What We Do

Housing Land Advocates serves as an advocate for thoughtful land use planning that aligns with housing policy, and as a watchdog to ensure that state and local governments fulfill their obligations under adopted housing policies and statutes. Below are highlighted examples of both the advocacy and litigation undertaken by HLA in the service of Oregon and its diverse families and communities.

 

HLA’s advocacy extends across the state of Oregon. We work to ensure that every jurisdiction is considering the impact of land use decisions on housing outcomes.

General Housing Advocacy
HLA has sent comment letters or testified to decision-makers in over 40 different cities and counties, Metro (the elected regional government for the Portland metropolitan area), and the State of Oregon. HLA has also advocated for national policies in support of affordable and adequate housing, particularly to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Below are HLA’s most recent actions on Local, Portland, State, and National Policy Development. To see our extensive history of action, visit our Advocacy Archives.

Local Policy Development:

Portland Metro Policy Development:

Statewide Policy Development:

National Policy Development:

Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPAs) Project

Beginning in 2015, HLA partnered with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) to review all post acknowledgement plan amendments submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD ) to examine their fair housing/Statewide Planning Goal 10 implications. During that review, jurisdictions receive feedback on their Goal 10 findings with emphasis on utilization of their Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). This review ensures that jurisdictions consider and apply their obligation to provide an adequate number of needed housing units (at both the needed housing type and affordability level), and that these housing units will be supported by the residential land supply following enactment of the proposed change. Feedback may come in the form of technical assistance, negative or positive comment letters, and potential legal action depending on the individual circumstances of each case. Depending on the amendment reviewed, feedback can also involve development code review, policy review, and planner education around topics such as clear and objective standards and the Fair Housing Act. Due to the broad scope of this review process, this project further informs FHCO and HLA with respect to housing code amendment trends, jurisdiction responses to mandated changes such as HB 2001/2003, and other housing issues.

Highlighted accomplishments include:

  • Technical support was given 56 times in Quarter 4 (Q4) of 2020, to a total of 43 cities and counties. The vast majority of cities and counties served had populations under 10,000.
  • During Q2-Q3 of 2020, the PAPA project was instrumental in identifying and supporting action on a possible Fair Housing Act violation in Lakeview Oregon. Because of the intervention of the PAPA project, HLA, FHCO, and others, the amendment necessary to support 15-18 permanently supportive housing units was approved.
  • In Q2 of 2020, almost 50% of jurisdiction had either No Goal 10 findings when required, or grossly inadequate Goal 10 findings. By Q4, this number was reduced to 21.8%.
  • The PAPA project reviews and comments on an average of 79 amendments per quarter, for a total of over 300 per year.

Latest Quarterly Reports:

Latest Technical Assistance Reports:

 

When necessary, HLA will consider litigation to ensure that federal, state and local laws are applied to ensure an equitable distribution of affordable housing with a focus on fair housing for protected classes.

Appeal of 2020 Portland Metro UGB Expansion Approval
On May 12, 2020, Housing Land Advocates submitted its opening brief in the Oregon Court of Appeals challenging the adoption of the urban growth boundary expansion for the Portland Metropolitan Area by Metro and the casual approval of that expansion by Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). As set forth in the brief, HLA is concerned that local governments will follow Metro’s roadmap to avoid increasing density to accommodate affordable housing by endorsing the adoption of density limitations by way of plans, ordinances or charter amendments to further exclusionary zoning restrictions in violation of state law.

More more information on the appeal, check out this recent article in the Portland Tribune, read this blog post and the briefs linked below.

Opening Brief – HLA Appeal of Metro UGB Expansion

Metro’s Answering Brief UGB Appeal

LCDC Answering Brief UGB Appeal

HLA Reply Brief UGB Appeal

Home Builders Association v. City of Eugene
HLA Collaborates with Home Builders Association of Lane County and Community Advocates in Successful Appeal of Restrictive City of Eugene ADU Ordinances

HLA joined local community, conservation, and business groups in an appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in a collaborative effort to contest the City of Eugene’s attempt to limit the provision of state-mandated affordable housing. The appeal successfully blocked the City of Eugene’s feigned attempt to implement the statewide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) mandate under Senate Bill (SB) 1051. This recently enacted state legislation requires cities to allow at least one ADU for each detached single-family dwelling in zones allowing those dwellings subject only to “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.” Instead of following the letter of the law, the City of Eugene passed ordinances that allowed new ADUs in the City, but regulated them stringently in violation of the new affordable housing law. HLA filed a Petition for Review with LUBA, and argued that the City’s newly adopted ADU ordinances were inconsistent with state law, local comprehensive plan policies, and the federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act because they illegally limited affordable housing that was otherwise required by Senate Bill 1051. Specifically, HLA argued:

  1. The ADU ordinances contain regulations that do not relate to siting or design and regulations that are unreasonable, resulting in a de facto prohibition of ADUs in some locations, in violation of SB 1051.
  2. The ADU ordinances are inconsistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, including policies that require the city to remove barriers to high density housing, consider housing problems of special needs populations, and consider impacts of zoning regulations on the cost of housing.
  3. The ADU ordinances violate protections of the federal Fair Housing Act  and Americans with Disabilities Act because the prohibitive nature of the regulations constitutes disparate treatment and/or results in a disparate impact on protected classes, including familial status, race, national origin, and disability.

On November 29, 2018, LUBA remanded the ADU ordinances, effectively nullifying the City’s ill-conceived attempt to circumvent SB 1051. LUBA determined that SB 1051 restricted the City’s ability to regulate ADUs in zones that newly allowed the affordable residential use. LUBA remanded because the City of Eugene had not made adequate findings to demonstrate that the ADU ordinances were consistent with SB 1051 and local comprehensive plan policies. LUBA did not weigh in on what reasonable siting and design regulations means, and directed the City on remand to apply and explain the application of the state-mandated ADU requirement to any newly adopted code provision that regulates ADUs. Below are links to Senate Bill 1051, HLA’s Petition for Review and LUBA’s final opinion and order.

Amicus Participation to the United States Supreme Court
HLA has filed amicus briefs with the American Planning Association to the United States Supreme Court on two cases involving implementation of the federal Fair Housing Act. In both cases, HLA argued to uphold the “disparate impact” standards of the law, which requires local governments to demonstrate that their land use actions do not result in a disparate impact on any protected class. In the second case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the disparate impact standard in housing discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act. See links below for the amicus briefs filed or joined by HLA in the two cases.

Housing Land Advocates v. City of Happy Valley
HLA succeeded in its argument to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that Happy Valley failed to provide adequate findings to justify a downzone of a property from multi-family residential to single family residential.  The decision was remanded to Happy Valley for further consideration on March 24, 2017.  Housing Land Advocates will continue to monitor this project, and use the Decision to inform its ongoing legal strategy relative to equitable distribution of affordable housing in Oregon’s metropolitan areas. The LUBA Decision can be viewed here: Housing Land Advocates vs. City of Happy Valley, Final Opinion and Order (2017).
City of Gresham
HLA board member Ed Sullivan volunteered to help a group home in Gresham secure approval to allow more than ten unrelated persons to live in a house in the city’s low-density residential zone, based on interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. Review the city’s decision at the following link: City of Gresham – Request for Staff Interpretation (November 30, 2011)

Note: HLA does not provide representation as legal counsel for individuals.