SIX POLICY TWEAKS TO STREAMLINE INFILL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN PORTLAND AND IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE

• Oregon has been severely underbuilding housing; to meet growing demand and make up for past underbuilding, Oregon needs 360,000 new homes over the next decade.

• The state should lower the cost of building homes to encourage housing production. If it does not, homebuilding will accelerate only if prices go up.

• Many factors contribute to housing costs, but some are regulatory. This bill identifies several modest things the state can do to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, especially within Oregon’s urban growth boundaries.

The Solution: SB 49-1 proposes six changes to spur housing construction

1 - Legalize incremental development: 

Problem: Mandatory minimum densities can create perverse barriers to useful increases in housing, especially in places with less access to capital and/or lower land costs. They can contribute to the underbuilding of family-size apartments and condos. They can block the demolition of abandoned, nuisance buildings.

Solution: SB 49-1 would require jurisdictions with over 10,000 population to remove mandatory minimum densities at some point in their next scheduled housing planning cycle (between 6 and 16 years).

2 - Applying model zoning codes: 

Problem: Many multifamily zones in Oregon can’t actually be used as they are described: for example, one described as being for "high density apartment or condominium towers" that allows at most 10 homes on a 20,000 square foot lot. 

Solution: While working with DLCD as part of their next scheduled planning cycle, SB 49-1 requires jurisdictions with over 25,000 population within a UGB to identify at least one zone on their books that is at least as flexible as the state’s existing model code for larger cities. Jurisdictions would retain the choice of where to apply those zones. 

3 - Streamlining upzones: 

Problem: Homes that are closer to one another generally require less infrastructure per person. But current law assumes the opposite, requiring cities to assess the infrastructure impacts of upzones (which allow more homes) but not of downzones (which can push infrastructure impacts elsewhere).

Solution: SB 49-1 creates symmetry by giving jurisdictions the option to defer some categories of infrastructure analysis until their next scheduled planning cycle.

4 - Protecting council-approved zoning:

Problem: Sometimes, a proposed building that is compatible with the local zoning code would be rejected by a local advisory body simply because they find it too large.

Solution: SB 49-1 clarifies that advisory bodies can in some cases apply discretionary design standards to new buildings, as today, but in those cases must defer to elected officials on objective zoning decisions such as building size.

5 - Create flexible and productive inclusionary zoning options:

Problem: An underfunded but mandatory price cap in new buildings functions as a cost barrier, which tends to reduce production of both market-rate and below-market housing. Meanwhile, Oregon's inclusionary zoning statute is so narrow that only one city uses it. 

Solution: SB 49-1 would loosen the state’s current sideboards, giving cities more flexibility for varying local conditions, while complying with the best practices for inclusionary zoning by requiring any cities that choose to create mandatory IZ programs to regularly check in and keep them in balance. These changes would become effective in 2028.

6 - Housing expertise in commercial building code: 

Problem: Oregon's statewide commercial building code is a major driver of construction costs and therefore of home prices. However, the state does not require the body that reviews and approves that code to include anyone with expertise in multifamily housing.

Solution: SB 49-1 would edit the list of required Building Codes Structures Board members to add more flexibility in general while ensuring residential architecture experience.

Talking points: removing barriers to building the homes we need:

• Housing production in Oregon is plummeting, and we need to support efforts to remove regulations that are slowing housing growth, particularly infill housing growth. This bill removes regulatory hurdles that are slowing housing production in communities across the state.

• Communities across the state deserve an opportunity to use Inclusionary Zoning, and SB 49-1 provides greater flexibility for communities to explore IZ programs provided they are willing to resource the program to avoid unfunded mandates from shutting down future housing production.

• Share your personal housing story! Have you had a tough time finding a place to rent? Can’t find a home you can afford in the neighborhood you want to live in? Do you like the existing IZ program that is now successful in Portland, and wish there was even more affordable housing in Portland’s most amenity-rich neighborhoods? Are you a developer or urban planner with a specific experience with any of these specific issues? Do you just want to build more dang housing in Oregon and want legislators to be willing to explore all possible options to do something about it? Please share your expertise with legislators!

Template Testimony

You can use this testimony as inspiration for your own distinct remarks, as a template to build upon, or as a plug-and-play form letter. What’s most important is that you testify.

Dear Chair Pham and Members of the Senate Housing Committee,

My name is _______ and I live in [your neighborhood or region of Portland]. I join Portland: Neighbors Welcome in supporting the -1 Amendment of Senate Bill 49, the Housing Production Accelerator, which works to reduce regulatory burden to help build more housing across the state. This bill will help people live near jobs that invest in their community, provide greater opportunity for jurisdictions to responsibly pursue Inclusionary Zoning, allow more people to stay in their communities as they age, and make use of vacant lots to help neighborhoods be vibrant.

Thank you.