Loading...
2021-11-03_MHCACKeyIssuesSummaryMemo 2021 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee tiA F Key Issues Summary Memo Preliminary draft on October 7, 2021 ~' AP V �- O Final update November 3, 2021 OREGO� KEY ISSUES 1. Preservation of existing residential structures 2. Scale and character of new middle housing 3. Runoff and storm water impacts of middle housing 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing 1. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Members of the City Council and Planning Commission expressed concern that permitting middle housing in Lake Oswego could increase the rate of demolitions of existing residential structures, including existing naturally-occurring affordable (or relatively-affordable) housing. The Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (the "Committee") was provided with direction to explore potential incentives to encourage conversions or additions that create middle housing (as an alternative to demolitions) in order to promote the preservation of existing buildings. Committee discussion surrounding this topic indicated over 2/3 support'for the following code concepts: a. Revise the definition of"demolition" to include remodels that remove more than 50%of the exterior walls of the house. Members felt that this recommendation would help to prevent builders from pursuing projects that almost completely demolish an existing structure while still being considered a "remodel" under the current definition of"demolition". Under this current definition, a builder is able to demolish all but just one wall of an existing structure while not being required to classify the project as a "demolition", thus allowing builders to maintain nonconforming setbacks and lot coverage and avoid the City's recently-adopted $15,000 per dwelling-unit tax on residential demolitions. Changing the definition of"demolition" could encourage remodel projects that preserve more of the existing structure than under the current definition, while also working to disincentive demolitions of existing residences. Any revisions to the definition of demolition would 'The bylaws adopted by the MHCAC require a vote by two-thirds of the members present and eligible to vote to decide any question. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 1 of 14 have broad applicability and would not just apply to middle housing, so further analysis would required to test the feasibility of any proposed changes. Though there was support for modifying the definition of "demolition" among many Committee members, one member expressed concern that this approach could result in adverse impacts on existing neighborhood character and recommended waiving the demolition tax for middle housing projects. Another member suggested a requirement that a reasonable opportunity be provided to a representative from the Historic Resources Advisory board to thoroughly photograph the interior and exterior of any structure that had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or local Lake Oswego historic landmark designation list prior to its demolition. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further consider concepts for how nonconforming development is defined and whether demolition tax applicability should be changed, particularly with respect to the threshold that must be reached in order for the project to qualify as a "demolition" (as compared to a remodel). Conduct feasibility testing and determine the extent of the impact this definitional change would have on existing City policies related to demolition and on development trends more broadly. b. Define duplexes, triplexes, and quad-plexes to include detached units, in addition to attached units. While some Committee members questioned the likely effectiveness of preserving existing houses by allowing for detached forms of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, members were generally supportive of detached "plexes" even in cases where an existing house is not preserved. Members stated that they supported detached "plexes" because they could allow additional flexibility for middle housing developments to better respond to topographical constraints, and because they could potentially result in more accessible dwelling units that would be more conducive to multi- generational living. There was general interest in exploring the question of detached "plexes" in further detail, particularly whether the City would only allow detached versions of certain types of "plexes" (for instance, allow detached duplexes but not detached triplexes or quadplexes). Committee members expressed particular concerns regarding the specifics of how detached duplex, triplex, and quadplex units would be regulated. Some members were concerned that it may be difficult to craft regulations for detached "plexes" that both comply with state requirements and result in a positive design outcome. For instance, one member noted that detached duplex, triplex, or quadplex developments would not be subject to the same standards that could be applied to cottage cluster developments, which are similar in concept to detached plexes but include different dimensional and design standards that are more appropriate for detached forms of middle housing. Another Committee member noted that, while the flexibility to construct detached units could produce a more positive design outcome, dimensional and design regulations should be further refined for both detached and attached middle housing developments in order to mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent neighbors— particularly those related to access lanes constructed near adjacent properties. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 2 of 14 Following this discussion, new information was provided by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) clarifying that detached "plex" forms of middle housing must be treated similarly to other middle housing required under Division 46. This means that the City could only apply more refined siting and design standards to detached "plex" developments through an alternative track, as opposed to the minimum standards, which would require that the City conduct more extensive analysis to prove that these standards do not create "unreasonable cost or delay". Considering that cities are not required under Division 46 to allow detached "plex" developments in the first place, a representative from DLCD informally stated that it was reasonable to assume that applying different siting and design standards for detached "plexes" would not be expected to create such cost or delay. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address design and compatibility issues that may arise if detached "plexes" are permitted. See the Detached Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex discussion in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) and the Scale and Character of New Middle Housing section, below, for more discussion and next steps related to detached plex regulations. The Committee did not reach a clear consensus on other questions related to this topic, though half of the Committee did express support for a code concept that could preserve existing housing through the adoption of incentives to encourage conversions of or additions to single family dwellings (SFD) that create middle housing. The Committee also expressed 50% support for a code concept to not require that conversions of or additions to existing SFDs that create middle housing be consistent with the style and architecture of the existing structure. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#1 Memo: Preservation of Existing Homes (last updated on October 26, 2021). 2. SCALE AND CHARACTER OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING The City Council has directed staff to pursue the minimum compliance standards of Division 46, which generally require that cities apply the same or less restrictive dimensional standards (or "siting standards" in terms used in the state rules) to middle housing as apply to single-family housing. For Lake Oswego, dimensional standards include setbacks, height, setback planes, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and other requirements associated with utilities and public facilities. The Council also directed staff to apply the City's existing design standards to middle housing, with a suggestion to add new clear and objective standards that comply with state rules for middle housing in order to maintain consistency with existing homes and neighborhood character, as appropriate. In Lake Oswego, existing design standards regulate different form-based attributes of buildings, including garage appearance, long wall planes, roof projections, and in some zones, front porch, roof pitch, and other features. Under this direction, the City can regulate design features to ensure that middle housing has a scale and character that is consistent with existing homes or neighborhood character—as long as the same design standards that apply to middle housing also apply to single-family housing. These design Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 3 of 14 standards must scale with form-based attributes of the site or building, not with the number of dwelling units. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Apply existing bulk and massing standards (or "dimensional" standards)for single-family housing to middle housing. Members generally felt that the current building envelopes in the Code were appropriate for the scale and character of the City. Some expressed concern that decreasing or "tightening" the building envelope could make it overly cumbersome to construct certain forms of middle housing (and may not comply with state regulations), while others were concerned that increasing or "loosening" the building envelope could increase the bulk or cost of single-family dwellings. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. b. Do not limit building width beyond existing setback regulations. Members expressed concern that building width limitations could produce undesirable design outcomes, with one member noting that some of the more desirable examples of middle housing would likely not comply with stringent building width limitations. One member also expressed concern that building width limitations could inadvertently encourage taller housing developments that may be less accessible to residents with a disability. Though members were clear that they did not support limiting building frontage width to a specific length or distance, some expressed support for a limitation on building width tied to a set proportion or percentage of the width of the overall lot. One member expressed concerns that, in conditions where lots are consolidated or larger than the minimum lot size, side setbacks alone may not adequately maintain building width, form, and massing patterns characteristic of that neighborhood. Members generally agreed that, though the "street side" of a development is certainly an important component of the design, it may be even more important to consider the potential impacts of middle housing development on abutting properties. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address concerns that wide or uninterrupted building facades may negatively impact neighborhood character. However, following that discussion, the Committee did not opt to recommend any additional building width or façade articulation standards—consistent with their direction on the original question. See the discussion on Building Width and Facade Articulation in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Code concepts were also further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 that would address the potential impact of activity in side and rear yards on neighboring residents. See the discussion on Screening and Buffering in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 4 of 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. c. Enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. Members agreed that existing garage appearance standards should be updated to address the potential implications of middle housing, a recommendation that would also address concerns that were identified more broadly by the community in the Neighborhood Character Survey results regarding front-facing garages and driveways. Members expressed differing views on the benefits or drawbacks of streets containing many garages and curb cuts, with some members concerned that more driveways and curb cuts could reduce the availability of on-street parking, and others concerned that more on-street parking could produce an unsafe pedestrian environment by limiting visibility. One member pointed out that some garage design standards may impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, and that garages and driveways when designed appropriately can help provide ADA-compliant access to the street. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. d. Apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select options that would indicate full support of the concept to apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses, and another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns about the potential negative impacts of wide garages and driveways. Though less than 2/3 of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no caveats (64%), staff has included this recommendation because an additional 27%of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the existing single-family housing design standards could result in wider and more visually-dominant garages and driveways for townhouse developments. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee did not support applying DLCD Model Code standards for driveways and garages to townhouses or other middle housing types, as less than 10% of Committee members voted for the other polling options that would apply DLCD Model Code Standards to townhouses. During the discussion it was mentioned that, under the DLCD Model Code Standards, garages could occupy a greater percentage than currently allowed under the development code (60%) on townhouses with street frontages of less than 20 feet. Staff reminded Committee members that, while the regulations in the Model Code may be less restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of less than 20 feet, the Model Code would be more restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of over 20 feet. Some Committee members expressed concern about challenges that could emerge for those with different accessibility needs if the City were to further limit driveway and Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 5 of 14 garage space. Other members expressed that, while they felt it was important to address concerns related to the visual impact of driveways and garages, they were concerned that these limitations could negatively impact the feasibility of developing townhouse units. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language, while also addressing the potential negative visual impacts of wide garages and driveways. e. If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include tree canopy requirements. Though the Committee was split on the question of whether landscaping should be required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, there was consensus that—if such requirements are instituted —they should take the form of requirements for a certain percentage of the lot to be covered by tree canopy. Staff notes that there was significant consensus on this issue amongst the group, as 90%of voting-eligible Committee members supported the concept of landscaping taking the form of a tree-canopy standard, if required. This option received more support than other code concepts that would define landscaping to include other elements, such as front yard or foundation landscaping. Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to regulate tree canopy under the Development Code (apart from the City's sensitive lands regulations). Subject to Council direction, work with the Planning Commission to refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. f. Limit the size of units within a cottage cluster. Although there was no clear consensus as to a specific recommended size, Committee members supported limiting the size of cottage cluster units in order to maintain consistency with existing neighborhood scale and character, and, indirectly, to promote housing affordability. Members expressed concerns that developers would be prone to maximize the square footage of individual cottage units if the City allows for those larger units. One member also expressed concerns related to accessibility, stating a preference for more square footage to be located on the ground floor of cottage cluster units when possible. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for how to limit the size of units within a cottage cluster, and develop these concepts into recommended code language. Coordinate these code concepts with the concepts for detached forms of middle housing. g. Apply any design standard that applies to single-family housing to cottage cluster housing, as long as the standard does not conflict with the DLCD Model Code. While some members cautioned that the City should not be overly prescriptive with architectural style, form, or other design requirements, some also noted that designers are capable of responding to complex or prescriptive design standards, including specifications for modern or innovative buildings designs. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 6 of 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. h. Regulate open space for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the same manner as for attached "plexes". Open space is assumed to be in yard setbacks. Do not specify minimum size or location of open space. The Committee was not supportive of additional open space or courtyard requirements for detached duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, which would align the requirements for detached plex developments more with the requirements for cottage cluster developments. One member expressed concerns that any requirements for the size or location of open space could work against the purpose of allowing detached plexes to begin with —which this person felt was to offer additional flexibility for property owners to add middle housing units to a given site. While there was general support to provide additional flexibility for detached plex developments, some members also felt strongly that building entrances should still be required to face either a street or open space. Staff was able to clarify that the entrance requirements for attached plex units—which include requirements that entrances face either open space or the adjacent street— could also be applied to detached units (similar to cottage clusters). Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. i. Allow smaller front or rear yard setbacks of 10-15 feet for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as is allowed for cottage cluster housing. Committee members agreed with the concept of providing more flexibility for the layout of a detached plex site by allowing for reduced front or rear yard setbacks for such developments. Members expressed support for this concept in part because the setback reduction would provide additional flexibility to facilitate the construction of detached plex units, and in part because such reduced setbacks could produce larger and more usable open spaces to accompany such units. However, other Committee members expressed concerns that allowing for reduced setbacks could produce a negative impact on neighborhood character. One member stated that— because of the results of the previous question —the reduced setbacks would not be accompanied by open space requirements, and was concerned that developers may simply choose to maximize their building envelope and not provide additional open space. Staff clarified that there are numerous other mechanisms within the code intended to control the bulk and massing of buildings, such as lot coverage and floor area, and that these would continue to apply in a way that ensures that the additional space allowed for the setback would not actually permit a larger building envelope/ mass than would be permitted for a single-family dwelling or other types of middle housing. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 7 of 14 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 8 of 14 Other Concepts Considered Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus on other questions related to the scale and character of new middle housing, a majority of members expressed support for the following code concepts: • Create new standards to regulate the design and orientation of entrances for both middle housing and single-family housing, though the details require further discussion. • If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include front yard landscaping requirements. • Require landscape screening when a garage or parking lot faces a side or rear lot line. • Do not require additional design standards relating to façade and entry elements for single-family and middle housing The Committee was more divided on polling questions related to landscaping requirements, with a 40% plurality of members voting for the City to institute landscaping requirements based on a percentage of lot area. Members questioned how the City would define "landscaping," pointing out that requiring more grass, for instance, might not necessarily result in positive environmental outcomes. Members were supportive of native, drought-resistant landscaping as well as a healthy tree canopy, stressing the importance of conserving water for the future through drought-tolerant plantings. Members acknowledged that some strategies intended to enhance aesthetics through landscaping may have unintended consequences for other important goals related to sustainability and resiliency in the face of climate change. One member cautioned that front-yard landscaping requirements could preclude more modern or minimalist landscape design approaches intended to highlight architectural form, and felt that it was more important for landscaping to be used to soften visual impacts on neighbors to the side of a proposed development than for curb appeal. Another stated concerns that "foundation plantings" could lead to increased risk of fire damage, as deciduous plantings located near buildings could have the unintended consequence of spreading fire adjacent to the primary structure. Staff notes there could also be administrative and enforcement challenges with implementing some of these concepts. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 1: Scale and Character of Duplexes,Triplexes, and Quadplexes (last updated on October 26, 2021), Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 2: Scale and Character of Townhouses and Cottage Clusters (last updated on September 22, 2021), and the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 26, 2021). 3. RUNOFF AND STORMWATER IMPACTS OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING As densities increase with middle housing we anticipate removal of more landscaping and trees to make way for more driveways, patios, and other features, unless the City limits development of these features. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 9 of 14 The Committee was provided with direction to explore potential limitations on the development of impervious surfaces for middle housing and single-family homes. When considering the polling results as a whole, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring the following code concept: a. Limit the development of impervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of increased density. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select an option that would indicate full support of the concept to limit the development of impervious surfaces for both single-family and middle housing development, as well as another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns related to the impact of these requirements on development feasibility. Though just —44% of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no added caveats or qualifiers, staff has included this recommendation because an additional "44% of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the impervious surface limitations could make it less feasible to develop middle housing. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring impervious surface limitations, as only—11% of Committee members voted for the other polling option not to apply limitations on impervious surfaces. The Committee also received a comment from a member of the public that supported impervious surface limitations. Despite general support for the concept, Committee members were interested in the specifics of what would be considered a pervious or impervious surface under the code, with one member stating that the use of"pervious" pavers in driveways was not desirable. Another member expressed concern that impervious surface limitations could impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, as impervious surface limitations could disincentive the use of accessible pathways, ramps, or other features that would improve accessibility. Staff responded that it would be appropriate to conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the extent to which an impervious surface requirement could impact the ability to develop accessible middle housing units, in order to better "calibrate" the proposed requirement. Another member expressed concern that percentage-based impervious surface limitations could disproportionately impact development feasibility on smaller lots, but thought that the percentage-based requirements may be more appropriate on larger lots. Staff responded that this issue could be explored when conducting a feasibility study, and that it may be appropriate to "calibrate" required impervious surface requirements based on lot size. There was also some discussion of specific site conditions that may further necessitate impervious surface limits, such as steeply-sloped sites or sites containing soils that do not drain well. While some members felt that impervious surface limitations would be most appropriate for sites with these types of conditions, others felt that such limitations are needed on a City-wide basis. Members also discussed the utility of larger trees in absorbing stormwater on-site, with one member suggesting that retaining significant trees should be a component of the City's strategy related to impervious surfaces. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 10 of 14 Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to limit development of impervious surfaces to mitigate impacts of increased density. Subject to Council direction, conduct feasibility testing in order to calibrate/develop a more specific recommendation related to impervious surface limitations. As applicable, work with the Planning Commission to refine this concept into code language. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#3 Memo: Stormwater (last updated on October 26, 2021). 4. AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING City Council directed the Committee to recommend approaches to encourage middle housing developed under HB 2001 to meet the specific housing needs of the community. The two primary needs that have been identified are for units that are affordable to lower or moderate-income households (defined as families earning 80% or less of area median income) and for units that are accessible for people with disabilities, older individuals, or others who otherwise have needs that may not be met by current housing options. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Provide financial incentives for middle housing projects that include a minimum number or percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members expressed support for producing affordable housing consistent with City Council goals, with some members stating that the City should also attempt to promote housing for people of color or more diverse residents in order to redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. One member noted that similar forms of discrimination continue to this day, even though they are technically illegal. Other members responded by agreeing with the sentiment that past discrimination should be addressed, but urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Several members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies that would target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring further given that other strategies to promote diversity may not have the same legal risk. Though there was general support for providing financial incentives for accessible middle housing units, some Committee members stressed the importance of determining which specific accessibility standard would be incentivized. Other members noted that there are several different standards for accessibility that the City could incentivize, noting that there is no single accessibility standard utilized by builders given their desire for flexibility. See the discussion below for more discussion on the specific types of financial incentives recommended by the Committee. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 11 of 14 i. Revise the City's current SDC exemption policy so that it applies to middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Planning staff noted that the City's existing SDC exemption policy for ADUs has had a measurable impact on increasing their development, with the construction of ADUs doubling in volume after SDC exemptions began to be offered. While members supported the concept of SDC exemptions for affordable or accessible middle housing, they also agreed that there should be a limit to the number of units that could be exempted from SDCs or property taxes. For example, one member suggested that the first unit on a lot would be subject to full SDCs while fees for additional middle housing units might be exempt from or have reduced SDCs. Staff indicated that this approach could be similar to the existing fee waiver for ADUs, which because of their small size are assumed to have a de minimis impact on City infrastructure. Some members expressed concern about making up for any revenue lost through SDC or property exemptions, stating that City infrastructure could deteriorate without sufficient funding. Other members countered that municipalities are able to set budgetary priorities depending on policy direction and that budgetary allocation was not within the purview of the Committee. One member noted that, if the City had concerns about maintaining enough funds to offset potential SDC exemptions, SDC deferrals (require payment at time of occupancy instead of at issuance of building permit) could be another short-term option. Staff clarified that any proposal for financial incentives that would be presented to Council would need to include an assessment of the budgetary impact of the policy as well as alternative approaches, including potential offsets for any lost revenue through other budgetary sources. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for SDC exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. ii. Provide property tax exemptions for middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members asked clarifying questions about how property tax exemptions would apply to owner-occupied affordable or accessible units, with staff noting that deed restrictions related to owner-occupied housing are feasible but function differently than for rental housing. One Committee member expressed interest in potentially exploring a "community land trust" model within Lake Oswego in order to ensure the continued availability of homeownership opportunities related to affordable housing. It should be noted that the City currently does not offer property tax exemptions for affordable housing except as required by state law. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for property exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 12 of 14 b. Do not provide regulatory incentives for middle housing developments that include affordable and/or accessible units. Committee members voiced concern that adjacent neighbors would bear the burden of regulatory incentives that increase bulk, add density, or eliminate parking requirements, and that loosening these zoning requirements could diminish many of the characteristics that residents stated that they valued about their neighborhood during the Neighborhood Character Survey conducted earlier this year. Members also expressed concerns that regulatory incentives could produce less- desirable housing than would be produced otherwise, with members noting that low-income residents should be offered the same quality of housing that would be offered with market-rate housing. Next steps: Convey this recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission. Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus, a majority of members expressed support for the City to institute a Construction Excise Tax (CET) to help fund affordable housing incentives and programs. Some members expressed concern that CETs would increase the cost of construction in Lake Oswego, with one member stating that the burden of funding affordable housing should not be placed upon homebuilders. Other members countered by stating that a CET could actually encourage builders of affordable housing to work in Lake Oswego by showing that the City values equity and inclusion, and that this added value could make this type of housing more viable or desirable from a builder's perspective. Staff notes that there will likely be another opportunity to discuss the concept of CETs when the City proceeds to update its Housing Needs Analysis and develop a Housing Production Strategy (per House Bill 2003) in coming years. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#4 Memo: Affordability&Accessibility (last updated on October 7, 2021). ISSUES OUTSIDE OF ORIGINAL COMMITTEE SCOPE During the course of the Committee's discussion, some comments and ideas emerged that were not able to be addressed within the scope of the Committee's work. These additional issues are documented below: • Equitable Housing and Racial Justice: One or more Committee members stated that the City should go beyond incenting affordable or accessible units by looking at strategies that would specifically redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. While some members posed the idea that new housing units could be targeted to people of color or more diverse residents, other members urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Some members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies to target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 13 of 14 further given that other strategies to promote diversity within the city may not have the same legal risk. • Senate Bill 458: Shortly before the Committee's first meeting, Senate Bill 458 was adopted by the Oregon Legislature. The bill requires jurisdictions subject to the requirements of HB 2001 to allow lot divisions for any type of middle housing allowed pursuant to HB 2001 through an "expedited land division process." The bill also sets forth a series of parameters on how a city must process middle housing lot division applications. Committee members posed many questions about how Senate Bill 458 would impact their decisions, and whether allowing for such expedited land divisions would make it possible not to comply with other requirements under consideration. While staff responded that, generally speaking, they did not see any provisions in SB 458 that would conflict with the direction already provided by the Committee, it will be necessary to discuss the implications of the bill more thoroughly through the public process and seek direction from City Council regarding how to respond. • Stormwater requirements: While discussing potential recommendations related to impervious surface limitations, some members expressed concern that the City's existing Stormwater Code may not be sufficient to accommodate the potential increase in runoff that could result from new middle housing development. • Access and connectivity: One Committee member expressed a desire to explore design standards that would encourage pathways, driveways, and access lanes for middle housing that connect to one another, where practicable. • Land use restrictions for garages: One Committee member expressed an interest in restricting the use of garages to parking only, thus prohibiting the use of garages for storage or other purposes that could result in the need for more on-street parking. City legal staff examined this issue and expressed concerns about the difficulty of enforcing such a restriction, as well as concerns that this restriction could conflict with previously-enacted City policies related to garages. • Garbage and recycling bins: One Committee member suggested that the City explore strategies to require or incentivize the screening of garbage, recycling, and compost bins. • Moratorium on tree removal: One member of the public suggested that, in order to improve the on-site absorption of stormwater runoff, the City should institute a moratorium on the removal of any tree above 15 inches in diameter. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 14 of 14