The Adopted Metro Capacity Ordinance Removes Expansion Area Income Specific Housing Needs Planning Requirement; Has Factual Error in Legal Support Exhibit.

Metro has now posted a signed copy of the revised Capacity Ordinance, which includes changes made by Council at the December 16th meeting when the Ordinance was amended and adopted. 

I have downloaded and posted that as adopted Ordinance to my web space HERE.

1. The Ordinance Removes Expansion Area Affordable Housing Provisions Requiring Housing Needs Analysis for Specific Incomes.

The originally proposed Ordinance had included this Title 11 housing needs analysis requirement for concept plans for expansion areas (at 3.97.1110 B. 1. c, and 3.97.1110 B. 2. a.):

A range of housing needed in the prospective UGB expansion area, the prospective governing city, and the region, - including ownership and rental housing; single-family and multi-family housing; and a mix of public, nonprofit and private market housing – with an option for households with incomes at or below 80, 50 and 30 percent of median family incomes for the region;

In the as adopted Ordinance income specific requirements have been replaced by a generic housing needs analysis requirement that now requires that plans need only consider : 

Opportunities for a range of housing types

2. The As Adopted Ordinance Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law Has a Factual Error.

Included in the Ordinance as amended are a series of Exhibits, including Exhibit P, a legal statement of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the Capacity Ordinance. (This Exhibit, which begins on page 86, has one of the clearer expositions of how Metro thinks it has planned for future growth that I have seen; I had anticipated that and is one reason that I had pushed Metro to release this Exhibit in time for public hearings --it didn't).

One portion of that Exhibit includes a section that lists THREE strategies that Metro believes it has adopted that demonstrate compliance with the Goal 10 housing requirements of state land use law. (this begins on pg 103 of the as adopted Ordinance)

I have pasted all three strategies below, and you will see that the factual error is that Metro's THIRD strategy  erroneously continues to reference the income targeted expansion area housing needs analysis requirements that were REMOVED in the as adopted Capacity Ordinance.

The Council developed three other strategies to address the housing issues identified in the UGR. First, the Council revised Title 6 (Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets) to condition city and county access to regional investments and other incentives upon amendments to their land use regulations to allow higher-density residential development and a mix of uses that will allow residents to choose lower-cost travel options. Rec. __. (Exhibit E). Second, the Council revised Title 1 (Housing Capacity) of the UGMFP to adopt a “no-net-loss” approach. Rec. __. (Exhibit B). Title 1 ensures the region will not lose gains in zoned residential capacity that follow implementation of Title 6 and local aspirations. Third, the Council revised Title 11 (New Urban Areas) to require planning and strategies to address housing needs of households with incomes at or below 80, 50 and 30 percent of median family incomes for the region.Rec.__. (Exhibit J).

As I have made clear in earlier posts I think the Metro defects in planning for Needed Housing, Including Government Assisted Housing go way beyond plans for Expansion areas covered by Title 11.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.