91视频

In early February, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek issued a call for volunteers to serve on the Housing Production Advisory Council, a 25-member group that will chart a path to 鈥渂uild 360,000 additional homes over the next decade.鈥� That is 鈥渁n 80 percent increase over current construction trends.鈥�

Excluding those from the governor鈥檚 office and legislative appointments, 18 council members will be 鈥渉ousing developers with expertise in permanent supportive, affordable, and market-rate housing, representatives of rural and coastal communities, representatives of communities of color, local government representatives, and experts in land use, fair housing, permitting, workforce development, and construction.鈥� Although a focus on affordability and inclusion rightly feature prominently in this recruitment, what is conspicuously absent from this list are experts in adaptive reuse. For example, representatives of the remodelers鈥� association or a Building Codes Division seeking to leverage existing or potentially habitable structures for adaptive reuse that could also further climate change and anti-gentrification goals.

In its Oregon Housing Needs Recommendation Report presented to the Oregon Legislature in December 2022, the Department of Land Conservation and Development acknowledged the need to support affordability and promote housing stability through preservation of the existing housing supply, especially 鈥渘aturally-occurring affordable housing鈥� 鈥� housing that is relatively affordable without subsidy. Examples of this might include:

• converting existing houses to multiple-unit housing (internal conversions),
• constructing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) middle housing (duplex, triplex, fourplex or cottage clusters) while retaining the existing structure,
• restoring and revitalizing vacant housing units on second/upper stories of older mixed-use commercial buildings, or
• adaptively reusing nonresidential properties for new housing (existing underutilized office buildings, hotel/motels, large retail, or light industrial spaces).

There is no question that increasing Oregon鈥檚 housing inventory will require new construction, but it need not come at a cost of throwing away the embodied energy in existing structures. Embodied energy is the total energy required for the extraction, processing, manufacture, and delivery of building materials to the project site. Directing this response solely toward construction of new housing units from the ground-up demands a significant carbon cost.

In late February, Architecture 2030 launched its (CARE) Tool that estimates both the operational carbon emissions (from energy use in the building) and embodied carbon emissions (tied to building materials) associated with reusing and upgrading an existing building or replacing it with new construction. This is the first widespread, free tool for quantifying the environmental footprint associated with avoiding new construction emissions.

Second, the least expensive housing will often be the structure that is already standing. The economic advantages of reuse are exhibited by the many affordable housing projects that are located within existing structures where historic tax incentives are often paired with other financing assistance (Low-Income Housing Tax Credits) to bridge the funding gap. Consider that there has been a trend of developers buying properties of varied types built decades ago and converting them into housing such as the Merwyn Hotel in Astoria, the Gray-Belle Building in Salem or The Palace in Medford.

Further, preservation of existing housing avoids adverse outcomes from segregation and risk of gentrification by keeping existing residents in their homes. The best way to do this is to retain that home first and then increase density by adding an ADU to the existing structure or in the backyard. We must capitalize on the opportunities that these existing resources offer and reward those people who make the sustainable, affordable, and equitable choice by committing to preserving older homes.

Yet, in the 2023 legislative session鈥檚 first bill directly dealing with housing production incentives, Senate Bill 847 covers a wide panoply of housing circumstances but is silent on encouraging reuse of existing housing stock. With respect to the overall housing supply, SB 847 would freeze assessed valued for 鈥渘ewly constructed鈥� accessory dwelling units and middle housing when used as a primary residence for five years. 鈥淣ew鈥� means 鈥渢hat the dwelling being constructed did not previously exist鈥� and expressly 鈥渄oes not include acquisition, alteration, renovation or remodeling of an existing structure.鈥� This means that adding an ADU in a basement or converting an existing home into a duplex or triplex through an addition would not qualify. There is no sound policy basis for this express exclusion.

SB 847 goes on to rightly require that all cities allow for duplexes, as well as ADUs. Under the existing law, only cities with populations exceeding 10,000 must allow duplexes. Finally, SB 847 encourages local governments to incentivize affordable middle housing by waiving or deferring system development charges and/or property tax freezes or credits. That said, SB 847 seeks to discourage appeals of middle-income housing approvals to the Land Use Board of Appeals by constraining a challenger鈥檚 standing, enhancing LUBA鈥檚 scope of review, and authorizing LUBA to take evidence and make new findings. The Legislature should beware of creating these special one-off appeal categories that will compromise citizen participation, sow confusion, and in some cases turn LUBA into a decision-making body rather than a review body.

Many of these incentives are appropriate but they need to be enhanced to acknowledge the cost, anti-displacement, and climate benefits of those who elect to increase supply by reusing existing habitable structures rather than demolishing and building new. For example, the city of Portland鈥檚 new historic code amendments provide for unlimited density as well as 鈥渦p to two accessory dwelling units with a duplex, triplex, fourplex, or multi-dwelling structure鈥� on sites that have a landmark or other historic designation. This is more aggressive than the city鈥檚 middle housing infill allowance permitted on non-designated sites.

The Oregon Building Codes Division should be a key collaborative partner in the housing production evaluation as necessary to remove barriers to reuse. There is no reason why a building that once safely housed a single family of eight people could just as safely handle conversion to a triplex without requiring wholesale compliance with the commercial code that mandates fire walls, unit spacing, or redundant stairs as required for large new multifamily buildings.

It will take multiple and diverse strategies to address the need for housing in Oregon. Reusing and adapting existing buildings, in addition to building new, must be part of this strategy.聽 Ultimately, people who need a roof will not care if that roof is old or new, so long as the roof continues to provide shelter from the rain.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.