Agenda Packet - 2024-04-02503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEG O, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
4:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber - 3rd Floor
380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Staff Contact: Kari Linder, CityRecorder@lakeoswego.city
Virtual Access
This meeting will be held in
person. To participate remotely,
please email the City Recorder by
noon the day of the meeting.
ADA Accommodation Requests
lakeoswego.city/accommodation
503-635-0282; Relay 711
Please allow four business days to
process your request.
Translation Services
Traducción o interpretación
翻译或传译
통역혹은번역
503-534-5738
This meeting will be livestreamed on the City's YouTube Channel and at lakeoswego.city. The meeting will also
be broadcasted live on Tualatin Valley Community TV; check tvctv.org for details.
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of
ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a
public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed; and (f)
Consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
The remainder of the public portion of the meeting will resume at 5:30 p.m.
5.PUBLIC COMMENT
The purpose of Public Comment is to allow community members to present information or raise an
issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public
hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed
thirty minutes in total, unless changed by the Mayor. If you are unable to attend the meeting and
prefer to provide public comment in writing, by phone or electronically, please email the City
Recorder by noon the day of the meeting.
6.CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion.
An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the Consent Agenda.
The City Council makes one motion covering all items included on the Consent Agenda.
Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda.
Page 2
503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
6.1 Regional Water Providers Consortium Revised Intergovernmental Agreement.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign the Amended and Restated
Intergovernmental Agreement of Regional Water Providers Consortium.
6.2 Adopting Findings and Conclusions for Ordinance 2938, An Ordinance of the Lake
Oswego City Council Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code)
for the Purpose of Clarifying and Updating Various Provisions (2023); and Adopting
Findings (LU 23-0036).
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2938 and adopt findings for LU 23-0036.
6.3 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
February 6, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
February 20, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve the meeting minutes as written.
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARING
8.1
Ordinance 2944, An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Lake Oswego two Parcels,
Consisting of 2.67 Acres at 13801 Goodall Road; Declaring City of Lake Oswego
Zoning of R-15, Resource Protection (RP) and Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) Pursuant
to LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); and Removing the Territory from Certain Districts
(AN 24-0007).
Public Hearing Process:
1. Review of hearing procedure by Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
2. Staff Report by Paul Espe, Associate Planner
3. Testimony – the following time limits shall be observed, but may be
changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized
neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government
agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes
per individual
4. Questions of Staff
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2944.
Page 3
503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
9. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
9.1 Housing Production Strategy (PP 22-0005).
10. STUDY SESSION
10.1 Annual Police Department Update.
11. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
12.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
13. ADJOURNMENT
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Regional Water Providers Consortium revised Intergovernmental Agreement
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 19, 2024
Staff Member: Bret Bienerth, Water Supply and
Treatment Manager
Department: Engineering & Water Treatment Plant
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐Motion ☐Approval☐Public Hearing ☐Denial☐Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☒Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments: ☐Council Direction
☒Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Amended and Restated
Intergovernmental Agreement of Regional Water Providers Consortium (2023).
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign the
Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement of Regional Water Providers
Consortium.
Project / Issue Relates To: Participation in regional water supply, conservation, and
emergency preparedness activities and committees.
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
☐Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s)☒Not Applicable
BACKGROUND
The Regional Water Providers Consortium (Consortium) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
was first developed and adopted by individual members in 1996 to endorse the Regional Water
Supply Plan and form the Consortium. The Consortium is governed by a Board that is made up
of one member from the governing body of each Full Member. The Consortium focuses on
regional water issues such as water supply, water conservation, and emergency preparedness.
6.1
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
With its region wide scale and focus, the Consortium provides the City of Lake Oswego access
to educational materials, training exercises, regional emergency planning and equipment
funding that the city would not be able to access on its own.
The IGA was last updated and adopted in 2005. Since then, the organization has grown and
evolved requiring a need to update the IGA. The Consortium and its members have conducted a
thorough review and update of the Consortium IGA language. At its meeting on October 4,
2023, the Consortium Board unanimously approved the IGA with a recommendation that
Consortium members’ individual board, council, or commission approve the amended and
restated Intergovernmental Agreement of the Regional Water Providers Consortium (2023).
Currently, each voting member of the Consortium is a signatory to the IGA. The updated IGA
will require all voting and non-voting member (Participant) approval,
DISCUSSION
Summary of Changes - Amended and Restated Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement
(2023):
• New and updated definitions added including types of members: “Associate Member”
and “Full Member” and defines “Region”
• Removal of outdated Metro references from when the Consortium was formed
• Update of purposes of Consortium to align with Mission Statement and Strategic Plan
• Update of participation language regarding “Associate Members”
• Update of withdrawal language to encourage timely notification
• Update to dues language (primarily for Associate Members)
• Added obligation and Board authority to maintain a Strategic Plan to guide its work and
removed obligation to update Regional Water Supply Plan
• Added language regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Executive Committee
• Updated language to reflect current best practices for agreements
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Lake Oswego Water Fund has been a paying member of the RWPC since 1997. The
current FY 23-25 biennium budget anticipated such fees, and has adequate funds available for
this annual membership due. Budgeted annual membership dues of approximately $25k will
continue.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to sign the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
of Regional Water Providers Consortium (2023).
ATTACHMENT
1. Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement of Regional Water Providers
Consortium (2023)
G\ONA` wq
p
c Y r
O Q-
AMENDED AND RESTATED FRS CONS'
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OF
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
2023)
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recitals 1
Section 1. Definitions 2
Section 2. Purposes 3
Section 3. Strategic Plan 3
Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers 3
Section 5. Consortium Authority 4
Section 6. Participants 5
Section 7. Dues 6
Section 8.Work Plan and Budgeting 7
Section 9.Consortium Board 8
Section 10. Executive Committee 8
Section 11. Consortium Technical Committee 9
Section 12. Dispute Resolution 9
Section 13. Duration and Dissolution 10
Section 14. Legal Liability 10
Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum 10
Section 16. Public Notification 10
Section 17. Agreement Amendment 10
Section 18. Indemnification 11
Section 19. Severability 11
Section 20. No Third-party Beneficiaries 11
Section 21. Merger Clause 11
Section 22. Counterparts 11
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
This Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement of the Regional Water Providers
Consortium (2023) is entered into by and among the undersigned municipalities and districts,
hereinafter called "Participants," to participate in the Regional Water Providers Consortium for the
Portland Metropolitan Region ("the Consortium").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 1989 water providers of the Portland metropolitan area began meeting in an
informal group called the "Regional Providers Advisory Group" to coordinate water supply
planning efforts; and
WHEREAS, in 1996 a Regional Water Supply Plan was completed; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Supply Plan, which contains specific recommendations for
cooperation and coordination between the water providers in this region through the formation of
the Regional Water Providers Consortium, was adopted by signatory water providers in their Inter-
Governmental Agreement of Regional Water Providers Consortium; and
WHEREAS, as the regional land use agency under state law and regional charter, the Metropolitan
Service District ("Metro") adopted the Regional Water Supply Plan as part of the Metro Regional
Framework Plan; and
WHEREAS, in 1997 the Consortium was formed when 15 Participants entered into an
intergovernmental agreement to endorse the Regional Water Supply Plan and coordinate and
cooperate in its implementation, and amended that intergovernmental agreement in 2004-05
2004-05 IGA); and
WHEREAS, the Participants desire to amend and restate the 2004-05 IGA to make certain updates
to the Participants and their obligations, and to streamline certain procedures, while continuing to
endorse the Regional Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 authorizes units of local government to enter into written
agreements with any other unit or units of local government for the performance of any or all
functions and activities that any of them has authority to provide; and
WHEREAS, all the Participants of this Agreement are thus authorized to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement;
NOW,THEREFORE, the Participants agree as follows:
1
Section 1. Definitions
For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
Agreement" —Shall mean this document and any authorized amendments thereto.
Associate Member" —Shall mean a Participant that does not have an appointed representative to
the Board and that pays reduced dues as determined by the Board.
Board" —Shall mean the Board of Directors established by Section 9 of this Agreement, consisting
of one member from the governing body of each Full Member Participant.
Bylaws" —Shall mean the regulations of the Consortium adopted by the Board pursuant to
Section 9.B. of this Agreement.
Consortium" —Shall collectively mean all Participants to this Agreement acting pursuant to and
under the terms of the Agreement.
Consortium Funds" —Shall mean Consortium funds consisting of all dues, voluntary contributions,
grant monies, and funding from any other source provided to the Consortium to conduct the
activities and business of the Consortium.
Executive Committee" —Shall mean the committee established by Section 10 of this Agreement.
Full Member" —Shall mean a Participant that has an appointed representative to the Board and
Technical Committee and that pays full dues as outlined in Section 7.
Participant" —Shall mean any signatory to the Agreement.
Plan" —Shall mean the 1996 "Regional Water Supply Plan" for the Portland Metropolitan Area,
and all subsequent amendments thereto.
Region" —Shall mean the area within which Participants provide services to Retail Customer
Accounts.
Retail Customer Accounts" —Shall mean all retail accounts that are billed by a Participant
including residential single family, residential multifamily, commercial, industrial, and wholesale
accounts).
Technical Committee"—Shall mean the committee established by Section 11 of this Agreement.
Total average daily water use"—Shall mean all billed water usage for Retail Customer Accounts.
2
Section 2. Purposes
The general purposes of the Consortium are as follows:
A. To provide leadership in the planning, management, stewardship, and resiliency of drinking
water in the Region;
B. To foster coordination in the Region by sharing knowledge, technical expertise, and
resources between Participants;
C. To serve as the central custodian for Consortium documents, data, and studies;
D. To review and recommend revisions to the Plan, as appropriate;
E. To provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest
to Participants;
F. To promote fiscal responsibility by pooling resources to achieve economies of scale;
G. To allow for public participation in Consortium activities;
H. To promote stewardship, emergency preparedness, and water conservation in the Region
through outreach and education;
I. To strengthen emergency preparedness and resiliency among water providers in the
Region;
J. To ensure safe and reliable drinking water is accessible to all.
Section 3. Strategic Plan
A. The Consortium will maintain a strategic plan to guide its work, establish priorities, and set
goals for the strategic planning timeline.
B. The strategic plan will be updated at an interval set by the Board.
Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers
The Participants intend that the Consortium shall act through the processes laid out herein in the
spirit of cooperation. Unless specifically provided for herein, by entering into this Agreement, no
Participant has assigned or granted to any other or to the Consortium its water rights or the power
to plan, construct, and operate its water system or perform any other obligation or duty assigned
to it under law.
3
Section 5. Consortium Authority
In accomplishing its purposes, and utilizing the organizational structure and decision-making
processes contained herein, the Consortium is authorized to:
A. Adopt or revise Bylaws and other operating procedures consistent with the terms of this
Agreement to govern Consortium operation and administration, including such things as
meeting arrangements, voting procedures, election of officers of Consortium boards and
committees, notice procedures, procedures for execution of binding legal documents,
budgeting, and financial operations.
B. Adopt or revise, and implement an annual work plan and budget and issue annual reports and
such supplementary reports as the Consortium may determine appropriate;
C. Update and adopt its strategic plan as set forth in Section 3.
D. Collect regular dues from Participants to support the routine business of the Consortium in
amounts established as established in Section 7;
E. Accept voluntary contributions from Participants in amounts higher than the regular dues for
the purpose of conducting studies or engaging in other activities consistent with Consortium
purposes;
F. Apply for and receive grants and accept other funds from any person or entity to carry on
Consortium activities;
G. Expend Consortium funds, however obtained, and establish accounts and accounting processes
to manage Consortium funds, which may include utilizing the accounts and processes of
Participants for such purposes under appropriate agreements;
H. Execute public procurement contracts and enter into arrangements whereby Participants may
enter into a public procurement contract on behalf of the Consortium;
I. Execute intergovernmental agreements;
J. Establish procedures or recommendations for the hiring, dismissal, and review of Managing
Director, and to delegate such activities to a Participant;
K. Accept assignment of staff from individual Participants to conduct Consortium work and to
reimburse the Participants for the salary and other costs associated with the assigned staff;
L. Establish procedures and criteria whereby other governmental entities may become a
Participant in this Agreement;
4
M. Establish a process to coordinate Participant response to water policy issues of mutual interest
or concern;
N. Establish procedures to solicit the views of the public on water supply and water resource
issues within the purview of the Consortium;
O. Establish a process whereby water policy and water supply disputes or disagreements among
Participants may be resolved;
P. Protect Consortium rights and enforce obligations owed to the Consortium by third parties to
the extent permitted by law;
Q. Take other action within the powers specifically granted to the Consortium herein by the
Participants to exercise the authority granted in this Section 5 and to carry out the purposes
stated in Section 2.
Section 6. Participants
A. Participant Memberships: A Participant may join as a Full Members or Associate Member in
accordance with the definitions set forth in Section 1 and as further provided in the Bylaws.
B. Any Participant which, having once joined, withdraws or is expelled from the Consortium
for non-payment of dues, may only re-join as provided in Section 7.F.
C. Additional Participants: The Board may accept additional governmental entities as
Participants into the Consortium under terms and financial arrangements that the Board
determines just and appropriate. The Board may establish standards for membership in the
Bylaws or may allow Participants to join on a case-by-case basis. Provided, however, that in
all cases, no new Participant may join the Consortium without the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Board.
D. Withdrawal: Any Participant may withdraw from the Consortium at any time by giving
written notice to the Chair of the Consortium Board. Consortium dues already paid shall
not be refunded to the withdrawing Participant. Unless otherwise approved by the Board, a
withdrawing Participant shall have no ownership or interest in a Consortium asset after the
date of withdrawal. Any Participant intending to withdraw from the Consortium shall make
its best efforts to advise the Board Chair of that fact prior to February 1 and the approval of
the Consortium budget for next fiscal year. Participants acknowledge that failure to notify
the Consortium in accordance with these procedures may cause financial harm to the
Consortium.
5
Section 7. Dues
A. Each Participant shall pay annual dues no later than September 1 of each year sufficient to
fund the approved annual budget of the Consortium, as established by the Board,
provided, however, that the Board may establish a different payment amount and/or
schedule for a Participant upon request from that Participant or upon the Board's own
motion.
B. The dues of each Participant shall be determined annually as follows:
1. Total annual dues for all Participants shall be set to equal the annual budget for the
Consortium, not counting budget items to be funded by fewer than all the
Participants as provided in Section 8.C.
2.Any grants or non-dues monies obtained by the Consortium may be applied
towards the annual budget, thereby reducing the annual dues assessments
commensurately.
3. The Board shall establish the dues obligation of Associate Members at the time it
approves an entity's membership and which amount is subject to any changes set
forth in the Bylaws.
4. The total annual dues of an Associate Member shall be subtracted from the total
annual dues-based budget, described in subsection 7.B.1. leaving a budget number
to be funded by Full Member dues. Dues shall be set so that the dues of each Full
Member reflect its proportional share of that sum based on the following formula:
a) 50% of the dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the Participant's
proportional share of the total number of all Participants' Retail Customer
Accounts for the prior year;
b) 50% of the dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the Participant's
proportional share of total average daily retail water use (in million gallons
per day) in the prior year of all Participants.
C. Minimum dues may be set by the Board to cover costs of adding a new Participant as
outlined in the Bylaws.
D. In-kind contributions may be made in lieu of dues if approved by the Board. In-kind
contributions must be tracked and quantified.
E. A Participant that fails to pay its assigned dues by September 1, or a time otherwise
established by the Board pursuant to Section 7.A., may be removed by the Board as a
Participant after two reminders are sent.
6
F. Upon a majority vote of the Board, a removed Participant (or a Participant that has
previously withdrawn from membership) may be reinstated in the Consortium upon its
agreement to pay its full dues for the year during which it wishes to rejoin (calculated as if
the entity had been a Participant at the time the budget was approved). Upon receipt of
such dues by a rejoining Participant, the Board shall add the dues payment to the existing
budget for expenditure or carry over to the following year's budget.
G. If a new Participant joins the Consortium during an annual dues cycle, its dues and those of
the existing Participants shall be calculated as follows:
1.If a new Participant is a Full Member, its dues requirement will be calculated
pursuant to Section 7.B.4.
2.If a new Participant is an Associate Member, its dues will be determined as provided
in Section 7.B.3.
3. The initial year dues for a new Participant joining partway through a fiscal year will
be pro-rated to reflect partial year membership if more than halfway through the
fiscal year.
4.New Participants joining at any time after September 1 shall pay their initial year's
dues within 90 days of signing this Agreement.
Section 8. Work Plan and Budgeting
A. Each year, at the first Board meeting of the calendar year, the Board shall adopt an annual
work plan of Consortium activities for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1.
B. At the same time, the Board shall adopt a budget sufficient to conduct the Consortium's
annual work plan. The budget shall also include a calculation of the dues owed by each
Participant to fund the budget as provided in Section 7 and a table apportioning the dues
to each Participant.
C. The budget may include special projects that will be funded by fewer than all of the
Participants on a voluntary basis as outlined in Section 5.E.
D. The Board may amend the budget and the work plan at any time as it deems appropriate
except that dues may only be increased annually as provided for in Section 7. Additional
expenditures may be permitted so long as there are identified sources of revenue, other
than increased dues, for such expenditures.
E.Participants shall provide to Consortium staff the data necessary to calculate the annual
dues for budgeting and planning in a timely manner.
7
Section 9. Consortium Board
A. The Board shall be made up of one member from the governing body of each Full Member.
Each Participant shall also name an alternate Board representative from its governing body
to serve in case the primary representative cannot. Provided, however, that if the Board
Chair does not attend a meeting, the Vice Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than
the Chair's alternate.
B. Annually, the Board shall elect a Board Chair and a Vice Chair and appoint the Executive
Committee members in accordance with the provisions in the Consortium Bylaws.
C. The Board is authorized to: (1) approve the Consortium's annual work plan and budget; (2)
approve the Consortium's strategic plan; (3) set Consortium policy; (4) approve new
Participants; (5) initiate updates to the Plan as needed; (6) approve minor amendments to
the Plan; (7) recommend to Participants' governing bodies major amendments to the Plan;
8) recommend to Participants' governing bodies amendments to this Agreement; (9)
adopt and update the Bylaws; (10) exercise any other powers and authority granted to the
Consortium by this Agreement necessary to accomplish the Consortium's purposes.
D. The Board shall have the authority to designate which amendments to the Plan are major
and which are minor for purposes of determining the process for amendment
consideration. Generally, major amendment to the Plan should include revisions to the
Plan's policy objectives, resource strategies, or implementation actions which significantly
alter Plan direction or would significantly change the implementation strategies. Minor
amendments are all other changes to the Plan.
E. The Board may assign such duties or delegate such Board authority as the Board deems
advisable to any Participant, Board committee, the Executive Committee, or to the
Technical Committee, except that the Board may not delegate the authority (1) to execute
intergovernmental agreements, (2) to designate Plan amendments as minor or major, (3)
to recommend major Plan Amendments or amendments to this Agreement, (4) to approve
the annual work plan and the budget, (5) to approve minor Plan amendments, (6) to
approve the admission of Participants to the Consortium, or (7) to dissolve the Consortium.
F. To be effective, Board actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board at a
meeting at which a simple majority of the Board is present.
Section 10. Executive Committee
A. The Consortium shall have an Executive Committee, which shall be appointed by the Board
and consist of seven Board members, one of which shall be the Board Chair. The Board
shall endeavor to appoint Executive Committee members in a manner that achieves
geographic representation and representation from municipalities, special districts, and
other types of entities that form the Consortium.
8
B. The Board Chair shall be the Chair of the Executive Committee.
C. The Executive Committee shall serve to assist the Board in more timely and meaningful
policy action as outlined in the Bylaws.
D. The Executive Committee shall at no time act on behalf of the Board unless specifically
authorized by the Board to do so as provided in Section 9.E.
E. Except for the Board Chair, the term for each Executive Committee member shall be two
years, and individuals may serve consecutive terms if re-appointed.
F. To be effective, Executive Committee actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of
the Executive Committee at a meeting at which a simple majority of the Executive
Committee is present.
Section 11. Technical Committee
A. The Consortium shall have a Technical Committee, which shall be made up of one staff
representative appointed by each Full Member. Each Full Member shall also appoint an
alternate Technical Committee representative to serve when the primary representative
cannot. Provided, however, that if the Technical Committee Chair does not attend a
meeting, the Vice Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than the Chair's alternate.
B. On an annual basis, the Technical Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair.
C. The Technical Committee shall advise and provide assistance to the Board on any matters
falling within the Consortium's purview under this Agreement, and may act upon Board
delegation of authority as provided in Section 9.E.
D. The Technical Committee under the provisions of any agreement or contract to provide
staff shall advise Consortium staff and assume the responsibility to draft proposed work
plans, budgets, annual and other reports, plan amendments, and implementation
proposals for submission to the Board or Executive Committee as appropriate.
E. To be effective, Technical Committee actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of
the Technical Committee at a meeting at which a simple majority of the Technical
Committee is present.
Section 12. Dispute Resolution
It is the intention of the Participants to limit the issues available for dispute resolution. The issues
raised must be related to interpretation of the express terms of this Agreement. No issues related
to water supply development or program development by individual Participants may be raised.
9
Any such dispute shall, if possible, be resolved through the use of a mandatory, but non-binding
dispute resolution mechanism established by the Board through the Bylaws.
Section 13. Duration and Dissolution
This Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (1) any Participant may withdraw
at any time as provided in Section 6.D. of this Agreement; (2) should all but one Participant
withdraw, the Agreement shall end and the Consortium shall be dissolved; (3) the Agreement may
be ended and the Consortium dissolved by a vote of the Board; (4) remaining funds shall be
distributed in accordance with the Bylaws.
Section 14. Legal Liability
Participants agree to share any costs or damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, from third
party actions against the Consortium. The obligation shall apply to any entity that was a Participant
in the Consortium at the time the liability arose or the cause of action accrued. Payment
obligations shall be proportional to the dues of each entity. Participants agree to assist and
cooperate in the defense of such an action. Settlement of any action that would impose an
obligation to pay upon the Participants under this provision must be approved by a majority of the
Board. The obligations of a Participant under this Section 13 shall survive that Participant's
withdrawal from the Consortium, termination of this Agreement, or dissolution of the Consortium.
Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum
A. This Agreement shall be construed according to the law of the State of Oregon.
B. Any litigation between the Participants under this Agreement or arising out of work
performed under this Agreement shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Multnomah
County Court having jurisdiction thereof, and if in the federal courts, in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon.
Section 16. Public Notification
The Board, the Executive Committee, and the Technical Committee shall be deemed public bodies
for purposes of Oregon's public meeting laws as provided by ORS Chapter 192. Other committees
or sub-committees are subject to ORS Chapter 192 only as applicable.
Section 17. Agreement Amendment
Amendments to this Agreement shall be recommended by the Board and shall be effective when
authorized by the governing body of every Participant.
10
Section 18. Indemnification
Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, and
Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, each Participant shall indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the Consortium and other Participants from and against all liability, loss, and
costs arising out of or resulting from the negligent or intentionally wrongful acts of the
indemnifying Participant, their governing bodies, officers, employees, and agents in the
performance of this Agreement.
Section 19. Severability
If any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be
affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the
Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid.
Section 20. No Third-party Beneficiaries
The Participants are the only parties to this Agreement and as such are the only parties entitled to
enforce its terms. Nothing contained in this Agreement gives or shall be construed to give or
provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties unless third persons are
expressly described as intended to be beneficiaries of its terms.
Section 21. Merger Clause
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Participants. No waiver, consent,
modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind a Participant unless in writing and
signed by the affected Participants. Such waiver, consent modification or change, if made, shall
be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no
understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding
this Agreement.
Section 22. Counterparts
This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and
which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same Agreement.
The Participants agree that any Participant may execute this Agreement, including any Agreement
amendments, by electronic means, including the use of electronic signatures.
11
AMENDED AND RESTATED REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the signatory hereby causes this agreement to be executed.
Signatory page can be changed to fit specific adoption process)
SIGNATORY PARTY
Jurisdiction or Entity Name
By:
Title:
Print Name:
Contact Person:
Dated:
Address:
Send signed agreement to Patty Burk patty.burk@portlandoregon.gov or mail to:
Portland Water Bureau
Attn: Patty Burk
1120 SW 5th Ave. Suite 405
Portland, OR 97204
12
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Findings for Ordinance 2938, Community Development Code Annual Amendments
2023 (LU 23-0036)
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 22, 2024
Staff Member: Ellen Davis, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐Motion ☒Approval☐Public Hearing ☐Denial
☒Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☐Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments:
The Council held a public hearing on March 19, 2024
and tentatively approved the proposed amendments. ☐Council Direction
☒Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Enact Ordinance 2938.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2938 and adopt findings for
LU 23-0036.
Project / Issue Relates To: Adoption of findings and enaction of Ordinance 2938 (LU 23-
0036), amending the Community Development Code (CDC) (LOC Chapter 50).
☒Council Goals/Priorities ☒Comprehensive Plan ☐Not Applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 19, 2024, the City Council conducted a public hearing and tentatively approved LU
23-0036 (Ordinance 2938), a proposal to adopt annual Community Development Code
amendments (2023).
The attached ordinance and findings reflect the Council’s direction to approve the legislative
amendments the Community Development Code (CDC) for the purpose of clarifying and
updating various provisions.
6.2
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
RECOMMENDATION
Enact Ordinance 2938 and adopt findings for LU 23-0036.
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2938
Attachment 1: City Council Findings
Attachment 2: Community Development Code Text Amendments for City
Council Adoption, 04/02/2024
Ordinance 2938 PAGE 1 OF 2
ORDINANCE 2938
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING
VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2023); AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 23-0036).
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on February 12, 2024, at
which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 23-0036 be approved by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 23-0036 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego on March 19, 2024, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received
and considered; and
WHEREAS, these amendments to the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development
Code) are intended to remove ambiguous and conflicting language, correct the text, and add
clarifying text that is consistent with past interpretations;
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 23-0036), attached
as Attachment 1.
Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) is hereby
amended by deleting the text shown by strikethrough type and adding new text shown in
underlined type, in Attachment 2. (Sections or subsections within LOC Chapter 50 that are
omitted in Attachment 2, and not marked for deletion or addition, are neither amended nor
deleted by this Ordinance.)
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
///
ATTACHMENT A1.1
Ordinance 2938 PAGE 2 OF 2
Section 4. Effective Date. As provided in Section 35C of Chapter VII of the Lake Oswego Charter,
this ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth day following enactment.
Enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 2nd day of
April, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
______________________________________
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
Dated: ________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kari Linder, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 1 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 23-0036)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2023), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS.
LU 23-0036 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on the recommendation of the
Planning Commission for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC)
for the purpose of clarifying and updating various provisions. The proposed amendments are
to:
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) Remove references to parking allowances for
cottage clusters of more than 16 cottages.
LOC 50.04.002.5
Table 50.04.002-1
Remove C Avenue from the special street setback
table.
LOC 50.04.003.6.c Clarify the methodology for determining the front
property line for flag lots created prior to adoption
of code regulating flag lots or outside of City limits.
LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4);
LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii;
LOC 50.05.001.4;
LOC 50.05.003.5;
LOC 50.05.012.6
Clarify that the 75% impervious surface limit for
cottage clusters supersedes certain zone and overlay
district standards that also regulate impervious
surfaces.
LOC 50.05.012.6 Update text limiting certain surfaces within the
Uplands Overlay district to include hardscape
surfaces and roof areas rather than “impervious”
surfaces.
LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) Clarify that invasive tree removal is permitted within
sensitive lands and that mitigation is required for
such removal.
LOC 50.06.002.2.e Clarify that interior side yard setback planes are
measured from the property line, not the setback
line.
LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i
Table 50.06.003-1
Clarify that townhouse minimum street frontage is
15 feet, consistent with the 15-foot lot width
required for townhouses, and replace the term
“rowhouse” with “townhouse” for consistency.
ATTACHMENT 1
LU 23-0036
(Ordinance 2938)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 2 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 23-0036)
LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) Update the retaining wall height exception to
include middle housing and access lanes.
LOC 50.06.007.1.b Exempt lots created through Middle Housing Land
Divisions (MHLD) from the solar access standard.
LOC 50.07.003.7.g.i Update practices for notice of appeal hearings to
allow staff to email commenters who submitted
electronic comments and did not provide a mailing
address.
LOC 50.07.003.7.k(ii) Update the deadline for submittal of written
testimony for closed record appeals to City Council.
LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii Clarify that screening fences for flag lots must be
sight-obscuring, and exempt property lines within
flood management areas and along Oswego Lake or
Canal from the fence installation requirement.
LOC 50.07.007.2.f.v Prohibit the installation of new invasive species
plantings to meet flag lot landscaping requirements.
LOC 50.10.003.2 Clarify that construction or placement of an
accessory structure is considered a minor alteration
for Historic Preservation purposes.
LOC 50.10.003.2 Clarify that Duplexes, Triplexes, and Quadplexes
must share common wall(s) or floor(s).
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii(3) Establish cottage orientation for cottage cluster sites
that abut an unimproved or unopened street right-
of-way.
LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v Allow a third (or more) garage opening to be offset
two feet from the previous garage plane rather than
requiring the two feet to be stepped back
specifically.
LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) Exempt open fences around playgrounds and
athletic facilities such as tennis and basketball
courts, baseball backstops, etc. from the evergreen
hedge screening requirement.
LOC 50.08.002.2.e Allow minor variance applications to all fence
standards.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its
meeting on February 12, 2024. The Commission adopted its Findings, Conclusion and Order
recommending approval of LU 23-0036 on February 26, 2024.
The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Commission’s recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 3 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 23-0036)
on March 19, 2024.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Planning - Policies A-1, A-2, C-1, C-3 and D-1
Inspiring Spaces and Places - Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 3 and 8; Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e)
Complete Neighborhoods & Housing - Policies A-4, B-1 and C-7
Economic Vitality - Policy B-1 (b, c, and d)
Community Health and Public Safety - Sound Quality - Policy 1
B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code
LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.07.003.16.b Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The City Council incorporates the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 1,
2024 (Exhibit D-1), with all exhibits, and the Findings and Conclusions in the Commission’s
February 26, 2024 Findings, Conclusions and Order, for LU 23-0036, as support for the Council’s
decision.
Following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of the Commission:
1. Addition to Definition of Minor Alteration (Historic Preservation). The Council
amended the proposed code text in LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions to include an
additional sentence in the definition of “minor alteration (historic preservation)” to
mirror the definition of “major alteration (historic preservation)” by stating that an
alteration that is not a Minor Alteration is a Major Alteration.
ALTERATION, MAJOR (HISTORIC PRESERVATION)
An exterior alteration that is not a minor alteration.
ALTERATION, MINOR (HISTORIC PRESERVATION)
An alteration (historic preservation) that does not:
a. Change the height of the building;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 4 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 23-0036)
b. Make a substantial change to an elevation visible from the public right-of-
way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake;
c. Increase the floor area more than 20% provided the building addition is
not visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake;
and
d. Reduce the square footage of the original structure other than removing
previous additions or treatments that did not contribute to the historical or
architectural significance of the landmark as stated in the findings of fact for the
landmark designation.
An Alteration that is not a Minor Alteration is a Major Alteration.
The Council finds that this adds to the clarity of Alteration (historic preservation)
classifications for the reader and does not alter the meaning of the definitions.
2. Cottage Cluster Common Courtyard. Public testimony raised the topic of ownership
of common courtyards in cottage clusters. This is outside the scope of the notice of
the 2023 code amendments as presented and will be explored at a later time.
CONCLUSION
The Council concludes that LU 23-0036 / Ord. 2938, as recommended by the Planning
Commission, complies with all applicable criteria and should be approved.
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 1 of 9
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii Cottage Orientation
iii.Cottage Orientation
(3)Cottages within 20 ft. of a property line abutting a public street must have a primary
entrance into the living area of the cottage facing the street, unless:
(a) The street is an unimproved or unopened right-of-way; or
(b) The cottage is required otherwise by to face the courtyard to comply with subsection
1.d.iii(2) of this section.
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1)
(1)Clustered Parking. Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subject to the following
standards:
(a)Cottage cluster developments with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of
not more than five abutting spaces.
(b)Cottage cluster developments with 16 cottages or more are permitted parking clusters of not
more than eight abutting spaces.
(cb) Parking clusters must be separated from other parking spaces by at least four ft. of
landscaping.
(dc)Clustered parking areas may be covered.
LOC Table 50.04.002-1 Special Street Setbacks Table
TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS
Affected
Streets From To Special Setback
Bangy Rd. South of Alyssa
Terrace
30 ft.
Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Stafford Rd. 30 ft.
Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Skylands Rd. 25 ft.
Boones
Ferry Rd.
Mercantile Dr. Madrona St. 50 ft., unless reduced by the City
Engineer, finding that the purpose is
met by a lesser amount.
Boones
Ferry Rd.
Madrona St. West Sunset Dr. 50 ft.
Bonita Rd. 30 ft.
Bryant Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Lake View Blvd. 40 ft.
Bryant Rd. Lake View Blvd. Childs Rd. 30 ft.
ATTACHMENT 2
LU 23-0036
(Ordinance 2938)
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 2 of 9
TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS
Affected
Streets From To Special Setback
Burma Rd. 25 ft.
"C" Ave. State St. alley Country Club
Rd.
30 ft.
Carman
Drive
South and west
of Kruse Way
40 ft.
LOC 50.04.003.6.c Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements
C. Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Prior to September 6, 1998Other Than Under
Flag Lot Section [LOC 50.07.007.2], and Lots Accessing by Easement
The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to
the street providing access to a flag lot created prior to September 6, 1998 or any other lot that
would qualify as a Flag Lot but for the date of creation. If this standard is not practical due to
placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography or similar reasons, then the front yard will be
that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion
of the flag or easement.
///
LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4) - R-6 Zone Dimensional Standards
f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces – Additional Standards
///
ii. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces
///
(4) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage and standards.
impervious surface limitations. See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1) for maximum impervious
surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters.
///
LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii – R-DD Zone Dimensional Standards
f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces – Additional Standards
///
iii. R-DD Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 3 of 9
///
LOC 50.05.001.4 – Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District
4. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS
No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios,
paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not
be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements,
only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. (See Figure 50.05.001-B:
Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for illustrations of natural-appearing
constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed nonplant and plant elements.)
Exception: Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations. See
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1) for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage
clusters.
///
LOC 50.05.003.5 – Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District
5. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS
No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios,
paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not
be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements,
only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. See Figure 50.05.001-B:
Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for examples.
Exception: Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations. See
LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1) for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage
clusters.
///
LOC 50.05.012.6 – Uplands R-10 Overlay District
6: LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE SURFACES AND STRUCTURES (INCLUDING ROOF AREAS)
a. No more than 50% of the lot may be covered with impervious hardscape surfaces and structures.
Exception: Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or hardscape limitations. See LOC
50.03.003.1.d.ii(1) for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters.
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 4 of 9
b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest edge of the building footprint shall not be
covered by more than 30% of impervious hardscape surfaces and structures.
///
Figure 50.05.012-C: Limitation on Hardscape Surfaces and Structures
LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) Tree Removal
(b) Tree Removal
Tree removal within an RP district shall be subject to the following criteria:
///
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 5 of 9
(vi) Invasive tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(6), except that
mitigation shall be required as described in LOC 55.02.084,
///
Note to Codifier: Upon codification, remove the following cross reference:
[Cross-Reference: Invasive Trees may be removed from RP Districts under the exemption in
LOC 50.05.010.2.c.vi ("other development that does not remove any native vegetation ..." is
exempt from the Sensitive Lands section).]
LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks
v. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks
In any instance where a garage or a set of adjacent garages is designed to park three or more
vehicles, only the garage openings for the first two vehicles may occupy the same building plane.
Each additional building plane with a garage opening shall be offset back by a minimum of two ft.
from the previous garage building plane.
Exceptions:
(1) The lot is a steeply sloped lot;
(2) The width of a parcel is less than 50 ft.; or
(3) The garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 ft. from the public right-of-way.
LOC 50.06.002.2.e Side Yard Setback Plane – Interior Yards
e. Side Yard Setback Plane – Interior Yards
Except as set forth in subsection 2.e.ii of this section, the side profile of a structure shall fit
behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes
toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the
peak as illustrated in Figure 50.06.001-G: Side Yard Setback Plane, below. The finished grade
at the foundation shall be used as the grade elevation at the setback property line for
purposes of measuring the setback plane.
LOC 50.06.003.1.c Standards for Approval
c. Standards for Approval
i. Every residentially zoned lot shall abut a street for the following minimum length:
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 6 of 9
TABLE 50.06.003-1: MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE
Residentially Zoned Lot Minimum Street Frontage
Rowhouse Townhouse 17 ft. 15 ft.
Flag Lot LOC 50.07.007.2.c
All Other 25 ft.
///
LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2)
b. Location and Height
///
x. Exceptions from Height Limitations
///
(2) An open (80% open) fence which is not located in the front yard (forward of the
primary structure to the front lot line) and which encloses part or all of a tennis court,
swimming pool, playing field, park, commercial recreational facility, public or semi-public
utility structure, or courtyards or play areas for day care and educational institutions. The
evergreen hedge screening requirement in LOC 50.06.004.2.b.iv does not apply to these
fences; or
///
LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) Exceptions from Height Limitations
///
(4) Retaining walls used to directly support a driveway, access lane, or car parking area for a single-
family residence or middle housing; or
///
LOC 50.06.007.1.b.9. IMPROVEMENTS AND SECURITY
b. Applicability
The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.c shall apply to subdivision applications (except
Middle Housing Land Divisions (ORS 92.031)), that create lots intended for single-family detached
or middle housing dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the reviewing authority finds that the
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 7 of 9
applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in LOC 50.04.004.1, Exemptions from Solar
Design Standard, and LOC 50.04.004.2, Adjustments to Solar Design Standard, exist and exemptions
or adjustments provided for therein are warranted.
LOC 50.07.003.7.g Notice of the Appeal Hearing
g. Notice of the Appeal Hearing
i. Written notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council shall be sent by regular electronic mail
to the email address provided, or if no email address is provided then by regular mail, no later than 14
days prior to the date of the hearing to the appellant, the applicant if different from the appellant, and
all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body, or, for a minor development
decision of the City Engineer, submitted written testimony to the City Engineer.
///
LOC 50.07.003.7.k Presenting Testimony
k. Presenting Testimony
///
ii. Written testimony may be submitted prior to or at the public hearing. Written testimony may be
submitted prior to the public hearing and must be received by the City Recorder by 512:00 p.m. on
the two business days of prior to the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the public
hearing. Written testimony submitted at the hearing must be filed with the recording secretary and
placed before the City Council. Written comments that are merely referred to in testimony but
which are not placed before the hearing body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the
record of the proceedings. Written comments that attempt to present new evidence or raise new
issues not presented or raised before the hearing body shall be rejected.
LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation
f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation
///
iii. The perimeter of the flag lot(s) shall be screened from abutting lots outside of the development site
with a six-ft.-tall solid, sight-obscuring fence, except:
(1) Where a four-ft. fence is required by LOC 50.06.004.2.b.i, Fences, or where such
screening would conflict with standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, Flood
Management Areas, or where the property line abuts Oswego Lake or Oswego Canal; or
///
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 8 of 9
LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation
f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation
////
v. Plant materials listed as nuisance or invasive in LOC 50.11.004, Appendix D, and the Invasive Tree
Species List on file at the Planning Department are prohibited in landscaping required by this section.
///
LOC 50.08.002.2 Minor Variance Classifications
2. Minor Variance Classifications
////
e. A variance to standards in LOC 50.06.004.2 for a maximum fence, wall, retaining wall, or a
combination thereof, height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2.
///
LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions – Alteration (Historic Preservation); Alteration,
Minor (Historic Preservation)
Alteration (Historic Preservation)
Alteration: An addition to, or removal of a portion of, or reconfiguration of a landmark that changes an
elevation of a landmark or contributing resources (not applicable to National Register properties; see
"Demolition."). Construction or placement of an accessory structure on a property that contains a
historic landmark, except on sites over one acre in size or placement of an accessory structure more
than 300 feet from the landmark structure or resource, is an “alteration” of the Landmark.
Alteration, Minor (Historic Preservation)
An alteration (historic preservation) that does not:
a. Change the height of the building;
b. Make a substantial change to an elevation visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space,
or Oswego Lake;
c. Increase the floor area more than 20% provided the building addition or accessory structure is not
visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake; and
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION – APRIL 2, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically)
LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 9 of 9
d. Reduce the square footage of the original structure other than removing previous additions or
treatments that did not contribute to the historical or architectural significance of the landmark as
stated in the findings of fact for the landmark designation.
An Alteration that is not a Minor Alteration is a Major Alteration.
Duplex
Two attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling
with an adjacent dwelling unit. The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at
least 25% of the length of the side of each dwelling unit or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at
least 25% of the floor area of each dwelling unit.
Quadplex
Four attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling
with an adjacent dwelling unit. The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at
least 25% of the length of the side of each dwelling unit or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at
least 25% of the floor area of each dwelling unit.
Triplex
Three attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling
with an adjacent dwelling unit. The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at
least 25% of the length of the side of each dwelling unit or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at
least 25% of the floor area of each dwelling unit.
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 22, 2024
Staff Member: Kari Linder, City Recorder
Department: City Manager’s Office
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
☒Motion ☐Approval☐Public Hearing ☐Denial☐Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☒Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments: ☐Council Direction
☒Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
Project / Issue Relates To: NA
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
☐Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s)☒Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1.February 6, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
2.February 20, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
6.3
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8
February 6, 2024
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 6, 2024
1.CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 6, 2024. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person
in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue.
2.ROLL CALL
Present:Mayor Buck, Councilors Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan, Afghan, and
Wendland. Councilor Rapf was excused.
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder,
City Recorder; Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy
City Attorney
_____________________________________________________________________
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
•Howard Cumberland, Provided concerns to the Council regarding the recent ice storm
and suggested that an actionable management plan was necessary to deal with the
trees because storm damage would occur again in the future. He understood the
complexities of the issues and volunteered to help at Council meetings and conduct
reviews.
5.PROCLAMATION
5.1 Black History Month.
Mayor Buck stated that February was Black History Month and he was honored to join
residents of Lake Oswego in celebrating the 2024 theme, “Black Americans and the Arts.” This
year’s theme invited everyone to explore and appreciate the profound impact that Black
individuals had on the artistic landscape of the nation. He encouraged the community to take a
moment and recognize the creativity, resiliency and cultural contributions of Black Americans in
shaping the arts and influencing shared heritage.
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8
February 6, 2024
He announced a celebration at the library on February 28 at 5:30 p.m. for the rescheduled MLK
Day celebration. The event would feature artwork created by Lake Oswego youth, Katharine
Phelps as emcee, poetry reading, musical performances and more. He also encouraged the
community to visit the City’s website for an extensive list of events honoring Black History Month
as well as the City’s proclamation.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
December 19, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
January 2, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve the meeting minutes as written.
END CONSENT
Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Mboup seconded
the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,
Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Corrigan voting ‘aye’, (6-0).
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
8. CONSENT AGENDA – Councilors Only
8.1 Resolution 24-06, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving the Appointments of Alternates to the Transportation Advisory Board
and the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advisory Board.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-06.
Councilor Corrigan moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Councilors Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan,
Afghan, and Wendland voting ‘aye’, and Mayor Buck abstained (5-0-1).
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9.1 AP 23-03, An Appeal of the Development Review Commission’s Decision to
Approve the Type II Tree removal application 499-23-001116-TREE at 2800 Wembley
Park Road.
City Attorney Osoinach read the quasi-judicial hearing procedures for this appeal and confirmed
that none of the Councilors had any ex-parte contacts, bias, or financial conflicts of interest related
to this application. She also confirmed there were no challenges to the City Council’s right to
consider this appeal.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8
February 6, 2024
Associate Planner Cissell presented the Staff report on the appeal of the Development Review
Commission’s (DRC) approval of tree removal at 2800 Wembley Park Road, currently under
review for a single-family dwelling. Her presentation included a review of the approval criteria,
findings of fact, and Staff’s recommendation to approve the tree removal with the conditions listed
in the Staff report.
Mayor Buck opened the public hearing and called for the Applicant’s presentation.
Kelly McCall representing Renaissance Homes, stated she had been working closely with Staff
and the Applicant’s arborist to ensure that all proper protocols had been met for this application.
A total of 12 trees would be removed, 10 for the new development and two for landscaping
improvements. The Applicant has agreed to plant all twelve of the mitigation trees that were
required. She displayed a map on the screen and noted that the trees marked in red were the
trees to be removed. The application was originally submitted to the City on September 1, 2023,
and proposed the removal of 14 trees. On September 20, 2023, the City requested additional
information after the City’s arborist had assessed the trees for removal criteria. She noted that
the two trees marked with orange on the map were requested to be retained and withdrawn from
the application. One of the trees, a 15-inch lodge pole pine located in the right-of-way, was found
by the Applicant’s arborist to be in poor condition. However, the City’s arborist found the tree to
be in fair health and suggested the tree be retained. The other tree, a 34-inch Douglas fir, was in
good condition and was a prominent tree in the skyline. The reason for removal was based on
the likely construction impacts to the roots from the new home’s foundation and retaining wall.
The City asked if it was possible to tighten the grading, reduce the length of the retaining wall,
and change the foundation in order to preserve the tree. Renaissance Homes performed
exploratory trenching around the root ball to see if the City’s request would be possible. The
arborist found several structural roots located in positions that would allow the roots to remain
intact. Therefore, the Applicant reduced the length of the retaining wall and reengineered to
accommodate structural bridging over the roots. Both trees were removed from the application
and would be retained. Staff did a great job of explaining how the criteria had been met, which
were as follows:
• The trees would be removed for new development and landscaping, and the criteria had been
met for both new development and landscaping purposes.
• There would be no negative erosion, surface water, or windbreak impacts. The site would be
redeveloped with a special focus on stormwater management and erosion control. Based on
the evidence presented, removal of the 12 trees with mitigation measures would not have a
significant impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, or the protection of adjacent
trees. Staff agreed and found the criteria had been met.
• There would be no negative impacts to the neighborhood’s character or aesthetics. Only nine
of the 12 trees met all three criteria to potentially be considered a significant tree. The trees
are healthy, over 15 inches, and non-invasive. Staff found that based on all of the evidence
submitted none of nine eligible trees qualified as a significant tree based on their significance
to the neighborhood, uniqueness of species, or distinctive characteristics.
• There would be no significant negative impacts on the removal of greater than 50 percent of
a stand of trees. The City found that the proposed removal did not come close to the 50
percent threshold. Only 0.04 percent of the stand of the trees would be affected.
• There would be no significant negative impacts on the neighborhood aesthetics or skyline.
Some of the trees are visible from the street, but there are prominent and abundant foliage
behind the property that fills in the skyline. The neighborhood skyline as a whole would not be
significantly affected. The City’s arborist stated that the proposed removals would not alter the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
February 6, 2024
distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline as viewed from public streets and
properties within 300 feet of the site.
The Applicants have submitted a mitigation plan to the City. Twelve mitigation trees will be planted
on site to replace the 12 trees removed. Two of the trees to be removed have been severely
pruned for powerline clearance and now have top-heavy canopies. Pruning for clearance would
be an ongoing maintenance issue. The proposal is to plant native Dogwood trees, which have a
lower canopy height. The design of the proposed home is original and was created specifically
for this lot with the trees in mind. The lot is zoned R-10 and has standard setbacks and zoning
codes. The lot is also located in the Uplands R-10 Overlay, which includes additional criteria
requiring front yard setback averaging for a minimum of setback of 40 feet, a maximum of
permitted height of 30 feet regardless of slope, a 30 percent limit on impervious surface area, and
6/12 side yard setback planes. The irregular shape of the lot makes these criteria difficult to
achieve. The plans were developed specifically for this lot, the natural topography, accessibility,
and tree preservation. The front yard setback prevents the use of the area where the existing
footprint is located, where the trees have acclimated to the existing foundation. This would have
been the optimal footprint for tree preservation; however, the Code does not allow for this. The
height of the proposed structure is 29-feet 4-inches, so the elevation could not be raised much,
as there are no exceptions to the maximum height. The north corner of the site was selected for
the stormwater infiltration chambers because it is the lowest elevation on the site and impacts the
least number of trees. The pervious paver system for the driveway may not exceed a six percent
slope, which also locks in the house’s finished floor elevation relative to the street. The stormwater
engineer confirmed this location was the most optimal in terms of function and tree preservation.
Since the house cannot be raised and the backyard slopes upward, the back and side yard must
be regraded and retained to avoid erosion or soil stability issues. The retaining wall, excavation,
and regrading would negatively impact three of the trees, necessitating their removal. To meet
the limit on impervious surface area, the Applicants would use pervious pavers for most of the
driveway and walkways. The side yard setback planes must be compliant on all sides and due to
the lot’s irregular shape and required setback, shifting the footprint of the house would not comply
with the Code and four trees must be removed. The existing driveway approach offered very
limited visibility from both directions, which was dangerous. The new driveway would provide safe
access to the site with increased visibility and better orientation to the main road. The Applicant
should have the right to build within the allowable building envelope on the property as permitted
within the zone. The plans have been approved by Planning Staff and all associated Departments.
There is no other dwelling configuration that would allow the property owner to fully develop the
property as permitted in the zone and protect trees from removal. The trees would decline or die
due to construction impacts. Opposing Staff and denying the application would compromise
property rights and set a negative precedent for new development and redevelopment projects.
She asked the Council to deny the appeal.
Mayor Buck called for the Appellant’s presentation.
Erin Williams disclosed that she was an attorney. However, she represented herself and her
opinions were not representative of her employer or any client. She stated that she was looking
forward to having a new neighbor, but her five-year old cried upon learning that trees would be
cut down, prompting her to take action. The property already has a home and the proposal was
to keep 12 of the existing 34 trees. She asked the Council to consider that the tree Code puts the
burden on the Applicant, not on the City or the Appellant, to show that the criteria has been met.
Several criteria have not been met for specific trees. She also asked the Council to consider the
process because the City had taken on a lot of the burden, paying for City-contracted arborists.
The alternative would be to put that burden on the Applicant and once the Applicant made an
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
February 6, 2024
initial showing that the criteria had been met, the City’s arborist could confirm. She cited concerns
with Staff’s findings as follows:
• The finding that the removal would not have significant negative impacts – The burden was
on the Applicant to determine that the tree removal would not have significant negative
impacts on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. It was not her burden to show the
Council the tree removal would change the skyline. She displayed a photograph on the screen
showing the property and the trees marked for removal, noting that removing the trees would
change the skyline as viewed from the public streets within 100 feet of the property, which
was the vantage point the City was required by Code to consider. Removal of the trees would
drastically change the skyline from multiple vantage points in the neighborhood.
• The purpose of the tree Code was to preserve the wooded character of the city and protect
trees as a natural resource. The Applicant had not met the burden of showing the tree
removal would not have a negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the
neighborhood specifically because it would alter the distinctive features and continuity of
the skyline.
• The finding that there were no reasonable alternatives – The Applicant had the burden of
demonstrating that alternatives were considered for the removal of street trees and that there
was no reasonable alternatives available. The 24-inch Douglas fir being removed for a new
driveway was a street tree and it was not her obligation or the City’s to show there was a
reasonable alternative to removing this tree. The Applicant had said flipping the driveway was
considered, but that doing so would not protect more trees; adjusting the position of the house
was not feasible given other constraints; and that the width of the driveway and garage were
standard. There was no discussion by the Applicant about whether a narrower driveway would
be reasonable or feasible or if that was ever considered. No evidence was presented to
support the claim that the proposed width of the driveway was standard. Written testimony
included statements that narrow driveways were common in the neighborhood. She asked
the Council to consider that a standard width driveway did not correspond to market
acceptance. The Applicant had failed to meet the burden to consider a narrower driveway as
a reasonable alternative or to demonstrate that a narrower driveway would not be acceptable
to the market.
The Applicant had also asserted that ORS197.307 regarding a lack of clear objectives applied.
The Council had received legal advice about the scope of ORS197.307. She was talking about
trees in the driveway and landscaping, not trees that would prevent the home from being built.
She suggested further consultation with the City Attorney to determine whether ORS197.307 was
applicable to this case. She hoped that the recent media about the damaging effects of trees
would be kept out of this decision because the trees proposed for removal were healthy trees, not
trees that had been deemed hazardous.
Councilor Mboup asked Ms. Williams to point out the evidence in the record that showed the
proposal did not meet the City’s Code. Ms. Williams stated the Applicant did not show that
removal of the trees would not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics.
The evidence included many photographs showing the removal of trees would change the
continuity of the skyline and the distinctive features of the neighborhood. Written testimony stated
the trees on the property were a distinctive feature because there were so few evergreen trees in
the area. Granting the permit would conflict with the City Code because the Applicant did not meet
their burden of proof and the record includes evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the Applicant
did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative was available, so granting the permit would
be inconsistent with the City Code. Councilor Mboup responded that he had spoken to several
people who could not tell what species the trees were. As a lawyer, Ms. Williams understood that
the Council was obligated to follow the Code and the Code sided with the Applicant. He was
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
February 6, 2024
hoping Ms. Williams would respond to the comments made by the Applicant’s lawyer, who
demonstrated there were no problems. Ms. Williams did not provide any evidence that was
contrary to the Applicant’s defense. Ms. Williams confirmed that Councilor Mboup was
specifically referencing Criterion 3 regarding significant negative impact. She displayed two
photographs and explained how the skyline would change when the trees were removed.
Councilor Wendland noted that this appeal only addressed the removal of 11 trees and asked
what would happen with the rest of the trees that were marked for removal. Ms. Williams
understood some trees were being removed under the Type I permitting process, so were not
part of this appeal. Other trees were being removed without a permit because permits were not
required for trees that were invasive or were below a certain size. Only 12 trees would not be
removed. Associate Planner Cissell clarified that permits were required for invasive trees, but
the permitting process was different.
Mayor Buck confirmed there was no public testimony and called for the Applicant’s rebuttal.
Jamie Howsley attorney with Jordan Ramis for Renaissance, said he believed the DRC’s
recommendation to City Council, their seven to zero approval, and the thorough findings and
testimony provided a valid reason to support Staff’s decision to allow removal of the trees as
proposed. The Appellant questioned the process by which the City conducts an arborist study.
The burden of proof is on the Applicant, who must have their own arborist at the site. However,
the City’s arborist has the final word on whether the information provided by the Applicant’s
arborist is correct. The Appellant kept making statements that were not focused on the criteria
and subjectively related to how the trees fit in the skyline. There was no evidence in the findings
of the neighborhood skyline introduced by the Appellant. The Applicant had photographic
evidence showing the vast majority of trees on the site would remain, leaving the skyline’s
prominence. No evidence in the record suggests otherwise. One of the trees mentioned by the
Appellant fell during a storm and was no longer part of the application. The Applicant also
considered alternatives for the driveway, including moving the house, which would create more
impact on the trees. The driveway needed to be located in the proposed area due to the
topography of the property to ensure safety and adequate drainage. The project includes a
reduction of the driveway width by 7-feet 5-inches from the maximum allowed by Code. The
Douglas fir sits in the middle of the location proposed for the driveway. Moving the driveway
elsewhere on the site would impact more trees and would not allow for adequate stormwater
management. None of the evidence suggested the Applicant had not met their burden under the
criteria. He requested the Council deny the appeal, support Option 1, and move forward with the
findings as recommended in the Staff report.
City Attorney Osoinach reminded the Council that the new evidence regarding the reason for
the appeal could not be considered.
Mayor Buck closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Osoinach confirmed that the findings on Page 3 erroneously stated all 11 trees
were native, but the trees were a mix of native and non-native species.
Councilor Afghan asked if the three street trees were unhealthy. He understood the trees had
been trimmed to protect the power lines. Associate Planner Cissell responded that the trees
had a poor structure, which required pruning. The trees were also in poor condition.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
February 6, 2024
Councilor Afghan asked how the Council was to decide if removing the trees would have
negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. Associate Planner Cissell explained
the Council needed to rely on what the neighborhood looked like and consider the skyline from a
variety of perspectives. When foliage surrounds a property, the impact is reduced because the
skyline from afar would remain intact for the most part. People who live in the neighborhood look
at the trees more often and from a closer perspective. Looking at the trees from a distance showed
the skyline better. The Applicant would retain a group of trees in the front, which prevented a
significant impact on the skyline.
Councilor Mboup said the Code required 12 new trees to be planted to replace the 12 trees that
were removed. He asked if the Council could require more than 12 new trees to mitigate the
impacts. Mayor Buck agreed that there were no good reasonable alternatives for the driveway,
but he believed there would be a significant adverse impact on the skyline, which required
additional mitigation. The five trees in front would have the largest impact. The arborist determined
that 12 trees could fit on the site, which was more than what the Applicant had proposed. He
suggested a tree fund in lieu of replanting the five trees in the front.
Councilor Afghan believed removing the trees would impact the neighborhood. Many trees were
being cut. However, the design and layout were changed to accommodate the trees and the
Applicant considered the Code requirements. The Code required the removed trees to be
replaced and that the replacement trees be of certain species. He believed the tree Code should
be changed. He also agreed that the five trees in the front changed the character of the
neighborhood, so more mitigation was reasonable.
Associate Planner Cissell stated that one of the five trees was in poor condition and did not
meet the first three elements of significance.
Deputy City Attorney Boone advised the Council to find out if the trees were considered
significant due to one of the conditions listed in the criteria. If a tree was found to be significant
and the skyline would be impacted by its removal, the tree must be replaced with another tree.
The only possible enhanced mitigation would be through a condition of approval, which must be
based on a finding that the trees had an extraordinary impact on the neighborhood. This would
be above what was considered normal removal under the criteria. The Code states that if there is
no reasonable alternative to removing a significant tree, Criterion 3 did not have to be met.
However, a mitigation tree would still be required.
Councilor Wendland moved to amend the findings (page 3 line 9, sub-section a) to 11
mitigation trees, nine of which shall be native. Mayor Buck seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,
Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, and Corrigan voting ‘aye’, (6-0).
Councilor Wendland moved with City Attorney recommendation, to adopt findings, to
affirm the Commission’s decision to approve the tree removal application 499-23-001116-
TREE, with conditions of approval, and adopt findings, conclusions, and order
(Attachment 1). Mayor Buck seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors
Verdick, Mboup, Corrigan, Afghan, and Wendland voting ‘aye’, (6-0)
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
February 6, 2024
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Buck reported that the short legislative session had begun and he attended with
members of the Metro Mayors Consortioum advocating for Measure 110 and housing. He also
reported that the Youth Leadership Council and the Happy Valley Youth Leadership Council co-
hosted the Oregon Youth Summit at Willamette University. After the summit, the council
members went to Senate President Wagner’s office to hand deliver the letter signed by the City
Council, school board and Youth Council regarding a flavored tobacco ban.
Councilor Afghan reported that as a living tribute from Linda Hartling, a grove of 100 trees will
be planted in the Willamette National Forest in memory of Mayor Buck, city workers,
electricians, emergency services, kind citizens who helped each other during the storm, and all
friends of trees.
11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
City Manager Bennett reported that she would send a letter to the superintendent with a copy
of the City Council’s goal related to creating a west side community center. She understood the
Facilities Planning Committee would discuss the future of Lake Grove Elementary at their next
two meetings and she wanted to make sure the Committee was aware of the goal and invite the
Committee to discuss a joint project with the City at an open meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}.
____________________________
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8
February 20, 2024
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 20, 2024
6.CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 20, 2024. The meeting was held both via video conferencing and in-person in the
Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Corrigan (via video conferencing),
Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick (via video conferencing)
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder,
City Recorder; Shawn Cross, Finance Director; Jessica Numanoglu,
Community Development Director.
Others Present: Abby Beissenger, Consultant with Dudek (via video conferencing);
Morgan Holen, Contract Arborist with Morgan Holen & Associates
_____________________________________________________________________
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comment was provided.
8.CONSENT AGENDA
8.1 WO 337, Group 2 Pathways Project.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a Professional Services Contract
with Harper Houf Peterson Righellis, Inc. (HHPR) in the amount of $896,884 for
Engineering Services for the Group 2 Pathways Project (WO 337).
8.2 Resolution 24-03, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Between the Lake Oswego
Preservation Society and the City for the Lease of 40 Wilbur Street, Lake Oswego,
Oregon.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-03.
8.3 2024 City Council Goals and Initiatives.
Motion: Move to adopt the City Council 2024 Goals and Initiatives.
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8
February 20, 2024
END CONSENT
Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Afghan seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup,
Rapf, Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick voting ‘aye,’ (7-0).
9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
10. PUBLIC HEARING
10.1 Resolution 24-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Adjusting the Budget for the Biennium Commencing July 1, 2023, by Adopting a
Supplemental Budget, Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making
Appropriations.
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, reviewed the hearing procedures and asked if any Councilor
had a financial conflict of interest declare. None were heard.
Shawn Cross, Finance Director, presented the Council Report and noted the requested
adjustment was a normal budget supplement that was often necessary at the beginning of a
budget cycle. The adjustment would roll over authorization for capital projects that were not
completed in the last budget cycle and move funds from Contingency to the Systems
Development Charge (SDC) fund to increase funding for the Jean Road project necessitated by
a change in scope. In addition, the request would authorize movement of funds from Contingency
to the Water Fund to purchase and install commercial meters as part of the Automated Meter
Infrastructure (AMI) project. The AMI project had moved faster than anticipated, and the City had
moved from residential meters to commercial meters. The authorization would enable the Water
fund to purchase and install the commercial meters.
Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no public testimony, and closed
the public hearing.
Councilor Afghan moved to adopt Resolution 24-07. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup,
Rapf, Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, and Verdick voting ‘aye,’ (7-0).
Council took a recess from 4:02 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
11. STUDY SESSION
11.1 Urban and Community Forest Plan Update.
Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director, introduced the consultants, Abby
Beissenger and Morgan Holen who worked on the draft plan with City Staff, noting the plan was
an early draft and did not include an executive summary or a complete introduction. Some
information presented was out of date but included as placeholder information. The Council’s
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8
February 20, 2024
packet included an attachment with public comments received in January and a summary table
of the comments.
Abby Beissenger, Consultant, Dudek, presented the draft Urban and Community Forestry Plan
(UCFP) via PowerPoint, reviewing what the plan could help the City accomplish, the steps to
developing the plan, the draft vision statement, key findings, strategic plan, as well as Tree Code
recommendations. An overview of the public review process was provided along with a summary
of comments from the public as well as boards and commissions.
Council feedback on key discussion points noted in the meeting materials was as follows with
responses to Councilor questions as noted:
• Does the vision statement of the UCFP reflect the ideal vision for the state of Lake Oswego’s
Urban Forest?
Ms. Beissenger noted the definition of urban forest was included in Chapter 3 of the draft plan.
A community forest was intended to represent all the trees within the urban ecosystem, not only
the trees, but the ecosystem itself. All the trees within Lake Oswego would be comprised of the
community forest. Mayor Buck confirmed the terms, “urban forest” and “community forest” were
synonymous.
Councilors suggested including the word “managed” in the vision statement as “protected” could
be a one-sided term. The City valued trees and wanted to protect trees, but a forest had to be
managed as an entity. Sustainable forest ecosystems require management. The forest was what
mattered, not individual trees. Invasive species and non-native plants had to be controlled as part
of forest management and should be a part of the vision statement.
Councilors believed the word “urban” should be part of the vision statement. The City tried to
create harmony between the elements that made up the urban forest and the elements necessary
for the welfare of the society that inhabited the area, such as housing, transportation, and other
critical infrastructure. The guiding principles included some of that thought, but it should be part
of the vision statement. Leaving the urban element out of the vision failed to recognize what it
was. Throughout the plan the term “urban forest” was used, but the vision statement used the
term “community forest”, which was the only time the term was used outside of the title of the
plan.
• Are there additional key findings in the UCFP that should be highlighted?
Councilor Rapf noted the third point on the key findings slide should be amplified. The City should
focus on combatting misinformation and sharing information more regularly and comprehensively.
Councilors agreed key findings should include recognition of the previous plan, which had been
thoughtful and well implemented. The draft report showed that Lake Oswego’s tree canopy had
increased from the turn of the century because of the good work done by the Council’s
predecessors, the City team, and the community at large; the tree canopy had increased despite
redevelopment.
Councilor Mboup believed the key findings should ask the community to act, and activism should
be practical and involve more than protesting tree removal. Residents should join in work parties
to remove invasive species and help to manage the forest.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
February 20, 2024
Director Numanoglu clarified the City’s tree maintenance responsibilities, noting that the City did
receive calls from homeowners asking the City to remove a tree in the right-of-way in front of their
houses, but the City did not have the resources to take care of every single tree in the right-of-
way. It was not clear to residents whose responsibility it was to care for and maintain those trees.
The Public Works Department did a good job of helping people out in some situations, particularly
in situations where the tree was a hazard to the public right-of-way, but the City did need to be
clearer on what those responsibilities were. In addition, when the City planted street trees it would
maintain them for a few years, but eventually the tree would be the responsibility of the abutting
property owner, which was not clear.
Councilor Afghan believed the second key finding, “Lake Oswego has a dense canopy and
should prioritize canopy management and maintenance” was an outcome. He would prefer to
have a finding that referenced climate change and what the City would like in the future versus
protecting what it has now. Mayor Buck noted regrowth was referenced in the strategic plan
portion of the draft. Councilor Afghan replied that the verbiage of the finding may cause trouble
in the future with voters who may argue the City did not fulfill its promise to protect the City’s
canopy.
Councilor Wendland believed the priority should be forest management rather than canopy
management. All the key findings were tree related, and there was more to a forest than trees.
One key finding in the draft report data was that Lake Oswego had an invasive species problem,
and those species were killing the trees everyone was trying to save. If that was not highlighted
as a key finding, then the City was not doing its job but looking myopically at one part of the forest.
Councilor Rapf agreed with Councilors Wendland and Afghan, adding that the strategic plan
should pull up to 30,000 feet and take a more holistic approach that included wildlife, water, and
invasive species. The word “protect” put the City on an awkward path long term. He preferred
focusing on “management” because it encompassed protection in certain circumstances and
conservation in others. “Conservation,” was another word that gave the City flexibility.
Morgan Holen, Contract Arborist, Morgan Holen & Associates, clarified that the State of the
Forest Report did include a chapter on major findings about threats, which included invasive
species, wildfire, drought stress, development. The key findings in the draft plan before the
Council had more to do with what Dudek learned from public outreach and research. Ms.
Beissenger added that the key findings in the draft report built upon the great work done in the
State of the Urban Forest. The draft took that information and moved forward with the key findings
learned through the analysis where the City could address or adjust its resources to move forward
with a strategic plan. The plan did a pest readiness assessment to identify how prepared the City
was, and there were actions regarding climate change as well. The key findings were the bold
summary statements; each finding had a paragraph explanation. What the Councilors were
reading now was a snippet of what was encompassed within each of the findings.
Councilor Wendland stated that if the focus of the issue was not included, people would not
have trust in the report. The feedback from special interest groups was reflected throughout the
report, but those interests were not necessarily a scientific method of gathering information. The
Council represented all of Lake Oswego and had to look holistically at what people wanted the
City to do to manage the urban forest, which included fire prevention and falling trees. The key
findings addressed trees, but not the issues Councilors were discussing.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
February 20, 2024
City Manager Bennett suggested the Councilors consider the intentions of those who
participated in public comment.
Mayor Buck commented that everyone had equal opportunity to participate in putting the plan
together. The Council should focus on what was in the plan and good feedback on its contents. It
should not assign motives to the people who participated in putting the plan together.
Councilors agreed the report included information about threats to the urban forest, but it did seem
obtuse to not include threats as a key finding given that the changing climate and conditions and
organic threats to the forest were a large part of how the City should approach management.
Some of the findings could be tweaked to do a better job of highlighting what was in the report
and the public’s concerns around climate change, disease, pests, and so forth, as well as the role
that the community and individuals within the community could play to take better responsibility.
Councilors discussed whether the key findings adequately reflected other important goals for the
City, such as housing. The community at large wanted to find ways to accommodate growth and
change in a manner that was consistent with good urban forest management and stewardship
principles. The community was passionate about housing and the urban forest, so communication
and education were needed to bring everyone onboard to find symmetry between the goals to
move the city forward in a cohesive way.
Mayor Buck noted needed housing was in state statute, so “needed housing” with marks
diminished the term. An asterisk could be used to define the term per state statute and definition.
Within the details of the third finding was language about needing to make the Tree Code clear
and objective, but that should be its own finding for organizational purposes. The third finding
seemed like a big finding with a lot of disconnected parts.
• Do the guiding principles of the strategic plan reflect the Lake Oswego’s community’s values
and priorities for the Urban Forest? Are there specific values and priorities that could be better
represented?
Councilor Rapf believed property rights should be added to the fifth guiding principle so that it
read, “balances trees, housing needs, infrastructure, and property rights.” Councilor Mboup did
not believe the phrase needed to be added because property rights were protected by the
Constitution. People could buy property in Lake Oswego and if they wished to cut a tree down,
there was a process they had to follow. Strategies in the plan outlined what the City would do to
reflect those who wanted to protect trees as well as the needs of property owners and developers,
and what was necessary to increase housing. Councilor Rapf believed property owners had to
be included in the fifth guiding principle, so residents understood the City had considered the
issue from all angles. Mayor Buck said he understood Councilor Rapf’s point, adding it was an
issue of balance.
Councilor Corrigan suggested the fourth guiding principle be changed to say, “a resilient urban
forest that combats climate change and is well prepared.” The change would acknowledge the
2024 Council Goal to combat climate change and strengthen the community’s resilience to climate
impacts. The statement should also make some kind of acknowledgement that trees absorb
carbon from the atmosphere which helped to reduce greenhouse gases, a commitment the City
had made and was required by the State. Ms. Beissenger noted the definition of number four
included reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, and resilience to storms,
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
February 20, 2024
draught, heat, pests. Carbon was not specifically mentioned in the definition but could be added
to the guiding principle.
Councilor Wendland suggested Guiding Principle 5 should be inclusive of everyone in the city.
The phrase “housing needs” did not address the need to balance trees and infrastructure.
Businesses and other entities, such as the school district and the City, should be reflected.
Further, he was not sure what “enhanced quality of life for community members” meant. Ms.
Beissenger replied the phrase specifically referred to the benefits and services provided by the
urban forest, such as the urban heat island effect and stormwater reduction. The actions within
that specific guiding principle discussed the need for community education, increasing internship
programs, community outreach, and things along those lines.
Councilors noted many specific action items were noted below guiding principles, but the
principles should be more specific to make it clear what the City was trying to accomplish without
setting off any triggers to make people feel their lives were being too encroached upon.
The Council discussed the need for an action that identified items with budget impacts. Some
items in the strategic plan came within the current scope of operations, but other additions should
include a budget for the planning purposes. In addition, the final document should define
timeframes, such as short-term versus medium-term.
The plan should include ways to incorporate the community to create lifelong stewards of the
forest, perhaps through a partnership with the School District. The plan identified areas of town
lacking in canopy and where the Tree Fund could be used for mitigation, especially around stream
corridors.
Items 1(d) and 1(a) both involved the budget and could be one item.
• Are the recommended amendments to the Tree Code in alignment with community values
and priorities for the Urban Forest?
Councilor Wendland commented that the Tree Code did not seem user-friendly, even with the
changes suggested in the draft. Director Numanoglu replied the draft was not intended to be a
full audit of the Code but a high-level look at the recommendations. A discussion about necessary
changes to ensure clear and objective standards would take place later this year once the Urban
and Community Forestry Plan was complete.
Ms. Beissenger clarified that the proposed minimum canopy retention included in the draft was
based on comparisons to other jurisdictions that had recently imposed minimum standards to
maintain existing canopies. Mayor Buck noted the draft minimum canopy retention proposal did
not include residential, but stated, “commercial, multifamily, and industrial.” Ms. Beissenger said
those were the requirements for new development in commercial, industrial, and multifamily
zones in Renton’s and Vancouver’s Code. Director Numanoglu added the standard would be
difficult to administer on residential properties.
Councilors suggested items 1 and 5 in the proposed Tree Code changes, both of which addressed
mitigation being combined and discussed strategies to mitigate tree removal that would offer
residents options. Only 9 percent of residents now paid into the Tree Fund in lieu of planting a
new tree. If that option was offered to more people, the City could create a larger fund and
maximize its efforts towards its overall goals. Mitigation alternatives could strike a balance to offer
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
February 20, 2024
people alternatives, and the Code could offer alternatives in terms of heights and setbacks, so
people pursue common sense preservation of onsite trees. The fee-in-lieu of mitigation should be
financially on par with planting a tree and more transparency around tree cutting permits would
be useful. Councilors were pleased a mitigation monitoring plan was included in the draft.
Director Numanoglu noted that if mitigation was associated with a building permit or
development, Staff verified all mitigation trees were planted. If mitigation was part of a
commercial, multifamily, or a minor development, there was a one-year guarantee, but there was
no program to follow up on tree plantings to assess survival rates.
City Manager Bennett commented that the City Council did not need to decide on the outcome
of any suggested Code changes this evening but provide Staff with feedback on whether the right
topics were included in the draft. When the Council looked more closely at minimum canopy
retention or considered increased tree removal mitigation requirements, it would have the
opportunity to lay a policy filter on top of the draft code. The Council had to weigh policy objectives
against practicality and affordability, and there would be tradeoffs.
Mayor Buck asked if increasing permit types that require mitigation was one of the intended
actions. Director Numanoglu replied the City could require mitigation for all permit types, but
Staff did not know whether it would be practical and there were tradeoffs. Ms. Holen added that
Action Item 2(o) required mitigation trees to be planted for all tree removal permit types with viable
planting areas on site or allow payment into the Tree Fund if Staff determined there was
insufficient space to replant. Action Item 1(g) was a short-term action to establish guidelines for
utilizing the Tree Fund for tree planting, care, and a program to support tree giveaways to private
property owners, such as the Westlake Homeowners Association.
Councilor Wendland said the draft needed to detail logistics of implementation. He understood
the changes to the Tree Code were part of the Forestry Plan, but it took the focus away from the
forest.
Mayor Buck added that the point of this plan was management of the urban forest. The
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan focused on climate change. While the plans worked
together, the Forestry Plan focused on the health of the urban forest.
Director Numanoglu said the Council’s feedback would be reflected in the next draft presented
to the Council in May. The Council’s comments were like those offered by other groups, though
the discussion by Council was more in depth.
12. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Rapf stated that the Audit Committee had met earlier in the day to discuss the 2023-
2024 audit of City Finances. The City came through with glowing results from Marino and
Company thanks to Brad Stephens and Shawn Cross and their financial stewardship.
Councilor Verdick provided an update on Long Range Facilities Planning Committee for the
School District. She was honored to sit on the Committee, learn about the improvements that had
been made to some of the schools, as well as what improvements were still needed and/or
planned. She had been on a tour of Forest Hills Elementary and planned to tour Lake Grove. She
had also toured River Grove, which would be a fantastic new elementary school set to be
completed for the next school year. The Committee discussed what should be done with the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
February 20, 2024
property vacated by the bus barn at Lake Grove, which could potentially include the use of urban
renewal funds for a community center/library. The School District first needed to determine what
was in its best interest and how it wished to move forward and she was looking forward to further
discussions.
Mayor Buck stated that he has been following the short list legislative session closely and the
city has been engaged on Measure 110 and the housing discussions. There is still a special sub-
committee meeting on transportation and will be providing communications in the future at the
conclusion of the joint sub-committee sessions in anticipation of 2025. City Manager Bennett also
added that the Police Chief testified in support of Representative Nguyen’s bill to form a committee
for e-bikes, scooters, etc. and the regulations around electronic mobility.
Mayor Buck went on to say that the Metro Mayors have been engaged in the housing discussion
and met with a wide array of legislators on Measure 110 and housing. Those are topics that
continue to be discussed and worked through, but not necessarily in public meetings.
13. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
City Manager Bennett noted that there is also a proposed temporary fix for recreation immunity
in the legislature defining activities that are clearly recreational. In conclusion, she noted that
Megan Phelan will be City Manager Pro Tem in her absence next week, beginning on Monday.
14. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}.
____________________________
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Ordinance 2944, Annexing properties at 13801 Goodall Road (AN 23-0007)
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 13, 2024
Staff Member: Paul Espe, Associate Planner
Department: Planning and Building Services
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐Motion ☐Approval
☒Public Hearing ☐Denial
☒Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☒Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments: This annexation is being processed as a
public hearing (not expedited decision) under Metro
Code 3.09.050(A-D). ☐Council Direction☐Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Enact Ordinance 2944.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2944.
Project / Issue Relates To: Annexation of residential property to the city
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
☐Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s)☒Not Applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
The proposed annexation is owner-initiated and will result in the addition of approximately 2.67
acres of residential land to the City. This Council Report describes the reasons for the
annexation and provides basic background information. This annexation will add Resource
Protection (RP) and Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) Overlays as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan and shown in Attachment B. The criteria for approving annexations and findings in support
of this annexation are included in Attachment C of Exhibit A-1 (Ordinance 2944).
8.1
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Owner/Applicant: Robert A. Hoyt / Frederico Naling, Elite Homes
Location/Size: West side of Goodall Road, approximately 450 feet south of the intersection of
Goodall and Hazel Roads / 2.67 acres (116,305 square feet).
Existing Land Use: The southerly tax lot (TL 1900) contains a single-family dwelling that take s
access from Goodall Road. The northerly tax lot (TL 2000) is vacant.
Neighborhood: Forest Highlands Neighborhood
Purpose of Annexation: Owner initiated annexation to connect to city sewer and has submitted
a separate minor development application (LU 23-0046) to divide the properties. (Future
development of the properties is outside the issue of whether the proposed annexation meets
the annexation criteria). The land division is being reviewed concurrently with the annexation
application.
DISCUSSION
Plan and Zone Designation: The subject properties are currently under Clackamas County’s
jurisdiction and zoned Low-Density Residential R-20. They are designated R-15, Medium Density
Residential on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and will be zoned R-15, RP
(Resource Protection) and HBA Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5.a-c.
Development Potential: The two parcels are approximately 2.67 acres. Based on the size and
shape of the parcels and the Resource Overlay Designations and development standards, the
two parcels, combined, may be divided into approximately six lots.
Vicinity Map
Proposed
Annexation Hazel Rd.
HBA
HBA
RP
RP
Page 3
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Sensitive Lands: The City’s Sensitive Lands Map designates a Resource Protection (RP) District
through the center of TL 1900 (the south parcel) and a Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) on the west
side of TL 1900 and over all of TL 2000 (the smaller parcel). Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5.a, RP
and HBA Overlay Districts will be applied to these properties upon annexation.
Property owners have the opportunity to contest the application of an existing RP, RC District, or
HBA (Habitat Benefit Area) designation under LOC 50.01.004.5.b.
“Where the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates an RP, RC or HBA District designation on
territory proposed for annexation, the City shall notify the owners of the annexing territory
that they have 20 days prior to the initial public hearing on the annexation to contest the
designation pursuant to LOC 50.07.004.8.b, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. No fee shall be
charged for such
review. If, following
review, the decision-
maker determines the
property was
improperly designated,
the RP, RC or HBA
designation shall be
removed.”
The property owner was
notified about the option to
contest the RP and HBA
district designations on
February 9, 2024. He has
not formally contested the
designation pursuant to
LOC on 50.01.004.5.b and
he has not submitted an
application for a Sensitive
Lands Map Correction. The
property owner would like the annexation to proceed at this time.
Statewide Goal 10 and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing
Statewide Goal 10 Housing
City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter
Statewide Planning Goal 10 (and the Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Goal in the City
Comprehensive Plan) ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed housing
units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, and to provide greater
certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs.
Staff has provided findings (Exhibit A-1, Attachment C) that the proposed annexation and
designation of City R-15 zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the City’s
Buildable Lands Analysis and Housing Needs Analysis, which anticipates the City eventually
Page 4
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
annexing all of the unincorporated lands within the USB and applying the appropriate zoning
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designations.
The proposal has no effect on the City’s Buildable Lands Inventory or Housing Needs Analysis
because the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) is based on the
lands within the City’s Urban Service Boundary (USB), and the land is within the USB. The
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore complies with Goal 10. See
Attachment C for the complete findings under Goal 10.
Sewer and Water Service: Sanitary sewer service is available from a City of Lake Oswego 10-
inch collection line in Goodall Road. An 8-inch sewer stub is also located at the southwest
corner of the site. The Engineering staff has found that the existing main line in Goodall Road
may not be deep enough to provide gravity service to the middle portion of this property. If that
is the case, individual private pumps may be necessary to serve a portion of a new
development. (That determination, and the requirements for connection, would be made as
part of the development application.)
Any existing septic tanks on the site shall be decommissioned (removal, or filling with sand or
gravel). Each parcel will be charged the applicable System Development Charge (SDC) for
connection to the public sewer. All work would be done by private contractors.
Note: The applicant has submitted a minor development application for a land division
concurrently with this annexation (LU 23-0046). The Engineering Staff has preliminarily
commented by memo on the development standards that would apply for the possible land
division, which is on file with the Planning Dept. The applicant is advised to obtain a copy before
proceeding to prepare a land division application.
Water is available from a City 8-inch water main in Goodall Road along the street frontage. The
Engineering staff also notes that an existing 6-inch public water main that was recently
constructed as a part of a City Capital improvement project is located along Johnson Terrace
(private drive). Engineering staff will require as a condition of future development that the
water service for TL 2000 be connected to the new 6-inch public water main. The closest fire
hydrant is located along the east side of Goodall Road across the street from the site.
Surface Water Management: Once the properties are annexed, the territory will be subject to
the City’s stormwater management regulations. Any new development will be subject to these
provisions, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining
properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system.
Service Districts: Upon annexation, the properties will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be
withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District #57 (per July 2003 urban service agreement; no
bonded debt) and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District (no bonded debt) but
will remain in the Lake Grove Park District (per July 2003 urban service agreement), and the
Library District of Clackamas County (per 2009 County IGA).
Transportation: Goodall Road is a two-lane neighborhood collector in a 50-foot right-of-way. It
Page 5
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
is under the jurisdiction of Lake Oswego. The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for
a shoulder pathway on Goodall Road. This includes enough width for a shared lane with
bicycles. The existing pavement width is substandard for this designation. A typical standard
engineering design of a shared lane is 14 feet wide. The nearest mass transit service is Tri-Met
bus line 78, which operates between downtown Lake Oswego and the Tigard and Beaverton
Transit Centers. Service can be accessed at the intersection of Goodall Road and Country Club
Road.
The draft findings provided in Attachment C of Exhibit A-1 conclude that the proposed
annexation complies with all applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated assessed value of the residential properties is $736,202. The estimated tax
revenue after the parcels are annexed is $1,904.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve AN 23-0007 (Ordinance 2944).
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
AN 23-0007:
A-1 Ordinance 2944 (Draft Annexation, 03/13/24)
Attachment A: Map of Proposed Annexation, 02/27/24
Attachment B: Map of Proposed Sensitive Lands Overlay, 01/29/24
Attachment C: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion and Effective Date, 03/13/24
B. Minutes
None.
C. Staff Reports
None.
D. Graphics/Plans
None.
E. Written Materials
E-1 Housing Needs Analysis 2023 (Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10)
Comprehensive Plan excerpt, 09/21/23 (due to size, use link below to view this
exhibit)
LINK TO PUBLIC RECORDS FOLDER FOR THIS CASE
https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2705979&repo=CityOfLakeOswego
Ordinance 2944, AN 23-0007
(21E04BC01900 & 21E04BC02000) PAGE 1 OF 3
ORDINANCE 2944
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TWO PARCELS, CONSISTING OF
2.67 ACRES AT 13801 GOODALL ROAD; DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING OF R-15,
RESOURCE PROTECTION (RP) AND HABITAT BENEFIT AREA (HBA) PURSUANT TO LOC
50.01.004.5(a-c); AND REMOVING THE TERRITORY FROM CERTAIN DISTRICTS (AN 23-0007).
WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in
Attachment “A” and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under
ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owners as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and,
WHEREAS, the City has provided written notification of this annexation as required under ORS
222.120(3); and,
WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from all of the property
owners and not less than 50 percent of the electors residing in the territory, as outlined in ORS
222.125; and,
WHEREAS, the territory lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57 district boundaries and the
district has no bonded debt, and pursuant to the July 2003 urban service agreement between
the City and the district the territory should be withdrawn from the district, the City elects ORS
222.520(2)(b), the territory shall be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of
the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the territory lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District
boundaries and the district has no bonded debt, the City elects ORS 222.520(2)(b), and the
territory shall be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, LOC 50.01.004.5 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a
specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning
designation shall automatically be imposed on the territory as of the effective date of the
annexation; and,
WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with the Urbanization Chapter of the City of Lake
Oswego’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111(2), 222.120
and 222.125 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections 3.09.030 (A-C), 3.09.040(A)(1-4)
and 3.09.050.
WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map designates an RP Overlay District and
HBA Habitat Benefit Area on the subject properties (Tax lots 1900 and 2000) because of a
simultaneous determination that natural resources that exist on the Subject Properties should
be protected under LOC Chapter 50.05.010 upon annexation and that pursuant to LOC Chapter
50.07.004.8(b) the Resource Protection (RP) and the Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) Overlay
designations be placed on the territory annexed to the city effective on the date of annexation.
ATTACHMENT A-1
Ordinance 2944, AN 23-0007
(21E04BC01900 & 21E04BC02000) PAGE 2 OF 3
Now, therefore, the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake
Oswego:
A tract of land located within the northwest quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon, and being
within Lots 8 and 9, Forest Hills Acres (Plat No. 598), plat records of Clackamas County, said
tract of land being all of that property conveyed to Robert A. Hoyt by Personal Representative’s
Deed, recorded January 11, 2005 in the Official Records of Clackamas County as Recording No.
2005-002761; said tract of land more particularly described as follows:
Lot 8, Forest Hills Acres (Plat No. 598), plat records of Clackamas County.
Together with a portion of said Lot 9, said portion more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of a tract of land conveyed to James and Mona Skinner,
by Warranty Deed recorded February 5, 1962 in the Official Records of Clackamas County as
Book 598, Pages 283-284 (Recording/Document No. 2457), said point being on the westerly line
of said Lot 9 and being South 14°40’ East, 97.5 feet from the most westerly corner thereof;
Thence leaving said westerly line, North 64°58’ East, 205.3 feet to the most south-westerly line
of Parcel 4, Partition Plat No. 2020-087, plat records of Clackamas County;
Thence along a line being common to the said most south-westerly line of Parcel 4 and the
easterly line of said portion of Lot 9, South 14°40’ East, approximately 105 feet, more or less, to
the most south-southwest corner of said Parcel 4, said point being on the southeasterly line of
said Lot 9 and the northwesterly line of said Lot 8;
Thence leaving said common line, South 67°05’30” West along said southeasterly and
northwesterly line, 205.3 feet to the most southerly corner of said Lot 9, said point also being
the most westerly corner of said Lot 8;
Thence leaving said southeasterly and northwesterly line, North 14°40’ West, 97.5 feet, more or
less, to the point of beginning.
The annexed territory is depicted on Attachment A.
Section 2. The above Recitals are incorporated.
Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be retained within
these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Park District
Section 4. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be withdrawn from
these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Fire District #57
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District
Ordinance 2944, AN 23-0007
(21E04BC01900 & 21E04BC02000) PAGE 3 OF 3
Section 5. In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-15, RP,
Resource Protection and HBA, Habitat Benefit Area, shall be applied to the subject properties
on the effective date of annexation, as shown on Attachments A and B.
Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in
Attachment C in support of this annexation ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Dates:
a. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter,
Section 35.C, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
b. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with
the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the
later of either:
1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State.
Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as
established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or
after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district
or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall
become effective on the day after the election.
Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on the 2nd day of April, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
________________________________
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
________________________________
Dated
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kari Linder, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
2051
2071
2081
2095
2101
2109
20
0
0
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
23
0
1
13
6
4
0
13
6
2
0
13
6
5
8
13570
17
5
1
14371
14101
14121
14145
1415114150
14122
1818
184
9
18
9
9
18
0
3
14161
14141
14101
14081
16
0
4
14220
1423
0
142
3
1
14221
142
1
1
14
2
0
1
14380
14370
14360
14280
14260
14250
1957
1954
1982
1989
14255
1
9
9
8
1
9
6
6
1934
1959
19
9
1
2
0
2
1
1
9
8
0
14073
14061
14051
14001
13801
13701
13600
13598
13800
13900
14000
14
0
6
6
14080
1
3
7
5
1
13
7
4
6
13795
13501
13611
13595
13599
1655
1630
1640
16
2
0
16
1
0
16
0
0
15
8
0
15
7
0
15
6
0
13560
13570
13571
13561
1345513581
13580
13960
13920
13852
13888
13838
13881
13911
13959
13990
13980
1396013951
1
3
8
6
1
13840
13
6
6
0
13
6
8
0
13
7
0
0
13
7
5
0
13
8
0
0
1
3
6
8
0
13
6
7
9
136
7
5
13640
2
1
3
0
22
0
1
21
5
5
24
0
0
13
9
3
1
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
9
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
5
0
20
7
0
2
1
8
3
2
1
5
7
2
1
2
5
2
0
9
9
2
0
7
3
2
0
4
7
2
0
3
2
2
0
6
4
2
1
3
8
2
1
5
2
2189
2205
2102
2104
2108
2025
20
0
5
20
9
1
20
0
1
19
9
1
14102
1997
14088
13311
24
7
7
142
1
5
14
2
3
7
1
9
8
1
13379 13200
16
1
1
16
3
3
16
2
2
16
4
4
16
4
6
1677
1688
21
3
3
21
1
1
1978
13567
13575
1960
14261
14267
14275
14084
1977
1965
14005
19
7
9
19
8
5
13
7
8
3
1377
0
14062
140
7
0
14067
CL
U
B
24
5
5
ROAD
1634
1
3
7
7
7
1
3
7
6
5
18
0
0
14106
14110
13705
14128
14144
13648
13624
13912
13888
14050
17
9
6
13636 13612
14056
13585 13589
13258
2
1
3
0
2
1
2
6
13596
1359013594
13592
13337
2017
13770
13720
2
1
1
0
1356213558
1356813564
13580
13586
13582
13584
Grey addresses will become active once
Clackamas County creates parcels.
Country
Club
Rd
G
o
o
d
a
ll
R
d
U
p
l
a
n
d
s
D
r
Leslie Ln
C o u ntry Commons
Sh
i
r
e
v
a
C
t
G
o
o
d
a
ll
R
d
Johnson Te r
Wembley
P a r k
R d
Wembley
Pl
Dolp
h
C
t
Eg
a
n
W
a
y
AN 23-0007/Ordinance 2944
0 80 160 240 320
Feet
PNA
R-15PF
R-5
Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego
³
2/27/2024
Lake Oswego
City Limits
Subject
Property
Attachment A
Tax Lot IDs:21E04BC01900 & 21E04BC02000
City of Lake Oswego:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = R-15, Residential Low Density
ZONING = R-15, Residential Low Density
Clackamas County:
ZONING = R-20, Urban Low Density Residential
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
R-10
H a z e l R d
Shireva
Dr
2051
2071
2081
2095
20
0
0
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
23
0
1
13
6
4
0
13
6
2
0
13
6
5
8
13570
17
5
1
14101
14121
14145
1415114150
14122
1818
184
9
18
9
9
18
0
3
14161
14141
14101
14081
16
0
4
14220
1423
0
142
3
1
14221
142
1
1
14
2
0
1
14360
14280
14260
14250
1982
1989
14255
1
9
9
8
1
9
6
6
1934
1959
19
9
1
2
0
2
1
1
9
8
0
14073
14061
14051
14001
13801
13701
13600
13598
13800
13900
14000
14
0
6
6
14080
13
7
4
5
1
3
7
5
1
13
7
4
6
13795
13501
13611
13595
13599
1655
1630
13237
13214
13092
1308413080
13079
13101
13217
13305
1640
16
2
0
16
1
0
16
0
0
15
8
0
15
7
0
15
6
0
21
0
7
13560
13348
13346
13340
13264
22
5
4
13570
13571
13561
13351
21
3
1
2
1
5
5
216
4
21
3
2
21
1
2
1345513581
13580
13960
13920
13852
13888
13838
13881
13911
13959
13990
13980
1396013951
1
3
8
6
1
13840
13
6
6
0
13
6
8
0
13
7
0
0
13
7
5
0
13
8
0
0
1
3
6
8
0
13
6
7
9
136
7
5
13640
2
1
3
0
22
0
1
21
5
5
24
0
0
13
9
3
1
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
9
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
5
0
20
7
0
2
1
8
3
2
1
5
7
2
1
2
5
2
0
9
9
2
0
7
3
2
0
4
7
2
0
3
2
2
0
6
4
2
1
3
8
2102
2025
20
0
5
20
9
1
20
0
1
19
9
1
14102
1997
14088
13311
13363
24
7
7
142
1
5
14
2
3
7
1
9
8
1
13175
13131
13197
13199
13379 13200
13180
13298
13238
13220
13170
13156
25
0
0
2055
13070
13100
16
1
1
16
3
3
16
2
2
16
4
4
16
4
6
1677
1688
21
3
3
21
1
1
1978
13567
13575
13282
14261
14267
14275
14084
1977
1965
14005
13286
19
7
9
19
8
5
13
7
8
3
1377
0
14062
140
7
0
14067
CL
U
B
24
5
5
KNAUS
ROAD1651
1634
1
3
7
7
7
1
3
7
6
5
18
0
0
14106
14110
13705
14128
14144
13648
13624
13912
13888
14050
17
9
6
13636 13612
14056
13132
21
0
1
21
0
5
13064
13585 13589
13236
13258
15
7
5
13233
2
1
3
0
2
1
2
6
13596
1359013594
13592
13337
2017
13770
13720
2
1
1
0
1356213558
1356813564
13580
13586
13582
13584
Grey addresses will become active once
Clackamas County creates parcels.
C o u ntry Commons
W e m b l e y
P a r k
R d
U
p
l
a
n
d
s
D
r
Leslie Ln
Sh
i
r
e
v
a
C
t
SW
Amber
PlGoodallCt
Johnson Te r
Wembley
Pl
Do
l
p
h
C
t
0 200 400 600 800 1,000100
Ft ³
Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego
AN 23-0007/Ordinance 2944
Attachment B
1/29/2024
Lake Oswego City Limits
Subject Property
HBA
HBA
Map and Lot #21E04BC01900 & 21E04BC02000
HBA
RC
RP
RP
RP
RP
RC
HBA
RC
HBA
H a z e l R d
Shireva
Dr
Thoma Rd
G
o
o
d
all
R
d
Country Club Rd
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 10
ATTACHMENT C
Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations.
1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation; Specifying Tax Rate in Annexed Territory.
2. ORS 222.120 Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to
Referendum.
3. ORS 222.125 - Annexation by Consent of All Owners of Land and Majority of Electors; Proclamation
of Annexation.
B. Metro Code.
1. 3.09.030 (A-C) Notice Requirements
2. 3.09.040(A)(1-4) Requirements for Petitions.
3. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions
C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter
1. Policy A-3: “The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area
within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services.”
2. Policy C-3: “Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary does not detract from the City’s ability to provide services to existing City Residents.”
3. Policy C-4: “Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and
adequate to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a
developer, commensurate with the scale of the proposed development.”
4. Policy D-3: “Enter into and maintain an Urban Growth Management Agreement with Clackamas
County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary to “Promote orderly annexation of territory.”
D. Comprehensive Plan – Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10)
Policy B-1: “Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to
develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of
existing and future Lake Oswego Residents.”
E. OAR 660-008-0010 - Allocation of Buildable Land
FINDINGS:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations.
1. ORS 222.111(2) Authority and Procedure for Annexation Specifying Tax Rate in annexed territory.
ORS 222.111(2) provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by the legislative body
of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the City by owners of real property in the
territory to be annexed. The owner of these properties has petitioned the City for this annexation. The proposed
annexation complies with this statute.
2. ORS 222.120 Procedure for Annexation Without Election; Hearing; Ordinance Subject to Referendum.
ORS 222.120 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation to the electors of the city for
their approval or rejection if the legislative body provides for a duly noticed public hearing before the legislative body
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 10
at which time the electors of the City may appear and be heard on the question of annexation.
The City has provided written notification of this annexation by publishing a notice once each week for two
consecutive weeks prior to the day of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and posted the
notice of public hearing in four public places as required under ORS 222.120(3). The notice was published in the Lake
Oswego Review and was posted at the City Hall, the Adult Community Center, the City Library. A notice was also
posted on the site on March 13, 2024. The notice contained information about the affected territory, time and place
of the public hearing and the means by which any person can obtain a copy of the written report. The annexation
notification and review procedures comply with this statute.
3. ORS 222.125 - Annexation by Consent of All Owners of Land and Majority of Electors; Proclamation of
Annexation.
ORS 222.125 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the area proposed to be
annexed if all of the owners of land in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the
territory consent in writing to the annexation. The property is vacant. The property owner, who is the sole and only
elector, consented to the annexation. The proposed annexation complies with this statute.
B. Metro Code
1 3.09.030 – Notice Requirements
A. The notice requirements apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except
expedited decisions made pursuant to MC 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not
supersede applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197, 198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter
provision on boundary changes.
B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall set
a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed
deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties 1, by weatherproof posting of notice in the general
vicinity of the affected territory and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the
affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations.
Notice shall be published as required by state law.
C. The notice requirements in Subsection B shall:
1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty;
2. State the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary
change; and
3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity’s report
on the proposal
The City has provided written notification of this annexation to necessary parties (mailed notice), to the
general vicinity (posting of the notice of annexation on these properties on March 13, 2024), and by
publishing notice to the Lake Oswego Review, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. All notices were
given at least 20 days prior to the date of the public hearing for annexation as required under MC 30.09.030
B. The notices contained information about the affected territory, time and place of the public hearing and
the means by which any person can obtain a copy of the written report. The annexation notification and
review procedures comply with the Metro code requirements.
2. 3.09.040 - Requirements for Petitions.
1 “Necessary party” means “county; city; district whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area
includes any part of the affected territory or who provides any urban service to any portion of the affected territory;
Metro; or any other unit of local government." Metro Code 3.09.020(J).
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 3 OF 10
(A) A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information:
1. The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition;
2. A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing
entity;
3. For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property
and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and
county clerk; and,
4. For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of
consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors.
The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property owner has signed the
application and petition. The properties are vacant (the south property is occupied by a single-family
dwelling which is also vacant); there are no electors residing on them. A map and legal description in the
form required by the City have been included in the application materials and are on file. The property
owner has consented to the annexation on the annexation petition, meeting the consent requirements of
ORS 222.125. The annexation petition complies with the Metro code requirements.
3. 3.09.050(B, D) Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions
3.09.045(D, E) Expedited Decisions (criteria incorporated for non-expedited decisions by MC 3.09.050(D))
B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing a report shall be available to the public
that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: 1. The
extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory, including any extra territorial
extensions of service; 2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the
affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and 3. The proposed effective date of
the boundary change.
These findings meet subsection B.
3.09.045 Expedited Decision
D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall:
1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in:
a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065
The City has entered into ORS 195.065 agreements with: 1) Lake Grove Park District (Lake Oswego
School District) and 2) Lake Grove Fire District.
Lake Grove Park District (Lake Oswego School District): The City and the Lake Oswego School District
entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July, 2003. The School
District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement
states that the annexation of property by the City within the Lake Grove Park District (which funds
the swim park) shall not cause the withdrawal of the property from the district.
Lake Grove Fire District: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement
for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states that upon annexation of property within the
district by the City, the annexed property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall
provide fire protection services. These properties are within the boundaries of the Lake Grove Fire
District #57 and the annexation will withdraw these properties from that District.
The proposed annexation is consistent with these agreements.
b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205.
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 4 OF 10
There are no applicable annexation plans adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205 relating to the affected
territory.
c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS
195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party.
There are no ORS 195.020(2) cooperative agreements (which relate to special districts) between the
city and a necessary party.
d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal
on public facilities and services.
Consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities) and the Community Health and Public
Safety Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the City maintains a Public Facilities Plan (PFP). The PFP
consists of master plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater facilities, which provide
the basis for long-range planning for both the incorporated and unincorporated lands within Lake
Oswego’s Urban Services Boundary. The PFP is comprised of the Lake Oswego Transportation
System Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, Water System Master Plan, and Clean Streams (Stormwater)
Plan, pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals 11 (Public Facilities) and 12 (Transportation).
Wastewater Master Plan: Sanitary sewer service is available from a City of Lake Oswego 10-inch
collection line in Goodall Road. An 8-inch sewer stub is also located at the southwest corner of the
site. The Engineering staff has found that the existing main line in Goodall Road may not be deep
enough to provide gravity service to the middle portion of this property. If that is the case, individual
private pumps may be necessary to serve a portion of a new development.
Any existing septic tanks on the site shall be decommissioned (removal, or filling with sand or
gravel). Each parcel will be charged the applicable System Development Charge (SDC) for connection
to the public sewer. All work would be done by private contractors.
Note: The applicant has submitted a minor development application for a land division concurrently
with this annexation (LU 23-0046). The Engineering Staff has preliminarily commented by memo on
the development standards that would apply for the possible land division, which is on file with the
Planning Dept. The applicant is advised to obtain a copy before proceeding to prepare a land division
application.
The sanitary sewer service that would potentially serve these properties could be provided in a
manner that is consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.
Water System Master Plan: Water is available from a City 8-inch water main in Goodall Road along
the street frontage. The Engineering staff also notes that an existing 6-inch public water main that
was recently constructed as a part of a City Capital improvement project is located along Johnson
Terrace (private drive). Engineering staff will require as a condition of future development that the
water service for TL 2000 be connected to the new 6-inch public water main.
The closest fire hydrant is located along the east side of Goodall Road across the street from the site.
Water will be provided to this site in a manner that is consistent with the City Water System Master
Plan.
Clean Streams (Stormwater) Plan: There are no public stormwater systems in the vicinity of these
properties. After annexation, on-site surface water management requirements will fall under various
provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. For example, stormwater runoff from new and/or replaced
impervious surface areas shall be managed in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Management
Code (LOC 38.25), consistent with the Clean Streams (Stormwater) Plan.
Transportation (Statewide Planning Goal 12): Goodall Road is a two-lane neighborhood collector in a
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 5 OF 10
50-foot right-of-way. It is under the jurisdiction of Lake Oswego. The City’s Comprehensive Plan
identifies Goodall Road as needing a shoulder pathway, which includes enough width for a shared
lane with bicycles. The existing pavement width is substandard for this designation.
The City’s Transportation System Plan implements the multi-modal transportation system that will
meet the needs of the city for a 20-year planning horizon.
e. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies
Comprehensive Plan Map: These properties are currently designated R-20, Low Density Residential
on Clackamas County’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. It is designated Medium Density
Residential, R-15 on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. As required by LOC 50.01.005.5, upon
annexation, a City zoning designation of R-15 will be automatically applied to these properties.
Sensitive Lands: The City’s Sensitive Lands Map designates a Resource Protection (RP) District
through the center of TL 1900 (the south parcel) and a Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) on the west side
of TL 1900 and over all of TL 2000 (the smaller parcel). Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5.a, RP and HBA
Overlay Districts will be applied to these properties upon annexation.
Property owners have the opportunity to contest the application of an existing RP, RC District, or HBA
(Habitat Benefit Area) designation under LOC 50.01.004.5.b.
“Where the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates an RP, RC or HBA District designation on
territory proposed for annexation, the City shall notify the owners of the annexing territory that
they have 20 days prior to the initial public hearing on the annexation to contest the
designation pursuant to LOC 50.07.004.8.b, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. No fee shall be
charged for such review. If, following review, the decision-maker determines the property was
improperly designated, the RP, RC or HBA designation shall be removed.”
The property owner was notified about the option to contest the RP and HBA district designations on
February 9, 2024. He has not formally contested the designation pursuant to LOC on 50.01.004.5.b
and he has not submitted an application for a Sensitive Lands Map Correction. The property owner
would like the annexation to proceed at this time.
The City and County have coordinated their comprehensive plans within the Dual Interest Area
outlined in the City/County Urban Growth Management Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and
updated November 18, 1997), hence the City/County designations have been determined to be
compatible. The proposed zoning designation of R-15 is consistent with the Urban Growth
Management Agreement between the County and the City.
Comprehensive Plan Policies - Urbanization: The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains the
following relevant language in the Urbanization chapter:
Policy A-3: “The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area
within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services.” These
properties are within the City’s Urban Services Boundary. Therefore, the proposed annexation and
the withdrawal of these properties from the identified districts is consistent with this policy.
Policy C-3: “Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary does not detract from the City’s ability to provide services to existing City residents.”
The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of 2.67 acres to be served by the City. As
stated in Section 2(b)(1), the addition of this territory will not detract from the City’s ability to
provide police and fire protection to existing City residents.
As outlined elsewhere in these findings and the incorporated materials, annexation of these
properties will not affect the City’s ability to provide parks and recreation services, sewer or water
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 6 OF 10
services.
Policy C-4: “Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and
adequate to serve these propert ies or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a
developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development.”
Availability of urban services serving these properties is discussed below:
Water: Water is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d.
Stormwater: As detailed in subsection D.1.d, future development will be required to comply with the
City standards for stormwater management.
Fire Protection: Lake Grove Fire District #57 provides fire protection services to these properties by
agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. Upon annexation, these properties will be withdrawn from
this fire district per a July 2003 urban service agreement and will be served directly by the City. The
Main Fire Station on 300 B Avenue, located southeast of the site, would be able to respond to
emergencies under the eight-minute goal established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Police: Upon annexation, these properties will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced
Sheriff’s Patrol District and served by the City of Lake Oswego. The Lake Oswego Police Department
reviewed the proposal and indicated that it does not have any concerns with serving these
properties upon annexation.
Parks and Open Space: The City has 629 acres of park and open space lands, or 14.6 acres per 1,000
population. The parks nearest to these properties are Tryon Creek State Natural Park, Woodmont
Park, Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain Park. The City’s park system will not be overburdened by
any additional population annexed to the City with this application. The City’s park system will not
be overburdened by any additional population annexed to the City with this application.
Lake Grove Park District: The Lake Grove Swim Park, managed by the Lake Oswego School District,
and funded by the Lake Grove Park District, is located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The swim park is
approximately 1.3 acres in size with restroom, play and swim facilities. These properties will remain
within the Lake Grove Park District following annexation.
Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Transportation infrastructure and transit service is
available to serve the subject area, as detailed in subsection D.1.d, above.
Other Urban Services: LOC 50.06.008.3 requires that all development be provided with the following
utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs
and devices, street lights, streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place
to serve these properties.
In the event that future development occurs, an applicant for development is obligated to construct
all necessary public facilities to serve their development.
Policy D-3 “D-3. Enter into and maintain an Urban Growth Management Agreement with Clackamas
County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary to Promote orderly annexation of territory;
Urban Growth Management Agreement
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Urbanization Chapter, Policy D-3, calls for entering into and
maintaining an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Clackamas County for lands
within the Urban Services Boundary.
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 7 OF 10
Similarly, General Urbanization Policy 4.A.4 of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan calls for
the establishment of Urban Growth Management Areas and Urban Growth Management
Agreements to clarify planning responsibilities between the County and cities for areas of mutual
interest. Policy 4.A.5 directs the County to establish agreements with cities and service districts to
clarify service and infrastructure responsibilities for areas of mutual interest.
In furtherance of these policies, the City and County have entered into an Urban Growth
Management Agreement that stipulates a mutual interest in coordinated land use planning,
compatible comprehensive plans and provision of urban services and facilities.
This agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County comprehensive
plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and managing growth within the Dual
Interest Area. Subsections 6 and 7, provided below, are applicable to annexations.
“6C. City and County Notice and Coordination:
The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to participate, review
and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first public hearing on all proposed public
facilities plans, legislative changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi-judicial land use
actions adjacent to, or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide
notice to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five days of the
filing of an application with the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission.”
The Urban Growth Management Agreement specifies that the City notify the County of an
annexation request within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is no
longer a Boundary Commission for the Portland Metropolitan area.
Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030(B), which requires mailing notice to
all necessary parties, posting of a weatherproof notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory
and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall
be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations.
The notice required by MC 3.09.030 shall follow the requirements under MC 3.09.030(C), where the
notice shall describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty, state the date, time and
place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and, state the means by which
any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity’s report on the proposal. Clackamas County is a
“necessary” party under the Metro Code definition and was notified on March 13, 2023, 20 days
before the public hearing.
“7. City Annexations
A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by law within the
Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall include adjacent road right-
of-way to property proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such
annexations.
B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County roads and local
access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer agreement between the City and
county.”
The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the applicable provisions of
State Law and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest Area. This annexation is
consistent with the City and County comprehensive plans, which have been coordinated in the Dual
Interest Area within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Goodall Road is a two-lane neighborhood collector in a 50-foot right-of-way. It is under the
jurisdiction of Lake Oswego. The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a shoulder
pathway on Goodall Road. This includes enough width for a shared lane with bicycles. The existing
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 8 OF 10
pavement width is substandard for this designation. A typical standard engineering design of a
shared lane is 14 feet wide. The nearest mass transit service is Tri-Met bus line 78, which operates
between downtown Lake Oswego and the Tigard and Beaverton Transit Centers. Service can be
accessed at the intersection of Goodall Road and Country Club Road.
Comprehensive Plan Policies - Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10)
City Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter
The Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan implements
Statewide Housing Goal 10 and the Portland Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007-0000 et seq.),
which requires that the City plan for a supply of residentially zoned land with an average allowed
density of 10 dwelling units per net acre, and the opportunity to develop a mix of housing types
consisting of not less than 50% attached and multifamily dwellings. Compliance with the State rules
ensures the opportunity to provide adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use
of buildable land within urban growth boundaries, while promoting certainty in the development
process to help reduce housing costs.
The following Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) provides standards for compliance with Goal 10
“Housing” pursuant to ORS 197.296 (Buildable Lands) and ORS 197.303 through 197.307 (Needed
Housing):
OAR 660-008-0010 Allocation of Buildable Land
The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient
buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type
and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory
must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation.
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Chapter, adopted
pursuant to Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule is designed to meet Lake Oswego’s housing
needs for not less than a twenty-year planning period. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates
residential land use designations within the City limits and within Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary (USB) through the year 2035. The Comprehensive Plan Map’s residential land use
designations were adopted consistent with the City’s Housing Needs Analysis 20 Year Housing Need
2023-2043 (HNA 9/21/23), also incorporated herein by reference, and the City of Lake Oswego-
Clackamas County Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA), which specifies future zoning of
lands with the USB upon annexation to Lake Oswego. The UGMA anticipates the City eventually
annexing all of the unincorporated lands that exist within the USB, and application of City zoning to
those lands consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; hence, the HNA is for both the incorporated
area of Lake Oswego (City) and unincorporated areas within Lake Oswego’s Urban Services
Boundary (USB).
The Comprehensive Plan Map’s residential land use designations are based on the HNA. These
designations match the corresponding Zoning Map designations such that there is only one zone for
each Plan designation, and therefore only one zone that is applied to each lot upon annexation,
consistent with the HNA and in compliance with Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. In the
case of the subject application, the applicable Plan Map designation and corresponding Zone Map
designation is R-15. The City Comprehensive plan and corresponding Zone Map designation of R-15
provide a greater amount of housing density than the Clackamas County zoning designation of R-20.
If these properties were to be redeveloped, the zoning would allow additional primary dwelling units
and accessory dwelling units (ORS 197.312) (LOC Table 50.03.002-1 Residential Districts Use Table.
The proposed annexation and designation of City zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and Map, and the City’s Buildable Lands Inventory, and does not change the City’s housing needs
from those identified by the HNA; therefore, the annexation and zone change comply with Goal 10
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 9 OF 10
and its implementing administrative rules. In this case, the zoning district would provide the
opportunity for needed housing identified in the Housing Needs Analysis.
The City uses the following approach for findings supporting two types of annexation zone changes:
• Option 1 is for annexation-related non-discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map
amendments.
• Option 2 is for annexation-related discretionary comprehensive plan and zoning map
amendments.
“Non-discretionary” amendments are zoning map amendments applied to an annexed property (or
properties) where the applicable zoning designation is prescribed by the city’s comprehensive plan
and a zoning conversion table in the city-county urban growth management agreement (UGMA).
“Discretionary” amendments are where more than one zoning designation is applicable, as
prescribed by the city’s comprehensive plan and the city-county UGMA, and the City Council has
discretion in applying zoning.
The proposed rezoning in AN 23-0007 is non-discretionary because the zoning is prescribed by the
City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and the zoning conversion table in the City of Lake
Oswego-Clackamas County UGMA.
The City’s R-15 zone is proposed to be applied consistent with (matching) the R-15 land use
designation in the City’s Goal 10/Metro Housing Rule-compliant comprehensive plan. The City
Council does not have discretion to apply a different zone to the subject properties unless it is
amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation; therefore, the City does not
evaluate proposed zones against its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). The City simply applies the
zoning that is prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the HNA and the Complete
Neighborhoods and Housing (Goal 10) chapter of the Plan. In doing so, the City relies on LOC
50.01.004.5.a, which states that the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map provides for the future
City zoning of all property within the City’s Urban Service Boundary. In cases where the
Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific zoning map designation, this designation is
automatically imposed on territory when the property is annexed to the City.
In conclusion, the proposed R-15 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City-County
UGMA for the subject properties, and the City Council does not have other zoning options from
which to choose in approving AN 23-0007.
f. Any applicable concept plan
There are no applicable concept plans in this area.
2. Consider whether the boundary change would
a. Promote the timely orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services
b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services
c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services
The proximity of these properties to existing City services will allow this annexation to promote the
timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and services. These properties can
readily be served with urban services and facilities.
If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of public facilities and services will
occur consistent with the City’s adopted public facility master plans, ensuring that it does not
adversely affect the quality or quantity of urban services and avoiding unnecessary duplication of
facilities or services.
Therefore, this boundary change is consistent with criteria 2.a through 2.c.
Ordinance 2944 (AN 23-0007) ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 10 OF 10
E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB except it may annex a lot or parcel that
lies partially within and partially outside the UGB.
The properties to be annexed are located entirely within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Urbanization.”
D. Comprehensive Plan – Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10)
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10).”
E. OAR 660-008-0010 - Allocation of Buildable Land
See discussion, above, under Section B.3, regarding Metro Code 3.09.045.D(1)(e), “Comprehensive Plan Policies –
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Goal 10).”
CONCLUSION:
Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 23-0007 can be made
to comply with all applicable criteria and the annexation should be approved.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 35.C., the
ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of
State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of:
1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State;
provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established
above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing
notice of election before any other election held by any City, district or other municipal corporation involved
in the area to be annexed, the annexation shall become effective on the day after the election.
Source: Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OR HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS (OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 10) 20-YEAR HOUSING NEED2023 - 2043 September 21, 2023ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2934)LU 23-0023AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55EXHIBIT E-1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 1 Acknowledgments Johnson Economics prepared this report for the City of Lake Oswego. Johnson Economics and the City of Lake Oswego thank the many people who helped to develop this document. City Staff Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager Jessica Numanoglu, Interim Community Development Director Lake Oswego Housing Task Force Kasey Adler, Transportation Advisory Board Kyrsten Baumgart, Housing producer Phil Bertrand, Housing producer Joseph M. Buck, City Council Liaison Thea Croman, DLCD Kelly Reid, DLCD Douglas Corder, 50+ Advisory Board Pat Ginn, Resident Diana Howell, Resident Cara Kao-Young , Resident Betty Jung, Resident Yoko Kinoshita, Resident Rebecca Lane, Resident Rosalie Nowalk, Resident John E. Pauley, Resident Bruce Poinsette, Development Review Commission Phillip Stewart, Planning Commission Liaison David Tangvald, Housing producer Kimvi To, D.E.I. Advisory Board John Turchi, Resident Sarah Walker, Housing producer Consultants Brendan Buckley, Johnson Economics Andrew Parish, MIG Matt Hastie, MIG This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of OAR 660 Division 8: Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing. This project is funded by the State of Oregon through the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. City of Lake Oswego 380 A Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (503)635-0270Johnson Economics 621 SW Alder Street Suite 605 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 295-7832AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 4 A. POPULATION GROWTH 5 B. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH & SIZE 5 C. FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 5 D. GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION 6 E. HOUSING UNITS 6 F. AGE TRENDS 6 G. DIVERSITY TRENDS 8 H. PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 10 I. INCOME TRENDS 11 J. POVERTY STATISTICS 12 K. EMPLOYMENT LOCATION TRENDS 12 III. CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS 14 A. HOUSING TENURE 14 B. HOUSING STOCK 14 C. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 14 D. UNIT TYPES BY TENURE 15 E. AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK 16 F. HOUSING COSTS VS. LOCAL INCOMES 17 G. PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING 18 IV. CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 20 V. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS - 2043 (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 26 VI. RECONCILIATION OF FUTURE NEED (2043) & LAND SUPPLY 32 APPENDIX A: BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY SUMMARY 35 AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 3 I. INTRODUCTION This analysis outlines a forecast of housing need within the City of Lake Oswego. Housing need and resulting land need are forecast to 2043, consistent with the 20-year need assessment requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes.1 This report presents a housing need analysis (presented in number and types of housing units) and a residential land need analysis, based on those projections. The primary data sources used in generating this forecast were: ▪ Portland State University Population Research Center ▪ Metro ▪ U.S. Census ▪ Claritas2 ▪ Oregon Employment Department ▪ City of Lake Oswego ▪ Clackamas County ▪ Other sources are identified as appropriate. This analysis relies heavily on Census data from both the 2020 Decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). All Census data feature some margin of error but remain the best source of data available on many demographic and housing subjects. One limitation of the 2020 Census is the release schedule of data sets, which takes place over several years following the year of the Census. Thus far, data has been released on: Population; Race; Latino ethnicity; number of Households; number of Housing Units; and Group Quarters population. While these are key baseline data sets utilized in this analysis, any additional nuance on demographics and housing from the 2020 Census are not yet available, with the next data release expected later in 2023. Despite the limitations, the 2020 Census is relied upon here as the best available source for the key indicators listed above in Lake Oswego, as of 2023. For more detailed data sets on demographics and housing, this analysis relies on the American Community Survey (ACS), which features a higher margin of error on all tables than the Decennial Census. The ACS is a survey of a representative sample of households which the Census uses to make estimates generalized to the population of the relevant geography. This analysis relies whenever possible on the most recent 2021 ACS 5-year estimates. The 5-year estimates have a lower margin of error than the ACS 1-year estimates. 1 ORS 197.628; OAR 660-025 2 Claritas is a third-party company providing data on demographics and market segmentation. It licenses data from the Nielson Company which conducts direct market research including surveying of households across the nation. Nielson combines proprietary data with data from the U.S. Census, Postal Service, and other federal sources, as well as local-level sources such as Equifax, Vallassis and the National Association of Realtors. Projections of future growth by demographic segments are based on the continuation of long-term and emergent demographic trends identified through the above sources. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 4 II. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SUMMARY The following table (Figure 2.1) presents a profile of City of Lake Oswego demographics from the 2000 and 2010 Census. It also reflects the estimated population of this area as of 2023 from PSU estimates, forecasted forward to 2023 using the estimated growth rate between 2010 and 2022. ▪ Lake Oswego is a City of over 41,500 people located in Clackamas County in the southern-central area of the Portland metropolitan region. ▪ Based on estimated population, Lake Oswego is the 13th largest city in the state by population, similar in size to Oregon City regionally, or Keizer and Grants Pass statewide. Lake Oswego has about 1.5 times the population of neighboring West Linn or Tualatin, and about 75% of the population of Tigard. ▪ Lake Oswego has experienced modest growth, growing roughly 18% since 2000, or less than 1% per year. In contrast, Clackamas County and the state experienced population growth of 26% and 25% respectively. (US Census and PSU Population Research Center) FIGURE 2.1: LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ▪ Lake Oswego was home to an estimated 17,500 households in 2023, an increase of over 2,650 households since 2000. The percentage of families has increased slightly from 66% of all households in 2000 to 68% in 2023. The city has a similar share of family households to Clackamas County (69%) but higher than the state (63%). Average household size is estimated to have remained fairly stable during this period. 20002010Growth2023Growth(Census)(Census)00-10(PSU)10-23Population135,27836,6194%41,55013%Households214,82415,8937%17,48110%Families39,77510,0793%11,84217%Housing Units415,66816,9958%18,3458%Group Quarters Population516322236%32948%Household Size (non-group)2.372.29-3%2.363%Avg. Family Size2.932.88-2%2.973%20002010Growth2023Growth(Census)(Census)00-10(Proj.)10-23Per Capita ($)$42,166$53,65227%$74,60039%Median HH ($)$71,597$84,18618%$123,30046%SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson EconomicsCensus Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S193011 From Census, PSU Population Research Center, growth rate 2010-2022 extended to 20232 2023 Households = (2023 population - Group Quarters Population)/2023 HH Size3 Ratio of 2023 Families to total HH is based on 2021 ACS 5-year Estimates4 2023 housing units are the '20 Census total plus new units permitted from '20 through '22 (source: Census, City)5 2023 Group Quarters Population based on 5-year ACS estimates 2017-2021PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMEPOPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES, AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITSAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 5 ▪ Lake Oswego’s estimated average household size is 2.4 persons. This is lower than the Clackamas County average of 2.6 and similar to the statewide average of 2.44. A. POPULATION GROWTH Since 2000, Lake Oswego has grown by nearly 6,300 people within the UGB, or 18% in 23 years. This was lower than the countywide rate of growth. Clackamas County as a whole has grown an estimated 26% since 2000, while other cities in the county such as West Linn and Oregon City grew by 23% and 46% respectively. Portland’s population grew by an estimated 19% during this period (PSU Population Research Center). B. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH & SIZE As of 2023, the city has an estimated 17,500 households. Since 2000, Lake Oswego has added an estimated 2,650 households. This is an average of roughly 115 households annually during this period. The growth since 2000 has paced the growth in new housing units, which have been permitted at the rate of roughly 117 units per year. There has been a general trend in Oregon and nationwide towards declining household size as birth rates have fallen, more people have chosen to live alone, and the Baby Boomers have become “empty nesters.” While this trend of diminishing household size is expected to continue nationwide, there are limits to how far the average can fall. Lake Oswego’s average household size of 2.4 people, with 68% family households, is smaller than Clackamas County (2.6 persons; 69% families). Figure 2.2 shows the share of households by the number of people for renter and owner households in 2021 (latest data available), according to the Census. Renter households are more likely to be one-person households, with 75% having two or fewer residents. Owner households are more likely to have two or more persons. FIGURE 2.2: NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B25009 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) C. FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS As of the 2021 ACS, 68% of Lake Oswego households were family households, up from 63.4% of households in 2010. The total number of family households in Lake Oswego is estimated to have grown by over 2,060 since 2000. The Census defines family households as two or more persons, related by marriage, birth or adoption and living together. In 2023, family households in Lake Oswego have an estimated average size of 2.97 people. 20%38%19%18%4%2%0%40%35%11%11%3%1%0%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%1-person2-person3-person4-person5-person6-person7-or-moreShare of HouseholdsHousehold SizeRenterOwnerAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 6 D. GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION As of the 2020 Census, the City of Lake Oswego had an estimated group quarters population of 0.8% of the total population, or 329 persons. Group quarters include such shared housing situations as nursing homes, prisons, dorms, group residences, military housing, or shelters. For the purposes of this analysis, these residents are removed from the estimated population total, before determining the number of other types of housing that are needed for non-group households. In Lake Oswego, nearly 90% of the group quarters population is found in assisted living facilities. E. HOUSING UNITS Data from the City of Lake Oswego and the US Census indicate that the city added roughly 2,680 new housing units since 2000, representing 17% growth in the housing stock. This number of new units is slightly higher than the growth in new households estimated during the same period (2,660), indicating that housing growth has kept pace with growing need. As of 2023, the city had an estimated housing stock of roughly 18,350 units for its 17,500 estimated households. This translates to an estimated average vacancy rate of 4.7%. Residential Permits: An average of 117 units have been permitted annually since 2000, with 24% being multi-family units. Most multi-family housing in Lake Oswego has been built in the last decade. FIGURE 2.3: HISTORIC AND PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL PERMITS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SOURCE: HUD F. AGE TRENDS The following figure shows the share of the population falling in different age cohorts between the 2000 Census and the most recent 5-year American Community Survey estimates. As the chart shows, there is a general trend for middle age and young cohorts to fall as share of total population, while older cohorts have grown in share. This is in keeping with the national trend caused by the aging of the Baby Boom generation. Overall, Lake Oswego has an older population than the county, with a similar share of children, but a smaller share of those aged 25 to 44 years. 050100150200250300350Housing PermitsMulti-FamilySingle FamilyAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 7 FIGURE 2.4: AGE COHORT TRENDS, 2000 - 2021 SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: QT-P1 (2000); S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪ The cohorts which grew the most in share during this period were those aged 55 to 74 years. Still, an estimated 79% of the population is under 65 years of age. ▪ In the 2021 ACS, the local median age was an estimated 46 years, compared to 40 years in Oregon, and 39 years nationally. Figure 2.5 presents the share of households with children, and the share of population over 65 years for comparison. Compared to state and national averages, Lake Oswego has a similar share of households with children. However, at 21%, the share of population over 65 is higher than the state and national figures. FIGURE 2.5: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN/ POPULATION OVER 65 YEARS (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B11005; S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) 20%10%10%16%21%11%6%4%1%18%10%9%12%16%14%14%5%2%17%11%12%14%13%13%12%5%2%0%5%10%15%20%25%Lake Oswego (2000)Lake Oswego (2021)Clack. Co. (2021)31%28%31%0%10%20%30%40%Lake OswegoOregonUSAShare of Households with Children21%18%16%0%10%20%30%40%Lake OswegoOregonUSAShare of Population Over 65 YearsAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 8 G. DIVERSITY TRENDS The following figure presents the distribution of Lake Oswego’s population by race and Hispanic ethnicity. The community grew more diverse between the 2010 and 2020 Census, with the population’s white (non-Hispanic) share falling from 90% to 80%. The Asian population makes up 8% of the population, and the Hispanic or Latino population makes up 5% of residents. 9% of residents identify as two or more races. FIGURE 2.6: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY, 2010 – 2020 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: P1, P2 (2010, 2020) In comparison, the share of the population identifying as white is also 80% in Clackamas County, and 75% statewide. The share of Lake Oswego’s population identifying as Hispanic or Latino is 5% of the population, indicating over 2,100 people as of the 2020 Census. This is lower than the 14% share statewide. FIGURE 2.7: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORY (OREGON) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: P17A-H, (State of Oregon, 2020) * This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2010). The data for the Lake Oswego or Clackamas County geographies feature unusually large margins of error due to the small sample size. 80%1%0%8%0%1%9%5%0%20%40%60%80%100%WhiteBlack or AfricanAmericanAmerican andAlaska NativeAsianHawaiian andPacific IslanderSome Other RaceTwo or moreracesHispanic or Latino(any race)Share of Population by RaceLake Oswego (2010)Lake Oswego (2020)Clackamas Co.Oregon2.52.42.52.82.83.53.74.02.70.01.02.03.04.05.0All HouseholdsWhite aloneBlack or African American aloneAmerican Indian and Alaska Native aloneAsian aloneNative Hawaiian and Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoSome Other Race aloneTwo or more races:Avg. Number of Persons per HouseholdAverage Household Size by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 9 Minority households tend to have a larger average household size than the average of all households (Figure 2.7). (This figure presents statewide data due to the high margin of error for local data in this data set.) Households identifying as “white alone” have the lowest average household size (2.4 persons), while all other racial and ethnic categories have a larger estimated average household size. Some of the non-white categories, such as black households and those of two or more races, are still similar in average size (2.5 and 2.7 persons, respectively). Those with the largest estimated households are Latinos, Pacific Islanders, and those identifying as “some other race.” Larger average household size indicates a need for units with more bedrooms on average among many minority households. Each household has its own housing needs in terms of the number of bedrooms and other factors, based on the specific makeup of each family. Based on voluntary guidelines provided by HUD for public housing programs, households of between 2 persons generally need a one-bedroom unit, households with 3 persons might need two bedrooms, and those with 4 persons might need three bedrooms. Larger households may need four or more bedrooms, which are typically found in single detached homes. Based on statewide data, many racial and ethnic minorities are currently less likely to own the homes they occupy (Figure 2.8) – meaning that they tend to occupy rental units. These communities face systemic obstacles to home ownership, including lower generational wealth, less access to capital and financing, and a history of discrimination in lending and geography (e.g., redlining). While the country and state try to address explicit discrimination through the law, the legacy of these barriers continues to hamper home ownership for many minority households. Going forward, many communities would benefit from more entry-level homebuying opportunities for these households, as well as additional rental housing for those who are still unready or unable to buy a home. FIGURE 2.8: HOME OWNERSHIP RATE BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORY (OREGON) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B25003A-H, (State of Oregon, 2021 ACS 5-year) * This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2020). The data for the Lake Oswego or Clackamas County geographies feature larger margins of error due to small sample size in some of the racial categories. Populations from some racial and ethnic minority groups also have lower average incomes and are more likely to have income below the official poverty level when compared to the total population. Such income levels are correlated with a greater share of renter households and impact the types of housing these populations consume, as discussed in further detail below. 63%65%36%48%63%32%45%43%50%0%20%40%60%80%100%All HouseholdsWhite aloneBlack or African American aloneAmerican Indian and Alaska Native aloneAsian aloneNative Hawaiian and Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoSome Other Race aloneTwo or more races:Ownership RateOwner-Occupied Households by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 10 H. PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY An estimated 8% of the population of Lake Oswego, or 3,140 people, report having some form of disability. This is lower than the statewide rate of 14% and the Clackamas County rate of 12% of people with a disability. (The Census reports these statistics for the “non-institutionalized population.”) The following figure presents Census estimates of the types of disability reported among Lake Oswego residents. Any type of disability impacts the type of housing that may be appropriate for a resident, but those with the greatest impact on needed unit type are generally an ambulatory, self-care, or independent living disability. Those with an ambulatory disability often need units with expanded access for a wheelchair, walker, or scooter. Those with self-care or independent living disabilities may require additional safety precautions around the home to protect a resident who cannot always be directly monitored. FIGURE 2.9: LAKE OSWEGO SHARE OF THE POPULATION WITH DISABILITY, BY TYPE SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year) FIGURE 2.10: LAKE OSWEGO POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY, BY AGE SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year) 7.8%2.4%1.7%2.7%2.9%1.1%2.3%0%2%4%6%8%10%Population with a disabilityHearing difficultyVision difficultyCognitive difficultyAmbulatory difficultySelf-care difficultyIndependent living difficultyShare of Population7.8%2.0%5.8%19.5%0%5%10%15%20%25%Total populationUnder 18 years18 to 64 years65 years and overShare of Population with Disability by AgeAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 11 Older residents are more likely to report a disability, including nearly 20% of those over 65 years. Of those aged 18 to 64 years, 6% of the local population reports a disability, and 2% of children. Because Census data tends to undercount the homeless and other vulnerable populations, there are likely more disabled residents in Lake Oswego than reflected in these data. I. INCOME TRENDS The following figure presents data on Lake Oswego’s income trends. FIGURE 2.11: INCOME TRENDS, 2000 – 2023 (LAKE OSWEGO) ▪ Lake Oswego’s estimated median household income was $123,000 in 2023. This is nearly 40% higher than the Clackamas County median of $88,500, and 75% higher than the statewide median of $70,000. ▪ Lake Oswego’s per capita income is roughly $75,000. ▪ Median income has grown an estimated 46% between 2010 and 2023, in real dollars. Inflation was an estimated 34% over this period, so the local median income has well exceeded inflation. This is not the case in many regions and nationally, where income growth has not kept pace with inflation. FIGURE 2.12: HOUSEHOLD INCOME COHORTS, 2021 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, Census Tables: S1901 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.) Figure 2.12 presents the estimated distribution of households by income as of 2021. The largest income cohorts are those households earning between $100k and $200k per year (32%), followed by households earning over $200k (27%). ▪ 41% of households earn less than $100,000. ▪ Roughly 19% of households earn less than $50k per year. 2000 2010Growth2023Growth(Census) (Census) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-23Per Capita ($)$42,166 $53,65227%$74,60039%Median HH ($)$71,597 $84,18618%$123,30046%SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson EconomicsCensus Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S19301PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME3%2%4%4%6%11%11%20%12%27%0%5%10%15%20%25%30% Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or moreHousehold Income GroupsAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 12 J. POVERTY STATISTICS According to the US Census, the official poverty rate in Lake Oswego is an estimated 4% over the most recent period reported (2021 5-year estimates).3 This is roughly 1,700 individuals in Lake Oswego. In comparison, the official poverty rate in Clackamas County is 9%, and at the state level is 17%. In the 2017-21 period: ▪ The Lake Oswego poverty rate is low among all groups, but highest among those 65 years and older at 5%. The rate is 4% among those 18 to 64 years of age. The estimated rate is lowest for children at 3%. ▪ For those without a high school diploma, the poverty rate is 11%. ▪ Among those who are employed the poverty rate is 2%, while it is 7% for those who are unemployed. Information on affordable housing is presented in Section II F of this report. FIGURE 2.13: POVERTY STATUS BY CATEGORY (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: S1701 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.) K. EMPLOYMENT LOCATION TRENDS This section provides an overview of employment and industry trends in Lake Oswego that are related to housing. Commuting Patterns: The following figure shows the inflow and outflow of commuters to Lake Oswego according to the Census Employment Dynamics Database. These figures reflect “covered employment” as of 2019, the most recent year available. Covered employment refers to those jobs where the employee is covered by federal unemployment insurance. This category does not include many contract employees and self-employed and therefore is not a complete picture of local employment. The figure discussed here is best understood as indicators of the general pattern of commuting and not exact figures. As of 2017, the most recent year available, the Census estimated there were roughly 23,100 covered employment jobs located in Lake Oswego. Of these, an estimated 2,250 or 10%, are held by local residents, while nearly 21,000 employees commute into the city from elsewhere. This general pattern is fairly common among many communities 3 Census Tables: S1701 (2018 ACS 5-yr Estimates); Methodology The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. There are 48 separate income thresholds set based on the possible combinations of household composition. 3%4%5%2%7%11%10%7%3%0%5%10%15%20%Under 18 years18 to 64 years65 years and overEmployedUnemployedLess than high schoolHigh schoolSome college, associate'sBachelor's degree or higherPoverty Level of SubgroupsAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 13 in the Metro area, but the pattern is particularly stark here. The most common homes of local workers commuting into the city are Portland, Beaverton, or Tigard. This data set predates the surge in remote working that has taken place over the last few years. In prior years, it was safe to assume that most residents holding jobs outside the community likely commuted physically. Now, a resident might hold a job in another city but work from home. Unfortunately, these data do not quantify this growing segment. Similarly, of the estimated 18,000 employed Lake Oswego residents, 88% of them commute elsewhere to their employment. The most common destinations for Lake Oswego commuters are Portland and Beaverton. Smaller shares work elsewhere in the Portland metro or in the mid-Willamette Valley. FIGURE 2.14: COMMUTING PATTERNS (PRIMARY JOBS), LAKE OSWEGO Source: US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Jobs/Household Ratio: Lake Oswego features a balanced jobs-to-households ratio. There are an estimated 23,000 jobs in Lake Oswego (covered), and an estimated 17,500 households in Lake Oswego. This represents 1.3 jobs per household. There is no standard jobs-to-households ratio that is right for all communities, but it can provide a guide to the balance between employment uses and residential uses in the city. There is an average of 1.0 job held for each Lake Oswego household, a majority of which are located outside the city. 20,900Work in Lake Oswego,live elsewhere15,800Live in Lake Oswego,work elsewhere2,250Live and workin Lake Oswego90% / 10%12% / 88%AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 14 III. CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS This section presents a profile of the current housing stock and market indicators in Lake Oswego. This profile forms the foundation to which current and future housing needs will be compared. A. HOUSING TENURE Lake Oswego has a greater share of homeowner households than renter households. The 2021 ACS estimates that 71% of occupied units were owner occupied, and only 29% renter occupied. The ownership rate is little changed since 2000. The estimated ownership rate is higher across Clackamas County (73%) and lower statewide (63%). B. HOUSING STOCK As shown in Figure 2.1, Lake Oswego had an estimated 18,350 housing units in 2023, with a vacancy rate of 5% (includes ownership and rental units). The housing stock has increased by roughly 2,680 units since 2000, or growth of over 17%. FIGURE 3.1: ESTIMATED SHARE OF UNITS, BY PROPERTY TYPE, 2023 SOURCE: US Census, City of Lake Oswego Figure 3.1 shows the estimated number of units by type in 2023 based on US Census. Detached single-family homes represent an estimated 63% of housing units. Units in larger apartment complexes of 5 or more units represent 21% of units, and other types of attached homes represent 16% of units. (Attached single family generally includes townhomes, and some 2 to 4-plexes which are separately metered.) Manufactured homes represent well less than 1% of the inventory. C. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Figure 3.2 shows the share of units for owners and renters by the number of bedrooms they have. In general, owner-occupied units are much more likely to have three or more bedrooms, while renter-occupied units are much more likely to have two or fewer bedrooms. 63%9%1%6%21%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ UnitsMFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempLake Oswego, OregonAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 15 FIGURE 3.2: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS FOR OWNER AND RENTER UNITS, 2021 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: B25042 (2021 ACS 5-year Estimates) D. UNIT TYPES BY TENURE As Figure 3.3 and 3.4 show, a large share of owner-occupied units (81%), are detached homes, which is related to why owner-occupied units tend to have more bedrooms. Renter-occupied units are much more distributed among a range of structure types. About 18% of rented units are estimated to be detached homes or manufactured homes, while the remainder are some form of attached unit. Nearly 60% of rental units are in larger apartment complexes. FIGURE 3.3: CURRENT INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE, FOR OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING (LAKE OSWEGO) OWNERSHIP HOUSING RENTAL HOUSING Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 0%2%14%33%39%11%6%27%43%19%5%1%0%10%20%30%40%50%Studio1 bedroom2 bedrooms3 bedrooms4 bedrooms5 or moreNumber of BedroomsRenterOwnerSingle DetachedSingle AttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal UnitsTotals:10,557 1,2929337 781 320 13,008Percentage:81.2% 9.9%0.1% 2.6% 6.0% 0.2% 0.0%100%OWNERSHIP HOUSINGSingle DetachedSingle AttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal UnitsTotals:934 332250 6753,145 0 0 5,337Percentage:17.5% 6.2%4.7% 12.7% 58.9% 0.0% 0.0%100%RENTAL HOUSINGAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 16 FIGURE 3.4: CURRENT INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE, BY SHARE Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO E. AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK Lake Oswego’s housing stock reflects the pattern of development over time. The greatest periods of development in Lake Oswego were in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Roughly 15% of the housing stock has been built since 2000. FIGURE 3.5: AGE OF UNITS FOR OWNERS AND RENTERS (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: B25036 (2021 ACS 5-year Estimates) ▪ Unfortunately, good quantitative data on housing condition is generally unavailable without an intensive on-site survey of all local housing, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. Census categories related to housing condition are ill-suited for this analysis, dealing with such issues as units without indoor plumbing, which was more common in the mid-20th Century, but is an increasingly rare situation. Age of units serves as the closest reliable proxy for condition with available data. ▪ For ownership units, older homes may be in poor condition, but are also more likely to have undergone some repair and renovation over the years. Rental units are more likely to degrade steadily with age and wear-and-81%10%0%3%6%0%0%18%6%5%13%59%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%100%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ UnitsMFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempShare of UnitsUnit TypeLake Oswego, OregonOwnerRental7%8%17%20%23%10%7%3%5%9%8%20%25%23%5%5%1%3%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%Year Housing Unit BuiltOwnerRenterAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 17 tear, and less likely to receive sufficient reinvestment to keep them in top condition, though this is not universally true. F. HOUSING COSTS VS. LOCAL INCOMES Figure 3.6 shows the share of owner and renter households who are paying more than 30% of their household income towards housing costs, by income segment. (Spending 30% or less on housing costs is a common measure of “affordability” used by HUD and others, and in the analysis presented in this report.) As one would expect, households with lower incomes tend to spend more than 30% of their income on housing, while incrementally fewer of those in higher income groups spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs. Of those earning less than $20,000, an estimated 91% of owner households and 100% of renters spend more than 30% of income on housing costs. Even among households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, a majority are housing cost burdened. Because Lake Oswego has an income distribution skewed towards higher income levels, there are relatively few households in these lower income segments, compared to most other cities. In total, the US Census estimates that over 31% of Lake Oswego households pay more than 30% of income towards housing costs (2021 American Community Survey, B25106) FIGURE 3.6: SHARE OF LAKE OSWEGO HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING MORE THAN 30% ON HOUSING COSTS, BY INCOME GROUP Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Table: B25106 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) Housing is generally one of a household’s largest living costs, if not the largest. The ability to find affordable housing options, and even build wealth through ownership, is one of the biggest contributors to helping lower income households save and cultivate wealth. Even if renting, affordable housing costs allow for more household income to be put to other needs, including saving. The following figures show the percentage of household income spent towards gross rent4 for local renter households only. This more fine-grained data shows that not only are 49% of renters spending more than 30% of their income on gross rent, but an estimated 29% of renters are spending 50% or more of their income on housing and are considered severely rent-burdened. 4 The Census defines Gross Rent as “the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if these are paid by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else).” Housing costs for homeowners include mortgage, property taxes, insurance, utilities and condo or HOA dues. 91%82%74%51%12%100%92%88%64%16%0%20%40%60%80%100%Less than$20,000$20,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreShare of HH: Housing Costs >30% of IncomeHousehold IncomeOwner HouseholdsRenter HouseholdsAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 18 Renters are disproportionately lower income relative to homeowners. Housing cost burdens are felt more broadly for these households, and as the analysis presented in a later section shows there is a need for more affordable rental units in Lake Oswego, as in most communities. FIGURE 3.7: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME SPENT ON GROSS RENT, LAKE OSWEGO RENTER HOUSEHOLDS Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Table: B25070 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) G. PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) tracks three currently operating affordable housing properties in Lake Oswego, with a total of 76 units. These are properties that are funded through HUD programs, tax credits and other programs which guarantee subsidized rents for qualified households. All of these units, save one, are offered for elderly residents. The Marylhurst Commons, currently under development, is planned to offer 100 affordable units for families. Completion is expected in 2024. The Housing Authority of Clackamas County administers over 1,600 Section 8 housing choice vouchers that allow low-income participants to find rental units anywhere in the county. Under this program, the renters can find participating landlords and the voucher helps to subsidize the cost of a market-rate rental unit. The unit does not have to be in a property dedicated to subsidized affordable housing but can be in any rental property. The high share of renters still paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs indicates that there is an ongoing need for rental units at the lowest price points. Agricultural Worker Housing: Lake Oswego is not currently home to properties dedicated to agricultural workers. This population may also be served by other available affordable units. People Experiencing Homelessness: The Census does make a multi-faceted effort to include the unhoused population in the total Decennial Census count, by attempting to enumerate these individuals at service providers, and in transitory locations such as RV parks or campgrounds, as of the official Census data (4/1/20). However, it is difficult to make an accurate count of this population, and it is generally presumed that the unhoused are undercounted in the Census. The most recent (January 2022) Point-in-Time count of people experiencing homelessness and households experiencing homelessness in Clackamas County5 found 597 unhoused individuals on the streets, in shelters, or 5 Figures are for the entire County 3%22%25%14%7%29%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Share of Households% of Income to Gross RentAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 19 other temporary and/or precarious housing. The estimated 597 unhoused individuals represent 0.1% of the county’s total estimated population in 2022. ▪ An estimated 45% of individuals were in some sort of temporary shelter, while 55% were unsheltered. ▪ The total included 51 children (under age 18), and 26 youth (aged 18-24). ▪ Of those indicating a gender, 60% of those counted identified as men, 40% women. ▪ 5% of those counted were Hispanic or Latino compared to 9.5% in the general population. ▪ 304 individuals, or 51%, were counted as “chronically homeless”.6 While the Point-in-Time count is one of the few systematized efforts to count people experiencing homelessness across the country in a regular, structured way, it is widely thought to undercount the population of unhoused individuals and households. People who are doubled up, couch surfing, or experiencing domestic violence may not always be accurately counted. In addition to the impossibility of finding all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness, the count is conducted in late January, when homeless counts are likely near their lowest of the year due to inclement weather. It also relies on self-reporting. A recent analysis prepared for OHCS to test a potential approach for preparing Housing Capacity Analyses on a regional basis included estimates of the unhoused population in Oregon communities, including Lake Oswego. The approach utilizes a combination of data from the bi-annual Point-in-Time count and from tracking of unhoused school-aged children in keeping with the McKinney-Vento Act. The analysis estimates 239 households experiencing homelessness in Lake Oswego as of mid-2020. These include households that are unsheltered, in temporary shelters, or staying with friends or relatives. These households are a component of current and future housing need. The persistence of people experiencing homelessness speaks to the need for continuing to build a full spectrum of services and housing types to shelter this population, from temporary shelter to subsidized affordable housing. An analysis of the ability of current and projected housing supply to meet the needs of low-income people and the potential shortfall is included in the following sections of this report. 6 HUD defines “chronically homeless” as an individual with a disability as defined by the McKinney-Vento Assistance Act, who has been in uninhabitable conditions for more than 12 mo. or on four separate occasions in the last three years; or has been in institutional care for less than 90 days; or a family with an adult head of household who meets this definition. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 20 IV. CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) The profile of current housing conditions in the study area is based on Census 2010, which the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) uses to develop yearly estimates through 2019. The 2019 estimate is forecasted to 2023 using the estimated growth rate realized since 2010. FIGURE 4.1: CURRENT LAKE OSWEGO HOUSING PROFILE (2023) *This table reflects population, household and housing unit projections shown in Figure 2.1 We estimate a current population of 41,550 residents, living in 17,481 households (excluding group living situations). Average household size is 2.4 persons. There are an estimated 18,345 housing units in the city, indicating an estimated vacancy rate of 5%. This includes units vacant for any reason, not just those which are currently for sale or rent. ESTIMATE OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND Following the establishment of the current housing profile, the current housing demand was determined based upon the age and income characteristics of current households. The analysis considered the propensity of households in specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home (tenure), in order to derive the current demand for ownership and rental housing units and the appropriate housing cost level of each. This is done by combining data on tenure by age and tenure by income from the Census American Community Survey (tables: B25007 and B25118, 2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates). The analysis takes into account the average amount that owners and renters tend to spend on housing costs. For instance, lower income households tend to spend more of their total income on housing, while upper income households spend less on a percentage basis. In this case, it was assumed that households in lower income bands would prefer housing costs at no more than 30% of gross income (a common measure of affordability). Higher income households pay a decreasing share down to 20% for the highest income households. While the Census estimates that most low-income households pay more than 30% of their income for housing, this is an estimate of current preferred demand. It assumes that low-income households prefer (or demand) units affordable to them at no more than 30% of income, rather than more expensive units. SOURCETotal 2023 Population:41,550PSU Pop. Research Center- Estimated group housing population:329(0.8% of Total)US CensusEstimated Non-Group 2023 Population: 41,221(Total - Group)Avg. HH Size:2.36US CensusEstimated Non-Group 2023 Households: 17,481(Pop/HH Size)Total Housing Units:18,345(Occupied + Vacant)Census 2010 + permitsOccupied Housing Units:17,481(= # of HH)Vacant Housing Units:864(Total HH - Occupied)Current Vacancy Rate:4.7%(Vacant units/ Total units)Sources: Johnson Economics, City of Lake Oswego, PSU Population Research Center, U.S. CensusCURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS (2023)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 21 Figure 4.2 presents a snapshot of current housing demand (i.e. preferences) equal to the number of households in the study area (17,481). The breakdown of tenure (owners vs. renters) reflects data from the 2021 ACS. FIGURE 4.2: ESTIMATE OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Claritas., Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25007, B25106, B25118 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) Claritas: Estimates of income by age of householder The estimated home price and rent ranges are irregular because they are mapped to the affordability levels of the Census income level categories. For instance, an affordable home for those in the lowest income category (less than $15,000) would have to cost $80,000 or less. Affordable rent for someone in this category would be $400 or less. The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 5% (somewhat less than the current market rate, but in line with historic norms), with 10% down payment. These assumptions are designed to represent prudent lending and borrowing levels for ownership households. The 30-year mortgage commonly serves as the standard. In the 2000’s, down payment requirements fell significantly, but lending standards tightened significantly since the 2008/9 credit crisis. While 20% is often cited as the standard for most buyers, it is common for homebuyers, particularly first-time buyers, to pay significantly less than this using available programs. Interest rates are subject to disruption from national and global economic forces, and therefore impossible to forecast beyond the short term. The 5% used here is roughly the average 30-year rate over the last 20 years. The Price Range# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0k - $80k330Less than $15,0002.7%2.7%$80k - $130k267$15,000 - $24,9992.2%4.9%$130k - $180k357$25,000 - $34,9992.9%7.8%$180k - $250k636$35,000 - $49,9995.2%13.0%$250k - $350k1,051$50,000 - $74,9998.6%21.7%$350k - $440k1,147$75,000 - $99,9999.4%31.1%$440k - $510k1,109$100,000 - $124,9999.1%40.2%$510k - $560k892$125,000 - $149,9997.3%47.5%$560k - $680k1,827$150,000 - $199,99915.0%62.5%$680k +4,577$200,000+37.5%100.0%Totals:12,191% of All:69.7%Rent Level# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0 - $400348Less than $15,000 6.6% 6.6%$400 - $700383$15,000 - $24,999 7.2% 13.8%$700 - $900554$25,000 - $34,999 10.5% 24.3%$900 - $1300621$35,000 - $49,999 11.7% 36.0%$1300 - $1800837$50,000 - $74,999 15.8% 51.9%$1800 - $2200764$75,000 - $99,999 14.4% 66.3%$2200 - $2500505$100,000 - $124,999 9.6% 75.9%$2500 - $2800410$125,000 - $149,999 7.8% 83.6%$2800 - $3400271$150,000 - $199,999 5.1% 88.7%$3400 +596$200,000+11.3% 100.0%All HouseholdsTotals:5,290% of All: 30.3% 17,481RentalOwnershipAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 22 general trend has been falling interest rates since the early 1980’s, but coming out of the recent inflationary period, the Federal Reserve has raised its base rate significantly in recent years and mortgage rates have also climbed to levels not seen in almost 20 years. CURRENT HOUSING INVENTORY The profile of current housing demand (Figure 4.2) represents the preference and affordability levels of households. In reality, the current housing supply (Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below) differs from this profile, meaning that some households may find themselves in housing units which are not optimal, either not meeting the household’s own/rent preference, or being unaffordable (requiring more than 30% of gross income). A profile of current housing supply in Lake Oswego was estimated based on permit data from the City of Lake Oswego and Census data from the most recently available 2021 ACS, which provides a profile of housing types (single family, attached, manufactured home, etc.), tenure, housing values, and rent levels. The 5-year estimates from the ACS were used because margin of error is lower than 1-year ACS estimates. ▪ An estimated 71% of housing units are ownership units, while an estimated 29% of housing units are rental units. This is slightly different than the estimated demand profile shown in Figure 4.2, which estimated a bit higher demand for rental units given local income and age levels. The inventory includes vacant units. ▪ 81% of ownership units are detached homes, and very few are manufactured homes. 17.5% of rental units are either single family homes or manufactured homes, while 59% are in structures of 5 units or more. ▪ Of total housing units, an estimated 63% are detached homes or manufactured homes. 37% are some sort of attached unit type. FIGURE 4.3: PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY BY TYPE (2023) Sources: US Census, PSU Population Research Center, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25004, B25032, B25063, B25075 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪ The affordability of different unit types is an approximation based on Census data on the distribution of housing units by value (ownership) or gross rent (rentals). ▪ Most subsidized affordable housing units found in the city are represented by the inventory at the lowest end of the rental spectrum. ▪ Ownership housing found at the lower end of the value spectrum generally reflect older, smaller homes, or homes in poor condition on small or irregular lots. It is important to note that these represent estimates of 81%10%0%3%6%0%0%18%6%5%13%59%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%100%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempShare of UnitsUnit TypeLake Oswego, OregonOwnerRentalAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 23 current property value or current housing cost to the owner, not the current market pricing of homes for sale in the city. These properties may be candidates for redevelopment when next they sell but are currently estimated to have low value. FIGURE 4.4: PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY, ESTIMATED AFFORDABILITY IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: US Census, PSU Population Research Center, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25004, B25032, B25063, B25075 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪ Most housing (58%) in Lake Oswego is found in price and rent levels affordable to those earning at least $125,000 per year, which is close to the city’s median income. There is very little housing available to those in lower income segments. Over 90% of housing is affordable to those earning at least $50,000, and only 9% affordable to those earning less than this. COMPARISON OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND WITH CURRENT SUPPLY A comparison of estimated current housing demand with the existing supply identifies the existing discrepancies between needs and the housing which is currently available. The estimated number of units outnumbers the number of households by roughly 865 units, indicating an average vacancy rate of 4.7%. In general, this identifies that there is currently support for more ownership housing at lower price points, while the upper end of the market is generally well supplied. This is because most housing in Lake Oswego is clustered at higher property values, which matches the community’s high average household income but leaves some households underserved. The analysis finds that the current market rates for most rental units are in the $1,300 to $2,200/month range. Therefore, this is where most of the rental unit supply is currently clustered. However, the greatest unmet need is found at the lower end of the income scale, where many current renters pay more than 30% of their income in housing costs. Rentals at the most expensive levels generally represent single family homes for rent. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 present this information in chart form, comparing the estimated number of households in given income ranges, and the supply of units currently valued (ownership) or priced (rentals) within those income ranges. The data is presented for owner and renter households. Affordable Estimated Affordable EstimatedPrice Level Units Rent Level UnitsLess than $15,000 $0k - $80k135$0 - $40070$15,000 - $24,999 $80k - $130k129$400 - $70043$25,000 - $34,999 $130k - $180k170$700 - $900106$35,000 - $49,999 $180k - $250k406$900 - $1300518$50,000 - $74,999 $250k - $350k735$1300 - $1800 1,852$75,000 - $99,999 $350k - $440k839$1800 - $2200 1,289$100,000 - $124,999 $440k - $510k753$2200 - $2500602$125,000 - $149,999 $510k - $560k924$2500 - $2800223$150,000 - $199,999 $560k - $680k 2,217 $2800 - $3400229$200,000+$680k +6,700 $3400 +40471%13,00829%5,337Income RangeOwnership HousingRental HousingShare of Total Units1%1%2%5%14%12%7%6%13%39%0%10%20%30%40%AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 24 FIGURE 4.5: COMPARISON OF OWNER HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS TO ESTIMATED SUPPLY AFFORDABLE AT THOSE INCOME LEVELS IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, City of Lake Oswego, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS FIGURE 4.6: COMPARISON OF RENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS TO ESTIMATED SUPPLY AFFORDABLE AT THOSE INCOME LEVELS IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, City of Lake Oswego, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS The home value and rent segments which show a “surplus” in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate where current property values and market rent levels are in Lake Oswego. Housing prices and rent levels will tend to congregate around those levels. These levels will be too costly for some (i.e. require more than 30% in gross income) or “too affordable” for others (i.e. they have income levels that indicate they could afford more expensive housing if they chose). In general, these findings demonstrate that there are few lower-value housing opportunities for many owner households, and potential support for some less expensive types of ownership housing. There is a need for more rental units at lower rent levels (<$900/mo.). HOME SALE PRICES It is important to note that the figures presented in the prior section represent estimates of current property value or current housing cost to the owner, not the current market pricing of homes for sale in the city. For instance, a household living in a manufactured home that has been paid off over many years may have relatively low housing costs. This indicates that one owner household is living in a “lower value” unit. It does not indicate that units at this price point are available on the current market. 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000# of Households/UnitsIncome CohortsOwner Households vs. Current UnitsEst. Owner HouseholdsUnits Valued at Income Level05001,0001,5002,000# of Households/UnitsIncome CohortsRenter Households vs. Current UnitsEst. Renter HouseholdsUnits Affordable at Income LevelAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 25 If this hypothetical household were to sell their home, it would sell at a higher price reflecting inflation and current achievable market prices. For this reason, many of the lower value or lower rent units found in the previous section will actually become higher-priced units when they are sold or become vacant. For reference, this section presents home sales data from 2022 to indicate housing costs for new entrants into the market (Figure 4.7). • The median sale price was $860,000. • The average (mean) sale price was $1,075,000. • The average price per square foot was $430/s.f. • The median square footage was 2,300 s.f. FIGURE 4.7: LAKE OSWEGO HOME SALES (12 MONTHS) Sources: RMLS, JOHNSON ECONOMICS • 48% of sales were priced above $900,000. • 34% of sales were priced between $500,000 and $899,000. • Only 18% of sales were priced at less than $500,000. • Only 7% of sales were priced below $300,000. Affordability: As indicated, roughly 75% of recent sales in Lake Oswego were priced at least $600,000. Homes in this range would be mostly affordable to households earning at least $175,000 per year, which is well above the median household income of $123,000. Roughly 66% of households earn less than $175,000 per year, meaning that the bulk of housing supply on the current for-sale market (75%) is likely too expensive for most of these households. * * * The findings of current need form the foundation for projected future housing need, presented in the following section. 72%0%8%20%Home Sales by Unit TypeDetached HomeManuf. HomeAttached HomeCondo03434731395667663190100200300400<$100,000$100,000 - $199,000$200,000 - $299,000$300,000 - $399,000$400,000 - $499,000$500,000 - $599,000$600,000 - $699,000$700,000 - $799,000$800,000 - $899,000$900,000+Home Sales by Price LevelAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 26 V. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS - 2043 (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) The projected future (20-year) housing profile (Figure 5.1) in the study area is based on the current housing profile (2023), multiplied by an assumed projected future household growth rate. The projected future growth is the forecasted 2043 population for the City of Lake Oswego included in the most recently adopted Coordinated Population Forecast from Metro for all cities in the region. This was adopted in 2021 and projected a very modest growth rate for Lake Oswego of well less than 1% per year.7 FIGURE 5.1: FUTURE HOUSING PROFILE (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Metro, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC *Projections are applied to estimates of 2023 population, household and housing units shown in Figure 2.1 The model projects growth in the number of non-group households over 20 years of over 1,800 households, but with accompanying population growth of just 411 new residents. The difference is that the household size is expected to decrease significantly to 2.2 persons, meaning more smaller households to house the same population. (The number of households differs from the number of housing units, because the total number of housing units includes a percentage of vacancy. Projected housing unit needs are discussed below.) 7 The projected growth and housing need presented in this report conforms to the statutory approach to completing a Goal 10 needs analysis. To comply with state rules, the analysis relies on estimates of current population from the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) and projections of future growth from the most recent Metro distributed forecast. The forecasted growth rates from Metro are very low in comparison to rates experienced during the past 20 years and low in comparison to projected rates in other parts of the region and state. The City's population increased by about 18%, with an average annual growth rate of about 1% between 2000 and 2020 per year. During the next 20 years, forecasted growth is projected to be a total of 1%, with an average annual growth rate of just 0.05% per year. Many community members in Lake Oswego, including members of the project Task Force, as well as members of the City's Planning Commission and City Council, have questioned the accuracy of the projected growth rates, but no contrary expert testimony of the population forecast is presented. To the extent the City grows faster than the growth rates predict, the deficit of land available to accommodate housing over the long term will be more acute and the City will consume remaining buildable land more quickly, potentially running out of buildable land within several years. Per ORS 197.297, the City is required to adopt an updated HNA at least once every six years; thus, the City will have an additional opportunity in 2029 to correct the population forecast, if the projections in the 2023 HNA are notably different than observed trends. It will be important for the City to coordinate closely with Metro as it updates its growth rates and to continue to monitor actual growth patterns, as well as the supply of buildable land in the City. To the extent growth occurs at a faster rate than projected, the City will need to identify and implement strategies to address a potential shortage in available land for housing in the near term. SOURCE2023 Population (Minus Group Pop.)41,221(Est. 2022 pop. - Group Housing Pop.)PSUProjected Annual Growth Rate0.05%Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)Metro2043 Population (Minus Group Pop.)41,629(Total 2043 Population - Group Housing Pop.)Estimated group housing population:3321.7% of total pop. (held constant from 2022)US CensusTotal Estimated 2043 Population:41,961Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)MetroEstimated Non-Group 2043 Households:19,298Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)MetroNew Households 2023 to 20431,816Avg. Household Size:2.16Projected 2043 pop./2043 houseoldsUS CensusTotal Housing Units:20,313Occupied Units plus VacantOccupied Housing Units:19,298(= Number of Non-Group Households)Vacant Housing Units:1,016(= Total Units - Occupied Units)Projected Market Vacancy Rate:5.0%Stabilized vacancy assumptionPROJECTED FUTURE HOUSING CONDITIONS (2023 - 2043)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 27 PROJECTION OF FUTURE HOUSING UNIT DEMAND (2043) The profile of future housing demand was derived using the same methodology used to produce the estimate of current housing need. This estimate includes current and future households but does not include a vacancy assumption. The vacancy assumption is added in the subsequent step. Therefore, the need identified below is the total need for actual households in occupied units (19,298). The analysis considered the propensity of households at specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home, in order to derive the future need for ownership and rental housing units, and the affordable cost level of each. The projected need is for all 2043 households and therefore includes the needs of current households. The price levels presented here use the same assumptions regarding the amount of gross income applied to housing costs, from 30% for low income households down to 20% for the highest income households. The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 5%, with 10% down payment. Because of the impossibility of predicting variables such as interest rates 20 years into the future, these assumptions were kept constant from the estimation of current housing demand. Income levels and price levels are presented in 2023 dollars. Figure 5.2 presents the projected occupied future housing demand (current and new households, without vacancy) in 2043. FIGURE 5.2: PROJECTED OCCUPIED FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Price Range# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0k - $80k364Less than $15,0002.7%2.7%Extremely$80k - $130k295$15,000 - $24,9992.2%4.9%Low Income$130k - $180k394$25,000 - $34,9992.9%7.8%Very Low$180k - $250k702$35,000 - $49,9995.2%13.0%Income$250k - $350k1,160$50,000 - $74,9998.6%21.7%Low Income<80% MFI$350k - $440k1,266$75,000 - $99,9999.4%31.1%$440k - $510k1,224$100,000 - $124,9999.1%40.2%$510k - $560k984$125,000 - $149,9997.3%47.5%$560k - $680k2,017$150,000 - $199,99915.0%62.5%$680k +5,053$200,000+37.5%100.0%Totals:13,458% of All:69.7%Rent Level# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0 - $400385Less than $15,000 6.6% 6.6% Extremely$400 - $700423$15,000 - $24,999 7.2% 13.8% Low Income$700 - $900611$25,000 - $34,999 10.5% 24.3% Very Low$900 - $1300686$35,000 - $49,999 11.7% 36.0% Income$1300 - $1800924$50,000 - $74,999 15.8% 51.9% Low Income <80% MFI$1800 - $2200843$75,000 - $99,999 14.4% 66.3%$2200 - $2500558$100,000 - $124,999 9.6% 75.9%$2500 - $2800453$125,000 - $149,999 7.8% 83.6%$2800 - $3400299$150,000 - $199,999 5.1% 88.7%$3400 +658$200,000+11.3% 100.0%All UnitsTotals:5,840% of All: 30.3% 19,298<30% MFI<50% MFIOwnershipRental<30% MFI<50% MFIAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 28 The number of households across the income spectrum seeking a range of both ownership and rental housing is anticipated to grow. It is projected that the homeownership rate in Lake Oswego will fall somewhat over the next 20 years to under 70% from 71%. COMPARISON OF FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND TO CURRENT HOUSING INVENTORY The profile of occupied future housing demand presented above (Figure 5.2) was compared to the current housing inventory presented in the previous section to determine the total future need for new housing units by type and price range (Figure 5.3). This estimate includes a vacancy assumption. As reflected by the most recent Census data, and as is common in most communities, the vacancy rate for rental units is typically higher than that for ownership units. An average vacancy rate of 5% is assumed for the purpose of this analysis. FIGURE 5.3: PROJECTED FUTURE NEED FOR NEW HOUSING UNITS (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: PSU, City of Lake Oswego, Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS ▪ The results show a need for 1,968 new housing units by 2043. ▪ Of the new units needed, roughly 52% are projected to be ownership units, while 48% are projected to be rental units. This represents more renters than the estimated tenure split, but it is projected that more rental units will need to be added to correct the current modest deficit of rental units, plus the future ownership rate will fall slightly. This results in a proportionately greater share of future units being rental, rather than ownership units. ▪ There is some need for new ownership housing at the middle to low-end of the pricing spectrum. But income trends suggest that the greatest demand will remain in the upper-middle price ranges ($300k to $600k). ▪ The greatest need for rental units is found at the lowest and some higher price points. Market rents are currently clustered in the $1,300 to $2,200 range in current dollars. Therefore, most units are to be found in this range. Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:708132315792301,02452.0%Percentage:69.2%12.9%3.1%5.6%9.0%0.2%0.0%100%Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:5287731485850094448.0%Percentage:5.5%9.2%7.7%15.7%61.9%0.0%0.0%100%Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:760 220 104 205 677301,968100%Percentage:38.6% 11.2% 5.3% 10.4% 34.4% 0.1% 0.0%100%Unit Type:OWNERSHIP HOUSINGMulti-FamilyUnit Type:RENTAL HOUSINGMulti-FamilyUnit Type:TOTAL HOUSING UNITSMulti-FamilyAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 29 ▪ There is insufficient rental housing for the lowest income households making $35,000 or less or detached single-family homes for rent. Many households will need rent levels lower than the market rate in order to maintain housing costs that are affordable (see more detail below). Needed Unit Types The mix of needed unit types shown in Figure 5.3 reflects both past trends and anticipated future trends. Single detached units are expected to continue to make up a large share of new housing development for ownership households over the next 20 years. However, an increasing share of new needed units is anticipated to be attached housing types to accommodate renters and first-time home buyers. ▪ 39% of the new units are projected to be single detached homes or new manufactured homes, while 61% is projected to be some form of attached housing. ▪ Single attached units (townhomes on individual lots) are projected to meet roughly 11% of future need. These are defined as units on separate tax lots, attached by a wall but separately metered, the most common example being townhome units. ▪ Duplex, triplex, and four-plex units are projected to represent a growing 16% of the total need, reflecting new state rules for middle housing zoning. Duplex units would include a detached single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on the same lot, or with a separate unit in the home (for instance, a rental basement unit.) ▪ 34% of all needed units are projected to be multi-family in structures of 5+ attached units. ▪ Less than 1% of new needed units are projected to be manufactured home units, which meet the needs of some low-income households for both ownership and rental. ▪ Of ownership units, 69% are projected to be single detached homes or manufactured homes, and 31% are projected to be attached forms. ▪ Nearly all new rental units are projected to be found in new attached buildings, with 62% projected in rental properties of 5 or more units, and 33% in other attached housing forms. Only 5.5% of new rental units are projected to be detached homes, including manufactured homes. Group Housing Needs: There is an estimated population of 332 individuals living in group housing in 2043, based on an assumption that the share of the population living in group quarters (1.7%) remains stable from current levels. This would represent an increase of just a few people living in group quarters, as forecasted population growth is modest. In Lake Oswego, the Census estimates that nearly all of Lake Oswego’s group housing population lives in nursing facilities. NEEDED AFFORDABILITY LEVELS Figure 5.4 presents the estimated need for net new housing units by major income segment, based on the projected demographics of new households to the market area. The needed affordability levels presented here are based on current dollars. Figure 5.4 also discusses the housing types typically attainable by residents at these income levels. Note that Figure 5.4 presents the official state measure of “low income” used to set rent and income limits for various affordable housing programs. This estimate via OHCS and HUD are based on an estimate of median income in Clackamas County of $106k in 2022, based on a family of four, while the median income in Lake Oswego was a higher $123k. For this analysis, the estimated Median Family Income (MFI) for a family of four ($106k) was adjusted to match the average household size in Lake Oswego of 2.4 persons ($89.5k) so that the estimates presented below reflect the city average. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 30 Figure 5.4 presents some of the types of housing product that might commonly serve households in these income ranges. Many households below 60% MFI or even higher income will require some sort of subsidized affordable unit or voucher to find housing affordability. Those at 60% to 100% MFI may find housing in older and substandard market rate rentals, manufactured homes, and middle housing types. FIGURE 5.4: PROJECTED NEED FOR NEW HOUSING AT DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS, LAKE OSWEGO Sources: HUD, Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS ▪ Figure 5.3 presents the net NEW housing unit need over the next 20 years. However, there is also a current need for more affordable units. For all households, current and new, to pay 30% or less of their income towards housing in 2043, more affordable rental units (subsidized and non-subsidized) would be required. This indicates that some of the current supply, while it shows up as existing available housing, would need to become less expensive to meet the needs of current households. ▪ There is a finding of new need at the lowest end of the rental spectrum ($900 and less). ▪ The projection of future ownership units finds that the supply at the lowest end of the spectrum will be insufficient due to the prevalence of newer homes, many of which will be detached houses. (This reflects the estimated value of the total housing stock, and not necessarily the average pricing for housing currently for sale.) Ownership options and lower and middle price points are often manufactured homes, townhomes, condos, and small detached homes, often on smaller lots. Subsidized Affordability Housing Need As alluded to in Figure 5.4, some low-income households, and particularly the lowest income households, typically need some sort of subsidized affordable housing in order to find rents affordable given their modest resources and other household spending needs. Figure 5.5 below presents estimates of need at key low-income affordability levels in 2022 and in 2043. The table uses HUD definitions of Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income, as well as 60% MFI which is a common affordability level for tax credit properties. ▪ There is an existing and on-going need at these levels, based on income levels specified by OHCS for Clackamas County. An estimated 12% of households qualify as at least “low income” or lower on the income scale, while Income Level (Rounded)Owner UnitsRenter UnitsTotalShareCommon Housing ProductExtremely Low Inc.< 30% MFI< $27,5005614920510%Government-subsidized; Voucher; Shelter; TransitionalVery Low Income30% - 60% MFI$27.5k - $55k9522131716%Aging/substandard rentals; Government-subsidized; Voucher; Manufactured homesLow Income60% - 80% MFI$55k - $73k7112019010%Aging apartments; Government-subsidized; Plexes; Aging single-detached; Small homesMiddle Income80% - 120% MFI$73k - $110k13417230616%Single-detached homes; Townhomes; Condominiums; Newer apartmentsUpper Income> 120% MFI> $110,00066928295148%Single-detached homes; Townhomes; Condominiums; New apartmentsTOTAL:1,0249441,968100%Household Income SegmentAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 31 9% of households qualify as “extremely low income”. (Again, this is based on the official state measure of Clackamas County median income for application to HUD and other subsidized affordable housing programs, which is relatively high.) FIGURE 5.5: PROJECTED NEED FOR HOUSING AFFORDABLE AT LOW INCOME LEVELS, LAKE OSWEGO Sources: OHCS, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, HUD * Income levels are based on OHCS guidelines for avg. Lake Oswego household size of 2.4 persons. ▪ Typically, only rent-subsidized affordable properties can accommodate these extremely-low-income households and many other low-income households at “affordable” housing cost levels. Often the lowest income households must be served by housing choice vouchers and public housing. Tax credit projects are more likely to serve those earning 50% to 60% of MFI. Housing Need for People Experiencing Homelessness: Given the low forecasted population growth, Lake Oswego is assumed to maintain a fairly stable number of unhoused individuals and households over this period. Unhoused individuals and families may require a mixture of shelter types depending on individual circumstances, ranging from emergency shelter to transitional housing to permanent subsidized housing. This population is a subset of the extremely-low-income population shown in prior figures. Agricultural Worker Housing: There is currently no housing dedicated to this population in Lake Oswego. Based on the assumption that this type of housing will maintain its current representation in the local housing stock, this indicates that there will likely be no new need for housing dedicated specifically for agricultural workers over the planning period. However, this population may also be served by other available affordable units. # of Units % of All # of Units % of All # of Units % of AllExtremely Low Inc.≤ 30% MFI ≤$26,8001,4929%1,6979% 205 10%Very Low Income30% - 50% MFI≤$44,7001,5609%1,7719% 212 11%Low Income50% - 80% MFI≤$71,6002,07512%2,37012% 295 15%TOTAL:≤ 80% MFI ≤$71,6005,12729%5,83930%71236%Tax Credit≤ 60% MFI ≤$53,7003,96223%4,48323% 521 26%Income Level*NEW Need (20-Year)Affordablilty LevelCurrent Need (2022)Future Need (2043)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 32 VI. RECONCILIATION OF FUTURE NEED (2043) & LAND SUPPLY This section summarizes the results of the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The BLI is presented in detail in an accompanying memo to this report. The BLI was conducted for land within the city limits, assessing vacant and partially vacant lands based on residential zoning, and environmental and other constraints that may impact development. The following table (Figure 6.1) presents the estimated new unit capacity of the buildable lands identified in the City of Lake Oswego and within the UGB. Residential zones, as well as mixed-use zones that can accommodate some residential uses, were included in the inventory, and are broken into broad categories based on housing density. FIGURE 6.1: ESTIMATED BUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITY BY ACREAGE AND NO. OF UNITS (2023) Source: MIG • There is a total estimated remaining capacity of 1,327 units of different types within the study area. • The estimated remaining capacity for low density housing units remains the greatest share at capacity for 655 units, or 49% of the total. • There is a total estimated capacity for 195 middle housing units, including future infill in low density zones. This is roughly 15% of the total unit capacity. ACRESLand TypeGross AcresConstrained Area (Acres)Unconstrained Area (Acres)Developable AcresUnit CapacityResidential3,5308022,784174705Mixed Use4909639710146Non-Residential17221150--Public/Other3,1471,2741,899--Acres Total:7,3392,1935,230185851UNITSHousing TypeSingle Family UnitsMiddle Housing UnitsMulti-Family UnitsUnit CapacityResidential6483917705Mixed Use523118146Non-Residential----Public/Other----Vacant and Partially Vacant Total:65362135851Additional CapacityApproved Developments223341366Additional Middle Housing Infill-110-110TOTAL HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY:6551954761,327ACREAGEUNIT TYPEAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 33 • There is a total estimated capacity for 476 housing units in higher density multi-dwelling properties. This is roughly 36% of the total unit capacity. • 28% of the total capacity (366 units) is found in units already approved for development as of the time of this analysis. Additional infill opportunities identified on large-lot residential and some commercial lands account for an estimated 8% of capacity. See the attached Appendix for full Buildable Land Inventory details and methodology. The following table summarizes the forecasted future unit need for Lake Oswego. These are the summarized results from Section V of this report, presented here for reference. FIGURE 6.2: SUMMARY OF FORECASTED FUTURE UNIT NEED (2043) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Census, Johnson Economics Comparison of Housing Need and Capacity There is a total forecasted need for nearly 2,000 units over the next 20 years based on the forecasted growth rate. This is greater than the estimated total capacity of 1,327 units. Figure 6.3 below presents a comparison of the BLI capacity for new housing units, compared to the estimate for new unit need by 2043. It breaks down need by general zoning category (LDR, MDR, HDR). • The projected demand for low-density housing types is higher than the remaining capacity by an estimated 192 units, or the equivalent of 38 acres of low density residential land. • The results find a deficit for medium-density housing of 249 units, or 31 acres. • The projected demand for high-density housing types is higher than the remaining capacity by an estimated 201 units, or the equivalent of 17 acres of high density residential land. Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:760 220 104 205 677301,968100%Percentage:38.6% 11.2% 5.3% 10.4% 34.4% 0.1% 0.0%100%TOTAL HOUSING UNITSMulti-FamilyUnit Type:7602203096773Single Detached HomesTownhomes2 - 4 Plex Units5 or More UnitsManufactured HomesHousing UnitsHousing Unit TypeNew Units NeededAN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 34 • These findings assume that under newly adopted state rules, 3% of available buildable parcels in the LDR zone will be used for the various types of attached units (single-family attached townhomes, duplex – fourplex). FIGURE 6.3: COMPARISON OF FORECASTED FUTURE LAND NEED (2043) WITH AVAILABLE CAPACITY Sources: MIG, Johnson Economics • These findings point to a need for additional residential land in a range of zones over the 20-year planning period. Available inventory may meet an estimated 67% of total housing needs over the first half of the planning period, but a deficit is projected in the long run. • A range of potential housing policies and strategies will be considered in future development of a Housing Production Strategy by the City, including the ability of future plan areas to meet the need for different types of housing during the 20-year planning period. WITHIN CITY LIMITSUnitsAvg. Units/ac.AcresLow-Density Single-family detached; Some SF attached & plex655847(192)5(38)Med-DensitySF attached; Manufact. home; 2-4 plexes195444(249)8(31)High-DensityMulti-family apartments476677(201)12(17)TOTALS:1,3271,968(642)7(86)SUPPLY DEMANDGrowth Rate (0.05%)New Unit Need (2043)Zone & Plan CategoryTypical Housing TypeBuildable Land Inventory - Housing Unit CapacitySurplus or (Deficit)AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 35 APPENDIX A: LAKE OSWEGO RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY Methodology and Results | July 18, 2023 Introduction This memorandum provides a Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) for the City of Lake Oswego, which will support the creation of a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) for the City. The methodology for this BLI is based on the 2018 Metro BLI1 with further refinements through review and discussions with City staff. The BLI is conducted in the following steps: • Step 1: Study Area and Land Classification. This step identifies the land in the City that is available for residential uses. • Step 2: Constraints to Development. This step identifies constraints such as natural resources, steep slopes, and utility easements that limit development. • Step 3: Development Status. This step assigns a “Development Status” of vacant, partially vacant, or developed tax lots in the inventory. • Step 4: Net Buildable Area and Unit Capacity. This step removes land for future rights-of-way and other land needs to provide a net number of acres for each City zoning designation, then estimates number of units and mix of unit type (single detached, multi-dwelling, middle housing) expected based on the results of Step 4. Step 1: Study Area and Land Classification Study Area The study area for this analysis is shown in Figure 1. The study area includes land within the Lake Oswego City Limits.2 1 https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2018/07/03/UGR_Appendix2_Buildable_Lands_Inventory.pdf 2 A prior version of this Buildable Lands Inventory included unannexed land outside of the Lake Oswego City Limits which has a City Comprehensive Plan designation. This land has been removed from the study area following AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 36 Figure 1. Study Area Map Land Classification Parcels in the inventory are categorized based on their Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, property ownership, and other characteristics available in City/regional datasets. These classifications are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Districts The City of Lake Oswego’s Comprehensive Plan Districts are described in Table 1. This is the primary basis for classifying lands into the categories of Residential, Mixed-Use, Nonresidential, and Publicly Owned/Other. Alignment with Zoning Districts are shown in the “Implementing Zones” column. Zoning discussion with the City’s Housing Production Strategy Task Force and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 37 and Comprehensive Plan map designations are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Overarching categories of land and how they are considered in this inventory are described on the pages following those figures. Table 1. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Districts Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose Residential Low Density R-15 To provide lands for single-family residential development with densities ranging from two to five dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-10 R-7.5 Residential Medium Density R-5 To provide lands for single- and multi-family residential development with densities ranging from seven to eight dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-DD Zone (1) The purpose of the R-DD zone is to assure that both single-family homes and middle housing are protected from noise, light, glare and reduction in privacy to the maximum extent possible during the area’s transition to higher density residential use, to facilitate good architectural design and site planning which maintains residential choices of unit size, cost and other amenities and supports the economic feasibility of new construction and development, and to assure protection and compatibility of all land uses, including commercial, residential, park, open space and historic sites. (2) The R-DD zone is intended for use in low density residential districts which are undergoing transition to increased densities, and which have scenic, historic, natural or residential features which should be preserved and integrated with new development. R-6 The FAN R-6 zone is intended to implement the land use policies of the First Addition Neighborhood Plan. The purpose of this zone is to ensure the design quality of proposed development in the neighborhood by: (1) Ensuring that proposed building designs are visually compatible with the character of existing structures, maintain adequate light and air between structures, and complement the neighborhood’s architectural character. (2) Minimizing the visual impact of garages from the street, and to continue established alley uses and functions such as access to garages, off-street parking and trash removal. (3) Encouraging compatible and sensitive remodeling and renovation of existing residences. (4) Preserving the small-town character of the existing streetscape by allowing single-family and middle housing development that is human scale and pedestrian oriented. (5) Enhancing the natural environment of the neighborhood as one of the dominant characteristics. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 38 Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose (6) Preserving FAN’s historical and architectural character by encouraging infill development that is compatible in design character to landmark structures on abutting lots. Residential High Density R-3 To provide lands for single- and multi-family residential development with densities of at least 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-2 R-0 R-W Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (NC) To provide land near residential areas for lower intensity commercial activities that primarily serve the surrounding neighborhood, smaller public facility uses, and residential uses. General Commercial (GC) To provide lands for a mix of higher intensity commercial activities supplying a broad range of goods and services to a market area approximately equal to the planning area identified in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as residential, public facilities, and cultural uses. Highway Commercial (HC) To provide lands for commercial activities which meet the needs of the traveling public as well as other highway-oriented retail uses which require access to a market area larger than the general commercial zone. This zone is not intended for regional shopping centers. Mixed Commerce (MC) To provide for a mix of uses requiring highway access and which provide a strong visual identity. Intended uses include local and regional convention type facilities, office uses and supporting retail uses. Office Campus (OC) To provide lands for major concentrations of regionally-oriented offices and employment opportunities for a market area larger than the planning area. Campus Research and Development (CR&D) To provide a mix of clean, employee-intensive industries, offices and high-density housing with associated services and retail commercial uses in locations supportive of mass transit and the regional transportation network. Campus Institutional (CI) The purpose of the CI zone is to provide zoning regulations for the Marylhurst Campus in order to provide land where permitted or conditional uses can be provided for in a unified campus setting. East End General Commercial (EC) To implement Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the Downtown Town Center and to provide land for a mix of higher intensity commercial, residential, and cultural uses and public facilities that support a traditional downtown commercial core. Industrial Industrial Zone (I) The purpose of the industrial zone is to provide land where general industrial development can be located. Industrial Park Zone (IP) To provide lands where primarily light industrial and employment uses can occur in a campus-like setting under controls to make activities mutually compatible and also compatible with existing uses bordering the zone. Mixed Use West Lake Grove Zones (Townhome Residential - WLG R-2.5, To provide zoning for townhome residential, commercial, and mixed-use development in the West Lake Grove District that accommodates lower intensity commercial, public facility and residential uses; and to provide a transition between the Lake Grove Village Center and adjacent residential neighborhoods. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 39 Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose Residential Mixed Use - WLG RMU, and Office-Commercial - WLG OC) These districts are intended to supply services to a market area that is comprised of adjacent neighborhoods. Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) To foster a mix of housing, retail and office uses in a central location proximate to downtown and along the Willamette River. Commercial uses are allowed but are not intended to dominate the character of the area. Retail uses are limited in size to complement the downtown core and facilitate the development of neighborhood-focused retail served by transit. The design and development standards are intended to create a unique Lake Oswego community. The emphasis of the zone is on residentially related uses. The Foothills Mixed Use code provisions are intended to: i. Connect the FMU area with downtown, Tryon Creek, Old Town, the Willamette River and Oswego Lake; ii. Create a sustainable walkable neighborhood that possesses a thriving, active, and comfortable pedestrian environment; iii. Create visual interest through varied building heights that are urban in character, yet include detailed amenities at the ground floor that enhance the pedestrian environment; iv. Create high quality buildings, of long lasting materials, to promote the permanence of the community; v. Allow for a mix of residential uses, with urban density, and neighborhood scale retail and office development; and vi. Establish a standard of design that reinforces Lake Oswego’s sense of place. Public Use Public Functions (PF) The Public Functions (PF) zone is intended to specify appropriate land uses and development standards for public uses, such as government services, education, and similar activities. Park and Natural Area (PNA) Park and Natural Area (PNA) The purposes of the Park and Natural Area (PNA) zone are to: i. Protect, preserve, conserve and enhance natural areas, greenways and parks; ii. Permit a wide range of passive and active recreational uses, and accessory uses, on property for the future use and enjoyment of the City and its residents; iii. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs; and iv. Establish a master plan process for park planning and development. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 40 Figure 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Designations AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 41 Figure 3. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Designations Residential Land Residential Land is intended to meet the City’s need for residential uses of various types. It includes land within the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7.5, R-10, R-15, R-W, and WLG R-2.5 Comprehensive Plan designations, unless it meets the criteria for “Publicly Owned/Other” land. Mixed Use Land Mixed Use land can be developed to meet the City’s residential and employment needs – sometimes within the same structure. It includes land within the WLG RMU, CI, CR&D, EC, FMU, GC, HC, NC, OC, and WLG OC Comprehensive Plan designations unless it meets the criteria for “Publicly Owned/Other” land. More information about the assumptions for future housing development in these areas is found later in this report. Nonresidential Land Nonresidential land includes employment land and “Publicly Owned/Other” land, as follows. This land is not included in the inventory. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 42 Employment Land Employment Land is intended to meet the City’s employment needs. It includes land within the MC and IP Comprehensive Plan designations unless it meets the criteria for “Public/Other” land. Publicly Owned/Other This category of land includes the SP, PF, and PNA designations, as well as land in the following categories: • Land in another Comprehensive Plan designation under City, County, State, Federal, or Special District Ownership • Land commonly held in Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) common ownership, such as required open space. • Religious or fraternal properties (with the notable exception of Marylhurst University, which is accounted for in a separate line item). • Private driveways and ROW As noted above, properties in this category are generally not included in the inventory. However, some specific parcels in this category may be included in other classifications if information is available to suggest that they have development capacity for residential or employment uses. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 43 Figure 4.BLI Land Classification AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 44 Step 2: Constraints to Development One of the primary tasks of this BLI is to identify land that is constrained by one or more of the following physical constraints. Constraints may overlap one another spatially – in this case the more restrictive constraint applies. Assumptions for these constraints are listed below – they have been discussed with City staff but are subject to further refinement, as needed. Constraints are described in Table 2 and shown on Figure 5. Table 2. Development Constraints Constraint Description Developable Portion Steep Slopes Slopes greater than 25%. Density transfer resulting in the construction of 1-2 dwelling units allowed. 5% Developable Water Bodies Includes lakes, streams, other areas of open water 0% Developable FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Includes Zones A, AE, and X. Density transfer resulting in the construction of 1-2 dwelling units allowed. 5% Developable Greenway Management Overlay District Protects land along the Willamette River. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings and accessory structures associated with such dwellings. 25% Developable Sensitive Lands Includes Resource Protection (Streams and Wetlands; RP), Resource Conservation (Tree Groves; RC), and Habitat Benefit Areas (Tree Groves; HBA). RP and RC areas are tightly regulated, while HBAs are areas with optional resource protection incentives rather than regulations. RP – Density transfer possible. RC - Mostly applies to public land and open space tracts, which are not developable (PF and PNA zones, OS tracts in private developments, typically). HBA - Incentives, rather than regulations, are applied to protect natural resources. Usually does not limit development beyond a modest reduction. RP – 50% Developable RC – 0% Developable HBA – 95% Developable AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 45 Figure 5. Constraints to Development AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 46 The BLI includes the following information for each tax lot in the study area based on the location of constraints. • Acres – Total size of the tax lot • Constrained Acres – Acreage of constrained areas, per Table 2 • Unconstrained Acres – Total acres minus Constrained Acres The following table shows gross acres of land in each primary land classification in the Study Area. Table 2. Constrained and Unconstrained Acres by Land Type Land Type Total Acres Constrained Acres Unconstrained Acres Residential 3,530 802 2,784 Mixed Use 490 96 397 Non-Residential 172 21 150 Publicly Owned/Other 3,147 1,274 1,899 Total 7,339 2,193 5,230 Step 3: Development Status Each tax lot in the study area is categorized as Vacant, Partially Vacant, or Developed. The following data is used to determine development capacity of Study Area tax lots: • Tax assessor data, including Property Land Use Code, Improvement Value, and Land Value; • City inventory of outdoor areas, used in identifying public and commonly-held open spaces such as public facilities, parks and Homeowners Association-owned open spaces; • Metro Vacant Land Inventory derived annually from aerial photo information; • Review of recent aerial imagery; and • Discussion and review with City staff and the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) Task Force. Generally, vacant tax lots are assumed to have development capacity equal to the area unconstrained by natural resources, minus additional set-asides for future Right-of-Way and infrastructure (see Step 4). Developed parcels will be subject to further screening for redevelopment potential, described in later steps. Partially Vacant properties have an existing home but are large enough to subdivide based on criteria such as parcel size and allowable lot size, as described in this section. Residential Development Status • Vacant. Land that has a building improvement value of less than $20,000, as indicated by assessor data. All land outside of constrained areas is included in the developable area for these properties. • Vacant – Platted. Vacant land that is part of a platted but unbuilt subdivision is included in this category. Platted lots are assumed to contain one unit each unless other information is available (see Step 4). “Developable Acres” is shown as “0” because they are treated separately from other acreage in the inventory. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 47 • Partially Vacant. This designation is intended for parcels with an existing single-detached home that are large enough to further subdivide or develop to provide additional residential units. While middle housing and townhomes are allowed in many zones, this analysis uses the minimum lot size required for single-detached dwellings as the basis for the Partially Vacant designation, as follows: o Parcels greater than 5 times the minimum lot size: These lots are categorized as “Partially Vacant.” ¼ acre is assumed to remain for the existing home and the remaining unconstrained acreage is assumed to be developable. o Parcels between 2 and 5 times the minimum lot size: For lots with a building value below $200,000, ¼ acre is assumed to remain for the existing home and the remaining unconstrained acreage is assumed to be developable. o Parcels less than 2 times the minimum lot size: These lots are categorized as “Developed” if improvement value is present or aerial photo review shows development. • Developed. All other residential land is designated Developed and has no developable area. Mixed Use Development Status Mixed Use development is subject to the same criteria as Residential Land. However, an additional screen is used to determine the likelihood of redevelopment of mixed-use parcels in Step 4, and assumptions about the residential/employment mix (see Error! Reference source not found.3) are applied. Mixed Use Residential Proportion Mixed use designations are assumed to develop partly with residential uses and partly with non-residential uses, per the following table. Table 3. Residential Portions of Mixed Use Tax Lots Mixed Use Designation Residential Portion Nonresidential Portion Notes West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU) 50% 50% Townhomes only allowed with office use in the same building West Lake Grove Office-Commercial (WLG OC) 25% 75% Residential limited to Boones Ferry Staging site, per LOC 50.03.003.2.d. Residential limited to Boones Ferry Staging Site. Percentage based on the size of this site in relation to the total size of district (see LOC 50.03.003.2.d for geography). Campus Institutional (CI) 50% 50% Multifamily development is limited to Subarea I of the Marylhurst Campus Zone. Campus Research & Development (CR&D) 30% 70% Assumption based on trends in this area East End Commercial (EC) 80% 20% Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) 80% 20% Most similar to EC in terms of residential/non-residential mix General Commercial (GC) 30% 70% AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 48 Highway Commercial (HC) 10% 90% Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 50% 50% Office Campus (OC) 30% 70% Summary The following table lists the number of tax lots, total and constrained acreage, and developable area by land type. A map summarizing development status is shown in Figure 6. Table 4. Developable Area of Residential and Mixed Use Tax Lots Land Type Gross Acres Constrained Area (Acres) Unconstrained Area (Acres) Developable Acres Residential 3,530 802 2,784 175 Mixed Use 490 96 397 14 Non-Residential 172 21 150 - Public/Other 3,147 1,274 1,899 - Total 7,339 2,193 5,230 189 AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 49 Figure 6. Development Status of Residential and Mixed Use Land AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 50 Step 4: Net Buildable Area and Unit Capacity This step of the BLI establishes the net buildable area of residential land in the Study Area by removing land needed for future right-of-way and other infrastructure set-asides, and by subtracting the non-residential portions of mixed-use zones. This step also accounts for platted subdivisions and other development with known approvals. Right of Way and Other Set-Asides When vacant land develops, land for roads, infrastructure, open space, and other needs reduce the gross available acres into a net developable acreage. The BLI uses the following assumptions to calculate net developable acreage for each parcel. • Residential Land: 20% of vacant properties, 0% of partially vacant properties • Mixed Use Land: 20% of vacant properties, 0% of partially vacant properties Assumed Density and Housing Mix Table 4 shows the assumed density for various zoning designations in the City of Lake Oswego. This information is based on the minimum lot sizes, likely densities, and staff assumptions based on recent projects and comparable zones, and parcel-by-parcel analysis. The proportion of units expected to be developed as Single Family Detached, Middle Housing, and Multi-Family are also shown. Table 4. Unit Density and Mix Assumptions Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family Residential-Low Density Zones R-15 Min 15,000 sf lot area. 2.9 DU/AC net 2.9 DU/AC net 95% 5% - R-10 Min 10,000 sf lot area. 4.3 du/ac net. 4.3 du/ac net 95% 5% - R-7.5 Min 7,500 sf lot area 5.8 du/ac net 5.8 du/ac 95% 5% - Residential-Medium Density Zones R-5 7-8 units per gross acre, per code. 5,000 sf min lot size for single-family. 1,500 for townhouse. ~8 du/ac 90% 5% 5% R-DD Buffer zone. 21 du/ac theoretically possible. ~8 du/ac 95% 5% - R-6 First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) zone 6,000 sf lot area for Single-Family. 1,500 for townhouse. ~7 du/ac 95% 5% - Residential-High Density Zones AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 51 Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family R-3 At least 12 du/ac. (3,375 min per dwelling, or 12.9 du/ac). Townhomes up to 29 du/ac ~12 du/ac 70% 10% 20% R-2 Min 12 du/ac 12 du/ac 60% 10% 30% R-0 Min 20 du/ac 20 du/ac 60% 10% 30% R-W ~12 du/ac 60% 10% 30% Mixed Use Zones West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” ~5 du/ac - 50% 50% West Lake Grove Office-Commercial (WLG OC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 35 du/ac expected in BFR Staging Site, nothing in other areas - 20% 80% Campus Institutional (CI) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. Generally applies to Marylhurst University, which is treated separately. - - 100% Campus Research & Development (CR&D) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 54 du/ac for projects that include residential (~30% of the district, as above) based on LU 19-0041 - - 100% East End Commercial (EC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. ~56 du/ac - - 100% Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” ~56 du/ac - - 100% General Commercial (GC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. Residential not allowed “In the GC-zoned area in the vicinity of Jean Way and Boones Ferry Road.” ~27 du/ac based on Mercantile project (LU 18-0026) - 25% 75% Highway Commercial (HC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 8 du/ac (or R-5 density) for the 10% that may develop as residential - - 100% AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 52 Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. 67 du/ac for the 50% that may develop as residential (based on LU 07-0031) - 50% 50% Office Campus (OC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 21 du/ac for the 50% that may develop as residential (based on Galewood Commons Apartments) - - 100% Summary of Vacant and Partially Vacant Land Table 5 summarizes net residential acreage for both residential and mixed-use land in the study area, and Table 6 shows the breakdown of capacity by zoning designation. Land with a known development approval has been removed and is accounted for in a later step. Table 5. Capacity of Residential and Mixed Use Land Land Type Developable Acres Unit Capacity Residential 174 705 Mixed Use 10 146 Non-Residential - - Public/Other - - Total 185 851 Table 6. Unit Capacity by Zoning Designation Land Type Unit Capacity Land Type Unit Capacity Residential Land 705 Mixed Use Land 146 EC/R-0 5 CR&D 14 R-0 2 EC 67 R-10 241 GC 12 R-10 Comp Plan 14 NC 23 R-15 131 NC/R-0 9 R-3 28 OC/R-3 5 R-5 116 R-0 8 R-7.5 149 WLG-OC 7 R-7.5 Comp Plan 3 WLG-R RMU 1 R-DD 12 R-W 1 WLG-R 2.5 3 Total Capacity: 851 Units AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 53 Table 7.Mix of Unit Capacity on Vacant and Partially Vacant Land Land Type Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Residential 705 648 39 17 Mixed Use 146 5 23 118 Non-Residential - - - - Public/Other - - - - Total 851 653 62 136 Additional Capacity: In addition to the capacity listed above, the following categories of additional residential unit capacity have been identified. These are listed in Table 7, along with the expected mix of housing units. • Approved Development. Several parcels have land use approvals and/or are actively undergoing development. Where information about the unit capacity of these approvals is known, that information is used as future capacity (rather than an average assumption based on the zoning designation). These approvals are listed in Table 8. • Additional Middle Housing Capacity: Due to the City’s middle housing legislation, most single family lots can be converted to duplexes or other middle housing types. The number of new units expected to be created through this process in the planning horizon is estimated at 1.5% of developed lots with single-detached dwellings outside of PUDs/easements. This totals 110 Units3. • Redevelopment of Commercial Land and Town Centers: An initial “strike price” analysis4 found very few properties that appear to be good candidates for redevelopment at $30/sf. Value per square foot for many properties along Kruse Way and in Town Centers is generally $50/sf or greater. There may be some opportunity to utilize parking areas for new residential uses, depending on the City’s development code and many other factors, though additional commercial infill is also a possibility. For the purposes of this BLI, no redevelopment capacity is assumed. 3 A previous version of this analysis assumed 3% of all single detached units, regardless of whether they were located in a PUD. Feedback from stakeholders and DLCD was that this infill assumption seemed high and was unrealistic due to the prevalence of CC&Rs in Lake Oswego. 4 “Strike Price” is a measure of land and building value per square foot at which a developer is assumed to be able to profitably redevelop a piece of property. The 2018 Metro BLI used a strike price of $12/sf for suburban jurisdictions – this analysis examine a more aggressive $30/sf and still found very few candidates for redevelopment. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 54 Table 8. Parcels with Approved Development and Assumed Capacity Land Type Taxlot(s) Total Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Habitat for Humanity Townhomes [Link] 21E18AB00400 21E18AB00300 21E18AB00200 21E18AB00100 21E18AA00400 23 0 23 0 5400 Meadows [Link] 21E07BA00900 160 0 0 160 Twin Fir Road 21E08AB02100 21E08AB02000 2 2 0 0 The Boulder [Link] 21E07DD02300 21E07DD02500 11 0 0 11 Marylhurst University 21E14DB02900 21E14 00300 21E14 00400 21E14 00401 21E14 00402 21E14 00403 21E14 00404 21E14 90000 21E14 900A1 21E14 900B2 170 0 0 170 Total 366 2 23 341 Table 9. Summary of Unit Capacity Land Type Total Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Vacant & Partially Vacant Land 851 653 62 136 Approved Developments 366 2 23 341 Additional Middle Housing Infill 110 - 110 - Total 1,327 655 195 477 Next Steps This inventory will inform the Housing Capacity Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment to provide a picture of the availability of residential land as it compares to the need of certain types of housing units in the next 20 years. It forms part of the factual basis for City policies to address any deficiencies in unit capacity. AN 23-0007EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 55
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: Housing Production Strategy (PP 22-0005) *Joint Study Session with the Planning
Commission*
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 21, 2024
Staff Member: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning
Manager
Department: Community Development
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐Motion ☐Planning Commission Recommends Approval
☐Public Hearing ☐Denial
☐Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☒Not Applicable☐Information Only Comments: Staff received initial direction from the
Council regarding strategies the Housing Production
Strategy (HPS) Task Force should analyze in further
detail at a study session held on November 7, 2023.
☒Council Direction☐Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Provide further direction regarding which strategies should be
included in the City’s Housing Production Strategy (HPS) Report.
Recommended Language for Motion: N/A
Project / Issue Relates To: Council Initiative to “Continue work on key housing initiatives,
including the housing production strategy…”
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): Developing a Housing Production Strategy
to meet the requirements of ORS 197A.100 [House Bill 2003 (2019)]
☒Council Goals/Priorities
Continue work on the housing
production strategy
☒Comprehensive Plan ☐Not Applicable
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL
Staff is seeking further direction regarding which strategies to include as a part of the City’s
Housing Production Strategy (HPS) to meet the requirements of ORS 197A.100.
9.1
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is required by ORS 197A.100 1 to adopt an HPS that documents the specific tools,
actions, and policies that the City plans to take to address the housing needs identified in the
2023 Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) by December 31, 2024.
Staff has conducted significant outreach related to the development of an HPS in recent
months to develop the recommendations outlined in the Initial Housing Production Strategy
Recommendations Memo (Attachment 4). The Council will conduct a joint study session with
the Planning Commission on April 2 to provide direction to staff regarding which strategies to
include in the draft HPS Report. The Council will then have an opportunity to review and
provide input on the draft HPS Report at a study session scheduled for July 16, prior to the
public hearing tentatively scheduled for October 15.
BACKGROUND
In 2019, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2003, which aimed to help communities meet
the housing needs of Oregonians. The law and related rules required all Oregon cities of more
than 10,000 residents to study the future housing needs of their residents (through an HNA)
[ORS 197A.335 and OAR 660-008-0045] and to develop strategies that encourage the
production of the identified housing needs (through an HPS) [ORS 197A.100].
The Council adopted the 2023 HNA on October 17, 2023. The Council must now develop an HPS
to identify a set of actions that the City will take to facilitate housing development that will best
meet the needs of the community. Per ORS 197A.100, an HPS must document the specific tools,
actions, and policies (collectively “strategies”) that the City plans to take to address the housing
needs identified in the HNA. The HPS includes the City's timeline for adopting and
implementing each strategy.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Housing Needs
Staff, project consultants at MIG, and the HPS Task Force used the findings from the HNA
(Attachment 11), as well as additional information from the Census, other data sources, and
from stakeholders involved in housing production in the city, to develop a Contextualized
Housing Needs Assessment (Attachment 9) that puts Lake Oswego’s housing needs into context
with current demographic and development trends. Below are some key findings from both the
HNA and Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment.
1 Cited ORS Ch. 197A statutes in this report available at
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors197A.html (Note: former ORS Ch. 197 sections renumbered
in 2023)
Page 3
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
The following current needs were identified within the housing market in Lake Oswego:
• While Lake Oswego is generally considered an affluent community, not all households
are wealthy. Over 40% of households in the city earn less than $100k and nearly 20% of
households earn less than $50k per year.
• Homeownership costs increased significantly in Lake Oswego, consistent with national
trends. The median home sale price in Lake Oswego has more than doubled over the
past 10 years, from $395k in 2012 to $860k in 2022.
• There is very little existing housing available to those in lower income segments. Around
2/3 of existing housing units (both rental and ownership units) are unaffordable to those
earning less than $100k per year, and over 90% of existing units are unaffordable to
those earning less than $50k per year.
• Nearly half of renter households in Lake Oswego are considered housing cost burdened,
meaning they pay more than 30% of their income for housing.
The following future needs are projected to arise in the Lake Oswego housing market over the
course of the next 20 years:
• Lake Oswego will need nearly 2,000 new housing units by 2043 to meet projected
demand. Housing will need to be produced across the income spectrum to meet these
needs.
• A wide range of housing types are needed to meet the range of household sizes and
incomes. The majority of new needed homes (61%) are projected to be attached
housing – this includes 27% as middle housing units (townhomes and “plexes” with two
to four units) and 34% as multi-family housing (e.g., apartments).
• More than 1/3 of new housing units over the next 20 years will be needed by “low-
income” households – those earning at or below 80% of the median family income (MFI)
for Clackamas County.
• The private market will not deliver housing that is needed by low-income households on
its own. Housing that is affordable to those earning below 80% MFI typically requires
government subsidy and partnerships with affordable housing providers.
• There is a shortage of buildable residential land across all zone types (low- to high-
density) to meet the 20-year housing need in Lake Oswego (a deficit of 86 total acres).
The following housing types have been identified as key gaps in Lake Oswego’s housing market:
• Affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households;
• Greater housing choices within neighborhoods, including middle housing (e.g.,
townhomes, duplexes, cottage clusters);
• Opportunities for aging in place – More than 20% of the population is over 65;
• Options for more attainable homeownership (e.g., condos and middle housing);
Page 4
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
• Apartments with family-size units (2-3 bedrooms) – Nearly 1/3 of current households in
the city have children; and
• Multi-family housing outside the Town Center.
Initial Housing Production Strategy Recommendations
City staff and the consultant team recently produced a Memo (Attachment 4) with initial
recommendations and an evaluation of housing strategies that the City may consider as a part
of its HPS. The strategies outlined are intended to work towards meeting these housing needs
and filling these gaps, and – if adopted – will serve as a work plan for the City’s housing efforts
over the next eight years.
The Memo builds on prior work by City staff, consultants, and the HPS Task Force to outline
potential strategies that the City can employ to address Lake Oswego’s current and future
housing needs, as identified in the HNA. The Memo includes a description of each strategy as
well as a discussion of the strategy’s anticipated impact, a proposed timeframe for
implementation, actions necessary to implement the strategy, parties responsible for its
implementation, and other relevant considerations. Strategies in the Memo have been
categorized as either Recommended Strategies, Strategies Needing Further Discussion,
Contingent Strategies, or Not Recommended.
Recommended Strategies
Strategies categorized as Recommended Strategies are those that (1) have received previous
support from the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, or City Council; (2) have a low-barrier
to implementation; and (3) are expected to have a moderate to high impact on housing
production. Recommended Strategies are identified as Near Term (1-3 years), Medium Term
(within 3-5 years), and Longer Term (>5 years) actions.
At the study session on April 2, the City Council and the Planning Commission will be asked to
provide direction on whether to include the strategies listed below (Recommended Strategies)
in the Draft HPS Report:
Page 5
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
The Council provided initial direction on a shortened list of high-impact strategies at a study
session on November 7 (Council HPS Initial Strategies Voting Results, Attachment 10). While
many of these strategies are included on the list of Recommended Strategies above, not all of
these strategies have been discussed by the Council at previous HPS study sessions. For
instance, while the Council indicated general support for tax exemptions as a tool for housing
production, it did not go into detail about each type of tax exemption on the list of initial
recommendations. See the Memo (Attachment 4) for more information on the Nonprofit Low-
Income Housing Tax Exemption (p. 7) and the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Exemption (p. 9).
As discussed in the ‘Adopted Measures’ section of the Contextualized Housing Needs
Assessment (Attachment 9, p. 28), other strategies included on this list are already being
pursued by the City, such as the use of tax increment financing or public-private partnerships
for affordable housing. Similarly, the City is undertaking efforts on a parallel timeline to reduce
or eliminate minimum parking requirements by December 31, 2024 as a part of the Citywide
Parking Reform project (PP 22-0001).
See the Memo (Attachment 4) for more information on the strategies related to fair housing
policy and education (p. 12), accessible design (p. 15), affordable housing preservation
inventory (p. 21), and pre-approved plan sets for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (p. 23).
Strategies Needing Further Discussion
Strategies categorized as Strategies Needing Further Discussion in the Memo (Attachment 4)
had not yet received clear support from the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and City
Council, but could have a meaningful impact on housing production.
Page 6
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
At the study session on April 2, members of the City Council and the Planning Commission will
also be asked to provide direction on whether to include each of the Strategies Needing
Further Discussion in the Draft HPS Report. Strategies Needing Further Discussion are listed in
the table below:
The Council provided input at its November 7 study session on the strategies listed above
related to zoning incentives and a construction excise tax (CET)(ORS 320.192), as well as general
input on the concept of tax exemptions to promote housing development (Council HPS Initial
Strategies Voting Results) (Attachment 10).
See the Memo (Attachment 4, p. 27) for general information about the CET strategy. CET is one
of the few available sources of locally-controlled funding for affordable housing. Several other
strategies under consideration for the HPS would depend on adoption of a new funding source
(see Contingent Strategies, below).
At their work session on November 13, 2023, the Planning Commission requested additional
information about using CET as a funding source for affordable housing. In response, the
project team drafted the CET Supplemental Memo (Attachment 5), which includes information
about how a handful of other cities in Oregon are implementing CET programs to support
affordable housing, as well as an estimate of potential revenue generation from a CET if
established in Lake Oswego, based on past permit data. Further, CET Interviews with Other
Jurisdictions (Attachment 2) includes information regarding how CET has been implemented in
their respective communities.
Members of both the City Council and the Planning Commission have previously expressed
concerns that a CET would add cost and serve as a barrier to new development that could help
to meet the City’s housing needs. Under state statute (ORS 320.173), regulated affordable
housing, public buildings, hospitals, and certain other types of facilities must be exempted from
the CET. Staff notes that the City could also choose to exempt other types of development from
the CET in order to ensure that the tax does not adversely impact development that would help
to meet the City’s housing needs. For instance, multifamily housing, accessible housing, lower-
cost residential developments, or smaller housing units could be exempted from the tax, or the
tax could be crafted to exclude residential development altogether. As noted in the Memo
(Attachment 4, p. 28), the City of Tigard chose to fully exempt ADUs of 1,000 sq. ft. or less and
Page 7
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
projects valued at $50,000 or less from the CET, and to provide a 75% exemption for cottage
clusters, courtyard units, and quadplexes.
On December 19, 2023, the Council established a Vertical Housing Development Zone (VHDZ) at
the North Anchor site to provide a financial incentive for mixed-used development at a key
location in Downtown Lake Oswego (see PP 23-0006). Though the City has now approved a pilot
project to allow the use of VHDZ at this location, the strategy discussed in the Memo
(Attachment 4, p. 30) would involve a broader mapping of VHDZ elsewhere in the city.
See the Memo (Attachment 4) for more information on the Multiple Unit Property Tax
Exemption (MUPTE) (p. 31) and Pre-Approved Plan Sets for Middle Housing Typologies (p. 33)
strategies.
Contingent Strategies
Contingent strategies rely on dedicated funding sources for their sustainability. Currently, the
City has very little in the way of uncommitted resources that it can use to support affordable
housing. Strategies categorized as Contingent Strategies in the Memo (Attachment 4, p. 34),
listed below, describe various ways that the City could allocate funds to support affordable
housing production or preservation.
At the study session on April 2, members of the City Council and the Planning Commission will
be asked to provide general direction regarding how hypothetical funding sources could be
allocated by the City. Specifically, they will be asked whether to include the strategies listed
below (Contingent Strategies) in the Draft HPS Report:
Staff notes that larger cities—unlike Lake Oswego--generally have more capacity and access to
federal Community Development Block Grant funding to pair with these contingent strategies,
while Lake Oswego would probably need to rely on a broader mix of funding partners in order
to implement these strategies.
See the Memo (Attachment 4) for more information on the housing trust fund (p. 34), low-
interest loans / revolving loan fund (p. 36), community land trust (p. 37), and low-cost rental
housing preservation (p. 38) strategies.
Page 8
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Not Recommended
At the study session on April 2, the City Council and the Planning Commission will be asked to
confirm that the strategy listed below (Not Recommended) should not be included in the Draft
HPS Report:
The Homebuyer Opportunity Limited Tax Exemption (HOLTE) program was not recommended
for implementation in the HPS because it is not expected to have a meaningful impact on
housing production in Lake Oswego. See Memo (Attachment 4, p. 40) for more information on
the HOLTE strategy.
HPS Task Force Updates
The HPS Task Force conducted its fifth meeting on December 8, 2023, to review initial input
from the Planning Commission and City Council, reach a group consensus on project goals, and
engage in group discussions focused on identifying housing production strategies that could
best address high-priority housing needs. See Breakout Room Group Discussion Notes – HPS
Task Force Meeting #5 (Attachment 7) for a summary of the group discussions, and Approved
Minutes – HPS Task Force Meeting #5 (Attachment 8) for the approved meeting minutes.
The HPS Task Force convened for its sixth meeting on February 16, 2024, and for its seventh
meeting on March 1, 2024. During the course of these two meetings, the Task Force held an
extended discussion of the Memo (Attachment 4) in order to develop the Task Force’s
recommended list of strategies for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider for
inclusion in the HPS. More specifically, Task Force members were asked to provide input on
whether the strategies under discussion will effectively help meet the City’s highest-priority
needs as identified in the HNA.
In general, the Task Force expressed support for all of the Recommended Strategies (no
opposition was stated). With respect to the Strategies Needing Further Discussion, the Task
Force expressed support for the CET and pre-approved plan sets for middle housing strategies.
The Task Force recommended incorporating the zoning incentives strategy into the code audit
and amendments strategy, and incorporating MUPTE as a potential mechanism for encouraging
accessible units as part of the accessible design strategy, but not to pursue these as standalone
strategies. The Task Force did not recommend including the VHDZ strategy in the HPS. See
Summary of HPS Task Force Meetings #6 and #7 (Attachment 1) for more information about
the Task Force’s recommendations that resulted from these two meetings.
Page 9
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Public Outreach
Public engagement and outreach to identify an initial set of strategies for inclusion in the City’s
HPS began in October 2023 and is still actively ongoing. So far, this has included presentations
at the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Board, the 50+ Advisory Board, the November
2023 Mayor’s Roundtable event, and the Fall 2023 Kruse Way Economic Forum, as well as three
Planning Commission meetings, one City Council meeting, and four meetings of the HPS Task
Force.
Most recently, an HPS Community Forum event was held on Thursday, March 14; see HPS
Community Forum Polling Results (Attachment 3) for a summary of the results of polling
conducted at the meeting on the Recommended Strategies and the Strategies Requiring Further
Discussion. Additionally, the City is hosting an Online Open House for individuals who were not
able to make it to the Community Forum event that includes information on the recommended
strategies and additional opportunities for public input. The Online Open House will remain
open until March 31, 2024; staff will present a summary of the results of the Online Open
House survey at the April 2 study session.
Project Schedule
A summary of the proposed project schedule and scope of consultant deliverables is included in
HPS Project Schedule and Scope of Work (Attachment 6), with the project schedule
summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: HPS Project Schedule
Task Milestone Date
Evaluate existing housing
strategies
[Aug – Nov 2023]
Housing Producer Interviews Aug – Sep 2023
HPS Task Force Meeting #4 Oct 6, 2023
Council Study Session #4 Nov 7
Planning Commission (PC) Work Session #4 Nov 13
Outline housing strategy
alternatives
[Nov 2023 – Jan 2024]
Draft Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo Nov 2023
HPS Task Force Meeting #5 Dec 8
PC Update Jan 8, 2024
Refine housing strategy
recommendations
[Feb – Apr 2024]
HPS Task Force Meeting #6 Feb 16
HPS Task Force Meeting #7 Mar 1
Community Forum / Public Workshop Mar 14
CC-PC Joint Work Session Apr 2
Draft HPS Report Initial Draft HPS Report May 27
HPS Task Force Meeting #8 Jun 21
Page 10
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
[May – Jul 2024] PC Work Session Jun 24
Council Study Session Jul 16
Finalize HPS for adoption
[Aug – Nov 2024]
Final HPS Report Aug 2
PC Public Hearing Sep 9
Council Public Hearing Oct 15 / Nov 5
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff regarding which strategies should be included in the draft HPS Report.
ATTACHMENTS
This staff memo and all attachments referenced below can be found by visiting the Planning
Project webpage for the case file. Due to file size, attachments are available in the “Public
Records Folder” using this link:
https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/pp-22-0005-housing-needs-and-production-strategies.
1. Summary of HPS Task Force Meetings #6 and #7, 03/20/2024
2. CET Interviews with Other Jurisdictions, 03/18/2024
3. HPS Community Forum Polling Results, 03/14/2024
4. Initial Strategy Recommendations Memo, 02/08/2024
5. CET Supplemental Memo, 02/08/2024
6. HPS Project Schedule and Scope of Work, 01/09/2024
7. Breakout Room Group Discussion Notes – HPS Task Force Meeting #5, 12/08/2023
8. Approved Minutes – HPS Task Force Meeting #5, 12/08/2023
9. Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment, 11/16/2023
10. Council HPS Initial Strategies Voting Results, 11/07/2023
11. City of Lake Oswego 2023 Housing Needs Analysis, 09/21/2023
To view these documents and other documents in the public records file, visit the Planning
Project webpage:
https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/pp-22-0005-housing-needs-and-production-strategies
March 20, 2024
Summary of Input from Housing Production Strategy Task Force Meetings #6 and #7
The Housing Production Strategy (HPS) Task Force devoted two meetings to reviewing and
discussing the Initial Housing Production Strategy Recommendations Memo: Meeting #6 on
February 16 and Meeting #7 on March 1, 2024. The intended outcome of these meetings was
to develop a preferred list of strategies for the Planning Commission and City Council to
consider for inclusion in the HPS.
More specifically, Task Force members were asked to provide input on whether the strategies
under discussion would effectively help to meet the City’s highest-priority needs as identified in
the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA).
Recommended Strategies
At Meeting #6, the Task Force discussed the list of “Recommended Strategies,” which are those
that have either received previous support from the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and
City Council; have a low-barrier to implementation; and/or are expected to have a moderate to
high impact on housing production. Recommended Strategies are identified as Near Term (1-3
years), Medium Term (within 3-5 years), and Longer Term (>5 years) actions.
Recommended Strategies Time Frame
1.1 Code Audit and Amendments (Z01) Near Term
1.2 Remove or Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements (B01) Near Term
1.3 Nonprofit Low-Income Housing Exemption (E01) Near Term
1.4 Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Exemption (E02) Near Term
1.5 Public-private partnerships for affordable housing (F04) Near Term
1.6 Fair Housing Policy and Education (B14) Near Term
1.7 Rezone Land (Z02) Medium Term
1.8 Evaluate accessible design incentives or mandates (A23) Medium Term
1.9 Use Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) to support affordable
housing development (D10) Medium Term
1.10 Affordable Housing Preservation Inventory (F19) Medium Term
1.11 Modify System Development Charge (SDC) fee schedule (C02) Longer Term
1.12 Pre-Approved Plan Sets for ADUs (A21) Longer Term
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 1 OF 3
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 3
In general, the Task Force expressed support for all of the recommended strategies (no
opposition was shared). Following is a summary of comments from Task Force members:
• Recommend moving Strategy #1.12, Pre-Approved Plan Sets for ADUs, into the medium-
term implementation time frame, or potentially near-term if there are plans already
available from other jurisdictions.
• Potentially move Strategy #1.9, Use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to support affordable
housing development, into the near-term implementation time frame, since the City
Council has provided direction to explore the use of urban renewal in the Foothills
neighborhood.
• Add to the description of Strategy #1.5, Public-Private Partnerships, that the City should
take advantage of regional funding sources, such as the Metro Housing Bond, for
affordable housing.
• Consider analyzing the potential for lost tax revenue due to tax abatement strategies.
• DLCD suggests clarifying the implementation time frames (i.e., does medium-term mean
that the City won’t get started for 3-5 years, or that the action will be completed within
3-5 years)?
Strategies Needing Further Discussion
At Meeting #7, the Task Force focused their discussion on the strategies that the project
identified as needing further discussion by the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and City
Council. These strategies had not yet received clear support from these bodies, but could have
a meaningful impact on housing production.
Strategies Needing Further Discussion Time Frame
2.1 Zoning Incentives for Affordable Housing (A03) TBD
2.2 Construction Excise Tax (CET) (D09) TBD
2.3 Vertical Housing Development Zone Tax Abatement (E03) TBD
2.4 Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) (E04) TBD
2.5 Pre-Approved Plan Sets for Middle Housing Typologies (A20) TBD
Following is a summary of comments and direction provided by the Task Force:
• 2.1 Zoning Incentives For Affordable Housing
o Direction: Incorporate this strategy into the Code Audit and Amendments
Strategy. Consider including provisions from Senate Bill 8, which grants height
and density bonuses to affordable housing, into the Community Development
Code. Also address standards that could be a constraint to affordable housing,
including lot coverage, setbacks, etc.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 2 OF 3
Page 3 of 3
• 2.2 Construction Excise Tax (CET)
o Some Task Force members shared concerns about adding to construction costs
for development.
o However, others noted that there are a lot of challenges in Lake Oswego and
other cities that add costs, and CET may not be as much of a burden as some
other challenges.
o Straw Poll results: Majority Support – 8 out of 11 participants supported
including CET as a “Recommended Strategy” by the HPS Task Force.
• 2.3 Vertical Housing Development Zone (VHDZ) and 2.4 Multiple Unit Property Tax
Exemption (MUPTE)
o The City’s pilot VHDZ has heard concerns from taxing districts about lost
revenues, including from the school district. So, these strategies may not get
buy-in from other districts.
o A few Task Force members commented that market-rate development shouldn’t
receive a tax exemption.
o Direction: The Task Force recommended including MUPTE as a potential
mechanism for encouraging accessible units as part of Strategy 1.8, but not
pursuing it as a standalone strategy.
• 2.5 Pre-approved Plan Sets for Middle Housing
o It could be challenging to create these plan sets in a way that works in a lot of
circumstances. Consider modular, component plans that could be assembled in
various ways on a site.
o There’s interest in the plan sets being geared toward smaller, more attainable
units.
o This is more of a market-rate / housing variety strategy. It might be a way to
signal that we as a community are interested in middle housing.
o This strategy hasn’t been tested in other cities in Oregon yet, but there’s a lot of
interest across the state.
o Straw Poll results: Majority Support – 7 out of 11 participants supported
including Pre-Approved Plan Sets for Middle Housing as a “Recommended
Strategy” by the HPS Task Force.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 3 OF 3
CET Interviews with Other Jurisdictions [3/18/2024]
City of Milwaukie – Joseph Briglio, Community Development Director (written responses):
1.I understand that you initially adopted a CET in 2017; what has been the impact of the CET so far, in
terms of housing production? Do you have any figures regarding the number of units that it has
helped to produce, or even a general sense of the relative scale of its impact?
•I recently ran our first affordable housing competitive grant process using $2M of accumulated
CET funds. Through that process we supported the production of 415 income-restricted units.
•Part of the success was the timing of the solicitation. The city knew that we had affordable
housing projects coming down the pike that needed help.
2.In your estimation, has the CET been a useful tool for Milwaukie? Are there any particular qualities
about your jurisdiction that make CET an effective tool to produce housing?
•Yes, it’s been incredibly useful as a tool for supporting affordable housing and economic
development initiatives.
•The city doesn’t have a lot of resources to utilize when it comes to providing incentives for
affordable housing and economic development, so this tool has been pretty invaluable.
•We’ll be using some of the funds to support storefront improvement, tenant improvement, and
similar programs, for uses outside our URA. It’s helped create parity across the city.
3.Do you have any concerns about the implementation or impacts of CET in Milwaukie? Have you
heard any concerns expressed by elected officials, developers, residents, etc?
•Our elected officials have been proponents of it as a tool.
•I think residents, generally feel the same.
•However, I don’t think anyone, residents and developers combined, enjoy paying an additional
tax on their permits. They already feel like things are too expensive, especially right now with
inflation and interest rates.
City of Tigard – Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner (verbal responses):
1.I understand that you initially adopted a CET in 2019; what has been the impact of the CET so far, in
terms of housing production? Do you have any figures regarding the number of units that it has
helped to produce, or even a general sense of the relative scale of its impact?
•Less than $1 million per year in revenue.
•Used the money mostly to backfill waived SDCs.
•Hasn’t necessarily increased production, but has helped with preservation and ensuring
equitable outcomes.
•Program funds / flexible funds mainly go to Proud Ground, so do the OHCS funds
2.In your estimation, has the CET been a useful tool for Tigard? Are there any particular qualities about
your jurisdiction that make CET an effective tool to produce housing?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 1 OF 3
ATTACHMENT 2
• Useful for affordable home ownership – addressing historic inequities in homeownership, but
not necessarily producing new units
• Would be hard pressed to take in enough to finance a development of any size – City tax-base is
too small
3. Do you have any concerns about the implementation or impacts of CET in Tigard? Have you heard
any concerns expressed by elected officials, developers, residents, etc?
• Not a ton of comments – Chamber did not weigh in
• Had the most interaction with Homebuilders’ Association
• Based on the Affordable Housing Plan developed by the City in ~2019 – this pointed to a CET
City of Eugene – Laura Hammond, Housing Tools Analyst (written responses):
1. I understand that you initially adopted a CET in 2019; what has been the impact of the CET so far, in
terms of housing production? Do you have any figures regarding the number of units that it has
helped to produce, or even a general sense of the relative scale of its impact?
• To date, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund has awarded housing development funds to 5
projects totally 178 units.
o Of those, 70 units have completed construction and are occupied, 14 units are under
construction, 56 units have completed their financing and will likely start construction
this spring, and 38 units are still working on completing financing.
o We just held our 2024 RFP and received four proposals – so it will be exciting to see
what we will be able to fund this year.
• In January 2022, our Council approved a Housing Implementation Pipeline (HIP) that estimated
the AHTF (funded by the collection of CET) could support the creation of approximately 320
income-qualified units including 220 rental units and 100 homeownership units for low- and
moderate-income households that would be occupied during the 5-year HIP period.
o It feels like we are making progress on those goals.
• A portion of the fund is also put toward direct services for low to moderate income renters and
homeowners.
o That funding has been used for rental assistance, foreclosure prevention, and a
homebuyer assistance pilot program.
2. In your estimation, has the CET been a useful tool for Eugene? Are there any particular qualities
about your jurisdiction that make CET an effective tool to produce housing?
• From my perspective, I would say having a dedicated, local affordable housing funding source
that has the level of flexibility these funds have has been very helpful.
• Based on the estimated combined total cost of the affordable housing developments awarded
AHTF, $2.2 million of investment from AHTF will leverage $45 million worth of new affordable
housing in Eugene.
• It certainly helps that we have several experienced affordable housing developers in the Eugene
area – so they, along with some newer developers, have been able to utilize the funding to
support projects that range from limited equity cooperatives on community land trusts, to
Permanent Supportive Housing in a converted hotel, to small cottage cluster middle housing
homeownership units.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 2 OF 3
3. Do you have any concerns about the implementation or impacts of CET in Eugene? Have you heard
any concerns expressed by elected officials, developers, residents, etc?
• Overall, I think the community and Council have been supportive of the outcomes of the AHTF.
• I wasn’t in my current position at the time, but I believe when the CET was originally being
discussed we heard concerns about the potential impact of an additional tax.
• Ultimately, however, our local of Chamber of Commerce supported its implementation.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 3 OF 3
HPS Community Forum – 3/14/2024
Polling Results
1.In general, how do you feel about the implementation of pro-housing policies that aim to
increase housing choices and create more affordable housing in the community?
2.To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this Development Code
update strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 1 OF 8
ATTACHMENT 3
3. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this affordable housing
tax exemption strategy as part of the HPS?
4. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this public-private
partnerships strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 2 OF 8
5.To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this fair housing policy
and education strategy as part of the HPS?
6.To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this accessible housing
strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 3 OF 8
7. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this rezoning strategy
as part of the HPS?
8. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this tax-increment
financing strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 4 OF 8
9. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this affordable housing
preservation inventory strategy as part of the HPS?
10. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this scaled SDC strategy
as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 5 OF 8
11. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this pre-approved plans
for ADUs strategy as part of the HPS?
12. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this zoning bonus
strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 6 OF 8
13. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this construction excise
tax strategy as part of the HPS?
14. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this Vertical Housing
Development Zone strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 7 OF 8
15. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this MUPTE tax
exemption strategy as part of the HPS?
16. To what extent do you support the City of Lake Oswego implementing this pre-approved plans
for middle housing strategy as part of the HPS?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 3/PAGE 8 OF 8
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 1 of 42
LAKE OSWEGO HOUSING
PRODUCTION STRATEGY
Initial Housing Strategy Recommendations Memo | February 8, 2024
Introduc�on
This memorandum provides an evalua�on and ini�al recommenda�ons for the housing strategies that
the City of Lake Oswego may consider as part of its Housing Produc�on Strategy (HPS). These are
poten�al strategies that the City and its partners can employ to address Lake Oswego’s current and
future housing needs, as iden�fied in the recently-completed Housing Needs Analysis (HNA).
This memo builds on prior work by City staff, consultants, and the HPS Task Force. The Task Force
reviewed the “Strategy Alterna�ves Memo” at their mee�ng on December 8, 2023. At that mee�ng, the
Task Force formed breakout groups to discuss which housing strategies could best address high-priority
housing needs iden�fied in the HNA – Government-subsidized affordable housing units affordable to
people with very low or low incomes; Housing affordable to households with moderate incomes;
Housing op�ons / choices to meet a full range of household needs and preferences; and Housing for
seniors and opportuni�es for seniors, people with disabili�es, and aging in place.
Based on this feedback, and on further evalua�on of each strategy’s poten�al impact and feasibility,
the project team has provided ini�al recommenda�ons for which strategies to include in the HPS.
MEMO ORGANIZATION
This memo is organized into the following four sec�ons:
1.Recommended Strategies
The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to include these strategies in the HPS. These
strategies have either received clear support from the HPS Task Force, City Council, and HPS Task
Force; have a low-barrier to implementa�on; and/or are expected to have a moderate to high
impact on housing produc�on.
2.Strategies Needing Further Discussion
These strategies need further discussion by the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and City
Council before the project team can make a recommenda�on as to whether they should be
included in the HPS. If adopted, these strategies could have a meaningful impact on housing
produc�on.
3.Con�ngent Strategies
These are various ways that the City could allocate funds to support affordable housing
produc�on or preserva�on. Each of these strategies are con�ngent on adop�on of a new
funding source, such as Construc�on Excise Tax, for the City to par�cipate meaningfully
4.Not Recommended
These strategies are not recommended for implementa�on in the HPS because they are not
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 1 OF 42
ATTACHMENT 4
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 2 of 42
expected to have a meaningful impact on housing produc�on. Currently, only one strategy is
included in this category.
STRATEGY EVALUATION
This report provides addi�onal background informa�on for each of the housing strategies included in the
“Strategy Alterna�ves Memo” and takes a closer look at the poten�al impacts to housing
supply/affordability, benefits and burdens on priority popula�ons, feasibility, and ac�ons needed for
implementa�on.
The summary of each housing strategy includes the following informa�on:
Descrip�on What is the strategy? How can the strategy work to address iden�fied housing
needs in Lake Oswego? What are poten�al outcomes?
Considera�ons What poten�al op�ons, funding needs, challenges, etc. are applicable to the
strategy? Are there poten�al trade-offs or nega�ve externali�es to consider?
How feasible is this strategy, given other considera�ons?
An�cipated
Impact
What is the an�cipated impact of the strategy? The following types of impacts
are considered:
• Housing need addressed – Housing need iden�fied in the HNA that is
addressed by the strategy
• Popula�ons served by the strategy
• Income levels addressed by the strategy
• Benefits and burdens that priority popula�ons may receive from the
strategy. Priority popula�ons include low-income households, people of
color, people with disabili�es, seniors, and other state or federal protected
classes.
• Housing tenure (either owner or renter)
• Magnitude of the ac�on for producing new housing:
o Low impact: The strategy is unlikely to meet the relevant housing
need. A low impact strategy does not mean an ac�on is unimportant.
Some ac�ons are necessary but not sufficient to produce new housing.
o Moderate impact: The strategy either may have a moderate impact on
mee�ng the relevant housing need or be designed to target that need.
o High impact: The strategy may directly benefit a certain housing need
and is likely to be most effec�ve at mee�ng that need rela�ve to other
strategies.
Time Frame Implementa�on: When does the City expect the ac�on to be adopted and
implemented? Strategies are iden�fied as Near Term (1-3 years), Medium Term
(within 3-5 years), and Longer Term (>5 years) ac�ons.
Impact: Over what �me period will the impact occur?
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
What ac�ons will the City and other stakeholders need to take to implement the
strategy?
Lead & Partners Who will be responsible for implemen�ng the strategy? What partnerships
might be necessary or beneficial to the strategy?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 2 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 3 of 42
Summary of Housing Strategies
Strategy DLCD Category*
Implementa�on
Time Frame
1. Recommended Strategies
1.1 Code Audit and Amendments (Z01) Z. Custom Op�ons Near Term
1.2 Remove or Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
(B01)
B. Reducing Regulatory Impediments Near Term
1.3 Nonprofit Low-Income Housing Exemp�on (E01) E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement Near Term
1.4 Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Exemp�on (E02) E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement Near Term
1.5 Public-private partnerships for affordable housing (F04) F. Land, Acquisi�on, Lease, and
Partnerships
Near Term
1.6 Fair Housing Policy and Educa�on (B14) B. Reducing Regulatory Impediments Near Term
1.7 Rezone Land (Z02) Z. Custom Op�ons Medium Term
1.8 Evaluate accessible design incen�ves or mandates (A23) A. Zoning and Code Changes Medium Term
1.9 Use Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) to support affordable
housing development (D10)
D. Financial Resources Medium Term
1.10 Affordable Housing Preserva�on Inventory (F19) F. Land, Acquisi�on, Lease, and
Partnerships
Medium Term
1.11 Modify System Development (SDC) fee schedule (C02) C. Financial Incen�ves Longer Term
1.12 Pre-Approved Plan Sets for ADUs (A21) A. Zoning and Code Changes Longer Term
2. Strategies Needing Further Discussion
2.1 Zoning Incen�ves for Affordable Housing (A03) A. Zoning and Code Changes TBD
2.2 Construc�on Excise Tax (CET) (D09) D. Financial Resources TBD
2.3 Ver�cal Housing Development Zone Tax Abatement
(E03)
E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement TBD
2.4 Mul�ple Unit Property Tax Exemp�on (MUPTE) (E04) E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement TBD
2.5 Pre-Approved Plan Sets for Middle Housing Typologies
(A20)
A. Zoning and Code Changes TBD
3. Con�ngent Strategies
3.1 Housing Trust Funds (D03) D. Financial Resources Con�ngent
3.2 Low-Interest Loans/Revolving Loan Fund (D13) D. Financial Resources Con�ngent
3.3 Community Land Trusts (F03) F. Land, Acquisi�on, Lease, and
Partnerships
Con�ngent
3.4 Preserving Low-Cost Rental Housing to Mi�gate
Displacement (F05)
F. Land, Acquisi�on, Lease, and
Partnerships
Con�ngent
4. Not Recommended
4.1 Homebuyer Opportunity Limited Tax Exemp�on
Program (HOLTE) (E06)
E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement N/A
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 3 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 4 of 42
*DLCD Category refers to the type of ac�on each strategy entails, according to DLCD’s Housing
Produc�on Strategy Guidance Document 1):
A. Zoning and Code Changes
B. Reduce Regulatory Impediments
C. Financial Incen�ves
D. Financial Resources
E. Tax Exemp�on and Abatement
F. Land, Acquisi�on, Lease, and Partnerships
Z. Custom Op�ons
1. Recommended Strategies
The following recommended strategies have either received clear support from the HPS Task Force, City
Council, and HPS Task Force; have a low-barrier to implementa�on; and/or are expected to have a
moderate to high impact on housing produc�on. Recommended strategies are organized into Near-Term,
Medium-Term, and Longer-Term strategies.
NEAR-TERM STRATEGIES
The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to implement the following strategies in the Near Term (1-3
years a�er HPS adop�on).
1.1 Code Audit and Amendments (Z01)
Descrip�on Undertake a comprehensive audit of the Community Development Code (CDC) to
iden�fy and eliminate barriers to housing produc�on.
The CDC audit could poten�ally address:
• Barriers to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and middle housing;
• Ways to facilitate smaller units;
• Procedural requirements that add cost and delay to land use approvals;
• Open space requirements in high-density zones;
• Barriers to residen�al development within mixed-use districts;
• The impact of neighborhood overlays or other regulatory provisions; and
• Other iden�fied Code barriers.
Considera�ons • This strategy could help reduce or eliminate some of the major code and
procedural barriers iden�fied by housing stakeholders.
1 For each strategy, the corresponding strategy number from DLCD’s List of HPS Tools, Actions, and Policies is
indicated in (parentheses).
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 4 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 5 of 42
• The strategy could be shaped to priori�ze housing types iden�fied as most
needed in the city, based on the City’s recently adopted HNA and
stakeholder input, such as:
o Middle housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, and cotage clusters)
o Apartments with family-size units (2-3 bedrooms)
o Mul�-family housing (of any size)
o Smaller homes
• Simply removing code barriers will not lead to housing development. This
strategy should be paired with others that directly influence housing
produc�on.
• There may be neighborhood resistance to this strategy, par�cularly for any
code amendments intended to modify exis�ng neighborhood overlays or
neighborhood planning efforts. Extensive community engagement would be
necessary.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: General need for increased housing produc�on
and increased housing choices. The HNA indicates that nearly 2,000 new
housing units will be needed by 2043. This strategy could also specifically
address the needs for mul�-family housing, middle housing, and smaller
units such as ADUs.
• Popula�on served: Low to higher-income households
• Income level: All income levels
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is broad, and therefore difficult to
evaluate in terms of benefits and burdens for priority popula�ons. However,
it does give the opportunity to target efforts in beneficial areas such as
reducing barriers to affordable development or housing that is more
atainable to low- and moderate-income households (e.g., mul�-family and
middle housing); facilita�ng smaller housing op�ons such as ADUs, which
could benefit seniors; and other areas aimed at helping priority popula�ons.
In addi�on, increasing overall housing supply can help keep housing costs
down by balancing supply and demand, which benefits all residents,
including priority popula�ons.
However, because the strategy is intended to increase housing produc�on
overall, it could primarily benefit upper income households, while leaving
less land available for more affordable housing. Implementa�on of this
strategy should include a focus on mee�ng the needs of housing types that
benefit low- and moderate-income households, seniors, and other priority
popula�ons.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: Moderate – This strategy could have a moderate impact on new
housing produc�on given the limited remaining inventory of buildable
residen�al lands. The low inventory and rela�vely high land prices in Lake
Oswego incen�vize making more intensive use of remaining sites, if the code
permits it.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 5 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 6 of 42
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term
Impact: The ac�on can begin to have impact a�er it is implemented in the CDC.
However, the impact on housing development is expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Iden�fy priori�es for the code audit, focusing on high-priority housing needs.
• Conduct a comprehensive CDC audit, poten�ally with support from a
consultant.
• Work with developers/housing stakeholders and residents to vet poten�al
CDC amendments.
• Work with Lake Oswego’s Planning Commission and City Council to adopt
code amendments.
• City Council Ac�on: Legisla�ve CDC text amendments.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Developer and housing stakeholders
1.2 Remove or reduce minimum parking requirements (B01)
Descrip�on Removing parking requirements for residen�al uses provides the opportunity to
reduce the amount of lot area used for pavement and storage of vehicles and
provides more space for housing and open space. This strategy offers greater
flexibility to site housing and reduces costs associated with providing parking.
The City is not enforcing minimum parking requirements within 1/2-mile of
priority transit, which includes the en�re Downtown Town Center, and will likely
remove minimum parking requirements in the City's other climate-friendly area
(Lake Grove Village Center) to comply with state rules on Climate Friendly and
Equitable Communi�es (CFEC).
There is interest from City Council in poten�ally repealing minimum parking
requirements citywide.
Considera�ons • Parking mandates are o�en cited as a major barrier for market-rate mul�-
dwelling and regulated affordable housing.
• Developers o�en choose to provide parking, even if not required.
Lenders/investors may require some parking to ensure marketability of units.
• There could be community opposi�on to removing all parking mandates, due
to the poten�al for higher usage of on-street parking and the poten�al for
parking overflow from commercial areas to residen�al neighborhoods.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: General need for increased housing produc�on.
This strategy would especially benefit produc�on of mul�-family and
government-subsidized affordable housing.
• Popula�on served: Especially beneficial to low- to moderate- income
households
• Income level: All income levels – especially 30-120% AMI
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 6 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 7 of 42
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy has the poten�al to benefit low-income
households and people of color by removing parking mandates as a barrier
to development of affordable housing.
Access to convenient parking has been raised as an important need for
people with disabili�es; therefore, removing parking mandates could
poten�ally burden those popula�ons if parking is not provided. The City
could consider encouraging property owners to provide parking for people
with disabili�es and set policy on when on-street parking designated for
people with disabili�es is appropriate. On the other hand, some people with
disabili�es are unable to drive and could benefit from removing addi�onal
costs associated with parking.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: High – This ac�on is likely to have the most impact on market-
rate mul�-family and regulated affordable housing. Parking mandates are
o�en cited as a major barrier for those types of development. Reduced
parking o�en allows for greater density (i.e., addi�onal housing) on a site,
improving the financial feasibility via replacing the sunk cost of building and
maintaining the parking area, with addi�onal revenue-genera�ng space.
Reduced parking also allows developers to be more crea�ve with site
planning and design features in general, o�en improving the aesthe�cs and
func�onality of a property as well.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term
Impact: The ac�on will begin to have impact as soon as the parking mandates
are removed. Impacts to housing produc�on are expected to be longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Conduct outreach and educa�on related to parking mandates.
• Work with Lake Oswego’s Planning Commission and City Council to adopt
code amendments.
• City Council Ac�on: Adopt Development Code text amendments.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: N/A
1.3 Nonprofit Low-Income Housing Tax Exemp�on (E01)
NOTE: The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to implement either or both the Nonprofit Low-
Income Housing Tax Exemp�on and/or the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax exemp�on.
Descrip�on This tax exemp�on benefits low-income residents by allevia�ng the property tax
burden on those organiza�ons that provide this housing opportunity.
Eligible proper�es must be offered to low-income persons (at or below 60%
AMI), or held for the purpose of developing low-income rental housing. The
housing may be for rent or for purchase, and could be new development or
exis�ng housing acquired by a nonprofit for the purpose of conver�ng it to
income-restricted affordable housing. Jurisdic�ons may adopt addi�onal
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 7 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 8 of 42
eligibility criteria for the exemp�on, provided they don’t conflict with state
statutes.
Applicants must renew their tax exemp�on applica�ons annually. As long as the
housing remains affordable to low-income residents, there is no �me limit to the
tax exemp�on.
While non-profit agencies can apply for tax exempt status through the state, that
process is cumbersome and is not always successful. This strategy would provide
a simplified and consistent method for eligible organiza�ons to apply and qualify
by adop�ng it as City policy and gaining par�cipa�on from other taxing districts.
(Authorized by ORS 307.540-548)
Considera�ons Applicable to all tax exemp�ons:
• Tax exemp�ons apply only to the tax levy of a governing body that adopts
the exemp�ons. In order for the full property tax to be exempted, the City
must seek approval from partner jurisdic�ons that, together with the City,
make up at least 51% of the overall tax levy. Lake Oswego would need to
secure agreement from either the School District or County or both.
• The City and par�cipa�ng taxing districts will lose property tax income for
the dura�on of any tax exemp�on, reducing revenue for City services and
revenue for par�cipa�ng taxing districts. Such taxing districts may express
resistance to new tax abatement or exemp�on programs that involve
reduced revenue, par�cularly for programs intended to produce market-rate
housing.
Nonprofit Low-Income Housing Exemp�on:
• By reducing opera�ng income, property tax abatement programs can be a
powerful tool to increase the feasibility of low-income housing, and perhaps
increase the number of units that are feasible in planned projects. Many
affordable housing developers cite abatements such as the Nonprofit
Housing exemp�on as an essen�al tool in helping make projects financially
feasible.
• The City of Lake Oswego received a leter from Mercy Housing Northwest,
the nonprofit developer of the Marylhurst Commons development, urging
the City to adopt an affordable housing tax exemp�on. This leter (dated
October 24, 2023) is included in the CAG #6 agenda packet. The leter
describes various benefits of a property tax exemp�on – in par�cular, in
reducing ongoing opera�ons costs and suppor�ng long-term stability for
affordable housing developments.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing for
low-income households.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-60% AMI (for residents’ ini�al year of tenancy; a�er the first
year, up to 80% AMI)
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on of
subsidized affordable housing.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 8 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 9 of 42
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For sale or rent
• Magnitude: High – This abatement can have a large impact on making low-
income affordable housing more feasible to develop. The open-ended nature
of the abatement (as long as the project maintains affordability) can offer
very significant savings to the property manager over �me and increase the
viability of offering affordable rents indefinitely. The property tax level in
Lake Oswego is roughly $20,000 per $1M in valua�on per year. A mid- to
large apartment complex could expect a valua�on of many millions of
dollars, amoun�ng to poten�ally hundreds of thousands in taxes per year. An
abatement of these taxes is a strong incen�ve and improves feasibility
considerably.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term
Impact: The tax exemp�on can be used once it is adopted, and for as long as the
City offers the exemp�on. The impact on supply of affordable housing is
expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Work with other taxing jurisdic�ons to gain approval.
• Develop applica�on standards and guidelines.
• City Council ac�on: Adopt tax exemp�on policy by resolu�on or ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Lake Oswego Finance Department; overlapping taxing jurisdic�ons
1.4 Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Exemp�on (E02)
NOTE: The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to implement either or both the Nonprofit Low-
Income Housing Tax Exemp�on and/or the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax exemp�on.
Descrip�on This is a 20-year tax exemp�on for any en�ty that provides income-restricted
rental housing, including nonprofits and for-profit developers. Eligible proper�es
must be offered for rent to low-income persons or held for the purpose of
developing low-income rental housing. Jurisdic�ons may adopt addi�onal
eligibility criteria for the exemp�on, provided they don’t conflict with state
statutes.
(Authorized by ORS 307.515-537)
Comparison of low-income housing tax exemp�on programs:
While these two exemp�on programs appear similar, they do have some key
dis�nc�ons.
Nonprofit Low-Income
Housing
Low-Income Rental
Housing
Eligible Developers Nonprofits only Nonprofit or for-profit
Income Levels Up to 60% AMI Up to 60% AMI
Tenure For rent or for sale For rent only
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 9 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 10 of 42
New vs. Acquired
Housing
New construc�on or
acquisi�on of exis�ng
housing
New construc�on only
Annual Renewal
Required?
Yes No
Time Limit No limit 20 years
NOTE: The project team does not see any issues with adop�ng both exemp�on
programs. Each program has different opportuni�es and challenges, and it may
be beneficial for housing developers to be able to choose which program best
suits their project needs.
Considera�ons • Key advantages of this abatement are that it is available to more than just
non-profits and it does not require annual renewal. This can significantly
reduce an organiza�on’s administra�ve burden in implemen�ng the
exemp�on.
• However, this abatement has less flexibility compared to the Nonprofit
Exemp�on because it is not available for ownership housing, cannot be used
for acquisi�on of exis�ng housing, and is limited to 20 years.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing for
low-income households.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-60% AMI (for residents’ ini�al year of tenancy; a�er the first
year, up to 80% AMI)
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on of
subsidized affordable housing.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent
• Magnitude: High – Like the Nonprofit Exemp�on, this abatement can have a
large impact on new affordable housing produc�on. As noted above, an
abatement of property taxes is a strong incen�ve and improves feasibility
considerably. This abatement is available to for-profit developers and
therefore may generate more new housing than the Non-Profit Exemp�on.
While not open-ended, a 20-year exemp�on matches the period in which a
property would otherwise undergo significant deprecia�on. However, at the
end of the 20-year period, this housing o�en reverts to market-rate status.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term
Impact: The tax exemp�on can be used once it is adopted, and for as long as the
City offers the exemp�on. The impact on supply of affordable housing is
expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Work with other taxing jurisdic�ons to gain approval.
• Develop applica�on standards and guidelines.
• City Council ac�on: Adopt tax exemp�on policy by resolu�on or ordinance.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 10 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 11 of 42
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Lake Oswego Finance Department; overlapping taxing jurisdic�ons
1.5 Public-private partnerships for affordable housing (F04)
Descrip�on Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are arrangements between public and private
en��es to develop housing, especially affordable housing. PPPs have the capacity
to bring resources to the table that would otherwise not be available if each
ins�tu�on were to provide housing on its own.
The City could partner with organiza�ons to support their affordable housing
efforts in a variety of ways:
• Acquire land and/or donate city-owned land;
• Provide grants or low-interest loans for specific development or
rehabilita�on projects;
• Provide direct funding; and/or
• Leverage federal, state, and regional resources.
Addi�onally, the City can pursue specific types of PPPs such as:
• Partnering to convert underu�lized non-residen�al proper�es into
housing. The City could work with landowners to evaluate opportuni�es
for adap�ng vacant/underused buildings for new housing or mixed-use
development. Implemen�ng this strategy may depend, in part, on use of
tools such as TIF funding (Strategy 1.9) to address infrastructure
deficiencies or support development of affordable housing.
• U�lizing surplus land owned by faith-based organiza�ons for affordable
housing. The City could work with faith organiza�ons to u�lize their
excess land for affordable housing. The City could assist such
organiza�ons with favorable zoning, permi�ng, and financial incen�ves.
NOTE: PPP is an “umbrella” strategy that overlaps significantly with other
strategies in this document (funding support for affordable housing, tax
incen�ves, community land trusts, etc.). Implemen�ng a PPP strategy could take
many forms. In the final HPS, it will be important for the City to be clear about
the specific ac�ons it will take to pursue and support PPPs for affordable
housing.
Considera�ons • The City is pursuing this strategy with several ongoing projects. This includes
partnering with the Sisters of Holy Names of Jesus and Mary and Mercy
Housing NW in facilita�ng the Marylhurst Commons affordable housing
development.
• PPPs are o�en opportunity-driven and may be spearheaded by the City or by
private developers or partner agencies.
• Ci�es are o�en asked to provide land, financial assistance, and or technical
assistance, with poten�ally moderate costs. More significant financial
assistance would depend on a new funding source, such as construc�on
excise tax.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 11 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 12 of 42
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing for
low-income households.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is intended to benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s involvement in development of
affordable housing.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated for this strategy.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: High – Partnerships with private developers or non-profit
housing agencies are very o�en a key component of a City contribu�ng to
new housing produc�on. Few City governments directly build housing. The
incen�ves and funding offered are aimed at these partners, who undertake
the projects o�en with a development agreement to ensure the public goals
are met. The magnitude of impact is high, and in a sense these partnerships
are necessary for most successful City-based housing ini�a�ves.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term
Impact: Timing of impact depends on the nature of the public/private
partnership. Given availability of funds, impact to housing produc�on would be
expected to occur over the longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• More clearly define the rela�onship to other HPS strategies and which types
of ac�ons would be proac�vely undertaken by the City vs more opportunis�c
ac�ons based on proposals from poten�al partners.
• Work with nonprofit, faith-based, or other organiza�ons to discuss
opportuni�es in Lake Oswego.
• Take ac�on on partnership models and programs that best benefit the
organiza�on and the City’s financial and/or administra�ve capacity.
• Partnership ac�vi�es depend on the project, organiza�on, and available
resources.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Possibili�es include landowners and organiza�ons with excess land, as
well as nonprofit affordable housing providers.
1.6 Fair Housing policy and educa�on (B14)
Descrip�on This strategy involves amending the Comprehensive Plan to explicitly make
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing a Housing Policy. Fair Housing laws protect
individuals in “protected classes” from housing discrimina�on. Protected classes
in Oregon include race, color, na�onal origin, religion, disability, sex (includes
pregnancy), sexual orienta�on, gender iden�ty, age, and marital status. The City
could add addi�onal protected classes, such as ancestry, ethnicity, or occupa�on.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 12 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 13 of 42
The City could also pursue the following types of ac�ons to affirma�vely further
fair housing and work to reverse discrimina�on, exclusion, and concentra�ons of
wealth in Lake Oswego:
• Create an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.
• Conduct fair housing training for Council, Planning Commission, and other
relevant policymakers.
• Provide residents, property owners, property managers, realtors, lenders,
and others involved with real estate transac�ons with access to fair housing
informa�on and referrals.
• Ensure that City staff know how to iden�fy poten�al fair housing viola�ons
and make referrals to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and state and local
enforcement agencies.
In addi�on, other strategies iden�fied in this list can also generally serve the
purpose of affirma�vely furthering fair housing to the extent they expand
housing opportuni�es or choices for people in protected classes.
Considera�ons • This strategy would not necessarily contribute to housing produc�on except
when it is implemented through other strategies described in this document
that result in housing produc�on. However, in all cases it would demonstrate
the City’s commitment to working towards fair housing outcomes.
• Training and educa�on would require staff �me and resources to implement.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: This strategy would not directly address iden�fied
housing needs in most cases, but it would help prevent housing
discrimina�on against protected classes.
• Popula�on served: Protected classes
• Income level: All income levels
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is intended to benefit priority
popula�ons by formalizing the City’s commitment to fair housing goals,
beter understanding fair housing issues in the community, and by educa�ng
City staff, housing stakeholders, and community members about fair housing
laws and residents’ rights.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For sale or rent
• Magnitude: Low – Fair housing policy and educa�on will not directly
contribute to housing produc�on, but it could provide addi�onal protec�ons
against housing discrimina�on. It could also bolster the City’s focus on
priori�zing housing equity and affordability in its housing programs and
investments.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Near Term (Fair Housing Policy); Medium Term (other ac�ons)
Impact: Impact on community understanding of fair housing can be in the short
term. Impact on fair housing outcomes is expected to be longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Policy adop�on requires Legisla�ve Comprehensive Plan text amendment.
• Partner with organiza�ons such as the Fair Housing Council of Oregon on
training.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 13 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 14 of 42
• Develop informa�onal materials.
• Provide training to current staff and new hires.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Fair Housing Council of Oregon
MEDIUM-TERM STRATEGIES
The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to implement the following strategies over the Medium
Term (3-5 years a�er HPS adop�on).
1.7 Rezone Land (Z02)
Descrip�on This strategy involves rezoning commercial, mixed-use, or other non-residen�ally
zoned proper�es for residen�al uses, especially mul�-family housing. It could
also involve rezoning lower-density areas to allow higher-density housing.
The HNA iden�fied a need for addi�onal residen�al land across all zone types to
meet the 20-year housing need in Lake Oswego (a deficit of 86 total acres). As
such, there may be a need to add to the city’s capacity of residen�al land to
meet the housing need. Rezoning is one way to help address this issue.
Considera�ons • If nonresiden�al land is considered for rezoning, it would be important to
ensure there is s�ll adequate land available for employment and
commercial/industrial needs in the city. Lake Oswego’s Economic
Opportuni�es Assessment iden�fies the city’s future employment land
needs.
• In considering the most appropriate loca�ons for City-ini�ated rezoning of
land, the following criteria or factors should be considered:
o Proximity to exis�ng residen�al and higher-density areas.
o Proximity to services (e.g., transit, schools, parks, etc.).
o Size and ownership – larger proper�es will be more atrac�ve for
development.
• There may be neighborhood resistance to rezoning, especially “upzoning”
single-family residen�al areas. This strategy would need significant
community engagement.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: Rezoning would address the shortage of land for
housing, and the overall need for housing produc�on in the city. Depending
on how it is implemented, this strategy could also address the shortage of
higher-density land by rezoning lower-density land.
• Popula�on served: Low to higher income households
• Income level: All income levels
• Benefits and Burdens: Rezoning can increase the availability of land zoned
for residen�al development. Addi�onal capacity for more housing
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 14 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 15 of 42
development can include opportuni�es for mul�-family housing that is
generally more affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
A poten�al burden from this strategy is the possibility of lower-income
households being displaced if rezoning leads to increased development
pressures or increased property values. Rezoning commercial areas, or
impacts of increased property values, can also lead to commercial
displacement of small businesses. Rising commercial rents or pressures to
redevelop for residen�al uses may have a larger impact on small-scale
entrepreneurs and immigrant or minority-owned businesses. The
characteris�cs of areas being considered for rezoning should be carefully
considered as part of implementa�on to avoid displacement impacts.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: Moderate to High – The impact of rezoning might be rela�vely
high given the limited supply and high demand for buildable residen�al land
in the community. The effec�veness of rezoning will depend on the physical
and infrastructure characteris�cs of the rezoned land for residen�al use. The
density of housing under the new zone will also depend on the physical
constraints (e.g., steep slopes) that might limit the buildable por�on of a site.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Medium Term
Impact: Land inside city limits will become available for development
immediately a�er rezoning. Land outside city limits can also be developed, but
will need to overcome the addi�onal hurdle of annexa�on. The impact on
housing development is expected to be long-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Use the criteria listed above to iden�fy poten�al areas for rezoning. Priori�ze
sites with the best poten�al for housing produc�on and access to services.
• Consider the demographic characteris�cs of poten�al rezoning areas to avoid
poten�al displacement impacts.
• Engage with property owners as well as the broader community in targeted
areas.
• Work with Lake Oswego’s Planning Commission and City Council to adopt
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map amendments.
• City Council ac�on: Legisla�ve Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map
amendment.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Property owners
1.8 Evaluate accessible design incen�ves or mandates (A23)
Descrip�on This strategy involves evalua�ng incen�ves or mandates to increase
development of housing that is accessible for seniors and people with disabili�es
or mobility challenges.
Poten�al incen�ves could include:
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 15 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 16 of 42
• Bonuses for height, density, lot size, or floor area ra�o (similar to Strategy
2.1).
• Tax abatements, e.g., MUPTE (see Strategy 2.4).
Poten�al mandates could include:
• Requiring visitability in middle housing development—this would ensure
that anyone using a wheelchair can visit the subject homes. Visitability is
most relevant for buildings with fewer than four units, townhouses, and
detached homes that aren’t subject to ADA requirements.
• Requiring housing that receives public funding to provide more accessible
units or more universal design features than required under federal
standards. This could mean applying the standards to a higher percentage of
units than would otherwise be required (above 5%) and/or requiring units to
meet higher Universal Design or Lifelong Housing Cer�fica�on standards.
• Requiring elevators in some or all mul�-story buildings. Currently, the
Building Code only requires elevators to reach common spaces (such as
exercise rooms) or units that are federally required to be accessible.
Requiring elevators in one or more mul�-family buildings would provide
access to all levels of that building. It would also make all units “covered”
units under the Fair Housing Act, meaning all units would need to have
baseline accessibility features.
Accessibility Standards. Eligible units (for either incen�ves or mandates) could
be required to meet certain standards – which would go beyond minimum
federal requirements or could target housing not subject to these requirements
(e.g., single-family homes and middle housing).2 Op�ons include:
• Universal Design is a building concept that incorporates design layouts and
characteris�cs into residences to make them usable by the greatest number
of people and respond to the changing needs of the resident. Universal
Design incorporates standards for features such as hallways, doorways,
bathrooms, and kitchens that make these features usable for people with
disabili�es or adaptable for that purpose.3
• Lifelong Housing Cer�fica�on is a program developed by the Rogue Valley
Council of Governments (RVCOG) in partnership with AARP Oregon as a
voluntary cer�fica�on process for evalua�ng the accessibility and/or
adaptability of homes. Residences can be cer�fied at three levels based on
the extent of their accessibility: (1) Visitable (basic accessibility for visitors);
(2) Fully Accessible (accessible for a person in a wheelchair on the main
floor); and (3) Enhanced Accessibility (customized for specific accessibility
2 Multi-family developments are subject to the Fair Housing Act; for buildings with an elevator, all units must be
accessible; for those without an elevator, all ground floor units must be accessible. Housing projects receiving public
funding are subject to federal laws (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and/or Title II of the ADA), which
require 5% of units to be mobility-accessible. Source: Disability Law Handbook, Southwest ADA Center.
http://www.southwestada.org/html/publications/dlh/housing.html
3 Universal Design Standards, West Virginia Housing Development Fund. https://tinyurl.com/yx63h792
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 16 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 17 of 42
needs).4
• Visitability is a design approach for new housing that allows anyone who
uses a wheelchair or other mobility device to visit the home. A visitable
home typically includes:
o A zero-step entrance;
o Wide interior doors; and
o A half bathroom on the main floor.
Considera�ons • This strategy would help address housing dispari�es for people with
disabili�es and provide more op�ons for aging in place.
• Strategies to promote accessible housing received support from the Middle
Housing Code Advisory Commitee as part of the House Bill 2001 code
updates.
• Accessibility features can add to the cost of construc�on for a development,
which can make affordable housing projects less financially feasible.
Elevators, in par�cular, add significant cost to a project.
• While mandates may provide more accessible units, they could prevent
some affordable housing projects from being developed.
• Incen�ves must be calibrated effec�vely to be atrac�ve to both a nonprofit
and for-profit developer. The benefit of using the incen�ve should outweigh
the costs associated with implemen�ng accessible design features.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Housing for people with physical disabili�es and
mobility challenges. The HNA indicates that an es�mated 8% of the
popula�on of Lake Oswego, or 3,140 people, report having some form of
disability, including 2.9% with an ambulatory disability. However, the number
of people that would benefit from physical accessibility in housing –
especially amongst the senior popula�on – likely exceeds these numbers.
• Popula�on served: Seniors; people with disabili�es
• Income level: All income levels
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is an�cipated to benefit seniors and
people with disabili�es by increasing the stock of accessible housing units in
the city. However, a poten�al trade-off of mandating accessibility features—
especially for subsidized housing—is that it would reduce the total number
of units that could be provided in a building (because bathrooms and other
areas would need to be larger). While this may provide more accessible
units, it could make some affordable housing projects less feasible. This
could be a poten�al burden on low-income households by limi�ng the
opportunity for produc�on of housing they can afford. Incen�ve-based
strategies would not carry the same burden. This will be an important
considera�on for implementa�on.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
4 Lifelong Housing Program, RVCOG. https://rvcog.org/home/sds-2/lifelong-housing-program/
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 17 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 18 of 42
• Magnitude: Moderate – Depending on how the strategy is structured, it
could lead to produc�on of a significant number of new units with
accessibility features. However, the strategy could also have the effect of
deterring housing produc�on if requirements are too onerous. To improve
feasibility, requirements may be applied to some but not all of the units in
new mul�-family development. New elevator requirements may significantly
deter new development, due to high cost.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Medium Term
Impact: The ac�on can begin to have impact a�er it is implemented in the CDC
or adopted as a financial incen�ve. The impact on housing produc�on is
expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Code bonus.
o Evaluate a poten�al new height/FAR bonus with input from housing
stakeholders.
o Consider whether a bonus should apply in all zones or only certain zones.
o A poten�al accessibility bonus should be carefully considered in
conjunc�on with any other poten�al bonus provisions (see Strategy 2.1).
o Implement via CDC updates.
• Code requirement.
o Evaluate poten�al new accessibility requirements, working closely with
non-profit and market-rate housing developers to understand how their
projects might be impacted.
o Conduct a pro forma analysis to evaluate poten�al impacts to project
costs.
o Implement via CDC updates.
• Financial incen�ve.
o Evaluate an incen�ve program (e.g., MUPTE, Strategy 2.4) to increase the
number of dwelling units designed accessibly.
o Work with developers to gather feedback on program parameters and
interest.
o Implement incen�ve program through Council ac�on.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Home Building Associa�on of Greater Portland; Fair Housing Council of
Oregon; AARP; Rogue Valley COG; non-profit and for-profit housing developers.
1.9 Use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to support affordable housing
development (D10)
Descrip�on This strategy involves using TIF funds to support affordable housing
development. This could involve crea�ng one or more new TIF districts and
incorpora�ng affordable housing into new TIF district plans. For example, the City
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 18 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 19 of 42
could create a TIF set-aside for affordable housing development programs within
the district.
TIF is a funding mechanism in which future tax revenues in targeted
development or redevelopment areas (TIF districts / urban renewal areas) are
diverted to finance infrastructure improvements and/or development.
At the �me of adop�on, the tax revenue flowing to each taxing jurisdic�on from
the TIF district is frozen at its current level. Any growth in tax revenues in future
years, due to annual tax increase plus new development, is the “tax increment”
that goes to the district itself to fund projects in that area. TIF is a good tool to
use in areas where new development or redevelopment is an�cipated.
While many different types of projects are eligible for TIF funds, for the most
part, TIF funds are used to pay for physical improvements in the district itself.
These projects can include par�cipa�ng in public/private partnerships with
developers—including for affordable, workforce, or market-rate housing—or can
be used to complete off-site public improvements that benefit and encourage
new development in the area, or to acquire key sites. TIF funds also can be used
to purchase land.
TIF can be a direct source of funding for projects that meet public goals such as
providing affordable housing, increased density, or mixed-use buildings that
might not otherwise be feasible. In return for some public funding through TIF,
private sector or non-profit developers agree to provide these benefits. Urban
Renewal can also be used to purchase and reserve a key building site in the
district to ensure that the development that takes place there meets public
goals. The site can be offered to a development partner at reduced cost to
provide the incen�ve.
Considera�ons • There is direc�on from the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) to
expand the use of urban renewal in the city – par�cularly in the Foothills
neighborhood.
• TIF results in foregone tax revenue for the City and any other overlapping
taxing districts for several decades, although it can (and should) grow the tax
base in the long-term by suppor�ng development that would not otherwise
have occurred.
• If a new TIF district were established, it would likely be several years before
there would be sufficient revenue in the district to make significant
investment in housing.
• Coordina�on and agreement with other taxing districts is also important.
• There are many examples of the use of TIF revenue for housing-related
projects in Oregon.
o In the Downtown Tigard TIF district, projects include the Atwell Off-Main
project, which includes 165 market rate apartments, along with
commercial space; and the current mixed-use development underway on
Main Street near Fanno Creek, which will include a coffee roaster, office
space, and 22 new apartments.
o The City of Portland has par�cipated in many housing projects in its
districts over decades. For instance, over the last decade Prosper
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 19 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 20 of 42
Portland agency has contributed to the crea�on of hundreds of mostly
affordable and workforce housing units in mul�ple buildings in the Lents
Town Center. TIF also contributed to many of the early projects in the
Pearl District.
o The City of Beaverton Urban Renewal Agency’s (BURA) budget allocates
$300,000 to $3.3M per year in tax increment set aside for joint
investment in affordable housing. This amounts to approximately 10% of
the City’s 5-year URA budget.5
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on of
subsidized affordable housing.
An intended outcome of urban renewal is increased property values and
redevelopment within the district. If not balanced by adequate investment in
housing produc�on, urban renewal can lead to displacement of exis�ng
residents facing increased property taxes and development pressures. This
can be a burden on exis�ng low-income residents and should be considered
carefully when designa�ng new TIF districts.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: High – An extended TIF district or new programs focused on
housing have the poten�al to have a large impact on specific new projects
with LORA partners. The impact of an expanded TIF program on housing
produc�on will depend on the revenue-genera�ng poten�al of the district in
ques�on and the priori�za�on of housing projects among the broader range
of projects eligible for urban renewal funding (e.g., general infrastructure
projects, beau�fica�on, economic development, etc.). If housing is
priori�zed for funding, and development opportuni�es are available within
the district, it can directly bring about housing produc�on.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Medium Term
Impact: Analysis and planning for a new TIF district can take several years. Once
a TIF district is established, it is expected to take several more years before
adequate revenues are accrued to begin spending the urban renewal funds. The
impact on housing produc�on is expected over the medium or longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Evaluate the poten�al for crea�on of one or more new TIF districts.
• Incorporate affordable housing into new district plans.
• City Council to adopt URA boundaries and plan via ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
Partners: Development stakeholders
5 Beaverton BURA Annual Report and Five-Year Action Plan, 2020. https://www.beavertonoregon.gov/1017/The-
Beaverton-Urban-Redevelopment-Agency
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 20 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 21 of 42
1.10 Affordable Housing Preserva�on Inventory (F19)
Descrip�on Prepare an inventory of subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing to
support proac�ve policies intended to preserve the affordable housing stock. The
inventory would be used to target poten�al proper�es for implementa�on of an
affordable housing preserva�on strategy.
Considera�ons • This strategy could help offset some of the need for costly new construc�on.
• The strategy would be a good star�ng point for a housing preserva�on
strategy (Strategy 3.4). Understanding the city’s stock of affordable housing
could influence decision-making and priori�za�on for a preserva�on
strategy.
• The strategy would require staff �me and resources to implement.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Housing for low-income residents.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is expected to benefit low-income
residents by evalua�ng the city’s stock of naturally occurring affordable
housing, in support of a low-cost housing preserva�on strategy.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For sale or rent
• Magnitude: Low – This strategy will not contribute to new housing
produc�on, but it will contribute to the preserva�on of exis�ng affordable
housing, and aids in tracking performance metrics.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Medium Term
Impact: This strategy can provide informa�on and influence decision-making
about housing preserva�on in the shorter term. However, impacts to the city’s
housing inventory are expected to be longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Use Census data as a star�ng point.
• Work with property owners to document housing costs.
• Update inventory on a regular basis.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Property owners
LONGER-TERM STRATEGIES
The project team’s ini�al recommenda�on is to implement the following strategies over the Longer Term
(>5 years a�er HPS adop�on).
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 21 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 22 of 42
1.11 Modify System Development (SDC) fee schedule (C02)
Descrip�on SDCs are one-�me charges assessed on new development to pay for the costs of
expanding public facili�es to serve new development. The City of Lake Oswego
charges SDCs for water, sewer, parks, and transporta�on. The Lake Oswego
School District also charges a construc�on excise tax (effec�vely an SDC) for new
construc�on in the city (except for affordable housing).
This strategy involves upda�ng the City’s SDC fee schedule so it is �ed more
directly to dwelling size. Currently, the City charges the same rates for all single-
family homes regardless of size. Each unit of a duplex is also charged the same
single-family fee. Mul�-family housing (3 or more units) is charged a lesser fee
per unit.6
Scaling SDC fees to dwelling size would beter match a development’s charges to
its actual cost or impact on the system. Smaller housing units, including some
middle housing types, typically have less impact on water, sewer, or
transporta�on facili�es, given the reduced average size and occupancy of these
units. This is not fully reflected in Lake Oswego’s current SDC schedule, although
the current schedule does include lower fees for mul�-family housing units.
The City could consider charging fees on a per-square-foot basis, rather than per-
unit.
Considera�ons • This strategy would reduce barriers to construc�on of more affordable,
smaller-scale homes, including small single-family homes and middle
housing.
• The City sets its SDC fee schedule based on projected needs for system
construc�on and improvements. Modifying the SDC methodology would
likely increase fees for larger homes to make up for the reduced fees for
smaller units.
• Notes on current SDC strategies:
o The City has already adopted regula�ons to waive SDCs for income-
restricted affordable housing (80% or less of AMI) and for accessory
dwelling units.
o As part of the current Parks Plan 2040 update project (comple�on
expected in 2025), the City will consider modifying its Parks SDCs to be
scaled by housing unit size. That could provide a jumping off point and a
model for a larger discussion about SDC schedules and poten�al future
refinements to SDCs for other services.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: This strategy will facilitate development of smaller,
more atainable housing units that may be affordable to moderate-income
and smaller households. The HNA indicates that 16% of new needed housing
units over the next 20 years will be needed by those earning 80-120% AMI.
• Popula�on served: Moderate to higher income households; first-�me
homebuyers; single or two-person households; seniors
6 Lake Oswego Master Fees and Charges, 2024. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/finance/master-fees-and-charges
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 22 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 23 of 42
• Income level: 80% AMI and above
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy can increase produc�on of smaller and
lower-cost units which may benefit lower-income households, but is more
likely to benefit moderate- or higher-income households. Smaller unit sizes
may be of par�cular benefit to seniors due to lower maintenance and lower
housing costs.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated. However, reducing SDCs
for smaller units would likely need to be offset by increased SDCs for larger
units, the cost of which would be passed onto homebuyers. It is an�cipated
that homebuyers that can afford larger units likely can also afford the
increased cost.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: Low to Moderate – Given current SDC incen�ves already
available, this tool may have a low to moderate impact in incen�vizing
addi�onal housing units. It may incen�vize some projects to produce a
greater number of marginally smaller units, thus increasing density and unit
produc�on somewhat.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Longer Term
Impact: The process of modifying a city’s SDC methodology can be lengthy, as it
is necessary to analyze projected needs for system construc�on and
improvements and ensure that SDC revenues will be adequate to meet projected
needs. Once a new SDC schedule is implemented, the impact to housing
development is expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Work with City Council, other departments (Public Works, Finance, Parks,
etc.), and development stakeholders on policy discussions around modifying
SDCs.
• Poten�ally work with a consultant to develop an updated SDC methodology.
• City Council ac�on: Adopt modified SDC schedule by resolu�on or ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Engineering
Partners: Development stakeholders
1.12 Pre-Approved plan sets for ADUs (A21)
Descrip�on Pre-approved (or permit-ready) plan sets have been reviewed in advance for
conformance with zoning and building codes. Permit-ready plan sets can reduce
housing development costs by reducing design and permit process �mes and
fees. This strategy could be used to encourage more development of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) or middle housing types (see Strategy 2.5).
Permit-ready plans can reduce costs in three main ways:
• Streamlining permit processes – Permi�ng �mes are frequently cited by
market-rate builders as a major barrier to housing produc�on, as delays
in permi�ng o�en translate into increased costs.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 23 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 24 of 42
• Reducing permit fees – The Building Department may decrease permit
review charges for applicants because of the simplified review.
• Reducing design fees – The builder would pay less in professional
services to architects, etc.
ADUs are a type of housing located on the same lot (and some�mes in the same
structure) as a primary dwelling unit. They are generally smaller in size compared
to the primary home and come in a number of different configura�ons. In Lake
Oswego, there may be one ADU per primary home. ADUs offer opportuni�es for
mul�genera�onal living, with family members living on the same site but in a
separate dwelling. ADUs can also be rented out, allowing the homeowners to
supplement their income.
Considera�ons • This strategy poten�ally lowers site and building design costs, which could
lead to an increase in new ADU units and increase rental stock.
• There are upfront costs associated with developing the pre-approved plans,
including paying design fees for architects that develop the base plans, and
dedica�ng staff �me for working with the architects and reviewing the plans.
• The City could partner with a university, design ins�tu�on, or develop a
compe��on to produce plans.
• ADUs may be a beter candidate for this program due to their small size and
rela�ve simplicity (as compared to middle housing, which may require more
customiza�on). Also, homeowners wan�ng to build an ADU may be more
interested in pre-made designs than experienced homebuilders.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Increased housing choices within exis�ng
neighborhoods. Increased rental opportuni�es. Op�ons for
mul�genera�onal housing. Opportuni�es for aging in place.
• Popula�on served: Moderate to higher-income households; seniors; people
with disabili�es; mul�genera�onal households; renters
• Income level: Likely 80% AMI and above
• Benefits and Burdens: ADUs are a popular choice for elders who wish to live
on the same property as their children/grandchildren (ADUs are some�mes
referred to as “granny flats”). As such, this strategy can offer benefits to
seniors and mul�genera�onal households. Because ADUs are o�en single-
level, small homes, they may also benefit people with disabili�es – with the
poten�al added benefit of enabling family to live nearby for assistance and
support.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent
• Magnitude: Moderate – This strategy would likely lead to more development
of ADUs in the city. Pre-approved plans can lower the logis�cal barriers for
prospec�ve ADU builders, and can be paired with a faster, cheaper
permi�ng process. This could increase the number of available rental
proper�es and increase housing choices in exis�ng developed
neighborhoods. However, the strategy would have a limited impact on
overall housing supply.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 24 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 25 of 42
Time Frame Implementa�on: Longer Term
Impact: The ac�on is expected to have impact over the longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Develop ADU plans in collabora�on with one of the partners listed below.
• Work with the Building Department to ensure plans meet all City Code
standards, approve the plans, and adopt reduced fees for the plans.
• Work with the Building Department to implement a streamlined review
process.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development (including Building Department)
Partners: Universi�es, design ins�tu�ons, and/or design firms
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 25 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 26 of 42
2. Strategies Needing Further Discussion
The following strategies need further discussion by the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and City
Council before the project team can make a recommenda�on as to whether they should be included in
the HPS. These strategies have not yet received clear support from these bodies, but are expected to
have a meaningful impact on housing produc�on.
2.1 Zoning incen�ves for affordable housing (A03)
Descrip�on This strategy involves allowing addi�onal height, density, bonus floor area ra�o
(FAR), or relaxing other zoning standards for affordable housing.
The City currently allows a limited height or density bonus for affordable
developments in the WLG-OC and R-DD zones. The City could consider modifying
the bonus, expanding it to apply in more zones, or adop�ng new bonuses, such
as reduced open space for affordable housing.
Considera�ons • Zoning incen�ves likely would not incen�vize private developers to include
affordable units in their projects. These types of bonuses typically don’t lead
to mixed-income development on their own unless the base en�tlements
are very low and there’s a lot of demand for more density.
• Incen�ves would more likely be a way to allow affordable developers to
make more efficient use of land and poten�ally beter compete for land with
market-rate developers. Non-profit housing providers have indicated that
such bonuses can be very effec�ve in improving the financial feasibility of
their developments.
• Senate Bill 8 (2021 session, encoded as ORS 197A.445) requires ci�es to
allow affordable housing that meets specific criteria on a wide range of sites
and provides height and density bonuses. If the height/density bonus
exceeds local bonuses for affordable housing, the SB 8 bonus will apply
directly. Poten�al bonus provisions in Lake Oswego could be cra�ed to be
consistent with or go above and beyond SB 8 requirements.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing for
low-income households. The HNA indicates that 30% of future needed
housing units by 2043 will be needed by low-, very low-, or extremely low-
income households, and also iden�fied a current gap in supply of affordable
units.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would benefit low-income households
by increasing the feasibility of affordable developments, thereby enabling
more such projects to be built and poten�ally enabling more units to be
included within each project.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 26 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 27 of 42
• Magnitude: Low to Moderate – This strategy might lead to a small percent
increase in the number of units that are possible for affordable housing
developments. This incen�ve may help increase affordable produc�on in
projects that are already being pursued but is unlikely to ini�ate new
projects on its own. While the developer and property manager must
demonstrate compliance, the administra�ve burden should be kept to a
minimum to reduce added �me and cost, both for the applicant and the City.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion
Impact: The ac�on can begin to have impact a�er it is implemented in the CDC.
The statutory bonuses under SB 8 (ORS 197A.445) are already available. The
impact on supply of affordable housing is expected to be longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Consult with affordable housing providers to determine what type(s) of
incen�ves would be most beneficial in suppor�ng their work.
• Evaluate SB 8 to determine how the statutory bonuses compare to the
poten�al new bonuses.
• City Council Ac�on: Implement through CDC updates.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Affordable housing providers
2.2 Construc�on Excise Tax (CET) (D09)
Descrip�on CET is a one-�me tax on construc�on projects and is a poten�al funding source
for affordable housing. Ci�es and coun�es may levy a CET on residen�al
construc�on for up to 1% of the project’s permit value; or on commercial and
industrial construc�on with no cap on the rate of the CET.
The allowed uses for CET funding are defined by state statute 7 and can include
support for a variety of housing-related projects and programs.
• Residen�al CET revenues must be allocated as follows:
o Up to 4% can be used to cover administra�ve expenses incurred
from implementa�on of the CET.
o 50% must be spent on developer incen�ves (e.g., permit fee and SDC
reduc�ons, tax abatements, or finance-based incen�ves).
o 35% may be used flexibly for affordable housing programs.
o 15% flows to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) for
homeownership programs. OHCS’s policy is to spend the revenue in
communi�es where it’s collected.
• Commercial/industrial CET has fewer restric�ons on how revenues are
spent:
o 50% must go towards housing-related programs (not necessarily
limited to affordable housing).
o 50% is unrestricted and can be used as the City sees fit.
7 Oregon Revised Statutes 320.192-195.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 27 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 28 of 42
Some ci�es have used CET to pay for gap financing of new affordable
development, backfilling SDC waivers, acquisi�on of proper�es for affordable
housing preserva�on, and down payment assistance for first-�me homebuyers.
As an example, the City of Eugene adopted a CET in 2019, and has used $2.2
million in revenues to leverage $45 million to fund the construc�on of 178 new
affordable homes.8
Addi�onal examples are detailed in Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo.
Considera�ons • CET is one of the few available sources of the few available locally-controlled
funding streams for affordable housing.
• Several other strategies under considera�on for the HPS would depend on
adop�on of a new funding source (see Sec�on 3. Con�ngent Strategies,
below). Without a new funding stream, the City could not par�cipate
meaningfully in those strategies.
• CET is a tax on development, meaning that it raises costs for construc�on of
commercial, industrial, and/or market-rate residen�al housing. The statute
exempts regulated affordable housing, public buildings, hospitals, and certain
other types of facili�es.
The City can also choose to exempt other types of development (e.g.,
mul�-family housing, accessible housing, or small housing units) or exclude
residen�al development altogether. For example, the City of Tigard exempts
ADUs of 1,000 sq � or less and projects valued at less than $50,000; and
allows cotage clusters, courtyard units, and quadplexes to be exempted
from 75% of the CET.9
• Alterna�vely, by structuring a policy with offse�ng incen�ves or tools for
housing to reduce development barriers, the City could poten�ally limit the
impact on feasibility for certain housing projects. This strategy can be paired
with other complementary strategies to increase its effec�veness.
• Because CET revenue is development-derived, it will fluctuate with market
cycles.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing for
low-income households. CET implementa�on can be tailored to priori�ze
certain income levels or other housing needs, such as extremely low-income
households (earning below 30% AMI) or residents needing housing with
wrap-around support services.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on of
subsidized affordable housing and other housing programs. Because CET
funds offer flexibility for the local government to choose which projects and
8 City of Eugene, Affordable Housing Trust Fund. https://www.eugene-or.gov/4232/Affordable-Housing-Trust-Fund
9 Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 3.90 Construction Excise Tax.
https://library.qcode.us/lib/tigard_or/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3-chapter_3_90
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 28 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 29 of 42
programs to support, the City has opportuni�es to direct funding toward
projects that benefit priority popula�ons that need addi�onal support.
A CET has the poten�al to inhibit some development, including housing
development (if a residen�al CET is pursued). However, the City has op�ons
to avoid impacts to the types of housing most needed by priority
popula�ons, thereby limi�ng burdens on these communi�es. Affordable
housing already must be exempt. As noted above, the City could also exempt
mul�-family housing, small units, ADUs, housing that meets Universal Design
criteria, and other types. This is a way to address or mi�gate poten�al
burdens.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: High – The revenue poten�al of a CET in Lake Oswego is
poten�ally quite high. Over the last five years, the value of residen�al
construc�on and addi�on permits, including mixed-use projects, has totaled
over $385M, or an average of $77M per year. Applying a standard 1% CET to
this ac�vity could have generated as much as $750k per year for a CET
housing fund. A CET applied to commercial permits, which includes mul�-
family development, could generate an even greater $850k per year to a
housing fund, based on the five-year average. (See Appendix A: CET
Supplemental Memo for a more detailed analysis of revenue poten�al.)
The CET is a tax on new development ac�vity, and thus has the impact of
raising costs on developers.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion
Impact: This strategy may take several years for funds to accumulate to an
amount that could be used to support development of housing. However, ci�es
that have adopted a CET have seen real results in terms of housing produc�on
within 4 to 5 years. See above for the City of Eugene example.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Evaluate a poten�al approach. Include projec�ons of poten�al revenue and
determine what programma�c goals could be accomplished with revenue.
Consider both residen�al and commercial/industrial op�ons.
• Analyze poten�al impacts to development.
• Engage with the development community—including both housing providers
that could benefit from CET funds, and developers that might be impacted by
the tax.
• City Council could impose the CET by adop�on of an ordinance or resolu�on
that conforms to the requirements of ORS 320.192–ORS 320.195.
• If directed, create a plan for the use of CET funds, in collabora�on with
housing providers, low-income communi�es, and other historically
marginalized communi�es.
Lead & Partners Lead: City of Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Finance Department; local developers; non-profit housing partners
could implement funded programs
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 29 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 30 of 42
2.3 Ver�cal Housing Development Zone Tax Abatement (E03)
Descrip�on This abatement is intended to incen�vize mul�-story mixed-use development
and affordable housing in targeted areas. To qualify, a project must have
improved, leasable, non-residen�al development on the ground floor and
residen�al development on the floors above. The program allows a 10-year
par�al property tax exemp�on of 20% per floor (and up to 80% total) for mixed-
use developments within the designated Ver�cal Housing Development Zone
(VHDZ).
The exemp�on is only allowed for the improvements to the property (not the
land itself), unless the development provides low-income housing; in that case,
the land can also be exempted from property taxes at the same rate as the
improvements (on a per-floor basis). The low-income units must remain
affordable for at least as long as the length of the tax exemp�on. The tax
exemp�on is available for both new construc�on and rehabilita�on projects.
(Authorized by ORS 307.841-867)
Considera�ons • A pilot VHDZ project was recently approved for the North Anchor
development site. The City could consider a more broadly-applicable
program in an area (or areas) where it wants to encourage mixed-use
development.
• As men�oned above under Strategy 1.3, the City and par�cipa�ng taxing
districts will lose property tax income for the dura�on of the tax exemp�on,
reducing revenue for City services and revenue for par�cipa�ng taxing
districts. Some taxing districts expressed some resistance to the pilot VHDZ
proposal at North Anchor due to this reduc�on in revenue, par�cularly as the
VHDZ program is intended to produce market-rate housing.
• VHDZ has the poten�al to displace residents by encouraging redevelopment
in certain areas. Per state law, a city must consider the poten�al for
displacement of households within a proposed VHDZ before designa�ng the
zone.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing need addressed: This strategy has the poten�al to increase
development of high-density housing in targeted areas of the city.
Stakeholders in the HPS process iden�fied a par�cular need for more mul�-
family housing outside the Town Center.
• Popula�on served: Low-income to higher-income households
• Income level: All incomes
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is expected to primarily benefit
moderate or higher income households, rather than low-income
popula�ons, because developers are not required to include affordable units
to take advantage of a VHDZ. However, the extra exemp�on for affordable
units may incen�vize developers to include those units, thereby benefi�ng
low-income popula�ons. Further, increasing housing op�ons in mixed-use
areas with good access to services has the poten�al to benefit various
popula�ons, including seniors looking to downsize and people with
disabili�es who do not drive.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 30 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 31 of 42
As noted above, VHDZ has the poten�al to displace residents by encouraging
redevelopment in certain areas – which could burden low-income
households. Equity considera�ons, such as a displacement risk analysis and
an�-displacement measures, should be part of implementa�on for this
strategy.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: Low to Moderate – This abatement may have a lower impact on
new housing produc�on than the low-income housing tax incen�ves because
mixed -use housing tends to produce fewer units, and also because this
program is more complicated for the City and applicants. If there are key
districts where the City would like to incen�vize more ver�cal buildings and
mixed-use, this may be appropriate. If mul�ple programs are available, the
VHDZ may compete poorly with more atrac�ve and easier to use tax
incen�ves.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion
Impact: The tax exemp�on can be used once it is adopted, and for as long as the
City offers the exemp�on. The impact on housing supply is expected to be
longer-term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Define VHDZ geography(ies). Analyze displacement risk and consider an�-
displacement strategies as part of this process.
• Work with other taxing jurisdic�ons to gain approval.
• City Council ac�on: Adopt tax exemp�on program by resolu�on or
ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Lake Oswego Finance Department; overlapping taxing jurisdic�ons
2.4 Mul�ple Unit Property Tax Exemp�on (MUPTE) (E04)
Descrip�on This exemp�on can be used to encourage mul�-family or middle housing with
par�cular features or at par�cular price points by offering qualifying
developments a par�al property tax exemp�on for 10 years (or longer, for
housing subject to affordability agreements). It can be offered to new
development or exis�ng housing that is converted to meet the eligibility criteria.
MUPTE is a flexible tax abatement that can be used in various ways to encourage
needed housing. The City has broad discre�on as to how to structure the
program. Eligibility criteria could include requirements for affordability,
accessibility/universal design, unit size, or other desirable features.
The City must designate specific areas where the MUPTE applies, unless
including affordability as a criterion, in which case the whole city could be
eligible.
(Authorized by ORS 307.600-637)
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 31 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 32 of 42
Considera�ons • Could incen�vize mul�-family developers to incorporate desirable features in
their projects, such as accessible units or family-size units. Affordability to
lower-income households could also be an eligibility criterion, if desired.
• As noted below, this strategy could outcompete affordable housing tax
incen�ves with for-profit developers who would rather build market-rate
housing in some cases.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: This strategy has the poten�al to increase
development of mul�-family housing in targeted areas of the city.
Stakeholders in the HPS process iden�fied a par�cular need for more mul�-
family housing outside the Town Center. Depending on how it is structured,
this program could also encourage apartments with family-sized units (2-3
bedrooms) and accessible housing op�ons for seniors – both of which were
also iden�fied by stakeholders as gaps in the local market.
• Popula�on served: Depends on how the program is structured; could be
targeted to benefit low-income households, people with disabili�es, larger
families, etc.
• Income level: Depends on how the program is structured.
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy has the poten�al to benefit various
priority popula�ons by encouraging housing needed by those communi�es
(accessible units, family units, affordable units, etc.). The City could also
target a MUPTE program to specific geographies to target housing
development in neighborhoods where it is most needed. A challenge for the
City will be to determine how best to balance those various needs to
determine what housing types or features are most appropriate to include as
criteria for the MUPTE abatement. This should be considered in the broader
context of the HPS to ensure that the City’s ac�ons benefit all priority
popula�ons in equitable ways.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated for this strategy, provided
it is implemented in the ways described above.
• Housing tenure: Typically for-rent.
• Magnitude: Moderate – This strategy could encourage produc�on of more
mul�-family units that meet housing needs not currently being met by the
private market. However this program does not necessarily require the
provision of affordable housing; therefore, it may outcompete affordable
housing tax incen�ves with for-profit developers who would rather build
market-rate housing. This program should be carefully considered as
compe��ve with the low-income tax exemp�ons. However, the MUPTE can
also be designed to require affordable units as well.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion
Impact: The MUPTE can be used once it is adopted, and for as long as the City
offers the exemp�on. The impact on housing supply is expected to be longer-
term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Further evaluate the various op�ons for structuring the MUPTE program to
determine whether—and how—it should be implemented.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 32 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 33 of 42
• Consult with developers and housing providers to determine their level of
interest.
• Determine desired eligibility criteria (e.g., affordability, accessibility, etc.).
• Seek input from overlapping taxing districts on their willingness to support
the exemp�on.
• City Council Ac�on: Adopt tax exemp�on program by resolu�on or
ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Lake Oswego Finance Department; overlapping taxing jurisdic�ons
2.5 Pre-approved plan sets for middle housing typologies (A20)
Descrip�on The pre-approved plan sets strategy discussed above (Strategy 1.12) could also
be used to encourage more development of middle housing typologies, such as
duplexes, triplexes, and cotage clusters.
Considera�ons • This could help atract developers that typically develop only single-family
housing to get involved.
• Middle housing builders have expressed support for this strategy and believe
it would be frequently used and would cut down on costs.
• A poten�al consequence is too much architectural uniformity.
• Template plans may not work on all lot layouts or provide enough personal
design flexibility, so they would not be appropriate for all projects. Lake
Oswego has significant topography and o�en requires customized designs, so
template plans for middle housing may be less feasible.
• See other considera�ons under Strategy 1.12, Pre -Approved Plan Sets for
ADUs.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Increased housing choices, including
homeownership op�ons.
• Popula�on served: Moderate to higher-income households
• Income level: Likely 80% AMI and above
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is expected to primarily benefit
moderate- or higher-income households, rather than low-income
popula�ons. However, the strategy may support more affordable
homeownership opportuni�es via middle housing development – thereby
increasing the overall stock of atainable ownership housing available in the
community. This has the poten�al to benefit people of color and other
households that have faced systemic barriers to homeownership. Middle
housing types with smaller footprints can also benefit seniors looking to
downsize.
Poten�al burdens from this strategy are that facilita�ng middle housing
development could increase likelihood of demoli�on of older low-cost
homes and displacement of low-income residents. This strategy should be
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 33 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 34 of 42
paired with a displacement risk analysis and poten�ally displacement
mi�ga�on measures to support low-income residents as well as inclusive
engagement, home repair assistance, and other programs that support low-
income homeowners.
• Housing tenure: For sale or rent
• Magnitude: Moderate – This strategy would likely lead to more development
of middle housing in the city. The cost savings to builders wouldn’t
necessarily translate to reduced sale prices or rents, but would have the
poten�al to deliver more housing. In addi�on, many forms of middle housing
will have a lower market-rate price point than detached single-family
housing.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Longer Term
Impact: The ac�on can begin to have an impact a�er the permit-ready plans are
pre-approved and made available to builders.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Evaluate which housing type(s) to adopt plans for and which programma�c
approaches to pursue.
• Develop middle housing type plans in collabora�on with one or more of the
partners listed below.
• Work with the Building Department to ensure plans meet all City Code
standards, approve the plans, and adopt reduced fees for the plans.
• Work with the Building Department to implement a streamlined review
process.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development (including Building Department)
Partners: Universi�es, design ins�tu�ons, and/or design firms
3. Con�ngent Strategies
The following strategies describe various ways that the City could allocate funds to support affordable
housing produc�on or preserva�on. Each of these strategies are con�ngent on adop�on of a new
funding source, such as Construc�on Excise Tax, for the City to par�cipate meaningfully. Currently, the
City has very litle in the way of uncommited resources that it can use to support affordable housing.
3.1 Housing Trust Funds (D03)
Descrip�on Housing Trust Funds are a public sector tool used to direct financial resources to
support a variety of affordable housing ac�vi�es. Housing Trust Funds are not
revenue sources themselves, but rather are tools for consolida�ng revenue,
planning for how the funds are spent, and direc�ng them to housing programs.
A Construc�on Excise Tax could be a poten�al revenue source (see Strategy 2.2).
Other sources could include the City’s general fund, TIF funds, state grant
funding, and/or other types of taxes or fees. For example, the City of Ashland
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 34 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 35 of 42
dedicates a por�on of its local marijuana sales tax to fund Ashland’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund.10
Considera�ons • Provides flexibility for opportunity-based investment. However, some
funding sources (e.g., CET) have requirements for how funds are spent.
• Takes �me to accumulate enough to make a difference and requires
consistent investment with a long-term outcome perspec�ve.
• Relies on iden�fying a sustainable funding source with sufficient revenue to
have impac�ul contribu�ons.
• There is poten�ally a high cost to seed the program.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on of
subsidized affordable housing and other housing programs. Because Housing
Trust Funds offer flexibility for the local government to choose which
projects and programs to support, the City has opportuni�es to direct
funding toward projects that benefit priority popula�ons that need
addi�onal support. This could include extremely- or very-low income
residents and those needing wraparound support services.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: The amount of housing produc�on depends on the funds raised
and contributed through these resources. See Strategy 2.2 (CET) for further
evalua�on. In and of itself, the strategy does not result in produc�on of
units.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion. Con�ngent on
adop�on of a new revenue source.
Impact: This strategy may take several years for funds to accumulate to an
amount that could be used to support development of housing.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Iden�fy a poten�al funding source (or sources).
• Iden�fy priori�es for how funds will be spent.
• Con�nuously fund a Housing Trust Fund.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Nonprofit affordable housing providers
10 City of Ashland, Housing Trust Funds. https://www.ashland.or.us/page.asp?navid=10828
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 35 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 36 of 42
3.2 Low-interest loans/Revolving loan fund (D13)
Descrip�on This strategy would provide low-interest loans or revolving loans for affordable
housing produc�on, preserva�on, or maintenance ac�vi�es.
Housing Repair and Weatheriza�on Assistance is offered to low-income
households through various County governments – the City could contribute
funding for use within Lake Oswego.
An example of offering loans for housing produc�on is the City of Tigard’s Middle
Housing Revolving Loan Fund. This fund was created by the Tigard City Council in
2021, using funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, and was made available in
September 2023. The fund is managed by the Network for Oregon Affordable
Housing, Cra�3, and the Community Housing Fund, and will provide short-term
construc�on lending to developers building middle housing. At least 30 percent
of the units must be made available to lower-income buyers par�cipa�ng in
down payment assistance programs.
Considera�ons • Opportuni�es depend on what type of loans are offered.
• Loans for home repair could help prevent displacement by assis�ng exis�ng
low-income residents remain in their homes.
• Loans for affordable housing development could help non-profit developers
bridge gaps in construc�on lending.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: New or rehabilitated housing for low-income
households.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy would primarily benefit low-income
households by increasing the City’s capacity to support produc�on or
preserva�on of affordable housing, or to contribute to programs that
promote housing stability for low-income residents.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent or sale
• Magnitude: High (if funded via a new revenue source; else Low) – This
strategy can be used to par�cipate in public/private partnerships and
administer the types of programs discussed in previous sec�ons. The benefit
of this program is that it regenerates funding as loans are repaid to be used
again on future projects. For developers who need financing for their
projects (which is almost always the case), offering lower-interest loans that
may have other favorable terms can have a large impact on the feasibility of
a development, as interest rates are a significant cost factor over �me.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion. Con�ngent on
adop�on of a new revenue source.
Impact: The impact on housing produc�on or preserva�on is an�cipated to be
longer term.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 36 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 37 of 42
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Iden�fy a poten�al funding source (or sources).
• Iden�fy priori�es for how funds will be spent.
• Develop loan programs, poten�ally in partnership with lending ins�tu�ons.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Housing developers and providers; Clackamas County and other
organiza�ons offering home repair and weatheriza�on services
3.3 Community Land Trusts (F03)
Descrip�on Community land trust (CLT) is a model wherein a community organiza�on owns
land and provides long-term ground leases to low-income households to
purchase homes on the land, agreeing to purchase prices, resale prices, equity
capture, and other terms. This model allows low-income households to become
homeowners and capture some equity as the home appreciates, but ensures
that the home remains affordable for future homebuyers.
Proud Ground is an example of a CLT working in the region. Proud Ground
partners with other organiza�ons to build the homes, then manages the sales,
ground leases, and other programs.
Habitat for Humanity uses a similar approach to CLT to maintain the affordability
of the homes it builds—largely through volunteer labor and limi�ng resale prices,
while allowing owners to accrue home equity. Portland Region Habitat for
Humanity is the local affiliate organiza�on.
Ci�es can support CLT and other models for affordable homeownership by
providing land, grants/loans, direct funding, or leveraging state/regional
resources.
Considera�ons • Dependent on partnership, funding stream, and land acquisi�on.
• Financing the ini�al acquisi�on of land and securing enough equity to scale
the strategy are key challenges for the CLT model. Across the country, land
trusts use a variety of land acquisi�on mechanisms, from private financing
and municipal subsidies to rela�onships with land bank en��es.
• CLTs are unlikely to produce substan�al unit numbers unless significant
resources are raised from a broad mix of funding partners, but they can
provide permanent affordability of the units they develop. The City’s funds
can help to leverage investments from other partners.
An�cipated
Impact
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
Benefits and Burdens: In addi�on to benefi�ng low-income households,
depending on how it is administered, this strategy has the poten�al to
benefit communi�es that have faced structural barriers to homeownership –
par�cularly people of color and other marginalized communi�es.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For sale
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 37 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 38 of 42
• Magnitude: Moderate (if funded via a new revenue source; else Low) – The
effec�veness and impact of CLT programs is highly reliant on the partner who
is developing and administering the property. Another factor is the
availability of residen�al building sites large enough to accommodate
mul�ple housing units, though CLT model can be applied to small
developments as well. Ci�es can provide en�tlements, incen�ves, and
perhaps funding to the development partner (usually a non-profit agency).
This is one of the few models to provide lower-cost ownership opportuni�es
as opposed to rental opportuni�es.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion. Con�ngent on
adop�on of a new revenue source.
Impact: Timing of impact depends on partnership opportuni�es with a CLT. Given
availability of funds, impact to housing produc�on would be expected to occur
over the longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Work with CLTs to discuss opportuni�es in Lake Oswego.
• Take ac�on on partnership models and programs that best benefit the
organiza�on and the City’s financial and/or administra�ve capacity.
• Poten�ally provide on-going financial support through development/
rehabilita�on grants, homeownership grants/loans, dona�on of City-owned
land, and/or an annual funding set-aside.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Proud Ground, Habitat for Humanity, and/or other nonprofit
developers of for-sale units
3.4 Preserving low-cost rental housing to mi�gate displacement
(F05)
Descrip�on This strategy involves preven�ng displacement and preserving "naturally
occurring" affordable housing through acquisi�on, low-interest loans/revolving
loan fund for preserva�on, and/or code enforcement.
Most low-income households do not live in the limited supply of subsidized
affordable units that are available. Rather they live in market rate housing that is
“naturally” more affordable due to the loca�on, age, size, condi�on, or other
factors that lead to lower rent or cost. O�en it is much more cost effec�ve for
housing agencies to try to preserve this type of housing (e.g., a mobile home
park) than try to create an equivalent number of new units. While con�nuing to
produce new higher-standard affordable units is necessary and key goal,
protec�ng the units that are currently low cost is also important.
Considera�ons • Dependent on partnership and funding stream.
• Acquisi�on of exis�ng low-cost housing is only possible if property owners
are willing to sell.
• Lake Oswego does not have a large stock of naturally occurring affordable
housing. However, what ’s there is important to preserve if possible.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 38 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 39 of 42
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Government-subsidized affordable housing.
• Popula�on served: Low-income households
• Income level: 0-80% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: This strategy is expected to benefit low-income
residents by ensuring preserva�on of the city’s low-cost housing stock, and
ensuring it remains affordable long-term.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For rent
• Magnitude: Moderate (if funded via a new revenue source, and if inventory
is available; else Low) – This can be an effec�ve approach and is a major
focus of the Portland Housing Bureau, for instance, which has bought large
older apartment complexes for preserva�on, and hotels/motels for
conversion. In becoming involved in areas or proper�es where housing is
naturally less expensive, it can be important to be cau�ous and take a “first
do no harm” approach, as atempts to improve or invest in these proper�es
can some�mes have the unintended effect of raising property value and
rents/housing costs.
Time Frame Implementa�on: To be determined based on further discussion. Con�ngent on
adop�on of a new revenue source.
Impact: This strategy can begin to have an impact a�er the City has conducted
an inventory of affordable housing and accumulated adequate funds to
contribute to housing acquisi�on. Impact to the City’s supply of affordable
housing is expected to be longer term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Iden�fy a poten�al funding source (or sources).
• Iden�fy affordable housing units to preserve (see Strategy 1.10.
• Develop loan programs, poten�ally in partnership with lending ins�tu�ons.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Housing property owners; nonprofit affordable housing providers
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 39 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 40 of 42
4. Not Recommended
The following strategy is not recommended for implementa�on in the HPS because it is not expected to
have a meaningful impact on housing produc�on in Lake Oswego.
4.1 Homebuyer Opportunity Limited Tax Exemp�on Program
(HOLTE) (E06)
Descrip�on The purpose of this program is to encourage homeownership among low- and
moderate-income households and to s�mulate the purchase, rehabilita�on, and
construc�on of residences in certain areas as a form of infill development.
The program allows a limited 10-year property tax exemp�on to owner-occupied
single-unit housing that has a market value upon comple�on of no more than
120% of median sales price of dwelling units located within the city (or a lesser
value adopted by the jurisdic�on). The tax exemp�on can be granted for up to 10
successive years, and only applies to the value associated with property
improvements, not the land value.
While not required by statute, local governments can establish income criteria
for eligible homebuyers. For example, the City of Portland limits eligible
homebuyers to those earning no more than 100% of the area median income.11
Single-family housing units, townhomes, mul�-family homeownership units (i.e.,
condos), and manufactured housing are eligible for the exemp�on. Eligible units
can be new construc�on or rehabilitated exis�ng homes. The housing must be in
an area defined and designated by the City. The City also would create criteria
and establish required design elements or public benefits that would be applied
to proper�es using the exemp�on.
(Authorized by ORS 307.651-687)
Considera�ons • Strategy to facilitate homeownership among moderate-income households.
• Effec�veness depends on the local housing market and land costs. The recent
median sale price in Lake Oswego is $780k, so this program could in theory
apply to home values of $940k (120% of median). An income of about $200k
is needed to afford the median home with a 20% down payment. With less of
a down payment, even higher incomes would be needed. The HNA found
that the number of homes selling at the lower end (less than $500k for
instance) was a small share of the overall inventory.
• The City could consider lower sales price limits (below 120% of median sales
price), but this would be less en�cing to developers given the profit poten�al
of market-rate development in Lake Oswego.
An�cipated
Impact
• Housing Need Addressed: Homeownership op�ons for moderate-income
households. The HNA indicates a need for 1,024 new ownership units (52%
of new needed housing) over the 20-year period. The HNA also indicates that
11 City of Porland, HOLTE Program. https://www.portland.gov/phb/holte/sale-requirements
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 40 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 41 of 42
16% of all new needed units will need to be affordable for moderate-income
households (80-120% AMI).
• Popula�on served: Moderat e-income households
• Income level: 80-120% AMI
• Benefits and Burdens: If calibrated effec�vely, this strategy would be
expected to benefit moderate-income households by increasing affordable
homeownership opportuni�es. This would especially benefit first-�me
homebuyers that would otherwise be challenged to purchase a home in Lake
Oswego, and poten�ally seniors looking to purchase a downsized home. This
strategy also has the poten�al to benefit communi�es that have historically
faced structural barriers to homeownership – par�cularly people of color and
other marginalized communi�es.
No burdens on priority popula�ons are an�cipated.
• Housing tenure: For sale
• Magnitude: Low – This program is expected to have limited impact due to
the land and housing costs that prevail in Lake Oswego. Unfortunately, there
will be few opportuni�es for appropriate homes for lower-income first-�me
homebuyers. While this exemp�on would certainly help with homebuyer
finances, it would not apply to land cost, and there are few homes or
neighborhoods in the community that are low-cost candidates for
rehabilita�on.
Time Frame Implementa�on: Not Recommended
Impact: The HOLTE can be used once it is adopted, and for as long as the City
offers the exemp�on. The impact on housing supply is expected to be longer-
term.
Implementa�on
Ac�ons
• Define eligibility and design criteria.
• Work with other taxing jurisdic�ons to gain approval.
• City Council ac�on: Adopt tax exemp�on program by resolu�on or ordinance.
Lead & Partners Lead: Lake Oswego Community Development
Partners: Lake Oswego Finance Department; overlapping taxing jurisdic�ons
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 41 OF 42
Ini�al Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy 42 of 42
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo
The atached memo provides addi�onal informa�on about Construc�on Excise Tax (CET). An ini�al
version of this memo was included in the agenda packet for the Planning Commission’s January 8, 2024
Work Session. Addi�onal informa�on has been added, exam ining poten�al CET revenue genera�on
based on past permit data in Lake Oswego.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 42 OF 42
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 1 of 6
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo
to City of Lake Oswego
from Kate Rogers and Mat Has�e, MIG
Brendan Buckley, Johnson Economics
re Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy
Supplemental Informa�on about Construc�on Excise Tax
date February 8, 2024
Introduc�on
This memorandum provides addi�onal informa�on about Construc�on Excise Tax (CET) and is intended
to supplement the Ini�al Housing Strategy Recommenda�ons memo dated February 8, 2024. An ini�al
version of this memo was presented to the Lake Oswego Planning Commission as part of their January 8,
2024 work session agenda packet. The memo has since been expanded to include addi�onal
informa�on.
This memo provides further informa�on about how a handful of other ci�es in Oregon are implemen�ng
CET programs to support affordable housing. The memo looks at CET programs in Tigard, Bend, Newport,
Eugene, and Milwaukie. In addi�on, the following ci�es have also adopted a CET: Grants Pass, Medford,
Corvallis, Cannon Beach, Hood River, and Portland (and likely others).
This memo also provides an es�mate of poten�al revenue genera�on from a CET if established in Lake
Oswego, based on past permit data.
Case Study Examples
NOTE: According to state statute, all ci�es are required to exempt the following types of development
from CET: regulated affordable housing, public buildings, places of worship, public and private hospitals,
agricultural buildings, nonprofit facili�es, long-term care facili�es, residen�al care facili�es, con�nuing
care re�rement communi�es, and housing replacing homes destroyed by a wildfire or similar event.1
Tigard
Adop�on and Tax Rate: The City of Tigard adopted a CET in 2019, which levies a 1% tax on most
residen�al and commercial construc�on within the city to fund affordable housing programs.
1 Oregon Revised Statute 320.173.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 1 OF 6
ATTACHMENT 5
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 2 of 6
Exemp�ons: In addi�on to the required exemp�ons, Tigard exempts the following types of development
from CET:2
• Accessory dwelling units of 1,000 square feet or less.
• Construc�on or improvements having a total improvement value of less than $50,000.
• Construc�on or improvements to a residen�al structure that was par�ally or completely
destroyed by uninten�onal means, such as fire or act of nature, where such construc�on or
improvement results in a net increase of living area of 10% or less over the living area of the
destroyed structure.
• Cotage clusters, courtyard units, and quadplexes are exempted from 75% of the CET.
Revenue Expenditure: Tigard’s Municipal Code outlines the following CET revenue expenditure – this is
the general expenditure structure required by state statute, and is also applicable to CET in other ci�es.
• Retain up to four percent of the tax collected for payment toward administra�ve expenses.
• Residen�al CET revenues will be expended in accordance with state statute, as follows:
o 15% of net revenue will be remited to the Oregon Department of Housing and
Community Services to fund home ownership programs.
o 50% of net revenue will fund incen�ves for the development and construc�on of
affordable housing.
o 35% of net revenue will fund programs and ac�vi�es related to affordable housing.
• Commercial CET revenues will be expended as follows:
o 50% of the net revenue will fund programs of the city related to housing.
o The remaining revenues can be spent flexibly to support affordable housing.
• Projects: The City’s share of revenues goes towards a program administered by Proud Ground
for community land trust and affordable home ownership programs in Tigard. The revenue is
also used to backfill the transporta�on and parks SDCs from which affordable housing projects
are exempt.
Bend
Adop�on and Tax Rate:
• Affordable Housing Fee: The City of Bend adopted a construc�on tax, referred to as the
“Affordable Housing Fee,” in 2006, at a rate of 1/3 of 1% on residen�al, commercial, and
industrial development. This tax was adopted prior to the State Legislature’s authoriza�on of
CET for affordable housing in 2016 (via Senate Bill 1533). Although it does not meet all the
current statutory requirements for CET expenditure, Bend’s program was “grandfathered in,”
and has remained in effect.
• Commercial/Industrial CET: Then, in 2021 the City adopted an addi�onal CET of 1/3 of 1% for
new commercial and industrial development, with revenues dedicated toward housing
programs to support extremely low-income households. This amounts to a total CET on
commercial and industrial development of 2/3 of 1%.
2 Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 3.90 Construction Excise Tax.
https://library.qcode.us/lib/tigard_or/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3-chapter_3_90
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 2 OF 6
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 3 of 6
Exemp�ons: Bend’s Commercial CET exempts only the types of development required by state law.
Es�mated Revenues:
• Affordable Housing Fee: According to a 2017 report, the program had collected $6.4 million
since adoption in 2006, which had leveraged an additional $106 million in public and private
funding.3
• Commercial/Industrial CET: As of 2021, the tax was es�mated to collect $1.1M over the following
two years, the majority of which will be distributed by a formal request for proposal process.4
Revenue Expenditure:
• Affordable Housing Fee: Funding received from this tax are deposited in Bend’s Affordable
Housing Fund and targeted for housing opportuni�es for residents at or below 100% of area
median income.5,6
• Commercial/Industrial CET: Revenues from this tax will be dedicated toward funding programs
for housing, and support, services, and other programs for people making up to 30% of area
median income, which in 2021 was $22,980 for a family of four.
• Projects: Bend reports that “[p]roceeds from this fund have been employed to develop a wide
variety of housing throughout Bend. Currently, the Affordable Housing Fund is used to acquire
land for deed restricted affordable housing, develop the land, construct homes, or rehabilitate
homes. All funded developments are required to undertake a deed restric�on, guaranteeing the
homes will be affordable to lower income residents well into the future.”5 The City es�mates
that the funding has helped the crea�on of 770 affordable housing units.
Newport
Adop�on and Tax Rate: The City of Newport adopted a CET in 2017, with a tax rate of 1% for both
residen�al and commercial construc�on.7
Exemp�ons: Newport’s CET exempts only the types of development required by state law.
Es�mated Revenues: As of 2023, the CET has collected a litle more than $540,000 since its adop�on.8
3 City of Bend, Affordable Housing. https://www.bendoregon.gov/government/departments/housing/affordable-
housing
4 News from the City of Bend, https://www.bendoregon.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4296/
5 City of Bend, Financial Tools. https://www.bendoregon.gov/government/departments/housing/affordable-
housing/developer-resources#FinancialTools
6 Bend Municipal Code, Ch. 9.40 Affordable Housing Fee. https://bend.municipal.codes/BC/9.40.040
7 City of Newport, Resolution 3787, 2017.
https://www.newportoregon.gov/dept/cdd/documents/CET_Res3787SettingCETRates.pdf
8 City of Newport, Housing Production Strategy, 2023.
https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/20230616_HPS_Newport.pdf
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 3 OF 6
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 4 of 6
Revenue Expenditure: Informa�on about how Newport expends its CET revenues was not available.
However, the City’s 2023 Housing Produc�on Strategy outlines poten�al uses for these revenues to
support affordable housing development and programs.8 The Housing Produc�on Strategy implies that
the City’s share of the funding has accrued since the program’s incep�on and recommends that the City
undertake planning to decide how exactly to allocate it.
Eugene
Adop�on and Tax Rate: Eugene adopted a CET in 2019, with a tax rate of 0.5% for both residen�al and
commercial construc�on.
Exemp�ons: In addi�on to exemp�ons required by state law, Eugene exempts residen�al dwellings sold
for $250,000 or less and projects granted a mul�-unit property tax exemp�on (MUPTE) by the City.
Es�mated Revenues: In fiscal year 2021, the CET generated $300,000 in revenue. In fiscal year 2022, it
generated $1,140,000.9
Revenue Expenditure: Money collected from the CET goes into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust
Fund, which pays for projects and programs that increase availability and access to owner- and renter-
occupied housing that is affordable to lower income community members. Most of the AHTF (75%) goes
toward housing development; 25% goes toward direct assistance to renters and homeowners to help
increase access to housing. Examples of how these funds are used include:
• Gap financing for the development of new affordable housing;
• Acquisi�on of exis�ng housing that will become affordable;
• Acquisi�on of land for future affordable housing development;
• Down payment assistance for home buyers; and
• Rental or security deposit assistance for people who rent their homes.10
Projects: In the 2022/23 year, Eugene’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund contributed to five
development projects and services, providing 178 new affordable homes. These include:
• 70 �ny homes for homebuyers
• 10 transi�onal housing units for veterans
• 38 units with suppor�ve services for former convicts
• 56 units with suppor�ve services for the chronically homeless
• 4 new homes for low-income homebuyers
• Foreclosure assistance ($150,000)
• Homebuyer assistance ($281,000)
• Rental assistance ($100,000)
9 City of Eugene, Affordable Housing Trust Fund. https://www.eugene-or.gov/4232/Affordable-Housing-Trust-Fund
10 City of Eugene, CET FAQ. https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/46871/Affordable-Housing-
Construction-Excise-Tax-FAQs
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 4 OF 6
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 5 of 6
Milwaukie
Adop�on and Tax Rate: Milwaukie adopted a CET in 2017, with a tax rate of 1% for both residen�al
and commercial construc�on.11
Exemp�ons: In addi�on to exemp�ons required by state law, Milwaukie’s CET exempts any building
permits with a value of $100,000 or less. Ini�ally, the CET also exempted accessory dwelling units;
however, that exemp�on expired in 2022 (5 years a�er the ordinance was adopted).12
Es�mated Revenues: As of 2022, the CET had accumulated $2 million in revenue.
Revenue Expenditure: In 2022, the City released a compe��ve request for proposals to award up to $2
million in CET funds for qualifying income-restricted housing projects. As of 2023, the funds were
awarded to a development of 275 units, to be affordable at 30%-60% MFI, and a community land trust
courtyard development for affordable homeownership. As funds con�nue to accumulate over �me, the
City will release subsequent rounds of funding. CET funds generated from within Milwaukie are also
u�lized by the State to provide first-�me homebuyer assistance for residents.13
Lake Oswego CET – Poten�al Revenue Genera�on
The following is an es�mate of poten�al revenue genera�on from a CET if established in Lake Oswego.
These calcula�ons assume the maximum 1% excise tax rate, but a CET may be adopted at a lesser rate.
The es�mated permit values for the last five years were provided by the City of Lake Oswego, and
include those permits for new construc�on, or addi�ons or altera�ons resul�ng in addi�onal square
footage. Es�mates are based on the last five years and are subject to fluctua�ons year-to-year depending
on the amount of development ac�vity, the real estate market, and general economic factors.
As shown in the following table, a CET based on average annual residential permit valua�ons of the last
five years could generate annual revenue of roughly $770k for housing programs, or over $3.8M over
five years. Commercial permits could generate revenues of $850k per year, or $4.2M over five years.
The table shows how revenues might be broken down based on the division of funds described in
statutes.
11 Milwaukie Construction Excise Tax. https://www.milwaukieoregon.gov/communitydevelopment/milwaukie-
construction-excise-tax-cet
12 Milwaukie Municipal Code, Ch. 3.60 Affordable Housing Construction Excise Tax.
https://library.qcode.us/lib/milwaukie_or/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3-chapter_3_60
13 City of Milwaukie, Housing Production Strategy 2023.
https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/20230802_HPS_Milwaukie.pdf
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 5 OF 6
Appendix A: CET Supplemental Memo 2/8/2024
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 6 of 6
Table 1: Hypothe�cal Five-Year CET Revenue Genera�on, Lake Oswego
Res. & Mixed Use Commercial
2019 $93,030,000 $176,680,000
2020 $42,400,000 $30,020,000
2021 $46,390,000 $48,650,000
2022 $134,470,000 $92,960,000
2023 $68,300,000 $75,570,000
5-Year Total: $384,590,000 $423,880,000
Annual Average:$76,918,000 $84,776,000
CET (1.00% Rate)
Annual Average Revenue:$769,180 $847,760
5-Year Total Revenue: $3,845,900 $4,238,800
DIVISION OF FUNDS (5 YEARS)
4% Program Admin $154,000 $170,000
Of remainder:
50% Development Incentives $1,846,000
35% Other Aff. Hsg. Programs $1,292,000
15% to OHCS for Homeownership $554,000
50% Housing-Related Programs $2,034,000
50% Unrestricted $2,034,000
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 6 OF 6
1
Lake Oswego HNA+HPS Project
HPS Scope of Work, Revised Descrip�on of Tasks and Timelines
3.1 Evaluate exis�ng housing strategies. The consultant will review the policies and other measures
already adopted by the City for their effec�veness in promo�ng the development of needed housing.
The City will iden�fy and provide all available informa�on about exis�ng relevant measures. The
consultant will also interview key City staff and up to eight (8) housing producers and/or service
providers to seek input on exis�ng policies and programs, and poten�al new strategies for housing. This
input will be used to iden�fy strategy alterna�ves to address the most housing and residen�al land
needs as determined in previous tasks.
Ac�vi�es
•Using the DLCD housing strategies “master list” as a star�ng point, dra� an ini�al menu of
strategies to consider. Iden�fy strategies that are already being implemented by the City (most
informa�on already provided).
•Conduct housing producer interviews
•Dra� Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment
•Recommend strategies to be deleted from ini�al list and ra�onale for removal (e.g., requires
change in state or federal law, beyond level of resources available to City, minimal projected
benefit or impact, does not address needs iden�fied in Contextualized Housing Needs
Assessment, etc.). Consultant provide ini�al sugges�ons; mee�ng with City staff to review and
refine.
•Summarize results in a table or matrix for review with Task Force
Timeline: Mid-August – late-September; meet with Task Force in early October
Conduct Housing Producer Interviews Aug - Sep
Draft Initial Menu of Strategies to Consider Sep 5
Draft Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment Sep 25
Table with Refined List of HPS Strategies Sep 25
HPS Task Force Meeting #4: Evaluate Existing Strategies Oct 6
CC-SS #4: Evaluate Existing Strategies Nov 7
PC-WS #4: Evaluate Existing Strategies Nov 13
3.2 Outline housing strategy alterna�ves, which shall be summarized in a Housing Strategy Alternatives
Memo.
The Consultant shall dra� a Housing Strategy Alterna�ves Memo addressing any changes to the City’s
comprehensive plan, public facility master plans, land use regula�ons, fees, and other policies and
programs, as applicable, that would be most effec�ve in suppor�ng the produc�on of needed housing.
For example, the Memo might iden�fy strategies for priori�zing infrastructure investments, amendments
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 1 OF 5
ATTACHMENT 6
2
to zoning and development standards, and new incen�ves (regulatory or financial) to encourage the
produc�on of needed housing, considering the results of previous tasks.
The Consultant will present the Memo to the HPS Task Force in two mee�ngs in order to introduce the
housing strategy alterna�ves and receive input. The consultant will coordinate with the City on all
mee�ng materials and presenta�ons with City staff, and facilitate the HPS Task Force mee�ngs.
Ac�vi�es
• Provide preliminary recommenda�ons for strategies to pursue, building on previous tasks
• Briefly summarize:
o The purpose of the strategy
o The housing need fulfilled by the strategy
o How strategies will be implemented and by whom (i.e., is the City the lead or another
organiza�on)
o Ini�al opportuni�es, constraints or consequences
• Present results in either table or narra�ve format
• Review results with Task Force (1 mee�ng)
Timeline: Mid-October – late-November; meet with Task Force in early December
Preliminary Recommendations to City staff Nov 6
Draft Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo Nov 27
HPS Task Force Meeting #5: Housing Strategy Alternatives Dec 8
Refine Alternatives based on HPS input Dec 11 - 15
PC Materials – Draft to JN Dec 21
PC Materials – Draft to Admin Dec 27
PC Materials – Distributed Dec 29
PC Update: Housing Strategy Alternatives Jan 8
3.3 Refine housing strategy recommenda�ons. The consultant will work with City staff and the HPS Task
Force to refine the list of alterna�ve housing strategy op�ons developed in Task 3.2 in an Ini�al Housing
Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo, pursuant to direc�on from the Planning Commission and City
Council.
The Consultant shall dra� a Housing Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo with a refined list of strategies
based on input from Task 3.2. The Consultant will also atend and present this Memo at 2 HPS Task Force
mee�ngs for review and input in order to develop a preferred list of strategies for inclusion in the HPS.
Recommended strategies will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for further
direc�on.
The City will schedule and provide no�ce and an agenda for each HPS Task Force mee�ng. The
consultant will be expected to coordinate all mee�ng and presenta�on materials with City staff, and
facilitate the mee�ngs. The HPS Task Force may review more than one strategy op�on at each mee�ng.
The Consultant shall provide a brief paper, case study, or similar writen descrip�on illustra�ng each
strategy, as generally outlined below.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 2 OF 5
3
For the strategies that are recommended for inclusion in the City’s HPS, the consultant will produce the
following for each strategy within the Ini�al Housing Strategy Recommenda�ons Memo, based on the
consultant’s evalua�on, input from staff, and feedback gathered through outreach and engagement:
• A descrip�on of the strategy;
• Iden�fied housing need being fulfilled and analysis of the income and demographic popula�ons
that will receive benefit and/or burden from the strategy, including low income communi�es,
communi�es of color, and other communi�es that have been discriminated against, according
to fair housing laws;
• Approximate magnitude of impact, including (where possible/applicable) an es�mate of
• the number of housing units that may be created, and the �me frame over which the strategy is
expected to impact needed housing;
• Timeline for adop�on and implementa�on;
• Ac�ons necessary for the local government and other stakeholders to take in order to
implement the strategy;
• Poten�al cost and funding source op�ons;
• Feasibility of the strategy based on a general assessment of opportuni�es and constraints.
Ac�vi�es – As described above/no change
Timeline: Mid-December – mid-April; meet with Task Force in early and late February; conduct
community mee�ng in early March
Draft Initial Housing Strategy Recommendations Memo Jan 29-31
Task Force 6+7 Materials – Draft for JN Feb 5
Task Force 6+7 Materials – Draft for Admin Feb 7
Task Force 6+7 Materials – Distributed Feb 9
HPS Task Force Meeting #6: Initial HPS Recommendations #1 Feb 16
HPS Task Force Meeting #7: Initial HPS Recommendations #2 Mar 1
Community Forum / Public Workshop Event Mar 14
Summary of Task Force + public input Mar 18
CC-PC Materials – Draft to JN Mar 19
CC-PC Materials – Draft to Admin Mar 21
CC-PC Materials – Due Mar 22
CC-PC Joint Work Session: Initial Recommendations Apr 2
3.4 Dra� Housing Produc�on Strategy (HPS) Report. The consultant will prepare a first dra� of a
Housing Produc�on Strategy Report for City review and feedback. The consultant’s analysis will be
informed by the recommenda�ons contained in the HNA, and shall be developed in consulta�on with
the HPS Task Force, the Planning Commission, and the City Council before being synthesized into a dra�
HPS.
The HPS Report is to incorporate the results of Tasks 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, including an explana�on of how
the City’s exis�ng measures and final proposed strategies help to achieve fair and equitable housing
outcomes, affirma�vely further fair housing, and overcome discriminatory housing prac�ces and racial
segrega�on.
HPS Report shall include:
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 3 OF 5
4
1. A qualita�ve assessment of how the strategies collec�vely address the contextualized housing
needs iden�fied in the HNA and, taken collec�vely, will increase housing op�ons for popula�on
groups experiencing a current or projected dispropor�onate housing need, including:
• Exis�ng City policies, codes, and programs;
• Proposed ac�ons;
2. An explana�on for any iden�fied needs not otherwise addressed above; and
3. An outline the City’s plan for monitoring progress on the housing produc�on strategies.
Ac�vi�es – As described above/no change
Timeline: Mid-April – late-July; meet with Task Force in late June
Initial Draft HPS Report Jun 3
PC/Task Force 8 Materials – Draft for JN Jun 10
PC/Task Force 8 Materials – Draft for Admin Jun 12
PC/Task Force 8 Materials – Distributed Jun 14
CC Materials – Draft for JN Jul 1
CC Materials – Draft for Admin Jul 3
CC Materials – Distributed Jul 5
HPS Task Force Meeting #8: Review Draft HPS Report Jun 21
PC-WS #7: Review Draft HPS Report Jun 24
CC-SS #7: Review Draft HPS Report Jul 16
Revise Draft HPS Report based on Task Force + CC/PC input Jul 17 – Jul 29
3.5 Finalize the HPS for adop�on as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Following review by staff
and revisions, as needed, the consultant will produce a public review dra� of the Final HPS Report for
review and comment by the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, City Council, and other interested
par�es. The consultant will summarize the HPS Task Force comments on the dra� and make any minor
updates to the dra� as required. Following public review and comment, the consultant will produce a
final version of the HPS Report.
The City will host one public open house or similar mee�ng to present and receive feedback on the key
strategies outlined in the dra� HPS. The consultant will assist staff with the presenta�on.
Ac�vi�es – As described above/no change
Timeline: Mid-July – mid-October
Final HPS Report Jul 29
PC Hearing Materials – Draft for JN Jul 31
PC Hearing Materials – Draft for Admin Aug 2
PC Hearing Materials – Distributed Aug 5
DLCD Notice Aug 5
Planning Commission Public Hearing (PC-PH) Sep 9
+ Adoption of Findings Sep 23
CC Hearing Materials – Draft for JN Sep 30
CC Hearing Materials – Draft for Admin Oct 2
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 4 OF 5
5
CC Hearing Materials – Due Oct 4
City Council Public Hearing (CC-PH) Oct 15 + Nov 5
+ Adoption of Findings Nov 5 or 19
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 5 OF 5
Lake Oswego Housing Produc�on Strategy Task Force Mee�ng #5 - December 8, 2023
Breakout Session Discussions
During the HPS Task Force Mee�ng on December 8, 2023, Task Force members engaged in breakout
group discussions focused on iden�fying housing produc�on strategies that could best address the
housing needs iden�fied in the Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Contextualized Housing Needs
Analysis. The conversa�ons were related to the following categories of housing need:
1.Government-subsidized housing units affordable to people with very low or low incomes;
2.Housing affordable to households with moderate incomes;
3.Housing op�ons / choices to meet a full range of household needs and preferences; and
4.Housing opportuni�es for seniors, people with disabili�es, and aging in place.
During these individual breakout sessions focused on high-priority housing needs, Task Force members
will be asked to consider the following ques�ons:
•What strategy or strategies would be most effec�ve in mee�ng this need?
•Do you have any concerns about the strategy or its implementa�on?
•What opportuni�es does this strategy present?
•Which organiza�ons or community groups could the City partner with to beter address this
need?
Breakout Session #1: Government-subsidized housing units affordable to people with very low or low
incomes
•Dona�on of land seems cri�cal
o Land cost versus what you can build on it; if it’s spread across more units, it’s much more
doable
o Tax credits priori�ze high opportunity areas
o Zoning code is very restric�ve; height limit is very restric�ve; there are NIMBYs – older
demographic doesn’t want to see things change
•City needs to rezone; there’s not enough land for mul�-family
o AH developers having to buy land that has development on it; there’s not enough vacant
land
o So many underu�lized uses on Boones Ferry
•Kate: We’ve been discussing nonresiden�al to residen�al; should we consider upzoning lower
density areas?
o Would need to be very strategic, only very underu�lized areas.
•Adap�ng homes for mul�-genera�onal living; Making homes available to be divided to add units;
make it easy to build an ADU
o Allowing two ADUs on a lot
o Strategically promote the idea of mul�genera�onal living; grassroots
outreach/educa�on
o Educa�on to the community about housing, affordable housing; promo�ng
understanding; allaying fears
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 7/PAGE 1 OF 4
ATTACHMENT 7
• Height limits and design standards was a common theme from developers
• Construc�on Excise Tax (CET)
o City doesn’t have a lot of industrial development; non-residen�al CET may not provide
much funding
o Can use for backfilling SDCs
o Concerned about a strategy that has a nega�ve impact on development
• Housing Trust Funds – regional fund could be funded by state dollars rather than local revenues
Breakout Session #2: Housing affordable to households with moderate incomes
What strategy or strategies would be most effec�ve in mee�ng this need? What are the concerns and
opportuni�es of these strategies?
(Note: we didn’t get through all the strategies we wanted to discuss)
• Code Audit and amendments – high impact strategy since code can be a barrier to all types of
housing and this low-hanging fruit; concerns that it could impact neighbors if setbacks or heights
are adjusted or if parking is reduced.
• Rezone land – could be impac�ul, par�cularly where office buildings may be becoming obsolete
and ripe for repurposing or redevelopment, but should focus on mixed-use zones; concerns
about noise and other impacts of incompa�ble uses comingling
• Modify SDC fee schedule – this will benefit all types of housing, but need to be sure it doesn’t
significantly constrain City’s ability to provide infrastructure and services that are supported by
these fees
Breakout Session #3: Housing op�ons / choices to meet a full range of household needs and preferences
What strategy or strategies would be most effective in meeting this need?
• Promote accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
• Middle housing – duplexes / triplexes
• Prepare underu�lized land for development – par�cularly affordable housing – City needs to be
opportunis�c
Do you have any concerns about the strategy or its implementation?
• People want neighborhoods to stay the same; there will be a variety of problems with
introducing new types of housing in these areas
• Need to look at ways to provide housing op�ons without disrup�ng neighborhood character;
each individual community has unique character that should be responded to with new housing
designs
• Should focus on areas currently zoned for mul�family as well
• How to incorporate livability in new developments?
• There should be a reasonable transi�on between high- and low-density areas; they should look
more alike
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 7/PAGE 2 OF 4
• Housing construc�on / produc�on takes �me, need more immediate solu�ons that take effect
*now*
• A lot of these strategies will likely be rentals – how do we increase homeownership
opportuni�es? This will increase access to wealth and transfer of wealth to future genera�ons
over �me
• There could be a lack of available land… however, Oregon has a fairly large amount of
developable land compared to other states (despite urban growth boundary)
What opportunities does this strategy present?
• Could effec�vely increase density by a moderate amount within exis�ng neighborhoods –
opportunity to talk to residents about which ways they would like to see this happen
• Can help increase walkability, proximity to schools / open space / retail / commercial / ameni�es
• Don’t have housing located in areas without access to retail / ameni�es – perhaps new
commercial nodes would be helpful in these areas
• Opportunity to provide housing for folks who work in LO but live outside of LO – could focus on
City employees and ensuring that they can afford to live in LO, it would be good for us
Which organizations or community groups could the City partner with to better address this need?
• Educa�on and outreach are cri�cal – folks should understand that this new development is
posi�ve for our community; can’t complain about people living on the streets and then refuse
them housing
• Need special folks to connect with neighborhood associa�ons and help them understand the
posi�ves about middle housing and housing produc�on; HPS Task Force members are well-
suited to play this role. Nega�ve a�tudes can make it incredibly difficult to have these
discussions
Breakout Session #4: Housing opportuni�es for seniors, people with disabili�es, and aging in place
What strategy or strategies would be most effec�ve in mee�ng this need?
• Tax abatement isn't very popular but for folks aging in place this is very important. Your income
goes down as you re�re...depends on how.
• There is support for tax abatement - to make subsidized projects feasible. Lots of levels of
subsidy are needed. Age-restricted mul�family developments could use tax abatement.
• Size is the biggest issue - seniors are in larger homes that they cannot maintain inside or outside.
But they can't find condos etc to downsize into. Independent living. Condos are expensive.
• Just having more housing op�ons will help loosen the market somewhat. There are lots of
seniors in the City. Want community around. Cotage clusters are a good idea for this as well.
The issue is having land availability. People are allowed to build them now. Community pushback
to novel cluster projects exacerbate this.
• 1st addi�on cotage cluster was pulled back as well.
• City won't give a subsidy unless there's an affordability threshold. Very.
• Do you have any concerns about the strategy or its implementa�on?
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 7/PAGE 3 OF 4
What opportuni�es does this strategy present?
Which organiza�ons or community groups could the City partner with to beter address this need?
• Not sure who we have locally. Loca�on of the buildings near services would be important.
Looking at the transporta�on system - if you have mobility issues that's a bit problem.
• Adult community center - door to door work with folks in the community.
• Improving transporta�on op�ons for seniors - shutle, etc.
• What's happened so far - hesitancy from the community. This pushes the smaller lots to the
hinterlands. Seniors should be closer in to the town centers.
• If you can build a large enough complex it'll fill.
• Inclusionary zoning - subsidizing senior living.
• Incen�ves for ADA features are a good idea. "Master on the main" features will be provided by
the market in all likelihood.
• New mixed use communi�es - apartments with commercial areas.
• Areas with poten�al for redevelopment (older single family to newer single family) - town
centers. If we don't want the redevelopment deep in the neighborhoods maybe we can densify
our main corridors. Unannexed areas are a poten�al as well.
• "Homeshare" I'd rather be in a very small condo.
• Ashland - some cotage clusters recently completed.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 7/PAGE 4 OF 4
APPROVED: 02/16/2024
503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
1.CALL TO ORDER 1
Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager, called the meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. 2
This was a video conference meeting held via Zoom. 3
4
2.ROLL CALL 5
Members Present: 6
Kasey Adler, Transportation Advisory Board Representative - was excused 7
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor and City Council Liaison (non-voting) 8
Douglas Corder, 50+ Advisory Board Representative 9
Philip Stewart, Planning Commission Liaison (non-voting) 10
Bruce Poinsette, Development Review Commission Representative - was excused 11
Kimvi To, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Board) Advisory Board Representative 12
13
At-Large Members – Housing Producers: 14
Kyrsten Baumgart - was excused 15
Phil Bertrand 16
David Tangvald 17
Sarah Walker, Chair 18
19
At-Large Members – Housing Consumers: 20
Yoko Kinoshita 21
Rosalie Nowalk 22
Pat Ginn - was excused 23
Diana Howell 24
Cara Kao-Young - was excused 25
Betty Jung - was excused 26
Rebecca Lane 27
John E. Pauley 28
John Turchi, Vice-Chair 29
Logan Bryck - was excused 30
31
Staff Present: 32
Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager, 33
and Cristina Siquina Calderón, Admin Support. 34
35
Consultants Present: 36
Kelly Reid, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); Andrew Parish, 37
Senior Planner with MIG; Matt Hastie, Project Manager with MIG; and Kate Rogers, Senior Planner 38
with MIG 39
40
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Housing Production Strategy Task Force
Meeting #5 Action Minutes
December 8, 2023
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 8/PAGE 1 OF 2
ATTACHMENT 8
HPS Task Force Meeting Minutes
Minutes of December 8, 2023 Page 2 of 2
1
3.GREETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2
HPS received input from both the Planning Commission and with City Council in early3
November.4
The Planning department has hired a new staff member and will work to slowly5
incorporate them.6
7
4.MINUTES 8
Member John Turchi moved to approve the minutes of October 6, 2023. Member Rebecca Lane 9
seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. 10
11
5.SUMMARY OF INPUT ON INITIAL STRATEGY LIST 12
Task force members received a presentation from Mr. Olson on recent input from City Council, 13
and the Planning Commission regarding the initial list of housing production strategies discussed 14
at the last HPS meeting, followed by question and comments. 15
16
6.PRIMARY HOUSING NEEDS AND PROJECTS GOALS 17
The Task Force Continued the presentation wtih Kate Rogers on the major housing needs 18
identified in the Housing Needs Analysis followed by group discussion. 19
20
7.STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS PRIMARY HOUSING NEEDS 21
The Task force met in breakout rooms to further discuss the following topics and questions: 22
Topic: 23
Government-subsidized housing units affordable to people with very low or low incomes24
Housing affordable to households with moderate incomes25
Housing options/choices to meet a full range of household needs and preferences26
Housing opportunities for seniors, people with disabilities, and aging in place.27
28
Questions: 29
What strategy or strategies would be most effective in meeting this need?30
Do you have any concerns about the strategy or its implementation?31
What opportunities does this strategy present?32
Which organizations or community groups could the City partner with to better address33
this need?34
35
8. NEXT STEPS 36
Planning Commission and City Council work sessions (January).37
HPS Task Force Meeting #6 tentative February.38
39
9. ADJOURNMENT 40
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. 41
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 8/PAGE 2 OF 2
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 1
LAKE OSWEGO CONTEXTUALIZED
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
DRAFT | November 16, 2023
CONTENTS
Execu�ve Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2
I. Introduc�on ...................................................................................................................................... 7
II. Market Condi�ons ........................................................................................................................... 8
Housing Tenure ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Market Condi�ons (For-Sale Housing) ...................................................................................................... 8
Market Condi�ons (Rental Housing) ....................................................................................................... 10
III. Socio-Economic and Demographic Trends Affec�ng Housing Needs ............................................... 13
Family Households .................................................................................................................................. 14
Group Quarters Popula�on ..................................................................................................................... 14
Diversity Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 16
People with a Disability ........................................................................................................................... 18
Income Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Poverty .................................................................................................................................................... 21
People Experiencing Homelessness ........................................................................................................ 22
Households Needing Publicly Assisted Housing ..................................................................................... 23
Agricultural Workers ............................................................................................................................... 23
Veterans .................................................................................................................................................. 23
IV. Barriers to Development of Needed Housing ................................................................................. 25
V. Adopted Measures ......................................................................................................................... 27
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 1 OF 28
ATTACHMENT 9
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Lake Oswego completed its most recent Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) in the fall of 2023. The
analysis included an inventory of buildable land for residen�al uses and a projec�on of future housing
need, consistent with state and regional requirements. The HNA found that, despite a very low assumed
growth rate over the 20-year planning horizon, the City of Lake Oswego has a need for nearly 2,000 new
housing units, including over 1,100 mul�-family and middle housing units. According to the HNA, about
half of those units are needed to meet upper income ranges (greater than 120% of the Area Median
Income, or AMI), while the remaining half are needed to meet very low to middle income household
needs.
To advance the City's planning efforts to encourage and allow for development of needed housing, the
City is in the process of crea�ng a Housing Produc�on Strategy (HPS), the purpose of which is to iden�fy
a set of ac�ons that the City of Lake Oswego will take to facilitate housing development that meets the
needs of the community. The HPS focuses on how to fill the gap between the City's housing need and
supply, par�cularly housing available to low- and moderate-income households—and par�cularly low-
cost rental housing.
A key step in this process is developing a Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (CHNA) per OAR
660-008-0050(1). This assessment is intended to build on previous work conducted for the HNA to
describe demographic, housing, and market condi�ons; housing affordability issues; barriers to mee�ng
iden�fied housing needs, including the needs of tradi�onally underserved and disadvantaged
popula�ons; and exis�ng or previous programs implemented to address housing needs.
Data sources for this report include the US decennial census and 5-year American Communi�es Survey
(ACS) tables, CoStar, Regional Mul�ple Lis�ng Service (RMLS), and Johnson Economics. Key takeaways
from this report follow.
Summary of Market Condi�ons
• For-Sale Housing. The median sale price was $860,000, while The average (mean) sale price was
$1,075,000 during the last 12 months. The median square footage was 2,300 sq. �. Atached
units and condominiums currently make up a significant share of home sales (28%). The median
home sale price in Lake Oswego has more than doubled over the past 10 years, from $395k in
2012 to $860k in 2022. Median price growth has averaged 8% per year over the past decade but
has recently experienced the strongest one-year growth in 2020 (14%) and 2021 (19%).
• Rental Housing. The average effec�ve rent in Lake Oswego is $2,038/mo. In the last decade,
rent growth has been 52% or 4.3% per year. By comparison, infla�on has been 31% or 2.7% per
year for the same period. Rents peaked in 2022 and have moderated slightly since.
• Housing Affordability. 75% of recent sales in Lake Oswego were priced at least $600,000.
Homes in this range would be mostly affordable to households earning at least $175,000 per
year. This is well above the median household income of $123,000. In addi�on, nearly half of
renter households in Lake Oswego are considered housing cost burdened (i.e., pay more than
30% of their income for housing).
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 2 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 3
• Publicly Assisted Housing. The state tracks three current subsidized affordable housing
proper�es in Lake Oswego, with a total of 76 units in 2023. The majority (75) of these units are
offered for elderly residents. The Marylhurst Commons will offer an addi�onal 100 affordable
units for families when it is constructed. Upon comple�on in 2024, the total 176 subsidized units
in Lake Oswego will represent 1% of the local housing stock. The Housing Authority of Clackamas
County administers over 1,600 Sec�on 8 housing choice, some of which are used in Lake
Oswego. No agricultural worker housing exists currently in Lake Oswego.
Figure EX-1. Lake Oswego Home Sales (12 months, July 2022 to July 2023)
Source: RMLS, Johnson Economics
Socio-Economic Informa�on
• Racial Diversity. Lake Oswego is roughly 80% white, 8% Asian, and 9% two or more races. The
City is more diverse today than ten years ago when approximately 90% of the popula�on was
white.
• Disability. There are roughly 3,140 individuals in Lake Oswego with one or more disabili�es.
• Veterans. Veterans are 6% of the adult popula�on. 63% are 65 and older. Veterans have lower
than average poverty levels, and 21% have some sort of disability.
72%0%
8%
20%
Home Sales by Unit Type
Detached Home Manuf. Home
Attached Home Condo
0
3
43
47
31
39
56
67
66
319
0 100 200 300 400
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,000
$200,000 - $299,000
$300,000 - $399,000
$400,000 - $499,000
$500,000 - $599,000
$600,000 - $699,000
$700,000 - $799,000
$800,000 - $899,000
$900,000+
Home Sales by Price Level
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 3 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 4
Figure EX-6. Population by Race
SOURCE: US Census, Johnson Economics LLC; Census Tables: P1, P2 (2010, 2020)
Figure EX-7. Population with Disabilities
SOURCE: US Census, Johnson Economics LLC; Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year)
7.8%
2.4%
1.7%
2.7%
2.9%
1.1%
2.3%
0%2%4%6%8%10%
Population with a disability
Hearing difficulty
Vision difficulty
Cognitive difficulty
Ambulatory difficulty
Self-care difficulty
Independent living difficulty
Share of Population
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 4 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 5
Exis�ng Adopted Housing Measures
The City of Lake Oswego already implements a variety of measures intended to enable or facilitate the
produc�on of needed housing. In combina�on with the other findings in the Contextualized Housing
Needs report, this list will help the City and community understand where there are gaps in the City’s
approach toward mee�ng its housing needs. Below is a brief summary of the key housing measures
adopted by the City, organized into the categories defined by DLCD.
Zoning Strategies
• Height/density bonus for affordable developments in the West Lake Grove Design District (WLG-
OC) and R-DD zones.
• Increased code flexibility for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as to occupancy and size limits.
• Regulates short-term rentals to help preserve long-term rental opportuni�es regula�ons
• Requires affordable housing in limited areas of the city.
• Allows increased density near transit sta�ons.
• Lot coverage bonus for housing within the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO).
Reducing Regulatory Impediments
• Removed parking mandates near transit.
• Expedites permi�ng for affordable housing.
Financial Incen�ves
• Waives system development charges (SDCs) and development review fees for affordable
housing and ADUs.
Financial Resources
• Uses urban renewal funds to support housing (recently with the North Anchor development).
Land Acquisi�on, Lease, and Partnerships
• Donates surplus City-owned land for affordable housing.
• Engages in public-private partnerships with non-profit organiza�ons to produce affordable
housing units.
• Enables conversion of underperforming commercial assets into housing (recently with the North
Anchor site).
• U�lizing surplus land owned by faith-based organiza�on for housing (recently with the
Marylhurst University Campus).
Barriers to Development of Needed Housing
Numerous factors contribute to the availability of housing in Lake Oswego – market factors, physical
condi�ons, regula�ons, public investments, etc. Some of these factors can serve as barriers to the
produc�on of housing that is most needed in the city. To understand the major barriers to developing
needed housing in Lake Oswego, the project team interviewed a number of stakeholders involved in
housing produc�on in the city. Following are some of the key housing needs that the stakeholders
iden�fied as gaps in the market:
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 5 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 6
• Affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households
• Middle housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, and cotage clusters)
• Housing op�ons for seniors and opportuni�es for aging in place
• Op�ons for more atainable homeownership (e.g., condos and middle housing)
• Apartments with family-size units (2-3 bedrooms)
• Mul�-family housing outside the Town Center
Stakeholders iden�fied the following barriers to mee�ng these housing needs, and to housing
produc�on more generally:
• The high cost of land in Lake Oswego translates to high rental and sale prices, and makes deed-
restricted affordable housing especially challenging to pencil out.
• There are few large, developable sites within the City and urban service boundary to support
mul�-family housing and other development types that typically rely on larger parcels of land.
• The City’s Development Code can pose barriers to housing development. Stakeholders
iden�fied issues such as highly-prescrip�ve Overlay and Design District standards, tree
protec�on/plan�ng standards, and open space standards as par�cular challenges for housing.
• The City’s development review and permi�ng processes can be lengthy and contribute to
housing costs.
• Neighbor opposi�on to affordable or higher-density housing can drag out the process and add
to costs.
A focus of the Housing Produc�on Strategy will be to iden�fy tools and strategies to remove or reduce
these barriers or help housing producers overcome them.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 6 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 7
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Lake Oswego completed its most recent Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) in the fall of 2023. The
analysis included an inventory of buildable land for residen�al uses and a projec�on of future housing
need, consistent with state and regional requirements. The HNA found that, despite a very low assumed
growth rate over the 20-year planning horizon, the City of Lake Oswego has a need for nearly 2,000 new
housing units, including over 1,100 mul�-family and middle housing units. According to the HNA, about
half of those units are needed to meet upper income ranges (greater than 120% of the Area Median
Income, or AMI), while the remaining half are needed to meet very low to middle income household
needs.
To advance the City's planning efforts to encourage and allow for development of needed housing, the
City is in the process of crea�ng a Housing Produc�on Strategy (HPS), the purpose of which is to iden�fy
a set of ac�ons that the City of Lake Oswego will take to facilitate housing development that meets the
needs of the community. The HPS focuses on how to fill the gap between the City's housing need and
supply, par�cularly housing available to low- and moderate-income households—and par�cularly low-
cost rental housing.
To provide context to Lake Oswego's housing needs, the memorandum uses data from the 2023 Housing
Needs Analysis, US Census, and other available sources describe in greater detail the context of socio-
economic, demographic trends, and market condi�ons. This memorandum also incorporates informa�on
obtained though stakeholder engagement mee�ngs with affordable housing producers and consumers,
landowners, and representa�ves of underrepresented communi�es, including people experiencing
homelessness, low-income households, renters, and non-profit and governmental organiza�ons serving
those in need of housing.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 7 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 8
II. MARKET CONDITIONS
The informa�on on housing market condi�ons provides a look into the way the housing market is or is
not mee�ng the needs of the residents of Lake Oswego.
Housing Tenure
Lake Oswego has a greater share of homeowner households than renter households. The 2021 ACS
es�mates that 71% of occupied units were owner occupied, and only 29% renter occupied. The
ownership rate is litle changed since 2000. The es�mated ownership rate is higher across Clackamas
County (73%) and lower statewide (63%).
Market Conditions (For-Sale Housing)
This sec�on presents home sales data from the Regional Mul�ple Lis�ng Service (RMLS) for the prior 12
months (July 2022 to July 2023). There were 671 home sales in Lake Oswego over this period, or an
average of 56 sales/month. Currently, RMLS tracks 181 ac�ve lis�ngs, or over three months of for-sale
inventory at the average rate of the prior 12 months (see Figure 1). Of these lis�ngs:
• The median sale price was $860,000.
• The average (mean) sale price was $1,075,000.
• The average price per square foot was $430/square foot
• The median square footage was 2,300 square feet
• Atached units and condominiums make up a significant share of home sales (28%).
• 48% of sales were priced above $900,000.
• 34% of sales were priced between $500,000 and $899,000.
• Only 18% of sales were priced at less than $500,000.
• Only 7% of sales were priced below $300,000.
As shown in Figure 2, the median home sale price in Lake Oswego has more than doubled over the past
10 years, from $395k in 2012 to $860k in 2022. Median price growth has averaged 8% per year over the
past decade but has recently experienced the strongest one-year growth in 2020 (14%) and 2021 (19%).
Mobility paterns and work-from-home trends during the COVID pandemic were the likely contributors
to this trend, as remote workers from more expensive markets such as California and Seatle were able
to relocate to atrac�ve Oregon communi�es. Compe��on for limited housing inventory during those
years also contributed to rising prices. The price increases moderated in 2022, growing by only 2% from
2021.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 8 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 9
Figure 1. Lake Oswego Home Sales (12 Months)
Sources: RMLS, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
Figure 2. Median Home Sale Price (2010-2022)
Sources: RMLS, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
72%0%
8%
20%
Home Sales by Unit Type
Detached Home Manuf. Home
Attached Home Condo
0
3
43
47
31
39
56
67
66
319
0 100 200 300 400
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,000
$200,000 - $299,000
$300,000 - $399,000
$400,000 - $499,000
$500,000 - $599,000
$600,000 - $699,000
$700,000 - $799,000
$800,000 - $899,000
$900,000+
Home Sales by Price Level
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Median Sale Price
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 9 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 10
Affordability: As indicated, roughly 75% of recent sales in Lake Oswego were priced at least $600,000.
Homes in this range would be mostly affordable to households earning at least $175,000 per year, which
is well above the median household income of $123,000. Roughly 66% of households earn less than
$175,000 per year, meaning that the bulk of housing supply on the current for-sale market (75%) is likely
too expensive for most of these households.
Market Conditions (Rental Housing)
Lake Oswego has experienced an uneven vacancy rate over the last two decades, according to data from
CoStar. The following figure shows that rental vacancy in the area fell in the prior decade to a low
vacancy of under 4%. By 2017, when new apartment inventory was built in Lake Oswego, vacancy
climbed temporarily and has been modera�ng ever since (see Figure 3).
Average rents have climbed steadily since 2011 (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The average rent in Lake Oswego
has nearly doubled over that period, increasing to roughly $2.20/square foot, or an average of
$2,050/month according to data from CoStar. Rents peaked in mid-2022 at an average monthly rate of
$2,200/month and an average $2.35/square foot.
Figure 6 presents the average annual rent growth since 2001. Rent growth has remained mostly posi�ve
since the prior recession. A�er rents fell at the outset of the COVID pandemic, it reversed by 2010 and
growth was posi�ve un�l the most recent quarters. Since the second quarter of 2023, average rents have
fallen an es�mated 5% on a year-over-year basis.
Figure 3. Rental Vacancy In Lake Oswego (2000-2023)
Source: CoStar, Johnson Economics
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Vacancy Rate
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 10 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 11
Figure 4. Average Rent/Square Foot, Lake Oswego (2000-2023)
Source: CoStar, Johnson Economics
Figure 5. Average Monthly Rent, Lake Oswego (2000-2023)
Source: CoStar, Johnson Economics
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
Effective Rent Per SF
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Effective Rent Per Unit
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 11 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 12
Figure 6. Annual Rent Growth Rate, Lake Oswego (2000-2023)
Source: CoStar, Johnson Economics
Affordability: Figure 7 shows the percentage of household income spent on gross rent 1 for rental
households. Roughly half of renter households in Lake Oswego spend more than 30% of their income on
rent – meaning that they are housing cost burdened. Further, an es�mated 29% of renter households are
spending 50% or more of their income on housing and are considered severely housing cost burdened.
Figure 7. Percentage of Household Income Spent on Gross Rent, Lake Oswego Renter Households
1 The Census defines Gross Rent as “the contract rent plus the es�mated average monthly cost of u�li�es (electricity, gas, and water and sewer)
and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if these are paid by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else).” Housing costs for homeowners
include mortgage, property taxes, insurance, u�li�es and condo or HOA dues.
-8%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Effective Rent % Growth/Yr
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 12 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 13
III. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
AFFECTING HOUSING NEEDS
The following table (Figure 8) presents a profile of City of Lake Oswego demographics from the 2000 and
2010 Census. It also reflects the es�mated popula�on of this area as of 2023 from PSU es�mates,
forecasted forward to 2023 using the es�mated growth rate between 2010 and 2022.
• Lake Oswego is a City of over 41,500 people located in Clackamas County in the southern-central
area of the Portland metropolitan region.
• Based on es�mated popula�on, Lake Oswego is the 13th largest city in the state by popula�on,
similar in size to Oregon City regionally, or Keizer and Grants Pass statewide. Lake Oswego has
about 1.5 �mes the popula�on of neighboring West Linn or Tuala�n, and about 75% of the
popula�on of Tigard.
• Lake Oswego has experienced modest growth, growing roughly 18% since 2000, or less than 1%
per year. In contrast, Clackamas County and the state experienced popula�on growth of 26%
and 25% respec�vely during the same period. (US Census and PSU Popula�on Research Center)
Figure 8. Lake Oswego Population, Households, and Income
2000 2010 Growth 2023 G rowth
(Census) (Census)00-10 (PSU)10-23
Population1 35,278 36,619 4%41,550 13%
Households 2 14,824 15,893 7% 17,481 10%
Families3 9,775 10,079 3%11,842 17%
Housing Units 4 15,668 16,995 8%18,345 8%
Group Quarters Population5 163 222 36% 329 48%
Household Size (non-group)2.37 2.29 -3%2.36 3%
Avg. Family Size 2.93 2.88 -2%2.97 3%
2000 2010 Growth 2023 Growth
(Census) (Census)00-10 (Proj.)10-23
Per Capita ($)$42,166 $53,652 27% $74,600 39%
Median HH ($)$71,597 $84,186 18% $123,300 46%
SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson Economics
Census Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S19301
1 From Census, PSU Population Research Center, growth rate 2010-2022 extended to 2023
2 2023 Households = (2023 population - Group Quarters Population)/2023 HH Size
3 Ratio of 2023 Families to total HH is based on 2021 ACS 5-year Estimates
4 2023 housing units are the '20 Census total plus new units permitted from '20 through '22 (source: Census, City)
5 2023 Group Quarters Population based on 5-year ACS estimates 2017-2021
PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES, AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 13 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 14
Lake Oswego was home to an es�mated 17,500 households in 2023, an increase of over 2,650
households since 2000. The percentage of families has increased slightly from 66% of all households in
2000 to 68% in 2023. The city has a similar share of family households to Clackamas County (69%) but
higher than the state (63%). Average household size is es�mated to have remained fairly stable during
this period.
Lake Oswego’s es�mated average household size is 2.4 persons. This is lower than the Clackamas County
average of 2.6 and similar to the statewide average of 2.44. Figure 9 shows the rental/ownership split by
household size in Lake Oswego.
Figure 9. Household Size in Lake Oswego
Family Households
As of the 2021 ACS, 68% of Lake Oswego households were family households, up from 63.4% of
households in 2010. The total number of family households in Lake Oswego is es�mated to have grown
by over 2,060 since 2000. The Census defines family households as two or more persons, related by
marriage, birth or adop�on and living together. In 2023, family households in Lake Oswego have an
es�mated average size of 2.97 people.
Group Quarters Population
As of the 2020 Census, the City of Lake Oswego had an es�mated group quarters popula�on of 0.8% of
the total popula�on, or 329 persons. Group quarters include such shared housing situa�ons as nursing
homes, prisons, dorms, group residences, military housing, or shelters. For the purposes of this analysis,
these residents are removed from the es�mated popula�on total, before determining the number of
20%
38%
19%
18%
4%
2%
0%
40%
35%
11%
11%
3%
1%
0%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
1-person
2-person
3-person
4-person
5-person
6-person
7-or-more
Share of Households
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
S
i
z
e
Renter
Owner
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 14 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 15
other types of housing that are needed for non-group households. In Lake Oswego, nearly 90% of the
group quarters popula�on is found in assisted living facili�es.
Age
Figure 10 shows the share of the popula�on falling in different age cohorts between the 2000 Census
and the most recent 5-year American Community Survey es�mates. There is a general trend for middle
age and young cohorts to fall as share of total popula�on, while older cohorts have grown in share. This
is in keeping with the na�onal trend caused by the aging of the Baby Boom genera�on. Overall, Lake
Oswego has an older popula�on than the county, with a similar share of children, but a smaller share of
those aged 25 to 44 years. The cohorts which grew the most in share during this period were those aged
55 to 74 years. S�ll, an es�mated 79% of the popula�on is under 65 years of age. In the 2021 ACS, the
local median age was an es�mated 46 years, compared to 40 years in Oregon, and 39 years na�onally.
Figure 10. Age Cohort Trends, 2000-2021
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: QT-P1 (2000); S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Es�mates)
The cohorts which grew the most in share during this period were those aged 55 to 74 years. S�ll, an
es�mated 79% of the popula�on is under 65 years of age. In the 2021 ACS, the local median age was an
es�mated 46 years, compared to 40 years in Oregon, and 39 years na�onally.
Figure 11 presents the share of households with children, and the share of popula�on over 65 years for
comparison. Compared to state and na�onal averages, Lake Oswego has a similar share of households
with children. However, at 21%, the share of popula�on over 65 is higher than the state and na�onal
figures.
20
%
10
%
10
%
16
%
21
%
11
%
6%
4%
1%
18
%
10
%
9%
12
%
16
%
14
%
14
%
5%
2%
17
%
11
%
12
%
14
%
13
%
13
%
12
%
5%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Lake Oswego (2000)
Lake Oswego (2021)
Clack. Co. (2021)
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 15 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 16
Figure 11. Share of Households with Children/Population over 65 Years (Lake Oswego)
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: B11005; S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Es�mates)
Diversity Trends
Figure 12 presents the distribu�on of Lake Oswego’s popula�on by race and Hispanic ethnicity. The
community grew more diverse between the 2010 and 2020 Census, with the popula�on’s white (non-
Hispanic) share falling from 90% to 80%. The Asian popula�on makes up 8% of the popula�on, and the
Hispanic or La�no popula�on makes up 5% of residents. 9% of residents iden�fy as two or more races.
Figure 12. Racial and Ethnic Diversity, 2010 – 2020 (Lake Oswego)
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: P1, P2 (2010, 2020)
In comparison, the share of the popula�on iden�fying as white is also 80% in Clackamas County, and
75% statewide. The share of Lake Oswego’s popula�on iden�fying as Hispanic or La�no is 5% of the
popula�on, indica�ng over 2,100 people as of the 2020 Census. This is lower than the 14% share
statewide.
31%
28%31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Lake Oswego Oregon USA
Share of Households with Children
21%
18%16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Lake Oswego Oregon USA
Share of Population Over 65 Years
80
%
1%
0%
8%
0%1%
9%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Wh
i
t
e
Bl
a
c
k
o
r
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
n
d
Al
a
s
k
a
N
a
t
i
v
e
As
i
a
n
Ha
w
a
i
i
a
n
a
n
d
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
r
So
m
e
O
t
h
e
r
R
a
c
e
Tw
o
o
r
m
o
r
e
ra
c
e
s
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
o
r
L
a
t
i
n
o
(a
n
y
r
a
c
e
)
Share of Population by Race
Lake Oswego (2010)
Lake Oswego (2020)
Clackamas Co.
Oregon
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 16 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 17
Figure 13. Average Number of Persons per Household by Racial and Ethnic Category (Oregon)
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: P17A-H, (State of Oregon, 2020)
* This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2010). The data for the Lake Oswego
or Clackamas County geographies feature unusually large margins of error due to the small sample size.
As shown in Figure 13, minority households tend to have a larger average household size than the
average of all households. (This figure presents statewide data due to the high margin of error for local
data in this data set.) Households iden�fying as “white alone” have the lowest average household size
(2.4 persons), while all other racial and ethnic categories have a larger es�mated average household size.
Some of the non-white categories, such as black households and those of two or more races, are s�ll
similar in average size (2.5 and 2.7 persons, respec�vely). Those with the largest es�mated households
are La�nos, Pacific Islanders, and those iden�fying as “some other race.”
Larger average household size indicates a need for units with more bedrooms on average among many
minority households. Each household has its own housing needs in terms of the number of bedrooms
and other factors, based on the specific makeup of each family. Based on voluntary guidelines provided
by HUD for public housing programs, households of between 2 persons generally need a one-bedroom
unit, households with 3 persons might need two bedrooms, and those with 4 persons might need three
bedrooms. Larger households may need four or more bedrooms, which are typically found in single
detached homes.
Based on statewide data, many racial and ethnic minori�es are currently less likely to own the homes
they occupy (Figure 14) – meaning that they tend to occupy rental units. These communi�es face
systemic obstacles to home ownership, including lower genera�onal wealth, less access to capital and
financing, and a history of discrimina�on in lending and geography (e.g., redlining). While the country
and state try to address explicit discrimina�on through the law, the legacy of these barriers con�nues to
hamper home ownership for many minority households. Going forward, many communi�es would
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.8
3.5
3.7
4.0
2.7
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
All Households
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino
Some Other Race alone
Two or more races:
Avg. Number of Persons per Household
Average Household Size by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 17 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 18
benefit from more entry-level homebuying opportuni�es for these households, as well as addi�onal
rental housing for those who are s�ll unready or unable to buy a home.
Figure 14. Home Ownership Rate by Racial and Ethnic Category (Oregon)
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: B25003A-H, (State of Oregon, 2021 ACS 5-year)
* This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2020). The data for the Lake Oswego
or Clackamas County geographies feature larger margins of error due to small sample size in some of the racial categories.
Popula�ons from some racial and ethnic minority groups also have lower average incomes and are more
likely to have income below the official poverty level when compared to the total popula�on. Such
income levels are correlated with a greater share of renter households and impact the types of housing
these popula�ons consume, as discussed in further detail below.
People with a Disability
An es�mated 8% of the popula�on of Lake Oswego, or 3,140 people, report having some form of
disability. This is lower than the statewide rate of 14% and the Clackamas County rate of 12% of people
with a disability. (The Census reports these sta�s�cs for the “non-ins�tu�onalized popula�on.”)
Figure 15 presents Census es�mates of the types of disability reported among Lake Oswego residents.
Any type of disability impacts the type of housing that may be appropriate for a resident, but those with
the greatest impact on needed unit type are generally an ambulatory, self-care, or independent living
disability. Those with an ambulatory disability o�en need units with expanded access for a wheelchair,
walker, or scooter. Those with self-care or independent living disabili�es may require addi�onal safety
precau�ons around the home to protect a resident who cannot always be directly monitored.
63%
65%
36%
48%
63%
32%
45%
43%
50%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
All Households
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino
Some Other Race alone
Two or more races:
Ownership Rate
Owner-Occupied Households by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 18 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 19
Figure 15. Lake Oswego Share of the Population with Disability, By Type
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year)
Figure 16. Lake Oswego Population with a Disability, by Age
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC; Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year)
Older residents are more likely to report a disability, including nearly 20% of those over 65 years. Of
those aged 18 to 64 years, 6% of the local popula�on reports a disability, and 2% of children. Because
Census data tends to undercount the homeless and other vulnerable popula�ons, there are likely more
disabled residents in Lake Oswego than reflected in these data.
7.8%
2.4%
1.7%
2.7%
2.9%
1.1%
2.3%
0%2%4%6%8%10%
Population with a disability
Hearing difficulty
Vision difficulty
Cognitive difficulty
Ambulatory difficulty
Self-care difficulty
Independent living difficulty
Share of Population
7.8%
2.0%
5.8%
19.5%
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Total population
Under 18 years
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
Share of Population with Disability by Age
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 19 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 20
Income Trends
As shown in Figure 17, Lake Oswego’s es�mated median household income was $123,000 in 2023. This is
nearly 40% higher than the Clackamas County median of $88,500, and 75% higher than the statewide
median of $70,000. Lake Oswego’s per capita income is roughly $75,000. Median income has grown an
es�mated 46% between 2010 and 2023, in real dollars. Infla�on was an es�mated 34% over this period,
so the local median income has well exceeded infla�on. This is not the case in many regions and
na�onally, where income growth has not kept pace with infla�on.
Figure 17. Income Trends, 2000 – 2023 (Lake Oswego)
Figure 18. Household Income Cohorts, 2021 (Lake Oswego)
SOURCE: US Census, Census Tables: S1901 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.)
Figure 18 presents the es�mated distribu�on of households by income as of 2021. The largest income
cohorts are those households earning between $100k and $200k per year (32%), followed by households
earning over $200k (27%). Approximately 41% of households earn less than $100,000. Roughly 19% of
households earn less than $50k per year.
2000 2010 Growth 2023 Growth
(Census) (Census)00-10 (Proj.)10-23
Per Capita ($)$42,166 $53,652 27% $74,600 39%
Median HH ($)$71,597 $84,186 18% $123,300 46%
SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson Economics
Census Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S19301
PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
3%
2%
4%
4%
6%
11%
11%
20%
12%
27%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Household Income Groups
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 20 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 21
Poverty
According to the US Census, the official poverty rate in Lake Oswego is an es�mated 4% over the most
recent period reported (2021 5-year es�mates).2 This is roughly 1,700 individuals in Lake Oswego. In
comparison, the official poverty rate in Clackamas County is 9%, and at the state level is 17%. As shown
in Figure 19, in the 2017-21 period:
• The Lake Oswego poverty rate is low among all groups, but highest among those 65 years and
older at 5%. The rate is 4% among those 18 to 64 years of age. The es�mated rate is lowest for
children at 3%.
• For those without a high school diploma, the poverty rate is 11%.
• Among those who are employed the poverty rate is 2%, while it is 7% for those who are
unemployed.
• Informa�on on affordable housing is presented in Sec�on II F of this report.
Figure 19. Poverty Status by Category (Lake Oswego)
SOURCE: US Census; Census Tables: S1701 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.)
2 Census Tables: S1701 (2018 ACS 5-yr Es�mates); Methodology
The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composi�on to determine who is in poverty. There are 48 separate
income thresholds set based on the possible combina�ons of household composi�on.
3%
4%
5%
2%
7%
11%
10%
7%
3%
0%5%10%15%20%
Under 18 years
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
Employed
Unemployed
Less than high school
High school
Some college, associate's
Bachelor's degree or higher
Poverty Level of Subgroups
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 21 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 22
People Experiencing Homelessness
The Census makes a mul�-faceted effort to include the unhoused popula�on in the total Decennial
Census count, by atemp�ng to enumerate these individuals at service providers, and in transitory
loca�ons such as RV parks or campgrounds, as of the official Census data (4/1/20). However, it is difficult
to make an accurate count of this popula�on, and it is generally presumed that the unhoused are
undercounted in the Census.
The most recent (January 2023) Point-in-Time count of people experiencing homelessness and
households experiencing homelessness in Clackamas County 3 found 410 unhoused individuals on the
streets, in shelters, or other temporary and/or precarious housing. This is a 31% decrease from the 597
individuals counted in 2022, which was likewise a decline from the prior count. The es�mated 410
unhoused individuals represent 0.1% of the county’s total es�mated popula�on in 2023.
A detailed breakdown of the data from the 2023 count is not yet available. The following are some
demographic indicators from the 2022 count:
• An es�mated 45% of individuals were in some sort of temporary shelter, while 55% were
unsheltered.
• Of those indica�ng a gender, 60% of those counted iden�fied as men, 40% women.
• Five percent of those counted were Hispanic or La�no compared to 9.5% in the general popula�on.
• Approximately 51%, were counted as “chronically homeless”.4
While the Point-in-Time count is one of the few systema�zed efforts to count people experiencing
homelessness across the country in a regular, structured way, it is widely thought to undercount the
popula�on of unhoused individuals and households. People who are doubled up, couch surfing, or
experiencing domes�c violence may not always be accurately counted. In addi�on to the impossibility of
finding all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness, the count is conducted in late January,
when homeless counts are likely near their lowest of the year due to inclement weather. It also relies on
self-repor�ng.
Data on unhoused school-aged children is tracked in keeping with the McKinney-Vento Act. The
Department of Educa�on reports that in the 2021/22 school year, there were 41 enrolled students
experiencing homelessness in Lake Oswego School District, and an es�mated 304 children between the
ages of 5 and 17 living in poverty.
The persistence of people experiencing homelessness speaks to the need for con�nuing to build a full
spectrum of services and housing types to shelter this popula�on, from temporary shelter to subsidized
affordable housing. An analysis of the ability of current and projected housing supply to meet the needs
of low-income people and the poten�al shor�all is included in the following sec�ons of this report.
3 Figures are for the en�re County
4 HUD defines “chronically homeless” as an individual with a disability as defined by the McKinney-Vento Assistance Act, who has been in
uninhabitable condi�ons for more than 12 mo. or on four separate occasions in the last three years; or has been in ins�tu�onal care for less than
90 days; or a family with an adult head of household who meets this defini�on.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 22 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 23
Households Needing Publicly Assisted Housing
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) tracks three currently opera�ng subsidized affordable
housing proper�es in Lake Oswego, with a total of 76 units. These are proper�es that are funded
through HUD programs, tax credits and other programs which guarantee subsidized rents for qualified
households. All of these units, save one, are offered for elderly residents.
The Marylhurst Commons, currently under development, is planned to offer 100 affordable units for
families when constructed. Upon comple�on in 2024, the total 176 subsidized units in Lake Oswego will
represent 1% of the local housing stock. An addi�onal 8 units of 80% AMI housing are also in the pipeline
as part of the North Anchor project.
The Housing Authority of Clackamas County administers over 1,600 Sec�on 8 housing choice vouchers
that allow low-income par�cipants to find rental units anywhere in the county. Under this program, the
renters can find par�cipa�ng landlords and the voucher helps to subsidize the cost of a market-rate
rental unit. The unit does not have to be in a property dedicated to subsidized affordable housing but
can be in any rental property.
The high share of renters s�ll paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs indicates that there
is an ongoing need for rental units at the lowest price points.
Agricultural Workers
Lake Oswego is not currently home to proper�es dedicated to agricultural workers. This popula�on may
also be served by other available affordable units.
Veterans
This group is called out as a popula�on with specific needs and which is o�en under-represented in
planning for future needed housing. In general, veterans o�en may have physical or mental health
disabili�es resul�ng from injuries or stress experienced during their service. They also frequently have
fixed, lower incomes and need access to services provided by the US Veterans Administra�on or other
service providers. As a result, they share many of the same unmet needs described here for people with
disabili�es, low-income households, and in some cases senior residents.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 23 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 24
Figure 20. Veterans in Lake Oswego
Individuals Share of Adult
Population
Total Veterans 1,801 5.7%
Period of Service
Share of Veterans
Gulf War (9/2001 or later) veterans 344 19.1%
Gulf War (1990 to 8/2001) veterans 335 18.6%
Vietnam era veterans 634 35.2%
Korean War veterans 140 7.8%
World War II veterans 83 4.6%
Other 265 14.7%
Veteran Age
Share of Veterans
18 to 34 years 107 5.9%
35 to 54 years 335 18.6%
55 to 64 years 232 12.9%
65 to 74 years 474 26.3%
75 years and over 653 36.3%
Veteran Poverty Status 61 3.4%
Veterans with a Disability 375 20.9%
Source: Table S2101,ACS 2021 5-Year, Johnson Economics
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 24 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 25
IV. BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT OF NEEDED
HOUSING
Numerous factors contribute to the availability and/or lack of needed housing in Lake Oswego – market
factors, physical condi�ons, regula�ons, public investments, etc. Some of these factors can serve as
barriers to the produc�on of housing that is most needed in the city. To understand the major barriers to
developing needed housing in Lake Oswego, the project team interviewed a number of stakeholders
involved in housing produc�on in the city. These interviews were conducted in September and October
2023 and included market-rate developers and architects with experience in single-family, middle
housing, and mul�-family housing produc�on; nonprofit housing providers, including Habitat for
Humanity and Mercy Housing Northwest; and City staff involved in Planning and Redevelopment.
Following are some of the key housing needs that the stakeholders iden�fied as gaps in the market:
• Affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households
• Middle housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, and cotage clusters)
• Housing op�ons for seniors and opportuni�es for aging in place
• Op�ons for more atainable homeownership (e.g., condos and middle housing)
• Apartments with family-size units (2-3 bedrooms)
• Mul�-family housing outside the Town Center
In terms of barriers to mee�ng these needs, and to housing produc�on more generally, some of the
major themes are summarized below.
• High cost of land in Lake Oswego. The city has very high land values, which translates to high
rental and sale prices, and makes deed-restricted affordable housing especially challenging to
pencil out.
• Few large, developable sites. There is limited land within the City and urban service boundary
to support mul�-family housing and other development types that typically rely on larger
parcels of land. The Buildable Lands Inventory prepared as part of the Housing Needs Analysis
also supports this no�on – finding a deficit of buildable land to meet future housing needs,
including lands zoned for high-density housing.
• Code barriers. Stakeholders iden�fied a range of barriers to housing development in the Lake
Oswego Community Development Code. Stakeholders expressed that the City’s code is
especially challenging to work with compared to some other jurisdic�ons. The following specific
code barriers were iden�fied:
o Overlay and Design District standards are highly prescrip�ve, which can add to the cost
of development and limit flexibility. Stakeholders pointed to detailed architectural
standards as being a par�cular challenge – e.g., requirements for specific siding
materials adding to construc�on costs.
o Tree protec�on and tree plan�ng and landscaping standards are also very prescrip�ve
and can be difficult to meet on constrained sites.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 25 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 26
o Open space standards for mul�-family housing are considered by stakeholders to be
excessive, limit the available space on a site for housing units, and don’t necessarily lead
to great outcomes. They note that open spaces can be smaller and more concentrated
while s�ll providing appealing ameni�es for residents.
o Setbacks and other standards limit middle housing infill opportuni�es. Stakeholders
shared that si�ng standards can make it difficult for middle housing such as duplexes
and townhomes to fit on exis�ng lots.
• Process barriers. Stakeholders also noted that Lake Oswego’s development review and
permi�ng processes can be lengthy and contribute to housing costs. A few stakeholders noted
that this limits the number of developers that are interested in building in the city. In par�cular:
o The design review process in Design Districts adds �me and cost.
o Building permit review can also be slow.
o Due to prescrip�ve standards, applicants o�en need to apply for mul�ple variances,
which lengthens the process and adds uncertainty.
o Public improvements (e.g., road improvements and u�li�es) can be very costly.
• Neighbor opposi�on. A few stakeholders also noted that neighbor opposi�on to affordable or
higher-density housing can drag out the process and add to costs.
• Market trends. At the �me of this analysis, there are some headwinds to development of new
housing regionally and na�onwide. These include infla�on in the cost of building inputs such as
labor, materials, and land. Increasing interest rates in recent years that haven’t been offset by a
propor�onate fall in property prices are another major impediment.
A focus of the Housing Produc�on Strategy will be to iden�fy tools and strategies to remove or reduce
these barriers or help housing producers overcome them.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 26 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 27
V. ADOPTED MEASURES
The City of Lake Oswego already implements a variety of measures intended to enable or facilitate the
produc�on of needed housing. The City submited a “Pre-HPS Survey” to DLCD in 2022, as required by
former subsec�on 2 of ORS 456.586, which includes an exhaus�ve list of the housing measures the City
has adopted and implemented. In combina�on with the other findings in the Contextualized Housing
Needs report, this list will help the City and community understand where there are gaps in the City’s
approach toward mee�ng its housing needs.
Below is a summary of the key housing measures adopted by the City, organized into the categories
defined by DLCD. The full list of adopted measures will be included as an appendix to the HPS Report.
Zoning Strategies
• Height/density bonus for affordable developments – The City allows a limited height or density
bonus for affordable developments in the West Lake Grove Design District (WLG-OC) and R-DD
zones.
• Increased code flexibility for accessory dwelling units – The City removed occupancy
requirements for ADUs and expanded maximum ADU size to 1,000 sq. �. for internal remodels
of primary dwellings.
• Short-term rental regula�ons – The City requires that short-term rental is a home occupa�on
where a resident lives on the lot. Short-term rentals are not permited in ADUs where the ADU
received a system development charge (SDC) waiver.
• Mandatory affordable housing – City requires affordable housing (affordable to those earning
80% or less of AMI) on a por�on of the Marylhurst Special District and a por�on of the West
Lake Grove Design District (WLG-OC zone) where mul�family use is allowed.
• Increased density near transit sta�ons – The mixed-use zoning that is in place near transit –
Metro 'town centers' – allows residen�al use and does not limit density. These areas have
developed/redeveloped with high-density (50-100 units per acre) development in recent years.
• Lot coverage bonus for housing – The City allows a limited lot coverage bonus within the Lake
Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) for developments where housing is provided.
Reducing Regulatory Impediments
• Removed parking mandates near transit – In compliance with the state’s Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communi�es rules, the City does not apply minimum parking requirements within
1/2-mile of priority transit, which includes the en�re Downtown Town Center, and will remove
minimum parking requirements in the City's other climate-friendly area (Lake Grove Village
Center) to comply with CFEC rules.
• Expedites permi�ng for affordable housing – The City has a prac�ce of expedi�ng the
permi�ng process for deed-restricted affordable units.
Financial Incen�ves
• Waives fees for affordable housing and ADUs – The City has adopted regula�ons to waive SDCs
and development review fees for income restricted affordable housing (80% or less of AMI) and
for accessory dwelling units. The City has exempted $388,073 in SDCs for ADUs since 2019.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 27 OF 28
Contextualized Housing Needs Assessment (DRAFT) 11/16/2023
MIG, Inc. | Lake Oswego Housing Production Strategy 28
Financial Resources
• Uses urban renewal funds to support housing – The Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
underwrote some of the costs in the North Anchor development downtown to ensure the
provision of deed-restricted affordable housing units using funds from the City's urban renewal
program.
Land Acquisi�on, Lease, and Partnerships
• Surplus City-owned land / land banking for affordable housing – The City does this with vacant
or underu�lized sites, most recently the 1.4-acre construc�on staging property for the Boones
Ferry Road Improvement Project. The site will be used to create 50 deed-restricted affordable
housing units, using Metro Affordable Housing Bond funds.
• Public-private partnerships – The City has worked with organiza�ons such as Habitat for
Humanity and Mercy Housing Northwest to produce affordable housing units.
• Conversion of underperforming commercial assets – The Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
acquired the North Anchor site to convert this commercial property into a mixed-use
development with affordable and market-rate housing.
• U�lizing surplus land owned by faith-based organiza�on for housing – The City worked
collabora�vely with the Sisters of Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (Sisters) when they were
considering reuse of the former Marylhurst University Campus. Ul�mately, the Sisters entered
into an agreement with Mercy Housing NW for construc�on of 100 units of affordable family
housing.
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 28 OF 28
Council Voting Results
Housing Production Strategies for Council Discussion
City Council Study Session – November 7, 2023
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 1 OF 5
ATTACHMENT 10
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 2 OF 5
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 3 OF 5
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 4 OF 5
PP 22-0005 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 5 OF 5
Source: Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OR HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS (OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 10) 20-YEAR HOUSING NEED2023 - 2043 September 21, 2023PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 1 OF 55ATTACHMENT 11
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 1 Acknowledgments Johnson Economics prepared this report for the City of Lake Oswego. Johnson Economics and the City of Lake Oswego thank the many people who helped to develop this document. City Staff Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager Jessica Numanoglu, Interim Community Development Director Lake Oswego Housing Task Force Kasey Adler, Transportation Advisory Board Kyrsten Baumgart, Housing producer Phil Bertrand, Housing producer Joseph M. Buck, City Council Liaison Thea Croman, DLCD Kelly Reid, DLCD Douglas Corder, 50+ Advisory Board Pat Ginn, Resident Diana Howell, Resident Cara Kao-Young , Resident Betty Jung, Resident Yoko Kinoshita, Resident Rebecca Lane, Resident Rosalie Nowalk, Resident John E. Pauley, Resident Bruce Poinsette, Development Review Commission Phillip Stewart, Planning Commission Liaison David Tangvald, Housing producer Kimvi To, D.E.I. Advisory Board John Turchi, Resident Sarah Walker, Housing producer Consultants Brendan Buckley, Johnson Economics Andrew Parish, MIG Matt Hastie, MIG This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of OAR 660 Division 8: Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing. This project is funded by the State of Oregon through the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. City of Lake Oswego 380 A Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (503)635-0270Johnson Economics 621 SW Alder Street Suite 605 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 295-7832PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 2 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 4 A. POPULATION GROWTH 5 B. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH & SIZE 5 C. FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 5 D. GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION 6 E. HOUSING UNITS 6 F. AGE TRENDS 6 G. DIVERSITY TRENDS 8 H. PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 10 I. INCOME TRENDS 11 J. POVERTY STATISTICS 12 K. EMPLOYMENT LOCATION TRENDS 12 III. CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS 14 A. HOUSING TENURE 14 B. HOUSING STOCK 14 C. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 14 D. UNIT TYPES BY TENURE 15 E. AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK 16 F. HOUSING COSTS VS. LOCAL INCOMES 17 G. PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING 18 IV. CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 20 V. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS - 2043 (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 26 VI. RECONCILIATION OF FUTURE NEED (2043) & LAND SUPPLY 32 APPENDIX A: BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY SUMMARY 35 PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 3 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 3 I. INTRODUCTION This analysis outlines a forecast of housing need within the City of Lake Oswego. Housing need and resulting land need are forecast to 2043, consistent with the 20-year need assessment requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes.1 This report presents a housing need analysis (presented in number and types of housing units) and a residential land need analysis, based on those projections. The primary data sources used in generating this forecast were: ▪ Portland State University Population Research Center ▪ Metro ▪ U.S. Census ▪ Claritas2 ▪ Oregon Employment Department ▪ City of Lake Oswego ▪ Clackamas County ▪ Other sources are identified as appropriate. This analysis relies heavily on Census data from both the 2020 Decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). All Census data feature some margin of error but remain the best source of data available on many demographic and housing subjects. One limitation of the 2020 Census is the release schedule of data sets, which takes place over several years following the year of the Census. Thus far, data has been released on: Population; Race; Latino ethnicity; number of Households; number of Housing Units; and Group Quarters population. While these are key baseline data sets utilized in this analysis, any additional nuance on demographics and housing from the 2020 Census are not yet available, with the next data release expected later in 2023. Despite the limitations, the 2020 Census is relied upon here as the best available source for the key indicators listed above in Lake Oswego, as of 2023. For more detailed data sets on demographics and housing, this analysis relies on the American Community Survey (ACS), which features a higher margin of error on all tables than the Decennial Census. The ACS is a survey of a representative sample of households which the Census uses to make estimates generalized to the population of the relevant geography. This analysis relies whenever possible on the most recent 2021 ACS 5-year estimates. The 5-year estimates have a lower margin of error than the ACS 1-year estimates. 1 ORS 197.628; OAR 660-025 2 Claritas is a third-party company providing data on demographics and market segmentation. It licenses data from the Nielson Company which conducts direct market research including surveying of households across the nation. Nielson combines proprietary data with data from the U.S. Census, Postal Service, and other federal sources, as well as local-level sources such as Equifax, Vallassis and the National Association of Realtors. Projections of future growth by demographic segments are based on the continuation of long-term and emergent demographic trends identified through the above sources. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 4 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 4 II. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SUMMARY The following table (Figure 2.1) presents a profile of City of Lake Oswego demographics from the 2000 and 2010 Census. It also reflects the estimated population of this area as of 2023 from PSU estimates, forecasted forward to 2023 using the estimated growth rate between 2010 and 2022. ▪ Lake Oswego is a City of over 41,500 people located in Clackamas County in the southern-central area of the Portland metropolitan region. ▪ Based on estimated population, Lake Oswego is the 13th largest city in the state by population, similar in size to Oregon City regionally, or Keizer and Grants Pass statewide. Lake Oswego has about 1.5 times the population of neighboring West Linn or Tualatin, and about 75% of the population of Tigard. ▪ Lake Oswego has experienced modest growth, growing roughly 18% since 2000, or less than 1% per year. In contrast, Clackamas County and the state experienced population growth of 26% and 25% respectively. (US Census and PSU Population Research Center) FIGURE 2.1: LAKE OSWEGO DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ▪ Lake Oswego was home to an estimated 17,500 households in 2023, an increase of over 2,650 households since 2000. The percentage of families has increased slightly from 66% of all households in 2000 to 68% in 2023. The city has a similar share of family households to Clackamas County (69%) but higher than the state (63%). Average household size is estimated to have remained fairly stable during this period. 20002010Growth2023Growth(Census)(Census)00-10(PSU)10-23Population135,27836,6194%41,55013%Households214,82415,8937%17,48110%Families39,77510,0793%11,84217%Housing Units415,66816,9958%18,3458%Group Quarters Population516322236%32948%Household Size (non-group)2.372.29-3%2.363%Avg. Family Size2.932.88-2%2.973%20002010Growth2023Growth(Census)(Census)00-10(Proj.)10-23Per Capita ($)$42,166$53,65227%$74,60039%Median HH ($)$71,597$84,18618%$123,30046%SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson EconomicsCensus Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S193011 From Census, PSU Population Research Center, growth rate 2010-2022 extended to 20232 2023 Households = (2023 population - Group Quarters Population)/2023 HH Size3 Ratio of 2023 Families to total HH is based on 2021 ACS 5-year Estimates4 2023 housing units are the '20 Census total plus new units permitted from '20 through '22 (source: Census, City)5 2023 Group Quarters Population based on 5-year ACS estimates 2017-2021PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMEPOPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, FAMILIES, AND YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITSPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 5 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 5 ▪Lake Oswego’s estimated average household size is 2.4 persons. This is lower than the Clackamas Countyaverage of 2.6 and similar to the statewide average of 2.44.A.POPULATION GROWTHSince 2000, Lake Oswego has grown by nearly 6,300 people within the UGB, or 18% in 23 years. This was lower than the countywide rate of growth. Clackamas County as a whole has grown an estimated 26% since 2000, while other cities in the county such as West Linn and Oregon City grew by 23% and 46% respectively. Portland’s population grew by an estimated 19% during this period (PSU Population Research Center). B.HOUSEHOLD GROWTH & SIZEAs of 2023, the city has an estimated 17,500 households. Since 2000, Lake Oswego has added an estimated 2,650 households. This is an average of roughly 115 households annually during this period. The growth since 2000 has paced the growth in new housing units, which have been permitted at the rate of roughly 117 units per year. There has been a general trend in Oregon and nationwide towards declining household size as birth rates have fallen, more people have chosen to live alone, and the Baby Boomers have become “empty nesters.” While this trend of diminishing household size is expected to continue nationwide, there are limits to how far the average can fall. Lake Oswego’s average household size of 2.4 people, with 68% family households, is smaller than Clackamas County (2.6 persons; 69% families). Figure 2.2 shows the share of households by the number of people for renter and owner households in 2021 (latest data available), according to the Census. Renter households are more likely to be one-person households, with 75% having two or fewer residents. Owner households are more likely to have two or more persons. FIGURE 2.2: NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B25009 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) C.FAMILY HOUSEHOLDSAs of the 2021 ACS, 68% of Lake Oswego households were family households, up from 63.4% of households in 2010. The total number of family households in Lake Oswego is estimated to have grown by over 2,060 since 2000. The Census defines family households as two or more persons, related by marriage, birth or adoption and living together. In 2023, family households in Lake Oswego have an estimated average size of 2.97 people. 20%38%19%18%4%2%0%40%35%11%11%3%1%0%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%1-person2-person3-person4-person5-person6-person7-or-moreShare of HouseholdsHousehold SizeRenterOwnerPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 6 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 6 D.GROUP QUARTERS POPULATIONAs of the 2020 Census, the City of Lake Oswego had an estimated group quarters population of 0.8% of the total population, or 329 persons. Group quarters include such shared housing situations as nursing homes, prisons, dorms, group residences, military housing, or shelters. For the purposes of this analysis, these residents are removed from the estimated population total, before determining the number of other types of housing that are needed for non-group households. In Lake Oswego, nearly 90% of the group quarters population is found in assisted living facilities. E.HOUSING UNITSData from the City of Lake Oswego and the US Census indicate that the city added roughly 2,680 new housing units since 2000, representing 17% growth in the housing stock. This number of new units is slightly higher than the growth in new households estimated during the same period (2,660), indicating that housing growth has kept pace with growing need. As of 2023, the city had an estimated housing stock of roughly 18,350 units for its 17,500 estimated households. This translates to an estimated average vacancy rate of 4.7%. Residential Permits: An average of 117 units have been permitted annually since 2000, with 24% being multi-family units. Most multi-family housing in Lake Oswego has been built in the last decade. FIGURE 2.3: HISTORIC AND PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL PERMITS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SOURCE: HUDF.AGE TRENDSThe following figure shows the share of the population falling in different age cohorts between the 2000 Census and the most recent 5-year American Community Survey estimates. As the chart shows, there is a general trend for middle age and young cohorts to fall as share of total population, while older cohorts have grown in share. This is in keeping with the national trend caused by the aging of the Baby Boom generation. Overall, Lake Oswego has an older population than the county, with a similar share of children, but a smaller share of those aged 25 to 44 years. 050100150200250300350Housing PermitsMulti-FamilySingle FamilyPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 7 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 7 FIGURE 2.4: AGE COHORT TRENDS, 2000 - 2021 SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: QT-P1 (2000); S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪The cohorts which grew the most in share during this period were those aged 55 to 74 years. Still, an estimated79% of the population is under 65 years of age.▪In the 2021 ACS, the local median age was an estimated 46 years, compared to 40 years in Oregon, and 39years nationally.Figure 2.5 presents the share of households with children, and the share of population over 65 years for comparison. Compared to state and national averages, Lake Oswego has a similar share of households with children. However, at 21%, the share of population over 65 is higher than the state and national figures. FIGURE 2.5: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN/ POPULATION OVER 65 YEARS (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B11005; S0101 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) 20%10%10%16%21%11%6%4%1%18%10%9%12%16%14%14%5%2%17%11%12%14%13%13%12%5%2%0%5%10%15%20%25%Lake Oswego (2000)Lake Oswego (2021)Clack. Co. (2021)31%28%31%0%10%20%30%40%Lake OswegoOregonUSAShare of Households with Children21%18%16%0%10%20%30%40%Lake OswegoOregonUSAShare of Population Over 65 YearsPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 8 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 8 G.DIVERSITY TRENDSThe following figure presents the distribution of Lake Oswego’s population by race and Hispanic ethnicity. The community grew more diverse between the 2010 and 2020 Census, with the population’s white (non-Hispanic) share falling from 90% to 80%. The Asian population makes up 8% of the population, and the Hispanic or Latino population makes up 5% of residents. 9% of residents identify as two or more races. FIGURE 2.6: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY, 2010 – 2020 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: P1, P2 (2010, 2020) In comparison, the share of the population identifying as white is also 80% in Clackamas County, and 75% statewide. The share of Lake Oswego’s population identifying as Hispanic or Latino is 5% of the population, indicating over 2,100 people as of the 2020 Census. This is lower than the 14% share statewide. FIGURE 2.7: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORY (OREGON) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: P17A-H, (State of Oregon, 2020) * This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2010). The data for the Lake Oswego or ClackamasCounty geographies feature unusually large margins of error due to the small sample size. 80%1%0%8%0%1%9%5%0%20%40%60%80%100%WhiteBlack or AfricanAmericanAmerican andAlaska NativeAsianHawaiian andPacific IslanderSome Other RaceTwo or moreracesHispanic or Latino(any race)Share of Population by RaceLake Oswego (2010)Lake Oswego (2020)Clackamas Co.Oregon2.52.42.52.82.83.53.74.02.70.01.02.03.04.05.0All HouseholdsWhite aloneBlack or African American aloneAmerican Indian and Alaska Native aloneAsian aloneNative Hawaiian and Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoSome Other Race aloneTwo or more races:Avg. Number of Persons per HouseholdAverage Household Size by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 9 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 9 Minority households tend to have a larger average household size than the average of all households (Figure 2.7). (This figure presents statewide data due to the high margin of error for local data in this data set.) Households identifying as “white alone” have the lowest average household size (2.4 persons), while all other racial and ethnic categories have a larger estimated average household size. Some of the non-white categories, such as black households and those of two or more races, are still similar in average size (2.5 and 2.7 persons, respectively). Those with the largest estimated households are Latinos, Pacific Islanders, and those identifying as “some other race.” Larger average household size indicates a need for units with more bedrooms on average among many minority households. Each household has its own housing needs in terms of the number of bedrooms and other factors, based on the specific makeup of each family. Based on voluntary guidelines provided by HUD for public housing programs, households of between 2 persons generally need a one-bedroom unit, households with 3 persons might need two bedrooms, and those with 4 persons might need three bedrooms. Larger households may need four or more bedrooms, which are typically found in single detached homes. Based on statewide data, many racial and ethnic minorities are currently less likely to own the homes they occupy (Figure 2.8) – meaning that they tend to occupy rental units. These communities face systemic obstacles to home ownership, including lower generational wealth, less access to capital and financing, and a history of discrimination in lending and geography (e.g., redlining). While the country and state try to address explicit discrimination through the law, the legacy of these barriers continues to hamper home ownership for many minority households. Going forward, many communities would benefit from more entry-level homebuying opportunities for these households, as well as additional rental housing for those who are still unready or unable to buy a home. FIGURE 2.8: HOME OWNERSHIP RATE BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORY (OREGON) SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: B25003A-H, (State of Oregon, 2021 ACS 5-year) * This data is presented on a statewide basis using the most recent Census data available (2020). The data for the Lake Oswego or Clackamas County geographies feature larger margins of error due to small sample size in some of the racial categories. Populations from some racial and ethnic minority groups also have lower average incomes and are more likely to have income below the official poverty level when compared to the total population. Such income levels are correlated with a greater share of renter households and impact the types of housing these populations consume, as discussed in further detail below. 63%65%36%48%63%32%45%43%50%0%20%40%60%80%100%All HouseholdsWhite aloneBlack or African American aloneAmerican Indian and Alaska Native aloneAsian aloneNative Hawaiian and Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoSome Other Race aloneTwo or more races:Ownership RateOwner-Occupied Households by Race & Ethnicity (Oregon)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 10 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 10 H. PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY An estimated 8% of the population of Lake Oswego, or 3,140 people, report having some form of disability. This is lower than the statewide rate of 14% and the Clackamas County rate of 12% of people with a disability. (The Census reports these statistics for the “non-institutionalized population.”) The following figure presents Census estimates of the types of disability reported among Lake Oswego residents. Any type of disability impacts the type of housing that may be appropriate for a resident, but those with the greatest impact on needed unit type are generally an ambulatory, self-care, or independent living disability. Those with an ambulatory disability often need units with expanded access for a wheelchair, walker, or scooter. Those with self-care or independent living disabilities may require additional safety precautions around the home to protect a resident who cannot always be directly monitored. FIGURE 2.9: LAKE OSWEGO SHARE OF THE POPULATION WITH DISABILITY, BY TYPE SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year) FIGURE 2.10: LAKE OSWEGO POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY, BY AGE SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC Census Tables: DP02, (2020 ACS 5-year) 7.8%2.4%1.7%2.7%2.9%1.1%2.3%0%2%4%6%8%10%Population with a disabilityHearing difficultyVision difficultyCognitive difficultyAmbulatory difficultySelf-care difficultyIndependent living difficultyShare of Population7.8%2.0%5.8%19.5%0%5%10%15%20%25%Total populationUnder 18 years18 to 64 years65 years and overShare of Population with Disability by AgePP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 11 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 11 Older residents are more likely to report a disability, including nearly 20% of those over 65 years. Of those aged 18 to 64 years, 6% of the local population reports a disability, and 2% of children. Because Census data tends to undercount the homeless and other vulnerable populations, there are likely more disabled residents in Lake Oswego than reflected in these data. I. INCOME TRENDS The following figure presents data on Lake Oswego’s income trends. FIGURE 2.11: INCOME TRENDS, 2000 – 2023 (LAKE OSWEGO) ▪ Lake Oswego’s estimated median household income was $123,000 in 2023. This is nearly 40% higher than the Clackamas County median of $88,500, and 75% higher than the statewide median of $70,000. ▪ Lake Oswego’s per capita income is roughly $75,000. ▪ Median income has grown an estimated 46% between 2010 and 2023, in real dollars. Inflation was an estimated 34% over this period, so the local median income has well exceeded inflation. This is not the case in many regions and nationally, where income growth has not kept pace with inflation. FIGURE 2.12: HOUSEHOLD INCOME COHORTS, 2021 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census, Census Tables: S1901 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.) Figure 2.12 presents the estimated distribution of households by income as of 2021. The largest income cohorts are those households earning between $100k and $200k per year (32%), followed by households earning over $200k (27%). ▪ 41% of households earn less than $100,000. ▪ Roughly 19% of households earn less than $50k per year. 2000 2010Growth2023Growth(Census) (Census) 00-10 (Proj.) 10-23Per Capita ($)$42,166 $53,65227%$74,60039%Median HH ($)$71,597 $84,18618%$123,30046%SOURCE: Census, Metro Consolidated Forecast, PSU Population Research Center, and Johnson EconomicsCensus Tables: DP-1 (2000, 2010); DP-3 (2000); S1901; S19301PER CAPITA AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME3%2%4%4%6%11%11%20%12%27%0%5%10%15%20%25%30% Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or moreHousehold Income GroupsPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 12 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 12 J. POVERTY STATISTICS According to the US Census, the official poverty rate in Lake Oswego is an estimated 4% over the most recent period reported (2021 5-year estimates).3 This is roughly 1,700 individuals in Lake Oswego. In comparison, the official poverty rate in Clackamas County is 9%, and at the state level is 17%. In the 2017-21 period: ▪ The Lake Oswego poverty rate is low among all groups, but highest among those 65 years and older at 5%. The rate is 4% among those 18 to 64 years of age. The estimated rate is lowest for children at 3%. ▪ For those without a high school diploma, the poverty rate is 11%. ▪ Among those who are employed the poverty rate is 2%, while it is 7% for those who are unemployed. Information on affordable housing is presented in Section II F of this report. FIGURE 2.13: POVERTY STATUS BY CATEGORY (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: S1701 (2021 ACS 5-yr Est.) K. EMPLOYMENT LOCATION TRENDS This section provides an overview of employment and industry trends in Lake Oswego that are related to housing. Commuting Patterns: The following figure shows the inflow and outflow of commuters to Lake Oswego according to the Census Employment Dynamics Database. These figures reflect “covered employment” as of 2019, the most recent year available. Covered employment refers to those jobs where the employee is covered by federal unemployment insurance. This category does not include many contract employees and self-employed and therefore is not a complete picture of local employment. The figure discussed here is best understood as indicators of the general pattern of commuting and not exact figures. As of 2017, the most recent year available, the Census estimated there were roughly 23,100 covered employment jobs located in Lake Oswego. Of these, an estimated 2,250 or 10%, are held by local residents, while nearly 21,000 employees commute into the city from elsewhere. This general pattern is fairly common among many communities 3 Census Tables: S1701 (2018 ACS 5-yr Estimates); Methodology The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. There are 48 separate income thresholds set based on the possible combinations of household composition. 3%4%5%2%7%11%10%7%3%0%5%10%15%20%Under 18 years18 to 64 years65 years and overEmployedUnemployedLess than high schoolHigh schoolSome college, associate'sBachelor's degree or higherPoverty Level of SubgroupsPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 13 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 13 in the Metro area, but the pattern is particularly stark here. The most common homes of local workers commuting into the city are Portland, Beaverton, or Tigard. This data set predates the surge in remote working that has taken place over the last few years. In prior years, it was safe to assume that most residents holding jobs outside the community likely commuted physically. Now, a resident might hold a job in another city but work from home. Unfortunately, these data do not quantify this growing segment. Similarly, of the estimated 18,000 employed Lake Oswego residents, 88% of them commute elsewhere to their employment. The most common destinations for Lake Oswego commuters are Portland and Beaverton. Smaller shares work elsewhere in the Portland metro or in the mid-Willamette Valley. FIGURE 2.14: COMMUTING PATTERNS (PRIMARY JOBS), LAKE OSWEGO Source: US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Jobs/Household Ratio: Lake Oswego features a balanced jobs-to-households ratio. There are an estimated 23,000 jobs in Lake Oswego (covered), and an estimated 17,500 households in Lake Oswego. This represents 1.3 jobs per household. There is no standard jobs-to-households ratio that is right for all communities, but it can provide a guide to the balance between employment uses and residential uses in the city. There is an average of 1.0 job held for each Lake Oswego household, a majority of which are located outside the city. 20,900Work in Lake Oswego,live elsewhere15,800Live in Lake Oswego,work elsewhere2,250Live and workin Lake Oswego90% / 10%12% / 88%PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 14 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 14 III. CURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS This section presents a profile of the current housing stock and market indicators in Lake Oswego. This profile forms the foundation to which current and future housing needs will be compared. A. HOUSING TENURE Lake Oswego has a greater share of homeowner households than renter households. The 2021 ACS estimates that 71% of occupied units were owner occupied, and only 29% renter occupied. The ownership rate is little changed since 2000. The estimated ownership rate is higher across Clackamas County (73%) and lower statewide (63%). B. HOUSING STOCK As shown in Figure 2.1, Lake Oswego had an estimated 18,350 housing units in 2023, with a vacancy rate of 5% (includes ownership and rental units). The housing stock has increased by roughly 2,680 units since 2000, or growth of over 17%. FIGURE 3.1: ESTIMATED SHARE OF UNITS, BY PROPERTY TYPE, 2023 SOURCE: US Census, City of Lake Oswego Figure 3.1 shows the estimated number of units by type in 2023 based on US Census. Detached single-family homes represent an estimated 63% of housing units. Units in larger apartment complexes of 5 or more units represent 21% of units, and other types of attached homes represent 16% of units. (Attached single family generally includes townhomes, and some 2 to 4-plexes which are separately metered.) Manufactured homes represent well less than 1% of the inventory. C. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Figure 3.2 shows the share of units for owners and renters by the number of bedrooms they have. In general, owner-occupied units are much more likely to have three or more bedrooms, while renter-occupied units are much more likely to have two or fewer bedrooms. 63%9%1%6%21%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ UnitsMFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempLake Oswego, OregonPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 15 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 15 FIGURE 3.2: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS FOR OWNER AND RENTER UNITS, 2021 (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: B25042 (2021 ACS 5-year Estimates) D. UNIT TYPES BY TENURE As Figure 3.3 and 3.4 show, a large share of owner-occupied units (81%), are detached homes, which is related to why owner-occupied units tend to have more bedrooms. Renter-occupied units are much more distributed among a range of structure types. About 18% of rented units are estimated to be detached homes or manufactured homes, while the remainder are some form of attached unit. Nearly 60% of rental units are in larger apartment complexes. FIGURE 3.3: CURRENT INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE, FOR OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING (LAKE OSWEGO) OWNERSHIP HOUSING RENTAL HOUSING Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 0%2%14%33%39%11%6%27%43%19%5%1%0%10%20%30%40%50%Studio1 bedroom2 bedrooms3 bedrooms4 bedrooms5 or moreNumber of BedroomsRenterOwnerSingle DetachedSingle AttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal UnitsTotals:10,557 1,2929337 781 320 13,008Percentage:81.2% 9.9%0.1% 2.6% 6.0% 0.2% 0.0%100%OWNERSHIP HOUSINGSingle DetachedSingle AttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal UnitsTotals:934 332250 6753,145 0 0 5,337Percentage:17.5% 6.2%4.7% 12.7% 58.9% 0.0% 0.0%100%RENTAL HOUSINGPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 16 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 16 FIGURE 3.4: CURRENT INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE, BY SHARE Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO E. AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK Lake Oswego’s housing stock reflects the pattern of development over time. The greatest periods of development in Lake Oswego were in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Roughly 15% of the housing stock has been built since 2000. FIGURE 3.5: AGE OF UNITS FOR OWNERS AND RENTERS (LAKE OSWEGO) SOURCE: US Census Census Tables: B25036 (2021 ACS 5-year Estimates) ▪ Unfortunately, good quantitative data on housing condition is generally unavailable without an intensive on-site survey of all local housing, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. Census categories related to housing condition are ill-suited for this analysis, dealing with such issues as units without indoor plumbing, which was more common in the mid-20th Century, but is an increasingly rare situation. Age of units serves as the closest reliable proxy for condition with available data. ▪ For ownership units, older homes may be in poor condition, but are also more likely to have undergone some repair and renovation over the years. Rental units are more likely to degrade steadily with age and wear-and-81%10%0%3%6%0%0%18%6%5%13%59%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%100%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ UnitsMFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempShare of UnitsUnit TypeLake Oswego, OregonOwnerRental7%8%17%20%23%10%7%3%5%9%8%20%25%23%5%5%1%3%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%Year Housing Unit BuiltOwnerRenterPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 17 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 17 tear, and less likely to receive sufficient reinvestment to keep them in top condition, though this is not universally true. F. HOUSING COSTS VS. LOCAL INCOMES Figure 3.6 shows the share of owner and renter households who are paying more than 30% of their household income towards housing costs, by income segment. (Spending 30% or less on housing costs is a common measure of “affordability” used by HUD and others, and in the analysis presented in this report.) As one would expect, households with lower incomes tend to spend more than 30% of their income on housing, while incrementally fewer of those in higher income groups spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs. Of those earning less than $20,000, an estimated 91% of owner households and 100% of renters spend more than 30% of income on housing costs. Even among households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, a majority are housing cost burdened. Because Lake Oswego has an income distribution skewed towards higher income levels, there are relatively few households in these lower income segments, compared to most other cities. In total, the US Census estimates that over 31% of Lake Oswego households pay more than 30% of income towards housing costs (2021 American Community Survey, B25106) FIGURE 3.6: SHARE OF LAKE OSWEGO HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING MORE THAN 30% ON HOUSING COSTS, BY INCOME GROUP Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Table: B25106 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) Housing is generally one of a household’s largest living costs, if not the largest. The ability to find affordable housing options, and even build wealth through ownership, is one of the biggest contributors to helping lower income households save and cultivate wealth. Even if renting, affordable housing costs allow for more household income to be put to other needs, including saving. The following figures show the percentage of household income spent towards gross rent4 for local renter households only. This more fine-grained data shows that not only are 49% of renters spending more than 30% of their income on gross rent, but an estimated 29% of renters are spending 50% or more of their income on housing and are considered severely rent-burdened. 4 The Census defines Gross Rent as “the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if these are paid by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else).” Housing costs for homeowners include mortgage, property taxes, insurance, utilities and condo or HOA dues. 91%82%74%51%12%100%92%88%64%16%0%20%40%60%80%100%Less than$20,000$20,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreShare of HH: Housing Costs >30% of IncomeHousehold IncomeOwner HouseholdsRenter HouseholdsPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 18 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 18 Renters are disproportionately lower income relative to homeowners. Housing cost burdens are felt more broadly for these households, and as the analysis presented in a later section shows there is a need for more affordable rental units in Lake Oswego, as in most communities. FIGURE 3.7: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME SPENT ON GROSS RENT, LAKE OSWEGO RENTER HOUSEHOLDS Sources: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Table: B25070 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) G. PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) tracks three currently operating affordable housing properties in Lake Oswego, with a total of 76 units. These are properties that are funded through HUD programs, tax credits and other programs which guarantee subsidized rents for qualified households. All of these units, save one, are offered for elderly residents. The Marylhurst Commons, currently under development, is planned to offer 100 affordable units for families. Completion is expected in 2024. The Housing Authority of Clackamas County administers over 1,600 Section 8 housing choice vouchers that allow low-income participants to find rental units anywhere in the county. Under this program, the renters can find participating landlords and the voucher helps to subsidize the cost of a market-rate rental unit. The unit does not have to be in a property dedicated to subsidized affordable housing but can be in any rental property. The high share of renters still paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs indicates that there is an ongoing need for rental units at the lowest price points. Agricultural Worker Housing: Lake Oswego is not currently home to properties dedicated to agricultural workers. This population may also be served by other available affordable units. People Experiencing Homelessness: The Census does make a multi-faceted effort to include the unhoused population in the total Decennial Census count, by attempting to enumerate these individuals at service providers, and in transitory locations such as RV parks or campgrounds, as of the official Census data (4/1/20). However, it is difficult to make an accurate count of this population, and it is generally presumed that the unhoused are undercounted in the Census. The most recent (January 2022) Point-in-Time count of people experiencing homelessness and households experiencing homelessness in Clackamas County5 found 597 unhoused individuals on the streets, in shelters, or 5 Figures are for the entire County 3%22%25%14%7%29%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Share of Households% of Income to Gross RentPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 19 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 19 other temporary and/or precarious housing. The estimated 597 unhoused individuals represent 0.1% of the county’s total estimated population in 2022. ▪ An estimated 45% of individuals were in some sort of temporary shelter, while 55% were unsheltered. ▪ The total included 51 children (under age 18), and 26 youth (aged 18-24). ▪ Of those indicating a gender, 60% of those counted identified as men, 40% women. ▪ 5% of those counted were Hispanic or Latino compared to 9.5% in the general population. ▪ 304 individuals, or 51%, were counted as “chronically homeless”.6 While the Point-in-Time count is one of the few systematized efforts to count people experiencing homelessness across the country in a regular, structured way, it is widely thought to undercount the population of unhoused individuals and households. People who are doubled up, couch surfing, or experiencing domestic violence may not always be accurately counted. In addition to the impossibility of finding all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness, the count is conducted in late January, when homeless counts are likely near their lowest of the year due to inclement weather. It also relies on self-reporting. A recent analysis prepared for OHCS to test a potential approach for preparing Housing Capacity Analyses on a regional basis included estimates of the unhoused population in Oregon communities, including Lake Oswego. The approach utilizes a combination of data from the bi-annual Point-in-Time count and from tracking of unhoused school-aged children in keeping with the McKinney-Vento Act. The analysis estimates 239 households experiencing homelessness in Lake Oswego as of mid-2020. These include households that are unsheltered, in temporary shelters, or staying with friends or relatives. These households are a component of current and future housing need. The persistence of people experiencing homelessness speaks to the need for continuing to build a full spectrum of services and housing types to shelter this population, from temporary shelter to subsidized affordable housing. An analysis of the ability of current and projected housing supply to meet the needs of low-income people and the potential shortfall is included in the following sections of this report. 6 HUD defines “chronically homeless” as an individual with a disability as defined by the McKinney-Vento Assistance Act, who has been in uninhabitable conditions for more than 12 mo. or on four separate occasions in the last three years; or has been in institutional care for less than 90 days; or a family with an adult head of household who meets this definition. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 20 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 20 IV. CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) The profile of current housing conditions in the study area is based on Census 2010, which the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) uses to develop yearly estimates through 2019. The 2019 estimate is forecasted to 2023 using the estimated growth rate realized since 2010. FIGURE 4.1: CURRENT LAKE OSWEGO HOUSING PROFILE (2023) *This table reflects population, household and housing unit projections shown in Figure 2.1 We estimate a current population of 41,550 residents, living in 17,481 households (excluding group living situations). Average household size is 2.4 persons. There are an estimated 18,345 housing units in the city, indicating an estimated vacancy rate of 5%. This includes units vacant for any reason, not just those which are currently for sale or rent. ESTIMATE OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND Following the establishment of the current housing profile, the current housing demand was determined based upon the age and income characteristics of current households. The analysis considered the propensity of households in specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home (tenure), in order to derive the current demand for ownership and rental housing units and the appropriate housing cost level of each. This is done by combining data on tenure by age and tenure by income from the Census American Community Survey (tables: B25007 and B25118, 2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates). The analysis takes into account the average amount that owners and renters tend to spend on housing costs. For instance, lower income households tend to spend more of their total income on housing, while upper income households spend less on a percentage basis. In this case, it was assumed that households in lower income bands would prefer housing costs at no more than 30% of gross income (a common measure of affordability). Higher income households pay a decreasing share down to 20% for the highest income households. While the Census estimates that most low-income households pay more than 30% of their income for housing, this is an estimate of current preferred demand. It assumes that low-income households prefer (or demand) units affordable to them at no more than 30% of income, rather than more expensive units. SOURCETotal 2023 Population:41,550PSU Pop. Research Center- Estimated group housing population:329(0.8% of Total)US CensusEstimated Non-Group 2023 Population: 41,221(Total - Group)Avg. HH Size:2.36US CensusEstimated Non-Group 2023 Households: 17,481(Pop/HH Size)Total Housing Units:18,345(Occupied + Vacant)Census 2010 + permitsOccupied Housing Units:17,481(= # of HH)Vacant Housing Units:864(Total HH - Occupied)Current Vacancy Rate:4.7%(Vacant units/ Total units)Sources: Johnson Economics, City of Lake Oswego, PSU Population Research Center, U.S. CensusCURRENT HOUSING CONDITIONS (2023)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 21 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 21 Figure 4.2 presents a snapshot of current housing demand (i.e. preferences) equal to the number of households in the study area (17,481). The breakdown of tenure (owners vs. renters) reflects data from the 2021 ACS. FIGURE 4.2: ESTIMATE OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Claritas., Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25007, B25106, B25118 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) Claritas: Estimates of income by age of householder The estimated home price and rent ranges are irregular because they are mapped to the affordability levels of the Census income level categories. For instance, an affordable home for those in the lowest income category (less than $15,000) would have to cost $80,000 or less. Affordable rent for someone in this category would be $400 or less. The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 5% (somewhat less than the current market rate, but in line with historic norms), with 10% down payment. These assumptions are designed to represent prudent lending and borrowing levels for ownership households. The 30-year mortgage commonly serves as the standard. In the 2000’s, down payment requirements fell significantly, but lending standards tightened significantly since the 2008/9 credit crisis. While 20% is often cited as the standard for most buyers, it is common for homebuyers, particularly first-time buyers, to pay significantly less than this using available programs. Interest rates are subject to disruption from national and global economic forces, and therefore impossible to forecast beyond the short term. The 5% used here is roughly the average 30-year rate over the last 20 years. The Price Range# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0k - $80k330Less than $15,0002.7%2.7%$80k - $130k267$15,000 - $24,9992.2%4.9%$130k - $180k357$25,000 - $34,9992.9%7.8%$180k - $250k636$35,000 - $49,9995.2%13.0%$250k - $350k1,051$50,000 - $74,9998.6%21.7%$350k - $440k1,147$75,000 - $99,9999.4%31.1%$440k - $510k1,109$100,000 - $124,9999.1%40.2%$510k - $560k892$125,000 - $149,9997.3%47.5%$560k - $680k1,827$150,000 - $199,99915.0%62.5%$680k +4,577$200,000+37.5%100.0%Totals:12,191% of All:69.7%Rent Level# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0 - $400348Less than $15,000 6.6% 6.6%$400 - $700383$15,000 - $24,999 7.2% 13.8%$700 - $900554$25,000 - $34,999 10.5% 24.3%$900 - $1300621$35,000 - $49,999 11.7% 36.0%$1300 - $1800837$50,000 - $74,999 15.8% 51.9%$1800 - $2200764$75,000 - $99,999 14.4% 66.3%$2200 - $2500505$100,000 - $124,999 9.6% 75.9%$2500 - $2800410$125,000 - $149,999 7.8% 83.6%$2800 - $3400271$150,000 - $199,999 5.1% 88.7%$3400 +596$200,000+11.3% 100.0%All HouseholdsTotals:5,290% of All: 30.3% 17,481RentalOwnershipPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 22 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 22 general trend has been falling interest rates since the early 1980’s, but coming out of the recent inflationary period, the Federal Reserve has raised its base rate significantly in recent years and mortgage rates have also climbed to levels not seen in almost 20 years. CURRENT HOUSING INVENTORY The profile of current housing demand (Figure 4.2) represents the preference and affordability levels of households. In reality, the current housing supply (Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below) differs from this profile, meaning that some households may find themselves in housing units which are not optimal, either not meeting the household’s own/rent preference, or being unaffordable (requiring more than 30% of gross income). A profile of current housing supply in Lake Oswego was estimated based on permit data from the City of Lake Oswego and Census data from the most recently available 2021 ACS, which provides a profile of housing types (single family, attached, manufactured home, etc.), tenure, housing values, and rent levels. The 5-year estimates from the ACS were used because margin of error is lower than 1-year ACS estimates. ▪ An estimated 71% of housing units are ownership units, while an estimated 29% of housing units are rental units. This is slightly different than the estimated demand profile shown in Figure 4.2, which estimated a bit higher demand for rental units given local income and age levels. The inventory includes vacant units. ▪ 81% of ownership units are detached homes, and very few are manufactured homes. 17.5% of rental units are either single family homes or manufactured homes, while 59% are in structures of 5 units or more. ▪ Of total housing units, an estimated 63% are detached homes or manufactured homes. 37% are some sort of attached unit type. FIGURE 4.3: PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY BY TYPE (2023) Sources: US Census, PSU Population Research Center, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25004, B25032, B25063, B25075 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪ The affordability of different unit types is an approximation based on Census data on the distribution of housing units by value (ownership) or gross rent (rentals). ▪ Most subsidized affordable housing units found in the city are represented by the inventory at the lowest end of the rental spectrum. ▪ Ownership housing found at the lower end of the value spectrum generally reflect older, smaller homes, or homes in poor condition on small or irregular lots. It is important to note that these represent estimates of 81%10%0%3%6%0%0%18%6%5%13%59%0%0%0%20%40%60%80%100%SingleDetachedSingleAttachedDuplex3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf.homeBoat, RV,other tempShare of UnitsUnit TypeLake Oswego, OregonOwnerRentalPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 23 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 23 current property value or current housing cost to the owner, not the current market pricing of homes for sale in the city. These properties may be candidates for redevelopment when next they sell but are currently estimated to have low value. FIGURE 4.4: PROFILE OF CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY, ESTIMATED AFFORDABILITY IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: US Census, PSU Population Research Center, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Census Tables: B25004, B25032, B25063, B25075 (2021 ACS 5-yr Estimates) ▪ Most housing (58%) in Lake Oswego is found in price and rent levels affordable to those earning at least $125,000 per year, which is close to the city’s median income. There is very little housing available to those in lower income segments. Over 90% of housing is affordable to those earning at least $50,000, and only 9% affordable to those earning less than this. COMPARISON OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMAND WITH CURRENT SUPPLY A comparison of estimated current housing demand with the existing supply identifies the existing discrepancies between needs and the housing which is currently available. The estimated number of units outnumbers the number of households by roughly 865 units, indicating an average vacancy rate of 4.7%. In general, this identifies that there is currently support for more ownership housing at lower price points, while the upper end of the market is generally well supplied. This is because most housing in Lake Oswego is clustered at higher property values, which matches the community’s high average household income but leaves some households underserved. The analysis finds that the current market rates for most rental units are in the $1,300 to $2,200/month range. Therefore, this is where most of the rental unit supply is currently clustered. However, the greatest unmet need is found at the lower end of the income scale, where many current renters pay more than 30% of their income in housing costs. Rentals at the most expensive levels generally represent single family homes for rent. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 present this information in chart form, comparing the estimated number of households in given income ranges, and the supply of units currently valued (ownership) or priced (rentals) within those income ranges. The data is presented for owner and renter households. Affordable Estimated Affordable EstimatedPrice Level Units Rent Level UnitsLess than $15,000 $0k - $80k135$0 - $40070$15,000 - $24,999 $80k - $130k129$400 - $70043$25,000 - $34,999 $130k - $180k170$700 - $900106$35,000 - $49,999 $180k - $250k406$900 - $1300518$50,000 - $74,999 $250k - $350k735$1300 - $1800 1,852$75,000 - $99,999 $350k - $440k839$1800 - $2200 1,289$100,000 - $124,999 $440k - $510k753$2200 - $2500602$125,000 - $149,999 $510k - $560k924$2500 - $2800223$150,000 - $199,999 $560k - $680k 2,217 $2800 - $3400229$200,000+$680k +6,700 $3400 +40471%13,00829%5,337Income RangeOwnership HousingRental HousingShare of Total Units1%1%2%5%14%12%7%6%13%39%0%10%20%30%40%PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 24 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 24 FIGURE 4.5: COMPARISON OF OWNER HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS TO ESTIMATED SUPPLY AFFORDABLE AT THOSE INCOME LEVELS IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, City of Lake Oswego, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS FIGURE 4.6: COMPARISON OF RENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS TO ESTIMATED SUPPLY AFFORDABLE AT THOSE INCOME LEVELS IN LAKE OSWEGO (2023) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, City of Lake Oswego, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS The home value and rent segments which show a “surplus” in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate where current property values and market rent levels are in Lake Oswego. Housing prices and rent levels will tend to congregate around those levels. These levels will be too costly for some (i.e. require more than 30% in gross income) or “too affordable” for others (i.e. they have income levels that indicate they could afford more expensive housing if they chose). In general, these findings demonstrate that there are few lower-value housing opportunities for many owner households, and potential support for some less expensive types of ownership housing. There is a need for more rental units at lower rent levels (<$900/mo.). HOME SALE PRICES It is important to note that the figures presented in the prior section represent estimates of current property value or current housing cost to the owner, not the current market pricing of homes for sale in the city. For instance, a household living in a manufactured home that has been paid off over many years may have relatively low housing costs. This indicates that one owner household is living in a “lower value” unit. It does not indicate that units at this price point are available on the current market. 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000# of Households/UnitsIncome CohortsOwner Households vs. Current UnitsEst. Owner HouseholdsUnits Valued at Income Level05001,0001,5002,000# of Households/UnitsIncome CohortsRenter Households vs. Current UnitsEst. Renter HouseholdsUnits Affordable at Income LevelPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 25 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 25 If this hypothetical household were to sell their home, it would sell at a higher price reflecting inflation and current achievable market prices. For this reason, many of the lower value or lower rent units found in the previous section will actually become higher-priced units when they are sold or become vacant. For reference, this section presents home sales data from 2022 to indicate housing costs for new entrants into the market (Figure 4.7). • The median sale price was $860,000. • The average (mean) sale price was $1,075,000. • The average price per square foot was $430/s.f. • The median square footage was 2,300 s.f. FIGURE 4.7: LAKE OSWEGO HOME SALES (12 MONTHS) Sources: RMLS, JOHNSON ECONOMICS • 48% of sales were priced above $900,000. • 34% of sales were priced between $500,000 and $899,000. • Only 18% of sales were priced at less than $500,000. • Only 7% of sales were priced below $300,000. Affordability: As indicated, roughly 75% of recent sales in Lake Oswego were priced at least $600,000. Homes in this range would be mostly affordable to households earning at least $175,000 per year, which is well above the median household income of $123,000. Roughly 66% of households earn less than $175,000 per year, meaning that the bulk of housing supply on the current for-sale market (75%) is likely too expensive for most of these households. * * * The findings of current need form the foundation for projected future housing need, presented in the following section. 72%0%8%20%Home Sales by Unit TypeDetached HomeManuf. HomeAttached HomeCondo03434731395667663190100200300400<$100,000$100,000 - $199,000$200,000 - $299,000$300,000 - $399,000$400,000 - $499,000$500,000 - $599,000$600,000 - $699,000$700,000 - $799,000$800,000 - $899,000$900,000+Home Sales by Price LevelPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 26 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 26 V. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS - 2043 (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) The projected future (20-year) housing profile (Figure 5.1) in the study area is based on the current housing profile (2023), multiplied by an assumed projected future household growth rate. The projected future growth is the forecasted 2043 population for the City of Lake Oswego included in the most recently adopted Coordinated Population Forecast from Metro for all cities in the region. This was adopted in 2021 and projected a very modest growth rate for Lake Oswego of well less than 1% per year.7 FIGURE 5.1: FUTURE HOUSING PROFILE (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Metro, Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC *Projections are applied to estimates of 2023 population, household and housing units shown in Figure 2.1 The model projects growth in the number of non-group households over 20 years of over 1,800 households, but with accompanying population growth of just 411 new residents. The difference is that the household size is expected to decrease significantly to 2.2 persons, meaning more smaller households to house the same population. (The number of households differs from the number of housing units, because the total number of housing units includes a percentage of vacancy. Projected housing unit needs are discussed below.) 7 The projected growth and housing need presented in this report conforms to the statutory approach to completing a Goal 10 needs analysis. To comply with state rules, the analysis relies on estimates of current population from the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) and projections of future growth from the most recent Metro distributed forecast. The forecasted growth rates from Metro are very low in comparison to rates experienced during the past 20 years and low in comparison to projected rates in other parts of the region and state. The City's population increased by about 18%, with an average annual growth rate of about 1% between 2000 and 2020 per year. During the next 20 years, forecasted growth is projected to be a total of 1%, with an average annual growth rate of just 0.05% per year. Many community members in Lake Oswego, including members of the project Task Force, as well as members of the City's Planning Commission and City Council, have questioned the accuracy of the projected growth rates, but no contrary expert testimony of the population forecast is presented. To the extent the City grows faster than the growth rates predict, the deficit of land available to accommodate housing over the long term will be more acute and the City will consume remaining buildable land more quickly, potentially running out of buildable land within several years. Per ORS 197.297, the City is required to adopt an updated HNA at least once every six years; thus, the City will have an additional opportunity in 2029 to correct the population forecast, if the projections in the 2023 HNA are notably different than observed trends. It will be important for the City to coordinate closely with Metro as it updates its growth rates and to continue to monitor actual growth patterns, as well as the supply of buildable land in the City. To the extent growth occurs at a faster rate than projected, the City will need to identify and implement strategies to address a potential shortage in available land for housing in the near term. SOURCE2023 Population (Minus Group Pop.)41,221(Est. 2022 pop. - Group Housing Pop.)PSUProjected Annual Growth Rate0.05%Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)Metro2043 Population (Minus Group Pop.)41,629(Total 2043 Population - Group Housing Pop.)Estimated group housing population:3321.7% of total pop. (held constant from 2022)US CensusTotal Estimated 2043 Population:41,961Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)MetroEstimated Non-Group 2043 Households:19,298Metro Coordinated Forecast (2021)MetroNew Households 2023 to 20431,816Avg. Household Size:2.16Projected 2043 pop./2043 houseoldsUS CensusTotal Housing Units:20,313Occupied Units plus VacantOccupied Housing Units:19,298(= Number of Non-Group Households)Vacant Housing Units:1,016(= Total Units - Occupied Units)Projected Market Vacancy Rate:5.0%Stabilized vacancy assumptionPROJECTED FUTURE HOUSING CONDITIONS (2023 - 2043)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 27 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 27 PROJECTION OF FUTURE HOUSING UNIT DEMAND (2043) The profile of future housing demand was derived using the same methodology used to produce the estimate of current housing need. This estimate includes current and future households but does not include a vacancy assumption. The vacancy assumption is added in the subsequent step. Therefore, the need identified below is the total need for actual households in occupied units (19,298). The analysis considered the propensity of households at specific age and income levels to either rent or own their home, in order to derive the future need for ownership and rental housing units, and the affordable cost level of each. The projected need is for all 2043 households and therefore includes the needs of current households. The price levels presented here use the same assumptions regarding the amount of gross income applied to housing costs, from 30% for low income households down to 20% for the highest income households. The affordable price level for ownership housing assumes 30-year amortization, at an interest rate of 5%, with 10% down payment. Because of the impossibility of predicting variables such as interest rates 20 years into the future, these assumptions were kept constant from the estimation of current housing demand. Income levels and price levels are presented in 2023 dollars. Figure 5.2 presents the projected occupied future housing demand (current and new households, without vacancy) in 2043. FIGURE 5.2: PROJECTED OCCUPIED FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS Price Range# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0k - $80k364Less than $15,0002.7%2.7%Extremely$80k - $130k295$15,000 - $24,9992.2%4.9%Low Income$130k - $180k394$25,000 - $34,9992.9%7.8%Very Low$180k - $250k702$35,000 - $49,9995.2%13.0%Income$250k - $350k1,160$50,000 - $74,9998.6%21.7%Low Income<80% MFI$350k - $440k1,266$75,000 - $99,9999.4%31.1%$440k - $510k1,224$100,000 - $124,9999.1%40.2%$510k - $560k984$125,000 - $149,9997.3%47.5%$560k - $680k2,017$150,000 - $199,99915.0%62.5%$680k +5,053$200,000+37.5%100.0%Totals:13,458% of All:69.7%Rent Level# of HouseholdsIncome Range% of TotalCumulative$0 - $400385Less than $15,000 6.6% 6.6% Extremely$400 - $700423$15,000 - $24,999 7.2% 13.8% Low Income$700 - $900611$25,000 - $34,999 10.5% 24.3% Very Low$900 - $1300686$35,000 - $49,999 11.7% 36.0% Income$1300 - $1800924$50,000 - $74,999 15.8% 51.9% Low Income <80% MFI$1800 - $2200843$75,000 - $99,999 14.4% 66.3%$2200 - $2500558$100,000 - $124,999 9.6% 75.9%$2500 - $2800453$125,000 - $149,999 7.8% 83.6%$2800 - $3400299$150,000 - $199,999 5.1% 88.7%$3400 +658$200,000+11.3% 100.0%All UnitsTotals:5,840% of All: 30.3% 19,298<30% MFI<50% MFIOwnershipRental<30% MFI<50% MFIPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 28 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 28 The number of households across the income spectrum seeking a range of both ownership and rental housing is anticipated to grow. It is projected that the homeownership rate in Lake Oswego will fall somewhat over the next 20 years to under 70% from 71%. COMPARISON OF FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND TO CURRENT HOUSING INVENTORY The profile of occupied future housing demand presented above (Figure 5.2) was compared to the current housing inventory presented in the previous section to determine the total future need for new housing units by type and price range (Figure 5.3). This estimate includes a vacancy assumption. As reflected by the most recent Census data, and as is common in most communities, the vacancy rate for rental units is typically higher than that for ownership units. An average vacancy rate of 5% is assumed for the purpose of this analysis. FIGURE 5.3: PROJECTED FUTURE NEED FOR NEW HOUSING UNITS (2043), LAKE OSWEGO Sources: PSU, City of Lake Oswego, Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS ▪ The results show a need for 1,968 new housing units by 2043. ▪ Of the new units needed, roughly 52% are projected to be ownership units, while 48% are projected to be rental units. This represents more renters than the estimated tenure split, but it is projected that more rental units will need to be added to correct the current modest deficit of rental units, plus the future ownership rate will fall slightly. This results in a proportionately greater share of future units being rental, rather than ownership units. ▪ There is some need for new ownership housing at the middle to low-end of the pricing spectrum. But income trends suggest that the greatest demand will remain in the upper-middle price ranges ($300k to $600k). ▪ The greatest need for rental units is found at the lowest and some higher price points. Market rents are currently clustered in the $1,300 to $2,200 range in current dollars. Therefore, most units are to be found in this range. Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:708132315792301,02452.0%Percentage:69.2%12.9%3.1%5.6%9.0%0.2%0.0%100%Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:5287731485850094448.0%Percentage:5.5%9.2%7.7%15.7%61.9%0.0%0.0%100%Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:760 220 104 205 677301,968100%Percentage:38.6% 11.2% 5.3% 10.4% 34.4% 0.1% 0.0%100%Unit Type:OWNERSHIP HOUSINGMulti-FamilyUnit Type:RENTAL HOUSINGMulti-FamilyUnit Type:TOTAL HOUSING UNITSMulti-FamilyPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 29 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 29 ▪ There is insufficient rental housing for the lowest income households making $35,000 or less or detached single-family homes for rent. Many households will need rent levels lower than the market rate in order to maintain housing costs that are affordable (see more detail below). Needed Unit Types The mix of needed unit types shown in Figure 5.3 reflects both past trends and anticipated future trends. Single detached units are expected to continue to make up a large share of new housing development for ownership households over the next 20 years. However, an increasing share of new needed units is anticipated to be attached housing types to accommodate renters and first-time home buyers. ▪ 39% of the new units are projected to be single detached homes or new manufactured homes, while 61% is projected to be some form of attached housing. ▪ Single attached units (townhomes on individual lots) are projected to meet roughly 11% of future need. These are defined as units on separate tax lots, attached by a wall but separately metered, the most common example being townhome units. ▪ Duplex, triplex, and four-plex units are projected to represent a growing 16% of the total need, reflecting new state rules for middle housing zoning. Duplex units would include a detached single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on the same lot, or with a separate unit in the home (for instance, a rental basement unit.) ▪ 34% of all needed units are projected to be multi-family in structures of 5+ attached units. ▪ Less than 1% of new needed units are projected to be manufactured home units, which meet the needs of some low-income households for both ownership and rental. ▪ Of ownership units, 69% are projected to be single detached homes or manufactured homes, and 31% are projected to be attached forms. ▪ Nearly all new rental units are projected to be found in new attached buildings, with 62% projected in rental properties of 5 or more units, and 33% in other attached housing forms. Only 5.5% of new rental units are projected to be detached homes, including manufactured homes. Group Housing Needs: There is an estimated population of 332 individuals living in group housing in 2043, based on an assumption that the share of the population living in group quarters (1.7%) remains stable from current levels. This would represent an increase of just a few people living in group quarters, as forecasted population growth is modest. In Lake Oswego, the Census estimates that nearly all of Lake Oswego’s group housing population lives in nursing facilities. NEEDED AFFORDABILITY LEVELS Figure 5.4 presents the estimated need for net new housing units by major income segment, based on the projected demographics of new households to the market area. The needed affordability levels presented here are based on current dollars. Figure 5.4 also discusses the housing types typically attainable by residents at these income levels. Note that Figure 5.4 presents the official state measure of “low income” used to set rent and income limits for various affordable housing programs. This estimate via OHCS and HUD are based on an estimate of median income in Clackamas County of $106k in 2022, based on a family of four, while the median income in Lake Oswego was a higher $123k. For this analysis, the estimated Median Family Income (MFI) for a family of four ($106k) was adjusted to match the average household size in Lake Oswego of 2.4 persons ($89.5k) so that the estimates presented below reflect the city average. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 30 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 30 Figure 5.4 presents some of the types of housing product that might commonly serve households in these income ranges. Many households below 60% MFI or even higher income will require some sort of subsidized affordable unit or voucher to find housing affordability. Those at 60% to 100% MFI may find housing in older and substandard market rate rentals, manufactured homes, and middle housing types. FIGURE 5.4: PROJECTED NEED FOR NEW HOUSING AT DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS, LAKE OSWEGO Sources: HUD, Census, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS ▪ Figure 5.3 presents the net NEW housing unit need over the next 20 years. However, there is also a current need for more affordable units. For all households, current and new, to pay 30% or less of their income towards housing in 2043, more affordable rental units (subsidized and non-subsidized) would be required. This indicates that some of the current supply, while it shows up as existing available housing, would need to become less expensive to meet the needs of current households. ▪ There is a finding of new need at the lowest end of the rental spectrum ($900 and less). ▪ The projection of future ownership units finds that the supply at the lowest end of the spectrum will be insufficient due to the prevalence of newer homes, many of which will be detached houses. (This reflects the estimated value of the total housing stock, and not necessarily the average pricing for housing currently for sale.) Ownership options and lower and middle price points are often manufactured homes, townhomes, condos, and small detached homes, often on smaller lots. Subsidized Affordability Housing Need As alluded to in Figure 5.4, some low-income households, and particularly the lowest income households, typically need some sort of subsidized affordable housing in order to find rents affordable given their modest resources and other household spending needs. Figure 5.5 below presents estimates of need at key low-income affordability levels in 2022 and in 2043. The table uses HUD definitions of Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income, as well as 60% MFI which is a common affordability level for tax credit properties. ▪ There is an existing and on-going need at these levels, based on income levels specified by OHCS for Clackamas County. An estimated 12% of households qualify as at least “low income” or lower on the income scale, while Income Level (Rounded)Owner UnitsRenter UnitsTotalShareCommon Housing ProductExtremely Low Inc.< 30% MFI< $27,5005614920510%Government-subsidized; Voucher; Shelter; TransitionalVery Low Income30% - 60% MFI$27.5k - $55k9522131716%Aging/substandard rentals; Government-subsidized; Voucher; Manufactured homesLow Income60% - 80% MFI$55k - $73k7112019010%Aging apartments; Government-subsidized; Plexes; Aging single-detached; Small homesMiddle Income80% - 120% MFI$73k - $110k13417230616%Single-detached homes; Townhomes; Condominiums; Newer apartmentsUpper Income> 120% MFI> $110,00066928295148%Single-detached homes; Townhomes; Condominiums; New apartmentsTOTAL:1,0249441,968100%Household Income SegmentPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 31 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 31 9% of households qualify as “extremely low income”. (Again, this is based on the official state measure of Clackamas County median income for application to HUD and other subsidized affordable housing programs, which is relatively high.) FIGURE 5.5: PROJECTED NEED FOR HOUSING AFFORDABLE AT LOW INCOME LEVELS, LAKE OSWEGO Sources: OHCS, Claritas, JOHNSON ECONOMICS, HUD * Income levels are based on OHCS guidelines for avg. Lake Oswego household size of 2.4 persons. ▪ Typically, only rent-subsidized affordable properties can accommodate these extremely-low-income households and many other low-income households at “affordable” housing cost levels. Often the lowest income households must be served by housing choice vouchers and public housing. Tax credit projects are more likely to serve those earning 50% to 60% of MFI. Housing Need for People Experiencing Homelessness: Given the low forecasted population growth, Lake Oswego is assumed to maintain a fairly stable number of unhoused individuals and households over this period. Unhoused individuals and families may require a mixture of shelter types depending on individual circumstances, ranging from emergency shelter to transitional housing to permanent subsidized housing. This population is a subset of the extremely-low-income population shown in prior figures. Agricultural Worker Housing: There is currently no housing dedicated to this population in Lake Oswego. Based on the assumption that this type of housing will maintain its current representation in the local housing stock, this indicates that there will likely be no new need for housing dedicated specifically for agricultural workers over the planning period. However, this population may also be served by other available affordable units. # of Units % of All # of Units % of All # of Units % of AllExtremely Low Inc.≤ 30% MFI ≤$26,8001,4929%1,6979% 205 10%Very Low Income30% - 50% MFI≤$44,7001,5609%1,7719% 212 11%Low Income50% - 80% MFI≤$71,6002,07512%2,37012% 295 15%TOTAL:≤ 80% MFI ≤$71,6005,12729%5,83930%71236%Tax Credit≤ 60% MFI ≤$53,7003,96223%4,48323% 521 26%Income Level*NEW Need (20-Year)Affordablilty LevelCurrent Need (2022)Future Need (2043)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 32 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 32 VI. RECONCILIATION OF FUTURE NEED (2043) & LAND SUPPLY This section summarizes the results of the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The BLI is presented in detail in an accompanying memo to this report. The BLI was conducted for land within the city limits, assessing vacant and partially vacant lands based on residential zoning, and environmental and other constraints that may impact development. The following table (Figure 6.1) presents the estimated new unit capacity of the buildable lands identified in the City of Lake Oswego and within the UGB. Residential zones, as well as mixed-use zones that can accommodate some residential uses, were included in the inventory, and are broken into broad categories based on housing density. FIGURE 6.1: ESTIMATED BUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITY BY ACREAGE AND NO. OF UNITS (2023) Source: MIG • There is a total estimated remaining capacity of 1,327 units of different types within the study area. • The estimated remaining capacity for low density housing units remains the greatest share at capacity for 655 units, or 49% of the total. • There is a total estimated capacity for 195 middle housing units, including future infill in low density zones. This is roughly 15% of the total unit capacity. ACRESLand TypeGross AcresConstrained Area (Acres)Unconstrained Area (Acres)Developable AcresUnit CapacityResidential3,5308022,784174705Mixed Use4909639710146Non-Residential17221150--Public/Other3,1471,2741,899--Acres Total:7,3392,1935,230185851UNITSHousing TypeSingle Family UnitsMiddle Housing UnitsMulti-Family UnitsUnit CapacityResidential6483917705Mixed Use523118146Non-Residential----Public/Other----Vacant and Partially Vacant Total:65362135851Additional CapacityApproved Developments223341366Additional Middle Housing Infill-110-110TOTAL HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY:6551954761,327ACREAGEUNIT TYPEPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 33 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 33 • There is a total estimated capacity for 476 housing units in higher density multi-dwelling properties. This is roughly 36% of the total unit capacity. • 28% of the total capacity (366 units) is found in units already approved for development as of the time of this analysis. Additional infill opportunities identified on large-lot residential and some commercial lands account for an estimated 8% of capacity. See the attached Appendix for full Buildable Land Inventory details and methodology. The following table summarizes the forecasted future unit need for Lake Oswego. These are the summarized results from Section V of this report, presented here for reference. FIGURE 6.2: SUMMARY OF FORECASTED FUTURE UNIT NEED (2043) Sources: PSU Population Research Center, Census, Johnson Economics Comparison of Housing Need and Capacity There is a total forecasted need for nearly 2,000 units over the next 20 years based on the forecasted growth rate. This is greater than the estimated total capacity of 1,327 units. Figure 6.3 below presents a comparison of the BLI capacity for new housing units, compared to the estimate for new unit need by 2043. It breaks down need by general zoning category (LDR, MDR, HDR). • The projected demand for low-density housing types is higher than the remaining capacity by an estimated 192 units, or the equivalent of 38 acres of low density residential land. • The results find a deficit for medium-density housing of 249 units, or 31 acres. • The projected demand for high-density housing types is higher than the remaining capacity by an estimated 201 units, or the equivalent of 17 acres of high density residential land. Single DetachedSingle Attached2-unit3- or 4-plex5+ Units MFRManuf. homeBoat, RV, other tempTotal Units% of UnitsTotals:760 220 104 205 677301,968100%Percentage:38.6% 11.2% 5.3% 10.4% 34.4% 0.1% 0.0%100%TOTAL HOUSING UNITSMulti-FamilyUnit Type:7602203096773Single Detached HomesTownhomes2 - 4 Plex Units5 or More UnitsManufactured HomesHousing UnitsHousing Unit TypeNew Units NeededPP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 34 OF 55
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO | HOUSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS PAGE 34 • These findings assume that under newly adopted state rules, 3% of available buildable parcels in the LDR zone will be used for the various types of attached units (single-family attached townhomes, duplex – fourplex). FIGURE 6.3: COMPARISON OF FORECASTED FUTURE LAND NEED (2043) WITH AVAILABLE CAPACITY Sources: MIG, Johnson Economics • These findings point to a need for additional residential land in a range of zones over the 20-year planning period. Available inventory may meet an estimated 67% of total housing needs over the first half of the planning period, but a deficit is projected in the long run. • A range of potential housing policies and strategies will be considered in future development of a Housing Production Strategy by the City, including the ability of future plan areas to meet the need for different types of housing during the 20-year planning period. WITHIN CITY LIMITSUnitsAvg. Units/ac.AcresLow-Density Single-family detached; Some SF attached & plex655847(192)5(38)Med-DensitySF attached; Manufact. home; 2-4 plexes195444(249)8(31)High-DensityMulti-family apartments476677(201)12(17)TOTALS:1,3271,968(642)7(86)SUPPLY DEMANDGrowth Rate (0.05%)New Unit Need (2043)Zone & Plan CategoryTypical Housing TypeBuildable Land Inventory - Housing Unit CapacitySurplus or (Deficit)PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 35 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 35 APPENDIX A: LAKE OSWEGO RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY Methodology and Results | July 18, 2023 Introduction This memorandum provides a Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) for the City of Lake Oswego, which will support the creation of a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) for the City. The methodology for this BLI is based on the 2018 Metro BLI1 with further refinements through review and discussions with City staff. The BLI is conducted in the following steps: • Step 1: Study Area and Land Classification. This step identifies the land in the City that is available for residential uses. • Step 2: Constraints to Development. This step identifies constraints such as natural resources, steep slopes, and utility easements that limit development. • Step 3: Development Status. This step assigns a “Development Status” of vacant, partially vacant, or developed tax lots in the inventory. • Step 4: Net Buildable Area and Unit Capacity. This step removes land for future rights-of-way and other land needs to provide a net number of acres for each City zoning designation, then estimates number of units and mix of unit type (single detached, multi-dwelling, middle housing) expected based on the results of Step 4. Step 1: Study Area and Land Classification Study Area The study area for this analysis is shown in Figure 1. The study area includes land within the Lake Oswego City Limits.2 1 https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2018/07/03/UGR_Appendix2_Buildable_Lands_Inventory.pdf 2 A prior version of this Buildable Lands Inventory included unannexed land outside of the Lake Oswego City Limits which has a City Comprehensive Plan designation. This land has been removed from the study area following PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 36 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 36 Figure 1. Study Area Map Land Classification Parcels in the inventory are categorized based on their Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, property ownership, and other characteristics available in City/regional datasets. These classifications are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Districts The City of Lake Oswego’s Comprehensive Plan Districts are described in Table 1. This is the primary basis for classifying lands into the categories of Residential, Mixed-Use, Nonresidential, and Publicly Owned/Other. Alignment with Zoning Districts are shown in the “Implementing Zones” column. Zoning discussion with the City’s Housing Production Strategy Task Force and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 37 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 37 and Comprehensive Plan map designations are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Overarching categories of land and how they are considered in this inventory are described on the pages following those figures. Table 1. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Districts Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose Residential Low Density R-15 To provide lands for single-family residential development with densities ranging from two to five dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-10 R-7.5 Residential Medium Density R-5 To provide lands for single- and multi-family residential development with densities ranging from seven to eight dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-DD Zone (1) The purpose of the R-DD zone is to assure that both single-family homes and middle housing are protected from noise, light, glare and reduction in privacy to the maximum extent possible during the area’s transition to higher density residential use, to facilitate good architectural design and site planning which maintains residential choices of unit size, cost and other amenities and supports the economic feasibility of new construction and development, and to assure protection and compatibility of all land uses, including commercial, residential, park, open space and historic sites. (2) The R-DD zone is intended for use in low density residential districts which are undergoing transition to increased densities, and which have scenic, historic, natural or residential features which should be preserved and integrated with new development. R-6 The FAN R-6 zone is intended to implement the land use policies of the First Addition Neighborhood Plan. The purpose of this zone is to ensure the design quality of proposed development in the neighborhood by: (1) Ensuring that proposed building designs are visually compatible with the character of existing structures, maintain adequate light and air between structures, and complement the neighborhood’s architectural character. (2) Minimizing the visual impact of garages from the street, and to continue established alley uses and functions such as access to garages, off-street parking and trash removal. (3) Encouraging compatible and sensitive remodeling and renovation of existing residences. (4) Preserving the small-town character of the existing streetscape by allowing single-family and middle housing development that is human scale and pedestrian oriented. (5) Enhancing the natural environment of the neighborhood as one of the dominant characteristics. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 38 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 38 Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose (6) Preserving FAN’s historical and architectural character by encouraging infill development that is compatible in design character to landmark structures on abutting lots. Residential High Density R-3 To provide lands for single- and multi-family residential development with densities of at least 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. R-2 R-0 R-W Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (NC) To provide land near residential areas for lower intensity commercial activities that primarily serve the surrounding neighborhood, smaller public facility uses, and residential uses. General Commercial (GC) To provide lands for a mix of higher intensity commercial activities supplying a broad range of goods and services to a market area approximately equal to the planning area identified in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as residential, public facilities, and cultural uses. Highway Commercial (HC) To provide lands for commercial activities which meet the needs of the traveling public as well as other highway-oriented retail uses which require access to a market area larger than the general commercial zone. This zone is not intended for regional shopping centers. Mixed Commerce (MC) To provide for a mix of uses requiring highway access and which provide a strong visual identity. Intended uses include local and regional convention type facilities, office uses and supporting retail uses. Office Campus (OC) To provide lands for major concentrations of regionally-oriented offices and employment opportunities for a market area larger than the planning area. Campus Research and Development (CR&D) To provide a mix of clean, employee-intensive industries, offices and high-density housing with associated services and retail commercial uses in locations supportive of mass transit and the regional transportation network. Campus Institutional (CI) The purpose of the CI zone is to provide zoning regulations for the Marylhurst Campus in order to provide land where permitted or conditional uses can be provided for in a unified campus setting. East End General Commercial (EC) To implement Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the Downtown Town Center and to provide land for a mix of higher intensity commercial, residential, and cultural uses and public facilities that support a traditional downtown commercial core. Industrial Industrial Zone (I) The purpose of the industrial zone is to provide land where general industrial development can be located. Industrial Park Zone (IP) To provide lands where primarily light industrial and employment uses can occur in a campus-like setting under controls to make activities mutually compatible and also compatible with existing uses bordering the zone. Mixed Use West Lake Grove Zones (Townhome Residential - WLG R-2.5, To provide zoning for townhome residential, commercial, and mixed-use development in the West Lake Grove District that accommodates lower intensity commercial, public facility and residential uses; and to provide a transition between the Lake Grove Village Center and adjacent residential neighborhoods. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 39 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 39 Comprehensive Plan Designations Implementing Zones Zone Purpose Residential Mixed Use - WLG RMU, and Office-Commercial - WLG OC) These districts are intended to supply services to a market area that is comprised of adjacent neighborhoods. Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) To foster a mix of housing, retail and office uses in a central location proximate to downtown and along the Willamette River. Commercial uses are allowed but are not intended to dominate the character of the area. Retail uses are limited in size to complement the downtown core and facilitate the development of neighborhood-focused retail served by transit. The design and development standards are intended to create a unique Lake Oswego community. The emphasis of the zone is on residentially related uses. The Foothills Mixed Use code provisions are intended to: i. Connect the FMU area with downtown, Tryon Creek, Old Town, the Willamette River and Oswego Lake; ii. Create a sustainable walkable neighborhood that possesses a thriving, active, and comfortable pedestrian environment; iii. Create visual interest through varied building heights that are urban in character, yet include detailed amenities at the ground floor that enhance the pedestrian environment; iv. Create high quality buildings, of long lasting materials, to promote the permanence of the community; v. Allow for a mix of residential uses, with urban density, and neighborhood scale retail and office development; and vi. Establish a standard of design that reinforces Lake Oswego’s sense of place. Public Use Public Functions (PF) The Public Functions (PF) zone is intended to specify appropriate land uses and development standards for public uses, such as government services, education, and similar activities. Park and Natural Area (PNA) Park and Natural Area (PNA) The purposes of the Park and Natural Area (PNA) zone are to: i. Protect, preserve, conserve and enhance natural areas, greenways and parks; ii. Permit a wide range of passive and active recreational uses, and accessory uses, on property for the future use and enjoyment of the City and its residents; iii. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs; and iv. Establish a master plan process for park planning and development. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 40 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 40 Figure 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Designations PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 41 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 41 Figure 3. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Designations Residential Land Residential Land is intended to meet the City’s need for residential uses of various types. It includes land within the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7.5, R-10, R-15, R-W, and WLG R-2.5 Comprehensive Plan designations, unless it meets the criteria for “Publicly Owned/Other” land. Mixed Use Land Mixed Use land can be developed to meet the City’s residential and employment needs – sometimes within the same structure. It includes land within the WLG RMU, CI, CR&D, EC, FMU, GC, HC, NC, OC, and WLG OC Comprehensive Plan designations unless it meets the criteria for “Publicly Owned/Other” land. More information about the assumptions for future housing development in these areas is found later in this report. Nonresidential Land Nonresidential land includes employment land and “Publicly Owned/Other” land, as follows. This land is not included in the inventory. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 42 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 42 Employment Land Employment Land is intended to meet the City’s employment needs. It includes land within the MC and IP Comprehensive Plan designations unless it meets the criteria for “Public/Other” land. Publicly Owned/Other This category of land includes the SP, PF, and PNA designations, as well as land in the following categories: • Land in another Comprehensive Plan designation under City, County, State, Federal, or Special District Ownership • Land commonly held in Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) common ownership, such as required open space. • Religious or fraternal properties (with the notable exception of Marylhurst University, which is accounted for in a separate line item). • Private driveways and ROW As noted above, properties in this category are generally not included in the inventory. However, some specific parcels in this category may be included in other classifications if information is available to suggest that they have development capacity for residential or employment uses. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 43 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 43 Figure 4.BLI Land Classification PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 44 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 44 Step 2: Constraints to Development One of the primary tasks of this BLI is to identify land that is constrained by one or more of the following physical constraints. Constraints may overlap one another spatially – in this case the more restrictive constraint applies. Assumptions for these constraints are listed below – they have been discussed with City staff but are subject to further refinement, as needed. Constraints are described in Table 2 and shown on Figure 5. Table 2. Development Constraints Constraint Description Developable Portion Steep Slopes Slopes greater than 25%. Density transfer resulting in the construction of 1-2 dwelling units allowed. 5% Developable Water Bodies Includes lakes, streams, other areas of open water 0% Developable FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Includes Zones A, AE, and X. Density transfer resulting in the construction of 1-2 dwelling units allowed. 5% Developable Greenway Management Overlay District Protects land along the Willamette River. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings and accessory structures associated with such dwellings. 25% Developable Sensitive Lands Includes Resource Protection (Streams and Wetlands; RP), Resource Conservation (Tree Groves; RC), and Habitat Benefit Areas (Tree Groves; HBA). RP and RC areas are tightly regulated, while HBAs are areas with optional resource protection incentives rather than regulations. RP – Density transfer possible. RC - Mostly applies to public land and open space tracts, which are not developable (PF and PNA zones, OS tracts in private developments, typically). HBA - Incentives, rather than regulations, are applied to protect natural resources. Usually does not limit development beyond a modest reduction. RP – 50% Developable RC – 0% Developable HBA – 95% Developable PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 45 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 45 Figure 5. Constraints to Development PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 46 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 46 The BLI includes the following information for each tax lot in the study area based on the location of constraints. • Acres – Total size of the tax lot • Constrained Acres – Acreage of constrained areas, per Table 2 • Unconstrained Acres – Total acres minus Constrained Acres The following table shows gross acres of land in each primary land classification in the Study Area. Table 2. Constrained and Unconstrained Acres by Land Type Land Type Total Acres Constrained Acres Unconstrained Acres Residential 3,530 802 2,784 Mixed Use 490 96 397 Non-Residential 172 21 150 Publicly Owned/Other 3,147 1,274 1,899 Total 7,339 2,193 5,230 Step 3: Development Status Each tax lot in the study area is categorized as Vacant, Partially Vacant, or Developed. The following data is used to determine development capacity of Study Area tax lots: • Tax assessor data, including Property Land Use Code, Improvement Value, and Land Value; • City inventory of outdoor areas, used in identifying public and commonly-held open spaces such as public facilities, parks and Homeowners Association-owned open spaces; • Metro Vacant Land Inventory derived annually from aerial photo information; • Review of recent aerial imagery; and • Discussion and review with City staff and the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) Task Force. Generally, vacant tax lots are assumed to have development capacity equal to the area unconstrained by natural resources, minus additional set-asides for future Right-of-Way and infrastructure (see Step 4). Developed parcels will be subject to further screening for redevelopment potential, described in later steps. Partially Vacant properties have an existing home but are large enough to subdivide based on criteria such as parcel size and allowable lot size, as described in this section. Residential Development Status • Vacant. Land that has a building improvement value of less than $20,000, as indicated by assessor data. All land outside of constrained areas is included in the developable area for these properties. • Vacant – Platted. Vacant land that is part of a platted but unbuilt subdivision is included in this category. Platted lots are assumed to contain one unit each unless other information is available (see Step 4). “Developable Acres” is shown as “0” because they are treated separately from other acreage in the inventory. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 47 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 47 • Partially Vacant. This designation is intended for parcels with an existing single-detached home that are large enough to further subdivide or develop to provide additional residential units. While middle housing and townhomes are allowed in many zones, this analysis uses the minimum lot size required for single-detached dwellings as the basis for the Partially Vacant designation, as follows: o Parcels greater than 5 times the minimum lot size: These lots are categorized as “Partially Vacant.” ¼ acre is assumed to remain for the existing home and the remaining unconstrained acreage is assumed to be developable. o Parcels between 2 and 5 times the minimum lot size: For lots with a building value below $200,000, ¼ acre is assumed to remain for the existing home and the remaining unconstrained acreage is assumed to be developable. o Parcels less than 2 times the minimum lot size: These lots are categorized as “Developed” if improvement value is present or aerial photo review shows development. • Developed. All other residential land is designated Developed and has no developable area. Mixed Use Development Status Mixed Use development is subject to the same criteria as Residential Land. However, an additional screen is used to determine the likelihood of redevelopment of mixed-use parcels in Step 4, and assumptions about the residential/employment mix (see Error! Reference source not found.3) are applied. Mixed Use Residential Proportion Mixed use designations are assumed to develop partly with residential uses and partly with non-residential uses, per the following table. Table 3. Residential Portions of Mixed Use Tax Lots Mixed Use Designation Residential Portion Nonresidential Portion Notes West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU) 50% 50% Townhomes only allowed with office use in the same building West Lake Grove Office-Commercial (WLG OC) 25% 75% Residential limited to Boones Ferry Staging site, per LOC 50.03.003.2.d. Residential limited to Boones Ferry Staging Site. Percentage based on the size of this site in relation to the total size of district (see LOC 50.03.003.2.d for geography). Campus Institutional (CI) 50% 50% Multifamily development is limited to Subarea I of the Marylhurst Campus Zone. Campus Research & Development (CR&D) 30% 70% Assumption based on trends in this area East End Commercial (EC) 80% 20% Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) 80% 20% Most similar to EC in terms of residential/non-residential mix General Commercial (GC) 30% 70% PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 48 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 48 Highway Commercial (HC) 10% 90% Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 50% 50% Office Campus (OC) 30% 70% Summary The following table lists the number of tax lots, total and constrained acreage, and developable area by land type. A map summarizing development status is shown in Figure 6. Table 4. Developable Area of Residential and Mixed Use Tax Lots Land Type Gross Acres Constrained Area (Acres) Unconstrained Area (Acres) Developable Acres Residential 3,530 802 2,784 175 Mixed Use 490 96 397 14 Non-Residential 172 21 150 - Public/Other 3,147 1,274 1,899 - Total 7,339 2,193 5,230 189 PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 49 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 49 Figure 6. Development Status of Residential and Mixed Use Land PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 50 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 50 Step 4: Net Buildable Area and Unit Capacity This step of the BLI establishes the net buildable area of residential land in the Study Area by removing land needed for future right-of-way and other infrastructure set-asides, and by subtracting the non-residential portions of mixed-use zones. This step also accounts for platted subdivisions and other development with known approvals. Right of Way and Other Set-Asides When vacant land develops, land for roads, infrastructure, open space, and other needs reduce the gross available acres into a net developable acreage. The BLI uses the following assumptions to calculate net developable acreage for each parcel. • Residential Land: 20% of vacant properties, 0% of partially vacant properties • Mixed Use Land: 20% of vacant properties, 0% of partially vacant properties Assumed Density and Housing Mix Table 4 shows the assumed density for various zoning designations in the City of Lake Oswego. This information is based on the minimum lot sizes, likely densities, and staff assumptions based on recent projects and comparable zones, and parcel-by-parcel analysis. The proportion of units expected to be developed as Single Family Detached, Middle Housing, and Multi-Family are also shown. Table 4. Unit Density and Mix Assumptions Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family Residential-Low Density Zones R-15 Min 15,000 sf lot area. 2.9 DU/AC net 2.9 DU/AC net 95% 5% - R-10 Min 10,000 sf lot area. 4.3 du/ac net. 4.3 du/ac net 95% 5% - R-7.5 Min 7,500 sf lot area 5.8 du/ac net 5.8 du/ac 95% 5% - Residential-Medium Density Zones R-5 7-8 units per gross acre, per code. 5,000 sf min lot size for single-family. 1,500 for townhouse. ~8 du/ac 90% 5% 5% R-DD Buffer zone. 21 du/ac theoretically possible. ~8 du/ac 95% 5% - R-6 First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) zone 6,000 sf lot area for Single-Family. 1,500 for townhouse. ~7 du/ac 95% 5% - Residential-High Density Zones PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 51 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 51 Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family R-3 At least 12 du/ac. (3,375 min per dwelling, or 12.9 du/ac). Townhomes up to 29 du/ac ~12 du/ac 70% 10% 20% R-2 Min 12 du/ac 12 du/ac 60% 10% 30% R-0 Min 20 du/ac 20 du/ac 60% 10% 30% R-W ~12 du/ac 60% 10% 30% Mixed Use Zones West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” ~5 du/ac - 50% 50% West Lake Grove Office-Commercial (WLG OC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 35 du/ac expected in BFR Staging Site, nothing in other areas - 20% 80% Campus Institutional (CI) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. Generally applies to Marylhurst University, which is treated separately. - - 100% Campus Research & Development (CR&D) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 54 du/ac for projects that include residential (~30% of the district, as above) based on LU 19-0041 - - 100% East End Commercial (EC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. ~56 du/ac - - 100% Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” ~56 du/ac - - 100% General Commercial (GC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. Residential not allowed “In the GC-zoned area in the vicinity of Jean Way and Boones Ferry Road.” ~27 du/ac based on Mercantile project (LU 18-0026) - 25% 75% Highway Commercial (HC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 8 du/ac (or R-5 density) for the 10% that may develop as residential - - 100% PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 52 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 52 Zoning Designation Notes Density % Single Family Detached % Middle Housing % Multi-Family Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater.” Must have commercial on ground floor. 67 du/ac for the 50% that may develop as residential (based on LU 07-0031) - 50% 50% Office Campus (OC) Table 50.03.002-2 notes “R-5 density or greater” 21 du/ac for the 50% that may develop as residential (based on Galewood Commons Apartments) - - 100% Summary of Vacant and Partially Vacant Land Table 5 summarizes net residential acreage for both residential and mixed-use land in the study area, and Table 6 shows the breakdown of capacity by zoning designation. Land with a known development approval has been removed and is accounted for in a later step. Table 5. Capacity of Residential and Mixed Use Land Land Type Developable Acres Unit Capacity Residential 174 705 Mixed Use 10 146 Non-Residential - - Public/Other - - Total 185 851 Table 6. Unit Capacity by Zoning Designation Land Type Unit Capacity Land Type Unit Capacity Residential Land 705 Mixed Use Land 146 EC/R-0 5 CR&D 14 R-0 2 EC 67 R-10 241 GC 12 R-10 Comp Plan 14 NC 23 R-15 131 NC/R-0 9 R-3 28 OC/R-3 5 R-5 116 R-0 8 R-7.5 149 WLG-OC 7 R-7.5 Comp Plan 3 WLG-R RMU 1 R-DD 12 R-W 1 WLG-R 2.5 3 Total Capacity: 851 Units PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 53 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 53 Table 7.Mix of Unit Capacity on Vacant and Partially Vacant Land Land Type Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Residential 705 648 39 17 Mixed Use 146 5 23 118 Non-Residential - - - - Public/Other - - - - Total 851 653 62 136 Additional Capacity: In addition to the capacity listed above, the following categories of additional residential unit capacity have been identified. These are listed in Table 7, along with the expected mix of housing units. • Approved Development. Several parcels have land use approvals and/or are actively undergoing development. Where information about the unit capacity of these approvals is known, that information is used as future capacity (rather than an average assumption based on the zoning designation). These approvals are listed in Table 8. • Additional Middle Housing Capacity: Due to the City’s middle housing legislation, most single family lots can be converted to duplexes or other middle housing types. The number of new units expected to be created through this process in the planning horizon is estimated at 1.5% of developed lots with single-detached dwellings outside of PUDs/easements. This totals 110 Units3. • Redevelopment of Commercial Land and Town Centers: An initial “strike price” analysis4 found very few properties that appear to be good candidates for redevelopment at $30/sf. Value per square foot for many properties along Kruse Way and in Town Centers is generally $50/sf or greater. There may be some opportunity to utilize parking areas for new residential uses, depending on the City’s development code and many other factors, though additional commercial infill is also a possibility. For the purposes of this BLI, no redevelopment capacity is assumed. 3 A previous version of this analysis assumed 3% of all single detached units, regardless of whether they were located in a PUD. Feedback from stakeholders and DLCD was that this infill assumption seemed high and was unrealistic due to the prevalence of CC&Rs in Lake Oswego. 4 “Strike Price” is a measure of land and building value per square foot at which a developer is assumed to be able to profitably redevelop a piece of property. The 2018 Metro BLI used a strike price of $12/sf for suburban jurisdictions – this analysis examine a more aggressive $30/sf and still found very few candidates for redevelopment. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 54 OF 55
Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis July 18, 2023 APPENDIX A: Buildable Lands Inventory Page 54 Table 8. Parcels with Approved Development and Assumed Capacity Land Type Taxlot(s) Total Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Habitat for Humanity Townhomes [Link] 21E18AB00400 21E18AB00300 21E18AB00200 21E18AB00100 21E18AA00400 23 0 23 0 5400 Meadows [Link] 21E07BA00900 160 0 0 160 Twin Fir Road 21E08AB02100 21E08AB02000 2 2 0 0 The Boulder [Link] 21E07DD02300 21E07DD02500 11 0 0 11 Marylhurst University 21E14DB02900 21E14 00300 21E14 00400 21E14 00401 21E14 00402 21E14 00403 21E14 00404 21E14 90000 21E14 900A1 21E14 900B2 170 0 0 170 Total 366 2 23 341 Table 9. Summary of Unit Capacity Land Type Total Unit Capacity Single Family Units Middle Housing Units Multi-Family Units Vacant & Partially Vacant Land 851 653 62 136 Approved Developments 366 2 23 341 Additional Middle Housing Infill 110 - 110 - Total 1,327 655 195 477 Next Steps This inventory will inform the Housing Capacity Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment to provide a picture of the availability of residential land as it compares to the need of certain types of housing units in the next 20 years. It forms part of the factual basis for City policies to address any deficiencies in unit capacity. PP 22-0005ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 55 OF 55
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Subject: 2023 Lake Oswego Police Department Annual Report
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024
Report Date: March 22, 2024
Staff Member: Chief George Burke and Captain
Clayton Simon
Department: Police Department
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☐Motion ☐Approval☐Public Hearing ☐Denial☐Ordinance ☐None Forwarded☐Resolution ☒Not Applicable
☒Information Only Comments: ☐Council Direction☐Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Not applicable.
Recommended Language for Motion: Not applicable.
Project / Issue Relates To: Community Policing Dialog – 2022 Council Goal: “…increased
reporting and public dialog about policing in Lake Oswego;” Annual Report.
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
☒Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s)☐Not Applicable
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL
Council presentation on 2023 annual reporting topics for the Lake Oswego Police Department
(LOPD).
BACKGROUND
In alignment with Council initiatives for 2021, the City sought input about community policing
from the people who live, work, and visit Lake Oswego.
10.1
Page 2
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
In an effort to increase LOPD operational transparency under the theme, “Communication and
Reporting,” it was recommended LOPD staff provide a year-end report and update to Council.
This presentation is a continuation of that initiative.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared a report of police department activities and data in 2023. This presentation
will include the following items:
• Police department staffing overview
• Incident and crime data overview
• Traffic citation data overview
• Oregon Criminal Justice Commission - Statistical Transparency of Policing (S.T.O.P.)
report overview
• Use of Force data overview
• Complaint data overview
• Behavioral Health Unit data overview
• Overdose data
ATTACHMENT
1. LOPD 2023 Annual Report Presentation
2023 Annual Reporting
POLICE DEPARTMENT
April 2, 2024
10.1
A Word from Chief Burke
Dispatch Call Counts & Police Incidents
Total LOCOM Call Count
•Total 911 calls = 22,525
•Total Non-emergency Calls (Inbound/outbound) = 80,859
Total incidents in 2023 = 27,303
•Total incidents are comprised of Calls for Service (CFS)
and Self-Initiated Activity (S-INT).
•2023 CFS = 20,380
•2023 S-INT = 6,923
23,405 25,080
27,303
17,311 18,472
20,380
6,094 6,608 6,923
2021 2022 2023
Total Incidents CFS S-INT
Calls for Service (CFS)
In 2023, there were approximately 27,303
incidents resulting in 3,581 case numbers
taken across Part I and Part II crimes,
crashes, alarms, arrests, and misc. offenses.
•Part I Crimes Include: Homicide, Rape,
Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary,
Larceny, Vehicle Theft, and Arson.
•Part II Crimes Include: Simple Assault, Forgery,
Fraud, Embezzlement, Stolen Property,
Vandalism, Weapons Laws, Prostitution, and
Sex Crimes.
•Misc. Offenses/Activity Include: Alarms, DHS
cases, DUII, Property calls, Suspicious Activity,
Welfare Checks, and similar calls for service.Arrests
Part II Crimes
Part I Crimes
Misc. Offenses
2021 2022 2023
432 488 462
523
708
590
640 703
590
1,923 1,947
1,855
Noteworthy Calls for Service
Specific offense types are noted for cases taken in 2021 through 2023. Many offenses
overlap with other reported crimes adding to the complexity of the investigation.
235
90 69
8
76
22
429
8
279
92 91
3
78
19
505
7
230
103 78
4
59 22
427
8
Crashes / Hit
& Runs
Assault Burglary Robbery Stolen Vehicle
or Parts
Recovered
Stolen
Vehicles
Theft Weapon
Offense
2021 2022 2023
Traffic Violations
4,095 Violations Cited
212
256
331
546
1413
Driving
Suspended
Driving
Uninsured
Traffic Device
Cell Phone
Speed
2022
204
292
354
652
1360
Driving
Suspended
Driving
Uninsured
Traffic
Device
Cell Phone
Speed
2023
222
241
247
675
1269
Driving
Suspended
Driving
Uninsured
Traffic Device
Cell Phone
Speed
2021
3,706 Violations Cited 4,394 Violations Cited
Oregon STOP Report
In 2017, HB 2355 required law enforcement to report on all discretionary traffic and pedestrian stops to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC).
LOPD data is collected primarily through our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system following the conclusion of a self-initiated traffic or pedestrian stop.
CJC examines the data and potential discrepancies to see why they exist:
•Unknown reason, driving behavior differences, racial profiling, officer deployment patterns, differences in exposure to police
3 analysis models used multiple years of data:•Decision to Stop (a.k.a. Veil of darkness) examines stops at night compared to day
•KPT Hit Rate (searching and finding evidence/contraband)•NOTE: Not enough data to complete analysis
•Predicted disposition (disposition of similar stops)
*LOPD was not identified as having a statistically significant disparity in any of the tests performed on the STOP data this year*
https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/stop/pages/default.aspx
Oregon STOP Report –LOPD
Use of Force -Information
What is reported?
"The application of physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons to another person. It is not a use of force when a person allows him/herself to be searched, escorted, handcuffed, or restrained.” This definition necessitates LOPD officers, outside of the cooperative actions mentioned above, document in a use of force report:
•Any force used on a subject, e.g. physical control, Taser, pepper spray, firearm, etc.; and/or
•Any force tool that is displayed and perceived by a subject for the purpose of gaining compliance, e.g. Taser displayed, OC displayed, firearm displayed, etc.
Annual Review
All use of force incidents are reviewed by a department team comprised of trainers and supervisory staff in order to:
•Identify any trends in the use of force by department members
•Identify any training recommendations
•Identify any equipment recommendations
•Identify any policy revision recommendations
Officer
Dispatch to
Incident,
86%
Officer Self-
initiated
Contact,
14%
Officer Contact Reason
Use of Force -Incidents
Subjects
injured
AOA Force
Incidents
Force incidents
Total Incidents
2021 2022 2023
5 3 3
16 10 13
90 56 49
23405 25080 27303Out of the 27,303 incidents in 2023, only .17% of those incidents,
less than 1%, resulted in a use of force
•2022 was .22%
•2021 was .38%
Injuries during use of force in 2023
•POLICY: Any circumstances where a person whom force was used
exhibits signs of physical distress, has visible injury, or expresses a
complaint of injury or continued pain, a supervisor is notified and
medical assistance is obtained. This threshold for injury/pain
description is less than what Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) defines as
“physical Injury” or “serious physical injury.”
•With this lower and more cautious threshold, officers routinely mark
injuries as present in their reports, but outside of 2 canine bites,
injuries consisted mostly of minor scrapes; 3 total injuries noted to
subjects (.01% of incidents resulting in injuries),
•No officer injuries
•There were no reported claims against the city related to
officer use of force.
Use of Force -Incidents
255
154 139
39 35 41
2021 2022 2023
Total Uses of Force & Officers
Involved
Total Uses of Force Officers Involved
52
31 33
27
14 10
19 17
5
2021 2022 2023
Force Incidents Involving
Multiple officers, Multiple Force
Types, & Multiple Subjects
Incidents with Multiple Officers Using Force
Incidents with Officers Using Multiple Force Types
on Same Subject
Incidents Officers Used Force on Multiple Subjects
22
8 6
2 2 2
8
4 4
2021 2022 2023
K9 Display & Use of Force
Total K-9 Displays/Uses of Force
Total K-9 Bites
K-9 Units Assisting Outside Agencies
Use of Force –Force Types
30.9%
5.0%
2.9%
6.5%
0.0%
2.2%
36.7%
3.6%
4.3%
1.4%
0.7%
5.0%
Physical Control
40mm Displayed
40mm Used
Taser Displayed
OC Displayed
OC Used
Handgun Displayed
Rifle Displayed
K-9 Displayed
K-9 Bite
Spike Strips
Box-In/Blocking
All Force Displayed &/or Used -2023
30.9%
3.6%
2.2%
8.4%
0.7%
1.4%
0.7%
5.0%
Physical Control
40mm Pointed at
OC Used
Handgun Pointed at
Rifle Pointed at
K-9 Bite
Spike Strips
Box-In/Blocking
All Force Actually Used or Pointed At -2023
Use of Force –Common Factors & Demographics
1
0
0
7
2
5
15
24
Unknown
Hispanic Female
Black Female
Hispanic Male
Asian Male
Black Male
White Female
White Male
Use of Force –Overall Race & Gender Totals
11
4
19
5
7
18
19
8
23
Domestic Violence
DUII
Other Person Crimes
Stolen Vehicle
Warrant Arrest
Weapons Involved
Behavioral Health
Other Property Crimes
Elude/Resist
Use of Force –Overall Common Incident Factors
Use of Force –Common Factors & Demographics
9
12
1
1
8
2
9
4
8
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors -White Male
2
2
1
0
7
4
4
1
11
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors -White Female
1
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors –Black Male
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors –Hispanic Male
Use of Force –Common Factors & Demographics
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors –Unknown Subject
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
Domestic Violence
Weapon Involvement
Stolen Vehicle
DUII
Elude/Resist
Warrant Arrest
Other Person Crimes
Other Property Crimes
Behavioral Health
Common Incident Factors -Asian Male
Complaints
What is a complaint? There are basically 2 types:
Formal Complaints: Personnel complaints include any allegation of misconduct of improper job
performance that, if true, would constitute a violation of department policy or federal, state, or
local law, policy or rule. Personnel complaints may be generated internally (e.g. a supervisor
notices a violation of department policy) or by the public. These complaints are formally
investigated.
Informal Complaints: Inquires about conduct or performance that, if true, would not violate
policy, law, or a rule. These complaints may be handled informally when they simply require an
explanation or clarification on a policy, procedure, or response to a particular incident (e.g.
citizen unhappy they received a traffic citation). The department may still track these complaints
if a community member wants to file a formal complaint.
Complaints
•.01% of all incidents resulted in external/citizen complaint
•1 complaints remains under investigation
•.01% of all incidents resulted in an internal complaint
•1 complaint resulted in employee termination
•No use of force complaints
•Received 2 bias-based policing complaints –unfounded
Out of 27,303 total incidents in 2023
9
11
8
3
4
3
6
7
5
2021 2022 2023
Total Complaints Internal Complaints Citizen/External Complaints
Behavioral Health Specialist
Schedule
•3 days per week in Lake Oswego (+ on-call)
•1 day a week in West Linn (+ on-call)
Training Hours
•Coordinated multiple LOPD & WLPD training classes
on mental health
•Coordinated multiple LO and WL community based
training on mental health and suicide awareness
•Coordinated two 40-hour Crisis Intervention
Trainings (CIT)
Interagency BHU Data Management Program
•Helped procure stand alone data management
program with Oregon City and Milwaukie to assist
with BHU specific information capture and charting.
32 33
14
99
60
28
12
91
Responses
w/PD
Responses w/o
PD
Responses
w/ARO
Phone
Outreach
BHU & LOPD
2022 2023
34
12
464335
68
Responses w/PD Responses w/o PD Phone Outreach
BHU & WLPD
2022 2023
Overdoses in Lake Oswego -Overview
1
14 15
4
18
22
4
28
32
Fatal Non-Fatal Total Overdoses
2021 2022 2023
Overdoses in Lake Oswego –Naloxone Use
0 1
5
9
1
3
5
13
0
4
7
21
Fatal: Naloxone
Administered
Fatal: Naloxone Not
Administered
Non-Fatal: Naloxone
Administered
Non-Fatal: Naloxone
Not Administered
2021 2022 2023
Overdoses in Lake Oswego -Data
11
13
18
3
9
14
2021
2022
2023
Gender
Male Female
14
81
35
14
76
33
6
87
39
Youngest Age
Oldest Age
Average Age
Age
2021 2022 2023
13
16
27
2
6
5
2021
2022
2023
Transported to Hospital
Yes No 26%
22%
16%
2021
2022
2023
Percentage of Cases with Multiple
Substances
Overdoses in Lake Oswego –Substances by Type
1
3 3
1
3
1
5
2211
6
1 1 0 1 1
4 5
2 1
5
1 1 1
3 3
5
13
5
2021 2022 2023
For a copy of this presentation and its associated materials, please visit the LOPD website at; http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/police Thank you