91ÊÓƵ

Portland-area regional government Metro on Thursday will vote on an ordinance that outlines how it will accommodate growth within future urban areas.

The ordinance would implement standard efficiency measures and also include the area’s first regional policy on planning for affordable housing. But while the draft policy would build upon Metro’s goal to conduct future planning in an encompassing manner, some local housing professionals believe the policy could be in violation of federal and state laws.

“At a minimum it should be the requirement of our local government to provide equality,” said Jane Leo, government affairs director for the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors. “In an attempt to create equality, Metro is creating inequality with this ordinance.”

Metro’s capacity ordinance would lay out how growth will be accommodated in future urban areas. These areas, though not presently in the urban growth boundary, are eligible to be included as growth occurs over the next 50 years.

Most of the ordinance has avoided criticism, but the PMAR and other housing industry groups don’t like how the ordinance addresses affordable housing.

The ordinance, which was drafted by Councillor Robert Liberty and members of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, includes a “Planning for Areas Designated Urban Reserves” section. In it, a requirement calls for the county of the future urban area, and the city likely to provide services to it, to work with Metro and other service districts to develop a concept plan for the area before it can be included within the urban growth boundary.

The concept plan must include the need for types of housing, and how the public and private sectors plan to accommodate it for residents with incomes at the 80-percent, 50-percent and 30-percent levels of median family incomes for the region. The plan also must include cost estimations, why the housing is needed, how it aligns with public and pedestrian transportation outlets, a plan for providing job opportunities in the area and a report on how the projects attempt to avoid impacting ecological systems nearby.

According to Leo, the ordinance would give priority to housing that accommodates people under the 80 percent threshold by requiring detailed plans for it. This, Leo said, potentially violates the Fair Housing Act, as well as Oregon Chapter 197, which makes it illegal for governments to require a certain price point for a particular housing type.

Liberty disagrees. He believes the ordinance wouldn’t favor one income level, but rather help planners look at future areas in a more encompassing way.

“It’s not an assignment,” he said. “We just want cities to look at housing from all perspectives. We understand that some inclusion areas won’t have as much affordable housing as others. But we want cities to explain their reasoning at the beginning.”

Liberty cited a Metro statistic stating that the cost of a house in an urban growth boundary expansion area averages $100,000 more than one in areas already within the UGB.

The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, meanwhile, believes the ordinance would create conflict with Metro’s goal to keep affordable housing near social services.

“We absolutely support offering these types of housing ranges,” said David Nielsen, the association’s CEO. “But this kind of housing only makes sense when you are closer to urban areas, not on the outskirts of the area where these UGB expansions would take place.”

Nielsen is concerned that such projects could become even less likely to pencil out.

Money issues could also pop up, Leo said.

“This ordinance doesn’t shed any light on the amount of public subsidy that will be available for future affordable housing projects,” she said. “If we plan before we know what kind of funding there is to work with, we could end up doing a lot of work for nothing.”

Despite not having the funding in place, Jesse Beason, executive director of affordable housing developer Proud Ground, believes future planning must include affordable housing.

“When we are thinking about concept planning, we always need to look at it holistically, and this is a step in that direction,” Beason said. “I understand that it’s hard without having the resources in place, but it’s the same way we plan out any other future infrastructure needs.”

Liberty said he has addressed these concerns and has rewritten the language of the ordinance, which will be available to the public at the Thursday meeting. He said the spirit of the ordinance was preserved.

Nielsen, however, said he isn’t confident that rewording will make a difference.

“Councillor Liberty has not reached out to either (the PMAR or the HBA) since we first shared our concerns last week,” he said. “If you are making policy decisions based on housing, we should both be included.

“We hope we can work something out, but Councillor Liberty has a history of not wanting to see expansion areas work.”