC Meeting#5 to better
understand the direction of the draft medium city model code and IBTER rules prior to
recommending any comments.
4. City Council direction needed?
No direction is needed at this time, as the RAC is still defining issues and topics to be
discussed throughout the rulemaking process.
B. Model Code Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC)
1. Recent Meeting(s) and key issues discussed: MCTAC Meeting#2—February 4, 2020
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 8
See last month's HB 2001 and HB 2003 Rulemaking Update (2/6/2020) for a
summary of the meeting.
2. Next MCTAC Meeting and expected topics to be discussed: MCTAC Meeting#3—March
5, 2020
a. Consider RAC comments on draft Medium Cities Model Code
b. Build out Large Cities Model Code framework
c. Begin code graphics discussion
d. Review Economic Feasibility Report
3. Does the Planning Commission have any questions or comment?
The MCTAC is still working to refine draft rules and language for medium cities based on
input from the RAC, and intends to start building out the framework for the model code
for large cities at their next meeting. Staff will monitor the March 5th MCTAC Meeting to
get more clarity on the direction of the draft medium city model code prior to
recommending any comments.
4. City Council direction needed?
No direction is needed at this time, as the MCTAC is still working to refine a draft model
code for duplexes based on input from the RAC, and intends to start building out the
framework for the model code for large cities at their next meeting.
C. Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request Technical Advisory Committee (IBTERTAC)
1. Recent Meeting(s) and key issues discussed: IBTERTAC Meeting#2—February 24, 2020
a. Key Parameters for infrastructure-based time extension requests—The IBTERTAC
began by discussing whether any clarification was needed regarding potentially
ambiguous language in the proposed rules. Members suggested that a definition is
needed to establish a common understanding of"un-urbanized" areas, particularly
in order to distinguish between contiguous and non-contiguous "un-urbanized"
areas. IBTERTAC members also stressed a need to differentiate between a
jurisdiction's willingness to issue a building permit and the existence of an
infrastructure "deficiency" in that area —as there could be circumstances where
permits are still being issued irrespective of an existing deficiency.
b. Establishing a Significant infrastructure deficiency—The IBTERTAC then reviewed a
draft framework for establishing a significant infrastructure deficiency and provided
guidance on suggested changes.
The current draft of the rules would not allow cities to request an extension based
on the need for master planning alone. IBTERTAC members expressed that, while
they thought this was a reasonable approach, they didn't want to put cities in a
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 9
"hard place" if they were requesting an extension in order to allow more time for
infrastructure-related master planning.
Though draft rules for water- and sewer-related deficiencies were the intended
focus of this meeting, IBTERTAC members began to consider other types of
infrastructure as well. It was mentioned that significant deficiencies related to
stormwater were different in many ways than other types of infrastructure
deficiencies, particularly considering that middle housing produced through the bill
could exacerbate impervious area and increase the potential for flooding.
IBTERTAC members also advised that the rules should consider the impact of the bill
with respect to potential moratoriums on development in areas where
infrastructure constraints exist. Members cautioned that, without a thorough
consideration of the interaction between the IBTER process and the declaration of a
moratorium, the bill could inadvertently incentivize cities to pursue moratoriums in
areas where single-family dwellings are currently permitted.
c. IBTER Applications and Review Criteria—Next, the IBTERTAC reviewed the proposed
application requirements, review process and criteria for the infrastructure-based
time extension requests. These rules would allow for extensions of up to five years
based on infrastructure deficiencies, and would allow jurisdictions to extend their
requests by an additional five years if needed. The combined time extension could
not last for more than 10 years.
Some members expressed concerns that jurisdictions would continue to request
infrastructure extensions, regardless of the proposed time limits. Others were
concerned that small jurisdictions would have a lot of difficulty accommodating
infrastructure remedies within this time period, as they would need to secure a
funding method and potentially arrange for agreements with outside service
providers—depending on the circumstance. Certain members mentioned that, even
in large cities, it's difficult to expect decision-makers to prioritize infrastructure
extensions in anticipation of long-term growth over maintenance backlogs and other
investments designed to keep existing systems viable.
The IBTERTAC acknowledged that it would be challenging to accommodate the
needs of cities with constrained infrastructure while ensuring that the rules work to
accomplish the intent of the bill—to produce additional housing units.
d. Draft Waste and Wastewater Rules— Lastly, the IBTERTAC reviewed draft rules for
the infrastructure-based time extension request process related to water and sewer
systems.
IBTERTAC members agreed that these systems are the least likely for jurisdictions to
deem deficient, though some members did note that they had issues with water
pressure capacity in their jurisdictional boundary.
Members seemed generally concerned about running into legal issues with the
strains on infrastructure that could potentially result from allowing middle housing,
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 10
such as the potential for sewer systems to overflow into a river and produce a risk to
public safety. This prompted a discussion of how these types of impacts could be in
conflict with other systems protected under Statewide Planning Goals, such as
natural or historic resources.
Though the IBTERTAC covered a lot of ground in this meeting, there are still many
unanswered questions regarding how the process will be implemented. See the
attached IBTER Key Parameters Memo for more detail.
2. Next IBTERTAC Meeting and expected topics to be discussed: IBTERTAC Meeting#3—
March 16, 2020
a. Transportation draft rules outline
b. Additional discussion of water and sewer draft rules
3. Does the Planning Commission have any questions or comment?
Many specifics related to the infrastructure-based time extension process have still yet-
to-be-determined. Much of the discussion at the second IBTERTAC meeting involved
identifying difficult questions that will need to be addressed in future meetings, and
members continued to express concerns about the feasibility of the IBTER-related
timelines established by HB 2001. Though rules for water and sewer were drafted prior
to the meeting and discussed in-depth, the TAC decided to continue the discussion of
the draft rules for water and sewer at their next meeting in order to allow sufficient
time to discuss the key parameters and application requirements.
Staff will monitor the March 16th IBTERTAC Meeting#3 to better understand the
direction of the draft IBTER rules for water, sewer and transportation prior to
recommending any comments.
4. City Council direction needed?
No direction is needed at this time, as the IBTERTAC is still working to refine draft rules
related to water and sewer, and will be drafting rules related to transportation prior to
their third meeting.
D. Housing Production Strategy Technical Advisory Committee (HPSTAC)
1. Recent HPSTAC Meetings and key issues discussed: HPSTAC Meeting#1—February 6,
2020
a. HPSTAC Introductions and Operating Principles, Roles, and Deliverables—The
HPSTAC began their first meeting with introductions and a review of the operating
principles and guidelines for technical advisory committees. The HPSTAC clarified
that their deliverables would consist of a series of requirements outlining what
housing production strategies should look like and how DLCD can better support
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 11
those communities. The HPSTAC is aiming to produce a draft set of rules for RAC
discussion in time for their August meeting.
b. Housing Production Strategy Structure—The HPSTAC then began discussing a series
of questions oriented around the proposed structure of the housing production
strategy rules.
This included a discussion of the data and analysis points that should be used in
order to determine housing need, and which data should be measured in order to
track the progress of governments in addressing this need. HPSTAC members also
considered specific actions, policies, and tools that cities should consider as they
address their housing need, with some arguing that housing production strategies
should consider more than just the number of units produced in order to gauge
success. In particular, there was a desire to incorporate equity and consider the
location of planned housing units in relation to their impact on complex issues such
as displacement, poverty, access to employment, and other socioeconomic
indicators.
Another question was focused on how to meaningfully engage the community in the
development of these strategies, with HPSTAC members stressing the importance of
actively recruiting new voices and avoiding required "box checking" meetings.
See the attached HPSTAC Meeting# 1 Summary for more detail.
2. Next HPSTAC Meeting and expected topics to be discussed: HPSTAC Meeting#2— March
11, 2020
a. Centering housing production strategies on vulnerable communities, especially as it
relates to homelessness
b. Review Specific Elements of a Housing Production Strategy
3. Does the Planning Commission have any questions or comment?
Many specifics related to housing production strategies have still yet-to-be-determined.
Much of the discussion at the first HPSTAC meeting stayed fairly high-level and was
primarily focused on outlining the questions planned for discussion at future meetings.
Staff will monitor the March 11th HPSTAC Meeting#2 to better understand the direction
of housing production strategy rules prior to recommending any comments.
4. City Council direction needed?
No direction is needed at this time, as the HPSTAC is still working to outline topics to be
discussed at future meetings. The HPSTAC plans to present a tentative draft of rules for
housing production strategies to the RAC at their July meeting.
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Page 12
ATTACHMENTS
A. Duplex Model Code (Revised Draft), 2/18/2020
B. IBERTAC Key Parameters, 2/13/2020
C. IBTERTAC Meeting#2 Supplemental Memo, 2/24/2020
D. HPSTAC Meeting#1 Summary, 2/24/2020
503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
A LAND USE PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PG PROJECT MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT)
DLCD Middle Housing Model Code
DATE February 18, 2020
TO MHMC Technical Advisory Committee
FROM Matt Hastie, Cathy Corliss and Kate Rogers,Angelo Planning Group
CC Ethan Stuckmayer and Robert Mansolillo, DLCD
Project Team
Duplexes on Single-Family Lots (Model Code)
User's Guide:
Oregon House Bill 2001 requires that "Medium Cities" (cities with a population of
more than 10,000 and less than 25,000 that are not within Metro's jurisdiction)
allow a duplex on each lot or parcel zoned for residential use that allows for the
development of detached single-family dwellings. The bill allows local governments
to regulate siting and design of duplexes, provided that the regulations do not,
individually or cumulatively, discourage duplex development through unreasonable
costs or delay. Duplexes provide an opportunity to increase housing supply in
developed neighborhoods and can blend in well with detached single-family
dwellings. Concerns about neighborhood compatibility and other factors should be
considered and balanced against the need to address Oregon's housing shortage by
removing barriers to development.
Ideally, Medium Cities will develop their own standards in compliance with the
requirements of HB2001 and this document is intended to provide guidance toward
that end (both in terms of best practiccsuggested approaches and minimum
standards for compliance). However, if cities do not adopt the required code
amendments by HB2001's June 30, 2021 deadline, they must directly apply the
model code to any applicable proposals.Thus, the purpose of this document is
threefold, and the following table includes provisions organized into three columns:
1. Model Code—The standards that will apply directly to proposals for duplex
development if local governments do not adopt the required code amendments.
These standards are intended to be straightforward and implementable by medium-
ANGELO PLANNING GROUP angeloplanning.com
921 SW Washington Street,Suite 468 p:503.224.6974
Portland,OR 97205 f:503.227.3679
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 15 Page 17 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 2 of 15
size cities throughout the state.They are consistent with the requirements and
intent of HB 2001 and also are meant to achieve a middle ground between minimum
requirements and some of the best practices in the second column which go beyond
allowing duplexes and ensuring that they are no more difficult to develop than a
single-family detached home.
2. Best PracticesSuggested Approaches—Options for local governments to consider
in developing their own standards, with the intent of improving outcomes for
duplexes developed in single-family areas. Some of the best practicesSuggested
approaches include standards that could serve as an incentive for their
development.
3. Minimum Compliance—The minimum standards that middle housing
development codes must meet in order to comply with the intent of HB2001.These
are the standards against which DLCD will compare amended development codes to
ensure they comply with state law.
Ultimately, the Medium City model code will be adopted by reference into
administrative rules; minimum compliance standards will be adopted directly into
administrative rules; and best practices will not be incorporated into administrative l
rules, but will be provided as guidance to local governments wishing to further
facilitate middle housing development.
Commentary for MCTAC:
The rightmost column of the table also includes commentary explaining the
rationale behind the model code, best practice, and minimum compliance provisions
and explains why they may be different. Some of this commentary could be
incorporated into the final model code document to provide guidance for users.
For some provisions, we have provided a few options for your consideration. Where
we have a preliminary recommendation, the recommended provision is presented
first, and the "Alternative" option is identified as such. Where we do not have a
preliminary recommendation, the options are identified as Option A, Option B, etc.
Including options in the best practicesSuggested Approaches is encouraged and we
are hoping MCTAC members can provide suggestions for other options if possible.
However, the model code and minimum compliance columns will need to provide
specific direction, so we ultimately will need to arrive at a single recommendation
for each of the provisions in those two columns, with input from the MCTAC and
RAC.
The following draft code provisions should be considered a very preliminary draft
and as a starting point for further discussion of potential refinements withwill be
further refined based on direction from the RAC and MCTAC. The commentary
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 15 Page 18 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 3 of 15
column indicates where the model code has been substantively revised from the
initial draft reviewed at MCTAC meeting 2.
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 15 Page 19 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 4 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Best Practise (recommended)Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
A. Purpose The purpose of this model code is to implement Same as model code.N/A Local governments are not required to Purpose statements provide guidance for
Oregon House Bill 2001 by providingprovide include a purpose statement specific to applicants and reviewers to help them
standards for duplexes developed on lots which provisions needed to implement and understand the intent of development code
allow detached single-family dwellings. Duplex comply with HB2001. standards. They help with a code's
development is intended to achieve the following: readability, providing insight into the
1. Accommodate incremental growth in jurisdiction's rationale for applying specific
neighborhoods while preserving residential quality standards. The purpose statement in the
of life; model code includes several statements
2. Provide for a wider variety of housing types identifying the intent of allowing duplexes on
that meet the needs of the jurisdiction's diverse single family lots, consistent with the intent
of H82001 and the state's requirements for
population at all stages of life;
provision of needed housing.
3. Allow development of housing that is similar
[Update: The model code purpose statement
in size and form to detached single family housing; has been revised per direction from the
4. Encourage housing that allows residents to MCTAC to delete the specific statements of
remain in their communities and neighborhoods as intent and to reference implementation of
their needs change; and H82001./
5. Facilitate more efficient use of land through
smaller housing units, thereby providing more
affordable housing options to neighborhood
residents.
B. Definitions The following definitions shall apply for the purposes -- -- "Unreasonable cost and delay"may will also
of this model code, notwithstanding other need to be defined for the minimum
definitions in the local jurisdiction's development compliance standards, so the state has some
code: sort of metric by which to assess local
jurisdictions'siting and design standards.
1. "Duplex" "Duplex" means a building that contains two Same as model code alternative option (jiurisdictions The definition may be the same as or The recommended approach for the model
dwelling units on one lot.The units must share a are encouraged to allow duplexes to be either similar to the model code or may define a code is to define duplex as two attached
common wall or common floor/ceiling. In instances attached or detachedj. Following is an alternative to duplex as two attached units on one lot. units on a lot. This definition is consistent
where a building can meet this definition of a duplex the model code's definition: The definition must distinguish a duplex with the way most jurisdictions currently
and also meets the jurisdiction's definition of a "Duplex" means two dwelling units on one lot. The from a combination of a single-family define duplex, and it reflects what most
primary dwelling unit with an attached or internal units may be attached (sharing a common wall or detached unit and an ADU for the people think of as a duplex. [Update:the
accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the property owner common floor/ceiling) or detached. In instances purpose of specifying off-street parking definition for MCTAC consideration has been
has the option of electing whether the entire where a development can meet this definition of a requirements. removed from the model code column, but
structure is considered a duplex or a primary duplex and also meets the iurisdiction's definition of retained in the Suggested Approach column.]
dwelling unit with an attached or internal ADU. a primary dwelling unit with a detached accessory
ALTERNATIVE: "Duplex" m ans two dwelling units dwelling unit (ADU), the property owner has the The Suggested Approach is to provide
on one lot. The units may be attached (sharing a option of electing whether the development is additional flexibility by stating that a duplex
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 4 OF 15
Page 20 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 5 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Best Practise (recemmended)Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
common wall or common floor/ceiling) or detached. considered a duplex or a primary dwelling unit with a can be either attached or detached units.
In instances where a development can meet this detached ADU. Even if not included in the model code, this
definition of a duplex and also meets the additional flexibility should be considered a
jurisdiction's definition of a primary dwelling unit best practice. Both these housing types arc
with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the consistent with the intent provided in the
property owner has the option of electing whether proposed purpose statement. (Note for
the development is considered a duplex or a primary MCTAC. Ifttie alternative model code
dwelling unit with a detached ADU. provision is selected, there will be
implications for other model code standards,
which will need to be addressed.)
To complyFor Minimum Compliance with
HB2001, local governments would need only
to define a duplex as two units on a lot, and
may specify whether or not they must be
attached.
The model code's definitions of duplex are
intended to eliminate potential ambiguity
between duplexes and ADUs. This distinction
is important because state law prohibits off-
street parking requirements for ADUs (per
ORS 197.312, as amended by SB1051 and
HB2001). The proposed definition of duplex
would defer to the local jurisdiction's
definition of ADU(including limits on
maximum size). If a site meets the
jurisdiction's ADU definition, the property
owner would have an incentive to permit it
as an ADU, since they wouldn't have to
provide additional parking. (Limiting off-
street parking is consistent with the state's
housing/climate goals.)Alternatively, it may
be advantageous for a property owner to
consider it a duplex if the local jurisdiction
has strict design standards for ADUs. There
are trade-offs either way, and this definition
leaves flexibility for the property owner.
2. "Common wall" A wall shared by two or more dwelling units. To Same as model code. Same as model code. Update: This definition has been added to
meet the definition of a duplex (per Subsection B.1), clarify the definition of common wall and to
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 5 OF 15
Page 21 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 6 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
if the units are attached by a common wall,the wall indicate a minimum length and width for
must be shared for at least 25% of the length and which the common wall must be shared.
50% of the height of the side of the building of the
dwelling units.
23. "Zoned for "Zoned for residential use" means a zoning district in Same as model code. Same as model code. This definition clarifies that the duplex
residential use" which residential dwellings are the primary use and requirement only applies in residential zones.
which implements a residential Comprehensive Plan This is further clarified in the Applicability
map designation. section.
34. "Dwelling unit" "Dwelling unit" means a building, or a portion of a Same as model code. No requirement, as long as definitions The model code's definitions of dwelling unit
building, that has independent living facilities ensure consistent application of duplex and detached single-family dwelling are
including provisions for sleeping, cooking, and standards. simply provided to remove any ambiguity
sanitation, and that is designed for residential about the meaning of these terms as they
occupancy by a family or household. Buildings with apply in the context of the model code.
more than one set of cooking facilities are
considered to contain multiple dwelling units unless
the additional cooking facilities are clearly accessory,
such as an outdoor grill.
45. "Detached single- "Detached single-family dwelling or structure" Same as model code. No requirement, as long as definitions
family dwelling or means a single dwelling/structure on its own ensure consistent application of duplex
structure" lot/parcel that does not share a wall with any other standards.
dwelling/structure other than an accessory dwelling
unit. A detached single-family dwelling/structure
may be either site built or a manufactured dwelling.
C. Applicability Unless otherwise noted, the standards in this model While local jurisdictions are only required to allow Same as model code. The applicability statement is intended to
code apply to the following: duplexes in areas zoned for residential use, they are clearly state where and when the provisions
• New duplex units; encouraged to allow duplexes in any zone in which of the model code apply. This clarifies that
• Duplexes created through conversion of existing single-family dwellings are permitted. the provisions do not apply in any zones
detached single family structures developed on except for residential zones in which
lots or parcels (including lots of record) zoned for Jurisdictions should also consider: detached single-family dwellings are
residential use that allow for the development of permitted(although allowing duplexes in
p • Allowing duplexes to have a detached ADU(or other zones is a suggested approach- -e
detached single-family dwellings. ADUs);
best practice). It also establishes that
The standards in this model code do not allow for • Allowing detached single-family dwellings with duplexes are not required to be allowed via
the following, unless otherwise permitted by the an existing detached ADU to be internally conversion of a single-family dwelling when
jurisdiction: converted into a duplex; and/or
there is already an ADU on-site (which would
• Creation of duplexes on lots or parcels on lands • Allowing a lot with a duplex to have additional create three units on a lot). Allowing ADUs
that are not zoned for residential use, including units of limited size. with duplexes is also suggested as an
lands zoned primarily for commercial, industrial, optional best practice approach.
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 6 OF 15
Page 22 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 7 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
agricultural,e--public, or mixed uses, even if These options would permit three (or four) units on a The model code applicability statement
those zones allow for the development of lot. further clarifies that requirements of HB2001
detached single-family dwellings. do not override local protections for natural
• Creation of more than two units on a lot, unless resources, natural hazards, or other
otherwise permitted by the jurisdiction. regulatory protections adopted pursuant to
Duplexes developed under the provisions of this Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. This
model code shall comply with protective measures could mean,for example, limiting building
adopted pursuant to statewide land use planning footprints in wetland areas, ensuring
goals (e.g., environmental and natural hazard duplexes are reviewed for historic
protections). compatibility in historic districts, or limiting
building heights within the Willamette
Greenway. (Note for MCTAC:DLCD is
working to clarify how residential density for
middle housing should be regulated within
flood hazard areas to comply with FEMA
standards. Accordingly, the revised Model
Code will include updated language in this
section.)
[Update: Lots of record were added to the
applicability statement.]
D. Provisions -- -- -- --
Applicable to
Duplexes
1. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between this model code Local jurisdictions should review their development N/A This section of the model code is intended to
and the jurisdiction's standards applicable to the regulations to identify potential conflicts and barriers address how these provisions relate to local
proposed duplex, the standards of this model code to duplexes and amend their codes to remove those jurisdictions'existing code sections,
shall control. conflicts and barriers. especially related to conflicting standards.
2. Development Duplexes developed under the provisions of this See specific provisions under sections F and G below. N/A Subsection D.2 states that except for the
and Design model code are subject to the following standards: model code standards, duplexes must meet
all other provisions applicable to detached
Standards. • Section F, Development Standards single-family dwellings. The purpose of
• Section G, Design Standards stating that "other existing standards
• Development and Design Standards of the local applicable only to duplexes shall not apply"is
jurisdiction as follows: to prevent local governments from applying
o All clear and objective development and standards that make duplexes more difficult
design standards that apply to detached to develop than detached single-family
single-family structures in the same zone, homes.
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 7 OF 15
Page 23 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 8 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommenrled)Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
unless those standards conflict with the If local governments adopt their own code
standards of this model code. amendments, they may apply separate
o Other standards applicable only to standards to duplexes (to a limited extent),
duplexes shall not apply to duplexes as long as those standards do not discourage
developed under the provisions of this duplex development through "unreasonable
model code. costs or delay."
3. Public Works Exceptions Clear and objective exceptions to public Local jurisdictions should review their public works Same as model code. [Update: "Clear and objective"has been
Standards. works standards granted to single-family dwellings standards to identify potential conflicts and barriers added to the model code language, per
shall also be granted to duplexes developed under to duplexes and amend their codes to remove those MCTACsuggestion.]
the provisions of this model code. However, conflicts and barriers.
individual utility service connections to each duplex
unit may be required by the local jurisdiction or
utility service provider.
E. Permitted Uses and Duplexes shall be permitted outright on lots or Same as model code. Same as model code. This section of the model code clarifies that
Approval Process parcels zoned for residential use that allow for the duplexes shall be permitted outright on lots
development of detached single-family dwellings. where detached single-family dwellings are
Duplexes shall be subject to the same approval permitted. It also states that duplexes are
process as the local jurisdiction applies to detached subject to the same type of approval process
single-family dwellings in the same zone, and shall be as detached single-family dwellings—but
subject to only clear and objective standards, only using clear and objective criteria, as
approval criteria, conditions, and procedures. required by state law.
F. Development -- -- -- In addition to the development standards
Standards listed in this section, the minimum
compliance rules may also need to address
standards such as FAR and lot coverage, to
ensure that such provisions in local codes do
not discourage duplex development.
[Update:It was suggested at MCTAC#2 that
lot coverage provisions be added to the
model code (e.q., allowing lot coverage for
duplexes to exceed single-family). However,
for the following reasons, it would be difficult
to regulate lot coverage in the model code
without creating unintended consequences:
1. Some cities do not regulate maximum lot
coverage (instead regulating minimum
landscaping);
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 8 OF 15
Page 24 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 9 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
2. Cities define lot coverage differently(some
include all impervious surfaces, others limit it
to roofed structures, etc.);
3. Lot coverage standards often vary by
zoning designation and the impact or
reasonableness of a lot coverage standard
can depend to a large degree on the
minimum lot size in a given zone.
For these reasons, we do not recommend
regulating lot coverage here, but instead
recommend deferring to lot coverage
standards for single-family detachejj
1. Minimum lot The minimum lot size for a duplex is the same as the Same as model code. Same as model code. H82001 was intended to increase housing
size. minimum lot size for a detached single-family supply and housing options, and to provide
dwelling in the same zone. opportunities for more affordable housing
options in all residential neighborhoods.
Allowing development of duplexes on the
same size lot as a detached single-family
home helps meet this intent by reducing the
land cost per unit(thus making the
development more affordable).
Additionally, as duplexes are required to be
permitted on any lot that permits a detached
single-family dwelling, subjecting duplexes to
a larger minimum lot size would violate
H82001.
2. Maximum -Pre-existing density maximums and minimum lot Same as model code. Same as model code. See comments under minimum lot size.
Density. sizes for duplexes do not apply to duplexes
permitted under this code.
3. Setbacks. Duplexes shall meet the setback standards that apply Setbacks can represent a potential barrier to duplex Duplexes shall not be subject to larger To promote compatibility with single-family
to detached single family structures in the same development. In order to encourage duplex setback standards than those applicable neighborhoods, the recommended approach
zone. development,jurisdictions should consider reducing to detached single-family structures. for the model code is to require duplexes to
ALTERNATIVE: Duplexes shall meet the setback setbacks and allowing increased lot coverage. meet the same setback standards applicable
standards that apply to detached single-family If jurisdictions permit two detached units as a duplex, to detached single-family dwellings.-
structures in the same zone, except that a front they should consider whether standards for minimum The wee duplex provision, but also to
setback of no more than 120 feet}and a rear setback spacing between structures are needed, or whether establishes maximum front and rear and side
the Building Code should control minimum spacing. setbacks,—and This is intended to ensure that
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 9 OF 15
Page 25 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 10 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
of no more than 115 feet}shall apply. No maximum overly large setback standards do not
garage setback shall apply. unnecessarily constrain sites and limit
feasibility for duplex development.
LUpdate: The alternative setback option has
replaced the initial recommendation, which
did not have maximum setbacks.]
Jurisdictions adopting their own standards
are encouraged to examine existing setbacks
and lot coverage standards for single-family
development to identify potential barriers to
duplex development. Setbacks should be
amended for the whole zone, not only for
duplexes.
To comply with HB2001,jurisdictions must
simply not apply larger setbacks for duplexes
than for detached single family, so as not to
discourage duplex development.
4. Height. Duplexes shall meet the height standards that apply Jurisdictions should consider adopting a height bonus Duplexes shall not be subject to lower Similar to setbacks, the model code's height
to detached single-family structures in the same to encourage duplex development: maximum height standards than those provision is intended to promote
zone. Height bonus. Duplexes shall be allowed a height applicable to detached single-family compatibility with single-family
bonus of_% above the maximum height applicable structures. neighborhoods.
to detached single-family structures in the same Jurisdictions may consider adopting a height
zone. bonus to encourage duplex development and
to promote this lower-cost housing option in
single-family neighborhoods.
To comply with HB2001,jurisdictions must
not apply lower height standards for
duplexes, so as not to discourage duplex
development.
5. Parking. -- -- -- --
a. Required Off- A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall In addition to the model code standard,jurisdictions OPTION A:Jurisdictions shall require no Providing off-street parking adds to the cost
street be required per dwelling unit. A credit for on-street could consider a range of options for parking more than one (1) additional off-street of a development and reduces the area of a
Parking. parking shall be granted for some or all the required standards: parking space for a duplex, in addition to site that can be developed with dwelling
off-street parking as provided in Subsection F.5.b. No . Treat a duplex as a single dwelling unit for the the minimum spaces required for a units. As such, parking requirements
additional parking spaces shall be required for purpose of applying the jurisdiction's existing detached single-family dwelling in the constitute a potential barrier to housing
conversion of a single-family detached home to a minimum off-street parking standards. same zone. development and housing affordability.
duplex. Many local governments are revisiting their
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 10 OF 15
Page 26 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 11 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
ALTERNATIVE A:A minimum of 2 off street parking • Require one off-street parking space for the OPTION B:Jurisdictions shall require no minimum parking standards to address this
space shall be required for a duplex. No more than whole duplex. more than three (3) minimum off-street potential barrier.
one (1) additional off street parking space shall be • Where on-street parking is available, require no parking spaces for a duplex. The model code requires one parking space
permitted for the entire site, over and above the minimum off-street parking for a duplex. OPTION C:Jurisdictions shall require no per dwelling unit. Requiring more parking for
minimum number of off street parking spaces • Require no minimum off-street parking for a more than two (2) minimum off-street duplexes would unnecessarily constrain sites
required for a single family detached home. A credit duplex, regardless of whether on-street parking parking spaces for a duplex (one per and limit feasibility for duplex development.
for „n street park„n„ shall be g.-anted for some or aµ U
is available. unit). pdate: The initial recommendation of 1
the required off street parking as provided in space per unit has been retained and the
• Require no minimum off-street parking for:Subsection F.5.b. other alternatives have been deleted. Note
ALTERNATIVE B:Whcrc on street parking is available o Housing serving those at 80% or less of the that none of the Medium Cities identified in
and meets the standards of Subsection F.5.b.i iv, no Area Median Income, HB2001 requires fewer than 1 space per
minimum off street parking shall be required fora o Duplexes that redevelop an existing building, dwelling unit for duplexes. Most require 1.5-2
duplex. o Housing in historic districts, spaces per unit. The proposed standard is the
o Housing within one mile of downtown or same as that included in the DLCD Model
Code for Small Cities.]
within one-half mile of frequent transit
corridors, and/or Jurisdictions are encouraged to consider a
o Buildings that have been vacant for 12 or range of optional best practices Suggested
more months. Approaches to further reduce off-street
parking requirements for duplexes (including
requiring no parking at all). Duplexes are
Jurisdictions may also want to consider maximum more commonly used for renters than
parking standards for duplex and detached single- ownership. Oregon homeowner households
family units. own an average of 0.4 more cars than
Another option is to add an "unbundled parking" renters, so any parking mandates should be
provision (as is done for 4+plexes in Oakland, Santa adjusted down to the reality of renter
Monica, San Francisco, Seattle, and Berkeley.) households.
Sample language: Jurisdictions could also consider maximum
Any off-street parking spaces shall be rented or parking standards to ensure that excessive
sold separately from the rental or purchase of off-street parking is not created.
dwelling units. A tenant may elect not to rent or
lease parking when renting or leasing a unit.
Projects with affordable housing units as defined
in [Code reference]are exempt from this
requirement.
b. On-street If on-street parking spaces meet all the standards in Same as model code (unless no off-street parking is No on-street parking credit required. On-street parking is a viable parking option
Credit. Subsections i-iv below, they shall be counted toward required). for both single-family and duplex dwellings.
the minimum off-street parking requirement. The model code offers a credit toward the
minimum off-street parking requirement
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 11 OF 15
Page 27 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 12 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
i. On-street parking must be allowed on the where on-street parking is available adjacent
side of the street where the space is to be to the site. [Update: The minimum length of
provided. 22 ft has been retained. The optional model
code provision requiring ROWs to be
ii. The space must be a minimum of 22 feet improved has been deleted.)
long; —
iii. The space must be located adjacent to (Ne*e for MCFAC:the project team doesn't
necessarily recommend the optional
abutting the subject site; and
subsection v, which requires that streets be
iv. The space must not obstruct a required sight
improved to receive the parking credit, but it
distance area.
is included for your consideration.)
OPTION:
v. The space must be located along a right of
way improved to the jurisdiction's standards.
G. Design Standards New duplexes shall meet all clear and objective Jurisdictions could consider establishing pedestrian Local governments may regulate siting The intent of the model code is to apply the
design standards (e.g., entry orientation, window friendly design standards for new duplexes, if they and design of duplexes, provided that the same design standards to duplexes that also
coverage, articulation, etc.)that apply to detached are not already in the development code. These Any regulations do not, individually or apply to single-family development. Applying
single-family structures in the same zone, unless development standards should apply to both cumulatively, discourage the more restrictive design standards would
they conflict with the model code. Duplexes created detached single-family and duplex dwellings; f only development of duplexes through unfairly discourage duplex development, and
through internal conversion of detached single- applied to duplexes, they could present unnecessary unreasonable costs or delay. Any such therefore would not comply with HB2001.
family structures shall not be subject to the barriers to duplex development.JNote, however, that regulations must be clear and objective Meanwhile, local governments that choose
jurisdiction's design standards. the intent of this suggestion is not to compel and must be evaluated through a non- to regulate the design of single-family
jurisdictions to regulate single-family housing—it is discretionary process. development should be able to apply the
simply to suggest equivalent standards for duplexes same or similar standards to duplexes as
and single-family dwellings.) Converted duplexes well.
should not be subject to design standards. Following In the best practices Suggested Approaches
are optional design standards to consider: column are examples of design standards
1. Entry Orientation. At least one (1) main entrance intended to promote attention to detail,
must meet the following standards. pedestrian friendly and human-scale design,
a. The entrance must be no further than 8 ft and street visibility, and to discourage
behind the longest street-facing wall of the garages from dominating street facing
building. facades, while affording flexibility to use a
b. The entrance must face the street, be at an variety of architectural styles. These are
angle of up to 45 degrees from the street, or intended to help guide jurisdictions that
open onto a porch. If the entrance opens currently lack—or would like to update—
onto a porch, the porch must: design standards for detached single-family
dwellings. The standards should be applied to
i. Be at least 20 sq ft in area with a both single-family homes and duplexes. Local
minimum 4-ft depth.
governments cannot create barriers to
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 12 OF 15
Page 28 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 13 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
ii. Have at least 1 porch entry facing the duplex development by subjecting them to
street. much more stringent standards.
iii. Be covered by a roof or living space that
is a maximum of 12 feet above the floor
of the porch. The roof or living space
must cover at least 30% of the porch
area.
c. For properties with more than one frontage,
the applicant may choose which frontage to
meet the standards in subsections G.3.a and
b.
2. Windows. A minimum of 15% of the area of all
street-facing facades, excluding alley-facing
facades, must include windows or doors.
Window area is the aggregate area of the glass
within each window, including any interior grids,
mullions, or transoms. Door area is the area of
the portion of a door other than a garage door
that moves and does not include the frame. Half
of the window area in the door of an attached
garage may count toward meeting this standard.
3. Garages and Carports. An attached garage or
carport must meet the following standards,
except where vehicle access is taken from an
alley.
a. A garage door or carport entrance designed
for vehicle access must be the same distance
or a greater distance from the street
property line as the widest street-facing wall
along the same street frontage, except as
follows:
i. A garage door or carport entrance may
extend up to 5 feet in front of the widest
street-facing wall if there is a covered
front porch and the garage door or
carport entrance does not extend beyond
the front of the porch.
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 13 OF 15
Page 29 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 14 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
ii. A garage door or carport entrance may
extend up to 5 feet in front of the widest
street-facing wall where the garage or
carport is part of a 2-story building and
there is a window on the second story
above the garage or carport that faces
the street with a minimum area of 12
square feet.
b. The total maximum width of all garage doors
or carport entrances is 12 feet or 50 percent
of the total width of the street-facing facade,
whichever is greater. The width of a garage
door is measured from inside the garage
door frame. Where more than one garage
door is proposed, the width of each garage
door is measured separately.
4. Driveway Approach. Duplexes may have a
maximum of two driveway approaches in
compliance with the following:
a. The total width of all driveway approaches
must not exceed 32 feet per frontage. For
lots or parcels with more than one frontage,
see subsection G.8.c.
b. Driveway approaches may be separated
when located on a local street. If approaches
are separated, they must be separated by a
minimum of seven feet.
c. In addition, lots or parcels with more than
one frontage must comply with the
following:
i. Lots or parcels must access the street
with the lowest classification.
ii. Lots or parcels with frontages only on
collectors and/or arterial streets may
have one driveway approach. The City
Engineer will determine which frontage
may have one driveway approach when
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 14 OF 15
Page 30 of 160
Duplex Model Code (REVISED DRAFT) 15 of 15
Standard Model Code (will apply directly) Rest Practise (recommended►Suggested Minimum Compliance Commentary
Approaches (optional)
lots or parcels only have frontages on
collector streets or only on arterial
streets.
iii. Duplexes on lots or parcels with
frontages only on local streets may have
two driveway approaches not exceeding
32 feet in total width on one frontage or
one maximum 16-foot-wide driveway
approach per frontage.
d. Clear vision standards do not apply between
driveway approaches for duplexes on local
streets.
H. Nonconforming Conversion of an existing legal non-conforming Local jurisdictions should review their development Same as model code. This model code provision allows duplexes to
Development detached single-family structure to a duplex is regulations regarding non-conforming development be created from existing nonconforming
allowed, provided that the conversion does not to identify potential conflicts and barriers to duplexes detached single-family structures. The code
move the duplex further out of conformance with and amend their codes to remove those conflicts and does not require converted duplexes to
applicable clear and objective standards. barriers. become fully compliant with all development
standards, instead it requires that they not
move further out of compliance.
APG DLCD Middle Housing Model Code February 18,2020
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 15 OF 15
Page 31 of 160
Otak
Technical Memorandum
To: Kevin Young and Ethan Stuckmayer, DLCD
IBTER Technical Advisory Committee
From: Serah Breakstone, AICP
Date: February 13, 2020
Subject: IBTER Key Parameters
Project No.: 19501
This memo is intended to propose an overall framework for the IBTER rules and highlight key parameters for
extension requests. While the framework is intended to provide some consistency in the way information is
presented, there may be some variation or special considerations to account for the individual characteristics of
the four infrastructure types that are included (water, sewer, stormwater and transportation). This framework has
been created to be consistent with the language and requirements imbedded within HB2001, and reflects
guidance received from DLCD staff.
1. Establishing a Significant Infrastructure Deficiency
a. An existing significant deficiency occurs when a local government or service provider(if outside
the local government jurisdiction) is unable to provide acceptable levels of service within a
developed, or developing, affected area.
b. An anticipated significant deficiency occurs when a local government or service provider will be
unable to provide acceptable levels of service within a developed affected area with 0.125%
growth in dwelling units by December 31, 2023. For undeveloped (greenfield) areas, a significant
deficiency would occur when existing "downstream" or planned infrastructure would be unable to
provide an acceptable service level within the affected area (by December 31, 2023)with the
addition of 0.125% more dwelling units than were originally anticipated in the growth area.
c. General parameters:
i. If the local government or service provider would allow construction of new single-family
dwellings within an affected area, then middle housing must also be accommodated.
ii. Infrastructure deficiencies do not include improvements/extensions that would typically be
provided in conjunction with residential development. For example, lack of a water
connection at a site's frontage is not a significant deficiency because a local government
typically requires service extensions as part of development.
iii. Un-urbanized areas which are not yet served by the four urban services, but for which
infrastructure plans are in place, and where the local government has an expectation of
extending services to the area over time, do not require time extensions.
iv. Un-urbanized areas where a single-family dwelling would be permitted are only eligible
for an extension if a significant deficiency can be demonstrated.
v. Outdated or insufficient infrastructure master plans will not, in themselves, be considered
adequate justification for an extension. A local government must still demonstrate that a
deficiency exists, or will exist by December 31, 2023, regardless of the status of master
planning documents.
c:luserslcbonnotldesktoplibtertac#2libter key parameters.docx
808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800, Portland, OR 97204 • Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503)415-2304 otak.com
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 4
Page 25 of 66
Page 2
IBTER Draft Rule Outline—Key Parameters February 13, 2020
2. Parameters specific to water and sewer infrastructure [pull from Grayling's memo]
3. Parameters specific to transportation infrastructure [placeholder]
4. Parameters specific to stormwater infrastructure [placeholder]
5. Time limits for infrastructure-based extensions:
a. At the time of submittal of an IBTER application, the local government must specify the length of
the extension requested in order to remedy deficiencies and implement middle housing. In no
case will the length of the extension request exceed five years.
b. Upon or prior to the expiration date of an extension, the local government must implement middle
housing within the extension boundary or submit to DLCD an application for further extension. If
the local government fails to adopt its own middle housing code or to apply for a further extension
beyond the initial five year period, the applicable middle housing model code will apply directly in
the area subject to the initial time extension. Scenarios that may justify further extension include:
i. Funding to pay for needed infrastructure improvements is contingent on local system
development charges that have not yet been collected.
ii. Needed infrastructure improvements are outside the jurisdiction of the local government
(for example, an improvement to an ODOT facility)
iii. Similar unanticipated delays or complications.
c. Applications for further extension must include all information required under this rule.
d. Local governments may request one additional extension, with a total combined time extension
not to exceed 10 years.
6. IBTER Application Requirements. A complete application for an infrastructure-based extension must
include the following:
a. A narrative describing the identified deficiency. At a minimum, the narrative must contain the
following:
i. A description of the nature of the deficiency. For each infrastructure type where a
deficiency is identified, a description of how the deficiency is consistent with the
parameters established in Section 1.
ii. If the local government believes the deficiency impacts middle housing but no other types
of development within the impacted area, the local government must provide a
description of how existing infrastructure can continue to meet the needs of other types of
development but not middle housing.
iii. Service provider, if other than the requesting local government. Submittal must include a
signed agreement between local government and service provider to collaboratively
address middle housing infrastructure needs.
iv. Vicinity map showing the boundary of the impacted areas for which the extension is
requested. If more than one infrastructure deficiency is identified (sewer and
transportation, for example), the map should show the boundary of each deficiency
separately and any areas of overlap.
v. A summary of the parcels within the extension boundary including occupied and vacant
parcels, zoning and goal-protected areas.
vi. A regional map, if applicable, showing the infrastructure that otherwise provides service
to the area where an extension is being requested.
c:luserslcbonnotldesktoplibtertac#2libter key parameters.docx
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 4
Page 26 of 66
Page 3
IBTER Draft Rule Outline—Key Parameters February 13, 2020
b. A remediation plan containing the following information:
i. A description of the proposed infrastructure improvement(s) intended to remedy the
service deficiency so that middle housing may be implemented. For each infrastructure
improvement project, the description should include, at a minimum:
1. Explanation of how the improvement project will provide adequate service to
anticipated middle housing
2. Anticipated funding source(s) and schedule for project completion
3. Area within the extension boundary that will be remedied by the project
ii. Proposed timeline and associated mapping to demonstrate any phasing of the
remediation plan where there are several improvement projects identified. For example, a
smaller improvement project may take two years and will remedy one portion of the
extension boundary but not the entire area. A second project may be larger, take longer,
and remedy a larger area within the extension boundary.
iii. A vicinity map of areas within the local government where middle housing will be
implemented.
iv. Infrastructure improvement projects that would require voter approval of a bond measure
must include an alternative funding source if the desired bond measure fails.
7. IBTER Process and Review Criteria
a. IBTER applications must be filed with DLCD by:
i. December 31, 2020 for medium cities
ii. June 30, 2021 for large cities
b. Incomplete applications. Upon receipt of an IBTER application, DLCD will conduct a preliminary
completeness review within 30 days of receipt and notify the local government of any additional
materials that are required to make a complete application. The local government must submit all
requested materials within 30 days of receipt of request for additional materials. If requested
completeness materials are not submitted within the 30-day period, the application will be
decided based on the information provided.
c. Once a complete application has been filed, DLCD will grant or deny the request as follows:
i. Within 90 days of receipt of a complete application for medium cities
ii. Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application for large cities
d. For additional IBTER requests, the following timelines will apply:
i. A request for further extension must be submitted to DLCD on or prior to the expiration
date identified in the original extension approval.
ii. DLCD will grant or deny the request for further extension within 90 days of receipt of a
complete application.
e. In reviewing IBTER applications, DLCD will consider the following criteria:
i. The identified deficiencies have been adequately described, are reasonable and are
consistent with the parameters established in Section 1.
ii. The proposed remediation plan adequately plans for improvement projects to be funded
and built in a reasonable amount of time.
c:luserslcbonnotldesktoplibtertac#2libter key parameters.docx
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 4
Page 27 of 66
Page 4
IBTER Draft Rule Outline—Key Parameters February 13, 2020
iii. The proposed remediation plan will facilitate implementation of middle housing as quickly
as possible.
f. DLCD may establish reasonable conditions of approval for IBTER approvals if deemed necessary
to comply with decision criteria.
c:luserslcbonnotldesktoplibtertac#2libter key parameters.docx
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 4 OF 4
Page 28 of 66
INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED TIME
EXTENSION REQUEST TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DLCD
( IBTERTAC)
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO FOR MEETING #2
TO: IBTER Technical Advisory Committee Members
FROM: Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner; Ethan Stuckmayer, Senior Housing Planner
SUBJECT: Development and Redevelopment Rate Assumptions--Corrections and Clarifications
This memo is intended to provide corrections and clarifications related to development and
redevelopment assumptions included in the IBTER Key Parameters memorandum (pp. 25 —28)
that was included in your packets (dated February 18, 2020) for IBTERTAC Meeting#2.
Specifically,this memo will explain and correct the proposed 0.125%growth assumption
referenced in the Key Parameters memo. Thanks to TAC member Jeff Blaine, who has raised
these questions and prompted this clarification.Jeff has also provided some analysis and
suggestions regarding development and redevelopment rate assumptions in a memo, which is
attached to this correction.
The rate of redevelopment and rate of increase for new development that will result from the
allowance for middle housing types in low density residential zones in Oregon cities is unknown
at this time. Anecdotally, staff have heard that cities that have adopted similar provisions in low
density residential zones have seen a gradual increase in dwelling units produced per acre, not
a sudden increase. To date, staff have been unable to obtain definitive data on this question.
However, some direction regarding development rates is included in Section 5 of HB 2001. That
section states, in the context of a housing needs analysis (HNA), that,
"The density expectations may not project an increase in residential capacity above
achieved density by more than three percent without quantifiable validation of such
departures."
Typically, the planning period for an HNA is 20 years. Consequently, we propose utilizing the
three percent rate as a benchmark. Following are some of the key assumptions based on the
parameters provided in HB 2001.
Development and Redevelopment Rates IBTERTAC Mtg. 2 P a g a 11
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 7
Key Assumptions
• HB 2001 limits growth assumptions from middle housing code adoption to 3%in the
context of an HNA,which is typically evaluated over a 20-year span. The bill says, "The
density expectations may not project an increase in residential capacity above achieved
density by more than three percent without quantifiable validation of such departures."
• In the context of an HNA, here's an example of how the 3% assumption would be
applied for a city's developed low density residential zone: For a city that has 10,000
single family dwellings in fully developed low density zones,the 3% assumption would
mean that middle housing redevelopment (conversion of existing single family to
duplex, etc.) would increase the number of units by 3%, or an additional 300 units over a
20 year span (10,000 X 1.03 = 10,300).
• However, for IBTER requests, anticipated development and redevelopment is limited to
a much shorter span of time. For medium cities that span of time will be the time from
th. required adoption of middle housing codes on June 30, 2021 to December 31, 2023.
This is roughly 2.5 years out of the full 20 year planning period.Two and one-half years
represents one eighth, or 12.5% of the full 20 year time span.
• Consequently, redevelopment assumptions in developed areas over the shorter time
span would be less. Specifically, the bill asks local governments to consider the
additional housing units produced by development and redevelopment of middle
housing from the date of adoption of middle housing allowances to December 31, 2023.
Given the 3% limitation,the problem is to determine the fraction of the 3%
redevelopment assumption that would occur within the first 2.5 years. Mathematically,
that result would be 1/8 X 3%, or 0.125 X 0.03=0.00375.This is the number that
should have been included in the key parameters memo, rather than 0.125%.The
result is a very small increase in housing units. For a city with 10,000 single detached
dwellings,the additional middle housing produced would be 37.5 units by December 31,
2023 (10,000 X 1.00375 = 10,037.5).
• As you can see,this is a very small fraction,which practically speaking, may be within
the margin of error for the capacity of most infrastructure systems. This may mean that
this type of IBTER request will apply largely to areas that have existing or looming
service capacity issues.
• House Bill 2003 does allow for local governments to consider development and
redevelopment rates above 3%if a "quantifiable validation" can be made for a different
rate. For non-Metro cities,that means the local government must show that greater
housing capacity has been achieved in areas zoned similarly, or within similarly zoned
areas elsewhere in the region. For Metro cities,the region is defined as the Metro
region. Consequently, it would be reasonable to allow for the same "quantifiable
Development and Redevelopment Rates IBTERTAC Mtg. 2 page 1 2
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 7
validation" as a reasonable departure from the assumed rate above 3% as part of a
city's IBTER application.
• Lastly, it is realistic to assume that greenfield development will respond differently to
middle housing allowances than redevelopment within existing single detached dwelling
neighborhoods. For our purposes, "greenfield development" is new development that
occurs in previously undeveloped or underdeveloped areas following the adoption of
middle housing codes. Since these areas will be planned and developed all at once, it is
more likely that they will incorporate middle housing to a greater extent. Because of
this, it is reasonable to apply the three percent growth rate when anticipating additional
dwelling units that would be produced in these areas. Balancing this is the
understanding that only greenfield sites that are contiguous to existing urban services
will likely develop within the 2.5 year period ending on December 31, 2023.
Sample Calculations
Given these considerations, here are two hypothetical examples of how IBTER standards might
be applied in existing neighborhoods and in greenfield areas:
Existing neighborhood—100 acre area containing 800 single family homes.
Applying the multiplier for a developed neighborhood would yield the following:
800 units X 1.00375 =803 units, an increase of 3 units in this area.
If this rate were simplified to 1%, as proposed by Jeff Blaine, the results would not be
significantly different:
800 units X 1.01 =808 units, an increase of 8 units in this area.
Greenfield neighborhood— 100 acre area in a single family zone that now allows middle
housing. Average densities within this zone prior to middle housing allowance produced 800
units/100 acres.
Applying the "greenfield multiplier," the results would be as follows:
800 units X 1.03 (3%) = 824 units, an increase of 24 units within this area
Conclusion
Development and Redevelopment Rates IBTERTAC Mtg. 2 P g e 13
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 3 OF 7
We hope this memo has clarified our collective thinking about how growth rate assumptions
may be applied in the IBTER process. Please consider this analysis and the proposed rates for
our discussion at meeting#2 on February 24, 2020.
Development and Redevelopment Rates IBTERTAC Mtg.2 Page 1 4
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 4 OF 7
Growth Rate Analysis and Suggestions from Jeff Blaine: Please note this memo was written to assist
staff in framing this issue for the TAC. DLCD staff have prepared a separate memo to clarify some key
assumptions about development and redevelopment rate assumptions,Jeff's memo below provides an
important perspective and may provide additional clarifications and questions that will be helpful to
the IBTERTAC.
A significant portion of our next meeting will focus on the draft Key Parameters presented in the OTAK
memorandum. A critical part of the IBTER process revolves around identifying significant infrastructure
deficiencies that currently exist or are anticipated to exist by December 31, 2023. Of critical importance
to the IBTER process is identifying how much additional growth to anticipate as a result of implementing
HB2001. There is only 2.5 years of growth to consider between when middle housing codes must be
adopted and the end of the allowed IBTER evaluation window, December 31, 2023.
The IBTER Key Parameters memo provided in your TAC packet includes draft growth assumptions for your
consideration. These assumptions were provided by DLCD staff to OTAK as a starting point for
conversation. However,as we have prepared for our meeting, we have realized that the numbers
provided in the memorandum don't reflect out intended approach. I am referring specifically to Section
1.b. of the memo (See page 25 of your packet.).
In order to have a more productive meeting, I thought it best to clarify our intent in advance and avoid
any confusion created by the current language. This memo is intended to provide that clarity.
It's important that, as part of the IBTER process, DLCD provide guidance on growth assumptions (and
therefore additional system demands)that result from implementing HB2001 as compared to traditional
single-family residential (SFR) development. In a typical master planning process, a community would
look to zoning for identifying maximum impacts and then truth that against what has been experienced
in real life development on similarly zoned parcels in town. In this effort,we know that it is not reasonable
to assume that every lot will have a 4-plex, and we also know that most communities won't have real life
data to use for middle housing impacts in SFR zones. Hence the need to provide guidance in the IBTER
rules.
HB2001 provides very little guidance on growth rate assumptions except for in relation to a Housing Needs
Analysis (H NA). In that context,the bill states that agencies can't assume more than three percent(3%)
more capacity being provided though middle housing provisions than would be realized through standard
SFR development. While this is a system wide value,it does give us a starting point when there is no other
data available.
We also think we can reasonably expect to see more (expressed as percentage) middle housing
incorporated into new development projects vs. redevelopment of currently developed land. Our
intended approach is to recognize that belief and identify two different growth assumptions,one for new
development(greenfield)and one for redevelopment.
Using the HNA value as guidance,we would suggest assuming that in greenfield areas communities could
assume up to three percent (3%) additional growth over the planning window as a result of
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 5 OF 7
•
HB2001. However, in already developed areas, we would recommend using one percent (1%) as the
estimated additional growth through redevelopment and implementation of middle housing. We
recognize that collectively,over the entire system, this will result in less than the allowed three percent
(3%)total in the HNA process. We anticipate robust discussion on that issue.
How the impact of each of these is quantified would need to follow slightly different procedures. Two
examples are provided below to help describe how these values would be applied in practice. The
examples calculate the maximum number of additional units that could be considered as result of
implementing HB2001 over the 2.5 year evaluation window. The demands created by those units would
need to be added to existing system demands, and otherwise anticipated growth over the planning
window,in order to identify the total demand to be considered in the IBTER process.
EXAMPLE 1—Existing Developed SFR Area with 12,000 Homes
HNA's are associated with a 20-year planning window. Therefore, regardless of the percentage assumed
for additional capacity created through redevelopment in already developed areas, it first has to be
considered over the entire planning widow. So if there 12,000 homes, and we expect an increase of 1%
over 20 years. we would expect an additional 17n units created through middle housing provisions over
that 20 years. However, because we are restricted in our evaluation window to growth impacts through
December 31,2023,we can only consider the additional demand created by a fraction of those additional
units. Remember that there is only 2.5 years between when the model code must be adopted and the
end of the evaluation window. Those 2.5 years represent 12.5% of the total 20-year window of which
units will be produced. 12.5%of the additional units provided over 20-years is 15 units. This means that
this community can only consider an additional 15 units of demand in this area above and beyond what
would be projected for standard SFR development in this area through December 31, 2023.
EXAMPLE 2—Greenfield Development Area
As noted in the prior example, when calculating the impacts of middle housing for IBTER we are limited
to 2.5 years of anticipated growth. If a community's growth rate typically results in 150 new SFR home
starts a year,and we use the 3%cap,they would estimate the number of additional units provided through
implementation of HB2001 by taking 150 SFR/Yr*2.5 yrs*3%,which equals an additional 11 units beyond
what would have otherwise been realized.
Additional Considerations
As you prepare for the meeting and consider this draft guidance,we would encourage you to also consider
these additional questions.
1) The HNA process allows communities to use values other than 3% when there is applicable data
available to support it. Should communities be allowed that same flexibility in the IBTER process?
2) Several communities have identified that, by selecting "areas" for plexes, cottage clusters, etc.,
when evaluating infrastructure serving those areas, it may be appropriate for a community to
assume a higher percentage of growth in that area. Should communities have the flexibility to
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 6 OF 7
identify those pockets of higher growth and use it for the IBTER as long as they can demonstrate
they aren't assuming more growth than allowed across the entire system (3% or other data
supported value)?
3) Is it appropriate to assume different rates between already developed areas(redevelopment)and
greenfield sites? If yes, does it matter what those rates are as long as the resulting number of
units assumed across the entire system doesn't exceed what is allowed (3% or other data
supported value)?
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 7 OF 7
Housing Production Strategy Technical Advisory Committee(HPSTAC) Meeting#1
February 6, 2020; 9am—12pm
Zoom Virtual Meeting
Key Insights
Ensuring adequate data availability to meet community needs—The collection and availability of
accurate and consistent housing data will be essential to provide jurisdictions a clear assessment of their
housing needs. Data will need to extend beyond units produced and cost—other factors such as quality
of housing and transportation costs will be important to get a more comprehensive assessment of
housing needs. It will be important to align data collection with other efforts and balance data collection
needs with the limited capacity of small jurisdictions to collect data.Additionally, providing guidance on
evaluating strategies will be important to determine how effective adopted strategies were in producing
needed housing.
Ensuring an equitable distribution of housing—One concern expressed by committee members is cities
using existing housing patterns as a justification for future housing patterns (such as a high-income
community using that pattern to estimate a low need for affordable housing). Housing production
strategies will need to carefully consider communities who have been historically excluded from past
production. Assessing workforce and other methods to determine who is locked out of a housing market
will also be an important consideration.
Looking beyond housing production— Members noted that housing represents much more than shelter;
it is an asset provides access (or lack thereof)to opportunity. Housing production strategies will need to
extend beyond simply housing production and consider where housing is needed and who it serves.
Strategies will also need to provide investment in areas without exacerbating displacement.
Comprehensively assessing factors affecting housing availability—There are many factors beyond land
use regulation that affects the feasibility of housing development (e.g. land availability/ownership,
federal/state regulations, extension of infrastructure) and availability(e.g. retention of older housing
stock and naturally-occurring affordable housing)that need closer consideration by jurisdictions.
Honing recommended specific actions, policies, and tools—Developing a clear, easily communicable set
of recommended strategies that provide cities flexibility in developing strategies that work for their
communities will be important. Additionally, enforcement procedures and safe harbors that clearly
define expectations for jurisdictions and support for jurisdictions from state and market actors will be
important for the successful implementation of housing production strategies.
Meaningful community engagement—Past requirements for community engagement have been
considered by TAC members to be over prescriptive and have failed to yield meaningful outcomes.
Members recommend implementing an outcome-based engagement approach that describes what
engagement occurred,which communities it reached, what was learned, and how engagement affected
strategies as a significantly more productive framework than "check box" meetings.The framework
should encourage outreach to a diverse group of stakeholders, emphasize education about housing
production and strategies, and provide sufficient flexibility to align with existing outreach efforts by a
given jurisdiction. Simultaneously, it should provide safe harbors for jurisdictions to clearly define a
minimum requirement for compliance.
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 1 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 1 OF 6
Page 107 of 160
Introduction
• Deliverables for TAC: Series of requirements outlining what an HPS should look like & How DLCD
can better support these communities—tracking/assistance
• Revised monthly schedule:
o Aug 6th—HPSTAC 7—Draft set of rules ready to present to RAC at end of meeting
o Sept 3rd—Use comments from RAC and LCDC to refine draft rules—75%of draft rules
done
o Oct 12th—Final rules for RAC
o Nov LCDC meeting—Adoption
Discussion Question#1:Are the data and analysis points outlined in HB2003 Section 4(3) sufficient to
fully outline and contextualize a city's housing need? If not,what other data and analysis would help
local governments better understand and measure the housing needs of their communities?
• As policy maker, less [audio broke off] Looking at existing supply and where they're located
o Important to highlight range and median cost
• Track the development process from pre-app to construction
o Pre-application conference, may or may not result in project
■ Start there to determine how many units by type
• Question about intent: Milwaukie HNA—looking within city limits, missed people by focusing in
on existing income levels and housing—relying on point in time count underestimates
homelessness
o If city has few residents—by focusing on current income levels, does this mean housing
affordable to those levels aren't needed?
o Look at the workforce required to support that community
■ People who would live closer if they could afford it
o Linking housing with wages and types of jobs available in city is important
• Question of equity—HPS should be more than just producing X units. Question of"where" and
how they connect people to opportunity.
o Housing is shelter, provides access to an "asset", what it connects you to (or fails to)
o Fair housing—Are there areas of concentrated poverty?Are those areas also places
where vulnerable or ethnic populations are located?
o Two strategies
■ Help people move to better places
■ Improving area without displacement (community development strategy)
o Look at demographic shift that is coming
■ Look to aging, disability, etc.
• Lot of potentially buildable land under a private contract (CC&R or Easements)—get counted as
'buildable lands' that may or may not be tenable
• Ownership and lot configuration patterns—Think about chances of land assembly and likelihood
of development
o Cities can't develop housing, but builders can't do anything if they can't reach land
owners. Many strategies don't consider how to free up land for development
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 2 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 2 OF 6
Page 108 of 160
o Comprehensive land banking approach would help assist jurisdictions provide land
opportunities
• Potential impediments—some builders have identified conflicting or duplicative requirements
from states and local governments
o Opportunity to identify these conflicting requirements
o E.g.—DEQ and stormwater regulations
• Identifying fed/state regulations that"tie hands" of local governments
• Condition of existing housing and new production—Overall stock of housing is important to
maintain as aging provides significant housing
o Don't miss efforts to preserve existing housing
o Avoid redirecting resources solely to new production
o Want local jurisdictions to receive credit for retaining housing
o Data for when affordable housing tracts expire?
• Opportunity to encourage strategic direction for cities—more proactive than reactive; great to
have a more standardized strategic vision centered around meeting need rather than just
"production"
• Don't miss out on linking jurisdictions to non-profits
o Strengthen partnerships
• Data on migration patterns especially in context of climate change
• Look at the data we already have—last 3-5 years, rather than collecting repeatedly
o Collecting information should be to fill in gaps
o Aligned data efforts would be helpful—comp plan and fair housing data
Discussion Question#2:We are looking to the HPSTAC to advise on the suggested "buckets"of
specific actions, policies, and tools future housing production strategies should consider.Are the
above mentioned "buckets"sufficient to categorize the tools available to cities to increase housing
production?Will they need to be more broad or specific? How can we categorize actions in a way that
is inclusive of the entire range of tools that can be employed,while ensuring that cities compare the
costs and benefits of each action?
• Neighborhood/organized opposition— It's a factor
• Reducing financial and regulatory impediments
o Financial impediment—infrastructure
■ Bend: land zoned for housing, reliable procedures, but projects delayed to wait
for CIP; project would be underwater trying to build
■ Water and sewer primarily
■ More flexibility for roads
• Milwaukie: Revenue raising for affordable housing
o CET utilized for Milwaukie
• Advocate for 'honing in' on the three buckets and creating depth—we know these three things
are needed to increase production
o Other two buckets fit "under" resources bucket
• Increase production for those who have been historically excluded from past production
o Preference policies are incredibly complicated and narrow due to fair housing laws
o Best way to achieve results: lens of affordability and size of units
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 3 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 3 OF 6
Page 109 of 160
■ Incorporate into the first three buckets
o Ultimately what we need are resources for people
o Different than what will actually be produced, so much is dependent on market
■ How to hold cities accountable when they don't have the resources?
• Providing guidance on prioritization of tools to allow cities to hone in on desired strategies
o How cities evaluate based on types of housing desired
• How to demonstrate that strategies meet certain groups of people or types of housing
• Springfield market analysis—types of incentive that could be provided for multi-family housing;
found that in their market,the only kind of market that is potentially possible are apartment
townhomes (only local developers due to risk), higher density are not feasible.
o Developers struggle to meet minimum density standards in low density zones
o Understand that not all production strategies will work in each jurisdiction and scenario
■ Staff: Intent to provide "menu of options"
• It's an HPS but we need to look at the total picture
o We are not producing housing for the lower end of the market—input costs are too
expensive
■ Get at analysis of relief provided through new market construction
• Look at rent and prices in community and subareas to determine trends of existing stock
o OR office of economic analysis study: how housing costs filter over time
■ Taking this into account in 20 year analysis, especially when increasing over time
o If you capture understanding pricing at a certain time, important consideration
• A lot of effort to increase local and state funding—never going to build subsidized affordable
housing without significant subsidy
o City policies must support this
o Developer capacity
o Everybody needs to bring pieces to the table
• Include information about current and projected homeless housing needs—shelters and
transitional housing
• Market conditions are a few years out, so important but shouldn't fully drive jurisdiction action
o Policy can "set the table"to make land available and support future development
■ Especially redevelopment sites—e.g. strip malls and other commercial lands
• Location of housing:Transportation is often the most expensive part of housing costs—
proximity can make living more affordable
• Prioritization of affordable housing—e.g. areas adjacent to transit, it can often result in de facto
segregation
Discussion Question#3:What equity questions can be asked throughout HPS reporting in order to
shed light on the benefits/burdens facing communities with limited infrastructure, resources, and
staff capacity?What tools can the State use to evaluate individual communities'strategies in order to
minimize burdens on historically marginalized or under-served communities?
• Keep in mind that access to information varies significantly between communities across the
state
o May be difficult for smaller jurisdictions to do similar analysis to larger jurisdictions
o Look to reliable state data for consistency/certainty
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 4 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 4 OF 6
Page 110 of 160
• SDC impacts—Cities don't always control SDCs
o SDC waiver—consider the cost shifting from development to rate payers
■ What's the alternative funding for the SDC waiver
• New requirements will be significant burden for almost all jurisdictions—limited staff capacity
and revenue sources
o How to match the expectation with access to resources?
o Look to other planning efforts—e.g. transportation
o Find opportunities for"parallel support"
• Reference to "number of units created by an action"
o With code and policy changes, challenging to estimate impacts
o Real estate analyst: Difficult for them to determine due to variables
• Where a community's greatest needs are, data on households, spending on housing, and
condition of housing
o Situation—people spending significant income on substandard housing
Discussion Question#4:What will meaningful community engagement look like at the local level for
an HPS? What minimum engagement efforts can be incorporated into HB 2003 rulemaking to ensure
that the housing needs of the most housing-insecure communities are identified?What efforts can be
incorporated to describe capacity of communities to work with public and private partners to provide
housing and associated infrastructure and social services identified in the Housing Needs Analysis?
• Need to ensure "active" vs "passive"form of action—public forum, open house, etc. are
important, but also have efforts to actively go to people to avoid having the same people and
perspectives
o Recruiting, research,going out to communities, etc
• Forest Grove: Works with community groups to serve as "liaisons". Has been very effective
• Often community engagement is to one specific issue
o Standards are often burdensome and duplicative
o Look instead to outcomes
• Avoid required box checking meetings
o Describe what engagement occurred, who/how it reached communities,what was
learned, how strategies were modified
o Considers HB 4006 requirements "box checking"
o A requirement for citizen involvement is important, but what works is different city-to-
city—flexibility is important
■ E.g. recent town center project—public involvement strategy changed to
accommodate different perspectives
■ Was able to answer questions/framework above
■ Process was extremely expensive (Metro matched city dollars)
o Requirements must be associated with resources
o Frame it more as "what cities are doing"with information from communities
■ Engagement is only meaningful if city does something with input
o How does the outreach support those strategies
■ Not just meetings, but specific outreach needed to meet needs of community
■ Especially effective for marginalized communities—going to them
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 5 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 5 OF 6
Page 111 of 160
o "Will this work?"—many strategies won't be effective for stakeholders
■ Go out and ask specific groups
o Generic public meetings yield generic audiences
• Process needs to include required outreach to public works, private utility, special districts,
school districts, and transit providers
o What areas might need improvements
o Think about how to align equity goals for underserved communities
• Envisioning HPS is similar process to land use process?To PC and Council?
o Getting credit for other housing conversations city is having
• Role of government and partners about educating what makes housing expensive and why
strategies are necessary
Discussion Question#5:What measurable data points would be useful to track the progress of local
governments as they fulfill their housing needs? How frequently should they be collected? How can
we define "satisfactory progress"towards meeting a housing goal, and what accountability measures
should the rules include to evaluate progress?
• Efforts of jurisdiction and considering unmet housing need
o Severe rent burden: Corvallis and Eugene—attributable to large college population
■ Think contextually about these numbers
• Think about"safe harbors" showing enough effort to meet minimum compliance
Discussion Question#6:What other criteria should DLCD consider in determining to provide
additional enforcement for a city's implementation of their Housing Production Strategy?Should
there be tiers of enhanced enforcement by DLCD? If so, how might DLCD differentiate those tiers?
What constitutes "unmet housing need"?
• What type of"enforcement" would LCDC be seeking to ensure a City is allowing the production
of housing in their jurisdiction
• Section 4.2 is somewhat general—what about smaller communities who will need to access a lot
of different data resources?
o They aren't receiving resources, including funding and existing data
o Going to evaluate on different types of documentation required?
o Going to provide information about resources to smaller communities?
Discussion Question#7: Should future Housing Production Strategies include a section analyzing the
actions identified in a previously adopted HPS? If so,what new information might this section provide
that is not already included in an annual HPS progress survey?
• It is a challenge to tie specific permits to outlined strategies—poses a barrier to evaluation
o Works for some programs, less well for other incentives
HPSTAC1 Meeting Summary RAC Mtg. 4 Page 6 of 6
PP 19-0008 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 6 OF 6
Page 112 of 160