Housing Our Future Task Force Meeting #5

City of Wilsonville HOUSING OUR FUTURE TASK FORCE Meeting Summary DATE: MARCH 18, 2025 LOCATION: ONLINE MEETING - ZOOM TIME START: 3:00 PM TIME END: 5:00 PM ATTENDANCE LOG TASK FORCE MEMBERS STAFF OTHER Councilor Katie Dunwell, City Council President Caroline Beth Goodman, Miranda Bateschell Council, Chair Berry, City Council ECOnorthwest Nicole Underwood, Samuel Goldberg, DLCD Kelly Reid, DLCD Daniel Pauly ECOnorthwest Gloria LaFleur, Housing Maria Vargas, Latino Network Kim Rybold Authority of Clackamas County Erik Pattison, Network for Rachel Vickers, Pahlisch TF MEMBERS ABSENT Oregon Affordable Housing Homes Commissioner Jennifer Robert Gibson, Palindrome Williard, Planning Commission Trell Anderson, Northwest Diane Imel, DEI Committee Housing Alternatives Leigh Crosby, Wilsonville Community Sharing AGENDA SUMMARY AGENDA ACTIONS Councilor Dunwell opened the meeting and welcomed the Task Force. WELCOME | Councilor Katie Dunwell and Task Force members Beth Goodman and Kim Rybold explained that the goal of the meeting REVIEW FINAL ACTIONS THAT WILL BE was to review and refine the final actions that will be in the HPS to INCLUDED IN THE HPS | Beth Goodman ensure that the project team has included the correct implementation steps, timeline, and monitoring for each. • Discuss final actions to be included in the HPS and the Action A actions for future consideration • Discuss implementation schedule Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. • Discuss monitoring metrics Councilor Dunwell asked if Town Center would be included in this • Final comments analysis. Kim Rybold noted that most of this area is already planned to allow housing uses. Councilor Dunwell then asked if it is possible to redesignate the area in the Villebois Village Center to make development more attractive. Kim noted that the Villebois site has an active development approval and is guided by a master plan with a broad allowance of uses. The City will scan all sites that are vacant and underutilized and consider if the current zoning is inhibiting development. Councilor Dunwell expressed concern that development may not happen even with a residential allowance in place. Kim noted that market factors beyond a local government’s control influence the pace of development, and the HPS is focused on elements the City can control. Beth agreed and added that the City would want to be careful not to downzone property since property owners could file claims against the City. Council President Berry asked to look at the implementation schedule and said she found it helpful in evaluating the actions. Kim Rybold stated that Actions A-D would likely be evaluated under a broader Comprehensive Plan update process. Action B Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. Councilor Dunwell asked about the City’s current multifamily housing stock and if we can take that into account in developing standards. Beth Goodman noted that the housing types considered here could be for homeowners or renters, and may enable more affordable homeownership opportunities. Councilor Dunwell asked how specific the City needs to be regarding renter or homeownership focus for this action. Beth noted that the HPS did not need to be that specific. Action C Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action, with Kim Rybold adding additional details. Councilor Dunwell asked how the City can ensure that residents are being heard and the developer is not being put above residents. Kim Rybold noted that since clear and objective standards are used, community input becomes really important during the development of the development of the standards. Community members would still have the ability to appeal decisions. Council President Berry thinks this process is important. A complaint the City often hears is the amount of time it takes to get approval for projects. Rachel Vickers noted that Goal 1 is important, but this type of action can help protect housing projects that might otherwise get a lot of community pushback, particularly for affordable housing projects. Kelly Reid noted that with clear and objective standards, the public cannot really influence the outcome when the standards are met. It sets up a false sense of how much influence people have and can waste people’s time and energy. Other communities in the state are going in this direction. Beth Goodman reiterated the importance of public involvement in setting policies and goals. Councilor Dunwell believes people have the right to speak up and be heard. A transparent process will be important, so that we are crystal clear where citizen input provides the greatest value. Action D Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. Councilor Dunwell would like to consider changing the wording from encourage to require. Gloria LaFleur suggested that the City should consider incentives rather than requirements. This can often make affordable housing projects more difficult, and she can share some examples of effective incentives. Councilor Dunwell asked to confirm if safe and affordable housing is one of the goals of an HPS. The most vulnerable populations need to be supported. Rachel Vickers noted that SDC credits are incentivizing for developers. Council President added the City should make it clear in the description of the action that it is both incentives and requirements. There should be some amount of both. Erik Patteson noted it is important to increase accessibility, zoning bonus might be one type of incentive. Rachel Vickers stated there are a lot of ways to offer incentives to make projects work, can provide additional feedback on ideas for which incentives are most worthwhile. Action E Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. Council President Berry asked if any of these tax credits are in danger at the federal level. Gloria LaFleur stated that LIHTC has historically had bipartisan support. Even if something happened to the program, existing properties with tax credits would remain affordable for the duration of their affordability period. Gloria LaFleur suggested looking at the state revolving loan fund to support this action, and will look into different funding options. Action F Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. Councilor Dunwell noted that the timeline for the housing specialist might be sooner than shown in the document. Kim Rybold noted that there is no harm in getting actions done sooner than stated in the HPS. Councilor Dunwell asked that the timeline mirror Action E. Rachel Vickers stated that it would be great to have the position attending pre-application meetings and involved in the development process for housing. Beth confirmed that will be important to discussed how this position relates to the work of planning staff. Action G Beth Goodman reviewed the context of this action. Rachel Vickers asked about when the CET is imposed. Kim Rybold confirmed this is at the time the building permit is issued. Beth Goodman explained that CET is up to 1% of the permit value for housing with the exception of income-restricted housing, and the City can also can have it on commercial and industrial development. It is not levied on the construction of roads. Council President Berry noted that more information from staff, including examples of how it is used elsewhere, will be important in the evaluation. Councilor Dunwell observed that the title of Action G is very specific versus language used in Action A. Beth noted that there needs to be some level of commitment to the actions the City includes. Kelly Reid stated that the word “establish” is stronger. If the City decides not to adopt a CET, it could be replaced with something else. Councilor Dunwell asked about some of the softer language used in other actions. Kelly noted that the implementation steps are really the most important part, particularly if they are action-oriented. Councilor Dunwell asked if it was possible to run these actions by DLCD prior to review. Kim stated that the City has met with DLCD but they would not provide feedback until the HPS is adopted. She noted that Action G is very specific to a single tool, which is different than consideration of Action A which is a more complex land use process. Samuel Goldberg added that strong commitment language is most important in the implementation description for the action. DLCD needs something discrete to evaluate actions.  Miranda Bateschell added that it is challenging to be definitive when actions have to go through a full evaluation process before City Council. The public process needs to be honored, and the HPS cannot promise things in advance of this process. Councilor Dunwell noted the importance of being able to defend this action with adoption of the HPS. A term like “evaluate” allows Council to go through the process before making a final decision. Council President Berry suggested the action also include other funding tools in the event that CET does not work out. Beth suggested the City could add that flexibility into the implementation description. It is possible that there could be other funding options a few years from now. Kim Rybold suggested that the action be flexible but focused on establishing a funding source, and that changing the title to add flexibility could be sufficient. Council President Berry and Councilor Dunwell confirmed that establishing a funding source such as CET should be the focus of the action. CET is still the priority to explore. Beth Goodman briefly summarized the next steps in the project. NEXT STEPS | Beth Goodman, Kim Rybold, and Councilor Dunwell Kim Rybold thanked everyone for their participation in the task force discussions. This input has been important in guiding the City’s decision makers in this work. The draft HPS will be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council in April, with adoption hearings planned for May and June. Councilor Dunwell and Council President Berry thanked everyone for sharing their expertise during this process and adjourned the meeting.