HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2004-02-23 PM • ,,,,,,,,?!,y_Ttf,sNra City of Lake Oswego
0 (7---
Planning Commission
Monday, February 23, 21Iat
-,„ -'" 6:00 p.m. — Work Session
aisc
members: City Hall Council Chamber
James Johnson,Chair 380 A Avenue
Frank Grozaaitc,Vice Chair Lake Oswego,OR 97034
Mary Beth Coffey,Kenneth L.Sandblast,
Mark Stayer,Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster For Information: 503/635-0290
Council Liaison: Jack Hoffman AGENDA
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations,please
contact Iris Treinen,503/697-6591,48 hours before the meeting.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
4) III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute limit per individual)
IV. GENERAL PLANNING-WORK SESSION
• P 02-0001 Outlook 2025—Project Priorities
Staff coordinator is Sidaro Sin, Assistant Planner.
• P 03-0003 East End/Commercial Zone Changes
Staff coordinator is Derr is Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
• P 02-0012 Affordably Housing
• P 04-0001 Improving the Public Involvement Process
Staff coordinator is Stephan Lashbroolc Community Development Director.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Findings.Conclusions and Order
LU 03-0079-..Permitted Uses in the Waterfront Cabana Zone
VI41, . ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Book*
i
�i°F`"KE°S�III
Community Development
4 � Department
ii
�'`�/ Memorandum
OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
DATE: February 17, 2004
SUBJECT: Outlook 2025 (P 02-0001)—Project Priorities
Planning Commission Work Session on February 23, 2004
REQUEST:
Review the draft short and long-range projects matrix and develop a list prioritizing
projects to pursue for Outlook 2025. The final list will be forwarded to the City Council
• as a recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
On February 9, 2004, staff presented the Commission with background information
regarding the summary of issues identified during the 2025 scoping process. In addition
minutes of the discussion between the Council and Commission about prioritization of
projects were provided. After a lengthy discussion, staff was directed to bring back a
matrix that identified specific Commission identified goals and projects. This matrix is
intended to be used as a starting point for discussions. The results could then be used to
refine the Commission's work program for this year and outline projects for future years.
Included, as attachment 1 is the project matrix. Please note the following:
• The matrix includes the list of goals and projects that the Commission directed
staff to include, except for Goal 12, Transportation. The Commission did not
identify any specific projects. Staff has included two projects for consideration.
• There was an attempt to indicate if the project would be a short or long-range
project. Short-range projects could be those that could be included in the
Commission's work program for this year. Long-range projects could be those to
follow in subsequent years or those that begin this year and are continued until
completed.
• The notes in(parentheses) at the end of the sentences under"Comments" refer to
the item number as it is found in the summary of issues for each goal. The
• summary of issue for each goal document was included in your last packet as
"Attachment 1).
Planning Commission Work Session Page 1
February 23,2004
Outlook 2025(P 02-0001)
Members of the Commission also asked staff to identify short-term projects that could be
completed immediately. Upon review of the potential projects, staff was only able to
identify a public education/information project under Goal 1, Citizen Involvement and
Goal 2, Land Use Planning, that would apply. This project would look at ways to inform
and educate the public about the City's land use process. The remainder of the projects
either required lengthy discussions to proceed with or required land use applications,
such as a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Short and Long Range Project Matrix
111/
Planning Commission Work Session Page 2
February 23,2004
Outlook 2025(P 02-0001)
s.
0 OUTLOOK 2025
Short & Long Range Project Discussion
February 17, 2004
Short Long
Range Range Comments
Goal 2, Land Use
Includes discussion on providing direction on what
consitutes a"public need" and "when compared to
Edges, Core, Beach Heads x alternatives." (related to#3)
Neighborhood Plans x Refine Neighborhood Planning Process
Goal 9, Economic Development -
Committee work to be completed by end of June and
Lake Grove Town Center Plan x adoption by end of 2004. (item #1)
Foothills Design District Plan x Currently working on (item #2)
There has been no work on this item (related to#3,4,
Commercial & Industrial Lands Inventory x 5, 6
Goal 10, Housing
Discussion currently under way to address Metro's Title
Affordable Housing x 7 (item #1)
Some analysis has been developed through zone
Alliousing Needs Analysis x change applications
Illiruildable Lands Inventory x There has been no work on this item. (item #7)
Goal 12,Transportation
Consider additonal policy direction on the use of the
trolley due to its connections with the development of
Trolley x the foothills area. (item #3)
Is the transportation system working effectively?
Modeling of the transportation system to see what level
of service we project to achieve with the improvements
shown in the PFP and the growth projectd in the area.
Transportation System Modeling x (item #11)
Goal 14, Urbanization
Policy discussion question. Should the City move
towards annexing all properties within the Urban
Annexation x x Services Boundary? (iten#3)
Policy discussion question. Plan for the future or let
Stafford Area x x others plan the City's future? (items#1 &2)
Special District Plans
Implementation x Several plans have been adopted w/o implementation
Refine Program (Update booklet; Update the 1995 Neighborhood Planning Program
background, purpose, process, etc. x x Document
•23O4PCPriorityMatrix.xIs
4
OE LAKE ps4f Community Development
`' co
• ; ► Department
"` Memorandum
O$EGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis Egner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
DATE: February 17, 2004
SUBJECT: East End/Commercial Zone Changes — Update (P 03-0003)
Introduction
Last fall, the City Council approved the 35,000 square foot limit on retail uses in the East
End/Commercial (EC) zone. In reviewing the proposed limitation, the Planning Commission
raised concerns about the clarity of City policies and definitions for "regional draw businesses."• This memorandum is intended to provide background information and suggest an approach for
clarifying City policy in regard to "regional draw business" and downtown development.
Follow-up work will focus on the types of uses that will be permitted in the downtown EC zone.
Current Policies
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9 Economic Development, Policy 9-17 states:
Allow mixed use development within Downtown and the Lake Grove Business Districts
to provide opportunities for commercial, entertainment, professional, cultural, public,
and residential activities. Regional draw business other than those providing
specialized services and unique goods, shall not be located in these districts.
In the definitions section of the Comprehensive Plan,regional draw businesses are defined as
follows:
Regional Draw Businesses: These are businesses which draw customers from not only
the Lake Oswego market area, but also from throughout the Portland Metropolitan Area.
For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, a regional draw business shall be any
single tenant commercial establishment with a floor area of greater than 35,000 square
feet.
•
Planning Commission Meeting 1 P 03-0003
February 23, 2004
In the definitions section of the Comprehensive Plan, specialized services and unique goods
are defined as follows:
Specialized Services and Unique Goods: Goods and services which cater to a specific
or distinctive market and are specifically sought out by clientele within the community
and throughout the region. Businesses in this category include establishments which
provide uncommon merchandise, high quality eating, entertainment and cultural
opportunities, arts and crafts, etc. Professional services, such as medicine, law,
finance, etc., are considered to be specialized services and capable of attracting clients
from beyond the community.
Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 14 Urbanization, Policy 8 (Figure 27) designates the
Downtown Business District as a Town Center consistent with the design types of the Metro
2040 Functional Plan. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan defines the City's Town Centers
as follows:
Town Centers may serve a population base of tens of thousands of people. Within
these areas the City will encourage good transit services, a pedestrian environment,
shopping, services, entertainment, and higher density housing so that residents will
have more transportation choices by locating near these uses and services. There are
two areas designated as Town Centers in Lake Oswego: Lake Grove and Lake
Oswego.
In addition to Policy 9-17, Goal 9 Economic Development, the Comprehensive Plan contains
recommended action measures (RAMs)that address town center concepts, including those •
found in Goal 14 Urbanization.
Goal 14 Urbanization, RAM ix. a.-d. states:
Develop design and zoning standards for development within Design Type areas that:
a. Promote compact urban form,
b. Are compatible with surrounding development,
c. Ensure pedestrian scale design, and
d. Encourage transit usage in order to reduce auto dependence.
Planning Commission Concerns
At the Commission's hearing on the 35,000 square foot limitation, a representative from
Albertson's testified that they have 38,000 square feet of floor area and they draw from a local
customer base. The Commission's concern was not with the concept of regulating regional
draw business or the size of business, but with tying them together. This may not have been
an issue if Policy 9-17 prohibited "regional draw businesses" and any other business over
35,000 square feet. The Commission's primary concern was that the policy automatically
defines any business over 35,000 square feet as a regional draw business.
•
Planning Commission Meeting 2 P 03-0003
February 23, 2004
Proposed Amendments
Based on Planning Commission concerns, staff is proposing a simple amendment that
disconnects the size limitation and the regional draw business definition. The 35,000 square
foot limitation remains but it is independent of the regional draw definition. The size limitation
is included as a means of keeping development at a pedestrian scale. The proposed policy
changes are set forth below. (New language is underlined and deleted language is stricken).
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9 Economic Development, Policy 9-17:
Allow mixed use development within Downtown and the Lake Grove Business Districts
to provide opportunities for commercial, entertainment, professional, cultural, public,
and residential activities. Regional draw business other than those providing
specialized services and unique goods, shall not be located in these districts. To
promote a pedestrian oriented scale, any single tenant commercial establishment in the
Downtown or the Lake Grove Business Districts shall have a floor area no greater than
35,000 square feet in size.
In the definitions section of the Comprehensive Plan, the regional draw businesses definition:
Regional Draw Businesses: These are businesses which draw customers from not only
the Lake Oswego market area, but also from throughout the Portland Metropolitan Area.
feet.
Recommendation
The staff requests that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments and
provide direction regarding changes and a public review process.
The Commission may want to give consideration to more substantial changes such as:
• Do we still want to discourage regional draw businesses? Should the downtown be a
retail destination that serves an area beyond Lake Oswego? What about Lake Grove?
• Is 35,000 square feet the correct size limitation?
•
Planning Commission Meeting 3 P 03-0003
February 23, 2004
OE LAKE ps Community Development
• `, wEc
O
,Ai, Department
All.
,}'-` Memorandum
OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
DATE: February 17, 2004
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing(P 02-0012)
The Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss affordable housing at the February 23,
2004 meeting. The topic was rescheduled from the January 12, 2004 meeting. Stephan
Lashbrook's memorandum for the January 12th meeting is attached.
•
•
LAKE pswE
CO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
OREGON
Date: December 30, 2003
To: Planning Commission
From: Stephan A. Lashbrook, Community Development Director lif/
Subject: Affordable Housing
Work Session on January 12, 2004
Attached is a copy of the report that was recently filed with Metro addressing the
requirements of Title 7 of the Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
Title 7 requires all cities and counties in the region to consider a number of possible
strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing and to report to Metro annually.
II/ Given that the Planning Commission is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and
implementing ordinances through the OutLOok 2025 process, the City Council has asked
that the Commission consider all of the specific requirements of Metro's Title 7, and also
any additional measures or programs that can lead to the creation or retention of
affordable housing.
The City Council has held three study sessions on this topic over the last two years.
Because the Planning Commission agenda on January 12 looks fairly crowded, I suggest
that my presentation on that night be a brief overview and that the Commission schedule
a future work session of at least an hour to go over this subject in more detail.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Affordable Housing
(0{,AKE psW
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
December 29, 2003
Andy Cotugno, Regional Planning Director
Metro
600 N.E. Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
RE: Title 7—Annual Report
Dear Andy:
Enclosed is the City of Lake Oswego's 2003 annual report, addressing Title 7 of the Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan. Our City Council has considered all of the strategies
required by Title 7, as well as a number of other alternatives to assist with the provision of
affordable housing.
Our City Council actually began work on this in June 2002, when we conducted a lengthy
study session and reviewed many different affordable housing programs that have been
successful in other jurisdictions. Early in 2003 a planner was hired on a temporary basis and
given the primary task of working on affordable housing alternatives. Additional City
Council study sessions on affordable housing were conducted in both July and December of
this year.
The reality is that the extremely high land values in Lake Oswego make it very difficult to
provide sufficient incentives to motivate the private sector to develop affordable housing
here, but we will continue to work on a range of possibilities. We welcome your input as we
work to increase affordable housing options.
Sincerely,
Stephan A. Lashbrook, AICP
Community Development Director
Copies: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
Mayor Hammerstad and City Council
Planning Commission
001
Metro Title 7 1
380 A Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034
Planning Division:(503)635-0290 • Building Division:(503)635-0390 •Engineering Division:(503)635-0270• FAX(503)635-0269
Annual Report to Metro
• City of Lake Oswego
Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Implementation
January 2004
A. Background
On January 18, 2001, the Metro Council adopted amendments to the Regional
Framework Plan and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to further the
implementation of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. The adoption of these
amendments culminated more than a year of work by a multi jurisdictional Housing
Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC). The work of HTAC and the
recommendations that were finally adopted were based on certain premises
established by HTAC.
HTAC Definition of Affordable Housing_and "Equitable Distribution"
"Affordable housing" was defined by HTAC as: "living accommodation for low and
moderate income households where they pay no more than 30 per cent of their
income on housing costs. (For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities. For
homeowners, housing costs include principle, interest, taxes, and property
insurance, if applicable.)"
It was the objective of HTAC to ensure that all of the jurisdictions in the Metro region
provide their "fair share" of affordable housing units and that there be an "equitable
distribution" of affordable housing in the region.
The five principles of"equitable distribution" were defined as:
• A diverse range of housing types available within the region and within cities
and counties inside the urban growth boundary.
• Sufficient and affordable housing opportunities available to households of all
income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction and
sub-region.
• An appropriate balance of jobs and housing within sub-regions.
• The current and future need for and supply of affordable housing in the region
is addressed in the distribution.
• Concentrations of poverty are minimized.
•
Affordable Housing Report 003
January, 2004 - 1 -
The regional median income for a family of four in 2003 was $65,800. Income levels
are defined as follows: •
• Extremely Low Income: Not more than 30% of regional median income
• Low Income: From 30 to 50% of regional median income
• Low-Moderate Income: From 50 to 80% of regional median income
• Moderate Income: From 80 to 120% of regional median income.
Lake Oswego's Fair Share Benchmark for Affordable Housing to 2017
Affordable Housing benchmarks were established by HTAC for each jurisdiction in
the region, for the year 2017. These figures were based on projections of the
number of households in the four income groups noted above, using Metro's Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan numbers, and crediting jurisdictions with
existing affordable housing. 10% of that total number was recommended by HTAC
as a five-year production goal.
In the case of Lake Oswego, those figures are as follows:
Estimated Households Households in Each Units Needed by 2017
in Each Income Group Income Group (Difference Between
1998 2017. 1998-& 2017)
of <30 30- 50- 80- <30 30 - 50- 80- <30 30- 50- 80-
Median 50 80 120 50 80 120 50 80 120
•
Income
#of 42 284 2,823 3,683 1,892 1,826 3,307 3,044 1,850 1,542 484 (639)
Households
Metro's data indicated that in 1998 Lake Oswego had 42 units available to extremely
low income households with income levels at or below 30% of median household
income, 284 units for low income households, 2,823 units for low-moderate income
households, and 3,683 units available to moderate income households (those with
incomes from 80 to 120% of median).
By 2017, Metro projections indicate a deficit of 1,850 affordable housing units for
very -low income households, a deficit of 1,542 units for low income households and
a deficit of 484 units for low-moderate income households. Metro's 2017 projections
estimate an excess of 639 units for moderate income households. The complete
listing of jurisdictions and how they rank for available housing units is attached as
Exhibit A (Benchmark Affordable Housing Need to 2017, HTAC, December 7th,
1998).
For Lake Oswego, the target five-year goal (to the end of 2006) can be found by
multiplying each of the figures listed above (the 2017 targets) by 10%.
The production goals for all Metro jurisdictions are attached as Exhibit B. •
Affordable Housing Report 004
January, 2004 -2 -
B. Statistically, How Lake Oswego Compares to the Region
•
Household Income
For 2003, the HUD's official regional household income for a family of four was
$65,800. In Lake Oswego, the median household income for a family of four is now
approximately $95,000 ($94,587 in the 2000 census).
Cost of Housing/Demographics of Lake Oswego
The 2000 Census showed some of the demographic differences between Portland
and Lake Oswego and how they relate to housing affordability. For instance, the
median housing value in Portland was $157,900. In Lake Oswego, it was $296,200.
According to Portland Oregon Housing Information and Statistics, the average sales
price in May 2001 was $201,400. In the Lake Oswego/West Linn area the average
price was $320,000. More recent reports indicate that the disparity between housing
prices in Lake Oswego and those of the region continues to widen.
Although the average household incomes in Lake Oswego are considerably higher
than the regional average, the fact remains that many Lake Oswego residents have
difficulty affording suitable housing. The 2000 census noted that 223 Lake Oswego
families had incomes below the poverty level. In addition, the 2000 census showed
that 161 individuals over the age of 65 are living in Lake Oswego with incomes
• below the poverty level. Public elementary schools in the Lake Oswego School
District provide lunches to lower income students as part of the federally funded
National School Lunch program. Three schools provide lunches through that
program to at least 10% of their students and one school within the district provides
those meals to more than 15% of the student body. These things are indications
that high average incomes and the availability of many beautiful homes do not mean
that every Lake Oswego resident has the abilityto afford ord quality housing without
some sort of assistance.
Available affordable housing programs in Lake Oswego
Most affordable housing programs that are currently offered in Lake Oswego are the
result of work done by Clackamas County. The Housing Authority of Clackamas
County provides county-wide assistance through a housing voucher program that
provides assistance to families that rent units in the private rental housing market.
To qualify for the voucher program, the household income must not exceed 50
percent of the area median income (the "low" or "extremely low" income categories
noted above).
There is also a program that assists local private sector landlords in making
renovations and improvements to single- and multi-family rental units, bringing them
into specified housing quality standards. In these units rent is based on income, with
•
Affordable Housing Report 005
January, 2004 - 3 -
tenants paying 30% of their adjusted gross income. Using federal funds provided by
HUD, the Housing Authority pays the difference.
The Housing Authority has also acquired large multi-family projects within
Clackamas County and has a goal of achieving rents 10% to 20% below market
rates within five to 10 years of ownership. This portfolio of rental properties includes
multi-family complexes in Clackamas, Molalla, and Wilsonville. Note that none of
those units are located in the Lake Oswego area.
Clackamas County also provides housing for the homeless through allocation of
HUD funding through a full range of facilities and services, emergency shelters,
transitional housing and permanent supportive housing for persons of disabilities,
etc.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, administered through
Clackamas County, can be used to revitalize and preserve existing housing and
improve accessibility and safety in low income homes in both owner-occupied and
rental units.
Additional to various rental assistance programs, the County also has a program to
provide funds to increase home ownership through the Clackamas Homebuyer
Assistance Program.
•Constraints or barriers to affordable housing in Lake Oswego
The single biggest impediment to the development or retention of affordable housing
in Lake Oswego is the value of local real estate. Because the land costs so much, a
large portion of the funds that could otherwise go for the development of new
affordable units tend to be used on property acquisition. The few remaining
affordable units face the prospect of demolition and replacement by more expensive
homes. Even extremely solid and relatively expensive homes in Lake Oswego are
routinely demolished and replaced by larger and more expensive units.
Partly because of the frequency with which smaller, older homes have been
replaced by newer, larger units, Lake Oswego neighborhoods have become very
sensitized to "infill development." This also tends to complicate any efforts to
provide new affordable units.
Lake Oswego also provides a limited range of geographic options for housing
developers. With a limited, and largely developed Urban Growth Boundary area
outside the current City limits, and relatively few vacant properties within the City, all
sorts of housing development tend to be more expensive here than in communities
where outward expansion can meet growth needs.
•
Affordable Housing Report 0
06
January, 2004 -4 -
•
• C. Metro Requirements
Metro's Regional Affordable Housing Strategy has now been codified in Section
3.07.730 of the Metro Code (attached). It includes the following requirements:
A. Cities and counties within the Metro Region shall ensure that their
Comprehensive Plans and implementing ordinances:
1. Include strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within
their jurisdictional boundaries.
2. Include in their plans actions and implementation measures designed
to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing as well-as
increase the opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing within
their boundaries.
3. Include Plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at
increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live
within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing.
B. Cities and counties within the Metro region shall consider amendment of
their Comprehensive Plans and implementing ordinances with the
• following affordable housing land use tools and strategies identified below.
1. Density bonus;
2. Replacement housing;
3. Inclusionary housing;
4. Transfer of development rights;
5. Elderly and people with disabilities;
6. Local regulatory constraints, discrepancies in planning and zoning
codes, local permitting or approval process;
7. Parking.
D. City of Lake Oswego Consideration and Responses
In response to Metro Code Section 3.07.730 (A), regarding Lake Oswego's
Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances, the following are noted:
i
Affordable Housing Report 007
January, 2004 - 5 -
Although exempted from the State's Periodic Review requirements as a result of
recent statutory changes, the City of Lake Oswego intends to complete the thorough
review and update of both the local Comprehensive Plan and implementing
ordinances. The City's Planning Commission has taken the lead in this process and
has already conducted numerous public meetings. The City Council has asked the
Planning Commission to address the various recommendations of this annual report
on affordable housing within the process of reviewing the City's Comprehensive Plan
and ordinances.
The Housing Goal of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lake Oswego, states:
The City shall:
a. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in locations and
environments to provide an adequate supply of safe, sanitary, energy
efficient housing at price and rent levels appropriate to the varied financial
capabilities of present and future City residents.
b. Protect the character of existing neighborhoods; and,
c. Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive
areas, using land and public facilities as efficiently as possible, and
facilitating greater use of alternative transportation modes. •
.
Other relevant housing policies from the Comprehensive Plan include:
• Provide a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of various lifestyles
and family types. .
• Provide low to moderate cost housing opportunities to meet Lake Oswego's
fair share of local and regional housing needs including single-family, multi-
family, manufactured housing, special use housing and residential care
facilities.
• Assure equal access to housing for all.
• Support public and private actions, which increase housing choices and
reduce housing construction costs.
• Actively participate with Metro and Clackamas County in formulating and
carrying out the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.
• Allow special use housing for elderly, including frail elderly, persons with
medical disabilities, disabled families and other special needs populations
identified in the Clackamas County Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy, in all zones in proportion to the local share of regional need.
• Maintain a cooperation agreement with Clackamas County authorizing
provision of rent supplement assistance within the City and enter into401
Affordable Housing Report 00
January, 2004 - 6 -
• agreements with the County Housing Authority to control rents in assisted
units, if opportunities arise.
Applicable Recommended Action Measures from the Comprehensive Plan include:
• Allow secondary (accessory) dwelling units to provide opportunities for
affordable rental units, offset housing costs for the primary unit or act as
transitional housing without changing the character and quality of single-
family areas.
• Cooperate with the Clackamas County Housing Authority in locating sites
suitable for special use housing. Provide density bonuses, where
appropriate, to encourage special use housing.
• Establish an agreement with Clackamas County to allow the development of
federally assisted low-to moderate cost housing units.
• Encourage Clackamas County to utilize federally funded Community
Development Block Grants for provision of housing assistance and housing
rehabilitation for which individual Lake Oswego residents could be eligible.
• Encourage elimination of barriers, which limit housing choice for the
handicapped.
• Encourage innovative housing construction technologies, which decrease
development costs.
(Excerpted from City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 10 Housing)
• As evidenced above, the current Comprehensive Plan contains the policy language
to encourage a diverse range of affordable housing, maintain the existing housing
stock and increase the opportunity for affordable housing.
The City has a wide range of densities available in residential land use districts that
provide development opportunities ranging from detached single-family to high-
density. Secondary (or accessory) dwelling units are allowed in residential zones
and manufactured homes are allowed in four residential zones.
Specialized housing to meet the needs of the elderly and handicapped also is
allowed in residential zones. These are groups that may need access to affordable
housing that is subject to development standards that differ from those of other types
of housing.
A policy option for future consideration would be to expand policies further to support
creative housing options. This could include creativity in terms of the type of
housing or the manner of ownership. Language could be added to encourage and
support housing co-ops and co-housing that can further assist in providing affordable
housing.
Another option is to consider policy and code language that would result in no net
• loss of affordability when rental units are converted to an ownership situation.
009
Affordable Housing Report
January, 2004 - 7 -
City Council Consideration.
The City Council has considered the following course of action
• In the course of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall
consider whether there are changes to either the Plan or the Development Code that
will help to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These may include
changes to provide additional support for creative housing options (e.g., co-op
housing, cohousing, etc.). The Planning Commission will also be asked to determine
whether more can and should be done to increase affordable housing opportunities in
the Town Center or other redevelopment areas of the community and asked to make
recommendations to the Council through the Comprehensive Plan review process that
is now underway.
• See proposed action below on"Replacement Housing."
In response to Metro Code Section 3.07.730 (B), regarding the seven tools or
strategies that the City Council is required to consider, the following are noted:
1. "Density Bonus"
4/A density bonus is a land use incentive that allows a developer to construct more
units than would otherwise be allowed in a specified residential zone, in exchange
for the provision of affordable housing units.
The City already effectively provides a density bonus for residential care and
congregate care housing by allowing such developments in several zoning districts,
without specifying a maximum density.
Code provisions could be revised to give a density bonus for affordable housing
units with special design criteria that will facilitate design compatibility.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• In the course of reviewing the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Planning Commission shall consider whether it is appropriate to make Code
amendments to expand density bonuses for affordable housing. The Planning
Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Council through the
Comprehensive Plan review process that is now underway.
010
Affordable Housing Report
January, 2004 - 8 -
• • The staff will work with design professionals, citizens, and architecture students to
prepare design standards that could be used to accommodate increased density
without sacrificing compatibility with the surrounding area. The results of this effort
will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as the
general community.
2. "Transfer of Development Rights"
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a zoning strategy designed to direct
development from one site to another in order to preserve a publicly valued (and
typically natural) resource. As applied to housing, it allows the transfer of unused
density or development potential from one site to another. Strategies identified by
Metro include encouraging local governments to consider TDR regulations in Town
Centers such as Lake Oswego's downtown and the Lake Grove area.
Currently, the Code allows for density transfers on a given site in order to work
around natural barriers or other development constraints. The Code could be
expanded to allow such transfers to adjoining properties under some circumstances.
It should be noted that TDR programs that extend beyond the immediate area of a
proposed development tend to be extremely difficult to administer.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• In the course of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan,the Planning Commission shall
consider whether it is appropriate to make Code amendments to allow transfer of
development rights to properties adjoining proposed development sites when
affordable housing will result and design compatibility can be achieved. The
Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Council
through the Comprehensive Plan review process that is now underway.
3. "Replacement Housing"
Replacement housing requires that affordable housing units lost through demolition
or conversion must be replaced by an equal number of similarly sized, priced, and
located units by the agency or individual deemed responsible for the loss of the
original unit.
It is unlikely that this concept would succeed on a City-wide basis in Lake Oswego
where "tear downs" of good quality homes are occurring because the value of land is
• so high. Land costs make the replacement of affordable units in the City very
difficult and the concept of replacement housing is not something that the City can
Affordable Housing Report 011
January, 2004 - 9 -
effectively mandate, except where the City itself or the Lake Oswego
Redevelopment Agency (LORA) are directly involved in the proposed development. •
In such cases, replacement housing is something the City/LORA should be prepared
to address.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• In the course of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall
consider the prospect of adopting a replacement housing policy for affordable units
lost through the direct action of either the City or LORA. The Planning Commission
will be asked to make a recommendation to the Council/LORA Board through the
Comprehensive Plan review process that is now underway.
• The Planning Commission will also consider the potential for additional policies and
Code language to assure that, when affordable rental units are converted to ownership
(e.g., condo conversions) either those units are available for the renters to purchase
through a right of first refusal, or that other rental units are available in the
community at comparable rent levels.
4. "Inclusionary Housing"
•
In its various forms, inclusionary housing is a mandatory requirement or voluntary
objective that assigns a percentage of housing units in new residential developments
to be sold or rented to lower or moderate-income households at an affordable rate.
Mandatory inclusionary zoning is no longer legal in the state of Oregon. Most
inclusionary housing programs now rely on a combination of incentives including
density bonuses, fee waivers, or reduced impact fees.
Inclusionary housing could be encouraged through granting priority processing of
development applications and the use of other City funds to defray the permit costs
for the inclusion of affordable units. Consideration could also be given to waiving
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) and other fees for affordable housing
developments.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• Given that the City and LORA have no designated funding source to defray the costs
of fee waivers, such fee waivers will not be considered further at this time. If a
designated affordable housing fund should be created in the budget of either the City
or LORA in the future, fee waivers for affordable housing will be considered at that
time. •
02
Affordable Housing Report 1
January, 2004 - 10 -
• 5. "Elderly and People with Disabilities"
Metro requires that local governments examine their zoning codes for conflicts in
meeting the locational needs of the elderly and those with disabilities.
The Development Code now includes provisions to allow secondary dwelling units
(or so-called "granny flats"). Secondary dwelling units (SDUs) often provide an
affordable housing option for the elderly. More could be done to encourage the
construction of SDUs along with single-family dwellings. These can be compatible
with the surrounding area if there is adequate off-street parking and the size and
design of these units match the primary dwelling. Current Code standards classify
SDUs as "permitted uses" in residential zones, but the Code still requires that all
such units undergo the "minor development" review process. This means that the
City sends notice to all property owners within 300 feet, and surrounding
neighborhood associations for something that is permitted in the zone. This creates
an unnecessary burden for the potential applicant and may create a false
expectation in the minds of neighbors that they can prevent the development of an
SDU.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
• action:
• The staff will initiate a Code amendment to remove all discretionary standards from
the process of reviewing proposed SDUs. If enacted, this will also delete the public
notice requirements and otherwise facilitate the development of SDUs.
• In the course of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall
consider whether the Code standards for congregate care and residential care housing
adequately address the needs of lower income seniors and people with disabilities in
Lake Oswego. The Planning Commission will be asked to report back to the City
Council through the Comprehensive Plan review process that is now underway.
6. "Local Regulatory Constraints/Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning
Codes/Local Permitting or Approval Process"
It has been a priority in the City to find ways to streamline and expedite the approval
process. To this end, codes were consolidated in 2002 to provide a more concise
and easier to understand Code. Additionally, staff annually brings forward
"housekeeping" proposals for Code amendments to correct errors and provide
clarification to the code.
Infill standards are currently being completed for inclusion in the Development Code.
1110 Because existing infrastructure is in place, infill development can provide an
Affordable Housing Report 01 3
January, 2004 - 11 -
opportunity for lower cost in housing development. The infill standards that are
•
proposed also provide for specific design standards that will act to keep infill
development compatible with the surrounding development.
Other Code revisions that may be considered to provide opportunities for affordable
housing include the allowance of averaging lot sizes in all new subdivisions and
partitions. Such averaging is currently only permitted in Planned Development
subdivisions. As an example, instead of a 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size in R-7.5, we
could routinely allow a range of lot sizes from 5,000 to 10,000 with an average of
7,500 sq. ft. Lot size averaging is intended to increase the opportunities for infill
development and to increase housing diversity.
The Code could also encourage mixed-use developments. Sometimes there are
opportunities for housing development in commercial areas that are lost because
zoning requires the residential and commercial uses to be separate. Language
could be developed that encourages the conversion of under-utilized commercial or
industrial areas to mixed uses that include residential development.
Additional input should be obtained from local builders and developers to identify
obstacles in the Code to affordable housing development. If builders and
developers can recommend specific Code amendments that will result in affordable
housing, the City should consider their first-hand knowledge of financing and
construction practices by proposing Code changes. As part of this effort, provisions •
of the Community Development Code should be reconsidered for common sense in
dealing with creative housing options. There may be types of housing that the
community really needs that are being discouraged by our current code.
There may also be an opportunity to provide for affordable housing for seniors and
single-parent households by liberalizing standards for day care in residential areas
and allowing for adult day care on the same basis as day care for children.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• The Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Council
through the Comprehensive Plan review process that is now underway. In the course
of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall consider
whether it is appropriate to make Code amendments to do the following:
a. Allow lot size averaging in all new subdivisions and partitions where affordable
housing will be provided.
b. Liberalize standards for day care (including adult day care) to serve residential
areas.
Affordable Housing Report 014
January, 2004 - 12 -
• * The staff will work with local builders and developers to solicit their
recommendations on ways to provide affordable housing. This information will be
reported back to the Planning Commission and City Council in the course of the
Comprehensive Plan review process.
7. "Parking"
Parking is an important cost consideration in the provision of affordable housing.
Strategies identified by Metro include encouraging local government to review their
parking requirements.
The City can undertake a review of our parking requirements to assure that we are
not unnecessarily increasing the cost of housing by requiring more parking than is
necessary.
City Council Consideration.
Having considered this matter, the City Council has taken the following course of
action:
• In the course of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall
• consider whether the parking standards of the Code unnecessarily hinder the
development of any kinds of affordable housing. The parking standards for
congregate care and residential care housing shall be compared with those employed
elsewhere in the region. The Planning Commission will be asked to make a
recommendation to the Council through the Comprehensive Plan review process that
is now underway.
Additional considerations.
As indicated, Metro has established a voluntary housing production goal that each
jurisdiction is encouraged to include in its Comprehensive Plan. Lake Oswego's
five-year goal (2001 through 2006)was for the addition of 185 units for households
in the lowest income category, and 154 units for households earning between 30%
and 50% of the regional median income. Although this number of units would
appear to be unobtainable based on the application of land use tools alone, it should
be noted that our Comprehensive Plan contains a commitment to provide housing
opportunities sufficient to meet regional fair share requirements. This should help
highlight the need for more affordable housing in the community. Given that the
initial five-year goal for affordable housing will have nearly expired by the time the
current Comprehensive Plan review process is completed, there appears to be no
Affordable Housing Report 015
January, 2004 - 13 -
reason to add that Goal to the Plan. However, the implementation of various new
housing policies and standards in the course of this process will make it more
feasible to address Metro's 2017 goals within lake Oswego's 2025 Plan update.
The following additional recommendations will be considered by the City to further
encourage affordable housing within the community:
• Create a low-interest (or possibly no-interest) loan program for rehabilitating the
homes of lower income persons. This can keep those units from becoming eyesores
and can help the occupants to feel invested in the community(financially and
otherwise). As previously discussed, Clackamas County has programs in place. The
City could contribute additional assistance if this was seen as a worthwhile
investment.
• The City could seek the assistance of churches and service clubs. They may have
time, money, and expertise that can be used, especially with such things as self-help
housing and rehabilitation of older units.
• The City can work with Metro and the State of Oregon to establish a region-wide
system to encourage the development of affordable housing. As with many other
issues, housing affordability is an issue that goes beyond the City limits. This could
warrant support for an initiative proposal to allow local governments to impose real
estate transfer taxes to support the development of affordable housing. •
• Advocate a regional approach to funding and provision of affordable housing as an
alternative to the current system that sets separate targets for each individual
jurisdiction.
• Research the potential for developers to obtain tax credits for providing affordable
units in this community. Research other tax incentives available to developers of
affordable housing, including incentives for Transit Oriented Development(along
future streetcar and/or commuter rail lines) and housing in downtown redevelopment
areas.
• Provide a clearinghouse for housing information. This could be accomplished
through a closer working relationship with the Clackamas County Housing Authority.
• Provide a link from the City's web site to HousingConnections.org. This is a new,
on-line, user-friendly regional inventory of housing affordable to households earning
80% or less of median income. The system, financed by a federal grant, is designed
to help people find affordable housing on their own or with assistance. The type of
information provided includes a database of housing services by location in the three-
county area. It includes availability, rent, accessibility, maps showing schools,
grocery and transit locations and an affordability calculator.
410
Affordable Housing Report 016
January, 2004 •- 14 -
. • Explore the purchase of"air rights" over publicly owned properties for use by
developers of affordable housing.
• Encourage private property owners to consider making air rights available for
affordable housing development.
• Dedicate a percentage of urban renewal (tax increment) funds in new redevelopment
areas to the provision of affordable housing.
• Study the feasibility of making City-owned property available to nonprofit affordable
housing providers such as Habitat for Humanity,Northwest Housing Alternatives, or
other non-profit housing developer.
• Consider setting rental rates based on the incomes of the families residing in the
homes that exist on the residential properties that the City owns,
• Pursue partnerships with providers of affordable housing.
.
Affordable Housing Report 017
January, 2004 - 15 -
et W w et �_ N O r O co o v o CD O r 0 N o M et
et CO N (D N ti M N M M co O W " N f0 07 N N m 1- N
O Cn N N W N CD N CO N W co ti et N N Y CO et CO et
• CAL t N N Ni nj r 0) N CA
c h- O N N N CC) N CD CD d^. N W N M O W O CO
raY•�q,r ti N V O N M N W IN N 1` W m r et N 0„) Cn M ,- Vet I- O m O
O C� N M et O W N r N ri
v r r In O v V CO r v N C) r ,� r
A
�O N
e O CO O CO CD el' 0) r- , N N C!) W M C) O co M 0) r et C h -=
O 0) O co O co O N C- r et N 0) .- CD M N O 0) r of M N ;I)
in N en O N r Cf) V -^'N O V CCD �."' V- 0 4 N
�''`,C' N `' N r r Vi et
C.) 1,.
_ eT
•a; CD C) N N co co N et O N co O 0) co O et et O co W CD O et 0) et • O
vCa— e N en "" er CO CND N co O N "'CO. G N CO CD co in o 1- N OW) O co COO CV h
r+ v • • r CP v -.. v. N
nS Mom_, et
r YY nNeCD t0 N MON MW M N N W et M W W D r W W W M N N N O M N W � CD co
,Vr •Clax:: O r N V) et O et W N O r CD CD O) r 1- N O U) N CD. r N N- W N • h
1011. (NI CD r N r N W C) co M O C) et M a-
giF* N N N113 M 0II
�-�'. e h et N N et M N CD N N O M n rs O M et r` co 0) et N N. O M 2 •_
r. _ ,ru),=;; a N et co M O CO N N CD N CD N M N 0) O N et CO r- N N M co O
,OuT O N N _ r CO. CO CO c0 CO N et r V) W W N M. O N Cr) CO O N O h
y Cd T= 's: co cor •r N r CD CD N M et W CM N r 0) N m N Yi
p � r r r r T W i
.� CD CC. a
N m
O .,IAN NO O N ti etWr Mt N Wt N M 0 N W 0N O et eti W 2 N N OW a TN ,
47 N k.,,,'7w": o O MN '- tor r O W N N M O O r O N et N r r co co
N O r a) CD
`�g
En
N4. 4- r C M. W0
II N
3
Z ApM' O O
C
m� a Oru
V ocs,
Z. oj D W r et W rt N N et M C) O CD C) N O M A e M CO D A
To, ,— r NO C
'v40 ;, C M N M N .
Cr; CO D N
• = c...,
O v ._T., 2
c C—nmd
N CD N COW O O W O it-)-0 C O CO 0) h. N CO O CO R C) I e M CO CO
c CD 0 0) CD NN 4 CO rs M et CO Is O N co N C N co et r N et M co M r co C) 11 C 3
y 1CC) r N C) O co co N M et N r .N
TS = N h r- W N M N N .- C7 •r r r •r r N ri O,=O tz
G = tlap=:' W L 7
to O•n
rr t r e L
F2,4)5L16,..
I
) r O N 8 CC7 R N N O O N W 8 N eN N W N W N N W C� r N-A N CnD UO , 0
9 {6 Or N r CO CD 0) r N co •- en re-) N co N co er rNI h- M N N of M r 0 L
E Q _ = CO r 0) N M N tV CDr C7 — N r r C) r O r N < II N
O a)g0% r r =QD
to O
'Lto fa+'a. CD O 0) O M O CO C.- CO coCD CD et O 0) 4 O O CO r CO CV N CO M M
w a D) O N to r O N co O W et N r co M co r N CO I, W CO ).- O 'C N et O O co co
N et C CO N O N O CO M 4 r I,- r V- r 0) 0) r CD CO 0) N a N r
C00 el- N M r r r . N r W r m =C,Oj N
O +ps.C`.. 1 D .. d
O G a _ - _ _ D
;s04),;' et h- co n O ti O PS co N et N co et N to CO M M PS CO N CD O N cc.^O CC
'A1,i z)', It) r ID P V N O O r CO et CO et CO CO r M 0 r N V r A N M r 0
�r..y..y�'', o et R of O N N N N CO. M. et N CS N CO N O O. r O co et r C 11 r
Ge)Jn�' O Ti: N M r r r N N r r r W � m 7 a)=C.0
^� s,?,•'S M m d 2 IC
il..., N 0)e E W
M
,,-,.1 ^; et M N N.N N N. CO N.et n N N CO CD CO M N O CD N V N CO CO CD O L O V C L
�•;'' O O M et N CO O co N r N N 0 0) N N O r- O N O et et O N O O 2 0 D
.. ti O N r N N N N CA et et r ti co N r- M r O N co_ co.. N et Co co. O
,� W M et W C N N CO N O co O F O co co r PS n CD N L 3 0 2 0
Ir;.O``. M eT N r r CO ^ r h CO 0 r 0 L
1L1}mN ,: 0 C 0 0-.
m)+i __. CD m L O N
".= ,?cn2
L V 0,0) 0
C 0 C m C
Y
t U V [U CO b
V :c > a) w C d d D) w = .___ __= a0N)2= y m
�, ii C)
SCs a) u Cd y N s rn V O ?, to O A E a13. la O 'D Y = — _ '_ _ w 0 In a)Cfi 11
0 ,.:'.-`=� Ca 0 0 !a O D i) C4 0 C 65 ; 6. O > .= D) i = a"eo —' 0 t4 O 7 O Ip O p •
Tts d.CO Q.,S
019
L
Table 3.07-7
IIFive-Year Voluntary Affordable Housing Production Goals
(Section 3.07.720)
2001-2006 Affordable Housing Production Goals
Needed new housing units for Needed new housing units
Jurisdiction households earning less than for households earning 30-
30%of median household 50%of median household Total
income income
Beaverton 427 229 656
Cornelius 40 10 50
Durham 6 4 10
Fairview 42 31
73
Forest Grove 55 10 65
Gladstone 43 10
Gresham 454 53
102 556
Happy Valley 29 28 57
Hillsboro 302 211
513
Johnson City 0 0 0
King City 5 0 5
Lake Oswego 185 154 339
Maywood Park 0 0
Milwaukie 102 0
0 102
Oregon City 123 35 158
Portland 1,791 0
• Rivergrove 1 1,791
Sherwood 1 2
67 56 123
Tigard 216 103
Troutdale 75 319
Tualatin 56 131
120 69 189
West Linn 98 71 169
Wilsonville 100 80 180
Wood Village 16 1 17
Clackamas County,Urban,
Unincorporated 729 374 1,103
Multnomah County,Urban,
Unincorporated 81 53 134
Washington County,Urban
Unincorporated 1,312 940 2,252
Total 6,419 • 2,628 9,047
.a E X HI%B;l '1
c
as
41,
Page 6 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 03-1005
m:lattommv�confidemia117.11.6W03_1005.Ex A.001
OMA/RPBikvw(04/08/031
021
.- 1 lilli
METRO
410
Local Governments that Submitted Title 7 (Affordable Housing)
Compliance Report
Update to MTAC, April 2, 2003
2002 2003
First Date Second Date
Jurisdiction Report Received Report Received
Yes =X Yes =X
_ No =— No = —
Beaverton X Nov 02
Cornelius —
Durham X Jan 03
Fairview —
Forest Grove — X Mar 03
Gladstone —
Gresham X Jan 02 X Jan 03
Happy Valley —
Hillsboro X Feb 02
•
Johnson City —
King City — X Jan 03
Lake Oswego --
Maywood Park —
Miiwaukie Requested Jan 03
Extension
Oregon City —
Portland X July 02
Rivergrove —
Sherwood —
Tigard X May 02 X Feb 03
Troutdale -
Tualatin X May 02
West Linn X Feb 03 X Feb 03
Wilsonville —
Wood Village X Mar 02 X Jan 03
Clackamas County X Mar 02
Uninc.
Multnomah County —
Uninc.
Washington County X Apr 02 X Jan 03
Uninc.
Total _ 11 _ 7 110
022
Table 1. Tools used b one or more 'urisdictions:
r �� as n it rr I
`'" s i �r by E ��"�' '1 °yy 'y .nrya z f fiE � t 1 r' }'' �°�. ,ow•,f�y
� , C � gl�"s Yfi� � � [ ![P
/, 3�Yr r aS z it Fv 'Wt t�F;'t 'i t� gu 7 TY"c1" "�(+� Tns.m 'j 7'
e `14,aar.,Imraa,nl�i1M: .:, "h ';Y,�aad .zAa'�»kxfPr{ .;2 g� y ` C. ,; ' F a a Y , .;�v'mFa SSa �sri�
��afiawoumn »S�»w�tr�aszd,aa��wt.,�, E:�
Accesso Dwellin Unit 14
Densi Transfer 4
Densi : •. • ilia a. . . • ._ 3
No Net Loss Provisions for Housin: 3
Increased Densi in Transit Corridors 2
R- •lacement Housin: Ordinance 2
Conversion of Rental to Owner Occu•ied Unit 2
Re. - 'sett fo se Reloc.*o• of Mob. e •o se ' . , 2
Linka:e Pro: ams 1
it.' sow .t•k•4.9tU•Y1r� .jh 1
j , r^7 , u r' �:5 �'tt�'+�ui �C y 4' Vf`^�' +' i4 -�i'av'r "°'�+�w!S, F
Pro: . a for Seniors and Disabled 7
Land Bankin: 3
Lon:-term or Permanent Affordabili Re•uirements 3
•
Pro.e Tax Abatement for Housin• 3
System Development Charges Abatements for Affordable 3
. Housin:
Tax Foreclosed Pro•erties Donated for Affordable Housin: 3
Buildin• and Land Use Fee Waivers 2
fb n�yo^^yw 7-""
` a + ",1 �7 7. Y Yv ' 7^t s _
�� � --,,u=;ALL,CDBG Funds Dedicated to Housin: 7
rCm.-4t mQ•l.t•mil-Awl -• stsiss11t1Yliat• •coss.`fl.ssallIllIll 3
Other Financial Incentives 3
Other Findings
Answers to Question #1: Which programs or tools have been
successful in the development of affordable housing?
• Beaverton: Partnership/TVHP for multi-family rental rehab.
• Gresham: HOME and CDBG funds/Transit-oriented tax abatement/SIP agreement
made funds available in housing/Tax-foreclosed properties make properties available
countywide.
• Hillsboro: The City of Hillsboro has participated extensively with Washington
County in their CDBG and HOME programs and did not have a separate program.In
2000,Hillsboro will be an entitlement city and is exploring various options to
encourage affordable housing.
• Lake Oswego: The special use housing provisions and the City zoning code
provide opportunities for housing provision for low and moderate income
023
households.However,these provisions have not been used by developers in the past
years.
• Portland:The tools which provide financial assistance are most effective. Regulatory
tools are useful in making projects more feasible and support innovative projects, but
direct or indirect(e.g.,property tax exemption)funding upfront or ongoing produces
tangible results.Technical assistance in a variety of forms(from free zoning
verifications for grant applicants to formal partnerships)are also successful.
• Tualatin:Multifamily zoning as a tool has been successful because many
apartments have been built in the multifamily zones.
• Clackamas County: HOME Funds/Low income housing tax credit program
• Washington County: Land banking-acquisition/allowing calendidation(?)of
payment in lieu of taxes(PILOT)payments according to HUD's public housing
formula for properties which County Housing Authority is general(??).
Answers To Question #2: Which programs or tools have not been
successful in encouraging the development of affordable housing?
• Portland: Strictly regulatory tools have proved less effective in themselves,but
have with other types of assistance made projects more feasible.
• Clackamas County: Density bonus provisions/Mobile home park relocations/
replacement zoning provisions/accessory dwelling units-"the jury is out"not many
requested and no useful data on affordability.
Answers To Question#3: Why?(this question is an expansion of
Question #2)
No jurisdictions answered this question.
•
Conclusions
With the exception of Portland,very few jurisdictions use more than one or two
affordable housing tools.Tools that are mandated by Metro,namely accessory dwelling
units,are used twice as often as tools not mandated by Metro.
•
024
• A.W1103
u01.61.IlyseM >-N Z 2 z z z }03 2 Z z }'. z cn o
Awnop yewoupnw
Awnoo sewrloelo >,to z } ' z z z >-M z >-co z z z Uj rz N
a8ell!A PooM
elllnuosllM >-v Z y.to }u) z z .z z z z z z m o o
uu►f MOM
ul;eleoj >-.-Z Z z z Z Z Z Z z z z z 4
alepinoJi z z z Z Z z Z z z z z z z
p,e6ll }.- z z } z' z z z z z z Z z w
poowuags z z z >- ....) z z z z z Z z z sk
anw6JOAM
d _
co
pUeod } >-N Z >-�^ Z }N }th } }in
Z >-N Y
O Nz z Z z Z z Z Z Z Z Z
u>. Z Z z z z z •
n. *Ned pooMAegg
411) O
= o6aNesp aKe'I > Z Z z Z z Z Z Z z z z en
m
et A}ID 6uoi
o
Am uosuyor
Q _
c >-r >-o.sogsll!H , Z Z z Z Z Z cti z z z z u
o _15) -
AapeA AddeH }^ z Z z z z z z Z Z Z z Z
CC ,
cy we4seJ9 )- >-o z z z z z z z >-' }N Z en CC*.
a>
aumsPeI9 z z z z z z z z z z z z Z
I—
anoJD;saJoj ›-CO z Z z z Z z Z z z Z z z
Me!Nte j
wey.ina >-o z >- z .z z z z Z z z z z
slawo3
uoz,aneae } z z Z z z z z z z z z Z
a,
75
° tw O n o h a1
ti —a) o o d m a> j a)m m m rn jai N.
y aci c., d h as c..
t there 1 z < a e = °c) ° = Oc °� mou'Eu u
m C c a N= m a, C�° aaCt G „a) g a..>. E aa)i to aa)j a7 A 2 C = 2 e
to h L ,a ° VJ i 0 W a7 ,y E 7- c m
E o 0 m K x m x =�•x k m x Q k to h O ,rn c h a`� G'y y C
E z o 3 a) o'a m o a 6 m " t m '. rn m c '`= x` W 'e a a) x n'x CI) k
>�Z0 c c c=•z c ,e = m c m m e a' rn0 CC m a0 y
o c m �- oui ° o �� =m cY e0 Z. a, = Q e ° �.=0 c ° t
• C9 �� yo-� a„0omco .�o e�°ao,o—' rnomoN `oo . ce o c.c. - en
ca a1 to > 07 to to m 'O c— c c— r°73- co C— „,o,2 -0`O Cl O W—O
F¢QZ ..UOZO= ZOoZMNZ N2LI2�U2tX02—ZZ°¢Za2 a02
025
41)
A uno°uohulyseM at Z * Z >-°' z z z z }m at
/cuno°yewou;lnw
/t;uno°sewe3pet° z >-caul z . >-N >-to a >.c,0 at at it
abemA PooM
apinuosl!M ae z ac Z at z z ac z z ae
uurl;sem
upelenl z z 2 z z Z z Z Z z z
alep;noJ1 Z Z Z Z z z Z z z Z z
pie6!j z Z z z z z z z z z z
pooMJsyg at Z u z z z z z z z at
8A0.15.18/411
PUelPod 2 3;32. > tt cn >-Lc) >-N >.2 > Z }. >- }
ARO uobaJO ae Z aI, Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
=0- zz z z z >- >-0-
z z z:EEEi '
l m z = ac z z z z ac * ac
AIM 6uDi
3!o uosuyor _ .
OJogSliIH at Z v Ic> Z >- Z z Z Z z >t
AelleA AddeH z Z z z z z z z Z at at
1.1.18488.10 ac }... a Z >-r` >-C' Z Z Z )ln u
auolspem z z z z >- z z z an ar zt
anon°3SOJod Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z
MaIMle j 3
e,
a,L.p CO
U a1 m-7
weginp z z z z z z z z z z z.8 a,m
snllawo° Ct 0 0
cc-osaa
uo7Janea9 z z Z >-N-- >-to Z Z Z Z Z Z
N p u. D a N .`r _ �, Cl,
d — E >
c.. aCi c.. ` N. m cw m cs.'C y c�. w m c a cs. O cs. o cw ? �.
aI uE uc � .Guo Ua.o u o '- . > m v.) aI2 c°3i 0 c(3c u m
m E co a aa)a) o�� �av m> ygF„ ar=i'"� aa) - -M ur`? a o
_ _
L R< N bE ='RO H m N O H O 2 > > . aI O O vI 0 , y C cn N OLa N
J X Q is O a7 o a) ci)o 2'a) o m< o d L m vit x a) O m'Si fo ` X }Z O
QI X 03 Q1 W O .s-O D a) y m V,Q z j,5 I. C o�N.,.,_ o (a o o m
C C a7 .0 .�L 2 = g To
T=C = O O = N `o o P. m m' = O m U 0a 11 II 11 II
,G E o c o C }20rn
•
m art' onQ °' o�u mrnm rn � o J`�°Etv 13 rno rnmwrncw` rn
_ m o m; aEi rn 8 O d i Oro m 3 li m—vCi O aI 75 . o_- 0 3= 0 Y 3 N e°i° d°N
0 0 0 2 0 0 >,L!C o o7 O.o T O o o a3 o o o D 0=is 15 > O a7 a) O O'_ m O"' m O-
m52a22cnUQ2C cnZU22E—={2)2cZ_ iu �mo2=1zC20Z20z20
UI�f6
Exhibit D
• Housing Terminology:
Affordable housing:
By Metro definition, affordable housing is housing that does not cost more than 30% of the
gross income of households with incomes categorized as extremely low, low, low-moderate,
or moderate.
Median income:
As of 2003, the region's median income for a family of four was $65,800.
Income categories, as defined by Metro:
Extremely low income: Not more than 30%of regional median income
Low income:. From 30 to 50% of regional median income
Low-moderate income: From 50 to 80% of regional median income
Moderate income: From 80 to 120% of regional median income.
Lower income housing:
As defined by HUD, housing is affordable by people with lower incomes if prices and/or rent
levels are affordable by people making up to 80% of the region's median income.
Very-low income housing:
40 As defined by HUD, housing is affordable by people with very low incomes if prices and/or
rent levels are affordable by people making up to 50% of the County's median income.
Self-help housing:
Housing constructed by the future occupants. A common form of self-help housing is to
have multiple families assist each other in building the units for all of the families, typically
with technical support and assistance from a non-profit group.
Co-op housing:
Housing where each household owns a share of the entire development. For example, an
individual residing alone in a 20-unit co-op would own 1/20th of the total development. The
advantage of co-op housing is that it is typically regarded by lenders as more secure than
individual unit ownership. Tenants of existing apartment complexes are sometimes able to
buy their own building through the formation of a co-op.
Cohousing:
Multiple unit housing designed by the future occupants. The most common "model" for
cohousing came from Scandinavia where 20 or 30 households would jointly design their
development, including areas for common use. A newer American variation has evolved
where multiple households buy up existing neighborhoods and remove interior fences to
create common areas.
•
027
Affordable Housing Terminology
• lLAKE py.wF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ill
Staff Report
ort p
OREGON
TO: Commission for Citizen Involvement(Planning Commission)
Development Review Commission
FROM: Stephan A. Lashbrook, Community Development Director
DATE: February 18, 2004
SUBJECT: Ideas on Improving Public Involvement
(Demystifying, Explaining, and Streamlining the Hearing Process)
Over the last month or so several members of the staff have been discussing ways to improve our
communication and interaction with the public on various planning projects. These discussions have
led to the recommendations contained in this report.
• Given that the Planning Commission, in its capacity as the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI),
is empowered to find ways to enhance public involvement in land use decision-making and other
planning processes, the CCI is the logical place to begin discussing the recommendations of this report.
The Development Review Commission(DRC) also must be involved because it is the body that makes
most of the significant decisions on development applications within Lake Oswego. For that reason, I
intend to attend the next available meeting of both Commissions to discuss these recommendations.
The recommendations contained in this report have been divided into three categories:
1. Information conveyed to the public in advance of public hearings;
2. What happens in the course of public hearings; and
3. Other recommendations.
Category 1 --Information conveyed to the public in advance of public hearings:
a. Official notices of public hearings can be overly technical. Some of the language in notices is
mandated by the State,but we are now working on adding some simple, straight-forward explanation of
what is really being proposed and how the process works. Josh Thomas, Citizen Involvement
Coordinator,has been reviewing our notices and has offered suggestions on ways to demystify the
language.
b. Not all interested parties are notified about a proposed development application until late in the
• process. The official hearing notices are generally not distributed until the overall design of the
1
Public Involvement(P 04-0001)
development is "solidified." The developer is typically much less willing to modify those plans at that
point because of the large investment that the developer has already made. We have considered several
ways to provide more notification earlier in the process. One change that should help is to involve
members of the public in the pre-application meeting with the developer.
Although we can continue to meet privately with developers when the developer is willing to pay for
the staff time involved, we should begin to invite neighborhood representatives to attend our official
(and required)pre-application conferences. I recommend the following changes to our pre-application
process:
* Where there is an active neighborhood association, we would invite the association to
send one or two people to the pre-application conference. The planner conducting the required
pre-app will need to effectively chair the meeting and assure that it does not turn into a debate
between the applicant and the neighborhood representatives. At the same time, however,
neighborhood input should be encouraged as a means of influencing the ultimate design. Where
no neighborhood association is active, the Commission for Citizen Involvement would be asked
to nominate at least two people per neighborhood who would be invited to attend the required
pre-application conferences. (I realize that this may create a challenge for the Commission in
finding a way to deal with neighborhoods that have not previously been active in the planning
process.)
* Given the size of the areas involved, I would suggest that Mountain Park and Westlake
be treated as recognized Neighborhood Associations in this process.
11111
* If we end up with large numbers of people wanting to attend pre-app conferences, we
will have a logistical problem. For now though, I recommend that we continue to use the
Community Development Conference Room and see how this works.
* I also recommend that this approach be given a four-month trial period for us to
determine if it really is improving the process. It should be noted that some staff people are
concerned that this will add to their workloads and slow down the process of preparing staff
reports.
c. A City staff person should attend the neighborhood meeting scheduled by the developer. The
staff person should not be there to comment on the merits of the application but should be able to
explain the procedures and help the public to understand how they can be involved in the process. This
is especially important when the applicant intends to use the "expedited land division"process provided
by statute, that prohibits public hearings. (Many people are understandably confused and distrustful of
a land use process that deliberately discourages public input.) Ideally, the staff person attending these
meetings should be an ombudsman or neighborhood planner, rather than the planner who will be doing
the development review. (If the development review planner attends,people will expect the planner to
comment on the application before it has even been filed.)
Category 2 --Public hearings (at DRC or PC):
a. The seating arrangement at hearings has recently been changed so the staff members do not •
have their backs to the audience. Staffers have been moved to the side. We still need to find ways to
Public Involvement(P 04-0001) 2
assure that graphic displays are presented in a way that they can be seen by the audience as well as the
• decision-makers. We should consider whether a similar approach would help for City Council
hearings.
b. Someone needs to "translate the Latin to the citizenry" during public hearings. From the
perspective of an audience member,much of what gets said between the applicant, the decision-makers,
and the staff is full of technical terms and jargon—it may as well be Latin. I am proposing that
someone be assigned to translate as the meeting takes place. The person chairing the meeting needs to
be prepared to provide this translation, or to ask someone from the staff to do so at regular intervals. (It
helped when City Attorney David Powell stood and faced the audience at the start of the City Council
hearing on the Avamere development and explained the procedures involved.) Someone also needs to
clearly explain the nature of a decision that has been reached, after a vote has been taken. Even if they
are unhappy with the decision that has been reached,people who have taken the time to be involved in
the process deserve a clear explanation of the decision and what happens next with the process.
c. The decision-makers should not begin to focus on the details of the application until they have
dealt with the bigger issues and heard initial comments from the public. This is an especially big issue
with the DRC. On a large development proposal it is not uncommon for the presentations and question-
answer period to go on for two hours before the public is given an opportunity for input. By that point,
the audience may be bored, frustrated, or hopelessly confused. Also, questions from DRC members
about specific architectural details of a proposed development can give the (wrong) impression that a
decision about the overall project has already been made and only the details have to be worked out.
Two possible alternatives have been discussed. With either, the purpose would be to assure that the
public's comments are heard early in the process. A combination of the two might also be appropriate:
Abbreviate the process prior to public input. This would require the Chair to move through the
initial presentations by the staff and the applicant very quickly(perhaps limiting them to 10 or
15 minutes each). The decision-makers would have to limit questions until after public
comments have been received.
Conduct the hearing in two phases. The first phase would be focused on the overall approval
criteria(and not on the proposed design). This initial phase would include only a brief staff
report and review of criteria, applicant comments,public testimony and applicant's rebuttal.
The DRC would then close that phase of the hearing and move into the second phase on the
proposed design. I would suggest that all deliberations come after the second phase of the
hearing. In that way the DRC would create a complete record for consideration on appeal, even
if the application fails to meet the initial criteria test.
I understand that either of the alternatives listed above would create its own particular problems in
conducting public hearings but I feel that giving the public the opportunity to be involved earlier in
each hearing will prove to improve the outcome.
d. The P.A. system in the Council Chambers creates some additional challenges. In addition to
assuring that the P.A. system receives regular maintenance and repairs, we also need to conduct
microphone-training sessions for all of the bodies that meet in the Council Chambers. (It is fairly
• common for people to point the microphones straight up when they don't want to be bothered with
them. Given that the speakers are located in the ceiling, that is the worst microphone position in terms
of feedback.)
Public Involvement(P 04-0001) 3
e. We have recently done a better job of using "PowerPoint"to explain the applicable criteria for
the decision posted in front of the audience during hearings. If necessary, the decision criteria could be 411)
printed on a separate sheet and handed to everyone when they enter the Council Chambers. This would
help to remind people where their testimony should focus.
Category 3 -- Other recommendations:
a. Virtually all new development proposals generate neighborhood concerns about traffic. In order
to avoid receiving a"sales job" from the applicant's traffic expert, the City should retain the services of
a traffic engineer who will review development proposals and make recommendations to the City--but
whose services will be paid for by the applicants. This will require having an engineer on retainer who
understands that his/her client is the City and not the developer. The selected consulting engineer
would have to attend the public pre-application meetings to help define the scope of the traffic study to
be prepared. We are now working on determining which development projects will require a full traffic
study and which will receive a more cursory review.
b. When an application for a building permit has been filed with the City(for a new building)the
applicant should be required to post a copy of the proposed building elevations in a protected liner at
the front of the property. That posting should also include the name of the building owner, designer,
and builder. An additional requirement for larger developments would be to post all approved building
elevations on the City's website. Some cities are already doing this.
c. We should create one or more videos to help explain the hearing process. These videos could
be available to loan or could be viewed via the internet. We could use footage from actual hearings in
the process. These would also be helpful to the neighborhood planner who is likely to be spending a lot
of time explaining how the hearing process works.
d. I recently suggested that we implement a"common sense permit"to allow for abbreviated
review procedures for residential proposals that are supported by both the staff and by neighbors of the
subject property. Some members of the staff have serious concerns about implementing such a permit
process, noting that the"alternative development review"process for single-family dwellings is still
relatively untested and it may be premature to make more changes to the process at this time. They
have suggested that we encourage applicants to consider the new alternative process that was adopted
as part of the Infill Development ordinance rather than implement more changes. Additionally, staffers
have asked that we monitor the new alternative process for some time before we make further changes.
While I respect those concerns, I also note that there are some development proposals that deserve an
abbreviated process because they are supported by their neighbors and will have no adverse effects on
the community.
e. At committee meetings and/or study sessions that are not hearings, time for public comments
should be provided at both the beginning and the end of the meeting. If decisions/recommendations are
being made and members of the public have made the effort to come to the meeting, it makes sense to
assure that everyone has had an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made.
Thank you for your consideration of these ideas. I will look forward to discussing them with you and
with the DRC. •
cc: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Mayor Hammerstad and City Council; Planning Staff
Public Involvement(P 04-0001) 4