Portland’s latest code amendment package to improve land use regulations received the City Council‘s approval on Thursday. The Regulatory Improvement Code Amendment Package (RICAP) 11 is intended to streamline zoning across the city. The changes will take effect Nov. 1.

“RICAP projects are intended to identify technical corrections, clarify existing regulations, remove unnecessary barriers and improve the overall functionality of our code,” Housing and Permitting Committee Chair Candace Avalos said during a committee meeting in June. “The package includes dozens of relatively small amendments, but together they create a more predictable, efficient and user-friendly system.”

RICAP 11 is part of an ongoing series of code amendment projects. The previous one, RICAP 10, was adopted by the city council in June 2024 and took effect that October. Its amendments focused on housing production, economic development and regulatory reduction.

In the next year or so, other projects will be presented to the committee and the City Council, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Director Eric Engstrom said. They include possible reform of the design review process, a Central City-focused package, and the Code Alignment Project (CAP) 2.

“Collectively, we’ll be looking at things like parking and frontage issues, repurposing existing buildings, elements of the tree code, continued work on middle housing codes and a lot more,” Engstrom said during the June committee meeting.

Thursday’s direction amends Title 32 (signs and related regulations) and Title 33 (planning and zoning). RICAP 11 includes 56 zoning code amendments focused on minor parking updates including access to bike parking areas, rules for setbacks and screening for mechanical equipment, regulations for outdoor shelters to align with what the city has allowed through its housing emergency, and allowances for larger signs in parks and open spaces, among others.

The council passed several amendments to the package late last month. These include allowing residential use in the Campus Institutional 1 zone and removing screening requirements for detached mechanical equipment.

The post Portland code changes to take effect in November appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed the Land Use Board of Appeals‘ decision to block development of the CleanLane resource recovery facility in the unincorporated community of Goshen.

The Court of Appeals on April 8 issued an “order without opinion” upholding the denial and ordering the county to pay attorney fees to Sanipac and the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association.

Both sides engaged in oral argument before the court on March 19.

The proposed development would receive waste collected in Lane County and use machinery to separate garbage, recyclables and organics. Garbage would be taken to a landfill, recyclables would be sold and organics would be converted on-site into renewable natural gas.

The county purchased vacant land in Goshen where it sought to put the CleanLane facility.

Waste hauling businesses and Goshen residents who opposed the project argued CleanLane would be a waste-related facility, which is not allowed by the site’s zoning. The county argued it would be a recycling facility and a government facility, which are allowed.

LUBA previously sided with the project opponents based on the facts the facility would receive hundreds of thousands of tons of solid waste, transfer 64 percent of that waste for disposal, and decompose methane gas, all of which are waste-related uses. The Court of Appeals upheld that decision in a one-page order.

The county has a backup plan to locate CleanLane at the Short Mountain Landfill instead of Goshen. Before LUBA issued its denial, county commissioners voted to authorize $1.3 million to study the feasibility of building there.

In a statement, the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association, which represents waste haulers operating in Lane County, celebrated the order as “a major victory for Lane County ratepayers and the Goshen community,” and urged commissioners to use the ruling as an opportunity to reconsider the project.

“We call on the Board of Commissioners to abandon this high-risk project that has put our entire waste management division in jeopardy,” LCGRA spokesperson Katy Pelroy said. “Trust needs to be restored with taxpayers and all stakeholders.”

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in The Register-Guard and then was distributed on the USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect.

The post Court upholds denial of Lane County development plan appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The residential building boom transforming New Jersey’s landscape is set to accelerate this year — and likely into the next decade — after many towns scrambled to approve deals with developers in the waning days of 2025.

Across New Jersey, municipalities engaged in down-to-the-wire legal fights and negotiations to resolve disputes brought by builders and housing advocates.

The catalyst was a Dec. 31 deadline in a state law that mandates each town provide its “fair share” of affordable housing, as determined by a formula devised in Trenton. The landmark 2024 law could spur the construction of tens of thousands of new units over the next decade for residents with low or moderate incomes — but often alongside huge additions of market-rate housing, which developers say is necessary to make the projects viable.

“We didn’t want this,” Parsippany Council President Paul Carifi Jr. said at a Dec. 16 meeting where the Morris County town approved a proposal to increase a project’s units from 600 to 1,100 to help meet its affordable-housing quota. “This is the state cramming this down our throat. If we don’t approve this … it’s over. It’s going back to the courts.”

Housing advocates, led by the nonprofit Fair Share Housing Center in Mount Laurel, see things differently. They say the process is helping New Jersey address what most observers agree is an affordability crisis in the housing market. Another nonprofit, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, has estimated that the state faces a shortage of about 205,000 housing units attainable for low-income residents.

On Monday, the Fair Share Housing Center stated that about 380 municipalities — “an unprecedented level of participation and compliance in the state’s affordable housing process” — had developed plans by Dec. 31. Another 40 missed the deadline, though some of those failures were because of “minor disputes” likely to be resolved soon, the group said.

“What we’re seeing is nothing short of a sea change,” Adam Gordon, the center’s executive director, stated. “For decades, New Jersey’s affordable housing system was bogged down by delay and litigation. This new law is working exactly as intended — bringing towns to the table, resolving disputes efficiently, and moving us toward the actual construction and preservation of affordable homes.”

Communities had until year’s end to settle challenges or explain to a court why they needed more time. The law also sets a March 15 deadline for towns to adopt their housing plans and adjust local zoning as needed.

Rules challenged in court

The pushback continues nonetheless from suburban communities, many in North Jersey, that say they are being forced to accept overdevelopment and increased burdens on local school systems, roads and municipal services.

Local Leaders for Responsible Planning, a 29-town coalition, has challenged the housing law. A federal judge held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the group’s arguments.

As the legal fight drags on, many municipal governing bodies worked into the last week of December to approve the proposed projects they needed to complete affordable housing plans. Some of those deals included tax breaks known as PILOTs, or payments in lieu of taxes, as incentives for builders willing to reserve a portion of their units as affordable.

Franklin Lakes, Ridgewood, Saddle River and Denville were among the other North Jersey towns to OK development plans by the deadline. As of Dec. 29, Demarest was awaiting a judge’s ruling on a complaint brought by a developer seeking to have his project included in the borough’s plan. The proposal seeks to raze the 19th-century home of the town’s founder to make space for 10 townhome units, two of which would be designated as affordable.

‘Fair share’ or ‘high density?’

The system traces back half a century to the state Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decision. The 1975 ruling outlawed “exclusionary zoning” that the court said was designed to keep the poor and minorities out of some towns. The Mount Laurel ruling, expanded in subsequent cases, directed municipalities to change local laws to allow for the construction of their “fair share” of affordable units.

The state eventually created a Council on Affordable Housing to enforce that doctrine. But after 15 years of nonenforcement, the Supreme Court in 2015 again weighed in and shifted oversight to the courts. It allowed “builder’s remedy” lawsuits that could compel towns to accommodate projects as long as they offered a minority of the units — often as little as 20 percent — at below-market rates.

A further evolution came in 2024 when state lawmakers passed a law to codify and streamline that process, laying out deadlines for local governments. Towns that comply gain immunity from builders’ remedy suits.

“We face a somewhat perfect storm of low housing inventory and escalating pricing, which leaves thousands of working families all across our state with no viable options,” state Sen. Troy Singleton, a Burlington County Democrat and sponsor of the legislation, said at the time. “Without securing the most basic human needs — a place to live — the other policies we pass cannot be as effective.”

But critics like Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali and Parsippany Mayor James Barberio have railed at the big housing complexes they say they have to approve to satisfy the state mandate.

“High-density housing may seem like a solution, but it raises serious concerns about our infrastructure and budget,” Barberio said during a 2024 meeting of mayors in which the state’s housing rules were blasted. “It seems like the state wants us to sacrifice quality for quantity.”

In July, Hawthorne Councilman Michael Sciarra said he was “disgusted” about having no better alternative than to endorse a plan designating two sites for construction of 111 new units, including 23 affordable ones.

“Does anyone ever get the feeling that you’re getting something shoved down your throat?” he asked his colleagues. “Well, that’s this going on right now. I can’t tell you how sick I am that we have to digest this, and take the bitter pill, because it’s the lesser of two evils.”

Tax breaks for developers

His ire was still evident on Dec. 22, when the Hawthorne Council met again to approve a final deal with one of those developers.

“Too often, the state checks boxes by meeting quotas,” Sciarra said. “Developers make money, and municipalities are left to deal with long-term consequences.”

In some cases, like in Parsippany, existing projects already under construction were later awarded PILOT tax breaks after developers said they needed additional financial help amid soaring construction costs.

The prominent PARQ project in Parsippany, at the crossroads of interstates 80 and 287, was originally slated for 600 apartments and townhouses; the first 275-unit phase has already opened. But the town sweetened the deal for the developer when it agreed to expand its project to 1,100 units, helping the municipality complete its affordable housing plan by the year-end deadline. Of those units, 120 will rent at affordable rates and the rest at market rate. Those 120 units, and 80 “credit points” earned for building on redeveloped property, would fulfill the town’s latest obligations.

More towns crunch deadline

Next door to Parsippany, Denville in December passed a PILOT incentive for an existing 60-unit project. In a resolution, the township council said it needed “to improve the feasibility of the redevelopment, operation, and maintenance of the project.”

The construction along Route 53 is one of several efforts tied to Denville’s affordable housing goal. A court-appointed special master warned that failing to move forward with the Station Village project could result in a judge stepping in or imposing stricter requirements, Township Attorney Fred Semrau said during a Dec. 2 council meeting. Of the 60 units, nine would be set aside as affordable.

Semrau said the project was approved without a PILOT in 2020, and he acknowledged that granting one after construction had already begun was unusual. But the legal risk could not be ignored, he said.

“As [the developer] started to complete construction, they started really pressing: ‘Well, where’s the PILOT?’” Semrau said. “Our opinion was it was too late — you started construction. So, with that, they got the special master involved.”

The special master, he said, indicated the town was required to assist the developer in completing the project since it was part of the housing plan.

Some towns ‘are buying in’

Not every town that sweated out the year-end deadline was critical of the mandate. Around New Jersey, hundreds have cooperated, noted the Fair Share Housing Center. The nonprofit was a party in numerous challenges around the state where it pushed towns to meet Mount Laurel requirements.

Gordon, the center’s executive director, was recently appointed to Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s transition team. He criticized the latest efforts by municipalities seeking relief in court.

“This small group of wealthy towns have filed lawsuit after lawsuit trying to block the affordable homes New Jerseyans desperately need — and they have lost at every stage, including several state court decisions emphatically rejecting the lawsuit’s claims,” he stated. “We’re confident the federal court will once again reject these efforts and uphold a law that is already working.”

Editor’s note: Staff writers Marsha Stoltz, Philip DeVencentis and Stephanie Noda contributed to this article. It first appeared in the Daily Record and then was distributed on the USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect.

The post Divisive New Jersey law accelerates affordable housing boom appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Two Portland city councilors are pushing a resolution to reform the city’s design review process and perhaps provide a temporary exemption for housing proposals.

The effort represents a serious challenge to design review, which is overseen by Portland Permitting & Development. Developers have long blamed the process for delaying construction and adding costs, but supporters say it improves the design of proposed buildings that go through review and allows the public to weigh in on what’s built in the city.

Councilors Angelita Morillo and Eric Zimmerman are sponsoring the resolution, which will be discussed during Wednesday’s meeting. It directs the city administrator to deliver a report to the council within 120 days. The report would:

• include an overview of the types of design review, along with design overlay zones, design districts and historic districts to which design guidelines apply, and
• offer an economic impact analysis of design review on commercial and residential development timelines during the past five years, and projections for the next five years.

The city administrator would then provide options for a temporary exemption from design review and propose potential changes to the city code that underpins the design review process.

Design review “gets talked a lot about as a barrier, but what is the barrier gets a little fuzzy,” Zimmerman said Monday.

The report will “allow us to cut to the chase,” he added. “I would like to hear from the staff – what do they think are the most attackable problems?”

The design review study dovetails with other efforts to facilitate development in Portland. In July, the City Council approved a three-year waiver on system development charges for housing projects.

It’s still an “open question” whether a moratorium on design review would affect commercial projects as well as housing proposals, Zimmerman said.

He expressed concern that design review could deter unique proposals.

Local developers “know what gets through design review,” he said. “That worries me a little bit, because I want to see someone push the envelope a bit as far as awesomeness or uniqueness or density.”

Permitting & Development is open to discussing design review reform, according to agency spokesman Ken Ray.

“We look forward to working with the City Council on ways to bring more flexibility into design review to ensure the process supports thoughtful growth and investment in Portland’s buildings that meets the needs of the people who live, work and do business in them,” Ray stated in an email on Monday.

Design review has come under fire in other cities, including Seattle, where the process has become a roadblock to development.

“We can all agree that nice-looking buildings are a good thing and probably make it more popular to build stuff, but we can’t agree on what nice looking means,” said Michael Andersen, who studies cities for the nonprofit Sightline Institute. “It’s not something you can achieve from regulation.”

Portland’s design review process isn’t as dysfunctional as Seattle’s was before the Seattle City Council suspended design review requirements in September, Andersen said.

“F�ǰ��ٳܲԲ��ٱ����, Portland Design Commission hasn’t been utterly ridiculous,” he said. “But anytime you introduce discretion, you introduce risk.”

Bruce Studer, president of the Pearl District Neighborhood Association, said there’s an appetite to streamline design review in Portland.

“I think people would want a little bit smarter way to go through design review,” he said. “I don’t think just being able to block things by stalling it out is something we want to have. You want developers to be able to build things that are smart, sustainable and create lasting growth.”

The Design Commission is composed of seven members who serve staggered four-year terms for up to eight years. Members hail from architecture, development, landscape architecture, arts and related fields, along with a member representing the public at large.

Zimmerman and Morillo’s resolution passed the council’s Climate, Resilience and Land Use Committee on Nov. 13 by a 4-0 vote.

The post Portland councilors push major design review reform appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A controversial proposal to modify zoning codes to address Portland‘s housing crisis has triggered a surge of public opinion. More than 200 testimonies were received at the city’s Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, with more than 20 individuals providing in-person and virtual testimonies.

The proposed housing production strategy, a key component of the Housing Regulatory Relief Project, includes a temporary five-year suspension of various zoning codes and development standards identified in a Bureau of Development Services (BDS) survey as the top obstacles to housing production. These changes encompass suspending requirements for ground-floor active use, eliminating eco-roof and bird-safe glazing standards, and reducing bike parking requirements.

The housing production strategy aims to address the urgent need for housing in a city requiring approximately 120,560 new housing units over the next two decades. This need is driven by Portland’s growth, vacancy rates, historical underproduction of housing units, and the demand for homes for the homeless.

Sandra Wood, the principal planner at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, said that for housing to be constructed in the present environment, development costs must decrease or rents must increase, likely requiring a combination of both. While the city cannot control the high interest rates causing financing challenges nationwide, the housing relief strategy aims to reduce costs by streamlining permitting approval timelines and simplifying code requirements.

“We understand that this is a piece of the puzzle,” Wood said. “Not the full puzzle, but it is a piece nonetheless.”

Public comments were predominantly in favor of easing housing production, with support from community members and building industry professionals. However, a substantial portion of the public opposed the proposed changes related to bike parking, eco-roofs, bird-safe glazing, ground-floor active use, height requirements and the suspension of elements in the design review and neighborhood contact process.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Portland Design Commissioner Chandra Robinson, speaking on behalf of the commission, expressed concern about the short timeframe for reviewing and studying the proposed changes, describing it as “short-sighted” and “irresponsible.” These changes are set to be presented to the Portland City Council during the Dec. 20 meeting. Robinson said that although the changes are temporary, their effects will be long-lasting, as buildings are designed to last for 50 years or more. She argued that removing ground-floor active use requirements would reduce the presence of eyes on the street, potentially leading to increased crime and vandalism. Robinson urged the Planning Commission to delay approval of the proposed changes to allow more time for public comments, saying that “It’s only going to benefit the city, and not have it continue down a downward spiral.”

In a letter to the Planning Commission, signed by all commissioners except Commissioner Sam Rodriguez, alternative proposals were put forward.

Chair of the Portland Landmark Commission, Andrew Smith, said that any near-term changes to regulations should focus on removing barriers and streamlining processes rather than introducing physical changes that “we will live with and likely regret for the next 50 or more years.”

Several members of the building industry expressed support for the housing relief proposal. Sarah Zahn, director of development for Security Properties, said that the challenges posed by high interest rates is making financing for projects scarce and challenging. While each proposed code change may constitute a small portion of project costs individually, their cumulative impact is significant.

Doug Burges, director of development at Greystar, said that these challenges are felt with a recently approved 381-unit tower project in the Pearl District. That, he said, “can’t be financed in today’s environment,” adding that a slight budget relief could go a long way in assisting the project, which also includes 31 units of inclusionary housing.

The proposed amendments to reduce bike parking from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 for developments in and near downtown, and from 1.1 spaces per unit to 0.7 for those farther out, faced significant opposition from the public. However, members of the building industry noted that they consistently observe that more than half of bike parking rooms remain unused. Ernesto Fonseca, CEO of Hacienda CDC, shared that in a recent project, approximately eight additional studio units could have been constructed if bike parking requirements were reduced. Gus Baum, director of development at Security Properties, said that roughly 770 bike stalls were required for a development along Sandy Boulevard, equivalent to approximately 15,000 square feet of space.

“Far in excess of what will be used for any current or future resident,” Baum added.

In a cost study of the proposed changes, it was estimated that a bike room for a typical 64-unit multifamily development (approximately 1,950 square feet) would cost $509,000, equivalent to about 2.6 percent of the construction costs, or $7,953 per unit.

Following the extensive public comments, commissioners requested the addition of an extra day of hearings to allow for further deliberation on proposed amendments to the current proposal. Chair Commissioner Mary O’Meara indicated her lack of support for eliminating the eco-roof and bird-safe glazing requirements, which received the most public opposition. She said she does not see how removing these requirements would contribute to easing housing production. Additionally, an amendment could be considered to restrict the temporary removal of ground-floor active use requirements to affordable housing developments, where it has been a development obstacle.

The next Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on Nov. 7.

The post Proposed zoning code changes ignite public debate appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

By Michael Hill

The Associated Press

For decades, the middle-class towns of single-family homes that ring many American cities have used zoning laws to ensure they stay much like they looked in the suburban boom after World War II.

Apartment buildings in many places are simply not allowed, and that exclusion – intentionally or not – has historically also kept out people of color.

Facing housing shortages, several states and the U.S. government have tried to break through those barriers with methods such as giving municipalities homebuilding goals or overriding certain local zoning restrictions.

In New York, one such proposal from Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul has run into howls of opposition in one of the birthplaces of the American suburb. Critics on Long Island, a sprawling expanse of communities totaling 2.9 million people, are denouncing provisions that would set growth targets, drive denser development near train stations and sometimes let state officials override local zoning decisions.

“Her plan would flood YOUR neighborhood with THOUSANDS of new apartments” reads one opposition mailing. Others warn that Long Island would become New York City’s “sixth borough.” Critics, many of them Republican officials, claim Hochul’s proposal would strip away local control.

“We’re already a densely populated area; where are you going to build?” asked Republican state Sen. Jack Martins, who noted his past support for affordable housing as a local mayor. “Are we going to start tearing down single-family homes to put up apartment buildings?”

Hochul’s wide-ranging plan to spur creation of 800,000 new homes statewide has been mischaracterized, she said. It was a sticking point in New York state budget talks last week, with Hochul’s fellow Democrats in control of the Legislature seeking a plan with fewer mandates and more incentives.

New York is following the lead of other states trying to alleviate housing crunches by chipping away at local restrictions on building.

Connecticut, amid there over whether “exclusionary zoning” rules worsen racial segregation, has begun requiring cities and towns to allow in-law apartments unless they follow an opt-out process. �����Ի��� have passed laws to dramatically curtail single-family zoning, and both states have targets for new housing.

The accusations of government overreach in New York echo claims in some of those other states.

The state of California last month filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach, accusing the coastal community of disregarding state laws requiring it to approve more affordable housing and build more than 13,000 homes over eight years. Huntington Beach filed its own lawsuit, claiming the state would override local control “in order to eliminate the suburban character of the city and replace it with a high-density mecca.”

After Donald Trump became president, his administration  adopted during the Obama administration that required places receiving certain types of federal funding to analyze housing stock and come up with plans to combat patterns of segregation and discrimination. Trump characterized it as an attempt to abolish suburbs.

President Joe Biden’s adminstration has  requiring house lots to be of a certain size, have ceilings a certain height, and be only for a single family, as tools abused in some places to discriminate against people who aren’t white.

Hochul has cast her plan for New York as an effort to help the state thrive, rather than as a tool of desegregation. It would give towns multiple paths to meet housing targets. It would have a larger impact in New York City’s suburbs, where three-year home creation targets would be 3 percent, compared to 1 percent for upstate areas. The higher goals would apply to Long Island.

If municipalities don’t meet targets, developers could pursue a process in which the state could allow projects to go forward. Another provision would require localities to rezone areas within a half-mile of commuter rail stations unless the area already meets density requirements.

Hochul said too many restrictions on new construction have contributed to sky-high home prices that are shutting out both low-income and middle-class workers.

In Nassau County, the part of the island closest to New York City, home prices rose 31 percent between 2018 and last year, according to the New York State Association of Realtors. The average home price there is now $679,000. One-bedroom apartments can go for $3,000 per month.

“I just settled on the fact that I’m going to be living at home with my parents until I move off Long Island because there’s nobody I know who lives outside of their parent’s home on Long Island,” said Erin Curley, 25, of Massapequa Park.

Long Island is the home of Levittown, famous as a model for the modern suburb of affordable houses separated by tidy yards. It also had an early covenant that barred homeowners from renting or selling to people who weren’t Caucasians. Advocates see the legacy of such practices today.

The president of Long Island-based ERASE Racism, Laura Harding, said while some localities have taken steps to build affordable housing, others maintain the sort of exclusionary zoning practices behind racial segregation. They can be “subtle things,” like a predominantly white town giving preferences to local residents for housing programs, she said.

“This isn’t just about poor, low-income Black people and Latino people, which is what the prevailing stereotype is when you hear ‘affordability,’” Harding said. “This is about everyone who is literally struggling to afford to stay in the communities that they know, or into a new home.”

Housing advocates blame local officials for too often rejecting plans for multifamily housing that would ease that pressure. One prime example is the 146-unit affordable housing development Matinecock Court on an East Northport site that was cleared earlier this year. Ground is expected to be broken later in 2023.

The project was first proposed in 1978.

“It has taken 44 years and many lawsuits,” said Pilar Moya-Mancera, executive director of not-for-profit Housing Help Inc. “That’s what it takes for Long Island to build multifamily, affordable housing in a white neighborhood.”

The post New York housing proposal elicits uproar in suburbia appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland City Council on Wednesday gave final approval to Better Housing by Design – a sweeping zoning reform that will encourage greater housing density in urban areas, including parts of East Portland, the Alphabet District and King’s Hill.

Better Housing by Design recognizes the reality that Portland will continue to grow and change, Mayor Ted Wheeler said.

“So the question isn’t how do we stop growth, and how do we stop change,” he said. “The question is how do we manage it so that we maintain the things about our community that we love.”

Commissioners Jo Ann Hardesty and Chloe Eudaly joined Wheeler in voting to pass Better Housing by Design. Amanda Fritz voted against it, and Nick Fish was absent.

Fritz said the package added to the complexity of the city’s zoning code, and did not take into account existing unbuilt housing capacity.

“The council is voting for quantity over quality as if we need to add more housing capacity,” Fritz said. “We don’t need more capacity. We need more livable homes.”

A proposed amendment backed by Fritz to require common areas for large apartment buildings was rejected. Affordable housing developers had opposed the potential change, saying it would reduce the number of housing units built and increase costs.

Hardesty said Better Housing by Design is “one way of ensuring that the pain of growth is shared by every single community.”

“These are difficult decisions,” Hardesty said. “Zoning brings out a whole host of emotions because there are always winners and losers when you are changing zones. I want to ensure that, this time, the winners are communities of color, low-income community members and those who have never, quite frankly, gotten a fair shake from this council.”

Better Housing by Design allows larger buildings near major corridors, increases bonuses for inclusionary housing units and limits front garages and surface parking, among other changes.

Most of the changes will take effect March 1, 2020, with a bonus related to three-bedroom units taking effect on June 1.

The post Portland City Council passes zoning package appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability‘s Better Housing by Design proposal to encourage development of more densely built apartments in certain areas encountered a somewhat mixed reception by the City Council on Wednesday.

Commissioners received about two hours of public testimony from residents, nonprofit advocates and development professionals on the proposal, which is essentially the multifamily companion to the Residential Infill Project that is meant to create more small dwellings in single-family zones.

Better Housing by Design applies to only 8 percent of the city by land area. Areas zoned for multi-dwelling residential (designated by the city as R1, R2, R3 and RH) are concentrated in East Portland, but also include the Alphabet and King’s Hill historic districts in Northwest Portland and sections along Southwest Barbur Boulevard.

The rezoning project would allow many more apartments on some parcels, which would benefit nonprofit affordable-housing developers.

“Better Housing by Design is a game changer for affordable housing developers,” said Julie Livingston, senior project manager for Home Forward. (Livingston also serves as the Portland Design Commission‘s chairwoman, but said she was representing Home Forward in her testimony).

Livingston gave the example of a 5-acre parcel Home Forward owns in East Portland. Under current R2 zoning, with inclusionary housing, the parcel could host up to 144 units. The proposed zoning would raise the development potential to 330 units, she said.

Better Housing by Design allows for more low-rise housing options, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability project manager Bill Cunningham said.

“The basic message is houses are out of reach for the majority of Portlanders now,” he said. “And knowing that we have a broad range of household types, we know we need a broader range of housing opportunities for people.”

He added, “Housing production hasn’t kept up with the growth in the number of households in Portland. So more people vying for not enough housing does drive prices up.”

Commissioners pushed back on some aspects of the proposal. Amanda Fritz said the city should encourage larger units.

“I want to make sure that we’re going to have family housing in Portland as well as affordable housing,” she said. “I don’t think the two should be mutually exclusive.”

Cunningham noted the program includes bonuses for three-bedroom homes at moderate income levels.

Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty said the city should first release a report, expected later this year, on the racist history of Portland zoning.

“I’m very concerned that we are just solidifying the racially segregating housing policy first, and then we go talking about how we’re not going to displace people after we’ve already confirmed that the racist policy is fine and that we’re going to keep it status quo,” she said.

Representatives of numerous organizations testified in favor of the project, including a Portland Public Schools staffer who said stable housing contributes to learning.

Mayor Ted Wheeler continued the hearing until Nov. 6, when he said the City Council will hear more testimony on Better Housing by Design. Written testimony will be accepted until then.

The post Portland zoning plan undergoes scrutiny appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Legislature is one vote away from passing a first-in-the-nation law ending exclusive single-family zoning in much of the state.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reports the measure passed the state House on Thursday on a bipartisan 43-16 vote and now moves to the Senate, where it could get tangled up by a walkout of Republican senators seeking to block a major climate change bill.

House Bill 2001 would require larger cities to allow increased density in single-family neighborhoods, and in many cases it would include up to four units on a single lot.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, has made the bill one of her top priorities, and she put together a bipartisan coalition that overcame the opposition of many neighborhood activists and the League of Oregon Cities.

The post Affordable housing measure nears passage appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

By SARAH ZIMMERMAN
Associated Press

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Democrats want to design their way out of Oregon’s housing crisis and are considering a proposal clearing the path for developers to build more apartments and townhouses.

The move comes on the heels of a landmark rent control measure and is meant to be part of a multi-pronged approach to combat the state’s housing shortage.

Speaker of the House Tina Kotek said Monday the effort will “increase housing choice and the supply of more affordable housing.”

The bill would end single-family zoning. Cities with more than 10,000 people would be required to offer, in addition to single family homes, what’s known as “middle” housing options. That means building more residential structures with multiple dwelling units, like duplexes and triplexes.

Proponents hope the idea will give residents more affordable housing options in cities and suburban neighborhoods, while allowing for more development. If passed, Oregon would become the first state to eliminate single-family zoning. Minneapolis voted to restrict the practice last December.

The Oregon measure also responds to criticisms from the state’s recent rent control law, which broadens tenant protections and limits the amount landlords can increase rent per year. Economists have warned that the state needs to focus on housing supply, and that rent control could dissuade developers — making the housing crisis worse.

Builders in Oregon have not been able to construct enough houses and apartments to meet the demands of the thousands of people moving to the state for jobs and in some cases, for a lower cost of living.

Many people move to the state from California.

The plan is meant to alleviate a rental market that’s reaching capacity. A study from the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest found that only 63 new housing units were created for every 100 new families in Oregon from 2010 to 2016.

And that’s made it near impossible to find housing in the state’s major cities. In Portland, 95 percent of all apartments were occupied in 2018, according to RealPage, which provides data to the real estate industry. The cities of Salem and Eugene also had occupancy rates over 95 percent.

Economists say the high housing demand has caused rents to skyrocket. One in three renters pay more than 50 percent of their income on rent, far higher than the 30 percent recommendation set by Congress.

But homeowners have slammed the idea to ease zoning restrictions, flooding the Legislature with written testimony saying the measure will destroy the character of neighborhoods and lead to overcrowding. Some city officials have also come out against the idea, saying it encroaches on local control.

Meanwhile, lower-income residents maintain that the proposal is necessary, as it’s especially difficult to find diverse and affordable housing options near urban areas. Brandon Narramore, a Portland resident, said he’s just one of the many young renters that can’t afford to live in a single-family home or in any of the luxury apartments being developed.

And his situation isn’t just unique to Portland. Narramore added that his brother, a mill worker from Medford in southern Oregon, also struggles to find affordable housing that fits the needs of his young family.

“I do not believe my nephew should be blocked access to the good schools and amenities of nice neighborhoods because zoning maps outlaw the types of housing his father can afford,” he testified.

The post Oregon wants to make it easier to build affordable housing appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.