LOC News
Housing Bills To Watch This Week
Tuesday, April 4 marks a significant deadline in the legislative session. This is the last day for bills to pass out of their respective policy committees in the chamber of origin (i.e. Senate bills in the Senate, House bills in the House). The deadline does not apply to Revenue, Rules, Ways & Means, and other joint committees. If a bill remains in one of the regular policy committees after the April 4 deadline, it is considered dead for the session, although concepts can always be amended into other bills. There are a handful of housing-related bills scheduled for work session next week that cities are watching closely. Read on for additional details and opportunities to weigh in:
SB 847 – Omnibus Housing Bill
The LOC has a neutral position on SB 847, due to the wide range of concepts included in the bill. The LOC is actively supporting the following components of the bill:
- Shelter siting: Sections 6-7 of the -18 amendments extend and strengthen the emergency shelter siting statute, a critical tool for communities to quickly site emergency shelters. Under current statute, this tool sunsets or ends on June 30, 2023. This section would extend the siting provisions as long as the most recent point-in-time count finds Oregon’s total sheltered and unsheltered homeless population is less than 0.18% of the state population. The amendments also provide attorney fees to a local government and any intervening applicant who prevails on appeal of approval, or an applicant who prevails on appeal of denial; and clarifies that cities are not required to hold a public hearing before approving or denying a shelter siting application.
- Residential Approval Procedures: Sections 3-5 of the -18 amendments make two changes to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) process to speed up housing development approvals. The amendments give a city an extra seven days if it has already tentatively approved a housing application and needs a bit more time to document findings, thus reducing the possibility of appeal. The amendments also improve local decisions following a LUBA appeal. For housing cases, local governments have up to the time of the filing of their own briefs to voluntarily remand a case that may be at risk of reversal or remand after reviewing the petitioner’s brief, thus enabling the problem to be fixed expeditiously. Under current law, that voluntary remand can only be done before the record is transmitted to LUBA.
- Rural Liability Protection for Safe Rest Sites: The -5 amendments limit liability for rural communities that designate safe resting places or campgrounds for unhoused residents to provide: reliable access to a space of a certain size to erect a tent or park a vehicle and keep their belongings, away from hazardous areas, sensitive environmental lands, and high traffic neighborhoods or right of way; basic amenities like safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, and waste management services; and better access to emergency services. Thanks to the advocacy of Roseburg City Councilor Ellen Porter, a number of cities, counties, and service providers testified in support of the -5 amendments at a hearing this week.
- City Action Alert: While the record has closed to submit written testimony, cities that wish to support this concept should email the Senate Housing and Development Committee to urge their support for the -5 amendments, and may also email their local legislators in support. Cities should reference the LOC one-pager for more details and are also encouraged to contact Councilor Ellen Porter at EPorter@cityofroseburg.org.
The LOC testified with concerns on two additional sections of the -18 amendments to SB 847 and hopes to see additional amendments to resolve the following issues:
- Section 2 of the -18 amendments require cities to allow the siting and development of residential uses on land zoned to allow only commercial use within certain parameters. The current language would not allow cities to provide the ability for a developer to opt into a discretionary approval path, something that cities need to be able to allow (not require) for developments that don’t fit a clear and objective path.
- Sections 20-22 of the bill extend the duplex requirements from HB 2001 (2019) to all cities with a population less than 10,000 and cities within the Portland metro region with a population less than 1,000. This means an additional 186 cities would have to update their comprehensive plans by the end of the 2023-25 biennium. The LOC shared the significant fiscal impact of this section in testimony, and understands a forthcoming amendment will both narrow this provision to only apply to the 49 cities between 2,500 and 10,000 population and provide grant funding necessary for cities to implement.
SB 1051 – Urban Reserves and UGB Expansion
SB 1051 with -2 amendments would allow property owners to request an urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion for land within designated urban reserves under certain circumstances. The LOC testified in opposition to this bill at a public hearing earlier this month, due to significant technical concerns. The -2 amendments upend years of local and regional planning, agreements and investments behind the ordered use of lands in the UGB and urban reserves. Urban growth boundaries are intended to provide an indication of where development will occur at the edge of a city and urban reserves indicate where the UGB will go next. Therefore, infrastructure planning focuses on building the capacity needed to serve the expected growth in the UGB. This means that capital improvement plans contemplate the capacity that is needed to serve these areas and the financial planning that it takes to improve infrastructure meets that expectation. The -2 amendment would reorder improvements, not just for the city, but also for the other local governments that provide urban services and connect to new development. Since the bill’s hearing, the development stakeholders behind the concept have been consulting city experts and are expected to introduce additional amendments.
HB 3414 – Governor’s Housing Bill – Action Alert
Governor Kotek introduced HB 3414 at the end of February to support her housing production goals of developing 36,000 new homes per year and increasing housing access and affordability. The LOC strongly supports these goals and remains a committed partner for this work. Unfortunately, HB 3414 and recent -1 amendments contradict adopted state housing production priorities, remove important local tools to meet new state requirements and add new layers of bureaucracy that will prevent already limited city resources and staff from focusing on encouraging and approving housing development applications.
The LOC has issued an action alert for this bill, asking cities to contact the House Housing and Homelessness Committee and local legislators, urging them to provide more time for stakeholders to inform necessary amendments to the bill. The message to Governor Kotek and the Legislature is to please partner with cities to improve the bill, rather than forcing local implementation partners to spend efforts implementing new bureaucratic measures that won’t solve the problem.
HB 3414 with -1 amendments requires cities to approve requests for variances from land use regulations, including regulations relating to siting and design, for the construction of a residential development, while providing exclusions for health, safety, and habitability and a narrow list of issues. Not all development code standards are barriers and many of them are critical tools for cities to meet Oregon’s housing needs. HB 3414 and the -1 amendments allow developers to avoid recent statewide policies and will prevent cities from meeting the goals of recent legislation and executive action, including: Housing Production (HB 2003 passed in 2019 and Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA) – HB 2001 passed 2023); Middle Housing (HB 2001 enacted in 2019); and recently enacted Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules.
Additionally, HB 3414 shifts the burden to local city staff to provide substantial evidence to deny a variance request, adding a significant burden on staff capacity and additional red-tape to housing production. This wide sweeping variance language in HB 3414, creates an increasingly ambiguous and discretionary review process for housing projects and undermines the importance of clear and objective standards (a clear path for developers). This will shift the focus of local planners, slow the development review process, and make it difficult for cities to meet housing production targets.
HB 3414 also establishes a state Housing Accountability and Production Office (HAPO), between the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the state Building Codes Division (BCD). The HAPO would provide technical assistance to developers and local governments to support housing development, as well as accept complaints from housing developers, investigate cities for violations of state and local housing laws, and take enforcement measures necessary to assist local jurisdictions in identifying and reducing permitting and land use barriers to housing production. There are already established systems in place to assure local governments comply with existing laws and the complaint process proposed adds a new layer of bureaucracy to the development process, requiring city staff to shift focus from approving housing to responding to any number of complaints.
HB 3569 – Right to Housing
HB 3569 with -1 amendments requires cities to approve housing development in any residential and commercial zone and largely preempt any density standards, siting and design requirements, or ability to plan for adequate infrastructure. The LOC testified in opposition to the bill at a public hearing earlier this month. The concept is not expected to move forward as introduced; however, the bill may be advanced to preserve opportunities for more productive legislation.
Contact: Ariel Nelson, Lobbyist - anelson@orcities.org
Last Updated 3/31/23