Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2024-12-03 AGENDA ff- E 94" CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Tuesday, December 3, 2024 O 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chamber- 3rd Floor O 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Staff Contact: Kari Linder, CityRecorder@lakeoswego.city Virtual Access ADA Accommodation Requests Translation Services This meeting will be held in lakeoswego.city/accommodation Traduccion o interpretacion person.To participate remotely, 503-635-0282; Relay 711 111 if- please email the City Recorder by Please allow four business days to gems o tiQl noon the day of the meeting. process your request. 5 503-534-5738 This meeting will be livestreamed on the City's YouTube Channel and at lakeoswego.city. The meeting will also be broadcasted live on Tualatin Valley Community TV; check tvctv.org for details. 1. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENT The purpose of Public Comment is to allow community members to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing.A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed thirty minutes in total, unless changed by the Mayor. If you are unable to attend the meeting and prefer to provide public comment in writing, by phone or electronically, please email the City Recorder by noon the day of the meeting. 5. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the Consent Agenda. The City Council makes one motion covering all items included on the Consent Agenda. Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda. 5.1 Resolution 24-50, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Sign the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County for the Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant and to Sign an Agreement with Hunger Fighters Oregon to Reimburse them with Grant Funds for Operation Expenses. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-50. 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7.1 Ordinance 2954, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Clarifying, Revising, and Updating Various Articles Declaring Violations to be Civil Violations and/or Subject to Enforcement Fees; and Amending LOC Art. 20.02 (Business Licenses); LOC Art. 32.06 (Parking Regulations); LOC Art. 34.10 (Types of Nuisance); LOC Art. 42.03 (Street Design Standards); LOC Art. 47.03 (Sign Code); and LOC Art. 55.02 (Tree Removal). Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2954. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 Resolution 24-47, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules 46-0131 Special Procurement (Legal and Related Services) and 46-140 Regarding Delegation of Authority to City Manager to Enter into Public Contracts and to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney 3. Testimony—the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-47. 8.2 Ordinance 2949, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending: The Economic Vitality Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; the Connected Community Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan; the Foothills Special District Plan; the Lake Grove Village Center Plan; the Marylhurst Area Special District Plan; LOC 50.03.003 Use-Specific Standards; 50.03.005 Temporary Structures and Uses; 50.05.004 Downtown Redevelopment Design District; 50.05.007 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District; 50.06.002 Respect. Excellence. Trust. ___ i:_ 503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 Parking; 50.06.003 Circulation and Connectivity; 50.06.004 Site Design; 50.07.005 Review Procedures; 50.07.004 Additional Submission Requirements; 50.07.005 Conditional Use Permits; 50.08.001 Introduction to Variances; 50.10.003 Definitions; and Adopting Findings (LU 24-0025). Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager 3. Testimony—the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff Alternative A [excludes Option b parking lot fee-in-lieul: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2949, with code dated November 13, 2024, and direct staff to return on December 17, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 24-0025; or Alternative B [includes Option b]: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2949 with the code amendments dated October 25, 2024, and direct staff to return on December 17, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 24-0025. 9. STUDY SESSION 9.1 2025 Master Fees and Charges. 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 12. RECESS, CITY COUNCIL 13. CALL TO ORDER, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 14. PUBLIC HEARING 14.1 LORA Resolution 24-03, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Concurring in the Amendment of Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules 46-0131 Special Procurement (Legal and Related Services) and 46-140 Regarding Delegation of Authority to City Manager to Enter into Public Contracts and to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements by Lake Oswego City Council Resolution 24-47. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by Ellen Osoinach, LORA Counsel 2. Staff Report by Evan Boone, Deputy LORA Counsel 3. Testimony—the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff Motion: Move to adopt LORA Resolution 24-03. 15. BOARD BUSINESS 15.1 Approval of LORA Meeting Minutes. October 15, 2024, Draft Regular LORA Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve the LORA meeting minutes as written. 16. ADJOURNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) 17. RECONVENE, CITY COUNCIL 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Consult with Attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed; and (f) Consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. 19. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY 5.1 E o COUNCIL REPORT V -w 0 GREGO� Subject: Resolution 24-50, Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant Award & Contract Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Sid Sin, Redevelopment Manager Report Date: November 22, 2024 Department: City Manager's Office Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑X Resolution , ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 24-50, authorizing the City Manager to accept and sign Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant Intergovernmental Agreement and to sign an agreement with Hunger Fighters Oregon to reimburse them with grant funds for operational expenses. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-50. Project/ Issue Relates To: N/A Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Should the Council accept a Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Grant to fund a Behavioral Health Case Manager position in the Police Department and direct funds to Hunger Fighters Oregon for approved operational expenses. BACKGROUND In December 2023, Clackamas County's Department of Health, Housing, and Human Services released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homelessness initiatives. The Grant funding was an allocation from the County's portion of the Metro Support Housing Services bond dollars. The goal was to provide funding for one-time and limited-term pilot projects/programs led by cities to address housing insecurity and homelessness within the individual communities. Initiatives were to have a clearly articulated connection to the Respect cv el'erce. Trust. Se-iv 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 recovery-oriented needs of low and extremely-low income households experiencing housing instability or homelessness. These could entail projects and programs related to employment support, mental health services, outreach services, food support services, and more. DISCUSSION To support the City's continued efforts to connect vulnerable, at-risk community members with resources, the City applied and was awarded $840,000 in grant funding for two programs: 1. Behavioral Health Case Manager $465,000 total-$145,000 per year for three years for salary and benefits, including$10,000 per year for three years for emergency assistance funds Create a Behavioral Health Case Manager in the Lake Oswego Police Department to work within Lake Oswego and West Linn. The case manager will work directly with the City's current Behavioral Health Specialist to assess the needs of the person(s) and where appropriate, arrange, coordinate, and advocate for delivery and access to a range of programs and services designed to meet the individual's needs. This will be done by facilitating timely access to the necessary supports, thus reducing the risk of homelessness and/or helping them achieve housing stability. This position will assist in critical time intervention and help to identify the case by case need for crisis intervention related to problematic transitions, or for support systems around chronic conditions. 2. Social Service Funds directed to Hunger Fighters Oregon $375,000 total-$125,000 per year for three years for operations and outreach Provide direct funding to Hunger Fighters Oregon (HFO) to meet the increasing community demand for their services. By using awarded funds for operational costs (food, staff, rent, and utilities), HFO will be able to direct energy and resources away from fundraising and in-kind food collections and focus on outreach activities that will help create systematic change. This includes expanding its reach by working with other community partners, such as local churches, school, and community groups, to create satellite and pop up pantries in order to be more accessible to the larger community and those in need. The awarded grant will be received by the City of Lake Oswego to reimburse HFO for their fixed operational expenses. The City will enter into an agreement with HFO for reimbursement of these expenses and HFO will provide the City with periodic updates on metrics to monitor the efficacy of their efforts. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the intergovernmental agreement will enable the City to receive $840,000 to fund the Behavioral Health Case Manager role and for operational expenses for Hunger Fighters Oregon. Upon City of Lake Oswego's and Clackamas County's full approval, the City will provide invoices supporting the approved work and programs for reimbursement of the full grant amount over the next three years. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 24-50, with Exhibits A and B 2. Grant Award Letter Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service N 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 24-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND SIGN THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CLACKAMAS COUNTY FOR THE CLACKAMAS COUNTY CITY-LED HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES FUNDING GRANT AND TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH HUNGER FIGHTERS OREGON TO REIMBURSE THEM WITH GRANT FUNDS FOR OPERATION EXPENSES. WHEREAS, In December 2023, Clackamas County's Department of Health, Housing, and Human Services released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homelessness initiatives; and WHEREAS,the goal was to provide funding for one-time and limited-term pilot projects/programs led by cities to address housing insecurity and homelessness within the individual communities; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2024, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners approved funding the City's request for a Behavioral Health Case Manager role in the Police Department and for operational expenses for Hunger Fighters Oregon; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 confers authority upon local governments to enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized sign the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County for the Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A. Section 2. The City Manager is authorized sign the Agreement with Hunger Fighter Oregon to reimburse them with grant funds for operational expenses, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 3' day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: RESOLUTION 24-50 Page 1 of 2 Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney RESOLUTION 24-50 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLACKAMAS COUNTY AND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO #11863 THIS AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into and between Clackamas County ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and the City of Lake Oswego ("Agency"), a unit of local government, collectively referred to as the "Parties" and each a"Party." RECITALS Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190.010 confers authority upon local governments to enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform. A. In working to improve coordination and collaboration, increase geographical distribution of services, and support local leaders in tailoring approaches to addressing housing insecurity and homelessness that best suit their communities, Clackamas County released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homelessness initiatives. B. The funding opportunity is to spur creativity and innovation at the city level, empowering local leaders to supplement the often highly effective but under resourced local efforts to meet the needs of very low-income households. C. Proposed city-led initiatives were to have a clearly articulated connection to the needs of low- and extremely low income households experiencing housing instability or homelessness and support Clackamas County's recovery-oriented system of care. D. Clackamas County received more than $30 million in requests submitted by eleven cities in dozens of distinct proposals. E. Proposals were reviewed for: a. Clear alignment with County goals and priorities for its recovery-oriented homeless services system of care. b. Being additive to the system, consistent with the requirement that Supportive Housing Services investments supplement, not supplant, existing investments. c. Leveraging connection points to broader recovery-oriented system of care. d. Having a duration not longer than three years, recognizing that the Notice of Funding Opportunity was for one-time and limited-term investments. F. On April 3, 2024, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners approved of staff funding recommendations for proposals submitted in response to the Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homeless services initiatives. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: TERMS 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution, and shall expire on June 30, 2027, unless otherwise extended by agreement of the Parties. Agency may seek reimbursement for IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 1 eligible expenses under this Agreement during the period between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2027, subject to the additional terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Scope of Work. Agency agrees to provide the services further described in Exhibit A (the "Program"), attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein. The Program will be provided solely within Metro jurisdictional boundaries. 3. Funding. The maximum amount County may pay Agency is Eight Hundred Forty Thousand dollars ($840,000.00) (the "Funds"). Funds will be distributed on a reimbursement basis in accordance with the budget set forth in Exhibit A. Agency shall use the funds awarded under this Agreement solely for reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred in performing the Program, as further set forth in Exhibit A. Budget line items within categories may be changed with written agreement by both parties. County may approve, in writing, adjustments to budget line-item amounts provided the maximum Agreement amount is not exceeded. 4. Payment. Unless otherwise specified, the Agency shall submit monthly requests for reimbursement, on a form provided by County. A request for reimbursement must include a description of work performed with particularity, by whom it was performed, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Payments shall be made to Agency following the County's review and approval of the requests for reimbursement submitted by Agency. Agency shall not submit requests for reimbursement for, and the County will not pay, any amount in excess of the maximum compensation amount set forth above. Agency's failure to provide County information reasonably necessary for County to review a request for reimbursement for compliance with this Agreement may result in the County withholding payment, requiring Agency provide additional information, or treating this Agreement in default and pursuing any and all rights and remedies available to the County at law, in equity, or under this Agreement. Invoices shall reference the above Contract Number and be submitted to: HCDD- AP@Clackamas.us 5. Representations and Warranties. A. Agency Representations and Warranties: Agency represents and warrants to County that Agency has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and this Agreement, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Agency enforceable in accordance with its terms. B. County Representations and Warranties: County represents and warrants to Agency that County has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and this Agreement, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of County enforceable in accordance with its terms. C. The warranties set forth in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other warranties provided. 6. Termination. A. Either the County or the Agency may terminate this Agreement for convenience at any time upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. In the event a Party terminates this Agreement under this Section 6, Agency shall immediately return all unspent funds to the County. IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 2 B. The parties acknowledge that Agency may, in its reasonable administrative discretion, need to terminate only one of the programs set forth in Exhibit A. In the event Agency intends to terminate only one program described in Exhibit A, Agency will provide County 90 days' notice of its intent to partially terminate, and the parties will negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment reflecting the removal of the program. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement to amend the Agreement, either Party may immediately terminate the Agreement in its entirety. C. Either the County or the Agency may terminate this Agreement in the event of a default of the Agreement by the other, as defined below. Prior to such termination however, the Party seeking the termination shall give the other Party written notice of the breach and of the Party's intent to terminate. If the breaching Party has not entirely cured the breach within thirty (30) days of deemed or actual receipt of the notice, then the Party giving notice may terminate the Agreement at any time thereafter by giving written notice of termination stating the effective date of the termination. If the default is of such a nature that it cannot be completely remedied within such thirty(30) day period, this provision shall be complied with if the breaching Party begins correction of the default within the thirty(30) day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. The Party giving notice shall not be required to give more than one (1) notice for a similar default in any twelve (12)month period. Upon termination for Agency's breach, County shall have all remedies available to it at law, in equity, or under this Agreement including, but not limited to, requiring Agency to return all unspent funds and to repay County for any funds used by Agency in violation of this Agreement. D. The County or the Agency shall not be deemed to have waived any breach of this Agreement by the other Party except by an express waiver in writing. An express written waiver as to one breach shall not be deemed a waiver of any other breach not expressly identified, even though the other breach is of the same nature as that waived. E. The County or the agency may terminate this Agreement in the event the party fails to receive expenditure authority sufficient to allow the party, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to perform under this Agreement, or if federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that performance by party is prohibited. F. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 7. Default. A. Agency's Default.Agency will be in default under this Agreement upon the occurrence of the following: i. Agency fails to use the Funds for eligible purposes described in Exhibit A; ii. Any representation, warranty or statement made by Agency in this Agreement or in any documents or reports relied upon by County to measure the Program, the expenditure of the Funds, or the performance by Agency is untrue in any material respect when made; iii. After thirty (30) days' written notice with an opportunity to cure, Agency fails to comply with any term or condition set forth in this Agreement; iv. A petition, proceeding, or case is filed by or against Agency under federal or state bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or other law. IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 3 B. County's Default. County will be in default under this Agreement if, after thirty (30) days' notice and opportunity to cure, County fails to perform a material obligation under this Agreement provided, however, that failure to disburse Funds due to non-default termination, including lack of appropriation, shall not constitute a default of County. 8. Remedies. A. County's Remedies. In the event of Agency's default, County may, at is option,pursue any or all remedies available to it under this Agreement, at law, or in equity including, but not limited to: (1) withholding Agency additional Funds until compliance is met; (2)reclaiming Funds in the case of omissions or misrepresentations in financial or programmatic reporting; (3) requiring repayment of any Funds used by Agency in violation of this Agreement; (4) termination of this Agreement; (5) declaring Agency ineligible for receipt of future awards from County; (6) initiation of an action or proceeding for damages, declaratory, or injunctive relief. B. Agency's Remedies: In the event County is in default, and whether or not Agency elects to terminate this Agreement, Agency's sole remedy for County's default, subject to the limits of applicable law or in this Agreement, is reimbursement for eligible costs incurred in accordance with this Agreement, less any claims County may have against Agency. In no event will County be liable to Agency for expenses related to termination of this Agreement or for any indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages. 9. Indemnification. A. Indemnification and Defense of County. Agency shall be responsible for all damage to property, injury to persons, and loss, expense, inconvenience, and delay which may be caused by, or result from, the conduct of Work, or from any act, omission, or neglect of Agency, its subcontractors, agents, or employees. The Agency agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Clackamas County, and their officers, elected officials, agents and employees from and against all claims and actions, and all expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, arising out of or based upon damage or injuries to persons or property caused by the errors, omissions, fault or negligence of the Agency or the Agency's employees, subcontractors, or agents. However, neither Agency nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend the claim in the name of County or any department of County, nor purport to act as legal representative of County or any of its departments, without first receiving from the Clackamas County Counsel's Office authority to act as legal counsel for County, nor shall Agency settle any claim on behalf of County without the approval of the Clackamas County Counsel's Office. County may, at its election and expense, assume its own defense and settlement. B. Indemnification and Defense of Metro. The Agency agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless Metro Regional Government("Metro"), and its officers, elected officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, losses, liabilities, including reasonable attorney and accounting fees, and all expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, arising out of or based upon Agency's acts or omissions in performing under this Agreement. However, neither Agency's nor any attorney engaged by Agency IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 4 shall defend the claim in the name of Metro, nor purport to act as legal representative of Metro, without first receiving from the Metro attorney's office authority to act as legal counsel for Metro, nor shall Agency settle any claim on behalf of Metro without the approval of the Metro attorney's office. Metro may, at its election and expense, assume its own defense and settlement. 10. Insurance. The parties agree to maintain levels of insurance, or self-insurance, sufficient to satisfy their obligations under this Agreement and all requirements under applicable law. Both parties agree to name the other as an additional insured under their self-insurance policies. 11. Notices; Contacts.Any notice provided under this Agreement shall be delivered by email or by first class US mail to the individuals identified below. Any communication or notice mailed by first class US mail shall be deemed to be given three days after the date it is sent. Any communication or notice sent by electronic mail is deemed to be received on the date sent, unless the sender receives an automated message or other indication that the email has not been delivered. Either Party may change the Party contact information, or the invoice or payment addresses, by giving prior written notice to the other Party. Vahid Brown or their designee will act as liaison for the County. Contact Information: Housing and Community Development Division Administrator: Vahid Brown Email: vbrown@clackamas.us Phone: (971) 334-9870 Copy to: County Counsel 2051 Kaen Road, 4th Floor Oregon City, OR 97045 Madison Thesing or their designee will act as liaison for the Agency. Contact Information: Assistant to the City Manager Madison Thesing Email: mthesing@lakesoswego.city Phone: (503) 534-5285 Copy to: City of Lake Oswego Attn: Lake Oswego City Attorney PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 12. Monitoring. Agency agrees to allow access to conduct financial and performance audits for the purpose of monitoring use of the Funds in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 5 Standards ("GAAS"). County, and its duly authorized representatives, shall have access to such records and other books, documents,papers,plans, records of shipments and payments and writings of Agency that are pertinent to this Agreement, whether in paper, electronic or other form, to perform examinations and audits and make excerpts, copies and transcripts. Agency also agrees to provide reasonable access to Agency's employees for the purpose of monitoring. Audits may be performed onsite or offsite, at the County's discretion. If any audit or financial review finds that payments to Agency were in excess of the amount to which Agency was entitled, then Agency shall repay that amount to County. Agency agrees to allow County access to conduct site visits and inspections of financial records for the purpose of monitoring. Depending on the outcomes of the financial monitoring processes, this Agreement shall either (a) continue pursuant to the original terms, (b) continue pursuant to the original terms and any additional conditions or remediation deemed appropriate by County, or(c)be de-obligated and terminated. 13. Reporting. For food pantry services, reporting will include a summarization of the various data points identified in Exhibit A and demonstrating the need for food pantry services along with other visitation trends over time. For the Behavioral Health Unit services, reporting will include summarization of collected data points to be shared with law enforcement management, as well as City Managers, identified in Exhibit A. 14. Financial Management.Agency shall comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or another equally accepted basis of accounting, use adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary sources documentation for all uses of the Funds. 15. Period of Availability. Agency may charge to the award only allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the funding period. 16. Closeout. County will closeout this Agreement when County determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work have been completed by Agency. Agency must liquidate all obligations incurred under this award and must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by County, no later than 90 calendar days after the end date of this Agreement. 17. General Provisions. A. Oregon Law and Forum. This Agreement, and all rights, obligations, and disputes arising out of it will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon and the ordinances of Clackamas County without giving effect to the conflict of law provisions thereof Any claim between County and Agency that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Clackamas County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by the County of any form of defense or immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction of any court. Agency, by execution of this Agreement, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of the courts referenced in this section. IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 6 B. Compliance with Applicable Law. Both Parties shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and regulations. All provisions of law required to be a part of this Agreement, whether listed or otherwise, are hereby integrated and adopted herein. Failure to comply with such obligations is a material breach of this Agreement. C. Non-Exclusive Rights and Remedies. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the rights and remedies expressly afforded under the provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed exclusive, and shall be in addition to and cumulative with any and all rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity. The exercise by either Party of any one or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other remedies for the same default or breach, or for any other default or breach, by the other Party. D. Debt Limitation. This Agreement is expressly subject to the limitations of the Oregon Constitution and Oregon Tort Claims Act, and is contingent upon appropriation of funds. Any provisions herein that conflict with the above referenced laws are deemed inoperative to that extent. E. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be unconstitutional, illegal or unenforceable, this Agreement nevertheless shall remain in full force and effect and the offending provision shall be stricken. The Court or other authorized body finding such provision unconstitutional, illegal or unenforceable shall construe this Agreement without such provision to give effect to the maximum extent possible the intentions of the Parties. F. Integration,Amendment and Waiver. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties on the matter of the Program. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by such Party of that or any other provision. G. Interpretation. The titles of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. H. Independent Contractor. Each of the Parties hereto shall be deemed an independent contractor for purposes of this Agreement. No representative, agent, employee or contractor of one Party shall be deemed to be a representative, agent, employee or contractor of the other Party for any purpose, except to the extent specifically provided herein. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed, to create between the Parties any relationship of principal and agent, partnership,joint venture or any similar relationship, and each Party hereby specifically disclaims any such relationship. I. No Third-Party Beneficiary. Agency and County are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit or right, whether IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 7 directly, indirectly or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Agreement. J. Subcontract and Assignment. Agency shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work required by this Agreement, or assign or transfer any of its interest in this Agreement by operation of law or otherwise, without obtaining prior written approval from the County, which shall be granted or denied in the County's sole discretion. County's consent to any subcontract shall not relieve Agency of any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement. By execution of this Agreement, County acknowledges and consents to City's use of the Hunger Fighters Oregon("Hunger Fighters") for its food pantry services program. K. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (electronic or otherwise), each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute the same instrument. L. Survival.All provisions in Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17 (A), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (L), (0), and(Q), shall survive the termination of this Agreement, together with all other rights and obligations herein which by their context are intended to survive. M. Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the others all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement. N. Time is of the Essence. Agency agrees that time is of the essence in the performance this Agreement. O. Successors in Interest. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective authorized successors and assigns. P. Force Majeure.Neither Agency nor County shall be held responsible for delay or default caused by events outside of the Agency or County's reasonable control including, but not limited to, fire, terrorism, riot, acts of God, or war. However, Agency shall make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Q. No Attorney Fees. In the event any arbitration, action or proceeding, including any bankruptcy proceeding, is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys' fees and expenses. [Signatures on following page] IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 8 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by the date set forth opposite their names below. Clackamas County City of Lake Oswego Chair, Board of County Commissioners [name/title] Date Date Approved as to Form: County Counsel Date IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 9 EXHIBIT A Program City of Lake Oswego—City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Program Design 1. Operations and Outreach Social Services for Food Pantry Program: Program Description Agency operates a food pantry program in Lake Oswego, Oregon, strategically located at the intersection of Clackamas and Multnomah counties. The program is designed to provide dependable access to nutritious food and essential hygiene items for families and individuals across the tri-county area. This program will provide biweekly food pantry rides to a small food pantry located in Lake Oswego for vulnerable populations, in coordination with the City's Adult Community Center. Agency will use funds provided in this program to reimburse eligible expenses for operation of the food pantry program, including reimbursement for approved third party operators. Reasonable eligible expenses for the operations of this food pantry program include, but are not limited to food, staff wages,rent,utilities,transportation costs to and from participating local food pantries, and costs associated with organizing and providing pre-made emergency food and supply boxes at pop up pantries within the community; whether the food pantries are operated directly by the City or through third party operators. Agency shall contact County in writing for clarification and/or approval for any contemplated expense related to this program not covered by the foregoing description of allowable uses of funds prior to incurring the expense. Correspondence from Agency seeking clarification or approval should be directed to housingservices@clackamas.us. Upon receipt of the written request for clarification and/or approval, County may either approve or deny the expense as eligible for reimbursement, as determined by County in its sole discretion. Program Goals Agency's program will provide outreach and services to targeted vulnerable populations in Lake Oswego, including families with school aged children, specifically those in the free and reduced lunch program, and coordination with the Agency's Adult Community Center and Greenridge Estates Assisted Living facility to provide biweekly shopping opportunities for residents of these communities. Data Collection &Reporting Agency will track basic demographic information such as age, gender, language spoken, race, and ethnicity of any guest that utilizes an Agency-approved food pantry. Agency will also track income type, household size, living arrangements,veteran or disability status, as well as government assistance eligibility/status. Agency will track each guest/household served by Agency's food pantries to determine the number of guests and households served during a given period of time. Reporting will include a summarization of the various data points mentioned above, demonstrating the need for food pantry services in Lake Oswego, along with other visitation trends over time. Budget The Agency's budget for operations and outreach services for the food pantry is $125,000.00 per year, for three years, for a total amount not to exceed $375,000.00. IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 10 2. Behavioral Health Case Manager Services: Program Description Agency and the City of West Linn have an embedded Behavioral Health Specialist(BHS)who collaborates with law enforcement to provide crisis mental health services. The awarded funds will be directed to hiring a Behavioral Health Case Manager to deliver essential case management, consultation, and referral services for individuals experiencing mental health challenges, substance abuse issues, housing instability, and other quality of life concerns. The Behavioral Health Case Manager is a mental health professional that works with the BHS and other law enforcement personnel. The Behavioral Health Case Manager will work with the appropriate resources to assist in the assessment of the health care and social service needs of community members suffering from mental health issues, substance abuse, housing and/or other quality of life issues. The Behavioral Health Case Manager will collaborate with the BHS in both communities to assess individuals'needs and facilitate access to vital programs and services. Their support will be pivotal in assisting individuals to access emergency funds, navigate systemic barriers, attend court appointments, and foster strong relationships with community partners. The Behavioral Health Case Manager will primarily operate in the community setting to address the population's diverse needs. Below are the essential duties and responsibilities of the case manager: 1. Work directly and/or indirectly with law enforcement officers to assess and assist community members with actual or reported mental health, substance abuse, houseless, and/or other related quality of life issues. Assess the social and medical service needs of these community members and work to obtain, coordinate, and deliver pertinent resources where necessary. 2. Provide information,consultation, and/or referral for law enforcement officers and staff. 3. Promote and utilize best practices in intervention, treatment methods, and support systems to effectively advocate for the needs of community members at the client and/or system-wide level. Liaise between those persons and the various support services and providers. 4. Monitors client progress and ensures case plans are carried out. 5. Visits clients in homes, hospitals, and residential care facilities; notes change in mental/physical condition and deficiency in care being provided; reports and may investigate abuse and neglect complaints. 6. Writes case plan summaries; documents services provided to client; researches and compiles case statistics. 7. Develops, submits and modifies necessary documentation to implement payments and program benefits. 8. Prepares documentation for hearings. 9. May be asked to provide information to local, county,and state legal or court entities and may be required to testify at court or other legal proceedings. 10. Demonstrated patience, compassion, and crisis management in working with and in support of internally and externally diverse community members reported to be or suffering from mental health, substance abuse, houseless, or other quality of life related issues. 11. When necessary and/or requested, conduct follow up with identified community IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 11 members or support service providers and be able to consult with other specialists on unique or difficult cases. Behavioral Health services encompass a broad spectrum of individuals, ranging from children to seniors, including those in government-supported or low-income housing, low-income seniors, single individuals, and families. It is acknowledged that a variety of challenges can precipitate crises and mental health episodes that could potentially lead to homelessness. An application process will be instituted to facilitate access to emergency funds, with the case manager guiding individuals through the requisite procedures. The application process will define explicit eligibility criteria, ensuring that applicants are Clackamas County residents, meet income requisites and have exhausted other options. Agency shall make appropriate use of flexible client emergency assistance services funding to support housing stability and wellness goals and will be required to follow the Flexible Funding Use Guidelines, when seeking reimbursement for the client emergency assistance funds. Program Goals The Behavioral Health Unit(BHU), consisting of the case manager and specialist, and Law Enforcement will work together to provide critical support to individuals in behavioral crisis situations stemming from mental health disorders or substance addiction. This joint effort aims to raise awareness and understanding of mental health and substance use within the law enforcement community and beyond. The primary objectives include: • Delivering crisis interventions tailored to community needs, • Reducing the use of force, • Minimizing hospitalizations, and; • Preventing repeat offenses leading to jail time. Through intervention, program aims to decrease the frequency of crisis episodes and the reliance on emergency 911 responses. The collaboration also focuses on enhancing the quality of police practices and ensuring the seamless delivery of community-based services through comprehensive cross-training initiatives. This encompasses initiatives to ensure stable housing for individuals, offering support to houseless individuals, addressing basic needs, and facilitating access to essential services. Data Collection &Reporting The BHU will track outcomes in contractor's electronic health record database and a separate spreadsheet. • Monitor the number of individuals served by the case manager and the number of individuals receiving emergency funds. • Track of the number of households and/or individuals served, the specific services provided, and the items purchased, or services paid for using the emergency funds. • Gather data to determine if case manager and/or emergency funds prevented individuals from becoming homeless, or if they received aid or services to assist with their basic needs and access temporary or long-term housing • Collect information to demonstrate that the services or funds received,prevented individuals from being hospitalized or facing charges leading to incarceration. IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 12 Reporting will include summarization of collected data points to be shared with our law enforcement management, as well as Agency's managers. Budget Agency's budget to provide for the Behavioral Health Case Manager is $145,000 per year, for three years for role salary and benefits,plus $10,000 per year, for three years for emergency assistance funds. The total not to exceed amount is $465,000.00. Services FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 Total Behavioral Health Case Manager- $ 145,000.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 435,000.00 role salary and benefits Behavioral Health Case Manager— and client $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 30,000.00 emergency assistance funds Food Pantry- Operations $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 375,000.00 and Outreach Total Contract Value: $ 840,000.00 IGA 11863 -City of Lake Oswego—Exhibit A Page 13 EXHIBIT B City of Lake Oswego Grant to Hunger Fighters Oregon (Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding) GRANT RECIPIENT: Hunger Fighters Oregon Address and Email: 4 Monroe Parkway, Suite A Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REIMBURSEMENT GRANT $125,000.00 per year for three years,totaling$375,000.00 AMOUNT AWARDED: GRANT PURPOSE-PROJECT: Hunger Fighters Oregon fixed operational expenses (For complete description, see Exhibits A and B—Approved Expenses& Payment Schedule) GRANT FUNDING BACKGROUND Clackamas County's Department of Health, Housing, and Human Services released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homelessness initiatives.The Grant funding was an allocation from the County's portion of the Metro Support Housing Services bond dollars.The goal was to provide funding for one-time and limited-term pilot projects/programs led by cities to address housing insecurity and homelessness within the individual communities.The City of Lake Oswego was awarded grant funding, and in turn Lake Oswego enters into this grant to provide direct reimbursement funds to Hunger Fighters Oregon for approved operational expenses The City will reimburse Hunger Fighters Oregon for eligible expenses after approval by Clackamas County.The City will administer the Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant to verify that the funds are used for Hunger Fighters Oregon for approved operational expenses. GRANT AGREEMENT 1. Use of Grant Funds: Grant Recipient is being reimbursed by the grant funds for approved operational expenses of the Project, as stated in Exhibit A and B. 2. A. Incorporation of Clackamas County Grant Provisions.The terms and provisions of the County Grant (Exhibit A) are incorporated herein and Grant Recipient shall,to its fullest extent, comply with the terms of the County Grant, and any obligation herein upon the City is conditioned upon the Grant Recipient's compliance with the terms and provisions of the County Grant. B. Compliance with laws and regulations: Grant Recipient will comply with all applicable state and local laws and regulations in regards to its services described in Exhibits B and C; scope of work, metrics, and timeline. 3. Term of Grant: A. All eligible operational expenses must be incurred on or prior to December 30, 2027. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 1 B. All requests for reimbursement must be submitted within 90 days after the date stated in Subsection A. C. County and City shall endeavor to complete review of the requests for reimbursement, and City to issue the reimbursement, within 30 days after the date provided by Subsection B. 4. Progress Report: Grant Recipient shall present report(s) on the Project as requested by Clackamas County or the City.This may be required on a periodic basis, e.g., monthly, quarterly, and at such additional times as the City or County may request. 5. Request for Payment of Project Expenses/ Release of Unexpended Grant Funds: Grant Recipient shall use the Requisition Form provided by the City to request reimbursement for operational expenses (See Exhibit B for definition of"operational expenses"). Any Grant Funds not requested for payment by the dated provided by Section 3.B are deemed released from the Grant Amount. 6. Maximum Aggregate Payment: In no event shall the Payment of Project of operational expenses exceed the total Grant Amount Awarded. 7. Standard Grant Provisions. a. Assignment Prohibited. Grant Recipient shall not assign or otherwise transfer its rights and obligations under this Grant Agreement without prior written approval from the City. b. Return of Grant Funds: i. All Grant Funds not used for the purposes described in the application must be returned to the City within 15 days of written demand by City. ii. If such a demand is made, but Grant Recipient believes that the Grant Funds were properly used according to the terms of this Grant Agreement, Grant Recipient shall submit substantiating documentation within 10 days after receipt of the City's written demand to the City's Project Manager. iii. The City will review the submitted documentation and may contact the Grant Recipient for additional information. iv. The City's Project Manager will promptly make a written decision as to a finding whether or not the monies in question were properly spent. v. If the Grant Recipient wishes to appeal the City's Project Manager's decision, a written request for review by the City Manager shall be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days of the written decision. vi. The decision of the City Manager shall be the final decision of the City. c. Records; Audit. i. Grant Recipient shall track and share with the City's Project Manager relevant data related to the Project. ii. Grant Recipient shall maintain records, books, documents, and other materials relevant to monies expended.These records shall be subject to inspection, review, and audit by the City and/or the County, or its respective designees for five (5)years.The Grant Recipient will promptly provide such additional information, reports and documentation as the City may require to verify compliance with the criteria for the grant and the authorized use of grant funds. If it is determined during the course of the audit that the recipient was reimbursed for unallowable costs,the Grant Recipient must repay these costs. iii. Grant Recipient shall provide information related to the Project infrastructure or to the expenditure of the Grant Funds as requested by the City or the County at any time over the course of the Term. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 2 iv. The cost of creating or providing such records and documentation may not be reimbursed from the Grant Funds. d. Grant Recipient represents that it's business and its operations were and are, during the period of the Project for which expenses have been reimbursed, compliant with all local and state laws and regulations. e. City shall not be responsible for any tax liability imposed upon the Grant Recipient by any local, state or federal government. f. City, County and Metro may use the Project, or information described in the Grant Recipient's Project Information Form or related materials in City's, County's or Metro's promotional and informational publications. g. City shall not endorse nor represent to third parties, including to Grant Recipient's employees and subcontractors,that City endorses any particular manufacturer, product, system, design, contractor, supplier or installer. h. All of the information and certifications in the Grant Recipient's Project Information Form submitted by the Grantee is valid and accurate. Grant Recipient shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Metro, Clackamas County, and City of Lake Oswego and its respective officers,agents,employees,and members,from any and all claims, suits or actions of any nature, including but not limited to costs and attorney fees,arising out of or related to the activities of the Grant Recipient,its officers,subcontractors, agents or employees under this Grant Agreement or for any breach of this Grant Agreement, e.g., receipt of reimbursement payment for an ineligible expense. If Grant Recipient fails to defend or indemnify, the City of Lake Oswego may, at its option, bring action to compel same or undertake its own defense. In either event, Grant Recipient shall be responsible for all of the City of Lake Oswego's costs,expenses,and attorney fees including the reasonable market value of any services provided by the City's employees. j. The Grant Recipient shall provide copies of applicable insurance policies or acceptable evidence that the insurance indicated below is in force. The Grant Recipient shall obtain prior to the commencement of Grant, and shall maintain in full force and effect for the term of this Grant, at the Grant Recipient's expense, the policies indicated below for the protection of the Grant Recipient. If the insurance policy is issued on a "claims made" basis,then the Grant Recipient shall continue to obtain and maintain coverage for not less than three years following the completion of the grant. The policies shall be issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, protecting the Grant Recipient or subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them against liability for the loss or damage of personal and bodily injury, contractual liability, death and property damage, and any other losses or damages above mentioned with limits not less than as stated in subsection D below or the limit of public liability contained in ORS 30.260 to 30.300 for any policy,whichever is greater. The Grant Recipient shall cause the insurance company to provide the City with: (i) a certificate of insurance and, (ii) if an additional insured endorsement is indicated as required in subsection D below, an endorsement thereto naming the City, its officers, agents, and employees as an additional insured for those policies indicated. The policies indicated below will be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City and all additional insureds. The Grant Recipient shall provide the City written notice of cancellation or material modification (change in limits or coverages) of the insurance contract for not less than the following notice for the purposes stated: 30 days prior notice for reasons other than non- payment; 10 days prior notice for non-payment. The Grant Recipient shall further cause a certificate of insurance to be issued not less than 5 days prior to any policy expiration date by the Grant Recipient's insurance company or companies during the term of the Work, to assure that the required insurance is maintained. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 3 Required? Type of Insurance Minimum Coverage City named as Additional Insured/Waiver of Subrogation Yes Comprehensive general $2,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000 Yes or commercial general in the aggregate liability Yes Automobile liability $2,000,000 per accident-combined single Yes limit or$2,000,000 bodily injury and $1,000,000 property damage Yes Workers Compensation Statutory Coverage No Employer's Liability $1 million per accident Or [ ] Grant Recipient Grant Recipient r warrants and represents No(if Initial if Exempt from Grant Recipient does not employ any initialed) Worker Comp Coverage persons that would require Grant Recipient to provide workers compensation insurance benefits. * The amounts may be achieved by a combination of base coverage and umbrella coverage. k. The failure of the City to enforce any provision of this grant shall not constitute a waiver by the City of that or any other provision. I. The undersigned warrants and certifies to the City that this Agreement has been executed by the Grant Recipient pursuant to its authority, and that the undersigned executes this Agreement on behalf of the Grant Recipient pursuant to authority from the Grant Recipient. m. Any notice required or that may be given under this Grant Agreement shall be in writing and given to and received by the addressee when delivered, by hand, by courier, by telex, by facsimile copies or by prepaid mail, at the below address, or as such address may be changed from time to time by written notice to the other party: i. City of Lake Oswego Attn: City Manager's Office Grant Project Manager 380 "A" Ave., P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. cityrecorder@lakeoswego.city ii. Grant Recipient: See name and contact information on Page 1. n. In the event of any legal action to enforce the terms of this Grant Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, at trial and on appeal. o. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. p. Grant Recipient, by the signature below of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that Recipient has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto executed this Grant Agreement. Hunger Fighters of Oregon CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO By: Name: Martha Bennett, City Manager Date: Title: Approved by Council: Date: , 2024 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Evan P. Boone Deputy City Attorney Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 5 Exhibit A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLACKAMAS COUNTY AND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO #11863 THIS AGREEMENT(this "Agreement") is entered into and between Clackamas County("County"), a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and the City of Lake Oswego ("Agency"), a unit of local government, collectively referred to as the "Parties" and each a "Party." RECITALS Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190.010 confers authority upon local governments to enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform. A. In working to improve coordination and collaboration, increase geographical distribution of services, and support local leaders in tailoring approaches to addressing housing insecurity and homelessness that best suit their communities, Clackamas County released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homelessness initiatives. B. The funding opportunity is to spur creativity and innovation at the city level, empowering local leaders to supplement the often highly effective but under resourced local efforts to meet the needs of very low-income households. C. Proposed city-led initiatives were to have a clearly articulated connection to the needs of low- and extremely low income households experiencing housing instability or homelessness and support Clackamas County's recovery-oriented system of care. D. Clackamas County received more than $30 million in requests submitted by eleven cities in dozens of distinct proposals. E. Proposals were reviewed for: a. Clear alignment with County goals and priorities for its recovery-oriented homeless services system of care. b. Being additive to the system, consistent with the requirement that Supportive Housing Services investments supplement, not supplant, existing investments. c. Leveraging connection points to broader recovery-oriented system of care. d. Having a duration not longer than three years, recognizing that the Notice of Funding Opportunity was for one-time and limited-term investments. F. On April 3, 2024, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners approved of staff funding recommendations for proposals submitted in response to the Notice of Funding Opportunity for city-led homeless services initiatives. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 6 TERMS 1. Term.This Agreement shall be effective upon execution, and shall expire on June 30,2027, unless otherwise extended by agreement of the Parties. Agency may seek reimbursement for eligible expenses under this Agreement during the period between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2027, subject to the additional terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Scope of Work.Agency agrees to provide the services further described in Exhibit A(the "Program"), attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein.The Program will be provided solely within Metro jurisdictional boundaries. 3. Funding.The maximum amount County may pay Agency is Eight Hundred Forty Thousand dollars ($840,000.00) (the "Funds"). Funds will be distributed on a reimbursement basis in accordance with the budget set forth in Exhibit A. Agency shall use the funds awarded under this Agreement solely for reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred in performing the Program, as further set forth in Exhibit A. Budget line items within categories may be changed with written agreement by both parties. County may approve, in writing, adjustments to budget line-item amounts provided the maximum Agreement amount is not exceeded. 4. Payment. Unless otherwise specified,the Agency shall submit monthly requests for reimbursement, on a form provided by County. A request for reimbursement must include a description of work performed with particularity, by whom it was performed, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Payments shall be made to Agency following the County's review and approval of the requests for reimbursement submitted by Agency. Agency shall not submit requests for reimbursement for, and the County will not pay, any amount in excess of the maximum compensation amount set forth above.Agency's failure to provide County information reasonably necessary for County to review a request for reimbursement for compliance with this Agreement may result in the County withholding payment, requiring Agency provide additional information, or treating this Agreement in default and pursuing any and all rights and remedies available to the County at law, in equity, or under this Agreement. Invoices shall reference the above Contract Number and be submitted to: HCDD- AP@Clackamas.us 5. Representations and Warranties. A. Agency Representations and Warranties: Agency represents and warrants to County that Agency has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and this Agreement,when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Agency enforceable in accordance with its terms. B. County Representations and Warranties: County represents and warrants to Agency that County has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and this Agreement,when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of County enforceable in accordance with its terms. C. The warranties set forth in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other warranties provided. 6. Termination. A. Either the County or the Agency may terminate this Agreement for convenience at any time upon ninety(90) days written notice to the other party. In the event a Party terminates this Agreement under this Section 6, Agency shall immediately return all unspent funds to the County. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 7 B. The parties acknowledge that Agency may, in its reasonable administrative discretion,need to terminate only one of the programs set forth in Exhibit A. In the event Agency intends to terminate only one program described in Exhibit A, Agency will provide County 90 days' notice of its intent to partially terminate, and the parties will negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment reflecting the removal of the program. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement to amend the Agreement, either Party may immediately terminate the Agreement in its entirety. C. Either the County or the Agency may terminate this Agreement in the event of a default of the Agreement by the other, as defined below. Prior to such termination however,the Party seeking the termination shall give the other Party written notice of the breach and of the Party's intent to terminate. If the breaching Party has not entirely cured the breach within thirty(30) days of deemed or actual receipt of the notice,then the Party giving notice may terminate the Agreement at any time thereafter by giving written notice of termination stating the effective date of the termination. If the default is of such a nature that it cannot be completely remedied within such thirty (30) day period, this provision shall be complied with if the breaching Party begins correction of the default within the thirty(30) day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable.The Party giving notice shall not be required to give more than one (1) notice for a similar default in any twelve (12) month period. Upon termination for Agency's breach, County shall have all remedies available to it at law, in equity, or under this Agreement including, but not limited to, requiring Agency to return all unspent funds and to repay County for any funds used by Agency in violation of this Agreement. D. The County or the Agency shall not be deemed to have waived any breach of this Agreement by the other Party except by an express waiver in writing.An express written waiver as to one breach shall not be deemed a waiver of any other breach not expressly identified, even though the other breach is of the same nature as that waived. E. The County or the agency may terminate this Agreement in the event the party fails to receive expenditure authority sufficient to allow the party, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to perform under this Agreement, or if federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that performance by party is prohibited. F. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 7. Default. A. Agency's Default.Agency will be in default under this Agreement upon the occurrence of the following: i. Agency fails to use the Funds for eligible purposes described in Exhibit A; ii. Any representation,warranty or statement made by Agency in this Agreement or in any documents or reports relied upon by County to measure the Program, the expenditure of the Funds, or the performance by Agency is untrue in any material respect when made; iii. After thirty(30) days' written notice with an opportunity to cure, Agency fails to comply with any term or condition set forth in this Agreement; iv. A petition, proceeding, or case is filed by or against Agency under federal or state bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or other law. B. County's Default. County will be in default under this Agreement if, after thirty(30) days' notice and opportunity to cure, County fails to perform a material obligation under this Agreement provided, however,that failure to disburse Funds due to non-default termination, including lack of appropriation, shall not constitute a default of County. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 8 8. Remedies. A. County's Remedies. In the event of Agency's default, County may, at is option, pursue any or all remedies available to it under this Agreement, at law, or in equity including, but not limited to: (1) withholding Agency additional Funds until compliance is met; (2) reclaiming Funds in the case of omissions or misrepresentations in financial or programmatic reporting; (3) requiring repayment of any Funds used by Agency in violation of this Agreement; (4) termination of this Agreement; (5) declaring Agency ineligible for receipt of future awards from County; (6) initiation of an action or proceeding for damages, declaratory, or injunctive relief. B. Agency's Remedies: In the event County is in default, and whether or not Agency elects to terminate this Agreement,Agency's sole remedy for County's default, subject to the limits of applicable law or in this Agreement, is reimbursement for eligible costs incurred in accordance with this Agreement, less any claims County may have against Agency. In no event will County be liable to Agency for expenses related to termination of this Agreement or for any indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages. 9. Indemnification. A. Indemnification and Defense of County. Agency shall be responsible for all damage to property, injury to persons, and loss, expense, inconvenience, and delay which may be caused by, or result from, the conduct of Work, or from any act, omission, or neglect of Agency, its subcontractors, agents, or employees.The Agency agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Clackamas County, and their officers, elected officials, agents and employees from and against all claims and actions, and all expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, arising out of or based upon damage or injuries to persons or property caused by the errors, omissions,fault or negligence of the Agency or the Agency's employees, subcontractors, or agents. However, neither Agency nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend the claim in the name of County or any department of County, nor purport to act as legal representative of County or any of its departments, without first receiving from the Clackamas County Counsel's Office authority to act as legal counsel for County, nor shall Agency settle any claim on behalf of County without the approval of the Clackamas County Counsel's Office. County may, at its election and expense, assume its own defense and settlement. B. Indemnification and Defense of Metro.The Agency agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless Metro Regional Government ("Metro"), and its officers, elected officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, losses, liabilities, including reasonable attorney and accounting fees, and all expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, arising out of or based upon Agency's acts or omissions in performing under this Agreement. However, neither Agency's nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend the claim in the name of Metro, nor purport to act as legal representative of Metro, without first receiving from the Metro attorney's office authority to act as legal counsel for Metro, nor shall Agency settle any claim on behalf of Metro without the approval of the Metro attorney's office. Metro may, at its election and expense, assume its own defense and settlement. 10. Insurance.The parties agree to maintain levels of insurance, or self-insurance, sufficient to satisfy their obligations under this Agreement and all requirements under applicable law. Both parties agree Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 9 to name the other as an additional insured under their self-insurance policies. 11. Notices; Contacts. Any notice provided under this Agreement shall be delivered by email or by first class US mail to the individuals identified below. Any communication or notice mailed by first class US mail shall be deemed to be given three days after the date it is sent. Any communication or notice sent by electronic mail is deemed to be received on the date sent, unless the sender receives an automated message or other indication that the email has not been delivered. Either Party may change the Party contact information, or the invoice or payment addresses, by giving prior written notice to the other Party. Vahid Brown or their designee will act as liaison for the County. Contact Information: Housing and Community Development Division Administrator: Vahid Brown Email: vbrown@clackamas.us Phone: (971) 334-9870 Copy to: County Counsel 2051 Kaen Road, 4th Floor Oregon City, OR 97045 Madison Thesing or their designee will act as liaison for the Agency. Contact Information: Assistant to the City Manager Madison Thesing Email: mthesing@lakesoswego.city Phone: (503) 534-5285 Copy to: City of Lake Oswego Attn: Lake Oswego City Attorney PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 12. Monitoring.Agency agrees to allow access to conduct financial and performance audits for the purpose of monitoring use of the Funds in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS"). County, and its duly authorized representatives, shall have access to such records and other books, documents, papers, plans, records of shipments and payments and writings of Agency that are pertinent to this Agreement,whether in paper, electronic or other form,to perform examinations and audits and make excerpts, copies and transcripts. Agency also agrees to provide reasonable access to Agency's employees for the purpose of monitoring. Audits may be performed onsite or offsite, at the County's discretion. If any audit or financial review finds that payments to Agency were in excess of the amount to which Agency was entitled,then Agency shall repay that amount to County. Agency agrees to allow County access to conduct site visits and inspections of financial records for the purpose of monitoring. Depending on the outcomes of the financial monitoring processes,this Agreement shall either (a) continue pursuant to the original terms, (b) continue pursuant to the original terms and any Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 10 additional conditions or remediation deemed appropriate by County, or(c) be de-obligated and terminated. 13. Reporting. For food pantry services, reporting will include a summarization of the various data points identified in Exhibit A and demonstrating the need for food pantry services along with other visitation trends over time. For the Behavioral Health Unit services, reporting will include summarization of collecteddata points to be shared with law enforcement management, as well as City Managers, identified in Exhibit A. 14. Financial Management.Agency shall comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or another equally accepted basis of accounting, use adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary sources documentation for all uses of the Funds. 15. Period of Availability.Agency may charge to the award only allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the funding period. 16. Closeout. County will closeout this Agreement when County determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work have been completed by Agency.Agency must liquidate all obligations incurred under this award and must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by County, no later than 90 calendar days after the end date of this Agreement. 17. General Provisions. A. Oregon Law and Forum.This Agreement, and all rights, obligations, and disputes arising out of it will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon and the ordinances of Clackamas County without giving effect to the conflict of law provisions thereof. Any claim between County and Agency that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Clackamas County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a claim must be brought in a federal forum,then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by the County of any form of defense or immunity,whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise,from any claim or from the jurisdiction of any court. Agency, by execution of this Agreement, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of the courts referenced in this section. B. Compliance with Applicable Law. Both Parties shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and regulations. All provisions of law required to be a part of this Agreement, whether listed or otherwise, are hereby integrated and adopted herein. Failure to comply with such obligations is a material breach of this Agreement. C. Non-Exclusive Rights and Remedies. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein,the rights and remedies expressly afforded under the provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed exclusive, and shall be in addition to and cumulative with any and all rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity.The exercise by either Party of any one or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other remedies for the same default or breach, or for any other default or breach, by the other Party. D. Debt Limitation.This Agreement is expressly subject to the limitations of the Oregon Constitution and Oregon Tort Claims Act, and is contingent upon appropriation of funds. Any provisions herein that conflict with the above referenced laws are deemed inoperative to that Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 11 extent. E. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be unconstitutional, illegal or unenforceable, this Agreement nevertheless shall remain in full force and effect and the offending provision shall be stricken.The Court or other authorized body finding such provision unconstitutional, illegal or unenforceable shall construe this Agreement without such provision to give effect to the maximum extent possible the intentions of the Parties. F. Integration,Amendment and Waiver. Except as otherwise set forth herein,this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties on the matter of the Program.There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by such Party of that or any other provision. G. Interpretation.The titles of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. H. Independent Contractor. Each of the Parties hereto shall be deemed an independent contractor for purposes of this Agreement. No representative, agent, employee or contractor of one Party shall be deemed to be a representative, agent, employee or contractor of the other Party for any purpose, except to the extent specifically provided herein. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed,to create between the Parties any relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture or any similar relationship, and each Party hereby specifically disclaims any such relationship. I. No Third-Party Beneficiary. Agency and County are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit or right,whether directly, indirectly or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Agreement. J. Subcontract and Assignment.Agency shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work required by this Agreement, or assign or transfer any of its interest in this Agreement by operation of law or otherwise,without obtaining prior written approval from the County,which shall be granted or denied in the County's sole discretion. County's consent to any subcontract shall not relieve Agency of any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement. By execution of this Agreement, County acknowledges and consents to City's use of the Hunger Fighters Oregon ("Hunger Fighters") for its food pantry services program. K. Counterparts.This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts(electronic or otherwise), each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute the same instrument. L. Survival. All provisions in Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17 (A), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H),(I), (J), (L), (0), and (Q), shall survive the termination of this Agreement, together with all other rights and Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 12 obligations herein which by their context are intended to survive. M. Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the others all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement. N. Time is of the Essence.Agency agrees that time is of the essence in the performance this Agreement. O. Successors in Interest.The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective authorized successors and assigns. P. Force Majeure. Neither Agency nor County shall be held responsible for delay or default caused by events outside of the Agency or County's reasonable control including, but not limited to,fire, terrorism, riot, acts of God, or war. However,Agency shall make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Q. No Attorney Fees. In the event any arbitration, action or proceeding, including any bankruptcy proceeding, is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys'fees and expenses. [Signatures on following page] Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 13 IN WITNESS HEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement by the date set forth opposite their names below. Clackamas County City of Lake Oswego Chair, Board of County Commissioners [name/title] Date Date Approved as to Form: County Counsel Date Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 14 EXHIBIT A Program City of Lake Oswego—City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Program Design 1. Operations and Outreach Social Services for Food Pantry Program: Program Description Agency operates a food pantry program in Lake Oswego, Oregon, strategically located at the intersection of Clackamas and Multnomah counties.The program is designed to provide dependable access to nutritious food and essential hygiene items for families and individuals across the tri-county area.This program will provide biweekly food pantry rides to a small food pantry located in Lake Oswego for vulnerable populations, in coordination with the City's Adult Community Center. Agency will use funds provided in this program to reimburse eligible expenses for operation of the food pantry program, including reimbursement for approved third party operators. Reasonable eligible expenses for the operations of this food pantry program include, but are not limited to food, staff wages,rent, utilities, transportation costs to and from participating local food pantries,and costs associated with organizing and providing pre-made emergency food and supply boxes at pop up pantries within the community;whether the food pantries are operated directly by the City or through third party operators. Agency shall contact County in writing for clarification and/or approval for any contemplated expense related to this program not covered by the foregoing description of allowable uses of funds prior to incurring the expense. Correspondence from Agency seeking clarification or approval should be directed to housingservices@clackamas.us. Upon receipt of the written request for clarification and/or approval, County may either approve or deny the expense as eligible for reimbursement, as determined by County in its sole discretion. Program Goals Agency's program will provide outreach and services to targeted vulnerable populations in Lake Oswego, including families with school aged children, specifically those in the free and reduced lunch program, and coordination with the Agency's Adult Community Center and Greenridge Estates Assisted Living facility to provide biweekly shopping opportunities for residents of these communities. Data Collection & Reporting Agency will track basic demographic information such as age,gender, language spoken, race, and ethnicity of any guest that utilizes an Agency-approved food pantry.Agency will also track income type, household size, living arrangements,veteran or disability status, as well as government assistance eligibility/status.Agency will track each guest/household served by Agency's food pantries to determine the number of guests and households served during a given period of time. Reporting will include a summarization of the various data points mentioned above, demonstrating the need for food pantry services in Lake Oswego, along with other visitation trends over time. Budget The Agency's budget for operations and outreach services for the food pantry is$125,000.00 per year,for three years, for a total amount not to exceed $375,000.00. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 115 2. Behavioral Health Case Manager Services: Program Description Agency and the City of West Linn have an embedded Behavioral Health Specialist(BHS) who collaborates with law enforcement to provide crisis mental health services.The awarded funds will be directed to hiring a Behavioral Health Case Manager to deliver essential case management, consultation, and referral services for individuals experiencing mental health challenges, substance abuse issues, housing instability, and other quality of life concerns. The Behavioral Health Case Manager is a mental health professional that works with the BHS and other law enforcement personnel.The Behavioral Health Case Manager will work with the appropriate resources to assist in the assessment of the health care and social service needs of community members suffering from mental health issues, substance abuse, housing and/or other quality of life issues. The Behavioral Health Case Manager will collaborate with the BHS in both communities to assess individuals' needs and facilitate access to vital programs and services.Their support will be pivotal in assisting individuals to access emergency funds, navigate systemic barriers, attend court appointments, and foster strong relationships with community partners.The Behavioral Health Case Manager will primarily operate in the community setting to address the population's diverse needs. Below are the essential duties and responsibilities of the case manager: 1. Work directly and/or indirectly with law enforcement officers to assess and assist community members with actual or reported mental health, substance abuse, houseless, and/or other related quality of life issues. Assess the social and medical service needs of these community members and work to obtain, coordinate, and deliver pertinent resources where necessary. 2. Provide information, consultation,and/or referral for law enforcement officers and staff. 3. Promote and utilize best practices in intervention,treatment methods, and support systems to effectively advocate for the needs of community members at the client and/or system-wide level. Liaise between those persons and the various support services and providers. 4. Monitors client progress and ensures case plans are carriedout. 5. Visits clients in homes, hospitals, and residential care facilities; notes change in mental/physical condition and deficiency in care being provided; reports and may investigate abuse and neglect complaints. 6. Writes case plan summaries; documents services provided to client; researches and compiles case statistics. 7. Develops, submits and modifies necessary documentation to implement payments and program benefits. 8. Prepares documentation for hearings. 9. May be asked to provide information to local, county, and state legal or court entities and may be required to testify at court or other legal proceedings. 10. Demonstrated patience, compassion, and crisis management in working with and in support of internally and externally diverse community members reported to be or suffering from mental health, substance abuse, houseless, or other quality of life related issues. 11. When necessary and/or requested, conduct follow up with identifiedcommunity Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 116 members or support service providers and be able to consult with other specialists on unique or difficult cases. Behavioral Health services encompass a broad spectrum of individuals, ranging from children to seniors, including those in government-supported or low-income housing, low-income seniors, single individuals, and families. It is acknowledged that a variety of challenges can precipitate crises and mental health episodes that could potentially lead to homelessness. An application process will be instituted to facilitate access to emergency funds, with the case manager guiding individuals through the requisite procedures.The application process will define explicit eligibility criteria, ensuring that applicants are Clackamas County residents, meet income requisites and have exhausted other options. Agency shall make appropriate use of flexible client emergency assistance services funding to support housing stability and wellness goals and will be required to follow the Flexible Funding Use Guidelines, when seeking reimbursement for the client emergency assistance funds. Program Goals The Behavioral Health Unit (BHU), consisting of the case manager and specialist, and Law Enforcement will work together to provide critical support to individuals in behavioral crisis situations stemming from mental health disorders or substance addiction.This joint effort aims to raise awareness and understanding of mental health and substance use within the law enforcement community and beyond. The primary objectives include: • Delivering crisis interventions tailored to communityneeds, • Reducing the use of force, • Minimizing hospitalizations,and; • Preventing repeat offenses leading to jail time. Through intervention, program aims to decrease the frequency of crisis episodes and the reliance on emergency 911 responses.The collaboration also focuses on enhancing the quality of police practices and ensuring the seamless delivery of community-based services through comprehensive cross-training initiatives. This encompasses initiatives to ensure stable housing for individuals, offering support to houseless individuals, addressing basic needs, and facilitating access to essential services. Data Collection & Reporting The BHU will track outcomes in contractor's electronic health record database and a separate spreadsheet. • Monitor the number of individuals served by the case manager and the number of individuals receiving emergency funds. • Track of the number of households and/or individuals served, the specific services provided, and the items purchased, or services paid for using the emergency funds. • Gather data to determine if case manager and/or emergency funds prevented individuals from becoming homeless, or if they received aid or services to assist with their basic needs and access temporary or long-term housing • Collect information to demonstrate that the services or funds received, prevented individuals from being hospitalized or facing charges leading to incarceration. Reporting will include summarization of collected data points to be shared with our law enforcement management, as well as Agency's managers. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 117 Budget Agency's budget to provide for the Behavioral Health Case Manager is$145,000 per year, for three years for role salary and benefits, plus $10,000 per year, for three years for emergency assistance funds. The total not to exceed amount is $465,000.00. Services FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 Total Behavioral Health Case Manager - $ 145,000.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 435,000.00 role salary and benefits Behavioral Health Case Manager— and client $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 30,000.00 emergency assistance funds Food Pantry- Operations $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 375,000.00 and Outreach Total Contract Value: $ 840,000.00 Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 118 Exhibit B Expenses& Payment Schedule Hunger Fighters Oregon Scope of Work&Approved Expenses Through the Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant, City of Lake Oswego (City)will provide reimbursement funding to Hunger Fighters Oregon (HFO)for HFO's operational expenses (see next paragraph). Hunger Fighters will be reimbursed for fixed, monthly operations costs.These are: • Rent • Utilities • Food Expenses • Staff Wages&Taxes By using awarded funds for operational expenses, HFO will be directing energy and resources away from fundraising and in-kind food collections and focus on outreach activities that will help create systematic change. As a condition for receipt of reimbursement, HFO will continue, during the term of this Grant,to operate the food pantry, provide food security programs, and connect with customers and sponsors through community outreach. Payment Schedule Pay Schedule: • Contract execution payment (December 2024)—up to $52,085.00 o City of Lake Oswego will reimburse HFO for the approved expenses that were incurred from July 1, 2024 to the date of execution of this Grant—representing the operational expenses for July, August, September, October and November. • Monthly payments—up to$10,417.00 o Reimbursement payments will be made of the month prior, subject to HFO's submission of documentation of eligible expenses. To receive reimbursement, HFO shall provide necessary documentation and receipts to support the requested amounts. Reimbursements will continue until all funding($375,000.00) has been expended or expiration of the Grant Term, whichever occurs first. Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 119 Exhibit C Hunger Fighters Oregon Program Metrics and Timeline Funds awarded to Hunger Fighters Oregon (HFO)through the Clackamas County City-Led Homelessness Initiatives Funding Grant will cover a portion of HFO's payroll, rent, and utilities, allowing more time and energy to be spent on fundraising for the following three areas of growth over the next three years: 1. pantry outreach &services, 2. becoming a resource hub, and 3. offering resiliency services. Below you will find a year by year breakdown of the metrics and goals for each area. Outreach&Services Description: HFO will continue its outreach efforts to serve vulnerable populations in Lake Oswego and surrounding communities with an extra emphasis on reaching families with school-aged children—specifically those in the free and reduced lunch program—and the senior community. Timeline and Metrics: 2025: • Ongoing outreach to increase guests served by 5%—10%. Currently 75 households are served per week 2024. o Serve approximately 80 households per week via: ■ Increase in marketing and communications efforts to create seasonal and need- based marketing plans using social media and print campaigns. ■ Utilize professional translation services to enhance accessibility for non- English speaking guests. • Increased service to the senior community.Currently 40 guests served every two weeks in 2024. o Increase our current capacity to serve members of the Greenridge Estates Assisted Living Community and the Lake Oswego Adult CommunityCenter (LOACC)from approximately 40 guests every two weeks to 45guests. o Continue to assemble and distribute emergency boxes for ACC participants • Research assistance opportunities for school-aged children facing food insecurity o Begin exploratory conversations with key stakeholders, including parents, school board members, and school counselors, during the remainder of the 2024-25 school year to assess the need for additional summer food support o Schedule exploratory meetings with Portland Backpack to determine if a franchise program in Lake Oswego is a viable and needed food assistance program in this community, with a goal to pilot the program in subsequent years Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 120 o Use time/resources freed up via funds to create and market an enhanced summer campaign to increase awareness of food insecurity among youth and raise between $15,000 and $20,000. Raised funds would go toward stocking additional food and snack options in the pantry and other resources to assist families with school aged children over the summer o During the summer of 2025,draft and propose a food assistance program plan that will provide students with additional food assistance and resources during the 2025-26 school year 2026: • Ongoing outreach to increase guests served by 15%. Based upon 2024 baseline. o Serve approximately 85 households per week • Ongoing service to the elder community. o Expand senior-specific shop days for guests 55+to serve more seniors and senior living/social communities, • Implement food assistance program for Lake Oswego students facing food insecurity o Upon completion of exploratory work, create a proposal for a Portland Backpack franchise program with Lake Oswego Schools to begin during the 2026-27 school year o Use time/resources freed up via funds to create and market 3rd annual summer campaign to increase awareness of food insecurity among youth and raise between $20,000 and $25,000 to use toward increased food and snack options, and other resources over the summer to assist families. 2027: • Ongoing outreach to increase guests served by 20% o Serve approximately 90 households per week • Ongoing service to the elder community. o Create multiple senior-specific shop days for guests 55+ o Offer emergency food boxes twice per year to up to 50 senior guests and community members, not just those affiliated with LOACC or Greenridge. Currently serving an average of 40 LOACC and Greenridge guests each month. • Implement assistance program for Lake Oswego students facing food insecurity o If approved, begin Portland Backpack franchise program with Lake Oswego Schools o Kick off 4th annual summer campaign to increase awareness of food insecurity among youth and raise between$20,000 and$25,000 to use toward increased food and snack options over the summer to assist families Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 121 HFO Resource Hub Description: HFO will act as a community resource hub, sharing a more robust and accessible array of resources for pantry guests including but not limited to information on local human service organizations (food, housing, employment, etc), skill-building classes, and other resources that help address the root causes of food insecurity. Timeline and Metrics: 2025: • Update current HFO resource board and TV monitor to highlight local opportunities ona regular(monthly) basis, making sure information is relevant and accessible • Build and post a comprehensive list of community service organizations that may be of use to guests • Post notices and announcements of upcoming community events, such as resource fairs and learning opportunities • Through the use of guest surveys and face-to-face outreach, build a list of desired courses that may be taught on-site (when possible) in 2026. Begin research and planning to begin offering courses in 2026 2026: • Based on guest feedback, offer regular nutrition classes with a target of 10 participants per class • Based on guest feedback, offer skill building classes which may include SNAP/WIC enrollment and eligibility, language courses, employment education (resume writing, interview preparation, etc) o Courses will be free or low-cost • Offer between 4 and 12 classes per year 2027: • Continuation of courses offered above with enhancements such as, information sharing via email/newsletter, additional courses, room for more participants, and the ability to offer free courses to participants Hunger Fighters Oregon Funding Grant Allocation Page 122 HFO Resiliency Hub Description: HFO will act as a community resiliency hub for pantry guests to help with emergency preparedness by providing resources and offering emergency supplies Timeline and Metrics: 2025: • Compile list a comprehensive list of resources that guests can use to find emergency supplies and services in the community, with an emphasis on services that can be obtained for free or low cost • Post/share emergency preparedness information including recommendations, timelines, etc • Post/share governmental emergency alerts and information • Work with senior living communities to determine need and frequency for emergency preparedness kits. Continue to provide 100 emergency food kits for LOACC members. We will offer to provide 25 kits for Greenridge Estates residents 2026: • Continuation of above goals and increase availability of at least one emergency food kit for all pantry guests,annually 2027: • Continuation of above goals with an increase in emergency kits made available for pantry guests that include other non-food supplies, such as batteries, can openers,flashlights, etc.—one kit per household Health, Housing &Human Services Rod Dirney cook CLACKAMAS COUNTY Direcctt or Date: April 5, 2024 To: Madison Thesing, Assistant City Manager From: Adam Brown, Deputy Director Re: City-led Initiatives Intent to Award —City of Lake Oswego Dear Madison, I am writing with an update on the proposals you submitted as part of the county's notice of funding opportunity for city-led initiatives. During a Policy Session this past Wednesday, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved staff funding recommendations. The county received more than $30 million in requests from 11 cities in dozens of distinct proposals. The Board approved $7.2 million in requests, including $5.0 million funded by Supportive Housing Services resources, and at least one proposal from every submitting city. You can read more about all of the proposals and funding decisions here. We are excited about the opportunity to partner with so many of our cities on projects that will help achieve our goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-reoccurring in Clackamas County. Here are the results of what was approved for Lake Oswego: Description FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Total Behavioral Health Case Manager 155,000 155,000 155,000 - - 465,000 Hunger Fighters 125,000 125,000 125,000 - - 375,000 Database for Behavioral Health Specialists 5,000 — 75,000 ,000 '-7;7003 --1-7-57003 - Lake Oswego Total 280,000 280,000 280,000 - - 840,000 While your request for the database was not funded, we intend to work with you to try to find an alternative solution —we agree that this information access/sharing is really important. Staff are now working on the funding agreements. Our goal is to have those agreements in place around the start of the new fiscal year on July 1st. Your funding will run for three years, through fiscal year 2026-27. Thanks so much for taking the time to submit these proposals. We look forward to working with you on this project. Adam Brown, Deputy Director Clackamas County Health, Housing & Human Services 7.1 o�� os� COUNCIL REPORT V —w 0 GREGO� Subject: Ordinance 2954, Annual Updates for Non-CDC Code Provisions Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, and representatives of Community Development, Report Date: November 6, 2024 Engineering, and Police Departments Department: Community Development, Engineering, and Police Action Required ' Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑X Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Enact Ordinance 2954 Recommended Language for Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2954. Project/ Issue Relates To: Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL These annual code amendments update current code for other than Chapter 50 Community Development Code. Respect cv el'erce. Trust. Se-iv 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an annual update of the Lake Oswego Code chapters other than LOC Ch. 50 Community Development Code (CDC)1to clarify and revise various code sections. These amendments are proposed by various departments in on-going effort to update the code and make regulations more usable for residents and City staff. DISCUSSION The proposed revisions and *new provisions affect the following provisions of the Code: General Code authority is added in the following sections to either expressly declare violations to be enforced as a civil violation (citation into municipal court) and/or to impose an *enforcement fee, similar to tree removal enforcement fee authority. LOC 20.02.110 Business License Violation LOC 31.02.135 Animals and Fowl LOC 34.08.425 Nuisances LOC 45.25.005 Building Code LOC 47.03.025 Sign Code Business License LOC 20.02.095 *Appeal of conditions imposed or of revocation would be changed from city council to a hearings officer, e.g., the attorneys under contract as expedited or middle housing land divisions referees. Parking Fines LOC 32.06.090 Raises listed and unlisted parking fines from $20/$15 to $60/$40. Nuisance LOC 34.10.520 *Removes obligation to keep blackberry vines and the like, e.g., ivy, 10 feet back from a property line. Streets/Sidewalks LOC 42.03.130 Moves driveway approach landing requirement from LOC 50.06.003 (Driveway Standard) to LOC 42.03 (Street Design Standards); *removes single-family dwelling and middle housing dwelling exemption. Sign Code LOC 47.03.015 Removes reference to masculine gender. 1 Updates to the CDC are brought to the Council separately by the Planning Department through the land use legislative public hearing process. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 Tree Code LOC 55.02.020 Definition of"applicant" added LOC 55.02.042 (1) Change from "a person" to "an applicant"; (2) *allows ash tree removals akin to a "dead tree" for removal due to risk of infestation of emerald ash borer (Subsection 3) LOC 55.02.072 Uses "an applicant" rather than "owner of a large forested tract or the owner's authorized agent." LOC 55.02.084 (1) *Ash tree removal due to emerald ash borer must be mitigated akin to an invasive species; (2) Mitigation replanting off-site amendment clarifies that the off-site planting option is subject to the owner's approval, including when the applicant owns other properties. LOC 55.02.094 *Adds condition of approval to permit delay of removal of ash tree during period when ash borer is active, and allows condition on method of disposal of ash tree to prevent spreading ash borer during dispose of removed tree. LOC 55.02.130 Clarifies (1) obligation for compliance with condition of approval extends to subsequent owner; and (2) successor owner liable for enforcement fee due to tree removal without permit and for restoration. Appendix 55.01-2 *Oregon ash removed from list of species accepted for mitigation. Attachment 1 contains the proposed code text and staff commentary explaining the reason for the proposed code amendment. Below is a list of the respective staff contacts for Councilor inquiries: • Evan Boone, City Attorney's Office, (503) 635-0225, eboone@lakeoswego.city • Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Department, (503) 635-0283, inumanoglu@lakeoswego.city o General (Civil Violation / Enforcement Fee) o Business License o Nuisance o Sign Code o Tree Code • Erica Rooney, Engineering and Public Works, (503) 635-0264, erooney@lakeoswego.ciy o Streets/Sidewalks • Clayton Simon, Police Department, (503) 636-0246, csimon@lakeoswego.city o Parking Fines (The City Attorney's Office's role has been to compile the Code maintenance revisions from other affected departments and to assist in preparing the commentary; the department representatives can respond to any detailed questions.) Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Council may adopt all, part, or none of the proposed revisions. RECOMMENDATION Enact Ordinance 2954 clarifying, revising and updating the Lake Oswego Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Code Amendments with Commentary 2. Ordinance 2954, with Exhibit A Code amendments (no commentary) Respect. Fv. „i'en e Trust. -! 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 2024 Annual Non-CDC Code Amendments Table of Contents Chapter 20 Licenses; Article 20.02 General 2 20.02.095 Appeal (Business License). 2 20.02.110 Violation. 2 Chapter 31 Animals and Fowl; Art. 31.02 In General 3 § 31.02.135 Violation. 3 Chapter 32 Lake Oswego Uniform Traffic Code;Art. 32.06 Parking Regulations 3 32.06.090 Fines for Parking Violations 3 Chapter 34 Crimes and Civil Violations; 4 Article 34.08 Nuisances 4 34.08.425 Remedies Not Exclusive; Violation 4 Article 34.10 Types of Nuisances 4 34.10.520 Periodic Brush Cutting Required; Exceptions 5 Chapter 42 Streets, Sidewalks, Public Rights-of-Way and Public Easements; Article 42.03 Street Design Standards 6 42.03.130 Access Spacing and Sight Distance for Roadway Intersections, Driveway Approaches, and Accesses. 6 Chapter 45 Building Code;Article 45.25 Building Code Violations 8 45.25.005 Violation. 8 LOC Chapter 47 Sign Code/Article 47.03 In General 10 47.03.015 Definitions 10 47.03.025 Violation. 10 LOC Chapter 55 Tree Code/Article 55.02 Tree Removal 11 55.02.020 Definitions. 11 55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures 12 55.02.072 Forest Management Permit 13 55.02.084 Mitigation Required. 13 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits. 15 55.02.130 Violation 16 Appendix 55.02-1 Native Mitigation Tree List 18 75-100 FT(23-30 M) HIGH 18 DECIDUOUS AND *BROAD-LEAVED EVERGREEN 18 Page 1—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) Chapter 20 Licenses; Article 20.02 General 20.02.095 Appeal (Business License). An applicant whose application for a license has been conditioned or denied, or a licensee whose request for license renewal has been conditioned or denied, or whose license has been suspended, or is to be revoked may within 10 calendar days after the notice of denial, suspension, revocation or approval with conditions is mailed or delivered, whichever is earlier, appeal in writing to a hearings officer appointed by the City Council. The appeal shall be filed with the City Recorder and shall state and include: a. The name and address of the appellant and business owner; b. The nature of the determination from which an appeal is taken and a copy of the determination; c. The reason or reasons why the determination is alleged to be incorrect; d. What the correct determination should be; and e. Any established fee for appeal. The decision or the nearings orricer shall be the final decision of the City. Staff Comment: Business licenses more and more regulate uses that are not subject to a building permit, i.e. Short-Term Rental, other Home Occupations, etc. The current process per LOC 20.02.085 / 20.02.090 for suspension or revocation of a business license is that the City Manager initiates the revocation process, with an opportunity for the licensee to explain to the City Manager why the business license should not be revoked. Per LOC 20.02.095, an appeal of the City Manager's decision to suspend or revoke is to the City Council; also, an applicant that wishes to challenge a condition of approval of issuance may appeal the City Manager's condition to the Council. Staff forecasts the potential for more frequent appeals of a business license conditions. A hearings officer would make the decision, similar to appeals of expedited land divisions. The Council has previously appointed two expedited and middle housing land division (ELD) referees that hear appeals of those land division staff decisions per ORS 197.360 et seq., rather than the DRC or Council. An accompanying resolution to this ordinance would also appoint ELD referees to hear appeals under this code section. 20.02.110 Violation. (1) Civil Violation. A violation of LOC 20.02.025 or LOC 20.02.100. in addition to any other remedy, is a civil infraction and shall be enforced pursuant to LOC §§ 34.04.100 to 34.04.145. (2). Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: A violation of any ordinance is declared to be a civil violation by LOC 13.02.020, and subject to a maximum fine of$1000. This amendment (1) adds an express civil violation provision so that persons know that if they are doing business Page 2—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) without a business license, fail to post the license, or operate in violation of a condition of the business license, the penalty is a civil violation. (2) Includes in code the imposition of an enforcement fee, in addition to the fine, similar to the Tree Code enforcement fee per LOC 55.02.130(3). An enforcement fee was included in the 2022 Master Fee Schedule resolution. Chapter 31 Animals and Fowl; Art. 31.02 In General § 31.02.135 Prosecution of Violations. 1. Civil Violation. Offenses committed in violation of provisions of this chapter constitute civil violations. Except where otherwise provided, anyone convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). 2. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: (1) Retitles this section to just "Violation", consistent with titles of similar sections in other chapters. (2) Includes in code the imposition of an enforcement fee, in addition to the fine, similar to the Tree Code enforcement fee per LOC 55.02.130(3). This is a new enforcement fee. Chapter 32 Lake Oswego Uniform Traffic Code; Art. 32.06 Parking Regulations 32.06.090 Fines for Parking Violations. 1. Parking with the front of the vehicle facing the opposite direction from that of the traffic flow in violation of LOC § 32.06.075, parking in violation of LOC § 32.06.080 (1), or violating any provision of this article by parking at a location where parking is prohibited at any time, shall be punishable by a fine of$2960.00. 2. Violation of any provision of this article not listed in subsection (1) of this section shall be punishable by a fine of$ 40.00. Staff Comment: This code section was enacted in 2004 (Ord. 2382). The current value of$1 in 2004 is approximately $1.67 in 2024. (https://www.officialdata.org). The amount above inflation would be an increased disincentive to illegally park. The resulting fine schedule for different types of parking violations would be: Parking Violations LOC Fine Yellow/Red Curb 32.06.073 $40 Posted Fire Lane under LOC 15.06.610 32.06.073 $60 Loading Zone 32.06.074 $40 Over 12" From Curb 32.06.075 $60 No Parking Posted 32.06.075 $60 Within 10 feet of fire hydrant 32.06.075 $60 Parking Against Flow of Traffic 32.06.075 $60 Page 3—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) Blocking Thoroughfare 32.06.075 $60 Angle Parking Not Designated/Parallel Parking Only 32.06.075 $60 Reserved - No Permit 32.06.075A $40 Parking During EV Charging Only 32.06.075A $40 Parking Near a United States Postal Receptacle 32.06.075E $60 Storing Vehicle On Highway 32.06.076 $40 Left Motor Running/Keys in Ignition 32.06.079 $40 Blocking Driveway, Bike Lane, Pathway or Sidewalk 32.06.080 $60 Over Time Limit 32.10.410 $40 Chapter 34 Crimes and Civil Violations; Article 34.08 Nuisances 34.08.425 Remedies Not Exclusive; Violation. The nuisance abatement procedure provided in LOC §§ 34.08.405 through 34.08.421 is not an exclusive remedy; any other remedy provided by this chapter or State law is available unless otherwise provided. The City Manager or the appropriate official may in addition to nuisance abatement or any other proceedings initiate civil violation proceedings against the owner of property on which the condition exists or against any other person determined to be responsible for such condition. Any penalty or fine imposed for the civil violation shall be in addition to reimbursement for any abatement costs as determined under LOC§ 34.08.421. 2. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article or Article 34.10 shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: (1) Adds "Violation" to the title of this section, consistent with titles of similar sections in other chapters that expressly declare a violation is a civil violation. (2) Includes in code the imposition of an enforcement fee, in addition to the fine, similar to the Tree Code enforcement fee per LOC 55.02.130(3). An enforcement fee was included in the 2022 Master Fee Schedule resolution. Includes reference to LOC Art. 34.10 Types of Nuisance. Art. 34.10 lists specific types of nuisances that are enforced through LOC 34.08.400 Public Nuisance Defined, but the reference to LOC Art. 34.10 is added to avoid a challenge that nuisances listed under LOC Art. 34.10 are not subject to the enforcement fee, even though enforced through LOC 34.08.400. Article 34.10 Types of Nuisances Page 4—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) 34.10.520 Periodic Brush Cutting Required; Exceptions 1. Property owners, lessees, occupants, or persons in possession or control of property shall: a-flremove from their property: +a. Thistles and noxious weeds, ++b. Vegetation of an inflammable condition or nature, +i+c. Dead trees that are a hazard to use of public property or public right-of-way, and +wd. All grass or weeds more than 10 inches in height. b. Trim away from any property line to a distance of 10 feet all blackberry vines or plant material which characteristically spreads under or around barriers intended to prevent intrusion. 2. A violation of this section is a civil violation and a public nuisance. Staff Comment: Per discussion with Council on June 24, this amendment is presented because it is impractical to enforce due to the ability of spreading vegetation, such as English ivy and blackberries, to rapidly regrow after being cut back. Enforcement of this code has long been given a low priority due to the widespread nature of the problem and that it would take significant staff resources to enforce, which limits resources to enforce other code violations. Page 5—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) Chapter 42 Streets, Sidewalks, Public Rights-of-Way and Public Easements; Article 42.03 Street Design Standards 42.03.130 Access Spacing and Sight Distance for Roadway Intersections, Driveway Approaches, and Accesses. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that to protect the health, safety, property, and welfare of the traveling public and to provide the neat, clean, orderly and attractive appearance of the community, it is necessary to regulate the design, construction, location, and maintenance of all roadway intersections, driveway approaches, and accesses that impact the public rights-of-way open to public travel by all modes. *** 4 Standards. a. All new or modified roadway intersections, driveway approaches, and accesses shall follow access spacing as shown in Table 42.03.130-1, Access Spacing. *** b. Sight distance requirements shall apply at all roadway intersections, driveway approaches, and accesses with the following: i. Intersection sight distance (ISD) per AASHTO shall be provided at all intersections. If ISD cannot feasibly be achieved, lesser sight distance may be acceptable upon review and approval of the City Engineer, as long as Subsection (4)(a)(ii) of this section is achieved. ii. Stopping sight distance (SSD), based on the design speed or 85th percentile speed of the roadway, shall be provided along all public roadways. iii. New construction of an intersection (roadway(s), driveway approaches, and accesses) or a modification to an existing intersection must comply street opening permit requirements. iv. A written report submitted by a licensed engineer for sight distance certification shall accompany the application. v. Driveways that serve one residence along alleys shall maintain at least 80 feet of visibility when viewing down the alley from 10 feet behind the nearest edge of the traveled way at a height of 42 inches above the surface. This area shall remain clear of any items prohibited by Subsection 4(c) below. Page 6—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) c. Prohibited items in clear sight triangle. Within the clear sight triangle, it shall be unlawful to install, set out or maintain, or to allow the installation, setting out or maintenance of, any sign, fence, hedge, shrubbery, natural growth or other obstruction to the view, higher than 30 inches above the level of the centerline of the adjacent pavement. d. Exceptions. The requirements of Subsection (4) of this section do not apply to: e. There shall be a landing area where a driveway meets the public street.The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of five percent. The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. If a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and a development proposal is anticipated to proceed prior to the improvement of the street, the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. Staff Comment: This "landing" requirement for driveway approaches is currently in LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(2). It is proposed to be moved out of the Access standard to the street/driveway design standard because it is better addressed at the street design code requirements. Its placement in LOC 42.03 would make it applicable to all driveway approach designs, whereas now it is applicable only to minor and major land use developments per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii(3) and .15.ii(1)((d). The current provision in LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(2). exempts its applicability to single-family and middle housing dwellings. However, the necessity for a landing to provide safe ingress and egress to a public street is not dependent on the use of the site or the purpose of the driver. Engineering staff contacted nearby jurisdictions to ascertain if other cities exempted certain types of uses from a landing standard (or similar) —they do not: • Oregon City (Street Design Standard: ) —Section 3.3 covers Vertical Alignment. Subsection C.1. requires a landing that is at least 20 feet in length for private driveways. No difference is made between commercial or residential. • Portland ( 'rivate Rights-of-Way)—Section III covers Design and Construction Requirements. Subsection E.2.g.(3) Section 201.2.23.o. has the requirement of grading on driveway approaches hall not exceed 5% within the PUE, which is 6 feet on local streets. No difference was made between commercial and residential driveways. Page 7—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) • West Linn (CDC Section 48.030 &48.040) had a grade requirement not to exceed 10 percent on average, maximum 15 percent, but no specific "landing area" defined. The grade requirement is applied to residential, multifamily, and non-residential uses. • Wilsonville (Public Works Standards) had landings defined under 201.2.12.d. as 20 feet from the edge of the intersecting street and required they have 5% grade or less, but the requirements were specific to local street intersections with higher classified streets. Section 201.2.23.o. has the requirement of grading on driveway approaches shall not exceed 5% within the PUE, which is 6 feet on local streets. No difference is made between commercial and residential driveways. • Hillsboro, Beaverton, Milwaukie, or Happy Valley: Grade or slope requirements did not seem to differ between residential and commercial driveways. Accordingly, the code amendment not only moves the standard from the LOC Ch. 50 Community Development Code to LOC Ch. 42 Streets and Sidewalks section, it also revises the standards as follows: For all uses except single family or middle housing dwellings, tThere shall be a landing area where a driveway used by multiple drivers meets the public street. The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of five percent. .... Note to CAO: Remove eNote when adopted. Chapter 45 Building Code; Article 45.25 Building Code Violations 45.25.005 PcnalticsVioiatioi_. 1. Any violation of the Lake Oswego Building Code shall be a civil violation as defined in LOC § 34.04.105, enforceable pursuant to LOC Article 34.04. Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate violation. 2. Any violation of the Lake Oswego Building Code is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, which may be abated pursuant to LOC Article 34.08. A violation of this code that threatens to cause or causes immediate serious harm to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property may be summarily abated by the Building Official pursuant to LOC § 34.08.435. 3. Upon request of the Building Official, the City Attorney may institute an appropriate action in any court to enjoin the maintenance of any use, occupation, building or structure that is in violation of the Lake Oswego Building Code. 4. The rights, remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. Page 8—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) 5. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this this Chapter shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: (1) Retitles to "Violation", consistent with titles of similar sections in other chapters that expressly declare a violation is a civil violation. (2) Includes in code the imposition of an enforcement fee, in addition to the fine, similar to the Tree Code enforcement fee per LOC 55.02.130(3). An enforcement fee was included in the 2022 Master Fee Schedule resolution. Page 9—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) LOC Chapter 47 Sign Code / Article 47.03 In General 47.03.015 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice-versa; words used in the present tense include the future, the singular tense include the plural and vice-versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary; the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. The definitions in LOC § 50.10.003.2 apply to this chapter to the extent that they do not conflict. The following terms shall mean: **** Staff Comment: The Code was amended in 2021 (Ord. 2890) to remove gender pronouns, so this is no longer needed. Note #1: In the general Code provision of LOC 10.02.020, "Gender: The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter" is left in, in case there are gendered pronouns that were missed in the 2021 amendment or if amendments to the Code in the future inadvertently use gender pronouns or references. Note#2: LOC 50.10.003.1 contains a similar clause for LOC Chapter 50 definitions; as that is a land use regulation, its amendment would need to be addressed in a future Annual CDC Code Amendment. 47.03.025 PcnaItic , Nuisance Jiolation. 1. A person commits a civil violation if they; a. Fail to comply with or violate any provision of this chapter; or, b. Develop or maintain a sign contrary to the terms of a sign permit. 2. A sign which fails to comply with or violates any provision of this chapter, or is developed or maintained contrary to the terms of a sign permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance and may be abated by appropriate proceedings. 3 Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Chapter shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: (1) Retitles to "Violation", consistent with titles of similar sections in other chapters that expressly declare a violation is a civil violation. (2) Includes in code the imposition of an enforcement fee, in addition to the fine, similar to the Tree Code enforcement fee per LOC 55.02.130(3). An enforcement fee was included in the 2022 Master Fee Schedule resolution. Page 10-2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) LOC Chapter 55 Tree Code /Article 55.02 Tree Removal 55.02.020 Definitions. APPLICANT Means the owner, contract purchaser, easement holder, licensee or similar interest, or for public street and right-of-way the road authority per ORS 810.010 or governmental entity with jurisdiction, either directly or through a representative, applying for a tree removal permit for a tree on the person's real property. Staff Comment: Staff Comment: (1) A new definition of"applicant" is added and used for consistency in description of who an applicant can be, in that the applicant must have a relationship to the property upon which the tree is located. (2) "On the person's real property" requires the person to show some relationship to the land upon which the person has an interest. (3) "Real property" is used as a broader term than "land" as it would include lesser real property interests than ownership, e.g., easement or leasehold. (4) Adding "directly or through a representative" makes it clear that even when the agent applies, such as by a tree removal company, that is done as agent for the owner and thus the owner is ultimately responsible for conformance with the permit requirements. By comparison to LOC 50.10.003.2: APPLICANT: The owner of land, a representative designated in writing by the owner, a contract purchaser, City representative or other person requesting some action under the terms of this Code. TREE Means any woody plant having a trunk six in. or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), except that for purposes of restocking, "tree" means a woody perennial plant, often but not always with one dominant trunk, with the capacity to achieve a mature height greater than 16 ft. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5 ft., it is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree. For the purposes of this chapter, stumps, shrubs, and hedges that otherwise meet the above description (common examples include rhododendrons, camellia, English laurel, Portuguese laurel, photinia, arborvitae, and hazelnuts) shall not be considered a "tree." Page 11—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) TREE CUTTING PERMIT Means written authorization from the City for a tree removal to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this chapter. UTILITIES Means water, sewer, gas, electric, and telecommunications services, including all infrastructure required for an exchange. 55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures An person who applicant that desires to remove a tree shall first apply for and receive one of the following tree cutting permits before tree removal occurs: Staff Comment: A new definition of"applicant" is added to LOC 55.02.020 Definitions and used for consistency in description of who an applicant can be, in that the applicant must have a relationship to the property upon which the tree is located. // 3. Dead Tree Removal Permit: a. The City shall issue a tree cutting permit for a dead tree, except as provided by subsection 3.b of this section, if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead or is in progressive and irreversible decline and warrants removal, or for ash (Fraxinus spp.), white fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) and cultivated olive (Olea europaea)tree species known to be infested with emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis).The City may require the applicant to submit a report from an arborist substantiating that the tree is dead or in progressive and irreversible decline or infested with emerald ash borer. b. In order to provide for wildlife habitat and natural processes, the City Manager may require the retention of a dead tree. Dead trees shall not be removed if located in wetlands, RC protection areas (LOC§ 50.05.010.5.b), HBA protection areas, stream corridors, parks or open space areas required to be preserved as a condition of development approval unless the tree presents a potential hazard to persons or property or is known to be infested with emerald ash borer. Staff Comment: Emerald Ash Borer(EAB) is an invasive beetle that kills ash and white fringe trees. It was recently confirmed in Yamhill, Marion, and Clackamas counties and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) has placed a quarantine in these counties to help slow its spread.The quarantine applies in Lake Oswego and requires that tree materials of all ash species, olive, and white fringe trees remain within the quarantined counties and all wood waste must be processed and disposed of according to quarantine guidelines. Additionally, removal of these trees should be avoided between April 1 and September 30. Page 12—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) The proposed amendments would allow the removal of ash trees known to be infected with EAB under a dead/dying tree permit in order to allow for expedient removal to help slow the spread of EAB.The amendments also remove Oregon ash from the native mitigation tree list and provides for conditions of approval to be imposed to assure the proper disposal of ash wood and to avoid removal during the EAB active period. 55.02.072 Forest Management Permit. 1. 2. Applicability. An owner of a large forested tract or the owner's authorized agentapplicant may apply for removal of one or more trees from the subject tract provided the tract is not subject to a pending application for minor or major development, and the subject trees are not: (a) — (e) .... 3. Minor Forest Management Permit. An owner of a large forested tract or the owner's authorized agcntapplicar may apply for a minor forest management permit to remove trees under the following criteria: (a) — (d) ... Minor forest management permits shall be issued without further review upon application and demonstration by the applicant that the request qualifies as a minor forest management permit pursuant to this subsection. Staff Comment: A new definition of "applicant" is added and used for consistency in description of who an applicant can be, in that the applicant must have a relationship to the property upon which the tree is located. 55.02.084 Mitigation Required. 1. An applicant shall provide mitigation for any tree permitted for removal, with the exception of the following: a. Dead trees; b. Hazard trees; c. Emergency trees; d. Trees that are removed under a Type I permit; e. Invasive tree species, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section; f. Tree removal under an approved minor forest management permit pursuant to LOC § 55.02.072; restocking may be required for a major forest management permit under LOC § 55.02.072(4); g. When part of a resource enhancement project, the species, number, and size of mitigation trees shall follow the resource enhancement plan approved under Page 13—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) LOC §§ 50.05.010(5)(c)(iii)(7) or 50.05.010(6)(c)(ii)(1)(f). 2. Mitigation for the removal of trees with known emerald ash borer infestation under a dead tree removal permit or for invasive tree species removal is required when: Staff Comment: See Staff Comment regarding ash borer infestation for LOC 55.02.042(3) above. a. The removal is from a public right-of-way and replanting is recommended by the Public Works Director; b. The removal is from an RP or RC district, or HBA protection area, except as approved as part of a resource enhancement project; or c. The tree was planted as part of a previously approved mitigation plan or landscaping. 3. Mitigation shall be required for any tree removal in violation of the Tree Code, excluding trees removed without permit by topping. 4. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied as listed below. Except where subsection (4)(c) of this section applies, a mitigation plan shall be submitted showing the location, size, and species of mitigation trees, or in the case of large forested tracts, restocking of any new trees to replace the trees to be removed. a. Replanting on Site. The applicant shall plant, for each tree removed: i. Invasive Tree Species Removal Permit. Removal from a public right-of- way or from an approved landscape plan, either a minimum one-and- one-half-in. caliper deciduous tree (measured six in. above the root ball) or a minimum six-ft.-tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Removal from a Resource Conservation or Resource Protection overlay district, or Habitat Benefit Protection Area, either a minimum one-half in. caliper deciduous tree or a minimum two-ft.-tall evergreen tree. ii. Type II Permit. Either a minimum one-and-one-half-in. caliper deciduous tree or a six-ft.-tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Mitigation for the removal of a native tree on the City's Master Plant List shall be with a species from the Native Mitigation Tree List. A. Exception: Removal of a tree identified as a significant tree for development purposes shall require two minimum one-and-one- half-in. caliper deciduous trees (measured six in. above the root ball) or a minimum of two six-ft.-tall evergreen trees for each tree removed. B. Exception: If tree removal is for the landscaping purpose of thinning to improve the health of other trees, mitigation shall be reduced to the extent there is insufficient space to replant elsewhere on the site and maintain tree health. iii. Other Tree Cutting Permits. Either a minimum one-and-one-half-in. caliper deciduous tree or a six-ft.-tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Mitigation for the removal of a native tree shall be with a native species. Page 14—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) The tree shall be planted according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. b. Replanting off Site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on the subject property, the replanting required in this section shall may occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, or in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, upon . Such mitigation planting is subjcct to the approval of the authorized property owners. The City may specify the species and size of the tree. Staff Comment: In terms of whether or not off-site planting can be required on the applicant's property, since the "authorized property owner" includes not just non-applicant-owners of other properties, but also the applicant regarding other properties they own, the effect is that off-site planting occurs on other applicant- owned properties when the applicant concurs. (AP 23-02). This amendment clarifies that the off-site planting option is subject to the owner's approval, including when the applicant owns other properties. c. Payment in Lieu of Planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree fund an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. 5. Trees identified as invasive on the Invasive Tree Species List are prohibited as mitigation trees. 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits. 1. The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on any tree cutting permit if the condition is reasonably related to preventing, eliminating or mitigating a negative impact or potential impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is as created or contributed to by the approved tree removal. 2. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: a. Cutting a tree or stump flush with the grade instead of grinding or fully removing a stump; b. Requiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a development or activities on a site or to require or prohibit certain construction methods; c. Requiring vegetation not requiring a tree removal permit to remain in place or be planted; d. Requiring the removal of injurious vegetation (e.g., English Ivy)from other trees on the property; e. Avoiding removal of ash (Fraxinus spp.),white fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) and cultivated olive (Olea europaea)tree species unless necessary during the emerald ash borer(EAB) active period of April 1—September 30 to prevent the spread of live insects. Page 15—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) f. Disposing of ash,fringetree and olive wood in accordance with guidelines established by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Staff Comment: See Staff Comment regarding ash borer infestation for LOC 55.02.042(3) above. 55.02.130 PcnalticsViolation. 1. Civil Violation. A violation of any provision of this chapter, or the breach of any condition of a permit granted under this chapter by the applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property that is the subject of the application and permit shall be a civil violation as defined by LOC § 34.04.105, enforceable pursuant to LOC Article 34.04. The unlawful removal of each individual tree shall be a separate offense hereunder. Failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or a condition of approval shall be a separate offense each day the failure to comply continues. The violation shall be punishable by a fine set forth by the municipal court and the enforcement fee and restoration requirements as set forth in subsections (3) and (4) of this section. Staff Comment: (1) Retitles to "Violation", consistent with titles of similar sections in other chapters that expressly declare a violation is a civil violation. (2) In combination with the new definition of"applicant," this makes it clear that the obligations required by the tree removal permit, e.g., mitigation, completion of conditions of approval, are obligations that transfer to the successor owner, contract purchaser, etc. of the land upon which the tree was removed. § 55.02.084 Mitigation Required. 1. An applicant shall provide mitigation for any tree permitted for removal, with the exception of the following: a. Dead trees; 2. Nuisance Abatement. The removal of a tree in violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and may be abated by appropriate proceedings pursuant to LOC Article 34.08. 3. Enforcement Fee. A person including an applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property, who-that removes a tree without first obtaining a tree cutting permit from the City pursuant to this chapter, removes a tree in violation of an approved tree cutting permit, or violates a condition of an approved tree cutting permit shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff Comment: In combination with the new definition of"applicant," this makes it clear that the enforcement fee obligation is an obligation that transfers to the successor Page 16—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) owner, contract purchaser, etc. of the land upon which the tree was removed. 4. Restoration. a. A person, including an applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property,wh►e-that removes a tree without first obtaining a required tree cutting permit from the City pursuant to this chapter, removes a tree in violation of an approved tree cutting permit, or violates a condition of such a permit shall pay into the City's tree fund a standard fee per caliper inch for the total number of caliper inches of the tree removed in violation of this chapter in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. b. The City may require the person to pay into the City's tree fund an increased fee per caliper inch for the total number of caliper inches of the tree removed in violation of this chapter in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council or the value of the tree as determined by an arborist in accordance with the methods set forth in the "Guide for Plant Appraisal," an official publication of the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater, if any of the following apply: i. The person has committed a previous violation of a provision of this chapter, or ii. Tree protection measures as required by LOC Article 55.08 were not installed or maintained, or iii. The tree removed was any of the following: A. Thirty-six in. (caliper) in diameter or greater, B. A heritage tree, per LOC Article 55.06, C. Expressly protected or required to be preserved as a condition of approval of any permit pursuant to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, or this Tree Code, D. Located within the Willamette River Greenway per LOC § 50.05.009, E. Part of an RP or RC district, or HBA protection area, per LOC § 50.05.010, F. Located on public right-of-way, City-owned or dedicated property, a public or private open space area or conservation easement. Staff Comment: In combination with the new definition of"applicant," this makes it Page 17—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) clear that the restoration obligations are obligations that transfer to the successor owner, contract purchaser, etc. of the land upon which the tree was removed. 5. Injunction. Upon request of the City Manager or direction from Council, the City Attorney may institute appropriate action in any court to enjoin the removal of trees in violation of this chapter. 6. Loss of City Privileges. a. A person hired to perform tree removal within the City, upon request, shall provide evidence to the City Manager of a valid license to conduct business in Lake Oswego. The person is subject to business license revocation pursuant to LOC § 20.02.085 if the person violates any provision of this chapter. b. Any arborist, builder, landscaper, contractor, or tree service that has performed any tree removal in violation of this chapter or submitted a falsified report for the criteria required in this chapter, shall not be considered a responsible bidder for any City contracts for a period of two years from the date of violation or report. 7. Arborist Report and Required Treatment. Upon request by the City, a person who violates any provision of this chapter shall submit a report prepared by an arborist or qualified forest management professional, as applicable, to evaluate the damage to a tree and/or make recommendations to remedy the violation. The City upon evaluating these recommendations may, at the City's discretion, require that the recommended measures be implemented. 8. Cumulative Remedies. The rights, remedies, and penalties provided in this chapter are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. Appendix 55.02-1 Native Mitigation Tree List 75-100 FT (23-30 M) HIGH DECIDUOUS AND *BROAD-LEAVED EVERGREEN bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) *Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) *tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) *Oregon myrtle, California bay(Umbellularia californica) Staff Comment: See Staff Comment regarding ash borer infestation for LOC 55.02.042(3) above. Page 18—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE 2954 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL CLARIFYING, REVISING,AND UPDATING VARIOUS ARTICLES DECLARING VIOLATIONS TO BE CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND/OR SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT FEES; AND AMENDING LOC ART. 20.02 (BUSINESS LICENSES); LOC ART. 32.06 (PARKING REGULATIONS); LOC ART. 34.10 (TYPES OF NUISANCE); LOC ART. 42.03 (STREET DESIGN STANDARDS); LOC ART. 47.03 (SIGN CODE);AND LOC ART. 55.02 (TREE REMOVAL). WHEREAS, through the application of the Lake Oswego Code, staff of the City Attorney's Office, and of the Community Development, Engineering and Police Departments have found that some sections of the Lake Oswego Code could be improved by removing ambiguous and conflicting language, correcting provisions, and adding to or repealing certain articles of the Lake Oswego Code; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the section and text shown in double- underlined type and deleting the text shown in type as set forth on Exhibit 1. (Section or subsections within the Lake Oswego Code that are not marked for deletion or addition are neither amended nor deleted by this Ordinance.) Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 3rd day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Ordinance 2954 Page 1 EXHIBIT A 2024 Annual Non-CDC Code Amendments Chapter 20 Licenses; Article 20.02 General 20.02.095 Appeal (Business License). An applicant whose application for a license has been conditioned or denied, or a licensee whose request for license renewal has been conditioned or denied, or whose license has been suspended, or is to be revoked may within 10 calendar days after the notice of denial, suspension, revocation or approval with conditions is mailed or delivered, whichever is earlier, appeal in writing to a hearings officer appointed by the City Council. The appeal shall be filed with the City Recorder and shall state and include: a. The name and address of the appellant and business owner; b. The nature of the determination from which an appeal is taken and a copy of the determination; c. The reason or reasons why the determination is alleged to be incorrect; d. What the correct determination should be; and e. Any established fee for appeal. The decision of the hearings officer shall be the final decision of the City. 20.02.110 Violation. (1) Civil Violation. A violation of LOC 20.02.025 or LOC 20.02.100, in addition to any other remedy, is a civil infraction and shall be enforced pursuant to LOC §§ 34.04.100 to 34.04.145. (2). Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Chapter 31 Animals and Fowl; Art. 31.02 In General § 31.02.135 Pro ccu Lion of Violations. Civil Violation. Offenses committed in violation of provisions of this chapter constitute civil violations. Except where otherwise provided, anyone convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resnlution of the City Council. Chapter 32 Lake Oswego Uniform Traffic Code; Art. 32.06 Parking Regulations 32.06.090 Fines for Parking Violations. 1. Parking with the front of the vehicle facing the opposite direction from that of the traffic flow in violation of LOC § 32.06.075, parking in violation of LOC § 32.06.080 (1), or violating any Page 1—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) provision of this article by parking at a location where parking is prohibited at any time, shall be punishable by a fine of$20 .00. 2. Violation of any provision of this article not listed in subsection (1) of this section shall be punishable by a fine of$15 .00. Chapter 34 Crimes and Civil Violations; Article 34.08 Nuisances 34.08.425 Remedies Not Exclusive; Violation. The nuisance abatement procedure provided in LOC §§ 34.08.405 through 34.08.421 is not an exclusive remedy; any other remedy provided by this chapter or State law is available unless otherwise provided. The City Manager or the appropriate official may in addition to nuisance abatement or any other proceedings initiate civil violation proceedings against the owner of property on which the condition exists or against any other person determined to be responsible for such condition. Any penalty or fine imposed for the civil violation shall be in addition to reimbursement for any abatement costs as determined under LOC§ 34.08.421. 2. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Article or Article 34.10 shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Article 34.10 Types of Nuisances 34.10.520 Periodic Brush Cutting Required; Exceptions 1. Property owners, lessees, occupants, or persons in possession or control of property shall: a—A,emove from their property: la. Thistles and noxious weeds, 4b. Vegetation of an inflammable condition or nature, +iic. Dead trees that are a hazard to use of public property or public right-of-way, and +vd. All grass or weeds more than 10 inches in height. b. Trim away from any property line to a distance of 10 feet all blackberry vines or plant material which characteristically spreads under or around barriers intended to prevent intrusion. 2. A violation of this section is a civil violation and a public nuisance. Page 2—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) Chapter 42 Streets, Sidewalks, Public Rights-of-Way and Public Easements; Article 42.03 Street Design Standards 42.03.130 Access Spacing and Sight Distance for Roadway Intersections, Driveway Approaches, and Accesses. *** 4. Standards. **** e. There shall be a landing area where a driveway meets the public street. The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of five percent. The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. If a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and a development proposal is anticipated to proceed prior to the improvement of the street, the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. No Chapter 45 Building Code; Article 45.25 Building Code Violations 45.25.005 PenaltiesViolation. **** 5. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this this Chapter shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. LOC Chapter 47 Sign Code / Article 47.03 In General 47.03.015 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice-versa; words used in the present tense include the future, the singular tense include the plural and vice-versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary; the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. The definitions in LOC § 50.10.003.2 apply to this chapter to the extent that they do not conflict. The following terms shall mean: **** Page 3—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) 47.03.025 PcnaIti^`', Nui anc^Violation. 1. A person commits a civil violation if they; a. Fail to comply with or violate any provision of this chapter; or, b. Develop or maintain a sign contrary to the terms of a sign permit. 2. A sign which fails to comply with or violates any provision of this chapter, or is developed or maintained contrary to the terms of a sign permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance and may be abated by appropriate proceedings. 3. Enforcement Fee. A person who violates a provision of this Chapter shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. LOC Chapter 55 Tree Code /Article 55.02 Tree Removal 55.02.020 Definitions. APPLICANT Means the owner, contract purchaser, easement holder, licensee or similar interest, or for public street and right-of-way the road authority per ORS 810.010 or governmental entity with jurisdiction, either directly or through a representative, applying for a tree removal permit for a tree on the person's real property. 55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures A person who applicant that desires to remove a tree shall first apply for and receive one of the following tree cutting permits before tree removal occurs: *** 3. Dead Tree Removal Permit: a. The City shall issue a tree cutting permit for a dead tree, except as provided by subsection 3.b of this section, if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead or is in progressive and irreversible decline and warrants removal, or for ash (Fraxinus spp.), white fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) and cultivated olive (Olea europaea)tree species known to be infested with emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis).The City may require the applicant to submit a report from an arborist substantiating that the tree is dead or in progressive and irreversible decline or infested with emerald ash borer. b. In order to provide for wildlife habitat and natural processes, the City Manager may require the retention of a dead tree. Dead trees shall not be removed if located in wetlands, RC protection areas (LOC§ 50.05.010.5.b), HBA protection areas, stream corridors, parks or open space areas required to be preserved as a condition of development approval unless the tree presents a potential hazard to persons or property or is known to be infested with emerald ash borer. Page 4—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) 55.02.072 Forest Management Permit. 1. *** 2. Applicability. An owncr of a large forested tract or the owner's authorized agentapplicant may apply for removal of one or more trees from the subject tract provided the tract is not subject to a pending application for minor or major development, and the subject trees are not: **** 3. Minor Forest Management Permit. An owner of a large forested tract or the owner's authorized agentapplicant may apply for a minor forest management permit to remove trees under the following criteria: **** Minor forest management permits shall be issued without further review upon application and demonstration by the applicant that the request qualifies as a minor forest management permit pursuant to this subsection. 55.02.084 Mitigation Required. 1. **** 2. Mitigation for the removal of trees with known emerald ash borer infestation under a dead tree removal permit or for invasive tree species removal is required when: **** **** 4. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied as listed below. Except where subsection (4)(c) of this section applies, a mitigation plan shall be submitted showing the location, size, and species of mitigation trees, or in the case of large forested tracts, restocking of any new trees to replace the trees to be removed. a. *** b. Replanting off Site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on the subject property, the replanting required in this section shall may occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, or in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision upon . Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property owner&. The City may specify the species and size of the tree. c. *** **** 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits. *** 2. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: Page 5—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) e. Avoiding removal of ash (Fraxinus spp.),white fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) and cultivated olive (Olea europaea)tree species unless necessary during the emerald ash borer(EAB) active period of April 1—September 30 to prevent the spread of live insects. f. Disposing of ash,fringetree and olive wood in accordance with guidelines established by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. 55.02.130 PenaltiesViolation. 1. Civil Violation. A violation of any provision of this chapter, or the breach of any condition of a permit granted under this chapter by the applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property that is the subject of the application and permit shall be a civil violation as defined by LOC § 34.04.105, enforceable pursuant to LOC Article 34.04. The unlawful removal of each individual tree shall be a separate offense hereunder. Failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or a condition of approval shall be a separate offense each day the failure to comply continues. The violation shall be punishable by a fine set forth by the municipal court and the enforcement fee and restoration requirements as set forth in subsections (3) and (4) of this section. 2. *** 3. Enforcement Fee. A person,including an applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property, who that removes a tree without first obtaining a tree cutting permit from the City pursuant to this chapter, removes a tree in violation of an approved tree cutting permit, or violates a condition of an approved tree cutting permit shall pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. 4. Restoration. a. A person, including an applicant or successor holder of an interest in the real property, who-that removes a tree without first obtaining a required tree cutting permit from the City pursuant to this chapter, removes a tree in violation of an approved tree cutting permit, or violates a condition of such a permit shall pay into the City's tree fund a standard fee per caliper inch for the total number of caliper inches of the tree removed in violation of this chapter in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. **** **** Page 6—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) Appendix 55.02-1 Native Mitigation Tree List **** 75-100 FT (23-30 M) HIGH DECIDUOUS AND *BROAD-LEAVED EVERGREEN bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) *Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) *tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) *Oregon myrtle, California bay(Umbellularia californica) **** Page 7—2024 Non-CDC Code Amendments (Ord. 2954) 8.1 o�� E 0 COUNCIL REPORT > V —w 0 OREGO� Subject: Resolution 24-47 and LORA Resolution 24-03, Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney/ Deputy LORA Counsel Report Date: November 18, 2024 Department: City Attorney's Office/ LORA Counsel Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑X Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: • City Council: Adopt Resolution 24-47 • LORA Board: Adopt LORA Resolution 24-03 Recommended Language for Motion: • City Council: Move to adopt Resolution 24-47. • LORA Board: Move to adopt LORA Resolution 24-03. Project/ Issue Relates To: Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable — Respect cv el'erce. Trust. Se-VI'', 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 BACKGROUND Legal and Related Services The 2016 Council / LORA Board adopted the AG Model Public Contracting Rules for soliciting and awarding public contracts,'while also retaining some Lake Oswego-specific public contracting rules.2 State law allows local governments to enter into personal services contracts, such as hiring outside professionals. When the City/ LORA hires for personal services, including legal services, it must choose based on factors in a solicitation document, regardless of the anticipated contract amount.3 Council / LORA Board may authorize exceptions to the general public contract solicitation requirements by adoption of"special procurements," which exempt certain public contracts from solicitation of multiple vendors, e.g., equipment repair and overhaul, concession and franchises, advertising, copyright and library materials, insurance, and sponsorship agreements.4 Delegation Authority State law sets certain procedures for how public contracts are solicited, selected, and awarded. Pursuant to those procedures, the decision to award a contract is made by the "contracting agency"— the Council / LORA Board. However, state law also allows the Council / LORA Board to delegate this authority to the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director. Like many other cities, the Council / LORA Board has authorized the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director to approve contracts on its behalf when the contract is less than a stated dollar maximum.' Lake Oswego Public Contract Rule 46-0140 contains a convenient chart for staff and the public to find the current delegated authority.' Intergovernmental Agreement to Sell Goods Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) are not "public contracts."' Similar to the delegation authority for public contracts below a certain amount, LOPCR 46-0140 is used to include the delegation of authority by the Council / LORA Board to allow the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director to enter into IGAs that are similar to a public contract, e.g., when the City/ LORA purchases goods, services, personal services and, rarer, public improvements from other governmental agencies, or IGAs for reciprocal support, e.g., mutual aid agreements or joint task forces. 1 OAR Ch. 137,Articles 046—049. 2 See City Resolution 16-29/LORA Resolution 16-03. 3 LOPCR 47-0277. 4 LOPCR 46-0131. 'City Resolution 18-03/LORA Resolution 18-01. 6 Amendment of the delegation of contracting authority is not subject to the statutory requirements for amendment of the public contracting rules because changing the parameters of the delegation of the City Manager/Executive Director to award contracts is not within the technical scope of the public contracting rules 7 ORS 279A.025(a)(A, E, F, I). Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 DISCUSSION Legal and Related Services This resolution proposes an amendment of the special procurement rule for personal service contracts relating to the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/or Human Resources Director obtaining outside legal counsel or contracting litigation /dispute resolution services. This amendment would allow, but not require, the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to direct appoint (select) the outside legal counsel or related legal services without seeking multiple quotes. A class special procurement is permitted by ORS 2796.085(1) for a class of contracts when it is demonstrated that: "(a) Is unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts; and (b)(A) Is reasonably expected to result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public; or (B) Otherwise substantially promotes the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements that are applicable under ORS 2796.055, 2796.060, 2796.065 or 2796.070 or under any rules adopted thereunder." Legal Services Avoiding Favoritism and Protecting Competition: Exemptions for legal services are unlikely to encourage favoritism or diminish competition because the selection of outside counsel is based on specialized legal expertise, not personal preference. Legal matters often require immediate attention, and only attorneys with relevant expertise and qualifications can be considered, which naturally limits the pool of candidates but ensures fair competition among qualified professionals. The City Attorney's/ LORA Counsel's/ Human Resources Director's role in choosing counsel focuses on professional criteria, such as expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest, which prevents favoritism. Promoting Substantial Cost Savings: The exemption is expected to result in cost savings because it allows the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to quickly hire outside counsel when legal matters arise or immediate legal expertise is needed. The standard procurement process can cause delays, leading to higher costs and legal risk if the City/ LORA misses deadlines, faces prolonged litigation, or is unable to respond effectively and proactively in legal disputes. Serving the Public Interest: Exempting legal services from the typical procurement process substantially promotes the public interest by ensuring the City/ LORA can address legal issues with the right expertise and without delay. This is crucial in matters where time-sensitive legal strategies are involved, such as litigation, settlement negotiations, and specialized property transactions. In such cases, the public's interest in protecting the city's legal rights is well served by allowing the City Attorney/ Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to appoint counsel based on professional judgment and immediate need. Related Legal Services Due to the nature and procedure of dispute resolution/ litigation,there are times when persons or firms provide related legal expenses that are to be shared with other parties to the dispute, such as the costs of a mediator, arbitrator, expert witnesses, or litigation support services are shared with other parties, and that the selection of the person or firm is one that must either be negotiated with other parties or is to be selected in the manner provided by the dispute resolution process, e.g., selection from the panel of available arbitrators from the Portland Arbitration Service. In such cases the City/ LORA is not able to solicit multiple providers. This special procurement authority for obtaining related legal services is unlikely to encourage favoritism or to substantially diminish competition because, as described above, the manner of selection is constrained by the process in working within the dispute resolution / litigation procedures. The special procurement will substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements for the same reasons stated above. Delegation of Authority Contract Amount Increase Currently the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director is authorized to award and execute public contracts and similar intergovernmental agreements for services, personal services, and goods for up to $250,000; contracts in excess of the amount require council approval, typically on the Council consent agenda. Staff time is required to prepare the council report and the award and execution is delayed until after the council meeting. This resolution would increase the delegated contract authority to $500,000. The City Manager/ LORA Executive Director will advise the Council for the first 2 years-- starting April 1, 2025 and quarterly through December 31, 2026—of the contracts that are awarded above in the $250,000 - $500,000 range, by providing the name of the vendor, the purpose/scope of the contract, and the contract amount. Intergovernmental Agreement to Sell Goods The amendment to LOPCR 46-0140 would allow the City/ LORA to sell goods under an IGA to another governmental agency on the same basis as the existing authority to purchase goods from that governmental agency. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 5 ALTERNATIVES City Council: The Council may adopt all or part of the recommended amendments to LOPCR 46- 0131 and 46-0140. If a part of the proposed amendments will not be adopted, a revised form a resolution will be presented to the Council at a later meeting. LORA Board: LORA Resolution 24-03 concurs in the amendments and findings in City Resolution 24-47. If the LORA Board wishes to adopt less or more of the amendments than adopted by the City Council, or different findings, a revised form of resolution will be presented to the LORA Board at a later meeting. RECOMMENDATION Following a public hearing to receive public comment: • City Council: Adopt Resolution 24-47. • LORA Board:Adopt LORA Resolution 24-03 (concurring in the amendment and findings of City Council Resolution 24-47) ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council: Resolution 24-47 2. LORA: LORA Resolution 24-03 — Respect. Fv- PPP,',P Trust. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 24-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LAKE OSWEGO PUBLIC CONTRACT RULES 46-0131 SPECIAL PROCUREMENT (LEGAL AND RELATED SERVICES) AND 46-140 REGARDING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Council elects to increase the delegation of authority of the City Manager to execute public contracts and intergovernmental agreements for the purchase of goods, services and personal services to $500,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously delegated to the City Manager the authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purchase of goods, services and personal services below certain dollar value, which dollar value is similar to the authority delegated to enter into public contracts for goods, services, and personal services; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City Manager should have the same authority regarding intergovernmental agreements for the sale of goods, services and personal services; and WHEREAS, delegation of authority granted by the City Council to the City Manager to enter into intergovernmental agreements for goods, services and personal services was made a part of the Lake Oswego Public Contracting Rule 46-140 solely for ease of reference, because (a) the grant of delegation of authority to execute public contracts as permitted by ORS 279A.075 is not regarding the rules for the exercise of the City's procurement authority under ORS 279A.050 or ORS 279.070, and (b) intergovernmental agreements are not "public contracts" per ORS 279A.025(2)(a)(I); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to the nature of dispute resolution, there are times when persons or firms provide related legal expenses that are to be shared with other parties to the dispute, such as when the costs of a mediator, arbitrator, expert witnesses, or litigation support services are shared with other parties, and that the selection of the person or firm is one that must either be negotiated with other parties or selected in the manner provided by the dispute resolution process; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the procurement of outside legal services by the City's chief legal officer or Human Resources Director is a unique personal service. Legal matters often require immediate attention, specialized expertise, consistency of representation in ongoing legal matters, and ethical considerations specific to lawyers—practicalities which require an exemption that is unlikely encourage favoritism. Subjecting the acquisition and provisions of legal services to a regular solicitation process risks exposing the sensitive and confidential information inherent in those services and an exemption is likely to lead to cost savings. Making legal services contracts a "special procurement" substantially promotes the public interest by ensuring the city can address legal issues with the right expertise at the right time. Therefore, the City Council finds that the City Attorney should be able to direct appoint for outside legal services; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the findings stated in the Recitals above and in the Council Report. Section 2. Lake Oswego Public Contract Rule 46-0140 (LO) is amended to as shown below, deleted text shown by and additional text showed by double underline. Resolution 24-47 Page 1 of 4 46-0131 (LO) Class Special Procurement Exemptions [This LOPCR is in addition to the Model Rules; it does not revise a Model Rule.] The following classes of contracts, in addition to other classes of contract authorized in these rules, i.e., small procurement, intermediate procurement, emergency procurement, in OAR 137-47 and 137-49, are exempt from the competitive bidding procurement requirements of these Rules to the extent provided: (1). GOODS AND SERVICES /// (2). PERSONAL SERVICES The following personal services are designated as personal services and may be made by direct appointment by the PCO: (a) Legal and Related Services (i). Litigation or Potential Litigation—Shared Services: When a person or entity is to provide services related to the dispute resolution process (whether in a pending or likely dispute), including an agreed-upon contractual dispute resolution process, mediation, arbitration, or litigation), such as the engagement of the servicers of a mediator, arbitrator, technical expert witness, appraiser, court reporter, copy service, or other litigation related services and: (1) the selection process is pursuant to the agreed-upon dispute resolution procedure (e.g., selection of mediator(s) or arbitrator(s)), or (2) the person or firm has been selected by another party to the dispute and the City is to bear a portion of the cost in order to receive the benefit of the provider's service or work product, such as testimony, appraisal, deposition transcripts, and photocopies. (ii). Legal Advice and Related Services to City:The City Attorney or the Human Resources Director(with approval of the City Attorney) may retain outside legal counsel, expert witnesses and consultants to assist the City Attorney in providing legal advice or services to the City or to the Human Resources Director in labor and employment matters. (3). PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT /// (4). GOODS AND SERVICES and/or PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT /// 46-0140(LO) Awarding Authority for Contracts, Amendments and Intergovernmental Agreements [This LOPCR is in addition to the Model Rules; it does not revise a Model Rule.] (1). When a rule states that the Contracting Agency is authorized to award a contract, the council, board, or person authorized to award the Contract on behalf of the Contracting Agency shall be as provided in this section. (2). The Lake Oswego City Council shall award all public contracts for the City of Lake Oswego unless otherwise provided by this section, or by resolution of the Council. Resolution 24-47 Page 2 of 4 (3). The Board of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency shall award all public contracts for the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency unless otherwise provided by this section, or by resolution of the Board. (4). The Lake Oswego City Council, as the governing body of the City and LORA, hereby delegates authority to the PCO to Award Contracts and Amendments to Contracts, and to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements and Amendments to Intergovernmental Agreement as follows, and the PCO is hereby designated as the Awarding Authority and Change Order Authority, for the following classes of Contracts: Contract Awardable By PCO Special Limitations Maximum Amount /Scope Goods, Services, Personal Generally $500,000 Service contracts (including Amendments Architect, Engineer, Land Contract Amount $500,000 Surveyor, or Provider of Alter scope of work or time for performance None "Related Services" contracts for Public Improvements) Contract expense fully offset by fees, charges, $500,000 donations, or funds raised for services or programs offered through City Concession and Franchise Annual Gross Sales expected to exceed $500,000. Donated Goods and Services None Public Improvements, Public Generally $500,000 Works Amendments: Contract Amount $250,000 Alter scope of work or time for performance None Donated Public Improvement None Intergovernmental Agreements Authorized to be Executed by PCO Purchase or Sale of Goods and Generally $500,000 Services (materials, supplies, Donated Public Improvement None equipment, vehicles, services), Contract expense fully offset by fees, charges, $500,000 Personal Services donations, or funds raised for services or programs offered through City Donated Goods and Services None Amendments Contract Amount $500,000 Alter scope of work or time for performance None Public Improvements and Generally $500,000 Public Works; Personal Amendments: Services related to Public Contract Amount $500,000 Improvements and Public Alter scope of work or time for performance None Works Resolution 24-47 Page 3 of 4 Contract Awardable By PCO Special Limitations Maximum Amount /Scope Allocation of existing Agreement does not significantly affect the City's None equipment and personnel, ability to provide services within its own such as mutual aid agreements boundaries. or involvement in dedicated task forces. (5). Contracts, Amendments to Contracts, and Intergovernmental Agreements exceeding the above amounts shall be awarded or rejected by the City Council, following an evaluation and recommendation by the PCO, and the City Council is hereby designated as the Awarding Authority and Change Order Authority for such classes of contracts. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 3rd day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Resolution 24-47 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 LORA RESOLUTION 24-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONCURRING IN THE AMENDMENT OF LAKE OSWEGO PUBLIC CONTRACT RULES 46-0131 SPECIAL PROCUREMENT (LEGAL AND RELATED SERVICES) AND 46-140 REGARDING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BY LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 24-47. WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board by Resolution 16-03 has previously adopted the Lake Oswego Public Contracts Rules (LOPCR) as the public contracting rules of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA), and WHEREAS, pursuant to LOPCR 46-0109 (LO) defines the "Local Contract Review Board" as the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board for contracts applicable to LORA (Section 1) and defines the "Contracting Agency" as LORA for contracts applicable to LORA (Section 2); and WHEREAS, the Board finds that there is a benefit to LORA to utilize the same public contracting rules for the procurement of goods, services, personal services and public improvements, due to increased familiarity by the shared staffing with the City of Lake Oswego, and due to familiarity by vendors with the LOPCRs on LORA projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego has adopted Resolution 24-47, which makes certain findings and adopts amendments to the Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules; and the Board concurs in the findings and that amendments to the LOPCRs should be applied to public contracts and intergovernmental agreements for and by LORA; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency: Section 1. The findings and amendments to the Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules 46-0131 and 46-0140 as stated in Lake Oswego City Council Resolution 24-47 (Exhibit A), are hereby adopted. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board on the 3rd day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M. Buck, Chair LORA Resolution 24-03 Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Kari Linder, Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, LORA Counsel LORA Resolution 24-03 Page 2 of 2 8.2 V —� 0 o�� E 0 COUNCIL REPORT OREGO\-\ Subject: Ordinance 2949, Citywide Parking Reform (LU 24-0025; PP 22-0001) Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager Report Date: November 22, 2024 Department: Community Development Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑X Planning Commission Recommends Approval ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑X Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only ' Comments: Council had a study session on Climate- • Council Direction Friendly and Equitable Communities Program (CFEC) ❑ Consent Agenda rules for parking reform related to maximum parking regulations and climate mitigation actions for large surface parking lots on September 3, 2024. Staff Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2949 to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code to comply with the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD's) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program (CFEC) rules for parking reform. Recommended Language for Motion: • Alternative A [excludes Option b parking lot fee-in-lieu: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2949, with code amendments dated November 13, 2024, and direct staff to return on December 17, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 24-0025; or • Alternative B [includes Option bl: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2949 with the code amendments dated October 25, 2024, and direct staff to return on December 17, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 24-0025. Project/ Issue Relates To: Implementing requirements for Phase B of DLCD's Climate- Friendly and Equitable Communities program rules for parking reform. ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑X Comprehensive Plan ❑Not Applicable Respect cv el'erce. Trust. Se-iv 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL The Council will hold a legislative public hearing for LU 24-0025, a proposal to update the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code to comply with DLCD's CFEC parking reform rules (OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450). Staff recommends the Council discuss whether to include a "payment-in-lieu" option for surface parking lots over 1/2 acre in size in the list of potential climate mitigation actions., Council can direct staff to exclude this option [Alternative Motion A] or include it [Alternative Motion B] in the proposed amendments. (See Commission Modifications to Item 29 (Large Parking Lot Mitigation discussion, below.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (CDC) were prepared in response to Phase B of DLCD's CFEC parking rules. Proposed amendments include removing minimum parking requirements citywide and adding language to comply with CFEC rules regarding the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and the design of surface parking lots over one-half acre in size. Pursuant to an extension granted by DLCD, the City is required to comply with Phase B of the CFEC rules by December 31, 2024. BACKGROUND In response to an executive order by former Governor Kate Brown, DLCD adopted rules to guide the implementation of the CFEC program in 2022. These rules require that cities in the state's eight metropolitan areas— including cities in the Portland Metro area — update their comprehensive plans and development regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a particular focus on reducing emissions from transportation, such that Oregon can meet its climate mitigation goals by the year 2050. More specifically, the rules require Lake Oswego to implement requirements related to parking reform, electric vehicle charging, and transportation planning. The City Council discussed the City's response to the CFEC rules for parking reform over the course of four study sessions, beginning in June 2022, and the Planning Commission conducted five meetings to develop the details of the draft amendments. Targeted public engagement for the project occurred between September 2023 and November 2024, including presentations to: the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network; the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee; the Mayor's Roundtable event in February 2024; the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board; the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Chairs Committee; and the neighborhood associations (NAs) within the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District— Lake Forest NA, Lake Grove NA, and Waluga NA. A virtual "Community Forum" was held on July 24, 2024, to provide information and receive public input on the City's response to the CFEC rules, and the City maintains a project website that includes project updates and allows the public to access draft documents as they become available. Staff has also developed and maintained a general information page on Citywide Parking Reform that provides a direct email contact for the project Respect. c . �!e Trust - , 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 manager, a link to allow members of the public to sign up to receive project updates, and a comment form to allow for public input. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to comply with the CFEC rules are included in Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, and the proposed CDC amendments are included in Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2. The Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and CDC amendments on October 28, 2024. The Commission recommends (6-0) approval of Ordinance 2949 as reflected in the Findings, Conclusion, and Order adopted on November 13, 2024 (Exhibit B-1). DISCUSSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan and CDC amendments were developed to comply with Phase B of DLCD's CFEC parking rules by removing minimum parking requirements citywide pursuant to CFEC Option 1: No Mandates. In addition, the proposed CDC amendments modify maximum off-street parking regulations as required to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Table 3.08-3 of the Metro Regional Functional Transportation Plan (RTP). The proposed amendments also require new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking to provide at least one of three listed "climate mitigation actions" — providing solar panels on-site, paying into a renewable energy fund, or providing at least 40 percent tree canopy—and to provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. More specifically, proposed Comprehensive Plan and CDC amendments include provisions that: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM TITLE POLICY A-C, Remove code language referencing minimum Economic Vitality chapter: E-G, parking requirements. Policy B-1 (h) [Item A] I-N Connected Community chapter: Policy C-7 [Item B] Policy F-6 [Item C] Policy G-5 [Item E] First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan: Conditional Uses Policy 3 [Item F] Conditional Uses Policy 6 [Item G] Parking Policy 4 [Item I] Parking Policy 5 [Item J] Downtown Commercial District Policy 2 [Item K] Foothills Special District Plan Respect. c . �!e Trust -—1.— 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM TITLE POLICY Policy 6(c) [Item L] Lake Grove Village Center Plan Goal 9, Policy 9.3 [Item M] Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation Policy 13 [Item N] D, H Clarify that policies related to minimum parking Connected Community requirements apply equally, regardless of the Policy F-7 [Item D] proposed use. First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan: Parking Policy 2 [Item H] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1-15, Remove code language referencing minimum parking LOC 50.03.003.6.a.v (Item 1) 22, requirements. LOC 50.03.003.6.j (Item 2) 34-36, LOC 50.03.003.6.p.i (Item 3) 45, LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii (Item 4) 52-53, LOC 50.03.005.5.a (Item 5) 58 LOC 50.03.005.5.b (Item 6) LOC 50.05.004.3.c (Item 7) LOC 50.05.004.9 (Item 8) LOC 50.05.004.13.c.iii (Item 9) LOC 50.05.004.13.h (Item 10) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.i (Item 11) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.ii-iii (Item 12) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.iv-vi (Item 13) LOC 50.06.002.1 (Item 14) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.i (Item 15) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6) (Item 22) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.v (Item 34) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(3) (Item 35) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vii (Item 36) LOC 50.07.003.1.j.i(1) (Item 45) LOC 50.10.003.2 (Items 52-53) LOC 50.11.006.3.a.2 (Item 58) Respect. FV. PrP Trust - , 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 16. Remove an editor's note to reflect that state statutes LOC 50.06.002.2.a.i (technically and administrative rules related to electric vehicle not a code amendment because service capacity are now included as a standard of editor's notes are not adopted approval within the parking standards. See Item 39. code text). 17. Delete references to minimum parking requirements LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii and reference maximum parking regulations instead. LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(1) 18. Modify the table outlining the numerical method of ' Table 50.06.002-1 determining the minimum number of parking spaces required to instead outline a method to determine the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. 19. Remove a description of the parking study method for LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(2) consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. 20. Modify language within the maximum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(3) standards to: • Simplify the methodology for determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed; • Add language to outline the maximum parking regulations for extremely large buildings; and • Describe that the following are exempted from maximum parking regulations per OAR 660- 012-0005(31, 32): non-surface parking; parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 21. Modify maximum off-street parking space Table 50.06.002-2 requirements to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, and simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration. 23. Eliminate references to minimum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6)(a)-(c) requirements and clarify that parking studies are not permitted to modify the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. Respect. c . �!e Trust - , 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 24. Delete the Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Table 50.06.002-3 table to remove minimum parking requirements from the code. 25. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iii requirements and instead apply requirements for the on-site location of parking spaces to any parking provided on-site. 26. Remove and simplify code language to reflect that an LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) (former exclusive permanent easement is no longer necessary subsection) for off-site parking agreements in the absence of minimum parking requirements. 27. Remove and simplify code language related to shared LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2) (former parking. subsection) 28. Add a new subsection to the parking standard that LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv (new implements the new OAR requirements for on-site subsection with renumbered surface parking over one-half acre in size from a non- code reference) public entity. 29. Require any new development that includes more LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) (new than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a subsection with renumbered lot or parcel to provide at least one of two listed code reference) "climate mitigation actions": providing solar panels on- site or providing at least 40%tree canopy. [See Commission Modification to Item 29 discussion, below] 30. Require new surface parking lots larger than one-half LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2) (new acre to provide either trees along driveways or at least subsection with renumbered 30%tree canopy coverage. code reference) 31. Require new surface parking lots larger than one-half LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(3) (new acre to provide pedestrian connections throughout subsection with renumbered the parking lot that connect building entrances, code reference) pedestrian facilities, transit stops, and accessible parking spaces. 32. Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(4) (new larger than one-half acre to coordinate with the local subsection with renumbered electric utility in the development of tree canopy code reference) plans. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 33. Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) (new larger than one-half acre to follow specified tree subsection with renumbered planting standards to fulfill tree canopy requirements. code reference) 37. Remove a reference to required parking in the LOC 50.06.002.2.a.viii employee carpool and vanpool parking standards, and instead apply provisions related to employee carpool and vanpool parking to any development providing 50 or more parking spaces. 38. Allow property owners to redevelop any portion of LOC 50.06.002.2.a.viii (new existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented subsection with renumbered and transit-oriented facilities. code reference) 39. Add provisions related to electric vehicle service LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix (new capacity directly as a standard of approval within the subsection with renumbered CDC for ease of administration. See Item 16. code reference) 40. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.003.1.d requirements and eliminate the requirement to provide parking spaces for residential flag lots. 41. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.003.2.b.v(3) requirements and instead apply the standards for driveways and fire access roads to any proposed parking spaces. 42. Remove a reference to required parking and instead ' LOC 50.06.004.1.a.i(10) apply the landscaping, buffering and screening standards to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on site. 43. Clarify that the lighting standards apply to the LOC 50.06.004.3.a.i construction or expansion of existing open-air parking lots. 44. Clarify that parking does not need to be identified in LOC 50.07.003.1.a.ii unified site plans. ' 46. Remove a reference to required parking to instead LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(15) reference the revised definition of"increased use." 47. Clarify that the redevelopment of existing on-site LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(22) parking is classified as ministerial development. Respect. cv. �� �,,,_P Trust - ;,;, 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 48. Clarify that changes of use that involve the use of a LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(10) parking study are classified as minor development for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code, and remove a reference to "private streets"—which is not defined in the code. 49. Specify that designating the size of a parking area is LOC 50.07.004.6.d.vi not permitted as a condition of approval for a Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan. 50. Specify that designating the size of a parking area is LOC 50.07.005.3.b.vi not permitted as a condition of approval for conditional uses. 51. Clarify that variances may not be used to increase the LOC 50.08.001.2 maximum number of parking spaces permitted. 54. Modify the definition of"increased use" to remove a LOC 50.10.003.2 reference to "required parking," and instead connect the definition to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement, retaining trip generation as a part of the "increased use" definition. 55. Modify the definition of"change of use" to remove a LOC 50.10.003.2 reference to required parking, and instead connect the definition to the revised definition of"increased use". 56. Delete a figure depicting parking requirements within LOC 50.11.001.4 a portion of the Downtown Shopping and Business LOC 50.05.004.9— Figure 1 District to reflect that minimum parking requirements have been removed from the code. 57. Clarify that a parking plan is not required within the LOC 50.11.006.2 Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area. While the draft CDC amendments are similar to the version discussed at the City Council's September 3 study session, the revised version includes administrative corrections and additions in response to comments provided to staff by DLCD: • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 21— Modified the proposed amendment in Table 50.06.002-2: Maximum On-Site Surface Parking Regulations to add links to maps depicting the boundaries of Parking Area A—which includes the Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 9 Downtown Redevelopment Design District, the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay, and the transit corridor within 1/2 mile of TriMet Bus Line #35; • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 28— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) to clarify that an exception to the required climate mitigation actions for development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking applies to all private developments and some public agency development (except those required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020), rather than exempting all "public agency" developments (as previously worded); • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 29— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1)(b) to clarify that payment in-lieu funds will be directed towards a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE). (Staff notes that the payment-in-lieu option was later removed from the proposed code amendments at the Planning Commission hearing on October 28, 2024); • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 33 — Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) to include clear and objective standards regarding tree planting to fulfill tree canopy requirements through direct reference to the 2021 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards; • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 36— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vii to clarify that, "Loading berths shall not be used for storage or parking of vehicles;" • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Item 39— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix to add a cross-reference to ORS 455.417 to clarify that, per ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A), commercial buildings under private ownership must provide sufficient electrical service capacity to serve no less than 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces; and • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1.2, Added a new Item 47—Added the redevelopment of existing on-site parking to the list of ministerial developments in LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii. Commission Modifications to Item 29 (Large Parking Lot Mitigation) Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1), dated November 13, 2024, to require that new on-site surface parking lots larger than % acre include one of two climate mitigation actions: 1. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per parking space. 2. Provision of tree canopy covering at least 40% of the parking lot area within 15 years of planting. Respect. c . �!e Trust - , 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 10 The Planning Commission does not recommend including the option to pay into a renewable energy fund as a compliance alternative. Background and Rationale At the Planning Commission hearing, two of the four Commissioners present expressed concern about including the option to pay into a renewable energy fund as one of the "climate mitigation action" options in Item 29. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a) states that for developments "not required to comply with OAR 330-135-0010," new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre must provide a climate mitigation action described in (A) through (C) of the rule, but that the City is, "not required to offer all these options." Possible climate mitigation actions listed in -0405(4)(a) include: (A) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property...; (B) Payment of at least$1,500 per new off-street parking space into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose; (C) Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting; or (D) A mixture of actions under paragraphs (A) through (C) the city or county deems to meet the purpose of this section. Item 29 of the initially proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (dated October 25, 2024) proposed to establish standards within LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) to allow applicants seeking to construct new on-site surface parking lots over% acre in size to select one of three available "climate mitigation action" options in order to comply: (1) Climate Mitigation Action. New on-site surface parking must include one of the following (only one of the three options can be chosen): (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the lot; (b) Renewable Energy Fund. Payment of at least$1,500 per new on-site parking space into a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development; or (c) Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area within 15 years of planting. Two of the four Commissioners at the hearing did not support the inclusion of option (b), making a payment into a fund at DOE dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development, to comply with this standard for the reason that the revenue generated for solar or wind energy by a given development would not be required to be spent within or adjacent to the development site that generated the revenue, or even elsewhere within Lake Oswego's jurisdiction. The other Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 11 two Commissioners supported the inclusion of option (b) to allow additional flexibility for applicants looking to comply with this standard. (See Planning Commission Minutes, Exhibit C-1). Though the Commission was initially split 2:2 regarding whether to include option (b) as a potential climate mitigation action, the two Commissioners that supported the inclusion of option (b) agreed to vote to have findings prepared that would remove it from the proposed amendments, in order for a motion be adopted, rather than continuing the deliberation to the next meeting for the full Commission to direct preparation of findings, ensuring that the timeline for adoption of the larger package of amendments was not delayed. Staff prepared findings and the Planning Commission-recommended code amendments (dated November 13, 2024) for the full Commission consideration that only "climate mitigation action" options (a) and (c) would be included in this standard: require the installation of solar panels or the provision of additional tree canopy on the actual development site containing the proposed surface parking lot: (1) Climate Mitigation Action. New on-site surface parking must include one of the following (only one of the three two options can be chosen): (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the lot; or {b) Renewable Energy Fund. Payment of at(east$1,500 per new on site parking space into a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development; or ie (b)Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area within 15 years of planting. The Commission adopted the prepared findings and conclusions(6:0), and recommends Council adoption of the code amendments dated November 13, 2024. Staff Analysis and Commentary Staff notes that the payment-in-lieu option (option b) was initially included as one of three potential climate mitigation actions for large surface parking lots over 1/2 acre in size as a means to provide greater flexibility for applicants to comply with this relatively onerous code provision. Staff believes the other potential climate mitigation options available to comply with this code section — providing on-site solar panels or a minimum of 40%tree canopy coverage— could be challenging for applicants to provide on constrained sites, as they both require a certain amount of site area to be dedicated for the climate mitigation action. This results in applicants paying not just for the design and material costs for trees or solar panels, but also to sacrifice physical space on the development site itself to make room for the trees or solar panels—thus potentially reducing the overall amount of developable area on the lot. Respect. c . �!e Trust - , 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 12 Staff further notes that, while payments into a renewable energy fund at DOE could not be earmarked for use in any specific jurisdiction, the payments would nonetheless be used for climate mitigation work consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0405(4). The funds would be pooled by DOE to be used for solar or wind energy projects that would serve to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change on a statewide level. Given that efforts to reduce climate change and GHG emissions are not limited to any single jurisdiction, staff notes that payments-in-lieu would be a beneficial mechanism to combat climate change and GHG emissions in Lake Oswego regardless of the specific location of the solar or wind energy project being funded. Staff recommends that the Council engage in further discussion of this issue and decide whether to include the payment-in-lieu option (option b) as one of the potential climate mitigation actions for large surface parking lots over% acre in size. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: (1) Decide whether to include the payment-in-lieu option (option b) in the list of potential climate mitigation actions for surface parking lots over% acre in size: (2) Tentatively approve LU 24-0025, using either Alternative Motion A (excluding option b) or B (including option b); and direct staff to return on December 17, 2024, with a final version of Ordinance 2949, including findings and conclusions. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1.2 Ordinance 2949, draft 10/31/2024 (Supersedes version dated 09/19/2024 and 10/25/2024) Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Comprehensive Plan Amendments, draft 09/19/2024 Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 11/13/2024 (Supersedes versions dated 09/19/2024 and 10/25/2024) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, approved 11/13/2024 C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes (Draft Excerpt)— Public Hearing 10/28/2024 Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 13 D. Staff Reports D-1 Staff Memo, dated July 14, 2023, for Planning Commission Work Session on July 24, 2023 D-2 Staff Memo, dated September 13, 2023, for the Planning Commission Work Session on September 25, 2023 D-3 Staff Memo, dated November 15, 2023, for the Planning Commission Work Session on November 27, 2023 D-4 Staff Memo, dated July 12, 2024, for the Planning Commission Work Session on July 22, 2024 D-5 Staff Report, dated September 19, 2024, for the Planning Commission Hearing on October 28, 2024 D-6 Supplemental Staff Memo, dated October 25, 2024, for the Planning Commission Hearing on October 28, 2024 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials F-1 Email Correspondence from DLCD Staff, 10/15/2024 G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these Comprehensive Plan amendments can be found by visiting the project webpage for LU 24-0025. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under "Search" enter LU 24-0025, then press "Enter") Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT A-1.2 ORDINANCE 2949 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING: THE ECONOMIC VITALITY CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE CONNECTED COMMUNITY CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE FIRST ADDITION-FOREST HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; THE FOOTHILLS SPECIAL DISTRICT PLAN; THE LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER PLAN; THE MARYLHURST AREA SPECIAL DISTRICT PLAN; LOC 50.03.003 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS; 50.03.005 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES; 50.05.004 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT; 50.05.007 LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT; 50.06.002 PARKING; 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY; 50.06.004 SITE DESIGN; 50.07.003 REVIEW PROCEDURES; 50.07.004 ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS; 50.07.005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; 50.08.001 INTRODUCTION TO VARIANCES;50.10.003 DEFINITIONS;AND ADOPTING FINDINGS(LU 24-0025). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a City-initiated proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to comply with the newly-adopted Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 12, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 24-0025, with Planning Commission recommended Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code amendments dated November 13, 2024 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 24-0025 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on December 3, 2024, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code should be amended to comply with the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 12 through the removal of all minimum parking requirements citywide; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 24-0025), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in underlined type and deleting text shown in strikethrough•type in Attachment 2, dated September 19, 2024 Ordinance 2949 (LU 24-0025) EXHIBIT A-1.2/PAGE 1 OF 2 Section 3. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in underlined type and deleting text shown in strikcthrough type in Attachment 3, dated November 13, 2024. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the day of , 2024. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Ordinance 2949 (LU 24-0025) EXHIBIT A-1.2/PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Global Comment: DLCD administrative rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197, specifically the CFEC Parking Management rules (OAR 660-012-0400—0450), requires cities either remove city minimum parking requirements or implement DLCD-listed options to "reduce the burden of parking mandates" generally (-0424) and for development types (- 0430), and in certain areas (-0435, -0440), or by certain alternatives (-0445). Provisions of the Comprehensive Plan contrary to such administrative rules must be revised (LOC 50.07.003.16.1.b.ii). The proposed policy amendments include removing any language in the Comprehensive Plan that references minimum parking requirements to avoid confusion, including references to "adequate" parking. These policy amendments would conform with the CFEC rules and would allow the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) that repeals existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012- 0420. Economic Vitality Policy B-1 (h) Connected Community Policies C-7, F-6, F-7, and G-5 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Conditional Uses, Policies 3 and 6 Parking, Policies 2, 4, and 5 Downtown Commercial District, Policy 2 Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6(c) Lake Grove Village Center Plan Goal 9 (Support Businesses in the Village Center), Policy 9.3 Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation, Policy 13 Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 1 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Economic Vitality Policy B-1: Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in employment zones while: /// h. Promoting the efficient use of land by providing adequate parking for customers and employees, according to national transportation standards; /// Item A: The proposed set of amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) repeal existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420. Staff recommends removing any language in the Comprehensive Plan that references minimum parking requirements to avoid confusion, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes language within Policy B-1 of the Economic Vitality chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to remove references to minimum parking requirements. Connected Community Policy C-7: Require development applicants to provide facilities for the movement of people to and from the site by walking, bicycling, automobiles and transit. Item B: This Comprehensive Plan policy requires development applicants to provide facilities for the movement of people to and from the site by automobiles. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer exist, it will not be possible for the City to require applicants to provide facilities for automobiles. Staff recommends removing any language in the Comprehensive Plan predicated on minimum parking requirements. This amendment deletes language within Policy C-7 of the Connected Community chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to remove an indirect reference to minimum parking requirements. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 2 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Policy F-6: Maintain parking regulations that require off street employee and customer parking and loading facilities to be provided on-site and commensurate with the size and relative needs of each new development. Item C: This Comprehensive Plan policy is that the City maintains parking regulations that require off-street employee and customer parking facilities to be provided on-site. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer exist, it will not be possible for the City to require that off-street employee and customer parking facilities be provided on-site. Staff recommends removing any references to minimum parking requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment deletes language within Policy F-6 of the Connected Community chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to remove references to minimum parking requirements. Polic F 7: Commercial and industrial parking should not intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Item D: This Comprehensive Plan policy is that commercial and industrial parking should not intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Given that all uses will now be treated the same for the purposes of minimum parking requirements, staff recommends modifying Comprehensive Plan policies to eliminate the distinction between parking policies for residential and commercial uses so that the policies apply equally regardless of use. This amendment removes Policy F-7 of the Connected Community chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that parking policies must apply equally regardless of use. Policy G-5: Ensure that an adequate supply of parking is provided to sSupport economic activity while balancing the need to drive, take transit, and bike and walk to and within employment centers, town centers and neighborhood villages. Item E: This Comprehensive Plan policy is to ensure that an adequate supply of parking is provided to support economic activity in employment centers, town centers, and neighborhood villages. Staff recommends removing any language in the Comprehensive Plan that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes language within Policy G-5 of the Connected Community chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to remove a reference to minimum parking requirements. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 3 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Neighborhood Plans First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Conditional Uses Policy 3:Adequate on site parking will be provided for any new Conditional Uses in FAN and any existing Conditional Uses in the commercial area. Item F: This policy of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan is that adequate on-site parking be provided for any new conditional uses in First Addition and any existing conditional uses in the neighborhood's commercial area. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that references minimum parking requirements to avoid confusion, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes Conditional Uses Policy 3 of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan to remove references to minimum parking requirements. Conditional Uses Policy 6: Forest Hills Elementary School is another important public use inside the neighborhood which requires special efforts for compatible integration. The neighborhood supports a coordinated effort between the City, the School District and the neighborhood to: /// b. Provide adequate parking. /// Item G: This policy of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan ensures that adequate parking is provided at Forest Hills Elementary School. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes Conditional Uses Policy 6.b of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan to remove a reference to minimum parking requirements. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 4 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Parkin. Polic 4: When commercial uses, conditional uses or institutional uses arc changed or intensified, customer and employee parking shall be adjusted commensurably. Item H: This policy of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan is that parking shall be increased when proposed uses are changed or intensified. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer exist, it will not be possible to ensure that parking is increased when proposed uses are changed or intensified. Staff recommends removing any Neighborhood Plan policies that are predicated upon minimum parking requirements. This amendment deletes Parking Policy 4 of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan to remove a policy predicated upon minimum parking requirements. Parking Policy 5: Ensure adequate, but not excessive, off street parking is provided for all land Item I: This policy of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan is that adequate off-street parking be provided for all land uses within the neighborhood. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes Parking Policy 5 of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan to remove a reference to minimum parking requirements. uses in First Addition/Forest Hills. Downtown Commercial District Policy 2: Ensure that adequate off street, patron and employee parking is provided for commercial uses. Item J: This policy of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan is that adequate off-street, patron and employee parking be provided for all land uses within the neighborhood. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "adequate" parking. This amendment deletes Downtown Commercial District Policy 6 of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan to remove a reference to minimum parking requirements. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 5 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6, Streets and Parking: Forest Hills Elementary School is another important public use inside the neighborhood which requires special efforts for compatible integration. The neighborhood supports a coordinated effort between the City, the School District and the neighborhood to: /// c. Parking ratios in the District shall be designed to accommodate the uses, while ensuring a pedestrian friendly environment that reflects the District's location adjacent to Downtown and multi modal transportation options. Provide standards for parking as follows: �. The maximum parking ratio for residential uses shall be no more than 1.6 spaces per unit with a minimum of no less than .5 spaces per unit. ii. The maximum parking ratio for commercial uses shall be no greater than 3.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area and no less than 1.0 space per 1000 square feet of floor area. iii. For Lodging Facilities, the maximum parking ratio shall be no greater than 1.0 space per room with a minimum of.25 spaces per room. Item K: This policy of the Foothills Neighborhood Plan establishes parking ratios to accommodate proposed uses within the District. Because the proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements and establish new maximum parking regulations to comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a)-(b) and Table 3.08-3 of the Metro RTP, it will not be possible for the City to apply the parking ratios as described in this policy. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that references minimum parking requirements, including references to minimum parking "ratios," as well as references to no-longer-applicable maximum parking ratios. This amendment deletes Streets and Parking Policy 6(c) of the Foothills Neighborhood Plan to remove references to minimum parking ratios and no-longer-applicable maximum parking ratios. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 6 of 7 Draft: 9/19/2024 LU 24-0025 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Policy 9.3: Provide adequateEncourage parking opportunities to serve businesses in the Village Center. Item L: This policy of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan is that adequate parking opportunities are provided to serve businesses in the Village Center. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer exist, it will no longer be possible for the City to force developers to "provide" adequate parking opportunities. As such, staff recommends modifying the policy to instead "encourage" parking opportunities, as "encourage" pertains to actions that are permitted by law, including the CFEC rules. Other programs may be utilized to encourage parking opportunities that may be the subject of future discussion. This amendment modifies Policy 9.3 of Goal 9 of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan to remove a reference to minimum parking requirements. Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation, Policy 13:Assure that parking areas are scaled proportionately to the campus buildings and are landscaped to avoid the appearance of large, unbroken paved areas. Item M: This policy of the Marylhurst Area Special District Plan is intended in part to assure that parking areas are scaled proportionately to buildings on the campus. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer exist, the City will not be able to require that parking areas be increased to be scaled proportionately to campus buildings; likewise, the City would not be able to require that parking areas be reduced as long as the development complies with maximum parking regulations. Staff recommends removing any language within Neighborhood Plan policies that are predicated upon minimum parking requirements. This amendment modifies Traffic and Circulation Policy 13 of the Marylhurst Area Special District Plan to remove language predicated upon minimum parking requirements. Attachment 2 (Ordinance 2949)/Page 7 of 7 Draft: 11/13/2024 ATTACHMENT 3 The following Code does not display images or complicated formatting. Codes should be viewed online. This tool is only meant for editing. § 50.03.003 Use-Specific Standards. /// 6. Use-Specific Standards for Commercial Uses. /// a. Conditional Uses Listed in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by Other Specific Standards. /// v. Parking shall meet the applicable parking standards. such as such as the maximum number of parking spaces [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii], parking design [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iii.(2)] and parking dimension standards [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi]. and may be increased if additional spaces are shown to be necessary. Item 1:The proposed set of code amendments repeals existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420. Staff recommends removing any code language that references minimum parking requirements to avoid confusion, including references to "necessary" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language within a subsection of the use-specific standards for conditional uses in commercial or industrial zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements and clarify applicable code provisions related to parking. 1 /// j. Community Garden. /// iii. Community gardens with a planting area less than 4,000 sq. ft. are exempt from parking requirements. Parking requirements for gardens larger than 4,000 sq. ft. shall be determined by the conditional use permit. i-viii.Fencing is required and shall be no greater than six feet in height and no more than 40% opacity. 1 iv. Composting areas shall be actively managed to control odors,pests, and all other potential nuisances to neighbors. Use of best management practices (BMP), as established by the Parks and Recreation Department, is recommended. vi. Accessory community garden structures are permitted pursuant to the standards in this Code, but shall not exceed 500 sq. ft. cumulatively. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 1 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Item 2: This subsection describes parking requirements for community gardens. While the language simply references "parking requirements," it can be assumed that the language was intended to reference minimum parking requirements due to (1) the exemption for smaller gardens, and (2) the requirement that parking requirements be determined by the conditional use permit. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to community gardens, it is no longer necessary to exempt them from minimum parking requirements. This amendment deletes a subsection of the use-specific standards for community gardens to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements, and renumbers subsequent subsections accordingly. /// p. Office. i. In the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, and R-0 zones, the following standards apply. /// (3) Notwithstanding LOC § 50.06.002.2, the required parking for office uses in historic landmarks shall be determined in the conditional use approval. In applying the general conditional use criteria under LOC § 50.07.005.3.a.iii and iv, the on site parking may be reduced to protect the historic character of the landmark. (43) Access should be located on an arterial street, if practicable. If access is to a local residential street, the applicant shall include an analysis of the projected average daily trips to be generated by the proposed use and their distribution pattern, and the impact of the traffic on the capacity of the street system that would serve the use. A traffic study will be required to identify the projected average daily trips to be generated and their distribution pattern. Uses that are estimated to generate fewer than 20 trips per week shall be exempted from the requirements of this subsection. (64) Noise generating equipment shall be sound buffered when abutting a residential use. (65) Exterior lighting and lighted signage shall be designated to avoid glare onto adjacent residential uses. (76) Levels of operations shall avoid conflict with adjacent uses, where practicable. (87) The historical designation of the property shall be maintained throughout the period of the conditional use. The property owner shall record a deed restriction that ensures that the property shall not be removed from the Historic Landmark List for the duration of the conditional use permit. Request for removal from the list shall void the conditional use ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 2 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 permit. Item 3: This subsection clarifies that, "required parking for office uses in historic landmarks shall be determined in the conditional use approval," and allows for reductions in on-site parking for office uses in historic landmarks. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to offices, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements for office uses in historic landmarks. This amendment deletes a subsection of the use-specific standards for offices to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements, and renumbers subsequent subsections accordingly. /// § 50.03.005 Temporary Structures and Uses. Temporary structures and uses are permitted only as follows: /// 4. In Commercial and Industrial Zones. The following temporary uses are permitted in commercial and industrial zones. Business licenses are required for all temporary commercial activities. /// b. Seasonal retail sales as detailed below: /// ii. Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant. No additional parking is required for the outdoor use. Item 4: This subsection clarifies that no additional parking is required for, "Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to restaurants, it is no longer necessary to specify parking requirements for outdoor restaurant uses. This amendment deletes a sentence within the list of allowed temporary uses in commercial and industrial zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// 5. In Commercial, Industrial, and PF/PNA Zones. The following temporary uses are permitted in commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones. Business licenses are required for all temporary commercial activities. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 3 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 a. "Saturday Market" type sales of produce from temporary sales shelters (including vehicles) subject to the following standards: /// parking areas of an adjacent business. vii. Cleanup: All produce and debris will be removed at the end of the business day. Item 5: Staff recommends removing any code language that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "sufficient" parking. This subsection states that "Saturday Market" events, "shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to these events, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a subsection within the standards for "Saturday Market" events in the commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements, and renumbers subsequent subsections accordingly. /// b. Fairs, carnivals, and other similar major public gatherings, and nonsubstantial structures* for uses related thereto, not to exceed 30 days in any 12-month period, and subject to the "Saturday Market" criteria above regarding special event permit, location, and cleanup. Major public gatherings shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking Temporary security facilities for the fair, carnival, or other major public gathering, including overnight security by the occupancy of a caretaker or security personnel in trailers or recreational vehicles, is permitted. *Examples of nonsubstantial structures include: tents or three-sided booths, stages, and removable decks, secured to the ground by no more than stakes or pins, and that can be easily disassembled and removed from the site without significant damage to the site. Item 6: This subsection includes language stating that, "Major public gatherings shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business and/or provide a shuttle service from remote parking lots." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to major public gatherings, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a sentence containing an approval standard for major public gatherings in the commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 4 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.05.004 Downtown Redevelopment Design District. /// 3. Relationship to Other Development Standards. /// c. The parking standards (LOC § 50.06.002) apply in full, but the requirements may be modified as provided in LOC § 50.05.004.9, and though exceptions may be granted as provided in LOC § 50.08.003.2.b, Downtown Redevelopment Design District Variance. Item 7: This subsection states that parking requirements are applied within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRD) Overlay Zone and includes cross-references to a previously-applicable code section. What is left in the Parking Standard are the maximum capacity standards (to which no variance is permitted under applicable Metro or OAR CFEC cap; see proposed LOC 50.08.001.2.h), design requirements for parking lots, and bicycle parking requirements. This amendment deletes language within a subsection of the DRD Overlay code to remove references to minimum parking requirements. /// 9. [Section Reserved] Parking shall be designed to provide adequate space while preserving and enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the following criteria: a. Number of Spaces. New uses shall provide the number of parking spaces required under the City of Lake Oswego Parking Standards (LOC § 50.06.002), modified as follows: i. New uses within existing buildings may demonstrate compliance with the parking requirement through the use of existing spaces on adjacent property if the applicant complies with all of the following criteria: (1) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed use has substantially different peak period parking needs than uses served by the parking spaces on the adjacent property. study, patron use evidence from register tapes, or written employees' transportation and parking policies. (2) The applicant demonstrates that they have the permission of the owner of the adjacent property to utilize their property for parking, either by an easement or a parking agreement or leases that will last for the life of the use. (3) The location of the adjacent property complies with LOC § 50.05.004.9.b. ii. High turnover eating or drinking establishments such as coffee shops, ice cream parlors and ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 5 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 "take and bake" food services may vary from the parking requirements for restaurants by providing evidence that demonstrates the short term nature of their employee and patron parking needs. In no case, however, shall parking be reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for an equal size retail store. iii. Existing on street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking requirements. iv. In the portion of the downtown shopping and business district shown on Figure 50.05.001 L: Downtown No Additional Required Parking, below, no additional parking shall be required for existing or proposed uses when: (1) A retail use locates in an existing structure, or (2) An existing structure is expanded, the ground floor footprint does not increase in area, and no parking is removed. Parking b. Employee and Patron Parking Restrictions. Employee and patron parking shall be restricted to available parking within the commercial district as follows: i. On site parking, ii. Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 ft. of the business site, iii. Owner or easement parking for employees within 1,000 ft. of the business site, or iv. On street parking along the property frontage. Item 8: This subsection outlines parking requirements within the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the DRD Overlay to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// 13. Clear and Objective Housing Standards for Approval. /// c. Relationship to Other Development Standards. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 6 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 iii. The parking standards (LOC § 50.06.002) apply in full, but the requirements may be modified as provided in LOC § 50.05.004.9, andthough exceptions may be granted as provided in LOC § 50.08.003.2.b, Downtown Redevelopment Design District Variance. Item 9: This subsection outlines how parking requirements are applied under the clear and objective standards section of the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the DRD Overlay to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// h.—[Section Reserved] Parking Requirements. Parking shall be designed to provide adequate space while preserving and enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the following criteria: i. Number of Spaces. New uses shall provide the number of parking spaces required under the City of Lake Oswego Parking Standards (LOC § 50.06.002), modified as follows: (1) New uses within existing buildings may demonstrate compliance with the parking requirement through the use of existing spaces on adjacent property if the applicant complies with all of the following criteria: (a) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed use has substantially different peak period parking needs than uses served by the parking spaces on the adjacent property. study, patron use evidence from register tapes, or written employees' transportation and parking policies. (b) The applicant demonstrates that they have permission of the owner of the adjacent property to utilize their property for parking, either by an easement or a parking agreement or leases that will last for the life of the use. (c) The location of the adjacent property complies with LOC § 50.05.004.9.b. (2) High turnover eating or drinking establishments such as coffee shops, ice cream parlors and "take and bake" food services may vary from the parking requirements for restaurants by providing evidence that demonstrates the short term nature of their employee and patron parking needs. In no case, however, shall parking be reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for an equal size retail store. (3) Existing on street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking requirements. (1) In the portion of the downtown shopping and business district shown on Figure 50.05.004 Z: Downtown No Required Parking, below, no parking shall be required ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 7 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 for existing or proposed uses when: (a) A retail use locates in an existing structure; or (b) An existing structure is expanded and the ground floor footprint does not increase in area. restricted to available parking within the commercial district as follows: (1) On site parking; (2) Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 ft. of the business site; (3) Owner or easement parking for employees within 1,000 ft. of the business site; or ('1) On street parking along the property frontage. Item 10:This subsection outlines parking requirements under the clear and objective standards within the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the clear and objective standards within the DRD Overlay code to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// § 50.05.007 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District. /// 6. Site Planning Standards. /// c. Parking. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 8 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 i. Within the Lake Grove Village Center, on street parking spaces directly abutting a property may be used to satisfy the off street parking requirements of a business or residential use located on the property. Item 11:This subsection includes language stating that, "Within the Lake Grove Village Center, on-street parking spaces directly abutting a property may be used to satisfy the off- street parking requirements of a business or residential use located on the property." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply within the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) Zone, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a subsection of the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. iii. Driveways and parking aisles shall include pedestrian safety features such as changes in surface material, signage and lighting to alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians. 1 +i . Shared parking may be used per LOC § 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2), but is not required. Access to parking facilities shall be based on the Parking Facilities and Access Coordination Map, Figure 50.05.007-U. Exception—Lake Grove Elementary School: This subsection 6.c.iii applies to the Lake Grove Elementary School site only when the development and uses are not for a public school. 1 [Cross-Reference: LOC § 50.05.007.6.b.ii(2)(h), Abutting Parking Facilities Connections, and LOC § 50.05.007.6.b.ii(2)(i), Access Coordination Access Master Plans.] Item 12:This subsection includes language stating that shared parking is not required in the LGVCO. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to state that shared parking is not required in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. iv. Within 500 ft. of a public parking facility, the minimum parking requirement shall be 75% of the total required for each use pursuant to parking requirements in LOC § 50.06.002. v. A 10%reduction in required parking shall be allowed for any lots or unified site on which a Village Gathering Place is provided. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 9 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 vi. For the portion of property acquired by City after October 4, 2012, for the purpose of improvements to Booncs Ferry Road right of way that arc consistent with the Lake Grove Village Center Plan: If the loss of property eliminates parking, as set forth in Attachments D.1 and D.2 of Ordinance No. 2753, the amount of parking lost may be counted toward meeting the parking standard. Item 13:The above subsections include language outlining the parking requirements in the LGVCO for uses within 500 ft of a public parking facility, "any lots or unified site on which a Village Gathering Place is provided," and, "For the portion of property acquired by City after October 4, 2012, for the purpose of improvements to Boones Ferry Road right-of-way." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in these subsections. This amendment deletes subsections (6)(c)(iv), (6)(c)(v), and (6)(c)(vi) of the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 10 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.06.002 Parking. 1. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all development which generates athat provides parking . This shall include the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures,and a change of use which that increases modifies on-site parking,ef-that modifies the loading requirements, or which changes access requirements. Item 14:The above subsection states how the City's parking requirements apply to different types of development, including a statement that the parking standards "shall apply to all development which generates a parking need," including, "a change of use which increases on-site parking or loading requirements."The term "parking need" and the reference to changes of use that increases on-site parking requirements are each based on the idea of minimum parking requirements that relate to the type and intensity of a proposed use. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide based on the type or intensity of a proposed use, it is no longer necessary to reference parking need or on-site parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the applicability section of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. 2. Standards for Approval. a. Vehicle Parking. materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use. Item 15:The above subsection includes a general statement regarding "required parking spaces," stating that such spaces must be made available to, "residents, customers, patrons and employees," and that the spaces, "shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to provide standards for required parking spaces in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the standards of approval subsection of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. Note to Code Compiler: Remove this Editor's Note Editor's note EV charging capacity: Electrical service capacity for vehicle charging in the garage or parking area of newly constructed buildings is required per ORS '155.117(2), OAR 918 160 0200 and/or 660 012 0410: ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 11 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 0 vehicle parking spaces; and Private commercial buildings 20% of vehicle parking spaces. (This will be reviewed by the Building Dept. at time of building plan review.) Item 16:The editor's note above was added to this subsection to make the reader aware of the state statutes and administrative rules related to electric vehicle service capacity that the City applies directly. This editor's note will be removed and similar language is to be added as a standard of approval within the parking standards themselves for ease of administration. See Item 40, below. iii. Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. The number of required parking spaces under this Article shall be determined by either the Numerical Method(subsection 2.a.ii(1) of this section) or the Parking Study Method(subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section). (1) Numerical Method. Refer to Tables 50.06.002-1—and 50.06.002-3-2 and 50 06 002 4 to determine the maximum number of parking spaces requiredallowed. The minimum number of parking spaces specified for each type of use shall include reductions to parking requirements pursuant to subsection 2.a.v(1) of this section and Table 50.06.002 3. Item 17:The subsection above describes the methodology for determining the required number of parking spaces, and provides cross-references to applicable sections. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff has proposed deleting references to required parking and cross-references to sections outlining minimum parking requirements. Staff has modified the title and language within this subsection to instead reference and provide cross-references to other sections outlining maximum parking regulations. This amendment modifies a subsection of the parking standards to delete references to minimum parking requirements and to instead reference maximum parking regulations. ME PARKING SPACES Determine: Method of Determining: Gross Floor Area From Table 50.06.002-3-2, determine if gross floor area is used to calculate the Amount maximum number of parking spaces required allowed for the use(s). (Gross Floor Area per Parking Space) Number of Determine number of full time, temporary,part time and contract employeesseats or EmployeesSeats or number of students and staff, depending on how maximum number of spaces is "Students and calculated based on use, if other than based on gross floor area, , or independent contractors, if employee count is used in Table 50.06.002-3-2 to calculate the number ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 12 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 -ABLE06.002-1: METHOD OF DETERMINING PARKING SPACES Determine: Method of Determining: Staff' of parking spaces requiredallowed. (Employee Seats / Students and Staff Per Space amount) Gross Initial 1. Multiply the adjusted Gross Floor Area Amount by the Floor Area per Parking Maximum Parking Space. RequirementPer Use 2. Multiply the Number of Employees Seats/ Students and Staff by the Employee Per Space amount number of Spaces per Seats/ Students and Staff. 3. Add the results of(1) and(2) above together. Reductions 2. Apply reduction percentages to Gross Parking Requirement. Mixed Uses The total requirements maximum parking allowed for mixed uses on a site shall be the sum for the various uses computed separately. Rounding Any fractional space amount determined following the application of Reductions and Mixed Uses above shall be rounded up down to the next highest lowest whole space. Minimum The maximum parking allowed requirement is the "rounded" number above. Maximum Parking RequirementAllow ed Item 18:The table above currently outlines the methodology for the numerical method of determining the minimum number of parking spaces required. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes modifying this table to instead provide the methodology for calculation the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. This amendment modifies the table outlining the numerical method of determining the minimum number of parking spaces required to instead outline a method to determine the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 13 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 (2) Parking Study Method. Use the parking study methodology for determining the parking needs of the proposed use as provided in subsection 2.a.ii(6) of this section. Item 19:The above subsection describes how applicants can use a parking study to meet the parking standard, as an alternative to the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes removing this subsection. This amendment removes a subsection of the parking standard describing the parking study method for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. _(32)Except for resident' , The maximum number of surface parking spaces shall not exceed either 125% of the number of parking spaces required under Table 50.06.002-3-2Table-5-0,06,002-4)Tof the required number of parking spaces determined by the Parking Study Method above. For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building. Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. Additionally, the following types of parking are exempted from the calculations in this section: parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 14 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Item 20:The above subsection describes that applicants can use either the "numerical method" or a "parking study" to determine the maximum number of spaces allowed. The current numerical method of determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed is based on the minimum parking requirements table, allowing applicants a maximum set at 125% of the minimum number of spaces required. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes modifying the methodology to determine that maximum number of spaces allowed to be instead outlined more directly in Table 50.06.002-2. Further, staff proposes removing references to a "parking study", as DLCD has provided clarification that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(c) outlines that, "For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building." To comply with-0415(1)(c), amendments are needed to specify that surface parking area may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building for land uses with more than 65,000 sq. ft. of floor area. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(d) outlines that, "Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section." To comply with-0415(1)(d), amendments are needed to specify that maximum parking regulations do not apply to non-surface parking. Additionally, Metro exempts the parking spaces from the maximum capacity when the parking space is for parking structures; fleet parking; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee car pool parking; dedicated valet parking; user-paid parking; market rate parking; and other high-efficiency parking management alternatives from maximum parking standards. (MC 3.08.410(A)(2)). OAR 660-012-005(32) exempts the following parking spaces from "parking spaces" used to calculate maximum capacity: (a) automobiles for sale or rent; (b) fleet vehicles; (c) carpools or vanpools; or (d) parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This amendment modifies language within a subsection of the parking standards to simplify the methodology for determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. The amendment also adds language to outline the maximum parking regulations for extremely large buildings and to describe that the following are exempted from maximum parking regulations: non-surface parking; parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (43) Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 15 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Zone Type-of-Use Maximu-m-Number-of-Porking-Spoees FMU Nonresidential 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. Commercial 1 space per room Residential Residential 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit Other Nonresidential Either 125% of the number of parking spaces required under Table 50.06.002 Zones 3 (without , the required number of parking spaces determined by the Parking Study Method. Residential No maximum TABLE 50.06.002-2: MAXIMUM ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING REGULATIONS Area A: Downtown Redevel- opment Design District [1], Type of Use Lake Grove Village Center Area B: Remaining areas Overlay District [2],Transit Corridor [31 Residential Permitted spaces per unit Single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, No Max No Max and middle housing Multifamily-studio/efficiency 1.2 No Max Multifamily- 1 or more bedrooms 2 No Max Commercial Permitted spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross floor area Office, Business and Professional 3.4 4.1 Medical and dental offices 4.9 5.9 Tennis or racquetball court 1.3 1.5 Commercial Recreational Facility, Fitness and Exercise Facility, Arcade Gaming, and Theater 5.4 6.5 Exception: Movie Theater .4/seat .5/seat Restaurant or Bakery with drive-up window 12.4 14.9 Restaurant, Bakery, and Bar 19.1 23 All Other Commercial Uses 5 6.2 Industrial Permitted spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross floor area Warehouse (150,000 gsf or greater) 0.4 0.5 ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 16 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Boat Sales and Repair;Truck and Trailer Rental and Sales 5 6_2 All Other Industrial/Manufacturing Uses No Max No Max Institutional Permitted spaces 0.3 spaces/#of 0.3 spaces/#of College/ university and high school students+staff students+staff Place of worship 0.6 spaces/seat 0.8 spaces/seat All other Public, Institutional, and Civic Use No Max No Max Uses not specifically mentioned If a use is not listed in this table,there is no maximum parking limitation for that use. Notes: 1. Downtown Redevelopment Design District: See Figure 50.05.004-A 2. Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District: See 50.05.007-A. 3. Transit Corridor is defined as the area within one-half mile of TriMet Bus Line#35, based on straight distance and not considering topography, as depicted in the map below: r,._ ,k,O,weye y a rl - ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 17 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 I Item 21:The above table specifies the maximum off-street parking regulations for different uses. Because the City's existing parking maximums for nonresidential uses are calculated as 125% of the applicable minimums (per Metro RTP), it is currently necessary to cross-reference Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off- Street Parking Requirements to determine the maximum number of permitted spaces. Staff notes that this existing structure makes it cumbersome to calculate maximum parking requirements for a given use. Further, given that Table 50.06.002-3 will be removed in its entirety from the CDC as a part of the proposed code amendments to comply with OAR 660-012-0420, it will no longer be possible to cross- reference Table 50.06.002-3. As such, staff recommends expanding Table 50.06.002-2 to explicitly state the maximum required parking for individual uses, as opposed to having to calculate 125% of the minimum parking requirement for each use. This will facilitate ease of administration and reduce the calculations necessary to determine the maximum number of spaces permitted for a given use. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a), amendments are needed to apply a maximum of 1.2 spaces per studio unit and 2 spaces for all other units in multifamily residential buildings. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(b), amendments are needed to establish maximum parking regulations for all commercial and retail uses that are no higher than five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of "floor area" (except for automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses). Additionally, these maximums must comply with the maximums outlined in Table 3.08-3 of the Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan. [Note: Metro limit is based on undefined "gross leasable" sq. ft. and OAR is based on "floor area" ("gross floor area of all buildings on a development site, excluding areas within buildings that are dedicated to vehicular parking and circulation" OAR 660-012-0320(8))] This amendment modifies Table 50.06.002-2 to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012- 0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, depending on which one is more restrictive. Staff has proposed other amendments to this table to simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration, including modifying parking ratios for nonresidential uses to consistently calculate the maximum number of spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and combining uses with the same parking ratios into broader use categories. (54) Handicapped parking and ramps shall be provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. 1 (6) When Use Not Expressly Listed. When the proposed use is not expressly listed within Table Item 22:The subsection above outlines the method to determine the number of parking spaces required when the proposed use is not expressly listed. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply, amendments are needed to remove references to required parking spaces. This language is also redundant with language in the proposed amendment to Table 50.06.002-2, which includes similar language to the above that has been modified to apply to maximum parking regulations. The amendment above removes a redundant subsection of the parking standard that included references to minimum parking requirements. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 18 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 50.06.002 3, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by using either"the use most similar" to the proposed use or a parking study,pursuant to Table 50.06.002 3(H). parking study shall comply with the following: (a) The total number of parking spaces required shall equal the number of spaces determined to be necessary to accommodate the average peak parking demand generated by the business or development use(s). "Peak parking demand" means the maximum number of parking required during the hours for the normal use of the development or business. The parking study shall be conducted by a registered traffic engineer. (b) In preparing the parking study, the traffic engineer shall consider relevant references, guides, and factors that aid in the average peak parking demand determination. Such references, guides, and factors may include,but are not limited to: (i) The factors and considerations recommended by the ITE Industry Standards. (ii) Availability and projected use of alternative transportation modes (common use vehicle, carpooling,bicycle,pedestrian, transit, etc.). (iii) Parking demands at similar types of facilities, in similar types of locations, either within the City or elsewhere. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, the minimum number of parking spaces determined to be necessary pursuant to this subsection shall not be eligible for reduction pursuant to subsection 2.a.v(1) of this section or Table 50 0� .002 4. Item 23: The above subsection describes the standards for applicants using a "parking study" to meet minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and given that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415, amendments are needed to remove this subsection. This amendment removes a subsection of the parking standards related to the use of a parking study to eliminate references to minimum parking requirements and clarify that parking studies are not permitted to modify the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 19 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Type-of-Use transit FOOTHILLS MIXED USE ZO 1. Residential Use 0.5 space per dwelling unit 2. Commercial Residential Use 1 space per room 3. Nonresidential Use (commercial, industrial, 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. institutional, etc.) OTHER AREAS (A) RESIDENTIA 1. Single family dwelling and middle housing 1 space per dwelling unit 2. Accessory dwelling unit None (ORS 197.312(5)(b)) 3. Multi family 25% of the required parking for multi family use shall be located to provide for common or visitor use i. Studio/efficiency 1 space per unit ii. 1 bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit iii. 2 or more bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit /I. Rooming and boarding house; bed and 1 space per each guest room plus 1 for owner breakfast 1. Hotel or motel 1 space per unit 2. Assisted living facility 0.5 space per unit plus 1 per 3 employees 3. Hospital 1.5 spaces per bed ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 20 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Type-of-Use transit (C)PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY Churches, clubsr ledge-s7me-eting-reemsra and 1 space per 4 seats of maximum capacity, or 1 space per auditoria ach 5 occupants based on maximum capacity as calculated under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code 2. Library, reading room, museum, art gallery 1.88 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. plus 1 space per 2 employees on the peak shift 3. Nursery, day or child care facility, kindergarten 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. '1. Elementary or middle school or equivalent 16.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A in the auditorium or 2 private or parochial school spaces per classroom, whichever is greater 5. Senior high and equivalent private or parochial 0.2 spaces per number of students and staff school 6. College; commercial school for adults 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. (excluding dorms) 1. Stadium, arena, theater 1 space/1 seats (fixed seating) 2. Bowling alley 3 spaces per lane plus 0.5 space per employee 3. Sports club/recreation facilities, including 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. billiard and pool parlors, video arcades, dance hall, gymnasium, health club 1. Office, including business and management 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. services except medical or dental 2. Medical and dental offices or clinics including 3.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 21 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Type-of-Use tr-ansit healing arts 3. Bank 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. /I. Supermarket 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 5. Convenience food store 2.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 6. Specialty food stores, such as coffee,bagels, 6.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. juice bars (take out food/drink primarily) [2] 7. Eating or drinking establishment [2] 13.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 8. Eating or drinking establishment with drive up 9.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. window [2] 9. Barber shop, beauty salon, personal care 11 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 space per services, such as nail, tanning, and therapeutic station massage salons 10. Retail sales and rentals, except as otherwise 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. specified herein [3} 11. Heavy equipment rentals, such as yard and 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 per employee tool equipment 12. Service or repair shop, such as electronic and 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. home appliance repair, upholstery 13. Automotive repair garage and service station 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 per employee 14. Mortuary 1 space per 5 seats based on maximum auditorium capacity plus 1.5 space per employee 15. Martial arts, music, dance, gymnastics, yoga 1 space per 100 sq. ft. G.F.A. of lesson activity floor studios area, plus 0.5 space per employee ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 22 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Type-of-Use tr-ansit. (F) BULK MERCHANDI 1. Furniture, appliance store building materials 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 2. Auto, boat or trailer sales 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. of building plus 0.5 spacc per employee 3. Truck, trailer and automobile rental parking lot 0.75 space per employee on largest shift 7TZTIt'T" 1. Light industrial, industrial park, manufacturing 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 2. Storage, warehouse, wholesale establishment, 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft. G.F.A. or 0.75 space per freight terminal, truck or auto storage employee based on maximum shift, whichever is greater 3. Mini storage facility 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross office floor area plus 1 space for resident manager (H) USES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED I Parking requirement for uses not specifically mentioned in this section shall be determined by the most similar to the use not specifically mentioned, or by an analysis of the parking needs generated by the type of use (see subsection 2.a.ii(6) of this section). Note% f-14 Gross floor area does not include any parking area. [2] Seasonal restaurant enclosures: No additional parking spaces required. [3] Farm stands: When accessory use, no additional parking spaces required. f 4} No additional parking is required for outdoor restaurant uses or seasonal restaurant enclosures in conjunction with an existing, indoor year round restaurant. Editor's note: Beginning January 1, 2023, Lake Oswego and other metro cities must apply LCDC rules (OAR ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 23 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Type-of-Use transit, 660 012 0430, 660 012 0435, 660 012 0440) regarding parking minimums to new development. See PP 22 0001 for applicability based on type of use or location from transit(map provided). Item 24:The table above outlines the existing minimum parking requirements that apply within the city. To comply with OAR 660-012-0420(1), amendments are needed to remove Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements in its entirety. This amendment deletes Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements to remove minimum parking requirements from the code. On-Site Location of Required-Parking Spaces. (1) All required parking shall be off street. Any pParking provided on-site may not be located in a required yard or special street setback except where there are specific yard setback requirements or exceptions for parking established by the zone or use. Item 25:The subsection above outlines requirements for the on-site location of required parking spaces and that all required parking be provided off-street and outside of required yards or setbacks. Amendments are needed to remove the reference to required parking and instead apply these rules to any parking provided on-site. This amendment removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and instead applies requirements for the on-site location of parking spaces to any parking provided on-site. /// iii.O€€ StreetOn-Site Parking Options. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 24 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 1 (1)Off-Site Parking: Within commercial,public use, industrial and campus institutional zones parking may be provided on remote lots within said zones which are within 500 ft. of the property line of the use to be served. Within the EC (East End General Commercial) zone only, unless otherwise prohibited, employee parking may be allowed within 1,000 ft. of the property line of the use to be served. Within the LGVCO only, unless otherwise prohibited, parking may be provided on remote lots within the District which are within 750 ft. (customer parking) and 1,000 ft. (employee parking) from the property line of the use to be served. If the remote parking lot is not owned by the owner of the property of the use to be served, said owner shall obtain an exclusive permanent easement in the remote lot so as to permit parking from the use to be served on the remote lot. Item 26:The above subsection of the parking standard outlines the criteria to allow parking to be provided on remote lots within certain distances of the use to be served. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is no longer necessary to obtain an exclusive permanent easement to allow parking from the proposed use to be served on a remote lot. This amendment removes a sentence and simplifies code language to reflect that an exclusive permanent easement is no longer necessary for off-site parking agreements in the absence of minimum parking requirements. (2) Shared Parking: Shared parking is allowed..- (a) Except in the FMU zone, shared parking is allowed when a parking study demonstrates that there are a sufficient number(by actual or estimated count) of parking spaces to accommodate the parking needs generated by the applicant and other parking lot users during the applicant's period(s) of use of the parking lot. A new parking study shall be submitted upon any one of the following events: (i) Change from one type of use to another that has higher number of parking spaces required by Table 50.06.002 3 for the new use. (ii) Where one use expands into the area of another use and it results in: (A) A 10% or more increase in the number of parking spaces that would be (B) For an "eating or drinking establishment" or a type of commercial amusement business, any increase in the number of parking spaces that would be required for the use under the Numerical Method, as if that method were applied to the use to determine the parking needs, rather than through a parking study. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 25 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 (b) Parties involved in shared parking arrangements shall enter into reciprocal agreements, acceptable to the City for such use,by legal instrument which shall also provide for continuing maintenance of jointly used parking facilities. Item 27:The above subsection of the parking standard outlines the criteria to allow "shared parking" spaces to meet minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is no longer necessary to outline criteria for the use of shared parking spaces to comply with minimum parking requirements. Additionally, to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3), the City must, "adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking." While the City generally will comply with this rule through the repeal of parking mandates, it is necessary to retain language clarifying that shared parking is still allowed through a reciprocal parking agreement. This amendment removes references to minimum parking requirements and simplifies code language related to shared parking to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3). iv. Requirements for New On-Site Surface Parking Exceeding One-Half Acre. Applicable to any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot. [Exception: Not applicable to public agency development that is required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020.] The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all on- site parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles,but excluding individual landscape islands separating parking spaces into bays. Item 28: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4), this amendment adds a new subsection to the parking standard that implements the new OAR requirements for on-site surface parking over one-half acre in size. Note: -0405(4) does not apply to public agency development that is required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020. The CFEC rules recognize that it would place an additional burden on these projects to require a climate mitigation action beyond what is already required. See DLCD Guidance, OAR 660-012-0405, pg. 4 (https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Documents/Guidance0405 ParkingRegulationlmprovemen ts.pdf) (1) Climate Mitigation Action. New on-site surface parking must include one of the following Only one of the two options can be chosen): (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the lot; or Item 29: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot or parcel to provide at least one of three listed "climate mitigation actions."The language also outlines the two different climate mitigation actions available: providing solar panels on-site, and providing at least 40%tree canopy. (The Commission recommends not including the additional option of"Payment of at least$1,500 per new on-site parking space into a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development.") ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 26 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 (b) Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area within 15 years of planting. (2) Required Tree Canopy. Developments shall provide either: (a) Trees along driveways; or (b) A minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. For the purposes of this subsection, a"driveway": • Does not include parking stalls, turnaround areas, and parking lot aisles; and • Either does not provide direct access to parking stalls, or provides access to a limited number of parking stalls. Developments are not required to provide trees along parking lot aisles; a"parking lot aisle" is a vehicular access lane bordered by parking spaces that primarily serves as access to spaces (see Figure 50.06.002-B). The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy at maturity except when interrupted by driveways, parking lot aisles, and other site design considerations. Developments providing 40 percent tree canopy to comply with subsection (1)(c) shall also comply with this subsection. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 27 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Figure 50.06.002-B: Large Surface Parkin2 Lot Driveways and Parkin2 Lot Aisles r - - .1; s d d 11 l l : 1 { i. ...•, '. .; 111. 1 i .fi M1 Ilk . Sill! MI ; --- : L / . I I I ■, M I 'R ..; ' 1 I J .-i- 1 I I i. ■ I T, • I - t. - �_ 1Ig.1 • �'"��'� 1' L I r. 1 % $ / , 1 .L.: _ 7 1 .14,p_. . - i. ' ' ' /) ' tor '' Mr ,..._ f - , ,....„-__ . 1 i J ( li11 � �111i11111:♦ , ti ■ ■ li i, ... .. .. ._ •� �_ Isms Parking Lot Driveway — — — Parking Lot Aisle Item 30: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to provide trees along the driveway or at least 30%tree canopy coverage. The amendment further specifies other requirements related to tree spacing and species, per OAR 660-012- 0405(4)(b), and includes other guidance language from DLCD regarding how to implement the standard. Additionally, the amendment includes language proposed by staff to clarify the difference between a "parking lot aisle" and a "parking lot driveway". Per the definition in LOC 50.10.0003, the more general term "Driveway" used elsewhere in the code may also refer to "parking lot aisles". Thus, in order to distinguish "driveways" as exclusive of "parking lot aisles" for the purposes of this subsection, a new term—"parking lot driveways" — is proposed for the administration of tree canopy standards for large surface parking lots. Staff has also proposed the new Figure 50.06.002-B: Large Surface Parking Lot Driveways and Parking Lot Aisles in order to further clarify the distinction between the two terms for the purposes of administering the standard. (3) Pedestrian Connections. Developments must provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot, connecting at a minimum the following, except where not practicable due to site- specific conditions: (a) Building entrances; (b) Existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way; (c) Transit stops; and ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 28 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 (d) Accessible parking spaces. Item 31: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to, "provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot" that connect building entrances, pedestrian facilities, transit stops, and accessible parking spaces. While LOC 50.06.003.3.b.ii currently includes provisions that address circulation and connectivity, amendments are needed to ensure the standard requires connectivity to- and from- accessible parking spaces, and limits when the standard can be avoided. (4) Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility, including pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases. Item 32: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger than one- half acre to coordinate, "with the local electric utility" as they develop their tree canopy plan to comply with this section, including during the, "pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases." (5) In providing trees under subsections (1) and(2), the following standards shall be met: (a) Trees shall be planted and maintained to the 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards; and (b) Plant trees in continuous trenches unless not practicable. Item 33: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring applicants to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements of this section. v. Reduction for Parking Space Requirements. (1) Parking space requirements shall be reduced in developments where compensating factors exist which would offset the parking demand(such as access to transit facilities,pedestrian and bicycle access, vision). Refer tole 50 0ti 002 4 4 r reduction options. TYPES-OF-MODIFICATIONS MODIFIERS development Size on a Single Site (Commercial, Public and Industrial Use) ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 29 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 TYPES-OF-MODIFICATIONS MODIFIERS Gross Floor Area Multiplier 20,000 sq. ft. 0.85 x requirement Access o ransit Facilities Transit shelter, on fronting street, within 0.85 x requirement 50 ft. of building Transit shelter within 500 ft. of building 0.90 x requirement Transit facilities, on fronting street, within 0.90 x requirement 500 ft. of building =1. 7.1717cle Access (Commercial, Public and Industrial Uses) AMMM Access Proximity Multiplier 100 or more residential units within 1,000 0.90 x requirement ft. of site Parking Study Provisions The parking study shall demonstrate sufficient number of parking spaces for the use per subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section. (a) Allowed FMU Modifiers: The only allowed modifiers to the minimum numerical parking requirements are: (i) Mixed Use Development: Exclude up to 15,000 sq. ft. ground floor nonresidential gross floor area per building or site (in case of multiple buildings on the site). (ii) Commercial Residential Uses: The transit facilities and pedestrian and bicycle access modifiers. (b) Allowed LGVCO Modifiers: The only allowed modifiers to the minimum numerical parking requirements are: (i) The development site size (DS) modifier; and (ii) The pedestrian and bicycle access (PA)modifier. (c) Allowed DRD District Modifiers: (i) All Properties: Because of the layout of downtown Lake Oswego and the ready availability of on street ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 30 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 parking and transit, the minimum parking requirement shall be 0.75 of the total required for each use pursuant to Table 50.06.002 3. (ii) Retail Uses: Retail uses within 1,000 ft. of 100 or more residential units may further reduce their total parking requirements to 0.9 of the total spaces required after all other applicable modifiers are applied. (iii) Within the East End Commercial Zone Only: Properties within this zone may only use the development size modifier, the modifiers in subsection 2.a.v(1)(c)(i) and(ii) of this section, or the parking study provision under LOC § 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6). Item 34:The subsection above outlines various modifications available to certain developments to reduce the minimum number of spaces allowed using the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and thus there is no need for reductions to minimum parking requirements, an amendment is needed to remove this subsection. This amendment deletes the Reduction for Parking Space Requirements subsection of the parking standard to remove references to minimum parking requirements. vi. Parking Dimensions. /// (3) Except within the LGVCO, up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided in compact car spaces. All parking spaces designated for compact vehicles shall be signed or labeled by painting on the parking space. Item 35:The subsection above describes the dimensional standards applicable to compact parking spaces, and stipulates that up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided as compact spaces. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply, amendments are needed to remove references to required parking. Staff proposes that this code provision be removed entirely, as it was intended to allow the developer to provide the required number of spaces in a smaller area than standard parking spaces. Given that there are no required spaces, there is no need to specify that compact spaces may meet the requirement. This amendment removes this subsection to eliminate references to required parking and provisions allowing compact parking spaces to meet minimum parking requirements. /// vii. Loading. Loading berths in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of the development shall be required. Exception FMU Zone: Loading berths are not required. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 31 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Loading berths shall not be used for storage or parking of vehicles. The off street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard shall not be used for loading and unloading or the storage of vehicles or materials or parking of trucks used in conducting business or use. Item 36:The above subsection includes a statement regarding "the off-street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard," stating that such spaces, "shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to provide standards for required parking spaces in this subsection. This amendment deletes and re-phrases language within the standards of approval subsection of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. viii. Employee Carpool and Vanpool Parking. Development in commercial and industrial zones, in the Public Function zone, and nonresidential development in mixed use zones that requires provides a total of 50 or more parking spaces shall designate at least 5% of the number of parking spaces as employee carpool or vanpool parking. The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full sized parking spaces. The spaces shall be clearly marked "Reserved-Carpool/Vanpool Only" with hours of use. Except for designated handicapped parking spaces, employee carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located as follows: (1) Where employee parking spaces are designated, the designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be the closest employee parking spaces to the entrance normally used by employees. (2) Where employee parking spaces are not designated, designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located in close proximity to the building entrance normally used by employees. Item 37:The subsection above describes the standards applicable to employee carpool and vanpool parking, and includes a reference to required parking. While this provision complies with OAR 660-012-0405(1)(a), an amendment is needed to remove the reference to required parking spaces. Further, staff proposes that this code provision apply to developments providing 50 or more parking spaces, as opposed to, "development... that requires a total of 50 or more parking spaces." This amendment removes a reference to required parking in the employee carpool and vanpool parking standards, and instead applies provisions related to employee carpool and vanpool parking to any development providing 50 or more parking spaces. viii. Redevelopment of Existing On-Site Parking. Property owners shall be allowed,upon review, to redevelop any portion of existing on-site parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking,bus stops and pullouts,bus shelters, park and ride stations, and ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 32 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 similar facilities. Item 38: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), this amendment adds a code provision allowing property owners to, "redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities." ix. Electric Vehicle Conduit. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and newly constructed mixed-use buildings consisting of privately- owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units, shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces serving the residential dwelling units. Dwelling units in townhouses are not included for purposes of determining the applicability of this regulation. Commercial buildings under private ownership shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces. Item 39: This amendment codifies an existing editor's note regarding the state statutes and administrative rules related to electric vehicle service capacity that the City currently applies directly. The amendment would add provisions related to electric vehicle service capacity directly as a standard of approval within the CDC for ease of administration. See Item 16. 1 /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 33 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.06.003 Circulation and Connectivity. 1. Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots). /// d. Standards for Access Lanes. Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: /// iii. One standard "on lane" parking space shall be provided for each flag lot served by an access lane. This parking space may be used to meet minimum off street parking requirements for detached single family and duplex dwellings on flag lots served by the access lane. iviii. Access lanes shall only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. iv. Access lanes shall align with existing and/or planned streets or access lanes where practicable. vi. All new or modified driveways shall follow access spacing as shown in Table 50.06.003-2, Access Spacing, where practicable, and, as determined by the City Engineer, shall not create a traffic operational or safety conflict. Item 40:The subsection above requires that one parking space per flag lot be provided on the access lane serving the flag lot, and includes a reference to minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to both remove the reference to minimum parking requirements and to eliminate the requirement to provide any number of parking spaces for a flag lot. This amendment to the standards for access lanes removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and eliminates the requirement to provide parking spaces for flag lots. /// 2. On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads. /// b. Standards for Approval. /// v. Turnarounds. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 34 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 (3) Required turnarounds shall not overlap any required_parking spaces. Item 41:The subsection above states that, "Required turnarounds shall not overlap any required parking space." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to minimum parking requirements. Staff proposes that this standard instead be applied to any parking spaces. This amendment to the standards for driveways and fire access roads removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and instead applies the standard to any proposed parking spaces. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 35 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.06.004 Site Design. 1. Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering. a. Applicability. i. Except as provided in subsection 1.a.ii of this section, this section is applicable to: /// (10) Change of use thatAn increase ins the number of required parking spaces provided on- site by more than 25%. Item 42:The subsection above clarifies that the landscaping, buffering, and screening standards apply to, "changes of use that increase the number of required parking spaces by more than 25%." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to required parking. Staff proposes that this standard instead be applied to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on-site by more than 25%. This amendment to the landscaping, buffering and screening standards removes a reference to required parking and instead applies the standard to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on site. /// 3. Lighting Standards. a. Applicability. This section is applicable to: i. Minor or major development that results in: the increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways i;or the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots; Item 43:The subsection above states that the lighting standards apply to, "Minor or major development that results in increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways; or open air parking lots." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to required parking. Staff proposes that this subsection be amended to clarify that the lighting standards apply to the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots. This amendment to the lighting standards adds language to clarify that the lighting standards apply to the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 36 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.07.003 Review Procedures. 1. Application. a. Application for Development. /// 1 ii. Unified Site Plan. All development in the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-W, CI and any PF or commercial zones and attached development in the R-5 zones will be developed under a unified site plan. The site plan will identify circulation patterns and access points, parking, method of provision of public services and general placement of lots and structures, and general area and type of uses. Proposals with multiple ownerships shall include a written agreement of all owners that development of the site will occur pursuant to the site plan approved. Item 44:This subsection requires that any development under a unified site plan identify parking in the site plan. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to clarify that parking does not need to be identified in the site plan. This amendment removes language from the standards for unified site plans to clarify that parking does not need to be identified in the site plan. /// j. Modification of Pending Application. i. Modifications of a pending application shall be considered under the standards in effect at the time the application was filed, if the modification: 1 (1) Does not increase the amount of required parking, square footage or the number of dwelling units; or Item 45:This subsection allows for pending applications to be modified without requiring the applicant to meet new criteria arising after filing of the application, if the proposed modification, "Does not increase the amount of required parking, square footage or the number of dwelling units." Staff notes that this language is intended to be used to determine when a pending application is proposing a "substantial change" and should be considered a new application, and thus, subject to any new standards post-filing. Given that parking is no longer a criterion, an increase in the amount of parking spaces provided doesn't necessarily signal a change in the development that would constitute a substantial modification of that application. For instance, a developer could decide - or the bank may require—to provide more parking without a change in the intensity of the use applied for. An amendment is needed to remove the reference to required parking. This amendment to the standards for the modification of a pending application removes a reference to required parking. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 37 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 /// 13. Ministerial Development Decisions. a. Ministerial Development Classification. /// ii. Ministerial Development Types. /// (15) Change of Use/Parking EffectIncrease. A change of use from one permitted use to another, including from the use assumed in a development review approval, that results in increased use of the site. increases on site parking or loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.2 and: An easement may be used to meet the loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.7. _(a) There are sufficient number of parking spaces available (off street parking, or if in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District, also on street parking, pursuant to , Parking Requirement Modifiers, except for reductions permitted by a parking study; or (b) The use of a parking easement to provide some or all of the parking or loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.2. Item 46:The subsection above states that changes of use that increase on-site parking or loading requirements are classified as ministerial development if there is available parking on site for the use (using the numerical method). Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove all references to parking requirements or parking modifiers. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing an increased use for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, and loading provisions, and for impacts to public infrastructure under LOC 50.06.008, staff proposes connecting this subsection to the revised definition of"increased use," which would be modified to connect to an increase in trip generation, bicycle parking or loading requirement (as proposed). This amendment removes a reference to required parking, and references the revised definition of"increased use." See Items 54 and 55, below. /// (22) Redevelopment of Existing On-Site Parking. Redevelopment of any portion of existing on-site parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters,park and ride stations, and similar facilities. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 38 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Item 47: Per OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), property owners must be allowed to, "redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities." This amendment adds the redevelopment of existing on-site parking to the list of ministerial developments to clarify the procedure that would be utilized to review such proposals. 1 /// 14. Minor Development Decisions. a. Minor Development Classification. /// ii. "Minor development" under subsection 14.a.i(1) of this section includes: /// (10) Change of Use /orAccess/Parking Study. A change of use from one permitted use to another, including from the use assumed in a development review approval that (a) Gchanges access requirements pursuant to LOC § 50.06.003.1, Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots), or that will result in the construction of private streets, driveways; or. (b) Involves the use of a parking study pursuant to LOC § 50.06.002. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 39 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 Item 48: The above subsection states that a change of use that involves the use of a parking study is classified as minor development. As described under Items 23 and 27, above, parking studies may currently be used to meet minimum parking requirements, as an alternative to the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and given that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415, amendments are needed to remove any language referencing a parking study in this subsection. This amendment removes language from the subsection stipulating that changes of use that involve the use of a parking study are classified as minor development for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. The removal of"private streets" is a "code update" item that was missed in LU 22-0038 (Ord. 2909), as Item 15 (Maintenance): Private Street"is still referred to in multiple Community Development Code (CDC) sections. "Private Street"is not a private access lane, or private access easement, or driveway. "Private Street"is not a defined term in the code (LOC 50.10.003.2), but was historically used to describe a street behind a gate serving a subdivision or community. The Fire Code does not allow gated streets that serve three or more dwelling units (LOC 15.06.612). This amendment would delete references to private streets in all CDC sections, including:Sensitive Lands Overlay District standard, Fence standard, Flag Lot standard, Minor Variance classifications, and Definitions. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 40 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.07.004 Additional Submission Requirements. This section contains submission and review criteria for the procedures listed below. Where review criteria are important for an understanding of the substantive requirements of a section or limited in size they have been maintained with the substantive provisions. /// 6. Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan. /// d. Master Plan Conditions of Approval. In reviewing the master plan, conditions may be imposed that are suitable and necessary to assure compliance with the criteria in this section. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: /// 1 vi. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area; Item 49:The above subsection states that the, "size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area" may be considered as a condition of approval for a master plan. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove any provisions allowing conditions of approval for a master plan that designate the size of a parking area. This amendment removes language from the subsection related to master plan conditions of approval to specify that designating the size of a parking area is not permitted as such a condition. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 41 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.07.005 Conditional Use Permits. /// 3. Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses. /// b. In permitting a new conditional use, or the modification of an existing conditional use, the hearing body, or the City Manager in the case of a minor modification, may impose conditions which are suitable and necessary to assure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: /// vi. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area. Item 50:The above subsection states that the, "size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area" may be considered as a condition of approval for a conditional use. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove any provisions allowing conditions of approval for a conditional use that designate the size of a parking area. This amendment removes language from the subsection related to conditions of approval for conditional uses to specify that designating the size of a parking area is not permitted as such a condition. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 42 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.08.001 Introduction. /// 2. Variances Not Allowed. No variance shall be granted for the following: a. To permit a use not permitted in the applicable zoning district(unless that variance is required by state or federal law based on the special rights of the occupant). b. To increase the allowable residential density in any zoning district. c. To vary a Code standard that has already been modified by a planned development approval, except that zone standards applicable to a planned development may be varied through the residential infill design review process. d. To modify review and approval procedures. e. To a setback required under LOC § 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. This provision does not prevent modification of protected riparian areas or setbacks as permitted in that section. f. To a setback required under LOC § 50.04.002, Special Street Setbacks. g. To vary a standard under LOC § 50.05.011, Flood Management Area, except per LOC § 50.05.011.8, Flood Management Area Variance. h. To vary the maximum allowed surface parking spaces provided on a site under LOC § 50.06.002.2.a ii, Parking Spaces. Item 51: DLCD recently provided guidance that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415. In order to comply with OAR 660-012-0415, amendments are needed to clarify that variances may not be used to increase the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a given site. This amendment adds language to the "variances not allowed" subsection of the "variances" chapter to clarify that that variances may not be used to increase the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 43 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.10.003 Definitions. /// 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean, except as may be otherwise defined for a specific section: /// GARAGE, PRIVATE 1 A structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to tenants, employees or owners of the property for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50 and are not open for use by the general public. A carport is a garage. Item 52: LOC 50.10.003.2 defines "private garage" as, "A structure... for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50..." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language from the definition of"private garage" to remove a reference to required parking spaces. GARAGE, PUBLIC A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles, and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons or clients which are required by this Code,provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as parking space(s) for the building or use. Item 53:The definition of "public garage" contains language referencing minimum parking requirements, as well as a requirement that code-required parking spaces be, "clearly identified as parking space(s) for the building or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove these references to "required" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language from the definition of"public garage" to remove references to required parking spaces. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 44 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 INCREASED USE An increase in trip generation,bicycle or parking or loading requirement. Item 54: The term "increased use" is currently defined as, "An increase in trip generation or parking requirement." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing an "increased use" for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, loading provisions, and impact on public infrastructure, staff proposes modifying the definition of"increased use" to instead connect to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement. This amendment modifies the definition of "increased use" to remove a reference to required parking, and instead connects the definition to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement. /// USE, CHANGE OF A change of the activity on a site which results in an increased usechange_in the number of parking spaces required by the parking and loading standard. Item 55:The term "change of use" is currently defined as, "A change of the activity on a site which results in a change in the number of parking spaces required by the parking and loading standard." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing a "change of use" for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, loading provisions, and impact on public infrastructure, staff proposes modifying the definition of"change of use" to instead connect to the revised definition of "increased use". See Item 54, above. This amendment modifies the definition of "change of use" to remove a reference to required parking, and instead connect the definition to the revised definition of "increased use." /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 45 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.11.001 Appendix A—Lake Oswego Style. /// 4. LOC § 50.05.004 Figures. FICURE 1 LOC § 50.05.004.9 aT« III kali "4,5 1,5-'6 V K V s�. 151 it-Lrd 1 HUM 1111:1 _I It .41.211 I 7�f 1Natal I-1'= 0-1 FLI 1161 2IYIAP: III I gLi E I I ail_f_11, :uriga ppm. fQlfw ST• ram, [Image Item 56:This figure includes the map referenced in LOC § 50.05.004.9, which depicts the subarea within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRD) Overlay Zone where reductions to the minimum parking requirements are permitted. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to delete the figure. This amendment deletes LOC 50.05.004.9 - Figure 1 (Parking Requirements— portion of Downtown Shopping and Business District) within LOC 50.11.001 Appendix A— Lake Oswego Style, to reflect that minimum parking requirements have been removed from the code. ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 46 OF 45 Draft: 11/13/2024 § 50.11.006 Appendix F—Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area. /// SPECIFIC POLICIES FOR GENERAL POLICY I: Provide for a Mix of Uses. /// Require each subarea to have a plan for circulation, parking, utilities, and general building placement as a condition of approval for all development other than single-family subdivisions. Item 57: This subsection requires that each subarea within the Marylhurst Education Center campus have a plan for circulation, parking, utilities, and general building placement." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to remove language from this subsection to clarify that a parking plan is not required. This amendment removes language from the General Policy standards within the Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area to reflect that a parking plan is not required. Establish permissible uses, intensities, development criteria and conditions for specific subareas within the campus, in addition to other policies. a. SUBAREA I: CAMPUS INSTITUTIONAL /// 2. The appearance and character of the present Marylhurst Education Center campus, especially the scale of buildings, parking areas, building locations, materials, open areas and landscaping, will be continued in new development. Item 58: This subsection requires that the "appearance and character of the present Marylhurst Education Center campus" be continued in new development, including "the scale of... parking areas." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, the City will no longer be able to require that parking areas be developed at any specified scale. This amendment deletes language from the standards for Subarea I within the Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area to remove code language related to minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 3 (Ordinance 2949)/PAGE 47 OF 45 APPROVED: 11/13/2024 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 24-0025 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY ) (CITY OF LAKE OS WEGO) 7 DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 8 COMPLYING WITH THE STATE OF OREGON'S CLIMATE- ) 9 FRIENDLY AND EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM ) 10 RULES FOR PARKING REFORM (OAR 660-012-0400 TO ) 11 -0450)AND ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2949. 12 13 NATURE OF APPLICATION 14 15 The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 50 (Community 16 Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of compliance with the Department of 17 Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD's) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program 18 (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR 660-012-0400 to-0450). 19 20 HEARINGS 21 22 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting on 23 October 28, 2024.The following information was presented to the Commission at its hearing and added 24 to the record: 25 F-1 Email from DLCD staff, dated October 15, 2024 26 27 Oral Testimony: 28 • Deborah Linke 29 30 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 31 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 32 LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing 33 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 34 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan 35 Map, Zone Map, and CDC Amendments to be processed via 36 Major Developments Procedures) 37 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 38 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 39 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 40 41 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 42 Land Use Planning Policies A-1 (h and i) and A-2 (a) 43 Economic Vitality Policies B-1 (h and j), and B-2 44 Connected Community Policies C-7, F-6, F-7, and G-5 45 First Addition & Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Conditional Uses Policies 3 and 6(b) 46 Parking Policies 2, 4, and 5 47 Downtown Commercial District Policy 2 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 of 5 APPROVED: 11/13/2024 1 Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6(c) 2 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Goal 9 (Support Businesses in the Village Center), Policy 9.3 3 Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation, Policy 13 4 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Policy B-1 5 Urbanization Policy A-1 6 Palisades Neighborhood Plan Land Use Policy 4 7 8 C. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 9 Goal 2: Land Use 10 Goal 10: Housing 11 Goal 12:Transportation 12 13 D. Interpretation of Goal 10: Housing (OAR Chapter 660, Division 8) 14 OAR 660-012-0400 Parking Management 15 OAR 660-012-0405 Parking Regulation Improvements 16 OAR 660-012-0410 Electric Vehicle Charging 17 OAR 660-012-0415 Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities 18 OAR 660-012-0420 Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates 19 20 E. Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan [Metro Code 3.08] 21 Title 4: Regional Parking Management [Metro Code 3.08.410] 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 25 The Planning Commission concludes that the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Attachment 2 26 (dated September 19, 2024) and the draft Community Development Code Amendments in Attachment 3 27 (dated October 25, 2024) of proposed Ordinance 2949 are in compliance with all applicable criteria, as 28 modified below. 29 30 FINDINGS AND REASONS 31 32 The Planning Commission (Commission) incorporates the staff memos (dated July 14, 2023, September 33 13, 2023, November 15, 2023, and July 12, 2024),the staff report dated Septmber 19, 2024 (with all 34 exhibits attached thereto), and the supplemental staff memo dated October 25, 2024 (with all exhibits 35 attached thereto), on LU 24-0025 as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and 36 conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter 37 herein and the staff report,the matter herein controls. 38 39 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 40 41 1. Payment-in-lieu as a "climate mitigation action"for large surface parking lots.The Commission 42 has concerns regarding the "climate mitigation action" options in Item 29,which amends LOC 43 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1)to establish a requirement that any new development that includes more 44 than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking must provide at least one of three listed 45 "climate mitigation actions": providing solar panels on-site, paying into a renewable energy fund, 46 or providing at least 40%tree canopy. 47 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 of 5 APPROVED: 11/13/2024 1 OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a) states that for developments "not required to comply with OAR 330- 2 135-0010," new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre must provide a climate mitigation 3 action described in (A)through (C) of the rule, but that the City is, "not required to offer all these 4 options." Possible climate mitigation actions listed in -0405(4)(a) include: 5 (A) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new 6 off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property...; 7 (B) Payment of at least$1,500 per new off-street parking space into a city or county fund 8 dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon 9 Department of Energy designated for such purpose; 10 (C) Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but 11 no more than 15 years after planting;or 12 (D) A mixture of actions under paragraphs(A) through (C)the city or county deems to 13 meet the purpose of this section. 14 15 Item 29 of the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (dated October 25, 16 2024) establishes standards within LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1)that allow applicants seeking to 17 construct new on-site surface parking lots over 1/2 acre in size to select one of three available 18 "climate mitigation action" options in order to comply: 19 (1) Climate Mitigation Action. New on-site surface parking must include one of the 20 following (only one of the three options can be chosen): 21 (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 22 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on 23 the lot; 24 (b) Renewable Energy Fund. Payment of at least$1,500 per new on-site parking 25 space into a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy dedicated to equitable 26 solar or wind energy development;or 27 (c) Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area 28 within 15 years of planting. 29 30 The Commission does not support the inclusion of option (b)to comply with this standard, 31 making a payment into a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy dedicated to equitable solar 32 or wind energy development,for the reason that the revenue generated for solar or wind energy 33 by a given development would not be required to be spent within or adjacent to the 34 development site that generated the revenue, or even elsewhere within Lake Oswego's 35 jurisdiction.The Commission found that "climate mitigation action" options (a) and (c)would be 36 more appropriate to include in this standard, as those options would require the installation of 37 solar panels or the provision of additional tree canopy on the actual development site containing 38 the proposed surface parking lot. 39 40 In order to address this concern,the Commission's recommended draft Community 41 Development Code amendments [(dated October 25, 2024) of proposed Ordinance 2949] to the 42 Council are modifed to remove option (b)from the list of"climate mitigation actions" available 43 for surface parking lots over%z acre in size to comply with LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1): 44 (1) Climate Mitigation Action. New on-site surface parking must include one of the 45 following(only one of the thrcctwo options can be chosen): LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 of 5 APPROVED: 11/13/2024 1 (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 2 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on 3 the lot;or 4 (b) Renewable Energy Fund. Payment of at least$1,500 per new on site parking 5 space into a fund at the Oregon Department of Encrgy dedicated to equitable 6 solar or wind energy development;or 7 fe)fb)Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot 8 area within 15 years of planting. 9 10 2. Increased On-Street Parking: Effect on Traffic Flow on Streets.The Commission received public 11 testimony from resident Deborah Linke expressing concern that the proposal would impact the 12 safety and wellbeing of residents in the First Addition neighborhood by increasing the use of on- 13 street parking spaces, which could potentially obstruct the path of fire apparatuses or other 14 emergency vehicles. No applicable policies were identified in the testimony. 15 16 The Commission finds that the proposed code amendments do not directly alter the existing on- 17 street parking requirements that drivers not park in a manner that impedes traffic flow: 18 o LOC 32.06.080: It is "unlawful for any person to stop, park, place, erect or maintain any 19 vehicle or other object in such a position or location as to obstruct, endanger or interfere 20 with the free and normal flow of vehicles or pedestrian traffic upon any highway, alley, 21 sidewalk, crosswalk, driveway, or bridge approach". 22 o LOC 32.06.075(2): "No person shall park any vehicle on any street in such a manner as to 23 block or impede public use of the street.A vehicle shall be considered as blocking or 24 impeding a street if the vehicle is parked in such a location that it does not leave a clear 25 lane of travel and in no case shall less than six feet of roadway remain available 26 between the vehicle and the nearest roadway lane stripe,or if no roadway lane stripe 27 is present,to the right of center of the regularly traveled surface of the roadway." 28 o All development applications are reviewed by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate Fire 29 Department access, as well as by the Engineering Department to ensure compliance with 30 applicable regulations related to site access,vehicle circulation, and street design. 31 32 Accordingly,the Commission finds that the proposed code amendments do not directly degrade 33 traffic flow by obstructing the travel path of vehicles in the right-of-way, including fire 34 apparatuses or other emergency vehicles. 35 36 Further, the Commission notes that if the parking of vehicles in a right-of-way creates a public 37 safety concern, whether today or in the future (whether or not the code amendments are 38 adopted), the City Manager or designee (such as the City Engineer) may limit or prohibit parking 39 on right-of-ways in such areas. LOC 32.04.023(3)(c). (It is outside the authority of the Commission 40 to impose site-specific parking limitations and restrictions. [See LOC 12.51.060 (Planning 41 Commission), LOC 12.51.050 (Transportation Advisory Board), and ORS 227.090 (Powers and 42 Duties of Commission)]. 43 44 Lastly,the Commission observes that the City has not enforced minimum parking regulations 45 within the First Addition neighborhood since January 2023, as Phase A of the CFEC rules for 46 parking reform (OAR 660-012-0440) prohibits the City from enforcing parking mandates within 47 one-half mile of TriMet Bus Line#35—which is defined as a "frequent transit corridor"for the 48 purpose of compliance with the CFEC rules. Accordingly,the proposed amendments do not 49 change the current elimination of minimum parking standards by Phase A of the CFEC rules as to LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 4 of 5 APPROVED: 11/13/2024 1 the specific First Addition neighborhood site discussed by the commenter.The Commission finds 2 that these code amendmdents, which impolement Phase B of the CFEC rules, will have no 3 additional impact on the minimum parking requirements in First Addition. 4 5 ORDER 6 7 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 8 9 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2949,with Exhibit A-1 (based on 10 Attachment 2, dated September 19, 2024, and Attachment 3, dated November 13, 2024) [LU 24- 11 0025]be approved by the City Council. 12 13 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 14 Lake Oswego. 15 16 DATED this 13 day of November, 2024. 17 18 19 /s/Diana Moreno, Chair 20 Diana Moreno, Chair 21 Planning Commission 22 23 24 25 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION -October 28,2024 26 27 AYES: Mitchell,Schenone, Slyh, Rigby 28 NOES: None. 29 ABSTAIN: None. 30 ABSENT: Moreno, Naujock, Thwing 31 32 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER- November 13, 2024 33 34 AYES: Mitchell, Moreno, Naujock, Rigby, Schenone, Slyh 35 NOES: None. 36 ABSTAIN: None. 37 ABSENT:Thwing LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 5 of 5 DRAFT: 11/21/2024 PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION. 0111 o CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO s� oPlanning Commission Action Minutes �• EXCERPT OF LU 24-0025 0ae"oa October 28, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. ROLL CALL Members present were Vice Chair Don Mitchell and Commissioners Miles Rigby, Dave Schenone, and Jeremy Slyh. Chair Diana Moreno and Commissioners Rachel Naujock and Jim Thwing were absent. Council Liaison Massene Mboup was also present. Staff present were Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Cristina Siquina Calderon, Administrative Support. PUBLIC HEARING Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities (Parking)— LU 24-0025 The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to comply with Phase B of the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) parking rules by the City's deadline of December 31, 2024. Staff coordinator was Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager. Vice Chair Mitchell opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria, procedures, and testimony guidelines. There were no financial conflicts of interest declared. Staff Report Mr. Olson detailed aspects of the following outline as part of his presentation of the staff report. Overview 1. Background • Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) Program Purpose: implements former Governor Brown's Executive Order 20-04; reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and targets parking reform because more parking leads to more driving/GHG emissions. • Why Reduce Parking Mandates: market-based approach to parking that would be driven by supply and demand (this does not mean that no parking will be provided); parking uses a lot of land (most cities have a parking management problem, not a parking supply shortage); parking is a significant expense and displaces housing; and many parking spots are underused. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY DRAFT: 11/21/2024 • CFEC Rules Overview: Phase A parking (by December 31, 2022); electric vehicle (EV) charging (by March 31, 2023); Phase B parking (by December 31, 2024); and Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) update (start by 2029). 2. City Response to CFEC Rules Phase 2 Parking • Option 1— No Mandates (OAR 660-012-042): repeal minimum parking requirements citywide (nothing further required and City Council's unanimous preference). 1. Pros: ease of implementation, cost of implementation, level of flexibility for businesses and development, impact on development costs, parking regulations, and existing developments, and parking would be provided in response to market demand. 2. Cons: possible neighborhood parking overflow in some circumstances (implementation of additional policies may be needed). 3. Oregon cities that chose Option 1: Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Bend,Tigard, Central Point, Albany, Beaverton. • Option 2— Fair Policies (OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450): implement 3 of 5 options (flexible commute benefits required for employers of 50+ people, establish a tax on commercial parking lots, and remove parking mandates within and %-mile from town centers or adopt parking management in town centers: paid on-street parking, 1/2 space per unit for residential use, no mandates for commercial use). • Option 3— Reduced Red Tape (OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450): eliminate minimum parking requirements for: studio/one-bedroom apartments, group quarters, transit-oriented and mixed-use development, new uses/expansions in Historic Districts, LEED/Reach Code, buildings vacant 2+ years, small businesses, schools, bars, and development within and 1/2-mile from town centers. • Public engagement to-date: targeted outreach to key project stakeholders since October 2023, project website/email list, general information/frequently asked questions (FAQs) page (including comment form), 4 Planning Commission work sessions, 4 City Council study sessions, "Hello LO" articles, a Community Forum event was held on July 24, 2024, and a presentation to the Lake Forest, Lake Grove, and Waluga Neighborhood Associations is tentatively scheduled for November 20, 2024. 3. Draft Code Amendments • Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments: Phase A parking (reduced parking mandates, including the Parking Reform for Equity Uses and Parking Reform Near Transit provisions), EV charging (Item 39 amended to clarify the ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A) requirement), Phase B parking (exemption for communities without parking mandates, regulation improvements, and maximums and evaluation in more populous communities). • Parking Regulation Improvements: carpool/vanpool parking, redevelopment for bicycle/transit/other uses, and allow/facilitate shared parking. • New Surface Parking Lots less than %2 Acre: new development must provide: a climate mitigation action (on-site solar, payment to the Renewable Energy Fund, or create tree canopy covering- Item 28 amended to comply with OAR 330-135-0020), trees along driveways or 30%tree canopy coverage over new parking areas (coordination with the local electric utility company and follow tree planting standards- Item 33 amended to adopt clear and objective standards per the 2021 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards), and pedestrian connections. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes (Draft Excerpt) of October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 5 DRAFT: 11/21/2024 • Current City Parking Maximums: maximum parking currently applies to just nonresidential uses, following the calculation of 125%of minimum required under Table 50.06.002-3 (adopted in 1996 to comply with Metro's Regional Parking Policy &there are currently no requirements for multifamily units). • CFEC Parking Maximums Area A: Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) Overlay District, Lake Grove Village Center Overlay(LCVCO) District, and properties located within 1/2-mile of TriMet Bus Line#35 (amendment to Item 21 adds direct links to maps for centers and lots within the corridor listed in OAR 660-012-0440 to the notes for Table 50.06.002-2). • CFEC Parking Maximums Area B: encompasses the rest of the City. • Metro Parking Maximums: outlined in Table 3.08-3 of Metro's Regional Transportation Functional Plan. • Proposed Parking Maximums (required by OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)): 1. Residential: Area A- no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and no more than 2 off-street parking spaces per unit in a multi-unit housing development, and Area B- retains no maximum parking limitations. 2. Commercial: Area A- 3.4 (offices)to 5 parking spaces per 1,000-square feet of floor space for commercial and retail uses (with some exceptions), and Area B-4.1 (offices) parking spaces per 1,000-square feet of floor space for commercial and retail uses (with some exceptions). 3. Extremely Large Buildings (over 65,000-square-feet): surface parking area no larger than the floor area of the building. 4. Non-Surface Parking: exceptions apply to tuck-under, underground, and subsurface parking, parking structures,fleet parking, vehicle parking for sale/lease/rent, employee car/vanpool parking, and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 5. Summary: Amended Table 50.06.002-2 now aligns and simplifies parking ratios for similar uses and the highest possible maximum parking rations permitted under OAR 660-012-0415(1) and Metro Table 3.08-3 will be adopted, resulting in increases to the maximum number of spaces permitted for a lengthy list of commercial uses. 4. Next Steps • Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Planning Commission Adoption of Findings on November 13, 2024, City Council Hearing on December 3, 2024, and Final Adoption on December 17, 2024. Questions of Staff Commissioner Schenone asked who, at the State level, was checking the Code Amendments. Mr. Olson replied that the DLCD had been reviewing the proposed amendment revisions along the way. Mr. Boone indicated that there was a process for challenging the adoption for any item not in compliance with the DLCD's directives. Vice Chair Mitchell inquired whether current landowners could decide what to do with unused parking spaces. Mr. Olson affirmed and explained that the City would not take any action for existing developments; however, for any new developments, the new parking maximums would be enforced (e.g., tearing up an existing parking lot to build a new one). Ms. Numanoglu added that any parking requirement on prior Land Use approvals would still stand unless the property owner requested to modify the approval. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes (Draft Excerpt) of October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 5 DRAFT: 11/21/2024 Commissioner Rigby requested an explanation behind the reason for exempting public agency developments (i.e., also exempt from the State requirements). Mr. Olson described the different rules that applied to public agency developments. Mr. Boone emphasized that certain public agencies were required to comply with more strict standards for Green Energy requirements. Public Testimony Deborah Linke, Lake Oswego, 97034, expressed her safety concerns over the diminished width of the already-narrow streets in the First Addition neighborhood if the Minimum Parking Requirements were removed from the City's Development Code. She shared her experience during the wildfire season, while working as a Red Cross volunteer when she lived in Colorado. As a civil engineer, she opined that multiple emergency response vehicles would have difficulty accessing Tryon Creek Park, in the event of a wildland fire, via F Street and G Street (the only ingress and egress options available). In closing, she requested that the Planning Commission consider implementing a pre-application process change, which would encourage a more robust "good neighbor" solution between the developers and the neighborhood associations, and to implement permitting street parking (with a fee assessed). Vice Chair Mitchell closed the Public Hearing. Deliberations Commissioner Rigby stated that his comments dealt with the large 1/2-acre parking lots. Noting that, personally, he wished to keep the trees and solar panels as a mitigation option but felt that paying into the Renewable Energy Fund would not directly impact Lake Oswego. He proposed to remove this as an option (found on page 35 of the supplemental staff memo). Mr. Olson pointed out there was a baseline mitigation requirement to provide a minimum of 30%tree canopy, as well as trees along driveways. Commissioner Schenone asked staff if there had been a safety overview, with respect to street congestion and the need for lanes of travel for fire trucks passing through. Ms. Numanoglu explained that the developments were reviewed during the permitting process, by the Fire Marshall and by the Engineering, Planning, and Building departments, for compliance with City regulations. Regarding safety, in terms of parking in the public right-of-way (ROW), Ms. Numanoglu stated that this was under the purview of the City Engineer, where parking could be restricted to one side of the street or be removed completely. She noted that parking permits were not currently used in the area of the First Addition neighborhood noted by Ms. Linke, but if it became an issue, the City could consider permitting at that time, and that citizens could report illegal parking to the Police for enforcement. Mr. Olson relayed that the City's general policy was to allow parking in the ROWs, and that nothing would be approved that could introduce unsafe emergency access. Ms. Numanoglu reminded members that they could not require provided parking within a certain distance of Bus Line#35; however, they did encourage discussion between the developers and neighborhood associations. Commissioner Rigby moved to tentatively approve LU 24-0025, with a revision to remove Item 29 (1) Climate Mitigation Action, option (b) Renewable Energy Fund payment, and to instruct staff to return with the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Schenone seconded the motion, and it failed 2:2. Vice Chair Mitchell and Commissioner Slyh stated that they voted no because they felt that the approval should be to recommend adoption as written. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes (Draft Excerpt) of October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 5 DRAFT: 11/21/2024 Commissioner Slyh moved to tentatively approve LU 24-0025, as written, and to instruct staff to return with the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. Vice Chair Mitchell seconded the motion, and it failed 2:2. Commissioners Rigby and Slyh voted no because they wished to include the revision included in the previous motion. Mr. Boone described the options available, as this was a matter of a split decision which would be carried forward to the City Council in the Minutes of this meeting. Vice Chair Mitchell acknowledged that they all agreed with 99%of what was before them and would want the recommendation to go to the City Council; noting that the City Council will make their decision either with or without the revision. Commissioner Rigby agreed that they should not continue the hearing over this one line-item. Commissioner Rigby moved to tentatively approve LU 24-0025, with the excision of sub-section (b) on the Climate Mitigation Action (Item 29) and with Vice Chair Mitchell's objections noted, and to instruct staff to return with the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. (where all Commissioners in attendance would be eligible to vote). Commissioner Schenone seconded the motion, and it passed 4:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes (Draft Excerpt) of October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 5 of 5 p4 E0r� MEMORANDUM H � V 11011111. 0 OREGO\4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) Work Session #1 DATE: July 14, 2023 MEETING DATE: July 24, 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED This memo provides background for the Commission's July 24 work session in which staff will provide an overview of the City's compliance with the State's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules. The City complies with Phase A of the CFEC parking requirements under OAR 660-012-0430 and 660-012-0440 by direct application of the state rules, which became effective on January 1, 2023. These rules required that the City reduce parking mandates for multifamily residential developments and eliminate parking mandates for affordable housing, childcare facilities, facilities for people with disabilities, small residential units (< 750 sq. ft.), and all development within 1/2 mile of frequent transit corridors. See Parking Phase A, below. The City also complies with state requirements for electric vehicle conduits under OAR 660-012- 0410 by direct application of state rules, which became effective on April 1, 2023. These rules mandate that 40% of all vehicle parking spaces have conduit to serve electric vehicle (EV) charging for new multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and new mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units. See Electric Vehicle Conduit Requirements, below. Phase B of the parking reform component of CFEC requires that the City comply with one of three parking policy reform options, as summarized under Parking Reform Options, below. Staff has reviewed the CFEC rules and determined that, while the City already complies with some of the Phase B parking requirements (e.g., the designation of Climate-Friendly Areas), more time will be needed to implement others. See Parking Phase B, below. Since the last Planning Commission update, the City requested and received approval from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for an alternative deadline of — Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 2 of 15 December 31, 2024, to comply with the parking rules for Phase B of CFEC (see Attachments B and D). This extension was necessary to balance staff workload and in order to better coordinate changes in parking policy with the development of the City's Housing Production Strategy (HPS). See Project Schedule, below. The purpose of the July 24 work session is for the Commission to receive an update on the City's compliance with initial phases of CFEC, and to learn more about Phase B of the CFEC parking reform requirements. BACKGROUND On March 10, 2020, then-Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-04 (Attachment G), directing state agencies to reduce climate pollution. In response, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) directed DLCD to draft updates to Oregon's transportation and housing planning rules and to convene a rulemaking advisory committee to help guide rule development. On August 17, 2022, LCDC adopted permanent rules to guide the implementation of the CFEC program. These rules require that cities in the state's eight metropolitan areas— including cities in the Portland Metro area — update their comprehensive plans and development regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with a particular focus on reducing emissions from transportation, such that Oregon can meet its climate mitigation goals by the year 2050. Per Attachment E, the rules require cities—including Lake Oswego—to, "change their local transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and don't have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs." The rules are intended to, "improve equity, and help community transportation, housing, and planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated against" (Attachment E). More specifically, the rules mandated that cities implement requirements related to electric vehicle charging, parking reform, housing, and transportation planning on a multi-phased schedule, as follows: • Parking Phase A—compliance by December 31, 2022 • EV Charging—compliance by March 31, 2023 • Housing in Climate-Friendly Areas—compliance by December 31, 2023 • Transportation System Plan Update—deadline TBD, likely November 2024 o Cities must comply within one year of the adoption of Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update, currently scheduled for November 2023 • Parking Phase B— DLCD-approved alternative deadline is December31, 2024 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 3 of 15 See below for more discussion of each of the above-mentioned elements required for compliance with CFEC rules. PARKING PHASE A The City met the December 31, 2022 deadline for compliance with Phase A of the CFEC parking reform rules per OAR 660-012-04301 and 660-012-04402. Beginning on January 1, 2023, the following parking rules became applicable by direct application of the state rules to new development in Lake Oswego: • Only one parking space per unit is required for multifamily residential development, regardless of location; • No parking is required for small residential units (<750 square feet), affordable units', child care uses, facilities for people with disabilities, or shelters; and • No parking is required within % mile of rail stations or% mile of frequent transit corridors (one-hour or greater service). While there are no rail stations within the City of Lake Oswego, TriMet Bus Line #35 is the City's most frequent bus transit line and is considered a "frequent transit corridor" for the purpose of the CFEC rules. Accordingly, there are no parking requirements within one-half mile of the service route of Bus Line#35, which covers a broad corridor along Highway 43/State Street and in Downtown Lake Oswego. As allowed under CFEC rules, staff received direction from the City Council to apply these rules directly— instead of including them as amendments to the development code. The City has published technical resources to aid in that process, and is promoting the exemption by making the information available on our public-facing, interactive GIS map as well as a cross-reference in the Parking Standard (LOC 50.06.002) in the online code. 1 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293032. 2 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293034. 3"Affordable housing" is defined in OAR 660-039-0010 as: "(a) Housing units available for rent,with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income,adjusted for family size,as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency, and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on rent and utilities; (b) Housing units available for purchase,with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income,adjusted for family size,as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency,and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on home loan or mortgage payments,amortized interest, property taxes, insurance,and condominium or association fees, if any;or(c)Spaces in manufactured dwelling parks available for rent,with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 100 percent of the area median income,adjusted for family size,as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency." EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 4 of 15 A map of areas where parking requirements have been eliminated pursuant to Phase A of the CFEC parking reform rules is included below and in Attachment C; staff notes that the one-half mile distance from Bus Line #35 shown in the map is based on straight distance and does not consider topography. City of Lake Oswego Properties a Half Mile'from Bus Lines 35 --- 'Half mile is straight out from bus route y - 1r —— Lake Oswego Cdy Limas n ,,,'��r/�� USB Boundary —Rte.35 4 e P., 0 0.25 0.5frikle 1 H T1It*Re if• I I ...„..., -. , ,, . - 4, III _r-) J , :. ��- ,rtii $-i: 'i i • �� ._ l: ail r 11 I. (//t - 1 i I 1 wo...... fill"Illii.1 ‘. -- AMR (..._____ --," , \ Oillirl1 r'..:' : I ,— L\. *ii4.I ..‘e �/1l1i1t111,��'�i----L .„ � _ -- ,, . ._ . -...diall . IS i e� -1� I4 ,. n P�� IMENIMNialleirsii ,.."2 If Erilli!,- ''. , irtio,,fr. -IIII■ liii-,, :I- �'.�" .x♦,I�ti ' --- ri-: .' 4 \C, ` f -4\ cri_ '.•, %.',. - :- 4:, IC i • • ._, ;AN\(1. _-A fir .. 11 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 5 of 15 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CONDUIT REQUIREMENTS The City met the March 31, 2023 deadline for compliance with the EV charging requirements of the CFEC, per OAR 660-012-04104 by direct application of the state rules. As such, 40%of all vehicle parking spaces are now required to have conduit to serve electric vehicle charging for the following development types: • New multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units; and • New mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units. Staff notes that these requirements relate to the electric service capacity provided within the building, but do not require that actual EV charging stations be provided. The state defines "electric service capacity" in ORS 455.4175 to refer to two parts: 1. A designated location or space for electrical service, if not actual service. 2. A conduit system from that location to parking spaces. That conduit system must be able to support wiring for installation of Level 2 or above electric vehicle charging stations. Similar to Phase A of the parking rules, the state administrative rules are applied directly, and no changes have been made to the Development Code to implement this requirement. For ease of implementation, staff recommends that the Development Code be amended to include the above-mentioned EV conduit requirements concurrently with the code amendments that will be required for Phase B of the CFEC parking requirements (due December 31, 2024). HOUSING IN CLIMATE-FRIENDY AREAS The CFEC rules for housing in OAR 660-008-00106 and 660-012-03107 require that cities within a metropolitan area other than the Portland metropolitan area zone Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) in order to accommodate at least 30% of the city's housing need in such areas. From the DLCD summary in Attachment E: The rules require cities, and some urbanized county areas, with a population over 5,000 within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries. The rules for the Portland Metro area support implementation of the region's 2040 Growth Concept... As the requirements primarily apply to cities outside of the Portland metro area, Lake Oswego is already in compliance with applicable CFEC rules for housing in CFAs. The City has already designated and adopted implementing regulations for our two Town Centers (Downtown Lake 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293028. 'Available at https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_455.417. 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=292984. Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293018. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 6 of 15 Oswego and Lake Grove) in compliance with Metro's 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN UPDATE Under CFEC rules for Scenario Planning (OAR Division 44), Metro is required to undertake scenario planning as it updates the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Following Metro's adoption of updates to the RTP, cities in the Portland metro area are required to update their transportation system plans (TSPs) for consistency with the RTP within one year of RTP adoption. TSPs in metropolitan areas must include the following elements as required by OAR 660-0012- 01008, below. The elements that will be new to Lake Oswego's TSP are indicated in boldface. (1) Cities shall develop and adopt a transportation system plan. Cities shall develop a transportation system plan and amendments to that plan consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-012-0105 through OAR 660-012-0215. A transportation system plan includes the following elements: (a) The core transportation system plan elements as provided in section (2); (b) Funding projections as provided in OAR 660-012-0115; (c)A transportation options element as provided in OAR 660-012-0145; (d)An unconstrained project list as provided in OAR 660-012-0170; (e)A financially-constrained project list as provided in OAR 660-012-0180; (f)Any refinement plans adopted as provided in OAR 660-012-0190; (g)A pedestrian system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0500; (h)A bicycle system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0600; (i)A public transportation system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0700; and (j)A street and highway system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0800. (2)A transportation system plan shall include the following core elements: (a) The base and planning horizon years as provided in section (3) of this rule; (b) The land use assumptions as provided in OAR 660-012-0340; (c)A list of all elements of the plan, and the date of adoption or amendment of each; (d) The coordinated land use and transportation system planning policies in the city's comprehensive plan; 8 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=292997. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 7 of 15 (e) The local transportation system plan goals and policies; (f)Areas with concentrations of underserved populations as provided in OAR 660-012- 0125, identified using best available data; (g)A record of the engagement, involvement, and decision-making processes used in development of the plan, as provided in OAR 660-012-0130; (h)A major equity analysis as provided in OAR 660-012-0135, or an engagement- focused equity analysis as provided in OAR 660-012-0135 for urban areas under 5,000 in population;and (i) The dates of each report made to the director as provided in OAR 660-012-0900, including all applicable city and county reports for the planning area. On July 10, 2023, Metro released a draft 2023 RTP and made the document available for public comment through August 25, 2023; the Commission received a presentation from Metro and City Engineering staff regarding the RTP and TSP updates at their July 10 meeting. Metro must complete its RTP update by December 6, 2023, though its current work plan aims to complete the update in November 2023. Based on this schedule, Lake Oswego's deadline to update the City's TSP will likely be November 2024. PARKING PHASE B The rules for Phase B of the parking reform requirements under CFEC are contained in OARs 660-012-0012(4)(f)9, 660-012-04001°, 660-012-040511, and 660-012-041512 through 660-012- 045013 In January of this year, the City received approval from DLCD (Attachment B) for an alternative deadline of December 31, 2024, to better coordinate changes in parking policy for compliance with Phase B of CFEC with the development of the City's Housing Production Strategy (HPS) as required under House Bill 2003 (2019). This extension allows additional time for our community to consider CFEC's policy options for parking reform together with options related to housing production, which we expect will achieve better outcomes for the climate while encouraging the production of needed housing. (Staff Memo continues on next page) 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301173. 10 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293026. 11 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301177. 12 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301178. 13 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 8 of 15 Parking Regulation Improvement [OARS 660-012-0405 and 660-012-04151 Baseline requirements for compliance with Phase B of CFEC parking reform are outlined in OAR 660-012-040514 and 660-012-041515. In summary, these rules require the City to improve existing parking regulations by: • Requiring preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking; • Allowing redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses; • Allowing and encouraging redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses; • Allowing and facilitating shared parking; • Requiring that surface parking lots more than % acre in size have either 40%tree canopy, include green energy technology, or include solar panels; • Requiring street trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas; • Requiring the provision of pedestrian facilities between buildings and pedestrian- oriented rights-of-way; and • Establishing off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments. In addition, OAR 660-012-0415 specifies that cities with greater than 25,000 population in the Portland metro area —including Lake Oswego— must set certain parking maximums in specified areas. Staff notes that, under Metro's existing Functional Plan requirements, Lake Oswego and other Metro area cities already limit parking to not more than 120% of minimum standards, in compliance with the parking maximum-related rules in OAR 660-012-0405(5). (Staff Memo continues on next page) 14 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301177. 15 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301178. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 9 of 15 Parking Reform Options [OAR 660-012-0420 through 0450] Further requirements for compliance with Phase B of CFEC parking reform are outlined in OAR 660-012-042016 through 660-012-045017. In general, these rules require the City to reform existing parking mandates based on the three following options: Option 1 Options 2 and 3 660-012-0420 1 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens—reduced mandates based on shared parking,solar panels, EV charging,car sharing, parking space accessibility, on-street parking,garage parking. Must unbundle parking for multifamily units near frequent transit. May not require garages/carports. Climate-friendly area parking—remove mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily units Repeal Cities pop. 100,000+adopt on-street parking prices for 5%of on-street parking spaces by September 30,2023 and 10%of spaces by September 30, 2025 parking Option 2 Option 3 mandates enact at least three of five policies all of the below 1. Unbundle parking for No mandates for a variety of specific uses,small residential units sites,vacant buildings, studios/one bedrooms, 2. Unbundle leased commercial historic buildings, LEED or Oregon Reach Code parking developments,etc. No additional 3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for changes in use, action needed businesses with more than 50 redevelopments,expansions of over 30%. employees Adopt parking maximums. 4. Tax on parking lot revenue No mandates within Y: mile walking distance 5. No more than%% parking of Climate-Friendly Areas. space/unit mandated for Designate district to manage on-street residential multifamily development parking. Source:CFEC Parking Reform Overview,DLCD,November 16,2022. Option 1 offers the simplest route to compliance, but would require the City to repeal all parking requirements in the Development Code. Options 2 and 3 are alternative routes that would both allow the City to maintain parking requirements while meeting an extensive list of additional restrictions on those requirements. Requirements for both Options 2 and 3 Under Options 2 or 3, CFEC rules require compliance with all eight land use regulations in OAR 660-012-042518, excerpted below. While the Community Development Code partially complies 16 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293030. 17 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036. 18 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301179. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 10 of 15 with some of these requirements (as indicated by regular typeface), the Code does not comply with four of the eight items (which are shown in bold): (2) Cities and counties shall adopt and enforce land use regulations as provided in this section: (a) Garages and carports may not be required for residential developments; (b) Garage parking spaces shall count towards off-street parking mandates; (c) Provision of shared parking shall be allowed to meet parking mandates; (d) Required parking spaces may be provided off-site, within 2,000 feet pedestrian travel of a site. If any parking is provided on site, required parking for people with disabilities shall be on site. If all parking is off-site, parking for people with disabilities must be located within the shortest possible distance of an accessible entrance via an accessible path and no greater than 200 feet from that entrance; (e) Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each three kilowatts of capacity in solar panels or wind power that will be provided in a development; (f) Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each dedicated car-sharing parking space in a development. Dedicated car-sharing parking spaces shall count as spaces for parking mandates; (g) Parking mandates shall be reduced by two off-street parking spaces for every electric vehicle charging station provided in a development. Parking spaces that include electric vehicle charging while an automobile is parked shall count towards parking mandates; and (h)Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for every two units in a development above minimum requirements that are fully accessible to people with mobility disabilities. In Lake Oswego, shared or off-site parking is allowed to meet minimum requirements if located within 500 ft— 1,000 ft of the site depending on the zone.19 Additionally, the CFEC rules for Options 2 or 3 in OAR 660-012-0435(2)2°, excerpted below, require the City to either remove minimum parking requirements within and one-quarter mile from designated CFAs or adopt parking management policies within those areas. 19 Within commercial, public use, industrial and campus institutional zones, parking may be provided on remote lots within said zones which are within 500 ft.of the property line of the use to be served. Within the EC(East End General Commercial) zone only, unless otherwise prohibited,employee parking may be allowed within 1,000 ft.of the property line of the use to be served.Within the LGVCO only, unless otherwise prohibited, parking may be provided on remote lots within the District which are within 750 ft. (customer parking) and 1,000 ft. (employee parking)from the property line of the use to be served. If the remote parking lot is not owned by the owner of the property of the use to be served, said owner shall obtain an exclusive permanent easement in the remote lot so as to permit parking from the use to be served on the remote lot. (LOC 50.06.002.2a.iv(1)). 20 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301180. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 11 of 15 (2) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations addressing parking mandates in climate friendly areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0310. Cities and counties in Metro shall adopt land use regulations addressing parking mandates in regional centers and town centers designated under the Metro Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets, Adopted Boundaries map. In each such area, cities and counties shall either: (a) Remove all parking mandates within the area and on parcels in its jurisdiction that include land within one-quarter mile distance of those areas; or (b) Manage parking by: (A)Adopting a parking benefit district with paid on-street parking and some revenues dedicated to public improvements in the area; (B)Adopting land use amendments to require no more than one-half off-street parking space per dwelling unit in the area; and (C)Adopting land use regulations without parking mandates for commercial developments. A major consideration in selecting from the available options for compliance will be the on- going administration of new policies for shared parking or parking district management. Option 2— "Fair Parking" Approach The CFEC rules for Option 2 require the City to implement three of the five provisions in OAR 660-012-0445(a)21, excerpted below. While the Community Development Code may already comply with one of these items (as indicated by regular typeface), the Code does not comply with the four of the five items (which are shown in bold) (a)A fair parking policy approach shall include at least two of the following five provisions, including at least one provision from paragraphs (A)-(C): (A)A requirement that parking spaces for each residential unit in developments that include five or more leased or sold residential units on a lot or parcel be unbundled parking. Cities and counties may exempt townhouse and rowhouse development from this requirement; (B)A requirement that parking spaces serving leased commercial developments be unbundled parking; (C)A requirement for employers of 50 or more employees who provide free or subsidized parking to their employees at the workplace provide a flexible commute benefit of$50 per month or the fair market value of that parking, whichever is greater, to those employees eligible for that free or subsidized parking who regularly commute via other modes instead of using that parking; 21 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 12 of 15 (D)A tax on the revenue from commercial parking lots collecting no less than 10 percent of income, with revenues dedicated to improving transportation alternatives to drive-alone travel;and (E)A reduction of parking mandates for new multifamily residential development to no higher than one-half spaces per unit, including visitor parking. Staff notes that the flexible commute benefit requirement of provision C may already be met, because employers with 50 or more employees in the Portland Metro area are already required by the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to provide incentives for commuting by means other than a single-occupant vehicle. While the City of Lake Oswego employs more than 50 people and meets DEQ requirements to provide free TriMet bus passes and designate preferential carpool parking spaces, it is unclear whether compliance with these DEQ rules also satisfies the CFEC rules. The City could comply with provision E by amending the Development Code to reduce the parking requirement for multifamily housing. However, the remaining choices under Option 2 (provisions A, B, and D) are more difficult to implement. The implementation of any of these three provisions would have a budgetary impact, which could be negative as the City currently has no known commercial parking lots. Both provisions A and B would involve the City requiring that any parking provided for 5+ unit residential development and commercial development be "unbundled" —or separately leased/sold —from the development for which the parking was provided. "Unbundled parking" is defined in OAR 660-012-0005(57): "Unbundled parking"means a requirement that parking spaces for each unit in a development be rented, leased, or sold separately from the unit itself. The parking space(s) must be rented, leased, or sold at market rates for comparable local off-street parking. The renter, lessor, or buyer of the unit must be allowed to opt out of renting, leasing, or buying the parking space. Staff notes that it is unclear whether the City can legally require developers to unbundle parking spaces to commercial tenants and homebuyers in middle housing or multifamily developments. Regarding provision D, a tax on commercial parking lot revenue would be difficult to administer. While amending the code to meet at least three of the five provisions above will require staff time, the greater cost concern is with ongoing administration and enforcement of these new, untested policies. Option 3— "Reduced Regulation Parking Management" Approach Generally speaking, the rules for Option 3 would require the City to adopt several regulations reducing or eliminating parking regulations for several types of development, uses, and EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 13 of 15 locations, including eliminating all parking requirements in designated CFAs. (As mentioned above, in the Portland metro area, CFAs include designated Regional Centers and Town Centers. In Lake Oswego, that includes Downtown Lake Oswego and the Lake Grove Village Center.) The CFEC rules for Option 3 require the City to implement all 14 of the provisions in OAR 012-0445(b)22, excerpted below. The Community Development Code partially complies with only one of these 14 requirements, as indicated by regular typeface. The Code does not comply with any of the 13 items in bold: (A)A repeal of all parking mandates within one-half mile pedestrian travel of climate- friendly areas; Staff note: A repeal of parking within CFAs and within 1/4 mile of CFAs may otherwise be required per OAR 660-012-0435(2). (B) A repeal of parking mandates for mixed-use development; (C) A repeal of parking mandates for group quarters, including but not limited to dormitories, religious group quarters, adult care facilities, retirement homes, and other congregate housing; (D)A repeal of parking mandates for studio apartments, one-bedroom apartments and condominiums in residential developments of five or more units on a lot or parcel; (E) A repeal of parking mandates for change of use of, or redevelopment of, buildings vacant for more than two years. Cities and counties may require registration of a building as vacant two years prior to the waiving of parking mandates; (F) A repeal of requirements to provide additional parking for change of use or redevelopment; Staff note:The City partially complies with 'F'. For example, no additional parking is required for changes in use from retail to other retail and restaurant uses within the Compact Shopping District subarea of the Downtown Redevelopment Design District. (G)A repeal of parking mandates for expansion of existing businesses by less than 30 percent of a building footprint; (H)A repeal of parking mandates for buildings within a National Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places, or on a local inventory of historic resources or buildings; (I) A repeal of parking mandates for commercial properties that have fewer than ten on- site employees or 3,000 square feet floor space; (J) A repeal of parking mandates for developments built under the Oregon Residential Reach Code; 22 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 14 of 15 (K) A repeal of parking mandates for developments seeking certification under any Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, as evidenced by either proof of pre-certification or registration and submittal of a complete scorecard; (L) A repeal of parking mandates for schools; (M)A repeal of parking mandates for bars and taverns; and (N) Implementation of at least one pricing mechanism, either: (i) Designation of at least one residential parking district or parking benefit district where on-street parking is managed through paid permits, meters, or other payments;or (ii) Requirements that parking for multi family residential units be unbundled parking. With respect to provision A, a repeal of parking mandates within %2 mile pedestrian travel of CFAs would apply to much of the city, including residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Downtown/Foothills and Lake Grove areas. Repeal of parking for schools, per provision L, would expand the area further. However, it is unclear how these policy changes would actually affect the development of parking or neighborhood livability. Policies repealing or exempting parking mandates for developments built under the Oregon Reach Code, or for projects that are "seeking" LEED certification, per provision K, are potentially problematic to administer and enforce. With respect to the pricing mechanism requirements in provision N, there are two alternatives for the City to reach compliance. The first alternative—(N)(i)—would require the creation of parking districts with a residential parking permit program. Creating a new program such as this would have significant budgetary impact and it is difficult to estimate these costs for a city the size of Lake Oswego. The second alternative for provision N — (N)(ii) —would involve the City requiring unbundled parking for multifamily residential units but not for middle housing developments of 5+ units. As mentioned above under Option 2—"Fair Parking" Approach, there are concerns as to whether the City can legally require developers to unbundle parking spaces to homebuyers in multifamily developments. Proposed Project Schedule As mentioned above, the City has received approval from DLCD for an alternative deadline of December 31, 2024, to comply with the parking rules for Phase B of CFEC (see Attachments B and D). A tentative project schedule for Phase B of the parking reform requirements of CFEC is included in Attachment A; a summary of key dates is provided below. EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 15 of 15 CFEC Parking Phase B—Project Schedule Rulemaking Updates& Extension Request Council Study Session#1 Jun 21, 2022 [Jun 2022-Jul 2023] PC Update#1 Jun 27, 2022 PC Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 PC Work Session#1 Jul 24, 2023 Work Plan &Scoping CC Study Session#2 Sep 5, 2023 [Aug—Sep 2023] PC Work Session #2 Sep 25, 2023 Parking Alternatives CC Study Session#3 Dec 5, 2023 [Oct—Dec 2023] PC Work Session#3 Dec 11, 2023 Initial Concepts& Recommendations CC Study Session#4 Mar 5, 2024 [Jan—Apr 2024] PC Work Session#4 Mar 11, 2024 Public Workshop Event Apr 2024 Refined Parking Concepts CC Study Session#5 Jun 4, 2024 [Apr—Jun 2024] PC Work Session#5 Jun 10, 2024 CFEC Parking Code Amendments PC Hearing Sep 23, 2024 [Jul—Nov 2024] CC Hearing Nov 5, 2024 Final Adoption Nov 19, 2024 ATTACHMENTS A. CFEC Project Schedule, 06/20/2023 B. DLCD - CFEC Rules Alternative Date Request Granted, 01/20/2023 C. CFEC Parking Phase A Map, 01/01/2023 D. CFEC Rules Alternative Date Request, 12/19/2022 E. DLCD - CFEC Program Overview, 07/21/2022 F. DLCD - CFEC Implementation Guide, 07/21/2022 G. Oregon Governor Executive Order 20-04, 03/10/2020 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly& Equitable Communities (CFEC) Code Amendments Rulemaking Updates & Extension Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] CFEC CC-SS#1 Jun 21, 2022 CFEC PC Update#1 Jun 27 CFEC PC Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 CFEC PC-WS#1: Review of Rules/Options Jul 24 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Plan /Scoping [Aug—Sep 2023] CFEC CC-SS#2: Work Plan/ Public Involvement/Scoping Sep 5 CFEC PC-WS#2: Work Plan/ Public Involvement/Scoping Sep 25 Evaluation of Parking Alternatives [Oct—Dec 2023] HPS Task Force Meeting#4:HPS Alternatives Oct 20 HPS CC-SS#4:HPS Alternatives Nov 21 HPS PC-WS#4: HPS Alternatives Nov 27 CFEC CC-SS#3: Evaluation of Parking Alternatives Dec 5 CFEC PC-WS#3: Evaluation of Parking Alternatives Dec 11 Initial Concepts/ Recommendations [Jan—Apr 2024] HPS I ask Force Meeting#5 Initial HPS Recommendations Jan 19, 202-, HPS CC-SS#5:HPS Initial Recommendations Feb 6 HPS PC-WS#5:HPS Initial Recommendations Feb 12 HPS Community Forum /Puhlic Wnrkshnn Fvent#' I ate Feb-Early Mar CFEC CC-SS#4: Initial Concepts/Recommendations Mar 5 CFEC PC-WS#4: Initial Concepts/ Recommendations Mar 11 Community Forum/Public Workshop Event April Refined Parking Concepts [Apr—Jun 2024] HPS Task Force Meeting#6:Refine HPS Recommendations Apr 5 Draft HPS Report April 19 HPS CC-SS#6:Refine HPS Recommendations(joint meeting?) May 7 HPS PC-WS#6:Refine HPS Recommendations May 13 Final HPS Report Jun 3 CFEC CC-SS#5: Refined Parking Concepts/ Draft Code Jun 4 CFEC PC-WS#5: Refined Parking Concepts/Draft Code Jun 10 CFEC Parking Code Amendments [Jul — Nov 2024] Draft Code Amendments Jul 1 Final Code Amendments Aug 5 DLCD Notice Aug 19 Planning Commission Public Hearing(PC-PH) Sep 23 +Adoption of Findings Oct 14 City Council Public Hearing(CC-PH) Nov 5 +Adoption of Findings Nov 19 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) OF l:IIregon Department of Land Conservation and Development \ � 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 \' ,9 'Tina Kotek,Governor ''59 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: 503-373-0050 Fax: 503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD January 20, 2023 Scot Siegel, Community Development Director City of Lake Oswego (411÷11) PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 By Email: ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Alternative Dates Granted as Provided in OAR 660-012-0012(3) Dear Director Siegel, I am writing in response to the city's request of December 19, 2022 for an alternative date for compliance with portions of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) chapter 66, division 12, as provided in OAR 660-012-0012(3). The city's request included: • An alternative date of December 31, 2024 for OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) to adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations as provided in OAR 660-012-0400, OAR 660-012-0405, and OAR 660-012-0415 through OAR 660- 012-0450. I have considered each of the criteria in OAR 660-012-0012(3)(f) in granting this alternative date. The criteria are: (f) The director shall review the proposed alternative dates to determine whether the proposed alternative dates meet the following criteria: (A) Ensures urgent action; (B) Coordinates actions across jurisdictions within the metropolitan area; (C) Coordinates with work required as provided in OAR 660-044-0100; (D) Sequences elements into a logical progression; and (E) Considers availability of funding and other resources to complete the work. I find that the city meets the criteria in OAR 660-012-0012(3)(f), and therefore the alternative date is granted. A summary of this approval is included in Attachment A. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, 3 Q, ,yK.6` Brenda Bateman, Ph.D. Director CC: Matt Crall, DLCD Planning Services Division Manager Erik Havig, ODOT Statewide Policy and Planning Manager Kelly Reid, DLCD Regional Representative Neelam Dorman, ODOT Region 1 Planning Manager Theresa Conley, ODOT Transportation Planner Bill Holmstrom, DLCD Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordinator Evan Manvel, DLCD Land Use and Transportation Planner Cody Meyer, DLCD Land Use and Transportation Planner PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Alternative Dates — City of Lake Oswego The city has been granted the following alternative dates as provided in OAR 660-012- 0012(3). • An alternative date of December 31, 2024 is approved for OAR 660-012- 0012(4)(f) to adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations as provided in: OAR 660-012-0400: Parking Management OAR 660-012-0405: Parking Regulation Improvements OAR 660-012-0415: Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities OAR 660-012-0420: Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates OAR 660-012-0425: Reducing the Burden of Parking Mandates OAR 660-012-0430: Reduction of Parking Mandates for Development Types OAR 660-012-0435: Parking Reform in Climate Friendly Areas OAR 660-012-0440: Parking Reform Near Transit Corridors OAR 660-012-0445: Parking Management Alternative Approaches OAR 660-012-0450: Parking Management in More Populous Communities PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) City of Lake Oswego Properties a Half Mile*from Bus Lines 35 *Half mile is straight out from bus route. /. • ��`��.�` - - - Lake Oswego City Limits 1 elf ,��'���•�„��,��'— USB Boundary Rte.35 i ..411 ‘ ',1'r � ` 0 0.25 0.5 ' �'�,� ��► �` ,I Mile ,��r�VW ,�,.� os,zoz� I I I I �; ®®►.dl���� WI It Ire,Owungugespii 10/1"fti . J m 0111112 Spa,am z: meiti Mit.,:iir /-,gliw I°ILI,jai gRegril tF.:-, 4... 7 4 " iblogillnii: eginaiiiiPli-vim zaPC114/ 411 j 1-- - r Aaram • ini �HIV L' „e l/ii im...4S — SE Courtney Fie a;ION/1 r r % _ ini OR'i • 9. e-N-7 °Ngrigiilltil Of i '6 (-- _ _. .__ FP"1 g a i ■!_u_ '-rs I6,..41,A.Ai.....,, tafxi I ,;. (: , sii —� �� "'uu■■. ���� •_1= .. it _ ____ „.:.,. �11, IIIIpW, ,�.: '� �il I�r� a+`` u\ It _ *Ain* itlilo ri �' j11 �' III ' rSE 00k Grove Blvd � IIIIIP• 17 iii fir►% ♦irJl ,Ow:un►/ II I►J■I►i �— �� 1■I� ICI A�.1�111�1� :74-11"46)' ���r111111 T1111 — IIIIIIIbil1r \ — 144•//•rr Q‘q►i110,711:ei 77tt■■Q mill 'it aua in W 11�■W■1■I a�Als NI& 7■'o■ A► i kW UMW pip \ ,CMG P 1■■Hu row'Han 1111 u■■■■■me I■■:■ 01 , LpTang liii'iilur 1_►L M1■rrIrr r' 15•uthSLi: ■ ■1■•■■� . . :•--■ � Illifir; 41111* ji-a-.. ENE imm11101 rip -■uumi��■■■■■.N. ��= 'Oer+ � ♦,♦i rums! /an a tf.�1111� $4 41 *illOkred' y 1 .!■::: 1ItD�Ilitictiffalir ~��telV I ���•�� 1111,wro....711 1Z, taw -,.,..,. 8 ,„,,,,,, opAr. et*47,4 1100,s_ •A. .� ` � ♦` , _ ilk •l � l � ♦� � . i „ill --,-*41.1,..--ric 1.. .% Z,:- c4.7-4L. lit,,,,,..1,,,._ .-„Aii ii, 1_6,*Ng I& s it r...IS NP- alt ...,, \ %.01 NO•441, V 1111047 PO -P •.•.` y 3 4 PP 22-0001 c ATTA HME,IT p/PAGE < O' 1��\r, Fr -1 ( 24- 02 ca4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � n V O OREGO� December 19, 2023 (via email) Director Dr. Brenda Ortigoza Bateman c/o— Bill Holmstrom Oregon Land Conservation and Development Dear Dr. Bateman: The City of Lake Oswego is requesting an alternative date for compliance with the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules for parking, as provided by OAR 660-012-0012(3)(a). Our request and background follow. Alternative Date Request Lake Oswego requests a one-year extension, from June 30, 2023 to December 31, 2024, for adopting code changes implementing the State's Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules for Parking in OAR 660-012-0400, OAR 660-012-00405, and OAR 660-012-0415 through OAR 660-012-0450. The extension is needed due to workload constraints and to coordinate changes in parking policy with development of the City's Housing Production Strategy (HPS) under House Bill 2003 (2019). These projects are interrelated, and consideration of housing and parking policies together will result in better outcomes for our community. Work Completed or Underway The City of Lake Oswego has completed or is in the process of developing policies and regulations to implement CFEC rules, as follows: • Climate-Friendly Areas. Lake Oswego complies with CFEC rules for Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs). We have already designated and adopted implementing regulations for our two Town Centers (Downtown Lake Oswego and Lake Grove) in compliance with Metro's 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. • Parking Reforms o Lake Oswego code already allows shared parking, requires parking maximums (<120% of minimum), and encourages redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses consistent with OAR 660-012-0405. As evidence, recent redevelopment projects include high-density mixed-use developments with structured parking on sites that formerly contained surface parking, such as The Windward, Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 9703EXHIB1TI 114EUS$4 251 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 1 OF 11 Page 2 of 3 Beacon/Ironlight, and Mercato Grove. These and other parking efficient projects are located in our downtown and Lake Grove town centers, both areas the CFEC rules define as Climate-Friendly Areas. o Lake Oswego code already partially complies with OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450, by requiring that, (a) Garages and carports may not be required for residential developments; (b) Garage parking spaces shall count towards off-street parking mandates; (c) Provision of shared parking shall be allowed to meet parking mandates; and, (d) Required parking spaces may be provided off-site, provided ADA requirements for accessible parking are met. Lake Oswego is also subject to Department of Environmental Quality commute trip reduction rules, which require employers of 50 or more employees to mitigate commute trips by single-occupant vehicles; and our code provides for no additional required parking for certain changes of use in a portion of our downtown. o The City will meet the December 31, 2022 deadline for compliance with OAR 660- 012-0430 and 660-012-0440 - Reduced Parking Mandates. These rules will be applied directly, and we have published technical resources to aid in that process. The exemption for areas with priority transit covers our entire downtown and Highway 43 corridor, a significant portion of the city and its highest density area. A map of properties within 1/2-mile of priority transit can be found on our website: PP 22-0001: Implementation of State Requirements for Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities I City of Lake Oswego. The City is also promoting the exemption by making the information available on our public-facing, interactive GIS map. • Electric Vehicle Charging. Lake Oswego will begin implementing OAR 660-012-0410, requiring Electric Vehicle (EV) charging capability in certain developments, March 31, 2023, as required by the State Building Code. • Transportation System Plan. Lake Oswego will review and make any required updates to its Transportation System Plan (TSP) after Metro has adopted an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), scheduled for 2023, in compliance with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and CFEC rules. Proposed Approach and Additional Time Our City Council and Planning Commission each received briefings on the CFEC rules in September 2022. At that time, the Council was undecided on which of the three Parking B options they preferred and requested staff provide more analysis and outreach. Accordingly, staff has outlined the following process, below, which is intended to align the City's work on CFEC compliance with ongoing work to adopt an Housing Production Strategy in 2024. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 9703EXHIB1IFIDFt IIEUS2 OO25Y PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 2 OF 11 Page 3 of 3 CFEC Parking and Housing Production Strategy HB 2003 (HPS) Tasks Meetings Timeline HPS and Parking Alternatives PC, HPS Task Force Nov 2023—Jan 2024 Initial Recommendations Public Forum, HPS Task Force Feb—Jun 2024 Final HPS Report& Parking Concepts PC and CC Hearings Aug —Sep 2024 Parking Code Amendments PC Mtg, PC and CC Hearings Oct— Dec 2024 In summary, the City of Lake Oswego requests an extension to December 31, 2024 for adopting code changes implementing CFEC's Parking rules, so that we can coordinate this work with development of our Housing Production Strategy (HPS) under House Bill 2003 (2019). By allowing additional time for our community to consider CFEC's policy options for parking reform together with HB 2003's tools for housing production, we expect to achieve better outcomes for the climate while encouraging the production of needed housing. We appreciate having the opportunity to request more time to coordinate this important work with other critical planning required by the State. Sincerely, Scot gad ke Siegel oa.ezoz;z�963=aaao Scot Siegel, FAICP Community Development Director Cc: Martha Bennett, City Manager Erica Rooney, City Engineer-Public Works Director Erik Olson, Long-Range Planning Manager Kelly Reid, DLCD Regional Representative Encl: HNA/HPS Work Program and Timeline Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 9703EXHIB1IFID-t tUS$ OQ5y PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 3 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program DRAFT PROJECT TIMELINE Preliminary work: [Jun—Oct 2022] City Council Study Session (CC-SS) #1 Jun 21, 2022 Planning Commission Work Session (PC-WS)#1 Jun 27, 2022 HPS Task Force Appointed by Council Oct 4, 2022 Contract Execution Oct 14, 2022 Task 1: [Oct 2022—Jan 2023] PMT—Kickoff Meeting Oct 24, 2022 HPS Task Force Kickoff Meeting (#1) Nov-Dec 2022 Task 1— Drafts Dec 2, 2022 Task 1—Complete Dec 16, 2022 PC-WS#2: Overview and Work Plan Jan 23, 2023 CC-SS#2 Feb 21, 2023 Task 2: [Feb—Nov 2023] Task 2.1—Draft Housing Needs Projection Mar 13, 2023 Task 2.2—Draft Residential Buildable Lands Inventory Mar 13, 2023 HPS Task Force Meeting#2 Late Mar 2023 Community Forum / Public Workshop Event#1 Late Mar 2023 PC-WS#3: Discussion of Task 2 Draft Docs Apr 10, 2023 CC-SS#3: Discussion of Task 2 Draft Docs Apr 18, 2023 Task 2.3—Residential Land Needs Analysis May 22, 2023 Task 2.4—Final Housing Needs Analysis Report Jun 12, 2023 DLCD Public Hearing notice sent Jun 19, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing (PC-PH) Jul 24, 2023 Adoption of Findings Aug 14, 2023 City Council Public Hearing (CC-PH) + Sep 5, 2023 Adoption of Findings Sep 19, 2023 Task 3: [Nov 2023—May 2024] HPS Task Force Meeting#3 Jun 2023 PC-WS#4 Oct 2023 HPS Task Force Meeting#4 Sep 2023 Task 3.1—Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo Nov 13, 2023 PC-WS#4: HPS Alternatives Memo Dec 11, 2023 HPS Task Force Meeting#5 Dec-Jan 2024 Task 3.2—Initial Recommendations Memo Feb 12, 2024 Community Forum / Public Workshop Event#1 Mar 2024 Task 3.3— Refine HPS recommendations May 6, 2024 HPS Task Force Meeting#6 May 2024 Task 3.4— Draft HPS Report Jun 3, 2024 Task 3.5—Final HPS Report Jul 1, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing (PC-PH) +Adoption of Findings Aug-Sep 2024 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 4 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program City Council Public Hearing (CC-PH) +Adoption of Findings Sep-Oct 2024 Task 1—Project Kickoff City staff will work with the selected Consultant to familiarize them with the proposed project and local conditions, providing relevant documents, maps, and history related to the project.The Consultant will work with City Staff to develop and refine a schedule based upon a mutual understanding of project goals and objectives, and will coordinate with City staff to lead a Kickoff Meeting with the HPS Task Force. Subtasks: 1.1 Research and information gathering.The City shall provide the Consultant with relevant background information and documents, maps, and plans, including, but not limited to: • City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, including 2013 Housing Needs Analysis and Economic Opportunities Analysis • Planning permit application data for last 5 years • Residential zone change data for last 5 years • Boones Ferry Road Affordable Housing Initiative—Values Summary(2022) • Lake Oswego Neighborhood Character Report (2021) • Lake Oswego Middle Housing Opportunities Report (2021) • Summary of SB 4006 (2018) Public Meeting on Rent Burden (2019) • Geographic Information Systems data • Lake Oswego Community Development Code (LOC Ch. 50) [Ordinances can be found under the Code's table of contents, "Ordinance Table",following Chapter 60. Click on the PDF icon.] The Consultant shall obtain necessary background information and documents from relevant agencies, including the most recent versions of, but not limited to: • Applicable Metro Regional Population and Employment Range Forecasts • Most recent Metro Urban Growth Management Report • Housing affordability indices, including relevant data from the Housing Authority of Clackamas County and Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services 1.2 Refine project schedule. The Consultant shall work with City staff to confirm the objectives of the project and refine a proposed project schedule. 1.3 Develop plan for public involvement:The selected Consultant will develop a Public Involvement Plan that focuses on how to productively engage housing consumers within the City through methods such as public events, interviews,focus groups, surveys, or other similar efforts. Public engagement shall prioritize underrepresented communities, including renters; low-income households; seniors; people with disabilities; persons of color; immigrant or refugee communities;formerly or currently homeless people; and individuals with limited English proficiency. Page 2 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 5 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program City staff will provide the selected Consultant with a list of groups and organizations that need to be engaged through the course of the project. Public engagement efforts shall build upon the City's previous housing-related outreach related to House Bill 2001 and affordable housing, and should be coordinated with the event(s) required under HB 4006 for severely rent burdened communities. Stakeholders also include those who are currently developing affordable housing in Lake Oswego, including the Mercy Housing Northwest(Marylhurst Commons) and Habitat for Humanity(West Lake Grove townhomes), and others who are assisting the City and Metro in planning for development of affordable housing. See the Boones Ferry Road Affordable Housing Initiative. 1.3 Create outreach materials. The selected Consultant will create graphic and written materials to help educate the community about the goals and objectives of the project, including a description of the basic elements of a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Housing Production Strategy(HPS), and how this planning effort could help improve the availability of needed housing within the community. The City will host a project webpage,with the Consultant being responsible for producing informational materials in a format suitable for use as both website content and handouts. 1.4 Establish Housing Production Strategy Task Force. The City will recruit and appoint members of a Housing Production Strategy Task Force (HPS Task Force) in order to provide guidance throughout the course of the project. 1.5 Host kickoff meeting. Consultant will facilitate HPS Task Force Meeting No. 1 to provide an overview of the project, solicit feedback on the draft public engagement plan, discuss and confirm desired outcomes, and review the project schedule. City staff will prepare minutes for all task force meetings, and the selected Consultant will be responsible for drafting summaries of surveys,focus group discussions, and other engagement opportunities. Task 1 Meetings: • PMT kickoff meeting • HPS Task Force kickoff meeting Task 1 Consultant Work Products: • Project schedule • Public Involvement Plan • Summary of major tasks, including technical memorandums and outreach events • Presentation and other materials for HPS Task Force meeting Task 2—Draft Housing Needs Analysis Subtasks: 2.1 Draft Housing Needs Projection. The Consultant will prepare a draft housing needs projection consistent with OAR Chapter 660, divisions 7 and 8.The housing needs projection will be used to determine the City's residential land need in Task 2.3 and is a baseline set of data that the Consultant will build upon to contextualize current and future housing needs for the Housing Production Strategy (HPS), considering population and market trends. Analysis of contextualized housing needs will include: Page 3 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 6 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program • Socio-economic and demographic trends of a jurisdiction's population, disaggregated by race to the extent possible with available data; • Market conditions affecting the provision of needed housing, including demand for seasonal housing, as applicable; • Existing and expected barriers to the development of needed housing; • Housing need for those experiencing homelessness, using the best available data; • Percentage of Rent-Burdened Households; • Household income; • Household size; • Housing by Tenure (owner vs renter); • Percentage of housing stock that is market rate vs. subsidized; and • Units that are in the development pipeline by housing type and affordability if subsidized. The Consultant will develop a draft of the housing needs projection and a framework outlining the socio-economic and demographic data.The analysis will be vetted with, and draw upon, information gathered through engagement with housing consumers, including underrepresented communities, before being presented at HPS Task Force Meeting No. 2.The Consultant will address HPS Task Force comments and draft a Contextualized Housing Needs Memorandum,which will later become a section of the HPS. The City will review and provide feedback to the Consultant on the draft work products, assist with coordinating and facilitating outreach and engagement, and provide staff support for the HPS Task Force, including preparation of meeting notices, agendas, and minutes for HPS Task Force Meetings Nos. 2 and 3.The Consultant will coordinate all meeting materials, including presentations with the City's project manager and facilitate the meetings.The Consultant should be prepared to present multiple deliverables at each meeting in order to keep the project on schedule. 2.2 Draft Residential Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI):The selected Consultant will prepare a draft inventory of the supply of buildable lands and a determination of the actual density/mix of housing consistent with OAR Chapter 660, Division 8.The draft report shall include map(s) showing vacant, partially developed and redevelopable lands where needed housing is allowed; and an inventory report describing the methodology. The development of the BLI shall be a combined effort between the Consultant and the City with input from the HPS Task Force. It is envisioned that the Consultant will provide technical and other recommendations to refine the draft BLI and ensure that it is consistent with DLCD's Workbook.The City shall provide the GIS resources and staffing to refine the inventory. The City is the lead for coordination with Metro,the County, and DLCD, with the Consultant providing support and participating in meetings with the agencies as needed. The City will schedule and provide notice and an agenda for HPS Task Force Meeting No. 4 to review the draft BLI.The Consultant will coordinate with City on all materials, including the presentation with the City's project manager and facilitate the meeting. 2.3 Draft Residential Land Needs Analysis(RLNA). The Consultant shall prepare a Residential Land Needs Analysis that incorporates local, regional, and state housing and income data and is consistent with and builds upon the methodology described in DLCD's Planning for Residential Page 4 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 7 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program Growth: A Workbook for Oregon's Urban Areas. The RLNA shall project housing units needed by housing type and density over the 20-year planning period, including housing affordable to those earning less than the area median income. The RLNA shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Population Projection/ Base Case Housing Unit Projection—Estimate the additional housing units (type and density) required for a 20-year period. Using a 20-year projection to 2030,the Consultant shall determine a "base case" housing units needs by using the most up-to-date and available information from the US Census, Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census, Metro, and/or other reliable sources. b. Demographic and Economic Trend Analysis—Identify relevant economic and household trends that relate to the demand for different types of housing.The Consultant shall rely on the most up-to-date and available information from the US Census, Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census, Metro, and/or other reliable sources to examine historical demographic and economic trends at the local, county, and statewide level. c. Identify Affordable Housing Types and Allocations—Determine the types of housing that are likely to be affordable to the projected households based on household income. d. Identify Needed Densities by Plan Designation/Zoning District—Estimate the number of additional needed units by structure type. 2.4 Prepare Final HNA Report. Following review by staff and revisions as needed,the consultant will prepare a final draft of the Housing Needs Analysis Report and present it to the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, and City Council.The consultant will summarize HPS Task Force comments on the draft and make any minor updates to the draft following Task Force review. Following public review and comment,the consultant will produce a final version of the HNA Report.The Final HNA Report will contain an Executive Summary and narrative,tables, and maps describing the city's existing housing stock, projected housing needs, and other data, conclusions, and recommendations from the preceding tasks. The Consultant will present the Final HNA report at one public workshop or open house to solicit input from the public. The consultant will coordinate all meeting materials and the presentation with City staff. Task 2 Meetings: • PMT Meetings (5 total) • HPS Task Force Meetings (3 total) • Public Workshop or Open House Task 2 Consultant Work Products: • Draft and Final Housing Needs Analysis Report, including: o Executive Summary o Housing Needs Projection; o Residential Buildable Lands Inventory; Page 5 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 8 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program o Residential Needs Analysis;and o Conclusions and Recommendations. • Presentation and other materials for all meetings Task 3:Housing Production Strategy 3.1 Evaluate existing housing strategies. The consultant will review the policies and other measures already adopted by the City for their effectiveness in promoting the development of needed housing. The City will identify and provide all available information about existing relevant measures.The consultant will also interview key City staff and up to eight(8) housing producers and/or service providers to seek input on existing policies and programs, and potential new strategies for housing.This input will be used to identify strategy alternatives to address the most housing and residential land needs as determined in previous tasks. 3.2 Outline housing strategy alternatives, which shall be summarized in a Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo. The Consultant shall draft a Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo addressing any changes to the City's comprehensive plan, public facility master plans, land use regulations, fees, and other policies and programs, as applicable,that would be most effective in supporting the production of needed housing. For example, the Memo might identify strategies for prioritizing infrastructure investments, amendments to zoning and development standards, and new incentives (regulatory or financial)to encourage the production of needed housing, considering the results of previous tasks. The Consultant will present the Memo to the HPS Task Force in two meetings in order to introduce the housing strategy alternatives and receive input. The consultant will coordinate with the City on all meeting materials and presentations with City staff, and facilitate the HPS Task Force meetings. 3.3 Refine housing strategy recommendations. The consultant will work with City staff and the HPS Task Force to refine the list of alternative housing strategy options developed in Task 3.2 in an Initial Housing Strategy Recommendations Memo, pursuant to direction from the Planning Commission and City Council. The Consultant shall draft a Housing Strategy Recommendations Memo with a refined list of strategies based on input from Task 3.2.The Consultant will also attend and present this Memo at 2 HPS Task Force meetings for review and input in order to develop a preferred list of strategies for inclusion in the HPS. Recommended strategies will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for further direction. The City will schedule and provide notice and an agenda for each HPS Task Force meeting.The consultant will be expected to coordinate all meeting and presentation materials with City staff, and facilitate the meetings.The HPS Task Force may review more than one strategy option at each meeting.The Consultant shall provide a brief paper, case study, or similar written description illustrating each strategy, as generally outlined below. For the strategies that are recommended for inclusion in the City's HPS,the consultant will produce the following for each strategy within the Initial Housing Strategy Recommendations Page 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 9 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program Memo, based on the consultant's evaluation, input from staff, and feedback gathered through outreach and engagement: • A description of the strategy; • Identified housing need being fulfilled and analysis of the income and demographic populations that will receive benefit and/or burden from the strategy, including low- income communities, communities of color, and other communities that have been discriminated against, according to fair housing laws; • Approximate magnitude of impact, including (where possible/applicable) an estimate of the number of housing units that may be created, and the time frame over which the strategy is expected to impact needed housing; • Timeline for adoption and implementation; • Actions necessary for the local government and other stakeholders to take in order to implement the strategy; • Potential cost and funding source options; • Feasibility of the strategy based on a general assessment of opportunities and constraints. 3.4 Draft Housing Production Strategy(HPS)Report. The consultant will prepare a first draft of a Housing Production Strategy Report for City review and feedback.The consultant's analysis will be informed by the recommendations contained in the HNA, and shall be developed in consultation with the HPS Task Force,the Planning Commission, and the City Council before being synthesized into a draft HPS. The HPS Report is to incorporate the results of Tasks 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, including an explanation of how the City's existing measures and final proposed strategies help to achieve fair and equitable housing outcomes, affirmatively further fair housing, and overcome discriminatory housing practices and racial segregation. HPS Report shall include: 1. A qualitative assessment of how the strategies collectively address the contextualized housing needs identified in the HNA and, taken collectively, will increase housing options for population groups experiencing a current or projected disproportionate housing need, including: o Existing City policies, codes, and programs; o Proposed actions; 2. An explanation for any identified needs not otherwise addressed above; and 3. An outline the City's plan for monitoring progress on the housing production strategies. 3.5 Finalize the HPS for adoption as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Following review by staff and revisions, as needed,the consultant will produce a public review draft of the Final HPS Report for review and comment by the HPS Task Force, Planning Commission, City Council, and other interested parties.The consultant will summarize the HPS Task Force comments on the draft and make any minor updates to the draft as required. Following public review and comment,the consultant will produce a final version of the HPS Report. Page 7 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 10 OF 11 City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy Project Timeline and Work Program The City will host one public open house or similar meeting to present and receive feedback on the key strategies outlined in the draft HPS.The consultant will assist staff with the presentation. Task 3 Meetings: • PMT Meetings (4 total) • HPS Task Force Meetings 2 total) • Public Workshop or Open House Task 3 Work Products: • Housing Strategy Alternatives Memo • Initial Housing Strategy Recommendations Memo • Draft and Final Housing Production Strategy Report • Presentation and other materials for public workshop or open house event Page 8 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 11 OF 11 (-440.11) Nur Climate-Friendly and OREGON Department of Equitable Communities Land Conservation q & Development Climate Pollution Change(Light Duty Vehicles) 40% Why this Rulemaking We are here 20% In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a policy and goal to reduce O% Oregon's climate pollution by 75%by 2050.That's what the 1970 1990 2010 20 2050 science calls for,if we're going to avoid catastrophic impacts to -2°% our environment, communities, and economy. -40% Where we're headed —t Oregon's adopted vision Fifteen years later,we're far off track in our efforts to meet those goals — and we're already experiencing real-world impacts of -80% climate disruption,with increasing wildfires,in size, severity, 100% and timing, and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians their homes, and their lives. Oregon is dramatically off-track.If current trends continue,Oregon will release more than 4 times more We're particularly off-track in reducing pollution from transportation pollution than our goal by 2050. transportation, responsible for about 38%of Oregon's climate ' ; pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce transportation pollution by about 2o%by 2050.That means -0+4 - we're polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme weather events, more wildfires,more ocean acidification, and more record heat waves. In response, Governor Brown directed state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and less driving. Meanwhile,the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling history and current patterns of inequity and discrimination, including in our land use, zoning, and transportation _ - _ _ - investment(and disinvestment) decisions.Wealth and health Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean others.This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing more extreme and more frequent weather events past harms. such as heat bombs,droughts,and wildfires. Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched *Portland Metro the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in 'Salem-Keizer September 2020.The commission directed the Department of **Albany Area Land Conservation and Development(DLCD),Oregon's land use Corvallis Area planning agency,to draft changes in Oregon's planning system Central Lane Bend for communities in Oregon's eight most populated areas (see map at right). Middle Rogue The rules require those communities to change their local Rogue Valley transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure The rules apply in Oregon's eight metropolitan Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and areas shown above. don't have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs. The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation,housing, and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated against. What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don't get in the way of more walkable neighborhoods.The rules ask 15 communities to designate climate- friendly areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing.The rules don't require taller buildings,but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly areas, a minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood. Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle transformation,reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning requirements to address critical gaps in our walking,biking, and transit networks.The rules ask communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met. The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want to build it and the market calls for it.There's a lot of demand for housing where people can walk to where they want to go.While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and climate-friendly choices.Those could better meet the changing shape of American households, as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again,people can choose what best meets their needs. Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased emphasis on equity.The rulemaking has worked to integrate _t 3,' equity, starting with the rulemaking charge and title. Equity • �'� • was key as DLCD attempted to have the composition of the `1 advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon's communities, and equity was one of the first tasks tackled by •" � the group. s 's .I- I _ The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at r - ' = . ' many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an Equitable Outcomes Statement to guide the rulemaking 4 *. drafting and implementation.The rulemaking conducted a 1� . ` racial equity analysis of the rules and an analysis on how the 1- ;' ' rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities.The committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item - • ' in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought 1938 Redlining map of Portland.Redlining allowed forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be. white people to build wealth through homeownership. The rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African American people, Indigenous people, People of Color,people with limited English proficiency,people with disabilities,low-income Oregonians,youth and seniors, and more.They require mapping of traditionally underserved populations,local consideration of a set of anti-displacement actions should decisions contribute toward displacement, centering the voices of underserved populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on efforts to engage traditionally underserved populations. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly Areas A climate-friendly area is an area where residents,workers, and ° ` visitors can meet most of their dailyneeds without havingto �' .,. • drive.They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are API y planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing,jobs, businesses, and services.These areas are served, or planned to wit ,� y t. �� t be served,by high quality pedestrian,bicycle, and transit — Y,. - • - infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient • +.q71. — -' �?'. �, , - • connections to key destinations within the city and region. — - i ';. 44 Why are climate-friendly areas important?A key component of ' r -- - Oregon's plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which Oregon already has some climate friendly areas, residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle. pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing Before the automobile became common in American life, cities to drive. grew more efficiently,with a variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working,living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last moo years,the automobile and planning practices have served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate- polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. Climate-friendly areas will help to reverse these negative trends,with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and redevelopment over time. The rules require cities, and some urbanized county areas,with a population over 5,00o within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries.The rules for the Portland Metro area support implementation of the region's 204o Growth Concept.Areas will be sized to accommodate a portion of the community's housing,jobs, and services. Local governments will determine where these areas will be located,but many of these areas will likely be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher densities. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian,bicycle, and transit infrastructure is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options.The rules provide a process for local governments to first identify potential climate-friendly areas,then later to adopt development standards for the areas best-suited for this purpose.The rules provide some minimum requirements for climate-friendly areas,with a set of clear and objective standards that maybe adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of more than io,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop strategies to facilitate desired development. Reforming Costly Parking Mandates Excess parking has a significant negative impact on - ■ + rr --9 at I • Y o■ r housing costs,business costs,the feasibility of housing a , m is _ ,, 1 a development and business redevelopment,walkability, rl '' 'I ell UM '"R air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general , la �M rN i i f as I - community character. Parking mandates force people ; -s• _ I i I r� i' `si who don't own or use cars to pay indirectly for other - people's parking. Carless households tend to be the Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land. poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere, creating incentives to own more cars and drive more. The rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development. The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family housing, and historic buildings.The rules would completely remove parking mandates within one-half mile of frequent transit and three-quarters of a mile of rail stops,where parking demand is lower per unit. The rules give communities options to improve parking management.Those who adopt best practice parking policies would get more flexibility.The rules require cities with over ioo,000 population that choose to continue to mandate off-street parking to eventually charge at least 5o cents per day for io%of on-street parking spots. Getting Ready for Oregon's Electric Vehicle Future • Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon's climate goals. . 4 ' '• 3Pt• _Oregon has a vision where 9o%of new vehicles will be electric by 2035.To 6 -- meet that goal,we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles.The most convenient place to do so is at home,but many Oregonians live in _ older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit. ., Thus,the rules require new housing and mixed-use development with at Building a complete network of EV least five units would include electrical conduit(pipes)to 4o%of spots, charging stations at commercial and ready for adding wiring and charging stations to support electric vehicles as multi family housing locations could the market expands. cut up to 11.9%of climate pollution Planning for a Future of Transportation Options DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of Transportation will provide a range of new and amplified services to help meet 8 greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants,technical assistance,tools, . and publications,to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the 41 ip 11 states climate pollution reduction goals. y , Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use and transportation plans for decades.The updated rules would require local V governments in metropolitan areas to: • Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns,where services are located and less driving is necessary; • Prioritize system performance measures that achieve community livability goals; Transportation options are critical for everyone,but • Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on particularly the roughly single occupancy vehicles, including in walking,bicycling, and transit; one-in-three Oregonians • Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and who cannot drive. • Regularly monitor and report progress. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Planning to Meet Our Climate Goals DLCD's regional greenhouse gas reduction program allows areas to work together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues.The flexible `l °' `` regional planning process allows communities to study economic development, fiscal impacts, resource use,pollution impacts, and the effects of different choices on the state, region, community, or households.The results are Combined Modal Project intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed List leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as they review and update the area's long-range plans and make investment decisions. Unconstrained Project List The rules expand requirements for regional plans to meet the state's climate pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the next Constrained largest metropolitan areas in the state(Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer) Project List initially. Other metropolitan areas will be required to evaluate their local plans towards meeting the state's climate pollution reduction targets and amend their local plans towards meeting the target. Community Engagement 111 We've heard from lots of Oregonians over the past - 't�� eighteen months.We've heard from a 4o-person advisory r mop" • committee including representatives from all of Oregon's Aril impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home I' 10 �t] NH builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking Iriq industry, affordable housing advocates,land use I "R► • advocates, community-based and other community- L. 71s t U r Lir' serving organizations. d pp ill•Siir ' , -�- .00 To supplement those deliberations, staff held two �p separate series of virtual community conversations in Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee 2021 —five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with local elected officials,planning staff, and interest groups. Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies. We've heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of meetings, community conversations,work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds of people who've submitted comments (summary here). Our rules are better for it,having continued to evolve and improve. But the engagement won't end there—the rules require local governments to engage their communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you're interested in these issues,we encourage you to stay engaged. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines Local governments are responsible for implementing the rules.Many of the rules take effect when a community next conducts a major update of its Transportation System Plan(TSP), a community's core document describing its transportation needs and future plans.The rules state most plans should be updated by December 31, 2029.The rules have Salem-Keizer and Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional scenario plans and update their TSPs by the end of 2027. The land use components of the rules have specific deadlines. Communities are asked to study potential Climate-Friendly Areas by December 31, 2023, and adopt Areas by December 31, 2024. Parking reform is scheduled to happen in two phases -the first at the end of 2022, and the second by June 3o, 2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates. DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department.The Oregon Legislature provided $768,00o to assist with implementation on land use, and ODOT has identified another$18 million to assist with transportation plan updates. Learn More Information on how to get implementation updates via email and many additional materials can be found at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvelodlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner cody.meyerodlcd.oregon.gov 971-239-9475 Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner kevin.young(a)dlcd.oregon.gov 503-602-0238 July 2022 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities 1110,4 Implementation Guide DLCD This document provides guidance for cities and counties within metropolitan areas that are expected to implement the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. The information provided in this document are based on the rules adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on July 21, 2022. This guide is for information and is not determinative regarding the content or applicability of the adopted rules. Pages 1-3 contain an overview of the implementation and reporting requirements of the rules. The table of implementation dates on pages 3-8 shows the year in which these requirements become applicable, grouped by metropolitan area. The task summaries on pages 9-12 outline the sections of the Division 12 rules that are involved with the major task groups. Alternative Dates: Cities, counties, or Metro may, optionally, propose alternative implementation dates for some deadlines as provided in OAR 660-012-0012(3). Alternative dates would be submitted to the department, reviewed against criteria, and approved (or not) by the DLCD Director. Alternative compliance dates for Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer metropolitan area would use this process and the work program process for scenario planning in OAR 660-044-0100. Rules whose implementation dates can be modified through this process are in italics in the guide. Division 12 Exemption: The DLCD Director may grant a full or partial exemption from Division 12 to cities and counties with a population under 10,000 within the urban area (OAR 660-012-0055(7)). The exemption must be requested by the jurisdiction. Exemptions granted shall last for a specified period. Major Task Groups Requirements for the implementation of each task are outlined in the schedule. Details of the rules involved with each task are listed after the schedule table. CFA Study—Study potential climate-friendly areas (CFA) (660-012- (code changes not mandatory; may apply 660-012-0430 and 0440 0315). directly). CFA Codes— Designate and make comprehensive plan, zoning map Parking B— Implement parking regulation improvements, and parking and code changes to implement climate-friendly areas (660-012- mandate reform (660-012-0400 through 0450). 0320). TSP Updates—These rules only apply at the time of a major update to Parking A— For new development applications, apply reduced parking a transportation system plan (TSP). mandates near frequent transit and for certain development types Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 1 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 1 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) TPR Development Regulations—Transportation Planning Rules (TPR) HNA— Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) (Also known as a Housing related regulations; required with major transportation system plan Capacity Analysis, or HCA). Update required by OAR Chapter 660-008- updates, no specific update timeline unless indicated. Implement 0045 for cities over 10,000 population. HNA within Metro must be commercial and residential land use regulations (660-012-0330), and updated every 6 years; outside of Metro must be updated every 8 bicycle parking (660-012-630). years. HNA is an additional task that is not part of Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities. Individually Applicable Rules Rules separate from the major task groups and with their own applicability date are listed below and in the schedule. EV Conduit—Cities only; for new multifamily and multi-use development applications, require 40% of spaces have conduit to serve electric vehicle charging (OAR 660-012-0410); implement by March 31, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(d); either directly apply state administrative rules or amend local development standards. Transportation Modeling—transportation modeling or analysis used for a land use decision must comply with OAR 660-012-0210; decision must not increase VMT per capita; effective as of June 30, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(a). Performance Standards— Implement multiple transportation performance standards for plan amendments and development review per OAR 660- 012-0215; effective as of June 30, 2025 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(b). Additional CFA Designations for UGB Expansions is required beginning June 30, 2027 (OAR 660-008-0010(3)). Note: TSP Update and TPR Development Regulations apply to all jurisdictions in the table listed below. The proposed rules do not establish an implementation deadline if 'TSP Update' and 'TSP Development Regulations' are not shown in the schedule. They are not exempt from these requirements. A deadline for these tasks may be established through approval of alternate compliance dates. TPR Reporting OAR 660-012-0900 requires cities and counties outside of Metro to submit yearly reports. The reporting requirements are listed in the row of each metropolitan area (light blue background). The designation of major reports in this guide are based on expected dates of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) updates. The timing of a major report will be as determined by actual RTP adoption (OAR 660-012-0900(5)). The reporting requirement applies to each jurisdiction individually, although jurisdictions may coordinate to submit one report for the metropolitan area. Inside Metro, annual reporting will be completed by Metro (cities and counties within Metro not required to submit individual reports). Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 2 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 2 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Population Growth Climate-Friendly Areas- OAR 660-012-0310(4)(a) and (b) specify CFA compliance timelines for jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds of 5,000 or 10,000. Such jurisdictions must submit a CFA Study within 545 days of exceeding the population threshold, and adopt CFA Codes within 365 days of the deadline for submittal of the CFA Study. Additionally, OAR 660-008-0010(2) requires the designation of additional climate friendly areas as cities over 10,000 grow, in conjunction with required HNA updates. Parking—OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f)(A) allows one year for jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds in OAR 660-012-0400 to comply with the parking rules to which they become subject. Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report Albany Area (5/31)1 (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) pm CFA Study CFA Codes 2028 Albany Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Additional CFA for Wig Parking B Modeling Standards UGB expansions TPR Dev. Regs. after June 2027 Benton County, Linn County, Marion Transportation Performance County Modeling Standards (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Jefferson,Tangent, EV Conduit Transportation Performance and Millersburg Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards i Next expected RTP updates:2022: Central Lane,Corvallis; 2023:Albany,Salem-Keizer;2024: Middle Rogue;2025: Bend, Rogue Valley.TPR major report expected the year following adoption of RTP update. Future RTP updates expected every 4 years. Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 3 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 • TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report Bend Area (major report 2026) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) CFA Codes Additional CFA for CFA Study HNA Performance all UGB expansions Bend Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Standards after June 2027, TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Modeling and with HNA Updates Deschutes County2 Transportation Performance TSP Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs Scenario Plan code Scenario Plan work amendments and Central Lane program (6/30) TPR minor report TPR minor report TSP (12/31) TPR minor report Scenario Plan (5/31) (5/31) TPR minor report (5/31) (12/31) (5/31) (major in 2028) Coburg Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance TSP (2026) Parking B Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs. TSP(2026) CFA Study CFA Codes Springfield ME TPR Dev. Regs. Eugene Eugene 2026 Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Springfield Additional CFA for Parking B Modeling Standards UGB expansions after June 2027 Lane County' Transportation Performance TSP(2026) Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs. 2 Deschutes Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is>5,000. However, Parking A, Parking B, CFA Study,and CFA Codes are not assumed to be applicable because the county does not provide urban services to these areas(OAR 660-012-0310(3);OAR 660-012-0400(1)(b)). 3 Lane Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is>5,000. However, Parking A, Parking B,CFA Study,and CFA Codes are not assumed to be applicable because the county does not provide urban services to these areas(OAR 660-012-0310(3);OAR 660-012-0400(1)(b)). Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 4 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 4 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report Corvallis Area (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) Adair Village Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Parking B Modeling Standards Corvallis 2027 CFA Study CFA Codes HNA Corvallis Performance TSP Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Additional CFA for Philomath Standards TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Modeling UGB expansions after June 2027 Benton County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Standards Middle Rogue TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Gold Hill EV Conduit Transportation Performance Rogue River Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards CFA Study CFA Codes Additional CFA for Parking A Performance TSP Grants Passpm EV Conduit Transportation UGB expansions Parking B Modeling Standards after June 2027 TPR Dev. Regs. Jackson County Josephine County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population Modeling Standards inside UGB) Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 5 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 5 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 202 Rogue Valley TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Central Pt 2027 Ashland HNA CFA Study Central Point VA Codes Ashland 2029 EV Conduit Performance TSP Eagle Point Parking A harking B Transportation Standards HNA TPR Dev. Regs. Medford Modeling Additional CFA for Talent Medford = UGB expansions after June 2027 Jacksonville EV Conduit Transportation Performance Phoenix Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Jackson County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Standards Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 6 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 6 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 Scenario Plan code Scenario Plan (6/30) amendments and TPR minor report Scenario Plan work TPR minor report Salem/Keizer TSP (6/25) (5/31) (major in program (6/30) TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) TPR minor report 2028) (5/31) CFA Codes CFA Study Salem and Keizer TSP Additional CFA for Salem Parking A EV Conduit TPR Dev. Regs. UGB expansions Keizer Performance Parking B Transportation after June 2027 Modeling Standards CFA Codes TSP Marion County Parking A CFA Study Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Performance Modeling Standards TSP Polk County Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Performance Standards TSP EV Conduit Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. Turner Parking A Parking B Modeling Performance Standards Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 7 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 7 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report Portland Metro (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) TPR Rules specific to Metro: OAR 660-012-0140,Transportation System Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area; OAR 660-012-0012(4)(d), Climate- Friendly Area implementation within Metro; OAR 660-012-0900(2),TPR Reporting. Metro UGMFP Metro to establish Non adopters to Region 2040 Centers requirements for adopt Center [various jurisdictions] adoption of Centers boundaries and zoning Durham,Johnson City, Maywood Park, EV Conduit Transportation Performance Parking A Rivergrove, King City, Parking B Modeling Standards Wood Village Beaverton, Cornelius, Fairview, Forest EV Conduit Grove, Gladstone, Parking B Gresham, Happy HNA Beaverton Valley, Hillsboro, 2026: Sherwood, Fairview, Gresham, Forest Grove ME Lake Oswego, Transportation Troutdale,Tualatin; Milwaukie, Oregon Parking A Happy Valley, Modeling Performance 2027: Gladstone, City, Portland, Hillsboro Lake Standards Cornelius,Tigard, Sherwood,Tigard, Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City Troutdale,Tualatin, Portland, West Linn, West Linn, Wilsonville IIIM Wilsonville (10k+) Clackamas County, Transportation Performance Washington County Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Multnomah County' 4 Cities within Multnomah Co. have land use authority for unincorporated areas within UGB. Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 8 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 8 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Task Summaries Parking A Reduced Mandates—OAR 660-012-0430 and OAR 660-012-0440 Effective date December 31, 2022 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e)—applies to development applications submitted after that date; either directly apply state administrative rules or amend local development standards o Reduced mandates for specific developments—cannot mandate more than 1 space/unit for residential developments with more than 1 unit o No mandates for small units, affordable units, childcare, facilities for people with disabilities, shelters o Reform near transit - no parking mandates allowed within % mile of light or heavy rail stations or1/2 mile of frequent transit corridors Parking B Parking Regulation Improvement—OAR 660-012-0405 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) - amend development standards o Preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking o Allow redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses o Allow and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses o Allow and facilitate shared parking o Parking lots more than % acre in size must install 50%tree canopy OR solar panels, solar/wind fee-in- lieu, or green energy per OAR 330-0135-0010; requires street trees and street-like facilities along driveways o Adopt parking maximums in locations such as downtowns, regional or community center, and transit- oriented developments. Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Cities—660-012-0415 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) o Cities >100,000 population, or >25,000 population if in Portland Metro, set certain parking maximums in specified areas o Cities >200,000 population also: ■ Study use of on-street timed parking in CFA and transit areas (OAR 660-012-0435 &0440) ■ Implement parking management before authorizing new 100+ stall parking garages ■ Implement TDM management strategies before authorizing new 300+ stall garages ■ Adopt design requirements so ground floor of parking garage convertible to other uses Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 9 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 9 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Parking Mandate Reform Effective date June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) Option 1 Options 2 and 3 OAR 660-012-0420 OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens—adopt eight land use regulations related to reduced mandates based on factors such as shared parking, solar panels, parking space accessibility, on-street parking; unbundling of parking from rent for multifamily units near transit(OAR 660-012- 0425) Cities with populations 100,000+adopt on-street parking prices equivalent to at least Repeal all 500/day per spot for 5%/10%of total on-street parking supply by September 30, 2023/2025 parking (OAR 660-012-0450; effective dates per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(g)) mandates Parking Reform Approaches within the Choose ONE of the following (option 2-or-option 3) jurisdiction Policies to take effect no later than June 30, 2023 (effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f)) Option 2 Option 3 OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)- OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b) -Adopt regulations Adopt at least 3 of 5 policies below minimizing or exempting required parking for 15 development types(summarized below) no additional 1. Unbundle parking for residential No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small action needed units sites,vacant buildings, studio/one bedrooms, 2. Unbundle leased commercial historic properties, LEED or Oregon Reach Code parking developments, etc. 3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for redevelopments/additions. businesses with more than 50 employees Adopt parking maximums. 4. Tax on parking lot revenue No parking mandates within % mile walking distance 5. No more than %space/unit of Climate-Friendly Areas. mandated for multifamily development Designate district to manage on-street residential parking. Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 10 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 10 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly Areas CFA Study CFA Codes OAR 660 012 0315 OAR 660-012-0320 via OAR 660-012-0315(6) Due December 31, 2023 per Due Date December 31, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(c) OAR 660-012-0012(5)(b) • CFA location and size standards per Required for all CFAs: OAR 660-012-0310(2) • Allowed uses per OAR 660-012-0320(2) • >10,000 population • Inclusion of existing abutting residential and employment zones Dwelling Unit Capacity of at least 30% without zoning amendments per OAR 660-012-0320(3) of current housing needs analysis (OAR • Prioritization of public buildings, open spaces per OAR 660-012- 660-012-0315(1); capacity calculated 0320(4) per methodology in OAR 660-012- • Block length maximums per OAR 660-012-0320(5) 0315(2) • Address other development regulation requirements per OAR • Population 5,000-10,000 660-012-0320(7) Designate at least 25 acres of CFA (OAR • Eliminate mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt 660-012-0315(3)) parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily • Displacement analysis,fair and units (OAR 660-012-0435) equitable outcomes plan, and Housing and Employment Targets narrative summary of public OAR 660-012-0320(8) or(9) engagement (OAR 660-012-0315(4)) Option A Option B Residential minimum Standards other than Option A density standards and proposed by jurisdiction that achieve allowed building height not target dwelling unit and employment less than specified by OAR per acre 660-012-0320(8) Transportation System Plan Update • TSP updates may use OAR 660-012-0015 if OAR 660-018-0020 is notice provided by December 31, 2022 (OAR 660-012-0012(2)(a)). • Minor TSP updates need not meet all updated requirements If the updated portions of the plan meet new requirements, and OAR 660-018-0020 notice is provided by June 30, 2027(OAR 660-012- 0012(2)(b)). • Compliance deadline for Eugene-Springfield and Salem -Keizer determined by OAR 660-044-0015 Scenario Planning. • Cities and Counties over 5,000 population and outside the Portland metropolitan areas must adopt major TSP update by December 31, 2029 (OAR 660-012-0012(4)(a)). Generalized Scope and Process • Overall TSP update requirements (OAR 660-012-0100 and 0105) • Public Engagement and Equity o TSP Planning Engagement generally (OAR 660-012-0120) o Equity and Underserved Populations (OAR 660-012-0125, identifying underserved populations; OAR 660-012-0130, Decision-Making with Underserved Populations; OAR 660-012-0135, Equity Analysis) Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 11 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 11 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) • System Inventories and Existing Conditions o General inventory requirements (OAR 660-012-0150) o Transportation System Planning Area (OAR 660-012-0110) o Land use assumptions (OAR 660-012-0340) o Modal inventory requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0505); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0605); Transit (OAR 660-012-705); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0805) o Funding projections (OAR 660-012-0115) • Goals, Targets, and Project Prioritization o VMT Targets— base year and horizon year (OAR 660-012-0160) o Adoption of Transportation Performance Standards (OAR 660-012-0215) o Project Prioritization (OAR 660-012-0155) • TSP Contents o Modal design and planning requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0510); Bicycle (OAR 660-012- 0610); Transit (OAR 660-012-710); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0810) o Modal projects: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0520); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0620); Transit (OAR 660-012- 720); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0820) o Transportation Options Planning (OAR 660-012-0145)—transportation demand management, transit options and incentives o Enhanced review of select roadway projects (OAR 660-012-0830) —for facilities that may increase driving capacity o Prioritization framework (OAR 660-012-0155) o Unconstrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0170)—combination of modal projects; must meet VMT per capita targets from OAR 660-012-0160; Project Prioritization Framework (OAR 660-012-0155) o Financially-Constrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0180) ■ Created from unconstrained list per procedures in OAR 660-012-0180(3) ■ Sum of projects on list not to exceed 125% of funding available from OAR 660-012-0115 Transportation Planning Rule Development Regulations Land use requirements(OAR 660-012-0330) Effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(e)—TSP Adoption note—implementation of OAR 660-012-0330 within a CFA is required upon adoption of CFA Zoning(OAR 660-012- 0320(7)) • Neighborhood circulation (OAR 660-012-0330(3)) • Mixed use and commercial districts (OAR 660-012-0330(4)) • Bicycle parking regulations in compliance with OAR 660-012-0630(OAR 660-012-0330(4)(g)) • Slow streets for neighborhoods(OAR 660-012-0330(5)) • Auto-oriented land uses (OAR 660-012-0330(6)) • Allow for Low car districts (cities of 100k+, OAR 660-012-0330(7)) • Protection of transportation facilities (OAR 660-012-0330(8)) Implementation Guide July 21,2022 Page 12 of 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 12 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor ' State of Oregon _, /859 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 DIRECTING STATE AGENCIES TO TAKE ACTIONS TO REDUCE AND REGULATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WHEREAS, climate change and ocean acidification caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are having significant detrimental effects on public health and on Oregon's economic vitality,natural resources, and environment; and WHEREAS, climate change has a disproportionate effect on the physical, mental, financial, and cultural wellbeing of impacted communities, such as Native American tribes, communities of color, rural communities, coastal communities, lower-income households, and other communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes, who typically have fewer resources for adapting to climate change and are therefore the most vulnerable to displacement, adverse health effects,job loss, property damage, and other effects of climate change; and WHEREAS, climate change is contributing to an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires in Oregon, endangering public health and safety and damaging rural economies; and WHEREAS, the world's leading climate scientists, including those in the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, predict that these serious impacts of climate change will worsen if prompt action is not taken to curb emissions; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less as necessary to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change impacts, and remaining below this threshold requires accelerated reductions in GHG emissions to levels at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and WHEREAS, Oregon, as a member of the U.S. Climate Alliance, has committed to implementing policies to advance the emissions reduction goals of the international Paris Agreement; and WHEREAS, GHG emissions present a significant threat to Oregon's public health, economy, safety, and environment; and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 1 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor F oQ State of Oregon °3 _/859 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE TWO WHEREAS, the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy resources can significantly reduce emissions and increase energy security and the resilience of Oregon communities in the face of climate change; and WHEREAS, emissions from the transportation sector are the single largest source of GHG emissions in Oregon; and WHEREAS, actions to reduce GHG emissions in Oregon's transportation sector will provide substantial public health co-benefits by reducing air pollutants from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel that are harmful to human health; and WHEREAS, the rapid transition from internal combustion engines to zero-emission vehicles will play a key role in reducing emissions from the transportation sector and advancing the state's GHG emissions reduction goals; and WHEREAS, zero-emission vehicles provide multiple benefits to Oregonians, including lower operating, maintenance, and fuel costs, and lower emissions of GHGs and other pollutants; and WHEREAS,the Legislature established ambitious goals for the adoption of zero- emission vehicles in Senate Bill 1044 (2019); and WHEREAS,rapid actions and investments by Oregon's utility sector to reduce GHG emissions and improve the resilience of the energy system in the face of climate change and wildfire risk can reduce risks for utility customers;and WHEREAS,transitioning the traditional natural gas supply to renewable natural gas can significantly reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS,energy efficiency standards in the built environment can reduce operating costs, save renters and homeowners money on their utility bills, improve the comfort and habitability of dwellings, and reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS,product energy efficiency standards reduce costs for consumers, save energy, and reduce GHG emissions; and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 2 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor ' OF 1 State of Oregon ,85.9 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE THREE WHEREAS, in the absence of effective federal engagement on these issues, it is the responsibility of individual states to take immediate actions to address climate change and ocean acidification; and WHEREAS, after thorough hearings within the Oregon Legislature, a majority of both chambers support addressing climate change, and the failure of the Oregon Legislature to attain quorum has thwarted legislative action to achieve science- based GHG emissions reduction goals; and WHEREAS, given the urgency and severity of the risks from climate change and ocean acidification, and the failure of the Legislature to address these immediate harms, the executive branch has a responsibility to the electorate, and a scientific, economic, and moral imperative to reduce GHG emissions and to reduce the worst risks of climate change and ocean acidification for future generations, to the greatest extent possible within existing laws; and WHEREAS, existing laws grant authority to state agencies to take actions to regulate and encourage a reduction of GHG emissions in a variety of circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Legislature through the Emergency Board took action on March 9, 2020, to provide permanent funding to the executive branch to pursue executive action on reducing GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, considering climate change in agency planning and decision making will help inform decisions regarding climate change risks and avoid higher mitigation and adaptation costs in the future; and WHEREAS, all agencies with jurisdiction over the sources of GHG emissions will need to continue to develop and implement programs that reduce emissions to reach the state's GHG goals; and WHEREAS, all agencies with jurisdiction over natural and working landscapes in Oregon will need to prepare and plan for the impacts of climate change and take actions to encourage carbon sequestration and storage; and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 3 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor 0 State of Oregon : ``/Z 1859/ EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 • PAGE FOUR WHEREAS, the Legislature previously established the goal of achieving GHG levels"at least 75 percent below 1990 levels" by 2050, and our State has an urgent, moral obligation to set and achieve more ambitious GHG reduction goals. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED AND ORDERED: 1. State Agencies. The following state commissions and state agencies are subject to the directives set forth in this Executive Order: A. Business Oregon; B. Department of Administrative Services (DAS); C. Department of Consumer and Business Services Building Codes Division (BCD); D. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)and Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC); E. Environmental Justice Task Force; F. Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); G. Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA); H. Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE); I. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); J. Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF); K. Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) and Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC); L. Oregon Global Warming Commission; M. Oregon Health Authority (OHA); N. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD); O. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB); and P. Public Utility Commission of Oregon (PUC). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 4 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) �., Office of the Governor OF State of Oregon /859 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE FIVE 2. GHG Emissions Reduction Goals. Consistent with the minimum GHG reduction goals set forth in ORS 468A.205(1)(c), this Executive Order establishes science-based GHG emissions reduction goals, and calls for the State of Oregon to reduce its GHG emissions (1) at least 45 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2035; and (2) at least 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. 3. General Directives to State Agencies. From the date of this Executive Order, the state commissions and state agencies listed in paragraph 1 are directed to take the following actions: A. GHG Reduction Goals. Agencies shall exercise any and all authority and discretion vested in them by law to help facilitate Oregon's achievement of the GHG emissions reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order. B. Expedited Agency Processes. To the full extent allowed by law, agencies shall prioritize and expedite any processes and procedures, including but not limited to rulemaking processes and agency dockets, that could accelerate reductions in GHG emissions. C. Agency Decisions. To the full extent allowed by law, agencies shall consider and integrate climate change, climate change impacts, and the state's GHG emissions reduction goals into their planning, budgets, investments, and policy making decisions. While carrying out that directive, agencies are directed to: (1) Prioritize actions that reduce GHG emissions in a cost- effective manner; (2) Prioritize actions that will help vulnerable populations and impacted communities adapt to climate change impacts; and (3) Consult with the Environmental Justice Task Force when evaluating climate change mitigation and adaptation priorities and actions. D. Report on Proposed Actions. The following agencies are directed to report to the Governor by May 15, 2020, on proposed actions within their statutory authority to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change impacts: DEQ, DLCD, ODA, ODOE, ODFW, ODF, ODOT, OWRD, OWEB, and PUC. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 5 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) OF O Office of the Governor ,F_ of on Na� z State Oreg EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE SIX E. Participation in Interagency Workgroup on Climate Impacts to Impacted Communities. The Governor's Office will convene an interagency workgroup on climate impacts to impacted communities to develop strategies to guide state climate actions, with participation by the following agencies and commissions: DEQ, DLCD, ODA, ODF, ODFW, ODOE, ODOT, OHA, OWEB, OWRD, PUC, Environmental Justice Task Force, Oregon Global Warming Commission, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and Oregon Sustainability Board. 4. Directives to the Environmental Quality Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, the EQC and DEQ are directed to take the following actions: A. Oregon's Clean Fuel Standards. Pursuant to its authority under ORS 468A.265 et seq. and other applicable laws, the EQC and DEQ shall take actions necessary to amend the low carbon fuel standards, and the schedule to phase in implementation of those standards, with the goal of reducing the average amount of GHG emissions per unit of fuel energy by 20 percent below 2015 levels by 2030, and 25 percent below 2015 levels by 2035. B. Clean Fuel Credits for Electrification. The EQC and DEQ are directed to advance methods accelerating the generation and aggregation of clean fuels credits by utilities that can advance the transportation electrification goals set forth in Senate Bill 1044 (2019). C. Sector-specific GHG Cap and Reduce Program. Pursuant to its authority under ORS 468A.005 et seq. and other applicable laws, the EQC and DEQ shall take actions necessary to: (1) Cap and reduce GHG emissions from large stationary sources of GHG emissions, consistent with the science-based emissions reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order; (2) Cap and reduce GHG emissions from transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel, consistent with the science-based emissions reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order; and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 6 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor A F 0�� State of Oregon /859� EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE SEVEN (3) Cap and reduce GHG emissions from all other liquid and gaseous fuels, including natural gas,consistent with the science-based emissions reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order. D. Regulation of Landfill Methane Emissions. The EQC and DEQ shall take actions necessary to reduce methane gas emissions from landfills, as defined in ORS 459.005(14), that are aligned with the most stringent standards and requirements for reducing methane gas emissions from landfills adopted among the states having a boundary with Oregon. E. Reduction of Food Waste. The EQC and DEQ are directed to take actions necessary to prevent and recover food waste, with the goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030, to reduce GHG emissions resulting from such waste, including but not limited to engaging with states and other jurisdictions,industry,food retailers, and brand manufacturers to develop and implement strategies to prevent and recover food waste. F. Timeline and Implementation. (1) No later than May 15, 2020, DEQ shall submit a report to the Governor regarding an estimated timeline for rulemaking necessary for implementing the directives of paragraph 4(A)—(B) and paragraph 4(D)—(E), above. (2) DEQ shall submit a preliminary report to the Governor by May 15, 2020, regarding program options to cap and reduce emissions from large stationary sources, transportation fuels, and other liquid and gaseous fuels that can commence no later than January 1, 2022. A final report shall be due by June 30, 2020. (3) Reports submitted pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Executive Order also should detail DEQ's plans to engage impacted communities during the rulemaking process, in a manner consistent with ORS chapter 183. 5. Directives to the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3,the PUC is directed to consider the following factors and values, consistent with state law: PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 7 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor y State of Oregon "' :JZ EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE EIGHT A. Statement of Public Interest. It is in the interest of utility customers and the public generally for the utility sector to take actions that result in rapid reductions of GHG emissions, at reasonable costs, to levels consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order, including transitioning to clean energy resources and expanding low carbon transportation choices for Oregonians. B. Regulatory Considerations. Executive Order 00-06, which ensures that the PUC maintains its independence in decision making, is reaffirmed. The directives in this Executive Order are consistent with Executive Order 00-06. When carrying out its regulatory functions,the PUC is directed to: (1) Determine whether utility portfolios and customer programs reduce risks and costs to utility customers by making rapid progress towards reducing GHG emissions consistent with Oregon's reduction goals; (2) Encourage electric companies to support transportation electrification infrastructure that supports GHG reductions, helps achieve the transportation electrification goals set forth in Senate Bill 1044 (2019), and is reasonably expected to result in long-term benefit to customers; (3) Prioritize proceedings and activities, to the extent consistent with other legal requirements, that advance decarbonization in the utility sector, and exercise its broad statutory authority to reduce GHG emissions, mitigate energy burden experienced by utility customers, and ensure system reliability and resource adequacy; (4) Evaluate electric companies' risk-based wildfire protection plans and planned activities to protect public safety, reduce risks to utility customers, and promote energy system resilience in the face of increased wildfire frequency and severity, and in consideration of the recommendations made by the Governor's Council on Wildfire Response 2019 Report and Recommendations; PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 8 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) OF O. Office of the Governorl{, State of Oregon J z 859� EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE NINE (5) Convening periodic workshops for purposes of assisting electric companies, consumer-owned utilities, and operators of electrical distribution systems to develop and share best practices for mitigating wildfire risk; and (6) In cooperation with Oregon Housing and Community Services, establish a public process to address and mitigate differential energy burdens and other inequities of affordability and environmental justice, including rate design and other programs to mitigate energy burden. 6. Directives to the Department of Consumer and Business Services Building Codes Division. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, BCD is directed to take the following actions: A. Energy Efficiency Goal for New Construction. BCD, through its advisory boards and committees, and in cooperation with ODOE, is directed to adopt building energy efficiency goals for 2030 for new residential and commercial construction. That goal shall represent at least a 60 percent reduction in new building annual site consumption of energy, excluding electricity used for transportation or appliances, from the 2006 Oregon residential and commercial codes. B. Code Progress and Updates. BCD,through its advisory boards and committees, and in cooperation with ODOE, is directed to evaluate and report on Oregon's current progress toward achieving the goal for new residential and commercial buildings,pursuant to paragraph 6(A) of this Executive Order, and options for achieving steady progress toward the goal over the next three code cycles (2023, 2026, and 2029). Pursuant to its authority under ORS 455.500, BCD also is directed to update the Reach Code on the same timeline. No later than September 15, 2020, BCD should submit a report to the Governor on current progress and options for achieving the goals over the next three code cycles. The report should be updated every three years thereafter. C. Baseline Metrics and Reductions. BCD, in cooperation with ODOE, is directed to agree on metrics, based on best practice and academic research, to inform the baseline and reductions associated with the code updates set forth in paragraph 6(B). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 9 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) i o F Office of the Governor . �Q Q i C`I �F � DI State of Oregon /85. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE TEN 7. Directives to the Oregon Department of Energy. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, ODOE is directed to take the following actions: A. Energy Efficiency Standards. ODOE is directed to pursue emissions reductions by establishing and updating energy efficiency standards for products at least to levels equivalent to the most stringent standards among West Coast jurisdictions, including grid-connected appliances that can be utilized to manage end-use flexible electrical loads. ODOE also is directed to periodically evaluate and update those standards, as practicable, to remain at least equivalent to the most stringent standards among West Coast jurisdictions. B. Rulemaking. ODOE is directed to take actions necessary to establish and update energy efficiency standards for products sold or installed in Oregon that include but are not limited to the following: (1) High CRI fluorescent lamps; (2) Computers and computer monitors; (3) Faucets; (4) Shower heads; (5) Commercial fryers; (6) Commercial dishwashers; (7) Commercial steam cookers; (8) Residential ventilating fans; (9) Electric storage water heaters; and (10) Portable electric spas. C. Timeline. Any rulemaking necessary to implement the directives set forth in paragraph 7(B) should be completed by September 1, 2020. D. Third-Party Validation for Cost Savings. ODOE, in cooperation with BCD, is directed to contract with a third party consulting firm to assess cost implications, including long-term energy cost savings, of the energy efficiency and building code actions set forth in paragraph 6(A)—(B) of this Executive Order. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 10 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor ' F oQ State of Oregon Z00 I /859 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE ELEVEN 8. Directives to the Department of Administrative Services. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, DAS is directed to take the following actions: A. Procurement Model for Zero-Emission Vehicles. DAS is directed to develop a statewide policy and plan for state agencies to follow for procuring zero-emission vehicles, which local governments and special government bodies may use as a model program for furthering adoption of zero-emission vehicles for their fleets. The model program shall provide for a rate of procurement of zero- emission vehicles consistent with the findings and goals set forth in ORS 283.398 and the provisions of ORS 283.327. The model program may provide for DAS to participate in, sponsor, conduct, or administer cooperative procurements in accordance with ORS 279A.200 to ORS 279A.225, under which DAS, local governments, and special government bodies may procure zero- emission vehicles. B. GHG Implications of Contracting. DAS is directed to review existing state procurement laws and practices to identify potential improvements that can reduce GHG emissions,consistent with the GHG reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order. DAS shall provide a report to the Governor no later than September 15, 2020, detailing options. C. GHG Reduction Goals and Electrification Goals. DAS is directed to support the state in meeting the GHG reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order, and the zero-emission vehicle adoption goals set forth in Senate Bill 1044 (2019), through the rapid conversion of state fleets to zero-emission vehicles, and the expansion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure for public buildings. DAS shall provide a report to the Governor no later than September 15, 2020, detailing its plan. 9. Directives to the Oregon Transportation Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, Land Conservation and Development Commission,Environmental Quality Commission,and Oregon Department of Energy. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 11 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) OF O Office of the Governor -t4 State of Oregon . ,859 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE TWELVE A. In a letter from the Governor, dated September 23, 2019, the OTC, LCDC, EQC, and ODOE were directed to prioritize implementation of the Statewide Transportation Strategy, adopted by the OTC. Those agencies are further directed to include the following elements in their implementation of the Statewide Transportation Strategy: (1) Establishment of GHG emissions reduction performance metrics; and (2) Amendments to the Transportation Planning Rule that direct changes to the transportation plans of metropolitan planning areas to meet GHG reduction goals. B. ODOT and DLCD are directed to identify and implement means to provide financial and technical assistance to metropolitan planning areas for amendment to transportation and land use plans that meet the state GHG reduction goals, or more stringent goals adopted by a metropolitan planning area. C. Implementation of the directives set forth in paragraph 9(A)—(B) shall be at the highest level within the agencies,with regular and direct reporting to the Governor. The first report shall be made to the Governor no later than June 30, 2020. 10. Directives to the Oregon Department of Transportation. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, ODOT is directed to take the following actions: A. In consultation with DEQ, ODOE, other appropriate state agencies, and public utilities, ODOT is directed to conduct a statewide transportation electrification infrastructure needs analysis, with particular focus on rural areas of the state, across use types and vehicle classes, to facilitate the transportation electrification goals set forth in Senate Bill 1044 (2019). The study should be completed no later than June 30, 2021. B. ODOT is directed to develop and apply a process for evaluating the GHG emissions implications of transportation projects as part of its regular capital planning and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program planning processes. ODOT shall provide a report on the process to the Governor no later than June 30, 2021. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 12 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) _OF Office of the Governor State of Oregon /:59 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE THIRTEEN 11. Directives to Oregon Health Authority. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, OHA is directed to take the following actions: A. OHA is directed to deliver a report to the Governor,the Oregon Global Warming Commission, and the Environmental Justice Task Force no later than September 1, 2020, on the public health impacts of climate change in Oregon, with particular emphasis on the risks faced by vulnerable communities, including Oregon's nine federally recognized Native American tribes, communities of color, low income communities, and rural communities. OHA is directed to update the report annually. B. OHA is directed to study the impacts of climate change on youth depression and mental health in Oregon and deliver a report to the Governor no later than June 30, 2021. C. OHA and the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are directed to jointly develop a proposal for standards to protect workplace employees from exposure to wildfire smoke and excessive heat. The proposal should be completed no later than June 30, 2021. 12. Directives to Oregon Global Warming Commission. In addition to the general directives set forth in paragraph 3, the Global Warming Commission is directed to take the following actions: A. In coordination with ODA, ODF, and OWEB, the Oregon Global Warming Commission is directed to submit a proposal to the Governor for consideration of adoption of state goals for carbon sequestration and storage by Oregon's natural and working landscapes, including forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands, based on best available science. The proposal shall be submitted no later than June 30, 2021. B. Consistent with its reporting requirements in House Bill 3543 (2007), the Oregon Global Warming Commission shall also include reporting on progress toward the GHG reduction goals set forth in paragraph 2 of this Executive Order, and the zero-emission vehicle adoption goals set forth in SB 1044 (2019). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 13 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) Office of the Governor State of Oregon "' '/%/_/ �f 5/ EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 20-04 PAGE FOURTEEN 13. Effectiveness. This Executive Order will remain in effect unless and until it is superseded by statute or another Executive Order. Done at Salem, Oregon, this I 04' day of March, 2020. 4J.,,_ N5 ‘A/ Ai Kate Brown GOVERNOR i 4* ATTEST: '`n 41y, .. P P ''to ** 'le- -12,4`,/,yz _‘‘__!i_11'_'--' , ei 4351 Bev Clam V� SECRETARY OF STATE PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 14 OF 14 EXHIBIT D-1 (LU 24-0025) 0 p4 E�s� MEMORANDUM V 15 OREG ) cl TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) Work Session #2 DATE: September 13, 2023 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED This memo provides background for the Commission's September 25 work session, during which a representative from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will provide an overview of the purpose of the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules for parking reform, and staff will address questions from the Commission that were raised during their July 24 work session. Staff will also provide an update on the direction received from City Council during their September 5 study session on CFEC parking reform. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2023, the Commission held a work session to receive an update on the City's compliance with initial phases of CFEC, and to learn more about the different options for compliance with Phase B of the CFEC parking reform requirements. A summary of this information can be found in Attachment E. During their July 24 work session, the Commission raised a number of questions related to the CFEC rules, including questions related to the original purpose of parking requirements, whether other cities have removed parking requirements, the relationship between reduced parking requirements and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the legal implications of requiring "unbundled" parking, and whether accessible parking may be required. See Parking Reform Questions, below, for background information and responses to these questions. On September 5, 2023, the City Council held a study session to receive a presentation from Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner at DLCD, with an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules for parking reform (see Attachment A). Council also provided direction to staff on a Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 2 of 19 proposed work plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the CFEC parking rules by December 31, 2024. During this September 5 study session, City Council directed staff to primarily explore a potential Citywide repeal of parking requirements under CFEC Parking Phase B—Option 1. Several Council members stated a preference for a market-based approach to the provision of parking spaces in new developments, noting that the real estate market in suburban Lake Oswego provides developers with a built-in incentive to provide parking spaces in order to make their developments attractive to renters or buyers. Given that Lake Oswego is primarily a car-oriented city with limited transit access, several Council members felt that parking spaces would be included in any successful development, regardless of whether they are required, due to the market preference to provide parking spaces in the city. Several Council members also expressed support for the simplicity of Option 1, which would advance City Council goals to streamline the development code and provide a clear set of easy-to-comprehend and consistently-applied parking regulations that would be straightforward to implement. Some Council members expressed interest in supplementing this approach with responsive parking management in areas of the City where available parking spaces may be limited. Other Council members expressed interest in offering parking-related incentives to developers to provide infrastructure that supports City sustainability and accessibility goals, such as solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, or fully-accessible dwelling units. REVIEW OF PHASE B REQUIREMENTS Parking Regulation Improvement [OAR 660-012-0405] Baseline requirements for compliance with Phase B of CFEC parking reform — referred to as "Parking Regulation Improvements" —are outlined in OAR 660-012-04051. Attachment F includes implementation guidance from DLCD for the Parking Regulation Improvements outlined in OAR 660-012-0405. Regardless of the eventual option selected for compliance with the remainder of Phase B, all Parking Regulation Improvements must be implemented in order to comply with the CFEC rules. As discussed in Attachment E and at previous work sessions, these Parking Regulation Improvements require the City to: allow for the redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses; allow and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses; require that surface parking lots more than ' acre in size have either 40%tree canopy, include green energy technology, or include solar panels; require street trees along driveways or a minimum of 30%tree canopy coverage over parking areas; and require the provision of pedestrian facilities between buildings and pedestrian-oriented rights-of-way. Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301177. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 3 of 19 The City is likely already in compliance with provisions requiring the preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking, allowing redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for transit uses, allowing and facilitating shared parking, and establishing off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments. Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities [OAR 660-012-0415] Additional requirements for CFEC Phase B compliance related to parking maximums are outlined in OAR 660-012-04152, which specifies that cities with greater than 25,000 population in the Portland metro area — including Lake Oswego— must set certain parking maximums in climate-friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers, as well as on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR J60-012-04403 (see Attachment J). Attachment G includes DLCD guidance related to the "Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities" requirements outlined in OAR 660-012-0415. Similar to the Parking Regulation Improvements rule, there are limited options for compliance. Staff notes that, under Metro's existing Functional Plan requirements, Lake Oswego and other Metro area cities already implement parking maximums in such areas, in compliance with the parking maximum-related rules in OAR 660-012-0405(5). However, additional code amendments will be necessary in order to fully comply with the provisions in OAR 660-012- 0415, including establishing parking maximums for multi-family residential uses and new regulations to specify that—for land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area — surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building. Parking Reform Options [OAR 660-012-0420 through 0450] Further requirements for compliance with Phase B of CFEC parking reform are outlined in OAR 660-012-04204 through 660-012-04505. In general, these rules require the City to reform existing parking mandates based on the three following Parking Reform Options: (Staff Memo continues on next page) 2 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301178. 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293034. 4 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293030. 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 4 of 19 Option 1 Options 2 and 3 660-012-0420 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens—reduced mandates based on shared parking, solar panels, EV charging, car sharing, parking space accessibility, on-street parking, garage parking. Must unbundle parking for multifamily units near frequent transit. May not require garages/carports. Climate-friendly area parking—remove mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily units Repeal Cities pop. 100,000+adopt on-street parking prices for 5%of on-street parking parking spaces by September 30, 2023 and 10%of spaces by September 30, 2025 Option 2 Option 3 mandates enact at least three of five policies all of the below 1. Unbundle parking for No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small residential units sites,vacant buildings, studios/one bedrooms, 2. Unbundle leased commercial historic buildings, LEED or Oregon Reach Code parking developments, etc. No additional 3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for changes in use, action needed businesses with more than 50 redevelopments, expansions of over 30%. employees Adopt parking maximums. 4. Tax on parking lot revenue No mandates within 1/2 mile walking distance 5. No more than % parking of Climate-Friendly Areas. space/unit mandated for Designate district to manage on-street residential multifamily development parking. Source:CFEC Parking Reform Overview,DLCD,November 16,2022. Option 1 offers the simplest route to compliance, and would require the City to repeal all parking requirements in the Development Code. Options 2 and 3 are alternative routes that would both allow the City to maintain parking requirements but would require the City to impose an extensive list of additional restrictions on those requirements. Option 1— Repeal All Parking Requirements As mentioned above, Option 1 would require the City to repeal all parking requirements in the Development Code. Such a policy would represent a significant shift for the City, as the City's parking standards in LOC 50.06.002 have only expanded in scope since they were originally adopted in 1961—over 60 years ago (Ordinance 781). However, staff notes that the City has already complied with DLCD's rule that eliminates required parking within one-half mile of Bus Line#35 (see Attachment J). This compliance effectively eliminated parking requirements throughout most of the west side of Lake Oswego, including significant portions of the Birdshill, First Addition-Forest Hills, Foothills, Evergreen, Lakewood, Old Town, Hallinan, Glenmorrie, and Skylands neighborhoods, as well as a small portion of the McVey-South Shore neighborhood. Thus, Option 1 would primarily entail the removal of parking requirements in the City's 17 other neighborhoods, in addition the EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 5 of 19 neighborhoods listed above, including those areas that are more than one-half mile from Bus Line #35. As described in Attachment D, there are now eight Oregon cities that have repealed parking mandates citywide in compliance with CFEC Option 1: Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Tigard, Bend, Albany, Central Point, and most recently Beaverton. While parking requirements no longer exist in these areas, development codes nonetheless allow developers to voluntarily provide parking, and staff still expects that developers in Lake Oswego would provide parking spaces even where they are not required. Per Attachment D: Most builders in communities without parking mandates still provide some parking with new developments. Some of them provide less than previously mandated, or provide it off-site. Others provide more than previously mandated, as their market analysis or lenders indicate that's what their customers want. This is how builders currently act;for example, a student focused development on the edge of Corvallis provided 2.7 spaces per unit, higher than mandated. The concept of reducing local parking requirements is not new, and such policy has been implemented in cities throughout the world with the intent of reducing housing costs, increasing business development, and producing more climate-friendly outcomes. Attachment M provides the following rationale for reducing local parking minimums: Excess parking has a significant negative impact on housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing development and business redevelopment, walkability, air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general community character. Parking mandates force people who don't own or use cars to pay indirectly for other people's parking. Carless households tend to be the poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size- fits-all requirement everywhere, creating incentives to own more cars and drive more. Compliance with Option 1 would involve a relatively straightforward code amendment to repeal the City's existing parking requirements, with no further action required to comply with the remaining Phase B CFEC parking options. Option 1 would have a Citywide impact by all eliminating parking requirements— including those for both residential and commercial uses—applying to all neighborhoods in the City the same, rather than having parking requirements apply sporadically throughout the City under Options 2 and 3. Figure 1, below, depicts the extent of the impact of Option 1 on parking regulations for commercial uses throughout the city, in the areas where commercial is allowed as a primary use. Also see Attachment P for larger size maps of Figures 1-8, below. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 6 of 19 Figure 1 - CFEC Option 1 Commercial Parking Requirements 1 , jai I \ ` 411 ir(.1.4- ,1„.•-• 5 plit Whi: 1 ..31-4 f II AO : : it , Itilliglir .Th8itakEmilipimi, i: , : . VT* Ai 4 Id ��� _�i., li , , ,2",i ilta. _„.. _ ..,...,, .. ... , / lb .°\—\s I—.`"j` Y11_M'1 W1PI.I117R-P_;i eI-cI.I_qV&4.aM0r.1°L k r-• da1.-a d. b04kW40' /DWPJW4I4itIEfAt1 i1 " ♦ ra. .eft ! 1 . ,_ 441704 LA. --.........:,.... mg 44 -, 4 4111 campir-: 0-go inza, ser-- ___. ima....2..4.- ..„- .......- o - N'..-- At. � 7 frTP 11P'i ailL-Ok' . 4,'\ llir i , rFi.1 .4 ,/.4 PAIL.6-7 .0044 .. , , _ ,ir.. . ... ,.,.., _ __. a .' ' 1:- Tfr, ' rits% \ ,.. „gigmes,: Mr ins Et - • .di ,,„.. - 4. - or 1 iiipp, arci pm f tb St. 061 -.- 'vim •,,,,, City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform ,.! ' �' - -' Commercial Option I.Repeal Parking Mandates Citywide "W IncI r 0. ..41I ` No Parking Required ___r Limns for Commercrai Use 0 0.25 0.5 eln { r Urban 5ervkes Commercial Nor Permoned e �� 1 O BourMary as Primary Use Figure 2, below, depicts the impact of Option 1 on residential uses throughout the City. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 7 of 19 Figure 2 - CFEC Option 1 Residential Parking Requirements U l , LEax'---;I-lb' 'iiJ iv . I ,t,r it' ila k !ir!,gE r1 h01IM1-,6 - 1 IIIiNrAl. .a11t„r,44101ksw 1-. .-1,I iyjt t;:i go1. tr . l,, .1 „AnaA , ,i tsa i� -uailb.mrarti t,*. e�; may , � ������, , �; 4: - NO glimpiWw4"1" liwpor wollbelip. . Adrai.P.Ar—tir :'i up Inn .U� herAltir �: :illi% 0 •• ke_, sr J4t o r. �i _A Pfresi4 1 14W i 4101"44114 "M. Ail 111- • 4)16 ' ir „Au__. litiv 7 ��� Ra,. dirigiimr 4117 flePartri ..41railut: reas% ..‘; ...., \ /-Atardien . City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform _-� '� ' � -�- Residential Option I Repeal Parking Mandates Citywide r Ir��� r C, .,y, r--',City i___,Limits Residential Use ,L,„_ __,___.!. _ Not Permitted 0 D 25 0 5 OUrban Services No Parking Required Mae Boundary tor Residential Use Requirements for both Options 2 and 3 Under either Option 2 or 3, CFEC rules require compliance with all eight land use regulations in OAR 660-012-04256. As discussed in Attachment E and at previous work sessions, the City already complies with three of these eight provisions, but would need to adopt new regulations related to: allowing required parking to be provided off-site (within 2,000 feet pedestrian travel of a site) and to reduce parking requirements for the provision of solar panels or wind power, dedicated car-sharing spaces, electric vehicle charging stations, or dwelling units that are fully- accessible to people with mobility disabilities. Additionally, the CFEC rules for Options 2 or 3 in OAR 560-012-0435(2)7 require the City to either remove minimum parking requirements within and % mile from designated climate- friendly areas (CFAs)—which, for Lake Oswego, include the Downtown Redevelopment Design District and the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay Districts—or adopt parking management policies within those areas. Both of the options for compliance with OAR 660-012-0435(2) 6 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301179. Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301180. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 8 of 19 would require the City to modify existing parking policies, either through the reduction of parking requirements in targeted areas or through the adoption of a new parking management program. Option 2— "Fair Parking" Approach The CFEC rules for Option 2— referred to as the "Fair Parking" approach — require the City to implement at least three of the five provisions in OAR 660-012-044_` (a)$. As discussed in Attachment E and at previous work sessions, this option would require the City to adopt new regulations related to either requiring "unbundled" parking, requiring that flexible commute benefits be offered by employers of 50 or more employees, establishing a tax on commercial parking lots, or reducing parking requirements for multifamily residential development. Figure 3, below, depicts the impacts of Option 2 on parking regulations for commercial uses throughout the city, in the areas where commercial is allowed as a primary use. Figure 3 - CFEC Option 2 Commercial Parking Requirements ` iv, i meveliwill10 . Tv • v lid "be , IL,Is -.:11 'VII 1 *y .►` 6 Irr I64 S1i4lt%111 11Yr tliAiitstV 2il -L_ % e0ita h:k PN ?,: a, i1 l Pk‘:!1'.7 3 ,ail , , T'En141141W6Tab,Wo 11,4bir . Irativegiforel.k---vp 0 7mpriri. . air et Nil rq � _._ �'�i fW Cam:..,1..P...,i..,tt-I INNv#,v*-'-4..,./,sv-."� vro i/,.,i 1,4,i.i 1"E, A,V1 .,i)l f p". r ' • P 61. __15 kV *, City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform � * _' ' r \ I Commercial Option 7:Fair Parking i(l4 Bus Rare r---r City No Parking Required Commercial Na Permitted r �35 s r Limits for Commercial Use as Primary Use DRDD I LGVC^ Full Commercial 0 0.25 0.5 ' 1 Overlays ` 1 USB Parking Requirements -Mile ,,,... 8 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 9 of 19 Compliance with Option 2 would have differing impacts on residential uses throughout the city depending on which option is selected under OAR 660-012-0435(2)9—either the removal of minimum parking requirements within and near designated CFAs, or the adoption of parking management policies in those areas. Option 2(a) involves a decision to remove parking requirements within and 1/4 mile from designated CFAs, per OAR 660-012-0435(2)(a). Option 2(b) involves a decision to instead adopt parking management policies in those areas, per OAR 660-012-0435(2)(b). Figures 4 and 5, below, depict the different impacts of Options 2(a) and 2(b) on parking regulations for both commercial and residential uses throughout the cit„,$,y. Figure 4- CFEC Option 2(a) Residential Parking Requirements �d, ,i., , i4111 iøk r r; mis MI' rigillia 41 ill INC'Sin 'Mi t t - , ' % : lairi _41 ;IL °\� .1 •*Weane. '� - , •-. :1af i1�r��,,, ,TIC ,Truilliallitit, .all Alb& ----- iNvokasessy1S-14# 0. 110:: il -,--.. wilriii6.- w4 lid,I iirI ' illeiVs' gli .211: : L.„A PINAA 1 1 o 1 1„ „iglip$02,- twk ,<\ P linalitICAP16°. / • „awl. 114:12...gt • N\- 11 -mWe ' / Iti, .06„ ,,,„ „,....264.--„,..„,..,, 111,-- .. . , I Kt' 1111101 110 \ 4_....,.. AK -411 I W i Ater41 / _ I�� ..,nth- L. �� .,. �.4.,„ "410,412altel ' ' ffiF g ow. i r _111P4PIC ‘/ , --.1simaiCity of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform wit . . �,� Residential Option 2(a):Fair Parking with Reduced Mandates in , l�I IJIJ --- Cimate Friendly Areas Bus Route -.City No Parking Required Res dential Use e35 ___ Limns lop Residential Use Nor Permitted L"I+w. { M.., DRDD 1 LGVC One Required Parking 0 025 0.5 O Overlays O USB Space per Dwelling Unit -"le 9 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301180. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 10 of 19 Figure 5 - CFEC Option 2(b) Residential Parking Requirements ipri 7.--4--1131 1 1 11/ 07 - w Ili) mill?* —wMi t*fl irt, _ Cjl:a,r•ifit•tIl bi sw:ir f: ,„V • 1 '' — -L � ��� it �i r\ d� � '�� ,� *I NO____ IP ., 1911.1111p"ars, 1 ..gliagraVeti 1 Wij v. • I ah ANVIL 111 1 4 k ._ , _ .. . iimpg,qtgapritlik, . - - w. - _ 41„,_„„,tv....._ -...... vi, ,,,,,, ' I, ., . m., (45.-,.... .,„.. . ..,, ,„.„._ . . ,_vic-4\ 1 1 . - ?a.AIWANNIIII Loo .....004•164imr,v, - /ill ; ,,i .4 traiartalr7 0- *1- f 1/Air In .a „i il,uni*_.'_..FP70111-_ ,,tit-_-- te t h; 4 ifitipi 0l. i1P ifiOlf, 1 ri". .0 �•� , e Ar ,v 4.1040__; ,, 0- ulielir ,„ 4.161fires , . s 410. , gir:IF IA iiimi ., 1 '411� iia ' ��( City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform i> �P r V Residential Option 2(6).Fair Parkng with Additional Parking Management t", . I r- i ' _ Bus Route r 1 City No Parking Regwred One Required Parking 11 s35 i___t Limits for Residential Wl Use Space per DwellNo U er nit ORDD!LGVC Space Required Parking Residential Use Not Permitted -+•,w L J OverWys O USB per Dwelling Unit 0 0.25 0.5 -Mile Option 3 — "Reduced Regulation Parking Management" Approach The CFEC rules for Option 3— referred to as the "Reduced Regulation Parking Management" approach — require the City to implement all 14 of the provisions in OAR 660-012-0445(b)10 Generally speaking, this option would require the City to adopt code amendments to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for several types of development, uses, and locations, including: • Eliminating all parking requirements within and % mile from designated CFAs, which include the Downtown Redevelopment Design District and the Lake Grove Village Center for Lake Oswego; and • Eliminating parking requirements for mixed-use development, group quarters (dormitories, religious group quarters, adult care facilities, retirement homes, and other congregate housing), studio or one-bedroom units in multifamily residential developments, schools, bars and taverns, historic buildings, smaller commercial '°Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 11 of 19 properties, the redevelopment of vacant buildings, changes of use that result in additional required parking, the expansion of existing businesses, developments built under the Oregon Residential Reach Code, and developments seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification; Additionally, Option 3 would require the City to implement at least one pricing mechanism for parking, either through the designation of a residential parking district or through requiring "unbundled" parking for multi-family residential units. Figure 6, below, depicts the impacts of Option 3 on parking regulations for commercial uses throughout the city, in the areas where commercial is allowed as a primary use. Figure 6 - CFEC Option 3 Commercial Parking Requirements iirr -.Pc, .4,, U , dip ' Wil taille t...it g j 1.11' 12:1114 MIK 11414. 11,...... 411 : --etalin fli Rns,,,ost ., ,,.-41114,,, , , larir MA Fil Via 4 k A‘Nria kE r-1 ' =Ill MI "PM K ,, , ,.: ,, itird4oter - ih-ga,„,--- & - ' - _ .. i'rtr 0 ....\ , „..,.., nd., __,,,_.: EN. „fp.. 4,, .4:$1-r h i Alm* i � �1r ghtig A ,'mil + air %�! �i ,� 4 fit. e ih..,4,„ielii. : vp • II r ,nriaHr*.-_, 1Vaplan \. •p Lr e , i' / Lake .h �7 41 ,~ Iti A, lrO S4ir‘I' i elv PI 4S e V iwrAAtf i.m h� la aIt 11 ilk - � Irl , Or „AM: liPw to ,spor _ lle i rim, a .. % 41 -J- r ARO': . le, ,,,(.. v. , City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform Q�� .Or '--. r" �- ': i ' ar -1 Commercial Option 3:Reduced Regulation Packing Management �;jy '?_, i r 'f Bus Route ,---r City No Parking Required Commercial Not Permitted L7 _ r r35 ---r Limits Far Commercial Use as Primary Use .il.q� . DRDD!LC.VC^ Full Commercial 0 025 0.5 Overlays f 1 U58 Parking Requirements .Mile Compliance with Option 3 could have slightly different impacts on residential uses throughout the city depending on which option is selected under OAR 660-012-0435(2). Option 3(a) would involve a decision to remove parking requirements for residential use within and % mile from designated CFAs, per OAR 660-012-0435(2)(a). Option 3(b) involves a decision to instead adopt parking management policies in those areas, per OAR 660-012-0435(2)(b). Figures 7 and 8, EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 12 of 19 below, depict the different impacts of Options 3(a) and 3(b) on parking regulations for residential uses throughout the city. Figure 7 - CFEC Option 3(a) Residential Parking Requirements —7"—IFIrmilmweirgumr ,, . \ / 1_ 74-7W ti. - . . , ,,,,,,„,firt : 1!I1F!L 44 ti" ,21,k„1► . I- -E... W--..,r,:',,-05- .—iki'e:.A4blk.T;9kv-4.ie1l/11i0l.:.n aalfFrii r11..17ti.i.:.11l It �•� al;.„.„.i1ir/t.4ti...fV to7 1 i moo► ".Adi4 11—Allll grgir. LI11117 I r v% . 1.1P - 040 \\ — .0.411 IF I qilbell targrAAAr /ft Ihi o.meg°, A, .1.",,*,..1 4k .isi I / 11401W01,41/170111ilzwip: 21--# 1101‘..., ' w arK OVS- t 1i 'i / 4 .��ew isio r1.14 .61A,Iiil Mk �, . MST [041,i'.*44" ...,:. ► ( ...tE, ...,...) e , t •P'' +li - 8 Wil.... „, City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform ' I ! 'i Residential Option 3(a):Reduced Regulation Parking Management • 1 I r with Reduced Mandates in Climate-Friendly Areas ,,V / r 1 II Ic Bus Route -- t City No Parking Required Residential Use I tr �35 ---r Limns for Residential Use Not Permmed DRDD/LGVC One Requited Parking 0 0 25 0 5 .- sA• Overlays O USB S.ace.er Dwell, .Unit CIMtle. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 13 of 19 Figure 8- CFEC Option 3(b) Residential Parking Requirements I �'1_ " `� ,l� EN� �7�L� , 1 4all ' i . -2- ,.... 1*.rhipe....,_., : : .Amit 1111—.K.'2 ØL • _, , Lc-„-L\_i Ill I..L_-m- _ :J\\\j _t/.,/\, %J t.d, iJ.ilrai;t /_ • t rr♦tt.0 eiwl.. rt1,'. ik.irr4, .4 w,1 *1 of 1 A k ., )4,____ it . I. .. I 440g11401,80 me n • . . 1....lemolvbi ihp ___ v-ar-4110141 LA -mom _ ....4-• ifr,_ 4. � / ��kV `,, .s- .1.11. 171 . - tilgir _ il t'a t,girl L.4.a 4 it. voissis 4, Li list , ' e i ri Aatt0A -•-'p a mi r/ k - il` �i\Arittliii 1 -- , AIL-2 . r Au," it. ' *4di \ Alms L; . Iv 4,-1 PhiritiliWillabliiMnk -14k aa. ' 11i1 i City of Lake Oswego-CFEC Parking Reform ��, I 0 Residential Option 3(b):Reduced Regulation Parking Mgnx w/Add!Parkng Mgmt. \1`! - Bus Route r -r Cay No Parking Required Residential Use i,r1 1 . '6 *35 k___i Limns for Residential Use Not Permitted r ,DRDD/LGVC ii One Required Parking 0 0.25 0.5 L J Overlays ' J USB Space per DwelNng Unit Mile Staff notes that Option 3 would require eliminating all parking requirements within and % mile from designated CFAs, regardless of which option is selected under OAR 660-012-0435(2). Thus, it would be easy to comply with a requirement to remove all parking requirements within and mile from designated CFAs per OAR 660-012-0435(2)(a). Accordingly, under Option 3(b), parking management regulations would be adopted in addition to the removal of parking requirements within and % mile from designated CFAs. PARKING REFORM QUESTIONS During their July 24 work session, the Commission raised a number of questions and topics for further exploration related to parking reform. The section below includes background information and initial responses to a selection of these questions. What Was the Original Purpose of Parking Requirements? According to Attachment 0, excerpted below, the origin of minimum parking requirements in land use planning is somewhat of a mystery: EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 14 of 19 Where do minimum parking requirements come from?No one knows. The "bible"of land use planning, F. Stuart Chapin's Urban Land Use Planning, does not mention parking requirements in any of its four editions.11 The leading textbooks on urban transportation planning also do not mention parking requirements.12 This silence suggests that planning academics have not seriously considered—or even noticed—the topic. This academic neglect has not prevented practicing planners from setting parking requirements for every conceivable land use. Figure 1 shows a small selection of the myriad land uses for which planners have set specific parking requirements. Without training or research, urban planners know exactly how many parking spaces to require for bingo parlors,junkyards, pet cemeteries, rifle ranges, slaughterhouses, and every other land use. Figure 1 Selected Land Uses With Minimum Parking Requirements Asylum Indoor Soccer Facility Rifle Range Bingo Parlor Junkyard Slaughterhouse Convent Kennel Taxi Stand Diet Clinic Landfill Ultra-Light Flight Park Exterminator Massage Parlor Veterinarian Fraternity Night Club Wastewater Treatment Gunsmith Oil Change Shop Zoo Horse Stable Pet Cemetery Source:Selected from the minimum parking requirements for 179 land uses in Planning Advisory Service(1991.3) Richard Willson (1996)surveyed planning directors in 144 cities to learn how they set parking requirements. The two most frequently cited methods were "survey nearby cities"and "consult Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbooks."Both strategies cause serious problems... Attachment B includes a legislative history of the original adoption of parking requirements in the City of Lake Oswego, which were adopted along with a new zoning ordinance on November 21, 1961. This history includes several Council and Planning Commission meetings where the adoption of off-street parking requirements was discussed, though no explicit rationale for the parking requirements could be located in the legislative record. This history included the following exchange regarding the feasibility of compliance with the proposed off-street parking requirements during a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on November 1, 1961: City Attorney called to the attention of the Council and the Planning Commission the off- street parking requirements stating that it is impossible to comply with, and that he has no solution to offer. 'See Chapin (1957, 1965),Chapin and Kaiser(1979),and Kaiser,Godschalk,and Chapin (1995). 'See Dickey(1983), Hanson (1995), Meyer and Miller(1984),and Papacostas and Prevedouros(1993). EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 15 of 19 /// It was the consensus of all concerned that the off-street parking problem must be solved by establishing some standard that has flexibility.. A subsequent City Council meeting was held on November 17, 1961, to establish a more flexible off-street parking standard and resolve other remaining issues with the proposed zoning ordinance. Per Attachment B, the proposed off-street parking requirements remained as-is following this discussion, and were not modified prior to the adoption of the 1961 Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance. Are There Other Comparable Cities that Do Not Require Parking? As described above in Option 1— Repeal All Parking Requirements and in Attachment D, there are now eight Oregon cities that have repealed parking mandates citywide in compliance with CFEC Option 1: Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Tigard, Bend, Albany, Central Point, and most recently Beaverton. Attachment L also notes that the cities of Minneapolis, MN, Fargo, ND, Buffalo, NY, San Diego, CA, Los Angeles, CA, and Seattle, WA have eliminated parking mandates, in addition to the following communities throughout the world: Alameda, CA Calgary, AB Jackson, TN Raleigh, NC Albermarle, NC Cambridge, MA Kingston, ON Raleigh, VA Ann Arbor, MI Canandaguia, NY Lunesurg, NS Richmond, VA Auburn, ME Dover, NH Mancelona, MI River Rouge, MI Bandera,TX Dunwoody, GA Mason City, IA Sacramento, CA Bastrop,TX Ecorse, MI Mexico City Saranac Lake, NY Berkeley, CA Edmonton,AB Minneapolis, MN Seabrook, NH Berlin, Germany Fayetteville, AR New Zealand South Bend, IN Boston, MA Greensboro, NC (metro areas) Spartanburg, SC Boston, MA Hartford, CT Norman, OK St Paul, MN Branson, MO High River,AB Ottowa, ON Toronto, ON Bridgeport, CT Hudson, NY Peoria, IL What is the Relationship between CFEC Rules and GHG Emissions? The CFEC rules are intended to reduce GHG emissions resulting from transportation by reducing the amount of vehicle miles travelled. Per Attachment M, the rules are in part intended to, "ensure Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and don't have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs." Per Attachment K, there are numerous studies that show a relationship between the availability of "free" or "copious" parking and increased car ownership and driving. Attachment K also references studies showing that household decisions about car ownership and parking are influenced by parking availability. The idea is relatively simple: reducing parking requirements can have the effect of reducing the demand for car ownership and use, EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 16 of 19 particularly for short trips or trips to areas well-served by transit. Such reductions in car ownership and use would in turn result in reduced GHG emissions. The State of Oregon measures GHG emissions pursuant to ORS 660-044-003013—Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Emissions Reductions. The state uses the Oregon Transportation Emissions website14 to monitor the progress of the Statewide Transportation Strategy, including their progress in reducing GHG emissions through reductions in vehicle miles travelled (VMT), based on data gathered from federal, state and local governments and commercial sources. State agencies also directly gather data related to VMT, vehicle registration counts, fuel costs, what type of means people use to travel, EV charging infrastructure availability, public parking costs, and other information in order to track this progress. Can the City Legally Require Unbundled Parking? Compliance with Option 2—the "Fair Parking" approach —would require the City to adopt regulations requiring that any parking provided for 5+ unit residential development and commercial development be "unbundled"—or separately leased/sold —from the development for which the parking was provided. Unbundled parking" is defined in OAR 660-012-000515(57): "Unbundled parking"means a requirement that parking spaces for each unit in a development be rented, leased, or sold separately from the unit itself. The parking space(s) must be rented, leased, or sold at market rates for comparable local off-street parking. The renter, lessor, or buyer of the unit must be allowed to opt out of renting, leasing, or buying the parking space. Attachment H includes implementation guidance from DLCD regarding unbundled parking. DLCD advises local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance regulating the rental, lease, and sales agreements for unbundled parking, as well as code amendments requiring new development to unbundle parking. No laws were cited by DLCD that would preclude cities from adopting such policies or requirements, nor were any identified by City staff. Attachment H also clarifies that cities, "should establish a process for the jurisdiction to determine a minimum rate(s) for unbundled parking and for distributing that information to affected landlords and tenants." DLCD recommends that these minimum rates be established based on a survey of monthly parking rates for off-street parking lots or garages, with adjustments for geographic distance from the parking facilities surveyed. DLCD also advises that these minimum rates be re-evaluated at a regular interval through a staff-level process that does not require action from the Commission or City Council. 13 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293065. 14 Available at https://www.oregontransportationemissions.com/. 1s Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=292987. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 17 of 19 Can the City Require Accessible Parking? The Commission expressed concerns regarding the City's ability to ensure that accessible- or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant parking is made available for people with a disability, given the reductions in required parking under CFEC. These concerns are addressed in Attachment I, which outlines potential approaches that local jurisdictions can take regarding accessible or ADA-compliant parking. Per Attachment I: Oregon law sets a floor and a ceiling of how much accessible parking cities and counties can require (ORS 447.23316). That statute includes a table of ADA parking in relation to total parking spaces provided[excerpt next page], and required the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) to integrate that table into the state building code (OSSC 1106.117). This means when parking is provided, ADA parking spaces are required for most housing other than single unit, duplex, and townhome development (OSSC 1106.318). Table of Required ADA parking from ORS 447.233: Required Required Required Minimum Number Mininnun Number of Total Parking Minimum Number of of Van "Wheelchair User In Lot Accessible Spaces Accessible Spaces Only"Spaces 1 to 25 1 1 - 26 to 50 ? 1 - 51 to 75 3 1 - 76 to 100 4 1 - 101 to 150 5 - 1 151 to 200 6 - 1 201 to 300 7 - 1 301 to 400 8 - 1 401 to 500 9 - 2 501 to 1.000 2'/0 of total - 1 in every 8 accessible spaces or portion thereof 1.001 and over 20 plus 1 for each - 1 in every 8 100 over 1.000 accessible spaces or portion thereof State building code has additional requirements for hospital, rehabilitation, and physical therapy facilities. 16 Available at https://codes.findlaw.com/or/title-36-public-health-and-safety/or-rev-st-sect-447-233.html. 17 Available at https://up.codes/viewer/oregon/ibc-2018/chapter/11/accessibility#1106.1. 'Available at https://up.codes/viewer/oregon/ibc-2018/chapter/11/accessibility#1106.3. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 18 of 19 Under all these codes, the number of required ADA spaces is driven by how much parking is built, not zoning ordinance requirements... Attachment I also addresses the potential impact of CFEC on ADA parking: Cities and counties have not been able to require more accessible parking than prescribed in state law, even before the CFEC rules adoption. The amount of ADA parking spaces that must be provided is still based on the number of parking spaces in the parking lot. Repeal of parking mandates does not alter the applicability or enforcement of that law. The CFEC rules explicitly exempt ADA parking from parking mandate reduction (OAR 660012-0005(29)), thereby retaining the ability of cities and counties to require ADA parking even when other parking mandates are limited. For developments with off-street parking, local governments must still require new developments to build off-street ADA parking spaces per ORS 477.233. The main impact of mandate repeals is that developments will provide ADA spaces based on the total number of parking spaces they chose to build rather than the total number they would have been forced to build. If a development does not include an off-street parking area, the local governments may still require one off-street ADA parking space, and additional spaces per the ORS 477.233 table. Additional Questions and Requests Staff notes that the Commission had additional questions and requests at their July 24th work session that are not addressed in this report. These questions related to the relationship between reduced parking mandates and vehicle idling and the extent to which the City is required to enforce parking management requirements under the "Reduced Regulation Parking Management" approach (Option 3). The Commission also requested an analysis of the pros and cons of the different options under consideration. While staff was unable to locate conclusive data related to the relationship between reduced parking mandates and vehicle idling, there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue further with the representative from DLCD at the September 25 work session. Staff will more directly analyze the pros and cons of the different options for compliance with Phase B of the CFEC parking reform rules at a future work session. This analysis will include a brief discussion related to the enforcement of parking management regulations, in addition to a discussion of the other pros and cons related to parking management. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Page 19 of 19 ATTACHMENTS A. DLCD Presentation —Oregon's Parking Reforms, 09/05/2023 B. Legislative History—Original Adoption of Parking Requirements in Lake Oswego, 08/16/2023 C. CFEC Project Schedule, 08/21/2023 D. Sightline Institute article, "Parking Mandates Are Vanishing Across Oregon," 07/20/2023 E. Staff Report—CFEC Work Session #1, 07/14/2023; due to document size, please find the document online at: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2515055&dbid=0&repo=CityO fLakeOswego F. DLCD Handout- Guidance on OAR 660-012-0405, Parking Regulation Improvements, 05/25/2023 G. DLCD Handout - Guidance on OAR 660-012-0415, Parking Maximums, 04/27/2023 H. DLCD Handout - Guidance on Unbundled Parking, 04/27/2023 I. DLCD Handout— Potential Approaches to ADA Parking, 02/22/2023 J. CFEC Parking Phase A Map, 01/01/2023 K. DLCD Handout - Parking Supply, Car Ownership, and Driving Rates, 11/02/2022 L. DLCD Handout - What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced, 10/04/2022 M. DLCD Handout - CFEC Program Overview, 07/21/2022 N. DLCD Handout - CFEC Implementation Guide, 07/21/2022 0. Donald C. Shoup, "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements," 12/09/1999 P. CFEC Parking Reform Maps, Figures 1-8 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) ,yam +i*:w '.t: : _. } w,, S- _. • .43 . , , *041 01, :---- --_-_-„=== _.: S: „.. . 4 . j . . ,, IMIlimeivii.. .. 0 . L.. rJ ` EP ' - - -1'^fit.: '`•'4 _7 1. .„ • Oregon 's ; ; �� • i51O.IPTE tt .Parking - . . 4; � _ , • Iiir Reforms _ k ,. -111 ' Lake Oswego :7__ '- t_i.-.1% ' \''''' ''' '24411 Evan Manvel limate Mitigation Planner PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Key point No mandated p does not mean No parking provided II- •PaArg Spam P.•U•at . ,. eiliipdigigiabbLit ..'s' .' '''' F tob z -" -- - - _ 13th and Olive in Eugene Los Angeles downtown Edge Corvallis student built two new 700 stall builders provided average housing providing parking garages even 1.2 parking spaces/unit 2.7 spaces/unit Example of concrete paving beyond the though none was required after reduced regulations (2.56 mandated) driveway apron to. provideadditionalparking— Kamiakan Street in Council Creek Subdivision EXHIBIT D-2-(LU 24-0 25) Why Parking Reform Matters Opportunity Cost and Land Cost Sightline 1 I 25'-0" • 12'-0" 4J h' —1 1 r . . ---- , 7 1 . .1 1 o ,_ I` I b ) o .'. ,l N Ii- • LL . -;! 10 - ' r r cl- __, 1.,.-. : .-. ... . . . . .. -. = . . . ..____ 1 `63 r . ty Li IL � 7 c 1....i. . . � . I. .' ' . . Ib I o b I: 1 / l_ .o : J r, r O � I� , I N tO III. 1 IN A d U I \ ) p 1 . IJ 00 L Jb-........ - J 00 ---- 8'-6" ❑❑ I- I I I 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT 1 .5 PARKING SPACES 900 FT2 INCLUDING AISLES 488 FT2 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Olympia , WA 54% of land in commercial sites for parking Site coverage, typical commercial Parking development - - • _ 54% Data City of Olympia.WA �'— and WA Dept of Ecology • • Streets and Sidewalks 7% Landscaping 13% Building 26% . 11 • 1T D-2 (LU 24-0025) How Much Landis Used Corvallis , OR alleys 0. 1% buildings, OSU included 12.8% 11 % for parking building interiors 0.0% 10% for roads buff 1.0% decks 0.7% driveways, gravel 0.2% Los Angeles, CA 14% forparkingdriveways, paved 3. 1% Parking parking lot, gravel 0.9% 11 /o 10% for roads parking lot, paved 6.3% p ° ALLSPACC, ath 1.4�0 s 2010 road, gravel 0. 1% Illtt 'k roads, highway 0.9% Roads g Y 10% X road, paved 8.7% PARKING SPACES ' f . ' - per SQUARE MILE -� • sidewalk 2.4% „ 190-970 - i 970 3oo 000 —� Total Area Corvallis at 14.3 mil zaa0-3z —7,200-4,700 j... •4 111111 =4,700-6,900 - `V :6'9°°-"'°°° EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) /- r rii ...: Most cities -_ „,„ ,. .. .,t,., .0,t ! w.I , , • : 3� T.. ii. 2 IT. - { '-7_Li_ t have a ,7 i„,,, ,-, , i IR ! I r. ': ® - -ill u 2 -_r,i8 41 111 - 1 • parking `.. �, �sNIN Y _ -ram •- a•� management _ . . _, i - I444-...10"---1. •4-4/iit-,' 1 :g- .;‘: , - ' . . •4 -.' "It * " ._ _.problem, not , � � . . _ -- . .7f1-,_..-4,1.0. , r•p,. ,'i_.• ) . m, .: m,, mit, a parkingj _ _ ; _.. 1 i ..fi • 1 supply _ I! Ats I elli'3114:. 17i' , c , , , shortage _ , I '- Min l .. ;• r Vivi -- T • ' EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) How Much Does Parking Cost and What Does that Effect? Building a Parking Space (not including land cost and opportunity cost) Eugene : $42,000/space parking garage (2018) Corvallis : $ 11 , OOO/Space surface (including land) $62,000/space garage (including land, debt) Surface off-street: $ 1 , 500 - $ 12,000 Residential garage : $ 15,000 - $50, 000 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Parking 's Share of Housing Costs Litman (2019) : 10-20% of Total Housing Cost Gabbe and Pierce (2016) : 17% of Rent Choice : House Cars or House People ? Oakland , CA : mandate for one space/unit costs per apartment increased 18% ; 30 % fewer units built w . 4E- A '^ " .e : :r f -- • _ yz ._ W -a • r S ^' r I' • - ‘ ' +111641, 44. e..c. i .xet.- 0. ..,?, . ., . 6 or . .,4...141 • _.! '`4 ' Ar.e, . . , i v4 I it ........ 4, _ .,.•• _ . 74,0 , • v. , , Z.Ilt%- r t 7 , I s, a-+ II - ' , to ", ,� - , . • .. .,,,,„,.... :,. IBU.','' ill ' ' II: :•' . t • . . '� ' r Code Proposal Olt- , 18TH & WILLAMETTE a _ . _ : Max units 2 4 INTEGRATED FOURPLEX + 1 BEDS + 2 BEDS 4 UNITS 1 BUILDING 1 LOT Parking 1 /unit 0.75/unit Reducing parking mandates means two more Eu ene housing units could be supplied by the market EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) OPINION I COMMENTARY WALL STREET JOURNAL America Needs More Houses "exclusionary zoning laws— like minimum lot Parkingsizes, mandatory parking requirements and prohibitions on multifamily Y housing— have g have inflated costs and locked families out of areas with more opportunities." May 16, 2022 Suzanne P. Clark president/CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Brian Deese director, White House National Economic Council NT A/PAGE 13 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 13 Affordable Housing Development (King County WA) one space/unit leasing costs + 12 . 5% two spaces/unit leasing costs +25% Parking means cities build fewer affordable housing units How Much Built Parking is Unused ? ParkingOversupplied . MultifamilyDevelopments King County: 40% avg. unused Bay Area : 28% avg. unused Albany, OR: 30% avg. unused Hillsboro : 25% avg. unused Demand Versus Supply Built Parking Ratio Market Adjusted Demand -'rue Parking Demand Ratio 2.25 2.25 Briar Creek 2.00 1.97 99 :.85 2.00 Supply: 1.50 I 1sa 1.71 ' 6' 1./s 1.75 1.5 - Demand: 1.27 1.7siii Family Sites -iJ.46 y 1.5013fi 0.91 =� 1.50 C 1.25 • 1.071.25 D 1.2 Villa Capri Amb�rwood 1.0oi 1.oa Supply: 1.30 Sierra West Supply: 1.95 0.75 ID.7s715 Demand:0.95 �-a■ Supply: 1.54 Demand: 1.45 oso0 9Tarkington Square Demand: 1.29 Supply:0.54 Sunset Gardeo.2s I I o.2s c>3 Demand:0.44 Supply: 1.75 0.00 0.00 a)E 0.6 Demand: 1.30 �.. cc . a Maples N YI W .. ~ SiW N ! i s s i Y W WW W W W N w W ■F- Supply:0.61 °` ` ` ` °` ` ` a = � a 0.3 Demand: 0.37 Trendline:y=0.79x-0.03 d + R2=0.97 Senior/ADA Sites 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 EXHIBIT D-2.fLU 24-0025)2.0 Supply (Stalls/Unit) Thus Far • Parking uses a lot of land • Parking is a significant expense and displaces housing • Many parking spots are underused There is significant room to more precisely meet demand and reduce excess costs EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Parking is Usually Bundled and Not Paid for Separately 96-99% of parking is bundled , meaning : higher rents and home prices, lower paychecks , higher prices , non-drivers subsidize drivers GHG Mitigation Potential Up to 15.7% of GHG The economy picks up the tab ° 1�% in the stuemissions dy o " ""� for free parking - an enormous inducement to drive More Parking * More Driving 14% -a _1 Bundled parking correlates with : o 12% R2 = 0.86 0 car (0• Higher $°'°ownership c .� ■ ■ ■ with -a) 4% ♦ / • Higher rates of driving even . 2 •1 ,- �` same car ownership o -2% - .� -4% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Parking behaviour: Bundled parking and travel behavior in American cities It. Change in parking spaces per resident, '60-'80 Ube*I., YpCUIO{ Michael Manville, Miriam Pinski Figure 1 More parking leads to more car ownership in San Francisco UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Los Angeles. CA 90095. USA Bundled parking and vehicle ownership: Evidence from the 80% American Housing Survey lential parking and travel behavior,with a part rt 'hide ownership. When the cost of parking is bu N �'O" g parking near home falls. These lower costs i 40% Michael Manville use transit less than households without parki een difficult to examine empirically. In this arti, 20% University of California, Los Angeles le of the 2013 American Housing Survey. We ci mkm253(ocornell.edu ° ° No Parking 0-0 33 0 34-0.66 0.67.0.9v • PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT oN_siTr IENTsf.2s( 124.0025) Abstract: 1 his article estimates the effect of bundled residential park- Article history: Pricing Matters a Lot • Case studies LA, DC 80% +60% driving if 70% 67% parking "free" r 50% m • California parking 40% C 30% cash out reduced 20% drive to work 17% 10% 0% Driver-paid parking Employer-paid parking • Minneapolis : 11 % fewer employees drive to work under parking cash out EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Parking and Eq u it (Sightline chart) A5- year 2021 Table universe:Occupied Housing Units Most tenant households in the United States own either zero or one cars. 2+ motor vehicles 1 motor vehicle III no motor vehicles Column —+ I Lake Oswego.OR 100% Owner occupied: 70.7% ±2.4% No vehicle available 1% ±0.5% 1 vehicle available 15% ±1.9% 75% 2 vehicles available 35.1% ±3% 3 vehicles available 15.4% ±2% 50% ' 4 vehicles available 27% ±0.8% 5 or more vehicles available 14% ±0.6% 25% Renter occupied: 29.396 ±2.5% No vehicle available 2.3% ±0.9% 1 vehicle available 14.8% ±2.4% 0% — L�,�o�c- �,�h�' �,tio't' �„y03 �44. 04�, �oo�' �,tih'�' �ho tioo oo� 2 vehicles available 10.3% ±1.8% ,9'L 3 vehicles available 1.2% ±0.7% 62 C,'` C91 69 4 vehicles available 0.5% ±0.4% 2016-2017 household income 5 or more vehicles available 0.1% ±0.1% EXHIBIT D-2 (L., What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced ? Buffalo, NY (pop 256,000) - 2017 • Student housing 47% less parking • Mixed-use developments an average of half as many spaces; four none (shared ore D ■ parking) iverse • Most single-use multifamily about the Parking Sing Supply same as previous mandated; some more Minneapolis is building less parking Annual building-parking ratios Minneapolis, MN 11s,- • Units near transit built 30% less parking s . „- • Units without parking $200/month cheaper 0 25 7/2015: 5/2021: II Parking Req. Parking Rey. Reduction Elimination urtn- 2011 Z413 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 PP 22-0001 NT A/PAGE 23 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Graph Zak Yudhishthu Data from Minneapolis Planning Commission Collected by Alex Schie(erdecker,updated July 2023 23 Los Angeles , CA downtownadopted 1998 Housing development increased nearly 4x with 1 .2 spaces/unit adaptive reuse ordinance 34-50% off-site Net New Housing Units 10,000 2.0 2.0 — in Parking Spaces Per Unit 9,000 ■ On-Site Parking Spaces Per Unit 1.8 — it Minimum Parking Requirement 8,000 l.b . 7,000 1.4 — 1 3 1.2 6,000 ARO - 1.2 — units �'� 1.0 0.9 5,000 d 0.8 r 4,000 = 0.6 Zoe 0.6 -- 3,000 0.4 -- 2,000 0.2 , 1,000 0 0 ANrMr 'I CM 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Seattle reform 2012 -2017 saved $537 million • . _ Contents lists available at ScienceDirect ,r.,• _` !? Land the Policy - Land Use Policy Sir 1051 ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum parking requirements in 11) Seattle worm C.J. Gabbea, , Gregory Pierceb, Gordon Clowersc a Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Santa Clara University. 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara. CA, 95053. United States b Luskin Center for Innovation. Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California. Los Angeles 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951666, Los Angeles, CA, United States `Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, City of Seattle, 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019, Seattle, WA. 98124-4019. United States ARTICLE INFO ATTACHM_ENTA/PAGE25OF38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24 San Diego , Sixfold increase in affordable housing units in density bonus program Density Bonus Housing Production in San Diego I gpril2014: Parking requirements eliminated in Transit Priority Zones o 4,000 i . i August 2016: Density bonus 1 I maximum increased to 5O% s 3,213 I I 3,000 I i I I 2,050 2,000 I I I I I 75a 176I6x increase in 1,000 I afordable units :111111I produced �4 through DB 0 % • 2016 2017 2016 2011I 2020 I • Ms+WWel-eate units In denatty bonus protects ill A I .table units n duty bonus projects EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Fargo , 125,000) University located architecture and Tax Impacts of Fargo's Renaissance Zone E2.500.000 UMNMNM=MI !•���� MI.� � �m1 �1•� ��i•im • ii business schools downtown. 1 � ---......- -..-...... =MI a ----------------_______---i.iMMr 1==En CZ MCI= C I= —==CM====------= / ........more.----I=MOMMENMOMMOM-----� 104-unit mixed-use development —mum=INN NEMMII=MII=NI=MIMIMEM=MIEN=MUM MEMMINI built in downtown core. w E1.500.000 • IM=II==IMMIMII=Ell OMMIMII==I=II=I==EllMII•I==_____ !M� I•MN Ell MI Ell=MI EMI MII•MII•MI Ell I•MIMI==MIMI=MIMI•� MINIM MI ommoommommoNIN MUM=NEM=EMI MIMI=MN=I./INI MOM MUM UMWI• Over 4,500 more students and fd Ei MEN---NMI----MEN MINI-MIM" MIMEMINE-----=MIMI=I=MI� faculty living, workingand studying a E5°°•°°° :� M=�No�memmomimm0-���IM�����UM= Y 9, Y g o — �1��:=== �CNOMSEM-�C�-- downtown. a -� - . E --MI--- --MIEN , MINEM 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Spurred small business Spurred small -scale housing Helped affordable housing Oregon Amommiquilwili g!"- ,w4wkr. -INI!ZT.. , .„ - , -.• .alliriii' „.- 0.:.-... Valir 1-7---' E 11] E II --- 11 II El ] '1!' E I] Li El igrun El a D II r ..‘4. • i 4 . -.... - - • _ • ,T. _,,iiMilt - 14 At--.4.---- •:..4 - • : _ ._ ,--:.4•;:4e7.::". '-- ,':-, • t---3°111-—- -----.-- - •••=11Mik.- .----_--=1.----L- - 71g t - ---: ' . - . o ' --.....-7-•-. . ,•:,A:-.vilk :...',.4".;3 ,,_ . -. ip, N %-,<- =S • 15,111 A ;;'_:- -i - A .• -_'. _. -: ;71 71,1 Mil . ee.aen-g,•:-e.,,a.osed.a:`:Avenue Apartrnenm in Boaverton Image by twalve-tvaantyfour ARCHITECTURE founded and Ind by Gene 7e,det, r .0%__.„- ,,,.,pany 0.4.1, nsvon '1 ih , 4. -... lig _ • DOWNTOWN APARTMENT PROJECT,ABOUT TO BE 11111V-_ 1 ! 1:11. SCRAPPED, RETURNS WITH 40 PERCENT MORE HOMES ___- UM diash - i I I! onipir ) gil , _ a 14:1111A1 PP 22-0001 HMENT A/PAGE 28 OF 38 Sightline II laN a -- -, - jr."117---..--- ' INSTITUTE ... --,31 I. ...% - . For cities in metro areas Adopted July 2022 Oregon 's Many reforms effective Jan 1 , 2023 Parking Further reform to local Reforms schedule : Lake Oswego Dec 31 , 2024 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 29 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 29 ✓ Implement best practices for parking code details Improving ✓ Cities choose a Parking parking reform approach Management Overview ✓ Populous communities do more parking management PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 30 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) City of wr calm ah y' - I ' ltt/I Rile s1 -.-_14 ,r. - - - L . 1 1 `� IISP`, JZ 1 i -ty' _Z fl. i No Mandates ... .. . inThisArea .. .. _ . . :I ,_ . ...:,.,... . �, ?% .. .. ,=C::. !,?7,.:2:i2! 1:! •.l.l. • . ah i •t 1 V y• J/ "- J 1 ,NT A/PAGE 31 OF 381..........4: -' •--'1 ' HIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) - -, 31 No mandates for these types Affordable housing Publicly subsidized housing Residential units <750 sq feet Reduced Single-room occupancy Mandates f � Childcare facilities Emergency, transitional, domestic Types violence shelters Facilities/residences for people with disabilities and in treatment No more than one space/unit for multifamily may be mandated ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 32 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 32 5:>: w • Garages (ping-pong rooms) and carports Source:Pexe can't be required • Leased or off-site parking can meet Implement parking requirements q Best • New large parkinglots provide either solar or trees, and have walkability for features • Ease conversion of existing parking lots • More PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 33 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Option 1 : Option 2: Option 3: No mandates F -r i olicies Reduced red tap Implement Repeal Im p mandates at least two of for more uses, five policies Repeal parking more areas mandates Reduce burdens of how mandates can be met Nothing further Waive mandates for certain types of development Reduce mandates in Metro centers Remove mandates near frequent transit •- I - -0025) Implement at least two Parking rented separate from units, residential Parking rented separate from units, Option 2 commercial Flexible commute benefits (parking cash Fai r Policies out) of $50+/month if arkin free at parking employer Tax on parking lot revenue Mandates no higher than 0 .5 space/unit multifamily ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 35 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 35 No mandates Studios/one bedrooms Dormitories/group quarters Transit-oriented/mixed-use New uses/expansions Buildings in historic districts Option 3 LEED/Reach Code Reduced Buildings vacant 2+ years Small businesses Red Tape Schools Bars '/z mile around Metro town centers Also One residential/benefit district or ATTACHMENT A/YArGE31dNed parking for residui0D-2 (LU24-0025) 36 Option 1 : No mandates citywide ■ Albany ■ Beaverton ■ Bend ■ Central Point Paths Taken ■ Corvallis ■ Portland ■ Salem ■ Tigard Working on Option 2 : Fair Policies ■ Sherwood ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 37 OF 38 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 37 , .._.. . .. . ,i.,___. . . ...„........ • .. ..., . ,.,. , t• ,...„,.... • V.'. . R. _ 3.... ,7 .% ,' �PILS� k `i'-', ,'' ..... . „:,,,,,.,...,..,. • :.. •. NF SE i �c a '� 3 I7 r , ,' a f , �I .. - r{ , . _ - I !• , ,A. • �'S=ice{i 4 -- . .- #4.-it.,..,_014,1 , __mu , • ,,,,,iior.;i..._,„:....,_v ,I.. 1 {Learn EWEST CO/ LECTR - - • INN H IG H W. _ 11-.— '1 1 ore - . .. . w . Online • 6 Search Ill ,. --- - w� 7. Li DLCD DLCD _ _ _. "CFEC" Evan Manvel evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov ATTAC` ! ENT A/PAGE 38 OF 38 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Original Adoption of Parking Requirements in Lake Oswego • 1961 Development Code- LOC 50.210—Off-street parking This standard was originally adopted through Ordinance 781, Sec. 96, on 11/21/61 • Ordinance 781—Adopted 11/21/61 (No clues here, ordinance basically just contains the development code) Council Minutes—11/21/61 Meeting Ordinance passes unanimously (No findings located) • Council Minutes—11/17/61 Special Meeting The special Council meeting was to resolve the remaining problems pertaining to the zoning Ordinance#781, which had been called to their attention at the previous public hearings. OFFSTREET PARKING-After general discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lawrence that the parking provisions be left in as is, with an additional provision for the right of appeal. After further discussion, it was resolved that this protection is already provided in the proposed ordinance. Therefore Thomas, with the consent of his second, withdrew his motion with the result that the proposed off-street parking provision, as proposed in Ordinance#781, shall remain as is. • Council Minutes—11/01/61 Special Meeting The meeting was called to discuss the new zoning ordinance No. 781 by the Council and the Planning Commission and to take care of any suggested changes to be considered at the continued public hearing on the said ordinance. City Attorney called to the attention of the Council and the Planning Commission the off-street parking requirements stating that it is impossible to comply with, and that he has no solution to offer. /// It was the consensus of all concerned that the off-street parking problem must be solved by establishing some standard that has flexibility... PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • Council Minutes—10/24/61 Special Meeting 7:49 p.m. Public Hearing upon the new zoning ordinance No. 781 held.Approximately forty persons attended from the West end of the Lake, and the remonstrances from this area were considered first. There were no written remonstrances on file with the Recorder from this portion of the City... /// At 9141 p. m. Council reconvened to consider the objections from the East end of the Lake. Sixteen persons were in attendance at this session... /// There being no more questions or objections from the audience, the Mayor ordered the public hearing continued to a later date.At this time Councilman Coan said that he was in complete opposition to the proposed zoning ordinance as it pertained to the Lake Grove business area, stating that said ordinance would zone out as non-conforming approximately of the business in that area.After discussion between the Council and the Planning Commission, it was determined that the two bodies would meet on November 1 at 7:30 p.m. to jointly discuss some of the problems brought out in this hearing. At 10:42 p.m. the hearing was continued to a later date and the meeting adjourned. • Council Minutes—01/01/61 Records from 1960 and first half of 1961 were lost. (There was no other mention of parking standards in other meetings in the second half of 1961). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) f • • - • , • • • • milMINIIIIMMenammammiT 1 November. 21, 1961 11 ® The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Lake Oswego convened at 7s30 p.m. • Present wore iu rmsen, Ross, Thomas and Mayor Stidd. Coen and Lowrance excused; Stewart absent on account of illness. Moved by Thomas, seconded by Nemsen that the minutes of the previous meetings, as mailed, be approved. So ordered. REQUESTS FROM AUDIENCE* None The Mayor presented a Sewage Works Operator's Certificate for Croup III plants to Marvin Thurber. This was awarded by the Oregon State University upon completion . . of a course of study end a written examination. CITY ATTORNEY - L. Euger,� Crampton Bid openings on lake interceptor sewer. Kuokenberg Construction Co., Inc. S574,104.50 C. J. Montag & Sons 657,230.00 Lord Bros. Contractors 598,781.00 R. A. Heintz Construction Co. 744,957.70 Kuckenberg apparent law bidder at $574,104.50. Referred to the Consulting Engineer Mr. Dorner, to check for errors and to make his recommendation; bid to be awarded by telephone poll. Presented bid of the American Pipe Company in the amount of S161,856.59, which was submitted previously and opened on October 17, 1961. Moved by Thomas, seconded by Ross that such L-.d for pipe be accepted. Carried unanimously. Opened bids for zwo police cars, as follows: Duden Rambler net bid for the two cars S3722.00 Ted Gilbert 2999.22 Gateway Chevrolet 3309.12 Dodge City (Plymouth) 2231.12 Dodge City (Dodge) 2261.92 • Dodge City was apparent low bidder. Referred to Police Chief for review and recommendation. After said review, Chief reported beck that Dodge City was low • bidder and met specifieetione. Moved by Ross, seconded by Harmsen that the bid • of Dodge City, in the amount of $2261.92, be accepted. Carried. Liquor 1'.cense renewals: Oswego Food Centex, The Lodge, The Pinafore, The Cove and the Country Club. Moved by Hermeon, seconded by Thomas that said renewals from the above named applicants be granted. Carried unanimously. • ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - 0. D. Gleason Called attention of the Council to the communication from 0. J. Sokert in regards • to zoning. Letter filed. • Communications from Mr. and Mrs. Frank O'Connor and Walter K. Ruth regarding zoning ten acres or more sr agricultural land. Contents noted and referred to the Planning Commission. Chief of Police requested authorization for Officer Weber to attend a basic training school conducted by the State Police at Salem, from December 4th to 9th, cost. involved to be transportation and food. Moved by Fiermsen, seconded by Ross- PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • 1111.0111.111.11.17 that such author:.zation be granted. Carried unanimously. ® CITY ENGINEER - R. N. Cruden Resolution extending time on L.I.D. 61. Moved by Thomas, second4d by Hermsen • that said resolution be adopted. Upon vote, carried unanimously. PERSONNEL - Councilman Lawrence None FINANCE - Councilman Thomas None PARKS - Councilman Hermsen None WATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - Councilman Coan None SEWER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - Councilman Coen None COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - Councilman Ross None PUBLIC SAFETY - Mayor Stidd None • (8118 p.m.) ORDINANCE NO. 781 • AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING RE JLATIONS AND REPEALING ORDINANCES NO. 348, 515, AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY - read first time in its entirety. Wring the reading, the following corrections were mules Page 12, Section 51, Subsection (1), after the word "in" and before the word "residential", insert "the least restrictive" and delete the word "a". Page 16, Section 59, Subsection (20) , correct spelling of the word "employing". Page 17, Section 61, insert Subsection (2), "All items produced or wares end merchandise handled shall be sold at retail on the premises except in the case of Section 59 (23)." Page 21, Section 79, Subsection (7) , correot spelling of the word "veterinary". Page 34, Section 105, Subsection (2) , after the word "the" strike out the word "shore" and insert the word "property". After the word "line" and before the word "in", strike out the word "at normal water level". On page 34, Street or" Portion of Street. Setback (18), correct spelling of "Troon" Road. Page 35, Street or Portion of Street Setback (28), after word "to" add "Stafford Road". • • Page 42, Section 126, Subsection (3), after the word "ordinance" and before the word "and" insert a period and delete the following words "and the whole shall be recorded with the county clerk." Subsection (4) , after the word "the" and • before the word "final", strike out the word "recorded". Subsection (5), after - the word "the" and before the word "development" strike out the word "recorded". PP 22- e ction (6)4 doleto ketiafEt ttlFbAtehnoriltt theEiQM Entih j'-2110tl1i 1425 . Page 44, Section 135, after the word "in" and before the word "Ssi1" strike out III the words "the city". At 10s15 p.m., after discussion and all corrections having been made, it was moved by Ross, seconded by Thomas that the ordinance be read second time by title only. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 781 read second time by title only. Before the vote was called for, Mrs. McFadden raised the question about setback requirements. Said requirements were 60 feet back from the street. The answer tom 30 feet back from her property line. After further discussion, the question was called for and, upon roll call vote, the ordinance was passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 780 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BUILDING CODE, REPEALING ORDINANCE , NO. 614 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY - read first time in its entirety. During the discussion of the ordinance, the question was raised in regards to charging fees to contractors working on city projects. It was decided that Councilman Ross Wes to study this problem and may offer corrective amendment at a later date. Moved by Thomas, seconded by Hermsen that the ordinance be read second time by title only. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 780 read second time by title only. Upon roll call vote, carried unanimously. Planning Commissioner Walt Reiener then suggested that a letter of thanks be addressed to Mark Westlingt employer, the Bureau of Municipal Research, commend- ing Mr. Westling for his untiring efforts end his fine cooperation with the Planning Commission in formulating the new zoning program. There being no further business, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Ross that the meeting adjourn at 10s35 p.m. 67/1 Recorder • • PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 5 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • 111 n November 17, 19961 ' . Special meeting of the Council of the City of Lake Oswego convened at 8:47 a.m. Present were Lawrenoe, Ross, Thomas and Mayor Stidd. Coen and Hermsen excused - Stewart absent on account of illness. The special Council meeting was to resolve the remaining problems pertain- ing to the zoning Ordinance #781, which had been called to their attention at the previous public hearings. QFF RED LIINKILIg - After general discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lawrence that the parking provisions be loft to as is, with an additional provision for the right of appeal. After furthor discussion, it was resolved that this protection is already provided in the proposed ordinance. Therefore Thomas, with the consent of his second, withdrew his motion with the result that the proposed offstreet parking provision, as proposed in Ordinance /1781, shall remain as is. t 'ONF - After lengthy discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lawrence that service stations shall be allowed as conditional use In a N. C. Zone. On a vote being called for, motion carried, with Ross voting 110 No. Necessary correction made to the official Recorder's copy. Mr. Parelius' problem was discussed further, and it was the opinion of the Council that they would take no action on his suggested zone changes. COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPPAENT - Councilman Ross Informed the Council that the library construction should be completed on' March 16, 1962. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - G. D. Gleason The State Sanitary Authority informed the'Council. that.they are requ©sting a $165,000 grant authorization for the 1961-62 fiscal year, and the balance . of the $250,000 grant to be allotted in 1962-63. There being no further business, the special meeting of tho Council adjourned at 10c27 n.m. W. (•-------------; i e_er---4"-L___ Recorder , LPP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 6 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) November 1, 1961 The special meeting of the Council of the City of Lake Oswego convened at 7t40 p.m. Present were Coen, Mermen, Ross, Thomas and Mayor Stidd. Lawrence excused and Stewart absent on account of illness. Members of the Planning Commission present were Chairman Bean, Couche, Retailer, Smith end Roddy. Also • present was Bureau of Municipal Research representative Mark titestling. The meeting was called to discuss the new zoning ordinance No. 781 by tho Coun- cil and the Planning Commission and to take care of any suggested changes to be considered at the continued public hearing on the said ordinance. City Attorney called to the attention of the Council and the Planning Commission the off-street parking requirements stating that it is impossible to comply with, and that he has no solution to offer. The next problem discussed was Section 105 of the proposed ordinance pertaining to setbacks, particularly as it applies to Lakeview Boulevard. Mr. Wostling explained that there is an automatic exception as provided for in Section 1. His explanation answered the problem. • Councilman Thomas inquired what are the problems with non-conforming buildf,ngs.' City Attorney replied that this was defined in Sections 110 and 111, stating that whore only a portion of a building is non-conforming, it dons not make the whole structure non-conforming. After further discussion, it was the Council's 411 determination that subsection 1 wordage should be changed to "except for that portion of the setback which is listed in subsection 3." Said correction made on the Recorder's official copy. • Councilman Coen then restated his objections in regards to the Lake Grove area zoning, stating he is in complete disagreement with the proposed zoning for this area. Mayor Stidd stated that this is a peculiar area in that you "can't drive around the block. Pedestrian traffic is not, nor is contemplated to be, a prob- lem; that, in many respects, it is a roadside oomnercial area. The roadside commercial area concept was concurred In by all members present. Dr. Moore raised the question that there is ample acreage available for business expansion but that this is not the test. The real test for business property is the traffic flow. • Question raised regarding Lot 146, Bryant Acres! Mr. Bean called to the atten- tion of the Council that the minutes of the Lake Grove Zoning Commission for December 17, 1959 granted this property commercial zoning. It was therefore unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission and the Council that the zon- ing map bo changed to include this lot in the commercial area. Councilman Thomas was worried about placing so many businesses in the Lake Grove area in a non-conforming situation. Mr. Bean explained tho Planning Commission's thinking by stating that the area was naturally contained. Upon requests for zone changes it could be developed in an orderly411 naann�r. Planning Commission members Roddy, Reisner, Couch() and Smith also entered into the discussion. • PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 7 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) . ...mmill=11117 1111117111MEMMENOMMIIIIME The Administrative Assistant ccrllud to the Council' ) attention a communicatior from Mr. E. F. Pearson pertaining to servico stations. Councilman Thomas sug- 111 gested that service stations and drive-in rosteurants should be permitted no an additional use, and that this should be made a C.C. zono. City Attorney :replied that this would have to be general to all of Lake Oswego. Counoilraan Thomas then rescinded his suggestion. After furthor discussion, it was the decision to change that area zone on the map of tho Leko Grove business dis- trict from C.C. to G.G., thus making tho wholo area zoned red on the zoning reap, Councilman Ross voted no, and the Mayor abstained. 3o ordered. Correc- tion mad_) on the zoning map. Councilman Coen caltod to the attention of the Council the objection of the apartment owner on Piiki.ngton (toad, his objection ixri.ng to the proposed indus- trial zone. City :.tterney steted that, under section 90, the zone could be enlarged, and .this decision should bo left to the Planning Commission. Councilman Ross then went through the proposed zoning ordinance, whorein he. had noted various questi.onsQ These were ab.1 answored to his satisfaction by members of the Planning Commission and the Council. It was the concensuo of all conoOr.ned that the off-street parking problem must be solved by establishing some standard that has flexibility. Mayor Stidd raised the question o:l the containment of the C.C. zone in the central business area of Lake Oswego, and raised the question of the restricted L.C. zone on "P" Street. After considerable discussion, it was the decision of the Council and the recommendation of the Planning Commission to eliminate the L.C. zone from the proposed ordinance and to change that which shown zoned on tho map as L.G. • to C.C. , to Sixth Street. Mr. Bean submitted a communication from Mr. Leonard Murphy requesting the inclu- sion of a SR-20 zone. Said communication was noted and filed. Communication from Mr. Eckert requesting his property, ns shown, to be changed to C.C. This was authorized end the zoning map was changed accordingly. Verbal request fro') Mr. Fox for a zone change which he had previously submitted. Mr. ?est.ling suggested to the Council that this should be handled as a zone ehange after the adoption of the ordinance. This met with Mr. Foxes approval and was so ordered. Administrative Assistant prasentod a communication from Mr. Mark Wald requesting the inclusion of an accounting office in the provisions of Section 35, subsec- tion 4. This was reforred to the Planning Commission for future study. Administrative Assistant called to the attention of the assemblage the coaJauni- cation from the City of Portland containing a counter-offer to our letter of 1 October 18th with regards to the treatcront of sewage. Referred to Councilman Thomas for financial analysis and report to the Council. There being no further business, the Council adjourned at 11'44 p.m. Recorder PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 8 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24;-0025) 110 October 24, 1961 111 Special mooting of the Council of the City of Lake Oswego convened at 7;34 p.m. on October 24, 1961. Present were Coen, Hermsen, Lawrence, Rose, Thomas and Mayor Stidd. Stewart excused on account of illness. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairman Bean, Smith, Bloodworth, Roddy and Reinner. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Coen that the reading of the previous minutes be waived. Carried. Recommendation by Fire Chief O'Brien regarding the bid offering for the purchase of a fire truck which was submitted at the last regular Council meeting. His recommendation was made by letter which is attached to the official minutes and made a part thereof. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Coen that the Council accept the Fire Chief's recommendation for the put.'chase of the Seagraves equip- ment. Councilman Thomas inquired if the Seegrevee offer was the low bid. Fire Chief O'Brien stated no, that Coast Apparatus, Inc. was low bidder and their bid offer stated it was with no exception to the bid specifications. He counted eighteen exceptions. There was ona exception by Seagraves and, by applying all the factors involved, Seagraves then became the low bidder. Upon the question being called for, his recommendation was accepted unanimously ® and the award made to the Seagraves Corporation. CITY ATTORNEY - L. Eugene Crampton Presented Resolution No. R-36-61 regarding the change of property between the City of Lake Oswego and the Oregon•Portiand Cement Company. Councilman Lawrence inquired as to what was the monetary value involved in this transaction. The Mayor replied that a rough estimate was around S35,000. It was then moved by Hermsen, seconded by Coen that the resolution be adopted. Upon vote, it carried unanimously. 7:49 p.m. Public Hearing upon the ncw zoning ordinance No. 761 held. Approxi - mately forty persons attended from the West end of the Lake, and the remonstran- ces from this area were considered first. There wore no written remonstrances • on file with the Recorder from this portion of the City. Mr. Dority and Mr. Parole, represented by Attorney Traeger, requested their property be included as commercial property. Mr. Bickel raised two objections to the new zoning ordinance (1) Lots 57, 59, 144, 145 and 146, Bryant Acres not included as commercial and (2) Lot 7, Bryant Acres, which has a service station upon it, should not be excluded as a non-conforming usage. Mr. Ken Lord objected to the zoning of all but one of the service stations in the Lake Grove area as non-conforming. Mr. Neil Boeh, representative of the Shall Oil Company, objected to the non- conforming usage restrictions and claimnd that service stations should bo allowed to improve and expand. Councilman Lawrence posed the question whether service stations should be allowed PP 22-000139 a permitted usageATTACHMENT B/PAGE 9 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • Mr. Ken Parelius, Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Lake View Villa, objected to hie property being zoned non-commercial. Mr. James Smith called to the Council's attention Section 105 wherein they added g feet setback, claiming that it was unfair to change the setback lines. Chair- man Bean of the Planning Calemission stated that this might have slipped by his Planning Commission, and he will re-study this problem and report his findings to the Council. Mrs. Frank French objected to the provision making service stations non-conform- ing. Mrs. Lawrence Schroeder spoke in support of the non-conforming provision. She also called to the Council's attention the unsightly condition of Mr. Bickol's property, wherein he had done some bulldozing work and had never completed his job, thereby creating an eyesore. Councilman Thomas asked Mrs. Schroeder if she thought this area of which she complained should be zoned co.inerciel. She replied that she would like to see it residential, and that the mess should be cleaned up. She also stated that multiple use would be more desirable than commercial. Mr. Edward Gary, a member of the Lake Grove Zoning District, inquired as to where the industrial park was to be located, and what type of industry would be located there. The Mayor asked Chairman Bean to explain; he stated that this would be an area that is closely contained by natural boundaries, and the type of industries that could be located there are listed in the proposed zoning • ordinance. Mr. Lawrence Schroeder stated he would not like to see Boones Ferry Road become a second Barbur Boulevard because it would create a traffic hazard. lie also obaects to Mr. Bickel's request. Mr. Wayne Brouse, a member of the Lake Oswego Zoning Coereission, inquired as to the keeping of horses in the city limits. Chairman Bean replied that the land area required is spelled out in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Fox inquired in regards to his property. Chairman Bran replied his property would be acted upon favorably when it was formally requested. Mr. Kelly suggested that there should be an R-20 provision (20,000 square foot lets). Council will take thin under consideration. Mr. Schultz inquired what is an agricultural area. Chairmen Bean replied S acres or more, and this is for assessment purposes only and has no application to the zoning ordinance. There being no further inquiries or objections from the residents of the West end of the Lake, this portion of the hearing was terminated at 9r25 p.m. At 9:41 p.m. Council reconvened to consider the objections from the East end of the Lake. Sixteen persons were in attendance at this session. There were written remonstrances on file with the Recorder from E. F. Pearson and Mr. and • Mrs. Allen 11. Morris. These are attached and made a part of the official. minutes. Mr. John Conglin, attorney, appeored for Mr. and Mrs. Morris. City Attorney Crampton, colementing upon Mr. Morris' request for a N.C. zoning, thought it should be C.C. Councilman Hermon stated he thought Mr. end Mrs. Morrie' re- quest is reasonable. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 10 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) isimmui . - 411 Mr. Bert Sleeman, objecting to the zoning on "A" Avenue, stated that he thinks the C.C. zone should be extended to Tenth Street. Tho Mayor asked Mr. Sleeman 111 if he believed in buffer zones. He replied he does, but the C.C. zone is not big enough. Councilman Lawrence asked Mr. Sleeman whet happens when you extend the C.C. zone further and further out. He stated that the homes in this area are not an asset up to Ninth Street, and it should be all C.C. Councilmen Thomas asked Mr. Sleemen if he advocated extending the C.C. to Tenth. Mr. Sleeman replied ne, only to Sixth, then L.C. to Tenth. The Mayor inquired as to extending the C.C. zone to "C" Street. Mr. Sleeman is not surd as to this extension because he is not informed as to the street plan, but thinks that, in the area suggested, that the town could grow. Mr. Felix F. Fors supported Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sleeman's objections. The Mayor inquired as to why multiple housing in the C.C. zones should be kept in multiple housing. Chairman Sean replied it would be a mistake to allow large structures to be in the C.C. zone as they would be non-conforming. The Mayor then asked if these apartment housos wanted to be commercial, and Mr. Bean replied that he couldn't give a definite answer. The Mayor inquired if there was any provision for one-night occupancy In the L.C. zone. CoeAission member Bloodworth answered that this would be a non-conforming use. Councilman Lawrence inquired as to the importance of the zoning map. The City Engineer replied that the map has the same importance es an ordinance. Coun- oilman Lawrence also called to the attention of the Council that the neap evi- dently is in error and that the N.C. zone should be changed on tho map from Hemlock to Pine Street. This will be checked by the City Engineer end, if in • error, corrected. There being no more questions or objections from the audience, the Mayor ordered the public hearing continued to a later date. At this time Councilman Coen said that he was in complete opposition to the proposed zoning ordinance as it pertained to the Lake Grove business area, stating that said ordinance would zone out en non-conforming approximately 50% of the business in that area. After discussion between the Council and the Planning Commission, it was deter- mined that the two bodies would meet on November 1 at 7:30 p.m. to jointly dis- cuss some of the problems brought out in this hearing. At 10:42 p.m. the hearing was continued to a later date and the meeting adjourned. At 10:43 p.m. Council reconvened for the purpose of considering the September ex- penditures. It was then moved by Councilman Thomas, seconded by Councilman Coen that the September expenditures in the amount of $73,732.64, as shown by the recap which is attached, be ..pNioved for payment. Upon roll call vote, carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10145 p.m. X l • City Recorder PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 11 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) THE MINUTES FOR ALL OF 1960 AND THE FIRST HALF OF I96I WERE LOST DURING THE MOVE OF CITY HALL FROM 40 "A" AVENUE TO 348 N . STATE STREET . A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS MADE OF ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, WITH NO SUCCESS , HELEN D , BUSH CITY RECORDER PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 12 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly& Equitable Communities (CFEC) Code Amendments Rulemaking Updates & Extension Council Study Session 1t1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] — Planning Commission Update tf1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update tf2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session tf1 Jul 24 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Council Study Session #2 Sep 5 Plan/Scoping [Aug—Sep 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#2 Sep 25 Evaluation of Parking Alternatives Planning Commission Work Session#3 Nov 27 [Oct—Dec 2023] Council Study Session #3 Dec 5 Initial Concepts/ Council Study Session #4 Feb 6, 2024 Recommendations [Jan— Mar 2024] Planning Commission Work Session#4 Feb 26 Community Forum/ Public Workshop Mar 7 Refined Parking Concepts Council Study Session#5 May 7 [Apr— May 2024] Planning Commission Work Session#5 May 29 Draft Code Amendments Council Study Session #6 Aug 20 [May-Aug 2024] Planning Commission Work Session#6 Aug 26 Final Code Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct 14 [Sep— Dec 2024] Planning Commission Findings Oct 28 City Council Public Hearing Nov 19 City Council Findings Dec 3 Effective Date: Jan 2, 2025 Rulemaking Updates & Extension Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] CFEC CC-SS#1 Jun 21, 2022 CFEC PC Update#1 Jun 27 CFEC PC Update ff2 Jan 9, 2023 CFEC PC WS#1: Review of Rules/Options Jul 21 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Plan/Scoping [Aug—Sep 2023] CFEC CC-SS#2: Work Plan/ Public Involvement/Scoping Sep 5 CFEC PC-WS#2: Work Plan/ Public Involvement/Scoping Sep 25 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Evaluation of Parking Alternatives [Oct—Dec 2023] HPS Task Force Meeting#4: Contextualized Housing Need Oct 20 HPS CC-SS#4:Contextualized Housing Need Nov 7 HPS PC-WS#4: Contextualized Housing Need Nov 13 CFEC PC-WS#3: Evaluation of Parking Alternatives Nov 27 CFEC CC-SS#3: Evaluation of Parking Alternatives Dec 5 Initial Concepts/ Recommendations [Jan— Mar 2024] HPS Task Force Meeting#5 Housing Strategy Alternatives Dec 8 HPS PC-WS#5:Housing Strategy Alternatives Jan 8 HPS CC-SS#5:Housing Strategy Alternatives Jan 16 CFEC CC-SS#4: Initial Concepts/ Recommendations Feb 6 CFEC PC-WS#4: Initial Concepts/ Recommendations Feb 26 Community Forum/Public Workshop Event Mar 7 Refined Parking Concepts [Apr— May 2024] HPS Task Force Meeting#6:Initial Recommendations 1 Feb 9 HPS Task Force Meeting#7:Initial Recommendations 2 Mar 22 HPS Community Forum/Public Workshop Event Apr 4 HPS CC-SS#6:Initial Recommendations Apr 30 HPS PC-WS#6: Initial Recommendations May 13 CFEC CC-SS#5: Refined Parking Code Concepts May 7 CFEC PC-WS#5: Refined Parking Code Concepts May 29 Draft Code Amendments [May-Aug 2024] HPS Task Force Meeting#8:Review Draft HPS Report Jun 14 HPS CC-SS#7:Review Draft HPS Report Jul 16 HPS PC-WS#7: Review Draft HPS Report Jul 22 Draft Code Amendments+ Internal Review May 30—Jul 19 CFEC CC-SS#6: Draft Code Aug 20 CFEC PC-WS#6: Draft Code Aug 26 Adoption of Code Amendments [Aug—Dec 2024] Final HPS Report Aug 2 Final Code Amendments Sep 2 DLCD Notice Sep 9 HPS PC Public Hearing(PC-PH) Sep 9 HPS PC Adoption of Findings Sep 23 Planning Commission Public Hearing(PC-PH) Oct 14 HPS City Council Public Hearing#1 (CC-PH) Oct 15 PC Adoption of CFEC Findings Oct 28 HPS City Council Public Hearing#2(CC-PH) Oct 29 HPS Council Adoption of Findings Nov 5 City Council Public Hearing(CC-PH) Nov 19 +Adoption of Findings Dec 3 Page 2 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT C/PAGE 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) 4) Sightline PARKING MANDATES ARE VANISHING ACROSS OREGON Six months into the pioneering state policy, regulatory costs are falling and projects are springing to life. 1 Author:Catie Gould 1 40 (011641is@n20a&at 2:34 pm Igadatetd6012W23tate's seventh-largest city, unanimously voted to join the club and remove mandatory parking citywide. In cities across Oregon,parking mandates are going out not with a bang,but a whimper. fltisEsaietlaintraerruirsitegkimAssue here,"said Anne Catlin,the comprehensive planning manager for Albany,Oregon.When Albany tietqeadinefitintlitpeiidiztberilivithiaOurre,aketgittieglemzepapertrom the public testi Bkorliballq,geatkingrigmineaof the most contentious issues for local governments.Any relaxation of parking mandates—rules that pr statellearefrpprialeg spaces for any new home or business—is a political hot potato.But new It artaialceartillat status quo o Soloed Met ttmeie lyeoA idgbate into a boring compliance exercise.'There really isn't much to provide input on,"said Sandy "We're just going to comply with the rules." gyttilibififklettierns could choose to either eliminate all parking mandates or enact a host of more complicated regulations if th gtpianesutcirse3panatingttlinzes.The two other compliance paths include regulations ranging from pricing one in ten on-street parkin frrd t :o:i.i::ggfgbAhriaielotpidatlte raglidtrasitig btu.]e Planners for the City of Salem summarized the new rules succinctly in this image: Policy Options for Salem Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Eliminate all minimum Many things parking requirements citywide More things More things trummary of policy options presented to the Salem Climate Action Plan Committee by city sta City of Salem. AlidaCtrsts eeitit'NmvmveteEi to go with the simple but sweeping Option 1:Portland,Salem,Corvallis,Tigard,Bend,Albany, erillising]r:a:.:o line kncednsiommunities where parking is fully voluntary.More cities are poised to join them the next year,aft granted by the state. TRANSIT PROXIMITY ALREADY REMOVED PARKING MANDATES FROM MAJORITY OF LOTS ltendaireg bI r.;:htirrgpetitiiiuuilplsiwasn't the dramatic leap it would have been a year ago.Last January,state rules lifted parking edhtlifatrtihps(ffaiewerctrtstinstecbbtridors and within three-quarters of a mile of rail stations.City-generated maps have reveal oeajbrityT4dodls tt2 rpnellis cities.In Corvallis,those transit-adjacent areas covered 65 percent of the city.For Gresham,53 per T3feosliwity fdllLttyrilulmlmiladhad!•elahiie?ok likely to be low-density residential neighborhoods,industrial land,or open space."Most our transportation corridor,"Catlin said."It was an easy decision." PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Transit Corridor Parking Exemptions Map:Areas within One Half Mile Radius Around Albany Transit Routes • •--. • - ; ; s.•- • :- • aJ.i .j till. •J • i . • • - I 1 --• (..:•—CL , I I Albany,OR Heefoansaillspleitipalicartaig eltiangerawantime.If transit service were downgraded,building owners fFd:: I-.:aefyneeding to add more parking to stay legal.Service-dependent rules could also give residents who like parking man to oppose transit upgrades,thereby deepening transportation inequities. IDK eit service changes are already putting zoning maps in OtaboecIlilhoploireMitryqukie this upcoming September would have iigEbasgl thOpleUiidrmdibltllie city without minimum parking requirements from 78 percent to 95 percent.Rather than keep adjusti eliminate parking mandates later this year. firdettlid*06 ageas near transit,the state has also done away with parking mandates for a long list of uses for equity reason dmiblIity5mihna gtplotOcb;fakditiemraodaaaaladligsfhatlbsaLill ive more expansion plans scuttled over two parking spaces last year. STATE RULES REDUCE BARRIERS TO NEW BUSINESSES firsiiadgdikeradhthythapedftetrs web lahrildnighevspere parking minimums pose barriers to redevelopment. Bupblifmad cgs state rules,they didn't have a lot of options for reforming those counterproductive codes without an arduo Mille o,i'.;.e3itgrin rgag restaurant in downtown Central Point,a small city outside Medford,that closed before the pandemic. bef .city law requires any new user of the building to comply with current land use code,even if it hadn't been up to code PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) This empty 1964 building has a non-conforming parking lot,adding a barrier to re-use.Image by Loopnet. Idytvielogpsmuidtasicttds thierstelserce the current gravel lot wouldn't meet the city's requirements for a parking lot."Anyb ddlatlmpteavliltero}tidltty antpirfathtttpay for the parking lot,have it striped,landscaped accordingly,and then provide the requir rampgettyeettlfeoilitief,"said Stephanie Holtey,planning director for the city of 20,000."The improvements for those facilities Thdipiatylibtp 4'1::.:p.mtrrwoevtas planning to amend the code to give downtown properties like this relief from parking minimums,but ift0eraityiockillejrbeisedltaeted a process to consider various possible code changes until 2024.But now,the mandates are simp IlligtfiriwefaTigarethates@bmidts back in January.Tigard had already exempted some areas of the city,like downtown ::.;octhThligauahlfperaglertfilrmrlolparking requirements.But elsewhere,parking minimums have still regularly caused headaches for T ffrebtth-o4ianeGoesroamuiebbditptirawevvttoseezerdzing lots are stuck at the same size as di 41111 - a Tigard Plaza.Photo by Catie Gould. fkilyaxfpitmed eiladabssed-imorteeelbay¢leribneffitingyalisessed with arcade games since he was a kid,he ItQpYVRiidtiistallplloatlgdolfmhecustomers to start asking if they served beer.They didn't.But demand was high enough that E state liquor license soon afterward. BoroagMr40yteeirc ajp itcation couldn't be approved because the new building use,now categorized as entertainment,require pGrbimgYUsafotfre Ifetelnem toil store that vacated the space two years prior.Meanwhile,Elting was watching potential revenue w tifterirligergingaliseuEavildlismbokl.sometimes take o kltig_s mintldretaathEinalde‘afritether businesses in the strip were already allowed to serve alcohol,and there was a second par i#HiFdfiillgthkenrasualwagdelstptydlrbt rhtieyaitpetitaaibe change here." PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • 141 F". • V:/ . Apo 3 it Jordan Elting at his business,Reset Button Arcade,in Tigard.Photo by Catie Gould. titiri8saaipepfi pad el btibisdsannedelmainTelthlfrnenuhiedlaavtlbrrd';?,Eaai :tidould sign o in December to eliminate its parking minimums citywide. titheekatity"cfiblimiglatow how I felt about it when I rahasittlielOnkirwthertge in Tigard.But then the city jarign'llihgt*IaithagritIsatlesiztoaell him the paperwork wasn't needed anymore."All right,I guess that's what it meant,"said Elt absolutely ridiculous red tape.Obviously,it ends up being a good change for businesses." TiaeEralfdta Ettaggsav®IhficaTe too.Schuyler Warren,a senior planner for the city,estimated that no longer having to work through ftbqu rtt'It2daewfniheeetkifattieity.sta LOCAL OPPOSITION REMAINS 61liileyidltytdke Oregon's new rules,which the state called"Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities,"or CFEC for short. itfesrplllakerrivagrrhehitblerdhanges,"Millersburg Community Development Director Matt Straite described the CFEC program to that c June."We feel like they've really reached down from Mount Olympus and forced cities to do things they don't want to do." It's a common sentiment among Oregon cities.Fourteen local governments fed a lawsuit last fall that challenges procedural issues with the state's rulemaking process.The case is still pending. OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROSITY OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU! thesis ipitearting a sustainable Northwest. Donate Today 5�kdks pretty much sucks,putting it bluntly,"Corvallis City Councilor Laurie Chaplen in a hearing last October as she voted to comply with the new state law by repealing all parking minimums. @6ety palnkilignefiythafrtbleidtaatewide relaxation of parking minimums is just one rule in a larger adopted package.Other mand ctiquiterfitertd[goarlajaydelpEgtfing minimums,electric car charging,and tree canopy coverage.That is in addition to designating tfrte=sgierotyrinecigeedhamrardqtitirbadribn planning.As a whole,the package has been criticized as overly prescriptive.This month, Sr�ealnillion in funding to assist cities with implementation costs—an unusually large sum,but far less than cities said they'd ffilafgarie€eithem partway,the state agency in charge,the Department of Land Conservation and Development,relaxed some rules t egar>udwrtfteasbafk Ipahaeedi its standard for the mandatory amount of tree shade over large parking lots:40 percent canopy cover A BOOST FOR MIDDLE HOUSING iiiianididffitiairailalifing spaces has been particularly helpful for projects that add more homes to existing lots.In Ashland,a fo itilaiftrierroarkling couple of parking spaces for other outdoor amenities.In 2022,the four two-bedroom homes would have requi gdakitertNe lamlekivinerveaderdeithivoyldprDt Vesitgptstdgethatritect Tom DeVore,"but there are trade-o iy ittitkajsidiagth ara¢heikedprking do we to provide? "It just opens up so many more possibilities of what you can do on-site,"DeVore said."Parking just takes up so much space." PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) ptitinaatelw.thelodEltirrirtipactthat Ashland renters would expect at least one parking spot for each household.Trimming their desi fie allowed them to add a play area for children,shared gardens,and a larger shared patio.They plan to break ground in July. 0.ytaarLarherdesrolbes itnafiettatedouilder located in Eugene,called the state action a blessing."Thank god for CFEC,"he said. ffraldtrlatetaliceretoprolOakgrthtorpediddisitinnarsiograd currently has two small projects in the works.Without any subsidy,he estimates his homes would sell for$210,000—half the price the typical detached home in Eugene. ff; ieAuitially l i tbeN lr new homes Witirkelaeciflutirfiarwbbalrt$115,000 apiece,with one of them being fully accessible.Referred to as"grow homes,"three of them wil gimietprairkingepotriers can add more living space later on.None of the homes will have a dedicated o lagiflizarlemiddIllyltbeitAre of projects Oregon hoped to create when it —from duplexes to cottage clusters—in 2019.But though the hdogidgtyptisenk4503mstriefgal,even modest parking minimums could constrain sites too much to build.Lamar has no interest in to house on his site,but it currently runs 8 feet away from the property line,too narrow for a driveway. parrkslIteidryelperseseadeiealelk be didn't have to worry about that.The back lot homes won't have on-site parking,and future bu reach their cars on the street. • . . • 1 GcTiltSWeet Grow Homes will add these four new homes to an existing backyard.Image by fiespiterthegling ahgktingtisp slAirentogittitjrrslaands over the lack of parking. i8®® vleehave made these types of debates moot,tipping the scales in favor of more housing for more neighbors."I have project would not have happened if the state had not taken action,both on middle housing and on CFEC,"said Lamar. Catie Gould Senior Researcher, Transportation RECOMMENDED READING -.I -,I •.' •.•1•••.a r•••p•••••n 1wN.w 1•-to O..• • . •, • Four Ways to Improve Portland's Housing flr-egon's Land Use Law Creates Wild From Vermont to Oklahoma,Legislatures 'rdability Mandate Adapted Communities Challenge Parking Mandates August 1,2023 July 25,2023 July 20,2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Ill ...in.444...\.'.1'4:. 00 le° Boise Poised for First Step Towards More Getting Beyond the Detached House in ffbierhderltiptising Vancouver,BC June 9,2023 June 7,2023 eglilithiftectkfiktop headlines FoltrSas frii �i cfe aoonn l .eFviSvsi fists,please contact Serena Larkin r ay,curat y t e news editors of Wine Institute. Sightline Institute is a 507(c)3 non-prof t organization and does not support,endorse,or oppose any candidate or political party. See our picks here latakena,ionatiaa lordWitlinairetninable solutions. egged in: climate-friendly and equitable communities ParklI usinesses ©2023 Sightline Institute.All Rights Reserved. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Staff Report—CFEC Work Session #1, 07/14/2023; due to document size, please find the document Online at: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2515055&dbid=0&repo=CityOfLakeOswego PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) (11114 Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0405 Parking Regulation Improvements OREGON Department of Updated to reflect temporary rules adopted April 20, 2023, effective Land Conservation &Development May 12, 2023 for up to 180 days. Staff expect those rules generally to be made long-term rules at the November 2023 commission meeting. Application and Deadline for Action Cities and counties in Oregon's metro areas are required to adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations to meet the requirements in OAR 660-012-0405 no later than June 30, 2023. (OAR 660-012-0012) Cities and counties may request an alternative deadline under OAR 660-012-0012(4), and cities under 10,000 population may request whole or partial exemptions under OAR 660-012-0100(4). Discussion OAR 660-012-0405(1): Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: (a) Designated employee parking areas in new developments shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; (b) Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters,park and ride stations, and similar facilities; and (c) In applying subsections (a) and(b), land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing mandated minimum parking supply, access for emergency vehicles must be retained, and adequate parking for truck loading should be considered. This rule carries over and slightly expands requirements from the previous Transportation Planning Rules. Cities and counties likely have provisions conforming with(a) and the transit provisions of(b), which can be updated to include the bicycle portions of(b). Subsection (c) clarifies some standards and limits to (a) and(b). OAR 660-012-0405(2): Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. This rule is intended to minimize the opportunity cost of parking by encouraging other beneficial uses to take its place, especially in situations where parking is underused. The primary intent is for conversion of on-street parking. Envisioned uses for conversion include parklets (installations providing protected space for gathering),bicycle parking, and vegetation/soft-scape areas. Application of this rule to off-street parking areas is also encouraged, for items such as food carts or parklets. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 1 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) There is not a specific definition of`underused' in this rule. Underuse can be evaluated on a block or district basis. This can allow for conversion of frequently occupied spaces abutting storefronts if there are other underutilized spaces in the vicinity. Underuse of off-street parking areas is more likely to be determined by a property or business owner who observes actual parking demand and use of spaces. One study of repurposed parking found restaurant and bar revenue grew 19%when they were allowed to redevelop parking. Policies: Jurisdictions should adopt policies pursuant to this rule into their Transportation System Plan. Many jurisdictions include a parking chapter or element, and DLCD suggests this would be the most appropriate location for such policies. Policies should be enacted allowing conversion of parking spaces in the right-of-way. There should be a clear, consistent, and easy application process for parking conversion requests. Jurisdictions are encouraged to proactively identify underused on-street parking that can be converted to active uses. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit jurisdiction's ability to limit the number of converted spaces in an area or district, retain an appropriate supply of ADA spaces, or to decline requests that may pose a safety hazard. Land Use Regulations: DLCD does not expect the use and conversion of on-street parking spaces to be governed by land use regulations,per ORS 197.015(10)(b)(D). Jurisdictions are encouraged, but not required, to address conversion of off-street parking spaces in their development code. See the Additional Recommendations section for suggestions regarding land use regulations to encourage conversion of underutilized off- street parking spaces. OAR 660-012-0405(3): Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. Shared parking is a frequently used smart development strategy that minimizes the amount of land devoted to automobile parking and the costs to businesses and local builders. This rule ensures this practice is allowed within metropolitan areas. Many development codes may already allow the use of shared parking to satisfy parking mandates, and few, if any, amendments will be necessary. Policies: Jurisdictions should adopt policies pursuant to this rule into their Transportation System Plan. Many jurisdictions include a parking chapter or element, and DLCD suggests this would be the most appropriate location for such policies. It may be appropriate to restate adopted policies in a purpose statement that precedes implementing regulations. Land Use Regulations: Jurisdictions should amend the development regulations to allow shared parking to satisfy applicable parking mandates. Land use regulations will be compliant with the `facilitate' provision of this rule if the shared parking process does not involve applicability limitations, approval criteria, or an application process that of discourages shared parking through unreasonable cost or delay. See the Additional PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 2 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Recommendation section below for rules that jurisdictions may chose to implement to broaden opportunities for shared parking. The department expects to consider jurisdictions opting to repeal parking mandates pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420 in compliance with this section. That action removes the burden on builders and businesses to meet parking mandates. However,jurisdictions interested in most efficient use of land may consider actions to assist with shared parking, such as providing data to landowners and businesses about underused parking spaces through utilization studies. OAR 660-012-0405(4): Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below. Jurisdictions must establish standards that are applicable to a lot or parcel that has more than acre of surface parking (21,780 square feet). This is approximately 70 or more parking spaces for typical parking lot design. This rule is intended to be a cumulative calculation for all new surface parking on a lot(e.g. rule applies if site has two 1/4 acre parking areas serving the development). These standards should also apply to any new parking area more than 1/2 acre in total even if it spans multiple properties with less than 1/2 acre on any individual lot or parcel. This situation may arise in developments such as a shopping center with parking areas shared between buildings on individual parcels. Temporary rules in April 2023 clarify the regulations in this rule are applicable to new parking. Jurisdictions may use existing definitions or thresholds in their code for what constitutes new development. Parking installed over an area previously used for parking should be considered 'new' if the older asphalt or pavement has been excavated. Parking areas are not considered 'new' if the existing asphalt or pavement is left in place (surface repairs and resurfacing/overlays allowed). Calculating the %2 acre threshold should be based on the area measured around the perimeter of all new parking spaces, maneuvering areas, and interior landscaping. The department recommends reviewing OAR 660-012-0330(4) when revising development code requirements for parking lots. That rule establishes requirements for vehicle parking lot placement and design in commercial and mixed-use districts, including climate-friendly areas. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a): "Developments must provide one of the following:" DLCD considers the rules in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)to allow local governments to craft code to ensure compliance with at least one of the options in (A) through (C) of the rule. While all three options are supported by the department, local jurisdictions have the option of providing just one or two of the options if they so wish. The depaitiuent recommends local governments give public buildings the compliance option of meeting OAR 330-135-0010. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 3 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) OAR 660-012-0440(4)(a)(A): "Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property. In lieu of installing solar panels on site, cities may allow developers to pay$1,500 per new parking space in the development into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose" This option has two parts. The first provision allows installation of solar panels on a property(on a building, over a parking lot, or on vacant land. The second provision allows a fee-in-lieu payment into a fund. Some Oregon cities (Vernonia, Klamath Falls, Roseburg, Albany) have had fee-in-lieu funds set up as an option to providing off-street parking; cities can set up a similar, separate fee-in-lieu system to be used for equitable solar or wind energy development projects. The Oregon Department of Energy has had such dedicated funds in the past, and DLCD is working with ODOE on the ability to accept payments. If your jurisdiction is interested in the fee-in-lieu option through ODOE, please let DLCD staff know. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)(B): "Actions to comply with OAR 330-135-0010" This option was written only to apply to public buildings already meeting green energy requirements in state law and rule. Those spending the 1.5% on green energy need not take additional steps under this subsection. The department strongly recommends this provision be codified and available as a compliance option for public buildings. The required expenditure on green energy furthers the objective to mitigate the climate impacts of large parking lots. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)(C): "Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting. " The department recommends determining parking lot area by measuring all surface area on which a vehicle is designed to maneuver/on which a vehicle can drive, including all parking stalls, all drives and drive-through lanes within the property regardless of length, and all maneuvering areas regardless of depth. Jurisdictions can set reasonable exemptions for paved areas not for use by passenger vehicles (such as loading areas or outdoor storage of goods or materials). This calculation method differs from the calculation for the 1/4 acre threshold. Excluding some areas for this portion of the rule is recommended to make the 40% standard practicable to achieve. To determine canopy coverage,jurisdictions must calculate the expected diameter of the tree canopy 15 years after planting. The 15-year time period applies regardless of whether the tree will be mature at that time. Jurisdictions may want to adopt an approved list of parking lot trees. Existing street tree lists may be a good starting point for creating such a list. It may be best to consult a list of expected canopy diameter at 20-years, as trees are usually at least 5 years old at planting, and not just canopy diameter at maturity. Existing mature trees that are preserved can be counted at their existing diameter. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 4 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Tree cover should be measured from a plan view of the tree planting plan and expected canopy diameter at 15 years after planting. The rule does not require and is not intended to be based on calculation of tree shade (i.e., taking into account the amount of shade cast on a given date and time of day by the 3-dimensional canopy). Area under the canopy that is either paved surface or parking landscaping (interior or perimeter) should be counted toward meeting the coverage standard. Note that counting tree canopy over landscaped area will give credit for tree canopy coverage to areas that are not counted as parking lot area. A significant percentage of a tree's canopy will necessarily cover landscaped area. This methodology makes the 40% standard more broadly achievable. Canopy that covers structures should not be counted toward meeting the coverage standard. It is acceptable to count tree canopy that covers unenclosed carports over parking spaces, such as those found in multi-dwelling developments. Jurisdictions should not double-count coverage area if there is significant overlap in canopies. The department recommends the full area based on the 20-year crown diameter be counted for tree coverage where there is an overlap of 5 feet or less (measurement to be the length of a line segment within the overlap area of a line between tree trunk/canopy centers). I-- — — .�—/ -. -- i 7— —1 SHADE TREE C M CITIOMS `,.,_•... _ 4. _ r _l. ! _ PROPERTY SIZE'.T 9E2 ' �. .. SURFACE PARKWQ AREA 7a QQF$F ... ..- :J __ I 1-SHADE 27.00 SF »x HAROSCARE AREA:2.230 SF --SHADE an SF lox ^';1 lAlOSCAiE AREA:U,aa)Y We I ir BUILDING I'MADE TREE LEGEND r 0 M 0 1 Ili , , - , . r,.. :A. (1) ==—— :::"". :7 ''': '', / j- , '\-4--- - - 1--------- r 7 T Example site plan providing parking lot shading in excess of 40%(source: City of Pleasanton, CA) OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b): "Developments must provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas. Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy, except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles, and other site design configurations; and" PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 5 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) This rule was amended in the temporary rule amendments adopted in April 2023. Compliance with this rule now has two options. As with other requirements within OAR 660-012-0405(4), this rule applies only to new parking areas. DLCD considers the rules in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b)to allow local governments to craft code to ensure compliance with at least one of the options in the rule. While codification of both options are supported by the department, local jurisdictions have the option of providing one or the other if they choose. For the first compliance option, street trees are required along driveways serving new parking areas. "Driveway"and"drive aisles" are not specifically defined in the rules. The intent of these rules is to require tree canopy along major travel routes through a site. The typical characteristics of a driveway and drive aisle are as follows: Driveway Drive aisle • provides access to and from the • a vehicular access bordered surrounding streets, and connections by parking spaces, through the site to buildings and parking • primarily serves as access lot drive aisles to those adjoining parking • does not provide direct access to parking spaces stalls, or provides access to a limited • will have few or no number of parking stalls (only along a intersections, with the portion of its length; only on one side) exception of T- • usually intersect with multiple other intersections, usually with driveways and drive aisles along its length abutting drive aisles a �-I �.; :I u c iL I • ,.w.z A L s tit j q T a. • 4 do ;1.14 'il T 7 i 01 ,,', , . _ . „ ,..„ , Parking lot driveways (blue)and drive aisles (orange) A development code will comply with this rule if a continuous canopy of street trees is required along a maneuvering area that meets the general description of a driveway. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 6 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The second option for compliance is if the new parking lot area provides at least 30% canopy coverage. The calculation for this canopy requirement is the same as for the 40% coverage option in OAR 660-012-0405(a)(C) above. The continuous canopy requirement applies to trees planted either to meet either the street trees along a driveway option or the 30%requirement canopy coverage option. The rationale behind the `continuous canopy' requirement is that trees are healthier when planted in continuous groups with continuous root zones. To the extent possible, developments should plant continuous trees in a shared trench. The rule does not require all tree canopy on a site be continuous, as drive aisles and other design considerations will necessitate breaks between planted areas. However, trees should not be isolated into disconnected individual planters. Parking lot lighting should be designed to work with a continuous tree canopy to the extent possible. Placement of lighting in a landscaped island(alongside parking spaces) can help to avoid breaks in the canopy of a parking area median(landscape strip between parking rows). One approach to implement the continuous canopy requirement is to require groupings of at least three trees with a continuous canopy before any break of more than 3 feet is allowed. Canopy spacing should be measured based on the expected diameter of the tree crown at 20 years old. This rule does not prohibit trees planted in individual interior landscape islands but does not count the canopy of such trees toward meeting requirements of this rule. This practice is not encouraged for parking lot design. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c): "Developments must provide pedestrian facilities between building entrances and pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way. " Street-like features were an element in the previous Transportation Planning Rules (OAR 660-012-0045(5)(d)(E), prior to 2022) and may be in existing codes. An earlier version of this rule that addressed pedestrian facilities, curbs, and building placement along driveways was part of the initial CFEC amendments in Jul 2022. The rule was amended with the temporary rules adopted in April 2023 and now addresses only pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities should consist of a minimum 5-foot-wide paved path that is separate from vehicular traffic (either vertically with a curb and/or horizontally with a landscape or similar buffer). Pedestrian facility crossings at intersections with drive aisles and other driveways should be demarcated,preferably by a raised surface that slows vehicular travel, or by different surface materials. Crossings demarcated only by striping are discouraged in that they have not been demonstrated to be safe or effective for pedestrian protection. The pedestrian facilities should be illuminated to at least the same level as the on-site driveways and public right-of-way. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 7 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Routing of the pedestrian facilities from building entrances to the public right-of-way should be as direct as possible. Driveway crossings should be minimized, and the placement of buildings and their entrances should minimize pedestrian travel distances where possible. The main building entrances should also be located on the facade of the building that abuts the pedestrian facility. Secondary entrances from the parking area are discouraged, as they decrease foot traffic and activity along the intended primary pedestrian facility. IlLi' jam` fYr S Iv 4 f l FJ Street-like features along parking lot driveways. Many jurisdictions likely have existing site design requirements that address this rule. Implementation of this rule will need to have a review path for residential development that involves clear and objective standards. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d): "Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility, including pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases. " Existing and newly planted trees are particularly susceptible to being damaged during site development. Existing trees may be damaged by inadequate protection or improper attention to utility infrastructure installation. Underground utility infrastructure can also compromise the health of newly planted trees if adequate spacing isn't provided. This rule is intended to ensure tree health is given specific consideration in the site planning and development process. Jurisdictions shall adopt requirements for an applicant to coordinate with the electric utility provider during the project phases identified in this rule. Coordination with other utility providers is also encouraged. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 8 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Verification of compliance can be provided by documentation from the electric utility provider and an applicant's licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. The jurisdiction is responsible only for establishing a coordination requirement and verifying compliance with the standard, not for directly performing or facilitating the coordination. Jurisdictions are encouraged to create a list of trees appropriate for a range of available planter widths and overhead utility constraints in parking lots. This list should be created in coordination with utility providers. The list can be an initial resource for applicants and developers, but does not alone satisfy the coordination requirements for this rule. The preservation and survival of trees depends on an integrative process that considers tree health within the context of the site development process and site conditions after development. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e): "In providing trees under subsections (a) and(b) the following standards shall be met. Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival, including having ample high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species. Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible. The city or county shall have minimum standards for planting and tree care no lower than 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards, and a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. " Tree standards Jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt the latest ANSI A300 by reference as the tree care standards for trees planted to fulfill these development requirements. The department encourages broader use of these standards for tree planting requirements in development ordinances. A jurisdiction may continue to use existing tree care standards or adopt tree care standards other than 2021 ANSI A300 if they ensure an equal or better standard of care for planting and maintenance. "Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival... "—This is a restatement of part of 2021 ANSI A300 standards. Cities following ANSI 2021 A300 standards are in compliance with this provision. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt standards ensuring: • planting in a continuous trench with a minimum 3' soil depth and 6' width • use of silva cells, soil cells, or other similar methods to prevent root zone compaction • Adequate soil volume for each tree, with at least 700 cubic feet of soil for medium trees and 1,050 cubic feet of soil for large trees • Permanent drip irrigation that provides water deeper below the surface to encourage downward root growth "...a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 9 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Jurisdictions are encouraged to verify compliance with adopted tree planting standards at the time of site development. Jurisdictions with an arborist or staff with appropriate arboriculture training may perform inspections during site grading and at time of planting. If such resources are not available, a jurisdiction can require certification from a licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture that the planting was performed per the approved site plans. The rule does not prescribe a process to ensure ongoing compliance. Trees should be monitored for 3-5 years after planting to ensure the trees have been correctly planted and maintained. Compliance can be enforced through the city or county code enforcement process. The development code will need to have a requirement for the property owner to maintain required vegetation, and an enforcement process for remedying violations of the code. OAR 660-012-0405(5) "Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments. " This is language from the previous Transportation Planning Rules. Local codes should already be compliant with no changes needed. Model Code Language OAR 660-012-0405(2): See examples in links below. DLCD staff recommends creating application packet, limiting supplemental information requirements to insurance/liability documentation, and setting review fees as close as possible to jurisdiction's actual processing/review costs. See also: o City of Milwaukie parklet code o City of Salem parklet guide o City of Bend parklet program OAR 660-012-0405(3): Shared parking. Required parking facilities for two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly. Shared parking shall be approved unless peak occupancy/demand of the uses directly conflict, and provided that the right of joint use is evidenced by a recorded deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing the joint use. Shared parking requests shall be subject to review and approval through Site Plan Review. [text from TGM Model Development Code for Small Cities] OAR 660-012-0405(4): PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 10 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Codes with examples of ordinances with parking lot tree requirements are: • City of Coburg: "Planning staff will confirm the proposed off-street parking area meets the standard based on an authoritative tree guide, or on a landscaping plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. " • City of Sacramento, CA code • City of Davis, CA code and guidance Additional Recommendations OAR 660-012-0405(2): • Land use regulations for conversion of spaces in private off-street parking lots should be amended to allow items such as food carts or outdoor seating and display areas. Options for incorporating such allowances may include as a temporary use, as a use allowed through a Type I or similar process, or within off-street parking regulations as activities allowed within a parking lot. OAR 660-012-0405(3): • Allow greater distances between use and shared parking area—don't impose any distance (Model Code) or make distance 1/4 mile or more; shorter distances are unnecessarily limiting • Overlaps—loosen criteria dealing with overlaps between uses. State that shared parking shall be approved unless peak occupancy/demand of the uses directly conflict; indicate policy intent that default is approval rather than putting onus on applicant to demonstrate that there isn't substantial overlap. Other option to remove evaluation of peak demand hours—market forces will likely prevent parties from entering into shared parking agreements if they believe customers won't have a place to park • Use/zone limitations—remove limitations that shared parking is only available for specific use types or in specific zones; no reason that residential uses cannot utilize shared parking. • Multiple use sites—recognize that sites with multiple uses have a natural shared parking dynamic. Do not require formal shared parking approval for such situations where site is under a common ownership or owners have rights to collective parking areas. Provide 'by- right' quantity reductions for such situations—e.g. don't require parking to be 100% of the sum of the uses individually; provide alternate methodology(all uses calculated at 80% of required minimums; largest use at 100%, all other uses at 75%, etc.). o Example: City of Cornelius: "If several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street parking shall be the sum of the requirements of the several uses computed separately with a reduction of 10 percent to account for cross patronage and shared parking benefits. Where the peak hours of operation of two or more uses do not substantially overlap, such uses may share off-street parking spaces as required by this title. " Resources PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 11 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Evan Manvel, DLCD—the language of these rules, deadlines, etc. evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov(971) 375-5979 Laura Buhl, DLCD—tree care and codes laura.buhl@dlcd.oregon.gov (971) 375-3552 Ryan Marquart, DLCD—this guidance document ryan.marquart@dlcd.oregon.gov(971) 375-5659 TGM Model Code www.oregon.gov/lcd/TGM/Pages/Model-Code.aspx Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the department intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. Rule Language 660-012-0405: Parking Regulation Improvements (1) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: (a)Designated employee parking areas in new developments shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; (b)Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities,including bicycle parking,bus stops and pullouts,bus shelters,park and ride stations,and similar facilities;and (c)In applying subsections(a)and(b),land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing mandated minimum parking supply,access for emergency vehicles must be retained,and adequate parking for truck loading should be considered. (2) Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. (3) Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. (4) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one- half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below: (a)Developments must provide one of the following: (A)Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property.In lieu of installing solar panels on site,cities may allow developers to pay$1,500 per new parking space in the development into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Depaitinent of Energy designated for such purpose; (B)Actions to comply with OAR 330-135-0010;or (C)Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting. (b) Developments must provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas.Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles.The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy,except when interrupted by driveways,drive aisles,and other site design configurations;and (c)Developments must provide pedestrian facilities between building entrances and pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 12 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) (d) Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility,including pre-design,design,building and maintenance phases. (e)In providing trees under subsections(a)and(b)the following standards shall be met.Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival,including having ample high-quality soil,space for root growth,and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species.Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible.The city or county shall have minimum standards for planting and tree care no lower than 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards,and a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. (5) Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations,such as downtowns,designated regional or community centers,and transit-oriented developments. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET F/PAGE 13 OF 13 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0415 Parking Maximums in More Populous Cities OREGON Updated to reflect temporary rules adopted April 20, 2023, effective Department of Land Conservation May 12, 2023 for up to 180 days. Staff expect those rules generally to &Development be made long-term rules at the November 2023 commission meeting. DLCD and LCDC developed the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules to support communities taking action to meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets, while providing more housing and transportation choices and improving equity. DLCD is providing this resource as part of our technical assistance program. Please see our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC for more information or to sign up for notices. Application and Deadline for Action Section(1) states the rule applies to: Cities with populations over 100,000, counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary, and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland metropolitan area. As of November 2022, the department believes that includes Bend, Eugene, Salem, Clackamas and Washington Counties, and twelve cities in the Portland metro area. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(f) requires: Cities and counties shall adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting requirements as provided in ... OAR 660-012-0415 ... no later than June 30, 2023... Jurisdictions may apply for an extension or"alternate date," as explained in other guidance. Where Maximums Apply The second part of section(1) lists where cities and counties must set maximums: ... in climate friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers, designated under the Metro Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets, Adopted Boundaries map. Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. The department interprets this set of areas to adequately cover the "appropriate locations" all cities are required to set parking maximums for under OAR 660-012-0405(5), "Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments." DLCD Guidance v 2.0 April 27, 2023 Page 1 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 1 OF 4 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The climate-friendly areas maximums should take effect concurrently with the designation of climate-friendly areas under OAR 660-012-0315. Regional centers and town centers are designated on the Metro Title 6 map. The"transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-120-0440"means rail stops in(2) of that rule, designated priority transit corridors under OAR 660-012-0710 in(3)(a) of that rule, and frequent transit corridors as defined by service levels in(3)(b) and(c). Section (1)(a): Residential (a) Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit development in climate friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors. These maximums shall include visitor parking; The department considers "multi-unit development" in this context to refer to developments with five or more units in a single building on a single lot or parcel. This section confusingly includes a reference to the location of where these apply, "in climate- friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors." This is errata and is expected to be fixed in a rules revision. That locational criteria is later overridden by subsection(d), which requires subsections (a) through (c) to apply, "in climate-friendly areas and for developments on parcels or lots within one-half mile of transit corridors and three-quarters mile of rail transit stops listed in OAR 660- 012-0440." Section (1)(b): Commercial and Retail (b) Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; Local codes may define these categories. For Portland Metro jurisdictions, maximums in the Regional Transportation Functional Plan Table 3.08—3 continue to apply, though local governments should make adjustments to 5 or below for retail/commercial and banks with drive-ins (from 5.1 and 5.4, respectively). Section (1)(c): Extremely Large Buildings (c) For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; This is similar in scale to City of Gresham code in 9.0852. It should be read as an additive restriction to (a) and(b). The measurement of 65,000 square feet should be at the lot level, and can be interpreted by a local as either gross or net floor area. Surface parking should be measured inclusive of all surface area on which a vehicle is designed to maneuver/on which a vehicle can DLCD Guidance v 2.0 April 27, 2023 Page 2 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 2 OF 4 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) drive, including all parking stalls, all drives and drive-through lanes within the property regardless of length, and all maneuvering areas regardless of depth. Paved areas not for use by passenger vehicles, such as loading areas or outdoor storage of goods or materials, are not counted as surface parking area. Section (1)(d): Exception for Non-Surface Parking (d) Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. This is a common code provision to allow additional parking if it is provided in a land-efficient manner. For other use types, or areas outside those areas, cities and counties have broad discretion on parking maximums. Section 2 Section 2 of OAR 660-012-0415 applies only to cities with populations over 200,000. As of November 2022, that includes only Portland. This guidance does not currently cover that section. What Do Cities and Counties Have to Do? Cities and counties must amend their local codes with the new parking standards by June 30, 2023 or an approved alternate date. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(f) notes "If a city or county has not done so, it may not apply parking mandates after that date." Model Language for Development Code A community may want to put these parking requirements directly into its code. Code language will vary in each community's parking code language and parking table. Department staff are available to review your community's code and suggest language for consideration. Resources and Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the department intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. DLCD Guidance v 2.0 April 27, 2023 Page 3 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 3 OF 4 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Rule Language: OAR 660-012-0415(1) 0415: Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities (1) Cities with populations over 100,000, counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary, and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland metropolitan area, shall set parking maximums in climate-friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers,designated under the Metro Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets,Adopted Boundaries map. Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. (a) Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit development in climate-friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors. These maximums shall include visitor parking; (b) Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair,eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; (c) For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; and (d) Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking,underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. DLCD Guidance v 2.0 April 27, 2023 Page 4 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 4 OF 4 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Guidance (-4 Unbundled Parking Nor OREGON Department of Updated to reflect temporary rules adopted April 20, 2023, effective Land Conservation & Development May 12, 2023 for up to 180 days. Staff expect those rules generally to be made long-term rules at the November 2023 commission meeting. DLCD and LCDC developed the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program to support communities taking action to meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction goals. The program works to help provide more housing and transportation choices and improve equity. DLCD is providing this resource as part of our technical assistance program. Please see our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC for more information or to sign up for notices. What is Unbundled Parking and Why Should Communities Consider it? Unbundled parking is paying for parking separately from paying for the rent, lease or purchase of a residential or commercial unit,with the option to not use and pay for parking.Unbundled parking is officially defined in OAR 660-012-0005(57). Separating the cost of parking from other goods can significantly impact mode choice.When there is a price on parking,commuters look to make other,more climate-friendly choices such as transit, carpooling,walking or biking. One study found a 17%decrease in solo driving to work when commuters had to pay for parking at work,versus having the costs of that parking hidden and subsidized. In that study, carpooling increased 64%,transit use increased 50%, and walking and biking increased 33%. The collective mode shifts reduced total driving commute miles by 12%. Another study found unbundling parking can cut transportation-related climate pollution by up to 15.7%. Being explicit about the cost of parking and allowing people to avoid that cost helps people make more climate-friendly decisions, such as carpooling,transit,walking and biking.Unbundling also improves equity, as the majority of households who do not own cars are in the bottom fifth of households in in terms of income,and homeowners own 50%more cars than renters.Where parking is bundled in with other goods,these households disproportionately subsidize parking for those with more resources. Application and Deadline for Action Under OAR 660-012-0420,jurisdictions must choose one of three parking reform paths by June 30,2023, or an approved alternate date. Jurisdiction that do not repeal parking mandates(reform path 1)may either adopt a fair parking policy approach per OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)or a reduced regulation parking management approach per OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b). Jurisdictions choosing the fair parking policy path per OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)must implement at least two policies listed in that rule, including at least one policy in OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A)through(C). One policy is to require unbundled parking for each residential unit in developments that include five or more leased or sold residential units on a lot or parcel(OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A)).Another policy is to PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) require unbundled parking for parking spaces serving leased commercial developments. (OAR 660-012- 0445(1)(a)(B)).For either policy,unbundling is required throughout the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions that adopt a reduced regulation parking management approach per OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b) have an option in(N)to either create a residential parking district, a parking benefit district or require multi-family residential units have unbundled parking(OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b)(N)(ii)). What Do Cities/Counties Have to Do? The department recommends unbundling occur through: (1)the adoption of a general ordinance regulating rental, lease, and sales agreements and(2)an ordinance with amendments to the jurisdiction's development code requiring new development and redevelopment to unbundle parking. Procedural requirements described below can be contained in both ordinances, or established in one ordinance with appropriate cross-references to the other. Rental,Lease,and Sales Ordinance The ordinance regulating rental, lease and sales should apply to the geographic areas and types of development set forth in the CFEC rules. Rental and Lease The ordinance should require any lease or rental agreement entered into after the effective date of the ordinance for space in those specified developments shall unbundle parking from the rental or lease of the tenant space. This rental/lease ordinance is intended to implement unbundled parking policies for existing developments. This general ordinance is not intended to invalidate the terms of any existing contracts. It is intended to take effect separate from any land use action, allowing tenants of existing spaces to benefit. Implementing this policy broadly and expeditiously improves equity so the option to avoid paying for unused parking is not limited to tenants in new or redeveloped buildings. Residential lease and rent agreements are subject to ORS Chapter 90,Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. DLCD staff are not aware of conflicts with provision of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and adopting unbundled parking requirements. Jurisdictions are not precluded from adopting ordinances implementing rental or lease regulations in addition to ORS Chapter 90; one notable example is the City of Portland's rental protection rules(Portland City Code 30.01.085). Sales Unbundling also applies to units that are sold. This will apply only to residential properties because OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(B)requires commercial unbundling only for leased properties. DLCD staff expects unbundling for sales of residential development will occur only in residential condominium plats. Unbundling for sales of residential condominium units applies to any condominium plat recorded after the effective date of the unbundling ordinance. Unbundling should also be required for sales of residential units in existing condominium developments,though exceptions are appropriate to include. Ownership or access to parking may be tied to ownership of the unit in existing condominium plats and/or deeds to condominium units. As such,there can be exceptions to required unbundling where the condominium plat was recorded prior to the effective date of the unbundling ordinance and either(a)the parking space(s) do not have a legal description that allows sale as an individual unit OR(b)the declarations and any legally enforceable codes, covenants and restrictions(CC&Rs)require joint ownership of the unit and parking space or restrict parking space ownership to owners of condominium units. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Notice Notification of the rental, lease, and sales regulations should occur to landlords and tenants. In addition to the jurisdiction's general notification requirements for an ordinance,the department recommends mailing notices to renters and owners of the properties for which unbundling will be required. This should include owner addresses on file with the assessor as well as assigned addresses within the development(address numbers,apartment numbers, suites, etc.).Absent this,a broad effort to publicize the ordinance should be made. Areas subject to unbundling will include transit corridors and climate-friendly areas and their Metro-area equivalents.All areas within the city may be subject to unbundling if a jurisdiction opts to implement OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A)or(B).Within the subject areas,jurisdictions should be able to use tax lot data and assessor codes per OAR 150-308-0310 to create a list of properties that are or may likely be subject to unbundling requirements.Business licenses or rental property registrations,if required by the jurisdictions,may be additional data sources from which notification lists can be created or refined. Land Use Ordinance Jurisdictions should also amend their development code to require unbundling in the geographic areas and types of development that must have unbundled parking,as set forth in the CFEC rules. Including unbundling as a land use regulation highlights this requirement for developers so they can make an informed decision about the amount of off-street parking to construct. This land use regulation will limit the oversupply of parking because developers will construct only the amount of parking that they expect tenants will opt to pay for. This will lead to better utilization of land and building space,create a more walkable and bikeable urban form,and reduce vehicle ownership. Including unbundling in the development review process also increases the visibility of this requirement and makes it easier to track as a condition of approval,development casefile notation, and/or notation on the affected property(s)in the jurisdiction's development permitting system. Applicants receiving land use approval after the effective date of the ordinance should be notified about the rates. Failure to offer tenants who do not use parking the ability to opt out of paying for it, and failure to charge the minimum rate should be considered a violation of the ordinance. Determining Market Rates for Comparable Local Off-Street Parking The rule specifies spaces must be rented, leased,or sold at market rates for comparable local off-street parking(in OAR 660-012-0005). A local unbundling ordinance should establish a process for the jurisdiction to determine a minimum rate(s)for unbundled parking and for distributing that information to affected landlords and tenants. Minimum rates should be re-evaluated at regular interval and should be able to be set by staff rather than requiring council or commission action. Where possible,comparable rates should be established by surveying monthly parking rates for off-street parking lots or garages. Unbundled parking for sites near the surveyed lots or garages should reflect these market rates. Rates may be adjusted for unbundled parking that is geographically distant from the surveyed lots or garages. Another option is to survey rates for car storage;the department usually finds these rates ranges from$60 to $200/month. Generally, it would be surprising for appropriate unbundled parking rates to be less than$50/space/month. Where Unbundling Applies Unbundling pursuant to OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A)and(B)applies everywhere within the jurisdiction's boundaries. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Developments that Must Have Unbundled Parking OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A)requires"... each residential unit in developments that include five or more leased or sold residential units on a lot or parcel be unbundled parking. Cities and counties may exempt townhouse and rowhouse development from this requirement."OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b)(N)(ii)requires "... parking for multi-family residential units to be unbundled parking." In the context of residential development,parking should be unbundled when located in a general or common area, such as surface parking surrounding a building or in a parking garage,podium parking, or tuck-under parking. Townhouse and rowhouse development is exempt(OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(A) states this explicitly; OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b)(N)(ii) should be read the same way). This exemption is intended to apply for parking spaces that are structurally attached to and accessible directly from the dwelling unit, or surface parking located exclusively on the same lot or parcel as the dwelling unit. OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)(B)requires parking spaces serving leased commercial developments be unbundled parking. For this rule, commercial development should be understood as inclusive of retail, service, and office uses. The depaitiiient recognizes the lease or ownership status of a commercial development is not necessarily reviewed in a land use application, and that the status is subject to change. For existing developments,the issue of unbundling should be resolved between the commercial tenant and landlord as new lease agreements are executed,with local staff being involved if a complaint is received. As new commercial development or redevelopment occurs,it is recommended a condition of approval, development casefile note, and/or similar notation in a development permitting system be placed on the property. This notation will make it easier to research whether commercial parking is required to be unbundled in the event the commercial space is leased. The department does not intend the rule to require local staff to actively track commercial development lease status. Commercial landlords should have awareness of unbundling requirements from the initial outreach conducted during adoption of the rental/lease ordinance or from the land use application review. Enforcement Enforcement of the unbundling land use ordinance can be handled in the same manner as other violations of the development code,and enforced consistent with a jurisdiction's code enforcement policies and prioritization. Unbundling is a new area of regulation for many jurisdictions. However,it is similar to other more common operational regulations such as hours of operation in certain zones, ground-floor commercial doors being open during business hours, or activity limitations for home occupations. Jurisdictions are advised to consult their legal counsel in drafting the rental, lease and sales ordinance, including the enforcement provisions. Violations of this ordinance can be failure to offer unbundled parking,failure to charge appropriate market rates for unbundled parking, or failure to comply with any reporting about unbundled parking. Enforcement may be based on code enforcement used for land use, nuisance, and other jurisdictional ordinances. While a complaint-based enforcement approach is acceptable,random spot checks may increase compliance. Any complaint-based enforcement approach should work to protect those filing complaints. Another option may be to specify damages and fees for ordinance violations that can be a cause of action in court(this is Seattle's). Model Language for Development Code Codes with land use regulations requiring unbundled parking: PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • City of Seattle(Chapter 23.42.070) - https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23LAUSCO_SUBTI TLE_IIILAUSRE_CH23.42GEUSPR_23.42.070PARELEMUDW UNCOUS. • City of Berkeley(Title 23.334.030.A,part of Transportation Demand Management requirements) —https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.334.030(A). • City of San Francisco(Article 1.5, Section 167) - https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_planning/0-0-0-19298. • City of Oakland(Section 17.116.310) - https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/planning_code?nodeId=TIT 17PL_CH 17.116ORE PALORE_ARTV STREPALOFA_17.116.310UNPA • City of Santa Monica(Section 9.28.110) - https://library.gcode.us/lib/santa_monica_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/article_9-division_3- chapter 9 28-9 28 110. • City of Bellevue(Chapter 20.25J.050(B)) -https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.25J.050 Unbundling required for lease and rental agreements: • City of Seattle(Chapter 7.24.030.G) - https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REA GRE 7.24.030REAGRE Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov, (971) 375-5979 Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the depth Intent intends to administer the rules.Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Rules Language OAR 660-012-0005: Definitions [...] (57) "Unbundled parking"means a requirement that parking spaces for each unit in a development be rented,leased,or sold separately from the unit itself. The parking space(s)must be rented,leased, or sold at market rates for comparable local off-street parking. The renter, lessor, or buyer of the unit must be allowed to opt out of renting,leasing, or buying the parking space. OAR 660-012-0445: Parking Management Alternative Approaches (1) In lieu of adopting land use regulations without parking mandates under OAR 660-012-0420, cities and counties shall select and implement either a fair parking policy approach as provided in subsection(a),or a reduced regulation parking management approach as provided in subsection(b). (a) A fair parking policy approach shall include at least two of the following five provisions, including at least one provision from paragraphs(A)—(C): (A)A requirement that parking spaces for each residential unit in developments that include five or more leased or sold residential units on a lot or parcel be unbundled parking. Cities and counties may exempt townhouse and rowhouse development from this requirement; (B) A requirement that parking spaces serving leased commercial developments be unbundled parking; [...] (b) A reduced regulation parking management approach shall include all of the following: [...] (N) Implementation of at least one pricing mechanism, either: (i) Designation of at least one residential parking district or parking benefit district where on-street parking is managed through paid permits,meters, or other payments; or (ii) Requirements that parking for multi-family residential units be unbundled parking. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) ADA Parking (....11111) Potential Approaches OREGON Department of This guidance ispart ofan overall effort to support communities tasked with Land Conservation ff PP & Development implementing the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC)program to reduce climate pollution, increase transportation and housing choices, and create more equitable outcomes. Background People with disabilities have a right to ;sM�'�tnn,lt"«.; ,'�"` 'w,`,,,•, � �µ � , �N•1. A %MLN. to full access to, and participation in, their communities. This includes accessible • f � "4 and convenient transportation options, ��Li l;j31� o_ , a including transit, safe connections for i`1[`�1���/J ! `' walking and rolling, and parking for cars �,e ,� and vans. The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) generally requires facilities and services open to the public, and publicly funded housing, to provide accessible options for people with disabilities equal to those provided to the general population. Conversely, if no program or service is provided for the general population, there is no requirement to do so for people with disabilities. Under the ADA and Oregon state law, if no off-street parking spaces are provided for the general population, there is no national or state requirement to provide off-street parking spaces for people with disabilities. A few cities and counties have voiced concerns about their ability to ensure adequate ADA parking is available given the parking reforms in the CFEC program. During rules development, the depaitilient hired a disability consultant and held a focus group of people with disabilities. Those people did not have concerns about CFEC's approach to ADA parking. However, some participants in the 2022 ODOT ADA survey and stakeholder advisory committee raised concerns about sufficient ADA parking. This is common in conversations about any sort of parking. Among advocates for people with disabilities, there is no broad agreement about how many ADA parking spaces should be required. (See, for example, this roundtable discussion). Oregon law sets a floor and a ceiling of how much accessible parking cities and counties can require (ORS 447.233). That statute includes a table of ADA parking in relation to total parking spaces provided [excerpt next page], and required the Depaitiuent of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS)to integrate that table into the state building code (OSSC 1106.1). This means when parking is provided, ADA parking spaces are required for most housing other than single unit, duplex, and townhome development(OSSC 1106.3). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT I/PAGE 1 OF 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Table of Required ADA parking from ORS 447.233: Required Required Required Minimum Ntunber Minuntmt Number of Total Parking Minimum Number of of Van "Wheelchair User In Lot Accessible Spaces Accessible Spaces Only"Spaces 1 to 25 1 1 - 26 to 50 1 - 51 to 75 3 1 - 76 to 100 4 1 - 101 to 150 5 - 1 151 to 200 6 - 1 201 to 300 7 - 1 301 to 400 8 - 1 401 to 500 9 - 2 501 to 1.000 21?o of total - 1 in every 8 accessible spaces or portion thereof 1.001 and over 20 plus 1 for each - 1 in every 8 100 over 1.000 accessible spaces or portion thereof State building code has additional requirements for hospital, rehabilitation, and physical therapy facilities. Under all these codes, the number of required ADA spaces is driven by how much parking is built, not zoning ordinance requirements. Impact of CFEC Program Cities and counties have not been able to require more accessible parking than prescribed in state law, even before the CFEC rules adoption. The amount of ADA parking spaces that must be provided is still based on the number of parking spaces in the parking lot. Repeal of parking mandates does not alter the applicability or enforcement of that law. The CFEC rules explicitly exempt ADA parking from parking mandate reduction(OAR 660- 012-0005(29)), thereby retaining the ability of cities and counties to require ADA parking even when other parking mandates are limited. For developments with off-street parking, local governments must still require new developments to build off-street ADA parking spaces per ORS 477.233. The main impact of mandate repeals is that developments will provide ADA spaces based on the total number of parking spaces they chose to build rather than the total number they would have been forced to build. If a development does not include an off-street parking area, the local governments may still require one off-street ADA parking space, and additional spaces per the ORS 477.233 table. See discussion below under `Potential Approaches.' PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT I/PAGE 2 OF 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Many of the jurisdictions concerned about ADA parking have previously had areas with zero parking mandates, the same situation they now face under CFEC rules. Many local jurisdictions also allow reductions to required off-street parking. Those jurisdictions had not before indicated a major shortage of ADA parking. That said, the department is unaware of significant qualitative or quantitative data, or ongoing engagement of people with disabilities, on this question. Lack of accessible parking is not the only mobility barrier for people with disabilities, and not the biggest obstacle for many. National data show people with disabilities tend to walk/roll and use transit more than people without disabilities, and are two to three times more likely to live in a car-free household than people without disabilities (although many of those people travel as car passengers). Oregon-specific data on this question are hard to come by. Improved transit and an improved pedestrian network—intended outcomes of the CFEC program —will do more to improve mobility for people with a wide range of support needs. It is important to holistically work toward a fully connected and accessible network. Potential Approaches LCDC, DLCD, and DCBS (Building Codes Division) do not have authority to allow cities and counties to require more accessible parking spaces than in statute. Only the legislature can change laws to allow cities and counties to require more accessible parking spaces. Disability advocates and parking management experts are not all in agreement about how much ADA parking is best practice, as parking needs are nuanced and site-specific. DLCD recommends local governments meet their ADA Title II responsibilities by working with local disability advocates to find an approach that best works for people with mobility disabilities in your community. There are several ways to create more available ADA spaces for people who need them, some of which fall outside implementation through development regulations: Dedicating on-street spaces.After a road reconfiguration safety project on N. Lombard Ave, the City of Portland dedicated on-street ADA spaces on perpendicular streets to ensure access. The City also has a program to apply for a dedicated on-street ADA space. While this can work for certain ADA users, and diagonal parking spaces work for most users, parallel parking spaces have limited utility for van-dependent ADA users (given the need for ramps), and convenient ADA-compliant access to the sidewalk is critical. Given the pending adoption of standards in the Pedestrian Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) for on-street ADA parking, ODOT is continuing to explore this issue for ODOT-owned roadways and adjacent locally-owned roads and spaces. Voluntarily dedicating spaces in parking lots. Cities can dedicate ADA spaces in public parking lots, or pay or request private lot owners to dedicate spaces for ADA users. Sharing information about demand with builders. As demographics shift, cities can publicize the ongoing shortage of accessible and visitable housing and infrastructure to meet demand. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT I/PAGE 3 OF 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Local builders may find it profitable to provide ADA-compliant facilities even if not required to by law. In redoing its Green Lot near the state capitol, the State of Oregon is providing 43 ADA spaces out of 307 total spaces, when only eight are required. Enforcing against wrongful use of existing ADA spaces. Some of the concerns reported to ODOT's accessibility team are about existing ADA spaces being misused. Local communities can increase enforcement to ensure ADA spaces are free for those allowed to use them. Portland has launched a volunteer ADA parking enforcement and education program. Requiring one ADA off-street parking space in certain circumstances,where no other parking is required. The department and the building codes division believe this is consistent with state statute and rules. As the parking table in ORS 447.233 is silent on zero parking spaces, and the rules in OAR 660-012-0005 specifically exempt ADA parking from parking reforms, the department believes the statute allows local governments to require one ADA off-street parking space, and additional spaces in line with the statutory table. Should a community decide to take this approach, the department recommends focusing larger developments, in certain areas, and having a fee-in-lieu option so parking could be provided adjacent to, or near, the site. Existing buildings with zero off-street parking should also be given an exemption for remodels or changes of use. Some specific approaches: • The City of Bend is requiring one ADA space in larger commercial developments on lots of 20,000 square feet or more outside its downtown and Central District.' • One possibility is requiring an ADA parking space when a developer is already providing a curb-cut and off-street loading zone. This reduces the cost of providing an ADA space. • In areas with no required off-street parking, the City of Austin, TX requires uses of 6,000 square feet or greater to provide ADA spaces equal to at least 20% of the parking spaces required for that use in areas where off-street parking is required. The spaces can be provided off-street, on-street within 250 feet of the site, or mitigated by payment of a fee in lieu to a city program to construct and maintain nearby ADA parking. The City may revisit and remove this requirement later this year, as it has not proved effective. • The City of Minneapolis, MN requires new residential developments of four or more units that have no off-street parking to include a labeled drop-off and pick-up parking space, with an accessible route to the building. Focusing on the loading function allows more flexible design requirements. The provision does not require a curb cut should one 1 Bend Development Code in Chapter 3.3"If parking is not otherwise provided on-site,all developments subject to Site Plan Review in BDC Chapter 4.2,Minimum Development Standards Review,Site Plan Review and Design Review,must provide a minimum of one van-accessible parking stall on-site except as follows: a. Developments in the Central Business(CBD)District. b. Developments in the Bend Central District.See BDC 2.7.3200,Bend Central District(BCD). c.Developments on lots or parcels smaller than 10,000 20,000 square feet. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT I/PAGE 4 OF 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) not otherwise be provided. (Code 530.155) Five such proposed developments have requested alternative compliance to this provision, so it may not be a functional approach. Informing landlords of their responsibilities to provide reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, and tenants of their rights to request them. The Fair Housing Act right to reasonable accommodations usually includes the ability to request a designated ADA parking space if parking spaces are provided to tenants. While this puts burden on the person with disabilities, it more precisely fits the supply to the location-specific demand, and side-steps the statutory limits. Changing state statute. Some other states set a floor for how many ADA parking spaces local governments must require, but not a ceiling. This allowed the City of Anchorage, Alaska to set higher ADA parking space requirements when they eliminated other parking mandates citywide. Pay Close Attention to Design Communities should consider the design requirements for ADA van parking in street and sidewalk design. People with disabilities should be engaged when designing changes to existing parking layouts, allocations or streetscapes. Contact Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner, evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov, (971) 375-5979 David Morrisey, ADA Program Manager, ODOT Office of Equity and Civil Rights, david.n.morrissey@odot.oregon.gov, (503) 979-5827 Heidi Shobom, State Roadway Engineer, ODOT Engineering and Technical Services, Heidi.e.shoblom@odot.oregon.gov, (503) 986-3557 This document draws on research by Catie Gould at Sightline Institute. We are grateful for her work. Read the Siqhtline research here. Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the CFEC program, and how the department intends to administer the program. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT I/PAGE 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) C • • City of Lake Oswego • Z Properties a Half Mile*from Bus Lines 35 ` *Half mile is straight out from bus route., : ,�' .'i� '�. - - - Lake Oswego City Limits N I ..t O i;I���:_ USB Boundary Rte.35 w 1 �[�' ♦ 0 0.25 0.5 g;.7------ 'V.-1Pr'. ,,% �" Mile $ �.. I I I I r �_ 411 11P‘1, 1411 Imp. . ,. ' — Er lir:Arra:a:*in. Is ..,......,..:::r.--..L.I „ , , .. . 0 , — 1111011WIEga;:11 re !+ - imo �11I M11 I ` (��+:- MITE 1 �� '.I='m+J 49, / a,w ���► �+��+��+�_S: dal i_'tev uut SIN., r` ;I,� it — �►i ::�� 1r_ s I 1 tigh"inimatru.......:...._ 5 I �� �l r f I rr / SE Cart - ut .� +� # ::Air Iv.- Ali, P. CD Atli 1110 4111NWElj,41/pi ili.i/nip , ,i um.....m4,\I I Wkifilrlirin ".0:- at'-'4.1H4' '''i: . 4\- °14 . II,.. f ,�f f r 11I -'ii' NOP •n. r7 ♦ t11 VA iN/ntsattAtLe is"%;:r: —., ' iry Ir 11'lt�tt`p l sE 0 k Grove Blvd '�����%.ti•%°nl�uhIIjL���' IOh .�f ad, 7 - - ■... 1k Ii0,1-----cm yzitvt--4, 44iryk,.../.144414/54;aviritiliL114,1•S,i • ' i g4 gl ii: 4_VINM VA 0*0Ti. *��� „� s"�I Unnlrit-1F1,,surf.11 11:i, liak ...___-t---' ( , iliwk .. II.n.. �■I Fe� -�nii.nrM i1nii.1l.i,.l.n 7i 2..i:....11il1I...• h. ' i __—_ �Q m iliiiiiVO ®1111■■1f• 1111 ..MINN MIif: \ �� P un■u m....q1 .�a...r ...■.rn „ e mmppit rtiA,,r-- 44lotk%..% ... x. ■1111111111ir—iiihr ... 11.111L—..."di o ♦ ♦ \ V.N ,..r ........ Atemeall j FO 111111 uniress:_,,,*- • „...,40 illp, A -dime,...:,ow:,imettaiiii. Lrr." ' _jJ \.�� �>. 11( ---\-\ 7 V-110104V t%S. Sy. 8 \s, " -111wirAW .1. •4101 A mkTelAglei.. amialt9.11`41)-%%,"A\ 4 '' il' `-_�,. VAM 1f K�.-,7. 4r • 1. �i. krk* rior F ‘ -..#01,44, Jr, Aripo -. • 9 ir.s..4-4.,. 1 Aiker: Z,• PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT J/PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Parking Supply,I , Car Ownership, '* Y p .�, and Driving Rates OREGON Department of and Conservation The evidence from five studies L&Development Available, "free"parking is associated with increased car ownership Including parking with rent makes a household 60-80%less likely to be vehicle-free. Households with parking included with rent ("bundled") are 60 to 80 percent less likely to be vehicle- free than households without.There is reason to believe that bundled parking causes additional vehicle ownership. Households on the margin for the decision to have an additional vehicle may opt for the additional vehicle when the cost of parking is hidden in the price of housing. Regulations that reduce the incidence of bundled parking may reduce vehicle ownership and by extension vehicle use. 2017 research paper based on American Housing Survey data. Manville, Michael. Bundled parking and vehicle ownership:Evidence from the American Housing Survey. The Journal of Transport and Land Use,Vol. 10 No. 1 [2017] 27-55. Access to private or reserved parking triples the likelihood of car ownership. People with access to owned and reserved parking have about three times higher car ownership levels than those without. Overall trip frequency (regardless of mode) does not change with car ownership or access to home parking; non-car owners make about the same number of trips as car owners.There is a reduction in the percentage of trips by car if parking is not on-site, related to the distance between the residence and parking location. 2017 research paper based on data from Norwegian National Travel Survey. Christiansen, Fearnley, Hanssen,Skollerud. Household parking facilities:relationship to travel behavior and car ownership. Transportation Research Procedia 25C(2017)4189-4199. Copious parking means more driving Guaranteed parking at home leads to a greater propensity to drive. There is a clear relationship between guaranteed parking at home and a greater propensity to use the automobile for journey to work trips even between origin and destinations pairs that are reasonably well served, and very well served, by transit. Because journey to work trips to the downtown are typically well served by transit,the research infers non-commute trips are also made disproportionately by car from areas of high on-site parking. 2012 research of New York City parking using city tax lot data, Google earth data,and work and travel data from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package. Weinberger, Rachel. Death by a thousand curb-cuts:Evidence on the effect of minimum parking requirements on the choice to drive.Transport Policy 20(2012). 93-102. EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT K/PAGE 1 OF 2 Increases in available parking is associated with an increase in driving mode share. When parking spaces provided increased from 0.1 to 0.5 per resident or employee, commuter automobile mode share increased roughly 30 percentage points (roughly from 53%to 85%). Based on causality criteria, researchers assert it is likely that providing excess parking is a cause of increased automobile use, rather than provision of excess parking being a result of increase automobile use. 2016 research paper based on US Census commute data and parking supply from aerials photographs from approximately 1950-2009 from nine mid-sized cities American cities. McCahill, Garrick,Atkinson-Palombo; Polinski. Effects of Parking Provision on Automobile Use in Cities:Inferring Causality.Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2543, 2016, pp. 159-165. Household decisions about car ownership and driving are influenced by parking availability I A household's decision about the number of cars owned and share of trips made by car are impacted by the availability of parking. Parking has a causal effect on car ownership and mode choice. Transportation behavior and outcomes are hard to study as populations are hard to randomize.This study looks at a population randomly assigned to live in particular places, by reviewing outcomes from households in San Francisco's housing lottery.The lottery is highly competitive; those that receive housing through the lottery will typically move into the dwelling unit regardless of factors such as location or parking availability. The results show households adapt car ownership and mode choice based on availability of parking and access to other modes of travel. Greater transit accessibility reduces the propensity to own and drive a car, while increasing the propensity to ride transit. Greater walk and bicycle accessibility also increase the propensity to use those modes.A building's parking ratio not only influences car ownership,vehicle travel, and transit use, but has a stronger effect on these decisions than transit accessibility. Buildings with at least one parking space per unit have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. If parking is provided on-site for free or at a reduced price,then households appear to take advantage of this amenity. In contrast, households without access to on-site parking are more likely to forgo car ownership altogether. The potential for private automobile trip reductions is large and does not depend on car-free households relocating to car-free buildings. 2021 research paper based on transportation choices of 779 households receiving below-market-rate housing through San Francisco's Inclusionary Housing program between 2015 and 2018. Millard-Ball, West, Rezaei, Desai. What Do Residential Lotteries Show Us About Transportation Choices?Urban Studies(forthcoming,written January 2021). Questions? Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov or 971-375-5979 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT K/PAGE 2 OF 2 More Housing, More Business, Lower Costs, :ay) and Parking Still Supplied: Nur What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced OREGON New Oregon standards reduce how much parkingcan be mandated bylocalgovernments in Department of g Land Conservation metro areas. Reducing one-size-fits-all, costly parking mandates isn't new. It's been done for &Development decades around the world, and in Oregon, with significant success. Cities that lower parking mandates have seen reduced housing costs, increased business development, and more diverse developments,with creative approaches to providing parking. Most builders in communities without parking mandates still provide some parking with new developments. Some of them provide less than previously mandated, or provide it off-site. Others provide more than previously mandated, as their market analysis or lenders indicate that's what their customers want. This how builders currently act; for example, a student-focused development on the edge of Corvallis provided 2.7 spaces per unit, higher than mandated. After seeing outcomes, communities instituting reforms have retained or expanded them. There are likely already examples in your community or a nearby community without parking minimums, either in code or by variance. Many Oregon communities have no parking requirements for commercial downtown developments(for example, Hillsboro, Monmouth, Milwaukie, Forest Grove, and Stayton). Others have no or limited parking mandates in downtowns at all (Salem, Coburg, Eugene, Portland). Here are some examples: ➢ Salem gave a variance for a new housing development, and subsequently reduced parking mandates in its downtown, along transit corridors, and for traditional missing middle housing types. ➢ Eugene saw the construction of two large parking garages as part of a residential development in its downtown,though no parking was required. ➢ Oregon City saw creative, more affordable infill housing, after waiving mandates for single-family homes. ➢ Tigard repealed parking mandates in the Tigard Triangle in 2017, and has seen healthy redevelopment levels in the area since. Builders have included off-street parking, slightly under the old requirements. ➢ Madras recently repealed parking mandates in its downtown, aiming to spur business development. ➢ Minneapolis, MN saw typical rents of studio apartments fall 17% (from $1200 to $1000) in buildings without parking. ➢ Fargo, ND (pop. 125,000) saw a downtown economic renaissance, with new businesses and thousands of new residents, after repealing parking mandates. ➢ Buffalo, NY(pop. 255,000) saw significant new development after repealing parking mandates,with single-use projects providing more than previous requirements, on average, and mixed-use projects providing less. ➢ San Diego, CA saw a five-fold increase in affordable housing, and an increase in market-rate housing, after adopting reforms including parking reforms. The city later cut commercial parking mandates. ➢ Los Angeles,CA saw a four-fold increase in downtown housing development, focused on redevelopment of older buildings. Units provided an average of 1.2 spaces per unit; about 40%were off-site. ➢ Seattle,WA saw builders saving$537 million ($30,000 per unit) over five years after reducing mandates near transit and in centers.Still,two-thirds of developments provided more parking than mandated. October 4,2022.For the most recent version visit our web site. Questions to evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov page 1 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT L/PAGE 1 OF 5 More Housing, More Business, Lower Costs, and Parking Still Supplied (vaille.11) What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced OREGON Further Details (builds on one-page summary above) Department of Land Conservation & Development Buffalo, New York Buffalo adopted a "Green Code" in 2017, which included a repeal of minimum parking Mixed-use requirements citywide. Among the 36 major developments in the two years following developments passage, 47% included fewer parking spaces than previously mandated, indicating provided 53% fewer requirements may have been excessive. Mixed-use developments provided 53%fewer parking spaces... parking spaces than previously mandated, as developers found business models with less off-street parking. Total spaces for While parking built for single-use housing projects varied significantly,the total spaces single-use projects provided exceeded what would have been required by earlier mandates, meaning exceeded what lenders and builders may have been wary to deviate from previous assumptions about would have been parking demand. previously required; but there was In short: Buffalo developments had a more diverse parking market. Some places built just as much or more as previously required. Others had none. Others had some, but variation by not as much, as would have been mandated. development Full article: Minus Minimums (tandfonline.com) Zoning rules change in Buffalo shows parking reform could reenergize downtowns - News Bit Fargo, North Dakota After Fargo (pop. 125,000) repealed its downtown parking mandates, redevelopment Thousands more followed. Builders built a 104-unit mixed-use development, and North Dakota State people moved University moved its architecture and business schools downtown. Over 4,000 more downtown, leading to a students and faculty ended up living, working and studying downtown.The downtown "renaissance zone" saw a ten-fold increase in property tax dollars. ten-fold increase in https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/23/robust-growth-and-development- property tax dollars in without-mandating-parking the area. Minneapolis, Minnesota After Minneapolis reduced its parking mandates in 2015,typical rents for a new studio Typical rents for a new apartment without parking fell from $1,200 a month to about $1,000 a month, saving studio apartment renters$2,400 per year.That decrease is in line with previous studies noting structured without parking fell parking can cost about 17%of monthly rent. New developments near transit provided from $1,200 a month roughly 30% less parking than mandates would have been required. People Over Parking (planning.org) to about$1,000 a What Happens When You Ease Parking Requirements for New Housing — month nickmagrino.com October 4,2022.For the most recent version visit our web site. Questions to evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov page 2 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT L/PAGE 2 OF 5 Los Angeles, California Net New Housing Units 10,000 Los Angeles removed downtown parking mandates in 1999, as part 9000 of its Adoptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO). In the previous 30 years, 8000 downtown Los Angeles added about 4,300 housing units. In the 7000 6.000 decade following the ordinance, over 9,200 housing units were 5.000 added, about 70%of which relied on provisions in the ARO. One 4,000 analyst argues, "the ARO created more housing in less than ten 3000 years than had been created in the previous thirty."The ARO also 2000 provided alternative regulations on fire and earthquake standards, 000 ______ and allowed changes of use without variances. Because some of the a 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 Developers revamping old commercial buildings under the ARO were particularly creative in meeting the demands for parking. In an analysis of 56 ARO building Housing development redevelopments, Professor Michael Manville found half of the parking for apartments increased nearly was provided off-site. While total parking provided exceeded previous mandates 4-fold. (providing 1.2 spaces/unit),the relaxed mandates allowed more flexibility in location, and different amounts of parking provided among developments. Meanwhile, condo Less parking was built; redevelopment provided 1.3 spaces per unit, well under the previous mandate of 2.0 though units still spaces per unit, with 34%of parking off-site. averaged 1.2 parking spaces/unit. Much of In short, parking reform helped create thousands of new housing units, and a more it was off-site. nuanced approach to parking supply. Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles—ACCESS Magazine San Diego, California In 2019, San Diego removed parking mandates in transit priority zones.This, The package of combined with a density bonus program, led to a more than five-fold increase in reforms helped lead affordable housing unit production. While previous years saw up to 289 affordable units built, 2020 saw 1,564 new affordable units. Market-rate housing also increased. to a five-fold The real costs of providing parking, and its crowding out of housing, became clear. In increase in 2021, San Diego built on this success and reduced commercial parking mandates. affordable housing https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/05/19/parking-requirements-are-not-a-useful- unit production. bargaining-chip-for-increasing-affordable-housing/ Seattle,Washington Builders saved $537 Seattle reduced parking mandates in centers and near frequent transit in 2011. In the million ($30,000 per five years following that reform, developers built 18,000 fewer(40% less) parking spaces than previous mandates would have required while building over 60,000 unit) by building fewer housing units, saving$537 million. On average, developers provided two parking parking spaces.Yet spaces for every three units. About one in five housing developments provided no two-thirds of parking spaces, but two-thirds provided more than required.All but one of the 868 developments developments had less than two spaces per unit. High-end developments provided provided more parking more parking than more affordable units. than mandated. https://transfersmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2020/11/Issue-6- Gabbe finalv2.pdf October 4,2022.For the most recent version visit our web site. Questions to evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov page 3 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT L/PAGE 3 OF 5 In Oregon Coburg Eager to boost development in its downtown, Coburg updated its codes in 2020 to repeal parking mandates, except for employee parking. It is too early to judge the outcomes. Eugene Despite not having to Eugene has not required off-street parking for downtown developments for several build parking by years. Despite that, a large new development at 13th and Olive included hundreds of mandate, one units of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom housing(1308 bedrooms total), and two large new parking downtown builder garages, as part of a business model.They're in part used for paid public parking, and included two parking monthly rentals. In the absence of mandates, hundreds of parking spots were garages with hundreds developed. of spaces. Tigard In an effort to spur redevelopment,Tigard adopted a "Lean Code" in 2017 for the Tigard Triangle.That code included a removal of off-street parking mandates while adding requirements for on-street parking and public bike parking spaces. In the five years since,the City has seen significant redevelopment in the area. Builders continue to provide off-street parking, at levels slightly lower than previously required. Builders have also found creative ways to use shared parking. Unnecessary building expenses have been reduced.The city is now developing a Curbside Management Plan to ensure effective use of the curb for parking, deliveries, ride hailing, transit, and micromobility options, as use of the area intensifies. Madras Eager to boost development in its downtown, in 2022,the Madras City Council passed a resolution to repeal its parking mandates in the downtown core.The decision was made as part of a code update funded by Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management program. It is too early to judge the outcomes. Portland Portland has had limited parking mandates for quite some time, helping housing get built and providing for more infill. One oft-cited anecdote about parking is challenges ... too many people finding spaces in the SE Division Street corridor. People understand that different ways. love the neighborhood One way is parking in the neighborhood is difficult because too many people love the neighborhood and want to live there or visit.Another would note the city hasn't yet and want to live there fully managed the area's parking demand with permits, pricing, signage, and other or visit. parking management techniques. Most of Portland also has no parking mandates but gets little attention.Attempts to build a new parking garage in Northwest Portland, near 21"and 23rd, have run into realities of the costs of doing so. Hence, Portland has worked in various ways to decrease demand for parking, such as its Transportation Wallet (providing affordable transportation choices)funded through parking permits, and on-street permit costs of$195/year in Northwest(less for low-income people). October 4,2022.For the most recent version visit our web site. Questions to evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov page 4 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT L/PAGE 4 OF 5 Oregon City Since 2013, Oregon City has not required off-street parking for single-family detached housing and duplexes. Most new homes are still typically built with garages and driveways, due to market preferences. But in a few cases, the lack of parking mandates has allowed infill development to be constructed at a lesser cost. One creative example is these smaller homes that hit a $325,000 sales price in the city where median home price is$575,000. Salem In 2019,the City of Salem approved an application for a six-story, mixed-use One reduced-parking downtown development for ground-floor commercial space and 148 units above.The development has 14 parking spaces in addition to secure bicycle parking.The units housing project led to consist mainly of micro-housing studios, with some one and two-bedroom units. broader reforms. Building on the positive outcomes from that experience, and at staff recommendation, City Council passed code updates in 2020 that aimed to remove barriers to the Those reforms then led development of multifamily housing.The code changes eliminated parking mandates to further reforms. for multifamily developments throughout downtown and within % mile of the core transit network. Several local builders testified they would continue to build parking, as it was part of their business model. In 2022,the city implemented HB 2001 to allow traditional missing middle housing throughout Salem; that code change eliminated parking mandates for two,three, and four-unit developments and cottage clusters. Later in 2022,the city updated its Comprehensive Plan and associated maps and zoning code. As part of that citywide project,the city aimed to further incentivize infill housing and redevelopment near frequent transit service. It did so by eliminating parking mandates for any use in a mixed-use zone near the core transit network as long as multifamily housing was included. Reform Communities Around the World Scores of communities throughout the world have eliminated their parking mandates. Some of them: Alameda, CA Calgary,AB Jackson,TN Raleigh, NC Albermarle, NC Cambridge, MA Kingston, ON Raleigh,VA Ann Arbor, MI Canandaguia, NY Lunesurg, NS Richmond, VA Auburn, ME Dover, NH Mancelona, MI River Rouge, MI Bandera,TX Dunwoody, GA Mason City, IA Sacramento, CA Bastrop,TX Ecorse, MI Mexico City Saranac Lake, NY Berkeley, CA Edmonton,AB Minneapolis, MN Seabrook, NH Berlin, Germany Fayetteville,AR New Zealand South Bend, IN Boston, MA Greensboro, NC (metro areas) Spartanburg, SC Boston, MA Hartford, CT Norman, OK St Paul, MN Branson, MO High River,AB Ottowa, ON Toronto, ON Bridgeport, CT Hudson, NY Peoria, IL Questions, Corrections or Comments Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner (971) 375-5979, evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov October 4,2022.For the most recent version visit our web site. Questions to evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov page 5 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT L/PAGE 5 OF 5 (aft) ler Climate-Friendly and OREGON Lanepartment of d Conservation Equitable Communities & Development Climate Pollution Change(Light Duty Vehicles) Why this Rulemaking We are here 20?;. In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a policy and goal to reduce 0% Oregon's climate pollution by 75%by 2050.That's what the 1970 1990 2010 2050 science calls for,if we're going to avoid catastrophic impacts to -20% our environment, communities, and economy. �% Where we're headed nr..a., l �-Oregon's adopted vision Fifteen years later,we're far off track in our efforts to meet those """"' goals — and we're already experiencing real-world impacts of -80% climate disruption,with increasing wildfires,in size, severity, 10ai and timing, and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians their homes, and their lives. Oregon is dramatically off-track.If current trends continue,Oregon will release more than 4 times more We're particularly off-track in reducing pollution from transportation pollution than our goal by 2050. transportation, responsible for about 38%of Oregon's climate pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce transportation pollution by about 2o%by 2050.That means we're polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme • weather events, more wildfires,more ocean acidification, and more record heat waves. In response, Governor Brown directed state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and less driving. << Meanwhile,the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling history and current patterns of inequity and discrimination, including in our land use, zoning, and transportation investment(and disinvestment) decisions.Wealth and health Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean others.This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing more extreme and more frequent weather events past harms. such as heat bombs,droughts,and wildfires. Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched *Portland Metro the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in *Salem-Keizer September 2020.The commission directed the Department of **Albany Area Land Conservation and Development(DLCD),Oregon's land use Carvell*Area planning agency,to draft changes in Oregon's planning system Central Lane Bend for communities in Oregon's eight most populated areas (see map at right). Middle Rogue * The rules require those communities to change their local Rogue Valley transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure The rules apply in Oregon's eight metropolitan Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and areas shown above. don't have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs. The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation,housing, and PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated against. What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don't get in the way of more walkable neighborhoods.The rules ask 15 communities to designate climate- friendly areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing.The rules don't require taller buildings,but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly areas, a minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood. Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle transformation,reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning requirements to address critical gaps in our walking,biking, and transit networks.The rules ask communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met. The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want to build it and the market calls for it.There's a lot of demand for housing where people can walk to where they want to go.While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and climate-friendly choices.Those could better meet the changing shape of American households, as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again,people can choose what best meets their needs. Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased 411h. ,41 "_=- emphasis on equity.The rulemaking has worked to integrate r i' equity, starting with the rulemaking charge and title. Equity .� . was key as DLCD attempted to have the composition of the Itk'; ' ` k advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon's '' �+ communities, and equity was one of the first tasks tackled by , L ''.ta I the group 1�'- ''. The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at I = - many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an ' '� �° laL Equitable Outcomes Statement to guide the rulemaking �' �" h"IRA drafting and implementation.The rulemaking conducted air racial equity analysis of the rules and an analysis on how the -,. ` ' y ' q t3r Y Y � � °��� rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities.The w , committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item ' `" =- in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought 1938 Redlining map of Portland.Redlining allowed forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be. white people to build wealth through homeownership. The rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African American people, Indigenous people, People of Color,people with limited English proficiency,people with disabilities,low-income Oregonians,youth and seniors, and more.They require mapping of traditionally underserved populations,local consideration of a set of anti-displacement actions should decisions contribute toward displacement, centering the voices of underserved populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on efforts to engage traditionally underserved populations. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly Areas A climate-friendly area is an area where residents,workers, and . • ,, visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to r `3 F� drive.They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are - • / planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing,jobs, • ,V businesses, and services.These areas are served, or planned toER • be served,by high quality pedestrian,bicycle, and transit ' . ' g'�'~° I infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient � 4 _�. f connections to key destinations within the city and region. Why are climate-friendly areas important?A key component of _ _ _ �►� Oregon's plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which Oregon already has some climate friendly areas, residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle. pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing Before the automobile became common in American life, cities to drive. grew more efficiently,with a variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working,living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last ioo years,the automobile and planning practices have served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate- polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. Climate-friendly areas will help to reverse these negative trends,with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and redevelopment over time. The rules require cities, and some urbanized county areas,with a population over 5,00o within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries.The rules for the Portland Metro area support implementation of the region's 204o Growth Concept.Areas will be sized to accommodate a portion of the community's housing,jobs, and services. Local governments will determine where these areas will be located,but many of these areas will likely be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher densities. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian,bicycle, and transit infrastructure is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options.The rules provide a process for local governments to first identify potential climate-friendly areas,then later to adopt development standards for the areas best-suited for this purpose.The rules provide some minimum requirements for climate-friendly areas,with a set of clear and objective standards that maybe adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of more than io,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop strategies to facilitate desired development. Reforming Costly Parking Mandates r L Excess parking has a significant negative impact on ■ - -� of a �- ; d M _ r +i housing costs,business costs,the feasibility of housing , • • is sa .■ development and business redevelopment,walkability, ' '% I ''11111 ~ air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general 3 i w °d ii o• °�� community character. Parking mandates force people ! ■ —., ° i ii 11 0 i11- 1°i F who don't own or use cars to pay indirectly for other people's parking. Carless households tend to be the Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land. poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere, creating incentives to own more cars and drive more. The rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development. The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family housing, and historic buildings.The rules would completely remove parking mandates within one-half mile of frequent transit and three-quarters of a mile of rail stops,where parking demand is lower per unit. The rules give communities options to improve parking management.Those who adopt best practice parking policies would get more flexibility.The rules require cities with over ioo,000 population that choose to continue to mandate off-street parking to eventually charge at least 5o cents per day for io%of on-street parking spots. Getting Ready for Oregon's Electric Vehicle Future MI Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon's climate goals. 1111 l► ' . ';*'74� • Oregon has a vision where 9o%of new vehicles will be electric by 2035.To _ .ir' meet that goal,we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles.The , i 1 _, _ most convenient place to do so is at home,but many Oregonians live in `"' 'F '' older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit. ., - :11, Thus,the rules require new housing and mixed-use development with at Building a complete network of EV least five units would include electrical conduit(pipes)to 4o%of spots, charging stations at commercial and ready for adding wiring and charging stations to support electric vehicles as multi family housing locations could the market expands. cut up to 11.9%of climate pollution Planning for a Future of Transportation Options DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of Transportation will provide a range of new and amplified services to help meet ` greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants,technical assistance,tools, „ and publications,to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the Oh • state's climate pollution reduction goals. y , - jpr .: __ 0. . M. Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use and transportation plans for decades.The updated rules would require local V governments in metropolitan areas to: • Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns,where services are located and less driving is necessary; • Prioritize system performance measures that achieve community livability goals; Transportation options are critical for everyone,but • Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on particularly the roughly single occupancy vehicles, including in walking,bicycling, and transit; one-in-three Oregonians • Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and who cannot drive. • Regularly monitor and report progress. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Planning to Meet Our Climate Goals DLCD's regional greenhouse gas reduction program allows areas to work together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues.The flexible Mods;emr,,,'ecl regional planning process allows communities to study economic development, fiscal impacts, resource use,pollution impacts, and the effects of different choices on the state, region, community, or households.The results are Combined intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed Modal ProJect List leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as they review and update the area's long-range plans and make investment decisions. Unconstrained Project List The rules expand requirements for regional plans to meet the state's climate pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the next Constrained largest metropolitan areas in the state(Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer) Project List initially. Other metropolitan areas will be required to evaluate their local plans towards meeting the state's climate pollution reduction targets and amend their local plans towards meeting the target. Community Engagement — T 4 We've heard from lots of Oregonians over the past eighteen months.We've heard from a 4o-person advisory - r I. r1 • -�,. committee including representatives from all of Oregon's impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home Ii1'1builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking `3 , .-L4. industry, affordable housing advocates,land use �� •.E r "TIT11�: t r �� advocates, community-based and other community- I ,. . /� serving organizations.►' pg To supplement those deliberations, staff held two • r�f I �� separate series of virtual community conversations in Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee 2021 —five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with local elected officials,planning staff, and interest groups. Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies. We've heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of meetings, community conversations,work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds of people who've submitted comments (summary here). Our rules are better for it,having continued to evolve and improve. But the engagement won't end there—the rules require local governments to engage their communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you're interested in these issues,we encourage you to stay engaged. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines Local governments are responsible for implementing the rules.Many of the rules take effect when a community next conducts a major update of its Transportation System Plan(TSP), a community's core document describing its transportation needs and future plans.The rules state most plans should be updated by December 31, 2029.The rules have Salem-Keizer and Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional scenario plans and update their TSPs by the end of 2027. The land use components of the rules have specific deadlines. Communities are asked to study potential Climate-Friendly Areas by December 31, 2023, and adopt Areas by December 31, 2024. Parking reform is scheduled to happen in two phases -the first at the end of 2022, and the second by June 3o, 2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates. DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department.The Oregon Legislature provided $768,00o to assist with implementation on land use, and ODOT has identified another$18 million to assist with transportation plan updates. Learn More Information on how to get implementation updates via email and many additional materials can be found at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvelodlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner cody.meyerodlcd.oregon.gov 971-239-9475 Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner kevin.young(a)dlcd.oregon.gov 503-602-0238 July 2022 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT M/PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities 1[4 Implementation Guide Nov DLCD This document provides guidance for cities and counties within metropolitan areas that are expected to implement the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. The information provided in this document are based on the rules adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on July 21, 2022. This guide is for information and is not determinative regarding the content or applicability of the adopted rules. Pages 1-3 contain an overview of the implementation and reporting requirements of the rules. The table of implementation dates on pages 3-8 shows the year in which these requirements become applicable, grouped by metropolitan area. The task summaries on pages 9-12 outline the sections of the Division 12 rules that are involved with the major task groups. Alternative Dates: Cities, counties, or Metro may, optionally, propose alternative implementation dates for some deadlines as provided in OAR 660-012-0012(3). Alternative dates would be submitted to the department, reviewed against criteria, and approved (or not) by the DLCD Director. Alternative compliance dates for Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer metropolitan area would use this process and the work program process for scenario planning in OAR 660-044-0100. Rules whose implementation dates can be modified through this process are in italics in the guide. Division 12 Exemption: The DLCD Director may grant a full or partial exemption from Division 12 to cities and counties with a population under 10,000 within the urban area (OAR 660-012-0055(7)). The exemption must be requested by the jurisdiction. Exemptions granted shall last for a specified period. Major Task Groups Requirements for the implementation of each task are outlined in the schedule. Details of the rules involved with each task are listed after the schedule table. CFA Study—Study potential climate-friendly areas (CFA) (660-012- (code changes not mandatory; may apply 660-012-0430 and 0440 0315). directly). CFA Codes— Designate and make comprehensive plan, zoning map Parking B— Implement parking regulation improvements, and parking and code changes to implement climate-friendly areas (660-012- mandate reform (660-012-0400 through 0450). 0320). TSP Updates—These rules only apply at the time of a major update to Parking A— For new development applications, apply reduced parking a transportation system plan (TSP). mandates near frequent transit and for certain development types PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 1 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) TPR Development Regulations—Transportation Planning Rules (TPR) HNA— Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) (Also known as a Housing related regulations; required with major transportation system plan Capacity Analysis, or HCA). Update required by OAR Chapter 660-008- updates, no specific update timeline unless indicated. Implement 0045 for cities over 10,000 population. HNA within Metro must be commercial and residential land use regulations (660-012-0330), and updated every 6 years; outside of Metro must be updated every 8 bicycle parking (660-012-630). years. HNA is an additional task that is not part of Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities. Individually Applicable Rules Rules separate from the major task groups and with their own applicability date are listed below and in the schedule. EV Conduit—Cities only; for new multifamily and multi-use development applications, require 40% of spaces have conduit to serve electric vehicle charging (OAR 660-012-0410); implement by March 31, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(d); either directly apply state administrative rules or amend local development standards. Transportation Modeling—transportation modeling or analysis used for a land use decision must comply with OAR 660-012-0210; decision must not increase VMT per capita; effective as of June 30, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(a). Performance Standards— Implement multiple transportation performance standards for plan amendments and development review per OAR 660- 012-0215; effective as of June 30, 2025 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(b). Additional CFA Designations for UGB Expansions is required beginning June 30, 2027 (OAR 660-008-0010(3)). Note: TSP Update and TPR Development Regulations apply to all jurisdictions in the table listed below. The proposed rules do not establish an implementation deadline if 'TSP Update' and 'TSP Development Regulations' are not shown in the schedule. They are not exempt from these requirements. A deadline for these tasks may be established through approval of alternate compliance dates. TPR Reporting OAR 660-012-0900 requires cities and counties outside of Metro to submit yearly reports. The reporting requirements are listed in the row of each metropolitan area (light blue background). The designation of major reports in this guide are based on expected dates of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) updates. The timing of a major report will be as determined by actual RTP adoption (OAR 660-012-0900(5)). The reporting requirement applies to each jurisdiction individually, although jurisdictions may coordinate to submit one report for the metropolitan area. Inside Metro, annual reporting will be completed by Metro (cities and counties within Metro not required to submit individual reports). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 2 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Population Growth Climate-Friendly Areas- OAR 660-012-0310(4)(a) and (b) specify CFA compliance timelines for jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds of 5,000 or 10,000. Such jurisdictions must submit a CFA Study within 545 days of exceeding the population threshold, and adopt CFA Codes within 365 days of the deadline for submittal of the CFA Study. Additionally, OAR 660-008-0010(2) requires the designation of additional climate friendly areas as cities over 10,000 grow, in conjunction with required HNA updates. Parking—OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f)(A) allows one year for jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds in OAR 660-012-0400 to comply with the parking rules to which they become subject. Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report Albany Area (5/31)1 (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) pm CFA Study CFA Codes 2028 Albany Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Additional CFA for TSP Parking B Modeling Standards UGB expansions TPR Dev. Regs. after June 2027 Benton County, Linn County, Marion Transportation Performance County Modeling Standards (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Jefferson,Tangent, EV Conduit Transportation Performance and Millersburg Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards i Next expected RTP updates:2022: Central Lane,Corvallis; 2023:Albany,Salem-Keizer;2024: Middle Rogue;2025: Bend, Rogue Valley.TPR major report expected the year following adoption of RTP update. Future RTP updates expected every 4 years. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR minor report Bend Area (major report 2026) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) CFA Codes Additional CFA for CFA Study HNA Performance all UGB expansions Bend Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Standards after June 2027, TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Modeling and with HNA Updates Deschutes County2 Transportation Performance TSP Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs Scenario Plan code Scenario Plan work amendments and Central Lane program (6/30) TPR minor report TPR minor report TSP (12/31) TPR minor report Scenario Plan (5/31) (5/31) TPR minor report (5/31) (12/31) (5/31) (major in 2028) Coburg Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance TSP (2026) Parking B Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs. TSP(2026) CFA Study CFA Codes Springfield ME TPR Dev. Regs. Eugene Eugene 2026 Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Springfield Additional CFA for Parking B Modeling Standards UGB expansions after June 2027 Lane County' Transportation Performance TSP(2026) Modeling Standards TPR Dev. Regs. 2 Deschutes Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is>5,000. However, Parking A, Parking B, CFA Study,and CFA Codes are not assumed to be applicable because the county does not provide urban services to these areas(OAR 660-012-0310(3);OAR 660-012-0400(1)(b)). 3 Lane Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is>5,000. However, Parking A, Parking B,CFA Study,and CFA Codes are not assumed to be applicable because the county does not provide urban services to these areas(OAR 660-012-0310(3);OAR 660-012-0400(1)(b)). PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 4 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report Corvallis Area (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) Adair Village Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Parking B Modeling Standards Corvallis 2027 CFA Study CFA Codes HNA Corvallis Performance TSP Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Additional CFA for Philomath Standards TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Modeling UGB expansions after June 2027 Benton County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Standards Middle Rogue TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Gold Hill EV Conduit Transportation Performance Rogue River Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards CFA Study CFA Codes Additional CFA for Parking A Performance TSP Grants Passpm EV Conduit Transportation UGB expansions Parking B Modeling Standards after June 2027 TPR Dev. Regs. Jackson County Josephine County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population Modeling Standards inside UGB) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 5 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 202 Rogue Valley TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Central Pt 2027 Ashland HNA CFA Study Central Point VA Codes Ashland 2029 EV Conduit Performance TSP Eagle Point Parking A harking B Transportation Standards HNA TPR Dev. Regs. Medford Modeling Additional CFA for Talent Medford = UGB expansions after June 2027 Jacksonville EV Conduit Transportation Performance Phoenix Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Jackson County Transportation Performance (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Standards PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 6 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 Scenario Plan code Scenario Plan (6/30) amendments and TPR minor report Scenario Plan work TPR minor report Salem/Keizer TSP (6/25) (5/31) (major in program (6/30) TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) TPR minor report 2028) (5/31) CFA Codes CFA Study Salem and Keizer TSP Additional CFA for Salem Parking A EV Conduit TPR Dev. Regs. UGB expansions Keizer Performance Parking B Transportation after June 2027 Modeling Standards CFA Codes TSP Marion County Parking A CFA Study Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Performance Modeling Standards TSP Polk County Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. (fewer than 5,000 population inside UGB) Modeling Performance Standards TSP EV Conduit Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. Turner Parking A Parking B Modeling Performance Standards PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 7 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR minor report Portland Metro (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (major in (5/31) 2028) TPR Rules specific to Metro: OAR 660-012-0140,Transportation System Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area; OAR 660-012-0012(4)(d), Climate- Friendly Area implementation within Metro; OAR 660-012-0900(2),TPR Reporting. Metro UGMFP Metro to establish Non adopters to Region 2040 Centers requirements for adopt Center [various jurisdictions] adoption of Centers boundaries and zoning Durham,Johnson City, Maywood Park, EV Conduit Transportation Performance Parking A Rivergrove, King City, Parking B Modeling Standards Wood Village Beaverton, Cornelius, Fairview, Forest EV Conduit Grove, Gladstone, Parking B Gresham, Happy HNA Beaverton, Valley, Hillsboro, Fairview, Gresham, Forest GroveEM 2026: Sherwood, Lake Oswego, Transportation Troutdale, Tualatin; Parking A Happy Valley, Performance Milwaukie, Oregon Modeling 2027: Gladstone, Hillsboro Lake Standards City, Portland, Oswego, Milwaukie, Cornelius,Tigard, Sherwood, Tigard, Oregon City Portland, West Linn, Troutdale, Tualatin, Wilsonville am West Linn, Wilsonville (10k+) Clackamas County, Transportation Performance Washington County Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Multnomah County' 4 Cities within Multnomah Co. have land use authority for unincorporated areas within UGB. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 8 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Task Summaries Parking A Reduced Mandates—OAR 660-012-0430 and OAR 660-012-0440 Effective date December 31, 2022 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e)—applies to development applications submitted after that date; either directly apply state administrative rules or amend local development standards o Reduced mandates for specific developments—cannot mandate more than 1 space/unit for residential developments with more than 1 unit o No mandates for small units, affordable units, childcare, facilities for people with disabilities, shelters o Reform near transit - no parking mandates allowed within 3/ mile of light or heavy rail stations or 1/2 mile of frequent transit corridors Parking B Parking Regulation Improvement—OAR 660-012-0405 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) - amend development standards o Preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking o Allow redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses o Allow and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses o Allow and facilitate shared parking o Parking lots more than 1/4 acre in size must install 50% tree canopy OR solar panels, solar/wind fee-in- lieu, or green energy per OAR 330-0135-0010; requires street trees and street-like facilities along driveways o Adopt parking maximums in locations such as downtowns, regional or community center, and transit- oriented developments. Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Cities—660-012-0415 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) o Cities >100,000 population, or >25,000 population if in Portland Metro, set certain parking maximums in specified areas o Cities >200,000 population also: ■ Study use of on-street timed parking in CFA and transit areas (OAR 660-012-0435 & 0440) ■ Implement parking management before authorizing new 100+ stall parking garages ■ Implement TDM management strategies before authorizing new 300+ stall garages ■ Adopt design requirements so ground floor of parking garage convertible to other uses PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 9 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Parking Mandate Reform Effective date June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) Option 1 Options 2 and 3 OAR 660-012-0420 OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens—adopt eight land use regulations related to reduced mandates based on factors such as shared parking, solar panels, parking space accessibility, on-street parking; unbundling of parking from rent for multifamily units near transit(OAR 660-012- 0425) Cities with populations 100,000+adopt on-street parking prices equivalent to at least Repeal all 500/day per spot for 5%/10%of total on-street parking supply by September 30, 2023/2025 parking (OAR 660-012-0450; effective dates per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(g)) mandates Parking Reform Approaches within the Choose ONE of the following (option 2-or-option 3) jurisdiction Policies to take effect no later than June 30, 2023 (effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f)) Option 2 Option 3 OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a)- OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b) -Adopt regulations Adopt at least 3 of 5 policies below minimizing or exempting required parking for 15 development types(summarized below) no additional 1. Unbundle parking for residential No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small action needed units sites,vacant buildings, studio/one bedrooms, 2. Unbundle leased commercial historic properties, LEED or Oregon Reach Code parking developments, etc. 3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for redevelopments/additions. businesses with more than 50 employees Adopt parking maximums. 4. Tax on parking lot revenue No parking mandates within % mile walking distance 5. No more than %space/unit of Climate-Friendly Areas. mandated for multifamily development Designate district to manage on-street residential parking. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 10 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Climate-Friendly Areas CFA Study CFA Codes OAR 660 012 0315 OAR 660-012-0320 via OAR 660-012-0315(6) Due December 31, 2023 per Due Date December 31, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(c) OAR 660-012-0012(5)(b) • CFA location and size standards per Required for all CFAs: OAR 660-012-0310(2) • Allowed uses per OAR 660-012-0320(2) • >10,000 population • Inclusion of existing abutting residential and employment zones Dwelling Unit Capacity of at least 30% without zoning amendments per OAR 660-012-0320(3) of current housing needs analysis (OAR • Prioritization of public buildings, open spaces per OAR 660-012- 660-012-0315(1); capacity calculated 0320(4) per methodology in OAR 660-012- • Block length maximums per OAR 660-012-0320(5) 0315(2) • Address other development regulation requirements per OAR • Population 5,000-10,000 660-012-0320(7) Designate at least 25 acres of CFA (OAR • Eliminate mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt 660-012-0315(3)) parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily • Displacement analysis,fair and units (OAR 660-012-0435) equitable outcomes plan, and Housing and Employment Targets narrative summary of public OAR 660-012-0320(8) or(9) engagement (OAR 660-012-0315(4)) Option A Option B Residential minimum Standards other than Option A density standards and proposed by jurisdiction that achieve allowed building height not target dwelling unit and employment less than specified by OAR per acre 660-012-0320(8) Transportation System Plan Update • TSP updates may use OAR 660-012-0015 if OAR 660-018-0020 is notice provided by December 31, 2022 (OAR 660-012-0012(2)(a)). • Minor TSP updates need not meet all updated requirements If the updated portions of the plan meet new requirements, and OAR 660-018-0020 notice is provided by June 30, 2027(OAR 660-012- 0012(2)(b)). • Compliance deadline for Eugene-Springfield and Salem -Keizer determined by OAR 660-044-0015 Scenario Planning. • Cities and Counties over 5,000 population and outside the Portland metropolitan areas must adopt major TSP update by December 31, 2029 (OAR 660-012-0012(4)(a)). Generalized Scope and Process • Overall TSP update requirements (OAR 660-012-0100 and 0105) • Public Engagement and Equity o TSP Planning Engagement generally (OAR 660-012-0120) o Equity and Underserved Populations (OAR 660-012-0125, identifying underserved populations; OAR 660-012-0130, Decision-Making with Underserved Populations; OAR 660-012-0135, Equity Analysis) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 11 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) • System Inventories and Existing Conditions o General inventory requirements (OAR 660-012-0150) o Transportation System Planning Area (OAR 660-012-0110) o Land use assumptions (OAR 660-012-0340) o Modal inventory requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0505); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0605); Transit (OAR 660-012-705); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0805) o Funding projections (OAR 660-012-0115) • Goals, Targets, and Project Prioritization o VMT Targets— base year and horizon year (OAR 660-012-0160) o Adoption of Transportation Performance Standards (OAR 660-012-0215) o Project Prioritization (OAR 660-012-0155) • TSP Contents o Modal design and planning requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0510); Bicycle (OAR 660-012- 0610); Transit (OAR 660-012-710); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0810) o Modal projects: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0520); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0620); Transit (OAR 660-012- 720); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0820) o Transportation Options Planning (OAR 660-012-0145)—transportation demand management, transit options and incentives o Enhanced review of select roadway projects (OAR 660-012-0830) —for facilities that may increase driving capacity o Prioritization framework (OAR 660-012-0155) o Unconstrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0170)—combination of modal projects; must meet VMT per capita targets from OAR 660-012-0160; Project Prioritization Framework (OAR 660-012-0155) o Financially-Constrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0180) ■ Created from unconstrained list per procedures in OAR 660-012-0180(3) ■ Sum of projects on list not to exceed 125% of funding available from OAR 660-012-0115 Transportation Planning Rule Development Regulations Land use requirements(OAR 660-012-0330) Effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(e)—TSP Adoption note—implementation of OAR 660-012-0330 within a CFA is required upon adoption of CFA Zoning(OAR 660-012- 0320(7)) • Neighborhood circulation (OAR 660-012-0330(3)) • Mixed use and commercial districts (OAR 660-012-0330(4)) • Bicycle parking regulations in compliance with OAR 660-012-0630(OAR 660-012-0330(4)(g)) • Slow streets for neighborhoods(OAR 660-012-0330(5)) • Auto-oriented land uses (OAR 660-012-0330(6)) • Allow for Low car districts (cities of 100k+, OAR 660-012-0330(7)) • Protection of transportation facilities (OAR 660-012-0330(8)) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET N/PAGE 12 OF 12 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) Victoria Transport Policy Institute Website:www.vtpi.org Email:info@vtpi.org 1250 Rudlin Street,Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA Phone&Fax 250-360-1560 "Efficiency-Equity-Clarity" The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald C. Shoup Department of Urban Planning School of Public Policy and Social Research University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Los Angeles, California 90095-1656 shoup@ucla.edu 9 December, 1999 Originally Published in Transportation Research Part A Vol. 33 (1999), pp. 549-574 Posted at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website with author's permission. Abstract Urban planners typically set the minimum parking requirements for every land use to satisfy the peak demand for free parking. As a result, parking is free for 99 percent of automobile trips in the United States. Minimum parking requirements increase the supply and reduce the price—but not the cost—of parking. They bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the prices of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking. Cars have many external costs, but the external cost of parking in cities may be greater than all the other external costs combined. To prevent spillover, cities could price on-street parking rather than require off-street parking. Compared with minimum parking requirements, market prices can allocate parking spaces fairly and efficiently. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 1 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup How can a conceptual scheme that one generation admiringly describes as subtle,flexible, and complex become for a later generation merely obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome? THOMAS KUHN Urban planners set minimum parking requirements for every land use. These requirements typically ensure that developers will provide enough spaces to satisfy the peak demand for free parking. This article examines (1)how urban planners set parking requirements, (2) how much the required parking costs, and(3) how parking requirements distort the markets for transportation and land. As a way to eliminate this distortion, I will propose that cities should price on-street parking rather than require off-street parking. The Shaky Foundation of Minimum Parking Requirements Where do minimum parking requirements come from? No one knows. The "bible" of land use planning, F. Stuart Chapin's Urban Land Use Planning, does not mention parking requirements in any of its four editions.' The leading textbooks on urban transportation planning also do not mention parking requirements.2 This silence suggests that planning academics have not seriously considered—or even noticed—the topic. This academic neglect has not prevented practicing planners from setting parking requirements for every conceivable land use. Figure 1 shows a small selection of the myriad land uses for which planners have set specific parking requirements. Without training or research, urban planners know exactly how many parking spaces to require for bingo parlors,junkyards,pet cemeteries, rifle ranges, slaughterhouses, and every other land use. Figure 1 Selected Land Uses With Minimum Parking Requirements Asylum Indoor Soccer Facility Rifle Range Bingo Parlor Junkyard Slaughterhouse Convent Kennel Taxi Stand Diet Clinic Landfill Ultra-Light Flight Park Exterminator Massage Parlor Veterinarian Fraternity Night Club Wastewater Treatment Gunsmith Oil Change Shop Zoo Horse Stable Pet Cemetery Source: Selected from the minimum parking requirements for 179 land uses in Planning Advisory Service(1991,3) Richard Willson (1996) surveyed planning directors in 144 cities to learn how they set parking requirements. The two most frequently cited methods were "survey nearby cities" and"consult Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbooks."Both strategies cause serious problems. 1.See Chapin(1957, 1965),Chapin and Kaiser(1979),and Kaiser,Godschalk,and Chapin(1995). 2.See Dickey(1983),Hanson(1995),Meyer and Miller(1984),and Papacostas and Prevedouros(1993). 1 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 2 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Survey Nearby Cities Although surveying nearby cities seems a sensible way to set parking requirements, the Planning Advisory Service (1971, 1-3) explains a serious problem with this approach: Since the establishment of the principle that zoning ordinances may legally require the provision of off-street parking,ordinance drafters have been asking questions like: "How many spaces should be provided for a drive-in restaurant?"—or any other land use for that matter. The question is typically answered by relying upon what ordinances for other jurisdictions require... The implicit assumption is that other areas must know what they are doing(the ordinances were adopted,after all)and so it is a relatively safe bet to adopt a parking standard"close to the average." This may simply result in a repetition of someone else's mistakes. Nevertheless,the planner who needs to present a numerical standard by the next planning commission meeting can't answer the original question by saying,"I don't really know."(italics added) Setting parking requirements by relying on what other cities require not only risks repeating someone else's mistakes, but also fails to reveal where the requirements came from in the first place. Consult ITE Handbooks To base parking requirements on more objective data, planners consult Parking Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. For each land use, this publication reports the "parking generation rate," defined as the peak parking occupancy observed in surveys by transportation engineers. A vast majority of the data. . . is derived from suburban developments with little or no significant transit ridership... The ideal site for obtaining reliable parking generation data would. . . contain ample,convenient parking facilities for the exclusive use of the traffic generated by the site... The objective of the survey is to count the number of vehicles parked at the time of peak parking demand(ITE 1987a,vii-xv,italics added). The ITE summarizes the survey results and reports the average peak parking occupancy observed at each land use as the parking generation rate for that land use. Half of the 101 reported parking generation rates are based on four or fewer surveys of parking occupancy, and 22 percent of the parking generation rates are based on a single survey. Because parking is free for 99 percent of all automobile trips in the United States,parking must be free at most of the ITE survey sites.3 Parking generation rates therefore typically measure the peak demand for parking observed in a few surveys conducted at suburban sites that offer ample free parking and lack public transit. Urban planners who use these parking generation rates to set minimum parking requirements are making a big mistake. 3.For all automobile trips made on the previous day,the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey(NPTS) asked 48,000 respondents,"Did you pay for parking during any part of this trip?" Ninety-nine percent of the 56,733 responses to this question were"No." 2 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 3 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Parking Generation is a questionable resource for several reasons. First, parking generation rates are inflated by the ample free parking. Second, no information is provided on several key issues. Why and where were the surveys were conducted? How long did the surveys last? How long did the peak parking occupancy last? Finally, nothing is said about off-peak parking occupancy. Parking Generation raises more questions than it answers. Figure 2 shows Parking Generation's report for one land use, fast-food restaurants. At the 18 survey sites parking generation ranges from 3.55 to 15.92 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.4 The R2 of 0.038 shows that the variation in floor area accounts for less than 4 percent of the variation in peak parking occupancy. Parking generation is essentially unrelated to floor area in the sample. Nevertheless, the average parking generation rate—normally interpreted as the relationship between parking demand and floor area for a land use—is reported as precisely 9.95 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Figure 2 Parking Generation at Fast Food Restaurants with Drive-In Windows FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW(836) Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA On a:WEEKDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 GSF Rate Rates Deviation Studies Leasable Area 9.95 3.55-15.92 3.41 18 3 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R'. 44 ❑ 42- ❑ w 40- 7 38- U ❑ U 36- O ❑ a a u, 34- w 32 can 30- z 28- 26- --- a 24- a• 22- W ❑ a_ 20- ❑ II a 18- ❑ 0 16- 0 ❑ 0 14 ' , r r r r r r 1 2 3 4 5 6 X = 1000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA ❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation:P= 1.95(X) + 20.0 R' = 0.038 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers(1987a.,p. 146) 4.Gross floor area is the building's total floor area,including cellars,basements,corridors,lobbies,stairways,elevators, and storage. Gross floor area is measured from the building's outside wall faces. 3 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 4 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup When urban planners consult ITE publications they behave like frightened natives before a powerful totem. For example, the median parking requirement for fast-food restaurants in the United States is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, the same as the ITE's average parking generation rate.5 Beyond the ITE's impressive professional reputation, the ITE data appeal to urban planners because minimum parking requirements are intended to meet the peak parking demand, and no one else provides systematic data that relate peak parking demand to land use. Minimum Parking Requirements Inflate Trip Generation Rates How do minimum parking requirements affect the demand for vehicle trips? The ITE publishes Trip Generation to show the demand for vehicle trips associated with various land uses. For each land use, this publication reports the "trip generation rate," defined as the number of vehicle trips that begin or end at a land use during a given period. In choosing a survey site the ITE (1987b, 23) recommends, "the site should be self-contained with adequate parking not shared by other activities." Half of the 1,533 reported trip generation rates are based on four or fewer surveys, and 26 percent of the trip generation rates are based on a single survey. As with Parking Generation, the survey sites probably offer free parking. The trip generation rates therefore typically measure the number of automobile trips observed in a few surveys conducted at sites with free parking. Free parking inflates the trip generation rates because vehicle trip demand is higher where the price of parking is lower. Figure 3 shows Trip Generation's report for fast-food restaurants. It shows the total number of vehicle trips to and from each survey site during a 24-hour period from Monday through Friday. Trip generation ranges from 284 to 1,359.5 vehicle trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area among the eight survey sites. The R2 of 0.069 shows that the variation in floor area accounts for less than 7 percent of the variation in vehicle trips. Trip generation is essentially unrelated to floor area in the sample. Nevertheless, the average trip generation rate—normally interpreted as the relationship between vehicle trips and floor area for a land use—is reported as precisely 632.125 vehicle trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area. 5.The Planning Advisory Service(1991)surveyed the parking requirements in 127 cities. The median of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet is for the cities that base their requirements on gross floor area. 4 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 5 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Figure 3 Trip Generation At Fast Food Restaurants With Drive-Through Windows FASTFOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW(834) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA On a:WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION RATES Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA 632.125 284.000-1359.500 • 8 3.0 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R'. 2,800- 2,600- � - o ❑ 2,400- z w - a 2,200- E w 2,000- J x 1,800__— w a. 1,600- ❑ a - aw 1,400-11 ❑ n 1,200- 1,000- ❑ 800 r , 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 X=1000 SQUARE FEET GFA ,l ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: T=242.75(X)+ 1168.0 R'=0.069 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION:Not available. Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers(1987a.,p. 1119) Parking Generation Compared with Trip Generation To test the reliability of parking and trip generation rates, we can compare the number of vehicle trips per day to fast-food restaurants with the peak parking demand at fast-food restaurants. The number of daily round trips to a site divided by the number of parking spaces at the site can be interpreted as the parking turnover rate, which is the number of different cars that occupy a parking space during the day. Table 1 shows both the trip generation rates (expressed in round trips, or half the number of trip ends) and parking generation rates per 1,000 square feet of floor area for all the land uses that are common between the Trip Generation and Parking Generation editions published in 1987 (the most recent edition of Parking Generation). The final column of Table 1 shows the parking turnover rate. For example, on an average weekday a fast-food restaurant generates 316.1 vehicle-round-trips and a peak parking occupancy of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, 32 different cars occupy each parking space during an average day(316.1 - 10). 5 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 6 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Table 1 Trip Generation Rates Compared With Parking Generation Rates Trip Generation Parking Generation Trips Per Parking Space Land Use (round trips/day) (parking spaces) (round trips/space/day) Manufacturing 1.9 1.6 1.2 Furniture store 2.2 1.2 1.8 Industrial park 3.5 1.5 2.4 Residential Condominium 2.9 1.1 2.6 Quality restaurant 47.8 12.5 3.8 Warehousing 2.4 0.5 4.9 Motel 5.1 0.9 5.7 Retirement community 1.7 0.3 6.1 Church 3.8 0.4 9.0 Government office 34.5 3.8 9.0 Discount store 35.6 3.6 10.0 Hardware Store 25.6 2.4 10.6 Supermarket 62.8 2.9 21.9 Tennis courts/club 16.5 0.7 23.2 Fast food w/drive-thru 316.1 10.0 31.6 Fast food w/o drive-thru 388.6 11.7 33.3 Bank w/drive-thru 145.6 4.2 34.4 Bank w/o drive-thru 95.0 0.6 150.8 Convenience market 443.5 1.4 314.6 Per 1000 Square Feet Sources:Institute of Transportation Engineers(1987a,b) The parking turnover rate at furniture stores is only 1.8 cars per parking space per day, implying slow business. At churches it is a busy nine cars per space per day, heralding a religious awakening. At government office buildings it is also nine cars per space per day, suggesting that the state has not withered away. At tennis courts it is 23.2 cars per space per day, implying very short games but many of them. These turnover rates are unreliable because the underlying parking and trip generation rates are often based on scant evidence (the parking or trip generation rate is based on only one survey for 4 of the 19 land uses). The surveys of parking generation for each land use were probably conducted at different sites and at different times from the surveys of trip generation. These bizarre turnover rates also suggest a more serious problem: the parking and trip generation rates are misleading guides to transportation and land use planning. The Tail That Wags Two Dogs Free parking is an unstated assumption behind both parking generation rates and minimum parking requirements. Transportation engineers do not consider the price of parking as a variable in estimating parking generation rates. When urban planners set parking requirements they make the same mistake. Urban planners interpret the ITE parking generation rates as the demand for parking, neglecting the fact that demand has been observed only where parking is free. The following five steps describe the dysfunctional interaction between transportation engineers and urban planners. 6 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 7 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup 1. Transportation engineers survey parking occupancy at sites that offer ample free parking and lack public transit. The ITE summarizes the peak parking occupancies observed at each land use and reports the parking generation rate. 2. Urban planners use the parking generation rates to set minimum parking requirements for all land uses. Because the required parking supply is so large,the market price of parking is zero,and most new developments offer free parking. 3. Transportation engineers survey vehicle trips to and from sites that offer free parking. The ITE summarizes the data on vehicle trips observed at each land use and reports the trip generation rate. 4. Transportation planners design the roads and highways to satisfy the trip generation rates. Therefore,the transportation system provides enough capacity to satisfy the expected demand for vehicle trips to and from land uses that provide free parking. 5. Urban planners limit land use density so that new development will not generate more vehicle trips than nearby roads and highways can carry. In this five-step process, the unstated assumption of free parking underpins planning for both transportation and land use. Peak parking occupancy observed at sites that offer free parking becomes the minimum number of parking spaces that all development must provide. Ubiquitous free parking then stimulates the demand for vehicle travel. The observed travel demand becomes the guide for designing the transportation system that brings cars to the free parking. Planners limit development density to prevent traffic congestion around the sites that offer free parking. Because of this circular reasoning, free parking is the tail that wags two dogs—transportation and land use. The Cost of Complying With Minimum Parking Requirements Theory and data play small roles in setting parking requirements, and so we should not be surprised that the requirements often look foolish. This foolishness is a serious problem because minimum parking requirements increase development cost and they powerfully shape land use, transportation, and urban form. While urban planners rarely consider the cost of parking requirements, developers rarely have the luxury of not considering this cost. The Cost of Parking Spaces What does it cost a developer to comply with minimum parking requirements? We can estimate this cost by taking into account the number of required parking spaces and the cost per space. The Appendix presents evidence that aboveground structured parking often costs about $10,000 per space and that underground parking often costs about $25,000 per space. The most common parking requirement for an office building is four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.6 If 6.Two surveys of parking requirements in 117 cities in Southern California suggest that the typical parking requirement for office buildings is 4 spaces per 1,000 sq-ft.of floor area.The first survey was conducted in 1975,and it was repeated for the same cities in 1993 (Shoup 1995). In both years the most frequent parking requirement(the mode)was 4 spaces per 1,000 sq-ft.of floor area. Sixty-five percent of the cities that required less than the mode in 1975 had increased their requirement by 1993,and none had reduced it.Eighty percent of the cities that required more than the mode in 1975 had reduced their requirement by 1993,and none had increased it.These changes doubled the percentage of cities requiring 4 spaces per 1,000 sq-ft.from 27%in 1975 to 54%in 1993. 7 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 8 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup aboveground parking costs $10,000 per space, the cost of providing the required parking is $40 per square foot of floor area (4 x $10,000- 1,000). If underground parking costs $25,000 per space, the cost of the required parking is $100 per square foot of floor area (4 x $25,000 1,000). In Los Angeles the average construction cost of an office building, excluding the cost of parking, is about $150 per square foot.' Therefore, in this example, the cost of four aboveground parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space increases the cost of the office space by 27 percent ($40 - $150). The cost of four underground parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space increases the cost of the office space by 67 percent($100- $150). Because motorists park free for most vehicle trips, they clearly do not pay the cost of providing parking spaces. If motorists do not pay for parking spaces, who does? Minimum parking requirements bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the cost of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking. These requirements "externalize"the cost of parking, so that you cannot reduce what you pay for parking by consuming less of it. Minimum parking requirements bypass the price system in the markets for both transportation and land. The Cost of Parking Spaces Compared with the Cost of Cars Minimum parking requirements increase the supply and reduce the price—but not the cost—of parking. To reveal the size of the resulting subsidy for parking, we can compare the value of parking and cars with what motorists pay for parking and cars. Table 2 shows the number of registered vehicles and the capital value (in current dollars) of these vehicles for the years 1985 to 1995.8 For example, 202 million vehicles were registered in 1995, and this stock of vehicles was valued at $1,079 billion, or$5,352 per vehicle.9 How does this value of vehicles compare with the value of parking spaces? 7.The average cost of$150 per square foot refers to Class A,steel-framed office buildings. This figure includes construction cost,tenant improvement costs,and"soft"costs such as financing,insurance,and real estate taxes during construction,but excludes the cost of parking. This figure was supplied by the Los Angeles County Assessor. 8.The U.S.Department of Commerce has estimated the total value of all fixed reproducible tangible wealth in the United States for the years 1929 to 1995. One category of this wealth is the capital value of all vehicles(cars and trucks). The capital value of an asset in each year is defined as the cumulative value of past gross investment in that asset minus the cumulative value of past depreciation. 9.Because 65 percent of all vehicles were more than five years old in 1995,depreciation explains the low average value of$5,352 per vehicle. 8 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 9 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Table 2 The Value of Motor Vehicles in the United States Year Registered Capital Value of Vehicles Vehicles (million) Total(US$billion) Per Vehicle(US$/vehicle) 1985 172 614 3575 1986 176 688 3918 1987 179 731 4085 1988 184 790 4286 1989 187 833 4446 1990 189 868 4595 1991 188 879 4673 1992 190 910 4778 1993 194 961 4952 1994 198 1032 5211 1995 202 1079 5352 Sources:Katz and Herman(1997)for capital values and Federal Highway Administration(1995)for number of vehicles.Values are expressed in current dollars of each year. Minimum parking requirements are intended to satisfy the expected peak demand for parking at every land use—at home, work, school, banks, restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, and hundreds of other land uses from airports to zoos. Because the peak parking demands at different land uses occur at different times of the day or week, and may last for only a short time, several off-street parking spaces must be available for every motor vehicle. Although no one knows the number of parking spaces per car, Victor Gruen (1973) estimated that for every car there must be at least one parking space at the place of residence and three to four spaces elsewhere. Suppose there are four parking spaces per vehicle. If the average vehicle is worth $5,352 and if there are four parking spaces per vehicle, the average vehicle value per parking space is $1,338 ($5,352 4). Therefore, if the average land-and-improvement value of a parking space exceeds $1,338, the average value of four parking spaces exceeds the average $5,352 value per vehicle they serve. Because $1,338 is a very modest sum for both the land and construction cost of a parking space, the total value of all parking spaces probably exceeds the total value of all vehicles. Motorists pay for their vehicles (worth $1.1 trillion in 1995)but they park free for 99 percent of automobile trips.10 Motorists pay so little for parking because parking requirements bundle the cost of parking into the cost of development. Parking is free for most automobile trips only because its cost has been shifted in to higher prices for everything else. Everyone pays for parking whether they use it or not. Cars have many external costs, but the cost of parking in cities may be 10.The total receipts of all private and public parking operators in the United States was only$4.4 billion in 1992. Private operators received 83 percent of this revenue,and municipalities received 17 percent.The 1992 Census Data on Service Industries reports the revenue for private parking facilities,and the 1992 Census of Governments reports revenue from municipal parking facilities. Parking operators receive revenue that motorists do not pay when someone else pays it for them—as with validated and employer-paid parking. On the other hand,the Census data do not include the parking receipts of establishments primarily engaged in activities other than parking(department stores,hospitals, and restaurants,for example). If these two factors cancel each other,motorists paid about$4.4 billion for parking in 1992. 9 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 10 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup far greater than all these other external costs combined. By hiding a huge share of the cost of owning and using cars in cities, minimum parking requirements intensify all the other problems of external cost(such as air pollution and traffic congestion), making an already bad situation far worse. Minimum parking requirements distort transportation and land use. They are not, however, the first example of an unwise professional practice that has produced unintended consequences. A medical analogy illustrates the problem. An Analogy: Lead Poisoning Parking requirements in urban planning resemble lead therapy in medicine. Lead has antiseptic properties because it is toxic to microorganisms, and until the twentieth century physicians prescribed lead to treat many ailments. One popular medical treatise recommended the using lead as a therapy for abscesses,burns, cancer, contusions, gout, gunshot wounds, inflammation, itch, piles, rheumatism, ruptures, sprains, stiffness of the joints, and ulcers!' Early physicians did not realize that lead is toxic to humans, and lead poisoning went largely unnoticed as a medical problem until the end of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, a few early critics had recognized lead's harmful effects. As a printer, Benjamin Franklin had much contact with lead, and he wrote to a friend in 1786, The Opinion of this mischievous effect from lead is at least above sixty years old;and you will observe with Concern how long a useful Truth may be known and exist,before it is generally receiv'd and practis'd on.12 Lead continued to be used as medicine for more than a century after Franklin's warning, and folk remedies continue to use it as an ingredient today. Lead has local antiseptic properties,but any local benefit comes at a high price to the whole person. Lead exposure occurred in many ways unrelated to medicine when no one suspected that lead was harmful.13 Minimum Parking Requirements: Urban Lead Therapy Like lead therapy, minimum parking requirements produce a local benefit—they ensure that every land use can accommodate all the cars "drawn to the site." But this local benefit comes at a high price to the whole city. Minimum parking requirements increase the density of both parking spaces and cars. More cars create more traffic congestion, which in turn provokes calls for more 11.Goulard(1784,p.2)says,"when the reader has perused the following treatise he will be inclined to think that this metal[lead]is one of the most efficacious remedies for the cure of most diseases which require the assistance of surgery." 12.Quoted in McCord(1953,pp.398). 13.Lead poisoning has even been suggested as a cause of the decline of the Roman Empire.Romans prepared their food in lead pots,stored their wine in lead vessels,used lead oxide as a cosmetic,and drank water delivered in lead pipes(the word"plumber"comes from the Latin word for lead,plumbum).Nriagu(1983,400)estimates that Roman aristocrats' diets led to an average absorption of 250 micrograms of lead per day,or almost six times the tolerable amount recommended by the World Health Organization.Nriagu conjectures that a diet rich in lead helps to explain why only one of Rome's original aristocratic families appeared to have any surviving members by the second century AD. 10 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 11 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup local remedies, such as street widening, intersection flaring, intelligent highways, and higher parking requirements. More cars also produce more exhaust emissions. Like lead therapy, minimum parking requirements produce a local benefit but damage the whole system. Minimum parking requirements resemble other primitive medical practices that were adopted without good theory and careful empirical research. Describing a leading medical text written in 1896, Lewis Thomas (1981, 40) says, The public expectation then,as now,was that the doctor would do something. There was no disease for which a treatment was not recommended....Every other page contains a new,complex treatment always recommended with the admonition that the procedure be learned by rote(since it rarely made any intrinsic sense)and be performed precisely as described.Acute poliomyelitis had to be treated by subcutaneous injections of strychnine;the application of leeches;the administration of belladonna, extract of ergot,potassium of iodide,and purgative doses of mercury;the layering of thick ointments containing mercury and iodine over the affected limbs;faradic stimulation of the muscles;ice-cold shower baths over the spine;and cupping ...each of these with a dosage schedule to be followed precisely, some of them singly,others in various combinations... All of this has the appearance of institutionalized folly,the piecing together of a huge structure of nonsensical and dangerous therapy,and indeed it was. The pieces were thought up and put together almost like thin air,but perhaps not quite. Empiricism made a small contribution,just enough in the case of each to launch it into fashion. I suspect that, looking backward a century from now, urban planners will see minimum parking requirements to have been no better than physicians now see lead therapy: a poison prescribed as a cure. Like many discredited and abandoned medical practices, minimum parking requirements are "institutionalized folly." Many parking spaces are provided voluntarily rather than in response to requirements. And far from being a poison, parking is an indispensable part of the transportation system. What is poisonous, however, is for planners to require massive overdoses of parking. Sometimes a disaster must occur to stimulate the reexamination of customary practices. Minimum parking requirements have produced no single disaster,but evidence of their harm confronts us everywhere—traffic congestion, air pollution, energy imports, the orientation of the built environment around the automobile, perhaps even global climate change. Although not their sole cause, minimum parking requirements magnify all these problems. Likening parking requirements to lead poisoning is a criticism of current planning practice, not of individual planners. Physicians who prescribed lead were making an honest mistake. Urban planners who prescribe parking requirements are, I believe, also making an honest mistake. Although many planners may agree with this criticism, they may also feel that it is unhelpful unless the critic can propose a better way to deal with the parking problem. I will propose an alternative: cities should price on-street parking rather than require off-street parking. 11 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 12 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup An Alternative: Let Prices Do The Planning Minimum parking requirements are a mistake but they respond to a real problem—spillover parking. If a land use does not provide enough off-street parking, some motorists drawn to the site will park on nearby streets, competing for the scarce curb parking supply. Urban planners know that this spillover parking creates enormous political problems. If spillover parking from a new development congests the adjacent curb parking, everyone nearby will angrily ask planners and politicians, "How could you let this happen?" To prevent parking spillover where adjacent curb parking is free, new land uses must provide enough off-street spaces to satisfy the demand for free parking. Free curb parking explains why planners consciously or unconsciously base off-street parking requirements on the demand for free parking. In his survey of planning directors in 144 cities, Richard Willson (1996) asked"Why does your city have minimum parking requirements?" The most frequent response was the circular explanation"to have an adequate number of spaces." In effect, planners treat free parking as an entitlement, and they consider the resulting demand for free parking to be a"need"they can measure. Because parking requirements are so ingrained in planning practice, complaining about them may seem futile, like complaining about photosynthesis or gravity. If free parking were an entitlement and the goal is to prevent parking spillover, requiring enough off-street parking to meet the demand at zero price would make sense. But free parking is not an entitlement. As the alternative to requiring off-street parking, consider pricing curb parking. The Market Price for Curb Parking The market price for curb parking is the price that matches demand with supply and keeps a few spaces vacant. Traffic engineers usually recommend a vacancy rate for curb parking of at least 15 percent to ensure easy parking access and egress.14 If cities priced curb parking to balance supply and demand with a few vacant spaces on every block, motorists could always find a convenient parking space close to their final destination. 14.See Briefly(1972),May(1975),and Witheford and Kanaan(1972). 12 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 13 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Figure 4 The Market Price of Curb Parking $1.00 - SUPPLY \ ed) O $0.70 Pi °. $0.60 va • $0.50 _ 02 Ir F, $0.40 o D3 (.) $0.30 fa4 P2 $0.20 $0.10 P3 $0.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Curb Space Occupancy Rate Figure 4 illustrates the policy of market prices for curb parking. Because the supply of curb spaces is fixed, the supply of curb spaces available with a 15 percent vacancy rate is a vertical line positioned above the horizontal axis at an 85 percent occupancy rate. The demand curve slopes downward, and the market-clearing price of parking occurs where the demand curve intersects the vertical supply curve. For example, when parking demand is high (demand curve Di), the price that will yield a 15-percent vacancy rate is high(P1 is 600 an hour). When demand is lower (demand curve D2), a price of only 200 an hour will yield a 15-percent vacancy rate. When parking demand is lowest (demand curve D3), the vacancy rate will be 50 percent even when parking is free. If the price of parking is set too high, many parking spaces remain vacant, and a valuable resource is unused. If the price of parking is set too low, the occupancy rate reaches 100 percent, and motorists hunting for a vacant space waste time, congest traffic, and pollute the air. Because the demand for parking rises and falls during the day but the supply of parking is fixed, demand- responsive parking prices would necessarily rise and fall to maintain an"inventory" of vacant parking spaces on each block. The lowest price that will yield a vacancy rate of about 15 percent is the market price of curb parking. Obviously, prices cannot constantly fluctuate to maintain a vacancy rate of exactly 15 percent, but they can vary sufficiently to avoid chronic over- or under-occupancy. Commercial parking operators always set prices high enough to avoid regularly putting out the "full" sign, and cities could contract with commercial operators to price curb parking properly, if necessary. 13 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 14 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Parking Benefit Districts Elsewhere I have argued that market prices can effectively regulate the off-street parking supply, and that the government's chief contribution should be to set market prices for curb parking. I have also argued that, to make this pricing solution politically popular, cities could establish Parking Benefit Districts that dedicate curb parking revenue to pay for public services in the neighborhood where the revenue is collected.15 If the benefits financed by parking charges were visible and local, residents would want to charge market prices for curb parking for the revenue, not because they thought it good public policy. Residents who benefit from parking charges paid by strangers would begin to think like parking lot owners. The economic argument to charge for curb parking is efficiency—the benefits would outweigh the costs. The political argument to create Parking Benefit Districts is distribution—the benefits for neighborhoods would lead residents to vote for the proposal. Parking meters have few friends if their revenue disappears into the city's general fund. Curb parking revenue needs the appropriate recipient—its neighborhood—before residents will recommend market prices for parking. For example, parking revenue could pay to plant street trees, repair sidewalks, or underground utility wires. Curb parking charges would yield more revenue than the property taxes in many neighborhoods, so many residents could reap enormous benefits. Charging strangers to park in front of your house is like Monty Python's scheme for Britain to tax foreigners living abroad. Charging for parking does not require a meter at every space. Several payment systems—from high-tech electronic in-vehicle meters and multispace meters to low-tech paper stickers—have eliminated the practical and aesthetic objections to charging for parking. Where the potential revenues are high and the collection costs are low, the transaction costs of charging for parking are not a serious objection. The problem is political, not technical, and dedicating curb parking revenue to its neighborhood can solve the political problem. A Model of Parking Choice If market prices allocated parking spaces, how would motorists decide where to park? A simple model of parking choice will help to answer this question. To anticipate the results, market prices will allocate the most convenient parking spaces to motorists who: (a) carpool, (b)park for a short time, (c)walk slowly, and(d)place a high value on reducing walking time. Conversely, market prices will allocate the peripheral parking spaces to motorists who: (a) drive alone, (b) park for a long time, (c)walk fast, and(d)place a low value on reducing walking time. Variables in the Model of Parking Choice Suppose the price of parking is highest at the destinations where parking demand is highest, and that the price declines with distance from these destinations. Since the price of parking increases as you drive toward your destination, you will pay more money to park closer to your destination but you will also spend less time walking from your car to your destination. Given the trade-off 15.See Shoup(1992, 1994, 1995, 1997)for the proposal to use the revenue from market-priced curb parking to finance neighborhood public services. Several new technologies can charge for curb parking without using conventional parking meters. Cities have also begun to subcontract with private enterprises to collect curb parking revenue. 14 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 15 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup between money spent on parking and time spent on walking, where should you park your car and walk the rest of the way? To find the optimal parking space, consider the following variables (and their dimensions): d the distance from parking space to final destination(miles) p(d) the price of parking at distance d from the final destination($/hour) t parking duration(hours) w walking speed from parking space to final destination(miles/hour) n number of persons in the car(persons) v average value of time spent walking($/hour/person). The total cost associated with parking at any location is the money cost of parking plus the time cost of walking from the parking space to the final destination and back. The money cost of parking equals the parking duration multiplied by the price per hour, or tp(d).16 The time to walk from the parking space to the final destination and back is 2d/w, the distance walked divided by the walking speed. To convert this time cost of walking into its money equivalent we can multiply the walking time by the dollar value of time, v. Because everyone in the car, n, experiences this time cost, the (monetized) cost of time spent walking equals 2nvd/w.17 At distance d from the final destination the total cost of parking and walking is therefore tp(d) + 2nvd/w. (1) The first term of the expression is the money cost of parking, and the second term is the (monetized) time cost of walking from the parking space to the final destination and back. The Optimal Parking Space What parking location minimizes the total cost of parking and walking? As you drive toward your destination the cost of parking increases and the cost of walking decreases. The minimum total cost of parking and walking occurs where the increase in the money cost of parking balances the decrease in the time cost of walking. If the money cost of parking increases less than the time cost of walking decreases as you approach your destination, you should keep driving. If the money cost of parking increases more than the time cost of walking decreases, you have driven too far.18 16.I assume that you know how long you want to park.Alternatively,you may know only the expected value of how long you want to park.In either case,you pay only for the exact time that you park.The parking charge is a linear function of the number of minutes you park,with no advance commitment to how long you will park. 17.The value of time is the price you are willing to pay to reduce the time spent walking between your parking space and your final destination.It will depend on whether you are in a hurry,how tired you are,packages you are carrying,the weather,and many other circumstances that can vary greatly from trip to trip. 18.This parking location model resembles the Alonso-Mills-Muth housing location model.Muth(1969,22)explains that the equilibrium housing location is where"the reduction in expenditure necessary to purchase a given quantity of housing that results from moving a unit distance away from the market[equals]the increase in transport costs occasioned by such a move."If we substitute the words"parking"for"housing"and"walking"for"transport"in this extract,Muth is describing the equilibrium parking location.The quantity of space occupied is variable in the housing decision but fixed in the parking decision,while the time that space is occupied is fixed in the housing decision but variable in the parking decision. 15 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 16 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Differentiating equation (1) with respect to d and setting the result equal to zero gives the distance from a final destination that minimizes the total cost of parking and walking. tap/ad+2nv/w= 0, and -tap/ad=2nv/w. (2) The changes in the money cost of parking (tap/ad) and the time cost of walking (2nv/w) are equal in value and opposite in sign for any small movement from the location that minimizes the total cost of parking and walking. A parking space substantially closer to your final destination will increase the money cost of parking by more than it reduces the time cost of walking. A parking space substantially farther from your destination will increase the time cost of walking by more than it reduces the money cost of parking. The optimal parking space perfectly balances greed and sloth. An Example Suppose the price of parking is $1 an hour at your destination, and that the price declines with distance from your destination according to the negative exponential formula P(d) _ $1e 2d. (3) Equation (3) implies that the price of parking,p, declines with distance, d, from the center, and that the slope of the curve relating price to distance also declines with increasing distance from the center(see Figure 5). A negative exponential curve is typical of the relationship between commercial parking prices and the distance from activity centers. Figure 5 The Cost of Parking and Walking $4.50 Total Cost of Parking&Walking e$4.00 $3.50 _ $3.35 $3.00 $2.50 Time Cost of Walking $2.00 $2.00 $1.50 — Money Cost of Parking o $1.00 $1.35 0j $0.50 0.34 miles $0.00 l I { l I l I I I i 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Distance from Center(miles) Assumptions r=4 hours,n=I person,v—$8 per hour,w=4 miles per hour,p(d)=$1 e'd Suppose that you want to park for 4 hours (t=4), you are alone (n = 1), your time is worth $8 an hour(v= $8), and you walk 4 miles an hour(w=4). Figure 5 shows the cost of parking and of 16 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 17 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup walking as a function of parking d miles from your destination. The money cost of parking 4 hours is $4e 2d, which declines with distance from your destination.19 The time cost of walking is (2x1x$8/4)d, which increases with distance from your destination. The total cost of parking and walking (the upper curve in Figure 5)reaches its minimum value of$3.35 at a distance somewhere between 0.3 and 0.4 miles from your destination. To minimize the total cost of parking and walking you should park about a third of a mile from your destination and walk the rest of the way.20 Solving equation(2) gives the exact distance that minimizes the total cost of parking and walking. Substituting equation(3) into equation(2) and solving for the optimal distance from a final destination, denoted as d*, gives d* = [-loge(nv/tw)]/2. (4) Given the values of n = 1 person, v= $8 an hour, t= 4 hours, and w= 4 miles an hour, the value for d* in equation (4) is 0.34 miles. At this distance the price of parking is 500 an hour, so the cost of parking four hours is $2. Walking the round trip of 0.68 miles from parking space to final destination and back at four miles an hour will take about 10 minutes. If time costs $8 an hour, 10 minutes will cost $1.35. The minimum total cost of parking and walking to your destination is thus $3.35 for the trip (see Figure 5).21 The total money-and-time cost curve is flat between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from the destination because the slopes of the money-parking-cost and monetized-time-cost curves are about equal in absolute value but opposite in sign within this range.22 The total cost of parking and walking is about $3.35 anywhere between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from your destination. Parking less than 0.25 miles or more than 0.5 miles from your destination increases the total cost of parking and walking. For example, the total cost of parking and walking is $4 both at your destination and also at 0.8 miles from your destination. Implications of the Model 19.The exponential relationship implies that the parking price gradient gets steeper as you approach your destination (the absolute value of ap/ad increases as d approaches 0). 20.Automobile speed and operating cost have been neglected but are easily added to the model. Parking closer to your destination increases driving time and automobile operating cost. Therefore,the total time-and-money cost of driving, parking,and walking is minimized where the total value of driving and walking time saved by parking closer equals the total parking and automobile operating cost added by parking closer. If a denotes automobile operating cost($/mile), and s denotes driving speed(miles/hour),total cost is minimized where t(ap/ad)=-2nv(1/w- 1/s)+2a. If a is low and s is high,they are negligible parts of the decision,and the solution for d*reduces to equation(4). 21.If you want to spend 4 hours at your destination,the 10 minutes walking time must be added to the time at your destination,so the total parking duration will be 4 hours and 10 minutes. The additional parking duration will add another 8.50 to the parking cost. This result suggest that you should park a bit closer to your destination when you consider the effect of walking time on the total parking cost. To simplify the discussion,this factor has been neglected. A negative value of d*implies that you should park at your destination. 22.The monetized time cost of walking from your parking space to your destination and back increases with distance from your destination at a constant rate of$4 per mile. The money cost of parking decreases with distance from your destination at a rate of$4 per mile at 0.34 miles from your destination. At parking locations closer than 0.34 miles from your destination,the money cost of parking decreases with increasing distance from your destination at a rate of more than$4 per mile. At parking locations farther than 0.34 miles from your destination,the money cost of parking decreases with increasing distance from your destination at a rate of less than$4 per mile. 17 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 18 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Motorists do not make mathematical calculations when choosing where to park. The proposed parking location model merely expresses in mathematical form some of the various factors that motorists surely consider when they pay to park. The model confirms common sense, but several of its predictions are not immediately obvious. First, the number of persons in a car is as important as the value of their time in determining parking location. For example, a carpool of four people who each value time at $5 an hour(nv=4 x 5)will choose the same location as a solo driver who values time at $20 an hour(nv= 1 x 20), all else equal. A higher vehicle occupancy and a higher value of time justify parking closer to the final destination. Second, parking duration is as important as the value of time in determining parking location. For example, a solo driver who values time at $10 an hour and parks for one hour(v/t= 10/1) will choose the same location as another solo driver who values time at $20 an hour and parks for two hours (v/t= 20/2), all else equal. A shorter parking duration justifies parking closer to the final destination. Third, the number of persons in a car is as important as parking duration in determining parking location. For example, a solo driver who parks for one hour(nit= 1/1)will choose the same location as a three-person carpool who park for three hours (nit= 3/3), all else equal. Table 3 shows the derivatives and elasticities of the optimal distance, d*, with respect to the variables that determine it. The derivative of d* is positive with respect to t and w, which implies that the longer you park and the faster you walk, the farther away you should park. The derivative of d* is negative with respect to n and v, which implies that the more people in your car and the higher value of their time, the closer in you should park. TABLE 3 Elasticity of D*With Respect to Parking Choice Variables Partial Derivative of d* Elasticity of d* Variable with Respect to Variable i with Respect to Variable i t(parking duration) ad*lat=+1/(2t)>0 E t=+1/(2d*)>0 w(walking speed) ad*/aw=+1/(2w)>0 e W=+1/(2d*)>0 n(number of persons) ad*lan=-1/(2n)<0 E n=-1/(2d*)<0 v(value of time) ad*lay=-1/(2v)<0 e =-1/(2d*)<0 Note: d*=[-loge(nv/tw)]/2 and c;=(ad*/ai)/(d*Ii). The elasticities of d* with respect to the variables that determine it decrease with increasing distance from the center(see Figure 6). For example, the elasticity of d* with respect to the parking duration, t, is +1/(2d*). At d* = 0.25 miles from the center, the elasticity of d* with respect to t is+2, so a 10-percent decrease in the length of time you want to park will shift your optimal parking location 20 percent closer to your final destination.23 23.This result follows from the assumed functional relationship between p and d. In this particular case,the same relative increase in t,w,n,or v will always produce the same absolute change in d*. As d*approaches zero,the elasticities approach infinity. 18 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 19 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Figure 6 Elasticity of Parking Location Choice 4 3— Elasticity wid'respect to parking duration and walking speed 2 1 '" 0 w -1 -2 Elasticity with respect to number of persons and value of time -3 -4 II + + 1 + 1 1 f i 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Distance from Center(miles) These predictions are consistent with previous research on parking choices. David Gillen(1978) developed a model of parking location choice similar to the one expressed in equation(4), although he did not consider the number of persons in a car. Using data from Toronto, Gillen found that motorists who pay for parking by the hour are willing to trade a shorter parking duration for a closer parking location. Using trip data from Vancouver, Brown and Lambe (1972) showed that allocating parking spaces by market prices will minimize the total walking time from parking spaces to final destinations. A linear programming model that minimizes total walking time predicted commercial off-street parking prices with an average error of only 20 percent. The price of curb parking was well below the level that would minimize total walking time. Naturally, a simple model of parking prices like the one presented here does not describe most current parking decisions because parking is free for 99 percent of all automobile trips. The model is a simplified description of parking choice, but its assumptions are far more sensible than the assumptions behind minimum parking requirements.24 24.Several relevant variables and interactions between variables have also been left out of the model. For example, parking closer to your destination incurs additional driving time and automobile expense. How long you want to park depends on the price of parking because you can reduce the parking cost by staying a shorter time at your fmal destination. How long you want to park also depends on how much time you spend walking because the parking duration is the sum of the time at the fmal destination and the time walking to and from it. A further complication is that the value of time spent driving can be different from the value of time spent walking. 19 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 20 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Efficiency and Equity of Charging For Curb Parking If curb parking were priced to yield a minimum vacancy rate of about 15 percent in every location, the resulting price gradients would shift predictably throughout the day as demand shifts. The peak parking prices might occur at employment centers during the day, at entertainment centers during the evening, and in high-density residential areas during the night. Many overlapping price gradients would form a three-dimensional parking price surface whose height at any point is the vertical summation of all the individual gradients. The individual gradients would form around many dispersed centers, like anthills covering a terrain that itself has peaks (the central business districts) and valleys (low density neighborhoods). The price of parking at any location would rise and fall during the day, and the local peaks would shift around like kittens fighting under a blanket. Efficiency Market prices would allocate parking spaces among motorists in a logical way. The more convenient parking spaces would go to carpoolers, those in a hurry, those who want to park for only a short time, those who have difficulty walking, and those more willing to spend money. The best parking spaces could always be reserved for those with physical disabilities. The more distant parking spaces would go to solo drivers, those with time to spare, those who want to park a long time, those who enjoy walking, and those more eager to save money. Even if market prices can efficiently allocate a fixed stock of parking spaces, can market forces alone supply enough spaces to meet the demand for parking? If minimum parking requirements are eliminated, the ratio of parking spaces to cars will decline, and the price of parking will rise. This price rise will have two effects on demand and supply. First, motorists will economize on parking by changing their travel behavior. Shifting to higher occupancy vehicles to spread the cost of parking among more people will reduce the demand for parking. Shifting to walking, cycling, or public transit will also reduce the demand for parking. Shifting vehicle trips to off-peak will reduce the demand for parking at peak hours. Finally, citizens can choose to own fewer cars, and this will reduce the demand for parking. Second, freed from minimum parking requirements, developers will supply parking spaces in response to parking prices. The higher price of parking will encourage developers to voluntarily supply more parking in places where the resulting revenue will cover the cost of providing the parking. Parking will tend to become unbundled from other transactions, and firms that specialize in providing parking will manage more of the parking supply. Off-street parking prices will tend to cover the cost of providing parking spaces, including the cost of land, and these off- street prices will put a ceiling on the price of adjacent curb parking. Flexible market prices can equate demand with the fixed supply of parking in the short run, and these prices will signal where the supply can profitably be increased in the long run. The proper role for the government is to price curb parking to maintain a minimum vacancy rate so that "enough"parking will always be available if motorists are willing to pay for it. 20 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 21 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Market prices for parking resemble a spot market for land. Demand-responsive parking prices would reveal what parking spaces are really worth, and how motorists are willing to change their travel choices to save money on parking. Motorists could choose parking spaces according to how long they want to stay, how many people are in the car, how they value walking time (are they in a hurry? are they carrying heavy packages? are they tired? are they short of money?) and many other circumstances of time and place that only the individual motorists can know. In contrast to the "spontaneous" order created by market prices and individual choices, urban planners require almost every land use to provide at least enough parking spaces to satisfy the peak demand for free parking. As a result,parking is free for almost every automobile trip because the cost of parking is shifted into higher prices for almost everything else. Minimum parking requirements in zoning ordinances are a disastrous substitute for millions of individual evaluations of what a parking space is worth. Equity The proposal to price curb parking rather than require off-street parking raises a serious political question. Is it fair to charge motorists for parking? To judge whether charging for parking is fair, it must be compared with the alternative—minimum parking requirements. Minimum parking requirements force everyone to pay for parking through higher prices for all other goods and services, but everyone does not benefit equally from free parking.25 On average, households with incomes below $10,000 a year own only one car, while households with incomes above $40,000 a year own 2.3 cars. Eight percent of non-Hispanic White households, 19 percent of Hispanic households, and 30 percent of African-American households do not own a car. In total, 10.6 million American households do not own a car, yet even these households indirectly pay the costs imposed by minimum parking requirements.26 Because cars are not distributed equally in the population, charging motorists only for the parking they use is fairer than requiring everyone to pay for parking whether they use it or not. Market prices would not allocate the best parking spaces only to the rich. With market prices, motorists can pay less for parking if they carpool, stay for a shorter time, or park farther away, and they will pay nothing for parking if they walk, bicycle or ride public transit. Even those who cannot regularly afford to park in the best spaces can park in them on occasions when time is very important. Because income is only one factor that determines the value of time on a particular trip, and because the value of time is only one factor that determines parking location, income is only one of many factors that determine parking location. Given the eternal debate on the merits of markets versus planning, many skeptics will distrust using prices to allocate parking spaces. But even those who doubt the ability of markets to allocate resources fairly may agree that relying on prices to allocate curb parking spaces and using 25.Shoup(1997)explains how parking requirements increase the price of housing,and Willson(1995)explains how they increase the price of office space. 26.The 1990 NPTS reports the distribution of vehicle ownership by household income(Pisarski 1995,3-24). The 1990 Census reports the distribution of households that do not own a car(Pisarski 1996,36). 21 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 22 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup the revenue to fund public services will contribute to a host of social, economic, and environmental goals they support. Some Advantages of Market Prices for Parking Market prices for parking will allow motorists to make many small adjustments to optimize their parking choices according to countless individual circumstances. Compared with minimum parking requirements, demand-responsive parking prices have major advantages. 1. Charging for parking will give everyone an incentive to consider the alternatives to solo driving for every trip. Motorists will save money if they carpool,park for a shorter time,or walk farther. 2. Motorists who stay for a short time will tend to choose the higher-priced central spaces. The resulting faster turnover of the central parking spaces will tend to minimize motorists'total walking time to their final destinations. 3. Motorists who stay for a long time—commuters,for example—will tend to choose the lower-priced peripheral spaces. They will also save money by riding transit,bicycling,or walking. 4. Motorists will have flexibility. They can pay extra to park in the central spaces when they are in a hurry, and can save money by parking in the peripheral spaces when they are not in a hurry.Everyone can park in the more convenient spaces at off-peak times. 5. If market prices reveal the economic value of on-street parking,cities can more rationally allocate scarce roadway space between parking and traffic. The cost of another lane for vehicle movement is the opportunity cost of a lane of parking spaces,and market prices for parking will take some of the guesswork out of regulating the on-street parking supply. Conclusions: Time for a Paradigm Shift Although it would be presumptuous to call urban planning a science, minimum parking requirements in planning resemble a paradigm in science. According to Thomas Kuhn(1996), a paradigm is a conceptual scheme that has gained universal acceptance throughout a profession, and each profession's practices embody its ruling paradigms. Kuhn argued that scientific education inculcates in students an intense commitment to the existing scientific paradigms. But planning education ignores parking requirements, and therefore does not inculcate in students any commitment to them. Instead, motorists have come to expect the free parking that the requirements produce. The planning profession's commitment to parking requirements is based not on education and science but on motorists' yearning to park free. Discussing the difficulty of paradigm shifts in science, Kuhn asks, "How can a conceptual scheme that one generation admiringly describes as subtle, flexible, and complex become for a later generation merely obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome?"27 Without doubt, minimum parking requirements are obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome. In addition, minimum parking 27.Kuhn(1957,76)was describing how latter-day astronomers looked back at the Ptolemaic,earth-centered concept of the universe. 22 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 23 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup requirements impose enormous hidden costs, and they impede our progress toward important social, economic, and environmental goals. Planning for parking deserves a new paradigm. Minimum parking requirements are based on two highly unreasonable assumptions: (1) the demand for parking does not depend on its price, and(2) the supply of parking should not depend on its cost. This neglect of price and cost stems from a belief that planners can assess community needs and can regulate the land market to meet these needs. Regulation is justified in many cases where market prices fail to communicate social costs. But market failure does not justify minimum parking requirements. Without considering the price of parking--as if it were irrelevant--urban planners foretell how many parking spaces every land use needs. In practicing the art of predicting demand without considering price,urban planners resemble the Wizard of Oz, deceived by his own tricks. After he is exposed, the Wizard laments, "I have fooled everyone so long that I thought I should never be found out... [but] how can I help being a humbug when all these people make me do things that everybody knows can't be done?"28 Letting prices determine the number of parking spaces will transfer to the market an important function that urban planners now perform. But this does not mean an end to planning for parking because planners should regulate many other features of parking that affect the community, such as aesthetics, landscaping, layout, location, pedestrian access, provisions for the handicapped, setback, signage, and stormwater runoff. Pricing curb parking rather than requiring off-street parking will improve urban design, reduce traffic congestion, restrain urban sprawl, conserve natural resources, and produce neighborhood public revenue. Eliminating parking requirements will also reduce the cost of housing and of many other goods and services. In conclusion, deregulating the quantity and increasing the quality of parking will improve transportation, land use, and the environment. 28.See L.Frank Baum(1903,pp. 148 and 160-161). In the 1939 MGM film version,the Wizard roars"Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz?" 23 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 24 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup APPENDIX: THE COST OF PARKING SPACES How much does a parking space cost? This question has no easy answer because the cost of parking depends on the value of land, which varies greatly among sites. But in the case of structured parking we can account for the value of land as its opportunity cost for surface parking. The number of spaces a parking structure adds to the parking supply is the number of parking spaces in the structure minus the number of surface parking spaces lost as a result of building the structure. The structure's construction cost(excluding land value) divided by the number of parking spaces added to the parking supply gives the structure's cost per parking space added, which accounts for land value as the opportunity cost of the surface parking spaces lost (Shoup 1997). This methodology was used to calculate the construction cost per parking space added by twelve parking structures built on the UCLA campus between 1961 and 1991.29 Each structure's original cost was converted into dollars of 1998 purchasing power by adjusting for construction cost inflation since the structure was built. The average cost of the six structures built in the 1960s was $13,400 per space added, while the average cost of the six structures built since 1977 was $25,600 per space added. The newer parking structures are more expensive because they are smaller and partly or entirely underground, compared with the larger, aboveground structures built earlier. That is, the type of parking structure—not an increase in the real cost of parking spaces (above the rate of inflation of general construction costs)—can explain the higher real cost of new parking spaces. Table 4 Cost of Aboveground and Belowground Parking Spaces (Costs Per Space Added by Parking Structures in Los Angeles) Abovegound(UCLA) Underground(UCLA Underground(Pershing Sq.) 1964 1995 1983 1998 1950 Structure Addition Structure Addition Structure Current US$ $1,946 $13,712 $19,752 $26,300 $2,500 1998 US$ $12,214 $14,725 $28,540 $26,300 $28,000 The original portion of the Structure 3, built in 1964, contains 1,168 spaces in five aboveground levels;the addition built in 1995 contains 840 spaces in seven aboveground levels. The original portion of Structure 4, built in 1983, contains 448 spaces in two underground levels;the addition built in 1998 contains 1,263 spaces in two aboveground levels. The Pershing Square Garage in downtown Los Angeles contains 2,150 spaces in three underground levels. The ENR Construction Cost Index is used to convert original construction costs to 1998 values. 29.See Shoup(1997)for the details of the cost per parking space added by the twelve parking structures. The 20-city average of the ENR Construction Cost Index for March 31, 1998,was divided by the average ENR Construction Cost Index for the year in which the parking structure was built. This ratio was then multiplied by the original construction cost to yield the construction cost expressed in dollars of 1998 purchasing power. 24 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 25 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup We can test this hypothesis that the type of parking structure explains the increase in cost after 1977. Since the initial study of the twelve structures built between 1961 and 1991, UCLA has built two new campus parking structures as additions to existing parking structures. The first is a 1995 aboveground addition to the aboveground structure built in 1964. The second is a 1998 underground addition to the underground structure built in 1983. Table 4 compares the cost per parking space added by the two original structures and their subsequent additions. The ENR Construction Cost Index is used to convert the original construction costs to 1998 dollars. The cost was $12,214 per space for the original aboveground structure built in 1964, and $14,725 per space for the addition built 31 years later.30 The cost was $28,540 per space for the original underground structure built in 1983, and $26,300 per space for the addition built fifteen years later.31 The close match between the cost of each original parking structure and the cost of its later addition suggests that, after correcting for inflation, the cost of building parking structures has changed little in recent decades. To test this finding of cost stability, Table 4 also shows the cost of an underground garage constructed beneath Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles in 1952.32 When the original cost of$2,500 per space is converted to its equivalent in 1998 purchasing power, the cost of the Pershing Square garage is $25,700 per parking space, very close to the cost of the two underground garages built at UCLA in 1983 and 1998. In real terms, the cost of building underground parking has not changed in half a century. If these high costs are surprising, it is only because the cost of parking is rarely calculated. Nevertheless, there is other evidence about cost because some cities allow developers to pay a fee in lieu of providing required parking spaces. To justify the in-lieu fees, some of these cities carefully document their cost of providing public parking spaces.33 In Palo Alto, California, the 30.The original aboveground structure contains 39 percent more parking spaces than the aboveground addition,and its footprint is twice as large as that of the addition.Economies of scale help to explain the original structure's lower cost per space.The UCLA parking structures built in the 1960s look like the aboveground parking structures built in suburban areas where vacant land is abundant.In case studies of suburban office developments in Southern California in 1994,Willson(1995,39)found"the average combined land and construction cost for structure parking in the case study sites was$12,300 per space."This cost is almost identical to the average cost of$12,400(in 1994$)per parking space added by the aboveground parking structures built at UCLA in the 1960s. 31.The underground addition is almost three times the size of the original underground structure,and economies of scale help to explain the newer structure's lower cost per space.The UCLA parking structures built since 1977 are typical of the parking structures built in dense areas where vacant land is scarce.The higher cost of recent parking structures at UCLA thus reflects the higher cost of building parking structures in dense urban areas. 32.Klose(1965, 190)gives the original cost of constructing the Pershing Square garage. 33.See Shoup(forthcoming).These costs refer to the values that were used to justify the cities'in-lieu fees in 1996. In Beverly Hills the cost refers to the average estimated land and construction cost of municipal parking spaces for projects that applied to pay the in-lieu fees between 1978 and 1992;the highest cost was$53,000 per parking space. 25 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 26 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup cost is $17,848 per space added by a municipal parking structure. In Lake Forest, Illinois, the cost is $18,000 per space for the land and construction cost of surface parking lots. In Walnut Creek, California, the cost is $32,400 per space added by a municipal parking structure. In Beverly Hills, California, the average cost was $37,000 per space for the estimated land and construction cost of municipal parking structures. The cost of parking spaces at UCLA is thus in line with the cost of parking spaces in cities that allow developers to pay in-lieu fees. The cost of many surface parking spaces is less than the cost of structured parking spaces, but land values understate the cost of surface parking because developers who are required to provide parking spaces will bid less for land. Therefore, the market value of land subject to a minimum parking requirement will understate the cost of surface parking spaces. For example, when Oakland, California, introduced its parking requirement of one space per 1,000 square feet for apartment buildings, land values fell by 33 percent(Shoup 1997). Willson(1995) estimated that increasing the parking requirement for office buildings in Southern California by 1.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet would reduce land values by 32 percent. Because minimum parking requirements depress land values, low land values do not necessarily imply that minimum parking requirements have a low cost. 26 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 27 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup REFERENCES American Public Transit Association(1997) 1997 Transit Fact Book.American Public Transit Association. Washington,DC;www.apta.com. Brierly,J. (1972)Parking of Motor Vehicles.Applied Science Publishers, Second Edition.London. Brown, S.A. and Lambe,T.A. (1972)Parking prices in the central business district.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 6, 133-144. Chapin,F. S. (1957) Urban Land Use Planning.Harper&Brothers.New York. Chapin,F. S. (1965) Urban Land Use Planning.University of Illinois Press, Second Edition.Urbana,IL. Chapin,F. S. and Kaiser,E. (1979) Urban Land Use Planning.University of Illinois Press,Third Edition. Urbana,IL. Federal Highway Administration(1995)Highway statistics summary to 1995,taken from www.bts.gov/site/news/fhwa/HighwayStats-Summary95/section2.html. Office of Highway Information Management. Bureau of Transportation Statistics(1997)Federal, State and Local Transportation Financial Statistics, Fiscal Years 1982-94,BTS97-E-02,United States Department of Transportation.Washington,DC. Gillen,D. (1978)Parking policy,parking location decisions and the distribution of congestion. Transportation, 7, 69-85. Goulard,T. (1784)A Treatise on the Effects and Various Preparations of Lead:Particularly of the Extract of Saturn,for Different Chirurgical Disorders.Elmsley in the Strand.London. Greene,D.,Jones,D.and Delucchi M., editors(1997) The Full Social Costs and Benefits of Transportation. Springer-Verlag.Heidelberg. Gruen,V. (1973) Centers for the Urban Environment:Survival of the Cities. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York. Hanson, S., editor(1995) The Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press.New York. Institute of Transportation Engineers(1987a)Parking Generation. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Second Edition.Washington,DC;www.ite.org. Institute of Transportation Engineers(1987b) Trip Generation. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Fourth Edition.Washington,DC;www.ite.org. Kaiser,E.,Godschalk,D.,and Chapin,F. S. (1995) Urban Land Use Planning.University of Illinois Press, Fourth Edition.Urbana,IL. Katz,A. and Herman, S. (1997)Improved estimates of fixed reproducible tangible wealth, 1929-1995. Survey of Current Business,May 1997. 27 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 28 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Klose,D. (1965)Multi-story and underground garages [Parkhauser and Tiefgaragen].Verlag Gerd Hartje. Stuttgart. KMPG Peat Marwick(1990)Dimensions of parking,prepared for the United States Depat talent of Transportation,Urban Mass Transportation Administration,Office of Budget and Policy, September 10, 1990. Kuhn,T. (1957) The Copernican Revolution.Harvard University Press. Cambridge,MA. Kuhn,T. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.University of Chicago Press,Third Edition. Chicago. Lin-Fu,J. (1992)Modem history of lead poisoning: a century of discovery and rediscovery.In Human Lead Exposure. ed.H.Needleman. CRC Press.Boca Raton,FL. May,A.D. (1975)Parking control: experience and problems in London. Traffic Engineering and Control. May. McCord,C. (1953)Lead and lead poisoning in early America.Industrial Medicine and Surgery,22(9), 393- 399. Meyer,M. and Miller,E. (1984) Urban Transportation Planning.McGraw Hill Book Company.New York. Muth,R. (1969) Cities and Housing. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Jerome Nriagu. 1983.Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity, New York: John Wiley&Sons. Pisarski,A. (1995)The demography of the U.S.vehicle fleet: observations from the NPTS. 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Special Reports on Trip and Vehicle Attributes.U.S. Department of Transportation.Washington,DC;www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/doc/index.html-ssi. Pisarski,A. (1996) Commuting in America II: The Second National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. Eno Transportation Foundation.Landsdowne,VA;www.enotrans.com. Planning Advisory Service(1971)An Approach to Determining Parking Demand,Planning Service Report Number 270.American Planning Association. Chicago;www.planning.org. Planning Advisory Service(1991)Off-Street Parking Requirements:A National Review of Standards, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 432.American Planning Association.Chicago; www.planning.org. Shoup,D. C. (1992) Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking.U. S.Department of Transportation. 156 pp. Washington,DC. Shoup,D. C. (1994)Cashing in on curb parking.Access(http://socrates.berkeley.edu/-uctc),4,20-26. Shoup,D. C. (1995)An opportunity to reduce minimum parking requirements.Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 14-28. 28 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 29 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup Shoup,D. C. (1997)The high cost of free parking.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 17(1), 1- 18. Shoup,D. C. (forthcoming)In-lieu parking fees.Journal of Planning Education and Research. Shoup,D. and Breinholt,M.J. (1997)Employer-paid parking: a nationwide survey of employers'parking subsidy policies.In The Full Social Costs and Benefits of Transportation. ed.D. Greene,D.Jones and M. Delucchi. Springer-Verlag.Heidelberg. Thomas,L. (1981)"Medicine without science." The Atlantic Monthly.April 1981,40-42. Willson,R. (1995)"Suburban parking requirements: a tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl."Journal of the American Planning Association. 61(1),29-42. Willson,R. (1996)Local jurisdiction parking requirements: a survey of policies and attitudes.Working Paper,Department of Urban and Regional Planning,California State Polytechnic University,Pomona, California. Witheford,D.K. and Kanaan,G. E. (1972)Zoning,Parking, and Traffic. Eno Foundation for Transportation. Westport,CT;www.enotrans.com. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the Federal Transit Administration and the University of California Transportation Center for financial support. For their many suggestions for improving this paper I am also grateful to Ellison Alegre, Lee Burns, Jeffrey Brown, Eric Carlson, Joy Chen, Elke Daugherty, D. Gregg Doyle, David Gillen, Daniel Hess, Eugene Kim, Kristen Massey, Andrew Mondschein, Virginia Parks, John Pucher, Thomas Rice, Gian-Claudia Sciara, Patricia Shoup, Seth Stark, Richard Willson, and Matthew Zisman. 29 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 0/PAGE 30 OF 30 EXHIBIT D-2 (LU 24-0025) � T - - S M lita ,P �pM ,weo Fmingulle igure 1 N AM at. ,. 9411r" � B �•+� A , � .v� �. -4,_,,, b .- -" . . rlir Am 10 iiINNWAIIIIt.._12 I i It . 111# /-- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . t SW 13:ve in L a1111 i •1 / '! - J 3 Timbedine Dr 0 im • Alf -bii \, i Ow sr gam, ,,5. . ..0 ' ` dtw$0 ; . . '7:' if I I + iipAllipo... d Vii 20 -ii. Qa jiIdlIIJJjg bp 4. 0. . . cOr vpjr,n d I e r II IT MilligNANIO jj.eRq ,f31vd alma 1� / SN Bonita Rd o��at9 .� 1' I S yak G ove BI . \`o •� `c.IMMIMPII*4.... lit Twin F� ., ` 4001211 a ¢ ac — t Lake Gro-Ave Lake — ret --/ ii AIL I Joti. vaim' -`oc ° SlialiVIIIMi 1 IIill . .� I , v.• nee B\a �S�e9 iiiIIIIIIIMMI 11 s lila _�eT �.aKe 1-B�ao, Iri .' mordai �L ,-'' 1, iiii :: ::J4i.dirr West Oa I ex., ,4 -_iota!IIII el her,Ln � 11 o 0 amp lir -17. -N . .;\. � 7 ., lir WPM /� Dyed• ♦ ya S Ber.is Rd "'land♦ y ,♦_ 4\alk I 9a trAir tow ,-,t, Nyt,Ak , ,_-9. 1 al I r . c. AI I0,- ,` �� iielLig5of. ,. AMR Mg i - R• ay' lei I 1 �.In Om - OW . ilin I .I+MEM - : 2 � City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reform ,4�I_ W W'i�1�E vi r � - II I+ i,- Commercial Option 1: Repeal Parking Mandates Citywide may'' Childs Rd S - City No Parking Required I� I7 I -hi/0, L _ _ _ 1 Limits for Commercial Use 0 0.25 0.5 libN ,er•S 1 " Urban Services Commercial Not FE II8IT D-2 Mile SW N ber.Ln I ( i Boundary as Primary Use 9/14/2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 1 OF 8 war r, �. - , ,. S M lita ,P 'NMIfe Liar nim, I. 1 Figure 2 N 4F) aR '� ql. 1 ill Pg. � -ffe on� �� / I rAlig . 11 [II jar a Mika! -I� /-- T.,#0.01 4 I I I I I I I I 1 � .�, ' a ' IT 1 I �a - r J Timberline Dr 1101 - `' ,,1r oo ill r I, i AfArL lb "ilia • _ III J ` • aril Pa 1 1 1 1. ... `v 9111, v Park - •rIN / iiiiiiIII1 3 I SEneY CD _ 1"1111101*4 ey dler Rd 4 -6. _ 'it Ride Rd VilltiftwillftiNill*.��` Blvd I SN Bonita Rd 4111N. clod°fie .� 1, � I S �k G ove BI . � *ler TwinFA . JIrian" ■ E■ it cri.._ kg ac _ ` f Ave I fake F� �7;..t.w4r..., t% 5Lake.G.,roloe, \• `egg"dOS`�eglilialrgilliErr A � �_ _. .ifil II APT �� LaKeJ � IggiP imin. thIELE J I, s 111:2-, Irk Rd — J West 9a 1,40._,Inteir7rdw/1,47- ■■ "� � her.Ln z 0 A 1 A. ..2/.0, o �G\ecc(` • wrwiral rrrir -; ar tob Ai um 1 "frir �-n Rd S an�• P O`red' • 5a S Ber.is Rd illaaudit c f4 ,, . , 9a 0" 160 444" I \It, , -,,-,-9. 1, 1 _,:. y. A. .._ _ .1 � 1 4 of. vim Li / • ,ifte'4A.- 4 ..l'im- . , IF 0.., e„ r IP — %11111 Pelt..;:liglir t c. MG ' . • ' ' - - - a . ''''' ir ' Inv 11� „Ii et City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reform N 1 D -' '-IlL Residential Option 1:Repeal Parking Mandates Citywide may'E Aiwi —3.— -I Childs Rd I .- - - -1 Cityiim Residential Use s �- I� k I chd _ _ _ , LimitsNot Permitted 0 0.25 0.5 I' SRn q B�CHIBIT D-2 Mile • N per.S SW N ber Ln Urban Services No ParkingRe ui () Boundary for Residential Use 9/14/2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 2 OF 8 1ml11a10_. t'711AwI.,Ii ep'':'or r- a'_‘.L:_ru_7_wA_L__to_.,w.r..r. Thji.,t41.•,” i.,:, ' ,_-1 m.2'i"i Figurelgi 3 N iiii '- 1 o �J'mA,:alVio.I,Q,:LIW//r-'1 - ii .MI.h.i iiumsRI ll .ee1ill.1.::_!1•. .1 ,L0 t if irI8 8 s .41, i. ` V 11-.. 11=- - - - - - . 1 1 / , 3 Timbedine Dr , „ ii_miri, Nail; 1%. -\\ ‘ ref-.0:', 4 I . domm•-wo .,2 • 01,1. ; % ri -- J ..L, i -? "etissibA* • /7 - - .- 6 \A I Mei. I �a isii . .../- 4%0 -4 1 . 1�1- + p a _ .,0 a • ,Nii,04 ,„ gio, .. . .ink tp,„,,iiiip_ : magetiNew vir4 s ,, Wafter* J �� 1 - 0001.41- it mitwou t .II � •e Rd ; ••j. �1 J _ _. SN Bonita Rd ��I�A��,, ��I, _.r��� c���teBlvd .r��� 1� �, „voila; i,� •ak G�ove 81 rt ,i5 sm. K- 71, __ ; . 41. SW gri . X. -4- °P .......411, A. I ii - zwi onvero a oa x° 1 �_� ���� �r O Lake A ,„„, �� ` ■vv a oSNe9 • II 4c �J � Ke�eNB 4,1"...p.,,,,, T �� ,aera 0 Aulaw_AnT.r D you , „it ii, �i-ildfiMp Alp, 4011111 Aim.= -��� . in- � ' her,Ln o 014 . ._ r r..•-- dlir WI -44r.la . ' .... ,,,a 7 Si \ ili ' ihhkik . .,,, 1� �II ( Erie II/ .April 7 ..,„,,,% „ ,„ .. _ „ . ,,,„, - . likt.1 % 0 1°P *3 £4CiLakeOswegoCFECParkingRefom _ 1 ;� MI 1-1 - Commercial Option 2: Fair Parking w may'E 1 ' ' ChildsR� '� Bus Route City No Parking Required Commercial Not Permitted �n;, #35 L _ _ , Limits for Commercial Use as Primary Use ih IP �, aS Ra DRDD/LGVC Full Commercial EXHIBITO D-2 (IV 24-0025) Overla s I USB Parkin. Res uirements Mile 9n4/2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 3 OF 8 I rip An —irix-- nsit74,. 1.1 1 1 SWJS"hens°1111111111111111 . .... Figure 4 . . ,„ 1 lita ir-1 .:4 t .:, s •I a.t lith, 0. ... all III III N14111 I .....i. t . oniel. k464011130/4rAtgb I I * 1 1111111 III 11 iiiil lamp 4::: , ir 0 4Th 1 -1=241111,,,. A Aar/ ,_ , „,„..., r: - in '..:„.6 Ai r lig t,....,t.. w .77,-timmi.:6.impl.:5310-IN i$,? L me*, drilf.,,, „ ...,„,„„ , , i_ , ,g tallart!Me' _, 111 =11111 1 nit, omen ill Nip., iv, if 1., .-6.,Weat'l unr-VI qua; . 1 Dr , ' -- . =,.., .........i. h„„ ir 152 umnpint mum riiirt b'VtiliWA ) 1114A IF 11 I P 1 opoullowe.11PN au. ifilmitazo 4. s,, . # .;• •m 7 it • - o -5 -ICU limit . - . ,g, Ar 6.\\ % ,114 /rAdIllsak& '..,..' . , L *Iiielk.ta 1.4' . dad' ii!**1.14ff.-€. Iddrititih.41PINSO ,,,' r 1 041,k 74 Park -401;e1.441111100;ar :1 Lmm.../hoi" .. . w. li. fr.„41 . ir .1i 0 ,Kvenvissiiii, kisto.10A-0 .4iir—*41.. iir. k:-Alteirillar- -- AIL wit • ___ WT. ., 4100 immir low - i A -1 ' apjlirAdillWiawilhgr 4 1111„Willegir : T.-,, k A711Faise,k4r 10 lip--4,'• i all II s,Bonita Rd 1 i.mrirwir. iii*Itgit'siti-.4 ...7111 or ,,m° fri_ja:kliffill0 .40,44111111:111,11•11317111:0„, Aisioi: : .ak G'ove BI I ilv - IIP: r 0%41111 ,T, . :mitre' oN,..411* 1 111 A„..f. oilibo A la t !psi ArtoriLW494141JOIlif .. & ' ,,,,• Me!. 17 1 i, 0 - 4 b aroostog.7 Lao Alliti %u k iini ii%iti,a_lib#411011Motft 11111111 cp. 1111111461=41--- -•- 'griiiii.111 .. '.! ..i.r.tak M=.0 I:11 v li1111:.. . 1: Mgr rtilk- \- 0 ei.,1-.rAlrii, ,/44,111 imaiwillinigin id • Raillappit Amitillo _ tor deeljuthagl leg% Imiromimmi& 1 ,. ) p-400 ir ...... r ir rairrr—immt . - an, AN .Ill ipii 0 /1111 111 ir..rai.,..-i= mon ill,49, .;6' wit 1 • wasiviur 40-.:Irg Ca i - , jell 0 Ai 4,111117: 1610•71 ,4. c; 111111:71kmatill: *iircr'sc(‘° ...I. her A Ln .1)::4-*\•... Aid& i '111 r . 11011:1&I of 7 Aleig... ...„.;_ _. 11 , 4 _I-iriarh.Ogog 044.10 Prilarel L.m, , k fr it ME a( Irtime" MI oim A 4iplellilT ....._,16-.„ 1,:-. -I A.1146.4.2 -111111.11k / RI A Sa „rill=:1 . 171,11;op11-' i I 6,- ipN c. % •,,. . W 01-pat iko en 20(as)..Feagirop;rkCinFgE P a rk i n Reform ..t.mtv COMP v-in I Am 117.7wrir, 44 Ard , V n MI imr— ill ,TIL. „it , ResCidietYntlf - ...... = Climate-Friendlyw:irteh aRseducegd Mandates : S iiig iii 032 .11k. _ #B3u5s Route 1- - - -1 City No Parking Required Residential Use ....••1 ...... al mil. zi:Ez.: ch,7,, ,,,?0, L _ _ _I Limits for Residential Use Not Permitted DRDD/LGVC One Req EX1414317gD-2 11.111. 5 . N .er•S lain SW N her:Ln Mile Overlays USB Space per Dwelling Unit PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 4 OF 8 9/14/2023 . ,, I _...r---.....mrmidimprEAMEMINIIIIIIIIII1110 1 k ,s IP -- Figure 5 u, 1 14 iiiiii" is...... ... \ *. •mr.4,3 i - _ cpz; ,, 2111,1 , ........ _ Eek i46,40- -4,11t4b fl)....j I MN-11,&, 11/ JRnia. :. IIIIII I fill .E.llllllll ll 14 371.2.'' 11 111178152‘341 I 11116111111=41 tililk".14' WiliMil g111141"11 !..17.1.. I - 1212w.4 'SW13:veli .111 IN I&Ira ill igitilit, I •• • .• I i _ . , MN NM 11Q W“_.A ._., .a „ ..slasimizzormnigrzio b*SW A • irei IF NII NIB I 011001114 Ihill 1 111,10611;WIN Car.MU 111110.04 4.1,4 4--1=Mini . - I ,ce" -5 NW IIIIIIINI ...ft 611 -111111kGr t -4741. Innigha Aallr losp.- ' 111 ,Aa 4..70:-. atillirlishilli 1.! el imiL,,,,-, 17 ''''''. IISEL1121M1 i .Milli/ialudi6111116411,k_ v ,....c. • ..... $4441Z 4 r did EtIME 1,,,A,%lea:oplitlirerirgilel'02/1111/1111111.11111111fr' 1‘ k.AP . WM% qlf . ;owes 11,0. . wainuriedmint vii s . A . \ 4111FAV .0% Park . _ 1 agtto WC. ,P 117,- 1 itfirAR.r.*‘4111111‘411%t iv - 41'4,600eatffee A.....ii% lisf viihmtillapp...2ffirig 1111F-1 AllA ,von &Er _ 61.1„4, ....p...44...~Eirmium VA III .,A11111moi oh jot , V , A oak Glove BI I S1/,Bonita Rd 11 E., ..... owiaismir"4111411\----: a'12116* if Mritifillik ,gcss fell,.1txr,„....::__.c=„10'Aix '- . joi: mil g .:= - --Y %.,t : Ans or Ili 4,e, • 411* ili . _ Iliaidarl. N: !Pe 9 • 111 zw-wm Milts .01, Av., Ice ILNI '' • 17. -Ina I r' ' ,0` os`Neg , Alb_ 410 AlyiNitoWili Aoki II filirpo„. ,‘0,0, Nitivii;:466 ,ptp,. .low 401■1.--k IIIIII ffilifititt," : kTgl' ol, i 4: - tsli: \-''' / „ kcammumkpm.- 1.• alimempurA6%ww__Ai d...AL As w,t,, *47.4 liiire<lt;1611TaLskil6 Seri 1-. Wiiit'grallgliftla IIII i„, 014 .1 k .1:14:46g04•0- 77- /4/':co.te. it:111:4::: peri441. Ai. 77 11 1'... \•••77&71rijur.16 II.1° 41111141..117 1711111:111:11I ) ,.„......... „„,„,„, . rP. '644'4'' la Ini ,,,,-Pr riswerizr-legi... . , iati.P 0 A 0 ifti _ lotorair , _ F.M1 NEI:WS cf _ 1 - IdifigAL"- 41111111 Olgramelito pro di minas 111 :-:-, %,. VvVI ik,V. i t 11 -t.. IP 464111" 0 I. , 4 _in IRMO me ,ae,i4441.11 pan El PI ii . • NM flo ral SIR 5(7 a .•,,..• - i?' Erraidllifilir 19 P iri elfik Is 1°1111,461. °lila, .. II 4116-...11 .....,...r.i. „... , l , 4111111i0-11 t ramil., 5 ..„.. 410.____,,,„1-, r____,,,,,,,, City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reform -,4N __,.!or ,wilit.man rili I OM imirrir II- '' ' -'` mr. 1 graprill :- 7 Residential Option 2(b): Fair Parking with Additional Parking Management W E '14,N1 : r . .Mx al lb Ma 1 fir: 1 NM lik..11111 '__ Bus Route - - - -1 City I No Parking Required One Required Parking s ;lb 11 11 ...... N - #35 ,.....11 lang 0. 1111 ights F , L _ _ _I DRDD/LGVC Limit f Resid ential Use 1/2 Required Parking Space r pe Dwe I I i ng Unit Residential Use Not Permitted SW Nyberg Lai AA? Overlays USB Space per Dwelling UniEXHIBIT D-2 (LU 2420025).5 Mile PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 5 OF 8 9/14/2023 < rip, // s.:' ,i,i l,ir,„m74„1„ -T4e%,,,,,.,-- 7lr.1"E7ItLiElT"E-- � Figure 6 B Aw 1II laoiwi - Dart y�.Ob �a '- � 1 %o I .- -- ffe on•., v dlRIAlb 1 li , 11_. 11= - b � .� WO lip Efin kir 0 :1 / `' i 3 Rmbedine Dr 's �� . -,;- /40, lor lo. A .... . , .. _ _ . , _ _ _ , , ,,,, „ii .,. ',1,.... /4,,, . .., .. , ... ..,t,, 1 .brini• ft-24 .., -- ; . ,.....i . , , „, _. , . , .? 1.707-tia, ii . . 4 41/11/1 - . t. Afar—aka . ' hili 4, ; ,_ .. „A.-4,p. ano, ,A • \,1‘,‘Ntwia,,-1,76,--, , . . i __.-,..„,„, P -lei 4 vokii **•-- Aill IMIAlle w*crAll ,P. fir% slam Ai. is TIM S‘'l, i- 4 i.'.. - 'it Ride Rtl 40 orIitibliafrtPft" r■■■■ _�� lAi Y * I, -�le c���t90Blvd /r*� 10 \tA ilEa1 AliI I..1 1. ,I i t-•''•9.i mp12 M.A1IA.M-,M2.. .0,rM,,,.'°I° .1et;1)*0„... Ai S/ iadL;r o, r1m ? 4 =onita lftdy, • Mr , _■IA Twin F� J/ .- - pxa° 1; _ Tom, Ke 1 .1=4.,. 1 :1111111P °- ,,,-i-.3'6 1111. A'P-Viiillial 4 Oswe S�Pa ,' .1411 • ova ' t °' •���� . ���. . 11�� ' 9t. ogim`y 1 IR 11 , 1011 - J Tilir Weste d I 4 7,40 . es \ 111: her, .:..,\ , F`O°O A‘Ave W,r?v VW M ll . 1 111"14.-7 lift A p 0 , Ra �von ■ �. �� 1, 0,, , ..11 S Berg is Rd In� � „, ,- / ,�o• ,NL,5l'Bcones;/ „ll �� 1 min _ 10£ I C� � REINIlk % • . lir #141111 _ _ • i_,;140 1 -: . / • _ „„ "'"Epailli_ I i /IF IA ila _ 65 f r i. - - - - ,�r.,.1111111 City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reform IP CI � �► _ ' �- �'IlL• l .. Commercial Option 3:Reduced Regulation Parking Management " y'E • - - ■� .-1- Childs Rd I .,`lb Vgus Route r- - -i Cit No Parkin Re uired Y 9 q Limits for Commercial Use as Primary Use N ,er.g 11 Rry DRDD/LGVC Full Commercial EXHIBIT D-2 'LAJ 24°0025) SW N ber.Ln I Overlays USB Parking Requirements w e 9/14/2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 6 OF 8 Mill'MIME 11111111111111 k ,s � � �� Figure 7iliiiirlik 1. willta Arl I AAmi.46.,; is iivelmr-1-410 ,14b . • Eiøt1 r, t AIL 1 AMY, I Li. Ell Ei is 1,..igrf ' vv.. ..... " 1.. mr ..... .. ..: SW B:ve Acklyd_____14.poi , ,,j,f47.44. V ■��Ir■rr/ram A- Now ii V= MII■■1 Muria p.740, 141O.• 1 III04 Ice\ r D�s our au.�uOWw •/ tit ♦ ; 'r \ lis ..iiiw. ri.i. imig• ik C/ M '?'-' IIIIIIIIIir :0 / 111""1111114.1111111111111/ . ''. ' Ad; . \ i ,,,,,I,.....10toriN-4. : . .4- .1",,, -po. ..,,,,,..„..... , 0‘,...Araiminessi.. , \ k.„,„„,,,,,."; f 51 ow, Ifiar..1.14.41111111hr' � Park - •r � D I �� �iU� � •...�• : Z 11. ..,10 Meadows 1-:. Rd illif CIll I*pi ci? le P ;it Ride Rd �n� "�� •,��■' rAL iv �wair.. ta will 11.1 Villir..v. 411111 ur A gall SV,Bonita Rd Araila, ..ki I ' .► - oc- Or C� �� n �,talik � t / S E Oak I . . o , �z ® Twin F� ,1 . =�►,\�/� •�I/'�1Ir11r �rj� - \ , 4,1, ,,, 0 : mraimmum....1 di ., ,,, Q at :121111 VIA N t 4- _ % °.. Tw in a /1 1i Lake ,7• a. , - -=_ ' .tot iI►btill 1 - ii;�- � � '_�a J•aKe`e"g\Jd \� IIIn�iQ��� �� ' �� oil �� I<r4r.:1, �.�alt 9t. �..-ta rx �!.�., ��/ III.a -� N Ai\-'>1.- MI/PAINLINMeti 4k 14. ' lit; RIPAR Ir 0, i. '..%►� West9a :II�' '� , o i II� \ "� ii �� � herV45- ,lik�, �orral .-,% .� ��;=�I d/ \ �� Illliis "' .11/iir ` is o . •"ts IANEW *Nit\... -\ GI% ft. / flrJm 1 C1tf ,lkAp. m -iv 0,,,,, -....... . .., lik,„ i ftere, ix *TM% :_ . , �- pa ■ -:. t r %lir' �►i .�. ..1. r awe, :'A '�`� it �',AV% .! a`�� .�I�. 16�� •' I4Ur r Ra ]r6 rl:i■�I��ns.'.gun ■ --1� e' ;PAIL; - - : -i� ,,,n-!� i.1....1.��� E le City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reform i '''). "' - ' "'�'�"� l`-� -. Residential Option 3(a):Reduced Regulation Parking Management W_' y E � � I in ::� '' with Reduced Mandates in Climate-Friendly Areas MIN ' Bus Route - - -� City No Parking Required Residential Use IIIII ��N #35 L _ _ _, Limits for Residential Use Not Permitted !L`i'I Dhi/o ■$�n7 SRa ;,,■ DRDD/LGVC One Regl[r rigp-2LU 2c4,15 O025 . Overla s USB S.ace .er Dwellin. Unit Mile PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 7 OF 8 9/14/2023 ............,,, �� . .41 1= , . -lita ,pa jS .J ( 11* 1A4b40:01.141-47411rAtgb IIIIry�1� e�a � t i1I��m;;m�:�:�1laa 44) AIL I NAM'', I Iwino . .............sfenna :.... .. ..:SW B:ve E LL Vr/ram �. i� 4i ., I lb 1 7 1 1 IIY`. Dr 7A.■■■��i �"�J f:.�7 fr7S,W4if woe If ���i■.Ia�.1. •� ����� NA =I iri� NPIP Ice\ r 11� i.� ���l 1191�� •imps i "i7 i ; ♦ i 147 6.\\ , At wile iii.----411himillai g- ka0fir'jiii*It �►' irsaiar a�'' ��.i _!tr•y P t 0011� �� A; \� Park - •r D II I �� ��111/ii •.. 11. �. • ur` ¢., \��� i11 dler Rd . Lrielliligtritirel Meadows Rd I �11 i it Rid.a Rd Air 11i1 "o� •,��■' � . ■SV,Bonita Rd - ma +.1R1 .►• - ocC� ���11n �,Ailli lip I� S E Oak G. - '. �t /I ��,•nl iiiiiii . o ■lIt•�■ , �z ® Twin F� ,�\ f . =�►,\�/� •�I/ii '�1I1111r �rj� 4111/ a A Air ar hoar rij a N e4e,,_'i _ ` °.. 'Tii,••J11 ��,� ��// �1` Lake ,7� a� ` ,'::' 4 ' .tot (1►�►_ WI It p�o Alb 1.1 ,,,,„6 . igaildhi MEM. 4 efeedik 0 ./1111. 111 114111 _ MIIIPAIIIML, Ai . so- "--,i- klirlit *!.., -40 it illa '' •� Fria ArZfill; 1.I d/ \ rill e 4,:i:\ .-411111111 lik Ii./� r cIVV4 -L'-' 11 % . • Sorillit el fai ' .A.mrr L.7 lt:* rawe, vo ,.. IL '1`� it ►��\`' wargl.11Viiii 011.1 kiss:zi 11 �� OF . 7: Ir..■� ,,... ,5 o, , .. ., , , l -, liiiir Iwo 11141, �, •-�Gq - - - ' �II:IIIE raw "I'1U ..■■I a �" City of Lake Oswego - CFEC Parking Reformth- 1- 1 1°! ■■;- '� Residential Option 3(b): Reduced Regulation Parking Mgmt. w/Add7 Parking Mgmt. . IJ' r 1- ch•?I: " S .���� Bus Route - -1 City No Parking Requiredill Residential Use I- Ij I j.i� chi/ a #35 , Limits for Residential Use Not Permitted Ra ;� '„"' s DRDD/LGVC One Required Pa i IBI1tiD-2 24-� 5) N per.S SW N ber.Ln , Overlays I USB Space per Dwelling Unit iNiiiie 9/14/2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT P/PAGE 8 OF 8 § MEMORANDUM V .2 OREG ) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) Work Session #3 DATE: November 15, 2023 MEETING DATE: November 27, 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED This memo provides background for the Commission's November 27 work session, which will include an overview of a revised project schedule and public engagement plan to comply with the state's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR 660-012-04001 to -04502). In response to a Commissioner's request at a previous work session, staff will also be presenting a high-level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options available to the City to comply with the CFEC rules. BACKGROUND On September 5, 2023, the City Council held a study session to receive a presentation from Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner at the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) with an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules for parking reform. During this study session, a majority of City Council members expressed interest in a Citywide repeal of parking requirements under CFEC Parking Phase B—Option 1. Council also provided direction to staff to attempt to simplify the proposed work plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the CFEC parking rules by December 31, 2024, and to place more of an emphasis on targeted public outreach. Subsequently, on September 25, 2023, the Commission held their second work session on CFEC parking reform. The work session included a similar presentation from Evan Manvel of DLCD with an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules. At the work session, staff also provided answers to questions raised by the Commission at the previous July 24 work session, in addition to an update on the direction received from Council during their September 5 study session. 1 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293026. 2 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 2 of 8 Recent Updates to CFEC Rules On November 2, 2023, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted clarifications, corrections, and adjustments to the CFEC program rules. Attachment A includes a description of the amended rules, which took effect on November 7, 2023. The updates adopted by LCDC include: • Clarifications and corrections to the Transportation Planning Rules (Oregon Administrative Rules 660-012) originally adopted by LCDC in July 2022, as well as further refinements to the adjustments the LCDC adopted as temporary rules in April 2023; and • Other rule changes as recommended by DLCD staff, including a small adjustment to the bicycle parking requirements in OAR 660-012-06303. With this recent change, multifamily residential developments will be required to provide one bicycle parking space for every two units, with limited exceptions. Other updates to the Transportation Planning Rules are primarily intended to formalize the temporary rules adopted earlier this year, and do not include substantive changes to the requirements for compliance with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450. REVISED SCHEDULE AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN In response to the direction provided by City Council, staff has drafted a revised project schedule and public engagement plan—see Attachment B. The proposed project schedule is excerpted, below. Project Schedule Rulemaking Updates& Extension Council Study Session#1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] Planning Commission Update#1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session#1 Jul 24 Project Background and Overview Council Study Session#2 Sep 5 of Alternatives [Aug—Sep 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#2 Sep 25 Work Plan/Public Involvement Targeted Outreach Oct—Dec 2023 Plan/Scoping [Oct—Dec 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#3 Nov 27 Council Study Session #3 Dec 5 Targeted Outreach Jan—Mar 2024 3 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307182. EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 3 of 8 Initial Concepts/ Open House/Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024 Recommendations [Jan—Apr 2024] Joint PC-CC Study Session (#4) Apr 16 Draft Code Amendments Internal Review/ Drafting Apr-Jun [Apr-Aug 2024] - Planning Commission Work Session #6 Jun 24 Final Code Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct 14 [Sep— Dec 2024] Planning Commission Findings Oct 28 City Council Public Hearing Nov 19 City Council Findings Dec 3 Effective Date: Jan 2, 2025 A draft public engagement plan is also included in Attachment B. It includes a description of the roles of City staff in engagement efforts as well as a working list of the public involvement activities proposed as part of the project. These engagement efforts are intended to build upon existing relationships and community networks to the fullest extent possible through targeted outreach, including the following activities: • Targeted Outreach to Key Stakeholders: Oct 2023 — Mar 2024 o This outreach would include staff presentations at the Mayor's Roundtable meeting, as well as presentations at meetings of key community stakeholders such as the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN), the Chamber of Commerce, including the Lake Grove Business Committee (LGBC), the Neighborhood Chairs Committee, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). • Focus Group Discussion with Key Stakeholders: Feb— Mar 2024 o This discussion would include representatives from the Housing Production Strategy Task Force, the Sustainability Advisory Board, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board, LOSN, the Chamber of Commerce/LGBC, and TAB. • Project Website + Updates: ongoing • Project Email List: ongoing • Open House/Community Meeting: March 2024 • Hello LO articles: ongoing/ monthly in 2024 • City Council meetings: ongoing • Planning Commission meetings: ongoing EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 4 of 8 PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT CFEC OPTIONS In response to a Commissioner's request at a prior work session, staff has developed a high- level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options available to the City to comply with the CFEC rules. Available options for compliance with Phase B of the CFEC rules for parking reform include: 1. No Mandates: Repeal parking requirements Citywide. No further action necessary. 2. Fair Policies: Implement at least two of five provisions under OAR 660-012-0445(a), which include either (1) requiring "unbundled" parking for residential development, (2) requiring "unbundled" parking for commercial development, (3) requiring that flexible commute benefits be offered by employers of 50 or more employees, (4) establishing a tax on commercial parking lots, or (5) reducing parking requirements for multifamily residential development; and comply with one of the following options: a. Remove parking requirements within and % mile from Town Centers; or b. Adopt parking management policies within Town Centers 3. Reduced Red Tape: Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for several types of developments, uses, and locations, including eliminating all parking requirements within and 1/2 mile from Town Centers. (This analysis includes an assumption that sub-option (a) (Remove parking requirements within and 1/4 mile from Town Centers) is selected for Option 3, due to the overlap with other Reduced Red Tape requirements.) Option 1: No Mandates PROS CONS Ease of Simple, easy to explain / - Implementation understand Reduces staff workload Cost of Minimal to no additional cost - Implementation Level of Results in the most flexible - Flexibility for regulations for new businesses Businesses Level of Results in the most flexible - Flexibility for regulations for all development Development types EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 5 of 8 Impact on Likely to reduce the cost of - Development development— including housing Costs development—Citywide Impact on Consistent requirements would - Parking apply evenly Citywide Regulations Eliminates regulatory barriers Impact on Mostly applies to new development - Existing or changes of use Developments Other Parking provided in response to Could result in neighborhood market demand parking overflow in some circumstances. Over the long-term, the City may need to implement additional parking management policies to mitigate this potential outcome. Option 2a: Fair Policies + Reduced Mandates PROS CONS Ease of - More difficult to explain and Implementation understand Increases staff workload Cost of - Increased complexity and cost to Implementation implement Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Level of Some flexibility for new businesses - Flexibility for Businesses Level of Some flexibility for development in - Flexibility for Town Centers Development EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 6of8 Impact on Likely to reduce the cost of - Development development— including housing Costs development—within Town Centers Impact on Parking only required in locations Regulations depend on use and Parking that are further from transit or less location / proximity Regulations walkable Differing impacts in different parts Reduces regulatory barriers of the city Impact on - Unbundling and flexible commuter Existing benefit program would apply to Developments existing development Other Parking reductions for providing Could result in parking overflow sustainable infrastructure or near Town Centers, in some accessible dwelling units instances Option 2b: Fair Policies + Parking Management PROS CONS Ease of - Paid on-street parking, unbundling Implementation and flexible commuter benefit program would be complex and challenging to implement Cost of - Requires new regulations and Implementation compliance monitoring Paid parking would have budget impacts and require additional staff resources to implement Level of - Continuation of regulatory barriers Flexibility for for new businesses Businesses Flexible commute program would create new impacts on existing businesses Level of - No additional flexibility for Flexibility for development Development EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 7of8 Impact on - No likely reduction in development Development costs Costs Impact on Paid parking for at least 10% of Parking street parking Regulations No reduction or elimination of regulatory barriers—would result in the highest possible parking requirements Impact on - Paid on-street parking, unbundling Existing and flexible commuter benefit Developments program would impact existing development Other Parking reductions for providing Based on outdated parking sustainable infrastructure or requirements that do not reflect accessible dwelling units current market demand or conditions Option 3: Reduced Red Tape PROS CONS Ease of - The most difficult option to explain Implementation and understand Increases staff workload Cost of - The most complex option Implementation Requires new regulations and compliance monitoring Level of Some flexibility for new businesses Flexibility for Businesses Level of Some flexibility for development in Flexibility for Town Centers Development EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Page 8 of 8 Impact on Likely to reduce the cost of Development development— including housing Costs development—within Town Centers Impact on Parking only required in locations Regulations depend on use and Parking that are further from transit or less location / proximity Regulations walkable Differing impacts in different parts Reduces regulatory barriers of the city Impact on - Unbundling and paid on-street Existing parking would impact existing Developments development Other Parking reductions for providing Could result in parking overflow sustainable infrastructure or near Town Centers, in some accessible dwelling units circumstances ATTACHMENTS A. DLCD Staff Report and Attachments—CFEC Rulemaking Adoption, 10/19/2023 B. CFEC Project Schedule and Public Engagement Plan, 11/14/2023 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) ,..., a,'� IJregon..z.ri4. 7_,/ ".. i•. :a Tina Kotek,Governor Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: 503-373-0050 Fax: 503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD October 19, 2023 (.1.) To: Land Conservation and Development Commission From: Brenda Ortigoza Bateman, Ph.D., Director Matt Crall, Planning Services Division Manager Bill Holmstrom, Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordinator Subject: Agenda Item 10, November 2-3, 2023, LCDC Meeting Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking Adoption I. Agenda Item Summary Purpose. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC or commission) will consider adoption of rule amendments for the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program. The commission held a hearing on July 28 to take testimony about draft rules and held the comment period open for written testimony through September 17, 2023. Staff recommend that the commission adopt the amendments in Attachment A, which reflect that testimony and work of the rulemaking advisory committee. This staff report contains an update on the ongoing work in the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program, a review of the rulemaking process, and an overview of the recommended rule amendments. Objective. The commission adopts rule amendments. For further information about this report, please contact Bill Holmstrom, Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordinator at 971-375-5975 or bill.holmstrom@dlcd.oregon.gov. II. Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program Update The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD or department) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) continue to support cities and counties through the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program. Staff are developing guidance, delivering technical assistance, and distributing funds to cities and counties. Staff also continue to work with local governments who request alternative dates or exemptions, as allowed in the rules. Staff have included a detailed update in Attachment B. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 2 of 10 III. Corrections and Clarifications Rulemaking Process The commission initiated the corrections and clarifications rulemaking in April 2023. The adopted rulemaking charge is included as Attachment C. At this same commission meeting, commissioners adopted a limited set of temporary amendments to Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 12, commonly known as the Transportation Planning Rules or TPR. These temporary rules are in effect through November 7, 2023. After the commission initiated the rulemaking, Director Bateman appointed a 20-person rulemaking advisory committee based on direction from the commission. The rulemaking advisory committee met four times to review and discuss draft amendments to the rules. The rulemaking advisory committee reviewed a draft fiscal impact statement for the draft rule amendments. The department also convened a technical advisory committee at the request of several cities and counties. The technical advisory committee was open to the members of the rulemaking advisory committee and staff from all affected cities and counties. The technical advisory committee met three times. The commission held a hearing on draft amendments at its meeting July 28, and accepted written testimony through September 17. The written testimony is included as Exhibits 9-21. A summary of the written testimony is included in Attachment D. To be fair to all interested parties, the commission and department have not accepted any testimony nor discussed the draft rules with any outside parties after the close of the public comment period. This rulemaking process is limited to the scope of the commission's April 2023 rulemaking charge. Staff continue to keep a list of other issues that could be considered in a future rulemaking process. This includes changes to OAR 660-012-0210, as described below in this staff report. The department will update housing planning rules in 2024 as part of the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis process. That process will include a review of other administrative rules, including the TPR, to identify any amendments needed for consistency with updated housing rules. Department staff working on housing, transportation, and climate change have been coordinating closely to ensure the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program increases housing. A summary of how these programs work together to expand housing choices in Oregon is included in Attachment E. IV. Recommended Rule Amendments The recommended rule amendments are in Attachment A, along with explanations for amendments in each rule or section. A rule-by-rule summary of changes in the division PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 3 of 10 is included in Attachment F. These amendments respond to each of the elements of the adopted rulemaking charge in Attachment C, including: 1 . Minor clarification and correction amendments; and 2. Further refinement of the temporary amendments adopted in April. The recommended rule amendments also include changes not explicitly listed in the charge, but within the corrections and clarifications scope of the rulemaking. Some of these changes came from suggestions, questions, or concerns from members of the advisory committees. Significant issues raised in testimony or discussed in advisory committee meetings are described below. This includes a set of options for the commission to consider in rule 0630 related to bicycle parking for residential development. a. Rule 0005: Definitions This rule defines terms that are used in the division. See pages 1-7 of Attachment A. 1. "Accessible" and "accessible dwelling unit" Members of the rulemaking advisory committee suggested a broader and more accurate description of accessibility, as codified in ORS 447.210 through 447.280. The recommended amendments include federal requirements and state requirements for accessibility that exceed federal standards. 2. "Metro region 2040 center" The recommended amendments include a new definition that is used consistently throughout the division to be clear about which rules apply to town centers, regional centers, and the central city identified in Title 6 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. At the request of the City of Portland, the central city, generally the area of Portland's downtown, south waterfront, and near eastside, is included within the definition of"Metro Region 2040 Center." 3. "Multi-unit housing" The recommended amendments include a new definition that is used consistently throughout the division. 4. "Separated or protected bicycle facilities" Advisory committee members suggested changes to this definition to clarify which facility designs would qualify. Pedestrian and bicycle staff at ODOT also suggested changes to be consist with how ODOT uses terms in plans and guidelines. The recommended amendments incorporate many of these suggestions. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 4 of 10 b. Rule 0012: Effective Dates and Transition This rule sets effective dates for certain parts of the division to allow for an orderly transition from previous requirements to updated ones as shown on pages 7-9 of Attachment A. The recommended amendments to subsection (4)(d) would clarify the process for cities and counties in Metro to adopt town and regional center boundaries. The amendments improve consistency with Metro's implementation process for its 2040 Growth Concept and clarify that the requirements apply to areas that have been planned for urban uses by either a city or a county in the region. The amendment also uses the newly defined term "Metro Region 2040 Centers" to refer to areas with boundaries adopted by cities and counties. c. Rule 0210: Transportation Modeling and Analysis This rule sets requirements for how cities and counties use transportation modelling to make land use decisions in the context of meeting climate goals as shown on page 15 of Attachment A. The rulemaking charge included changing the effective date of this rule from 2024 to when a city or county adopts a transportation system plan or TSP. There was significant discussion of this rule at rulemaking advisory committee meetings, technical advisory committee meetings, and a separate meeting with interested parties focused on just this rule. Despite that discussion and multiple drafts of the rule, there was no consensus on corrections or clarifications that could address the concerns. As a result, the recommended amendments postpone the effective date of this rule until 2027 to allow time for a collaborative rulemaking process for substantial revisions that go beyond corrections and clarifications. d. Rule 0320: Land Use Requirements in Climate-Friendly Areas This rule sets requirements for cities and counties to adopt land use regulations for climate-friendly areas as shown on pages 20-22 of Attachment A. Members of the rulemaking advisory committee commented that the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement of 2.0 did not provide sufficient flexibility for cities and counties that used the "outcome-oriented option" for climate-friendly area development regulations in section (9). Additionally, commenters noted that this FAR requirement would conflict with the minimum zoned building capacity requirement of at least 60,000 square feet per net acre in subsection (9)(a). To address these concerns, the recommended amendments reduce the minimum FAR option from 2.0 to 1.0, which is more consistent with the minimum residential density option and with other parts of the rule. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 4 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 5 of 10 The Oregon Realtors and City of Springfield submitted written comments on the September 8, 2023 draft. In response, staff recommend further changes to sections (1), (2), and (3), which are included on pages 20-21 of Attachment A. The amendment to section (1) provides clarity regarding reduced development expectations when utilizing the "outcome-oriented" approach described in section (9). The amendment to section (2) does not allow cities and counties to require ground floor commercial and office uses if a multi-unit residential building contains regulated affordable housing units. This change will facilitate funding for affordable housing development, which typically would not support non-residential development. Lastly, the amendments to section (3) provide consistency with the modified "outcome-oriented" approach described in Section (9), which no longer contains requirements for jobs per net acre. e. Rule 0325: Transportation Review in Climate-Friendly Areas This rule sets requirements for how cities and counties review changes to land uses in new, expanded, or existing climate-friendly areas or Metro Region 2040 centers as shown on pages 23-24 of Attachment A. Staff recommend rearranging sections of this rule to clarify how the rule applies to adopting a climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 Center and how it applies to reviewing plan or land use regulations within existing climate-friendly areas or Metro Region 2040 Centers. The recommended amendments clarify what actions local governments must take in each circumstance. Section (6) gives cities and counties options for how to review plan amendments that cross the boundary and thus affect an area that is both inside and outside a climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 Center. f. Rule 0350: Urban Growth Boundaries This rule provides additional clarity for how to plan for the transportation system with urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions. Advisory committee members and written testimony expressed concerns that this rule could make future UGB expansions more difficult, particularly expansions needed to supply land for housing, because the rule requires the city to have an updated TSP prior to a UGB expansion. The recommended amendment postpones the effective date of this requirement until 2029 as shown on subsection (5)(f) of rule 0012, on page 9 of Attachment A. By that time, most or all affected cities and counties will have updated their TSP to meet the requirements in the rules. The recommended amendments do not include any amendments to rule 0350 because the postponement is in rule 0012. Therefore, rule 0350 is not included in Attachment A. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 5 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 6 of 10 g. Rules 0430 through 0445: Parking Reform These rules are the core parking reforms, reducing costly parking mandates for equity uses (rule 0430), climate-friendly areas (rule 0435), and near transit (rule 0440). Rule 0445 provides two options for parking reform if a city or county decides to not repeal parking mandates city-wide or county-wide as shown on pages 30-32 of Attachment A. Staff recommend amendments to clarify these rules and other parking provisions based on feedback from cities and counties. Specifically, advisory committee members expressed concern that implementing rule 0440 could be confusing when the transit provider adjusts bus frequencies. The recommended amendments add an option to allow cities and counties to adopt a static map of areas near frequent transit and use that map for a year before updating it. Advisory committee members also expressed concerns about the feasibility of the reform options under rule 0445. The recommended amendments make those options easier to implement. Some testimony raised equity concerns about these provisions; however, other testimony from equity organizations, affordable housing providers, and a disability consultant supported parking reforms. Additionally, experience from communities around Oregon and the United States that have reformed parking and a review of the academic literature show that parking reform generally improves equity. h. Rule 0630: Bicycle Parking This rule sets requirements for cities and counties to adopt development regulations that require bicycle parking as shown on pages 35-36 of Attachment A. Staff recommend rearranging this rule to clarify which types of uses require bicycle parking, and what standards cities and counties must use. The recommended rules no longer contain a requirement for a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces calculated based on required off-street motor vehicle parking spaces. This rule requires cities and counties to require at least one bicycle parking space per residential unit in multi-unit and mixed-use residential developments. The rulemaking advisory committee had significant discussion about this requirement, and written testimony also addressed this issue. Testimony noted that this can be a substantial expense for housing developers in some cases, and that relatively few trips are taken by bicycle. The requirement would, however, prepare for a future in which many more trips are taken by bicycle to reduce climate pollution. The recommended amendments would add flexibility to allow cities and counties to reduce the parking requirement for a specific development application (a variance) or for a type of residential use (for example a care facility). Because of the significant PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 6 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 7 of 10 controversy on this issue, Attachment A also includes two other options on pages 35-36 that the commission could select. • Option A: One space per unit This is what the commission adopted in 2022. • Option B: One space per unit with flexibility for reductions or exemptions The department recommends this option. • Option C: One half space per unit Cities and counties could choose to set a higher ratio, but they could not reduce below this ratio. i. Rule 0830: Enhanced Review of Select Roadway Projects This rule requires cities and counties to carefully review alternatives if they propose certain projects that would significantly increase street or highway capacity as shown on pages 39-42 of Attachment A. The advisory committees spent significant time discussing this rule, specifically concerns about projects in existing plans. The rule does not apply when a city or county starts construction for a project in its existing TSP. The rule would apply if a city or county proposes to add a project its TSP and to the process for updating a TSP. Subsection (1)(c) requires the city or county to review projects on the prior TSP before projects are carried forward to the new TSP. Advisory committee members expressed concern that this review would be inappropriate for projects that are in ready for construction at the time of the TSP update, or that were included in a general obligation bond levy approved by voters. Staff recommend adding a list of four exceptions to subsection (1)(c) so that some projects would not need to be reviewed during the TSP update. For projects that do not fall into one of the exceptions, the city or county would have options during a TSP update: • Choose to not carry the project forward into the updated plan; • Change the proposed project so that it no longer meets the criteria in (1)(a) or meets an exception in (1)(b) and thus is not subject to the rule; or • Review alternatives as required in the rule. Even with exceptions added to (1)(c), some advisory committee members and written testimony objected to the requirement to review projects in existing plans. Other members supported fewer and narrower exceptions. The recommended amendments represent a reasonable middle ground: avoiding excessive review of projects already underway, while ensuring that projects are carefully reviewed before adding street and highway capacity. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 7 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 8 of 10 V. Assessment of Administrative Rule Requirements Oregon Revised Statute 197.040(1)(b) directs the Land Conservation and Development Commission to design its administrative requirements to: (A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local governments; (B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land-use problems; (C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed rule; (D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests; and (E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact. The recommended amendments fulfill these requirements as described below. (A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local governments The recommended amendments make a variety of corrections and clarifications, including changes to provide more flexibility and certainty to affected local governments. The amended rules only apply to local governments within metropolitan areas. (B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land-use problems The recommended amendments provide additional flexibility to cities and counties to set different schedules for meeting key deadlines in the existing rules. The recommended amendments provide additional flexibility to determine how to best meet key requirements locally. The amended rules only apply to local governments within metropolitan areas. (C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed rule The recommended amendments are corrections and clarifications to adopted rules. The amendments bring more clarity and certainty to local governments. The department has not identified economic or property interests expected to be affected by the recommended amendments. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 8 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 9 of 10 (D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests The recommended amendments are corrections and clarifications to adopted rules. The amendments bring more clarity and certainty to local governments. The degree of property or economic impacts are likely to be very minimal. (E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact The recommended amendments are corrections and clarifications to adopted rules. The department worked with stakeholders to develop amendments that provide increased flexibility and certainty. The recommended amendments are likely to have less economic impact than the presently adopted rules. VI. Recommended Action The department recommends that the commission: 1. Review the recommended amendments to administrative rules in Attachment A; 2. Review rulemaking impact statements; 3. Review public comment and testimony received through September 17; 4. Adopt the recommended administrative rules; and 5. Repeal temporary rules upon the effective date of the adopted rules. a. Sample Motion 1 — Adopt Permanent Rule Amendments Recommended motion —Approve department recommendation. I move that the Land Conservation and Development Commission amend rules in Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 12, as recommended in Attachment A of the staff report, using option B in rule 630, section 3. Alternate motion —Approve recommended rules using a different option for bicycle parking requirements. I move that the Land Conservation and Development Commission amend rules in Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 12, as recommended in Attachment A of the staff report, using option (A or C] in rule 630, section 3. Alternate motion —Approve revised rules. I move that the Land Conservation and Development Commission amend rules in Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 12, as recommended in PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 9 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Agenda Item 10 November 2-3, 2023 — LCDC Meeting Page 10 of 10 Attachment A of the staff report, using option (A, B, or C] in rule 630, section 3, with the following revisions: [state proposed revisions] b. Sample Motion 2 — Repeal Temporary Rules I move that the Land Conservation and Development Commission repeal the temporary rules in Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12, upon the filing and effective date of the permanent rules. VII. Attachments A. Recommended Rule Amendments B. Implementation Update C. Rulemaking Charge D. Summary of Testimony Received E. Increasing Housing Production and Transportation Choices F. Rule-by-Rule Summary of Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 10 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 Chapter 660—Division 12 Transportation Planning Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 This document contains the recommended set of amendments to the Transportation Planning Rules. The amendments are meant to address the rulemaking charge given to the department and the rulemaking advisory committee by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on April 20, 2023. This document includes changes from presently adopted rules (not including rules adopted temporarily by the commission), and comments about changes within boxes which are not part of the rules themselves. Table of Contents 660-012-0425:Reducing the Burden of Parking 660-012-0005:Definitions 1 Mandates 29 660-012-0012:Effective Dates and Transition 7 660-012-0430:Reduction of Parking Mandates for 660-012-0100: Transportation System Plans in Development Types 30 Metropolitan Areas 9 660-012-0435:Parking Reform in Climate-Friendly 660-012-0110: Transportation System Planning Area 10 Areas and Centers 30 660-012-0135:Equity Analysis 11 660-012-0440:Parking Reform Near Transit Corridors 660-012-0140: Transportation System Planning in the 31 Portland Metropolitan Area 11 660-012-0445: Parking Management Alternative 660-012-0155:Prioritization Framework 13 Approaches 31 660-012-0180:Financially-Constrained Project List..14 660-012-0505: Pedestrian System Inventory 32 660-012-0210: Transportation Modeling and Analysis 660-012-0510:Pedestrian System Requirements 33 15 660-012-0605:Bicycle System Inventory 34 660-012-0215: Transportation Performance Standards 660-012-0610:Bicycle System Requirements 34 15 660-012-0630:Bicycle Parking 35 660-012-0310: Climate-Friendly Areas 16 660-012-0700:Public Transportation System Planning 660-012-0315:Designation of Climate-Friendly Areas 36 17 660-012-0810: Street and Highway System 660-012-0320:Land Use Requirements in Climate- Requirements 37 Friendly Areas 20 660-012-0830: Enhanced Review of Select Roadway 660-012-0325: Transportation Review in Climate- Projects 39 Friendly Areas and Centers 23 660-012-0905: Land Use and Transportation 660-012-0330:Land Use Requirements 24 Performance Measures 42 660-012-0405:Parking Regulation Improvements 26 660-012-0910: Land Use and Transportation 660-012-0410:Electric Vehicle Charging 28 Performance Targets 43 660-012-0415:Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities 28 1 660-012-0005:Definitions 2 The change in this rule is due to advice of counsel to add a preamble to the definitions. 3 For the purposes of this division,the definitions contained in ORS 197.015, 197.303,and 197.627 shall apply unless 4 the context requires otherwise.In addition,the following definitions apply: 5 (1)"Access Management"means measures regulating access to streets,roads and highways from public roads and 6 private driveways.Measures may include but are not limited to restrictions on the siting of interchanges, 7 restrictions on the type and amount of access to roadways,and use of physical controls,such as signals and 8 channelization including raised medians,to reduce impacts of approach road traffic on the main facility. 9 The change in this definition is to clarify that these units can accommodate all people, and are often seen 10 as desirable for many reasons and bought/leased/rented by people without disabilities. 11 (2)"Accessible dwelling unit"means a dwelling unit constructed to standards capable of accommodatinge persons 12 with disabilities,in compliance with ORS 447.210 through 447.280.the Americans with Disabilities Act and 13 applicable construction requirements in adopted building codes. 14 (3)"Accessible"means complying with the applicable standards of ORS 447.210 through 447.280,and where 15 applicable,with ORS 447.310.American with Disabilities Act. 16 (4)"Accessway"means a walkway that provides pedestrian and or bicycle passage either between streets or from a 17 street to a building or other destination such as a school,park,or transit stop.Accessways generally include a Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 1 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 11 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 walkway and additional land on either side of the walkway,often in the form of an easement or right-of-way,to 2 provide clearance and separation between the walkway and adjacent uses.Accessways through parking lots are 3 generally physically separated from adjacent vehicle parking or parallel vehicle traffic by curbs or similar devices 4 and include landscaping,trees,and lighting.Where accessways cross driveways,they are generally raised,paved, 5 or marked in a manner that provides convenient access for pedestrians. 6 (5)"Affected Local Government"means a city,county,or metropolitan service district that is directly impacted by a 7 proposed transportation facility or improvement. 8 (6)"Approach Road"means a legally constructed,public or private connection that provides vehicular access either 9 to or from or to and from a highway and an adjoining property. 10 (7)"Area,net"means the total area of a development site exclusive of proposed or existing public rights of way, 11 public parks,public open space,protected natural features,and any other areas permanently precluded from 12 development due to development constraints,easements,or similar legal instruments. 13 (8)"At or near a major transit stop": "At"means a parcel or ownership that is adjacent to or includes a major transit 14 stop generally including portions of such parcels or ownerships that are within 200 feet of a transit stop."Near" 15 generally means a parcel or ownership that is within 300 feet of a major transit stop.The term"generally"is 16 intended to allow local governments through their plans and ordinances to adopt more specific definitions of these 17 terms considering local needs and circumstances consistent with the overall objective and requirement to provide 18 convenient pedestrian access to transit. 19 (9)"Bicycle boulevard"means bicycle facilities on streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, 20 designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority.Bicycle boulevards use signs,markings,traffic diverters, 21 or other measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles.A bicycle boulevard may also include traffic 22 control features to create safe,convenient bicycle crossings of intersecting streets. 23 (10)"Climate-friendly area"means an urban mixed-use area containing,or planned to contain,a mixture of higher- 24 density housing,jobs,businesses,and services.These areas are served by,or planned for service by,high-quality 25 pedestrian,bicycle,and transit infrastructure and services to provide frequent and convenient connections to key 26 destinations within the city and region.These areas feature a well-designed and connected pedestrian 27 environment.To maximize community benefits these areas typically do not contain or require large parking lots, 28 and are provided with abundant tree canopy and vegetation to provide shade,cooling,and other amenities to 29 visitors,residents,and employees.Climate-friendly areas will reduce the reliance on light duty motor vehicle trips 30 for residents,workers,and visitors by providing more proximate destinations within climate-friendly areas, 31 improved connectivity to key destinations elsewhere in the community,and enhanced alternative transportation 32 options. 33 This is a new definition added for clarity. There are references to climate pollution throughout the division. 34 (11)"Climate pollution"means emissions of greenhouse gases as defined in ORS 468A.210. 35 The change in this definition is to reword for clarity. 36 (124-)"Commercial parking lot"means a site without a primary use where the primary use is renting or leasing 37 vehicle parking spaces are rented or leased.It does not include shared parking. 38 (132)"Committed transportation facilities"means those proposed transportation facilities and improvements that are 39 consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and have approved funding for construction in a public 40 facilities plan or the Six-Year Highway or Transportation Improvement Program. 41 (143)"Demand management"means actions that are designed to change travel behavior in order to improve 42 performance of transportation facilities and to reduce need for additional road capacity.Methods may include,but 43 are not limited to,the use of non-driving modes,ride-sharing and vanpool programs,trip-reduction ordinances, 44 shifting to off-peak periods,and reduced or paid parking. 45 (154)"Equitable outcomes"means outcomes that burdens underserved populations less than,and benefits 46 underserved populations as much or more as,the city or county population as a whole.Examples of equitable 47 outcomes include: 48 (a)Increased stability of underserved populations,lowering the likelihood of displacement due to gentrification 49 from public and private investments; 50 (b)More accessible,safe,affordable and equitable transportation options with better connectivity to destinations 51 people want to reach; 52 (c)Adequate housing with access to employment,education,fresh food,goods,services,recreational and cultural 53 opportunities,and social spaces; 54 (d)Increased safety for people in public spaces,transportation,and community development; Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 2 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 12 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (e)Equitable access to parks,nature,open spaces,and public spaces; 2 (f)Better and more racially equitable health outcomes across the lifespan,particularly health outcomes connected 3 to transportation choices,air pollution,and food; 4 (g)Recognizing and remedying impacts of past practices such as redlining,displacement,exclusionary zoning, 5 and roadway and other public infrastructure siting decisions that harmed underserved communities;and 6 (h)Fairly-distributed benefits to residents and local governments across cities and counties within metropolitan 7 areas. and 8 The change in this definition is to add an example to encourage engagement of people with disabilities in 9 planning decisions. Decision processes up to this point have often not centered these voices. 10 (i)Increased opportunities for people with disabilities to be actively engaged in community-based decision- 11 making processes,with supports as needed.: 12 (166)"Freeway"means a limited-access highway with access points exclusively from interchanges with other 13 streets and highways.Limited access may be provided for rural land uses in rural areas where no other access is 14 available. 15 (176)"Horizon year"means the final year of the twenty-year planning period. 16 (187)"Influence area of an interchange"means the area 1,320 feet from an interchange ramp terminal measured on 17 the crossroad away from the mainline. 18 (198)"Local streets"means streets that are functionally classified as local streets to serve primarily local access to 19 property and circulation within neighborhoods or specific areas.Local streets do not include streets functionally 20 classified as collector or arterials. 21 (2041)"Local Street Standards"include but are not limited to standards for right-of-way,pavement width,travel 22 lanes,parking lanes,curb turning radius,and accessways. 23 (210)"Major"means,in general,those facilities or developments that,considering the size of the urban or rural area 24 and the range of size,capacity or service level of similar facilities or developments in the area,are either larger 25 than average,serve more than neighborhood needs or have significant land use or traffic impacts on more than the 26 immediate neighborhood: 27 (a)"Major"as it modifies transit corridors,stops,transfer stations,and new transportation facilities means those 28 facilities that are most important to the functioning of the system or that provide a high level,volume,or 29 frequency of service; 30 (b)"Major"as it modifies industrial,institutional,and retail development means such developments that are larger 31 than average,serve more than neighborhood needs,or that have traffic impacts on more than the immediate 32 neighborhood; 33 (c)Application of the term"major"will vary from area to area depending upon the scale of transportation 34 improvements,transit facilities,and development that occur in the area.A facility considered to be major in a 35 smaller or less densely developed area may,because of the relative significance and impact of the facility or 36 development,not be considered a major facility in a larger or more densely developed area with larger or more 37 intense development or facilities. 38 (224)"Major transit stop"means existing and planned transit stations,including light rail stations and other transit 39 transfer stations,except for temporary facilities;other planned stops designated as major transit stops in a 40 transportation system plan and existing stops that: 41 (a)Have or are planned for an above average frequency of scheduled,fixed-route service when compared to 42 region wide service.In urban areas of 1,000,000 or more population,major transit stops are generally located 43 along routes that have or are planned for 15-minute or better service frequency throughout the day and on 44 weekends;and 45 (b)Are located in a transit-oriented development or within one-quarter mile of an area planned and zoned for: 46 (A)Medium or high-density residential development;or 47 (B)Intensive commercial or institutional uses within one-quarter mile of land uses in paragraph(A);or 48 (C)Uses likely to generate a relatively high level of transit ridership. 49 (232)"Metropolitan area"means the local governments that are responsible for adopting local or regional 50 transportation system plans within a metropolitan planning organization(MPO)boundary.This includes cities, 51 counties,and,in the Portland Metropolitan Area,Metro. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 3 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 13 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 This is a new definition added for clarity. There are references to Metro Region 2040 Centers throughout 2 the division. 3 (24)"Metro Region 2040 Center"means the area within a boundary adopted by a city or county under Title 6 of the 4 acknowledged Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for the central city,regional centers,and town 5 centers on Metro's 2040 Growth Concept map. 6 (235)"Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)"means an organization located within the State of Oregon and 7 designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning in an urbanized area of the state including such 8 designations made subsequent to the adoption of this rule.The Longview-Kelso-Rainier and Walla Walla Valley 9 MPOs are not considered MPOs for the purposes of this division. 10 (246)"Minor transportation improvements"include,but are not limited to,signalization,addition of turn lanes or 11 merge/deceleration lanes on arterial or collector streets,provision of local streets,transportation system 12 management measures,modification of existing interchange facilities within public right of way and design 13 modifications located within an approved corridor.Minor transportation improvements may or may not be listed 14 as planned projects in a TSP where the improvement is otherwise consistent with the TSP.Minor transportation 15 improvements do not include new interchanges;new approach roads within the influence area of an interchange; 16 new intersections on limited access roadways,highways,or expressways;new collector or arterial streets,road 17 realignments or addition of travel lanes. 18 This is a new definition added to address charge item 1. The new definition of"multi-unit housing"will be 19 used consistently throughout the division. 20 (27)"Multi-unit housing"means five or more attached housing units on a single lot or parcel.A dwelling unit may 21 be attached to another dwelling unit vertically or horizontally.Multi-unit housing does not include middle housing 22 types,as defined in ORS 197.758,but does include five or more attached condominium dwelling units located on 23 a collectively managed lot or parcel. 24 (286)"ODOT"means the Oregon Department of Transportation. 25 (296)"Parking benefit district"means a designated area where some of the revenues from parking fees or permits 26 for public parking within the designated area are dedicated to public improvements in the area. 27 The change in this definition is to reword for clarity and to address historic conditional uses based on 28 providing parking. 29 (302-7)"Parking mandates"means requirements to include or retain a carport,garage,or minimum number of off- 30 street parking spaces with development,er-redevelopment,alterations,changes of use,or,for residential 31 development,a fee-in-lieu of providing parking for residential development.It does not include requirements for 32 parking spaces under the Americans with Disabilities Act or ORS 447.233. 33 (3128)"Parking maximums"means limits on the number of off-street parking spaces that can be included in a 34 development. 35 The change in this definition is to exclude spaces for automobiles for sale or rent and fleet vehicles as 36 "parking spaces." 37 (3229)"Parking spaces"means on and off-street spaces designated for automobile parking,other than parking 38 spaces reserved for: 39 reserved for automobiles for sale or rent; 40 (b)fleet vehicles; 41 ( carpools or vanpools;or 42 filler-parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 43 (330)"Pedestrian district"means a comprehensive plan designation or implementing land use regulations,such as 44 an overlay zone,that establish requirements to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian environment in an area 45 planned for a mix of uses likely to support a relatively high level of pedestrian activity. Such areas include but are 46 not limited to: 47 (a)Lands planned for a mix of commercial or institutional uses near lands planned for medium to high-density 48 housing;or 49 (b)Areas with a concentration of employment and retail activity;and 50 (c)That have,or could develop,or have planned a network of streets and accessways that provide convenient 51 pedestrian circulation. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 4 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 14 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (344-)"Pedestrian facility"means a continuous,unobstructed,reasonably direct route between two points that is 2 intended and suitable for pedestrian use.Pedestrian facilities include but are not limited to sidewalks,walkways, 3 accessways,stairways and pedestrian bridges.On developed parcels,pedestrian facilities are generally hard 4 surfaced.In parks and natural areas,pedestrian facilities may be soft-surfaced pathways.On undeveloped parcels 5 and parcels intended for redevelopment,pedestrian facilities may also include rights of way or easements for 6 future pedestrian improvements. 7 (352)"Pedestrian plaza"means a small semi-enclosed area usually adjoining a sidewalk or a transit stop that 8 provides a place for pedestrians to sit,stand or rest.They are usually paved with concrete,pavers,bricks,or 9 similar material and include seating,pedestrian scale lighting,and similar pedestrian improvements.Low walls or 10 planters and landscaping are usually provided to create a semi-enclosed space and to buffer and separate the plaza 11 from adjoining parking lots and vehicle maneuvering areas.Plazas are generally located at a transit stop,building 12 entrance,or an intersection and connect directly to adjacent sidewalks,walkways,transit stops,and buildings.A 13 plaza including 150-250 square feet would be considered"small." 14 (363)"Pedestrian scale"means site and building design elements that are dimensionally less than those intended to 15 accommodate automobile traffic,flow,and buffering.Examples include ornamental lighting of limited height; 16 bricks,pavers,or other modules of paving with small dimensions;a variety of planting and landscaping materials; 17 arcades or awnings that reduce the height of walls;and signage and signpost details that can only be perceived 18 from a short distance. 19 (374)"People with disabilities"means people who have a record or history of physical,mental,intellectual,or 20 sensory impairments that in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in 21 society on an equal basis with others. 22 This is a new definition to address charge item 2. 23 (38)"Performance measure"means an indicator used to evaluate progress towards meeting performance targets in 24 accordance with OAR 660-012-0910. 25 This is a new definition to address charge item 2. 26 (39)"Performance standard"means an indicator used to review comprehensive plan and land use regulation 27 amendments in accordance with OAR 660-012-0060. 28 (4035)"Planning period"means the twenty-year period beginning with the date of adoption of a TSP to meet the 29 requirements of this division. 30 (4136)"Preliminary Design"means an engineering design that specifies in detail the location and alignment of a 31 planned transportation facility or improvement. 32 (4237)"Priority transit corridor"means a corridor that has a high existing or planned level of transit service relative 33 to other transit service in the community,including service frequency and span of service.The corridor may be 34 described as a series of stations when served by high-capacity transit services with widely spaced stations. 35 (433-g)"Reasonably direct"means either a route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route 36 that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. 37 (4439)"Refinement Plan"means an amendment to the transportation system plan,that resolves,at a systems level, 38 determinations on function,mode or general location which were deferred during transportation system planning 39 because detailed information needed to make those determinations could not reasonably be obtained during that 40 process. 41 (450)"Regional Transportation Plan"or"RTP"means the long-range transportation plan prepared and adopted by a 42 metropolitan planning organization for a metropolitan area as provided for in federal law. 43 (464-)"Roads"means streets,roads,and highways. 44 (472)"Rural community"means areas defined as resort communities and rural communities in accordance with 45 OAR 660-022-0010(6)and(7).For the purposes of this division,the area need only meet the definitions contained 46 in the Unincorporated Communities Rule although the area may not have been designated as an unincorporated 47 community in accordance with OAR 660-022-0020. 48 The change in this definition is in response to RAC comments. 49 (483)"Separated or protected bicycle facilities"means bicycle facilities that are physically separated,or that are 50 protected from motor vehicle traffic by barriers elements that designed to inhibit intrusion into the bicycle facility. 51 Protection may include parked motor vehicles,curbs,or a raised elevation of the bicycle facility. Separated or 52 protected bicycle facilities may be unidirectional or two-way. Separated or protected bicycle facilities are 53 designed to address conflicting traffic at intersections and other vehicular accesses to the street or highway. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 5 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 15 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 This change in this definition is a rewording to make it easier to provide shared parking. 2 (494)"Shared parking"means parking spaces used to meet the parking mandates for two or more uses,structures,or 3 parcels of land,to the extent that the owners or operators show the overall demand for parking spaces can be met 4 by the shared parking. 5 (5045)"Transit-Oriented Development(TOD)"means a mix of residential,retail,and office uses and a supporting 6 network of roads,bicycle,and pedestrian ways focused on a major transit stop designed to support a high level of 7 transit use.The key features of transit-oriented development include: 8 (a)A mixed-use center at the transit stop,oriented principally to transit riders and pedestrian and bicycle travel 9 from the surrounding area; 10 (b)High density of residential development proximate to the transit stop sufficient to support transit operation and 11 neighborhood commercial uses within the TOD; 12 (c)A network of roads,and bicycle and pedestrian paths to support high levels of pedestrian access within the 13 TOD and high levels of transit use. 14 (5146)"Transportation Facilities"means any physical facility that moves or assist in the movement of people or 15 goods including facilities identified in OAR 660-012-0020 but excluding electricity,sewage,and water systems. 16 (5247)"Transportation System Management Measures"means techniques for increasing the efficiency,safety, 17 capacity,or level of service of a transportation facility without increasing its size.Examples include,but are not 18 limited to,traffic signal improvements,traffic control devices including installing medians and parking removal, 19 channelization,access management,ramp metering,and restriping of high occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes. 20 (5348)"Transportation Needs"means estimates of the movement of people and goods consistent with an 21 acknowledged comprehensive plan and the requirements of this division.Needs are typically based on projections 22 of future travel demand resulting from a continuation of current trends as modified by policy objectives,including 23 those expressed in Goal 12 and this division,and attaining the state's goals for greenhouse gas emissions 24 reduction,especially those for avoiding principal reliance on any one mode of transportation. 25 (5440)"Transportation Needs,Local"means needs for movement of people and goods within communities and 26 portions of counties and the need to provide access to local destinations. 27 (550)"Transportation Needs,Regional"means needs for movement of people and goods between and through 28 communities and accessibility to regional destinations within a metropolitan area,county,or associated group of 29 counties. 30 (564)"Transportation Needs,State"means needs for movement of people and goods between and through regions 31 of the state and between the state and other states. 32 (572)"Transportation Options Provider"means an entity providing services that work to change travel behavior in 33 order to increase transportation system efficiency. 34 (583)"Transportation Project Development"means implementing the transportation system plan(TSP)by 35 determining the precise location,alignment,and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP based 36 on site-specific engineering and environmental studies. 37 (594)"Transportation Service"means a service for moving people and goods,such as intercity bus service and 38 passenger rail service. 39 (60 )"Transportation System Plan(TSP)"means a plan for one or more transportation facilities that are planned, 40 developed,operated,and maintained in a coordinated manner to supply continuity of movement between modes, 41 and within and between geographic and jurisdictional areas. 42 (6156)"Urban Area"means lands within an urban growth boundary,two or more contiguous urban growth 43 boundaries,and urban unincorporated communities as defined by OAR 660-022-0010(9).For the purposes of this 44 division,the area need only meet the definition contained in the Unincorporated Communities Rule although the 45 area may not have been designated as an unincorporated community in accordance with OAR 660-022-0020. 46 (625-7)"Unbundled parking"means a requirement that parking spaces for each unit in a development be rented, 47 leased,or sold separately from the unit itself.The parking space(s)must be rented,leased,or sold at market rates 48 for comparable local off-street parking.The renter,lessor,or buyer of the unit must be allowed to opt out of 49 renting,leasing,or buying the parking space. 50 (6368)"Urban Fringe"means: 51 (a)Areas outside the urban growth boundary that are within five miles of the urban growth boundary of an MPO 52 area;and 53 (b)Areas outside the urban growth boundary within two miles of the urban growth boundary of an urban area 54 containing a population greater than 25,000. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 6 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 16 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (64 .9)"Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)"means all jurisdiction household-based light vehicle travel regardless of 2 where the travel occurs. 3 (650)"Walkway"means a hard surfaced area intended and suitable for use by pedestrians,including sidewalks and 4 surfaced portions of accessways. 5 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 6 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.712,ORS 197.717,ORS 197.732,ORS 197.012 7 660-012-0012:Effective Dates and Transition 8 (1)The rules in this division adopted on July 21,2022,and amendments to rules in this division adopted on that 9 date,are effective August 17,2022,except as provided in this rule. 10 (2)A city or county subject to the requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0100 may make interim updates to the 11 local transportation system plan using requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0015 if the city or county: 12 (a)Has submitted notice of the proposed change to the comprehensive plan to the department as provided in 13 OAR 660-018-0020 no later than December 31,2022;or 14 (b)The interim update is not a major transportation system plan update as provided in OAR 660-012-0105,and 15 the city or county has submitted notice of the proposed change to the comprehensive plan to the department 16 as provided in OAR 660-018-0020 no later than June 30,2027.Interim updates must comply with applicable 17 requirements in this division within the scope of the transportation system plan amendment but need not bring 18 the entire transportation system plan in compliance with all applicable regulations. 19 The changes in this section are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 20 (3)Cities,counties,or Metro may choose to propose alternative dates in lieu of the effective dates or deadlines in 21 section(4)of this rule. 22 (a)A submitted proposal for alternative dates shall include: 23 (A)A description of any work already underway to begin complying with the new or amended requirements of 24 this division; 25 (B)Proposed dates for accomplishing requirements in lieu of effective dates or deadlines provided in this rule; 26 and 27 (C)A schedule for updating local transportation system plans to comply with new or amended requirements of 28 this division. 29 (b)Proposed alternative dates must demonstrate consistent progress toward meeting the updated requirements of 30 this division.Proposed alternative dates must include at least some work implemented by December 31,2023. 31 Proposed alternative dates must include completion of all elements included in the alternative dates,except for a 32 major update to the transportation system plan,by June 30,2027December 31,2029. 33 (c)Proposed alternative dates should be designed to sequence work in a logical progression,considering 34 acknowledged plans,other work,and the work of other jurisdictions within the metropolitan area. Cities and 35 counties in a metropolitan area may submit joint proposed alternative dates for a metropolitan area. 36 (d)Proposed alternative dates may not be submitted to the department after January 31,2023. 37 (ed)Local governments in regions required to submit a work program as provided in OAR 660-044-0015 may 38 submit a single combined work program that proposes alternative dates as provided in this rule and meets the 39 requirements as provided in OAR 660-044-0100.Notwithstanding subsection(d),the combined work program 40 must be submitted by the date provided in OAR 660 044 0015. 41 (fe)The director shall review the proposed alternative dates to determine whether the proposed alternative dates 42 meet the following criteria: 43 (A)Ensures urgent action; 44 (B)Coordinates actions across jurisdictions within the metropolitan area; 45 (C)Coordinates with work required as provided in OAR 660-044-0100; 46 (D)Sequences elements into a logical progression;and 47 (E)Considers availability of funding and other resources to complete the work. 48 (gf)Upon the director finding the proposed alternative dates meet the criteria in(f),the alternative dates shall be 49 used. 50 (hg)The director may modify alternative dates at any time as necessary to achieve the purposes of this division. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 7 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 17 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (4)The dates in this section apply unless alternative dates are approved by the director as provided in section(3). 2 (a)Cities outside the Portland Metropolitan Area with a population over 5,000 in the urban area,and counties 3 outside the Portland Metropolitan Area with an unincorporated population over 5,000 in the urban area,must 4 adopt a major transportation system plan update as provided in OAR 660-012-0105 by December 31,2029. 5 The change in this subsection addresses charge item 4. The change matches the date for local 6 governments to meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0215 with adoption of a local TSP update. 7 (b)The provisions of OAR 660-012-0215 requiring the adoption of multiple transportation performance standards 8 take effect on June 30,2025upon the adoption of a major update to the local transportation system plan. 9 (c)A city or county that is subject to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0310 shall adopt land use requirements 10 for climate-friendly areas and a climate-friendly comprehensive plan element as provided in OAR 660-012- 11 0315 by December 31,2024. 12 The change in this subsection addresses charge item 18 in part. The change clarifies that certain 13 requirements must be met when local governments in the Portland Metropolitan Area adopt Metro Region 14 2040 centers. 15 (d)Metro shall amend itsthe Uttrban Ggrowth Mmanagement Functional Pplan in conjunction with its next 16 growth management analysis under ORS 197.296 and no later than December 31,2024,to require each city and 17 county within Metro to: 18 (A)By December 31,2025,local government adopt boundaries for allion of Region 2040 regional and town 19 centers identified on Metro's 2040 Growth Concept map for which the city or county has adopted urban land 20 use designations in their comprehensive plan,except for any portions of centers that have boundaries adopted 21 by another city or county;and land use regulations as described in the acknowledged urban growth 22 management functional plan.Within the Metro urban growth boundary,a county with planning jurisdiction in 23 24 city shall comply with the adopted requirements of the urban growth management functional plan by 25 December 31,2025. 26 (B)Adopt boundaries for any other regional and town center identified on Metro's 2040 Growth Concept map 27 when the city or county adopts urban land use designations for the area of that center in their comprehensive 28 plan,unless portions of the center have boundaries already adopted by another city or county;and 29 (C)Identify boundaries for regional and town centers that are adopted pursuant to this subsection to be located 30 in the general area of the center as identified in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept map. 31 (e)Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations to meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0330 no later 32 than the date of adoption of a major transportation system plan update as provided in OAR 660-012-0105. 33 The change in this subsection is for language consistency. 34 (f)Cities and counties shall adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting 35 requirements provided in OAR 660-012-0400,OAR 660-012-0405,and OAR 660-012-0415 through OAR 660- 36 012-0450 no later than June 30,2023,except as provided below.If a city or county has not done so,it may not 37 apply enforce parking mandates after that date. 38 (A)Cities and counties that pass population thresholds in OAR 660-012-0400,OAR 660-012-0415,or OAR 39 660-012-0450 must adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting requirements 40 within 12 months of passing those population thresholds. 41 (B)If cities and counties adopt an approach in OAR 660-012-0445,policies must take effect no later than June 42 30,2023. 43 (C)Cities and counties adopting an approach in OAR 660-012-0435 shall do so concurrently with adoption of 44 any climate-friendly area under OAR 660-012-0315. 45 (g)Cities choosing to report on the share of on-street parking spaces that are priced as provided in OAR 660-012- 46 0450(1)(b)must: 47 (A)Demonstrate at least five percent of on-street parking spaces are priced by September 30,2023;and 48 (B)Demonstrate at least 10 percent of on-street parking spaces are priced by September 30,2025. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 8 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 18 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (5)The following dates and provisions may not be adjusted through proposed alternative dates as provided in 2 section(3): 3 The change in this subsection addresses charge item 4. Staff have changed this subsection to match the 4 recommendation to postpone the effective date of ORS 660-012-0210. 5 (a)The provisions of OAR 660-012-0210 take effect June 30,2021 December 31,2027. 6 (b)A city or county that is subject to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0310 shall submit a study of climate- 7 friendly areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0315(4)and(5)by December 31,2023. 8 (c)The provisions of OAR 660-012-0310(4)(a)and(b)take effect June 30,2023. 9 (d)Cities shall implement the requirements for electric vehicle charging as provided in OAR 660-012-0410 no 10 later than March 31,2023. 11 (e)Cities and counties shall implement the requirements of OAR 660-012-0430 and 660-012-0440 when 12 reviewing development applications submitted after December 31,2022. 13 This new subsection addresses charge item 3. The new subsection means that during the interim period 14 before December 31, 2029, local governments need not adopt a major update to their transportation 15 system plan meeting all updated requirements to expand an urban growth boundary. 16 (f)The provisions of OAR 660-012-0350(1)(a)take effect December 31,2029. 17 This new subsection means that cities and counties need not adopt a new transportation system plan in 18 the case where they need to use to authorization process in OAR 660-012-0830 in the interim period. 19 (g)The provisions of OAR 660-012-0830(2)(b)take effect upon the adoption of a major update to the local 20 transportation system plan 21 (6)Cities and counties with voter-approved bond-funded projects where the election occurred before January 1, 22 2022 may use approved bond funding as a factor when prioritizing projects in an unconstrained project list as 23 provided in OAR 660-012-0170(4). 24 (7)The first reporting year for the reporting requirements provided in OAR 660-012-0900 is 2023,with reports due 25 no later than May 31,2024. 26 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 27 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.712,ORS 197.296,ORS 455.417 28 660-012-0100: Transportation System Plans in Metropolitan Areas 29 This changes in this rule are for clarity. 30 (1)Cities and counties shall develop and adopt a transportation system plan.Cities and counties shall develop a 31 transportation system plan and amendments to that plan consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-012-0105 32 through OAR 660-012-0215.A transportation system plan includes the following elements: 33 (a)The core transportation system plan elements as provided in section(2); 34 (b)Funding projections as provided in OAR 660-012-0115; 35 (c)A transportation options element as provided in OAR 660-012-0145; 36 (d)An unconstrained project list as provided in OAR 660-012-0170; 37 (e)A financially-constrained project list as provided in OAR 660-012-0180; 38 (f)Any refinement plans adopted as provided in OAR 660-012-0190; 39 (g)A pedestrian system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0500; 40 (h)A bicycle system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0600; 41 (i)A public transportation system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0700;and 42 (j)A street and highway system element as provided in OAR 660-012-0800. 43 (2)A transportation system plan shall include the following core elements: 44 (a)The base and planning horizon years as provided in section(3)of this rule; 45 (b)The land use assumptions as provided in OAR 660-012-0340; 46 (c)A list of all elements of the plan,and the date of adoption or amendment of each; 47 (d)The coordinated land use and transportation system planning policies in the city's comprehensive plan; 48 (e)The local transportation system plan goals and policies; 49 (f)Areas with concentrations of underserved populations as provided in OAR 660-012-0125,identified using best 50 available data; Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 9 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 19 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (g)A record of the engagement,involvement,and decision-making processes used in development of the plan,as 2 provided in OAR 660-012-0130; 3 (h)A major equity analysis as provided in OAR 660-012-0135 or an engagement-focused equity analysis as 4 provided in OAR 660-012-0135 for urban areas under 5,000 in population;and 5 (i)The dates of each report made to the director as provided in OAR 660-012-0900,including all applicable city 6 and county reports for the planning area. 7 (3)Cities and counties shall determine the base and horizon years of a transportation system plan as follows: 8 (a)The base year is the present or past year which is used for the development of plan elements.The base year 9 shall be the year of adoption of a major update to the Ttransportation System planUpdatc,or no earlier than 10 five years prior. 11 (b)The horizon year is the future year for which the plan contains potential projects and shall be at least twenty 12 years from the year of adoption of a major update to the transportation system plan. 13 (4)The director may grant a whole or partial exemption from the requirements of this division to cities and counties 14 with a population of less than 10,000 within the urban area. The director may also grant a whole or partial 15 temporary exemption from the requirements of this division to jurisdictions of any size that are newly included in 16 an existing metropolitan area or a newly designated metropolitan area.The director shall use the criteria and 17 process as provided in OAR 660-012-0055(7)to decide to approve an exemption. 18 (5)The development of a transportation system plan shall be coordinated with affected cities,counties, 19 transportation facility owners,and transportation service providers,and transportation options providers. 20 (6)Adoption or amendment of a transportation system plan shall constitute the land use decision regarding the 21 function,mode,general location,and need for transportation facilities,services,and major improvements. 22 (7)Adoption or amendment of a transportation system plan shall include findings of compliance with applicable 23 statewide planning goals,acknowledged comprehensive plan policies,and land use regulations. 24 (8)Cities and counties shall design transportation system plans to achieve transportation performance targets as 25 provided in OAR 660-012-0910. 26 (9)Metro shall adopt a regional transportation system plan provided in OAR 660-012-0140. 27 (10)Cities and counties in the Portland Metropolitan Area shall additionally meet the requirements as provided in 28 OAR 660-012-0140. 29 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 30 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.180,ORS 197.200,ORS 197.274,ORS 197.712 31 660-012-0110: Transportation System Planning Area 32 (1)The planning area for transportation system plans is the area within the acknowledged urban growth boundary. 33 The unincorporated area within urban growth boundaries is the urbanizable area. 34 (2)Cities and counties are responsible for cooperatively developing transportation system plans within the urban 35 area,including the urbanizable area.Cities and counties shall jointly determine and agree how transportation 36 system planning will occur in the urbanizable area,including plan adoption. 37 (a)Cities may develop and adopt a single transportation system plan for the entire urban area; 38 (b)A county may choose to develop and adopt a separate transportation system plan for areas in the urbanizable 39 area;or 40 (c)A city and county may jointly determine the geographic extent of each of their transportation system plans 41 within the urban area. 42 The changes in this section address charge items 5 and 6. The changes remove confusing provisions for 43 counties. The rules should be clear throughout when they apply to cities or counties. 44 (3)Counties planning for urban areas as provided in this rule,and associated cities,shall meet these requirements: 45 (a)Counties shall meet the applicable requirements of this division as if they were a city,even when requirements 46 only refer to cities. 47 (ab)Both the city and county shall meet all applicable requirements of this division based on the population of the 48 entire urban area,except where a population threshold in a rule specifically refers to the population of the urban 49 unincorporated area. 50 (be)When a county develops a transportation system plan for a portion of the urban area within an urban growth 51 boundary,both transportation system plans must have the same planning horizon year.This subsection does not 52 apply in urban areas with more than one city or in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 10 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 20 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (4)Counties shall plan areas outside urban growth boundaries as rural,regardless of location within a metropolitan 2 area.Counties planning for unincorporated communities within a metropolitan area must meet requirements 3 provided in OAR chapter 660,division 22. 4 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 5 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 6 660-012-0135:Equity Analysis 7 (1)Cities and counties shall determine whether the land use and transportation plans required in this division 8 improve outcomes for underserved populations by using an equity analysis.An equity analysis is intended to 9 determine benefits and burdens on underserved populations,as identified in OAR 660-012-0125. 10 This section has been added to address charge item 7. The new section clarifies which circumstances 11 require each type of equity analysis. This does not change which types of analysis are required, only lists 12 them in this rule. 13 (2)A city or county must engage in either a major equity analysis or an engagement-focused equity analysis as 14 provided in this division,including in the following circumstances: 15 (a)A major equity analysis must be conducted when making a major update to a transportation system plan for an 16 urban area of 5,000 in population or larger,as provided in OAR 660-012-0100(2). 17 (b)An engagement-focused equity analysis must be conducted: 18 (A)When making a major update to a transportation system plan for an urban area under 5,000 in population,as 19 provided in OAR 660-012-0100(2); 20 (B)When making a minor update to a transportation system plan,as provided in OAR 660-012-0105(1); 21 (C)When designating a climate-friendly area,as provided in OAR 660-012-0315(4)(c);and 22 (D)When choosing to authorize a proposed facility,as provided in OAR 660-012-0830(2)(f). 23 (23)A city or county engaging in a major equity analysis shall conduct all the actions in the engagement-focused 24 equity analysis in section(34).In addition,a city or county shall: 25 (a)Assess,document,acknowledge,and address where current and past land use,transportation,and housing 26 policies and effects of climate change have harmed or are likely to harm underserved populations; 27 (b)Assess,document,acknowledge,and address where current and past racism in land use,transportation,and 28 housing has harmed or is likely to harm underserved populations; 29 (c)Identify geographic areas with significantly disproportionate concentrations of underserved populations; 30 (d)Develop key performance measures as required in OAR 660-012-0905,or review existing performance 31 measures,for key community outcomes as provided in subsection(34)(a)over time;and 32 (e)Use the best available data in conducting sections(a)through(d). 33 (34)A city or county conducting an engagement-focused equity analysis shall: 34 (a)Engage with members of underserved populations as identified in OAR 660-012-0125 to develop key 35 community outcomes; 36 (b)Gather,collect,and value qualitative and quantitative information,including lived experience,from the 37 community on how the proposed change benefits or burdens underserved populations; 38 (c)Recognize where and how intersectional discrimination compounds disadvantages; 39 (d)Analyze the proposed changes for impacts and alignment with desired key community outcomes and key 40 performance measures under OAR 660-012-0905; 41 (e)Adopt strategies to create greater equity or minimize negative consequences;and 42 (f)Report back and share the information learned from the analysis and unresolved issues with people engaged as 43 provided in subsection(a). 44 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 45 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 46 660-012-0140: Transportation System Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area 47 (1)This rule applies to cities and counties in the Portland Metropolitan Area,and Metro.In the Portland 48 Metropolitan Area,cities and counties shall develop and adopt local transportation system plans as provided in 49 OAR 660-012-0100.Metro shall develop and adopt a regional transportation system plan as provided in this rule. 50 (2)Cities and counties shall amend comprehensive plans,land use regulations,and transportation system plans to be 51 consistent with Metro's regional transportation system plan.Consistent means city and county comprehensive 52 plans and implementing ordinances conform with the policies and projects in the regional transportation system Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 11 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 21 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 plan.If Metro finds a local transportation system plan is consistent with the Regional Transportation Functional 2 Plan,the transportation system plan shall be deemed consistent with the regional transportation system plan. 3 (3)Metro shall prepare,adopt,amend,and update a regional transportation system plan in coordination the with 4 regional transportation plan required by federal law.Insofar as possible,the regional transportation system plan 5 shall be accomplished through a single coordinated process that complies with the applicable requirements of 6 federal law and this division. 7 (a)When Metro adopts or amends the regional transportation plan to comply with this division as provided in this 8 section,Metro shall review the adopted plan or amendment and either: 9 (A)Adopt findings that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment or update is consistent with the 10 applicable provisions of adopted regional transportation system plan and compliant with applicable 11 provisions of this division;or 12 (B)Adopt amendments to the regional transportation system plan that make the regional transportation plan 13 consistent and compliant with applicable provisions of this division.Necessary plan amendments or updates 14 shall be prepared and adopted in coordination with the federally-required plan update or amendment. Such 15 amendments shall be initiated no later than 30 days from the adoption of the regional transportation plan 16 amendment or update and shall be adopted no later than one year from the adoption of the regional 17 transportation plan amendment or update or according to a work program approved by the commission.A 18 plan amendment is initiated for purposes of this subsection where the affected local government files a post- 19 acknowledgement plan amendment notice with the department as provided in OAR 660-018-0020. 20 (b)Adoption or amendment of the regional transportation plan relates to compliance with this division for 21 purposes of this section if it does one or more of the following: 22 (A)Changes plan policies; 23 (B)Adds or deletes a project from the list of planned transportation facilities,services,or improvements or from 24 the fmancially-constrained project list required by federal law; 25 (C)Modifies the general location of a planned transportation facility or improvement; 26 (D)Changes the functional classification of a transportation facility;or 27 (E)Changes the planning period or adopts or modifies the population or employment forecast or allocation 28 upon which the plan is based. 29 (c)The following amendments to the regional transportation plan do not relate to compliance with this division 30 for purposes of this section: 31 (A)Adoption of an air quality conformity determination; 32 (B)Changes to a federal revenue projection; 33 (C)Changes to estimated cost of a planned transportation project;or 34 (D)Deletion of a project from the list of planned projects where the project has been constructed or completed. 35 (4)Notwithstanding any requirement in this division,Metro may adopt provisions into a regional functional plan 36 that require cities and counties to meet an additional requirement for transportation system planning where Metro 37 finds that the additional requirement is necessary to meet regional planning objectives and supports the purposes 38 of this division. 39 The changes in this section address charge item 5. The changes provide additional flexibility for setting 40 the horizon year of local transportation system plans in the Portland Metropolitan Area to match the 41 horizon date of the regional transportation plan. 42 (5)Notwithstanding requirements for transportation system planning areasplans provided in OAR 660-012-0100 43 through OAR 660-012-0110: 44 (a)Metro shall work cooperatively with cities and counties to determine responsibility for planning areas in the 45 urbanizable area.Where a county has responsibility for a planning area,the county must meet the requirements 46 as provided for counties in OAR 660-012-0110; 47 (b)Counties planning for unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundary shall meet all applicable 48 requirements based on the population of the planning area;-ate 49 (c)Counties and cities need not have the same planning horizon year;and 50 (d)Cities or counties may set the horizon year of a local transportation system plan to match the horizon year of 51 the adopted regional transportation plan. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 12 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 22 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (6)Notwithstanding requirements for transportation system inventories as provided in OAR 660-012-0150,Metro 2 shall prescribe inventory requirements in transportation system plans for cities and counties in a regional 3 functional plan. 4 (7)Metro may propose alternative requirements in lieu of requirements provided in this division. 5 (a)The director shall review proposed alternative requirements to make a recommendation to the commission as 6 to whether the proposed alternative requirements would meet the objectives of the original requirements and 7 support the purposes of this division. 8 (b)The commission shall hold a hearing to review the proposed alternative requirements and the director's 9 recommendation.If the commission finds that the proposed alternative requirements meet the objectives of the 10 original requirements and support the purposes of this division,then the commission shall issue an order 11 approving the proposed alternative requirements;otherwise,the commission shall remand the proposed 12 alternative requirements to Metro with specific directions for changes needed to meet the objectives of the 13 original requirement and support the purposes of this division. 14 (c)Upon approval by the commission,Metro may adopt the proposed alternative requirements into a regional 15 functional plan.Upon adoption by Metro,cities and counties that comply with the alternative requirements of 16 the regional functional plan are no longer required to meet the specific requirements of this division as 17 described in the commission order. 18 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 19 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 184.899,ORS 197.012,ORS 197.274,ORS 197.301,ORS 197.712 20 660-012-0155:Prioritization Framework 21 (1)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall use the framework in this rule for decision making regarding 22 prioritization of transportation facilities and services.Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall consider the 23 following: 24 (a)Prioritization factors as provided in section(3); 25 (b)Classification of facilities or segments as provided in section(4); 26 (c)The planned land use context as provided in section(5);and 27 (d)Expected primary users as provided in section(6). 28 (2)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies may use local values determined through engagement as provided in 29 OAR 660-012-0120 to weight various prioritized factors when making prioritization decisions as provided in this 30 division. 31 (3)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall prioritize transportation facilities and services based on the 32 following factors: 33 (a)Meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets,including: 34 (A)Reducing per-capita vehicle miles traveled to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets provided in OAR 660- 35 044-0020 or OAR 660-044-0025; 36 (B) Supporting compact,pedestrian-friendly patterns of development in urban areas,particularly in climate- 37 friendly areas; 38 (C)Reducing single-occupant vehicle travel as a share of overall travel;and 39 (D)Meeting performance targets set as provided in OAR 660-012-0910. 40 (b)Improving equitable outcomes for underserved populations identified in OAR 660-012-0125; 41 (c)Improving safety,particularly reducing or eliminating fatalities and serious injuries; 42 (d)Improving access for people with disabilities; 43 (e)Improving access to destinations,particularly key destinations identified as provided in OAR 660-012-0360; 44 (f)Completing the multimodal transportation network,including filling gaps and making connections; 45 (g)Supporting the economies of the community,region,and state;and 46 (h)Other factors determined in the community. 47 The change in this section addresses charge item 8. The change clarifies that local governments may 48 apply mode-specific functional classifications to facilities. 49 (4)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall consider the functional classification of planned or existing 50 transportation facilities or segments when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and 51 services. Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies may establish different mode-specific functional 52 classifications for each mode on any facility or segment that they own and operate. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 13 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 23 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (5)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall consider the planned land use context around an existing or 2 planned transportation facility or segment when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and 3 services. 4 (a)Within climate-friendly areas,cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall prioritize pedestrian,bicycle, 5 and public transportation facilities and services. Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall ensure facilities 6 are planned for these modes to experience safe,low stress,and comfortable travel for people of all ages and 7 abilities within climate-friendly areas with minimal interference from motor vehicle traffic. 8 (b)In areas with concentrations of underserved populations,cities,counties,Metro, and state agencies shall 9 prioritize transportation projects addressing historic and current marginalization.Proposed transportation 10 projects in these areas must work to rectify previous harms and prevent future harms from occurring.These 11 areas may have suffered from disinvestment or harmful investments,including transportation system 12 investments. Such harms include but are not limited to displacement,increased exposure to pollutants, 13 destruction and division of neighborhoods,heat islands,and unsafe conditions for pedestrians,cyclists,transit 14 users,and others. 15 (6)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall consider the expected primary users of an existing or planned 16 transportation facility or segment when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and services. 17 In particular: 18 (a)In areas near schools or other locations with expected concentrations of children,or areas with expected 19 concentrations of older people or people with disabilities,cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies must 20 prioritize safe,protected,and continuous pedestrian and bicycle networks connecting to key destinations, 21 including transit stops. 22 (b)In industrial areas,along routes accessing key freight terminals,and other areas where accommodations for 23 freight are needed,cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies must consider the needs of freight users. 24 Pedestrian,bicycle,and public transportation system connections must be provided in industrial areas at a level 25 that provides safe access for workers. 26 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 27 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.180,ORS 197.712,ORS 468A.205 28 660-012-0180:Financially-Constrained Project List 29 (1)Cities and counties shall include a financially-constrained project list in a transportation system plan.Cities and 30 counties shall use the prioritized unconstrained project list developed as provided in OAR 660-012-0170 and the 31 amount of funding available developed as provided in OAR 660-012-0115 to produce the financially-constrained 32 project list. 33 (2)Cities,counties,Metro,and the state may only develop,fund,and construct projects on the financially- 34 constrained project list. 35 (a)Cities and counties may only submit projects on the financially-constrained project list in their transportation 36 system plan to the financially-constrained list of a federally-required regional transportation plan. 37 The changes to this subsection address charge item 9. The intent of this provision is to allow projects that 38 happen along with development to occur even if they are not on the financially-constrained project list. 39 This is because often these types of projects are opportunistic, depending on property development 40 which may not have been anticipated. The adopted language could be interpreted in ways that were not 41 intended. 42 (b)Cities and counties may permit projects on the unconstrained project list but not on the financially constrained 43 list to be constructed if the project is built by a property owner as a requirement of land development and the 44 project would not require review as provided in OAR 660 012 0830.Cities and counties may develop,fund,or 45 construct a project on the unconstrained project list if: 46 (A)The project is required as a condition of land development; 47 (B)A property owner is providing financial or material contributions to the project;and 48 (C)The project would not require review as provided in OAR 660-012-0830. 49 (3)Cities and counties shall create a financially-constrained project list using the top available projects on the 50 prioritized unconstrained project list and the planning-level cost estimates developed as provided in OAR 660- 51 012-0170.The sum of the planning-level cost estimates for projects placed on the financially-constrained project 52 list shall not exceed 125 percent of the funding available as identified in OAR 660-012-0115. Cities and counties 53 shall select projects such that the resulting financially-constrained list would: Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 14 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 24 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (a)Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled,as provided in OAR 660-012-0160; 2 (b)Burden underserved populations less than and benefit underserved populations as much or more as the city or 3 county population as a whole;and 4 (c)Make significant progress towards meeting the performance targets set for each performance measure as 5 provided in OAR 660-012-0910 or OAR 660-044-0110. 6 (4)If the list of projects cannot meet each test in section(3),the city or county must adjust the project list to find the 7 highest-ranking set of projects that can meet the criteria in section(3).This is the financially-constrained project 8 list. 9 (5)Cities or counties making a major or minor amendment to the transportation system plan as provided in OAR 10 660-012-0105 which includes an update to any project list,shall update the financially-constrained project list as 11 provided in this rule. 12 (6)Cities and counties shall prioritize the implementation of projects from the financially-constrained project list for 13 their ability to reduce climate pollution and improve equitable outcomes using the criteria provided in section(3) 14 of this rule. 15 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 16 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 184.899,ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 468A.205 17 660-012-0210: Transportation Modeling and Analysis 18 The change to this rule postpones the effective date of this rule to allow for a future process to review and 19 refine this rule. The not yet in effect adopted text of the rule will remain for now, but it is staff's intention to 20 review and recommend amendments to this rule prior to the effective date. 21 (1)This rule does not become effective until December 31,2027. 22 (42)A city or county relying on transportation models or mathematical analysis of the transportation system to make 23 a land use decision shall do so consistently with this rule. 24 (23)The model or analysis must account for changes in vehicle miles traveled per capita that would result from any 25 transportation projects proposed as a part of the land use decision. 26 (34)The assumptions and inputs used with the modeling or analysis must be consistent with acknowledged plans. 27 (45)The modeling or analysis must demonstrate that the land use decision will not increase vehicle miles traveled 28 per capita. 29 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 30 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 31 660-012-0215: Transportation Performance Standards 32 The changes in this rule address charge item 10. The changes fix a numbering error. 33 (1)This rule applies to transportation performance standards that cities and counties use to review comprehensive 34 plan and land use regulation amendments as provided in OAR 660-012-0060.If a city or county requires 35 applicants to analyze transportation impacts as part of development review in acknowledged local land use 36 regulations,then that review must include evaluation of the performance standards established under this rule. 37 This rule applies to transportation performance standards that Metro uses to review functional plan amendments 38 as provided in OAR 660-012-0060. 39 (2)Cities and counties shall adopt transportation performance standards.The transportation performance standards 40 must support meeting the targets for performance measures set as provided in OAR 660-012-0910.The 41 transportation performance standards must include these elements: 42 (3•a)Characteristics of the transportation system that will be measured,estimated,or projected,and the methods to 43 calculate their performance; 44 (4b)Thresholds to determine whether the measured,estimated,or projected performance meets the performance 45 standard.Thresholds may vary by facility type,location,or other factors.Thresholds shall be set at the end of 46 the planning period,time of development,or another time;and 47 (ic)Findings for how the performance standard supports meeting the targets for performance measures set as 48 provided in OAR 660-012-0910. 49 The change in this section addresses charge item 11. The change clarifies that Metro may set standards 50 that are to be used across the region. 51 (63)Cities,counties,Metro,and state agencies shall adopt two or more transportation performance standards.Metro 52 may adopt regional performance standards in a functional plan for use across regional and local plans.At least one Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 15 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 25 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 of the transportation performance standards must support increasing transportation options and avoiding principal 2 reliance on the automobile.The transportation system plan must clearly establish how to apply the multiple 3 performance standards to a proposal that meets some,but not all,of the transportation performance standards. The 4 transportation performance standards must evaluate at least two of the following objectives for the transportation 5 system,for any or all modes of transportation: 6 (a)Reducing climate pollution; 7 (b)Equity; 8 (c) Safety; 9 (d)Network connectivity; 10 (e)Accessibility; 11 (f)Efficiency; 12 (g)Reliability;and 13 (h)Mobility. 14 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 15 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.180,ORS 197.712 16 The title of this rule has been changed to be consistent. 17 660-012-0310:Climate-Climate-Friendly Areas 18 (1)This rule,OAR 660-012-0315,and OAR 660-012-0320 apply to cities and counties that: 19 (a)Are within a metropolitan area other than the Portland Metropolitan Area; 20 (b)Are inside incorporated cities or areas within an urban growth boundary as provided in section(3);and 21 (c)Have a population of more than 5,000 within an urban growth boundary. 22 (2)Cities and counties shall study and zone climate-friendly areas for locations that meet the following 23 requirements. 24 (a)Locations able to support development consistent with the land use requirements of OAR 660-012-0320. 25 (b)The locations shall be in existing or planned urban centers,including downtowns,neighborhood centers, 26 transit-served corridors,or similar districts.To the extent practicable,climate-friendly areas should be located 27 within,or in close proximity to,areas planned for,or provided with,high-density residential uses and a high 28 concentration of employment opportunities. 29 (c)The locations shall be in areas that are served,or planned for service,by high quality pedestrian,bicycle,and 30 transit services. 31 (d)The locations shall not be in areas where development is limited or disallowed by provisions adopted pursuant 32 to Statewide Planning Goal 7.Climate-friendly areas may be designated in such areas if the local government 33 has adopted requirements for development that will mitigate potential hazards to life and property,in 34 compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 7. 35 (e)Cities may designate climate-friendly areas within the urban growth boundary,but outside the city limits 36 boundary,if the following requirements are met: 37 (A)The area is contiguous with the city limits boundary; 38 (B)The provision of urban services is contingent upon annexation into the city limits and the area is readily 39 serviceable with urban water,sewer,stormwater,and transportation. "Readily serviceable"means that urban 40 infrastructure services are nearby and could be provided to allow construction on the site within one year of 41 an application for a building permit; 42 (C)The zoning that will be applied upon annexation,based on the city's comprehensive plan designation for the 43 area,is consistent with climate-friendly area requirements; 44 (D)The county in which the subject area is located has adopted a consistent comprehensive plan designation for 45 the area;and 46 (E)The city can demonstrate that at least 70 percent of complete annexation applications within the last five 47 years have been approved within one year of the date of complete annexation application. 48 (f)Climate-friendly areas shall have a minimum width of 750 feet,including any internal rights of way that may 49 be unzoned.Contiguous climate-friendly areas with distinct land use requirements may be considered 50 cumulatively to demonstrate compliance with the minimum width requirement.Exceptions to these minimum 51 dimensional requirements are allowed due to natural barriers,such as rivers;or due to long-term barriers in the 52 built environment,such as freeways.Exceptions are also allowed if potential climate-friendly areas are 53 constrained by adjacent areas planned and zoned to meet industrial land needs. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 16 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 26 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (3)Cities and counties shall designate climate-friendly areas.Counties with planning jurisdiction in unincorporated 2 areas provided with urban water,sanitary sewer,stormwater,and transportation services within an identified 3 urban growth boundary shall coordinate with the respective city or cities to address climate-friendly area 4 requirements for those areas.Areas under county jurisdiction outside urban growth boundaries;or within urban 5 growth boundaries but not provided with urban water,sanitary sewer,stormwater,and transportation services;are 6 not subject to this rule. 7 (4)Cities and counties shall designate climate-friendly areas as they cross the population thresholds in subsections 8 (a)and(b). City population is as determined by the most recently certified Portland State University Population 9 Research Center population estimate. Compliance timelines are based upon the date of the certification of the 10 population estimate.County population within an urban growth boundary may be calculated by interpolating 11 Portland State University Population Research Center's population forecast for the area within an urban growth 12 boundary,then subtracting the certified city population estimate from the total population within the urban growth 13 boundary for the current year. 14 (a)A city or county with a population within an urban growth boundary exceeding 5,000,but less than 10,001 15 shall submit a study of potential climate-friendly areas to the department as provided in OAR 660-012-0315 16 within 545 days of reaching a population exceeding 5,000.The city or county shall subsequently adopt land use 17 requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0315,and climate-friendly elements to their comprehensive plans 18 within 365 days of the deadline for submittal of the study of potential climate-friendly areas. 19 (b)A city or a county with a population exceeding 10,000 within an urban growth boundary shall submit a study 20 of potential climate-friendly areas to the department as provided in OAR 660-012-0315 within 545 days of 21 reaching a population exceeding 10,000.The city or county shall subsequently adopt land use requirements as 22 provided in OAR 660-012-0315,and climate-friendly elements to their comprehensive plans within 365 days of 23 the deadline for submittal of the study of potential climate-friendly areas.The city or county shall maintain 24 sufficient lands within climate-friendly areas as their population grows,as provided in OAR 660-012-0315.For 25 cities also subject to OAR 660-008-0045,compliance with this requirement shall be demonstrated in each 26 Housing Capacity Analysis following the initial designation of climate-friendly areas.Land use requirements 27 for climate-friendly areas shall be established concurrent or prior to the adoption of the Housing Capacity 28 Analysis as provided in OAR 660-012-0320.Counties subject to this rule shall coordinate with cities to address 29 climate-friendly area requirements within an urban growth boundary. 30 (5)If a city or county has not designated sufficient climate-friendly areas as provided in this rule,the commission 31 may: 32 (a)Initiate periodic review for the city of county to address the requirement;or 33 (b)Issue an enforcement order to the city or county,consistent with ORS 197.646. 34 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 35 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.615,ORS 197.646,ORS 197.712 36 I The title of this rule has been changed to be consistent. 37 660-012-0315:Designation of Climate-Climate-Friendly Areas 38 (1)The designation of climate-friendly areas refers to the process of studying potential climate-friendly areas and 39 adopting land use requirements and climate-friendly elements into comprehensive plans,as provided in this rule. 40 Cities and counties subject to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0310 with a population greater than 10,000 shall 41 designate climate-friendly areas sufficient to accommodate at least 30 percent of the total identified number of 42 housing units necessary to meet all current and future housing needs by calculating zoned building capacity as 43 provided in section(2),or using an alternative methodology as provided in OAR 660-012-0320(10). 44 (a)A local government may designate one or more climate-friendly areas to accommodate at least 30 percent of 45 housing units. 46 The changes in this subsection are part of the temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 47 (b)The total number of housing units necessary to meet all current and future housing needs shall be determined 48 from the local government's most recently adopted and acknowledged analysis of housing capacity analysisand 49 needed housing consistent with ORS 197.296 at the time it was adopted,by adding the total number of existing 50 dwelling units identified in the buildable land inventory to the anticipated number of future needed housing 51 units over the planning period of the housing capacity analysis. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 17 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 27 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The changes in this section are part of the temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 2 (2)Cities and counties subject to section(1)shall calculate the housing unit capacity within climate-friendly areas, 3 as follows: 4 (a)Regardless of existing development in a climate-friendly area,determine the potential square footage of zoned 5 building capacity for each net developable area based on existing or anticipatedproposed development standards 6within for the climate-friendly area,including applicable setbacks,allowed building heights,open space 7 requirements,on-site parking requirements,and similar all other applicable regulations that would impact the 8 developable site area.Within developed areas with no blocks greater than 5.5 acres,analysis of net developable 9 areas may be conducted for each city block,without regard to property boundaries within the block.Within 10 areas of 5.5 acres or more bounded by streets of 5.5 acres or more,the local government shall assume the same 11 ratio of gross land area to net land area as that which exists in the most fully developed urban center within 12 the city or county. 13 (b)Where the local government has not established a maximum building height,assumed building height shall be 14 85 feet.For the purpose of calculating zoned building capacity,cities and counties may assume the following 15 number of floors within multistory buildings,based on allowed building heights: 16 (A)Thirty feet allows two floors. 17 (B)Forty feet allows three floors. 18 (C)Fifty feet allows for four floors. 19 (BD)Sixty feet allows for five floors. 20 (E)Seventy-five feet allows for six floors. 21 (CF)Eighty-five feet allows for seven floors. 22 (c)If a local government allows height bonuses above the maximum building heights used for calculations in 23 subsection(b),the local government may include 25 percent of that additional zoned building capacity when the 24 bonuses: 25 (A)Allow building heights above the minimums established in OAR 660-012-0320(8);and, 26 (B)Allow height bonuses for publicly-subsidized housing serving households with an income of 80 percent or 27 less of the area median household income,or height bonuses for the construction of accessible dwelling units, 28 as defined in OAR 660-008-0050(4)(a),in excess of minimum requirements. 29 (d)Local governments shall assume that residential dwellings will occupy 30 percent of the zoned building 30 capacity calculated in subsections(a),(b),and(c)within climate-friendly areas.Public parks and open space 31 areas within climate-friendly areas that are precluded from development shall not be included in calculations of 32 zoned building capacity,but may be counted towards minimum area and dimensional requirements for climate- 33 friendly areas.Zoning and development standards for public parks and open space areas are exempted from 34 compliance with the land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0320 if the existing zoning standards do not allow 35 residential,commercial,or office uses. 36 (e)Local governments shall assume an average dwelling unit size of 900 square feet.Local governments shall use 37 the average dwelling unit size to convert the square footage of zoned residential building capacity calculated in 38 subsection(d)into an estimate of the number of dwelling units that may be accommodated in the climate- 39 friendly area. 40 (3)Cities and counties subject to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0310 with a population of 10,000 or less shall 41 designate at least 25 acres of land as climate-friendly area. 42 (4)Cities and counties must submit a study of potential climate-friendly areas to the department as provided in this 43 rule.The study of potential climate-friendly areas shall include the following information: 44 (a)Maps showing the location and size of all potential climate-friendly areas.Cities and counties shall use the 45 study process to identify the most promising area or areas to be chosen as climate-friendly areas but are not 46 required to subsequently adopt and zone each studied area as a climate-friendly area. 47 (b)Cities and counties subject to section(1)shall provide preliminary calculations of zoned residential building 48 capacity and resultant residential dwelling unit capacity within each potential climate-friendly area consistent 49 with section(2),or using an alternative methodology as provided in OAR 660-012-0320(10),and using land use 50 requirements within each climate-friendly area as provided in OAR 660-012-0320.Potential climate-friendly 51 areas must be cumulatively sized and zoned to accommodate at least 30 percent of the total identified number of 52 housing units as provided in section(1). 53 (c)A community engagement plan for the designation of climate-friendly areas,including the process to adopt 54 associated amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code,consistent with the requirements of OAR Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 18 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 28 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 660-012-0120 through 660-012-0130.The community engagement plan shall be consistent with the 2 requirements for an engagement-focused equity analysis as provided in OAR 660-012-0135(34). 3 (d)Analysis of how each potential climate-friendly area complies,or may be brought into compliance,with the 4 requirements of OAR 660-012-0310(2). 5 (e)A preliminary evaluation of existing development standards within the potential climate-friendly area(s)and a 6 general description of any changes necessary to comply with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0320. 7 (f)Plans for achieving fair and equitable housing outcomes within climate-friendly areas,as identified in OAR 8 660-008-0050(4)(a)-(f).Analysis of OAR 660-008-0050(4)(f)shall include analysis of spatial and other data to 9 determine if the rezoning of potential climate-friendly areas would be likely to displace residents who are 10 members of state and federal protected classes.The local government shall also identify actions that may be 11 employed to mitigate or avoid potential displacement. 12 (5)Cities and counties shall submit climate-friendly area study reports required in section(4).Following submittal, 13 the department shall review reports as follows: 14 (a)Within 30 days of receipt of the report,the department shall: 15 (A)Post a complete copy of the submitted report on the department's website along with a statement that any 16 person may file a written comment regarding the submitted report no more than 21 days after the posting of 17 the report. 18 (B)Provide notice to persons described under ORS 197.615(3)(a),directing them to the posting described in 19 paragraph(A)and informing them that they may file a written comment regarding the submitted report no 20 more than 21 days after the posting of the report. 21 (b)Within 60 days of posting of the report on the department's website,the department shall provide written 22 comments to the local government regarding the report information and the progress made to identify suitable 23 climate-friendly areas.The department shall also provide the local government with any written comments 24 submitted by interested persons,as provided in subsection(a). 25 The changes in this section are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 26 (6)Cities and counties must adopt land use requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0320,and clearly identify the 27 climate-friendly elements toareas in their comprehensive plan maps,comprehensive plans,zoning maps,or zoning 28 codes;indicated by land use designation,overlay zone,or similar mechanisms.Adoption of land use requirements 29 and findings for the climate friendly element of the comprehensive plan,code,or map amendment shall include 30 the following: 31 (a)Cities and counties subject to section(1)shall provide maps showing the location of all adopted climate- 32 friendly areas,and supplemental materialsincluding calculations to demonstrate that climate-friendly areas 33 contain sufficient zoned residential building capacity to accommodate 30 percent of total housing units as 34 provided in section(2),or using an alternative methodology as provided in OAR 660-012-0320(10),and based 35 on adopted land use requirements in these areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0320.Cities and counties subject 36 to section(3)shall provide maps showing the location of the adopted climate-friendly area.Local governments 37 subject to(1)or(3)shall include findings containing the information and analysis required in section(4)for any 38 climate-friendly areas that were not included in the initial study specified in section(4). 39 (b)Documentation of the number of total existing dwelling units,accessible dwelling units,and income-restricted 40 dwelling units within all climate-friendly areas.Where precise data is not available,local governments may 41 provide estimates based on best available information. 42 (c)Documentation that all adopted and applicable land use requirements for climate-friendly areas are consistent 43 with the provisions of OAR 660-012-0320. 44 (d)Adoption of a climate friendly element into the comprehensive plan containing findings and analysis 45 summarizing the local government climate friendly area designation decision process and demonstration of 46 compliance with the provisions of OAR 660 012 0310 through 660 012 0325.Additionally,aAdopted findings 47 shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of OAR 660-012-0310 through 660-012-0325,and shall 48 include: 49 (A)Identification of all ongoing and newly-added housing production strategies the local government shall use 50 to promote the development of affordable housing in climate-friendly areas.The local government may use 51 the Housing Production Strategy Guidance for Cities to review and identify potential strategies,as provided 52 in OAR 660-008-0050(3).These strategies shall be incorporated into future housing production strategy 53 reports,as provided in OAR chapter 660,division 8. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 19 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 29 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (B)Identification of all ongoing and newly-added housing production strategies the local government shall use 2 to prevent the displacement of members of state and federal protected classes in climate-friendly areas. 3 Findings shall include a description of how the strategies will be implemented based on consideration of 4 identified neighborhood typologies and the most effective measures to prevent displacement based on 5 typology. The local government may use the Housing Production Strategy Guidance for Cities,along with the 6 department's"Anti-Displacement and Gentrification Toolkit"to identify the most effective measures to 7 prevent displacement based on neighborhood typologies.These strategies shall be incorporated into future 8 housing production strategy reports,as provided in OAR chapter 660,division 8. 9 (7)For cities and counties identified in section(1),the information provided in compliance with subsections(6)(b) 10 and(d)shall provide a basis for subsequent Housing Production Strategy Reports to assess progress towards fair 11 and equitable housing production goals in climate-friendly areas,as provided in OAR 660-008-0050(4)(a). 12 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 13 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 14 The title of this rule has been changed to be consistent. 15 660-012-0320:Land Use Requirements in Climate-Climate-Friendly Areas 16 The changes to this section provide clarity regarding reduced development expectations when using the 17 outcome-oriented approach in section (9). 18 (1)Cities and counties subject to the provisions of OAR 660-012-0310 shall incorporate the requirements in sections 19 (2)through(7)of this rule into policies and development regulations that apply in all climate-friendly areas. Cities 20 and counties shall either incorporate the provisions in section(8)into development regulations for climate- 21 friendly areas,or shall demonstrate with adopted findings and analysis that alternative development regulations 22 for climate-friendly areas will comply with the requirements in result in equal or higher levels of development in 23 climate friendly areas as provided in section(9).If adopting more than one climate-friendly area,a city or county 24 may demonstrate compliance with either section(8)or section(9)for each climate-friendly area,provided that all 25 requirements for each respective climate-friendly area are met. 26 The changes to this section address charge item 1. The changes incorporate the consistent use of the 27 term "multi-unit housing. Other changes disallow local governments from requiring ground floor and office 28 uses if a multi-unit residential building contains regulated affordable housing units. This change will 29 facilitate funding for affordable housing, which typically would not support non-residential development. 30 (2)Except as noted in subsection(a)and section(3),development regulations for a climate-friendly area shall allow 31 single-use and mixed-use development within individual buildings and development sites,including the following 32 outright permitted uses: 33 (a)Multi-unit housingfamily residential and attached single-unit housingfamily residential.Other residential 34 building types may be allowed,subject to compliance with applicable minimum density requirements in section 35 (8)of this rule,or alternative land use requirements as provided in section(9).Notwithstanding this section, 36 local governments may require ground floor commercial and office uses within otherwise single-use multi: 37 unitfamily residential buildings,unless a multi-unit building will contain units subject to a recorded agreement 38 that runs with the land and requires affordability for an established income level for a defined period of time. 39 (b)Office-type uses. 40 (c)Non-auto dependent retail,services,and other commercial uses. 41 (d)Child care,schools,and other public uses,including public-serving government facilities. 42 The changes to this section provide consistency with the modified outcome-oriented approach described 43 in section (9), which no longer contains requirements for jobs per net acre. 44 (3)Portions of abutting residential or employment-oriented zoned areas within a half-mile walking distance of a 45 mixed-use area zoned as provided in section(1)may count towards climate-friendly area requirements,if in 46 compliance with subsections(a)or(b).Notwithstanding existing development,zoned residential building capacity 47 shall be calculated for the abutting areas based on allowed building heights and existing development standards in 48 these areas,as provided in OAR 660-012-0315(2)or using an alternative methodology as provided in OAR 660- 49 012-0320(10).Residential and employment densities for abutting areas shall correspond to the climate-friendly 50 area type,provided in subsections(8)(a),(b),or(c)or(9)(a),(b),or(c).Employment densities for abutting areas Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 20 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 30 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 shall comply with the thresholds in subsection(b).If subsections(a)or(b)are met,no changes to existing zoning 2 or development standards are required for these areas. 3 (a)Residential areas with minimum residential densities or existing residential development equal to or greater 4 than the densities provided in section(8);or 5 (b)Existing employment uses equal to or greater than the number of jobs per acre provided in paragraphs(A), 6 (B),or(C)as applicablecection(9). 7 (A)Qualifying areas within local governments with a population greater than 5,000 up to 25,000 shall provide 8 at least 20 jobs per net acre. 9 (B)Qualifying areas within local governments with a population greater than 25,000 up to 50,000 shall provide 10 at least 30 jobs per net acre. 11 (C)Qualifying areas within local governments with a population greater than 50,000 shall provide at least 40 12 jobs per net acre. 13 (4)Local governments shall prioritize locating government facilities that provide direct service to the public within 14 climate-friendly areas and shall prioritize locating parks,open space,plazas,and similar public amenities in or 15 near climate-friendly areas that do not contain sufficient parks,open space,plazas,or similar public amenities. 16 Local governments shall amend comprehensive plans to reflect these policies,where necessary. Streetscape 17 requirements in climate-friendly areas shall include street trees and other landscaping,where feasible. 18 (5)Local governments shall establish maximum block length standards as provided below.For the purpose of this 19 rule,a development site consists of the total site area proposed for development,absent previously dedicated 20 rights-of-way,but including areas where additional right-of-way dedication may be required. 21 (a)For development sites less than 5.5 acres in size,a maximum block length of 500 feet or less.Where block 22 length exceeds 350 feet,a public pedestrian through-block easement shall be provided to facilitate safe and 23 convenient pedestrian connectivity in climate-friendly areas. Substantial redevelopment of sites of two acres or 24 more within an existing block that does not meet the standard shall provide a public pedestrian accessway 25 allowing direct passage through the development site such that no pedestrian route will exceed 350 feet along 26 any block face.Local governments may grant exceptions to street and accessway requirements as provided in 27 OAR 660-012-0330(2). 28 (b)For development sites of 5.5 acres or more,a maximum block length of 350 feet or less.Local governments 29 may grant exemptions to street requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0330(2). 30 (6)Development regulations may not include a maximum density limitation. 31 (7)Local governments shall adopt policies and development regulations in climate-friendly areas that implement the 32 following: 33 (a)The transportation review process in OAR 660-012-0325; 34 (b)The land use requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0330; 35 (c)The applicable parking requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0435;and 36 (d)The applicable bicycle parking requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0630. 37 (8)Local governments shall adopt either the following provisions into development regulations for climate-friendly 38 areas,or the requirements in section(9).Local governments are not required to enforce the minimum residential 39 densities below for mixed-use buildings(buildings that contain residential units,as well as office,commercial,or 40 other non-residential uses)if the mixed-use buildings meet a minimum floor area ratio of 2.0.A floor area ratio is 41 the ratio of the gross floor area of all buildings on a development site,excluding areas within buildings that are 42 dedicated to vehicular parking and circulation,in proportion to the net area of the development site on which the 43 buildings are located.A floor area ratio of 2.0 would indicate that the gross floor area of the building was twice 44 the net area of the site.Local governments are not required to enforce the minimum residential densities below for 45 redevelopment that renovates and adds residential units within existing buildings,but that does not add residential 46 units outside the existing exterior of the building. 47 (a)Local governments with a population greater than 5,000 up to 25,000 shall adopt the following development 48 regulations for climate-friendly areas: 49 (A)A minimum residential density requirement of 15 dwelling units per net acre;and 50 (B)Maximum building height no less than 50 feet. 51 (b)Local governments with a population greater than 25,000 up to 50,000 shall adopt the following development 52 regulations for at least one climate-friendly area with a minimum area of 25 acres.Additional climate-friendly 53 areas may comply with the following standards or the standards in subsection(a). 54 (A)A minimum residential density requirement of 20 dwelling units per net acre;and Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 21 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 31 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (B)Maximum building height no less than 60 feet. 2 (c)Local governments with a population greater than 50,000 shall adopt the following development regulations 3 for at least one climate-friendly area with a minimum area of 25 acres.Additional climate-friendly areas may 4 comply with the following standards or the standards in subsections(a)or(b): 5 (A)A minimum residential density requirement of 25 dwelling units per net acre;and 6 (B)Maximum building height no less than 85 feet. 7 The changes in this section are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 8 Typographical errors have been corrected in 9(b)and 9(c). Subsections (a), (b), and (c) have been 9 restructured for improved clarity. The minimum floor area ratio option in Section (9) has been reduced 10 from 2.0 to 1.0 to provide more flexibility for local governments and to be more consistent with the 11 minimum zoned building capacity requirements in subsection (a). 12 (9)As an alternative to adopting the development regulations in section(8),local governments may demonstrate 13 with adopted findings and analysis that their adopted development regulations for climate-friendly areas will 14 provide for equal or higher levels of development in climate-friendly areas than those allowed per the standards in 15 section(8).Additional zoned building capacity of 25 percent may be included for development regulations that 16 allow height bonuses for additional zoned building capacity above established maximums that are consistent with 17 OAR 660-012-0315(2)(c)(B). Specifically,the local government must demonstrate that the alternative 18 development regulations will consistently and expeditiously allow for the levels of development described in 19 subsections(a)-(c).Alternative development regulations must require either a minimum residential density of 15 20 dwelling units per net acre or a minimum floor area ratio of 1_02:0,as described in section(8).belewi 21 (a)Local governments with a population greater than 5,000 up to 25,000 shall adopt development regulations to 22 allow a zoned building capacity of at least 60,000 square feet per net acre,based on regulations impacting 23 buildable site area as described in OAR 660-012-0315(2)(a)and(b)and allowed building heights.in climate 24 friendly areas to enable development of at least 20 dwelling units and 20 jobs per net acre. 25 (b)Local governments with a population greater than 25,000 up to 50,000 shall adopt development regulations for 26 at least one climate-friendly area of at least 25 acres to allow a zoned building capacity of at least 90,000 square 27 feet per net acre,based on regulations impacting buildable site area as described in OAR 660-012-0315(2)(a) 28 and(b)and allowed building heights,or at least 90,000 square feet per net acre.enable development of t least 29 30 dwelling units and 30 jobs per net acre.Additional climate-friendly areas may comply with this standard or 30 with the standard in subsection(a). 31 (c)Local governments with a population greater than 50,000 shall adopt development regulations for at least one 32 climate-friendly area of at least 25 acres to allow a zoned building capacity,of at least 120,000 square feet per 33 net acre,based on regulations impacting buildable site area as described in OAR 660-012-0315(2)(a)and(b) 34 and allowed building heights,or at least 120,000 square feet per net acre enable development of at least 10 35 dwelling units and 10 jobs per net acre.Additional climate-friendly areas may comply with this standard or with 36 the standard in subsections(a)or(b). 37 (10)A local government may provide an alternative methodology for zoned residential building capacity 38 calculations that differs from OAR 660-012-0315(2).The methodology must clearly describe all assumptions and 39 calculation steps,and must demonstrate that the methodology provides an equal or better system for determining 40 the zoned residential building capacity sufficient to accommodate at least 30 percent of the total identified number 41 of housing units necessary to meet all current and future housing needs within climate-friendly areas.The 42 alternative methodology shall be supported by studies of development activity in the region,market studies,or 43 similar research and analysis. 44 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 45 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 22 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 32 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The title of this rule has been changed to be consistent. 2 660-012-0325: Transportation Review in Climate-Climate-Friendly Areas and Centers 3 The changes to this rule address charge item 12. The changes rearrange some of the provisions of the 4 rule to better clarify the application of the rule to both adopting a climate-friendly area or Region 2040 5 center and reviewing plan or land use regulations within existing climate-friendly areas or Region 2040 6 centers. The changes clarify what actions local governments must take in each circumstance. 7 (1)Cities or counties shall use this rule to review amendments to comprehensive plans or land use regulations within 8 a climate friendly area designated as provided in OAR 660 012 0315 and in Region 2040 centers designated in 9 Title 6 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.Cities and counties shall use this rule to review 10 land use decisions made to implement OAR 660 012 0310 through OAR 660 012 0320.Cities and counties are 11 exempt from requirements as provided in OAR 660 012 0060 when reviewing amendments to comprehensive 12 plans or land use regulations within a designated climate friendly area and in Region 20110 centers designated in 13 Title 6 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 14 (1)Cities or counties shall use the provisions of this rule to review amendments to comprehensive plans or land use 15 regulations in lieu of the provisions of OAR 660-012-0060 when the amendment is: 16 (a)To adopt a climate-friendly area as provided in OAR 660-012-0310 through OAR 660-012-0320,or a Metro 17 Region 2040 center;or 18 (b)Within an adopted climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center. 19 20 provided in OAR 660 012 0320 must either: 21 (a)Update the transportation system plan as provided in OAR 660 012 0105 and include a multimodal 22 transportation gap summary as provided in section(3)of this rule,considering the proposed land uses in the 23 climate friendly area;or 24 (b)Develop and adopt a multimodal transportation gap summary in coordination with impacted transportation 25 26 660 012 0320. 27 (2)Cities and counties considering amendments to comprehensive plans or land use regulations to adopt or expand a 28 climate-friendly area as provided in OAR 660-012-0310 through OAR 660-012-0320,or a Metro Region 2040 29 center,must make findings,including: 30 (a)A multimodal transportation gap summary as provided in section(4);and 31 (b)The multimodal transportation gap summary must include a highway impacts summary as provided in section 32 (5)if the designated climate-friendly area as provided in OAR 660-012-0315 or Region 2040 center contains a 33 ramp terminal intersection,state highway,interstate highway,or adopted ODOT Facility Plan. 34 (3)Cities and counties considering amendments to comprehensive plans or land use regulations within an adopted 35 climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center must make findings including a highway impacts summary as 36 provided in section(5)if: 37 (a)A city or county is reviewing a plan amendment that includes property in an adopted Interchange Area 38 Management Plan,includes property within one-quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection,or includes 39 property within one-quarter mile of a state highway segment in an adopted ODOT Facility Plan area;or 40 (b)The city or county is reviewing a plan amendment that would be reasonably likely to result in increasing 41 traffic on the state facility that exceeds the small increase in traffic defined in the Oregon Highway Plan adopted 42 by the Oregon Transportation Commission. 43 (34)A multimodal transportation gap summary must be coordinated between the local jurisdiction,transportation 44 facility providers,and transportation services providers to consider multimodal transportation needs in each 45 climate-friendly area as provided in OAR 660-012-0320 or Region 2040 center.The multimodal transportation 46 gap summary must include: 47 (a)A summary of the existing multimodal transportation network within the climate-friendly area; 48 (b)A summary of the gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks in the climate-friendly area,including gaps 49 needed to be filled for people with disabilities,based on the summary of the existing multimodal transportation 50 network; 51 (c)If applicable as provided in section(42),a highway impacts summary as provided in section(5);and 52 (d)A list of proposed projects to fill multimodal network gaps identified in subsection(b). Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 23 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 33 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 ('1)A city or county shall include a highway impacts summary in the multimodal transportation gap summary if the 2 designated climate friendly area as provided in OAR 660 012 0315 or Region 2040 center contains a ramp 3 terminal intersection,state highway,interstate highway,or adopted ODOT Facility Plan. 4 (5)A highway impacts summary must identify how the transportation system may be affected by implementation of 5 the climate-friendly area.The highway impacts summary must include: 6 (a)A summary of the changes between existing and proposed development capacity of the climate-friendly area 7 based on the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations; 8 (b)A summary of the additional motor vehicle traffic generation that may be expected in the planning period, 9 considering reductions for expected complementary mixed-use development,additional multimodal options, 10 and assuming meeting goals for reductions in vehicle miles traveled per capita;and 11 (c)A summary of traffic-related deaths and serious injuries within the climate-friendly area in the past five years. 12 (6)Cities and counties making amendments to adopted land use regulations shall adopt fmdings including a 13 highway impacts summary as provided in section(5)if: 14 (a)A city or county is reviewing a plan amendment within one quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection, 15 adopted Interchange Area Management Plan area,or adopted ODOT Facility Plan area,or; 16 (b)The city or county is reviewing a plan amendment that would be reasonably likely to result in increasing 17 traffic on the state facility that exceeds the small increase in traffic defined in the Oregon Highway Plan adopted 18 by the Oregon Transportation Commission. 19 This section has been added to address how plan amendments that affect areas both inside and outside 20 a climate-friendly area or Region 2040 center may be reviewed. 21 (6)Cities and counties considering amendments to comprehensive plans or land use regulations that affect areas 22 both inside and outside an adopted climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center may either: 23 (a)Make separate findings for areas inside the climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center as provided in 24 this rule,and findings for areas outside the climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center as provided in 25 OAR 660-012-0060;or 26 (b)Make findings for all affected areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0060. 27 (7)Cities and counties shall provide notice of proposed adoption of a multimodal transportation gap summary or a 28 revised highway impacts summary to ODOT and other affected transportation facility or service providers prior to 29 submitting notice as provided in OAR 660-018-0020. 30 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 31 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.610-197.625,ORS 197.712,ORS 197.717 32 660-012-0330:Land Use Requirements 33 (1)Cities and counties shall implement plans and land use regulations to support compact,pedestrian-friendly, 34 mixed-use land use development patterns in urban areas.Land use development patterns must support access by 35 people using pedestrian,bicycle,and public transportation networks. 36 (2)Cities and counties may allow exemptions to provisions in this rule when conditions on a site or class of sites 37 would make those provisions prohibitively costly or impossible to implement.Cities or counties may adopt land 38 use regulations that provide for exemptions as provided in this section.Any allowed exemption shall advance the 39 purposes of this rule to the extent practical. Conditions that may provide for an exemption include,but are not 40 limited to: 41 (a)Topography or natural features; 42 (b)Railroads,highways,or other permanent barriers; 43 (c)Lot or parcel size,orientation,or shape; 44 (d)Available access; 45 (e)Existing or nonconforming development; 46 (f)To provide for accessibility for people with disabilities;or 47 (g)Other site constraints. 48 (3)Cities and counties shall have land use regulations that provide for pedestrian-friendly and connected 49 neighborhoods.Land use regulations must meet the following requirements for neighborhood design and access: 50 (a)Neighborhoods shall be designed with connected networks of streets,paths,accessways,and other facilities to 51 provide circulation within the neighborhood and pedestrian and bicycle system connectivity to adjacent 52 districts.A connected street network is desirable for motor vehicle traffic but may be discontinuous where Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 24 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 34 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 necessary to limit excessive through-travel,or to protect a safe environment for walking,using mobility 2 devices,and bicycling in the neighborhood. 3 (b)Neighborhoods shall be designed with direct pedestrian access to key destinations identified in OAR 660-012- 4 0360 via pedestrian facilities. 5 (c)Cities and counties shall set block length and block perimeter standards at distances that will provide for 6 pedestrian network connectivity. Cities and counties may allow alleys or public pedestrian facilities through a 7 block to be used to meet a block length or perimeter standard. 8 (d)Cities and counties shall set standards to reduce out-of-direction travel for people using the pedestrian or 9 bicycle networks. 10 (4)Cities and counties shall have land use regulations in commercial and mixed-use districts that provide for a 11 compact development pattern,easy ability to walk or use mobility devices,and allow direct access on the 12 pedestrian,bicycle,and public transportation networks. Commercial or mixed-use site design land use regulations 13 must meet the following requirements: 14 (a)Primary pedestrian entrances to buildings must be oriented to a public pedestrian facility and be accessible to 15 people with mobility disabilities.An uninterrupted accessway,courtyard,plaza,or other pedestrian-oriented 16 space must be provided between primary pedestrian entrances and the public pedestrian facility,except where 17 the entrance opens directly to the pedestrian facility.All pedestrian entrances must be designed to be barrier- 18 free. 19 The changes in this subsection are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 20 (b)Motor vehicle parking,circulation,access,and loading may be located on site beside or behind buildings. 21 Motor vehicle parking,circulation,access,and loading must not be located on site between buildings and public 22 pedestrian facilities on or along the primary facing street.Bicycle parking may be permitted. 23 (c)On-site accessways must be provided to directly connect key pedestrian entrances to public pedestrian 24 facilities,to any on-site parking,and to adjacent properties,as applicable. 25 (d)Any pedestrian entrances facing an on-site parking lot must be secondary to primary pedestrian entrances as 26 required in this section.Primary pedestrian entrances for uses open to the public must be open during business 27 hours. 28 (e)Large sites must be designed with a connected network of public pedestrian facilities to meet the requirements 29 of this section. 30 (f)Development on sites adjacent to a transit stop or station on a priority transit corridor must be oriented to the 31 transit stop or station.The site design must provide a high level of pedestrian connectivity and amenities 32 adjacent to the stop or station.If there is inadequate space in the existing right of way for transit infrastructure, 33 then the infrastructure must be accommodated on site. 34 (g)Development standards must be consistent with bicycle parking requirements in OAR 660-012-0630. 35 (h)These site design land use regulations need not apply to districts with a predominantly industrial or 36 agricultural character. 37 (5)Cities and counties shall have land use regulations in residential neighborhoods that provide for slow 38 neighborhood streets comfortable for families,efficient and sociable development patterns,and provide for 39 connectivity within the neighborhood and to adjacent districts. Cities and counties must adopt land use regulations 40 to meet these objectives,including but not limited to those related to setbacks,lot size and coverage,building 41 orientation,and access. 42 (6)Cities and counties shall have land use regulations that ensure auto-oriented land uses are compatible with a 43 community where it is easy to walk or use a mobility device.Auto-oriented land uses include uses related to the 44 operation,sale,maintenance,or fueling of motor vehicles,and uses where the use of a motor vehicle is accessory 45 to the primary use,including drive-through uses.Land use regulations must meet the following requirements: 46 (a)Auto-oriented land uses must provide safe and convenient access opportunities for people walking,using a 47 mobility device,or riding a bicycle.Ease of access to goods and services must be equivalent to or better than 48 access for people driving a motor vehicle. 49 (b)Outside of climate-friendly areas,cities and counties may provide for exemptions to this rule in cases where an 50 auto-oriented land use cannot reasonably meet the standards of this rule. Standards developed in cases of an 51 exemption must protect pedestrian facilities. 52 (7)Cities and counties with an urban area over 100,000 in population must have reasonable land use regulations that 53 allow for development of low-car districts.These districts must be developed with no-car or low-car streets,where 54 walking or using mobility devices are the primary methods of travel within the district.Cities and counties must Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 25 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 35 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 make provisions for emergency vehicle access and local freight delivery.Low-car districts must be allowed in 2 locations where residential or mixed-use development is authorized. 3 (8)Cities and counties must implement land use regulations to protect transportation facilities,corridors,and sites 4 for their identified functions.These regulations must include,but are not limited to: 5 (a)Access control actions consistent with the function of the transportation facility,including but not limited to 6 driveway spacing,median control,and signal spacing; 7 (b)Standards to protect future construction and operation of streets,transitways,paths,and other transportation 8 facilities; 9 (c) Standards to protect public use airports as provided in OAR 660-013-0080; 10 (d)Processes to make a coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting transportation facilities, 11 corridors,or sites; 12 (e)Processes to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect 13 transportation facilities,corridors,or sites for all transportation modes; 14 (f)Regulations to provide notice to public agencies providing transportation facilities and services,railroads, 15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations,the Oregon Department of Transportation,and the Oregon Department of 16 Aviation of: 17 (A)Land use applications that require public hearings; 18 (B) Subdivision and partition applications; 19 (C)Other applications that affect private access to roads;and 20 (D)Other applications within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces that affect airport operations. 21 (g)Regulations ensuring that amendments to land use designations,densities,and design standards are consistent 22 with the functions,capacities,and performance standards of facilities identified in the TSP. 23 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 24 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 25 660-012-0405: Parking Regulation Improvements 26 The change in this section clarifies small employee parking lots need not have preferential parking. This 27 is in line with how cities have applied this long-standing rule provision in the past. 28 (1)Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: 29 (a)Designated employee parking areas in new developments with more than 50 parking spaces shall provide 30 preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; 31 (b)Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- 32 oriented and transit-oriented facilities,including bicycle parking,bus stops and pullouts,bus shelters,park and 33 ride stations,and similar facilities;and 34 (c)In applying subsections(a)and(b),land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing 35 mandated minimum parking supply,access for emergency vehicles must be retained,and adequate parking for 36 truck loading should be considered. 37 The changes in this section clarify the desire to encourage conversion of underused parking areas 38 applies to both on and off-street parking. 39 (2)Cities and counties shall adopt policies for on-street parking and land use regulations for off-street parking that 40 allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. 41 (3)Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. 42 The changes in this section addressing tree canopy provisions and exemption of application to parking 43 lots between ' and acre in this section are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April 44 and are also charge items 15 and 16. Minor changes in subsection (4)(a)to clarify intent and remove 45 confusing language. There is a clarification the acre measurement is not just the parking spaces 46 themselves, and another that it is focused on off-street parking. This section also addresses charge item 47 14 to allow counties to have the option of receiving fee-in-lieu payments into a local fund. 48 (4)Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one- 49 quarter half acre of new off-street surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below.The new surface parking 50 area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all new off-street parking spaces,maneuvering lanes,and 51 maneuvering areas,including driveways and drive aisles. as provided below: Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 26 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 36 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The changes in this subsection clarify that is describes a mitigation action. Changes also clarify that cities 2 and counties may offer only a subset of the actions in the rule if they so wish, and clarifies it applies to 3 new off-street spaces. 4 (a)Developments not required to comply with OAR 330-135-0010 must provide a climate mitigation action. 5 Climate mitigation actions shall include at least one of the following.Cities and counties are not required to 6 offer all these optionsone of the following: 7 (A)Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking 8 space on the property.Panels may be located anywhere on the property. In lieu of installing solar panels on 9 cite,cities may allow developers to pay$1,500 per parking space in the development into a city or county 10 1 1 designated for such purpose; 12 The change to this paragraph sets $1,500 as a floor, allowing cities and counties to index it for inflation, 13 and clarifies it just applies to off-street parking spaces. 14 (B)-Payment of at least$1,500 per new off-street parking space into a city or county fund dedicated to 15 equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for 16 such purpose; 17 Actions to comply with OAR 330 135 0010;or 18 (C)Tree canopy covering at least 50 10 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 19 years after planting;or- 20 The change to this paragraph would allow a mixture of actions. 21 (D)A mixture of actions under paragraphs(A)through(C)the city or county deems to meet the purpose of this 22 section. 23 The changes to this subsection clarify it is about trees. The changes also clarify if tree canopy is chosen 24 as the mitigation action under subsection (a) it meets this overlapping requirement. 25 (b)Developments must provide tree canopy.Developments shall provide street either trees along driveways or a 26 minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas.Developments but are not required to 27 provide them trees along drive aisles.The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a 28 continuous canopy except when interrupted by driveways,drive aisles,and other site design considerations. 29 Developments providing 40 percent tree canopy to comply with paragraph(a)(C)comply with this subsection.; 30 and 31 The changes to this subsection clarify pedestrian connections must be included throughout the site, more 32 in line with the previous language and existing TPR; and only need to be made if there are existing or 33 planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent rights-of-way. 34 (c)Developments must provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot,connecting at minimum the 35 following,except where not practical due to site-specific conditions: 36 (A)building entrances; 37 (B)existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way; 38 (C)transit stops;and 39 (D)accessible parking spaces street like design and features along driveways including curbs,pedestrian 40 facilities,and buildings built up to pedestrian facilities. 41 (d)Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric 42 utility,including pre-design,design,building and maintenance phases. 43 The changes to this subsection focus the tree provisions on planting and removes the maintenance 44 provisions. 45 (e)In providing trees under subsections(a)and,(b)and(c),the following standards shall be met.The tree spacing 46 and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy.Local codes must provide clear and 47 objective standards to achieve such a canopy.Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root 48 health and chances for survival,including having ample high-quality soil,space for root growth,and reliable 49 irrigation according to the needs of the species.Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 27 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 37 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The city or county shall have minimum standards for tree planting and tree care no lower than the 2021 2 American National Standards Institute A300 standards_,and a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree 3 planting and maintenance provisions. 4 (5)Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations,such as downtowns, 5 designated regional or community centers,and transit-oriented developments. 6 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 7 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 8 660-012-0410:Electric Vehicle Charging 9 (1)This rule applies to cities within a metropolitan area. 10 (2)Cities shall ensure new development supports electric vehicle charging pursuant to amendments to the state 11 building code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.417. 12 The change in this section makes a minor clarification. 13 (3)As authorized in ORS 455.417(4),for new multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential 14 dwelling units,and new mixed-use buildings consisting of privately owned commercial space and five or more 15 residential dwelling units,cities shall require the provision of electrical service capacity,as defined in ORS 16 455.417,to accommodate serve 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces. 17 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 18 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 455.417 19 660-012-0415: Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities 20 The changes in this section address charge items 17 and 18. The changes include a clarification about 21 which map is being referenced, and about which parking maximum requirements may apply. 22 (1)Cities with populations over 100,000,counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the 23 urban growth boundary,and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland Metropolitan Area,shall set 24 parking maximums in climate-friendly areas,and in Metro Region 2040 centersregional centers and town centers, 25 designated under the Metro Title 6,Center Corridors Station Communities and Main Streets n depted 26 Boundaries map.Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit 27 corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440.Cities and counties that have designated priority transit 28 corridors under OAR 660-012-0710 may set parking maximums in those corridors in place of the corridors 29 identified in OAR 660-012-0440(3)(b)and(c). 30 (a)Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street 31 parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit housing development in climate-friendly areas and 32 within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors.These maximums shall include visitor 33 parking; 34 (b)Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial 35 and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair,eating and drinking establishments,and entertainment 36 and commercial recreation uses; 37 (c)For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area,surface parking may not consist of more area 38 than the floor area of the building;and 39 The changes in this subsection are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 40 (d)In setting parking maximums,cities and counties shall consider setting maximums equal to or less than 150 41 percent of parking mandates in their adopted land use regulations in effect as of January 1,2020.A city or 42 county that sets a higher parking maximum must adopt findings for doing so.In no case shall the city or county 43 exceed the limits in subsections(a)through(c)in climate friendly ar as and for developments on parcels or lots 44 within one half mile of transit corridors and three quarters mile of rail transit stops listed in OAR 660 012 45 0440;and 46 (ed)Non-surface parking,such as tuck-under parking,underground and subsurface parking,and parking 47 structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 28 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 38 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The changes in this section clarify the areas listed are the key areas for parking management, even when 2 a city has taken the path of waiving parking mandates and is therefore not subject to OAR 660-012--0435 3 and OAR 660-012-0440. 4 (2)Cities with populations over 200,000 shall,in addition to the requirements in section(1)of this rule: 5 (a) Study the use of priced on-street timed parking spaces in those areas subject listed in SOAR 660-012-0435(2) 6 and OAR-er-660-012-0440(2)and(3).This study shall be conducted every three years or more frequently. 7 Cities shall adjust prices to ensure availability of on-street parking spaces at all hours.This shall include all 8 spaces in the city paid by minutes,hours,or day but need not include spaces where a longer-term paid 9 residential permit is required; 10 (b)Use time limits or pricing to manage on-street parking spaces in an area at least one year before authorizing 11 any new structured parking on city-owned land including more than 100 spaces in that area after March 31, 12 2023; 13 (c)Adopt procedures ensuring prior to approval of construction of additional structured parking projects of more 14 than 300 parking spaces designed to serve existing uses,developer of that parking structure must implement 15 transportation demand management strategies for a period of at least six months designed to shift at least 10 16 percent of existing vehicle trips ending within one-quarter mile of the proposed parking structure to other 17 modes;and 18 (d)Adopt design requirements requiring applicants to demonstrate that the ground floor of new private and public 19 structured parking that fronts a public street and includes more than 100 parking spaces would be convertible to 20 other uses in the future,other than driveways needed to access the garage. 21 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 22 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 23 660-012-0425:Reducing the Burden of Parking Mandates 24 (1)This rule applies to cities and counties that: 25 (a)Are within a metropolitan area;and 26 (b)Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. 27 The changes in this section clarify wording and remove duplication with OAR 660-012-0405(3) 28 requirement on shared parking. 29 (2)Cities and counties shall adopt and enforce land use regulations as provided in this section: 30 (a)Garages and carports may not be required for residential developments; 31 (b)Garage parking spaces shall count towards off-street parking mandates; 32 (c)Provision of shared parking shall be allowed to meet parking mandates; 33 (d)Required parking spaces may be provided off-site,within 2,000 feet pedestrian travel of a site.If any non- 34 loading parking is provided on site,all required parking for parking for people with disabilities shall be on site. 35 If all parking is off-site,parking for people with disabilities must be located within the shortest possible distance 36 of an accessible entrance via an accessible path and no greater than 200 feet from that entrance; 37 (e)Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each three kilowatts of capacity in solar 38 panels or wind power that will be provided in a development; 39 (f)Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for each dedicated car-sharing parking space 40 in a development.Dedicated car-sharing parking spaces shall count as spaces for parking mandates; 41 (g)Parking mandates shall be reduced by two off-street parking spaces for every electric vehicle charging station 42 provided in a development.Parking spaces that include electric vehicle charging while an automobile is parked 43 shall count towards parking mandates;and 44 (h)Parking mandates shall be reduced by one off-street parking space for every two units in a development above 45 minimum requirements that are fully accessible to people with mobility disabilities. 46 (3)Any reductions under section(2)shall be cumulative and not capped. 47 The deletion of this section is part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 48 (1)Cities and counties shall require the parking for multi family residential units in the areas in OAR 660 012 0110 49 be unbundled parking. 50 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 51 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 29 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 39 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 660-012-0430:Reduction of Parking Mandates for Development Types 2 (1)This rule applies to cities and counties that: 3 (a)Are within a metropolitan area;and 4 (b)Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. 5 (2)Cities and counties may not require more than one parking space per unit in residential developments with more 6 than one dwelling unit on a single legally-established property. 7 The changes in this section address charge item 13. The changes make language parallel. 8 (3)Cities and counties may not require parking enforce parking mandates for the following development or use 9 types: 10 (a)Facilities and homes designed to serve people with psychosocial,physical,intellectual or developmental 11 disabilities,including but not limited to a:residential care facility,residential training facility,residential 12 treatment facility,residential training home,residential treatment home,and conversion facility as defined in 13 ORS 443.400; 14 (b)Child care facility as defined in ORS 329A.250; 15 (c) Single-room occupancy housing; 16 (d)Residential units smaller than 750 square feet; 17 (e)Affordable housing as defined in OAR 660-039-0010; 18 (f)Publicly supported housing as defined in ORS 456.250; 19 (g)Emergency and transitional shelters for people experiencing homelessness;and 20 (h)Domestic violence shelters. 21 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 22 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 329A.250,ORS 443.400,ORS 456.250 23 660-012-0435:Parking Reform in Climate:-Friendly Areas and Centers 24 (1)This rule applies to cities and counties that: 25 (a)Are within a metropolitan area;and 26 (b)Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. 27 The changes in this section address charge items 18 and 20. The changes include a minor clarification 28 about which map is referenced, and other cleaner language and an exemption of townhouses and 29 rowhouses. 30 (2)Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations addressing parking mandates in climate-friendly areas as 31 provided in OAR 660-012-0310.Cities and counties in Metro shall adopt land use regulations addressing parking 32 mandates in Metro Region 2040 centers regional centers and town centers designated under the Metro Title 6, 33 Centers,Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets,Adopted Boundaries map.In each such area,cities and 34 counties shall either: 35 (a)Remove all parking mandates within the area and on parcels in its jurisdiction that include land within one- 36 quarter mile distance of those areas;or 37 (b)Manage parking by: 38 (A)Adopting a parking benefit district with paid on-street parking and some revenues dedicated to public 39 improvements in the area; 40 (B)Adopting land use amendments regulations te-requiringe no more than one-half off-street parking space per 41 dwelling unit in the area that is not a townhouse or rowhouse;and 42 (C)Adopting land use regulations without parking mandates for commercial developments. 43 The deletion of this section is part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. 44 (3)Cities and counties that opt to retain parking mandates under OAR 660 012 0400 shall require the parking for 45 multi family residential units in the areas listed in section(2)be unbundled parking. 46 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 47 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 30 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 40 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 660-012-0440: Parking Reform Near Transit Corridors 2 The changes in this rule address charge items 21 and 22. The changes include clarification about how 3 sections (3)(b)and (c) interact, along with the ability to set areas without mandates once per year. 4 (1)This rule applies to cities and counties that: 5 (a)Are within a metropolitan area;and 6 (b)Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. 7 (2)Cities and counties may not require parking spaces enforce parking mandates for developments on a lot or parcel 8 that includes lands within three-quarters mile of rail transit stops. 9 (3)Cities and counties may not enforce parking mandates for developments on a lot or parcel that includes lands 10 within one-half mile of frequent transit corridors,including: 11 (a)Priority transit corridors designated under OAR 660-012-0710; 12 (b)Corridors with bus transit service arriving with a scheduled frequency of at least four times an hour during 13 peak service;and 14 (c)If a community has no corridor qualifying under subsection(b),ccorridors with the most frequent transit route 15 or routes service in the community if the scheduled frequency is at least once per hour during peak service. 16 (4)Cities and counties may use either walking distance or straight-line distance in measuring distances in this rule. 17 (5)In determining the extent of lands subject to subsection(3)(b)or(c),a city or county shall either: 18 (a)Evaluate current service frequencies on the date a land use application is submitted,provided the application 19 remains valid for review pursuant to ORS 215.427 or ORS 227.178,or 20 (b)Adopt a map designating these lands based on service frequency on the date development codes implementing 21 this rule are adopted.The city or county must update the map at least once per year from the date of adoption if 22 services frequencies change and additional lands become subject to subsection(3)(b)or(c).The city or count' 23 must use subsection(5)(a)if additional lands are subject to subsections(3)(b)or(c)and the adopted map is 24 more than one year old. 25 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 26 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 27 660-012-0445:Parking Management Alternative Approaches 28 (1)In lieu of adopting land use regulations without parking mandates under OAR 660-012-0420,cities and counties 29 shall select and implement either a fair parking policy approach as provided in subsection(a)or a reduced 30 regulation parking management approach as provided in subsection(b). 31 The changes in this subsection are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April and 32 address charge item 17.Additional clarification on when unbundling takes effect per charge item 19. 33 (a)A fair parking policy approach shall include at least two of the following five provisions,including at 34 least one provision from paragraphs(A)through(C): 35 (A)A requirement that parking spaces for each residential unit in multi-unit housing developments that include 36 five or more leased or sold residential units on a lot or parcel be unbundled parking upon lease creation,lease 37 renewal,or sale.Cities and counties may exempt townhouse and rowhouse development from this 38 requirement; 39 (B)A requirement that parking spaces serving leased commercial developments be unbundled parking upon 40 lease creation or renewal; 41 (C)A requirement for employers of 50 or more employees who provide free or subsidized parking to their 42 employees at the workplace provide a flexible commute benefit of$50 per month or the fair market value of 43 that parking,whichever is greater,to those employees eligible for that free or subsidized parking who 44 regularly commute via other modes instead of using that parking; 45 (D)A tax on the revenue from commercial parking lots collecting no less than 10 percent of income,with 46 revenues dedicated to improving transportation alternatives to drive-alone travel;and 47 (E)A reduction of parking mandates for new multifamily multi-unit housing residential development to no 48 higher than one-half spaces per unit,including visitor parking. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 31 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 41 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 The changes in this subsection are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. Additional 2 changes clarify historic resources references per charge item 23 and that the scope of"change of use 3 and redevelopment" is not unlimited. Clarification on when unbundling must take effect for charge item 4 19. 5 (b)A reduced regulation parking management approach shall include all of the following: 6 (A)A repeal of all parking mandates within one-half mile pedestrian travel of climate-friendly areas; 7 (B)A repeal of parking mandates for transit oriented development and mixed-use development; 8 (C)A repeal of parking mandates for group quarters,including but not limited to dormitories,religious group 9 quarters,adult care facilities,retirement homes,and other congregate housing; 10 (D)A repeal of parking mandates for studio apartments,one-bedroom apartments and condominiums in 11 residential multi-unit housing developments of five or more units on a lot or parcel; 12 (E)A repeal of parking mandates for change of use of,or redevelopment of,buildings vacant for more than two 13 years. Cities and counties may require registration of a building as vacant two years prior to the waiving of 14 parking mandates; 15 (F)A repeal of requirements to provide additional parking for change of use or redevelopment where at least 50 16 percent of the building floor area is retained; 17 (G)A repeal of parking mandates for expansion of existing businesses by less than 30 percent of a building 18 footprint; 19 (H)A repeal of parking mandates for buildings within a National Historic District,on the National Register of 20 Historic Places,or identified as a designated or contributing structure on a local inventory of historic 21 resources or buildings; 22 (I)A repeal of parking mandates for commercial properties that have fewer than ten on-site employees or 3,000 23 square feet floor space; 24 (J)A repeal of parking mandates for developments built under the Oregon Residential Reach Code; 25 (K)A repeal of parking mandates for developments seeking certification under any Leadership in Energy and 26 Environmental Design(LEED)rating system,as evidenced by either proof of pre-certification or registration 27 and submittal of a complete scorecard; 28 (L)A repeal of parking mandates for schools; 29 (M)A repeal of parking mandates for bars and taverns; and 30 (N)Setting parking maximums consistent with OAR 660 012 0415(1),notwithstanding populations listed in 31 that section;and 32 (ON)Implementation of at least one pricing mechanism,either: 33 (i)Designation of at least one residential parking district or parking benefit district where on-street parking is 34 managed through paid permits,meters,or other payments,or time limits.;or 35 (ii)Requirements that parking for multi-unit housing units be unbundled parking upon lease renewal or sale. 36 (2)Cities and counties may change their selection between subsections(1)(a)and(b)at any time. 37 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 38 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 39 660-012-0505:Pedestrian System Inventory 40 The change in this section addresses charge item 24. The change clarifies that the inventory requirement 41 applies within '/ mile of primary and secondary(K-12)schools. 42 (1)Pedestrian system inventories must include information on pedestrian facilities and street crossings for all areas 43 within climate-friendly areas,within Metro Region 2040 centers,within one-quarter mile of all primary and 44 secondary schools,and along all arterials and collectors.Pedestrian system inventories should include information 45 on pedestrian facilities and street crossings for all areas within the planning area. 46 (a)Inventories of pedestrian facilities must include information on width and condition. 47 (b)Inventories of street crossings must include crossing distances,the type of crossing,closed crossings,curb 48 ramps,and distance between crossings. 49 (2)Pedestrian system inventories must include the crash risk factors of inventoried pedestrian facilities,including 50 but not limited to speed,volume,and roadway width.Pedestrian system inventories must also include the location 51 of all reported injuries and deaths of people walking or using a mobility device.This must include all reported 52 incidents from the most recent five years of available data prior to the year of adoption of the pedestrian system 53 inventory. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 32 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 42 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 2 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 3 660-012-0510:Pedestrian System Requirements 4 The change in this section addresses charge item 8. The change clarifies that local governments may 5 apply mode-specific functional classifications to pedestrian facilities. 6 (1)This rule describes the minimum planned pedestrian facilities that must be included in plans.Cities and counties 7 may choose to exceed the requirements in this rule.Cities and counties may choose to apply pedestrian functional 8 classifications to pedestrian facilities. 9 (2)Pedestrian facility owners must design,build,and maintain pedestrian facilities to allow comfortable travel for 10 all people,including people with disabilities. 11 (3)All streets and highways,other than expressways,shall have pedestrian facilities,as provided in ORS 366.514. 12 (a)Pedestrian facilities must be planned for both sides of each street. 13 (b)Cities shall plan for enhanced pedestrian facilities such as wide,protected sidewalks and pedestrian zones, 14 such as plazas,in the following contexts: 15 (A)Along high volume or high-speed streets; 16 (B)In climate-friendly areas and Metro Region 2040 centers; 17 (C)In areas with concentrations of underserved populations. 18 The change in this subsection addresses charge item 25. The change clarifies that the right-of-way to be 19 considered in this requirement includes right-of-way dedicated to transportation purposes, not necessarily 20 right of way for utilities or other purposes. 21 (c)A substantial portion of the right-of-way dedicated to transportation uses in climate-friendly areas and Metro 22 Region 2040 centers must be dedicated to pedestrian uses,including but not limited to sidewalks,pedestrian 23 plazas,and protective buffers. 24 (d)Cities shall plan for enhanced tree canopy and other infrastructure that uses natural and living materials in 25 pedestrian spaces in climate-friendly areas,Metro Region 2040 centers,and areas with concentrations of 26 underserved populations. 27 (4)Off-street multi-use paths must be designed to permit comfortable joint or separated use for people walking, 28 using mobility devices,and cycling. Separated areas for higher speeds and low speeds shall be provided when 29 there is high anticipated use of the path. 30 (5)Enhanced crossings are pedestrian facilities to cross streets or highways that provide a high level of safety and 31 priority to people crossing the street.Enhanced crossings must have adequate nighttime illumination to see 32 pedestrians from all vehicular approaches.Enhanced crossings must be provided,at minimum,in the following 33 locations: 34 (a)Closely spaced along arterial streets in climate-friendly areas and Metro Region 2040 centers; 35 (b)Near transit stops on local access priority arterial segments,or collector streets in a climate-friendly area or 36 Metro Region 2040 center,or on a priority transit corridor; 37 (c)At off-street path crossings;and 38 (d)In areas with concentrations of underserved populations. 39 (6)Cities may take exemptions to the requirements in this rule through findings in the transportation system plan, 40 for each location where an exemption is desired,for the following reasons: 41 (a)A city may plan for a pedestrian facility on one side of local streets in locations where topography or other 42 barriers would make it difficult to build a pedestrian facility on the other side of the street,or where existing and 43 planned land uses make it unnecessary to provide pedestrian access to the other side of the street. Street 44 crossings must be provided near each end of sections where there is a pedestrian facility on only one side of the 45 street. 46 (b)A city or county may plan for no dedicated pedestrian facilities on very slow speed local streets that are 47 sufficiently narrow,and carry little or no vehicular traffic,so that pedestrians are the primary users of the street. 48 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 49 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 366.514 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 33 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 43 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 660-012-0605:Bicycle System Inventory 2 (1)Bicycle system inventories must include information on bicycle lanes,bicycle routes,accessways,paths,and 3 other types of bicycle facilities,including pedestrian facilities that may be used by bicycles.Inventories must 4 include information on width,type,and condition. 5 The change in this section addresses charge item 24. The change clarifies that the inventory requirement 6 applies within '/ mile of primary and secondary(K-12)schools. 7 (2)Bicycle system inventories must include information on bicycle facilities of all types within climate-friendly 8 areas,within Metro Region 2040 centers,within one-quarter mile of all primary and secondary schools,on bicycle 9 boulevards,and along all arterials and collectors.Bicycle system inventories should include information on 10 bicycle facilities and street crossings for all areas within the planning area. 11 (3)Bicycle system inventories must include the crash risk factors of inventoried bicycle facilities,including but not 12 limited to speed,volume,separation,and roadway width.Bicycle system inventories must also include the 13 location of all reported injuries and deaths of people on bicycles.This must include all reported incidents from the 14 most recent five years of available data prior to the year of adoption of the bicycle system inventory. 15 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 16 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 17 660-012-0610:Bicycle System Requirements 18 The change in this section addresses charge item 8. The change clarifies that local governments may 19 apply mode-specific functional classifications to bicycle facilities. 20 (1)This rule describes the minimum planned bicycle facilities that must be included in plans. Cities or counties may 21 choose to exceed the requirements in this rule.Cities and counties may choose to apply bicycle functional 22 classifications to bicycle facilities. 23 (2)Cities and counties shall plan for a connected network of bicycle facilities that provides a safe,low stress,direct, 24 and comfortable experience for people of all ages and abilities.All ages and abilities includes: 25 (a) School-age children; 26 (b)People over 65 years of age; 27 (c)Women; 28 (d)People of color; 29 (e)Low-income riders; 30 (f)People with disabilities; 31 (g)People moving goods,cargo,or other people; and 32 (h)People using shared mobility services. 33 (3)A connected network is comprised of both the ability to access key destinations within a community and enough 34 coverage of safe and comfortable facilities to ensure most people within the community can travel by bicycle. 35 (a)Cities and counties must design the connected network to connect to key destinations identified as provided in 36 OAR 660-012-0360,and to and within each climate-friendly area or Metro Region 2040 center. 37 (b)Cities and counties must design the connected network to permit most residents of the planning area to access 38 the connected network with an emphasis on mitigating uncomfortable or unsafe facilities or crossings. 39 (c)The connected network shall consist of connected bicycle facilities including,but not limited to,separated and 40 protected bicycle facilities,bicycle boulevards,and multi-use or bicycle paths.The connected network must 41 include a series of interconnected bicycle facilities and provide direct routes to key destinations.Cities and 42 counties must design comfortable and convenient crossings of streets with high volumes of traffic or high-speed 43 traffic. 44 The changes in this section address concerns that the application of certain bicycle facilities was unclear. 45 (4)Cities and counties shall plan and design bicycle facilities considering the context of adjacent motor vehicle 46 facilities and land uses. 47 (a)Cities and counties shall must design bicycle facilities with higher levels of separation or protection along 48 streets that have higher volumes or speeds of traffic. 49 (b)Cities and counties shall must plan for separated or protected bicycle facilities on streets in climate-friendly 50 areas,Metro Region 2040 Ceenters,and other places with a concentration of destinations.Cities and counties 51 are not required to plan sSeparated or protected bicycle facilities may not be necessary on streets with very low Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 34 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 44 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 levels of motor vehicle traffic,with slow speeds of motor vehicles,or near where a high-quality parallel bicycle 2 facility on the connected network exists within one block. 3 (c)Cities and counties shall must identify locations with existing bicycle facilities along high traffic or high-speed 4 streets where the existing facility is not protected or separated,or parallel facilities do not exist.Cities and 5 counties shall must plan for a transition to appropriate facilities in these locations. 6 (5)Cities and counties shall adopt standards for bicycle system planning and facilities that will result in a safe,low 7 stress,and comfortable experience for people of all ages and abilities.In adopting standards,cities and counties 8 may use one or more of the following: 9 (a)The Urban Bikeway Design Guide,second edition,published by the National Association of City 10 Transportation Officials; 11 (b)Designing for All Ages&Abilities,December 2017,published by the National Association of City 12 Transportation Officials;and 13 (c)For state facilities,The Blueprint for Urban Design,2019,published by the Oregon Department of 14 Transportation. 15 (6)Cities and counties shall use the transportation prioritization framework in OAR 660-012-0155 when making 16 decisions about bicycle facilities. 17 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 18 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 19 660-012-0630:Bicycle Parking 20 The changes in this rule address charge item 17. The rule has also been reorganized to be clearer about 21 which uses need to have required bicycle parking (section 2), minimum parking requirements for some 22 residential uses (section 3), and standards for required bicycle parking (section 4). The updated rule also 23 removes the existing requirements for a certain number of bike parking spaces for uses where off-street 24 motor vehicle parking is required. 25 (1)Cities and counties shall require and plan for adequate parking to meet the increasing need for travel by bicycle 26 and other small-scale mobility devices. 27 (2)Cities and counties shall require bicycle parking for the following uses: 28 (a)All new multi-unit development or mixed-use development of five residential units or more as provided in 29 section(3); 30 (b)All new retail development; 31 (c)All new office and institutional developments; 32 (d)All major transit stops,and any park-and-ride lots that require land use approval;and 33 (f)Any land use where off-street motor vehicle parking is mandated. 34 This section provides that cities and counties must have required bicycle parking for multi-unit and mixed- 35 use residential uses. Staff presents three options to the commission for this section based on 36 conversations at the rulemaking advisory committee and testimony received. 37 OPTION A: This option prescribes a minimum of one bicycle parking space per residential unit. 38 (3)Cities and counties shall require a minimum of one covered bicycle parking space per unit for multi-unit and 39 mixed-use residential uses. 40 OPTION B: This is the staff recommended option. This option provides for a minimum of one bicycle 41 parking space per residential unit and provides for cities and counties to allow case-by-case adjustments 42 as well as different requirements in some situations. 43 (3)Cities and counties shall require a minimum of one covered bicycle parking space per unit for multi-unit and 44 mixed-use residential uses.Cities and counties may: 45 (a)Allow for reductions or exemptions to the minimum parking requirement based on development-specific 46 considerations;and 47 (b)Exempt or reduce the minimum parking requirement for certain types of residential uses that are likely to have 48 less future demand for bicycle parking. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 35 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 45 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 OPTION C: This option prescribes a minimum of one half of a bicycle parking space per unit. 2 (3)Cities and counties shall require a minimum of one-half of a covered bicycle parking space per unit,rounded up 3 to the next nearest whole number,for multi-unit and mixed-use residential uses. 4 (4)Cities and counties shall adopt development regulations requiring all required bicycle parking provided must: 5 (a)Either allow ways to lock at least two points on a bicycle,or be within a lockable space only available to 6 authorized users; 7 (b)Be installed in a manner to allow space for the bicycle to be maneuvered to a position where it may be secured 8 without conflicts from stairs,other parked bicycles,walls,or other obstructions; 9 f c)Be in a location that is convenient and well-lit;and 10 (d)Include bicycle parking spaces to accommodate large bicycles,including family and cargo bicycles. 11 (5)Cities and counties shall provide for public bicycle parking and allow and provide for parking and ancillary 12 facilities for shared bicycles or other small-scale mobility devices in climate-friendly areas,Metro Region 2040 13 centers,and near key destinations identified as provided in OAR 660-012-0360. 14 (2)Cities and counties shall require covered,secure bicycle parking for all new multifamily development or mixed 15 use development of four residential units or more,and new office and institutional developments. Such bicycle 16 parking must include at least one bicycle parking space for each residential unit. 17 (3)Cities and counties shall require bicycle parking for all new retail development. Such bicycle parking shall be 18 located within a short distance from the main retail entrance. 19 (1)Cities and counties shall require bicycle parking for all major transit stations and park and ride lots. 20 (5)Cities and counties shall require bicycle parking in climate friendly areas,Metro Region 2040 centers,and near 21 key destinations identified as provided in OAR 660 012 0360. 22 (6)Cities and counties shall allow and provide for parking-and ancillary facilities for shared bicycles or other small 23 scale mobility devices in climate friendly areas,Metro Region 2040 centers,and near key destinations identified 24 as provided in OAR 660 012 0360. 25 (7)Cities and counties shall require bicycle parking for any land use where off street motor vehicle parking is 26 mandated. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be no less than the greater of: 27 (a)Twice the number of mandated motor vehicle parking spaces,raised to the power of 0.7,rounded to the next 28 highest whole number;or 29 (b)As otherwise provided in this rule. 30 (8)Cities and counties shall ensure that all bicycle parking provided must: 31 (a)Allow ways to secure at least two points on a bicycle; 32 33 without conflicts from other parked bicycles,walls,or other obstructions; 34 (c)Be in a location that is convenient and well lit;and 35 (d)Include sufficient bicycle parking spaces to accommodate large bicycles,including family and cargo bicycles. 36 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 37 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 38 660-012-0700:Public Transportation System Planning 39 The changes in this section address charge item 26. The changes clarify how local governments are to 40 work with transit service providers. There are also changes to use terms consistently. 41 (1)Transportation system plans must include a public transportation system element that meets the requirements of 42 this rule.Cities and counties must work in close cooperation with transit service providers in order to complete the 43 public transportation system element of the transportation system plan. 44 (a)Cities and counties shall coordinate with public transportation service providers to develop the public 45 transportation system plan-element. 46 (b)The public transportation system plan element must include elements of the public transportation system that 47 are in the control of the city,county,and coordinating transportation facility owners. 48 (c)The public transportation system plan element must identify elements of the public transportation system that 49 the city or county will work with transit service providers to realize or improve,including transit priority 50 corridors,transit supportive infrastructure,and stop amenities. 51 (d)Cities and counties must coordinate with transit service providers to align the public transportation system plan 52 transit element with Transit Development Plans,goals,and other strategic planning documents developed 53 adopted by-a transit service providers to the extent practical. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 36 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 46 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (e)Transportation system plans do not control public transportation elements exclusively controlled by transit 2 service providers.These include funding or details of transit service provision,including timetables and routing. 3 (2)A public transportation system element must include the following elements: 4 (a)The complete public transportation system as described in section(3)that includes the full buildout and 5 provision of services of the public transportation system within the urban growth boundary; 6 (b)Identification of gaps and deficiencies in the public transportation system as described in section(4); 7 (c)Locations of key public transportation destinations identified as provided in OAR 660-012-0360;and 8 (d)A list of prioritized public transportation system projects developed as provided in OAR 660-012-0720. 9 (3)The complete public transportation system is the full buildout of a complete public transportation system within 10 the planning area.The city or county determines the complete public transportation system plan by: 11 (a)Using the public transportation system inventory developed under OAR 660-012-0705 as a base;and 12 (b)Adding the minimum public transportation services and facilities to places that do not presently meet the 13 minimum public transportation system requirements in OAR 660-012-0710. 14 (4)Cities and counties shall identify gaps and deficiencies in the public transportation system by comparing the 15 complete public transportation system with the public transportation system inventory developed under OAR 660- 16 012-0705.Cities and counties must include any part of the complete public transportation system not presently 17 built or operated to the standards in the complete public transportation system plan as a gap or deficiency.Cities 18 and counties must identify gaps in the transit supportive facilities provided on priority transit corridors and other 19 transit corridors identified as provided in OAR 660-012-0710.Transit supportive facilities include,but are not 20 limited to: 21 (a) Stations,hubs,stops,shelters,signs,and ancillary features;and 22 (b)Transit priority infrastructure,including signals,queue jumps,and semi-exclusive or exclusive bus lanes or 23 transitways. 24 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 25 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712 26 660-012-0810: Street and Highway System Requirements 27 (1)Cities and counties shall plan,design,build,and maintain a connected streets and highway network in a manner 28 that respects the prioritization factors in OAR 660-012-0155. 29 (a)Cities and counties shall plan streets and highways for the minimum size necessary for the identified function, 30 land use context,and expected users of the facility. 31 (b)Cities and counties shall consider and reduce excessive standards for local streets and accessways in order to 32 reduce the cost of construction,increase safety,provide for more efficient use of urban land,provide for 33 emergency vehicle access while discouraging inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds,provide for utility 34 placement,and support connected and safe pedestrian and bicycle networks. 35 (c)Cities and counties shall plan for an equitable allocation of right-of-way consistent with the prioritization 36 factors as provided in OAR 660-012-0155. Streets in climate-friendly areas,Metro Region 2040 centers,and 37 along priority transit corridors must be designed to prioritize pedestrian,bicycle,and transit systems,as 38 provided in OAR 660-012-0510,OAR 660-012-0610,and OAR 660-012-0710. 39 (2)Cities and counties shall plan local streets to provide local access to property and localized circulation within 40 neighborhoods. 41 (a)Cities and counties shall plan and design local streets for low and safe travel speeds compatible with shared 42 pedestrian and bicycle use. 43 (b)Cities and counties shall establish standards for local streets with pavement width and right-of-way width as 44 narrow as practical to meet needs,reduce the cost of construction,efficiently use urban land,discourage 45 inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds,improve safety,and accommodate convenient pedestrian and bicycle 46 circulation.Local street standards adopted by a city or county must be developed as provided in ORS 368.039. 47 A local street standard where the paved width is no more than 28 feet on streets where on-street parking is 48 permitted on both sides of the street shall be considered adequate to meet this requirement.Wider standards 49 may be adopted if the local government makes findings that the wider standard is necessary. 50 (c)Cities and counties shall plan and design a complete and connected network of local streets.Cities and 51 counties may plan for chicanes,diverters,or other strategies or devices in local street networks where needed to 52 prevent excessive speed or through travel.These measures must continue to provide for connected and 53 pedestrian and bicycle networks. Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 37 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 47 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (d)Cities and counties shall avoid planning or designing local streets with a dead end.Dead end local streets may 2 be permitted in locations with topographic or other barriers,or where the street is planned to continue to a 3 connected network in the future. 4 (e)Cities and counties shall plan for multimodal travel on local streets as provided in OAR 660-012-0510,OAR 5 660-012-0610,and OAR 660-012-0710.Cities and counties must plan local streets in climate-friendly areas and 6 Metro Region 2040 centers to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle systems,and be limited to local access for motor 7 vehicles. 8 (f)A city or county may plan for local streets to be wider than otherwise allowed in this rule when used 9 exclusively for access to industrial or commercial properties outside of climate-friendly areas or Metro Region 10 2040 centers,and where plans do not allow residential or mixed-use development. 11 (g)Transportation system plans need not include the specific location of all planned local streets but must 12 describe areas where they will be necessary. 13 (3)Cities and counties shall plan collector streets to provide access to property and collect and distribute traffic 14 between local streets and arterials. Cities and counties must plan and design a collector street network that is 15 complete and connected with local streets and arterials. 16 (a)Cities and counties must plan for multimodal travel on collector streets as provided in OAR 660-012-0510, 17 OAR 660-012-0610,and OAR 660-012-0710. 18 (b)Cities and counties must plan collectors in climate-friendly areas and Metro Region 2040 centers to prioritize 19 pedestrian,bicycle,and public transportation systems. 20 (4)Cities and counties shall plan arterial streets and highways to provide travel between neighborhoods and across 21 urban areas. Cities and counties must plan an arterial street network that is complete and connected with local 22 streets and collectors. 23 (a)Cities and counties shall designate each segment of an arterial as one of the three categories below in the 24 transportation system plan. These designations must be made considering the intended function,the land use 25 context,and the expected users of the facility.Cities and counties must address these considerations to ensure 26 local plans include different street standards for each category of arterial segment. 27 (A)Cities and counties shall plan for local access priority arterial segments to prioritize access to property and 28 connected streets when balancing needs on the facility.Local access priority arterial segments will generally 29 allow for more access locations from property,more opportunities to make turns,more frequent intersections 30 with other streets,and slower speeds. 31 (B)Cities and counties shall plan for through movement priority arterial segments to prioritize through 32 movement of traffic when balancing needs on the facility.Through movement priority arterial segments will 33 generally prioritize access limited to intersections with the street network,limited access to individual 34 properties,and safe speeds. 35 (C)Cities and counties shall plan for arterial segments in a climate-friendly area to prioritize multimodal travel 36 as provided in subsection(b).This includes prioritizing complete,connected,and safe pedestrian,bicycle, 37 and public transportation facilities. 38 (b)Cities and counties shall plan for multimodal travel on or along arterial streets as provided in OAR 660-012- 39 0510,OAR 660-012-0610,and OAR 660-012-0710. 40 (A)Cities and counties shall plan arterials in climate-friendly areas to prioritize pedestrian,bicycle,and public 41 transportation systems. 42 (B)Cities and counties shall plan arterials along transit priority corridors to prioritize transit service reliability 43 and frequency over general-purpose traffic. 44 The changes in this section address charge item 27. The changes make some clarifications about how 45 local governments must consider planning for freeways as part of the transportation planning process. 46 (5)Cities and counties shall,as part of the transportation planning process,carefully consider new or expanded 47 freeways considering goals for reductions in vehicle miles traveled per capita. 48 (a)Cities and counties shall consider high-occupancy vehicle lanes,including transit lanes,and managed priced 49 lanes on freeways. 50 (b)Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be parallel to freeways,rather than on them.Transit facilities on or 51 along freeways must should be designed for direct transit vehicle access. 52 (6)Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule,where appropriate,cities and counties shall plan and design streets 53 and highways to accommodate: Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 38 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 48 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (a)Transit vehicles on a segment of a priority transit corridor or transit corridor without dedicated transit lanes or 2 transitway. 3 (b)Freight travel on designated freight routes and key freight terminals inventoried as provided in OAR 660-012- 4 0805. 5 (c)Agricultural equipment on streets or highways connecting to agriculturally zoned land used for agricultural 6 purposes where equipment access is necessary. 7 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 8 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 368.039 9 660-012-0830:Enhanced Review of Select Roadway Projects 10 (1)Cities and counties shall review and may authorize certain proposed facilities to be included as a planned project 11 or unconstrained project in any part of the local comprehensive plan,including the transportation system plan. 12 (a)The following types of proposed facilities must be reviewed as provided in this rule: 13 (A)A new or extended arterial street,highway,freeway,or bridge carrying general purpose vehicle traffic; 14 (B)New or expanded interchanges; 15 (C)An increase in the number of general purpose travel lanes for any existing arterial or collector street, 16 highway,or freeway;and 17 (D)New or extended auxiliary lanes with a total length of one-half mile or more.Auxiliary lane means the 18 portion of the roadway adjoining the traveled way for speed change,turning,weaving,truck climbing, 19 maneuvering of entering and leaving traffic,and other purposes supplementary to through-traffic movement. 20 (b)Notwithstanding any provision in subsection(a),the following proposed facilities need not be reviewed or 21 authorized as provided in this rule: 22 (A)Changes expected to have a capital cost of less than$5 million; 23 (B)Changes that reallocate or dedicate right of way to provide more space for pedestrian,bicycle,transit,or 24 high-occupancy vehicle facilities; 25 (C)Facilities with no more than one general purpose travel lane in each direction,with or without one turn lane; 26 (D)Changes to intersections that do not increase the number of lanes,including implementation of a 27 roundabout; 28 (E)Access management,including the addition or extension of medians; 29 (F)Modifications necessary to address safety needs;or 30 (G)Operational changes,including changes to signals,signage,striping,surfacing,or intelligent transportation 31 systems. 32 The changes in this subsection are part of temporary rules adopted by the commission in April. This 33 version is slightly changed to use parallel language and to incorporate some changes from advisory 34 committee input. 35 (c)To retain a proposed facility that is included in an existing acknowledged plan adopted as provided in OAR 36 660 012 0015,a city or county shall review that facility under this rule at the time of a major update to it; 37 transportation system plan. 38 (c)Notwithstanding subsection(a),a city or county may carry forward a proposed facility in a major 39 transportation system plan update without review as provided in this rule if it is a planned project in a 40 transportation system plan acknowledged prior to January 1,2023,and the project meets any of the following at 41 the time of adoption of the update: 42 (A)The project is included in a general obligation bond approved by voters prior to January 1,2022; 43 (B)The project is included as a project phase other than planning in the State Transportation Improvement 44 Program adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission,or a metropolitan planning organization's 45 transportation improvement program; 46 (C)The project has received a decision under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;or 47 (D)The project has been advertised for construction bids. 48 49 (2)Cities and counties choosing to authorize a proposed facility as provided in this rule shall: 50 (a)Initiate the authorization process through action of the governing body of the city or county; Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 39 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 49 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 A proposed added provision in OAR 660-012-0012(5)(g) postpones the effective date on this subsection 2 until the adoption of a transportation system plan. 3 (b)Include the authorization process as part of an update to a transportation system plan to meet the requirements 4 as provided in OAR 660-012-0100,or have an existing acknowledged transportation system plan meeting these 5 requirements; 6 (c)Have met all applicable reporting requirements as provided in OAR 660-012-0900; 7 (d)Designate the project limits and characteristics of the proposed facility,including length,number of lanes,or 8 other key features; 9 (e)Designate a facility impact area and determine affected jurisdictions as provided in section(3); 10 (f)Conduct an engagement-focused equity analysis of the proposed facility as provided in OAR 660-012-0135; 11 (g)Develop a public involvement strategy as provided in section(4); 12 (h)Conduct an alternatives review as provided in sections(5)and(6); 13 (i)Choose to move forward with an authorization report as provided in section(7); 14 (j)Complete an authorization report as provided in section(8);and 15 (k)Publish the authorization report as provided in section(9). 16 (3)A city or county designating a facility impact area and determining affected jurisdictions shall: 17 (a)Coordinate with all cities and counties with planning jurisdictions within two miles of the limits of the 18 proposed facility to determine the extent of the facility impact area; 19 (b)Review the extent of the impact of the proposed facility by including all areas where implementation of the 20 proposed facility is expected to change levels or patterns of traffic or otherwise change the transportation 21 system or land use development patterns; 22 (c)Take particular care when reviewing the facility impact area in places with concentrations of underserved 23 populations.The city or county must consider the special impact of new facilities in the context of historic 24 patterns of discrimination,disinvestment,and harmful investments; 25 (d)Designate a facility impact area to include,at minimum,areas within one mile of the proposed facility;and 26 (e)Determine affected jurisdictions by including all cities or counties with planning jurisdictions in the designated 27 facility impact area. 28 (4)A city or county developing a public involvement strategy shall,in coordination with affected jurisdictions: 29 (a)Develop the public involvement strategy as provided in OAR 660-012-0130. 30 (b)Require that the public involvement strategy provides for opportunities for meaningful public participation in 31 decision-making over the course of the authorization process; 32 (c)Require that the public involvement strategy includes regular reports to the affected governing bodies, 33 planning commissions,and the public on the progress of the authorization process;and 34 (d)Coordinate the public involvement strategy with other public involvement activities that may be concurrent, 35 including updates to a transportation system plan or authorizations for other proposed facilities. 36 (5)A city or county choosing to undertake an alternatives review shall,in coordination with affected jurisdictions: 37 The change in this subsection addresses charge item 28. The change makes the term "public 38 involvement strategy" consistent throughout the rule. 39 (a)Have designated the facility impact area,determined affected jurisdictions,transit service providers,and 40 transportation options providers;and developed a public consultation involvement strategy as provided in this 41 rule; 42 (b)Develop a summary of the expected impacts of the proposed facility on underserved populations identified as 43 provided in OAR 660-012-0125,particularly,but not exclusively,in neighborhoods with concentrations of 44 underserved populations.These impacts must include,but are not limited to,additional household costs,and 45 changes in the ability to access jobs and services without the use of a motor vehicle; 46 (c)Develop a summary of the estimated additional motor vehicle travel per capita that is expected to be induced 47 by implementation of the proposed facility over the first 20 years of service,using best available science; 48 (d)Investigate alternatives to the proposed facility,as provided in subsections(e)through(h).Cities and counties 49 must use a planning level of analysis,and make use of existing plans and available data as much as practical; 50 (e)Investigate alternatives to the proposed facility through investments in the pedestrian and bicycle systems.The 51 city or county must: 52 (A)Review the transportation system plan for identified gaps and deficiencies in pedestrian and bicycle 53 facilities within the facility impact area; Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 40 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 50 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (B)Determine how much of the need for the proposed facility may be met through enhanced investments in the 2 pedestrian and bicycle networks; 3 (C)Identify pedestrian and bicycle system investments that could contribute to meeting the identified need 4 which do not require implementation of the proposed facility;and 5 (D)Identify pedestrian and bicycle system investments that could contribute to meeting the identified need 6 which may be implemented without the proposed facility,and may be retained if the proposed facility is 7 implemented. 8 (f)Investigate alternatives to the proposed facility through investments in the public transportation system. The 9 city or county must: 10 (A)Review the transportation system plan for identified gaps and deficiencies in public transportation facilities 11 and services within the facility impact area; 12 (B)Coordinate with transit service providers to identify opportunities for providing additional transit service 13 within or to the facility impact area;and 14 (C)Identify potential transit facility and service investments that contribute to meeting the identified need 15 which may be implemented without the proposed facility. 16 (g)Investigate alternatives to the proposed facility through investments in transportation options programs;or 17 other means to reduce demand for motor vehicle travel.The city or county must: 18 (A)Review the transportation system plan for identified existing and needed transportation demand 19 management services within the facility impact area; 20 (B)Coordinate with transportation options providers to identify opportunities for providing transportation 21 demand management services in and around the facility impact area;and 22 (C)Identify potential transportation options program investments that contribute to meeting the identified need 23 which may be implemented without the proposed facility. 24 (h)Investigate alternatives to the proposed facility that include system pricing.The city or county must: 25 (A)Determine if various types of pricing could substantially reduce the need for the proposed facility; 26 (B)Investigate a range of pricing methods appropriate for the facility type and need,which may include,but are 27 not limited to:parking pricing,tolling,facility pricing,cordon pricing,or congestion pricing;and 28 (C)Identify pricing methods where it is reasonably expected to meet the need for the facility,may reasonably 29 be implemented,and can be expected to generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of operating the 30 collection apparatus. 31 (6)A city or county completing an alternatives review must,in coordination with affected jurisdictions: 32 (a)Review the projects identified in section(5)to determine sets of investments that may be made that could 33 substantially meet the need for the proposed facility without implementation of the proposed facility.A city or 34 county must consider adopted state,regional,and local targets for reduction of vehicle miles traveled to reduce 35 greenhouse gas emissionsclimate pollution when making determinations of substantially meeting the need for 36 the proposed facility;and 37 (b)Complete an alternatives review report upon completion of the alternatives review phase.The alternatives 38 review report must include a description of the effectiveness of identified alternatives.The alternatives review 39 report must include the summaries developed in subsections(5)(b)and(c).The alternatives review report must 40 be provided to the public,and the governing bodies and planning commissions of each affected city or county. 41 The alternatives review report must also be included in the next annual report to the director as provided in 42 OAR 660-012-0900. 43 (7)The governing body of the city or county shall review the alternatives review report and may either: 44 (a) Select a set of investments reviewed in the alternatives review report intended to substantially meet the 45 identified need for the proposed facility.These investments may be added to the unconstrained project list of the 46 transportation system plan as provided in OAR 660-012-0170;or 47 (b)Choose to complete the authorization report for the proposed facility,as provided in section(8). 48 (8)A city or county choosing to complete an authorization report as provided in section(7)shall,after completion 49 of the alternatives review,include the following within the authorization report: 50 (a)A record of the initiation of the authorization process by the governing body; 51 (b)The public involvement strategy developed as provided in section(4),and how each part of the public 52 involvement strategy was met; 53 (c)The alternatives review report; Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 41 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 51 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 (d)A summary of the estimated additional long-term costs of maintaining the proposed facility,including 2 expected funding sources and responsible transportation facility operator. 3 (9)A city or county shall publish the authorization report upon completion and provide it to the public and 4 governing bodies of each affected jurisdiction. 5 (10)A city or county,having completed and published an authorization report,may place the proposed project on 6 the list of street and highway system projects with other projects as provided in OAR 660-012-0820.A proposed 7 project authorized as provided in this rule may remain on a project list in the transportation system plan as long 8 there are no significant changes to the proposed project or the land use context as described in the authorization 9 report. 10 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 11 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 468A.205 12 660-012-0905:Land Use and Transportation Performance Measures 13 The changes in this rule are for clarity. 14 (1)Cities,counties,and Metro that have a land use and transportation scenario approved by the commission as 15 provided in OAR 660-044-0050 or OAR 660-044-0120 shall report on the performance measures from the 16 approved regional scenario plan. 17 (2)Cities and counties that do not have a land use and transportation scenario approved by the commission as 18 provided in OAR 660-044-0120 shall report on the specific actions,including capital improvements and the 19 adoption of policies or programs that they have or will undertake to reduce pollution and increase equitable 20 outcomes for underserved populations.At a minimum,this report must include the following performance 21 measures: 22 (a)Compact Mixed-Uuse Development 23 (A)Number of publicly supported affordable housing units in climate-friendly areas. 24 (B)Number of existing and permitted dwelling units in climate-friendly areas and percentage of existing and 25 permitted dwelling units in climate-friendly areas relative to total number of existing and permitted dwelling 26 units in the jurisdiction. 27 (C)Share of retail and service jobs in climate-friendly areas relative to retail and service jobs in the jurisdiction. 28 (b)Active Transportation 29 (A)Percent of collector and arterials streets in climate-friendly areas and underserved population 30 neighborhoods with bicycle and pedestrian facilities with Level of Traffic Stress 1 or 2. 31 (B)Percent of collector and arterial roadways streets in climate-friendly areas and underserved population 32 neighborhoods with safe and convenient marked pedestrian crossings. 33 (C)Percent of transit stops with safe pedestrian crossings within 100 feet. 34 (c)Transportation Options 35 (A)Number of employees covered by an Employee Commute Options Program. 36 (B)Number of households engaged with Transportation Options activities. 37 (C)Percent of all Transportation Options activities that were focused on underserved population communities. 38 (d)Transit 39 (A)Share of households within one-half mile of a priority transit corridor. 40 (B) Share of low-income households within one-half mile of a priority transit corridor. 41 (C)Share of key destinations within one-half mile of a priority transit corridor. 42 (e)Parking Costs and Management:Average daily public parking fees in climate-friendly areas. 43 (f)Transportation System 44 (A)Vehicle miles traveled per capita. 45 (B)Percent of jurisdiction transportation budget spent in climate-friendly areas and underserved population 46 neighborhoods. 47 (C) Share of investments that support modes of transportation with low pollution. 48 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 49 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 468A.205 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 42 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 52 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Transportation Planning Rules OAR Chapter 660,Division 12 1 660-012-0910:Land Use and Transportation Performance Targets 2 The changes to this rule address charge item 29. The change clarifies that Metro, rather than cities or 3 counties, sets regional performance targets for the Portland Metropolitan Area, consistent with OAR 660- 4 012-0900. 5 (1)Cities-and,counties,and Metro must set performance targets for each reporting year for each performance 6 measure provided in OAR 660-044-0110 and OAR 660-012-0905 in their local transportation system plan. 7 Performance targets for the performance measures provided in OAR 660-012-0905 must be set at levels that are 8 reasonably likely to achieve the regional performance targets from an approved land use and transportation 9 scenario plan as provided in OAR 660-044-0110 or the regional performance targets from the Statewide 10 Transportation Strategy as adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission. 11 (2)Cities,and counties,and Metro that have a land use and transportation scenario approved by the commission as 12 provided in OAR 660-044-0120 must set targets for equity performance measures in a transportation system plan 13 as provided in OAR 660-044-0110(9)(c). 14 (3)Cities,and counties,and Metro shall set performance targets in any major update to their transportation system 15 plan as provided in OAR 660-012-0105.If a city or county has not yet set targets and is submitting a major report 16 as provided in OAR 660-012-0900(7),then the city or county shall set performance targets through a minor 17 update to their transportation system plan. 18 Statutory/Other Authority:ORS 197.040 19 Statutes/Other Implemented:ORS 184.899,ORS 197.012,ORS 197.712,ORS 468A.205 20 Recommended Amendments—October 19,2023 Page 43 of 43 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 53 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) 4 re on Department of Land Conservation and Development j? 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Tina Kotek,Governor Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: 503-373-0050 Fax: 503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD Implementation Update (+1111) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program October 19, 2023 DLCD and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) continue to support cities and counties through the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities program. To date, the departments have secured roughly $22 million to implement the program including: • Nearly $800,000 in grants from DLCD to cities and counties for studies of potential climate-friendly areas spent during the 2021-2023 biennium. • $3 million appropriated by the legislature to DLCD for the 2023-2025 biennium, nearly $2.7 million of which will be grants to cities and counties. • Roughly $18.5 million from ODOT to fund local transportation system plans (TSPs) over the next 5-7 years, to fund regional scenario planning in the Eugene-Springfield region and the Salem-Keizer region, and to develop performance measures and targets for smaller metropolitan areas. DLCD and ODOT will also provide advice, guidance documents, code reviews, and one-on-one consultation. DLCD will focus on parking reform and climate-friendly areas. ODOT will lead on updating the guidance and data for transportation system plans and updating the ODOT Analysis and Procedures Manual. Program Updates Parking Reform Eight cities have repealed parking mandates citywide: • Albany • Beaverton • Bend • Central Point • Corvallis • Portland • Salem • Tigard With department assistance, many other cities and counties are moving towards removing parking mandates citywide, while others are exploring the fair policies reform option (Sherwood) or the reduced red tape option (Medford, Phoenix). Ashland, Cornelius, Eugene, Grants Pass and Springfield are scheduled to complete their reforms this year. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 54 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Update — Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program October 19, 2023 Page 2 of 5 As a result, local housing builders and businesses previously stymied by parking mandates are now able to develop. The Sightline Institute reported on several examples in articles published February 2 and June 30, and anecdotes continue to emerge, including moving forward on scores of affordable housing units in Troutdale, an expansion of a hair salon in Grants Pass, and an expansion of a dog genetics facility in Gladstone. Staff have worked with cities to draft and finalize code changes and adopt the various parking reforms into their codes. Climate-Friendly Areas DLCD provided funding to the 15 local governments that are required to designate climate- friendly areas (CFAs) in the 2021-2023 biennium. DLCD awarded grants and contracts totaling nearly $800,000 to support community engagement and technical analysis of potential locations for the CFAs. Cities and counties will use that analysis to prepare a report and submit it to DLCD by the end of 2023. Then the cities and counties must amend their zoning and development regulations to create CFAs by the end of 2024. Local governments are preparing their CFA studies for review by the department and public. The studies must be submitted by December 31, 2023, but two have already been submitted. • The City of Eagle Point was the first community to submit its CFA study for review and comment. Their study was published on the CFEC website on August 31, 2023, and one public comment was received. Department comments on the study were provided to Eagle Point on October 17, 2023. • The City of Salem submitted its study on September 26, 2023, and the study was published on the CFEC website on October 4, 2023. Public comments are due by October 25, 2023, and the department's comments will be provided prior to December 3, 2023. Department staff prepared an October 26, 2023, session for the annual conference of the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, entitled "Housing Planning is Climate Planning". The session will be moderated by Commission Vice-Chair Nick Lelack, with brief presentations by department staff, as well as from planners from three implementing cities (Eugene, Corvallis, and Bend). The focus of the discussion will be how CFA implementation fits in with ongoing mixed-use planning and other local planning efforts. Among other topics, Bend staff will discuss lessons learned from the department-funded CFA market study, which evaluated the market feasibility of seven housing prototypes in potential CFA areas in Bend. Department staff continue to work with local governments to implement CFA requirements and to support related work in the 2023-2025 biennium, including additional market studies, as resources are available. More detailed information on funding support for local government implementation is provided below. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 55 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Update — Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program October 19, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Alternative Dates and Exemptions The rules allow cities and counties to request alternative dates for some timelines in the rules. The temporary rules adopted in April extended the opportunity to request alternate dates. At the end of June, cities and counties in the Salem-Keizer and the Eugene-Springfield regions submitted regional work plans which included additional requests for alternative dates. Director Bateman has approved alternative dates for 30 cities and counties. A report of approved alternative dates is on the program website. Smaller jurisdictions may also request a temporary exemption from some or all of the requirements in the Transportation Planning Rules. Director Bateman has approved exemptions for nine cities and one county. A report of approved exemptions is on the program website. 2023-2025 Funding The 2023 legislature appropriated $3 million to support cities and counties through the Climate- Friendly and Equitable Communities program. This funding will be allocated in two categories: Required work: Non-competitive allocation for all rule requirements with a deadline within this biennium, and for requirements triggered by a local update of a transportation system plan (TSP). Open grants: Competitive process open to cities and counties within metropolitan areas to support other work required by the rules and work consistent with the intent of the CFEC program. Required Work This category consists of work directly required by rule with a specific deadline within the biennium and requirements triggered by a major update of a transportation systems plan (TSP). The required deadlines included climate-friendly areas (OAR 660-012-0310), parking reform and management (660-012-0400 series), and land use regulations (660-012-0330) triggered by a TSP update. ODOT is leading implementation on TSP updates, inventories, scenario planning, performance measures, and performance standards. Staff reviewed the rule to list all of the tasks required during the 2023-2025 biennium and then contacted each city and county to discuss what funding they would need to meet the requirements. This category is non- competitive and does not require an application from affected local governments. • Land Use Regulations (OAR 660-012-0330) This rule updates requirements for land use code to support compact, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use land use development patterns in urban areas. Local codes are required to be updated with a major update to a TSP. Model Code Many local governments expressed interest in receiving funding and model code from DLCD during this biennium to help them prepare for the upcoming requirements. The model code will be developed through the guidance and input of local government practitioners. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 56 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Update — Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program October 19, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Code Audits This work will provide code audits using the model code to identify needed areas of work in existing land use regulations in order to comply with the updated requirements. DLCD will provide consultant support to jurisdictions. Code Amendments This work will provide consultant support to implement needed changes identified through code audits for local governments to meet updated requirements. • CFA Zoning Updates (OAR 660-012-0315) This work will provide consultant and grant funding support to jurisdictions to adopt updated land use regulations to meet Climate-Friendly Area requirements. Staff have offered assistance with code writing, public engagement, and market feasibility studies to local governments. ODOT is providing further assistance to complete the required multi-modal gap analysis and highway impacts summary. • Regional Scenario Planning Grants (OAR 660-044-0015) This work will provide grant funding to reimburse local staff time for their participation in work tasks identified in their regional scenario planning work plans with ODOT's consultants. This work is occurring over the next two years for jurisdictions in the Salem-Keizer and Central Lane metropolitan areas. • Equitable Engagement Toolbox (OAR 660-012-0130) This work will be done in conjunction with other agency work on equitable engagement and result in guidance, templates, and tools for local governments to implement equitable engagement requirements in OAR 660-012-0130 and 660-012-0135. • Enhanced Engagement (OAR 660-012-0130) This work will provide grants to cities who are updating their transportation system plans in the near term to perform enhanced community engagement. Deliverables from cities would include hiring staff to specialize in engagement, mini-contracts with representatives, co- creating curriculum on transportation issues, disability consultants to improve disability engagements, and design charettes. • Parking Management Jump Start Guide (OAR 660-012-0400) This work will develop a parking management program jump start guide for communities that have identified a need for on-street parking management to address the impacts of spillover parking, where developments have more parking demand than met by off-street supply. This guide will help communities understand the costs and benefits of various parking management tools, as well as identify and implement parking management program elements they deem appropriate. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 57 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Implementation Update — Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program October 19, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Open Grants Cities and counties in the CFEC program will have an opportunity to apply for funding for tasks directly required by rule or work that achieves the overall intent of the program. The application process will start during fall 2023, with work starting in early-to-mid-2024. Successful applicants will have the choice to receive a grant or receive direct services from consultants selected through a DLCD procurement process. Eligible Projects: o Code audits and code amendments o Parking reform and management o Market feasibility studies o Equitable engagement o Transportation system planning o Staff time reimbursements o Disability consultants o Other similar work PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 58 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) irj jo-: Iregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: 503-373-0050 Fax: 503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD Charge to the Department and the Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Amendments to the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules by the Land Conservation and Development Commission April 2023 Summary This charge from the Land Conservation and Development Commission is intended to provide guidance to the department and the Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) for amendments to the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. LCDC initiates this rulemaking activity, guides it, and will ultimately decide what rules to adopt. The rules are meant to implement climate pollution reduction actions to comply with Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets. The commission expects that the rulemaking process will take seven months from initiation to adoption. Rulemaking Scope The rulemaking is expected to focus on amendments to the Transportation Planning Rules ("TPR"), Oregon Administrative Rules ("OAR") chapter 660, division 12. The scope of this rulemaking activity is narrow, and includes two categories of amendments: 1. Minor clarifications and corrections as listed in this charge; and 2. Review of temporary amendments adopted by the commission in April 2023. The department and rulemaking advisory committee may propose other minor changes as necessary to make the rules work effectively or changes recommended by legal counsel. Desired Outcomes The commission charges the department and the Rulemaking Advisory Committee with recommending amendments to rules that will advance these outcomes: 1. Continue to confirm and advance the outcomes of the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking; 2. Continue to work toward ensuring underserved populations guide decision making processes that are built to accommodate them; 3. Continue to clarify rules that can be successfully implemented by local governments and the state; and 4. Continue to help meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction goals, specifically the division 44 climate pollution reduction targets and Statewide Transportation Strategy targets. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 59 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) LCDC Rulemaking Charge — Permanent Amendments April 2023 Page 2 of 3 Expected Clarifications and Corrections The following is a list of minor clarifications and corrections expected to be addressed as part of this rulemaking process. Proposed amendments may include the listed rules or other rules as needed to meet the objective of the listed issue. All listed rules are within the TPR (OAR chapter 660, division 12). Item Clarification or Correction Affected Rule or Rules 1 Define multi-unit housing consistently. 0005, 0300, 0630 2 Add definitions of performance standards and 0005 performance measures 3 Clarify provisions for TSP requirements related to 0012, 0350 UGB expansions during the interim period. 4 Modify effective dates of some rules to line up with 0012, 0210, 0215 a major TSP update. Clarify how the horizon year may be determined. 5 Clearly allow flexibility for coordinated horizon 0100(3)(b), 0140(5)(c) years with the Metro RTP. 6 Clarify requirements for counties; remove overly 0110(3) broad language. Clarify in the rule when each type of equity7 0135 analysis should be performed. Clarify language of functional classification for 8 each mode. This provision may need to be 0155(4) repeated or referenced elsewhere in the rules. 9 Clarify intent, remove confusing language. 0180(2) 10 Fix numbering. 0215 11 Clarify how rule 0215 works in the Portland 0215, 0140 metropolitan area. Clarify confusing language, particularly concerning 12 comprehensive plan and land use regulation 0325 amendments. 13 Amend to use consistent terminology. 0400 through 0450 14 Clarify to allow counties to use this provision. 0405(4)(a)(A) 15 Clarify carpool and vanpool requirements only 0405(1)(a) apply to large parking lots 16 Clarify underused parking policies are for both on 0405(2) and off-street parking. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 60 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) LCDC Rulemaking Charge — Permanent Amendments April 2023 Page 3 of 3 Item Clarification or Correction Affected Rule or Rules 17 Clarify language with differing references and 0415 "multiunit" terms. 18 More specifically identify the referenced map. 0415(1), 0435 19 Clarify unbundled parking requirements would 0425, 0435 apply to new leases. 20 Add exemptions for townhomes and rowhomes for 0435(3), 0445(1)(a)(A) consistency across these rules. 21 Clarify how requirements for parking along transit 0440(3) work together. 22 Allow annual code adjustment based on transit 0440(3) frequency instead of constant adjustment. 23 Clarify language on historic buildings. 0445(1)(b)(H) 24 Clarify that "all" schools means K-12 schools, not 0505(1), 0605(1) preschools. Clarify the definition of"right-of-way"to exclude 25 right of way used for utilities or other non- 0510(3)(c) transportation purposes. Clarify how jurisdictions are expected to align 26 TSPs with plans developed or adopted by a transit 0700(1)(d) service provider. 27 Clarify to differentiate between TSP requirements 0810(5) and project development. 28 Clarify terminology, use "public involvement strategy" consistently in rule. 0830(5)(a) 29 Clarify how this rule functions in the Portland Metro 0910 area. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 61 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) �: ..,,,, _3 re o n ,,;,.,,; ,;, Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Tina Kotek,Governor Salem,Oregon 97301-2540 Phone:503-373-0050 Fax:503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD Summary of Written Testimony Received after the Hearing on July 28, 2023 October 6, 2023 (1111÷) A. Topics addressed by multiple commenters The staff report has additional details about these topics and how they are addressed in the recommended amendments. Topics Overall Align 0005 0210 0315- 0350 0430- 0630 0830 support with Bicycle Modelling 0320 UGB 0445 Bicycle Vehicle OHNA facilities VMT Minimum Parking parking capacity Testimony definition densities projects Exhibit 09: Sightline Institute X Exhibit 10: Oregon Climate X X X X X X X Action Coalition Exhibit 11: X X Wilsonville Exhibit 12: X Eugene Exhibit 13: X Tigard Exhibit 14: Cornelius & X X X X X X Hillsboro Exhibit 15: League of X X Oregon Cities Exhibit 16: X X X X Springfield Exhibits 17 & 18: X X X X X X Oregon Realtors Exhibit 19: Washington X X X County Exhibits 20 &21: X Portland OHNA= Oregon Housing Needs Assessment VMT=Vehicle miles travelled UGB = Urban growth boundary PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 62 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Summary of Written Testimony Received after the Hearing July 28, 2023 Page 2 of 3 B. Topics addressed by individual commenters Testimony Topic Recommendation Exhibit 10: 0012 Alternate dates The rule amendments adopted in April allow cities and counties to propose Oregon Climate alternate dates at any time.The recommended amendments make minor Action Coalition conforming changes. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0100(3) Base year The recommended amendments to 0140(5) provide the flexibility that the Cornelius & commenter suggested in the Portland metropolitan area. Hillsboro Exhibit 14: 0215(2) Performance The suggested change is not necessary as provisions for jurisdictions with adopted Cornelius & measures scenario plans are in the adopted rules at OAR 660-012-0905(1) and OAR 660- Hillsboro 012-0910. Exhibit 14: 0405(4)(e)Tree The recommended amendments already remove the requirement for cities and Cornelius & planting counties to ensure ongoing compliance with tree maintenance.This was included Hillsboro in the June 30 draft. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0505(1) &0605(2) The recommended amendments already narrow the scope of schools included in Cornelius & Public schools the requirement for a detailed pedestrian inventory.This comment suggests Hillsboro limiting the scope further to exclude religious and other private schools. Student safety is important regardless of the type of school they attend. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0610(4) Bicycle The recommended amendments provide considerable flexibility within the Cornelius & facility design requirement to "plan and design bicycle facilities considering the context." No Hillsboro exceptions further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0630(2) & (5) Bicycle The recommended amendments provide considerable flexibility for locating Cornelius & parking in CFA's and bicycle parking. Climate-friendly areas and Metro Region 2040 Centers will Hillsboro centers generally have higher than average bicycle mode share, so it would be counter- productive to reduce bicycle parking in these areas. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0810(2) Street width The recommended amendments provide flexibility for cities and counties to Cornelius & determine where a narrow street would be inappropriate. No further changes Hillsboro recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 14: 0810(4) Local access The recommended amendments provide flexibility for cities and counties to Cornelius & priority arterials classify streets. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Hillsboro Exhibit 16: 0180(2)(b) The recommended amendments incorporate the suggestion to remove a phrase Springfield Unconstrained that could be confusing. project list PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 63 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Summary of Written Testimony Received after the Hearing July 28, 2023 Page 3 of 3 Testimony Topic Recommendation Exhibit 16: 0315(2)(a) potential The recommended amendments clarify which local regulations must be Springfield square footage considered when estimating building capacity.The comment expresses a concern that the rule could still be unclear in some situations, but does not suggest clarifying language. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 19: 0180 Financially Updates to 0140(5) provide additional flexibility for planning horizon years in the Washington constrained list Portland metropolitan area. Changes to the local financially-constrained list may County or may not be needed in coordination with a regional plan update. Exhibit 19: 0330 Ambiguous and The recommended amendments use general terms to give flexibility to cities and Washington subjective terms counties to make decisions appropriate to local conditions.The department can County provide guidance to help cities and counties find one way to comply with the rule while preserving the flexibility for other cities and counties to find their own way to comply. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibit 19: 0810 Ambiguous and The recommended amendments use general terms to give flexibility to cities and Washington subjective terms counties to make decisions appropriate to local conditions.The department can County collaborate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to provide guidance to help cities and counties find one way to comply with the rule while preserving the flexibility for other cities and counties to find their own way to comply. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. Exhibits 20 &21: 0005(31) Parking The recommended amendments incorporate the suggestion to add "fleet Portland spaces vehicles"to the list of parking areas that are exempt from the definition. Exhibits 20 &21: 0610 Parallel bike The recommended amendments increase the flexibility in response to discussion Portland facilities at advisory committee meetings about situations (for example couplets) where the parallel facility would be more than one block away but would still provide a safe, low stress, direct, and comfortable experience. Cities and counties have the ability to set a more specific standard for their own bicycle network. No further changes recommended in response to this comment. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 64 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) gook Increasing Housing Production • and Transportation Choices OREGON The Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities and Oregon Housing Needs Department of Analysis Programs Expand Transportation and Housing Options Land Conservation & Development Integrated Planning for Oregon's Current and Future Needs Oregonians deserve housing they can afford, quality transportation choices to meet their daily needs, and a healthy climate that supports .1111110 « generations to come. 1 isio Consistent with Oregon's approach of integrated, comprehensive planning, the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) and Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA) programs work together to facilitate housing and transportation choice. As the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) implements Governor Kotek's housing executive orders, staff are working with communities across the state to develop solutions to help facilitate the construction of the 36,000 new housing units per year Oregonians need while meeting our climate goals. DLCD's housing, transportation, and climate teams work together to ensure our programs result in housing production, transportation choice, and more equitable communities. Creating Climate-Friendly Areas with Affordable Housing and Transportation Choices The Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities or CFEC program builds on years of local planning and investment. The program directs fifteen communities in Oregon's metropolitan areas to identify and allow walkable areas with significant housing capacity, and update zoning where needed. In these "climate-friendly areas," Oregonians should have a range of transportation choices and be able meet most of their daily needs without having to drive long distances. The Climate- Climate-friendly areas create bonus local housing capacity ready for the market to Friendly and fill. To boost housing production in areas with transportation choice, local Equitable governments will allow housing choice in these areas, from single-unit housing to Communities and traditional starter housing including duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes, and Oregon Housing apartments. As cities update their zoning codes, many are increasing housing Needs Analysis capacity in other areas as well, to allow for additional housing production and programs work choice. together to expand For the purposes of proposed urban growth boundary expansions, the additional housing options for housing units allowed in climate-friendly areas do not count as housing capacity Oregonians. unless the market is actually building them. Cities will continue to be able to facilitate timely urban growth area expansions in response to housing need. In one example of policy alignment, climate-friendly areas qualify as one of the efficiency measures required for urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions. Cities implementing updated climate and housing programs will have a speedier path to future UGB expansions. CFEC staff are engaged in the OHNA process to ensure the programs are aligned on this policy point. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 65 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Removing Barriers; Increasing Housing Production,Affordability, and Choice The CFEC program works to remove barriers to producing housing. These modernization strategies enable developers to build more housing with more units. Reducing costly parking mandates. One of the most powerful ways CFEC is helping get needed housing built is by reducing parking mandates. Nearly one-third of households are a single person, living alone. One of every seven Oregon renter households don't own any cars. Requiring off-street parking increases the cost of multifamily housing by 10-20 percent and reduces housing supply. The CFEC program means builders can provide the amount of parking appropriate for each unique development. In just the past few months, several previously stalled housing developments are moving forward under CFEC's parking reforms, in Grants Pass, Beaverton, Eugene, and Troutdale. Allowing more housing units. The CFEC program increases the number and types of housing units allowed in climate-friendly areas and removes obstacles for development in walkable, mixed-use areas. Reducing the need for expensive transportation infrastructure, such as road expansions. Updated planning rules allow local governments to reduce the burden and cost of transportation analysis and overbuilding of the transportation system. Helping Oregonians afford housing. Housing and transportation are the top two expenses in most households' budgets. CFEC aims to reduce transportation costs, thereby increasing budget available and expanding housing options. Funding Studies to Discover Housing Opportunities Market studies of climate-friendly areas are an eligible use of the 2023 legislature's $3 million investment in the CFEC program. Cities may request market studies, and the department will provide them as resources allow. Market studies will allow local governments to evaluate the near-term feasibility of different levels of development in climate-friendly areas and other mixed- use zones. Recent program changes make it easier for local governments to adopt land use regulations that are more compatible with the scale of existing developed areas. Moving Forward The CFEC, OHNA, and other modernization programs are part of ongoing efforts by local governments, the Oregon legislature, and state agencies, boards, and commissions to boost housing production and make sure all Oregonians have a place to call home. These programs work to allow and facilitate the creation of market-rate and affordable housing options in neighborhoods where people have a range of transportation choices to get where they live, work, and play. Contact and More Information Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner, 503-602-0238, kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov Ethan Stuckmayer, Housing Division Manager, 503-302-0937, ethan.stuckmayer@dlcd.oregon.gov Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/cl/pages/cfec.aspx Oregon Housing Needs Analysis and Other Housing Programs https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Housing/Pages/index.aspx Last updated 2023-10-09 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 66 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) "} `1OregonDepartment ofLand Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 [-i-I Tina Kotek,Governor Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: 503-373-0050 Fax: 503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD Rule-by-Rule Summary of Proposed Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules (1÷111) (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12) October 19, 2023 This document includes a summary of proposed changes to the adopted rules in chapter 660, division 12. The changes include those that were temporarily adopted in April 2023. Rule Proposed Changes 660-012-0000: Purpose No changes proposed. • Addresses charge items 1 and 2. 660-012-0005: Definitions • Incorporates temporary rule changes. • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0010: Transportation Planning No changes proposed. 660-012-0011: Applicable Rules No changes proposed. • Addresses charge items 3, 4, and 18. 660-012-0012: Effective Dates and Transition • Incorporates temporary rule changes. • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0015: Preparation and Coordination No changes proposed. of Transportation System Plans 660-012-0020: Elements of Transportation System Plans No changes proposed. 660-012-0025: Complying with the Goals in Preparing Transportation System Plans; No changes proposed. Refinement Plans 660-012-0030: Determination of No changes proposed. Transportation Needs 660-012-0035: Evaluation and Selection of No changes proposed. Transportation System Alternatives 660-012-0040: Transportation Financing No changes proposed. Program 660-012-0045: Implementation of the No changes proposed. Transportation System Plan PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 67 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Rule-by-Rule Summary of Proposed Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules October 19, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Rule Proposed Changes 660-012-0050: Transportation Project No changes proposed. Development 660-012-0055: Timing of Adoption and Update of Transportation System Plans; No changes proposed. Exemptions 660-012-0060: Plan and Land Use No changes proposed. Regulation Amendments 660-012-0065: Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands No changes proposed. 660-012-0070: Exceptions for Transportation No changes proposed. Improvements on Rural Land 660-012-0100: Transportation System Plans in Metropolitan Areas • Minor changes for clarity. 660-012-0105: Transportation System Plan No changes proposed. Updates 660-012-0110: Transportation System Planning Area • Addresses charge items 5 and 6. 660-012-0115: Funding Projections No changes proposed. 660-012-0120: Transportation System No changes proposed. Planning Engagement 660-012-0125: Underserved Populations No changes proposed. 660-012-0130: Decision-Making with No changes proposed. Underserved Populations 660-012-0135: Equity Analysis • Addresses charge item 7. 660-012-0140: Transportation System • Addresses charge item 5. Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area 660-012-0145: Transportation Options No changes proposed. Planning 660-012-0150: Transportation System No changes proposed. Inventories 660-012-0155: Prioritization Framework • Addresses charge item 8. 660-012-0160: Reducing Vehicle Miles No changes proposed. Traveled 660-012-0170: Unconstrained Project List No changes proposed. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 68 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Rule-by-Rule Summary of Proposed Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules October 19, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Rule Proposed Changes 660-012-0180: Financially-Constrained Project List • Addresses charge item 9. 660-012-0190: Transportation System No changes proposed. Refinement Plans 660-012-0200: Temporary Projects No changes proposed. 660-012-0210: Transportation Modeling and • Change to postpone effective date of the Analysis rule to allow future revisions. 660-012-0215: Transportation Performance Standards • Addresses charge items 10 and 11. 660-012-0300: Coordinated Land Use and No changes proposed. Transportation System Planning 660-012-0310: Climate-Friendly Areas • Minor change to rule title. 660-012-0315: Designation of Climate- • Incorporates temporary rule changes. Friendly Areas • Minor change to rule title. • Addresses charge item 1. 660-012-0320: Land Use Requirements in • Incorporates temporary rule changes. Climate-Friendly Areas • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. • Minor change to rule title. • Addresses charge item 12. 660-012-0325: Transportation Review in • Changes for clarity and in response to Climate Friendly Areas advisory committee feedback. • Minor change to rule title. 660-012-0330: Land Use Requirements • Incorporates temporary rule changes. 660-012-0340: Land Use Assumptions No changes proposed. 660-012-0350: Urban Growth Boundary No changes proposed. Expansions 660-012-0360: Key Destinations No changes proposed. 660-012-0400: Parking Management No changes proposed. 660 012 0405: Parking Regulation • Addresses charge items 14, 15, and 16. Improvements • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0410: Electric Vehicle Charging • Minor change for clarity. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 69 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Rule-by-Rule Summary of Proposed Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules October 19, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Rule Proposed Changes • Addresses charge items 17 and 18. 660-012-0415: Parking Maximums and • Incorporates temporary rule changes. Evaluation in More Populous Communities • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0420: Exemption for Communities No changes proposed. without Parking Mandates 660-012-0425: Reducing the Burden of • Incorporates temporary rule changes. Parking Mandates • Changes for clarity. 660-012-0430: Reduction of Parking Mandates for Development Types • Addresses charge item 13. 660-012-0435: Parking Reform in Climate • Addresses charge items 18 and 20. Friendly Areas • Incorporates temporary rule changes. 660-012-0440: Parking Reform Near Transit • Addresses charge items 21 and 22. Corridors 660-012-0445: Parking Management • Addresses charge items 17, 19, and 23. Alternative Approaches • Incorporates temporary rule changes. 660-012-0450: Parking Management in More No changes proposed. Populous Communities 660-012-0500: Pedestrian System Planning No changes proposed. 660-012-0505: Pedestrian System Inventory • Addresses charge item 24. 660-012-0510: Pedestrian System • Addresses charge items 8 and 25. Requirements 660-012-0520: Pedestrian System Projects No changes proposed. 660-012-0600: Bicycle System Planning No changes proposed. 660-012-0605: Bicycle System Inventory • Addresses charge item 24. • Addresses charge item 8. 660-012-0610: Bicycle System Requirements • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0620: Bicycle System Projects No changes proposed. • Options for Commission 660-012-0630: Bicycle Parking • Addresses charge item 17. • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0700: Public Transportation System • Addresses charge item 26. Planning • Changes for clarity. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 70 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Rule-by-Rule Summary of Proposed Changes to the Transportation Planning Rules October 19, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Rule Proposed Changes 660-012-0705: Public Transportation System No changes proposed. Inventory 660-012-0710: Public Transportation System No changes proposed. Requirements 660-012-0720: Public Transportation System No changes proposed. Projects 660-012-0800: Street and Highway System No changes proposed. Planning 660-012-0805: Street and Highway System No changes proposed. Inventory 660-012-0810: Street and Highway System Requirements • Addresses charge item 27. 660-012-0820: Street and Highway Projects No changes proposed. • Addresses charge item 28. 660-012-0830: Enhanced Review of Select • Incorporates temporary rule changes. Roadway Projects • Changes for clarity and in response to advisory committee feedback. 660-012-0900: Reporting No changes proposed. 660-012-0905: Land Use and Transportation • Minor changes for clarity. Performance Measures 660-012-0910: Land Use and Transportation • Addresses charge item 29. Performance Targets 660-012-0915: Review of Reports No changes proposed. 660-012-0920: Compliance Hearings No changes proposed. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 71 OF 71 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) City of Lake Oswego—CFEC Parking Reform 11/14/2023 Project Schedule Rulemaking Updates & Extension Council Study Session#1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] Planning Commission Update#1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session#1 Jul 24 Project Background and Overview Council Study Session#2 Sep 5 of Alternatives [Aug—Sep 2023] — Planning Commission Work Session#2 Sep 25 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Targeted Outreach Oct—Dec 2023 Plan/Scoping [Oct—Dec 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#3 Nov 27 Council Study Session #3 Dec 5 Initial Concepts/ Targeted Outreach Jan—Mar 2024 Recommendations [Jan—Apr 2024] Open House/Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024 Joint PC-CC Study Session (#4) Apr 16 Draft Code Amendments Internal Review/ Drafting Apr-Jun [Apr-Aug 2024] Planning Commission Work Session#6 Jun 24 Final Code Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct 14 [Sep— Dec 2024] Planning Commission Findings Oct 28 City Council Public Hearing Nov 19 City Council Findings Dec 3 Effective Date: Jan 2, 2025 Public Engagement Plan Introduction: This Public Engagement Plan describes the roles of City staff in engagement efforts for the City's efforts to comply with state rules under the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules (OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450). These engagement efforts are intended to build upon existing relationships and community networks to the fullest extent possible through targeted outreach. This document provides a working list of the public involvement activities proposed as part of the project. It is intended as a living document and may be updated as the project progresses. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 1 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) Desired Project Outcomes: • Inform the public about the requirements of the Governor's Order and the City's work to comply with CFEC rules; • Involve stakeholders by asking relevant questions and reporting back to the public how their feedback influenced the project; and • Empower participants to help shape City policy on important topics. Engagement Methods: • Targeted Outreach to Key Stakeholders: Oct 2023—Mar 2024 o Lake Oswego Sustainability Network(LOSN)—Tues, 9/26 o Chamber of Commerce/Lake Grove Business Association—Thurs, 10/12 o Mayor's Roundtable-TBD o Neighborhood Chairs Committee—TBD o Transportation Advisory Board—TBD o Focus Group Discussion (TBD)with representatives from: ■ HPS Task Force ■ Sustainability Advisory Board ■ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board ■ LOSN ■ Transportation Advisory Board ■ Chamber of Commerce ■ Lake Grove Business Association • Project Website+ Updates:ongoing o The City will host a website that describes the project, includes project updates, and allows the public to access draft documents as they become available.The website will provide a link to a comment form and direct email contact for the project. • Project Email List:ongoing o The City will maintain an email list for all that are interested in learning more about the project. Interested members of the public may sign up to receive project updates via email through a link on the project website. • Open House/Community Meeting: March 7, 2024 o Either an online open house or in-person community meeting will be held to receive input from members of the public regarding the options to comply with CFEC. o The open house is expected to take the form of a presentation that summarizes material and guides participants through a set of questions. • Hello LO articles: ongoing/monthly o The City will include updates and information in its monthly Hello LO publication. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 2 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) • City Council: ongoing o Staff will bring the project forth at meetings of the City Council to receive direction and guidance at key stages. o 2 meetings so far(6/21/22, 9/5/23) o Next study session on 12/5/23 o Joint study session with the Planning Commission on 4/16/24 o Public Hearing on 11/19/24 • Planning Commission: ongoing o Staff will bring the project forth at meetings of the Planning Commission to provide information and develop recommendations for Council consideration. o 3 meetings so far(7/24/23, 9/25/23, 11/27/23) o Joint study session with City Council on 4/17/24 o 1 more work session on 6/24/24 o Public Hearing on 10/14/24 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT B/PAGE 3 OF 3 EXHIBIT D-3 (LU 24-0025) p461s4„, MEMORANDUM 1j ORE ) cl TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) Work Session #4 DATE: July 12, 2024 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED This memo provides background for the Commission's July 22 work session, which will include a public engagement update as well as an overview of a working set of draft code amendments to comply with the state's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR 660-012-04001 to -04502). More specifically, the Commission will be asked to provide policy direction regarding how the City should comply with CFEC rules regarding maximum parking regulations and climate mitigation actions for large surface parking lots. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2023, the Commission held their third work session on CFEC parking reform, which included an overview of a revised project schedule and public engagement plan, as well as a high-level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options available to the City for compliance. Subsequently, on December 5, 2023, the City Council held their third study session on CFEC parking reform to provide direction to staff on a revised project schedule and public engagement plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the CFEC parking rules by December 31, 2024. During this study session, the City Council unanimously indicated a preference to pursue a Citywide repeal of minimum parking requirements per Option 1: No Mandates. The Council expressed concerns that both Options 2 and 3 would require the City to apply complicated regulations that would apply unevenly throughout the city, and relayed further concerns about the staff hours that would be required for implementation. The Council articulated support for allowing the private market to determine the amount of parking provided by a proposed development, but noted that—to be successful —the strategy would need to be aligned with other City initiatives intended to create a healthier and connected 1 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293026. 2 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293036. Respect. Excel erce. Trust. Service. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 of 14 community, such as safe pathways, bikeways, and continued investment in active transportation (Attachment 9). PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Per direction received from City Council, staff has conducted targeted outreach to key project stakeholders regarding Citywide Parking Reform on an ongoing basis since October of last year. Staff has attended and provided presentations at meetings of several local community groups, including the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN), the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Advisory Board, and the February 22 Mayor's Roundtable event. Additional presentations are tentatively scheduled for later this year to the Transportation Advisory Board, the Neighborhood Chairs Committee, and other community groups. A Citywide Parking Reform Community Forum event is tentatively scheduled for July 24. This event will be held virtually via Zoom, and is expected to take the form of a presentation that summarizes the material and will include opportunities for members of the public to provide input on the project. The event was solicited in the City's monthly Hello LO publication, which has included multiple updates on the project in recent months, and will be further solicited using City social media accounts and email blasts closer to the date of the Forum. Additionally, the City maintains a project website that describes the project, includes project updates, and allows the public to access draft documents as they become available. Staff has also developed and maintained a general information page on Citywide Parking Reform that provides a direct email contact for the project manager, a link to allow members of the public to sign up to receive project updates, and a comment form to allow for public input. The outreach activities described above are being conducted in addition to the City Council study sessions and Planning Commission work sessions outlined in the Background section, above. WORKING DRAFT OF CODE AMENDMENTS Pursuant to the project schedule, staff has developed a working draft of code amendments to comply with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450 (Attachment 6). These include amendments to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) that comply with the following rules: • CFEC Parking Phase A- Reduced Parking Mandates, including the Parking Reform for Equity Uses (OAR 660-012-04303) and Parking Reform Near Transit (OAR 660-012-04404) provisions; 3 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307174. 4 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307176. Respect. Excellence Trust. 1_/%I 1IU1 I ✓-� ,LV LYVVLJJ Page 3 of 14 • CFEC Parking Phase B—Electric Vehicle Charging (OAR 660-012-04105); • CFEC Parking Phase B—Parking Regulation Improvements (OAR 660-012-04056); • CFEC Parking Phase B - Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities (OAR 660-012-04157); and • CFEC Parking Phase B—Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates (OAR 660-012-04208). Staff notes that additional amendments will be needed to the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency with the proposed amendments to the CDC. These Comprehensive Plan amendments will be drafted following the Commission's July 22 work session, and will be limited to those required for compliance with CFEC Option 1. Reduced Parking Mandates (Phase A) As discussed at previous work sessions, the City met the December 31, 2022 deadline for compliance with Phase A of the CFEC parking reform rules per OAR 660- 012-0430 and -0440. Beginning on January 1, 2023, the following parking rules became applicable by direct application of the state rules to new development in Lake Oswego: • Only one parking space per unit is required for multifamily residential development, regardless of location; • No parking is required for small residential units (<750 square feet), affordable units, child care uses, facilities for people with disabilities, or shelters; and • No parking is required within % mile of rail stations or%2 mile of frequent transit corridors (one-hour or greater service). While there are no rail stations within the City of Lake Oswego, TriMet Bus Line #35 is the City's most frequent bus transit line and is considered a "frequent transit corridor" for the purpose of the CFEC rules. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2023, the City is no longer enforcing minimum parking requirements within one-half mile of the service route of Bus Line#35, which covers a broad corridor along Highway 43/State Street and in Downtown Lake Oswego. As allowed under CFEC rules, staff previously received direction from the City Council to apply these rules directly—instead of including them as amendments to the Development Code. However, considering the more recent Council direction to repeal minimum parking requirements citywide pursuant to Option 1: No Mandates, the City will not have any requirements under this rule, as it is focused on reducing parking mandates (Attachment 7). This means that, upon enactment of the CDC amendments to repeal minimum parking requirements on a citywide basis, there is no need to further amend the CDC to ensure 5 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307171. 6 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307170. Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=307172. 8 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293030. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Page 4 of 14 compliance with OAR 660- 012-0430 and -0440. See Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates, below. Electric Vehicle Charging As previously relayed to the Commission, the City met the March 31, 2023 deadline for compliance with the EV charging requirements of OAR 660-012-0410. As such, the City now requires that 40% of all vehicle parking spaces must have conduit to serve electric vehicle charging for (1) new multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and (2) new mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units. Similar to Phase A of the parking rules, the City has been applying the state administrative rules directly in order to comply with OAR 660-012-0410, and no changes have been made to the CDC thus far to implement this requirement. For ease of implementation, staff recommends that the CDC be amended to include the above-mentioned EV conduit requirements concurrently with other code amendments required for Phase B of the CFEC parking requirements. See Attachment 1, Items 19 and 41. Parking Regulation Improvements (Phase B) The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Parking Regulation Improvements are outlined in OAR 660-012-0405. These Parking Regulation Improvement provisions act as a sort of baseline requirement for Phase B of CFEC, and apply regardless of the option selected for parking mandate reform. In summary, these rules require the City to: • Require preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking; • Allow redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses; • Allow and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses; • Allow and facilitate shared parking; • Require that surface parking lots more than 1/2 acre in size have either 40%tree canopy, contribute funds dedicated towards green energy technology, or include solar panels; • Require that surface parking lots more than 1/2 acre in size provide street trees along driveways or a minimum of 30%tree canopy coverage over parking areas; and • Require that surface parking lots more than 1/2 acre in size provide pedestrian facilities between buildings and pedestrian-oriented rights-of-way. To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(1)(a), the City must adopt land use regulations that require, "Designated employee parking areas in new developments with more than 50 parking spaces" to, "provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools." The CDC currently includes provisions in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv that require such preferential placement for carpools and vanpools, though an amendment is needed to remove an existing reference to required parking spaces within this code section. See Attachment 1, Item 39. F sped. ED-4 FLU 24-0025) Kespect. xcel nce. irust. ervice. Page 5 of 14 To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), the City must adopt land use regulations that allow property owners to, "redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities." While the CDC currently includes language that complies with the transit-related provisions of this rule, an amendment is needed to apply the standard to bicycle-oriented facilities. See Attachment 1, Item 40. Per Attachment 10, p. 1, "A jurisdiction repealing parking mandates per OAR 660-012-0420 is in compliance with (c) without further amendments since there would be no mandated minimum parking supply." As such, no further amendments are needed for the CDC to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(1)(c). See Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates, below. To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(2), the City must, "adopt policies for on-street parking and land use regulations for off-street parking that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses." Per Attachment 10, p. 2, "A jurisdiction repealing parking mandates per OAR 660-012-0420 is in compliance with this requirement for off-street parking without further amendments." The stated rationale is that, since there would be no requirement to provide a specified number of parking spaces to comply with the CDC, "Spaces could therefore be converted to other uses." As such, no further amendments are needed for the CDC to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(2). See Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates, below. To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3), the City must, "adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking." Per Attachment 10, p. 3, "The department expects to consider jurisdictions opting to repeal parking mandates pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420 in compliance with this section." As such, no further amendments are needed for the CDC to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3). See Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates, below. New Surface Parking Lots Over One-Half Acre in Size To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4), the City must adopt a new set of land use regulations that apply to, "any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel." This OAR also clarifies how new surface parking area must be measured, "The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all new off-street parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles." OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a) stipulates that new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre, "must provide a climate mitigation action." This code section also specifies that the City must include one of the climate mitigation options described in (A) through (C) of the rule, but that the City is, "not required to offer all these options." Possible climate mitigation actions listed in -0405(4)(a) include: F sped. ED-4 FLU 24-0025) Kespect. xcel nce. irust. ervice. Page 6 of 14 (A) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property...; (B) Payment of at least$1,500 per new off-street parking space into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose; (C) Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting; or (D) A mixture of actions under paragraphs (A) through (C) the city or county deems to meet the purpose of this section. To comply with section -0405(4)(a), staff recommends allowing Options (A), (B), and (C) as potential climate mitigation actions for new surface parking lots over one-half acre in size. Allowing Option (A) will incentivize the construction of sustainable infrastructure in such new lots, and outlines quantitative criteria to determine compliance. Option (B) will encourage investment in solar or wind energy development as a way to comply with this code section for applicants that may not have experience with the installation and management of on-site solar panels. Option (C) allows applicants to construct lots containing more than the minimum tree canopy required under-0405(4)(b) (see below); since applicants will be required to implement provisions to achieve a minimum of 30%tree canopy per section -0405(4)(b), complying with a 40% tree canopy requirement may represent a viable path towards compliance in certain instances. While staff recommends allowing applicants to select either Option (A), (B), or (C) to provide additional flexibility for a proposed development, staff does not recommend allowing a mixture of actions under (A), (B), and/or (C) to comply with this section (per Option (D)). Allowing such a mixture of actions to be considered compliant with the requirements for new surface parking lots over one-half acre in size would add unnecessary complexity to the process, introduce subjective criteria, and may result in sub-optimal outcomes with respect to sustainable infrastructure and tree canopy coverage. At the July 22 work session, the Commission will be asked to provide direction to staff regarding whether to include all options for compliance with -0405(4)(a) in the draft code amendments, or to include just one or two of the available options. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b) further requires new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to provide tree canopy: Developments must provide tree canopy. Developments shall provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles, and other site design considerations. Developments providing 40 percent tree canopy to comply with paragraph (a)(C) comply with this subsection. F sped. ED-4 FLU 24-0025) Kespect. xcel nce. irust. ervice. Page 7 of 14 If the City opts to only allow climate mitigation option (C) to comply with -0405(4)(a) —which requires a minimum of 40% canopy coverage for new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre— no further amendments would be needed to comply with subsection -0405(4)(b). See Attachment 1, Item 32. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c) requires new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to, "provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot," that at a minimum connect "building entrances", "existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way", "transit stops", and "accessible parking spaces". While LOC 50.06.003 currently includes provisions that address circulation and connectivity, amendments are required to ensure the standard requires connectivity to- and from- accessible parking spaces. See Attachment 1, Item 33. To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d), the City must adopt regulations requiring coordination with the local electric utility as they develop any tree canopy plan required under section -0405 for new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre. See Attachment 1, Item 34. To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e), the City must adopt regulations requiring applicants to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements under section -0405 for new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre. See Attachment 1, Item 35. Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities (Phase B) The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities are outlined in OAR 660-012-0415. The requirements specify that cities with greater than 25,000 population in the Portland metro area — including Lake Oswego — must set certain parking maximums in climate-friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers, as well as on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. In Lake Oswego, this means that the CFEC maximum parking requirements apply to the following geographies: • The Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) Overlay District; • The Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) District; and • Properties located within one-half mile of TriMet Bus Line #35, which covers a broad corridor along Highway 43/State Street, and in Downtown Lake Oswego (see Attachment 12). For the purpose of applying maximum parking regulations, the combination of the above geographies will be classified as Parking Area A; all other areas of the city will be classified as Parking Area B. F sped. ED-4 FLU 24-0025) Kespect. xcel nce. irust. ervice. Page 8 of 14 The City's current maximum parking requirements are enumerated in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(4), and were originally adopted in 1996 to comply with Metro's Regional Parking Policy. Generally speaking, the City's current maximum off-street parking space requirements only apply to nonresidential uses, and this maximum is calculated as 125% of the minimum number of spaces required under Table 50.06.002-3. There are currently no maximum parking requirements for residential uses in the City9. Because the City's existing parking maximums for nonresidential uses are calculated as 125% of the applicable minimums, it is currently necessary to cross-reference Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements to determine the maximum number of permitted spaces. Staff notes that this existing structure makes it cumbersome to calculate maximum parking requirements for a given use. Further, given that Table 50.06.002-3 is proposed to be removed in its entirety from the CDC as a part of the draft code amendments to comply with OAR 660-012-0420, it will no longer be possible to cross-reference Table 50.06.002-3. As such, staff recommends expanding Table 50.06.002-2: Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements to explicitly state the maximum required parking for individual uses, as opposed to having to calculate 125% of the minimum parking requirement for each use. This will facilitate ease of administration and reduce the calculations necessary to determine the maximum number of spaces permitted for a given use. See Amendments to Facilitate Ease of Administration, below, as well as Attachment 1, Item 24. Attachments 5 and 11 include DLCD guidance related to the CFEC maximum parking requirements. Similar to the Parking Regulation Improvements rule, there are limited options for compliance. While Lake Oswego already complies with some of the maximum parking provisions, substantial code amendments are necessary to fully comply with OAR 660-012- 0415. Staff has also suggested further code amendments that would simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration. See Amendments to Facilitate Ease of Administration, below, as well as Attachment 1, Item 24. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) outlines the maximum parking allowances for residential uses: Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit housing development.... These maximums shall include visitor parking; To comply with -0415(1)(a), it will be necessary to amend the code to apply the maximum parking regulations of 1.2 spaces per studio unit and 2 spaces for all other units in multifamily residential buildings. Staff notes that this will entail a decrease to the maximum parking permitted for multifamily residential units within the geographies described above, as there is currently no maximum for any residential uses. Detached single-family dwellings, middle 9 Staff notes that Table 50.06.002-2 includes maximum parking requirements for uses in the FMU Zone. Because the FMU Zone has not been mapped in the City, these requirements do not currently apply. Respect. Trust. tAtiItSI I U-4 (LU 14-UULS) Page 9 of 14 housing, and multifamily residential uses located outside of the geographies described above can continue to have no maximum parking limitations. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(b) outlines the maximum parking allowances for commercial and retail uses: Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; To comply with -0415(1)(b), it will be necessary to amend the code to ensure that all maximum parking regulations for commercial and retail uses are no higher than five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space (except for automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses). Additionally, per Attachment 11, the maximums outlined in Table 3.08-3 of the Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTP) continue to apply (Attachment 13). Staff notes that several of the existing maximum parking regulations in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(4) do not comply with Table 3.08-3 of the RTP. As a result, the City's existing maximum parking regulations must be further amended to comply with the maximums outlined in Attachment 13. Staff's analysis of the maximum parking regulations permitted under OAR 660-012-0415(1), Table 3.08-3 of the RTP, and the City's current maximum parking regulations is included in Attachment 2. In order to comply with both OAR 660-012-0415(1) and Metro Table 3.08-3, the following maximum parking regulations for non-residential uses implemented by LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(4) must be amended: • The maximum of 4.1625 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for office uses must be reduced to 3.4 spaces within Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line#35 Corridor, and reduced to 4.1 spaces elsewhere in the city; and • The maximum of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. plus 0.625 spaces per station for barber shops, beauty salons, and personal care services (such as nail, tanning, and therapeutic massage salons) must be reduced to 5 spaces in Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line #35 Corridor. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(c) outlines the maximum parking allowances for extremely large buildings with more than 65,000 square feet: For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; To comply with-0415(1)(c), it will be necessary to amend the code to specify that surface parking area may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building for land uses with more than 65,000 sq. ft. of floor area. See Attachment 1, Item 23. F DE CHIBITce-4l(LUnce24rus-00255)espec . x . . rvice. Page 10 of 14 OAR 660-012-0415(1)(d) outlines an exception to the maximum parking regulations for non- surface parking: Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. To comply with-0415(1)(d), it will be necessary to amend the code to specify that maximum parking regulations do not apply to non-surface parking. See Attachment 1, Item 23. Staff notes that both the Metro RTP and state administrative rules in OAR 660-012-005(32) additionally exclude the following from maximum parking regulations: fleet parking; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool and vanpool parking; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Amendments for Ease of Administration There are several maximum parking regulations for nonresidential uses in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(4) that are not worded as a number of spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space. For example, the existing maximum number of spaces for martial arts, music, dance, gymnastics, and yoga studios in the CDC is calculated as 1.25 spaces per 100 sq.ft., plus 0.625 spaces per employee. When analyzing regulations crafted in this way, it is less straightforward to determine whether they are compliant with the applicable rules in OAR 660-012-0415(1) and Metro Table 3.08-3. Nonetheless, staff recommends modifying provisions for nonresidential uses to be consistent with parking ratios that calculate the maximum number of spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space to the fullest extent practicable, in order to reduce confusion and facilitate ease of administration. This will require amendments that simplify parking ratios to determine the maximum number of spaces permitted for the following uses: Stadium, arena, theater; Bowling alley; Heavy equipment rentals, such as yard and tool equipment; Mortuary; Martial arts, music, dance, gymnastics, yoga studios; Truck, trailer and automobile rental parking lot; Storage, warehouse, wholesale establishment, freight terminal, truck or auto storage; and Mini-storage facility. See Attachment 1, Item 24. In order to further simplify and easily communicate these newly-applicable maximum parking regulations, staff further recommends combining uses with the same parking ratios into larger use categories in the revised Table 50.06.002-2: Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. See Attachment 1, Item 24, and Attachment 4. Alternative Approaches While some changes to Table 50.06.002-2 are necessary to comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1) and Metro Table 3.08-3, there are additional options available to modify the City's maximum parking regulations that are not technically required but would nonetheless improve consistency and facilitate ease of administration. Generally speaking, these changes would increase the maximum number of spaces permitted for several nonresidential uses in the City per the different alternative approaches listed below and detailed in Attachment 3: FK spear Exce iLU 2 -0�255)— espec . xcel nce. rus . rv,ce. Page 11 of 14 • Alternative 1: Fewest Changes. This approach would entail the fewest changes to the City's existing maximum parking regulations, and would only include required changes to reduce the maximum number of spaces permitted for multifamily residential units within Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line#35 Corridor, as well as for: office; tennis racquetball court; and barber shop, beauty salon, personal care services, such as nail, tanning, and therapeutic massage salons. • Alternative 2: Maximum Maximums. This approach would modify the City's maximum parking regulations to reflect the highest possible maximum parking ratios permitted under OAR 660-012-0415(1) and Metro Table 3.08-3. This would include the required changes to reduce the maximum number of spaces for certain uses (per Alternative 1), but would also include increases to the maximum number of spaces permitted for several nonresidential uses, including the following: medical and dental offices or clinics including accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts; sports club/recreation facilities, including billiard and pool parlors, video arcades, dance hall, gymnasium, health club; bowling alley; stadium, arena, theater; convenience food store; supermarket; retail sales and rentals; service or repair shop, such as electronic and home appliance repair, upholstery; furniture, appliance store building materials; bank; auto, boat, or trailer sales; automotive repair garage and service station; eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window; specialty food stores, such as coffee, bagels,juice bars (take-out food/drink primarily); eating or drinking establishment; hotel or motel; light industrial, industrial park, manufacturing; storage, warehouse, wholesale establishment, freight terminal, truck or auto storage; mini-storage facility; senior high and equivalent private or parochial school; elementary or middle school or equivalent private or parochial school; nursery, day or child care facility, kindergarten; library, reading room, museum, art gallery; churches, clubs, lodges, meeting rooms, and auditoria; and hospital. • Alternative 3: Clear and Consistent (recommended). This approach would modify the City's maximum parking regulations to facilitate ease of administration by aligning and simplifying parking ratios for similar uses to the fullest extent practicable. This is the approach that staff recommends including in the draft code amendments that will go to a public hearing. In effect, this approach is very similar to Alternative 2: Maximum Maximums, with some minor differences intended to simplify use categories and parking ratios. The primary differences between this approach and Alternative 2 are: o Parking ratios for "stadium, arena, theater" and "bowling alley" would be reduced from "no maximum" to 5.4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area within Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line #35 corridor, and 6.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. elsewhere in the city. This would align the parking ratio for stadiums, arena, theaters, and bowling alleys with other similar uses such as "automotive repair garage and service station", and facilitate these uses being combined into an umbrella "entertainment and commercial recreation" use category with a consistent parking ratio. EXHIBITED-4 (LU 24-00255)espec . xcel nce. rus . rvice. Page 12 of 14 o The parking ratio for "auto, boat, or trailer sales" within Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line #35 corridor would be reduced from 5.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. This would align the parking ratio for auto, boat, or trailer sales with the parking ratios for other commercial and retail uses, and facilitate these uses being combined under an umbrella "Commercial and retail" category with a consistent parking ratio. o The parking ratio for "automotive repair garage and service station" within Downtown, Lake Grove, and the Bus Line #35 corridor would be reduced from 5.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. to 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. As with "auto, boat, or trailer sales", this would align the parking ratio for automotive repair garages and service stations with the parking ratios for other commercial and retail uses, and facilitate these uses being combined under an umbrella "commercial and retail" category with a consistent parking ratio. At their work session on July 22, the Commission will be asked to provide direction to staff regarding which of the proposed alternative approaches to parking maximums should be reflected in the draft code amendments that will be considered at the Citywide Parking Reform public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 23. Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates (Phase B) The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates are outlined in OAR 660-012-0420. Considering the City Council's direction to pursue a Citywide repeal of minimum parking requirements per CFEC Phase B Option 1: No Mandates, these are the rules that will apply to the repeal of parking mandates. While this is effectively the most consequential code amendment included in this package, the requirements are fairly simple and no further action is required of the City as long as parking mandates are repealed citywide. OAR 660-012-0420(1) specifies that, "Cities and counties that adopt land use regulations that do not include parking mandates are exempt from OAR 660-012-0425 through OAR 660-012- 0450." This effectively exempts the City from being subject to the code provisions that implement CFEC Phase B Options 2 and 3 if parking mandates are repealed. To comply with section -0420(1), code amendments are needed to remove any references to minimum parking requirements throughout the CDC, including amendments to remove Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements in its entirety. See Attachment 1. PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule and public engagement plan are included as Attachment 6, excerpted below. F sped. ED-4 FLU 24-0025) Kespect. xcel nce. irust. ervice. Page 13 of 14 Rulemaking Updates& Extension Council Study Session#1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] Planning Commission Update#1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session#1 Jul 24 Project Background and Overview Council Study Session#2 Sep 5 of Alternatives [Aug—Sep 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#2 Sep 25 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Targeted Outreach Oct—Dec 2023 Plan/Scoping [Oct—Dec 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#3 Nov 27 Council Study Session#3 Dec 5 Initial Concepts/ Targeted Outreach Jan—Mar 2024 Recommendations [Jan—Apr 2024] Open House/Community Meeting Mar 7, 2024 Joint PC-CC Study Session (#4) Apr 16 Draft Code Amendments Internal Review/Drafting Apr-Jun [Apr-Aug 2024] - Planning Commission Work Session#6 Jun 24 Final Code Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct 14 [Sep— Dec 2024] Planning Commission Findings Oct 28 City Council Public Hearing Nov 19 City Council Findings Dec 3 Effective Date: Jan 2, 2025 ATTACHMENTS 1. Working Draft - Citywide Parking Reform Code Amendments, 07/11/2024 2. Staff Parking Ratios Analysis, 07/08/2024 3. Parking Maximums—Alternative Approaches, 07/08/2024 4. Parking Maximums Table— Use Categories, 07/08/2024 5. Email from DLCD— Parking Maximums Questions, 06/28/2024 6. CFEC Project Schedule and Public Engagement Plan, 06/10/2024 7. DLCD Handout—Guidance on Parking Reform for Equity Uses, 12/13/2023 8. DLCD Handout—Guidance on Parking Reform Near Transit, 12/13/2023 9. City Council Approved Meeting Minutes, 12/05/2023 Kespe �TExce FLU 2t-0�2S5)espec . xcel nce. rus . rvice. Page 14 of 14 10. DLCD Handout- Guidance on OAR 660-012-0405, Parking Regulation Improvements, 05/25/2023 11. DLCD Handout- Guidance on OAR 660-012-0415, Parking Maximums, 04/27/2023 12. CFEC Parking Phase A Map, 01/01/2023 13. Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan -Table 3.08-3, 09/12/2012 El4PpIBIT.E0-4 (LUe? -0s0.2s5)rvice. Draft: 07/11/2024 The following Code does not display images or complicated formatting. Codes should be viewed online. This tool is only meant for editing. § 50.03.003 Use-Specific Standards. /// 6. Use-Specific Standards for Commercial Uses. /// a. Conditional Uses Listed in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by Other Specific Standards. /// v. Parking shall meet the applicable parking standards, such as such as maximum number of parking spaces [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii], parking design [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iii.(2)] and parking dimension standards [LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi]. and may be increased if additional spaces are shown to be necessary. Item 1: The proposed set of code amendments repeals existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420. Staff recommends removing any code language that references minimum parking requirements to avoid confusion, including references to "necessary" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language within a subsection of the use-specific standards for conditional uses in commercial or industrial zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements and clarify applicable code provisions related to parking. 1 /// j. Community Garden. /// iii. Community gardens with a planting area less than 4,000 sq. ft. are exempt from parking requirements. Parking requirements for gardens larger than /1,000 sq. ft. shall be determined by the conditional use permit. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 1 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Item 2: This subsection describes parking requirements for community gardens. While the language simply references "parking requirements," it can be assumed that the language was intended to reference minimum parking requirements due to (1) the exemption for smaller gardens, and (2) the requirement that parking requirements be determined by the conditional use permit. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to community gardens, it is no longer necessary to exempt them from minimum parking requirements. This amendment deletes a subsection of the use-specific standards for community gardens to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. 1 /// p. Office. i. In the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, and R-0 zones, the following standards apply. /// (3) Notwithstanding LOC § 50.06.002.2, the required parking for office uses in historic landmarks shall be determined in the conditional use approval. In applying the general conditional use criteria under LOC § 50.07.005.3.a.iii and iv, the on site parking may be reduced to protect the historic character of the landmark. Item 3: This subsection clarifies that, "required parking for office uses in historic landmarks shall be determined in the conditional use approval," and allows for reductions in on-site parking for office uses in historic landmarks. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to offices, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements for office uses in historic landmarks. This amendment deletes a subsection of the use-specific standards for offices to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 2 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.03.005 Temporary Structures and Uses. Temporary structures and uses are permitted only as follows: /// 4. In Commercial and Industrial Zones. The following temporary uses are permitted in commercial and industrial zones. Business licenses are required for all temporary commercial activities. /// b. Seasonal retail sales as detailed below: /// ii. Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant. No additional parking is required for the outdoor use. Item 4: This subsection clarifies that no additional parking is required for, "Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to restaurants, it is no longer necessary to specify parking requirements for outdoor restaurant uses. This amendment deletes a sentence within the list of allowed temporary uses in commercial and industrial zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// 5. In Commercial, Industrial, and PF/PNA Zones. The following temporary uses are permitted in commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones. Business licenses are required for all temporary commercial activities. a. "Saturday Market" type sales of produce from temporary sales shelters (including vehicles) subject to the following standards: /// vi. Parking: Markets shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 3 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Item 5: Staff recommends removing any code language that references minimum parking requirements, including references to "sufficient" parking. This subsection states that "Saturday Market" events, "shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to these events, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a subsection within the standards for "Saturday Market" events in the commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. 1 /// b. Fairs, carnivals, and other similar major public gatherings, and nonsubstantial structures* for uses related thereto, not to exceed 30 days in any 12-month period, and subject to the "Saturday Market" criteria above regarding special event permit, location, and cleanup. Maier public gatherings shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business and/or provide a shuttle service from remote parking lots. Temporary security facilities for the fair, carnival, or other major public gathering, including overnight security by the occupancy of a caretaker or security personnel in trailers or recreational vehicles, is permitted. *Examples of nonsubstantial structures include: tents or three-sided booths, stages, and removable decks, secured to the ground by no more than stakes or pins, and that can be easily disassembled and removed from the site without significant damage to the site. /// Item 6: This subsection includes language stating that, "Major public gatherings shall have sufficient parking on site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business and/or provide a shuttle service from remote parking lots." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply to major public gatherings, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a sentence containing an approval standard for major public gatherings in the commercial, industrial, and PF/PNA zones to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 4 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.05.004 Downtown Redevelopment Design District. /// 3. Relationship to Other Development Standards. /// c. The parking standards (LOC § 50.06.002) apply in full, but the requirements may be modified as provided in LOC § 50.05.00'1.9, and though exceptions may be granted as provided in LOC § 50.08.003.2.b, Downtown Redevelopment Design District Variance. Item 7: This subsection states that parking requirements are applied within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRD) Overlay Zone and includes cross-references to a previously-applicable code section. What is left in the Parking Standard are the maximum capacity standards (to which no variance is permitted under applicable Metro or OAR-CFEC cap; see proposed LOC 50.08.001.2.h), design requirements for parking lots, and bicycle parking requirements. This amendment deletes language within a subsection of the DRD Overlay code to remove references to minimum parking requirements. /// 9. [Section Reserved] Parking shall be designed to provide adequate space while preserving and enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the following criteria: a. Number of Spaces. New uses shall provide the number of parking spaces required under the City of Lake Oswego Parking Standards (LOC § 50.06.002), modified as follows: i. New uses within existing buildings may demonstrate compliance with the parking ent through the• e of e-x sting paces on adjacent property if the applicant complies with all of the following criteria: (1) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed use has substantially different peak period parking needs than uses served by the parking spaces on the adjacent property. study, patron use evidence from register tapes, or written employees' transportation and parking policies. (2) The applicant demonstrates that they have the permission of the owner of the adjacent property to utilize their property for parking, either by an easement or a parking agreement or leases that will last for the life of the use. (3) The location of the adjacent property complies with LOC § 50.05.0011.913. ii. High turnover eating or drinking establishments such as coffee shops, ice cream parlors and ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 5 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 "take and bake" food services may vary from the parking requirements for restaurants by providing evidence that demonstrates the short term nature of their employee and patron parking needs. In no case, however, shall parking be reduced below the number of spaces that. „lrl be r rea f ., a retail sto, iii. Existing on street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking requirements. iv. In the portion of the downtown shopping and business district shown on Figure 50.05.00'1 L: Downtown No Additional Required Parking, below, no additional parking shall be required for existing or proposed uses when: (1) A retail use locates in an existing structure, or (2) An existing structure is expanded, the ground floor footprint does not increase in area, and no parking is removed. Parking restricted to available parking within the commercial district as follows: i. On site parking, ii. Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 ft. of the business site, iii. Owner or easement parking for employees within 1,000 ft. of the business site, or iv. On street parking along the property frontage. Item 8:This subsection outlines parking requirements within the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the DRD Overlay to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// 13. Clear and Objective Housing Standards for Approval. /// c. Relationship to Other Development Standards. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 6 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 iii. The parking standards (LOC § 50.06.002) apply in full,but the requirements may be modified as provided in LOC § 50.05.004.9, andthough exceptions may be granted as provided in LOC § 50.08.003.2.b, Downtown Redevelopment Design District Variance. Item 9: This subsection outlines how parking requirements are applied under the clear and objective standards section of the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the DRD Overlay to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// h.—[Section Reserved] Parking Requirements. Parking shall be designed to provide adequate space while preserving and enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the following criteria: i. Number of Spaces. New uses shall provide the number of parking spaces required under the City of Lake Oswego Parking Standards (LOC § 50.06.002), modified as follows: (1) New uses within existing buildings may demonstrate compliance with the parking requirement through the use of existing spaces on adjacent property if the applicant complies with all of the following criteria: (a) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed use has substantially different peak period parking needs than uses served by the parking spaces on the adjacent property. study, patron use evidence from register tapes, or written employees' transportation and parking policies. (b) The applicant demonstrates that they have permission of the owner of the adjacent property to utilize their property for parking, either by an easement or a parking agreement or leases that will last for the life of the use. (c) The location of the adjacent property complies with LOC § 50.05.00'1.9.b. (2) High turnover eating or drinking establishments such as coffee shops, ice cream parlors and "take and bake" food services may vary from the parking requirements for restaurants by providing evidence that demonstrates the short term nature of their employee and patron parking needs. In no case, however, shall parking be reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for an equal size retail store. (3) Existing on street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking requirements. ('1) In the portion of the downtown shopping and business district shown on Figure 50.05.004 Z: Downtown No Required Parking,below, no parking shall be required ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 7 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 for existing or proposed uses when: (a) A retail use locates in an existing structure; or (b) An existing structure is expanded and the ground floor footprint does not increase in area. ii. Employee and Patron Parking Restrictions. Employee and patron parking shall be ostrictea t„ a ail ble parking within the „ „i district as f l ows: (1) On site parking; (2) Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 ft. of the business site; (3) Owner or easement parking for employees within 1,000 ft. of the business site; or ('I) On street parking along the property frontage. Item 10: This subsection outlines parking requirements under the clear and objective standards within the DRD Overlay Zone, including the number of required parking spaces and restrictions related to parking for employees and patrons. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply within the DRD, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes the parking requirements subsection of the clear and objective standards within the DRD Overlay code to remove language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 8 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.05.007 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District. /// 6. Site Planning Standards. /// c. Parking. may be used to satisfy the off street parking requirements of a business or residential use located on the property. Item 11: This subsection includes language stating that, "Within the Lake Grove Village Center, on-street parking spaces directly abutting a property may be used to satisfy the off- street parking requirements of a business or residential use located on the property." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply within the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) Zone, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes a subsection of the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// iii. Shared parking may be used per LOC § 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2), but is not required. Access to parking facilities shall be based on the Parking Facilities and Access Coordination Map, Figure 50.05.007-U. Exception—Lake Grove Elementary School: This subsection 6.c.iii applies to the Lake Grove Elementary School site only when the development and uses are not for a public school. 1 [Cross-Reference: LOC § 50.05.007.6.b.ii(2)(h), Abutting Parking Facilities Connections, and LOC § 50.05.007.6.b.ii(2)(i), Access Coordination — Access Master Plans.] Item 12: This subsection includes language stating that shared parking is not required in the LGVCO. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to state that shared parking is not required in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. iv. Within 500 ft. of a public parking facility, the minimum parking requirement shall be 75%, of the total required for each use pursuant to parking requirements in LOC § 50.06.002. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 9 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 v. A 10% reduction in required parking shall be allowed for any lots or unified site on which a Village Gathering Place is provided. vi. For the portion of property acquired by City after October 4, 2012, for the purpose of improvements to Boones Ferry Road right of way that are consistent with the Lake Grove Village Center Plan: If the loss of property eliminates parking, as set forth in Attachments D.1 and D.2 of Ordinance No. 2753, the amount of parking lost may be counted toward meeting the parking standard. Item 13: The above subsections include language outlining the parking requirements in the LGVCO for uses within 500 ft of a public parking facility, "any lots or unified site on which a Village Gathering Place is provided," and, "For the portion of property acquired by City after October 4, 2012, for the purpose of improvements to Boones Ferry Road right-of-way." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to reference parking requirements in these subsections. This amendment deletes subsections (6)(c)(iv), (6)(c)(v), and (6)(c)(vi) of the parking standards applicable in the LGVCO to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 10 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.06.002 Parking. 1. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all development which generates athat provides parking need. This shall include the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures, and a change of use which that increases modifies on-site parking,ef-that modifies the loading requirements, or which changes access requirements. Item 14: The above subsection states how the City's parking requirements apply to different types of development, including a statement that the parking standards "shall apply to all development which generates a parking need," including, "a change of use which increases on-site parking or loading requirements." The term "parking need" and the reference to changes of use that increases on-site parking requirements are each based on the idea of minimum parking requirements that relate to the type and intensity of a proposed use. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide based on the type or intensity of a proposed use, it is no longer necessary to reference parking need or on-site parking requirements in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the applicability section of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. 2. Standards for Approval. a. Vehicle Parking. i. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use. Item 15:The above subsection includes a general statement regarding "required parking spaces," stating that such spaces must be made available to, "residents, customers, patrons and employees," and that the spaces, "shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to provide standards for required parking spaces in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the standards of approval subsection of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. Note to Code Compiler: Remove this Editor's Note Editor's note EV charging capacity: Electrical service capacity for vehicle charging 1155.117(2), OAR 918 '160 0200 and/or 660 012 0410: ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 11 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Multi family residential and mixed use buildings with five dwelling units 40% of vehicle parking spaces; and Private commercial buildings 20% of vehicle parking spaces. (This . ,;ll be , e by the Bu ldi g Dept at tiffte e f building pla ,- ) Item 16: The editor's note above was added to this subsection to make the reader aware of the state statutes and administrative rules related to electric vehicle service capacity that the City applies directly. This editor's note will be removed and similar language is to be added as a standard of approval within the parking standards themselves for ease of administration. See Item 40, below. ii. Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. The number of required parking spaces under this Article e determined by either the Numerical Method(s„bsection 2.a.ii(1) of this section) or the Parking Study Method(subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section). (1) Numerical Method. Refer to Tables 50.06.002-1—and 50.06.002-3-2 to determine the maximum number of parking spaces requiredallowed. The minimum number of parking spaces specified for o ch t ype nf—se shall ; clu a reductions t„parking requirements pursuant to subsection 2.a.v(1) of this section and Table 50.06.002 3. Item 17: The subsection above describes the methodology for determining the required number of parking spaces, and provides cross-references to applicable sections. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff has proposed deleting references to required parking and cross-references to sections outlining minimum parking requirements. Staff has modified the title and language within this subsection to instead reference and provide cross-references to other sections outlining maximum parking regulations. This amendment modifies a subsection of the parking standards to delete references to minimum parking requirements and to instead reference maximum parking regulations. METHOD 0 PARKING SPAC a Determine: Method of Determining: Floor Area Amount From Table 50.06.002-32, determine if floor area is used to calculate the maximum number of parking spaces required allowed for the use(s). (Floor Area per Parking Space) Number of Determine number of full time, temporary,part time and contract employeesseats or EmployeesSeats or number of students and staff, depending on how maximum number of spaces is "Students and calculated based on use, if other than based on floor area, , or independent contractors, if employee count is used in Table 50.06.002-3-2 to calculate the number of parking ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 12 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 50.06.002-1: METHOD OF DETERMININ! MINIMUM MAXIMUM PARKING SPACE ._ _ _ - ._ . - OWED Determine: Method of Determining: Staff' spaces requiredallowed. (Employee Seats/ Students and Staff Per Space amount) Gross Initial 1. Multiply the adjusted Floor Area Amount by the Floor Area per Parking Space. Maximum Parking RequirementPer 2. Multiply the Number of Employees Seats/ Students and Staff Seats by the Use Employee Parking Space Amount by the number of Per Space Seats/ Students and Staff Seatsamount. 3. Add the results of(1) and(2) above together. Reductions 2. Apply reduction percentages to Gross Parking Requirement. Mixed Uses The total requirements maximum parking allowed for mixed uses on a site shall be the sum for the various uses computed separately. Rounding Any fractional space amount determined following the application of Reductions and Mixed Uses above shall be rounded up down to the next highest lowest whole space. Minimum The minimum maximum parking allowed requirement is the "rounded" number above. Maximum Parking RequirementAllow ed Item 18: The table above currently outlines the methodology for the numerical method of determining the minimum number of parking spaces required. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes modifying this table to instead provide the methodology for calculation the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. This amendment modifies the table outlining the numerical method of determining the minimum number of parking spaces required to instead outline a method to determine the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 13 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (2) Parking Study Method. Use the parking study methodology for determining the Item 19: The above subsection describes how applicants can use a parking study to meet the parking standard, as an alternative to the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes removing this subsection. This amendment removes a subsection of the parking standard describing the parking study method for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 14 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (32)Except for residential parking requirements, tThe maximum number of surface parking spaces shall not exceed either 125% of the number of parking spaces required under Table 50.06.002-3-2 (withoutapplying-the l ReguirementMod' ble-5&AF. 4)ror the-required-number-of parking-spaees-determined-b3y-the-Parking-S-tud,,z-Methed-abeve. For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building. Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. Additionally, the following types of parking are exempted from the calculations in this section: parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 15 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (43) Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. Item 20: The above subsection describes that applicants can use either the "numerical method" or a "parking study" to determine the maximum number of spaces allowed. The current numerical method of determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed is based on the minimum parking requirements table, allowing applicants a maximum set at 125% of the minimum number of spaces required. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, staff proposes modifying the methodology to determine that maximum number of spaces allowed to be instead outlined more directly in Table 50.06.002-2. Further, staff proposes removing references to a "parking study", as DLCD has provided clarification that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415 (Attachment 5). OAR 660-012-0415(1)(c) outlines that, "For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building." To comply with-0415(1)(c), amendments are needed to specify that surface parking area may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building for land uses with more than 65,000 sq. ft. of floor area. OAR 660-012-0415(1)(d) outlines that, "Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section." To comply with-0415(1)(d), amendments are needed to specify that maximum parking regulations do not apply to non-surface parking. Additionally, Metro exempts the parking spaces from the maximum capacity when the parking space is for parking structures; fleet parking; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee car pool parking; dedicated valet parking; user-paid parking; market rate parking; and other high-efficiency parking management alternatives from maximum parking standards. (MC 3.08.410(A)(2)). OAR 660-012-005(32) exempts the following parking spaces from "parking spaces" used to calculate maximum capacity: (a) automobiles for sale or rent; (b) fleet vehicles; (c) carpools or vanpools; or (d) parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This amendment modifies language within a subsection of the parking standards to simplify the methodology for determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. The amendment also adds language to outline the maximum parking regulations for extremely large buildings and to describe that the following are exempted from maximum parking regulations: non-surface parking; parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 16 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Zane Type of Use FMU Nonresidential 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. Commercial 1 space per room Residential Residential 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit Other Nonresidential Either 125% of the number of parking spaces required under Table 50.06.002 Zones 3 (without , the required number of parking spaces determined by the Parking Study Method. Residential No maximum TABLE 50.06.002-2: MAXIMUM ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING REGULATIONS Area A: Downtown Redevel- opment Design District, Lake Type of Use Grove Village Center Overlay, Area B: Remaining areas Transit Corridors Residential Permitted spaces per unit Single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, No Max No Max and middle housing Multifamily-studio/efficiency 1.2 No Max Multifamily- 1 or more bedrooms 2 No Max Commercial Permitted spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross floor area General office 3.4 4.1 Medical and dental offices 4.9 5.9 Tennis racquetball court 1.3 1.5 Entertainment and commercial recreation 5.4 6.5 Exception: Movie Theater .4/seat .5/seat Commercial and retail 5 6.2 Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window 12.4 14.9 Eating or drinking establishment 19.1 23 Industrial Permitted spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross floor area Industrial No Max No Max Warehouse (150,000 gsf or greater) 0.4 0.5 ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 17 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Institutional Permitted spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross floor area Institutional No Max No Max College/university and high school 0.3 spaces/#of 0.3 spaces/#of students+staff students+staff Place of worship 0.6 spaces/seat 0.8 spaces/seat Uses not specifically mentioned - - If a use is not listed in this table,there is no maximum parking limitation for that use. Item 21: The above table specifies the maximum off-street parking regulations for different uses. Because the City's existing parking maximums for nonresidential uses are calculated as 125% of the applicable minimums (per Metro RTP), it is currently necessary to cross-reference Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off- Street Parking Requirements to determine the maximum number of permitted spaces. Staff notes that this existing structure makes it cumbersome to calculate maximum parking requirements for a given use. Further, given that Table 50.06.002-3 will be removed in its entirety from the CDC as a part of the proposed code amendments to comply with OAR 660-012-0420, it will no longer be possible to cross- reference Table 50.06.002-3. As such, staff recommends expanding Table 50.06.002-2 to explicitly state the maximum required parking for individual uses, as opposed to having to calculate 125% of the minimum parking requirement for each use. This will facilitate ease of administration and reduce the calculations necessary to determine the maximum number of spaces permitted for a given use. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a), amendments are needed to apply the maximum parking regulations of 1.2 spaces per studio unit and 2 spaces for all other units in multifamily residential buildings. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(b), amendments are needed to establish maximum parking regulations for all commercial and retail uses that are no higher than five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of"floor area" (except for automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses). Additionally, these maximums must comply with the maximums outlined in Table 3.08-3 of the Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan. [Note: Metro limit is based on undefined "gross leasable" sq. ft. and OAR is based on "floor area" ("gross floor area of all buildings on a development site, excluding areas within buildings that are dedicated to vehicular parking and circulation" OAR 660-012-0320(8))] This amendment modifies Table 50.06.002-2 to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012- 0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, depending on which one is more restrictive. Staff has proposed other amendments to this table to simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration, including modifying parking ratios for nonresidential uses to consistently calculate the maximum number of spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and combining uses with the same parking ratios into broader use categories. (54) Handicapped parking and ramps shall be provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 18 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (6) When Use Not Expressly Listed. When the proposed use is not expressly listed within Table 50.06.002 3, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by using Item 22: The subsection above outlines the method to determine the number of parking spaces required when the proposed use is not expressly listed. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply, amendments are needed to remove references to required parking spaces. This language is also redundant with language in the proposed amendment to Table 50.06.002-2, which includes similar language to the above that has been modified to apply to maximum parking regulations. The amendment above removes a redundant subsection of the parking standard that included references to minimum parking requirements. either "the use most similar" to the proposed use or a parking study,pursuant to Table 50.06.002 3(H). If the applicant elects to determine the number of parking spaces required by a parking study, the parking study shall comply with the following: (a) The total number of parking spaces required shall equal the number of spaces determined to be necessary to accommodate the average peak parking demand generated by the business or development use(s). "Peak parking demand" means the maximum number of parking required during the hours for the normal use of the development or business. The parking study shall be conducted by a registered traffic engineer. (b) In preparing the parking study, the traffic engineer shall consider relevant references, guides, and factors that aid in the average peak parking demand determination. Such references, guides, and factors may include, but are not limited to: (i) The factors and considerations recommended by the ITE Industry Standards. (ii) Availability and projected use of alternative transportation modes (common use vehicle, carpooling, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, etc.). within the City or elsewhere. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary,the minimum Item 23: The above subsection describes the standards for applicants using a "parking study" to meet minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and given that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415 (Attachment 5), amendments are needed to remove this subsection. This amendment removes a subsection of the parking standards related to the use of a parking study to eliminate references to minimum parking requirements and clarify that parking studies are not permitted to modify the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 19 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 number of parking spaces determined to be necessary pursuant to this subsection shall 50,06,002-47 Rules reducing m off street r rk;ng Type-of-Use transit 1. Residential Use 0.5 space per dwelling unit 2. Commercial Residential Use 1 space per room 3. Nonresidential Use (commercial, industrial, 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. institutional, etc.) 1. Single family dwelling and middle housing 1 space per dwelling unit 2. Accessory dwelling unit None (ORS 197.312(5)(b)) 3. Multi family 25% of the required „arking f r multi f mily e shall be located to provide for common or visitor use i. Studio/efficiency 1 space per unit ii. 1 bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit iii. 2 or more bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit '1. Rooming and boarding house; bed and 1 space per each guest room plus 1 for owner breakfast 1. Hotel or motel 1 space per unit 2. Assisted living facility 0.5 space per unit plus 1 per 3 employees ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 20 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Rides reducing m off street p .king Type se transit 3. Hospital 1.5 spaces per bed 1. Churches, clubs, lodges, meeting rooms, and 1 space per'I seats of maximum capacity, or 1 space per auditoria each 5 occupants based on maximum capacity as calculated under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code 2. Library, reading room, museum, art gallery 1.88 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. plus 1 space per 2 employees on the peak shift 3. Nursery, day or child care facility, kindergarten 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. /I. Elementary or middle school or equivalent 16.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A in the auditorium or 2 private or parochial school spaces per classroom, whichever is greater 5. Senior high and equivalent private or parochial 0.2 spaces per number of students and staff school 6. College; commercial school for adults 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. (excluding dorms) 1. Stadium, arena, theater 1 space/4 seats (fixed seating) 2. Bowling alley 3 spaces per lane plus 0.5 space per employee 3. Sports club/recreation facilities, including 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. > , gymnasium, health club 1. Office, including business and management 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. services except medical or dental 2. Medical and dental offices or clinics including 3.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 21 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Rides reducing m off street p .king Type se transit healing arts 3. Bank 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 11. Supermarket 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 5. Convenience food store 2.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 6. Specialty food stores, such as coffee, bagels, 6.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. juice bars (take out food/drink primarily) [2] 7. Eating or drinking establishment [2] 13.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 8. Eating or drinking establishment with drive up 9.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. window [2] 9. Barber shop,beauty salon, personal care II spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 space per services, such as nail, tanning, and therapeutic station massage salons 10. Retail sales and rentals, except as otherwise 3.3 spaces Ter- 4 000 specified herein [3] 11. Heavy equipment rentals, such as yard and 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 per employee tool equipment 12. Service or repair shop, such as electronic and 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. home appliance repair, upholstery 13. Automotive repair garage and service station 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. plus 0.5 per employee 111. Mortuary 1 space per 5 seats based on maximum auditorium capacity plus 1.5 space per employee 15. Martial arts, music, dance, gymnastics, yoga 1 space per 100 sq. ft. G.F.A. of lesson activity floor studios area, plus 0.5 space per employee ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 22 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 11 . Il . „ „ • _ _ . • Rides reducing m off street p .king Type se transit. 1. Furniture, appliance store building materials 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 2. Auto, boat or trailer sales 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. of building plus 0.5 space per employee 3. Truck, trailer and automobile rental parking lot 0.75 space per employee on largest shift 1. Light industrial, industrial park, manufacturing 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 2. Storage, warehouse, wholesale establishment, 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft. G.F.A. or 0.75 space per freight terminal, truck or auto storage employee based on maximum shift, whichever is greater 3. Mini storage facility 3,3-3-sPac-es-Per-40GO-Paf-grer,s-effic-e-1400-r-area plus 1 space for resident manager Parking requirement for uses not specifically mentioned in this section shall be determined by the most similar to the use not specifically mentioned, or by an analysis of the parking needs generated by the type of use (see subsection 2.a.ii(6) of this section). Note i [1] Gross floor area does not include any parking area. [2] Seasonal restaurant enclosures: No additional parking spaces required. [3} Farm stands: When accessory use, no additional parking spaces required. {4} No additional parking is required for outdoor restaurant uses or seasonal restaurant enclosures in conjunction with an existing, indoor year round restaurant. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 23 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 Rides reducing m off street p rking Type-of-Use transit Editor's note: Beginning January 1, 2023, Lake Oswego and other metro cities must apply LCDC rules (OAR 660 012 0430, 660 012 0435, 660 012 0440) regarding parking minimums to new development. See PP 22 0001 for applicability based on type of use or location from transit (map provided). Item 24: The table above outlines the existing minimum parking requirements that apply within the city. To comply with OAR 660-012-0420(1), amendments are needed to remove Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements in its entirety. This amendment deletes Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements to remove minimum parking requirements from the code. iii. On-Site Location of Required-Parking Spaces. (1) All required parking shall be off street. Any pParking provided on-site may not be located in a required yard or special street setback except where there are specific yard setback requirements or exceptions for parking established by the zone or use. Item 25: The subsection above outlines requirements for the on-site location or required parking spaces that all required parking be provided off-street and outside of required yards or setbacks. Amendments are needed to remove the reference to required parking and instead apply these rules to any parking provided on-site. This amendment removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and instead applies requirements for the on-site location of parking spaces to any parking provided on-site. /// iv. Offo Sn-StreetOn-Site Parking Options. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 24 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (1)Off-Site Parking: Within commercial,public use, industrial and campus institutional zones parking may be provided on remote lots within said zones which are within 500 ft. of the property line of the use to be served. Within the EC (East End General Commercial) zone only, unless otherwise prohibited, employee parking may be allowed within 1,000 ft. of the property line of the use to be served. Within the LGVCO only, unless otherwise prohibited, parking may be provided on remote lots within the District which are within 750 ft. (customer parking) and 1,000 ft. (employee parking) from the property line of the use to be served. e remote parking lot is not owned by the owner of the property of the use to be served, said owner shall obtain an exclusive permanent easement in the remote lot so as to permit parking from the, e to be s ea o the ry ote lot Item 26:The above subsection of the parking standard outlines the criteria to allow parking to be provided on remote lots within certain distances of the use to be served. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is no longer necessary to obtain an exclusive permanent easement to allow parking from the proposed use to be served on a remote lot. This amendment removes a sentence and simplifies code language to reflect that an exclusive permanent easement is no longer necessary for off-site parking agreements in the absence of minimum parking requirements. (2) Shared Parking: Shared parking is allowed.: (a) Except in the FMU zone, shared parking is allowed when a parking study demonstrates that there are a sufficient number(by actual or estimated count) of parking spaces to accommodate the parking needs generated by the applicant and other parking lot users during the applicant's period(s) of use of the parking lot. A new parking study shall be submitted upon any one of the following events: (i) Change from one type of use to another that has higher number of parking spaces required by Table 50.06.002 3 for the new use. (ii) Where one use expands into the area of another use and it results in: (A) A 10% or more increase in the number of parking spaces that would be required for the use under the Numerical Method, as if that method were applied to the (B) For an "eating or drinking establishment" or a type of commercial amusement business, any increase in the number of parking spaces that would be required for the use under the Numerical Method, as if that method were applied to the use to deter ine the p r� ing need. rather tha thro..g n nr� ing study ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 25 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (b) Parties involved in shared parking arrangements shall enter into reciprocal agreements, acceptable to the City for such use, by legal instrument which shall also provide for continuing maintenance of jointly used parking facilities. Item 27: The above subsection of the parking standard outlines the criteria to allow "shared parking" spaces to meet minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is no longer necessary to outline criteria for the use of shared parking spaces to comply with minimum parking requirements. Additionally, to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3), the City must, "adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking." While the City generally will comply with this rule through the repeal of parking mandates, it is necessary to retain language clarifying that shared parking is still allowed through a reciprocal parking agreement. This amendment removes references to minimum parking requirements and simplifies code language related to shared parking to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3). Per Attachment 10, p. 3, "The department expects to consider jurisdictions opting to repeal parking mandates pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420 in compliance with this section." As such, no further amendments are needed for the CDC to comply with OAR 660-012-0405(3). See Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates, below. v. Requirements for New On-Site Surface Parking Exceeding One-Half Acre. Any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot or parcel must comply with the provisions of this section. The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all on-site parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles. Item 28: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4), this amendment adds a new subsection to the parking standard that implements the new OAR requirements for on-site surface parking over one-half acre in size. (1) Climate Mitigation Action. The new on-site surface parking on a lot or parcel must provide at least one of the following climate mitigation actions: (a) On-Site Solar. Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new on-site parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the site; (b) Renewable Energy Fund. Payment of at least $1,500 per new on-site parking space into the City's fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose; ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 26 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (c) Tree Canopy. Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity within 15 years of planting; Item 29: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot or parcel to provide at least one of three listed "climate mitigation actions." The language also outlines the three different climate mitigation actions available: providing solar panels on-site, paying into a renewable energy fund, and providing at least 40%tree canopy. (2) Required Tree Canopy. Developments must provide tree canopy. Developments shall provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles, and other site design considerations. Developments providing 40 percent tree canopy to comply with paragraph (1)(c) comply with this subsection. Item 30: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to provide trees along the driveway or at least 30%tree canopy coverage. The amendment further specifies other requirements related to tree spacing and species, per OAR 660-012- 0405(4)(b). (3) Pedestrian Connections. Developments must provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot, connecting at a minimum the following, except where not practicable due to site- specific conditions: (a) Building entrances; (b) Existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way; (c) Transit stops; and (d) Accessible parking spaces. Item 31: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to, "provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot" that connect building entrances, pedestrian facilities, transit stops, and accessible parking spaces. While LOC 50.06.003 currently includes provisions that address circulation and connectivity, amendments are needed to ensure the standard requires connectivity to- and from- accessible parking spaces, and limits when the standard can be avoided. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 27 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (4) Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility, including pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases. Item 32: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger than one- half acre to coordinate, "with the local electric utility" as they develop their tree canopy plan to comply with this section, including during the, "pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases." (5) In providing trees under subsections (1) and(2), the following standards shall be met. Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival, including having ample high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species. Trees should be planted in continuous trenches unless not practicable. Item 33: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e), this amendment adds language to the parking standard requiring applicants to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements of this section. v. Reduction for Parking Space Requirements. (1) Parking space requirements shall be reduced in developments where compensating factors exist which reduction options. !.! ;.! I ' 4401MT4E1. TYPES-OF-MODIFICATIONS MODIFIERS Gross Floor Area Multiplier 20,000 sq. ft. 0.85 x requirement Transit shelter, on fronting street, within 0.85 x requirement 50 ft. of building Transit shelter within 500 ft. of building 0.90 x requirement Transit facilities, on fronting street, within 0.90 ., requirement ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 28 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 TYPES-OF-MODIFICATIONS MODIFIERS 500 ft. of building Access Proximity bier 100 or more residential units within 1,000 0.90 x requirement ft. of site Parking Study Provisions The parking study shall demonstrate sufficient number of parking spaces for the use per subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section. (a) Allowed FMU Modifiers: The only allowed modifiers to the minimum numerical parking requirements are: (i) Mixed Use Development: Exclude up to 15,000 sq. ft. ground floor nonresidential gross floor area per building or site (ifi case of multiple buildings o the site' (ii) Commercial Residential Uses: The transit facilities and pedestrian and bicycle access modifiers. (b) Allowed LGVCO Modifiers: The only allowed modifiers to the minimum numerical parking requirements are: (i) The development site size (DS) modifier; and (ii) The pedestrian and bicycle access (PA) modifier. (c) Allowed DRD District Modifiers: (i) All Properties: Because of the layout of downtown Lake Oswego and the ready availability of on street parking and transit, the minimum parking requirement shall be 0.75 of the total required for each use pursuant to Table 50.06.002 3. (ii) Retail Uses: Retail uses within 1,000 ft. of 100 or more residential units may further reduce their total parking requirements to 0.9 of the total spaces required after all other applicable modifiers are applied. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 29 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 (iii) Within the East End Commercial Zone Only: Properties within this zone may only use the development size modifier, the modifiers in subsection 2.a.v(1)(c)(i) and(ii) of this section, or the parking study provision under LOC § 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6). Item 34: The subsection above outlines various modifications available to certain developments to reduce the minimum number of spaces allowed using the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and thus there is no need for reductions to minimum parking requirements, an amendment is needed to remove this subsection. This amendment deletes the Reduction for Parking Space Requirements subsection of the parking standard to remove references to minimum parking requirements. vi. Parking Dimensions. /// (3) Except within the LGVCO, up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided in labeled by painting on the parking space. Item 35: The subsection above describes the dimensional standards applicable to compact parking spaces, and stipulates that up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided as compact spaces. Given that minimum parking requirements no longer apply, amendments are needed to remove references to required parking. Staff proposes that this code provision be removed entirely, as it was intended to allow the developer to provide the required number of spaces in a smaller area than standard parking spaces. Given that there are no required spaces, there is no need to specify that compact spaces may meet the requirement. This amendment removes this subsection to eliminate references to required parking and provisions allowing compact parking spaces to meet minimum parking requirements. /// vii. Loading. Loading berths in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of the development shall be required. Exception FMU Zone: Loading berths are not required. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 30 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 The off street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard shall not be used for loading and unloading or the storage of vehicles or materials or parking of trucks used in conducting business or use. Item 36: The above subsection includes a statement regarding "the off-street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard," stating that such spaces, "shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply citywide, it is no longer necessary to provide standards for required parking spaces in this subsection. This amendment deletes language within the standards of approval subsection of the parking standards to remove code language referencing minimum parking requirements. viii. Employee Carpool and Vanpool Parking. Development in commercial and industrial zones, in the Public Function zone, and nonresidential development in mixed use zones that requires provides a total of 50 or more parking spaces shall designate at least 5% of the number of parking spaces as employee carpool or vanpool parking. The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full sized parking spaces. The spaces shall be clearly marked "Reserved-Carpool/Vanpool Only" with hours of use. Except for designated handicapped parking spaces, employee carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located as follows: (1) Where employee parking spaces are designated, the designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be the closest employee parking spaces to the entrance normally used by employees. 1 (2) Where employee parking spaces are not designated, designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located in close proximity to the building entrance normally used by employees. Item 38: The subsection above describes the standards applicable to employee carpool and vanpool parking, and includes a reference to required parking. While this provision complies with OAR 660-012-0405(1)(a), an amendment is needed to remove the reference to required parking spaces. Further, staff proposes that this code provision apply to developments providing 50 or more parking spaces, as opposed to, "development... that requires a total of 50 or more parking spaces." This amendment removes a reference to required parking in the employee carpool and vanpool parking standards, and instead applies provisions related to employee carpool and vanpool parking to any development providing 50 or more parking spaces. ix. Redevelopment of Existing On-Site Parking. Property owners shall be allowed,upon review, to Item 39: As required by OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), this amendment adds a code provision allowing property owners to, "redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities." ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 31 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 redevelop any portion of existing on-site parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities. x. Electric Vehicle Conduit. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and newly constructed mixed-use buildings consisting of privately- owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units, shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces serving the residential dwelling units. Dwelling units in townhouses are not included for purposes of determining the applicability of this regulation. Item 40: This amendment codifies an existing editor's note regarding the state statutes and administrative rules related to electric vehicle service capacity that the City currently applies directly. The amendment would add provisions related to electric vehicle service capacity directly as a standard of approval within the CDC for ease of administration. See Item 16. 1 /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 32 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.06.003 Circulation and Connectivity. 1. Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots). /// d. Standards for Access Lanes. Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: /// iii. One standard "on lane" parking space shall be provided for each flag lot served by an access lane. This parking space may be used to meet minimum off street parking requirements for detached single family and duplex dwellings on flag lots served by the access lane. Item 41: The subsection above requires that one parking space per flag lot be provided on the access lane serving the flag lot, and includes a reference to minimum parking requirements. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to both remove the reference to minimum parking requirements and to eliminate the requirement to provide any number of parking spaces for a flag lot. This amendment to the standards for access lanes removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and eliminates the requirement to provide parking spaces for flag lots. /// 2. On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads. /// b. Standards for Approval. /// v. Turnarounds. /// (3) Required turnarounds shall not overlap any required_parking spaces. Item 42: The subsection above states that, "Required turnarounds shall not overlap any required parking space." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to minimum parking requirements. Staff proposes that this standard instead be applied to any parking spaces. This amendment to the standards for driveways and fire access roads removes a reference to minimum parking requirements and instead applies the standard to any proposed parking spaces. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 33 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 34 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.06.004 Site Design. 1. Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering. a. Applicability. i. Except as provided in subsection 1.a.ii of this section, this section is applicable to: /// (10) Change of use thatAn increase ins the number of required parking spaces provided on- site by more than 25%. Item 43: The subsection above clarifies that the landscaping, buffering, and screening standards apply to, "changes of use that increase the number of required parking spaces by more than 25%." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to required parking. Staff proposes that this standard instead be applied to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on-site by more than 25%. This amendment to the landscaping, buffering and screening standards removes a reference to required parking and instead applies the standard to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on site. /// 3. Lighting Standards. a. Applicability. This section is applicable to: i. Minor or major development that results in: the increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways;;or the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots; Item 44: The subsection above states that the lighting standards apply to, "Minor or major development that results in increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways; or open air parking lots." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, it is necessary to remove the reference to required parking. Staff proposes that this subsection be amended to clarify that the lighting standards apply to the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots. This amendment to the lighting standards adds language to clarify that the lighting standards apply to the construction or expansion of existing open air parking lots. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 35 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.07.003 Review Procedures. 1. Application. a. Application for Development. /// 1 ii. Unified Site Plan. All development in the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-W, CI and any PF or commercial zones and attached development in the R-5 zones will be developed under a unified site plan. The site plan will identify circulation patterns and access points, parking, method of provision of public services and general placement of lots and structures, and general area and type of uses. Proposals with multiple ownerships shall include a written agreement of all owners that development of the site will occur pursuant to the site plan approved. Item 45: This subsection requires that any development under a unified site plan identify parking in the site plan. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to clarify that parking does not need to be identified in the site plan. This amendment removes language from the standards for unified site plans to clarify that parking does not need to be identified in the site plan. /// j. Modification of Pending Application. i. Modifications of a pending application shall be considered under the standards in effect at the time the application was filed, if the modification: 1 (1) Does not increase the amount of required parking, square footage or the number of dwelling units; or Item 46: This subsection allows for pending applications to be modified without requiring the applicant to meet new criteria arising after filing of the application, if the proposed modification, "Does not increase the amount of required parking, square footage or the number of dwelling units." Staff notes that this language is intended to be used to determine when a pending application is proposing a "substantial change" and should be considered a new application, and thus, subject to any new standards post-filing. Given that parking is no longer a criterion, an increase in the amount of parking spaces provided doesn't necessarily signal a change in the development that would constitute a substantial modification of that application. For instance, a developer could decide - or the bank may require—to provide more parking without a change in the intensity of the use applied for. An amendment is needed to remove the reference to required parking. This amendment to the standards for the modification of a pending application removes a reference to required parking. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 36 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 /// 13. Ministerial Development Decisions. a. Ministerial Development Classification. /// ii. Ministerial Development Types. /// (15) Change of Use/Parking Effectlncrease. A change of use from one permitted use to another, including from the use assumed in a development review approval, that results in ilncreased uUse of the site. increases on site parking or loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.2 and: An easement may be used to meet the loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.7. _{a) There are sufficient number of parking spaces available (off street parking, or if in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District, also on street parking,pursuant to r O �0.05004 �i) pl h ereductions p itte�Ie-5.0.06. 02 4, Parking Requirement Modifiers, except for reductions permitted by a parking study; or (b) The use of a parking easement to provide some or all of the parking or loading requirements under LOC § 50.06.002.2. Item 47: The subsection above states that changes of use that increase on-site parking or loading requirements are classified as ministerial development if there is available parking on site for the use (using the numerical method). Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove all references to parking requirements or parking modifiers. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing an increased use for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, and loading provisions, and for impacts to public infrastructure under LOC 50.06.008, staff proposes connecting this subsection to the revised definition of"increased use," which would be modified to connect to an increase in trip generation, bicycle parking or loading requirement (as proposed). This amendment removes a reference to required parking, and references the revised definition of "increased use." See Items 54 and 55, below. /// 14. Minor Development Decisions. a. Minor Development Classification. /// ii. "Minor development" under subsection 14.a.i(1) of this section includes: ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 37 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 /// (10) Change of Use /or Access/Parking Study. A change of use from one permitted use to another, including from the use assumed in a development review approval that {a} €changes access requirements pursuant to LOC § 50.06.003.1, Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots), or that will result in the construction of private streets, driveways; or_ (b) Involves the use of a parking study pursuant to LOC § 50.06.002. Item 48:The above subsection states that a change of use that involves the use of a parking study is classified as minor development. As described under Items 23 and 27, above, parking studies may currently be used to meet minimum parking requirements, as an alternative to the numerical method. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, and given that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415 (Attachment 5), amendments are needed to remove any language referencing a parking study in this subsection. This amendment removes language from the subsection stipulating that changes of use that involve the use of a parking study are classified as minor development for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. The removal of"private streets" is a "code update" item that was missed in LU 22-0038 (Ord. 2909), as Item 15 (Maintenance): Private Street"is still referred to in multiple Community Development Code (CDC) sections. "Private Street"is not a private access lane, or private access easement, or driveway. "Private Street"is not a defined term in the code (LOC 50.10.003.2), but was historically used to describe a street behind a gate serving a subdivision or community. The Fire Code does not allow gated streets that serve three or more dwelling units (LOC 15.06.612). This amendment would delete references to private streets in all CDC sections, including:Sensitive Lands Overlay District standard, Fence standard, Flag Lot standard, Minor Variance classifications, and Definitions. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 38 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.07.004 Additional Submission Requirements. This section contains submission and review criteria for the procedures listed below. Where review criteria are important for an understanding of the substantive requirements of a section or limited in size they have been maintained with the substantive provisions. /// 6. Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan. /// d. Master Plan Conditions of Approval. In reviewing the master plan, conditions may be imposed that are suitable and necessary to assure compliance with the criteria in this section. These conditions may include,but are not limited to: /// 1 vi. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area; Item 49: The above subsection states that the, "size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area" may be considered as a condition of approval for a master plan. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove any provisions allowing conditions of approval for a master plan that designate the size of a parking area. This amendment removes language from the subsection related to master plan conditions of approval to specify that designating the size of a parking area is not permitted as such a condition. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 39 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.07.005 Conditional Use Permits. /// 3. Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses. /// b. In permitting a new conditional use, or the modification of an existing conditional use, the hearing body, or the City Manager in the case of a minor modification, may impose conditions which are suitable and necessary to assure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: /// vi. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area. Item 50: The above subsection states that the, "size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area" may be considered as a condition of approval for a conditional use. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove any provisions allowing conditions of approval for a conditional use that designate the size of a parking area. This amendment removes language from the subsection related to conditions of approval for conditional uses to specify that designating the size of a parking area is not permitted as such a condition. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 40 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.08.001 Introduction. /// 2. Variances Not Allowed. No variance shall be granted for the following: a. To permit a use not permitted in the applicable zoning district(unless that variance is required by state or federal law based on the special rights of the occupant). b. To increase the allowable residential density in any zoning district. c. To vary a Code standard that has already been modified by a planned development approval, except that zone standards applicable to a planned development may be varied through the residential infill design review process. d. To modify review and approval procedures. e. To a setback required under LOC § 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. This provision does not prevent modification of protected riparian areas or setbacks as permitted in that section. f. To a setback required under LOC § 50.04.002, Special Street Setbacks. g. To vary a standard under LOC § 50.05.011, Flood Management Area, except per LOC § 50.05.011.8, Flood Management Area Variance. h. To vary the maximum allowed surface parking spaces provided on a site under LOC § 50.06.002.2.a ii, Parking Spaces. Item 51: DLCD recently provided guidance that the use of parking studies to modify the maximum number of spaces permitted would not comply with OAR 660-012-0415 (Attachment 5). In order to comply with OAR 660-012-0415, amendments are needed to clarify that variances may not be used to increase the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a given site. This amendment adds language to the "variances not allowed" subsection of the "variances" chapter to clarify that that variances may not be used to increase the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 41 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.10.003 Definitions. /// 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean, except as may be otherwise defined for a specific section: /// GARAGE, PRIVATE A structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to tenants, employees or owners of the property for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50 and are not open for use by the general public. A carport is a garage. Item 52: LOC 50.10.003.2 defines "private garage" as, "A structure... for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50..." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language from the definition of "private garage" to remove a reference to required parking spaces. GARAGE, PUBLIC A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles, and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons or clients which are required by this- Code, provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as parking space(s) for the building or us-e. Item 53: The definition of"public garage" contains language referencing minimum parking requirements, as well as a requirement that code-required parking spaces be, "clearly identified as parking space(s) for the building or use." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove these references to "required" parking spaces. This amendment deletes language from the definition of "public garage" to remove references to required parking spaces. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 42 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 INCREASED USE An increase in trip generation, bicycle or parking or loading requirement. Item 54: The term "increased use" is currently defined as, "An increase in trip generation or parking requirement." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing an "increased use" for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, loading provisions, and impact on public infrastructure, staff proposes modifying the definition of"increased use" to instead connect to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement. This amendment modifies the definition of "increased use" to remove a reference to required parking, and instead connects the definition to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement. /// USE, CHANGE OF A change of the activity on a site which results in an Increased Usechange_i the number of parking spaces required by the parking and loading standard. Item 55: The term "change of use" is currently defined as, "A change of the activity on a site which results in a change in the number of parking spaces required by the parking and loading standard." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is needed to remove the reference to "required" parking spaces. Additionally, because it will still be necessary to review applications proposing a "change of use" for compliance with maximum parking, bicycle parking, loading provisions, and impact on public infrastructure, staff proposes modifying the definition of"change of use" to instead connect to the revised definition of"increased use". See Item 54, above. This amendment modifies the definition of "change of use" to remove a reference to required parking, and instead connect the definition to the revised definition of"increased use." /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 43 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.11.001 Appendix A—Lake Oswego Style. /// 4. LOC § 50.05.004 Figures. FICURE 1 (Da nequirements—portion of Doownrto�„'�rrShoppin District) ATN r 046E I �I S y7}I � —Iysi It tr I s r. (IFS:1 f ► 1 I 11! L"`1 20.I �!'" 1." HI M a t! �ii� 1'< � �L y I< I I: ���� :I 1 r r 17T >; lir F"rtl=I 1 = 1J I y� _ I z'z r1� x1= �� K7piw rT*T Sxte f Tmagel Item 56:This figure includes the map referenced in LOC § 50.05.004.9, which depicts the subarea within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRD) Overlay Zone where reductions to the minimum parking requirements are permitted. Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to delete the figure. This amendment deletes LOC 50.05.004.9 - Figure 1 (Parking Requirements— portion of Downtown Shopping and Business District) within LOC 50.11.001 Appendix A— Lake Oswego Style, to reflect that minimum parking requirements have been removed from the code. ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 44 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 45 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Draft: 07/11/2024 § 50.11.006 Appendix F—Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area. /// SPECIFIC POLICIES FOR GENERAL POLICY I: Provide for a Mix of Uses. /// 1 2. Require each subarea to have a plan for circulation, parking, utilities, and general building placement as a condition of approval for all development other than single-family subdivisions. Item 57: This subsection requires that each subarea within the Marylhurst Education Center campus have a plan for circulation, parking, utilities, and general building placement." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, an amendment is proposed to remove language from this subsection to clarify that a parking plan is not required. This amendment removes language from the General Policy standards within the Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area to reflect that a parking plan is not required. 3. Establish permissible uses, intensities, development criteria and conditions for specific subareas within the campus, in addition to other policies. a. SUBAREA I: CAMPUS INSTITUTIONAL /// 2. The appearance and character of the present Marylhurst Education Center campus, especially the scale of buildings, parking areas, building locations, materials, open areas and landscaping, will be continued in new development. Item 58:This subsection requires that the "appearance and character of the present Marylhurst Education Center campus" be continued in new development, including "the scale of... parking areas." Given that minimum parking requirements will no longer apply, the City will no longer be able to require that parking areas be developed at any specified scale. This amendment deletes language from the standards for Subarea I within the Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area to remove code language related to minimum parking requirements. /// ATTACHMENT 01/PAGE 46 OF 46 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 07/08/2024 Comparison of Maximum Parking Regulations (A) RESIDENTIAL Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per unit Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 Zone B: Rest of City corridor Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 1. Single-family dwelling and middle housing No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max 2.Accessory dwelling unit No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max 3. Multi-family i. Studio/efficiency 1.2 No Max No Max No Max No Max ii. 1 bedroom 2 No Max No Max No Max No Max iii. 2 or more bedrooms 2 No Max No Max No Max No Max iii. In FMU Zone 2 No Max No Max No Max 1.6 4. Rooming and boarding house; bed and breakfast 2 No Max No Max No Max No Max (B) COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per unit Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 5/ 1,000 1. Hotel or Motel sf No Max No Max No Max 1.25 2.Assisted living facility 2 No Max No Max No Max 0.625 3. Hospital No Max ? No Max ? 1.875 ATTACHMENT 02/PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 07/08/2024 (C) PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 1. Churches, clubs, lodges, meeting rooms, and auditoria No Max .6/seat No Max .8/seat 0.3125 2. Library, reading room, museum, art gallery No Max - No Max - 2.35 3. Nursery, day or child care facility, kindergarten No Max - No Max - 3.125 4. Elementary or middle school or equivalent private or parochial school No Max - No Max - 20.75 .3/ .3/ .25/ 5. Senior high and equivalent students+ students+ students+ private or parochial school No Max staff No Max staff staff .3/ .3/ 3.75/ 6. College; commercial school for 5/1,000 students+ students+ 1,000 sq. adults sq. ft. staff staff ft. (D)COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC .3125/ 1. Stadium, arena,theater No Max - No Max - seat 3.75 spaces per lane; .625 spaces per 2. Bowling alley No Max - No Max - employee ATTACHMENT 02/PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 07/08/2024 I 3. Sports club/recreation facilities, including billiard and pool parlors, video arcades, dance hall, gymnasium, health club No Max 5.4 No Max 6.5 2.5 (E) COMMERCIAL Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 1. Office, including business and management services except medical or dental 5 3.4 No Max 4.1 4.1625 2. Medical and dental offices or clinics including accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts 5 4.9 No Max 5.9 4.875 3. Bank 5 5.4 No Max 6.5 3.125 4. Supermarket 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 3.625 5. Convenience food store 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 2.75 6. Specialty food stores, such as coffee, bagels,juice bars (take-out food/drink primarily) [2] No Max 19.1 No Max 23 8.25 7. Eating or drinking establishment [2] No Max 19.1 No Max 23 16.625 8. Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window [2] No Max 12.4 No Max 14.9 12.375 9. Barber shop, beauty salon, personal care services, such as 5 + .625 nail,tanning, and therapeutic spaces/ massage salons 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 station ATTACHMENT 02/PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 07/08/2024 10. Retail sales and rentals, except as otherwise specified herein [3] 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 4.125 1.25+ .625 11. Heavy equipment rentals, such spaces/ as yard and tool equipment 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 empl 12. Service or repair shop, such as electronic and home appliance repair, upholstery 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 2 13.Automotive repair garage and service station No Max 5.1 No Max 6.2 2 1.25 spaces/5 seats+ 1.875 spaces/ 14. Mortuary 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 empl 1.25/ 100 sq.ft. + .625 15. Martial arts, music, dance, spaces/ gymnastics,yoga studios 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 empl (F) BULK MERCHANDISE Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 1. Furniture, appliance store building materials 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 2.5 2.Auto, boat or trailer sales No Max 5.1 No Max 6.2 1.25 3.Truck, trailer and automobile .75 spaces rental parking lot 5 5.1 No Max 6.2 /empl ATTACHMENT 02/PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) 07/08/2024 (G) INDUSTRIAL Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA Zone A: Downtown, Lake Grove, Bus Line 35 corridor Zone B: Rest of City Highest Highest Highest Highest Current LO (CFEC) (Metro) I (CFEC) (Metro) CDC 1. Light industrial, industrial park, manufacturing No Max No Max No Max No Max 2 1.25 spaces/ 1,500 sq. ft. or 2. Storage,warehouse, wholesale 0.9375 establishment,freight terminal, spaces/ truck or auto storage No Max No Max No Max No Max employee 4.1625 + 1 space for 3. Mini-storage facility No Max No Max No Max No Max manager ATTACHMENT 02/PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) Maximum Parking Ratios(Parking ratios are based on spaces per 1,000 sq.ft of gross leasable area unless otherwise stated) Alternative 3:Clear and Consistent Alternative 1:Fewest Changes Alternative 2:Maximum Maximums (Recommended) Zone A:Downtown, Zone A:Downtown, Zone A:Downtown, Lake Grove,Bus Line Zone B:Rest of the Lake Grove,Bus Line Zone B:Rest of the Lake Grove,Bus Line Zone B:Rest of the Land Use(Metro) Land Use(CFEC) Land Use(Lake Oswego CDC) 35 corridor city 35 corridor city 35 corridor city Commercial Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. General Office(includes Office Park,"Flex-Space",Government Commercial and Retail Office,including business and management services except medical or dental Office&misc.Services)(gsf) [Commercial] 4.1 il 4.1 Medical and dental offices or clinics including accessory laboratories for medicine, Medical/Dental Clinic Commercial and Retail dentistry,veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts[Commercial] 4.875 4.875 5.9 Tennis Racquetball Court n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) ? 1.3 1.5 1.5 Sports club/recreation facilities,including billiard and pool parlors,video arcades, WI 1.11 dance hall,gymnasium,health club(Commercial Amusements] 2.5 2.5 6.5 5.4 •. Sports Club/Recreation Facilities n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) 3.75 spaces per lane;3.75 spaces per lane; Bowling alley[Commercial Amusements] .625 spaces per .625 spaces pe employee employee No M Movie Theater(spaces/number of seats) n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) Stadium,arena,theater[Commercial Amusements] .3125/seat .3125/seat No M Convenience food store[Commercial] 2.75 2.75 5 6.2 5 Supermarket[Commercial] 3.625 3.625 5 Barber shop,beauty salon,personal care services,such as nail,tanning,and _AM5+.625 spaces/ therapeutic massage salons[Commercial] station Retail sales and rentals,except as otherwise specified herein[Commercial] 4.125 4.125 Heavy equipment rentals,such as yard and tool equipment[Commercial] 1.25+.625 spaces/ 1.25+.625 spaces empl empl Retail/Commercial,including shopping centers Commercial and Retail Service or repair shop,such as electronic and home appliance repair,upholstery [Commercial] 2 2 1.25 spaces/5 seats 1.25 spaces/5 seat Mortuary[Commercial] +1.875 spaces/ +1.875 spaces empl empl Furniture,appliance store building materials[Bulk Merchandise] 2.5 2.5 Truck,trailer and automobile rental parking lot[Bulk Merchandise] .75 spaces/empl .75 spaces/empl 1.25/100 sq.ft.+ 1.25/100 sq.ft.+ Martial arts,music,dance,gymnastics,yoga studios[Commercial] .625 spaces/empl .625 spaces/empl Bank with Drive-In Commercial and Retail Bank[Commercial] 3.125 3.125 5 n/a n/a(Automobile Sales and Repair) Auto,boat,or trailer sales[Bulk Merchandise] 1.25 1.25 n/a n/a(Automobile Sales and Repair) Automotive repair garage and service station[Commercial] 2 2 Fast Food with Drive Thru n/a(Eating and Drinking Establishments) Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window[Commercial] 12.375 12.375 Specialty food stores,such as coffee,bagels,juice bars(take-out food/drink primarily) ik--Miii Other Restaurants n/a(Eating and Drinking Establishments) [Commercial] 8.25 8.25 Eating or drinking establishment[Commercial] 16.625 16.625 Residential Maximum Spaces per Unit Maximum Spaces per Unit Maximum Spaces per Unit Hotel/Motel n/a Hotel or motel[Commercial Residential] 1.25 1.25. J No Max o Max Single Family Detached n/a Single-family dwelling and middle housing[Residential] No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max n/a Accessory dwelling unit[Residential] No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max No Max Residential unit,<500 sq ft per unit,one bedroom Studio unit Studio/efficiency 1.2 No Max 1. No Max 1.2 No Max Multi-family,townhouse,one bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 1 bedroom 2 No Max 2 No Max 2 No Max Multi-family,townhouse,two bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 2 or more bedrooms 2 No Max No Max 2 No Max Multi-family,townhouse,three bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 2 or more bedrooms 2 No Max No Max 2 No Max n/a Non-Studio Residential Unit Assisted living facility[Commercial Residential] 0.625 0.6251 2 No Max 2 . No Max Industrial Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Industrial:Light Industrial;Industrial Park;Manufacturing n/a(Industrial) Light industrial,industrial park,manufacturing[Industrial] 2 2 Storage,warehouse,wholesale establishment,freight terminal,truck or auto storage 1.25 spaces/1,500 1.25 spaces/1,500 n/a n/a(Industrial) [Industrial] sq.ft.or 0.9375 sq.ft.or 0.9375 spaces/employee spaces/employee No Ma No Max 4.1625+1 space 4.1625+1 space Mini-storage facility[Industrial] for manager for manager No Ma No Max Warehouse(150,000 gsf or greater) n/a(Industrial) n/a 0.4 0.5 Institutional - • Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Maximum Spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Elementary or middle school or equivalent private or parochial school[Places of Public A Assembly] 20.75 20.75 No Ma No Max No Max No Max n/a n/a(Institutional) Nursery,day or child care facility,kindergarten[Places of Public Assembly] 3.125 3.125 No Max- No Ma No Max- No Max 2.35+1 space/2 2.35+1 space/2 Librar y,reading room,museum,art gallery[Places of Public Assembly] empl empl No Max No Ma No Max No Max '7.- Mr w Schools:College/University&High School(spaces/#of n/a(High School) Senior high and equivalent private or parochial school[Places of Public Assembly] .25/students+staff .25/students+staff / , + .. / , + .. / , + ., / , + students and staff) Commercial and Retail(College/University) College;commercial school for adults[Places of Public Assembly] 3.75 3.75 Place of Worship(spaces/seats) n/a(Institutional) Churches,clubs,lodges,meeting rooms,and auditoria[Places of Public Assembly] 0.3125/seat 0.3125/seat .6/seat .8/seat .6/seat .8/se. n/a n/a(Institutional) Hospital[Commercial Residential] 1.875/bed 1.875/bed No Max No Max No Max No Ma EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 03/PAGE 1 OF 1 Land Use(Metro) Land Use(CFEC) Land Use(Lake Oswego CDC) Proposed Land Use Category Commercial General Office(includes Office Park,"Flex-Space",Government Office,including business and management services except medical or dental (gsf) Commercial and Retail General office Office&misc.Services)(g ) [Commercial] Medical and dental offices or clinics including accessory laboratories for medicine, Medical/Dental Clinic Commercial and Retail Medical and dental offices dentistry,veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts[Commercial] Tennis Racquetball Court n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) ? Tennis raquetball court Sports club/recreation facilities,including billiard and pool parlors,video arcades, Sports Club/Recreation Facilities n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) dance hall,gymnasium,health club[Commercial Amusements] Bowling alley[Commercial Amusements] Entertainment and commercial recreation Movie Theater(spaces/number of seats) n/a(Entertainment and Commercial Recreation) Stadium,arena,theater[Commercial Amusements] Convenience food store[Commercial] Supermarket[Commercial] Barber shop,beauty salon,personal care services,such as nail,tanning,and therapeutic massage salons[Commercial] Retail sales and rentals,except as otherwise specified herein[Commercial] Heavy equipment rentals,such as yard and tool equipment[Commercial] Retail/Commercial,including shopping centers Commercial and Retail Service or repair shop,such as electronic and home appliance repair,upholstery [Commercial] Commercial and retail Mortuary[Commercial] Furniture,appliance store building materials[Bulk Merchandise] Truck,trailer and automobile rental parking lot[Bulk Merchandise] Martial arts,music,dance,gymnastics,yoga studios[Commercial] Bank with Drive-In Commercial and Retail Bank[Commercial] Auto,boat,or trailer sales[Bulk Merchandise] n/a n/a(Automobile Sales and Repair) Automotive repair garage and service station[Commercial] Fast Food with Drive Thru n/a(Eating and Drinking Establishments) Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window[Commercial] Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window Specialty food stores,such as coffee,bagels,juice bars(take-out food/drink primarily) Other Restaurants n/a(Eating and Drinking Establishments) [Commercial] Eating or drinking establishment Eating or drinking establishment[Commercial] Residential Hotel/Motel n/a Hotel or motel[Commercial Residential] Hotel or motel Single-family dwelling,accessory dwelling unit,and middle Single Family Detached n/a Single-family dwelling and middle housing[Residential] n/a n/a Accessory dwelling unit[Residential] housing Residential unit,<500 sq ft per unit,one bedroom Studio unit Studio/efficiency Multifamily-studio/efficiency Multi-family,townhouse,one bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 1 bedroom Multi-family,townhouse,two bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 2 or more bedrooms Multifamily-1 or more bedrooms Multi-family,townhouse,three bedroom Non-Studio Residential Unit 2 or more bedrooms n/a Non-Studio Residential Unit Assisted living facility[Commercial Residential] al _ Industrial:Light Industrial;Industrial Park;Manufacturing n/a(Industrial) Light industrial,industrial park,manufacturing[Industrial] Storage,warehouse,wholesale establishment,freight terminal,truck or auto storage Industrial n/a n/a(Industrial) [Industrial] Mini-storage facility[Industrial] Warehouse(150,000 gsf or greater) n/a(Industrial) n/a Warehouse(150,000 gsf or greater) Institutional Elementary or middle school or equivalent private or parochial school[Places of Public Assembly] n/a n/a(Institutional) Nursery,day or child care facility,kindergarten[Places of Public Assembly] Institutional Library,reading room,museum,art gallery[Places of Public Assembly] Hospital[Commercial Residential] Schools:College/University&High School(spaces/#of students n/a(High School) Senior high and equivalent private or parochial school[Places of Public Assembly] College/university and high school and staff) Commercial and Retail(College/University) College;commercial school for adults[Places of Public Assembly] Place of Worship(spaces/seats) n/a(Institutional) Churches,clubs,lodges,meeting rooms,and auditoria[Places of Public Assembly] Place of worship EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 04/PAGE 1 OF 1 From: MANVEL Evan*DLCD To: Olson.Erik Cc: MEYER Cody*DLCD; REID Kelly*DLCD; MARQUARDT Ryan*DLCD Subject: RE: Questions About CFEC Parking Maximums Date: Friday,June 28,2024 9:48:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Erik, Ryan Marquardt and I worked on these answers. Hopefully they're helpful—let us know if you have further questions or follow-ups. Do parking maximums need to be established for hotels per CFEC?Are these considered commercial/retail under the OAR? (b)Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; As the rules do not explicitly define commercial and retail, there may be some deference to local codes if you don't define hotels as commercial or retail. That said, there's an implication that "all commercial and retail uses"would include anything commercial, which would include hotels. It's a bit hard for me to imagine a hotel with a business model that has more parking than the maximum in the rules. (Googling, here's is a chart with averages of about 1.24 spaces per hotel room—and 2.4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet—nowhere near the 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet). We are open to phrasing the ratio as a reasonable transaction of spaces per room. We currently allow the use of a parking study(via a land use application)to determine a different number of required parking spaces than under our"numerical" requirements/ratios. Would it be possible for an applicant to submit a parking study to argue for an increase to the maximum number of spaces allowed on the site instead,and still comply with the OAR? I suppose this is somewhat akin to a variance to increase maximum parking. As the rules do not explicitly provide for local flexibility, we don't think this is allowable under the OAR. What about changes of use that decrease the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site such that they no longer comply with the maximum parking requirements? Is there any guidance from the state (or Metro, if you're aware) as to how these situations would need to be handled?Would parking spaces need to be removed? We think the new use would have to comply with the maximum. I haven't seen any guidance on this from Metro, nor have we developed any. One could imagine dropping in some planters or something to block off parking so it was no longer usable parking, if one changed, for example, from a restaurant to another use— really up to you on how to deal with excess spaces so they aren't EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 05/PAGE 1 OF 3 designated parking spaces, which likely depends on the specifics of the site. We currently base our maximum parking spaces allowed on the minimum parking required— your max is 125%of the minimum requirement. Given that this is quite a complicated process, and since we're removing minimum parking requirements, I'm hoping to outline a simpler methodology to use that is specific to parking maximums. Do you have any guidance on this/can you point me to any jurisdictions that handle this well? In particular, I'm curious about mixed use proposals and how those are handled... especially when there are no maximums for certain proposed uses and defined maximums for other proposed uses. Tigard—"In mixed-use and multi-tenant developments, the maximum allowable vehicle parking is determined individually for each use" (18.410.030.A.1.d). Most places do a simple additive calculation for maximum parking like Tigard's code prescribes; not aware of any governments that reduce the maximum allowed parking based on mixed-use/multi-tenant. It isn't required by 660- 012-0415 or the Metro maximums from the Regional Transportation Functional Plan. Best, Evan CELE5BRATING Evan Manvel Climate Mitigation Planner milini Pronouns: He/Him Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540 DLCD Direct/Cell: 971-375-5979 I Main: 503-373-0050 evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov I www.oregon.gov/LCD From: Olson, Erik<eolson@ci.oswego.or.us> Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2024 1:23 PM To: MANVEL Evan * DLCD<Evan.MANVEL@dlcd.oregon.gov> Cc: MEYER Cody * DLCD <cody.meyer@dlcd.oregon.gov> Subject: Questions About CFEC Parking Maximums Hi Evan, I hope you're doing well... We're getting closer to the hearing and I've been putting (digital) pen to (digital) paper drafting code amendments for phase 2 of CFEC. As I went through this exercise, a number of questions popped up surrounding maximum parking requirements that aren't addressed in the relevant guidance document. I was hoping that you or your colleagues might be able to provide some guidance on the following items: • Do parking maximums need to be established for hotels per CFEC?Are these considered commercial/ retail under the OAR? EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 05/PAGE 2 OF 3 • We currently allow the use of a parking study (via a land use application) to determine a different number of required parking spaces than under our "numerical" requirements/ ratios. Would it be possible for an applicant to submit a parking study to argue for an increase to the maximum number of spaces allowed on the site instead, and still comply with the OAR? I suppose this is somewhat akin to a variance to increase maximum parking. • What about changes of use that decrease the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site such that they no longer comply with the maximum parking requirements? Is there any guidance from the state (or Metro, if you're aware) as to how these situations would need to be handled?Would parking spaces need to be removed? • We currently base our maximum parking spaces allowed on the minimum parking required— your max is 125% of the minimum requirement. Given that this is quite a complicated process, and since we're removing minimum parking requirements, I'm hoping to outline a simpler methodology to use that is specific to parking maximums. Do you have any guidance on this/can you point me to any jurisdictions that handle this well? o In particular, I'm curious about mixed use proposals and how those are handled... especially when there are no maximums for certain proposed uses and defined maximums for other proposed uses. Thanks in advance for any direction you ay be able to offer. All the best, Erik Erik Olson Long Range Planning Manager l Community Development Department City of Lake Oswego PO BOX 3691380 A Avenue Lake Oswego OR 97034 (503)697-6524 Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 05/PAGE 3 OF 3 City of Lake Oswego—CFEC Parking Reform Project Schedule Rulemaking Updates & Extension Council Study Session#1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] Planning Commission Update#1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update#2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session#1 Jul 24 Project Background and Overview Council Study Session#2 Sep 5 of Alternatives [Aug—Sep 2023] - Planning Commission Work Session#2 Sep 25 Work Plan/ Public Involvement Targeted Outreach Oct—Dec 2023 Plan/Scoping [Oct—Dec 2023] Planning Commission Work Session#3 Nov 27 Council Study Session#3 Dec 5 Initial Concepts/ Targeted Outreach Jan—Jul 2024 Recommendations - [Jan—Jul 2024] Open House/Community Meeting Jul 24, 2024 Draft Code Amendments Internal Review/ Drafting Apr-Jul [Apr-Aug 2024] Planning Commission Work Session#6 Jul 22 Final Code Adoption Planning Commission Public Hearing Sep 23 [Sep— Dec 2024] - Planning Commission Findings Oct 14 City Council Public Hearing Nov 5 City Council Findings Nov 19 Effective Date: Dec 19, 2024 Public Engagement Plan Desired Project Outcomes: • Inform the public about the requirements of the Governor's Order and the City's work to comply with CFEC rules; • Involve stakeholders by asking relevant questions and reporting back to the public how their feedback influenced the project; and • Empower participants to help shape City policy on important topics. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 06/PAGE 1 OF 2 Engagement Methods: • Targeted Outreach to Key Stakeholders: Oct 2023—Mar 2024 o Lake Oswego Sustainability Network(LOSN)—Tues, 9/26 o Chamber of Commerce/Lake Grove Business Association—Thurs, 10/12 o Mayor's Roundtable—2/22 o Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force—2/26 o Chamber of Commerce Forum? o Neighborhood Chairs Committee o Transportation Advisory Board—7/18 • Project Website+ Updates:ongoing o The City will host a website that describes the project, includes project updates, and allows the public to access draft documents as they become available.The website will provide a link to a comment form and direct email contact for the project. • Project Email List:ongoing o The City will maintain an email list for all that are interested in learning more about the project. Interested members of the public may sign up to receive project updates via email through a link on the project website. • Open House/Community Meeting:July 24, 2024 o Either an online open house or in-person community meeting will be held to receive input from members of the public regarding the options to comply with CFEC. o The open house is expected to take the form of a presentation that summarizes material and guides participants through a set of questions. • Hello LO articles: ongoing/monthly o The City will include updates and information in its monthly Hello LO publication. • City Council: ongoing o Staff will bring the project forth at meetings of the City Council to receive direction and guidance at key stages. o 2 meetings so far(6/21/22, 9/5/23) o Next study session on 12/5/23 o Public Hearing on 11/5/24 • Planning Commission: ongoing o Staff will bring the project forth at meetings of the Planning Commission to provide information and develop recommendations for Council consideration. o 3 meetings so far(7/24/23, 9/25/23, 11/27/23) o 1 more work session on 7/22/24 o Public Hearing on 10/14/24 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 06/PAGE 2 OF 2 Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0430 ("iiiimrs/willil) NW Parking Reform for Equity Uses OREGON Department of Land Conservation DLCD and LCDC developed the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities &Development program to support communities taking action to meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets while providing more housing and transportation choices and improving equitable outcomes. DLCD is providing this resource as part of our technical assistance program. Please see our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC for more information or to sign up for notices. Application and Deadline for Action (Section 1) Section(1)(a) states the rule applies to all cities in Oregon's eight metropolitan areas. Per Section(1)(a) and OAR 660-012-0400, the rule applies to portions of counties in a metropolitan area within an urban growth boundary, where the population of the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary is 5,000 or more, and the area is served with urban water and sanitary services. The department believes this includes Clackamas, Marion, and Washington counties,but not others. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e) requires cities and counties to implement requirements when reviewing development applications submitted after December 31, 2022. That deadline is not eligible for extension. OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) requires: Cities and counties shall adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting requirements as provided in ... OAR 660-012-0415 through OAR 660-012-0450 no later than June 30, 2023... Jurisdictions may apply for an extension or"alternative date," as explained in other guidance, for the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations. Implementation of the rule to land use applications received after December 31, 2022, as noted above, is mandatory and not eligible for an extension. Section(1)(b) of the rule reminds readers that communities without parking mandates have no requirements under this rule, as it is focused on reducing parking mandates. Section 2— More than one dwelling unit Section(2)prohibits requiring more than one parking space per unit for residential developments with more one dwelling unit on a single legally-established property. The department reads this to include visitor parking. DLCD Guidance v1.2Updated December 13,2023-For the most recent version, visit our + 1T D-4 (Ldai10025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 07/PAGE 1 OF 4 Mixed-use developments are a good target for parking reforms, as they often have staggered use demands (that is, residential parking overnight and parking for business during the day), allowing for efficiency in shared parking arrangements. The department does not consider them explicitly covered by this language. When amending code, communities should be sure to conform with parking mandate limits in OAR 660-046 for traditional"missing middle"housing including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters. In some cases those rules set tighter limits on mandates than those in OAR 660-012; the smaller allowance applies in those situations. Section 3 Section(3)prohibits enforcing parking mandates for certain development types: (a) Facilities and homes designed to serve people with psychosocial,physical, intellectual or developmental disabilities, including but not limited to a: residential care facility, residential training facility, residential treatment facility, residential training home, residential treatment home, and conversion facility as defined in ORS 443.400; These facilities may be defined in local code; if not, development types should be compared to ORS 433.400. (b) Childcare facility as defined in ORS 329A.250; The statutory definitions provide clarity on the types of facilities that qualify as such, based on ownership, function, timing, and purpose. (c) Single-room occupancy housing; Many local codes define single-room occupancy housing. If your code does not have a definition, the following definition from HUD can be used: "A residential property that includes multiple single room dwelling units. Each unit is for occupancy by a single eligible individual. The unit need not,but may, contain food preparation, or sanitary facilities, or both." The City of Portland has a longer definition and standards in its city code section 29.30.290. (d) Residential units smaller than 750 square feet; Local codes define how to measure the total square footage of a residential unit. The department reads this language to include any small residential units, whether in multifamily development, a mixed-use development, a development of two or more units, or a stand-alone unit. (e) Affordable housing as defined in OAR 660-039-0010; OAR 660-039-0010(1)provides a three-part definition of affordable housing. Local DLCD Guidance v1.2Updated December 13,2023-For the most recent version, visit our + 1T D-4 (LlP/ 20025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 07/PAGE 2 OF 4 governments could request deed restrictions, draft CC&Rs, or additional evidence demonstrating the housing will be offered at the rates claimed. Department staff may be available to assist local governments with codes and application, should communities need assistance. (� Publicly supported housing as defined in ORS 456.250; Owners and developers of publicly supported housing typically agree to deed restrictions to maintain affordability and use of public support in the long term. Local codes often do not distinguish residential uses by affordability or level of public support in order to apply development standards. Cities can use mechanisms such as deed restrictions to apply particular development standards to publicly supported housing. (g) Emergency and transitional shelters for people experiencing homelessness; Shelters are usually defined in local code. Contact the department if you need assistance. (h) Domestic violence shelters Shelters are usually defined in local code. Contact the department if you need assistance. What Do Cities and Counties Have to Do? Cities and counties retaining parking mandates must amend their local codes with the new parking standards. If a code hasn't been amended prior to the June 30, 2023 deadline in OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) (or an approved alternative deadline),parking mandates cannot be enforced. Language for Development Code A community may want to put the requirements directly into its code. Code language will vary depending on each community's code language and parking table. Department staff are available to review your community's code and suggest language for consideration, or review your draft language. Clarification: Parking Mandates for ADA, Carpool, Vanpool, Trucks Allowed The rules allow communities to have parking mandates for ADA parking, carpool, vanpool and truck parking. This is a result of the definitions in 660-012-0005(27) and(29). Best Practice: Parking to Serve People with Disabilities In thinking about parking, DLCD has published a separate guidance document about ensuring people with disabilities have access to parking. DLCD Guidance v1.2Updated December 13,2023-For the most recent version, visit our + 1T D-4 (Ld"z20025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 07/PAGE 3 OF 4 Resources and Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dled.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the depatttitent intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. Rules Language: OAR 660-012-0430 (1) This rule applies to cities and counties that: (a) Are within a metropolitan area; and (b) Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. (2) Cities and counties may not require more than one parking space per unit in residential developments with more than one dwelling unit on a single legally-established property. (3) Cities and counties may not enforce parking mandates for the following development or use types: (a) Facilities and homes designed to serve people with psychosocial,physical, intellectual or developmental disabilities,including but not limited to a: residential care facility, residential training facility,residential treatment facility,residential training home, residential treatment home, and conversion facility as defined in ORS 443.400; (b) Childcare facility as defined in ORS 329A.250; (c) Single-room occupancy housing; (d) Residential units smaller than 750 square feet; (e) Affordable housing as defined in OAR 660-039-0010; (f) Publicly supported housing as defined in ORS 456.250; (g) Emergency and transitional shelters for people experiencing homelessness; and (h) Domestic violence shelters. History: LCDD 9-2023, amend filed 11/07/2023,effective 11/07/2023 LCDD 3-2022, adopt filed 08/17/2022,effective 08/17/2022 LCDD 2-2022,temporary adopt filed 06/01/2022, effective 06/01/2022 through 11/27/2022 DLCD Guidance v1.2Updated December 13,2023-For the most recent version, visit oureglifita D-4 (L6110025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 07/PAGE 4 OF 4 Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0440 (11110) NW Parking Reform Near Transit OREGON Department of Land Conservation DLCD and LCDC developed the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities &Development program to support communities taking action to meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets while providing more housing and transportation choices and improving equitable outcomes. DLCD is providing this resource as part of our technical assistance program. Please see our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC for more information or to sign up for notices. Application and Deadline for Action (Section 1) Section(1)(a) states the rule applies to all cities in Oregon's eight metropolitan areas. Per section(1)(a) and OAR 660-012-0400, the rule applies to portions of counties in a metropolitan area within an urban growth boundary, where the population of the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary is 5,000 or more, and the area is served with urban water and sanitary services. The department believes this currently includes only Clackamas, Marion, and Washington counties. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e) requires cities and counties to implement requirements when reviewing development applications submitted after December 31, 2022. That deadline is not eligible for extension. OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) requires: Cities and counties shall adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting requirements as provided in ... OAR 660-012-0415 through OAR 660-012-0450 no later than June 30, 2023... Jurisdictions may apply for an extension or"alternative date," as explained in other guidance, for the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations. Implementation of the rule to land use applications received after December 31, 2022, as noted above, is mandatory and not eligible for an extension. Section(1)(b) of the rule is a reminder that communities without parking mandates have no requirements under this rule, as it is about reducing parking mandates. Section 2 Section(2)prohibits enforcing parking mandates for developments with lands within 3/4 mile of a rail transit stop. The department considers "rail transit stop," as used in this context, to apply to rail service designed to meet everyday transit needs. This includes MAX light rail, streetcar, and WES services,but not Amtrak passenger rail, historic, tourist, or seasonal rail operations. DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LUP4=0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 1 OF 6 Section 3 Section(3)prohibits enforcing parking mandates for developments with lands within %2 mile of designated or functional frequent transit corridors. Frequent service is relative to local conditions. The rule lists three types of corridors: (a) Priority transit corridors designated under OAR 660-012-0710; As rule 0710 is a new rule as of 2022, this subsection has no effect until cities have designated"priority transit corridors"under the OAR 660-012-0710(1)(a), through a major or minor Transportation System Plan update. This provision does not directly apply to existing transit corridors local governments or transit providers have previously identified(such as TriMet's Frequent Service map). It will apply when the local transportation system plan is updated to designate the identified corridors as priority transit corridors for the purposes of OAR 660-012-0710. However, communities may choose to do parking reform in these corridors, and these areas are likely covered under subsection(b). (b) Corridors with transit service arriving with a scheduled frequency of at least four times an hour during peak service; The depaitiuent considers "transit service" in this context to be service from a bus or other rubber-tired automotive vehicle used primarily for the purpose of providing mass transportation service. "Arriving with a scheduled frequency" indicates a regular schedule. The depatttntent recommends local governments apply this provision based on regular published schedules that include at least one hour during the day where four buses along the corridor are scheduled to arrive. Transit service schedules sometimes change. The department recommends local governments coordinate with their local transit providers to determine which routes are most likely to have or maintain frequent service into the future to avoid future changes in which areas are affected by this rule. This can be helpful to transit providers and local builders of housing, who sometimes make plans years into the future. Section(5) of this rule provides some flexibility regarding this topic. The language states the corridor has bus service, so a place where two bus routes in different corridors intersect, resulting in a single intersection or bus stop with a qualifying number of arrivals, would not be included. Corridors where routes run together for a length of time where the services together combine into frequent service should be included. Transit routes that have a qualifying service frequency on a portion of the route, where some runs are scheduled to terminate prior to the end of the route should be included for the portion of the route with a qualifying level of service. Department staff are available and willing to review transit line schedules and assist in identifying applicable corridors. Depending on resources, department staff may be able to help map the corridor, in coordination with local transit providers. The measurement is to the corridor rather than the stop, in contrast with section(2). DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (L ' e4Z0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 2 OF 6 (c)If a community has no corridor qualifying under subsection (b), corridors with the most frequent transit service in the community if the scheduled frequency is at least once per hour during peak service. This provision only applies if a community has no corridors qualifying under subsection(b), as those corridors would be the most frequent. This provision applies to the most frequent transit route(s) in a community if there are least two transit vehicles scheduled to arrive on the same transit route no more than 60 minutes apart. Again, the measurement is to the corridor rather than the stop. Section 4 Section(4)permits local governments to either use a straight-line or walking distance for distances required in this rule. The department recommends local governments determine one method and use it consistently. Section 5 Section(5) outlines options for how cities and counties identify and update properties where parking mandates cannot be enforced. Transit service is subject to change over time and that can pose challenges for land use regulations based on service areas and levels. Use Current Transit Schedules The option in(5)(a) allows a jurisdiction to use the transit provider's scheduled service frequencies on the date a land use application is submitted to determine corridors described in (3)(b) or(c). This allows developments to be eligible for parking mandate exemptions based on the actual currently available transit service schedules. Jurisdictions do not have to update maps each time service schedules change. It may, however, make application reviews and development assistance more complicated. It also introduces some long-term uncertainty based on changes to priority transit corridor designations. Transit service schedules under this option are intended to be the transit provider's published regular service schedule. Route or service changes resulting from inclement weather, construction, or other similar temporary service changes should not factor into determining frequent transit corridors. The statutes referenced in this subsection are the 'goal post' rules specifying that an application must be reviewed against the regulations in place at the time of application submittal. The 'goal post' rule applies as long as the application is complete for review within 180 days from submittal. Mapped Frequent Service Transit Corridors The option in(5)(b) allows a jurisdiction to adopt a map to delineate the corridors described in (3)(b) or(c). A map provides more certainty for applicants as they prepare a development application about whether they are along a corridor exempt from parking mandates. Planners can DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LUP430025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 3 OF 6 more easily identify areas exempt from parking mandates, making it easier to assist customers and review applications. Jurisdictions and applicants can rely on an adopted map, regardless of changes to transit service, for up to one year. To continue use of the map, a jurisdiction must update it to include additional lands (if any) that became subject subsection(3)(b) or(c)based on service frequency changes, and adopt such updates within one year from the map's last adoption date. If this does not occur, application of this rule defaults to review based on current transit schedules per(5)(a). Maps older than one year from adoption can continue to be used if there have not been service frequency changes resulting in additional lands subject to (3)(b) or(c). However, the jurisdiction would automatically have to use the review in (5)(a) if additional land becomes exempt from parking mandates due to service frequency change and the map is more than one year from its date of adoption. For this reason, it would be advisable for cities and counties that adopt a map to review service schedule changes and adopt an update on a regular basis. Overall, this rule recognizes development review can be more efficient and certain when standards based on a property's location are mapped. It allows applicants,planners, and the public to clearly identify if a particular property does or does not qualify for exemption from parking mandates. A disadvantage of an adopted map is applicants may have to wait for service schedule changes to be mapped to qualify for exemption from parking mandates. This rule balances the benefits of an adopted map with the importance of ensuring that sites that are well- served by transit can be exempt from parking mandates without unnecessary delay. What Do Cities and Counties Have to Do? Cities must amend their local codes with the new parking standards. If a code hasn't been amended prior to the June 30, 2023 deadline in OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) (or an approved alternative deadline), parking mandates cannot be enforced. Cities and counties should decide and be clear on whether they will use straight-line or walking distance to measure distances during development review, and the points they will use to measure the corridor(from road edge, or other). These are discretionary decisions,but should be consistent. Model Language for Development Code A community may want to put these parking requirements directly into its code. Code language will vary in each community's parking code language and parking table. Department staff are available to review your community's code and suggest language for consideration. Clarification: Parking Mandates for ADA, Carpool, Vanpool, Trucks Allowed The rules allow communities to have parking mandates for ADA parking, carpool, vanpool and truck parking. This is a result of the definitions in 660-012-0005(27) and(29). DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LUe440025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 4 OF 6 Best Practice: Parking to Serve People with Disabilities In thinking about parking, DLCD has published a separate guidance document about ensuring people with disabilities have access to parking. Resources and Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules,and how the department intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules.A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (L ' 450025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 5 OF 6 Rule Language: OAR 660-012-0440 (1) This rule applies to cities and counties that: (a) Are within a metropolitan area; and (b) Have not adopted land use regulations without parking mandates as provided in OAR 660-012-0420. (2) Cities and counties may not enforce parking mandates for developments on a lot or parcel that includes lands within three-quarters mile of rail transit stops. (3) Cities and counties may not enforce parking mandates for developments on a lot or parcel that includes lands within one-half mile of frequent transit corridors, including: (a) Priority transit corridors designated under OAR 660-012-0710; (b) Corridors with transit service arriving with a scheduled frequency of at least four times an hour during peak service; and (c) If a community has no corridor qualifying under subsection(b), corridors with the most frequent transit service in the community if the scheduled frequency is at least once per hour during peak service. (4) Cities and counties may use either walking distance or straight-line distance in measuring distances in this rule. (5) In determining the extent of lands subject to subsection (3)(b) or(c), a city or county shall either: (a) Evaluate current service frequencies on the date a land use application is submitted,provided the application remains valid for review pursuant to ORS 215.427 or ORS 227.178, or (b) Adopt a map designating these lands based on service frequency on the date development codes implementing this rule are adopted. The city or county must update the map at least once per year from the date of adoption if services frequencies change and additional lands become subject to subsection(3)(b) or (c). The city or county must use subsection(5)(a) if additional lands are subject to subsections (3)(b) or(c) and the adopted map is more than one year old. History: LCDD 9-2023, amend filed 11/07/2023,effective 11/07/2023 LCDD 3-2022, adopt filed 08/17/2022,effective 08/17/2022 LCDD 2-2022,temporary adopt filed 06/01/2022,effective 06/01/2022 through 11/27/2022 DLCD Guidance v 2.0 December 13, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LUP4f0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 08/PAGE 6 OF 6 E 0 //)1\\ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ` �j MINUTES December 5, 2023 OREGU\--\ 1. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2023. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in- person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Mboup, Verdick, Rapf, Afghan, Corrigan, Wend land Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Ivan Anderholm, Parks & Recreation Director; Shawn Cross, Finance Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(d) Conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations and (f) consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, read the legal parameters for the Executive Session. Council met in Executive Session from 5:34 p.m. to 6:13 p.m. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Patrick Dohm stated his wife leased a commercial space in the Old Chamber of Commerce Building, between A and B Avenue and 2nd and 3rd Street. The business, Ingrid Dohm Art, was difficult to find without signage but a sign placed on the walkway was removed by the owner of the property to the south, who objected to the placement of the sign and asserted the walkway was his. The couple then placed a small sign above the door and ordered a sandwich board City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 1 OF 8 type of sign, but a Code enforcement officer visited the business and told her to remove the sign. Mr. Dohm felt his wife's business was being targeted because there were many other examples of sandwich board signs in Lake Oswego. He shared pictures of nearby sandwich board signs, including signs for Elite Realty, Fresh Acai Bowls and Smoothies. Mayor Buck sought to clarify whether Mr. Dohm was arguing against the rule itself or felt the the rule was being unevenly enforced. City Manager Martha Bennett directed Mr. Dohm to speak with Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1 Naming the Lake Oswego Recreation & Aquatic Center and Renovated Clubhouse and Golf Course. Mayor Buck pulled Item 6.1 from the Consent Agenda, noting some offline conversations may have indicated the City Council did not have much interest in renaming the golf course, but was happy with the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC). He suggested it could save the Parks and Recreation Department time in finding another name if Council agreed with LORAC this evening; however, Council was interested in hearing from Staff about the matter, including the potential naming of the clubhouse. Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director, noted Council recently passed Resolution 22-43, which outlined a new policy and process for naming City areas and facilities. Tonight, Council was being asked to initiate the naming process by referring the item to the Parks and Recreation/Natural Resources Advisory Board for Staff to discuss possible names and then return to Council with the Board's recommendation. Council could offer preferred names for Staff to present to the Board. When the naming came back before Council, Council could then approve the recommendation, select a different name, or return the issue to the Board and community for additional suggestions. While facilities were to be named within 6 months of opening or reopening, both facilities needed names well ahead of that time for signage and marketing materials. He confirmed Council could make a decision on the names this evening. Mayor Buck confirmed that Council unanimously agreed the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center(LORAC);and Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course did not need to be renamed, and that a majority of the Council was in favor of renaming the clubhouse. Director Anderholm stated he would present Council's decision at the PARKS Board's next meeting and discuss options for renaming the old clubhouse. He clarified Staff did not want the name "Clubhouse" because golf operations would no longer be housed there, but in the LORAC, and they wished to avoid some confusion. Mayor Buck added the clubhouse also had new uses, such as renting out the space, and he could see the reasoning behind renaming that facility for marketing purposes. Mayor Buck moved to initiate the process to name the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center, Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course, and for the clubhouse, a name to be determined based on the advice of the PARKS board. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 2 OF 8 A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Afghan, Corrigan and Wendland voting `aye', (7-0). Director Anderholm confirmed he would return with the three names when Council would weigh in on the new clubhouse name and then officially name the three facilities. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Resolution 23-35, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Revising Fees and Charges and Updating the Lake Oswego Master Fees and Charges Schedule. Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, reviewed the hearing procedures and asked if any Councilor had a financial conflict of interest. None were heard. Shawn Cross, Finance Director, presented the Council Report, noting that not much had changed since the Council's related study session earlier in November. Regarding a prior question about the $1 stall fee, he explained the fee applied to City-owned parking lots, such as near the Gemini Bar and Grill. If the Gemini wanted to rent the parking lot for a special event, for example, the fee would be $1 per hour per stall. In addition, the updated franchise agreement with Republic Services was now included and on Page 30 of the Master Fees and Charges Schedule, the fees charged to the Lake Oswego School District (LOSD) for the parks athletic field were changed from Category 3 to Category 2 to reflect how the City's charges were described in the District's manual. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no testimony, and closed public hearing. Councilor Mboup moved to adopt Resolution 23-35. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Rapf, Afghan, Corrigan and Wendland. voting `aye', (7-0). 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Ordinance 2928, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC 50.03.002, 50.03.003, 50.03.004, and 50.10.003 of Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) Establishing Psilocybin Time, Place and Manner Land Use Regulations; and Adopting Findings (LU 23-0001). Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director, presented the Council Report via PowerPoint, briefly reviewing the background leading to tonight's ordinance, which reflected previous Council direction to remove the buffer requirement between psilocybin facilities and the buffer requirement from tenant spaces occupied by businesses with an OLCC liquor license as well as to eliminate the ban on psilocybin facilities being in the same building as healthcare facilities. In addition, Staff was directed to not bring forward Ordinance 2933, the non-land use ordinance regulations for adoption or an ordinance that would repeal the temporary ban on psilocybin facilities. The revised Ordinance 2928 was included in the packet as Exhibit A1-2, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 3 OF 8 along with the attached Draft Code amendments and the red line edits to show the provisions Staff had removed at the Council's direction. Director Numanoglu clarified for Councilor Wendland that if adopted, the Ordinance would allow psilocybin manufacturing in the Foothills Industrial Zone and the Industrial Park Zone, which is the southwest employment area. However, the buffers would still apply, so manufacturing facilities would have to be at least 1,000 feet away from any school or registered childcare facility. Councilor Wendland asked if the State required the City to allow manufacturing or could the administering and manufacturing of psilocybin be separate? Director Numanoglu replied if administering and manufacturing were separated, the question of whether to repeal the ban on manufacturing would still have to be referred to voters. The Council could allow client administrative service centers and keep the ban on manufacturing, which would then go to voters in November. She confirmed if Council passed the ordinance tonight and if the voters repealed the ban on psilocybin in November, then manufacturing in Lake Oswego would be locked in. City Manager Bennett added the advantage of enacting the ordinance for industrial areas was that the State required a buffer around schools, but the Planning Commission ordinance also included childcare centers. The subject ordinance would be more restrictive than the State level if the voters elected to lift the ban. Councilor Wendland believed there was a difference between creating the drug versus administering the drug. Council needed to be aware the ordinance would allow the manufacture of psilocybin in Lake Oswego if voters overturned the ban. The explanatory language needed to be clear and concise because it was sort of a double negative, and the City should avoid the confusion associated with Measure 110 or the City's parks issues. He wanted to be sure voters knew exactly what they were voting for. Ms: City Manager Bennett noted many other jurisdictions had already sent bans to the ballot, and Staff could look at how those jurisdictions referred them. While she did not know whether the original measure had a requirement regarding what the referral had to say, Staff would be back before Council in the summer to have Council make the referral, so they would have a chance to review the ballot title language and all the other associated submittals. Director Numanoglu understood that when drafting the explanatory statement, Councilor Wendland wanted Staff to be very clear on what the voters were deciding, including the issue of manufacturing versus service. Council Wendland reiterated the language should be clear regarding the delineation between manufacturing and administration, which had been a discussion point throughout the process. The Council should consider whether administration and manufacturing were desired. He clarified his question was whether Council felt comfortable moving forward with having manufacturing of psilocybin in Lake Oswego. Mayor Buck replied if the voters overturned the ban, Council did not have a choice. Councilor Rapf understood Councilor Wendland wanted to bifurcate manufacturing and administration, but there did not seem to be an option to eliminate manufacturing from the ballot. Director Numanoglu confirmed the matter could not be bifurcated. She understood Council wanted voters to be clear that their decision was not simply whether to allow service centers, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 4 OF 8 but they must grapple with the fact that if they allowed service centers, they would also be allowing manufacturing. Councilor Rapf asked if the City could put the time, place, manner restrictions on the administration of psilocybin to the voters and leave the City's existing time, place, and manner regulations on manufacturing in place. Director Numanoglu believed it would be difficult to bifurcate the issue in that way, but she would research whether it was possible. Councilor Wendland suggested voters may want administration of the drug, but not drug labs. Councilor Rapf noted that allowing manufacturing could also prevent those who wanted administration from getting what they wanted. Director Numanoglu responded that while manufacturing and administration may not be able to be bifurcated on the ballot and voters said that even considering manufacturing, they wished to have administration, the Council would still have the opportunity to decide what time, place, and manner restrictions it wanted to place on the manufacturing side. If the voters approved the manufacture and consumption of psilocybin in Lake Oswego, the Council could still initiate a process to impose regulations on manufacturing, particularly because the findings indicated the Council believed some impacts were too speculative for the City to feel comfortable regulating at this point, and they would like to see how the issued played out. If the manufacturing issues identified by Council were also issues the voters had, Council would still have the opportunity to address those impacts. She understood the voters needed to be very clear about what they were choosing to vote on and to the extent that maybe, some voters would like information about Council's ability to impose regulations, which Staff could consider when drafting the explanatory statement. Mayor Buck said that was a good question, noting by summer, Staff would be able research whether the ballot could be split into two questions. Councilor Mboup sought confirmation that if Council prohibited manufacturing or the administration of psilocybin in Lake Oswego, but voters agreed with Council, there would be no way to manufacture or administer psilocybin in Lake Oswego. But if the voters said, "yes" to time, manner, and place restrictions, it would allow both manufacturing and administration of psilocybin. Director Numanoglu replied that was correct, manufacturing would be allowed and limited to the industrial park and industrial zones. Councilor Afghan suggested when the issue returned to Council in July, Council should discuss what manufacturing meant. If it was pharmaceutical or chemical manufacturing company, that was a different conversation than an agricultural, farming, growing process. Councilor Rapf moved to enact Ordinance 2928 and adopt findings. Councilor Afghan seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup, Verdick, Rapf, Afghan, Corrigan, and Wendland voting `aye', (7-0). 9. STUDY SESSION 9.1 Citywide Parking Reform (PP 22-0001). Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the Council Report via PowerPoint, noting parking reforms were required for continuity with Climate Friendly and Equitable Community (CFEC) and that the City already complied with Phase A of the CFEC rules. He City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 5 OF 8 reviewed the background and purpose of the CFEC, as well as recent updates to CFEC rules, including less stringent bicycle parking requirements; highlighted new information on how parking requirements had impacted businesses in Lake Oswego and other Oregon cities; and presented the details, pros, and cons of the proposed parking reform options for Phase B of the CFEC parking requirements. He also highlighted the public engagement plan and revised schedule for Council adoption in November 2024. Mayor Buck noted that regardless of the option Council chose, commercial parking mandates would be repealed in Lake Grove and the city's downtown, the two main town centers. Mr. Olson added there was a half space per residential maximum requirement in Lake Grove under Option 2B. Mayor Buck suggested Councilors consider what benefit would be gained if Council implemented expensive, complicated, difficult-to-understand, regulatory schemes in scant areas of the city as opposed to a citywide universal parking mandate repeal. Councilors unanimously favored Option 1, which would repeal all parking mandates citywide, but expressed concern about parking overflow into adjacent neighborhoods which would happen regardless of the option chosen. Councilors agreed the City needed to be ready to stay in good communication with and assist neighborhoods that would be impacted as well as supporting local businesses. To avoid losing businesses in Lake Grove, the City should consider urban renewal, which had a couple remaining projects in the area, one of which was parking. City Manager Martha Bennett explained the proposed set of regulations shifted the burden in commercial areas from the private sector providing parking to the public sector providing parking in the long run. While there would be immediate pressure for Lake Grove's business community, the impact would not be limited to that area. Parking was necessary to support the continued redevelopment of downtown. The public sector would face mounting pressure to provide parking unless the lending community requires it. Consolidated, well-placed parking was a healthier, long-term solution compared to dispersed parking, which burdened individual businesses. The City would need to make strategic investments in parking over the next 10 to 20 years. Mayor Buck noted this parking reform was not a repeal of parking, but a smarter, more responsive way to manage parking, and businesses would adapt to meet their specific parking needs. The proposed strategy was also part of the City's broader policy for climate friendly and equitable communities, and aligned with City initiatives like safe pathways, bikeways, and connecting neighborhoods to schools and the business community, and continued investment in active transportation and things to create a healthier community. Councilor Afghan asked which neighborhoods would experience parking spillover under Option 1. Mr. Olson replied no specific neighborhood could be identified. There could be potential for spillover downtown and Lake Grove under all the options. Staff believed the commercial areas outside of downtown and Lake Grove would have different regulations as a result of Option 1, but it was hard to predict. Councilor Afghan suggested that since the majority of areas already experienced parking challenges, and it did not seem any other neighborhoods would experience spillage, perhaps spillage should not be listed as a con for Option 1. Mr. Olson agreed, adding spillage was speculative and a concern Staff had heard. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 6 OF 8 Mayor Buck added that even though parking management was not on the list for Option 1, it did not mean the City would not look at parking management in the future if parking became a greater issue. Councilor Wendland expressed concern about Staff's workload, time, and well-being balancing parking public outreach and engagement with other priorities, such as the Housing Production Strategy (HPS), when parking reform seemed to have a logical conclusion. He preferred that Staff focus on housing or other policy items, including ministerial mitigations. Director Bennett noted if outreach was focused on a discussion around Option 1, as opposed to weighing all three options, it could be more of an educational campaign on how the City was working to repeal parking mandates to comply with State law and sought to discuss the potential impacts on neighborhoods, which could be done faster and with less resources. The City needed to have more of a dialogue, particularly with neighborhood associations, to understand the associations' concerns and how the City could mitigate them, as well as their perspectives on when the City should consider parking management, such as at what points quality of life would be affected. Director Numanoglu agreed focusing on Option 1 would compress the timeline, streamline the public engagement process and reduce Staff's time and workload. Mayor Buck confirmed the Council agreed community outreach would focus on socializing the idea of Option 1 and soliciting feedback and concerns from the community, rather than vetting the differences between the options. Staff confirmed the matter did not need to return before Council before a hearing unless significant policy questions arose during the public engagement process. Originally, Staff intended to do parking reform along with the HPS work, however knowing Council's direction on parking reform would benefit the HPS work. Mayor Buck added the Planning Commission did not need to labor over the issue extensively since there was clear consensus on the direction Council wished to go. He advised Staff to concentrate on things that would make a huge difference long-term for Lake Oswego's citizens. Parking reform 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Mayor Buck shared results from the Sustainability Advisory Board's (SAB) EV charging survey, which found that home charging was the most popular option, though charging in multifamily was more challenging. The biggest need was to have more fast charging in town, which Amanda Watson, Sustainability Program Manager, was working on with SAB, which had put signs around town identifying the location of EV charges. The Board was also working on a greenhouse gas emissions inventory update, though weighing the cost and benefit of that work was a challenge. Councilor Verdick commended the Parks and Recreation Department for the recent holiday tree lighting event, which was fantastic. She recognized the event was a challenge to coordinate, but she had received feedback that this year's lighting was the best one yet. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 7 OF 8 City Manager Bennett requested Council's approval of a letter written in response to the River Grove Water District Board who had asked the City to build a sidewalk on Childs Road, which was a good idea, however, it was difficult for the City to juggle its funded priorities, let alone add an unfunded priority. Building the sidewalk would result in the City breaking commitments made to other projects. She confirmed Council was in agreement to have the Mayor sign the letter. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder, City Recorder Appro ed by the City Council on January 16, 2024. Joseph . Buck, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 December 5, 2023 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 09/PAGE 8 OF 8 (4 Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0405 Parking Regulation Improvements OREGON Department of Updated to reflect temporary rules adopted April 20, 2023, effective Land Conservation &Development May 12, 2023 for up to 180 days. Staff expect those rules generally to be made long-term rules at the November 2023 commission meeting. Application and Deadline for Action Cities and counties in Oregon's metro areas are required to adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations to meet the requirements in OAR 660-012-0405 no later than June 30, 2023. (OAR 660-012-0012) Cities and counties may request an alternative deadline under OAR 660-012-0012(4), and cities under 10,000 population may request whole or partial exemptions under OAR 660-012-0100(4). Discussion OAR 660-012-0405(1): Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: (a) Designated employee parking areas in new developments shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; (b) Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters,park and ride stations, and similar facilities; and (c) In applying subsections (a) and(b), land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing mandated minimum parking supply, access for emergency vehicles must be retained, and adequate parking for truck loading should be considered. This rule carries over and slightly expands requirements from the previous Transportation Planning Rules. Cities and counties likely have provisions conforming with(a) and the transit provisions of(b), which can be updated to include the bicycle portions of(b). Subsection (c) clarifies some standards and limits to (a) and(b). OAR 660-012-0405(2): Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. This rule is intended to minimize the opportunity cost of parking by encouraging other beneficial uses to take its place, especially in situations where parking is underused. The primary intent is for conversion of on-street parking. Envisioned uses for conversion include parklets (installations providing protected space for gathering),bicycle parking, and vegetation/soft-scape areas. Application of this rule to off-street parking areas is also encouraged, for items such as food carts or parklets. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 1 OF 13 There is not a specific definition of`underused' in this rule. Underuse can be evaluated on a block or district basis. This can allow for conversion of frequently occupied spaces abutting storefronts if there are other underutilized spaces in the vicinity. Underuse of off-street parking areas is more likely to be determined by a property or business owner who observes actual parking demand and use of spaces. One study of repurposed parking found restaurant and bar revenue grew 19%when they were allowed to redevelop parking. Policies: Jurisdictions should adopt policies pursuant to this rule into their Transportation System Plan. Many jurisdictions include a parking chapter or element, and DLCD suggests this would be the most appropriate location for such policies. Policies should be enacted allowing conversion of parking spaces in the right-of-way. There should be a clear, consistent, and easy application process for parking conversion requests. Jurisdictions are encouraged to proactively identify underused on-street parking that can be converted to active uses. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit jurisdiction's ability to limit the number of converted spaces in an area or district, retain an appropriate supply of ADA spaces, or to decline requests that may pose a safety hazard. Land Use Regulations: DLCD does not expect the use and conversion of on-street parking spaces to be governed by land use regulations,per ORS 197.015(10)(b)(D). Jurisdictions are encouraged, but not required, to address conversion of off-street parking spaces in their development code. See the Additional Recommendations section for suggestions regarding land use regulations to encourage conversion of underutilized off- street parking spaces. OAR 660-012-0405(3): Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. Shared parking is a frequently used smart development strategy that minimizes the amount of land devoted to automobile parking and the costs to businesses and local builders. This rule ensures this practice is allowed within metropolitan areas. Many development codes may already allow the use of shared parking to satisfy parking mandates, and few, if any, amendments will be necessary. Policies: Jurisdictions should adopt policies pursuant to this rule into their Transportation System Plan. Many jurisdictions include a parking chapter or element, and DLCD suggests this would be the most appropriate location for such policies. It may be appropriate to restate adopted policies in a purpose statement that precedes implementing regulations. Land Use Regulations: Jurisdictions should amend the development regulations to allow shared parking to satisfy applicable parking mandates. Land use regulations will be compliant with the `facilitate' provision of this rule if the shared parking process does not involve applicability limitations, approval criteria, or an application process that of discourages shared parking through unreasonable cost or delay. See the Additional EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 2 OF 13 Recommendation section below for rules that jurisdictions may chose to implement to broaden opportunities for shared parking. The department expects to consider jurisdictions opting to repeal parking mandates pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420 in compliance with this section. That action removes the burden on builders and businesses to meet parking mandates. However,jurisdictions interested in most efficient use of land may consider actions to assist with shared parking, such as providing data to landowners and businesses about underused parking spaces through utilization studies. OAR 660-012-0405(4): Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below. Jurisdictions must establish standards that are applicable to a lot or parcel that has more than acre of surface parking (21,780 square feet). This is approximately 70 or more parking spaces for typical parking lot design. This rule is intended to be a cumulative calculation for all new surface parking on a lot(e.g. rule applies if site has two 1/4 acre parking areas serving the development). These standards should also apply to any new parking area more than 1/2 acre in total even if it spans multiple properties with less than 1/2 acre on any individual lot or parcel. This situation may arise in developments such as a shopping center with parking areas shared between buildings on individual parcels. Temporary rules in April 2023 clarify the regulations in this rule are applicable to new parking. Jurisdictions may use existing definitions or thresholds in their code for what constitutes new development. Parking installed over an area previously used for parking should be considered 'new' if the older asphalt or pavement has been excavated. Parking areas are not considered 'new' if the existing asphalt or pavement is left in place (surface repairs and resurfacing/overlays allowed). Calculating the %2 acre threshold should be based on the area measured around the perimeter of all new parking spaces, maneuvering areas, and interior landscaping. The department recommends reviewing OAR 660-012-0330(4) when revising development code requirements for parking lots. That rule establishes requirements for vehicle parking lot placement and design in commercial and mixed-use districts, including climate-friendly areas. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a): "Developments must provide one of the following:" DLCD considers the rules in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)to allow local governments to craft code to ensure compliance with at least one of the options in (A) through (C) of the rule. While all three options are supported by the department, local jurisdictions have the option of providing just one or two of the options if they so wish. The depaitiuent recommends local governments give public buildings the compliance option of meeting OAR 330-135-0010. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 3 OF 13 OAR 660-012-0440(4)(a)(A): "Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property. In lieu of installing solar panels on site, cities may allow developers to pay$1,500 per new parking space in the development into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose" This option has two parts. The first provision allows installation of solar panels on a property(on a building, over a parking lot, or on vacant land. The second provision allows a fee-in-lieu payment into a fund. Some Oregon cities (Vernonia, Klamath Falls, Roseburg, Albany) have had fee-in-lieu funds set up as an option to providing off-street parking; cities can set up a similar, separate fee-in-lieu system to be used for equitable solar or wind energy development projects. The Oregon Department of Energy has had such dedicated funds in the past, and DLCD is working with ODOE on the ability to accept payments. If your jurisdiction is interested in the fee-in-lieu option through ODOE, please let DLCD staff know. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)(B): "Actions to comply with OAR 330-135-0010" This option was written only to apply to public buildings already meeting green energy requirements in state law and rule. Those spending the 1.5% on green energy need not take additional steps under this subsection. The department strongly recommends this provision be codified and available as a compliance option for public buildings. The required expenditure on green energy furthers the objective to mitigate the climate impacts of large parking lots. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a)(C): "Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting. " The department recommends determining parking lot area by measuring all surface area on which a vehicle is designed to maneuver/on which a vehicle can drive, including all parking stalls, all drives and drive-through lanes within the property regardless of length, and all maneuvering areas regardless of depth. Jurisdictions can set reasonable exemptions for paved areas not for use by passenger vehicles (such as loading areas or outdoor storage of goods or materials). This calculation method differs from the calculation for the 1/4 acre threshold. Excluding some areas for this portion of the rule is recommended to make the 40% standard practicable to achieve. To determine canopy coverage,jurisdictions must calculate the expected diameter of the tree canopy 15 years after planting. The 15-year time period applies regardless of whether the tree will be mature at that time. Jurisdictions may want to adopt an approved list of parking lot trees. Existing street tree lists may be a good starting point for creating such a list. It may be best to consult a list of expected canopy diameter at 20-years, as trees are usually at least 5 years old at planting, and not just canopy diameter at maturity. Existing mature trees that are preserved can be counted at their existing diameter. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 4 OF 13 Tree cover should be measured from a plan view of the tree planting plan and expected canopy diameter at 15 years after planting. The rule does not require and is not intended to be based on calculation of tree shade (i.e., taking into account the amount of shade cast on a given date and time of day by the 3-dimensional canopy). Area under the canopy that is either paved surface or parking landscaping (interior or perimeter) should be counted toward meeting the coverage standard. Note that counting tree canopy over landscaped area will give credit for tree canopy coverage to areas that are not counted as parking lot area. A significant percentage of a tree's canopy will necessarily cover landscaped area. This methodology makes the 40% standard more broadly achievable. Canopy that covers structures should not be counted toward meeting the coverage standard. It is acceptable to count tree canopy that covers unenclosed carports over parking spaces, such as those found in multi-dwelling developments. Jurisdictions should not double-count coverage area if there is significant overlap in canopies. The department recommends the full area based on the 20-year crown diameter be counted for tree coverage where there is an overlap of 5 feet or less (measurement to be the length of a line segment within the overlap area of a line between tree trunk/canopy centers). 1 ( - SHADE TREE CALCULATIONS ti.• , �'. �- et+ PROPERTY SIZE:98,952 U1111111nrigil ' ' --b. Siait:�.i.O.O' �����p: SURFACE PARKING AREA:38,907 SF )• ' �216 I SHADE 27A47 SF 73% 11211 7" HARDSCAPE AREA 2,230 SF hPIP 11101 SHADE877SF30%LANDSCAPE AREA 43,987 SF� ,,gy�pp.. .q R./a, 1 CI I ������ SHADE 22.878 SF 52% BUILDING [ .. It": „ I SHADE mom 7R00(...«.oww xwE rxaEc, pry P .��.`Vim` Q �rc. ,M n .+Mr iii la, AST• „ 0� Lie:"Akititvn-giiik:c4axa, xin. lin elltrer •:•:,):4 ® ----- it „I I I... ‘I I I I IrS, g 147., a %77, 0 , 0 ?,,=u ,-,- 36 FT • N 1'•�' Al S � , / , soirfik -L'"'EEL.TEE L'OMEME'EE' xi,a I I !`-fl ® „ SPODE TREE GU DEL i , ti0 NIIINIIIIIIIIIIIEUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIII �Er:e< �S IN& Example site plan providing parking lot shading in excess of 40%(source: City of Pleasanton, CA) OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b): "Developments must provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas. Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy, except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles, and other site design configurations; and" EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 5 OF 13 This rule was amended in the temporary rule amendments adopted in April 2023. Compliance with this rule now has two options. As with other requirements within OAR 660-012-0405(4), this rule applies only to new parking areas. DLCD considers the rules in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b)to allow local governments to craft code to ensure compliance with at least one of the options in the rule. While codification of both options are supported by the department, local jurisdictions have the option of providing one or the other if they choose. For the first compliance option, street trees are required along driveways serving new parking areas. "Driveway"and"drive aisles" are not specifically defined in the rules. The intent of these rules is to require tree canopy along major travel routes through a site. The typical characteristics of a driveway and drive aisle are as follows: Driveway Drive aisle • provides access to and from the • a vehicular access bordered surrounding streets, and connections by parking spaces, through the site to buildings and parking • primarily serves as access lot drive aisles to those adjoining parking • does not provide direct access to parking spaces stalls, or provides access to a limited • will have few or no number of parking stalls (only along a intersections, with the portion of its length; only on one side) exception of T- • usually intersect with multiple other intersections, usually with driveways and drive aisles along its length abutting drive aisles Imo 1 la _ - .,. - = �k L Parking lot driveways(blue)and drive aisles (orange) A development code will comply with this rule if a continuous canopy of street trees is required along a maneuvering area that meets the general description of a driveway. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 6 OF 13 The second option for compliance is if the new parking lot area provides at least 30% canopy coverage. The calculation for this canopy requirement is the same as for the 40% coverage option in OAR 660-012-0405(a)(C) above. The continuous canopy requirement applies to trees planted either to meet either the street trees along a driveway option or the 30%requirement canopy coverage option. The rationale behind the `continuous canopy' requirement is that trees are healthier when planted in continuous groups with continuous root zones. To the extent possible, developments should plant continuous trees in a shared trench. The rule does not require all tree canopy on a site be continuous, as drive aisles and other design considerations will necessitate breaks between planted areas. However, trees should not be isolated into disconnected individual planters. Parking lot lighting should be designed to work with a continuous tree canopy to the extent possible. Placement of lighting in a landscaped island(alongside parking spaces) can help to avoid breaks in the canopy of a parking area median(landscape strip between parking rows). One approach to implement the continuous canopy requirement is to require groupings of at least three trees with a continuous canopy before any break of more than 3 feet is allowed. Canopy spacing should be measured based on the expected diameter of the tree crown at 20 years old. This rule does not prohibit trees planted in individual interior landscape islands but does not count the canopy of such trees toward meeting requirements of this rule. This practice is not encouraged for parking lot design. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c): "Developments must provide pedestrian facilities between building entrances and pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way. " Street-like features were an element in the previous Transportation Planning Rules (OAR 660-012-0045(5)(d)(E), prior to 2022) and may be in existing codes. An earlier version of this rule that addressed pedestrian facilities, curbs, and building placement along driveways was part of the initial CFEC amendments in Jul 2022. The rule was amended with the temporary rules adopted in April 2023 and now addresses only pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities should consist of a minimum 5-foot-wide paved path that is separate from vehicular traffic (either vertically with a curb and/or horizontally with a landscape or similar buffer). Pedestrian facility crossings at intersections with drive aisles and other driveways should be demarcated,preferably by a raised surface that slows vehicular travel, or by different surface materials. Crossings demarcated only by striping are discouraged in that they have not been demonstrated to be safe or effective for pedestrian protection. The pedestrian facilities should be illuminated to at least the same level as the on-site driveways and public right-of-way. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 7 OF 13 Routing of the pedestrian facilities from building entrances to the public right-of-way should be as direct as possible. Driveway crossings should be minimized, and the placement of buildings and their entrances should minimize pedestrian travel distances where possible. The main building entrances should also be located on the facade of the building that abuts the pedestrian facility. Secondary entrances from the parking area are discouraged, as they decrease foot traffic and activity along the intended primary pedestrian facility. _ ', - POD • �lYyi' x • T ` > - ehy 401-46 Street-like features along parking lot driveways. Many jurisdictions likely have existing site design requirements that address this rule. Implementation of this rule will need to have a review path for residential development that involves clear and objective standards. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d): "Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility, including pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases. " Existing and newly planted trees are particularly susceptible to being damaged during site development. Existing trees may be damaged by inadequate protection or improper attention to utility infrastructure installation. Underground utility infrastructure can also compromise the health of newly planted trees if adequate spacing isn't provided. This rule is intended to ensure tree health is given specific consideration in the site planning and development process. Jurisdictions shall adopt requirements for an applicant to coordinate with the electric utility provider during the project phases identified in this rule. Coordination with other utility providers is also encouraged. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 8 OF 13 Verification of compliance can be provided by documentation from the electric utility provider and an applicant's licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. The jurisdiction is responsible only for establishing a coordination requirement and verifying compliance with the standard, not for directly performing or facilitating the coordination. Jurisdictions are encouraged to create a list of trees appropriate for a range of available planter widths and overhead utility constraints in parking lots. This list should be created in coordination with utility providers. The list can be an initial resource for applicants and developers, but does not alone satisfy the coordination requirements for this rule. The preservation and survival of trees depends on an integrative process that considers tree health within the context of the site development process and site conditions after development. OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e): "In providing trees under subsections (a) and(b) the following standards shall be met. Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival, including having ample high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species. Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible. The city or county shall have minimum standards for planting and tree care no lower than 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards, and a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. " Tree standards Jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt the latest ANSI A300 by reference as the tree care standards for trees planted to fulfill these development requirements. The department encourages broader use of these standards for tree planting requirements in development ordinances. A jurisdiction may continue to use existing tree care standards or adopt tree care standards other than 2021 ANSI A300 if they ensure an equal or better standard of care for planting and maintenance. "Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival... "—This is a restatement of part of 2021 ANSI A300 standards. Cities following ANSI 2021 A300 standards are in compliance with this provision. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt standards ensuring: • planting in a continuous trench with a minimum 3' soil depth and 6' width • use of silva cells, soil cells, or other similar methods to prevent root zone compaction • Adequate soil volume for each tree, with at least 700 cubic feet of soil for medium trees and 1,050 cubic feet of soil for large trees • Permanent drip irrigation that provides water deeper below the surface to encourage downward root growth "...a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 9 OF 13 Jurisdictions are encouraged to verify compliance with adopted tree planting standards at the time of site development. Jurisdictions with an arborist or staff with appropriate arboriculture training may perform inspections during site grading and at time of planting. If such resources are not available, a jurisdiction can require certification from a licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture that the planting was performed per the approved site plans. The rule does not prescribe a process to ensure ongoing compliance. Trees should be monitored for 3-5 years after planting to ensure the trees have been correctly planted and maintained. Compliance can be enforced through the city or county code enforcement process. The development code will need to have a requirement for the property owner to maintain required vegetation, and an enforcement process for remedying violations of the code. OAR 660-012-0405(5) "Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments. " This is language from the previous Transportation Planning Rules. Local codes should already be compliant with no changes needed. Model Code Language OAR 660-012-0405(2): See examples in links below. DLCD staff recommends creating application packet, limiting supplemental information requirements to insurance/liability documentation, and setting review fees as close as possible to jurisdiction's actual processing/review costs. See also: o City of Milwaukie parklet code o City of Salem parklet guide o City of Bend parklet program OAR 660-012-0405(3): Shared parking. Required parking facilities for two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly. Shared parking shall be approved unless peak occupancy/demand of the uses directly conflict, and provided that the right of joint use is evidenced by a recorded deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing the joint use. Shared parking requests shall be subject to review and approval through Site Plan Review. [text from TGM Model Development Code for Small Cities] OAR 660-012-0405(4): EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 10 OF 13 Codes with examples of ordinances with parking lot tree requirements are: • City of Coburg: "Planning staff will confirm the proposed off-street parking area meets the standard based on an authoritative tree guide, or on a landscaping plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. " • City of Sacramento, CA code • City of Davis, CA code and guidance Additional Recommendations OAR 660-012-0405(2): • Land use regulations for conversion of spaces in private off-street parking lots should be amended to allow items such as food carts or outdoor seating and display areas. Options for incorporating such allowances may include as a temporary use, as a use allowed through a Type I or similar process, or within off-street parking regulations as activities allowed within a parking lot. OAR 660-012-0405(3): • Allow greater distances between use and shared parking area—don't impose any distance (Model Code) or make distance 1/4 mile or more; shorter distances are unnecessarily limiting • Overlaps—loosen criteria dealing with overlaps between uses. State that shared parking shall be approved unless peak occupancy/demand of the uses directly conflict; indicate policy intent that default is approval rather than putting onus on applicant to demonstrate that there isn't substantial overlap. Other option to remove evaluation of peak demand hours—market forces will likely prevent parties from entering into shared parking agreements if they believe customers won't have a place to park • Use/zone limitations—remove limitations that shared parking is only available for specific use types or in specific zones; no reason that residential uses cannot utilize shared parking. • Multiple use sites—recognize that sites with multiple uses have a natural shared parking dynamic. Do not require formal shared parking approval for such situations where site is under a common ownership or owners have rights to collective parking areas. Provide 'by- right' quantity reductions for such situations—e.g. don't require parking to be 100% of the sum of the uses individually; provide alternate methodology(all uses calculated at 80% of required minimums; largest use at 100%, all other uses at 75%, etc.). o Example: City of Cornelius: "If several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street parking shall be the sum of the requirements of the several uses computed separately with a reduction of 10 percent to account for cross patronage and shared parking benefits. Where the peak hours of operation of two or more uses do not substantially overlap, such uses may share off-street parking spaces as required by this title. " Resources EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 11 OF 13 Evan Manvel, DLCD—the language of these rules, deadlines, etc. evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov(971) 375-5979 Laura Buhl, DLCD—tree care and codes laura.buhl@dlcd.oregon.gov (971) 375-3552 Ryan Marquart, DLCD—this guidance document ryan.marquart@dlcd.oregon.gov(971) 375-5659 TGM Model Code www.oregon.gov/lcd/TGM/Pages/Model-Code.aspx Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the department intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. Rule Language 660-012-0405: Parking Regulation Improvements (1) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: (a)Designated employee parking areas in new developments shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; (b)Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities,including bicycle parking,bus stops and pullouts,bus shelters,park and ride stations,and similar facilities;and (c)In applying subsections(a)and(b),land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing mandated minimum parking supply,access for emergency vehicles must be retained,and adequate parking for truck loading should be considered. (2) Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. (3) Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. (4) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one- half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below: (a)Developments must provide one of the following: (A)Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property.In lieu of installing solar panels on site,cities may allow developers to pay$1,500 per new parking space in the development into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Depaitinent of Energy designated for such purpose; (B)Actions to comply with OAR 330-135-0010;or (C)Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting. (b) Developments must provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas.Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles.The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy,except when interrupted by driveways,drive aisles,and other site design configurations;and (c)Developments must provide pedestrian facilities between building entrances and pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 12 OF 13 (d) Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility,including pre-design,design,building and maintenance phases. (e)In providing trees under subsections(a)and(b)the following standards shall be met.Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival,including having ample high-quality soil,space for root growth,and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species.Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible.The city or county shall have minimum standards for planting and tree care no lower than 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards,and a process to ensure ongoing compliance with tree planting and maintenance provisions. (5) Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations,such as downtowns,designated regional or community centers,and transit-oriented developments. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMNET 10/PAGE 13 OF 13 Implementation Guidance OAR 660-012-0415 (11110) NW Parking Maximums in More Populous Cities OREGON Updated to reflect temporary rules adopted April 20, 2023, effective Department of Land Conservation May 12, 2023 for up to 180 days. Staff expect those rules generally to &Development be made long-term rules at the November 2023 commission meeting. DLCD and LCDC developed the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules to support communities taking action to meet Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets, while providing more housing and transportation choices and improving equity. DLCD is providing this resource as part of our technical assistance program. Please see our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC for more information or to sign up for notices. Application and Deadline for Action Section(1) states the rule applies to: Cities with populations over 100,000, counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary, and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland metropolitan area. As of November 2022, the department believes that includes Bend, Eugene, Salem, Clackamas and Washington Counties, and twelve cities in the Portland metro area. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(f) requires: Cities and counties shall adopt comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations meeting requirements as provided in ... OAR 660-012-0415 ... no later than June 30, 2023... Jurisdictions may apply for an extension or"alternate date," as explained in other guidance. Where Maximums Apply The second part of section(1) lists where cities and counties must set maximums: ... in climate friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers, designated under the Metro Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets, Adopted Boundaries map. Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. The department interprets this set of areas to adequately cover the "appropriate locations" all cities are required to set parking maximums for under OAR 660-012-0405(5), "Cities and counties shall establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments." EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 1 OF 4 The climate-friendly areas maximums should take effect concurrently with the designation of climate-friendly areas under OAR 660-012-0315. Regional centers and town centers are designated on the Metro Title 6 map. The"transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-120-0440"means rail stops in(2) of that rule, designated priority transit corridors under OAR 660-012-0710 in(3)(a) of that rule, and frequent transit corridors as defined by service levels in(3)(b) and(c). Section (1)(a): Residential (a) Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit development in climate friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors. These maximums shall include visitor parking; The department considers "multi-unit development" in this context to refer to developments with five or more units in a single building on a single lot or parcel. This section confusingly includes a reference to the location of where these apply, "in climate- friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors." This is errata and is expected to be fixed in a rules revision. That locational criteria is later overridden by subsection(d), which requires subsections (a) through (c) to apply, "in climate-friendly areas and for developments on parcels or lots within one-half mile of transit corridors and three-quarters mile of rail transit stops listed in OAR 660- 012-0440." Section (1)(b): Commercial and Retail (b) Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; Local codes may define these categories. For Portland Metro jurisdictions, maximums in the Regional Transportation Functional Plan Table 3.08—3 continue to apply, though local governments should make adjustments to 5 or below for retail/commercial and banks with drive-ins (from 5.1 and 5.4, respectively). Section (1)(c): Extremely Large Buildings (c) For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; This is similar in scale to City of Gresham code in 9.0852. It should be read as an additive restriction to (a) and(b). The measurement of 65,000 square feet should be at the lot level, and can be interpreted by a local as either gross or net floor area. Surface parking should be measured inclusive of all surface area on which a vehicle is designed to maneuver/on which a vehicle can EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 2 OF 4 drive, including all parking stalls, all drives and drive-through lanes within the property regardless of length, and all maneuvering areas regardless of depth. Paved areas not for use by passenger vehicles, such as loading areas or outdoor storage of goods or materials, are not counted as surface parking area. Section (1)(d): Exception for Non-Surface Parking (d) Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. This is a common code provision to allow additional parking if it is provided in a land-efficient manner. For other use types, or areas outside those areas, cities and counties have broad discretion on parking maximums. Section 2 Section 2 of OAR 660-012-0415 applies only to cities with populations over 200,000. As of November 2022, that includes only Portland. This guidance does not currently cover that section. What Do Cities and Counties Have to Do? Cities and counties must amend their local codes with the new parking standards by June 30, 2023 or an approved alternate date. OAR 660-012-0012(5)(f) notes "If a city or county has not done so, it may not apply parking mandates after that date." Model Language for Development Code A community may want to put these parking requirements directly into its code. Code language will vary in each community's parking code language and parking table. Department staff are available to review your community's code and suggest language for consideration. Resources and Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Disclaimer This document aims to provide more details about the rules, and how the department intends to administer the rules. Nothing in this document should be construed as Oregon Administrative Rules. A current copy of the adopted Transportation Planning Rules should be acquired from the Oregon Secretary of State and used to fulfill planning requirements. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 3 OF 4 Rule Language: OAR 660-012-0415(1) 0415: Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities (1) Cities with populations over 100,000, counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary, and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland metropolitan area, shall set parking maximums in climate-friendly areas and in regional centers and town centers,designated under the Metro Title 6, Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets,Adopted Boundaries map. Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. (a) Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit development in climate-friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors. These maximums shall include visitor parking; (b) Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair,eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; (c) For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; and (d) Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking,underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 11/PAGE 4 OF 4 • City of Lake Oswego Properties a Half Mile*from Bus Lines 35 *Half mile is straight out from bus route. /. • ��`��.�` - - - Lake Oswego City Limits 1 elif ,��'���•�„��,� '—\ USB Boundary Rte.35 1.4 ME ',1'r � ` 0 0.25 0.5 lbwilegrl ME NIB iti gat ri II flt:51..Vi att 1 rar J 1-- ____ r _j 1 lz 4'�,P ��► �` ,I Mile ',��r*VM ,,,,. los,zoz2 I I Ti ® ►.dl���� III,ow Ire,OW Ungeng* /kflihihft . V m 0111112 Spa,ar, z: meitt MitZerip i-vgliw stiiinitaigNegrittt--, 4... 7 4 " i 4:- a-:I T:: ■gagai Its �1V 11'■■a' ; l/ 1 SE Courtney F�e rVI i I r 'i, e -7' - _ _. E g pa*41,a„zatori Ngit-rti/14 i 1 I (-- 411110/WJNilipillau "Eagle i lig \I t_IMaximein riMNIPP 41/ 11 - C.-, p? —b t_. (:. 1 _ _____J _____ ittliktlizeifillielms;,,,,-- c., ,,i--\422 . .1 1111,,__ , ___I___ tit/ v ft acids; o� i 1 I (... j11—♦ u\ rSE 00k Grove Blvd IIIIIP• -�wv .Iml�i�ulllll��� ;I= g — ilvi .�� �I pD.���� IIIII� � ,� ��*4 to ��kO Imo ' ���1I �� 1■I�� ICI A�.11111� l)':, �..111►►► gnu e�r �QD �i�d 1mm�_ ���■ilu ri '=�r 1166.1\ — .�IIIllllb�llr � ��� \ 1 _ 111110/40 vl--F 1.,,. „ -, \IO-0-•-•11 ______j 77tt____41.1", _,111,0"...414.*.ta-tum--1- ..Q.1 f-al;ix in n 11■■11■■1■I a� I 7■'o■ AID i In o.■■I pipr_ \ ,CMG & * . ilmom ON fliiIiIIIi .uthSC, . ,1 , �-■uumi -■■■■■ C ��= 'Oer. 1 ♦,♦i mama! /mo. _-0,10. �.wi r� Irk Boa ibh Li- -- EE r ■- =1 ����.;mow unia miiii.ii-i 111 .•-,.4-,,--■"'mul 111.11KIIP. \''''1' -v- '111..- Al:et ' intI En •. \.02 4 $e °M:111* W �► _ ilk�`•l��f�'t`�, ♦��♦`� .). is 811111 61. 'MEMO 'anal °'A . Atr'') ''..... \% 4 all"4'' . --gal we ._,,,,,,,,,,,„,, s it.21(i Z:it ,.,, \\Alk *•4\ti, 1----„, rr,-a'eAlv,..„65, a Vi. ,-, ' (\PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 12/PAGE 1 OF 1 6 H T D- LU - 25 Table 3 . 08-3 - Regional Parking Ratios (Parking ratios are based on spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft of gross leasable area unless otherwise stated) Land Use Minimum Parking Maximum Maximum Requirements Permitted Permitted (See Central City Parking Parking Ratios Transportation - Zone A: - Zone B: Management Plan for downtown Portland stds) Requirements May Not Transit and Rest of Region Exceed Pedestrian Accessible Areas General Office (includes Office Park, 2.7 3.4 4.1 "Flex-Space", Government Office & misc. Services) (gsf) Light Industrial 1.6 None None Industrial Park Manufacturing (gsf) Warehouse (gross square feet; parking 0.3 0.4 0.5 ratios apply to warehouses 150,000 gsf or greater) Schools: College/ 0.2 0.3 0.3 University & High School (spaces/# of students and staff) Tennis Racquetball Court 1.0 1.3 1.5 Sports Club/Recreation Facilities 4.3 5.4 6.5 Retail/Commercial, including shopping 4.1 5.1 6.2 centers Bank with Drive-In 4.3 5.4 6.5 Movie Theater 0.3 0.4 0.5 (spaces/number of seats) Fast Food with Drive Thru 9.9 12.4 14.9 Other Restaurants 15.3 19.1 23 Place of Worship 0.5 0.6 0.8 (spaces/seats) Medical/Dental Clinic 3.9 4.9 5.9 Residential Uses Hotel/Motel 1 none none Single Family Detached 1 none none Residential unit, less than 500 1 none none square feet per unit, one bedroom Multi-family, townhouse, one bedroom 1.25 none none Multi-family, townhouse, two bedroom 1.5 none none Multi-family, townhouse, three 1.75 none none bedroom 1 Ratios for uses not included in this table would be determined by cities and counties. In the event that a local government proposes a different measure, for example, spaces per seating area for a restaurant instead of gross leasable area, Metro may grant approval upon a demonstration by the local government that the parking space requirement is substantially similar to the regional standard. (Ordinance No. 10-1241B, § 5) (Effective 09/12/12) 3.08 35 of 35 EXHIBIT D-4 (LU 24-0025) PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 13/PAGE 1 OF 1 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 24-0025, Ordinance 2949 LOCATION STAFF Citywide Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE September 19, 2024 October 28, 2024 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of compliance with the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD's) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450). Proposed amendments include removing minimum parking requirements citywide, and adding language to comply with state requirements regarding the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on a site, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and the design of surface parking lots over one-half acre in size. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, and CDC Amendments to be processed via Major Developments Procedures) LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision — Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 1 OF 29 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1 (h and i) and A-2 (a) Economic Vitality Policies B-1 (h and j), and B-2 Connected Community Policies C-7, F-6, F-7, and G-5 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Conditional Uses, Policies 3 and 6(b) Parking, Policies 2, 4, and 5 Downtown Commercial District, Policy 2 Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6(c) Lake Grove Village Center Plan Goal 9 (Support Businesses in the Village Center), Policy 9.3 Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation, Policy 13 C. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals a. Goal 2: Land Use b. Goal 10: Housing c. Goal 12: Transportation D. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR Chapter 660, Division 12) d. OAR 660-012-0400 Parking Management e. OAR 660-012-0405 Parking Regulation Improvements f. OAR 660-012-0410 Electric Vehicle Charging g. OAR 660-012-0415 Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities h. OAR 660-012-0420 Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates E. Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan [Metro Code 3.08] Title 4: Regional Parking Management [Metro Code 3.08.410] III. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In response to an executive order by former Governor Kate Brown, DLCD adopted rules to guide the implementation of the CFEC program in 2022. These rules require that cities in the state's eight metropolitan areas—including cities in the Portland Metro area — update their comprehensive plans and development regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a particular focus on reducing emissions from transportation, such that Oregon can meet its climate mitigation goals by the year 2050. More specifically, the rules require Lake Oswego (among other cities) to implement requirements related to parking reform, electric vehicle charging, and Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 2 OF 29 transportation planning.' Pursuant to an extension granted by DLCD, the City is required to comply with Phase B of the CFEC rules by December 31, 2024. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to comply with the CFEC rules are included in Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, and the proposed Community Development Code (CDC) amendments are included in Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1. Both sets of amendments are primarily intended to comply with the CFEC rules related to parking reform by removing minimum parking requirements citywide pursuant to CFEC Option 1: No Mandates. In addition, the proposed CDC amendments modify maximum off-street parking regulations as required to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Table 3.08-3 of the Metro Regional Functional Transportation Plan (RTP). The proposed amendments also require new development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking to provide at least one of three listed "climate mitigation actions"— providing solar panels on-site, paying into a renewable energy fund, or providing at least 40 percent tree canopy—and to provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. More specifically, proposed Comprehensive Plan and CDC amendments include provisions that: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1-15, Remove code language referencing minimum parking LOC 50.03.003.6.a.v (Item 1) 22, requirements. LOC 50.03.003.6.j (Item 2) 34-36, LOC 50.03.003.6.p.i (Item 3) 45, LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii (Item 4) 52-53, LOC 50.03.005.5.a (Item 5) 58 LOC 50.03.005.5.b (Item 6) LOC 50.05.004.3.c (Item 7) LOC 50.05.004.9 (Item 8) LOC 50.05.004.13.c.iii (Item 9) LOC 50.05.004.13.h (Item 10) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.i (Item 11) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.ii-iii (Item 12) LOC 50.05.007.6.c.iv-vi (Item 13) LOC 50.06.002.1 (Item 14) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.i (Item 15) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6) (Item 22) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.v (Item 34) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(3) (Item 35) LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vii (Item 36) LOC 50.07.003.1.j.i(1) (Item 45) LOC 50.10.003.2 (Items 52-53) LOC 50.11.006.3.a.2 (Item 58) 1 The validity the CFEC rules was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in City of Cornelius v. Dept.of Land Conservation and Development, 331. Or.App 349 (2024), Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 3 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 3 OF 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 16. Remove an editor's note to reflect that state statutes LOC 50.06.002.2.a.i (technically and administrative rules related to electric vehicle not a code amendment because service capacity are now included as a standard of editor's notes are not adopted approval within the parking standards. See Item 39. code text). 17. Delete references to minimum parking requirements LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii and reference maximum parking regulations instead. LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(1) 18. Modify the table outlining the numerical method of Table 50.06.002-1 determining the minimum number of parking spaces required to instead outline a method to determine the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. 19. Remove a description of the parking study method for LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(2) consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code. 20. Modify language within the maximum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(3) standards to: • Simplify the methodology for determining the maximum number of parking spaces allowed; • Add language to outline the maximum parking regulations for extremely large buildings; and • Describe that the following are exempted from maximum parking regulations per OAR 660- 012-0005(31, 32): non-surface parking; parking for fleet vehicles; vehicle parking for sale, lease, or rent; employee carpool or vanpool parking; automobiles for sale or rent; and parking provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 21. Modify maximum off-street parking space Table 50.06.002-2 requirements to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, and simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration. 23. Eliminate references to minimum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6)(a)-(c) requirements and clarify that parking studies are not permitted to modify the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 4 OF 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 24. Delete the Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Table 50.06.002-3 table to remove minimum parking requirements from the code. 25. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iii requirements and instead apply requirements for the on-site location of parking spaces to any parking provided on-site. 26. Remove and simplify code language to reflect that an LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) (former exclusive permanent easement is no longer necessary subsection) for off-site parking agreements in the absence of minimum parking requirements. 27. Remove and simplify code language related to shared LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2) (former parking. subsection) 28. Add a new subsection to the parking standard that LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv (new implements the new OAR requirements for on-site subsection with renumbered surface parking over one-half acre in size from a non- code reference) public entity. 29. Require any new development that includes more LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) (new than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a subsection with renumbered lot or parcel to provide at least one of three listed code reference) "climate mitigation actions": providing solar panels on- site, paying into a renewable energy fund, or providing at least 40%tree canopy. 30. Require new surface parking lots larger than one-half LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2) (new acre to provide either trees along driveways or at least subsection with renumbered 30%tree canopy coverage. code reference) 31. Require new surface parking lots larger than one-half LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(3) (new acre to provide pedestrian connections throughout subsection with renumbered the parking lot that connect building entrances, code reference) pedestrian facilities, transit stops, and accessible parking spaces. 32. Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(4) (new larger than one-half acre to coordinate with the local subsection with renumbered electric utility in the development of tree canopy code reference) plans. 33. ' Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) (new larger than one-half acre to follow specified tree subsection with renumbered planting standards to fulfill tree canopy requirements. code reference) Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 5 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 5 OF 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 37. Remove a reference to required parking in the LOC 50.06.002.2.a.viii employee carpool and vanpool parking standards, and instead apply provisions related to employee carpool and vanpool parking to any development providing 50 or more parking spaces. 38. Allow property owners to redevelop any portion of LOC 50.06.002.2.a.viii (new existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented subsection with renumbered and transit-oriented facilities. code reference) 39. Add provisions related to electric vehicle service LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix (new capacity directly as a standard of approval within the subsection with renumbered CDC for ease of administration. See Item 16. code reference) 40. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.003.1.d requirements and eliminate the requirement to provide parking spaces for residential flag lots. 41. Remove a reference to minimum parking LOC 50.06.003.2.b.v(3) requirements and instead apply the standards for driveways and fire access roads to any proposed parking spaces. 42. Remove a reference to required parking and instead LOC 50.06.004.1.a.i(10) apply the landscaping, buffering and screening standards to an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on site. 43. Clarify that the lighting standards apply to the LOC 50.06.004.3.a.i construction or expansion of existing open-air parking lots. 44. Clarify that parking does not need to be identified in LOC 50.07.003.1.a.ii unified site plans. 46. Remove a reference to required parking to instead LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(15) reference the revised definition of"increased use." 47. Clarify that the redevelopment of existing on-site LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(22) parking is classified as ministerial development. 48. Clarify that changes of use that involve the use of a LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(10) parking study are classified as minor development for consistency with the removal of minimum parking requirements elsewhere in the code, and remove a reference to "private streets"—which is not defined in the code. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 6 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 6 OF 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 49. Specify that designating the size of a parking area is LOC 50.07.004.6.d.vi not permitted as a condition of approval for a Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan. 50. Specify that designating the size of a parking area is LOC 50.07.005.3.b.vi not permitted as a condition of approval for conditional uses. 51. Clarify that variances may not be used to increase the LOC 50.08.001.2 maximum number of parking spaces permitted. 54. Modify the definition of"increased use" to remove a LOC 50.10.003.2 reference to "required parking," and instead connect the definition to an increase in the bicycle parking or loading requirement, retaining trip generation as a part of the "increased use" definition. 55. Modify the definition of"change of use" to remove a LOC 50.10.003.2 reference to required parking, and instead connect the definition to the revised definition of"increased use". 56. Delete a figure depicting parking requirements within LOC 50.11.001.4 a portion of the Downtown Shopping and Business LOC 50.05.004.9— Figure 1 District to reflect that minimum parking requirements have been removed from the code. 57. Clarify that a parking plan is not required within the LOC 50.11.006.2 Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM TITLE POLICY A-C, Remove code language referencing minimum Economic Vitality chapter: E-G, parking requirements. Policy B-1 (h) [Item A] I-N Connected Community chapter: Policy C-7 [Item B] Policy F-6 [Item C] Policy G-5 [Item E] First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan: Conditional Uses Policy 3 [Item F] Conditional Uses Policy 6 [Item G] Parking Policy 4 [Item I] Parking Policy 5 [Item J] Downtown Commercial District Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 7 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 7 OF 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM TITLE POLICY Policy 2 [Item K] Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6(c) [Item L] Lake Grove Village Center Plan Goal 9, Policy 9.3 [Item M] Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation Policy 13 [Item N] D, H Clarify that policies related to minimum parking Connected Community requirements apply equally, regardless of the Policy F-7 [Item D] proposed use. First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan: Parking Policy 2 [Item H] While the draft CDC amendments are similar to the version discussed at the City Council's September 3 work session, the revised version also includes the following additional administrative corrections and additions: • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 29— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1)(b) to clarify that payment in-lieu funds will be directed towards a fund at ODOE; • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 36— Modified the proposed amendment in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vii to clarify that, "Loading berths shall not be used for storage or parking of vehicles;" and • Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Added a new Item 47 —Added the redevelopment of existing on-site parking to the list of ministerial developments in LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii. Public Engagement City staff offered opportunities for public engagement and comment through the following events: • On June 21, 2022, a study session was held at City Council to receive an initial overview of the CFEC rules; • On June 27, 2022, a work session was held at the Planning Commission to receive an initial overview of the CFEC rules; • On January 9, 2023, an update was provided to the Planning Commission regarding an extension approved by DLCD to provide the City with additional time to comply with the CFEC rules; Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 8 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 8 OF 29 • On July 24, 2023, a work session was held at the Planning Commission to provide an overview of the City's work to comply with the CFEC rules; • On September 5, 2023, a study session was held at City Council to receive direction on a proposed work plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the CFEC rules; • On September 25, 2023, a work session was held at the Planning Commission where a representative from DLCD provided an overview of the purpose of the CFEC rules for parking reform, and staff provided an update on the direction received from City Council during their September 5 study session; • On September 26, 2023, staff presented at a meeting of the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN) to provide a project overview and receive input on the City's response to the CFEC rules; • On October 12, 2023, staff presented at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee to provide a project overview and receive input on the City's response to the CFEC rules; • On November 27, 2023, a work session was held at the Planning Commission to provide an overview of a revised project schedule and public engagement plan to comply with the CFEC rules, and to present a high-level analysis of the pros and cons of the different options available to the City to comply with the CFEC rules; • On December 5, 2023, a study session was held at City Council to receive direction regarding which option the City should explore to comply with Phase B of the CFEC rules (Council's preference was for Option 1: No Mandates); • On February 22, 2024, staff presented at a Mayor's Roundtable event to provide a project overview and receive public input on the City's response to the CFEC rules; • On February 26, 2024, staff presented at a meeting of the DEI Advisory Board to provide a project overview and receive input on the City's response to the CFEC rules; • On July 22, 2024, a work session was held at the Planning Commission to provide a public engagement update as well as an overview of a working set of draft code amendments to comply with the CFEC rules; • On July 24, 2024, the City held a virtual "Community Forum" to provide information and receive public input on the City's response to the CFEC rules; and • On September 3, 2024, a study session was held at City Council to provide a public engagement update as well as an overview of a working set of draft code amendments to comply with the CFEC rules. Additionally, the City maintains a project website that describes the project, includes project updates, and allows the public to access draft documents as they become available. Staff has also developed and maintains a general information page on Citywide Parking Reform that provides a direct email contact for the project manager, a link to allow members of the public to sign up to receive project updates, and a comment form to allow for public input. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 9 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 9 OF 29 Expanded Summary of Proposed Amendments The CFEC rules mandated that cities implement requirements related to electric vehicle charging, parking reform, housing, and transportation planning on a multi-phased schedule, as follows: • Reduced Parking Mandates (Phase A) —compliance by December 31, 2022 • Electric Vehicle Charging—compliance by March 31, 2023 • Housing in Climate-Friendly Areas—no action required for the City to comply • Transportation System Plan Update—work to commence in 2029 • Parking Phase B— DLCD-approved alternative deadline is December 31, 2024 Reduced Parking Mandates (Phase A) The City met the December 31, 2022 deadline for compliance with Phase A of the CFEC parking reform rules per OAR 660- 012-0430 and -0440 by direct application of the CFEC rules to new development in Lake Oswego beginning on January 1, 2023: • Only one parking space per unit is required for multifamily residential development, regardless of location; • No parking is required for small residential units (<750 square feet), affordable units, child care uses, facilities for people with disabilities, or shelters; and • No parking is required within % mile of rail stations or% mile of frequent transit corridors (one-hour or greater service). TriMet Bus Line#35 is the City's most frequent bus transit line and is considered a "frequent transit corridor" for the purpose of the CFEC rules. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2023, the City has not enforced minimum parking requirements within one-half mile of the service route of Bus Line#35, which covers a broad corridor along Highway 43/State Street and in Downtown Lake Oswego. As allowed under CFEC rules, staff previously received direction from the Council to apply the CFEC rules directly—instead of including them as amendments to the CDC. However, considering the more recent Council direction to repeal minimum parking requirements citywide pursuant to Option 1: No Mandates, the City will not have any requirements under this rule, as it is focused on reducing parking mandates. This means that, upon enactment of the CDC amendments to repeal minimum parking requirements on a citywide basis, there is no need to further amend the CDC to ensure compliance with OAR 660- 012-0430 and -0440. Electric Vehicle Charging The City met the March 31, 2023 deadline for compliance with the EV charging requirements of OAR 660-012-0410 by direct application of the CFEC rule. As such, the City now enforces the CFEC rule that 40% of all vehicle parking spaces must have conduit to serve electric vehicle charging for (1) new multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and (2) new mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 10 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 10 OF 29 Because the City has been applying these state administrative rules directly, no changes had been made to the CDC thus far to codify the CFEC rule. For ease of implementation, CDC amendments are proposed that include the above-mentioned EV conduit requirements concurrently with other CDC amendments required for Phase B of the CFEC parking requirements (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Items 16 and 39). Parking Regulation Improvements (Phase B) The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Parking Regulation Improvements are outlined in OAR 660-012-0405 (Parking Regulation Improvements). Per OAR 660-012-0405(1)(a), the City must adopt land use regulations that require, "Designated employee parking areas in new developments with more than 50 parking spaces" to, "provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools." While the CDC currently includes provisions in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv require such preferential placement for carpools and vanpools, the proposed amendments remove an existing reference to "required parking spaces" within this code section because "required parking spaces" refers to parking spaces required to meet the minimum number of parking spaces, which would be repealed (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 37). Per OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), the City must adopt land use regulations that allow property owners to, "redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle- oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities." While the CDC currently includes text that complies with the transit-related provisions of this rule, the proposed amendments apply the standard to bicycle-oriented facilities (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 38). Per OAR 660-012-0405(4), the City must adopt a new set of land use regulations that apply to, "any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel." OAR 660-012-0405(4)(a) states that for developments "not required to comply with OAR 330-135-00107z new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre must provide a climate mitigation action described in (A) through (C) of the rule, but that the City is, "not required to offer all these options." Possible climate mitigation actions listed in -0405(4)(a) include: (A) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property...; (B) Payment of at least$1,500 per new off-street parking space into a city or county fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind energy development or a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy designated for such purpose; (C) Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting; or (D) A mixture of actions under paragraphs (A) through (C) the city or county deems to meet the purpose of this section. 2"OAR 330-135-0010 applies to public buildings. Buildings subject to that rule are required to spend at least 1.5% of the project cost on green energy.The rules recognize that it would place an additional burden on these projects to require a climate mitigation action beyond what is already required." DLCD Guidance,OAR 660-012-0405, pg.4 (https://www.oregon.gov/Icd/CL/Documents/Guidance0405 ParkingRegulationImprovements.pdf) Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 11 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 11 OF 29 To comply with section -0405(4)(a), the proposed amendments allow Options (A), (B), and (C) as potential climate mitigation actions for new surface parking lots over one-half acre in size, and require applicants to select just one of those three options to comply (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 29). With respect to Option (B), the proposed amendments direct the $1,500/space payments towards a fund at the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE). To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4)(b), the proposed amendments further require new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 30). Per OAR 660-012-0405(4)(c), new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre must, "provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot," that at a minimum connect "building entrances", "existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way", "transit stops", and "accessible parking spaces". While LOC 50.06.003.3.b.ii currently includes provisions that address circulation and connectivity to and from parking lots, the proposed amendments further ensure that the standard requires connectivity to- and from- accessible parking spaces (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 31). To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4)(d), the proposed amendments require coordination with the local electric utility in the development of any tree canopy plan required for new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 32). To comply with OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e), the proposed amendments require applicants to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements for new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 33). The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities specify that cities with greater than 25,000 population in the Portland metro area — including Lake Oswego— must set certain parking maximums in "climate- friendly" areas and in regional centers and town centers, as well as on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. In Lake Oswego, this means that the CFEC maximum parking requirements apply to the following geographies: • The Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) Overlay District; • The Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) District; and • Within one-half mile of TriMet Bus Line #35, which covers a broad corridor along Highway 43/State Street, and in Downtown Lake Oswego. For the purpose of applying maximum parking regulations, the proposed amendments classify the combination of the above geographies as Parking Area A, with all other areas of the city classified as Parking Area B, as depicted in the map below. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 12 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 12 OF 29 IF < <� iwilirp. -0 .... .or ... ail I. SW 0 a 0.:5‘i i, AO U. -, 13^ 1„ 1 s I� 1 nA.a ai l Yaw, 4 1 a f ; a C ar. _ I 4 t R a .1.]Yr.. w.,c t t , .n w'y7 a I Y.aasRa 1` E FY Rid,.Rd a >l ry 4..- la q* Nod . 1 ``• �wt vo A ' 11111 + W''yA - t Oak _. b d ... e i a 6 ` ._ 1 1 rhn�n C� J _tlyP° v.er 3s w.n :Gr..nt-. Ra o 3 ow Ln ti, it r r_ a.a°R. 5 S n.' •D £A .0ro,• Re 6 eo...• r` a = bq �.Ir6, e * war - s o �� ,.. r�" ) r�r - p0 i .•n � f., r.A L ' r � ^ •c '� `"141111 ' - ° The City of Lake Oswego I . �1<N1 -�" Parking Areas f 1 ]Parking Area A _ - _ I !Parking Area B kw NOM,* TY *pa, L. -- cif 0 __ I s a,,a M k To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a), the proposed amendments apply the maximum parking regulations of 1.2 spaces per studio unit and 2 spaces for all other units in multifamily residential buildings within Parking Area A (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 21). This results in a decrease to the maximum parking permitted for multifamily residential units within the geographies described above, as there is currently no maximum for any residential uses. Detached single-family dwellings, middle housing, and multifamily residential uses in Parking Area B will continue to have no maximum parking limitations. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(b), the proposed amendments establish maximum parking regulations for commercial and retail uses that are no higher than five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space (except for automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses) (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A- 1, Item 21). To comply with Table 3.08-3 of the Metro RTP, the proposed amendments establish a maximum of 3.4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area for office use in Parking Area A, and a maximum of 4.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area for office use in Parking Area B (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, to Exhibit A-1, Item 21). To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(c), the proposed amendments specify that surface parking area may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building for land uses with more than 65,000 sq. ft. of floor area (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 20). Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 13 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 13 OF 29 To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(d), the proposed amendments specify that maximum parking regulations do not apply to non-surface parking (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 20). Additional modifications include simplifying maximum parking ratios for several uses, combining uses with the same parking ratios into larger use categories, and aligning parking ratios to the fullest extent practicable to improve consistency and facilitate ease of administration (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Items 20 and 21). This results in an increase to the maximum number of parking spaces permitted for numerous commercial uses, including: • Medical and dental offices or clinics including accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts; • Sports club/recreation facilities, including billiards and pool parlors, video arcades, dance halls, gymnasiums, and health clubs; • Bowling alleys; • Stadiums, arenas, and theaters; • Convenience food stores; • Supermarkets; • Retail sales and rentals; • Service or repair shops, such as electronic and home appliance repair and upholstery; • Furniture and appliance stores, building materials; • Banks; • Auto, boat, or trailer sales; • Automotive repair garages and service stations; • Eating or drinking establishments with a drive-up window; • Specialty food stores, such as coffee, bagels,juice bars (take-out food/drink primarily); • Eating or drinking establishments; • Hotels or motels; • Light industrial, industrial park, and manufacturing; • Storage, warehouses, wholesale establishments, freight terminals, truck or auto storage; • Mini-storage facilities; • Senior high and equivalent private or parochial schools; • Elementary or middle schools or equivalent private or parochial schools; • Nurseries, day or child care facilities, kindergartens; • Libraries, reading rooms, museums, art galleries; • Churches, clubs, lodges, meeting rooms, and auditoria; and Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 14 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 14 OF 29 • Hospitals. The requirements for compliance with CFEC Phase B— Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates are outlined in OAR 660-012-0420. Considering City Council's preference to pursue a Citywide repeal of minimum parking requirements per CFEC Phase B Option 1: No Mandates, this is the rule section that applies to the proposed repeal of parking mandates. To comply with OAR 660-012-0420(1), the proposed amendments remove all references to minimum parking requirements throughout the CDC (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Items A-C, E-G, I-N; Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Items 1-15, 22, 34-36, 45, 52-53, and 58), including the removal of Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements in its entirety (Attachment 3 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item 24). IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On October 16, 2024, public notice of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, CDC amendments, and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. DLCD and Metro Notices Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and LOC 50.003.07.16.c, staff has provided notice of the proposed amendments to DLCD. Staff notified Metro as required by Metro Code 3.07.820(a). V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Notices will be published in the Lake Oswego Review in advance of both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Public comment may be submitted before or during the forthcoming Planning Commission and City Council hearings. All those who submit comment on the proposed amendments receive a notice of decision. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing has been given to DLCD in the manner provided by LOC 50.07.003.16.c. Classification of Amendments as a Legislative Decision The "legislative decision" process per LOC 50.07.003.16.a for adoption of Ordinance 2949 will be followed for the adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to comply with the CFEC rules: A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: i. Comply with any applicable state law; ii. Comply with any applicable statewide planning goal or administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197; and Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 15 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 15 OF 29 iii. In the case of a legislative amendment to this Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed in Applicable Regulations, above, and are addressed in Sections B-E. B. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal. Following each policy or group of policies is a response: Land Use Planning Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: /// h. Increase opportunities for alternate means of transportation; and i. Enhance opportunities for mixed use development*in Employment Centers, Town Centers, Commercial Corners, and appropriately zoned areas within Neighborhood Villages. Finding: The proposed amendments include provisions that allow for the redevelopment of existing parking lots with transit- and bicycle-oriented facilities, which would help to increase opportunities for alternate means of transportation. The proposed amendments also eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements, which will enhance opportunities for mixed use development citywide by making mixed use projects less expensive to develop and by reducing physical or site-specific barriers to development. This policy is met. Policy A-2: Ensure that land use regulations have sufficient flexibility to allow developers and the City to propose measures to: a. Adapt development to unique and difficult site conditions; Finding: The proposed amendments to eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements will provide developers with additional flexibility to adapt developments to unique and difficult site conditions. The amendments would allow developers to provide on-site parking based on market demand, which will allow for more flexible site design by reducing physical or site-specific barriers to development that could be generated through required parking spaces. This policy is met. Economic Vitality Policy B-1: Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in employment zones while: /// h. Promoting the efficient use of land by providing adequate parking for customers and employees, according to national transportation standards; Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 16 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 16 OF 29 Finding: "Applicable statewide planning ... administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197," as implemented through the DLCD's CFEC Parking Management rules (OAR 660-012-0400—0450), requires cities either remove city minimum parking requirements or implement DLCD-listed options to "reduce the burden of parking mandates" generally (-0424) and for development types (-0430), and in certain areas (- 0435, -0440), or by certain alternatives (-0445). Provisions of the Comprehensive Plan contrary to state administrative rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 must be revised (LOC 50.07.003.16.1.b.ii). To comply with these OARs, this policy is proposed to be deleted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, as it is contingent on the existence of minimum parking requirements and references "adequate" parking (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item A). This policy amendment conforms with the CFEC rules and would allow the proposed CDC amendments that repeal existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420. Given that OAR Chapter 660, Division 12 implements Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation, the proposed removal of minimum parking requirements and the deletion of this policy from the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and their implementing administrative rules. /// j. Promoting shared street access, parking facilities, and pedestrian connections with other businesses to provide more developable land area and reduce traffic congestion, parking, and safety problems. Finding: The proposed amendments include provisions that require surface parking lots over one-half acre in size to provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot that connect building entrances, existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way, transit stops, and accessible parking spaces. This promotes pedestrian connections with other businesses in employment zones and other areas of the city. The proposed amendments also remove minimum parking requirements throughout the city, which allows for the provision of more developable land area in employment zones (in addition to other areas of the city). This policy is met. Policy 8-2: Prevent new strip commercial developments and expansion of existing strip commercial developments; and encourage redevelopment and remodels of existing strip commercial projects to promote pedestrian orientation, active streetscapes, access to businesses and transit. Finding: The proposed removal of minimum parking requirements will serve to encourage redevelopment and remodels of existing strip commercial projects by reducing physical or site-specific barriers to development that could be generated through required parking spaces. This policy is met. Connected Community Policy C-7: Require development applicants to provide facilities for the movement of people to and from the site by walking, bicycling, automobiles and transit. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 17 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 17 OF 29 Finding: This policy requires development applicants to provide facilities for the movement of people to and from the site by automobiles. Because the proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements, it will not be possible for the City to require applicants to provide facilities for automobiles. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, this policy is proposed to be modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to remove "automobiles" from the list of transportation modes, as this inclusion is predicated on the existence of minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item B). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. With respect to other elements of this policy, the proposed amendments include provisions that allow for the redevelopment of existing parking lots with transit- and bicycle-oriented facilities, which encourages the provision of facilities for the movement of people to and from development sites by bicycling and transit. The balance of this policy is met. Policy F-6: Maintain parking regulations that require off-street employee and customer parking and loading facilities to be provided on-site and commensurate with the size and relative needs of each new development. Finding: This policy is that the City maintains parking regulations that require off-street employee and customer parking facilities to be provided on-site. This policy is intended to ensure that the City maintains parking regulations that require off-street employee and customer parking facilities to be provided on-site. To comply with OAR 660-012- 0400 to -0450, this policy is proposed to be modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to remove indirect references to minimum parking requirements so that the policy relates only to loading facilities (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item C). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. As revised, the proposed CDC amendments that would remove minimum parking requirements and delete requirements that off-street employee and customer parking facilities be provided on-site would comply with the amended policy. Policy F-7: Commercial and industrial parking should not intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Finding: This policy is that commercial and industrial parking not intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Implicit in the policy is that adequate commercial and industrial parking be required to preclude the possibility of intrusion into residential neighborhoods. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments delete this policy to eliminate a policy against parking intrusion by one use into a different use area (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item D). This policy amendment conforms with the CFEC rules and would allow the proposed CDC amendments that repeal existing minimum parking requirements pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420. See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 18 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 18 OF 29 Policy G-5: Ensure that an adequate supply of parking is provided to support economic activity while balancing the need to drive, take transit, and bike and walk to and within employment centers, town centers and neighborhood villages. Finding: This policy is that an adequate supply of parking is provided to support economic activity in employment centers, town centers, and neighborhood villages. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, this policy is proposed to be modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to remove the policy of ensuring an "adequate supply of parking" (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item E). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The CFEC rules require that the City not "ensure" an adequate supply of parking be required by Code, regardless of location. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements citywide pursuant to OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450. Neighborhood Plans First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Conditional Uses Policy 3:Adequate on-site parking will be provided for any new Conditional Uses in FAN and any existing Conditional Uses in the commercial area. Finding: This policy is that adequate on-site parking will be provided for any new conditional uses in the First Addition neighborhood and any existing Conditional Uses in the commercial area of the First Addition-Forest Hills neighborhood. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to require that adequate on-site parking be provided for any use, regardless of location, through minimum parking requirements. Accordingly, this policy is proposed to be deleted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, as it is predicated upon the existence of minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item F). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements. Conditional Uses Policy 6: Forest Hills Elementary School is another important public use inside the neighborhood which requires special efforts for compatible integration. The neighborhood supports a coordinated effort between the City, the School District and the neighborhood to: /// b. Provide adequate parking. Finding: This policy is that adequate parking be provided at Forest Hills Elementary School. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450 it will not be possible for the City to require "adequate parking" in any location. This policy is proposed to be modified by deleting subsection b in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, to remove indirect references to minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item G). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 19 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 19 OF 29 Parking Policy 2: Discourage long term, non-resident and non-guest parking on Local Streets in areas zoned for residential uses. In the Forest Hills area, encourage off-street parking as much as possible. Finding: This policy is to discourage long term, non-resident and non-guest parking on Local Streets in areas zoned for residential uses in the First Addition-Forest Hills neighborhood. Repeal of the minimum parking standards complies with this policy because "discourage" pertains to actions that are permitted by law, including the CFEC rules. Other programs may be utilized to discourage long-term on-street parking that may be the subject of future discussion. The proposed CDC amendments comply with this policy. Parking Policy 4: When commercial uses, conditional uses or institutional uses are changed or intensified, customer and employee parking shall be adjusted commensurably. Finding: This policy is intended to ensure that parking is increased when proposed uses are changed or intensified in the First Addition-Forest Hills neighborhood. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to ensure that parking is increased when proposed uses are changed or intensified, regardless of location. This policy is proposed to be deleted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to remove policies that are predicated upon minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item H). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements. Parking Policy 5: Ensure adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking is provided for all land uses in First Addition/Forest Hills. Finding: This policy is intended to ensure that adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking is provided for all land uses within the First Addition and Forest Hills neighborhood. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to ensure that adequate parking is provided, regardless of use or location. This policy is proposed to be deleted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as it is predicated upon the existence minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item I). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements, Downtown Commercial District Policy 2: Ensure that adequate off-street, patron and employee parking is provided for commercial uses. Finding: This policy is intended to ensure that adequate off-street, patron and employee parking is provided for commercial uses within the First Addition-Forest Hills neighborhood. To comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to ensure that adequate off-street patron or employee parking is provided, regardless of use or location. This policy is proposed to be deleted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as it is predicated upon the existence minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item J). See Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 20 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 20 OF 29 Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements. Foothills Special District Plan Policy 6, Streets and Parking: Forest Hills Elementary School is another important public use inside the neighborhood which requires special efforts for compatible integration. The neighborhood supports a coordinated effort between the City, the School District and the neighborhood to: /// c. Parking ratios in the District shall be designed to accommodate the uses, while ensuring a pedestrian friendly environment that reflects the District's location adjacent to Downtown and multi-modal transportation options. Provide standards for parking as follows: i. The maximum parking ratio for residential uses shall be no more than 1.6 spaces per unit with a minimum of no less than .5 spaces per unit. ii. The maximum parking ratio for commercial uses shall be no greater than 3.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area and no less than 1.0 space per 1000 square feet of floor area. iii. For Lodging Facilities, the maximum parking ratio shall be no greater than 1.0 space per room with a minimum of.25 spaces per room. Finding: This policy is intended to establish parking ratios to accommodate proposed uses within the Foothills Special District. To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a)-(b) and Table 3.08-3 of the Metro RTP, it will not be possible for the City to apply the parking ratios as described in this policy. This policy is proposed to be modified by deleting subsection c in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as it indirectly references minimum parking ratios as well no-longer-applicable maximum parking ratios (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item K). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements and establish new maximum parking regulations. Lake Grove Village Center Plan Policy 9.3: Provide adequate parking opportunities to serve businesses in the Village Center. Finding: This policy is that adequate parking opportunities be provided to serve businesses in the Lake Grove Village Center. To the extent that "provide" is read as "require on-site parking," and to comply with OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to ensure that adequate parking opportunities are provided, regardless of use or location. As such, this policy is proposed to be modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to instead "encourage" parking opportunities, as "encourage" pertains to actions that are permitted by law, including the CFEC rules (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item L). Other programs may be utilized to encourage parking opportunities that may be the subject of future discussion. See Economic Vitality Policy B-1, above. The proposed CDC amendments Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 21 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 21 OF 29 would remove minimum parking requirements and establish new maximum parking regulations. Marylhurst Area Special District Plan Traffic and Circulation, Policy 13:Assure that parking areas are scaled proportionately to the campus buildings and are landscaped to avoid the appearance of large, unbroken paved areas. Finding: This policy is intended in part to assure that parking areas are scaled proportionately to buildings on the campus in the Marylhurst Area Special District. To comply with OAR 660- 012-0400 to -0450, it will not be possible for the City to require that parking areas be increased to be scaled proportionately to campus buildings; likewise, the City would not be able to require that parking areas be reduced as long as the development complies with maximum parking regulations. This policy is proposed to be modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to remove language predicated upon minimum parking requirements (Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2949, Exhibit A-1, Item M). See Economic Vitality Policy B-1. The proposed CDC amendments would remove minimum parking requirements. The portion of this policy that is intended to assure that parking areas are, "landscaped to avoid the appearance of large, unbroken paved areas" can continue to be applied, as parking landscape requirements may continue to be applied under the proposed CDC amendments. C. OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Amendments to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan must comply with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines (OAR Chapter 660 Division 15) when amending the Comprehensive Plan policies, and must also comply with the existing Comprehensive Plan policies. Goal 2: Land Use—Part I of Goal 2 states that city actions regarding land use shall be consistent with its comprehensive plan. Guideline E(2) states that minor changes --those which do not have significant effect beyond the immediate area of the change, -- are to be based on information which will serve as the factual basis to support the change. The public need and justification for the particular change should be established. The City of Lake Oswego has a state-acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, DLCD has adopted administrative rules per ORS Chapter 197, specifically OAR 660-012-0400 and -420 that require local governments to "remove parking mandates as directed by OAR 660-012-0420)." To comply with the CFEC rules, portions of the Comprehensive Plan must be amended in order to enact CDC amendments that will comply with the CFEC rules. Section B of this report describes findings and conclusions that the proposed CDC amendments will be consistent with both the CFEC rules and applicable policies, including revised policies, of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 22 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 22 OF 29 Goal 10: Housing—The proposed amendment will not reduce the city's housing capacity or the Buildable Lands Inventory. This goal is met. Goal 12: Transportation—Goal 12 relates to the planning for and impacts on transportation facilities and the transportation system. OAR 660-012-000 through 660-012-0920, referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), of which the CFEC rules are now a part, provide guidance on compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12: "This division implements Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) to provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system." The Transportation Planning Rule states that amendments to a local jurisdiction's adopted Comprehensive Plans, zoning maps, and zoning ordinances that "significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (e.g., level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility." A "significant effect" can result from: • A change to functional classification or the standards implementing a functional classification system; or • Changes to planned land uses that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with adopted functional classifications; or • Changes that would degrade performance so that it doesn't meet performance standards or further degrade performance for a facility that is already projected not to meet performance standards. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments will enable the proposed CDC amendments to remove minimum off-street parking requirements citywide. The proposed CDC amendments also include new limits on the maximum number of parking spaces for applicable land uses in select areas of the city, as well as new site development standards for surface parking lots. The proposed comprehensive plan and CDC amendments do not propose changes to the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. The proposed amendments do not propose changes to the standards implementing a functional classification system. The City's adopted TSP ensures there is sufficient capacity for the anticipated growth and land uses based on the existing zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments will not result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with adopted functional classifications. The proposed amendments will also not amend any of the allowed land uses in the City's adopted zoning ordinance that would alter the amount of traffic projected to be generated by the planned land uses, and thus would not degrade performance so that it doesn't meet performance standards or further degrade performance for a facility that is already projected not to meet performance standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 23 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 23 OF 29 The proposed amendments do not significantly affect the existing and planned transportation facilities as defined in subsection (1) of OAR 660-012- 0060, and will comply with the CFEC rules within the TPR, which in turn implements Goal 12. This goal is met. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with all applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. For the reasons stated above, the proposed amendments are established on a factual basis, are consistent with existing and amended City policies, and have been sufficiently coordinated with needed housing in the Metro region, in accordance with OAR 660-008-030(1). D. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (OAR Chapter 660, Division 12) OAR Chapter 660, Division 12 OAR 660-012-0400: Parking Management Cities and counties shall remove parking mandates as directed under OAR 660-012-0420. In lieu of removing parking mandates, cities and counties may amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to implement the provisions of OAR 660-012-0425, OAR 660012-0430, OAR 660-012-0435, OAR 660-012-0440, OAR 660-012-0445, and OAR 660- 012-0450. Finding: The proposed amendments remove all minimum parking requirements from the CDC as required by OAR 660-012-0400. This Administrative Rule is satisfied. Findings for OAR 660-012-0400(2), which requires the city to comply with OAR 660-012-0405 through OAR 660-012-0415 are found below. OAR 660-012-0405: Parking Regulation Improvements (1) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations as provided in this section: (a) Designate employee parking areas in new development shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. (b) Property owners shall be allowed to redevelop any portion of existing off-street parking areas for bicycle-oriented and transit-oriented facilities, including bicycle parking, bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, and similar facilities; and (c) In applying subsections (a) and(b), land use regulations must allow property owners to go below existing mandated minimum parking supply, access for emergency vehicles must be retained, and adequate parking for truck loading should be considered. Finding: The CDC currently includes provisions in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv that require preferential placement for carpools and vanpools. The proposed CDC amendments remove an existing reference to "required parking spaces" within this code section because "required parking spaces" refers to parking spaces required to meet the minimum number of parking spaces, which will be repealed. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 24 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 24 OF 29 The CDC also includes existing provisions that comply with the transit-related provisions of OAR 660-012-0405(1)(b), and amendments are proposed that newly apply the standard to bicycle-oriented facilities (see Item 38). (2) Cities and counties shall adopt policies for on-street parking and land use regulations for off-street parking that allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other uses. Finding: The proposed CDC amendments will remove all minimum off-street parking requirements for all uses on all lots in the city. Property owners will be able to choose to convert existing parking areas to other primary and accessory uses permitted on the site under CDC zoning. (3) Cities and counties shall adopt policies and land use regulations that allow and facilitate shared parking. Finding: Shared vehicle parking will no longer be necessary because the proposed amendments will remove all minimum off-street parking requirements for all uses in the city. Property owners may still share their non-required parking, but they will not need permission from the city. (4) Cities and counties shall adopt land use regulations for any new development that includes more than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot or parcel as provided below. The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all new off-street parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles. (a) Developments not required to comply with OAR 330-135-0010 must provide a climate mitigation action. Climate mitigation actions shall include at least one of the following. Cities and counties are not required to offer all these options: (A) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property. The change to this paragraph sets$1,500 as a floor, allowing cities and counties to index it for inflation, and clarifies it just applies to off-street parking spaces; (B) Installation of solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new off-street parking space. Panels may be located anywhere on the property. The change to this paragraph sets$1,500 as a floor, allowing cities and counties to index it for inflation, and clarifies it just applies to off-street parking spaces; (C) Tree canopy covering at least 40 percent of the new parking lot area at maturity but no more than 15 years after planting; or (D) A mixture of actions under paragraphs (A) through (C) the city or county deems to meet the purpose of this section. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 25 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 25 OF 29 (b) Developments must provide tree canopy. Developments shall provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. Developments are not required to provide trees along drive aisles. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles, and other site design considerations. Developments providing 40 percent tree canopy to comply with paragraph (a)(C) comply with this subsection. (c) Developments must provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking lot, connecting at minimum the following, except where not practical due to site- specific conditions: (A) building entrances; (B) existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way; (C) transit stops; and(D) accessible parking spaces. (d) Development of a tree canopy plan under this section shall be done in coordination with the local electric utility, including pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases. (e) "In providing trees under subsections (a) and(b) the following standards shall be met. Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival, including having ample high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species. Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible. The city or county shall have minimum standards for tree planting no lower than 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards. Finding: The proposed CDC amendments in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) require new parking areas greater than one-half acre to either provide solar panels, payment of at least $1,500 per new off-street parking space, or tree canopy that covers 40 percent of the parking lot at maturity, consistent with the administrative rules. The proposed amendments in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(2) require new parking areas greater than one-half acre to provide either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. While LOC 50.06.003 currently includes provisions that address circulation and connectivity, the proposed amendments to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(3) ensure the standard requires connectivity to- and from- accessible parking spaces for new surface parking lots more than one-half acre in size, and limits when the standard can be avoided. The proposed amendments add language to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(4) to require applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to coordinate, "with the local electric utility" as they develop their tree canopy plan, including during the, "pre-design, design, building and maintenance phases." The proposed amendments in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) require applicants to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements. OAR 660-012-0410 Electric Vehicle Charging (1) This rule applies to cities within a metropolitan area. (2) Cities shall ensure new development supports electric vehicle charging pursuant to amendments to the state building code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.417. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 26 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 26 OF 29 (3) As authorized in ORS 455.417(4),for new multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and new mixed-use buildings consisting of privately owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units, cities shall require the provision of electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces. Finding: The proposed amendments to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix require electric vehicle charging infrastructure with new all-residential or mixed-use buildings with five or more units to provide sufficient electrical service capacity as defined in ORS 455.417 to accommodate no less than 40 percent of vehicle parking spaces serving residential uses on site. This rule is met. OAR 660-012-0415 Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Communities (1) Cities with populations over 100,000, counties with populations over 100,000 outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary, and cities with populations over 25,000 within the Portland Metropolitan Area, shall set parking maximums in climate- friendly areas, and in Metro Region 2040 centers. Those cities and counties shall also set parking maximums on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440. Cities and counties that have designated priority transit corridors under OAR 660-012-0710 may set parking maximums in those corridors in place of the corridors identified in OAR 660-012-0440(3)(b) and(c). (a) Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit housing development in climate friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors. These maximums shall include visitor parking; (b) Parking maximums shall be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment and commercial recreation uses; (c) For land uses with more than 65,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking may not consist of more area than the floor area of the building; and (d) Non-surface parking, such as tuck-under parking, underground and subsurface parking, and parking structures may be exempted from the calculations in this section. Finding: The proposed CDC amendments to Table 50.06.002-2 address parking maximums for: • Units in multifamily residential buildings in climate-friendly areas and within one-half mile walking distance of priority transit corridors; • Commercial and retail uses other than the exemptions specifically mentioned in state administrative rules. Specifically, maximum parking requirements were reduced for offices and barber shops, beauty salons, and personal care services (such as nail, tanning, and therapeutic massage salons); and Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 27 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 27 OF 29 • Lots with total building floor area exceeding 65,000 square feet. The proposed amendments also exempt non-surface parking from parking maximum calculations. This rule is met. OAR 660-012-0420 Exemption for Communities without Parking Mandates (1) Cities and counties that adopt land use regulations that do not include parking mandates are exempt from OAR 660-012-0425 through OAR 660-012-0450. (2) Cities and counties that retain land use regulations with parking mandates shall conform with OAR 660-012-0425 through OAR 660-012-0450. Finding: The proposed amendments remove parking mandates in all zoning districts citywide. Therefore, OAR 660-012-0425 through OAR 660012-0450 do not apply. Conclusion:The proposed amendments comply with OAR Chapter 660, Division 12. E. METRO CODE Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan, Title 4: Regional Parking Management [Metro Code 3.08] Title 4 requires cities and county parking regulations to establish parking ratios, provided the minimum ratios are not higher than those shown in Table 3.08-3 and the maximum ratios are not higher than those shown in Table 3.08-3 and illustrated in the Parking Maximum Map. Findings: The proposed CDC amendments include removing all parking minimums; therefore, the minimum ratios will not exceed those shown in Table 3.08-3 of Metro's Regional Transportation Functional Plan. Proposed parking maximums are not higher than the parking maximums illustrated in Table 3.08-3. Title 4 also requires that parking lots more than 3 acres in size provide street-like features, including curbs, sidewalks, and street trees or planting strips. The proposed amendments require that surface parking lots greater than one-half acre in size provide at least one of three listed "climate mitigation actions" — providing solar panels on-site, paying into a renewable energy fund, or providing at least 40 percent tree canopy— in addition to providing either trees along driveways or a minimum of 30 percent tree canopy coverage over new parking areas. For the reasons stated above, the proposed amendments are consistent with Title 4 of the Regional Transportation Functional Plan. VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 28 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 28 OF 29 EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2949, draft 09/19/2024 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Comprehensive Plan Amendments, draft 09/19/2024 Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 09/19/2024 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports D-1 Staff Memo, dated July 14, 2023, for Planning Commission Work Session on July 24, 2023 D-2 Staff Memo, dated September 13, 2023, for the Planning Commission Work Session on September 25, 2023 D-3 Staff Memo, dated November 15, 2023, for the Planning Commission Work Session on November 27, 2023 D-4 Staff Memo, dated July 12, 2024, for the Planning Commission Work Session on July 22, 2024 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these Comprehensive Plan amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 24-0025. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under "Search" enter LU 24-0025, then press "Enter") Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 29 of 29 LU 24-0025 October 28, 2024 LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-5/PAGE 29 OF 29 O'‘dai)ir MEMORANDUM cREGO1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Modifications to CFEC Parking Code Amendments 09/19/2024 version [Exhibit A-1, Ordinance 2949, Attachment 3] (LU 24-0025) DATE: October 25, 2024 MEETING DATE: October 28, 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY& ACTION REQUESTED Staff proposed Community Development Code (CDC) amendments to comply with the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD's) Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Program (CFEC) rules for parking reform (OAR 660-012-0400 to -0450). The public hearing draft code amendments (Exhibit A-1, Ordinance 2949, Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, 09/19/2024) were issued on September 19, 2024, and as required, a notice and copy of the draft code amendments were made publicly available and also provided to DLCD. On October 15, 2024, DLCD provided comments to staff. Staff has considered the DLCD comments and has prepared modifications to the code amendments relating to compliance with OAR 660-012-0405, -0410, and - . These changes are discussed in more detail below, under Proposed Changes to Draft Code Amendments. These DLCD-recommended amendments, along with other public testimony, are to be considered at the October 28, 2024 public hearing. DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT SECTIONS BEING MODIFIED The changes to Exhibit A-1, Ordinance 2949, Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, 09/19/2024 affect the following code amendments: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 1 OF 7 Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 21. Modify maximum off-street parking space requirements to Table 50.06.002-2 comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012- 0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, and simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration. The change to Item 21 adds links to maps depicting the boundaries of Parking Area A—which includes the Downtown Redevelopment Design District, the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay, and the transit corridor within Yz mile of TriMet Bus Line #35—within Table 50.06.002-2: Maximum On-Site Surface Parking Regulations. This change clarifies and illustrates that the City's parking maximum rules apply to Metro 2040 centers and on lots or parcels within the transit corridors and rail stop areas listed in OAR 660-012-0440 (in compliance with OAR 660- 012-415(1)). It also improves the public readability and accessibility of maps for the affected areas. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 28. Add a new subsection to the parking standard that LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv implements the new OAR requirements for on-site surface (new subsection with parking over one-half acre in size from a non-public entity. renumbered code reference) The change to Item 28 modifies the wording in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(1) to clarify that an exception to the required climate mitigation actions for development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking applies to all private developments and some public agency development (except those required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020), rather than exempting all"public agency" developments (as previously worded). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 33. Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) than one-half acre to follow specified tree planting standards (new subsection with to fulfill tree canopy requirements. renumbered code reference) 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 2 OF 7 Page 3 The change to Item 33 modifies the wording in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5) to adopt clear and objective standards regarding tree planting to fulfill tree canopy requirements through direct reference to the 2021 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10, 50.11) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 39. Add provisions related to electric vehicle service capacity LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix directly as a standard of approval within the CDC for ease of (new subsection with administration. See Item 16. renumbered code reference) The change to Item 39 adds a cross-reference to ORS 455.417 within LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix to clarify that, per ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A), commercial buildings under private ownership must provide sufficient electrical service capacity to serve no less than 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces. MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE AMENDMENT SECTIONS Modifications to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, 09/19/2024 follow: Item 21: Modify maximum off-street parking space requirements to comply with the maximum parking ratios in OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, and simplify the City's maximum parking requirements to improve ease of administration. 09/19/24 Version: Within Table 50.06.002-2, an Area A and an Area B are established to implement maximum parking requirements in compliance with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a) - (b) and Metro Table 3.08-3, as follows: TABLE 50.06.002-2: MAXIMUM ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING REGULATIONS Area A: Downtown Redevelopment Type of Use Design District, Lake Grove Village Area B: Remaining areas Center Overlay,Transit Corridors /// Staff defined Area A to include the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRD), the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LGVCO), and "Transit Corridors" in order to comply with the parking maximum rules in OAR 660-012-0415. However, the table did not include references to maps depicting the DRD and LGVCO boundaries, nor was there a definition of "Transit Corridor" that could be easily referenced. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 3 OF 7 Page 4 10/25/24 Version: To comply with OAR 660-012-415(1), the proposed amendments specifically clarify that the City's parking maximum rules apply to Metro 2040 centers (DRD and LGVCO) and lots within the transit corridor listed in OAR 660-012-0440. The changes to Item 21 add "table notes" within Table 50.06.002-2 containing links to the existing DRD and LGVCO maps, and codify the PP 22-0001 map depicting the transit corridor within % mile of TriMet Bus Line #35, previously directly implemented by the superseding DLCD rule, to depict the boundaries of Area A. [Note: The codifier will provide a to a larger PDF map for readability. See https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2141421]. TABLE 50.06.002-2: MAXIMUM ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING REGULATIONS Area A: Downtown Redevelopment Design District [1], Lake Grove Village Type of Use Area B: Remaining areas Center Overlay District [2],Transit Corridor [3] /// Notes: 1. Downtown Redevelopment Design District: See Figure 50.05.004-A 2. Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District: See 50.05.007-A. 3. Transit Corridor is defined as the area within one-half mile of TriMet Bus Line#35, based on straight distance and not considering topography, as depicted in the map below: City of Lake Oswego !11:,y:::,44.:triff' 7,_,:- :::: "' A-I ,'('Y.7,,;`,.,2,,,, ;V i':v/1-11'F''- -:— /// Item 28:Add a new subsection to the parking standard that implements the new OAR requirements for on-site surface parking over one-half acre in size from a non-public entity. 09/19/24 Version: In LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv, the climate mitigation actions of OAR 660-012- 0405(4)(a)(A) are applied to "non-public agency development," as follows: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 4 OF 7 Page 5 iv. Requirements for New On-Site Surface Parking Exceeding One-Half Acre. Applicable to any new non-public agency development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot. The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all on-site parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles, but excluding individual landscape islands separating parking spaces into bays. /// 10/25/24 Version: DLCD staff commented (Exhibit F-1): Not all public agency projects are required to comply with the green energy technology requirements of OAR 330-135. There are exemptions in OAR 330-135-0020 and a public project could construct a parking lot 0.5 acres in size or larger but not be subject to the requirements of OAR 330-135. DLCD staff recommends revising this amendment to cite the specific OAR. OAR 660-012-0405(4) does not apply only to public agency development that is required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020. To more accurately reference that only some public agency projects may be exempted from this standard, the amendment removes the term "non-public agency", so it is clear that this standard applies to all private development, and adds a specific limited exemption for public agency development "that is required to comply with OAR 330- 135-0020": iv. Requirements for New On-Site Surface Parking Exceeding One-Half Acre. Applicable to any new nor p„blic agency development that includes more than one-half acre of new on-site surface parking on a lot. [Exception: Not applicable to public agency development that is required to comply with OAR 330-135-0020.] The new surface parking area shall be measured based on the perimeter of all on-site parking spaces, maneuvering lanes, and maneuvering areas, including driveways and drive aisles, but excluding individual landscape islands separating parking spaces into bays. /// Item 33: Require applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre to follow specified tree planting standards to fulfill tree canopy requirements. 09/19/24 Version: In LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5), tree planting and maintenance standards for applicants proposing new surface parking lots larger than one-half acre, the standards stated in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e): (e) In providing trees under subsections (a) and(b), the following standards shall be met. Trees must be planted and maintained to maximize their root health and chances for survival, including having ample high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of the species. Trees should be planted in continuous trenches where possible. The city or county shall have minimum standards for tree planting no lower than the 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards. ... were used directly in subsection (a) of the proposed code amendment: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 5 OF 7 Page 6 (5) In providing trees under subsections (1) and (2), the following standards shall be met: (a) Plant and maintain trees using high-quality soil, providing space for root growth, and an irrigation system specific to the needs of the species, or other methods to maximize root health; and (b) Plant trees in continuous trenches unless not practicable. 10/25/24 Version: DLCD staff commented that the rule language in -0405(4)(e) should not be directly adopted because it "is not necessarily clear and objective for purposes of residential development review per ORS 197A.400" (Exhibit F-1). To comply with the requirement in ORS 197A.400 (residential development standards must be based on clear and objective standards), the amendment is modified to cite the 2021 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards—which are also cited in OAR 660-012-0405(4)(e). Staff(and DLCD staff) believe these ANSI standards meet the "clear and objective" requirement. The change to Item 33 modifies LOC 50.06.002.2.a.iv(5)(a) as follows: (5) In providing trees under subsections (1) and (2), the following standards shall be met: (a) Trees shall be planted and maintained to the 2021 American National Standards Institute A300 standards Plant and maintain trees using high quality soil, providing space for root growth, and an irrigation system specific to the needs of the species, or other methods to maximize root health; and (b) Plant trees in continuous trenches unless not practicable. Item 39:Add provisions related to electric vehicle service capacity directly as a standard of approval within the CDC for ease of administration. See Item 16. 09/19/24 Version: In LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix, provisions related to electric vehicle service capacity were added directly as a standard of approval within the CDC for ease of administration (currently an editor's note references the superseding DLCD rule). This 9/19/24 version references the electric vehicle conduit requirements for multifamily residential and mixed-use buildings, in part because those are the specific requirements outlined in OAR 660-012-0410(1): ix. Electric Vehicle Conduit. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and newly constructed mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units, shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces serving the residential dwelling units. Dwelling units in townhouses are not included for purposes of determining the applicability of this regulation. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 6 OF 7 Page 7 10/25/24 Version: DLCD staff recommended adding a cross-reference to ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A) to clarify that there is an additional requirement for privately-owned commercial buildings to provide electric vehicle charging capacity to serve 20% of the number of parking spaces provided (Exhibit F-1). Though this requirement is outlined in ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A) and state building code, DLCD staff nonetheless stated that, "it is clearer to have this explicitly listed in the code since it is essentially a development standard." To facilitate ease of administration and provide clarity regarding electric vehicle charging requirements in the CDC, the 10/25/24 version adds language to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ix to explicitly reference the requirements of ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A), as follows. ix. Electric Vehicle Conduit. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings with five or more residential dwelling units, and newly constructed mixed-use buildings consisting of privately-owned commercial space and five or more residential dwelling units, shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 40 percent of all vehicle parking spaces serving the residential dwelling units. Dwelling units in townhouses are not included for purposes of determining the applicability of this regulation. Commercial buildings under private ownership shall provide sufficient electrical service capacity, as defined in ORS 455.417, to serve no less than 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces. EXHIBITS A-1.1 Ordinance 2949, draft 10/25/2024 (Supersedes version dated 09/19/2024) Attachment 3: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 10/25/2024 (Supersedes version dated 09/19/2024) F-1 Email Correspondence from DLCD Staff, 10/15/2024 Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code and Comprehensive Plan amendments can be found by visiting the project webpage for LU 24-0025. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under "Search" enter LU 24-0025, then press "Enter") 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 24-0025 EXHIBIT D-6/PAGE 7 OF 7 9.1 o,� E 0 COUNCIL REPORT N 0 V 0 —w oREGo\-' Subject: 2025 Master Fees and Charges Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Shawn Cross, Director Report Date: November 1, 2024 Department: Finance Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution , ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑X Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: No changes to the draft 2025 Master Fees and Charges booklet. Recommended Language for Motion: N/A Project/ Issue Relates To: 2025 Master Fees and Charges. Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL 2025 Master Fees and Charges Study Session. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Provide direction to staff in preparing material for a public hearing and adoption of fees and charges at the December 17, 2024 Council meeting. BACKGROUND For the benefit of the public as well as efficiency in administration, Lake Oswego maintains a compilation of all fees charged by the city for a variety of services, such as utility services, usage of fields and recreational classes, and building permits and plan inspections, to name a few. It Page 2 is published in a user-friendly booklet (available online), and the fees themselves are reviewed by the City Council and adopted by Council resolution each fall for the following calendar year. All fees go into effect on January 1, 2025 with the new calendar year, except for the utilities. Those new fees for services go into effect as of July 1, 2025, the first day of the new fiscal year. This provides staff sufficient time for public education and customer notification. Increases in utility service fees often generate the most interest and discussion. Table 1: Fee Increase Average The Master Fees & Charges booklet (see for a Typical Month Change Attachment 1) begins, therefore, with 1==11Increase utility fees. Pages 5 and 6 in the Master Water _ $1.27 2.0 Fees & Charges booklet present key Sewer _ 3.50 3.9 information for all utilities in one snapshot, Stormwater 0.69 3.0 including the monthly total fee increase a Street Maintenance 0.33 2.0 typical customer is likely to experience. Total $5.79 3.0 The city uses ten CCF of water and eight CCF for sewer when calculating a typical customer. 1 CCF is 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons. The actual consumption can vary greatly from customer to customer. Many fees charged by the city are set to recover either all or part of the costs to provide the service, to remain affordable, and to be competitive with similar services in the city or neighboring jurisdictions. Every year departments review their fees and modify them where deemed necessary, and often modify them by a cost index. Staff researched several cost indices on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website. Portland falls under the West Region B/C index (The Western Region CPI is broken down between group A and B/C: cities with populations of greater than 2.5 million (A) or those with less (B/C). The indices are shown below as a rolling one-year index from June 2023 to June 2024. For construction cost index (CCI), the private Engineering News-Record indices are from October 2023 to October 2024: Table 2: Indices 12-month Change West Region CPI (all items) 2.8% West Region —A CPI (all items) 3.1% West Region —B/C CPI (all items) 2.6% West Region CPI (all items less energy and food increases) 3.0% Energy prices 1.0% Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index—20 city average (CCI) 1.0% Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for Seattle (CCI-Seattle) 3.1% Respect. Excellence. Trust. Se'vice 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 Staff reported the indices last year on the previous page, and they were comparable at 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.6%, 4.7%, -11.3%, 2.5%, and .09%, respectively. The Energy Prices Index has decreased largely due to a significant reduction in the price of gasoline. When reviewing fees, several departments take guidance from the above indices or some variation thereof. Water and sewer connection charges are proposed to change with the CCI, as is the street maintenance fee, and all system development charges. Prior Councils established this policy and the attached Master Fees & Charges booklet reflects those changes. The following discussion will highlight the major changes in each section of the booklet, but is not intended to be a complete list. Instead, the Master Fees & Charges booklet is presented in a 'track-changes' format so that all changes can easily be identified by the reader. DISCUSSION Utilities In the utilities, capital projects are usually the main cost driver and the reason for needed fee increases. These fees can be used to pay for smaller capital projects, while the fees are also used to pay the debt service payments on the larger capital projects over time. Water: The water utility is scheduled to increase fees by two percent this coming fiscal year, similarly to the previous eight years, to build its ability to pay for operations and for this ongoing debt service. For an average water usage month, this will add a little over$1 to a typical monthly bill for water (see Table 1 above). Sewer: The City updated its sewer rate model to incorporate the latest cost estimates from Portland for the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. These projections were presented to Council in July 2020 by FCS group. The model called for annual increases to the sewer rates of 3.9%for the next 15 years. This will add a little over $3 per month to a typical Lake Oswego homeowner bill. Stormwater: Staff is recommending to change the increase to three percent from the previous seven percent increase from the past several years as was outlined with the 2009 Clean Streams plan. The Fund has a decent amount of revenues coming in and reserve to do projects and is also due to have a master plan done which will give an updated list of capital projects. This will lead to a new conversation of funding needs in the future. Street Maintenance: Existing policy calls for an annual fee increase in the amount of the CCI (see Table 2 above) and the proposed fee increase is 2% or an additional $0.33 per month for a typical home owner in Lake Oswego. All proposed increases have been evenly applied to fixed and to variable portions of each fee. It is the goal to structure the fixed and variable portion of a customer fee to align with the utility's fixed and variable cost structure. The one caveat to this is adding a conservation element to Respect. Trust. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 the rates. The cost and fee structure are lining up closely enough to provide a stable revenue stream to cover fixed costs. Planning The Planning Department charges were increased by 2.6%, the most recent West Region CPI (B/C size class), as published BLS. System Development Charges Per established policy, System Development Charges (SDCs) are increased annually by the percentage growth in the CCI. These fees are used for various capacity building parks and utility capital projects. Business License Fee The business license fee has been restructured in service of the 2024 Council Initiative to "Develop a funding strategy for a longer-term contract with the Chamber of Commerce to implement a portion of the 2022 Economic Development Strategy. Evaluate the possibility of the business license fee as a funding option." The proposed structure brings the City's rates back into alignment with our neighboring communities. This rate structure is projected to generate enough revenue to fund to current and future needs of the City's partnership with the Chamber of Commerce. The proposed structure, in addition to introducing new employee bands, adds a rate-tier for home-based businesses and short-term rentals (-600 of the licensed businesses in Lake Oswego) and removes late renewal fees, 'additional review' fees, and the premium for new business licenses. This is shown in tables 1 and 2 below. Table 3. Current Business License Fee Structure (2024) Renewal New/Late All Nonprofits $0 $0 1-3 Employees $64 $80 4-10 Employees $84 $110 11+Employees $110 $150 Non-Compliance Fee $550 Respect. Trust. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 5 Table 4. Proposed Business License Fee Structure (2025) Flat Fee All Nonprofits $0 Home-based Businesses& $100 Short-term Rentals 1-25 Employees $200 26-50 Employees $350 51+Employees $450 Non-Compliance Fee $550 CONCLUSION A public hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2024, as part of the City Council's review and adoption of fee changes. Major changes in assumptions in any of the utilities as a result of the study session may lead to a modification of rate models and would need to be revisited at a later time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Master Fees & Charges draft booklet with track changes 2. Clean draft version of Master Fees & Charges without markups Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 Preface City of Lake Oswego, Oregon (Style Definition:TOC 2 The City provides a full range of municipal services to the community which includes police and fire protection,emergency medical services,traffic control,street maintenance and improvements,water,sewer, and stormwater management services,planning and zoning regulation,building inspection and regulation, parks and recreational activities,and community library service. This Master Fees and Charges booklet consolidates all City fees and charges,adopted by City Council resolution,for the various services that the City provides. Typically,it is updated annually and reflects all fee resolutions passed by Council during the year. For easy reference,the current Master Fees and Charges booklet,as well as versions from prior years,are available online at: www.lakeoswego.city/fees. Fee Variance and Waiver Statement Based upon an unusual circumstance or event,past practices,demonstrated hardship,or public benefit,the City Manager is authorized to waive or decrease a fee(s)or charge(s),barring requirements by State or local codes,in a particular matter or establish a fee not yet authorized in this resolution. When a new fee is established by the City Manager it may be incorporated into this resolution. It shall be communicated to Council in writing to allow opportunity for comment. The request for a waiver or reduction must be in writing. If the City Manager or their designee agrees to said waiver or reduction,they may inform the City Council,in writing,of the request and their decision,except in minor matters such as non-profit signed fee waivers and City tree removal applications. Effective Dates and Resolution The 2025 Master Fees and Charges effective dates: • Utility Fees are effective July 1,2025. • All other Fees are effective January 1,2025(unless otherwise noted) Resolution#24-33—Adopting the 2025 Master Fees&Charges Cover photo of water treatment plant is courtesy of Dave Arpin,2023. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 1 Table of Contents Section 1: General 5 Utility Rates: Water,Sewer,Stormwater,and Street 5 Business License and Liquor License 17 Dog License 1818 Rights of Way Usage Fee 1818 Franchise Fees 1817 Public Records Fees 1918 Miscellaneous Fees 19 Section 2: City Attorney's Office 20 Discovery Fees and City Code 2420 Section 3: Fire Department 2221 General Fees 26 Medical Services and Transport Fees 2221 Emergency Services Rates 2222 Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviews 2322 Fire and Life Safety Inspections 2322 Section 4: Library 2423 General Fees 2423 Section 5: Municipal Court 2624 General Fees 24 Section 6: Parks&Recreation 2625 Recreation Services and Activities 2625 Lake Oswego Recreation&Aquatics Center(LORAC) 27 Lake Oswego Golf Course 30 Indoor Tennis Center 308 Athletic Field User Charges 3028 Adult Community Center Fees 3123 Swim Park 320 Water Sports Center 320 Park Reservation Fees 3234 Miscellaneous Fees 342 Commercial Photography and Filming in City Parks 342 Page 2 2025 Master Fees and Charges Table of Contents, continued Section 7: Police Department 35' Security Alarm Permit and Fees 35' Security Alarm Code Violation Fines 35' Police Reports 35: Miscellaneous Police Fees 35' Section 8: Public Works Support Services 38 General Fees 38, Section 9: Building Division 37 Building Permits 37= Electrical Permits 38 Mechanical Permits Residential 46 : Mechanical Permits Commercial 41 Plumbing Permits 42, Grading and Fill Permits 43 Demo and Deconstruction Permits 43 Manufactured Home Permits 44, Manufactured Dwelling/RV Parks 44, Community Development Code Enforcement Charges 44 Record Retention and Archiving Fees 4� Research and Consultation Fees 45: Other Inspections and Fees 45' Additional Miscellaneous Fees 45' Refunds 45' Section 10: Engineering Division 46 Minor Utility Facilities,Installed or Constructed by Public or Private Entities 46, General Engineering Fees 46, Other Engineering Fees 47= Section 11: Planning Division 49 Ministerial Developments 49 Minor Developments 49 Sign Code Fees 50 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 3 Table of Contents, continued Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments 5048 Major Developments 5149 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 5149 Fees Relating to Historical Preservation 5149 Appeals 5149 Pre-Application Conference/Consultations 5149 Research Fees 52A Tree Code Fees 520 Fee Exemptions for Affordable Housing 534 Other Planning Fees 541 Section 12: Systems Development Charges 563 Systems Development Charges 574 APPENDIX Systems Development Charges Methodologies 62 2025 Master Fees and Charges Resolution 72 Page 4 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General General Utility Rates: Water,Sewer,Stormwater,and Street(LOC 37 and 38) Water and sewer charges for customers outside of the City may be set by specific agreement.For customers outside the City(including Forest Highlands Water District),but not covered by a special agreement,the charge is 150%of standard"in-City"rates.For bulk water users,the City Manager may set"peak"season rates.(LOC 38.04.015) The utility user charge shall be due and payable on the date specified on the bill,and shall be delinquent thereafter.A late charge shall be imposed on delinquent utility user charges in addition to the amount billed. (LOC 38.06.030) A late charge of$5 may be assessed for utility bills not paid within 30 days after billing.If the utility bill is$200 or more,the late charge is 2.5%of the total amount due.The late charge is divided proportionately among the amounts due for water,sewer,stormwater,and street fee and becomes part of the total user charge amount due for each utility. Lake Oswego's Typical Monthly Utility Bill $220 $200 188.21 194.78 200.57 170.52 176.91 $180 160.15 164.83 $160 146.38 150.78 155.41 $140 MMMMM MMMMMMMMM $120 S1oo MMMMMMM $80 MMMMMMMM $60 MMMMM $40 MMMMM $20 $0 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 ■Water 55.88 56.96 58.14 59.32 60.51 61.73 62.97 64.22 65.48 66.75 ■Sewer 68.39 70.45 72.56 74.72 76.93 79.97 83.10 86.32 89.72 93.22 ■Stormwater 13.46 14.40 15.41 16.49 17.64 18.87 20.19 21.60 23.11 23.80 ■Street Maintenance 8.65 8.97 9.30 9.62 9.75 9.95 10.65 16.07 16.47 16.80 Based on typical use for a single-family home-10 ccf for water and 8 ccf for sewer Past and projected average utility rate increases 7/1/20 7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/26* Water 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 4 Formatted Table Sewer 3.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Stormwater 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 37.0% 37.0% Street maintenance 1.3% 2.0% 7.0% 50.9% 2.5% 3,02.0% 3.0% Average increase of 23.9% 3.67% 3,75_0% 6,415.9% 3.5% 3.06% 3.16% total utility bill 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 5 Section 1: General *Adopted rates will be implemented the first full billing cycle following the effective date. Components of the Typical Monthly Lake Oswego Utility Bill $100 $90 $80 $70 - $60 $50 - $40 $30 $10 ----� $0 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 •Water Sewer - • •Stormwater ---Street Maintenance Comparison of Neighboring Cities'Typical Monthly Utility Bills Based on a September 2024 survey of typical single-family homes in other Portland metropolitan area cities. $300 • $250 - $200 166.78 . 157.72 $150 -. 139.55 111.37 $100 $50 1111111111 $ Sherwood Oregon West Linn Gresham Beaverton Wilsonville Hillsboro Milwaukie Tualatin Tigard 0Wke. Portland •Water 29.59 40.41 65.00 62.47 80.50 55.77 61.44 53.87 82.95 89.01 66.75 144.18 •Sewer 38.27 36.27 21.19 44.28 57.50 72.94 58.40 70.63 60.21 59.67 93.22 101.52 •Stormwater 18.61 12.66 9.08 17.80 13.60 11.90 14.86 29.47 11.84 16.47 23.80 38.59 •Street 5.04 15.53 17.65 - - 10.90 9.11 6.06 7.15 8.92 16.80 - •Other 1.40 6.50 22.29 15.00 - 2.89 13.91 6.75 5.00 9.00 - 0.64 Page 6 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Formatted j Formatted Table [,,, Water Rates Lormatted 1. Water connection charge'-this charge is in addition to the Water SDC fee,if applicable(LOC 38.10.113). [Formatted (,,,j Meter size larger than 2"are charged at cost and materials plus 20%overhead($2,795 minimum). [Formatted (,,,j Formatted (,,,1 Meter Size Charge Formatted (5/8"-3/4" $ 935 944 Formatted (,,,1 1" $ 1,332 345 [Formatted [,,,1 1 1/2" $- 3,357 391 2" $- 3,756 794 [Formatted (,,,1 Formatted (,,,j Formatted (,,, On moratorium streets(paved within the past five years),the trench patch replacement requirement is [Formatted (,,,i significantly larger.Therefore,if a meter installation is required on a moratorium street,an additional charge will Formatted be retained collected to account for the larger pavement patch. ( Formatted (,,,j $3,000(indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City-Average. [Formatted Formatted 2. Monthly water standard minimum and volume charges. [Formatted (,,,j a. Standard minimum monthly water rates for customers within the City. LOC 38.06.020(2a). [Formatted (,,,j Formatted [,,,] Formatted (,,,j For all meter sizes: 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 [Formatted („J Single family residential customers $29.96 $30.56 $39:5831.17 [Formatted (,,,1 Multi-family customers-First unit $32.70 $33.35 $33.3534.02 [Formatted (,,,1 Multi-family customers-Each additional dwelling unit $29.51 $30.10 $394830.70 [Formatted (,,,1 Formatted I,,,1 Meter Non-residential Services Irrigation customers [Formatted [,,, Size 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 [Formatted (,,,j 5/8"-3/4" $ 32.70 $ 33.35 c$ 33.35 $ 29.96 $ 30.56 $�O.SG [Formatted (,,,j 34_02 31.1 • 12.28 $ 38.72 [Formatted (,,,j 1" $ 41.45 $ 42.28 43_13 $ 37.96 $ 38.72 39.49 Formatted (,,,j $ 50.31 $ 46-10 [Formatted (,,,I 1 1/2" $ 49.32 $ 50.31 51_32 $ 45.20 $ 46.10 ' 47 02 Formatted (,,,1 2" $ 74.63 $ 76.12 '$ 76.12 $ 68.36 $ 69.73 .$ 69.73 [Formatted 77.64 71.12, 85.47 $ 78.3G [Formatted (,,,1 3" $ 83.79 $ 85.47 87.18 $ 76.82 $ 78.36 79.93, [Formatted (,,,1 4" $ 109.12 $ 111.30 c$ 111.30 $100.00 $ 102.00 $ e [Formatted (,,,I 113.53. 104.04, Formatted $ 136.88 $ 125.42 "'� 6" $ 134.20 $ 136.88 139.62. $122.96 $ 125.42 127 93k [Formatted (,,, $ 206.07 $ 188.82 [Formatted 8" $ 202.03 $ 206.07 $185.12 $ 188.82 210.19 192.60 [Formatted 10" $ 233.20 $ 237.86 $ 237'88 $213.71 $ 217.98 $ 217.98 % �Formatted 242.62. 222.34_/ 12" $ 330.00 $ 336.60 `$ 336�A $302.38 $ 308.43 . -308 43 Formatted 343.33, 314.60, [Formatted [,,,] Formatted (,,,i 1 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. (Formatted (,,,1 Formatted (,,,l 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 7 Section 1: General Page 8 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Volume charges in addition to charges in 2a. USAGE:Per 100 cubic feet(ccf)2 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 Single family residential customers: (Formatted Table Tier 1: 0— 8 ccf monthly $3.15/ccf $ 3.21/ccf $ 3.21 (Formatted:Not Highlight 3.27iccf Formatted:Not Highlight Tier 2: 9—16 ccf monthly $4.53/ccf $ 4.62/ccf $ 4.62 4_71Jccf {Formatted:Not Highlight Tier 3: over 17 ccf monthly $8.48/ccf $ 8.65/ccf $ 3.65 [Formatted:Not Highlight 8.48jccf [Formatted:Not Highlight Multi-family customers $3.63/ccf $ 3.70/ccf $ 3.70 Formatted:Not Highlight 3.77,/ccf Non-residential customers $4.10/ccf $ 4.18/ccf $ 448 Formatted:Not Highlight 4.26 ccft Formatted:Not Highlight Irrigation customers $6.49/ccf $ 6.62/ccf $ f Formatted:Not Highlight 6.75/ccf N[Formatted:Not Highlight 3. If a customer's water is turned off because of noncompliance with the proper use of water or for non- Formatted:Not Highlight payment of utility bills,a charge of$60 will be assessed:$30 for turning the water off and another$30 for (Formatted:Not Highlight a water turn-on. (LOC 38.16.170). The City shall turn off and turn on the customer's water supply at the customer's request.The City shall provide this service for free during working hours one time each calendar year.The City shall charge for additional requests and service during non-working hours except in cases of emergency.(LOC 38.16.175) For customer turn off and turn on requests,after the first turn off then on request in a calendar year,a charge of$60 will be assessed:$30 for turning the water off and another$30 for a water turn-on. There is a charge for reading meters or making service turn-ons or turn-offs at other than regular working hours.In order to suit the convenience of water purchasers,whenever a City employee is required to read a meter or make a water service turn-on or turn-off during hours other than the regular work hours established for City employees,a flat charge of$80 shall be required for such service,in addition to all other charges provided for in this resolution,to be payable as other charges for water services. 4. Rates for the temporary use of a fire hydrant include a$50 installation fee,a$10 per day charge for meter rentals with a maximum charge of$50 per month,plus the usage fee for water based on non-residential water rates. In addition,a$475 refundable deposit will be collected. The deposit is refundable if the meter is returned in good condition and fees have been paid in full. 5. Failure to test backflow prevention assemblies between January 1 to July 15 and submit the test results by July 25 shall be cause for the City to arrange for and conduct the required test.The cost of such a test shall be added to the customer's monthly utility bill at the actual incurred cost plus overhead utilizing a billing multiplier of 2.4 times direct costs. (LOC 38.12.126). 6. If the City is requested to conduct a fire flow test,a flat fee will be charged for each test.(See Section 3). 2 Based on water delivered during the period between meter read dates. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 9 Section 1: General Page 10 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General 1 Water Rate History-Monthly Typical Typical water Effective Usage usage in portion % Date Fixed Rate Rate ccf of bill change 7/1/2016 $26.08 $2.74/$3.94 10 $55.88 4.5% 7/1/2017 $26.61 $2.79/$4.02 10 $56.96 2% 7/1/2018 $27.14 $2.85/$4.10 10 $58.14 2% 7/1/2019 $27.68 $2.91/$4.18 10 $59.32 2% 7/1/2020 $28.23 $2.97/$4.26 10 $60.51 2% 7/1/2021 $28.79 $3.03/$4.35 10 $61.73 2% 7/1/2022 $29.37 $3.09/$4.44 10 $62.97 2% 7/1/2023 $29.96 $3.15/$4.53 10 $64.22 2% 7/1/2024 $30.56 $3.21/$4.62 10 $65.48 2% 64$,3.21/$ 1.Formatted:Not Highlight 7/1/2025 ,.$3O56 31.1; 4 2-3.27/$ 10 $6&48 66.75 2% Formatted:Not Highlight .41...___._ Formatted:Centered i Fixed portion of Monthly Water Bill Formatted:Not Highlight Formatted:Not Highlight $35 1 LFormatted:Not Highlight Formatted:Not Highlight $30 $25 $20 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Water Usage Rate per ccf $9 $8 I $5 ■ ■ IIII $4 $3 $2 I r r I I I I 1- 1- 1 ro I 1 sl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 ■Tier 1: 0-8 ccf/month ■Tier 2:9-16 ccf/month ■Tier 3:over 16 ccf/month Section 1: General $9 $8 $7 $5 -$5 - - - - - - - $4 $3 F I 511 $2I I I I$1IIIIIII 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ■Tier 1: 0-8 ccf/month ■Tier 2:9-16 ccf/month ■Tier 3:over 16 ccf/month Page 12 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Sewer Rates 1. Sewer monthly rates for customers within the City,served by the City,and outside Clean Water Services (CWS)shall be charged the following rates for sewer service LOC 38.06.020(2b): Residential for all meter sizes: 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 First dwelling unit $66.64 $69.23 $69.23 Formatted:Not Highlight 71.94 [Formatted:Not Highlight 1 Each additional dwellingunit '$62.'l [Formatted:Not Highlight I $60.12 $62.46 ( 6490- -- Formatted:Not Highlight Meter Non-residential services Size 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 5/8"-3/4" $ 59.45 $ 61.77 '$ 61-77 -F [Formatted:Not Highlight 1 64.18A [Formatted Table 1" $ 75.25 $ 78.18 '$ 75718 81.23� Formatted:Not Highlight i 1 1/2" $ 89.47 $ 92.96 `$ 92.96 [Formatted:Not Highlight 1 96.59A (Formatted:Not Highlight 2" $ 135.37 $ 140.65 $ 140.65 [Formatted:Not Highlight 146.14A 3" $ 152.02 $ 157.95 S 157.95 [Formatted:Not Highlight 164.11A [Formatted:Not Highlight i 4" $ 197.88 $ 205.60 •S 29569 '"[Formatted:Not Highlight i 213.62A 6" $ 243.42 $ 252.91 $ 252.91 [Formatted:Not Highlight i 262.77. [Formatted:Not Highlight 1 8" $ 289.37 $ 300.66 ,$ 3 fi [Formatted:Not Highlight I 312.39 $ 318.38 (Formatted:Not Highlight � 10" $ 335.30 $ 348.38 361.97, [Formatted:Not Highlight 12" $ 472.58 $ 491.01 `$ '191.01 [Formatted:Not Highlight 510.16 Formatted:Not Highlight USAGE:Per 100 cubic feet(ccf)of average winter water usage Formatted:Not Highlight Formatted:Not Highlight 1 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 [Formatted:Not Highlight I Residential customers .$s�0 Formatted:Not Highlight $2.46/ccf $2.56/ccf i 2.66 ccf Non-residential customers ,$3.84 Formatted:Not Highlight $3.70/ccf $3.84/ccf 3.99 ccf [Formatted Table Formatted:Not Highlight a. The above Sewer Usage Rate per 100 cubic feet of average monthly water consumption is based on a Formatted:Not Highlight customer's average water use during three applicable winter billing cycles. If the full three winter Formatted:Not Highlight billing cycles are not available,whatever billing record is available shall be used for the computation. [Formatted:Not Highlight b. Where no average winter water usage is available or where it is deemed inappropriate to use in some unusual circumstance for residential,use the standard City-wide average of 8ccf per month multiplied by the standard sewer rates listed above. c. The monthly sewer utility user charge for property within the City and served by Clean Water Services (CWS)of Washington County shall be equal to the monthly service charge established by the agency 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 13 Section 1: General for similar uses served by the Agency system.The City Manager shall keep on file for public inspection a copy of the current rate structure. Clean Water Services Charge 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/253 CWS Sewer-fixed base charge $32.64 $33.95 $35.31 n/a CWS Sewer-usage charge $ 2.16 $ 2.25 $ 2.34 n/a 2. If the City is requested to conduct a sewer connection verification test,a fee of$60 will be charged for each test. Homeowners requesting the test and residing at the residence are exempt from this fee. 3. A line charge shall be assessed upon connection to portions of the sewer system. The City Engineer is authorized to establish additional benefited project areas upon completion of new projects that are constructed under the City's Sewer Extension Program. Customers within the project area shall be assessed the line charge as a condition of receiving a connection permit. The line charge will be reviewed annually and adjusted to reflect actual construction costs of eligible projects or the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(20-City Average)as published in October of the preceding year. The charges shown below are for eligible projects already completed through the date of this resolution: a. For the following project areas,the cost per single family connection $ 28,017 28,296' Sundeleaf Drive Deemar Way Country Club Road Mardee Avenue Bryant Road/Old Gate Road Stonebridge Way Jean Road Upper Drive west of Bryant Carman Drive b. A multiple of the above fee in 3a with the multiplier equal to the number of single family connections that could be developed on the subject property under R-5 zoning,as determined by the City Engineer°. 4. Special Sewer Connection Charges: a. Fairway Road Project(pursuant to Ordinance#2262) $ 47,15248.623 s b. Rivergrove Sewer Connection Charges(pursuant to Zone-of-Benefit[ZOB]Ordinance#2352) Refer to final ZOB ordinance for fees by lot. Various' Stormwater Rates 1. The stormwater management utility user charge shall be as follows{LOC 38.06.020 2(c)}: a. Each customer using a location for a single-family home or a duplex shall be charged the fee as shown in the table below. 3 Not known at this time,usually becomes available on June 1st. Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for Seattle. Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Note: For items 3 through 4,SDC charges may apply and are in addition to the line charges shown. Page 14 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General b. All other parcels shall be charged per the table below per Equivalent Service Unit(ESU).Total ESUs charged is determined by dividing the total impervious area by 3,030 and rounding to the nearest whole number. 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 $ 21.60 $ 23.11 h$ 23.11 [Formatted:Not Highlight Fixed monthly rate 23.807.73 Formatted Table 2. Tampering Fine.The fine for tampering with the City utility system shall be equal to the total of the cost of correcting the tampering,plus any utility fee revenue estimated by the City to have been lost or affected by the tampering,and a$100 fine. (LOC 38.26.915). 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 15 Section 1: General Street Maintenance Fee(LOC 37) LOC 37.02.015 A Street Maintenance Fee was established by Ordinance No.2373 in an amount to be adjusted from time to time, by resolution of the City Council. The fee is based upon the relative direct and indirect use of,or benefit from,the City street system that results from activities within the City,and shall be imposed upon the persons responsible for each developed property upon which such activities occur. LOC 37.02.020 All funds collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to pay costs of operation,maintenance,repair, engineering,improvement,renewal,replacement and reconstruction of the City street system. LOC 37.04.010 The Street Maintenance Fee shall be billed and collected with and as part of the combined utility user charge billing pursuant to LOC 38.06.020 and LOC 38.06.030. In the event funds received from the City's utility billings are inadequate to satisfy in full all of the water,sewer,stormwater,and street maintenance fees,credit shall be first given in this order: street maintenance fee,stormwater,sewer,and then water. Rates'and Effective Dates(Per Resolution 10-19 and 10-20): a. Residential groups will be billed 100%of the following per resident fees monthly: Effective Effective Effective July 1,2023 July 1,2024 July 1,2025 Single family $ 16.07 $ —16.47 $ —16.4780 77$ 11. $ Multi-family(per unit) $ 11.4811.7712.01 b. Non-Residential groups will be billed the following fees monthly,multiplied by their square footage: Effective Effective Effective July 1,2023 July 1,2024 July 1,2025 Group I $ 9.82 $ —10.07 $ —10.0-27 Group II $ 22.11 $ 22.66 $ 22.663.11 Group III $ 82.55 $ 84.61 $ 8416.30 General"Group"classification defined as: Group I: less than 29 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1,000 sq ft Group II: from 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1,000 sq ft Group III: greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1,000 sq ft 6 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. Per Resolution 10-20,index adjustment shall not be less than a two percent increase or more than a seven percent increase. The increase in prior year of 50.9%includes both an increase of 5.7%for CCI as well as for an increase of 45.2%or$1.5M for annual pathway funding. Page 16 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Business License and Liquor License Business License A business with anticipated or established gross revenue during a calendar year of no more than$1,000 and at least 50%owned by a person under 19 years of age,are exempt from the following annual business license fees (LOC 20.02.025): 4-40 l more Business License Fees' emPloYe employees es Initial',n Tissue feeNon-Profits $ 80 $110 4450 Renewal fee received on or before renewal $64100 $ 84 $440 eateHome-based Businesses/Short-Term Rental Renewal fee received after renewal datel-25 $80200 4440 -$-350 Employees 826-50 Employees $35028 $ 30 $ 45 50+Employees $450 1. Renewal Period: Applications for new business licenses should be submitted at least 30 days before the business opens. New business licenses are in effect for the full twelve months after the month of initial issuance. They are renewed annually thereafter. 2. Appeal Fees: Appeal of issue,denial,suspension,or revocation of license $200 3. Temporary Business License: License shall be valid for no more than two successive weeks during a calendar year.They are non- renewable with a minimum fee of$25 per week(or portion thereof)and a maximum fee of$50 per two-week period. Applicants are restricted to two temporary licenses per year. 4. Business License Violation Fee...... $550 Liquor License The Oregon Liquor Control Commission(OLCC)solicits the City's recommendation on applications for new, renewed,or changed liquor licenses.The City will no longer charge a fee for this service. 7 Additional review fee applies to any application(initial or renewal)that requires additional review. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 17 Section 1: General Dog License(LOC 31.02.115) Every person keeping a dog that has a set of permanent canine teeth or is 6 months old,whichever comes first, shall procure a license for the dog. The license must be procured by paying the following fee to the City,not later than 30 days after the person becomes keeper of the dog. A dog license shall be valid for up to 1,2,or 3 years, and shall expire on the appropriate month end of the respective year.To stay within State Law,no license may be issued with an expiration date that is beyond the end of the month of the applicable rabies vaccination expiration date. Licenses are not prorated for partial years. Expires on the appropriate month end Dog license fees One year Two years Three years Rabies Infertile $30 $60 $90 vaccination Fertile $50 $100 $150 required Delinquent license charge(after 2mo.past due) $20 plus license fee Replacement dog tag $ 5 Dog impounded without license License fee plus impoundment fee Impoundment fee(first pickup) $30 Impoundment fee(additional within 90 days) $60 Shelter fee Set by Clackamas County Dog Control Shelter Dog license exceptions 1. Seeing-eye or other assistance dog: No fee is charged for certified seeing-eye or other assistance dogs as defined in ORS 346.659A,such as"in-training",hearing-ear,or other assistance types recognized by a qualified organization. 2. Rabies vaccination due to medical reasons: No rabies vaccination certificate is required as long as(1)the examining veterinarian certifies that the dog should be exempted from the rabies vaccination due to medical reasons and(2)states whether the reason is permanent or the date when exemption ends. 3. Kenneled for commercial sale(and not at large): The fee for a dog that is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale(and not permitted to run at large)as part of a dog breeder's inventory is$0;a dog that is kept primarily in kennels(and not permitted to run at large),but is removed from the dog breeder's inventory is$5. The keeper must provide evidence that the keeper is a dog breeder and that the dog is a part of the breeder's inventory and/or is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale and not permitted to run at large. 4. New resident or new dog: New dogs are required to be licensed within 30 days of the owner becoming a resident,of acquisition,or of first rabies shot,and for a one,two or three year license,depending on the expiration of the rabies shot.After an additional 60 days,the delinquent license charge is added to the regular license fee. &—New dog licensed elsewhere: No fee is charged to owners of new dogs currently licensed elsewhere,but are required to register the dog and obtain a City of Lake Oswego dog tag. 5. Page 18 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Rights of Way Usage Fee On January 2,2019,the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Ordinance 2804,adding Lake Oswego Code Chapter 51 ("Utilities Facilities in Public Rights of Way").Chapter 51 established uniform regulations for utility operations in the City's right of way,as well as a licensing and registration process that replaced individually negotiated franchise agreements.Fees associated with Ordinance 2804 and Chapter 51 of Lake Oswego City Code were established via Resolution 19-03,also adopted January 2,2019. Utility Service Annual Rights of Way Usage Fee* Electric 5%of gross revenue Natural Gas 5%of gross revenue Cable 5%of gross revenue,or maximum amount permitted by applicable law Communications 5%of gross revenue,$3.48 per linear foot of utilities in the rights-of- way,or a minimum annual fee of$5,797,whichever is greater;or the maximum amount permitted by applicable law. The per-linear-foot fee and the minimum fee shall increase 3% annually on January 1st of each year,beginning January 1,20209 Any utility operator that does not Based on Total Linear Feet of Utility Facilities in the Rights-of-Way: earn gross revenue within the City. Up to 5,000: $6,956 5,001-10,000: $9,274 10,001-20,000: $13,910 More than 20,000: $23,186 The minimum fee shall increase 3%annually on January 1st of each year,beginning January 1,2020. "Gross Revenue"means any and all revenue,of any kind,nature or form without deduction for expense,less net uncollectibles,derived from the operation of utility facilities in the City,subject to all applicable limitations in federal or state law. Rights of Way License Application fee $250 for a five-year license Rights of Way Annual Registration fee $150 *Government provided water,sewer,and stormwater utilities are not charged this fee. 9 Fees listed incorporate 3%escalator as of January 1,2024 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 19 Section 1: General Page 20 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Attachment Fees As per City of Lake Oswego Ordinance 2820 and established in Resolution 19-03,wireless providers that deploy infrastructure within the city right of way are subject to the following fees: Utility Service Attachment Fees Wireless Facility permit fee,charged for each wireless facility application submitted to the City $1,026.08 per application Additional attachment fee,if placed on City owned pole $894.95 annually Additional fee for optional permit pre-application meeting $549.64 per occurrence Additional fee for knockdown of any pole with wireless facility $453.48 per occurrence attachment All fees shall increase 3%annually on January 1"of each year,beginning January 1,202010 1°Fees listed incorporate 3%escalator as of January 1,2024 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 21 Section 1: General Franchise Fees(as set by franchise agreements) Electricity and Natural Gas Portland General Electric Franchise fee: 3,55%of defined gross revenue Expires January October4-71,203423 (Ordinance 26102940) Garbage/Solid Waste Republic Services Franchise fee: 5%of gross cash receipts Expires December 13,2032 (Ordinance 2901) Cable Comcast(MACC) Ziply Fiber(MACC) Franchise fee: 5%of gross revenue Franchise fee: 5%of gross revenue Expires June 30,2025 (Ordinance 2681) Expires May 25,2022 (Ordinance 2486) Telecommunication Services Clackamas County Astound Broadband No franchise fee(City receives use of 4 strands of Franchise Fee:A minimum of$1,500 per quarter fiber) Expires August 4,2025 (Ordinance 2691) or 5%of gross revenue—whichever is greater Expires December 17,2025 (Ordinance 2693) Page 22 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Public Records Fees'1 1. Copies of finance documents: Biennial Budget $25 per copy Available online Annual Audit(Comprehensive Annual Financial $25 per copy Available online Report) Biennial LORA Budget $5 per copy Available online Annual LORA Audit(Year-end Financial Report) $5 per copy Available online 2. Copies of planning and engineering documents: Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) $56 per copy Available online Community Development Code(City Code Ch 50) $64 per copy Available online Comprehensive Plan $56 per copy Available online Public Facilities Plan $29 per copy Available online Public Facilities Plan Appendix $56 per copy Available online Neighborhood Plans $19 per copy Available online 3. Copies of maps: Zoning map $20 per copy Available online Comprehensive Plan map $20 per copy Available online City Limits map $20 per copy Available online City Atlas with binder $50 per copy City Atlas(update w/o binder) $0.25 per page 4. Copies of Lake Oswego City Code: Copies of Lake Oswego City Code— $55 Available online excludes Ch 50(no binder) Copies of City Code in PDF format(CD) $20 Available online Copies of Community Development Code $20 Available online in PDF format(CD) 5. Copies of community surveys $10 per copy Available online 6. General service copies $0.25 per page 7. Flash Drives $8 8 GB $9 16GB $13 32GB 8. Records research $25 per 15 minutes/request(minimum$25) plus copies and materials charges 9. Blueprints $1 to$7 depending on map size plus $0.50 to$3.50 for overlays 11 Unless otherwise specified under individual department section. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 23 Section 1: General Miscellaneous Fees 1. Employment application fee(including assessment tools&testing): Time&materials,not to exceed$25. 2. Administration Fee of 20%for insurance claims related to damage to City property. 3. Use fees(as shown in the Administrative Procedures Manual,Procedure No.2): First use of City facilities shall be by City or other governmental entities.These use fees will be applicable to private parties using City facilities.Fee will include,but is not limited to,a facility supervisor fee,a janitorial fee,and a building use fee.A security and/or cleaning deposit may also be required.Fee may be waived at the discretion of the City Manager,barring requirements by State or local codes. City Hall building use fee for weekend requests for Class III users: • Community Room(Council Chambers and Courtroom)$100 for the first hour and$50 per additional hour • Conference Room$50 for the first hour and$25 per additional hour • Park facilities have separate fees,see Section 6. 4. Request for construction contract bidding documents: As established in the Invitation to Bid. 5. Filming permit processing fee(LOC 20.06.400) $1,000 Filming permit processing fee appeal $ 100 See Commercial Filming in City Parks in Section 6 for additional fees(page 342) 6. Lien search fee Initial search per tax lot $58 for initial search Subsequent search of same tax lot $15 for next 90 days 7. NSF check charges $20 for first offense $35 for repeat offenses 8. Parking stall fee $1 per hour per stall (Stalls could be located in public right-a-way or public parking lots) 9. EV Charging $0.1634/kWh and a$0.75/HR after two hours of use. 10. Passport Fees made payable to U.S.Department of State a. For"minor"applications(under 16 years old) $ 80 b. For"adult"applications(16 years or older) $110 All passport fees are c. To EXPEDITE any passport application... add $ 60 set by the U.S. d. For"minor"Passport Card only(under 16 years old) $ 15 Department of State e. For"adult"Passport Card only(16 years or older) $ 30 11. Passport Fees made payable to"City of Lake Oswego" a. For regular passport applications $ 35 per passport application b. For Passport Card applications $ 35 per PASS Card only Only one fee charged if applying for both 12. Passport photo fee $ 15 per set of two Page 24 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 2: City Attorney's Office City Attorney's Office The following fees shall be charged for the services of the City Attorney's Office in providing discovery to retained defense attorneys: Discovery Fees 1. E-discovery12 flat rate one-time fee $40 2. Electronic transmission of e&discovery $ 0 3. Flash Drives $10 8 GB $15 16 GB $20 32 GB $30 64GB 4. Paper Copies up to 10 pages $15 Each additional Page $0.25 5. Audio and Video unavailable through $50 first DVD/CD/UsB e-discovery13 6. Review and Redaction of Audio and $60/hour,after first 30 minutes(billed at 15-minute Video to comply with ORS 135.815 increments) 7. Copies of photographs unavailable $1 per letter-sized page(4 color print to a page) through e-discovery $50 burned to a CD(for up to 30) City Code 1. See Section 1:General,Public Record Fees,on page 18. 1z In general,e-discovery includes police reports and city-created digital visual materials(e.g.body worn camera, vehicle mobile-audio-video,photographs,etc.)directly associated with the case. 13 In general,video materials not created by the City--such as cell phone videos—are not included in the flat rate and must be separately requested. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 25 Section 3: Fire Department Fire Department The following fees shall be charged for the Fire Department activities of the City.Any non-listed expenses to provide services in Section 3 will be charged at cost. General Fees 1. Fire and Inspection Reports a. Reports up to 10 pages $25 Each additional page over 10 $0.25 b. Additional research time past first 15 minutes $25 per 15 minutes charged to nearest quarter hour. 2. Fire Investigation Information and Other a. Narrative report up to 10 pages $25 Each additional page over 10 $0.25 b. Digital flash drive copies $25 Each additional copy same flash drive $16 Plus charge for each picture $0.25 c. Photo log $25 each d. Staff time past first 15 minutes charged to the $25 per 15 minutes nearest quarter hour 3. Non-listed expenses to provide services in Section 3 Charged at cost Medical Services and Transport Fees 1. Advanced Life Support(ALS),Level One,Emergency $1,523.39 2. Advanced Life Support(ALS),Level One $1,523.39 3. Advance Life Support(ALS),Level Two $1,523.39 4. Basis Life Support(BLS),Emergency $1,523.39 5. Basic Life Support(BLS) $1,523.39 6. Advanced Life Support On-Scene Treatment $800 7. Patient-Loaded Mileage $31.91 per mile 8. Extra Attendant $101.21 (When a patient's condition warrants the presence of additional medic support personnel to assist crew during transport.) 9. Ambulance/Medical Standby Fees a. Paramedics 3 hour minimum $257 per hour b. Billing/Administration $100 Page 26 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 3: Fire Department Emergency Services Rates 1. Apparatus costs: Per current Oregon Fire Service Mobilization Plan fee schedule. 2. Personnel costs: Fire employee's actual hourly rate plus benefits or the actual personnel costs to replace on-shift firefighters in their assigned capacity. 3. Dive team and boat team operations:Apparatus and personnel costs apply;plus$60 per hour for specialty equipment maintenance and miscellaneous costs associated with the use of specialty equipment. 4. Emergency standby for hazardous utility incidents where Fire needs to protect life and property: $289.81 per hour after the first half hour. 5. Non-emergency standby for special events:$289.81 per hour for Fire Apparatus 6. Calls for emergency services for accidents on highways,public right-of-ways,railways,or resulting from other transportation incidents exceeding 0.5 hours may be billed according to the current payment schedule in the Oregon State Mobilization Plan adopted by the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office. Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviews 1. Preliminary water and emergency access evaluation for all pre-applications $ 70 2. Detailed water and emergency access evaluation for all development and building permit applications: a. Minor partitions(up to 3 lots) $140 b. Subdivisions $250 c. Commercial $250 d. All other applications requiring fire review $140 3. All fire code construction permits requiring fire review $250 4. All Fire Code Operational Permits $200 5. Mobile Emergency Responder Radio Coverage(MERRC) a. 0 to 50,000 sq.ft. $0.50 per sq.ft. b. Additional sq.ft.from 50,001 to 100,000 $0.30 per sq.ft. c. Additional sq.ft.exceeding 100,000 $0.10 per sq.ft. Fire and Life Safety Inspections 1. Initial inspection and 1st follow-up No fee 2. Each additional inspection,required for compliance $107 per hour 3. After-hours inspections $150 per hour(1 hour minimum) 4. Re-inspection fee for new construction after the second violation $107 per hour 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 27 Section 4: Library Library The following fees shall be charged for the Library Department activities of the City: General Fees(LOC 16.08.310) 1. Uniform Library Network Fees Non-resident card $95 per family per year 2. Library Penalty Fees Lost and damaged library items Replacement cost,as determined by staff 3. Sale of withdrawn/surplus items Varies;typieallytypically,$0.10-$3 4. Overdue fine $0.10 per item per day,with a$1 maximum fine per item $1.00 per item per day,with a maximum fine equal to the replacement cost of the item,for Library of Things material 5. Photocopy charges/printing charges [Formatted Table General photocopy charges $0.10 per page Black and white internet photocopy/ $0.10 per page(first dollar used in any combination of printing charges Reference collection color and/or black&white is waived for cardholders)$ photocopies 0.10 per page(first 5 pages arc free} Color internet photocopy/printing $0.25 per page(first dollar used in any combination of charges Black and white internet printing color and/or black&white is waived for cardholders)8 charges 0.10 per page(first dollar used in any combination of color and/or black&white is waived} Color internet printing charges $0.25 per page(first dollar used in any combination of color and/or black&white is waived). Page 28 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 5: Municipal Court Municipal Court The following fees shall be charged for the Municipal Court activities of the City: General Fees 1. Delayed Payment Fee This fee is assessed in order to help defray the costs of deferred payment of fines. Duration of Payments Amount added to fine 0 to 60 days $ 0 Over 60 days $15 2. Vacate Fee $20 This is a fee charged when someone requests the Municipal Court Judge to review a file, change the status,and/or vacate a charge from the DMV record. 4. Fix-it-ticket Administrative Fee $35 This fee is charged when the citing officer has designated the citation as one that will be dismissed if proof of correction is provided before the initial appearance date. 5. Good Driver Deferred Sentencing Program Administrative Fee Fee shall be the equivalent of the reduced presumptive fine for the charged offense. 6. Seatbelt and Child Restraint Violation Deferred Sentencing Program Administrative Fee $100 7. Civil Compromise Administrative Fee $150 8. Court Appearance Audio Recording $25 each 9. Certified Copies of Court Documents $5 each 10. Copies up to 10 pages $15 Each additional page $0.25 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 29 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation The following fees shall be charged for the Parks&Recreation activities of the City: Recreation Services and Activities The services and activity programs within Parks&Recreation are designed to meet the expectations of the Lake Oswego community.A wide range of recreational activities are offered to all ages and ability levels.Services and activity programs are offered to families and individuals at an affordable price and well within market value. Fees Each division shall determine fees based upon marketability and associated expenses for the specific program or service. 1. Lake Oswego residents are given priority in registration and pricing for recreation services and activities. Non-residents are charged additional fees of up to 1.5 times the base activity rate. 2. Fees are designed to cover 100%of the expenses associated with activities.Factors included in rates are: Instructor wages and benefits,supplies/materials,entrance/admission fees,advertising,and transportation. 3. Contract service provision of activities include fees to cover total expense plus a program administrative percentage. Service providers are paid a negotiated sum per participant. 4. Lake Oswego Parks&Recreation(LOPR)Refund Policy • 100%of refund if LOPR cancels an activity • 100%refund for an activity fee if requested refund is seven(7)calendar days prior to the start date of activity. • Refunds requested after seven(7)calendar days prior to activity start date arc processed upon approval of the programmer and/or contractor and arc subject to$10 processing fee(fee applies to ach activity withdrawal). In lieu of a check or credit card refund,and after seven(7)calendar days prior to start date of the activity, the$10 processing fee is waived and activity fee credit is placed on customer account.All credits arc non refundable and applicable for LOI'R activity registration or user fees.Refund Policy — —[Formatted:No Spacing, No bullets or numbering If LOPR Cancels: • A full refund will be given to each registered and paid participant if Lake Oswego Parks& Recreation(LOPR)cancels an activity,class,or event. Refund Requests Before Start Date: • You will receive a full refund if you request it at least seven calendar days before the start date of the activity. Refund Requests After Seven Days of Start Date: • Refunds requested after(7)seven calendar days prior to activity start date are processed upon approval of the programming staff and/or the contractor and are subiect to$10 processing fee (fee applies to each activity withdrawal). • Without an approval no refunds will be given if participant cancels the week of the activity start date or for no shows. • Alternatively,you can choose to receive a credit on your customer account instead of a refund, and the$10 processing fee will be waived.These credits are non-refundable and can be used for future LOPR activities or user fees. Page 30 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation After Activity Has Started: • If you request a refund on or after the start date of the activity,a prorated credit will be issued to your customer account. Exceptions: • Exceptions to this refund policy may be made at the staff's discretion in special circumstances. *All registrations are non-transferable and must be used by the registered participant. • [Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.31", No bullets or numbering ACC Trip Refund Policy: There are no refunds for trips that include expenses prepaid by the ACC unless a replacement participant can be found. Residency The fee for non-residents may be up to 1.5 times the resident rate. A LO Resident is: • An individual who rents or owns property inside the incorporated city limits of Lake Oswego. • For Lake Oswego Recreation&Aquatic Center(LORAC)admission and activity registration only a resident is a person or persons who rents or owns property with the Lake Oswego city limits, or an individual who lives within the Lake Oswego School District(LOSD)boundaries,or a student with a LOSD issued ID number. Formatted:Font:11 pt 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 31 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Lake Oswego Recreation&Aquatics Center(LORAC)User Fee Schedule* *Fees subject to change [Formatted Table Classification Daily 10 Visit Pass14 Res. N.Res. Res. N.Res. Adult(18-59) $82.00 $1412111.00 $6367363.00 $10499.00 Youth(3-18) $65.00 $98.00 $4548545.00 $7-276272.00 Senior(60+) $65.00 $98.00 $4548545.00 $7276272.00 Classification 3 Month Annual Annual Paid Monthly Res. N.Res. Res. N.Res. Res. N.Res. Adult(18-59) $125132251 $4881988848 $4 0400 $ 6300602 $353753 $515415 25 8 5 1 Youth(3-18) $106112064 $4601680160 $3403574034 $ $3129 $444744 06 0 51053610510 4 Senior(60+) $106112061 $1601680160 $3'1035741031. $ $3129 $444744 06 0 54053610510 4 Household** $2-34246312 $3523705235 $7507885075 $1,1251822512 $646846 $10095 34 2 0 5 4 Add'I Youth +$32 +$48 $126 $189 $401104 $1-51651 0 5 JNotes Resident status is a person or persons who rents or owns property with the Lake Oswego city limits,or an individual who lives [Split Cells within the Lake Oswego School District(LOSD)boundaries,or a student with a LOSD issued ID number. [Split Cells 3 Month rates are the annual rate divided by 4 time 125%. ' (Formatted Table Monthly installment payments on annual memberships are based on automatic withdrawal(auto renew)from a bank account or credit card. Formatted Table **Household includes 2 adults and up to 3 youth.Each additional youth is another$49118/$16510/$15 per Annual monthly feemeRth 3 Month/Annual/Annual Paid Monthly membership fees include: • Lap Swimming and Independent Lane Workouts • Open swim for individuals and families • Parent/Preschool Swim • Senior Swim • Shallow/Deep Water Aerobics and/or Studio Aerobics classes*** • Access to Workout Room for ages 18+ • Open Play Gym Use Drop in Rate: Aerobics Classes $98.00/$1011010.00(Water or Studio) [Formatted Table ***Specialty water and studio fitness classes are NOT included in membership fee. 14 10 visit passes are a 10%discount over the daily fee. Page 32 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Aquatic Programs Fees Res Rates Non-Res Rates Notes Group Swim Lessons $7579575/Session $10095/Session '/:hour classes Semi-Private Lessons(2) $4001080400/Session $44513115115/Session %hour 4 classes Private Lessons $150/Session $175/Session %hour 4 classes Water Therapy $2740/Half Hour $3160/Half Hour Lifeguard Training $4200400/Session $47-548375475/Session Water Safety Instructor $2100300/Session $25024250250/Session Training Water Fitness Instructor $2100200/Session $25024250250/Session Training Senior Swim Time $65/Session Teen Time $65/Session Parent/Preschool Swim $65/Session Birthday Party Packages $25026350250/Event $3003030300/Event 2 hrs room and 12 swim admissions Oswego Hall Room 1 or $79150/Hour Room 2 Oswego Hall Rooms 1&2 $142300/Hour Oswego Hall Rooms 1&2 $7354500/6 Hours Event OLCC Server weekends $150 per hour Birthday Party Packages $250/Event 2 hour., WRAC Event Room $125/Hour 2 hour minimum Fitness Studio $10-25125/Hour 2 hour minimum Gymnasium per court $75/Hour Gymnasium(all courts) $150/Hour 1-5 Laneslano $22232-22/Hour 6-8Lanestancs $25135/Hour Recreation Pool or $930350/Hour 2keswhours Competition Pool minimum Competition Pool $150/Hour 2 hour minimum Entire Aquatic Facility After $24,000/2 Hours-Kew 2 hour Hours minimum 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 33 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Lake Oswego Public Golf Course rA/a ne-8A Green Fees Day Pass 9 Holes 18 Holes Weekdays(Monday—Thursday) $23 $39 Weekdays Junior/Senior Rates $11 $21 Weekends/Holidays $26 $48 Range Fee Category 9 Holes 18 Holes Club Rentals $ 18 $ 28 Pull Cart Rentals $ 5 $ 7 Power Cart Rentals $12 PP $18 PP Range Balls Category Small Medium Large Bucket Size $ 6 $ 9 $ 12 Indoor Tennis Center 1. Court Fees $24-$3234 hour Seasonal $ $2 4_ /hour 2. Activity Rates a. Staff Instructed Activities—Fees established by determining the instruction hourly rate charged plus an additional administrative program percentage determined by market. b. Private Lessons—Instructors who are employees of the City may teach private lessons.Instructors must pay the City for the use of the courts at the seasonal rate. c. Lake Oswego residents are given priority in registration and pricing for recreation classes and activities. Non-residents are charged additional fees of up to 1.5 times the base class or activity rate. 3. Card Key Fee—A non-refundable fee of$20 resident,$30 non-resident annually. 4. Additional Fees—The Tennis Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility.As with other activities,fees will be based on instruction hourly rate charged plus an additional program administrative percentage determined by market. Page 34 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Athletic Field User Charges 1. Turf Field fees Turf field fees Natural Turf Artificial Turf Category Daytime With lights Daytime With lights Category 1(LOPR Programs) No Charge No Charge No Charge No Charge Category 2(Recognized local youth $ $2038/hr $ $2022020/h organizations,LOSD) 3315313/hr 3317515/hr Category 3(locally sponsored) $ $ $ $4048040/h Category 4(non-local&for-profit) 303 30/hr 404 40/hr 3037030/hr $1100100/h $ 0/hr $ $980/hr 1id0300/hr Category 1 Applies to all LORP&City of Lake Oswego affiliated activities. Category 2-Applies to recognized local youth organizations. • 70%of participants are local residents.Participants considered local residents have a local home address and/or attend a public school in the Lake Oswego School District. • Additionally,these Organizations must maintain a"good standing"with LOPR in order to remain in this category. • Local youth organizations under the Community Schools Program are considered category 3. Category 3—This catcgoricsThisis category ricscategorics applies to tournaments,events,camps,clinics,and activities that are hosted by recognized local youth leagues/organizations. • This includes other School Districts,athletics/sport leagues,civic groups,churches,business organizations, neighborhood associations,and individual residents for non-profit purposes. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 35 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Category 4—This category applies to all clinics,camps,tournaments,and activities hosted by non-local organizations. • This category also applies to all for-profit entities,regardless of location address or local participation percentage. 1. League Cleaning&trash disposal fee(Covers cost of trash pick-up on athletics fields $2100200 per over and above regular trash disposal) session 2. Lights turn off charge:A lights turn off charge of$5053050 per occurrence will be applied to billing when lights are not turned off by field users and must be turned off by City Staff.This charge applies in the following circumstances: a. Cancelled field use,without notification for the purpose of turning off field lights or to cancel requested field lights programming. b. Leaving field earlier than the scheduled reserved time without turning off lights. 3. Additional Fees: City may charge additional fees for category 3 and 4 users,over and above the hourly rates listed,to cover costs such as concession stand use,cleaning,garbage,etc. 4. Tournament and Camp • Tournaments and Camps will not be issued a refund or credit due to unused fields or hours • Cancellations made at least 7 days in advance will receive a full refund minus a$25 cancellation fee. • A refundable damage deposit of$50052500500 will be assessed to all tournament rentals. Adult Community Center Fees 1. Human Services Programs a. A per participant donation may be suggested for specified human service programs. b. Fees are designed to cover up to 100%of the expenses associated with the Social Services trips and Respite Program. c. A$30-$50 per session(per participant)resident,$35-$55 per session(per participant)non-resident fee is designed to cover direct expenses associated with the respite program. d. Classes and other programs generating revenue for another entity,but held at LOACC may be charged a per person fee. 2. Shuttle Bus Transportation to and from the Center. Suggested donation is$1 per one-way ride. 3. Refund Policy—See page 25 for general details ▪ 100%refund for an activity fcc if refund is requested seven calendar days prior to start date of activity. • Refunds requested within seven calendar days prior to the start date of the activity arc subject to$10 processing fcc(fee applies to ach activity withdrawal). • In lieu of a refund,the$10 processing fee is waived with an option for activity fcc credit on customer account.All credits arc non refundable and applicable for LOPR activity registration or user fees. is issued. Page 36 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation 4. Trip Refund Policy Trip Refund Policy:There are no refunds for trips that include expenses prepaid by the ACC unless a A [Formatted Table replacement participant can be found.All other trips may be canceled with a refund per the L.O. Park&Recreation refund policy(page 25).- 5 Room Rental Fees15 Adult Community Center Non-Profit Organization All Others Up to 3 hours Oak/Acorn Rooms: Non Refundable CI aning Fee $25 $25 Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee(with-food} $50 $50 Refundable Deposit $75 $200 Hourly Usage Fee $50/hr $100/hr Trillium/Hazel/Dogwood/Birch/Cedar/Madrone Rooms: Non Refundable Cleaning Fcc $10 $10 Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee(with-food} $25 $25 Refundable Deposit $25 $100 Hourly Usage Fee $25/hr $50/hr TV Monitor w/HDMI access $20 per use $20 per use Microphone and speakers $30 per use $30 per use Hybrid Equipment $25 per use $25 per use Podium $20 per use $20 per use Round Tablecloth $5 per tablecloth $5 per tablecloth Buffet Tablecloth $7 per tablecloth $7 per tablecloth White Board Easel w/paper $20 per board $20 per board After hour staff $25 per hour $25 per hour Exceptions to the rental policy may be made at staffs discretion depending upon extenuating circumstances. 6 Additional Fees The Adult Community Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility.As with other activities,the fee will be based on a base rate plus overhead. Swim Park Daily usage is free to local residents in compliance with an agreement between the Lake Corporation and the City of Lake Oswego, 1s Non-residents are charged fees 1.5 times the resident fees for all rental fees. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 37 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Water Sports Center Lake Oswego Rowing Club Foundation has an agreement with the City to operate the Water Sports Center. User activity fees are set by the Lake Oswego Rowing Club Foundation. Park Reservation Fees16 1. Facility Rental—Exceptions to Section 1,Miscellaneous Fees,page 19. Facility Rate I Rate II Rate III $1001050100 Park Picnic Shelters $908-5/3 hrs /3 hrs $200190/3 hrs Formatted Table $ $ $ 1601680160/hr 46048360460/hr Millennium Park pergola area 11011601 0/hr $ $ Millennium Stage/grassy knoll $ 6063060/hr 1101160110/hr 31032610310/hr Foothills Park Pavilion $ $ $ 1101160110/hr 1601680160/hr 36037860360/hr Foothills Amphitheater $ $ $ 1401160110/hr 1601680160/hr 31032610310/hr Foothills Pavilion Grass Area $ 6063060/hr $ $ 1 01160110/hr 34032610310/hr Foothills Viewing Dolphins $ 6063060/hr $ 8084O8O/hr $ Roehr Park Amphitheater&Viewing $ $ 2-2O23120220/hr Dolphin 1601680160/hr 23024230230/hr $ 52054620520/hr Roehr Excursion boat dock for— $ 6063060/hr $ 8084O8O/hr $ commercial use 22023120220/hr Non-shelter Parks Areas" $ 6063060/hr $ 8084080/hr $ Formatted Table 22023120220/hr ' [Formatted Table Refundable damage deposit Park Shelters George Rogers, East Waluga,West Waluga $1001050400/use 16 Non-residents are charged fees 1.5 times the resident fees for all rental fees. 17 Includes other park areas not listed such as lawn areas,plazas,gardens,historical sites,or use of ball fields or parking lots for special events. Page 38 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Premier Parks:Millennium Plaza Park,Foothills Park and Roehr Park $60052500500/use Millennium Plaza Kitchen Key $11/use Special Events $52500-500/use Rate I: Open or closed to the public;events with no sales,no admission fees,no concession sales, no entry fees,and no pledges of future revenues;no sponsor signage allowed. Rate II: Open to the public;events which generate sales,admission fees,concessions,entry fees and/or pledges of future revenues;sponsor signage allowed. Rate III: Closed to the public;events which generate sales,admission fees,concessions,entry fees, and/or pledges of future revenues;sponsor signage allowed. 2. Food trucks with facility reservation $€063060/hr 3. Special Event Application Fees and Special Event Park Reservations • Special Event Application Fee-other than for City Sponsored Events Application must be received 60 days prior to the event. Fee is$2100200. • For reservations that are tied to a Special Event Permit that use park areas,standard Park/Premier Park fees apply and are in addition to the Special Event Fee. Commented[W11]:Please add:Additional City Staff maybe • Additional City Staff maybe needed to support an event.In such case there is an additional needed to support an event.In such case there is an additional $150/hr per person for the need time at the event. $150/hr per person for the need time at the event. 4. Refund Policy 100%refund of reservation fee if LOPR cancels the reservation. Shelter Reservation Refund: • If a reservation is canceled 14 days prior to reservation date,a full refund is given,less the $10 processing fee. • If a reservation is canceled less than 14 day prior to the reservation date only the refundable deposit will be refunded. Premier Park and Special Event Park Refund: • If a reservation is canceled 30 days prior to reservation date a full refund is given,less the $10 processing fee. • If a reservation is canceled less than 30 days prior to the reservation date 50%of the full payment will be refunded. The Special Event Permit Application fee is not refundable. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 39 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Miscellaneous Fees 1. All Parks Plans $30 per copy 2. Research fee $25 per 15 minutes($25 minimum) plus copy and material charges Commercial Photography and Filming in City Parks See also Filming Permit in Section 1 for the additional processing fees,page 19. 1. Film/Video rate per venue a. One day fee-no park closure required $ 250 b. One day fee-park closure required $1,000 Damage deposit may be required,depending on scope of filming. 2. Still Photography day pass rate per venue a. 1 to 5 hours $ 55 b. 6 to 24 hours $110 3. Annual Photo Pass(All Parks) $150 4. Long-term shoot:Any shoot over 24 hours will be considered a long shoot.Fees will be assessed for each 24 hour period. 5. For passes that need full park closure,park reservation fees will apply.Fees found on page 324. Personnel Fees: City employees needed to assist with Special Events and/or Film Permits $150/hour/person,subject to availability. Page 40 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 7: Police Department Police Department The following fees shall be charged for the Police Department activities of the City: Security Alarm Permit and Fees(LOC 20.08.606) Voluntary Annual Alarm Permit Fee $25 Security Alarm Code Violation Fines(LOC 20.08.612) Fines for excessive false alarms in a permit year shall be as follows: Second false alarm in any year $100 Third false alarm in any year $125 Fourth false alarm in any year $175 Fifth false alarm in any year $275 Sixth and any additional false alarms $425 Fines for excessive false alarms WITH a voluntary alarm permit shall be as follows: Third and succeeding false alarm in any year $100 Police Reports(LOC 14.06.220) 1. Copies up to 10 pages $15 Each additional page $0.25 2. 911 audio recording $50 per recording Audio and Video Copies $50 first recording(DVD/CD/USB)&$15 each additional copy CAD Incident Report $10 3. Review and Redaction of Audio and Video $60/hour,after first 30 minutes(billed at 15-minute increments) Miscellaneous Police Fees 1. Records research (LOC 14.06.220) $25 per 15 minutes($25 minimum) plus copy and material charges 2. Copies of photographs (LOC 14.06.220) $1 per color print $50(for up to 30)burned to CD,plus$1 each thereafter 3. Storage fee at P.I.T.for vehicles&equipment $50 per day 4. Hazmat quarantine/investigation $250 per day 5. Police impounded vehicle fee $3-50-200 per vehicle 6. Overtime charge*for special events requiring police services are determined based upon which of the following positions are utilized for a minimum of 4 hours: Community Services Officer(CSO),Police Officer,Sergeant,Lieutenant,and/or Captain. *Contact the Police Department for this charge. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 41 Section 8: Public Works Support Services Public Works Support Services The following fees shall be charged for the Public Works Support maintenance activities of the City: General Fees 1. Public facilities damage(street signs,water lines,etc.) Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead plus lost revenue 2. Sign installation for new subdivisions Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead Second inspection at cost plus 20%for overhead 3. Citizen-requested items(hydrant relocation,water service relocation,etc.) Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead Page 42 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building Building Division A 12%surcharge fee as mandated by the State Building Codes Division is applied to all permit fees. The following fees18 shall be charged for the Building Division activities of the City(LOC 45.01.040): Building Permits Valuation is based on the tables referenced in Oregon Administrative Rule 918-050-0100 and 0110. 1. Total Valuation $1 to$2,000 $102.82 up to and including$2,000 $2,001 to$25,000 $102.82 for the first$2,000 plus$9.40 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,up to and including$25,000 $25,001 to$50,000 $319.02 for the first$25,000 plus$6.75 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,up to and including$50,000 $50,001 to$100,000 $487.77 for the first$50,000 plus$4.70 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,up to and including$100,000 $100,001 to$500,000 $722.77 for the first$100,000 plus$3.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,up to and including$500,000 $500,001 to$1,000,000 $1,922.77 for first$500,000 plus$2.55 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,up to and including$1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $3,197.77 for first$1,000,000 plus$1.65 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof 2. Minimum Structural Permit $102.82 Fee 3. Plan review fees 65%of structural permit fee 4. Fire&life safety review fee 40%of structural permit fee(on commercial only) 5. Other inspections —see also Other Inspection and Fees(pg.43) a. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $105.492.82 per hour b. Additional plan review required by changes,additions,or revisions to plans $105.492.82 per I hour 6. Phased Plan Review Phased Plan Review fees shall be$250 plus 10%of the total project building permit fee and shall not exceed$1,500 pursuant to the authority of OAR 918-050-0160.This is in addition to standard plan review fees. is The Building Division Permit Fees and Plan Review Fees were modified and increased in response to implementation of the State of Oregon Permitting System,per Resolution 20-27. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 43 Section 9: Building 7. Deferred submittals Plan Review The fee for processing and Plan Review of deferred submittals shall be 10%of the building permit fee,using the value of the particular deferred portion or portions of the project but not less than$275.This fee is in addition to standard Plan Review fees. Architects and Engineer's exemption for plan review of"conventional light frame construction" (allows architects and engineers to perform plan reviews in lieu of the jurisdiction)pursuant to the authority of ORS 455.628 8. Administration fee for processing and facilitating issuance $250 9. Commercial Fire Systems—based on valuation,see Structural Permit Fee Table 10. Residential Fire System—Standalone System,includes plan review Square footage Permit fee 0 to 2,000 $231.00 2,001 to 3,600 $313.50 3,601 to 7,200 $372.25 7,200 and above $437.25 11. Prescriptive Solar Panel Installation Permit—includes plan review(does not $125 include Electrical Permit)* 12. Non-Prescriptive Solar Panel Installation —See Building Permit Fee Valuation Schedule 13. Change of Occupancy $250 14. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $125 per month *Fee is required by Oregon Administrative Rule#918-050-0180 Electrical Permits 1. New residential,one-and two-family dwelling unit 1,000 square feet or less $293.60 Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof $ 59.80 Each manufactured home,modular dwelling service,or feeder $118.50 Limited energy $100.00 New multi-family largest unit is calculated as per square footage rates above and each additional unit calculated at 50%of the fee for the largest unit 2. Service or feeders:installations,alterations,or relocation 200 amps or less $175.05 201 amps to 400 amps $231.60 401 amps to 599 amps $349.05 600 amps $349.05 601 amps to 1,000 amps $524.10 Over 1,000 amps or volts $958.45 Reconnect only $110.00 Page 44 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building 3. Temporary services or feeders:installations,alterations,or relocation 200 amps or less $ 102.20 201 amps to 400 amps $ 217.45 401 amps to 599 amps $ 293.60 600 amps $ 293.60 601 amps to 1,000 amps $ 430.00 Over 1,000 amps or volts $ 814.65 4. Branch circuits:new,alteration,or extension per panel With purchase of service or feeder,each $ 13.45 Without purchase of service or feeder First circuit $ 97.85 Each additional circuit $ 13.45 5. Miscellaneous(service or feeder not included) Each pump or irrigation circle $ 118.50 Each sign or outside lighting $ 118.50 Signal circuit(s)or a limited energy panel,alteration,or extension $ 118.50 Renewable energy for electrical systems-5kva or less $ 151.15 Renewable energy for electrical systems-5.01kva through 15kva $ 180.45 Renewable energy for electrical systems-15.01kva through 25kva $ 293.85 Renewable energy-solar generation over 25kva $ 293.85 +$11.74 (permit charge will not increase beyond the calculation for 100kva) per added kva Renewable energy for wind system-25.01kva through 50kva $ 587.75 Renewable energy for wind system-50.01kva through 100kva $1,175.55 Renewable energy for wind system-misc.fee,hourly rate $ 110.00 6. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above,per $ 110.00 inspection -see also Other Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 7. Special inspections per hour $ 110.00 8. Master Electrical Permit-on time applications fee $ 100.00 9. Master Electrical Inspections-per hour $ 110-002.86 10. Initial Electrical permit plan review fee is 25%of the electrical permit fee. 11. Addition plan review-electrical-per hour $ 110.002.86 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 45 Section 9: Building Mechanical Permits(Residential) Unit Fee Schedule 1. Furnace Less than 100,000 BTU input $36 Greater than 100,000 BTU input $36 2. For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace,including vent $36 3. Furnace/burner including duct work/vent/liner $20 4. For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater,recessed wall heater,or floor mounted unit heater $29 5. For the installation,relocation,or replacement of each appliance vent or chimney installed and not included in an appliance permit $20 6. For the repair,alteration,or addition of an Air Handler or Heat Exchanger up to 10,000 cfm $36 10,001 cfm and over $36 7. Wood or Pellet stove,including hearth and wall shield $36 8. Gas or wood fireplace insert $36 9. Pool or spa heaters/kilns $20 10. Flue vent for water heater or gas fireplace $20 11. Decorative gas fireplace $36 12. Oil tank/gas/diesel generators $21 13. Installation or relocation of domestic type incinerator $20 14. Hydronic hot water system $50 15. Ventilation fan connected to a single duct $14 16. Installation of hood served by mechanical exhaust,including ducts for hood $22 17. Range hood/other kitchen equipment $22 18. Heat pumps $50 19. Air conditioners $50 20. Mini split system $50 21. Evaporative cooler other than portable $50 22. Water heater includes vent/flue only $21 23. Repair,alteration,or addition to mechanical appliance including installation of $21 controls 24. Ventilation system not a portion of heating or air conditioning authorized by permit $21 25. Attic/crawl space fans $14 26. Radon mitigation $14 27. Clothes dryer exhaust $13 28. Ductwork-no appliance/fixture $20 29. Barbecue $21 30. Chimney/line/flue/vent $20 31. Other heating/cooling $21 Page 46 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building 32. Other fuel appliance $21 33. Other environment exhaust/ventilation $21 34. Permit fees for fuel gas-piping shall be For each gas-piping system of one to four outlets $14 For each gas-piping system of more than four outlets,per outlet $2.20 35. Appliance or equipment regulated by code,but not classified in other appliance $21 categories 36. A minimum charge for mechanical permits $102.82 37. Each additional inspection over the allowable,per inspection —see also Other $102.82 Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 38. Residential Plan Review 25%of total permit fee Mechanical Permits(Commercial) Use this section for commercial installation,replacement,or relocation of non-portable mechanical equipment or mechanical work not covered previously.Indicate the value of all mechanical labor,materials,and equipment. Value Permit Fee Amount $Less than$5,000 $102.82 $5,001 to$10,000 $102.82 plus$1.50 for each additional$100 over$5,000 $10,001 to$100,000 $177.82 plus$10.20 for each additional$1,000 over$10,000 $100,001 and above $1,095.82 plus$7.00 for each additional$1,000 over$100,000 Plan review Fees A mechanical plan review shall be paid.The fee is equal to 25% of the total permit fee. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 47 Section 9: Building Plumbing Permits(LOC 46.02) These fees do not apply when solely replacing fixtures without re-plumbing and/or relocating 1. Fixture fees are as follows—note,there is a minimum them(except for water heaters,item ee.). Residential Plumbing permit fee of$97 a. Roof Drains(commercial) $24 b. Absorption valve $24 c. Hose bibb $24 d. Backwater valve $24 e. Catch basin or area drain $24 f. Drinking fountain $24 g. Trench drain,per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 h. Expansion tank $24 i. Fixture cap off $24 j. Storm water retention/detention tank/facility $24 k. Manufactured home utilities,per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 I. Ice maker $24 m. Rainwater harvesting $24 n. Alternate potable water heating system $24 o. Other—plumbing $24 p. Septic abandonment $24 q. Interceptor/grease trap $24 r. Manhole $24 u. Sink/basin/lavatory $24 v. Swimming pool piping to backflow only per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 w. Tub/shower/shower pan $24 x. Urinal $24 y. Water closet $24 z. Dishwasher $24 aa. Garbage disposal $24 bb. Clothes Washer $24 cc. Floor drain/floor sink/hub drain $24 dd. Sewer,per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 ee. Water heater $24 ff. Water service,per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 gg. Storm drain,per 100'or any portion thereof $102.82 hh. Sewage ejector pump and sump pump $24 ii. Primer $24 jj. Backflow prevention device or anti-pollution device $24 kk. Any trap or waste not connected to a fixture $24 II. Any other plumbing installation,not otherwise listed in this schedule, having a sanitary waste or potable water supply $24 mm. Re-piping of existing fixtures First fixture $17 Each additional fixture $10 Page 48 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building nn. Minimum fee for plumbing permits—Commercial/Residential $102.82 2. For NEW one-and two-family dwellings only,the fees are per bathroom as follows (this fee includes 100 feet for each utility connection,hose bibbs,icemakers, underfloor low-point drains,and rain drain packages that include piping,gutters, downspouts,and perimeter system): a. One bath $333.50 b. Two baths $362.25 c. Three baths $402.50 d. Each additional bath/kitchen $130.80 3. Each additional inspection over the allowable,per inspection—see also Other $102.82 Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 4. Plumbing Plan Review-Add 30%of fees as calculated above for plan review,if required. 5. Commercial Plumbing-Medical gas fees: a. Medical gas permit fees shall be based on the value of installation costs and the system equipment,including but not limited to inlets,outlets,fixtures,and appliances,Med Gas permits are subject to the Commercial Plumbing minimum permit fee.Medical gas plan review —see Commercial Plumbing plan review. 6. Residential Fire System—Multipurpose/Continuous Loop system,includes plan review Square footage Permit Fee Amount 0 to 2,000 $231.00 2,001 to 3,600 $313.50 3,601 to 7,200 $372.25 7,200 and above $437.25 Grading and Fill Permits Plan Review $125 50 to 1,000 cubic yards $150 1,001 to 10,0000 cubic yards $250 10,001 to 100,0000 cubic yards $350 100,001 cubic yards or more $450 Demo and Deconstruction Permits Residential one-and two-family structures $300 Commercial buildings $400 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 49 Section 9: Building Manufactured Home Permits Installation permit fee includes the concrete slab,runners or foundations when prescriptive,electric feeder and plumbing connections and all cross-over connections. Installation Permit Fee $445 State Fee $ 30 ORS 446.176(1)and OAR 918-5000105 require all local governments providing construction permits or inspections for manufactured dwelling and cabana installations to collect and remit to the Department of Consumer and Business Services a$30 fee for each installation permit issued.This fee is to be added to manufactured dwelling and cabana installation permits only and should not be added to accessory structures or building,electrical, plumbing,mechanical permits or plan reviews. Manufactured Dwelling/RV Parks The Area Development Permit fee to be calculated based on the valuations shown in Table 2 of OAR 918-600-0030 for Manufactured Dwelling/Mobile Home Parks and Table 2 of OAR 918-650-0030 for Recreational Park&Organizational Camp—and applying the valuation amount to Table 1 as referenced for each. Community Development Code Enforcement Charges Single family $163 Multi-family $163 plus$163 per each 12 units Office/Retail 0—5,000 square feet $163 5,001-10,000 square feet $326 10,001-25,000 square feet $487 25,001-50,000 square feet $648 50,001+square feet $811 Industrial/Public/Institutional 0—20,000 square feet $163 20,001-30,000 square feet $326 30,001+square feet $487 Enforcement Stop Work $550 Building Violation(LOC Chapter 45) $550 Record Retention and Archiving Fees For purposes of archiving records per State mandate $31.00 Flat fee on all permits Page 50 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building Research and Consultation Fees Records Research $25 per 15 minutes/request,minimum 15 minutes Fee Estimates - new residential and commercial projects $100 per hour per request,minimum one-hour Consultation for code review,hypothetical projects $100 per hour,minimum 1/2 hour Supplemental Plan Review $100 per hour,minimum 1/2 hour Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours(minimum charge=1 hour) $123.12G per hour 2. Re-inspection fee assessed under provisions Section 305(f) $105.49242 per inspection 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $105.492.82 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes,additions,or revisions to $105.492.82 per hour approved plans(minimum charge=1 hour) 5. Work commencing before permit issuance Any person who commences any work on a building or structure before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to an investigation fee of$125 per hour,which is equal to the average cost of an inspection. Exception: A one-time exemption shall apply to homeowners applying for their own permits. Seismic Surcharge—Structural/Mechanical—review 1%of building permit fee required on all essential structures Additional Miscellaneous Fees 1. The fee to a governmental agency shall be determined by the provisions set forth under ORS 190.003 to 190.110 for the purpose of carrying out the $102.82 per hour respective responsibilities of each agency. or portion thereof 2. Re-inspection fee for structural,electrical,mechanical,and plumbing permits shall be charged for inspection of violations found by the Building Official after the second violation. $102.82 per hour 3. The fee to any governmental agency or person for specifically requested $102.82 per hour inspections or surveys. or portion thereof 4. Housing moving permit(LOC 45.12.510): Relocating within Lake Oswego $452 Moving out of Lake Oswego $224 Refunds 1. Permit Refunds a. Where a permit has been issued and no inspections have been completed,80%of the permit fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a permit has been issued and inspections performed or permit has expired. 2. Plan Review Refund a. Where a permit has not been issued,80%of the plan review fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a plan review has been started by any department. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 51 Section 10: Engineering Engineering Division The following fees shall be charged for the Engineering Division activities of the City: Minor Utility Facilities,Installed or Constructed by Public19 or Private Entities Street Opening Permit Fee* Improved Unimproved surfaces surfaces 1. Minor utility structures,except substations,but including poles,lines, pipes or other such facilities $300 $150 2. Sewer,storm drainage,or water system structures,excluding treatment plants,reservoirs or pump stations;but including reconstruction of manholes,valves,hydrants,or other portions of the collection,treatment, and distribution systems located within public property,right-of-way,or easements. This includes sewer,storm and water lateral installations or taps $300 $300 3. Street improvements within existing development,including sidewalks, curbs,gutter,catch basins,paving,signs,and traffic control devices and street lights $300 $150 4. Permit and inspection of new driveway approach or relocation of an existing approach $50 General Engineering Fees 1. Engineering plan review and — 9%of the final estimated construction costs,as approved by the inspection of public or private City Engineer or$1,000 whichever is greater.A deposit of$1,000 infrastructure,grading,or other must be submitted with the initial plan submittal prior to review incidental work that is not beginning. Fee will include the cost for City to install any sign or reviewed and inspected under pavement marking installations within the right-of-way, as State Building Specialty Codes and delineated in Section 8:Public Works Support Services,unless delegated to Engineering. extenuating circumstances require the City Engineer to recover the cost of such items for large public improvement projects. Final payment of the balance of the 9%fee will be based on final estimated construction costs,and must be received by the City prior to issuance of the permit for construction.*Performance bonds maybe required for large projects. Formatted Table 2. Appeal of a staff decision or hearing body to the next higher authority. $100 3. Street vacation $1,500 4. Quitclaim $200 5. Blasting Permit $250 application fee plus engineering costs to administer and observe blasting operations billed at labor and materials plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 6. Document recording to comply with conditions of development approval (i.e.,easements,agreements,etc.) Actual County recording costs 19 Quasi-public agencies other than the City and Franchise Utilities. Page 52 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 10: Engineering Other Engineering Fees 1. Drinking water analysis $ 60 2. Encroachment Permit Type 1—Minor $300 Easily removable structures,such as fences,driveway, entrances,monument walls,or timbers,less than 3'tall,or other non-loadbearing structures. Type 2—Major $750 Relatively large structures that may need engineering, such as driveway decking,reinforced concrete structures, boathouses,decks and hatches over in-lake manholes,or other structures that are not typically found in rights-of- way or public easements. 3. Encroachment Appeal $500 per appeal 4. Zone of Benefit Formation,exclusive of LID Boundaries $2,000 5. Rivergrove Sewer Connection Fee 20 $200 6. Lien segregation One parcel into two $200 Each additional parcel $100 7. Street widening $300 8. Street name change $250 9. Change of address request for reasons other than fire and life $500 safety,or as a result of land use procedures. 10. Erosion control permit,plan review and inspection fee21 Dwelling Type: Single family residential $350 Multi-family/Commercial 500 sf up to 1 acre $ 700 1 acre22 or greater $1,500 11. Single-family residential landscaping erosion control permit,plan review and inspection fee $ 100 12. Site re-inspection fee(after two inspection site visits) $ 100 13. Investigation fees: Work without a permit Investigation-Whenever any work for which an erosion control permit is required has commenced without first obtaining said permit,a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. Fee-An investigation fee equal in amount and in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is issued. 20 Check with engineering department for additional connection fee related to new zone of benefits established for certain properties. 21 Check with engineering department for additional connection fee related to new zone of benefits established for certain properties. 22 Effective 1/1/03,impact areas 1 acre and greater will require a 1200-C permit per the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ). 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 53 Section 10: Engineering 14. Erosion control enforcement fees: For violations of LOC Chapter 52 and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 52.06,enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 15. Illicit Discharge Enforcement Fees: For violations of LOC Chapter 38(Utility Code)and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 38.26.930 and LOC 38.26.935,enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. Page 54 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Planning Division The following fees shall be charged for the Planning Division activities of the City(LOC 50.07.003.2): Ministerial Developments(LOC 50.07.003.13)23,24 1. Accessory building which requires a building permit(e.g.,garage, No Fee carport) 2. Accessory structure or use(e.g.,driveway,fence) No Fee 3. Duplex No Fee 4. Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a No Fee building permit 5. Home Occupations Business License 6. Lot Line Adjustment $2,181 2238 Process to correct an illegal Lot Line Adjustment $2,1812 238 7. Temporary Structures,Use Business License&Sign Permit,if applicable 8. Sidewalk Display $ 3 —38 9. Accessory dwelling unit No Fee Minor Developments(LOC 50.07.003.14)24,23 1. Change of use $4,6284 748 2. Development in DD Zone: Duplex in R-DD zone(hearing body action) $6,5076 676 Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a building permit in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $6,5076,676 Single-Family Dwelling in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $6,5076 676 Zero lot line dwelling in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $6,5076676 3. Development within the Greenway Management Overlay District Boundary26 $4,9125640 4. Development Review: Multi-family,Commercial,Industrial,Institutional, $6,5076,676+37%of building perrr{it fee. Townhouses Substantial revisions to a complete application requiring 33%of the original application fee new public notice 5. Alterations with minimal impacts such as exterior exit stairs; exterior remodeling that does not expand building footprint or increase height;and accessory structures 300 square feet or less $2,1562,212 6. Exterior painting of any structure that was the subject of a Major or Minor Development Permit including all structures in the R-DD zone,with the exception of detached single-family dwellings, duplexes,zero lot line dwellings,or structures accessory to those dwelling types. Exception:Exterior painting that is the same color palette as $1,0531,080 the existing color(s). 23 See page 534-1 for Affordable Housing. 24 Site review and inspection fees may apply at building permit review.SeeAdditional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.So ocSee pages 544-552 under Other Planning Fees. 25 See page 512 Historical Preservation. 26 No fee applies for the Greenway Management Overlay review associated with dead,hazardous,emergency,or invasive tree removal. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 55 Section 11: Planning 7. Lot Line Adjustment $2,18122 238 8. Minor Partition $5,358.5 497 Expedited Minor Partition $888,690 Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $3,8913992 9. Major Partition(includes the creation of a street) $671496,300+$395313+ $--345/lot Expedited Major Partition $9,3849,628+$305313-+ $305/lot Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $3,8913992 10. Modification of approved minor development permits Without public hearing $2,18122238 With public hearing $3,8913 992 11. Request for formal Code interpretation under LOC 50.01.005 and Authorization for Similar Use Application under LOC 50.03.002 $741 760 12. Residential Infill Design(RID)Variance $71,9115,039 for 1st plus$63- 647forfer each additional variance 13. Subdivision(with or without P.D.) $,8167,198+$395313-+ 5/lot Expedited Subdivisions $43 0013,440+$395313+ $30..5/lot 14. Middle Housing Land Divisions $ 5,3585497 15. Minor Variances $ 41,2604,371 for 1st+$'167 479 for each additional variance Fence and Wall Variance $ 1,7971,844forfer 1st+$3i96 201 for each additional variance 16. Major Variance $ 41,9115039 3r 1st+ $634-647 for each additional variance 17. Seasonal Restaurant Enclosure $ 2 3562,212 Seasonal Restaurant Enclosure(During State of Oregon Emergency $0 Covid-19 Restrictions) Sign Code Fees(LOC 47) Signs $ 547 517561 Signs(awning,window,blade) $ 150 154 Special event sign $ 23 24 Variance to Sign Code $1,797 1844 Refundable deposit for Public Notice Signs $ 413116 Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments 1. Legislative amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $1'1,26114,632 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $14,26114,632 Zone Change only $14,26114,632 2. Legislative amendments to a text Comprehensive Plan text amendment $ 7,133 7 318 27 Additional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.See page 532 under Other Planning Fees. Page 56 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Community Development Code text amendment $ 7,13377 318 3. Quasi-judicial amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $14,26114,632 Zone change only28 $14,26114,632 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $11,26114,632 Minor modifications to approved amendment $1,90911 959 Substantial modifications to approved amendments $$ 2,1552,519 Major Developments(LOC 50.07.003.15)29 1. Conditional Uses $6,999 7 181 2. Overall Development Plan and Schedule $6,507 6 676 3. Modification of approved major development permits Without public hearing 5 2,1812,238 With public hearing $3,89133 992 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts(LOC 50.05.010 and LOC 50.07.004.8) There are no fees for actions relating to Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts(Council action 10/21/14). Fees Relating to Historical Preservation(LOC 50.06.009 and LOC 50.07.004.4) 1. Designation of Landmark No fee 2. Exterior alteration of Landmark,including building paint color change No fee 3. Historic District Designation No fee 4. New construction(not attached to historic structure;e.g.,detached No fee garage,secondary dwelling,garden shed) 5. Removal or deconstruction of Landmark $524265 567 6. Withdrawal of historic landmark designation $5,126 5 567 Appeals30 1. Appeals of a formal Code Interpretation to a Hearing Body $ 773 793 2. Appeals of a staff decision to a Hearing Body $ 773 793 3. Appeals of a Hearing Body decision to City Council %original Application Fee not to exceed$6,883 Pre-Application Conference/Consultations" 1. Pre-application Conference:32 <n79 Residential Infill Design Review: Pre application with Planning Staff $ 467 179 [Formatted:Left Pre application with the Infill Advisors Team $2,5025022 567502 All other applications $ 467 179 2. Pre-application ConsultationConference Follow-ups: 28 Not required for zone changes that conform to the Comprehensive Plan following annexations. 29 Site review and inspection fees may apply at building permit review.Scc page 51Additional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.See pages 5341-54-5a under Other Planning Fees. 30 Appeal fee shall not apply to appeals filed by DLCD or to appeals filed by recognized Neighborhood Association entitled to receive notice of a pre-application neighborhood meeting pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.1.f.iii(1)(a)and(b). 31 In addition to planning fees noted in this sub-section,the Fire Department also levies a pre-application fee.Please refer to Fire Department,Section 3 for the correct amount. 32 There is no pre-application conference fee for a permit for an ADU,actions relating to Sensitive Lands,Greenway Management Overlay review associated with dead,hazardous,emergency,or invasive tree removal,or designation of Historic Landmark. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 57 Section 11: Planning up meeting with staff to discuss issues addressed at the No fee pre application conferencelnitial follow-up meeting, For anyAll subsequent meetings after the follow up(3rd meeting 50%of pre-application fee on) 3. Consultation Fee A private meeting to discuss a project outside the context of a pre-application conference or at-the-counter services by a planner $3120/hour Research Fees 1. Letter of zoning verification $14 120/hour 2. Letter of verification of compliance with Community Development Code of an existing development $389185/hour 3. Deed research to determine the legality of a lot of record $359185/hour 4. Research/Interpretation of old planning files and informal Code Interpretation(often requested by the applicants before filing of a development application) $337120/hour Tree Code Fees(Resolution 00-07) 1. Tree Cutting Permit Fees Type I Permit $-2425 Dead or Hazard Tree Permit $24-25 Type II Permit $3134199+$2425 per tree Emergency Tree Permit $0 Type II Permit in conjunction with major or minor development application $0 Minor Forest Management $24-25 Major Forest Management $3-94199+$24-25 per tree, not to exceed$663-678 Verification Permit $38-39+$10 per tree Topping Permit $24-25 per request 2. Mitigation[as provided in LOC 55.02.084(3)] $168 172 3. Public Hearing Review33 Request for DRC Hearing on Tree Cutting Permit $210 246 Appeal of DRC's decision to City Council 'A of original application fee 4. Heritage Tree Program The City may charge for providing the plaque marking a heritage tree. The fee will be the actual cost of providing the plaque. 5. Tree Protection Inspection Fee $$ 117 per inspcction120 6. County Tree Removal Certification Type 2 Permits $ 2-126+$11 for each additional tree Over-the-Counter Permits -Type 1 $2425 Over-the-Counter Permits -Dead $2425 33 Fee shall not apply to requests/appeals filed by City of Lake Oswego recognized Neighborhood Associations. Page 58 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Over-the-Counter Permits —Hazard $2425 Invasive and/or Emergency tree removal permits No Fee 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 59 Section 11: Planning Fee Exemptions for Affordable Housing No Ministerial Development,Minor Development,Major Development,Sign Code,Historic Preservation,Tree Code(for tree removal and mitigation for development of the structure)or Pre-application Conference fees will be charged under this Section 11 for developments where the proposed dwelling units are affordable to those earning 80%or less of Area Median Income and spending not more than 30%of household income on housing,consistent with Clackamas County Housing Authority's"Income Limits"for Affordable Housing,provided that all of the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5)are met. Other Planning Fees(Resolution 04-12) 1. Annexation Application Fee' [Formatted Table Parcel less than 3 times minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation. $0+Applicable Metro Fees Parcel 3 times or greater than the minimum lot area for the $ 91,036 per no.of lots, zone designation that will apply upon annexation. based on gross lot area,into which the parcel could be divided under the base zone designation that will apply upon annexation+ Metro fees Parcel for which there is no minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation. $2,0212,074+Applicable Metro Fees Expenses related to additional noticing caused by delays brought on by the applicant(s). $291-299 2. Copies of Planning Documents [Formatted Table See Section 1,Public Records Fees,page 19. 3. Site review and inspection fees a. Single family dwelling or middle housing35 on infill lots(i.e., lots or parcels not approved as part of a land $269 276 partition/subdivision) b. Cottage Cluster Parent Parcel Site Plan $696 cb. Single family dwelling or middle housing approved as a part of a land partition/subdivision/planned development application $678 696 de. Non-single family residential development,including multi- family,commercial,industrial,and institutional uses $1,3531 388 ed. Re-inspection fee $112 146 fe. Residential remodels Interior remodels and accessory structures $119 153 Exterior addition of no more than 500 sq,ft, $199 204 Exterior addition exceeding 500 sq,ft,(same fee as if new construction) See a.—c.above 34 See Annexation Application Form. 35 For Cottage Clusters,this fee applies to each individual cottage unit. Page 60 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 61 Section 11: Planning 4. Plat Review Fee [Formatted Table a. Final Plat Review Fee $565 580 b. Lot Line Adjustment Plat Review Fee $58 59 5. Ballot Measure 49 Claims [Formatted Table Fees for claims under LOC Article 12.55(Resolution 05-31) Pre-filing conference fee $-433444 Filing fee $174841,523 6. Application Mailing List Fee $-8385 7. Records Retention Fees-For purposes of archiving records per {Formatted Table State mandate a. Ministerial land use applications $46 47 b. Minor land use applications(without public hearing) $76-78 c. Minor land use applications(with public hearing)and major $159 163 land use applications d. Type II and verification tree removal permits $-2330 e. Sign permits $4930 8. Demolition(Notice of Demolition Approval) $63-65 9. Additional Plan Review Fee for Issued Building $117120/hour Permits(minimum 1 hour) 10. Review fee for additional materials submitted by an applicant 10%of original base36 opting into amended housing regulations per ORS 227.178(3)(a)(A) application fee Code Enforcement Violation Fees 1. Nuisance{violation LOC 34.08&34.10)and Animals and Fowl(LOC Chap 31)$ 470585 $ 570 {Formatted:Line spacing: single violations 2_Community Development violation LOC Chapter 50 $ -870585 a. Sensitive Lands violation fees:3-7 i. Standard enforcement fee:up to$585/500 sq.ft.disturbed area ii. Enhanced enforcement fee:38 up to$1,170/500 sq.ft.disturbed area 1,3_Sign violation LOC Chapter 47 $ 570585 2:4.Sign Retrieval violation-Moving from Sign Code Fees(LOC47) $ 4738 5. Sign Removal Hearing Fee(refundable if sign was removed improperly) $ 4738 6. Tree Code violation LOC Chapter 5539 $ 585 37Tree Enforcement Fees-For violations under LOC 55.02.130(3),enforcement fees will be assessed as follows: Type I Permits violations,dead or hazard tree violations $ 153 157 36 Percentage applies to the"base"Planning fee only;does not include fees added on to the base fee,such as additional charges per lot or per additional variance or percentage of building permit fee. 37 Disturbed areas that are less than 500 square feet,shall be calculated as a percentage of 500 and multiplied by the violation fee;for example,330 sq.ft.of disturbance area is divided by 500=0.66,and then 0.66 is multiplied by the violation fee. 38 Applies to wetland or stream corridor violations below the top of bank. 39 For violations not covered under tree protection or tree removal enforcement or restoration fees. Page 62 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning All other Permit Type violations $ 738 757+$49-50 per tree Tree Protection Enforcement fee for violations under LOC 55.08.050(3) Standard tree protection enforcement fee $ 716 735 Enhanced tree protection enforcement fee $1,4321469 4.8.Tree Restoration Fees[as provided in LOC 55.02.130(4)(a)&(b)] Standard City Tree Fund Fee $403106 per caliper inch Increased City Tree Fund Fee $209 214 per caliper inch 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 63 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Systems Development Charges Fees shall be assessed for Systems Development Charges(SDC)and will reflect the following: • For each type of SDC,the fees assessed to each unit of a duplex shall be the same as those assessed to a single-family residence. In the case of water and sewer SDCs,there are two options: e—If one meter is serving both duplex units,then only one water and one sewer SDC will be charged. •o If there are two separate meters,each unit will be charged a separate water and sewer SDC. [Formatted • For an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)each type of SDC will be waived,even if a larger meter is required to accommodate an ADU,provided that the ADU complies with all the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5)as amended by Ordinance 2810. If within 10 years from the first use of the ADU as a dwelling unit,the requirements of this covenant are not maintained,the City may declare the ADU exemption from payment of all System Development Charges(SDCs)revoked and the Owner shall immediately pay to the City the monies due under LOC 39.06.105(5),to wit: Processing fee per Council Resolution;and • SDC amounts for ADU per Lake Oswego Master Fees and Charges at time of payment (previously exempted system development charges,with interest based upon inflation rate using the Engineering News—Record Construction Cost Index 20-City Average,are reflected in the SDC amounts then due). • Processing fee$500 • Pursuant to and following the procedure set forth in LOC 39.06.105(5)(f)(iii),(iv),(v),the processing fee and SDC amounts shall be a lien upon the Real Property,entered in the municipal lien docket,and are enforceable in the manner provided by ORS Ch.223.Exempt from SDCs are developments where the proposed dwelling units are affordable to those earning 80%or less of Area Median Income and spending not more than 30%of household income on housing,consistent with Clackamas County Housing Authority's"Income Limits"for Affordable Housing provided that the development complies with all of the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5). • The rate for Hotel/Transient Lodging includes Short-Term Rentals(Transient Lodging in residential zones). These SDC's shall be indexed for inflation annually using the Engineering News—Record Construction Cost Index (20-city average). Accordingly,as of January 1,2025,the SDC fees have been increased by 2:51_0%which is equal to the last recorded change in this index as based on October 2023 to October 2024 data. Calculated amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 64 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 12: Systems Development Charges Systems Development Charges(LOC 39.04) Water SDC Reimbursement Improvement Administrative Total Water Meter Size Fee 14.79% Fee 78.72% Fee 6.49% 100% 5/8-3/4 inch $ 1'451 $ 7,722 $ 64337 $ 9,840908 465 800 3/4 inch $ 1,45-1 $ 7,732800 $ 64337 $ 9,840908 465 1 inch $ 2,413442 12,87012,998 $ 1,07264 $ 16,349512 1 1/2 inch $ 4,836885 260025,742 $ 2,14433 $ 33 0312,701 2 inch $ 7,747824 $ 41,230642 $ 3,433399 $ 522 8992 376 3 inch $ 15,544667 82�L1�3 285 $ 6,875806 $ 105 927'1,877 4 inch $ 24,258500 129,11230,402 $ 10,751646 $ 1655 6534,013 6 inch $ $ $ 21,519396 48 549 039 258,42861,013 331,57128,283 8 inch $ $ $ 34,452444 77,7358 513 413,74717.885 530.85025,593 10 inch $ 111,85022 968 595,317601,2Z $ 49,571084 763,81156,218 Sewer SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Water Meter Size Fee 22.16% Fee 77.84% 100% 5/8-3/4 inch $ 791 799 $ 2,780808 $ 3,574607 3/4 inch $ 794 799 $ 2,780808 $ 3,574607 1 inch $ 1,349333 $ 4,636681 $ 579546 014 1 1/2 inch $ 2,638665 $ 9,269361 $ 11,9072 026 2 inch $ 5,278330 $ 18,536722 $ 23,8114 052 3 inch $ 12,666793 $ 4,1944 939 $ 574607 732 4 inch $ 22 468389 $ 77,8668 645 $-10970341 034 6 inch $ 48,5579042 $ 170,5612267 $ 219,11821,309 8 inch $ 296,630299,59 $ 84,4175 291 7 $ 381,0774 888 10 inch $ $ 134.9463 266 463,18068,114 $ 595,126601,380 Stormwater Management SDC 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 65 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Single family $0 $ 195197 $ 195197 Multi-family,commercial/industrial,institutional,and other land use fees are determined as follows: Improvement Fee equals the total impervious area of the property in units of 3,030 square feet or portion thereof multiplied by the fee. Transportation SDC Refer to methodology and rate schedule in the Appendix Parks&Recreation SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Residential Single family $0 $ 16,9797,149 $ 16,9797�149 Multi-family/secondary dwellings $0 $ 9,538444 $ 9,538444 "Congregate Housing"units are charged at 50%of the Multi-family rate*. Non-residential $0 $ 1,09.a103 $ 1,99.a103 per employee "Residential Care Housing"units are charged at 100%of the Non-residential rate*. *See Appendix for definitions of Congregate Housing and Residential Care Housing. Page 66 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 12: Systems Development Charges Comparison of Neighboring Cities'New Single-Family Systems Development Charges Based on a 2,000 sq.ft.house with 500 sq.ft.garage,and$200,000 value. 60,000 •6,200 54,910 52,489 50,000 45,274 45,100 43,253 44,403 40,228 40,398 40,000 35,438 I I 30,047 30,000 20,000 17,661 10,000 Milwaukie Gresham Tigard OClryn Tualatin Portland Hillsboro Sherwood Beaverton Oswego Lake West Linn W Isonville ■Water SDC 5,603 6,553 6,156 11,078 8,389 4,563 14,862 10,154 10,370 9,810 15,792 12,703 ■Sewer SDC 1,177 7,645 7,009 2,973 7,009 10,237 6,824 1,032 6,824 3,571 14,254 7,102 ■Stormwater SDC 1,147 1,457 678 1,186 678 1,543 678 678 1,437 195 1,796 2,432 ■Street SDC 2,609 6,166 8,543 13,939 11,478 5,882 11,478 12,850 10,599 18,434 4,313 16,823 ■Park SDC 3,985 5,086 9,912 7,912 9,344 17,887 7,421 17,246 12,904 16,979 16,515 14,000 •METRO Excise Tax 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 •School Excise Tax 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 3,260 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 3,260 2,000 2,900 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 67 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Comparison of Neighboring Cities'New Commercial Systems Development Charges Based on a 30,000 sq.ft.commercial office building,a total 50,000 sq.ft impervious area,and$3,200,000 value. 700,000 635,549 609,273 600,000 569,710 548,748 567,873 541,184 529,072 500,000 387,495 389,905 400,000 311,987 296,335 300,000 248,891 200,000 100,000 Milwaukie Gresham Oswego Portland West Linn Tualatin Tigard Beaverton Sherwood Wilsonville Hillsboro Oregon ■Water SDC 18,678 26,212 32,701 22,814 108,540 41,945 49,241 51,845 50,772 62,632 68,286 55,389 ■Sewer SDC 76,049 30,563 11,907 54,600 95,718 28,036 28,036 27,296 4,128 19,888 27,296 23,784 ■Stormwater SDC 12,716 29,140 3,218 15,975 30,817 12,841 12,841 27,216 12,841 45,500 12,841 12,168 ■Street SDC 111,143 184,980 147,180 182,400 129,390 361,410 361,410 361,410 421,260 398,730 361,410 492,818 ■Park SDC 4,865 - 88,541 83,266 - 56,400 64,216 52,541 53,432 17,520 114,000 25,950 ■METRO Excise Tax 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 ■School Excise Tax 21,600 21,600 24,600 24,600 21,600 24,600 21,600 24,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 Page 68 2025 Master Fees and Charges This page intentionally left blank 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 69 Appendix Systems Development Charges Methodologies(LOC 39.04.041) Water Systems Development Charge Methodology 630 Sewer Systems Development Charge Methodology 652 Stormwater Systems Development Charge Methodology 663 Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology 674 Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge Fee Methodology 693 Resolution Resolution 24-33—Updating the Master Fees and Charges Schedule 7269 Page 70 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Water Systems Development Charge Methodology Reimbursement Fee [A] Eligible cost of unused capacity in the existing water system. [B] Current(2009)customer base expressed as 3/4"meter equivalents. [C] Future customer base expressed as 3/4"meter equivalents. [C][A][B] _ [D] Water SDC Reimbursement Fee Reimbursement Fee Calculation [A] = $6,148,588 [B] = 15,204 MEs [C] = 21,695 MEs [A] _ [D] $947 [C]—[B] 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 71 Appendix Improvement Fee [E] Cost in current(2009)dollars of water system capital improvements that will increase system capacity to meet the needs of future users. [B] Current(2009)customer base expressed as 3/4"meter equivalents. [C] Future customer base expressed as 3/4"meter equivalents. [E] _ [F] Water SDC Improvement Fee [C]—[B] Improvement Fee Calculation [E] _ $32,714,947 [B] = 15,204 MEs [C] = 21,695 MEs [E] _ [F] $5,041 [C]—[B] Water System Development Charge [D] Water SDC Reimbursement Fee [F] Water SDC Improvement Fee [G] Water SDC Administrative Fee [H] Water System Development Charge [D]+[F]+[G]=[H] Page 72 2025 Master Fees and Charges Attachment B Sewer Systems Development Charge Methodology Sewer SDC Fee [M] Value of the sewer collection system capital improvement program to provide capacity to serve new customers. [N] Value of the sewer wastewater treatment plant capital improvement program to provide capacity to serve new customers. [0] Current dry weather demand. [P] Future dry weather demand. [0] Future WWTP capacity dedicated to Lake Oswego. [R] Average single family home dry weather demand. [P]—[0]x[ ix[R]=[S] Portion of fee for collection system capital improvements to provide [P] [P] capacity to serve new customers. [P]x [N] x[R]=[T] Portion of fee for wastewater treatment plant capital improvements to [Q] [P]—[O] provide capacity to serve new customers. [S]+[T]=[U] Sewer Fee. Sewer SDC Fee Calculation nn��11 [M]= $19,351,000 [P]—[0]x rr j x[R]=[S] $244 P1 P [N]= $11,499,000 [P]x [N] x[R]=[T] $1,186 [Q] [P]—[0] [0]= 3.9 mgd [Formatted Table [P]= 5.69 mgd [0]= 7.025 mgd [R]= 0.000228 mgd [S]+[T]=[U] $1,430 Sewer System Development Charge [U]*22.16%=[V] Sewer SDC Reimbursement Fee [U]*77.84%=[W] Sewer SDC Improvement Fee [X] Sewer System Development Charge [V]+[W]=[X] 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 73 Appendix Stormwater Systems Development Charge Methodology Improvement Fee—Water Quantity Portion [A] Portion of the Stormwater quantity management capital improvement program attributable to future development.Determined on a project-by-project basis and equal to the percentage increase in the design flow of each project in the Stormwater quantity management capital improvement multiplied by project cost. [B] Projected increase in Equivalent Service Units(ESUs).One ESU is equal to 3,030 square feet of impervious area.Total projected increase in ESUs is determined by dividing the total projected increase in impervious area of the City of Lake Oswego by 3,030. [A]/[B]=[C] Improvement Fee—quantity portion,per ESU. Improvement Fee—Quality Portion [D] Portion of the stormwater quality management capital improvement program attributable to future development.Equal to the percentage increase in total runoff multiplied by the total cost of the stormwater quality management capital improvement program. [D]/[B]=[E] Improvement Fee—quality portion,per ESU. Improvement Fee Calculation [C]+[E]=[F] Stormwater improvement fee. Stormwater Management System Development Charge Only includes an Improvement Fee-No Reimbursement Fee. Page 74 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Transportation Systems Development Charges Rate Tables Transportation SDC Maximum Allowable Approved SDC Rate SDC Rate ITE per Unit• per Unit Code Land Use Unit[A] [B] [C=B x.30]01 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 SFGFA 10,3762-7-3 $3,982113 130 Industrial Park 1,000 SFGFA 10,521447 3,125156 140 Manufacturing 1,000 SFGFA 559715,912 1,791334 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SFGFA 4,677634 1,403889 160 Data Center 1,000 SFGFA 1,95233 5868 Single-Family Detached 210 Housing/Duplex Dwelling unit 18,618434 18,618434 220 Apartment/ADU Dwelling unit 12,810683 3,84305 Residential 230 Condominium/Townhouse Dwelling unit 11,138028 3,34108 240 Mobile Home Park ODU 9,659563 2,898869 254 Assisted Living Bed 5,05101 1,5L500 310 Hotel/Transient Lodging Room/Unit 15,481328 4,644598 11,0950,98 3,329296 320 Motel Room 5 122 0881,96 3,626590 411 City Park Acre 8 417 Regional Park Acre 9,837740 2,95129 430 Golf Course Acre 10,38928G 3,117986 59�75859,1 17,2977,760 492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SFGFA 66 Recreational Community 1,000 SFGFA 54,0003,46 16,200040 495 Center 3 144 0403,90 4,212270 520 Elementary School 1,000 SFGFA 1 Middle School/Junior High 1,000 SFGFA 12,5402,11 3,7622-5 522 School 6 530 High School 1,000 SFGFA 11,729643 3,519434 422 202148 12,661535 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SFGFA 4 26,0655 9 7,817730 560 Church 1,000 SFGFA 8 4°Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average,per Resolution 17-08. 41 The 30%factor for the approved SDC Rate per Unit applies to all codes except ITE Code 210.Maximum Allowable was phased-in for ITE Code 210(Single-Family Detached Housing/Duplex),per Resolution 17-65. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 75 Appendix 565 Day Care Center 1,000 SFGFA 35,524172 10,657552 -99 452 29,83629,64 590 Library 1,000 SFGFA 08'167 0 23983237 7,195124 610 Hospital 1,000 SFGFA 46 620 Nursing Home 1,000 SFGFA 14,212071 4'26424 710 General Office Building 1,000 SFGFA 16,516352 4'95506 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 SFGFA 533 8203718 16,1465,986 720 Building 7 State Motor Vehicles 1,000 SFGFA 238,2685,9 71,8400,773 731 Department 09 1,000 SFGFA 17441212;-3 52,2361,719 732 United States Post Office 97 1,000 SFGFA 16,753387 5,0264,976 750 Office Park 760 Research and —3,680643 Development Center 1,000 SFGFA 12,265444 1,000 SFGFA 5,579523 770 Business Park 18,595444 812 Building Materials and 1,000 SFGFA 84,99944-5 25,500247 Lumber Store 7 Transportation SDC Maximum Allowable Approved SDC Rate SDC Rate ITE per Unit'2 per Unit Code Land Use Unit[A] [B] [C=B x.30] Free-Standing Discount 1,000 SFGFA 75,8035,0 22'741516 813 Superstore 62 60,256597 18 0777,898 814 Variety Store 1,000 SFGFA 659 Free-Standing Discount 1,000 SFGFA 16,682547 815 Store 55,608057 51,0700,5 15,321169 816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000SFGFA 64 1633 2971, -48,9898,604 817 Nursery(Garden Center) 1,000 SFGFA 680 820 Shopping Center 1,000 SFGLA 40,756352 12'227486 79,978797 23,9933,756 826 Specialty Retail Center 1,000 SFGLA 186 42 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CC!)for 20-City Average,per Resolution 17-08. Page 76 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix 57767774 17,303433 841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SFGFA 06 53,68534 16,1065,946 843 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SFGFA 33 848 Tire Store 1,000 SFGFA 33,656323 10,0979,993 93,3032,3 27,9917,734 850 Supermarket 1,000 SFGFA 79 Convenience Market 1,000 SFGFA 4866 4031, 145�9214,476 851 (Open 24 Hours) 587 83,4537,6 25,0364,788 857 Discount Club 1,000 SFGFA 27 Home Improvement 1,000 SFGFA 322 9782,6 9,893705 862 Superstore 54 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SFGFA 7513643 22,541348 880 without Drive-Through 92 Pharmacy/Drugstore with 1,000 SFGFA 72,57648 21,773557 881 Drive-Through 57 890 Furniture Store 1,000 SFGFA 3,602566 1,08170 1,000 SFGFA 666 1015,4 19,830634 912 Drive-in Bank 47 1,000 SFGFA 73,74130 -22,1224,003 931 Quality Restaurant 34 932 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) 1,000 SFGFA 103,6262, 31,0880,780 Restaurant 600 934 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 1,000 SFGFA 431,75027 129,52538,24 5475 3 937 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through 1,000 SFGFA 66053854 198,1616,409 794,9 938 Coffee/Donut Kiosk 1,000 SFGFA 603,06459 180,91979,43 7,093 8 944 Gasoline/Service Station VFP 1166 2695, 34,8814,535 148 945 Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market VFP 409930,5 12,298176 87 946 Gasoline/Service Station with Car Wash VFP 711 9571,2 21,587374 45 Source:ITE Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,compiled by FCS GROUP Abbreviations: SFGFA-square feet of gross floor area ODU-occupied dwelling unit VFP-vehicle fueling position 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 77 Appendix Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge Fee Methodology I. Residential Development a. An applicant for a building permit should complete a Lake Oswego Parks System Development Charges Application and SDC Calculation Worksheet indicating the type and number of new Dwelling Units to be included in the project. b. The Building Department enters the SDC rates per dwelling on the application form and calculates the SDCs to be paid by the Applicant. SDC Improvement Fee* Type of Dwelling Unit per Dwelling Unit Single Family Dwelling Unit $ 16,979 7 149 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 9,444538 II. Non-Residential Development a. An applicant for a building permit should complete a Lake Oswego Parks System Development Charges Application and SDC Calculation Worksheet indicating the type and number of square feet of building space for each non-residential use to be included in the project. Guidelines for the number of square feet required for each employee are included in the table on the following page for major Standard Industry Classifications. Where a proposed use does not specifically match one of the classifications listed in the table,the listed classification which most closely matches the proposed use,as determined by the City Manager,may be substituted. b. The Building Department calculates the non-residential SDC Improvement Fee by: i. Dividing the building space(square feet)for each non-residential use in the development by the number of square feet per employee(from the guidelines in the Square Feet Per Employee table),and ii. Multiplying the result(from step 1)by the SDC rate Per New Employee($1,033 as of January 1,2023).Any proposed use which constitutes 10%or less of the total building space should be considered an ancillary use and does not require a separate calculation;however,the building space for such uses must be included in the total for other non-residential uses. *Rates are based on Improvement Fee only(no Reimbursement Fee). Page 78 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix III. Senior and Affordable Housing Definitions(Per Resolution 08-42): a. "Congregate Housing"is defined as"multi-unit housing with self-contained apartments that contain cooking facilities which support independent lifestyles for those that have life-function disabilities due to age,medical,or mental condition,which do not require residential care or skilled nursing services. Congregate housing provides varying levels of support services,such as meals,laundry, housekeeping,transportation,and social,recreation,cultural and education activities. The full range of services normally associated with residential care facility,are not provided in association with congregate housing." (Section 50.02.005 Definitions,City Code) Rate Provision: Charged at 50%of the Multi-Family residential rate. b. "Residential Care Housing"is considered to be non-residential in nature and is defined as a facility that houses and provides services for 6 or more persons who may have a range of physical and mental health problems,including chronic and debilitating conditions requiring assistance with daily activities. This term is synonymous with other terms such as"assisted living facilities"and"adult care housing"used to describe housing which provides the range of services described below. Living units within residential care housing do not have cooking facilities. A range of services is provided including staff supervised meals,housekeeping and personal care medication supervision,recreation, cultural,social activities and transportation.Residential care housing facilities may include housing for persons needing intermediate care. These are persons who do not require around-the-clock nursing,but who do need preventative care,therapies at levels less than continuous licensed nursing care or observation. Intermediate care emphasizes personal,social and emotional/mental health care,but involves the availability of 24 hour service with physicians and nurses in supervisory roles. Skilled nursing services,including convalescent care,may be provided as an accessory and subordinate use in conjunction with residential care facilities. (Section 50.02.005 Definitions,City Code). Rate Provision: Charged at 50%of the Non-Residential rate. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 79 Appendix SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE (Recommended guidelines from Metro Employment Density Study) Standard Industry Square Feet Standard Industry Square Feet Classification(SIC)* Per Employee Classification(SIC)* Per Employee 1—19 590 37 700 Agriculture.,Fish&Forest Services; Transportation Equipment Construction;Mining 20 630 40-42,44,45,47 3,290 Food&Kindred Products Transportation and Warehousing 22,23 930 43,46,48,49 460 Textile&Apparel Communications and Public Utilities 24 640 50,51 1,390 Lumber&Wood Wholesale Trade 25,32,39 760 52-59 470 Furniture;Clay,Stone,&Glass; Misc. Retail Trade 26 1,600 60-68 370 Paper and Allied Finance,Insurance&Real Estate 27 450 70—79 770 Printing,Publishing&Allied Non-Health Services 28—31 720 80 350 Chemicals,Petroleum,Rubber,Leather Health Services 33,34 420 81-89 740 Primary&Fabricated Metals Educational,Social,Membership Services 35 300 90—99 540 Machinery Equipment Government 36,38 400 Electrical Machinery,Equipment * Source:U.S.Department of Commerce Standard Industrial Classification Manual IV. Modification,Expansion,or Redevelopment If the development is a modification or expansion of an existing structure,or redevelopment of a property from a previous use,the SDC amount is based on the net increase in the number of Dwelling Units and/or employees,calculated as follows: a. Calculate an SDC on the development as though the entire development was subject to the SDC; b. Calculate an SDC on the existing development,before modification,expansion,or redevelopment,as though the existing development was subject to the SDC; c. Calculate the net SDC amount by subtracting the result of Step b from the result of Step a;if the result is zero or less than zero,no SDC is due. Page 80 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Master Fees and Charges Resolution RESOLUTION 24-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REVISING FEES AND CHARGES AND UPDATING THE LAKE OSWEGO MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE WHEREAS,the City has adopted from time to time various fees and charges for services; and WHEREAS,the City has found it necessary to add,revise,or delete various fees. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The revisions to fees and charges shown in Exhibit A are hereby adopted effective January 1,2025,except where noted otherwise. Section 2. The revision to fees and charges shall be incorporated into the City's Master Fees and Charges schedule. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 17th day of December,2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M.Buck,Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder,City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach,City Attorney 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 81 ATTACHMENT 2 Preface City of Lake Oswego, Oregon The City provides a full range of municipal services to the community which includes police and fire protection, emergency medical services,traffic control, street maintenance and improvements,water, sewer, and stormwater management services, planning and zoning regulation, building inspection and regulation, parks and recreational activities, and community library service. This Master Fees and Charges booklet consolidates all City fees and charges, adopted by City Council resolution,for the various services that the City provides. Typically, it is updated annually and reflects all fee resolutions passed by Council during the year. For easy reference,the current Master Fees and Charges booklet,as well as versions from prior years, are available online at: www.lakeoswego.city/fees. Fee Variance and Waiver Statement Based upon an unusual circumstance or event, past practices, demonstrated hardship, or public benefit,the City Manager is authorized to waive or decrease a fee(s)or charge(s), barring requirements by State or local codes, in a particular matter or establish a fee not yet authorized in this resolution. When a new fee is established by the City Manager it may be incorporated into this resolution. It shall be communicated to Council in writing to allow opportunity for comment. The request for a waiver or reduction must be in writing. If the City Manager or their designee agrees to said waiver or reduction,they may inform the City Council, in writing, of the request and their decision, except in minor matters such as non-profit signed fee waivers and City tree removal applications. Effective Dates and Resolution The 2025 Master Fees and Charges effective dates: • Utility Fees are effective July 1, 2025. • All other Fees are effective January 1, 2025 (unless otherwise noted) Resolution 24-33 —Adopting the 2025 Master Fees&Charges Cover photo of water treatment plant is courtesy of Dave Arpin,2023. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 1 Table of Contents Section 1: General 5 Utility Rates: Water, Sewer,Stormwater, and Street 5 Business License and Liquor License 13 Dog License 14 Rights of Way Usage Fee 14 Franchise Fees 17 Public Records Fees 18 Miscellaneous Fees 19 Section 2: City Attorney's Office 20 Discovery Fees and City Code 20 Section 3: Fire Department 21 General Fees 21 Medical Services and Transport Fees 21 Emergency Services Rates 22 Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviews 22 Fire and Life Safety Inspections 22 Section 4: Library 23 General Fees 23 Section 5: Municipal Court 24 General Fees 24 Section 6: Parks& Recreation 25 Recreation Services and Activities 25 Lake Oswego Recreation &Aquatics Center(LORAC) 27 Lake Oswego Golf Course 30 Indoor Tennis Center 30 Athletic Field User Charges 30 Adult Community Center Fees 31 Swim Park 32 Water Sports Center 32 Park Reservation Fees 32 Miscellaneous Fees 34 Commercial Photography and Filming in City Parks 34 Page 2 2025 Master Fees and Charges Table of Contents, continued Section 7: Police Department 35 Security Alarm Permit and Fees 35 Security Alarm Code Violation Fines 35 Police Reports 35 Miscellaneous Police Fees 35 Section 8: Public Works Support Services 38 General Fees 38 Section 9: Building Division 37 Building Permits 37 Electrical Permits 38 Mechanical Permits Residential 40 Mechanical Permits Commercial 41 Plumbing Permits 42 Grading and Fill Permits 43 Demo and Deconstruction Permits 43 Manufactured Home Permits 44 Manufactured Dwelling/RV Parks 44 Community Development Code Enforcement Charges 44 Record Retention and Archiving Fees 44 Research and Consultation Fees 45 Other Inspections and Fees 45 Additional Miscellaneous Fees 45 Refunds 45 Section 10: Engineering Division 46 Minor Utility Facilities, Installed or Constructed by Public or Private Entities 46 General Engineering Fees 46 Other Engineering Fees 47 Section 11: Planning Division 49 Ministerial Developments 49 Minor Developments 49 Sign Code Fees 50 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 3 Table of Contents, continued Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments 50 Major Developments 51 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 51 Fees Relating to Historical Preservation 51 Appeals 51 Pre-Application Conference/Consultations 51 Research Fees 52 Tree Code Fees 52 Fee Exemptions for Affordable Housing 53 Other Planning Fees 54 Section 12: Systems Development Charges 56 Systems Development Charges 57 APPENDIX Systems Development Charges Methodologies 62 2025 Master Fees and Charges Resolution 72 Page 4 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General General Utility Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Street (LOC 37 and 38) Water and sewer charges for customers outside of the City may be set by specific agreement. For customers outside the City(including Forest Highlands Water District), but not covered by a special agreement,the charge is 150%of standard "in-City" rates. For bulk water users,the City Manager may set"peak"season rates. (LOC 38.04.015) The utility user charge shall be due and payable on the date specified on the bill,and shall be delinquent thereafter.A late charge shall be imposed on delinquent utility user charges in addition to the amount billed. (LOC 38.06.030) A late charge of$5 may be assessed for utility bills not paid within 30 days after billing. If the utility bill is$200 or more,the late charge is 2.5%of the total amount due.The late charge is divided proportionately among the amounts due for water, sewer,stormwater,and street fee and becomes part of the total user charge amount due for each utility. Lake Oswego's Typical Monthly Utility Bill $220 $200 188.21 194.78 200.57 170.52 176.91 $180 160.15 164.83 $160 146.38 150.78 155.41 $140 MMMMM - $120 MMMMMMMMM $100 MMMMMMMMM $80 MMMMMMMMM $60 MMMMMMMMM $40 MMMMMMMMM $20 MMMMMMMMM $0 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 ■Water 55.88 56.96 58.14 59.32 60.51 61.73 62.97 64.22 65.48 66.75 ■Sewer 68.39 70.45 72.56 74.72 76.93 79.97 83.10 86.32 89.72 93.22 ■Stormwater 13.46 14.40 15.41 16.49 17.64 18.87 20.19 21.60 23.11 23.80 •Street Maintenance 8.65 8.97 9.30 9.62 9.75 9.95 10.65 16.07 16.47 16.80 Based on typical use for a single-family home-10 ccf for water and 8 ccf for sewer Past and projected average utility rate increases 7/1/20 7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/26* Water 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Sewer 3.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Stormwater 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.0% 3.0% Street maintenance 1.3% 2.0% 7.0% 50.9% 2.5% 2.0% 3.0% Average increase of 3.9% 3.7% 5.0% 15.9% 3.5% 3.0% 3.1% total utility bill *Adopted rates will be implemented the first full billing cycle following the effective date. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 5 Section 1: General Components of the Typical Monthly Lake Oswego Utility Bill $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 -- - $10 •-•. --.••• $0 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 •Water Sewer Stormwater --- Street Maintenance Comparison of Neighboring Cities'Typical Monthly Utility Bills Based on a September 2024 survey of typical single-family homes in other Portland metropolitan area cities. $300 $250 $200 .. 166.78 . 157.72 $150 r 139.55 111.37 $100 $50 $ Lak Sherwood Oregon Oswe West Linn Gresham Beaverton Wilsonville Hillsboro Milwaukie Tualatin Tigard e Portland city go •Water 29.59 40.41 65.00 62.47 80.50 55.77 61.44 53.87 82.95 89.01 66.75 144.18 •Sewer 38.27 36.27 21.19 44.28 57.50 72.94 58.40 70.63 60.21 59.67 93.22 101.52 •Stormwater 18.61 12.66 9.08 17.80 13.60 11.90 14.86 29.47 11.84 16.47 23.80 38.59 •Street 5.04 15.53 17.65 - - 10.90 9.11 6.06 7.15 8.92 16.80•Other 1.40 6.50 22.29 15.00 - 2.89 13.91 6.75 5.00 9.00 - 0.64 Page 6 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Water Rates 1. Water connection charge'-this charge is in addition to the Water SDC fee, if applicable(LOC 38.10.113). Meter size larger than 2"are charged at cost and materials plus 20%overhead ($2,795 minimum). Meter Size Charge 5/8"-3/4" $ 944 1" $ 1,345 1 1/2" $ 3,391 2" $ 3,794 On moratorium streets(paved within the past five years),the trench patch replacement requirement is significantly larger.Therefore, if a meter installation is required on a moratorium street,an additional charge will be collected to account for the larger pavement patch. $3,000(indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City-Average. 2. Monthly water standard minimum and volume charges. a. Standard minimum monthly water rates for customers within the City. LOC 38.06.020(2a). For all meter sizes: 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 Single family residential customers $29.96 $30.56 $ 31.17 Multi-family customers-First unit $32.70 $33.35 $ 34.02 Multi-family customers-Each additional dwelling unit $29.51 $30.10 $ 30.70 Meter Non-residential Services Irrigation customers Size 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 5/8"-3/4" $ 32.70 $ 33.35 $ 34.02 $ 29.96 $ 30.56 $ 31.17 1" $ 41.45 $ 42.28 $ 43.13 $ 37.96 $ 38.72 $ 39.49 1 1/2" $ 49.32 $ 50.31 $ 51.32 $ 45.20 $ 46.10 $ 47.02 2" $ 74.63 $ 76.12 $ 77.64 $ 68.36 $ 69.73 $ 71.12 3" $ 83.79 $ 85.47 $ 87.18 $ 76.82 $ 78.36 $ 79.93 4" $ 109.12 $ 111.30 $ 113.53 $ 100.00 $ 102.00 $ 104.04 6" $ 134.20 $ 136.88 $ 139.62 $ 122.96 $ 125.42 $ 127.93 8" $ 202.03 $ 206.07 $ 210.19 $ 185.12 $ 188.82 $ 192.60 10" $ 233.20 $ 237.86 $ 242.62 $213.71 $ 217.98 $ 222.34 12" $ 330.00 $ 336.60 $ 343.33 $302.38 $ 308.43 $ 314.60 1 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 7 Section 1: General Volume charges in addition to charges in 2a. USAGE:Per 100 cubic feet(ccf)2 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 Single family residential customers: Tier 1: 0— 8 ccf monthly $3.15/ccf $ 3.21/ccf $ 3.27/ccf Tier 2: 9—16 ccf monthly $4.53/ccf $ 4.62/ccf $ 4.71/ccf Tier 3: over 17 ccf monthly $8.48/ccf $ 8.65/ccf $ 8.48/ccf Multi-family customers $3.63/ccf $ 3.70/ccf $ 3.77/ccf Non-residential customers $4.10/ccf $ 4.18/ccf $ 4.26/ccf Irrigation customers $6.49/ccf $ 6.62/ccf $ 6.75/ccf 3. If a customer's water is turned off because of noncompliance with the proper use of water or for non- payment of utility bills,a charge of$60 will be assessed:$30 for turning the water off and another$30 for a water turn-on. (LOC 38.16.170). The City shall turn off and turn on the customer's water supply at the customer's request.The City shall provide this service for free during working hours one time each calendar year.The City shall charge for additional requests and service during non-working hours except in cases of emergency. (LOC 38.16.175) For customer turn off and turn on requests,after the first turn off then on request in a calendar year,a charge of$60 will be assessed:$30 for turning the water off and another$30 for a water turn-on. There is a charge for reading meters or making service turn-ons or turn-offs at other than regular working hours. In order to suit the convenience of water purchasers,whenever a City employee is required to read a meter or make a water service turn-on or turn-off during hours other than the regular work hours established for City employees,a flat charge of$80 shall be required for such service, in addition to all other charges provided for in this resolution,to be payable as other charges for water services. 4. Rates for the temporary use of a fire hydrant include a $50 installation fee,a $10 per day charge for meter rentals with a maximum charge of$50 per month, plus the usage fee for water based on non-residential water rates. In addition,a$475 refundable deposit will be collected. The deposit is refundable if the meter is returned in good condition and fees have been paid in full. 5. Failure to test backflow prevention assemblies between January 1 to July 15 and submit the test results by July 25 shall be cause for the City to arrange for and conduct the required test.The cost of such a test shall be added to the customer's monthly utility bill at the actual incurred cost plus overhead utilizing a billing multiplier of 2.4 times direct costs. (LOC 38.12.126). 6. If the City is requested to conduct a fire flow test,a flat fee will be charged for each test. (See Section 3). 2 Based on water delivered during the period between meter read dates. Page 8 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General 1' Water Rate History- Monthly I_ Typical Typical water Effective Usage usage in portion % Date Fixed Rate Rate ccf of bill change 7/1/2016 $26.08 $2.74/$3.94 10 $55.88 4.5% 7/1/2017 $26.61 $2.79/$4.02 10 $56.96 2% 7/1/2018 $27.14 $2.85/$4.10 10 $58.14 2% 7/1/2019 $27.68 $2.91/$4.18 10 $59.32 2% 7/1/2020 $28.23 $2.97/$4.26 10 $60.51 2% 7/1/2021 $28.79 $3.03/$4.35 10 $61.73 2% 7/1/2022 $29.37 $3.09/$4.44 10 $62.97 2% 7/1/2023 $29.96 $3.15/$4.53 10 $64.22 2% 7/1/2024 $30.56 $3.21/$4.62 10 $65.48 2% 7/1/2025 $ 31.17 $3.27/$4.71 10 $ 66.75 2% Fixed portion of Monthly Water Bill $35 $30 $25 $20 T 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Water Usage Rate per ccf $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 1 PPI Iiiiir i I II I I I $1 I I I I I I I I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ■Tier 1: 0-8 ccf/month Tier 2:9-16 ccf/month ■Tier 3:over 16 ccf/month 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 9 Section 1: General Sewer Rates 1. Sewer monthly rates for customers within the City,served by the City,and outside Clean Water Services (CWS) shall be charged the following rates for sewer service LOC 38.06.020(2b): Residential for all meter sizes: 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 First dwelling unit $66.64 $69.23 $ 71.94 Each additional dwelling unit $60.12 $62.46 $ 64.90 Meter Non-residential services Size 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 5/8"-3/4" $ 59.45 $ 61.77 $ 64.18 1" $ 75.25 $ 78.18 $ 81.23 1 1/2" $ 89.47 $ 92.96 $ 96.59 2" $ 135.37 $ 140.65 $ 146.14 3" $ 152.02 $ 157.95 $ 164.11 4" $ 197.88 $ 205.60 $ 213.62 6" $ 243.42 $ 252.91 $ 262.77 8" $ 289.37 $ 300.66 $ 312.39 10" $ 335.30 $ 348.38 $ 361.97 12" $ 472.58 $ 491.01 $ 510.16 USAGE: Per 100 cubic feet(ccf)of average winter water usage 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 Residential customers $2.46/ccf $2.56/ccf $ 2.66/ccf Non-residential customers $3.70/ccf $3.84/ccf $ 3.99/ccf a. The above Sewer Usage Rate per 100 cubic feet of average monthly water consumption is based on a customer's average water use during three applicable winter billing cycles. If the full three winter billing cycles are not available,whatever billing record is available shall be used for the computation. b. Where no average winter water usage is available or where it is deemed inappropriate to use in some unusual circumstance for residential, use the standard City-wide average of 8ccf per month multiplied by the standard sewer rates listed above. c. The monthly sewer utility user charge for property within the City and served by Clean Water Services (CWS)of Washington County shall be equal to the monthly service charge established by the agency for similar uses served by the Agency system.The City Manager shall keep on file for public inspection a copy of the current rate structure. Clean Water Services Charge 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/253 CWS Sewer-fixed base charge $32.64 $33.95 $35.31 n/a CWS Sewer-usage charge $ 2.16 $ 2.25 $ 2.34 n/a 3 Not known at this time,usually becomes available on June 1st. Page 10 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General 2. If the City is requested to conduct a sewer connection verification test,a fee of$60 will be charged for each test. Homeowners requesting the test and residing at the residence are exempt from this fee. 3. A line charge shall be assessed upon connection to portions of the sewer system. The City Engineer is authorized to establish additional benefited project areas upon completion of new projects that are constructed under the City's Sewer Extension Program. Customers within the project area shall be assessed the line charge as a condition of receiving a connection permit. The line charge will be reviewed annually and adjusted to reflect actual construction costs of eligible projects or the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(20-City Average)as published in October of the preceding year. The charges shown below are for eligible projects already completed through the date of this resolution: a. For the following project areas,the cost per single family connection $ 28,2964 Sundeleaf Drive Deemar Way Country Club Road Mardee Avenue Bryant Road/Old Gate Road Stonebridge Way Jean Road Upper Drive west of Bryant Carman Drive b. A multiple of the above fee in 3a with the multiplier equal to the number of single family connections that could be developed on the subject property under R-5 zoning, as determined by the City Engineer 4. 4. Special Sewer Connection Charges: a. Fairway Road Project(pursuant to Ordinance#2262) $ 48,623 s b. Rivergrove Sewer Connection Charges(pursuant to Zone-of-Benefit [ZOB] Ordinance#2352) Refer to final ZOB ordinance for fees by lot. Various s Stormwater Rates 1. The stormwater management utility user charge shall be as follows{LOC 38.06.020 2(c)}: a. Each customer using a location for a single-family home or a duplex shall be charged the fee as shown in the table below. b. All other parcels shall be charged per the table below per Equivalent Service Unit(ESU).Total ESUs charged is determined by dividing the total impervious area by 3,030 and rounding to the nearest whole number. 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 Fixed monthly rate $ 21.60 $ 23.11 $ 23.80 2. Tampering Fine.The fine for tampering with the City utility system shall be equal to the total of the cost of correcting the tampering, plus any utility fee revenue estimated by the City to have been lost or affected by the tampering,and a$100 fine. (LOC 38.26.915). 4 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. 5 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for Seattle. Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Note: For items 3 through 4,SDC charges may apply and are in addition to the line charges shown. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 11 Section 1: General Street Maintenance Fee (LOC 37) LOC 37.02.015 A Street Maintenance Fee was established by Ordinance No. 2373 in an amount to be adjusted from time to time, by resolution of the City Council. The fee is based upon the relative direct and indirect use of,or benefit from,the City street system that results from activities within the City,and shall be imposed upon the persons responsible for each developed property upon which such activities occur. LOC 37.02.020 All funds collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to pay costs of operation, maintenance, repair, engineering, improvement, renewal, replacement and reconstruction of the City street system. LOC 37.04.010 The Street Maintenance Fee shall be billed and collected with and as part of the combined utility user charge billing pursuant to LOC 38.06.020 and LOC 38.06.030. In the event funds received from the City's utility billings are inadequate to satisfy in full all of the water,sewer,stormwater,and street maintenance fees,credit shall be first given in this order: street maintenance fee, stormwater,sewer,and then water. Rates6 and Effective Dates(Per Resolution 10-19 and 10-20): a. Residential groups will be billed 100%of the following per resident fees monthly: Effective Effective Effective July 1,2023 July 1,2024 July 1,2025 Single family $ 16.07 $ 16.47 $ 16.80 Multi-family(per unit) $ 11.48 $ 11.77 $ 12.01 b. Non-Residential groups will be billed the following fees monthly, multiplied by their square footage: Effective Effective Effective July 1,2023 July 1,2024 July 1,2025 Group I $ 9.82 $ 10.07 $ 10.27 Group II $ 22.11 $ 22.66 $ 23.11 Group III $ 82.55 $ 84.61 $ 86.30 General"Group"classification defined as: Group I: less than 29 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1,000 sq ft Group II: from 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1,000 sq ft Group III: greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1,000 sq ft 6 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average. Per Resolution 10-20,index adjustment shall not be less than a two percent increase or more than a seven percent increase. The increase in prior year of 50.9%includes both an increase of 5.7%for CCI as well as for an increase of 45.2%or$1.5M for annual pathway funding. Page 12 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Business License and Liquor License Business License A business with anticipated or established gross revenue during a calendar year of no more than $1,000 and at least 50%owned by a person under 19 years of age,are exempt from the following annual business license fees (LOC 20.02.025): Business License Fees ' Non-Profits $ 0 Home-based Businesses/Short-Term Rental $ 100 1-25 Employees $200 26-50 Employees $350 50+Employees $450 1. Renewal Period: Applications for new business licenses should be submitted at least 30 days before the business opens. New business licenses are in effect for the full twelve months after the month of initial issuance. They are renewed annually thereafter. 2. Appeal Fees: Appeal of issue,denial,suspension,or revocation of license $200 3. Temporary Business License: License shall be valid for no more than two successive weeks during a calendar year.They are non- renewable with a minimum fee of$25 per week(or portion thereof)and a maximum fee of$50 per two-week period. Applicants are restricted to two temporary licenses per year. 4. Business License Violation Fee $550 Liquor License The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC)solicits the City's recommendation on applications for new, renewed, or changed liquor licenses.The City will no longer charge a fee for this service. 7 Additional review fee applies to any application(initial or renewal)that requires additional review. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 13 Section 1: General Dog License (LOC 31.02.115) Every person keeping a dog that has a set of permanent canine teeth or is 6 months old,whichever comes first, shall procure a license for the dog. The license must be procured by paying the following fee to the City, not later than 30 days after the person becomes keeper of the dog. A dog license shall be valid for up to 1, 2,or 3 years, and shall expire on the appropriate month end of the respective year.To stay within State Law, no license may be issued with an expiration date that is beyond the end of the month of the applicable rabies vaccination expiration date. Licenses are not prorated for partial years. Expires on the appropriate month end Dog license fees One year Two years Three years Rabies Infertile $30 $60 $90 vaccination Fertile $50 $100 $150 required Delinquent license charge(after 2mo. past due) $20 plus license fee Replacement dog tag $ 5 Dog impounded without license License fee plus impoundment fee Impoundment fee(first pickup) $30 Impoundment fee(additional within 90 days) $60 Shelter fee Set by Clackamas County Dog Control Shelter Dog license exceptions 1. Seeing-eye or other assistance dog: No fee is charged for certified seeing-eye or other assistance dogs as defined in ORS 346.659A,such as"in-training", hearing-ear,or other assistance types recognized by a qualified organization. 2. Rabies vaccination due to medical reasons: No rabies vaccination certificate is required as long as(1)the examining veterinarian certifies that the dog should be exempted from the rabies vaccination due to medical reasons and (2) states whether the reason is permanent or the date when exemption ends. 3. Kenneled for commercial sale(and not at large): The fee for a dog that is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale(and not permitted to run at large)as part of a dog breeder's inventory is$0;a dog that is kept primarily in kennels(and not permitted to run at large), but is removed from the dog breeder's inventory is$5. The keeper must provide evidence that the keeper is a dog breeder and that the dog is a part of the breeder's inventory and/or is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale and not permitted to run at large. 4. New resident or new dog: New dogs are required to be licensed within 30 days of the owner becoming a resident, of acquisition,or of first rabies shot,and for a one,two or three year license,depending on the expiration of the rabies shot.After an additional 60 days,the delinquent license charge is added to the regular license fee. 5. New dog licensed elsewhere: No fee is charged to owners of new dogs currently licensed elsewhere, but are required to register the dog and obtain a City of Lake Oswego dog tag. Page 14 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Rights of Way Usage Fee On January 2,2019,the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Ordinance 2804,adding Lake Oswego Code Chapter 51 ("Utilities Facilities in Public Rights of Way"). Chapter 51 established uniform regulations for utility operations in the City's right of way,as well as a licensing and registration process that replaced individually negotiated franchise agreements. Fees associated with Ordinance 2804 and Chapter 51 of Lake Oswego City Code were established via Resolution 19-03,also adopted January 2,2019. Utility Service Annual Rights of Way Usage Fee* Electric 5%of gross revenue Natural Gas 5%of gross revenue Cable 5%of gross revenue,or maximum amount permitted by applicable law Communications 5%of gross revenue,$3.48 per linear foot of utilities in the rights-of- way,or a minimum annual fee of$5,797,whichever is greater;or the maximum amount permitted by applicable law. The per-linear-foot fee and the minimum fee shall increase 3% annually on January 1st of each year, beginning January 1, 20208 Any utility operator that does not Based on Total Linear Feet of Utility Facilities in the Rights-of-Way: earn gross revenue within the City. Up to 5,000: $6,956 5,001-10,000: $9,274 10,001-20,000: $13,910 More than 20,000: $23,186 The minimum fee shall increase 3%annually on January 1st of each year, beginning January 1, 2020. "Gross Revenue" means any and all revenue,of any kind, nature or form without deduction for expense, less net uncollectibles,derived from the operation of utility facilities in the City,subject to all applicable limitations in federal or state law. Rights of Way License Application fee $250 for a five-year license Rights of Way Annual Registration fee $150 * Government provided water,sewer,and stormwater utilities are not charged this fee. 8 Fees listed incorporate 3%escalator as of January 1,2024 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 15 Section 1: General Attachment Fees As per City of Lake Oswego Ordinance 2820 and established in Resolution 19-03,wireless providers that deploy infrastructure within the city right of way are subject to the following fees: Utility Service Attachment Fees Wireless Facility permit fee,charged for each wireless facility application submitted to the City $ 1,026.08 per application Additional attachment fee, if placed on City owned pole $894.95 annually Additional fee for optional permit pre-application meeting $549.64 per occurrence Additional fee for knockdown of any pole with wireless facility $453.48 per occurrence attachment All fees shall increase 3%annually on January 1st of each year, beginning January 1, 2020 9 9 Fees listed incorporate 3%escalator as of January 1,2024 Page 16 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Franchise Fees (as set by franchise agreements) Electricity and Natural Gas Portland General Electric Franchise fee: 5%of defined gross revenue Expires October 1,2034 (Ordinance 2940) Garbage/Solid Waste Republic Services Franchise fee: 5%of gross cash receipts Expires December 13,2032 (Ordinance 2901) Cable Comcast(MACC) Ziply Fiber(MACC) Franchise fee: 5%of gross revenue Franchise fee: 5%of gross revenue Expires June 30,2025 (Ordinance 2681) Expires May 25,2022 (Ordinance 2486) Telecommunication Services Clackamas County Astound Broadband No franchise fee(City receives use of 4 strands of Franchise Fee:A minimum of$1,500 per quarter fiber) Expires August 4, 2025 (Ordinance 2691) or 5%of gross revenue—whichever is greater Expires December 17, 2025 (Ordinance 2693) 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 17 Section 1: General Public Records Fees'° 1. Copies of finance documents: Biennial Budget $25 per copy Available online Annual Audit(Comprehensive Annual Financial $25 per copy Available online Report) Biennial LORA Budget $5 per copy Available online Annual LORA Audit(Year-end Financial Report) $5 per copy Available online 2. Copies of planning and engineering documents: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) $56 per copy Available online Community Development Code(City Code Ch 50) $64 per copy Available online Comprehensive Plan $56 per copy Available online Public Facilities Plan $29 per copy Available online Public Facilities Plan Appendix $56 per copy Available online Neighborhood Plans $ 19 per copy Available online 3. Copies of maps: Zoning map $20 per copy Available online Comprehensive Plan map $20 per copy Available online City Limits map $20 per copy Available online City Atlas with binder $50 per copy City Atlas(update w/o binder) $0.25 per page 4. Copies of Lake Oswego City Code: Copies of Lake Oswego City Code— $55 Available online excludes Ch 50(no binder) Copies of City Code in PDF format(CD) $20 Available online Copies of Community Development Code $20 Available online in PDF format(CD) 5. Copies of community surveys $ 10 per copy Available online 6. General service copies $0.25 per page 7. Flash Drives $8 8 GB $9 16GB $ 13 32GB 8. Records research $25 per 15 minutes/request(minimum$25) plus copies and materials charges 9. Blueprints $ 1 to$7 depending on map size plus $0.50 to$3.50 for overlays 10 Unless otherwise specified under individual department section. Page 18 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Miscellaneous Fees 1. Employment application fee(including assessment tools&testing): Time& materials, not to exceed $25. 2. Administration Fee of 20%for insurance claims related to damage to City property. 3. Use fees(as shown in the Administrative Procedures Manual, Procedure No.2): First use of City facilities shall be by City or other governmental entities.These use fees will be applicable to private parties using City facilities. Fee will include, but is not limited to,a facility supervisor fee,a janitorial fee,and a building use fee.A security and/or cleaning deposit may also be required. Fee may be waived at the discretion of the City Manager, barring requirements by State or local codes. City Hall building use fee for weekend requests for Class III users: • Community Room (Council Chambers and Courtroom)$100 for the first hour and $50 per additional hour • Conference Room$50 for the first hour and$25 per additional hour • Park facilities have separate fees,see Section 6. 4. Request for construction contract bidding documents: As established in the Invitation to Bid. 5. Filming permit processing fee (LOC 20.06.400) $ 1,000 Filming permit processing fee appeal $ 100 See Commercial Filming in City Parks in Section 6 for additional fees(page 34) 6. Lien search fee Initial search per tax lot $58 for initial search Subsequent search of same tax lot $ 15 for next 90 days 7. NSF check charges $20 for first offense $35 for repeat offenses 8. Parking stall fee $ 1 per hour per stall (Stalls could be located in public right-a-way or public parking lots) 9. EV Charging $0.16/kWh and a $0.75/HR after two hours of use. 10. Passport Fees made payable to U.S.Department of State a. For"minor"applications(under 16 years old) $ 80 b. For"adult"applications(16 years or older) $ 110 All passport fees are c. To EXPEDITE any passport application ... add $ 60 set by the U.S. d. For"minor" Passport Card only(under 16 years old) $ 15 Department of State e. For"adult" Passport Card only(16 years or older) $ 30 11. Passport Fees made payable to"City of Lake Oswego" a. For regular passport applications $ 35 per passport application b. For Passport Card applications $ 35 per PASS Card only Only one fee charged if applying for both 12. Passport photo fee $ 15 per set of two 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 19 Section 2: City Attorney's Office City Attorney's Office The following fees shall be charged for the services of the City Attorney's Office in providing discovery to retained defense attorneys: Discovery Fees 1. E-discovery' flat rate one-time fee $40 2. Electronic transmission of e-discovery $ 0 3. Flash Drives $ 10 8 GB $ 15 16 GB $20 32GB $30 64 GB 4. Paper Copies up to 10 pages $ 15 Each additional Page $0.25 5. Audio and Video unavailable through $50 first DVD/CD/USB e-discovery12 6. Review and Redaction of Audio and $60/hour,after first 30 minutes(billed at 15-minute Video to comply with ORS 135.815 increments) 7. Copies of photographs unavailable $ 1 per letter-sized page(4 color print to a page) through e-discovery $50 burned to a CD(for up to 30) City Code 1. See Section 1: General, Public Record Fees,on page 18. i1 In general,e-discovery includes police reports and city-created digital visual materials(e.g. body worn camera, vehicle mobile-audio-video, photographs,etc.)directly associated with the case. 12 In general,video materials not created by the City--such as cell phone videos—are not included in the flat rate and must be separately requested. Page 20 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 3: Fire Department Fire Department The following fees shall be charged for the Fire Department activities of the City.Any non-listed expenses to provide services in Section 3 will be charged at cost. General Fees 1. Fire and Inspection Reports a. Reports up to 10 pages $25 Each additional page over 10 $0.25 b. Additional research time past first 15 minutes $25 per 15 minutes charged to nearest quarter hour. 2. Fire Investigation Information and Other a. Narrative report up to 10 pages $25 Each additional page over 10 $0.25 b. Digital flash drive copies $25 Each additional copy same flash drive $ 16 Plus charge for each picture $0.25 c. Photo log $25 each d. Staff time past first 15 minutes charged to the $25 per 15 minutes nearest quarter hour 3. Non-listed expenses to provide services in Section 3 Charged at cost Medical Services and Transport Fees 1. Advanced Life Support(ALS), Level One, Emergency $1,523.39 2. Advanced Life Support(ALS), Level One $1,523.39 3. Advance Life Support(ALS), Level Two $1,523.39 4. Basis Life Support(BLS), Emergency $1,523.39 5. Basic Life Support(BLS) $1,523.39 6. Advanced Life Support On-Scene Treatment $800 7. Patient-Loaded Mileage $31.91 per mile 8. Extra Attendant $101.21 (When a patient's condition warrants the presence of additional medic support personnel to assist crew during transport.) 9. Ambulance/Medical Standby Fees a. Paramedics 3 hour minimum $257 per hour b. Billing/Administration $ 100 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 21 Section 3: Fire Department Emergency Services Rates 1. Apparatus costs: Per current Oregon Fire Service Mobilization Plan fee schedule. 2. Personnel costs: Fire employee's actual hourly rate plus benefits or the actual personnel costs to replace on-shift firefighters in their assigned capacity. 3. Dive team and boat team operations:Apparatus and personnel costs apply; plus$60 per hour for specialty equipment maintenance and miscellaneous costs associated with the use of specialty equipment. 4. Emergency standby for hazardous utility incidents where Fire needs to protect life and property: $289.81 per hour after the first half hour. 5. Non-emergency standby for special events:$289.81 per hour for Fire Apparatus 6. Calls for emergency services for accidents on highways, public right-of-ways, railways,or resulting from other transportation incidents exceeding 0.5 hours may be billed according to the current payment schedule in the Oregon State Mobilization Plan adopted by the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office. Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviews 1. Preliminary water and emergency access evaluation for all pre-applications $ 70 2. Detailed water and emergency access evaluation for all development and building permit applications: a. Minor partitions(up to 3 lots) $ 140 b. Subdivisions $250 c. Commercial $250 d. All other applications requiring fire review $ 140 3. All fire code construction permits requiring fire review $250 4. All Fire Code Operational Permits $200 5. Mobile Emergency Responder Radio Coverage(MERRC) a. 0 to 50,000 sq.ft. $0.50 per sq.ft. b. Additional sq.ft.from 50,001 to 100,000 $0.30 per sq.ft. c. Additional sq.ft.exceeding 100,000 $0.10 per sq.ft. Fire and Life Safety Inspections 1. Initial inspection and 1st follow-up No fee 2. Each additional inspection, required for compliance $ 107 per hour 3. After-hours inspections $ 150 per hour(1 hour minimum) 4. Re-inspection fee for new construction after the second violation $ 107 per hour Page 22 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 4: Library Library The following fees shall be charged for the Library Department activities of the City: General Fees (LOC 16.08.310) 1. Uniform Library Network Fees Non-resident card $95 per family per year 2. Library Penalty Fees Lost and damaged library items Replacement cost,as determined by staff 3. Sale of withdrawn/surplus items Varies;typically,$0.10-$3 4. Overdue fine $0.10 per item per day,with a $1 maximum fine per item $ 1.00 per item per day,with a maximum fine equal to the replacement cost of the item,for Library of Things material 5. Photocopy/printing charges Black and white internet photocopy/ $0.10 per page(first dollar used in any combination of printing charges color and/or black&white is waived for cardholders) Color internet photocopy/printing $0.25 per page(first dollar used in any combination of charges color and/or black&white is waived for cardholders) 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 23 Section 5: Municipal Court Municipal Court The following fees shall be charged for the Municipal Court activities of the City: General Fees 1. Delayed Payment Fee This fee is assessed in order to help defray the costs of deferred payment of fines. Duration of Payments Amount added to fine 0 to 60 days $ 0 Over 60 days $ 15 2. Vacate Fee $20 This is a fee charged when someone requests the Municipal Court Judge to review a file, change the status,and/or vacate a charge from the DMV record. 4. Fix-it-ticket Administrative Fee $35 This fee is charged when the citing officer has designated the citation as one that will be dismissed if proof of correction is provided before the initial appearance date. 5. Good Driver Deferred Sentencing Program Administrative Fee Fee shall be the equivalent of the reduced presumptive fine for the charged offense. 6. Seatbelt and Child Restraint Violation Deferred Sentencing Program Administrative Fee $ 100 7. Civil Compromise Administrative Fee $ 150 8. Court Appearance Audio Recording $25 each 9. Certified Copies of Court Documents $5 each 10. Copies up to 10 pages $ 15 Each additional page $0.25 Page 24 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation The following fees shall be charged for the Parks& Recreation activities of the City: Recreation Services and Activities The services and activity programs within Parks& Recreation are designed to meet the expectations of the Lake Oswego community.A wide range of recreational activities are offered to all ages and ability levels.Services and activity programs are offered to families and individuals at an affordable price and well within market value. Fees Each division shall determine fees based upon marketability and associated expenses for the specific program or service. 1. Lake Oswego residents are given priority in registration and pricing for recreation services and activities. Non-residents are charged additional fees of up to 1.5 times the base activity rate. 2. Fees are designed to cover 100%of the expenses associated with activities. Factors included in rates are: Instructor wages and benefits,supplies/materials,entrance/admission fees, advertising, and transportation. 3. Contract service provision of activities include fees to cover total expense plus a program administrative percentage. Service providers are paid a negotiated sum per participant. 4. Lake Oswego Parks& Recreation (LOPR) Refund Policy Refund Policy If LOPR Cancels: • A full refund will be given to each registered and paid participant if Lake Oswego Parks& Recreation (LOPR)cancels an activity,class,or event. Refund Requests Before Start Date: • You will receive a full refund if you request it at least seven calendar days before the start date of the activity. Refund Requests After Seven Days of Start Date: • Refunds requested after(7)seven calendar days prior to activity start date are processed upon approval of the programming staff and/or the contractor and are subject to$10 processing fee (fee applies to each activity withdrawal). • Without an approval no refunds will be given if participant cancels the week of the activity start date or for no shows. • Alternatively,you can choose to receive a credit on your customer account instead of a refund, and the$10 processing fee will be waived.These credits are non-refundable and can be used for future LOPR activities or user fees. After Activity Has Started: • If you request a refund on or after the start date of the activity, a prorated credit will be issued to your customer account. Exceptions: • Exceptions to this refund policy may be made at the staff's discretion in special circumstances. *All registrations are non-transferable and must be used by the registered participant. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 25 Section 6: Parks & Recreation ACC Trip Refund Policy: There are no refunds for trips that include expenses prepaid by the ACC unless a replacement participant can be found. Residency The fee for non-residents may be up to 1.5 times the resident rate. A LO Resident is: • An individual who rents or owns property inside the incorporated city limits of Lake Oswego. • For Lake Oswego Recreation &Aquatic Center(LORAC) admission and activity registration only, a resident is a person or persons who rents or owns property with the Lake Oswego city limits, or an individual who lives within the Lake Oswego School District (LOSD) boundaries, or a student with a LOSD issued ID number. Page 26 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Lake Oswego Recreation & Aquatics Center (LORAC) User Fee Schedule* *Fees subject to change Classification Daily 10 Visit Pass13 Res. N. Res. Res. N. Res. Adult(18-59) $8.00 $12.00 $67.00 $104.00 Youth (3-18) $6.00 $9.00 $48.00 $76.00 Senior(60+) $6.00 $9.00 $48.00 $76.00 Classification 3 Month Annual Annual Paid Monthly Res. N. Res. Res. N. Res. Res. N. Res. Adult(18-59) $132 $198 $420 $ 630 $37 $54 Youth (3-18) $112 $168 $357 $ 536 $31 $47 Senior(60+) $112 $168 $357 $ 536 $31 $47 Household** $246 $370 $788 $1,182 $68 $100 Add'IYouth +$32 +$48 $126 $189 $11 $16 Notes Resident status is a person or persons who rents or owns property with the Lake Oswego city limits,or an individual who lives within the Lake Oswego School District(LOSD)boundaries,or a student with a LOSD issued ID number. 3 Month rates are the annual rate divided by 4 time 125%. Monthly installment payments on annual memberships are based on automatic withdrawal(auto renew)from a bank account or credit card. **Household includes 2 adults and up to 3 youth.Each additional youth is another$11/$16 per Annual monthly fee 3 Month/Annual/Annual Paid Monthly membership fees include: • Lap Swimming and Independent Lane Workouts • Open swim for individuals and families • Parent/Preschool Swim • Senior Swim • Shallow/Deep Water Aerobics and/or Studio Aerobics classes*** • Access to Workout Room for ages 18+ • Open Play Gym Use Drop in Rate: Aerobics Classes $9.00/$11.00(Water or Studio) ***Specialty water and studio fitness classes are NOT included in membership fee. 13 10 visit passes are a 10%discount over the daily fee. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 27 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Aquatic Programs Fees Res Rates Non-Res Rates Notes Group Swim Lessons $79/Session $100/Session %hour 8 classes Semi-Private Lessons(2) $108/Session $131/Session %hour 4 classes Private Lessons $150/Session $175/Session %hour 4 classes Water Therapy $27/Half Hour $31/Half Hour Lifeguard Training $420/Session $483/Session Water Safety Instructor $210/Session $242/Session Training Water Fitness Instructor $210/Session $242/Session Training Senior Swim Time $6/Session Teen Time $6/Session Parent/Preschool Swim $6/Session Birthday Party Packages $263/Event $303/Event 2 hrs room and 12 swim admissions Building Rentals Fees Oswego Hall Room 1 or $79/Hour Room 2 Oswego Hall Rooms 1&2 $142/Hour Oswego Hall Rooms 1&2 $735/6 Hours Event OLCC Server weekends $150 per hour Fitness Studio $105/Hour 2 hour minimum Aquatic Rentals Fees 1-5 Lanes $23/Hour 6-8Lanes $25/Hour Recreation Pool or $930/Hour 2 hours Competition Pool minimum Entire Aquatic Facility After $2,000/2 Hours Hours Page 28 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Lake Oswego Public Golf Course Green Fees Day Pass 9 Holes 18 Holes Weekdays(Monday—Thursday) $23 $39 Weekdays Junior/Senior Rates $ 11 $21 Weekends/Holidays $26 $48 Range Fee Category 9 Holes 18 Holes Club Rentals $ 18 $ 28 Pull Cart Rentals $ 5 $ 7 Power Cart Rentals $ 12 PP $ 18 PP Range Balls Category Small Medium Large Bucket Size $ 6 $ 9 $ 12 Indoor Tennis Center 1. Court Fees $24-$34/hour Seasonal $24-$34/hour 2. Activity Rates a. Staff Instructed Activities—Fees established by determining the instruction hourly rate charged plus an additional administrative program percentage determined by market. b. Private Lessons—Instructors who are employees of the City may teach private lessons. Instructors must pay the City for the use of the courts at the seasonal rate. c. Lake Oswego residents are given priority in registration and pricing for recreation classes and activities. Non-residents are charged additional fees of up to 1.5 times the base class or activity rate. 3. Card Key Fee—A non-refundable fee of$20 resident,$30 non-resident annually. 4. Additional Fees—The Tennis Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility.As with other activities,fees will be based on instruction hourly rate charged plus an additional program administrative percentage determined by market. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 29 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Athletic Field User Charges 1. Turf Field fees Natural Turf Artificial Turf Category Daytime With lights Daytime With lights Category 1(LOPR Programs) No Charge No Charge No Charge No Charge Category 2(Recognized local youth $ 15/hr $20/hr $ 17/hr $22/hr organizations, LOSD) Category 3(locally sponsored) $37/hr $48/hr $37/hr $48/hr Category 4(non-local &for-profit) $90/hr $ 110/hr $90/hr $ 110/hr Category 1 Applies to all LORP&City of Lake Oswego affiliated activities. Category 2-Applies to recognized local youth organizations. • 70%of participants are local residents. Participants considered local residents have a local home address and/or attend a public school in the Lake Oswego School District. • Additionally,these Organizations must maintain a "good standing"with LOPR in order to remain in this category. • Local youth organizations under the Community Schools Program are considered category 3. Category 3—This category applies to tournaments,events,camps,clinics,and activities that are hosted by recognized local youth leagues/organizations. • This includes other School Districts,athletics/sport leagues, civic groups,churches, business organizations, neighborhood associations,and individual residents for non-profit purposes. Category 4—This category applies to all clinics,camps,tournaments,and activities hosted by non-local organizations. • This category also applies to all for-profit entities, regardless of location address or local participation percentage. 1. League Cleaning&trash disposal fee(Covers cost of trash pick-up on athletics fields $210 per session over and above regular trash disposal) 2. Lights turn off charge:A lights turn off charge of$53 per occurrence will be applied to billing when lights are not turned off by field users and must be turned off by City Staff.This charge applies in the following circumstances: a. Cancelled field use,without notification for the purpose of turning off field lights or to cancel requested field lights programming. b. Leaving field earlier than the scheduled reserved time without turning off lights. 3. Additional Fees: City may charge additional fees for category 3 and 4 users,over and above the hourly rates listed,to cover costs such as concession stand use,cleaning,garbage,etc. 4. Tournament and Camp • Tournaments and Camps will not be issued a refund or credit due to unused fields or hours • Cancellations made at least 7 days in advance will receive a full refund minus a$25 cancellation fee. • A refundable damage deposit of$525 will be assessed to all tournament rentals. Page 30 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Adult Community Center Fees 1. Human Services Programs a. A per participant donation may be suggested for specified human service programs. b. Fees are designed to cover up to 100%of the expenses associated with the Social Services trips and Respite Program. c. A$30-$50 per session (per participant) resident,$35-$55 per session (per participant) non-resident fee is designed to cover direct expenses associated with the respite program. d. Classes and other programs generating revenue for another entity, but held at LOACC may be charged a per person fee. 2. Shuttle Bus Transportation to and from the Center. Suggested donation is$1 per one-way ride. 3. Refund Policy—See page 25 for general details 4. Trip Refund Policy Trip Refund Policy:There are no refunds for trips that include expenses prepaid by the ACC unless a replacement participant can be found.All other trips may be canceled with a refund per the L.O. Park&Recreation refund policy(page 25). 5 Room Rental Fees14 Adult Community Center Non-Profit Organization All Others Up to 3 hours Oak/Acorn Rooms: Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee $50 $50 Refundable Deposit $75 $200 Hourly Usage Fee $50/hr $ 100/hr Trillium/Hazel/Dogwood/Birch/Cedar/Madrone Rooms: Non-Refundable Cleaning Fee $25 $25 Refundable Deposit $25 $ 100 Hourly Usage Fee $25/hr $50/hr TV Monitor w/HDMI access $20 per use $20 per use Microphone and speakers $30 per use $30 per use Hybrid Equipment $25 per use $25 per use Podium $20 per use $20 per use Round Tablecloth $5 per tablecloth $5 per tablecloth Buffet Tablecloth $7 per tablecloth $7 per tablecloth White Board Easel w/paper $20 per board $20 per board After hour staff $25 per hour $25 per hour Exceptions to the rental policy may be made at staff's discretion depending upon extenuating circumstances. 14 Non-residents are charged fees 1.5 times the resident fees for all rental fees. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 31 Section 6: Parks & Recreation 6 Additional Fees The Adult Community Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility.As with other activities,the fee will be based on a base rate plus overhead. Swim Park Daily usage is free to local residents in compliance with an agreement between the Lake Corporation and the City of Lake Oswego. Water Sports Center Lake Oswego Rowing Club Foundation has an agreement with the City to operate the Water Sports Center. User activity fees are set by the Lake Oswego Rowing Club Foundation. Park Reservation Fees'5 1. Facility Rental—Exceptions to Section 1, Miscellaneous Fees, page 19. Facility Rate I Rate II Rate III Park Picnic Shelters $90/3 hrs $ 105/3 hrs $200/3 hrs Millennium Park pergola area $ 116/hr $ 168/hr $483/hr Millennium Stage/grassy knoll $ 63/hr $ 116/hr $326/hr Foothills Park Pavilion $ 116/hr $ 168/hr $378/hr Foothills Amphitheater $ 116/hr $ 168/hr $326/hr Foothills Pavilion Grass Area $ 63/hr $ 116/hr $326/hr Foothills Viewing Dolphins $ 63/hr $ 84/hr $231/hr Roehr Park Amphitheater&Viewing $ 168/hr $242/hr $546/hr Dolphin Roehr Excursion boat dock for— $ 63/hr $ 84/hr $231/hr commercial use Non-shelter Parks Areas16 $ 63/hr $ 84/hr $231/hr 15 Non-residents are charged fees 1.5 times the resident fees for all rental fees. 16 Includes other park areas not listed such as lawn areas,plazas,gardens,historical sites,or or parking lots for special events. Page 32 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 6: Parks & Recreation Refundable damage deposit Park Shelters George Rogers, East Waluga,West Waluga $ 105/use Premier Parks: Millennium Plaza Park, Foothills Park and Roehr Park $525/use Millennium Plaza Kitchen Key $11/use Special Events $525/use Rate I: Open or closed to the public;events with no sales, no admission fees, no concession sales, no entry fees,and no pledges of future revenues; no sponsor signage allowed. Rate II: Open to the public;events which generate sales, admission fees,concessions,entry fees and/or pledges of future revenues;sponsor signage allowed. Rate III: Closed to the public;events which generate sales,admission fees,concessions,entry fees, and/or pledges of future revenues;sponsor signage allowed. 2. Food trucks with facility reservation $63/hr 3. Special Event Application Fees and Special Event Park Reservations • Special Event Application Fee-other than for City Sponsored Events Application must be received 60 days prior to the event. Fee is$210. • For reservations that are tied to a Special Event Permit that use park areas,standard Park/Premier Park fees apply and are in addition to the Special Event Fee. • Additional City Staff maybe needed to support an event. In such case there is an additional $150/hr per person for the need time at the event. 4. Refund Policy 100%refund of reservation fee if LOPR cancels the reservation. Shelter Reservation Refund: • If a reservation is canceled 14 days prior to reservation date,a full refund is given, less the $10 processing fee. • If a reservation is canceled less than 14 day prior to the reservation date only the refundable deposit will be refunded. Premier Park and Special Event Park Refund: • If a reservation is canceled 30 days prior to reservation date a full refund is given, less the $10 processing fee. • If a reservation is canceled less than 30 days prior to the reservation date 50%of the full payment will be refunded. The Special Event Permit Application fee is not refundable. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 33 Section 6: Parks & Recreation Miscellaneous Fees 1. All Parks Plans $30 per copy 2. Research fee $25 per 15 minutes($25 minimum) plus copy and material charges Commercial Photography and Filming in City Parks See also Filming Permit in Section 1 for the additional processing fees, page 19. 1. Film/Video rate per venue a. One day fee-no park closure required $ 250 b. One day fee-park closure required $ 1,000 Damage deposit may be required,depending on scope of filming. 2. Still Photography day pass rate per venue a. 1 to 5 hours $ 55 b. 6 to 24 hours $ 110 3. Annual Photo Pass(All Parks) $ 150 4. Long-term shoot:Any shoot over 24 hours will be considered a long shoot. Fees will be assessed for each 24 hour period. 5. For passes that need full park closure, park reservation fees will apply. Fees found on page 32. Personnel Fees: City employees needed to assist with Special Events and/or Film Permits $150/hour/person,subject to availability. Page 34 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 7: Police Department Police Department The following fees shall be charged for the Police Department activities of the City: Security Alarm Permit and Fees (LOC 20.08.606) Voluntary Annual Alarm Permit Fee $25 Security Alarm Code Violation Fines (LOC 20.08.612) Fines for excessive false alarms in a permit year shall be as follows: Second false alarm in any year $ 100 Third false alarm in any year $ 125 Fourth false alarm in any year $ 175 Fifth false alarm in any year $275 Sixth and any additional false alarms $425 Fines for excessive false alarms WITH a voluntary alarm permit shall be as follows: Third and succeeding false alarm in any year $ 100 Police Reports (LOC 14.06.220) 1. Copies up to 10 pages $ 15 Each additional page $0.25 2. 911 audio recording $50 per recording Audio and Video Copies $50 first recording(DVD/CD/USB)&$ 15 each additional copy CAD Incident Report $ 10 3. Review and Redaction of Audio and Video $60/hour,after first 30 minutes(billed at 15-minute increments) Miscellaneous Police Fees 1. Records research (LOC 14.06.220) $25 per 15 minutes($25 minimum) plus copy and material charges 2. Copies of photographs (LOC 14.06.220) $ 1 per color print $50(for up to 30) burned to CD, plus$ 1 each thereafter 3. Storage fee at P.I.T.for vehicles&equipment $50 per day 4. Hazmat quarantine/investigation $250 per day 5. Police impounded vehicle fee $200 per vehicle 6. Overtime charge*for special events requiring police services are determined based upon which of the following positions are utilized for a minimum of 4 hours: Community Services Officer(CSO), Police Officer,Sergeant, Lieutenant,and/or Captain. *Contact the Police Department for this charge. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 35 Section 8: Public Works Support Services Public Works Support Services The following fees shall be charged for the Public Works Support maintenance activities of the City: General Fees 1. Public facilities damage(street signs,water lines,etc.) Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead plus lost revenue 2. Sign installation for new subdivisions Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead Second inspection at cost plus 20%for overhead 3. Citizen-requested items(hydrant relocation,water service relocation,etc.) Billed at cost plus 20%for overhead Page 36 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building Building Division A 12%surcharge fee as mandated by the State Building Codes Division is applied to all permit fees. The following fees17 shall be charged for the Building Division activities of the City(LOC 45.01.040): Building Permits Valuation is based on the tables referenced in Oregon Administrative Rule 918-050-0100 and 0110. 1. Total Valuation $ 1 to$2,000 $102.82 up to and including$2,000 $2,001 to$25,000 $102.82 for the first$2,000 plus$9.40 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including$25,000 $25,001 to$50,000 $319.02 for the first$25,000 plus$6.75 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including$50,000 $50,001 to$ 100,000 $487.77 for the first$50,000 plus$4.70 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including$100,000 $ 100,001 to$500,000 $722.77 for the first$100,000 plus$3.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including$500,000 $500,001 to$ 1,000,000 $1,922.77 for first$500,000 plus$2.55 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including$1,000,000 $ 1,000,001 and up $3,197.77 for first$1,000,000 plus$1.65 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof 2. Minimum Structural Permit $102.82 Fee 3. Plan review fees 65%of structural permit fee 4. Fire& life safety review fee 40%of structural permit fee(on commercial only) 5. Other inspections — see also Other Inspection and Fees(pg.43) a. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $ 105.49 per hour b. Additional plan review required by changes,additions,or revisions to plans $ 105.49 per hour 6. Phased Plan Review Phased Plan Review fees shall be$250 plus 10%of the total project building permit fee and shall not exceed$1,500 pursuant to the authority of OAR 918-050-0160.This is in addition to standard plan review fees. 17 The Building Division Permit Fees and Plan Review Fees were modified and increased in response to implementation of the State of Oregon Permitting System,per Resolution 20-27. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 37 Section 9: Building 7. Deferred submittals Plan Review The fee for processing and Plan Review of deferred submittals shall be 10%of the building permit fee, using the value of the particular deferred portion or portions of the project but not less than$275.This fee is in addition to standard Plan Review fees. Architects and Engineer's exemption for plan review of"conventional light frame construction" (allows architects and engineers to perform plan reviews in lieu of the jurisdiction) pursuant to the authority of ORS 455.628 8. Administration fee for processing and facilitating issuance $250 9. Commercial Fire Systems— based on valuation, see Structural Permit Fee Table 10. Residential Fire System —Standalone System, includes plan review Square footage Permit fee 0 to 2,000 $231.00 2,001 to 3,600 $313.50 3,601 to 7,200 $372.25 7,200 and above $437.25 11. Prescriptive Solar Panel Installation Permit— includes plan review(does not $ 125 include Electrical Permit) * 12. Non-Prescriptive Solar Panel Installation — See Building Permit Fee Valuation Schedule 13. Change of Occupancy $250 14. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $ 125 per month *Fee is required by Oregon Administrative Rule#918-050-0180 Electrical Permits 1. New residential,one-and two-family dwelling unit 1,000 square feet or less $293.60 Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof $ 59.80 Each manufactured home, modular dwelling service,or feeder $ 118.50 Limited energy $ 100.00 New multi-family largest unit is calculated as per square footage rates above and each additional unit calculated at 50%of the fee for the largest unit 2. Service or feeders: installations,alterations,or relocation 200 amps or less $ 175.05 201 amps to 400 amps $231.60 401 amps to 599 amps $349.05 600 amps $349.05 601 amps to 1,000 amps $524.10 Over 1,000 amps or volts $958.45 Reconnect only $ 110.00 Page 38 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building 3. Temporary services or feeders: installations,alterations,or relocation 200 amps or less $ 102.20 201 amps to 400 amps $ 217.45 401 amps to 599 amps $ 293.60 600 amps $ 293.60 601 amps to 1,000 amps $ 430.00 Over 1,000 amps or volts $ 814.65 4. Branch circuits: new,alteration,or extension per panel With purchase of service or feeder,each $ 13.45 Without purchase of service or feeder First circuit $ 97.85 Each additional circuit $ 13.45 5. Miscellaneous(service or feeder not included) Each pump or irrigation circle $ 118.50 Each sign or outside lighting $ 118.50 Signal circuit(s)or a limited energy panel,alteration,or extension $ 118.50 Renewable energy for electrical systems-5kva or less $ 151.15 Renewable energy for electrical systems-5.01kva through 15kva $ 180.45 Renewable energy for electrical systems-15.01kva through 25kva $ 293.85 Renewable energy-solar generation over 25kva $ 293.85 +$ 11.74 (permit charge will not increase beyond the calculation for 100kva) per added kva Renewable energy for wind system-25.01kva through 50kva $ 587.75 Renewable energy for wind system-50.01kva through 100kva $ 1,175.55 Renewable energy for wind system-misc.fee, hourly rate $ 110.00 6. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above, per $ 110.00 inspection -see also Other Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 7. Special inspections per hour $ 110.00 8. Master Electrical Permit-on time applications fee $ 100.00 9. Master Electrical Inspections-per hour $ 112.86 10. Initial Electrical permit plan review fee is 25%of the electrical permit fee. 11. Addition plan review-electrical-per hour $ 112.86 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 39 Section 9: Building Mechanical Permits (Residential) Unit Fee Schedule 1. Furnace Less than 100,000 BTU input $36 Greater than 100,000 BTU input $36 2. For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $36 3. Furnace/burner including duct work/vent/liner $20 4. For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater,or floor mounted unit heater $29 5. For the installation, relocation,or replacement of each appliance vent or chimney installed and not included in an appliance permit $20 6. For the repair,alteration,or addition of an Air Handler or Heat Exchanger up to 10,000 cfm $36 10,001 cfm and over $36 7. Wood or Pellet stove, including hearth and wall shield $36 8. Gas or wood fireplace insert $36 9. Pool or spa heaters/kilns $20 10. Flue vent for water heater or gas fireplace $20 11. Decorative gas fireplace $36 12. Oil tank/gas/diesel generators $21 13. Installation or relocation of domestic type incinerator $20 14. Hydronic hot water system $50 15. Ventilation fan connected to a single duct $ 14 16. Installation of hood served by mechanical exhaust, including ducts for hood $22 17. Range hood/other kitchen equipment $22 18. Heat pumps $50 19. Air conditioners $50 20. Mini split system $50 21. Evaporative cooler other than portable $50 22. Water heater includes vent/flue only $21 23. Repair,alteration,or addition to mechanical appliance including installation of $21 controls 24. Ventilation system not a portion of heating or air conditioning authorized by permit $21 25. Attic/crawl space fans $ 14 26. Radon mitigation $ 14 27. Clothes dryer exhaust $ 13 28. Ductwork-no appliance/fixture $20 29. Barbecue $21 30. Chimney/line/flue/vent $20 31. Other heating/cooling $21 Page 40 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building 32. Other fuel appliance $21 33. Other environment exhaust/ventilation $21 34. Permit fees for fuel gas-piping shall be For each gas-piping system of one to four outlets $ 14 For each gas-piping system of more than four outlets, per outlet $2.20 35. Appliance or equipment regulated by code, but not classified in other appliance $21 categories 36. A minimum charge for mechanical permits $ 102.82 37. Each additional inspection over the allowable, per inspection —see also Other $ 102.82 Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 38. Residential Plan Review 25%of total permit fee Mechanical Permits (Commercial) Use this section for commercial installation, replacement,or relocation of non-portable mechanical equipment or mechanical work not covered previously. Indicate the value of all mechanical labor, materials, and equipment. Value Permit Fee Amount $ Less than$5,000 $ 102.82 $5,001 to$ 10,000 $ 102.82 plus$ 1.50 for each additional$ 100 over$5,000 $ 10,001 to$ 100,000 $ 177.82 plus$ 10.20 for each additional$ 1,000 over$ 10,000 $ 100,001 and above $ 1,095.82 plus$7.00 for each additional $ 1,000 over$ 100,000 Plan review Fees A mechanical plan review shall be paid.The fee is equal to 25% of the total permit fee. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 41 Section 9: Building Plumbing Permits (LOC 46.02) These fees do not apply when solely replacing fixtures without re-plumbing and/or relocating 1. Fixture fees are as follows—note,there is a minimum them (except for water heaters, item ee.). Residential Plumbing permit fee of$97 a. Roof Drains(commercial) $24 b. Absorption valve $24 c. Hose bibb $24 d. Backwater valve $24 e. Catch basin or area drain $24 f. Drinking fountain $24 g. Trench drain, per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 h. Expansion tank $24 i. Fixture cap off $24 j. Storm water retention/detention tank/facility $24 k. Manufactured home utilities, per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 I. Ice maker $24 m. Rainwater harvesting $24 n. Alternate potable water heating system $24 o. Other—plumbing $24 p. Septic abandonment $24 q. Interceptor/grease trap $24 r. Manhole $24 u. Sink/basin/lavatory $24 v. Swimming pool piping to backflow only per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 w. Tub/shower/shower pan $24 x. Urinal $24 y. Water closet $24 z. Dishwasher $24 aa. Garbage disposal $24 bb. Clothes Washer $24 cc. Floor drain/floor sink/hub drain $24 dd. Sewer, per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 ee. Water heater $24 ff. Water service, per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 gg. Storm drain, per 100'or any portion thereof $ 102.82 hh. Sewage ejector pump and sump pump $24 ii. Primer $24 jj. Backflow prevention device or anti-pollution device $24 kk. Any trap or waste not connected to a fixture $24 II. Any other plumbing installation, not otherwise listed in this schedule, having a sanitary waste or potable water supply $24 mm. Re-piping of existing fixtures First fixture $ 17 Each additional fixture $ 10 Page 42 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building nn. Minimum fee for plumbing permits—Commercial/Residential $ 102.82 2. For NEW one-and two-family dwellings only,the fees are per bathroom as follows (this fee includes 100 feet for each utility connection, hose bibbs, icemakers, underfloor low-point drains, and rain drain packages that include piping,gutters, downspouts,and perimeter system): a. One bath $333.50 b. Two baths $362.25 c. Three baths $402.50 d. Each additional bath/kitchen $ 130.80 3. Each additional inspection over the allowable, per inspection—see also Other $ 102.82 Inspections and Fees(pg.43) 4. Plumbing Plan Review-Add 30%of fees as calculated above for plan review, if required. 5. Commercial Plumbing-Medical gas fees: a. Medical gas permit fees shall be based on the value of installation costs and the system equipment, including but not limited to inlets,outlets,fixtures,and appliances, Med Gas permits are subject to the Commercial Plumbing minimum permit fee. Medical gas plan review —see Commercial Plumbing plan review. 6. Residential Fire System—Multipurpose/Continuous Loop system, includes plan review Square footage Permit Fee Amount 0 to 2,000 $231.00 2,001 to 3,600 $313.50 3,601 to 7,200 $372.25 7,200 and above $437.25 Grading and Fill Permits Plan Review $ 125 50 to 1,000 cubic yards $ 150 1,001 to 10,0000 cubic yards $250 10,001 to 100,0000 cubic yards $350 100,001 cubic yards or more $450 Demo and Deconstruction Permits Residential one-and two-family structures $300 Commercial buildings $400 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 43 Section 9: Building Manufactured Home Permits Installation permit fee includes the concrete slab, runners or foundations when prescriptive, electric feeder and plumbing connections and all cross-over connections. Installation Permit Fee $445 State Fee $ 30 ORS 446.176(1)and OAR 918-5000105 require all local governments providing construction permits or inspections for manufactured dwelling and cabana installations to collect and remit to the Department of Consumer and Business Services a $30 fee for each installation permit issued.This fee is to be added to manufactured dwelling and cabana installation permits only and should not be added to accessory structures or building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical permits or plan reviews. Manufactured Dwelling/RV Parks The Area Development Permit fee to be calculated based on the valuations shown in Table 2 of OAR 918-600-0030 for Manufactured Dwelling/Mobile Home Parks and Table 2 of OAR 918-650-0030 for Recreational Park&Organizational Camp—and applying the valuation amount to Table 1 as referenced for each. Community Development Code Enforcement Charges Single family $ 163 Multi-family $ 163 plus$163 per each 12 units Office/Retail 0—5,000 square feet $ 163 5,001-10,000 square feet $326 10,001-25,000 square feet $487 25,001-50,000 square feet $648 50,001+square feet $811 Industrial/Public/Institutional 0—20,000 square feet $ 163 20,001-30,000 square feet $326 30,001+square feet $487 Enforcement Stop Work $550 Building Violation (LOC Chapter 45) $550 Record Retention and Archiving Fees For purposes of archiving records per State mandate $31.00 Flat fee on all permits Page 44 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 9: Building Research and Consultation Fees Records Research $25 per 15 minutes/request, minimum 15 minutes Fee Estimates - new residential and commercial projects $ 100 per hour per request, minimum one-hour Consultation for code review, hypothetical projects $ 100 per hour, minimum 1/2 hour Supplemental Plan Review $ 100 per hour, minimum 1/2 hour Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours(minimum charge=1 hour) $ 123.12 per hour 2. Re-inspection fee assessed under provisions Section 305(f) $ 105.49 per inspection 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $ 105.49 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to $ 105.49 per hour approved plans(minimum charge= 1 hour) 5. Work commencing before permit issuance Any person who commences any work on a building or structure before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to an investigation fee of$125 per hour,which is equal to the average cost of an inspection. Exception: A one-time exemption shall apply to homeowners applying for their own permits. Seismic Surcharge—Structural/Mechanical—review 1%of building permit fee required on all essential structures Additional Miscellaneous Fees 1. The fee to a governmental agency shall be determined by the provisions set forth under ORS 190.003 to 190.110 for the purpose of carrying out the $ 102.82 per hour respective responsibilities of each agency. or portion thereof 2. Re-inspection fee for structural,electrical, mechanical,and plumbing permits shall be charged for inspection of violations found by the Building Official after the second violation. $ 102.82 per hour 3. The fee to any governmental agency or person for specifically requested $ 102.82 per hour inspections or surveys. or portion thereof 4. Housing moving permit(LOC 45.12.510): Relocating within Lake Oswego $452 Moving out of Lake Oswego $224 Refunds 1. Permit Refunds a. Where a permit has been issued and no inspections have been completed,80%of the permit fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a permit has been issued and inspections performed or permit has expired. 2. Plan Review Refund a. Where a permit has not been issued,80%of the plan review fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a plan review has been started by any department. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 45 Section 10: Engineering Engineering Division The following fees shall be charged for the Engineering Division activities of the City: Minor Utility Facilities, Installed or Constructed by Public18 or Private Entities Street Opening Permit Fee* Improved Unimproved surfaces surfaces 1. Minor utility structures,except substations, but including poles, lines, pipes or other such facilities $300 $ 150 2. Sewer,storm drainage,or water system structures,excluding treatment plants, reservoirs or pump stations; but including reconstruction of manholes,valves, hydrants,or other portions of the collection,treatment, and distribution systems located within public property, right-of-way,or easements. This includes sewer, storm and water lateral installations or taps $300 $300 3. Street improvements within existing development, including sidewalks, curbs,gutter,catch basins, paving,signs,and traffic control devices and street lights $300 $ 150 4. Permit and inspection of new driveway approach or relocation of an existing approach $50 General Engineering Fees 1. Engineering plan review and — 9%of the final estimated construction costs,as approved by the inspection of public or private City Engineer or$1,000 whichever is greater.A deposit of$1,000 infrastructure,grading,or other must be submitted with the initial plan submittal prior to review incidental work that is not beginning. Fee will include the cost for City to install any sign or reviewed and inspected under pavement marking installations within the right-of-way, as State Building Specialty Codes and delineated in Section 8: Public Works Support Services, unless delegated to Engineering. extenuating circumstances require the City Engineer to recover the cost of such items for large public improvement projects. Final payment of the balance of the 9%fee will be based on final estimated construction costs, and must be received by the City prior to issuance of the permit for construction. *Performance bonds may be required for large projects. 2. Appeal of a staff decision or hearing body to the next higher authority. $ 100 3. Street vacation $ 1,500 4. Quitclaim $200 5. Blasting Permit $250 application fee plus engineering costs to administer and observe blasting operations billed at labor and materials plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 6. Document recording to comply with conditions of development approval (i.e.,easements,agreements, etc.) Actual County recording costs 18 Quasi-public agencies other than the City and Franchise Utilities. Page 46 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 10: Engineering Other Engineering Fees 1. Drinking water analysis $ 60 2. Encroachment Permit Type 1—Minor $300 Easily removable structures,such as fences,driveway, entrances, monument walls,or timbers, less than 3'tall,or other non-loadbearing structures. Type 2—Major $750 Relatively large structures that may need engineering, such as driveway decking, reinforced concrete structures, boathouses, decks and hatches over in-lake manholes,or other structures that are not typically found in rights-of- way or public easements. 3. Encroachment Appeal $500 per appeal 4. Zone of Benefit Formation,exclusive of LID Boundaries $2,000 5. Rivergrove Sewer Connection Fee 19 $200 6. Lien segregation One parcel into two $200 Each additional parcel $ 100 7. Street widening $300 8. Street name change $250 9. Change of address request for reasons other than fire and life $500 safety,or as a result of land use procedures. 10. Erosion control permit, plan review and inspection fee20 Dwelling Type: Single family residential $350 Multi-family/Commercial 500 sf up to 1 acre $ 700 1 acre21 or greater $ 1,500 11. Single-family residential landscaping erosion control permit, plan review and inspection fee $ 100 12. Site re-inspection fee(after two inspection site visits) $ 100 13. Investigation fees: Work without a permit Investigation - Whenever any work for which an erosion control permit is required has commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. Fee-An investigation fee equal in amount and in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is issued. 19 Check with engineering department for additional connection fee related to new zone of benefits established for certain properties. 20 Check with engineering department for additional connection fee related to new zone of benefits established for certain properties. 21 Effective 1/1/03,impact areas 1 acre and greater will require a 1200-C permit per the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ). 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 47 Section 10: Engineering 14. Erosion control enforcement fees: For violations of LOC Chapter 52 and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 52.06, enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 15. Illicit Discharge Enforcement Fees: For violations of LOC Chapter 38(Utility Code)and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 38.26.930 and LOC 38.26.935,enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. Page 48 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Planning Division The following fees shall be charged for the Planning Division activities of the City(LOC 50.07.003.2): Ministerial Developments (LOC 50.07.003.13)22,23 1. Accessory building which requires a building permit(e.g.,garage, No Fee carport) 2. Accessory structure or use(e.g.,driveway,fence) No Fee 3. Duplex No Fee 4. Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a No Fee building permit 5. Home Occupations Business License 6. Lot Line Adjustment $2,238 Process to correct an illegal Lot Line Adjustment $2,238 7. Temporary Structures, Use Business License&Sign Permit, if applicable 8. Sidewalk Display $ 38 9. Accessory dwelling unit No Fee Minor Developments (LOC 50.07.003.14)23,24 1. Change of use $4,748 2. Development in DD Zone: Duplex in R-DD zone(hearing body action) $6,676 Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a building permit in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $6,676 Single-Family Dwelling in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $66,676 Zero lot line dwelling in R-DD Zone(hearing body action) $6,676 3. Development within the Greenway Management Overlay District Boundary's $5,040 4. Development Review: Multi-family,Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, $6,676+37%of building permit fee. Townhouses Substantial revisions to a complete application requiring 33%of the original application fee new public notice 5. Alterations with minimal impacts such as exterior exit stairs; exterior remodeling that does not expand building footprint or increase height;and accessory structures 300 square feet or less $2,212 6. Exterior painting of any structure that was the subject of a Major or Minor Development Permit including all structures in the R-DD zone,with the exception of detached single-family dwellings, duplexes,zero lot line dwellings,or structures accessory to those dwelling types. Exception: Exterior painting that is the same color palette as $ 1,080 the existing color(s). 22 See page 53 for Affordable Housing. 23 Site review and inspection fees may apply at building permit review.Additional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.See pages 54-55 under Other Planning Fees. 24 See page 51 Historical Preservation. 25 No fee applies for the Greenway Management Overlay review associated with dead,hazardous,emergency,or invasive tree removal. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 49 Section 11: Planning 7. Lot Line Adjustment $2,238 8. Minor Partition $5,497 Expedited Minor Partition $8,690 Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $3,992 9. Major Partition (includes the creation of a street) $6,300+$313/lot Expedited Major Partition $9,628+$313/lot Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $3992 10. Modification of approved minor development permits Without public hearing $2,238 With public hearing $3,992 11. Request for formal Code interpretation under LOC 50.01.005 and Authorization for Similar Use Application under LOC 50.03.002 $760 12. Residential Infill Design (RID)Variance $5,039 for 1st plus$647for each additional variance 13. Subdivision (with or without P.D.) $7,198+$313/lot Expedited Subdivisions $ 13,440+$313/lot 14. Middle Housing Land Divisions $ 5,497 15. Minor Variances $ 4,371 for 1st+$479 for each additional variance Fence and Wall Variance $ 1,844for 1st+$201 for each additional variance 16. Major Variance $ 5,039 for 1st+$647 for each additional variance 17. Seasonal Restaurant Enclosure $ 2,212 Seasonal Restaurant Enclosure(During State of Oregon Emergency $0 Covid-19 Restrictions) Sign Code Fees (LOC 47) Signs $ 561 Signs(awning,window, blade) $ 154 Special event sign $ 24 Variance to Sign Code $ 1,844 Refundable deposit for Public Notice Signs $ 116 Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments' 1. Legislative amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $ 14,632 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $ 14,632 Zone Change only $ 14,632 2. Legislative amendments to a text Comprehensive Plan text amendment $ 7,318 Community Development Code text amendment $ 7,318 3. Quasi-judicial amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $ 14,632 Zone change only27 $ 14,632 26 Additional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.See page 53 under Other Planning Fees. 27 Not required for zone changes that conform to the Comprehensive Plan following annexations. Page 50 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $ 14,632 Minor modifications to approved amendment $ 1,959 Substantial modifications to approved amendments $2,519 Major Developments (LOC 50.07.003.15)28 1. Conditional Uses $7,181 2. Overall Development Plan and Schedule $6,676 3. Modification of approved major development permits Without public hearing $2,238 With public hearing $3,992 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts (LOC 50.05.010 and LOC 50.07.004.8) There are no fees for actions relating to Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts(Council action 10/21/14). Fees Relating to Historical Preservation (LOC 50.06.009 and LOC 50.07.004.4) 1. Designation of Landmark No fee 2. Exterior alteration of Landmark, including building paint color change No fee 3. Historic District Designation No fee 4. New construction (not attached to historic structure;e.g.,detached No fee garage,secondary dwelling,garden shed) 5. Removal or deconstruction of Landmark $5,567 6. Withdrawal of historic landmark designation $5,567 Appeals29 1. Appeals of a formal Code Interpretation to a Hearing Body $ 793 2. Appeals of a staff decision to a Hearing Body $ 793 3. Appeals of a Hearing Body decision to City Council %original Application Fee not to exceed$6,883 Pre-Application Conference/Consultations30 1. Pre-application Conference:31 $479 2. Pre-application Conference Follow-ups: Initial follow-up meeting No fee All subsequent meetings(3rd meeting on) 50%of pre-application fee 3. Consultation Fee A private meeting to discuss a project outside the context of a pre-application conference or at-the-counter services by a planner $ 120/hour 28 Site review and inspection fees may apply at building permit review.Additional review fee applies if applicant opts into amended housing regulations after application submittal.See pages 53-54 under Other Planning Fees. 29 Appeal fee shall not apply to appeals filed by DLCD or to appeals filed by recognized Neighborhood Association entitled to receive notice of a pre-application neighborhood meeting pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.1.f.iii(1)(a)and(b). 30 In addition to planning fees noted in this sub-section,the Fire Department also levies a pre-application fee.Please refer to Fire Department,Section 3 for the correct amount. 31 There is no pre-application conference fee for a permit for an ADU,actions relating to Sensitive Lands,Greenway Management Overlay review associated with dead,hazardous,emergency,or invasive tree removal,or designation of Historic Landmark. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 51 Section 11: Planning Research Fees 1. Letter of zoning verification $ 120/hour 2. Letter of verification of compliance with Community Development Code of an existing development $ 185/hour 3. Deed research to determine the legality of a lot of record $ 185/hour 4. Research/Interpretation of old planning files and informal Code Interpretation (often requested by the applicants before filing of a development application) $ 120/hour Tree Code Fees (Resolution 00-07) 1. Tree Cutting Permit Fees Type I Permit $25 Dead or Hazard Tree Permit $25 Type II Permit $ 199+$25 per tree Emergency Tree Permit $0 Type II Permit in conjunction with major or minor development application $0 Minor Forest Management $25 Major Forest Management $ 199+$25 per tree, not to exceed $678 Verification Permit $39+$ 10 per tree Topping Permit $25 per request 2. Mitigation [as provided in LOC 55.02.084(3)] $ 172 3. Public Hearing Review32 Request for DRC Hearing on Tree Cutting Permit $246 Appeal of DRC's decision to City Council 1/2 of original application fee 4. Heritage Tree Program The City may charge for providing the plaque marking a heritage tree. The fee will be the actual cost of providing the plaque. 5. Tree Protection Inspection Fee $ 120 6. County Tree Removal Certification Type 2 Permits $ 126+$ 11 for each additional tree Over-the-Counter Permits —Type 1 $25 Over-the-Counter Permits —Dead $25 Over-the-Counter Permits —Hazard $25 Invasive and/or Emergency tree removal permits No Fee 32 Fee shall not apply to requests/appeals filed by City of Lake Oswego recognized Neighborhood Associations. Page 52 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Fee Exemptions for Affordable Housing No Ministerial Development, Minor Development, Major Development,Sign Code, Historic Preservation,Tree Code(for tree removal and mitigation for development of the structure)or Pre-application Conference fees will be charged under this Section 11 for developments where the proposed dwelling units are affordable to those earning 80%or less of Area Median Income and spending not more than 30%of household income on housing,consistent with Clackamas County Housing Authority's"Income Limits"for Affordable Housing, provided that all of the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5)are met. Other Planning Fees (Resolution 04-12) 1. Annexation Application Fee33 Parcel less than 3 times minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation. $0+Applicable Metro Fees Parcel 3 times or greater than the minimum lot area for the $ 1,036 per no.of lots, based on zone designation that will apply upon annexation. gross lot area, into which the parcel could be divided under the base zone designation that will apply upon annexation+Metro fees Parcel for which there is no minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation. $2,074+Applicable Metro Fees Expenses related to additional noticing caused by delays brought on by the applicant(s). $299 2. Copies of Planning Documents See Section 1, Public Records Fees, page 19. 3. Site review and inspection fees a. Single family dwelling or middle housing34 on infill lots(i.e., lots or parcels not approved as part of a land partition/subdivision) $276 b. Cottage Cluster Parent Parcel Site Plan $696 c. Single family dwelling or middle housing approved as a part of a land partition/subdivision/planned development application $696 d. Non-single family residential development, including multi- family,commercial, industrial,and institutional uses $ 1,388 e. Re-inspection fee $ 146 f. Residential remodels Interior remodels and accessory structures $ 153 Exterior addition of no more than 500 sq.ft. $204 Exterior addition exceeding 500 sq.ft. (same fee as if new construction) See a.—c.above 4. Plat Review Fee a. Final Plat Review Fee $580 b. Lot Line Adjustment Plat Review Fee $59 33 See Annexation Application Form. 34 For Cottage Clusters,this fee applies to each individual cottage unit. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 53 Section 11: Planning 5. Ballot Measure 49 Claims Fees for claims under LOC Article 12.55 (Resolution 05-31) Pre-filing conference fee $444 Filing fee $ 1,523 6. Application Mailing List Fee $85 7. Records Retention Fees-For purposes of archiving records per State mandate a. Ministerial land use applications $47 b. Minor land use applications(without public hearing) $78 c. Minor land use applications(with public hearing)and major $ 163 land use applications d. Type II and verification tree removal permits $30 e. Sign permits $30 8. Demolition (Notice of Demolition Approval) $65 9. Additional Plan Review Fee for Issued Building $ 120/hour Permits(minimum 1 hour) 10. Review fee for additional materials submitted by an applicant 10%of original base35 opting into amended housing regulations per ORS 227.178(3)(a)(A) application fee Code Enforcement Violation Fees 1. Nuisance(LOC 34.08&34.10) and Animals and Fowl (LOC Chap 31) $ 585 violations 2. Community Development violation LOC Chapter 50 $ 585 a. Sensitive Lands violation fees:36 i. Standard enforcement fee: up to$585/500 sq.ft.disturbed area ii. Enhanced enforcement fee:37 up to$1,170/500 sq.ft. disturbed area 3. Sign violation LOC Chapter 47 $ 585 4. Sign Retrieval violation-Moving from Sign Code Fees(LOC47) $ 38 5. Sign Removal Hearing Fee(refundable if sign was removed improperly) $ 38 6. Tree Code violation LOC Chapter 5538 $ 585 7. Tree Enforcement Fees-For violations under LOC 55.02.130(3),enforcement fees will be assessed as follows: Type I Permits violations,dead or hazard tree violations $ 157 All other Permit Type violations $ 757+$50 per tree Tree Protection Enforcement fee for violations under LOC 55.08.050(3) Standard tree protection enforcement fee $ 735 35 Percentage applies to the"base" Planning fee only;does not include fees added on to the base fee,such as additional charges per lot or per additional variance or percentage of building permit fee. 36 Disturbed areas that are less than 500 square feet,shall be calculated as a percentage of 500 and multiplied by the violation fee;for example,330 sq.ft.of disturbance area is divided by 500=0.66,and then 0.66 is multiplied by the violation fee. 37 Applies to wetland or stream corridor violations below the top of bank. 38 For violations not covered under tree protection or tree removal enforcement or restoration fees. Page 54 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 11: Planning Enhanced tree protection enforcement fee $ 1,469 8. Tree Restoration Fees[as provided in LOC 55.02.130(4)(a)&(b)] Standard City Tree Fund Fee $ 106 per caliper inch Increased City Tree Fund Fee $214 per caliper inch 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 55 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Systems Development Charges Fees shall be assessed for Systems Development Charges(SDC)and will reflect the following: • For each type of SDC,the fees assessed to each unit of a duplex shall be the same as those assessed to a single-family residence. In the case of water and sewer SDCs,there are two options: o If one meter is serving both duplex units,then only one water and one sewer SDC will be charged. o If there are two separate meters,each unit will be charged a separate water and sewer SDC. • For an Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)each type of SDC will be waived,even if a larger meter is required to accommodate an ADU, provided that the ADU complies with all the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5) as amended by Ordinance 2810. If within 10 years from the first use of the ADU as a dwelling unit,the requirements of this covenant are not maintained,the City may declare the ADU exemption from payment of all System Development Charges(SDCs) revoked and the Owner shall immediately pay to the City the monies due under LOC 39.06.105(5),to wit: Processing fee per Council Resolution;and ■ SDC amounts for ADU per Lake Oswego Master Fees and Charges at time of payment (previously exempted system development charges, with interest based upon inflation rate using the Engineering News—Record Construction Cost Index 20-City Average, are reflected in the SDC amounts then due). ■ Processing fee$500 • Pursuant to and following the procedure set forth in LOC 39.06.105(5)(f)(iii), (iv), (v),the processing fee and SDC amounts shall be a lien upon the Real Property, entered in the municipal lien docket,and are enforceable in the manner provided by ORS Ch. 223. Exempt from SDCs are developments where the proposed dwelling units are affordable to those earning 80%or less of Area Median Income and spending not more than 30%of household income on housing,consistent with Clackamas County Housing Authority's"Income Limits"for Affordable Housing, provided that the development complies with all of the requirements of the covenant required by LOC 39.06.105(5). • The rate for Hotel/Transient Lodging includes Short-Term Rentals(Transient Lodging in residential zones). These SDC's shall be indexed for inflation annually using the Engineering News—Record Construction Cost Index (20-city average). Accordingly,as of January 1, 2025,the SDC fees have been increased by 1.0%which is equal to the last recorded change in this index as based on October 2023 to October 2024 data. Calculated amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 56 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 12: Systems Development Charges Systems Development Charges (LOC 39.04) Water SDCill - Reimbursement Improvement Administrative Total Water Meter Size Fee 14.79% Fee 78.72% Fee 6.49% 100% 5/8-3/4 inch $ 1,465 $ 7,800 $ 643 $ 9,908 3/4 inch $ 1,465 $ 7,800 $ 643 $ 9,908 1 inch $ 2,442 $ 12,998 $ 1,072 $ 16,512 1 1/2 inch $ 4,885 $ 26,002 $ 2,144 $ 33,031 2 inch $ 7,824 $ 41,642 $ 3,433 $ 52,899 3 inch $ 15,667 $ 83,385 $ 6,875 $ 105,927 4 inch $ 24,500 $ 130,402 $ 10,751 $ 165,653 6 inch $ 49,039 $ 261,013 $ 21,519 $ 331,571 8 inch $ 78,513 $ 417,885 $ 34,452 $ 530,850 10 inch $ 112,968 $ 601,272 $ 49,571 $ 763,811 Sewer SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Water Meter Size Fee 22.16% Fee 77.84% 100% 5/8-3/4 inch $ 799 $ 2,808 $ 3,607 3/4 inch $ 799 $ 2,808 $ 3,607 1 inch $ 1,333 $ 4,681 $ 6,014 1 1/2 inch $ 2,665 $ 9,361 $ 12,026 2 inch $ 5,330 $ 18,722 $ 24,052 3 inch $ 12,793 $ 44,939 $ 57,732 4 inch $ 22,389 $ 78,645 $ 101,034 6 inch $ 49,042 $ 172,267 $ 221,309 8 inch $ 85,291 $299,597 $ 384,888 10 inch $ 133,266 $ 468,114 $ 601,380 Stormwater Management S Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Single family $0 $ 197 $ 197 Multi-family,commercial/industrial, institutional,and other land use fees are determined as follows: Improvement Fee equals the total impervious area of the property in units of 3,030 square feet or portion thereof multiplied by the fee. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 57 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Transportation SDC Refer to methodology and rate schedule in the Appendix Parks&Recreation SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Residential Single family $0 $ 17,149 $ 17,149 Multi-family/secondary dwellings $0 $ 9,538 $ 9,538 "Congregate Housing" units are charged at 50%of the Multi-family rate*. Non-residential $0 $ 1,103 $ 1,103 per employee "Residential Care Housing" units are charged at 100%of the Non-residential rate*. *See Appendix for definitions of Congregate Housing and Residential Care Housing. Page 58 2025 Master Fees and Charges Section 12: Systems Development Charges Comparison of Neighboring Cities' New Single-Family Systems Development Charges Based on a 2,000 sq.ft. house with 500 sq.ft.garage,and$200,000 value. 60,000 56,200 54,910 52,489 50,000 45,274 45,100 43,253 44,403 40,228 40,398 40,000 35,438 30,047 30,000 20,000 17,661 10,000 Milwaukie Gresham Tigard Or Tualatin Portland Hillsboro Sherwood Beaverton e West Linn Wilsonville Ceigon Oswe Y go ■Water SDC 5,603 6,553 6,156 11,078 8,389 4,563 14,862 10,154 10,370 9,810 15,792 12,703 ■Sewer SDC 1,177 7,645 7,009 2,973 7,009 10,237 6,824 1,032 6,824 3,571 14,254 7,102 ■5tormwater5DC 1,147 1,457 678 1,186 678 1,543 678 678 1,437 195 1,796 2,432 ■Street SDC 2,609 6,166 8,543 13,939 11,478 5,882 11,478 12,850 10,599 18,434 4,313 16,823 •Park SDC 3,985 5,086 9,912 7,912 9,344 17,887 7,421 17,246 12,904 16,979 16,515 14,000 •METRO Excise Tax 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 •School Excise Tax 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 3,260 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 3,260 2,000 2,900 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 59 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Comparison of Neighboring Cities' New Commercial Systems Development Charges Based on a 30,000 sq.ft.commercial office building,a total 50,000 sq.ft impervious area,and $3,200,000 value. 700,000 635,549 609,273 600,000 569,710 548,748 567,873 541,184 529,072 500,000 I 387,495 389,905 400,000 311,987I I I I 296,335 300,000 248,891 200,000 100,000 Milwaukie Gresham Lake Portland West Linn Tualatin Tigard Beaverton Sherwood Wilsonville Hillsboro Oregon Oswego City ■Water SDC 18,678 26,212 32,701 22,814 108,540 41,945 49,241 51,845 50,772 62,632 68,286 55,389 ■Sewer SDC 76,049 30,563 11,907 54,600 95,718 28,036 28,036 27,296 4,128 19,888 27,296 23,784 ■StormwaterSDC 12,716 29,140 3,218 15,975 30,817 12,841 12,841 27,216 12,841 45,500 12,841 12,168 ■Street SDC 111,143 184,980 147,180 182,400 129,390 361,410 361,410 361,410 421,260 398,730 361,410 492,818 •Park SDC 4,865 - 88,541 83,266 - 56,400 64,216 52,541 53,432 17,520 114,000 25,950 •METRO Excise Tax 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840 •School Excise Tax 21,600 21,600 24,600 24,600 21,600 24,600 21,600 24,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 21,600 Page 60 2025 Master Fees and Charges This page intentionally left blank 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 61 Appendix Systems Development Charges Methodologies (LOC 39.04.041) Water Systems Development Charge Methodology 63 Sewer Systems Development Charge Methodology 65 Stormwater Systems Development Charge Methodology 66 Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology 67 Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge Fee Methodology 69 Resolution Resolution 24-33—Updating the Master Fees and Charges Schedule 72 Page 62 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Water Systems Development Charge Methodology Reimbursement Fee [A] Eligible cost of unused capacity in the existing water system. [B] Current(2009)customer base expressed as 3/4" meter equivalents. [C] Future customer base expressed as 3/4" meter equivalents. [C][A][B] _ [D] Water SDC Reimbursement Fee Reimbursement Fee Calculation [A] = $6,148,588 [B] = 15,204 MEs [C] = 21,695 MEs [A] _ [D] $947 [C]—[B] 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 63 Appendix Improvement Fee [E] Cost in current(2009)dollars of water system capital improvements that will increase system capacity to meet the needs of future users. [B] Current(2009)customer base expressed as 3/4" meter equivalents. [C] Future customer base expressed as 3/4" meter equivalents. [E] _ [F] Water SDC Improvement Fee [C]—[B] Improvement Fee Calculation [E] = $32,714,947 [B] = 15,204 MEs [C] = 21,695 MEs [E] _ [F] $5,041 [C]—[B] Water System Development Charge [D] Water SDC Reimbursement Fee [F] Water SDC Improvement Fee [G] Water SDC Administrative Fee [H] Water System Development Charge [D] + [F]+[G] = [H] Page 64 2025 Master Fees and Charges Attachment B Sewer Systems Development Charge Methodology Sewer SDC Fee [M] Value of the sewer collection system capital improvement program to provide capacity to serve new customers. [N] Value of the sewer wastewater treatment plant capital improvement program to provide capacity to serve new customers. [0] Current dry weather demand. [P] Future dry weather demand. [Q] Future WWTP capacity dedicated to Lake Oswego. [R] Average single family home dry weather demand. [P]—[°]x[M]M]x[R]=[S] Portion of fee for collection system capital improvements to provide [P] [P] capacity to serve new customers. [P] [N] x[R]=[T] Portion of fee for wastewater treatment plant capital improvements to [Q] [P]—[°] provide capacity to serve new customers. [S]+[T]_[U] Sewer Fee. Sewer SDC Fee Calculation [Ml = $ 19,351,000 [P]—[o]x [M]x[R]=[S] $244 [P] [P] [N] = $ 11,499,000 [P] [N] x[R]_[7] $ 1,186 [Q] [P]—[°] [0] = 3.9 mgd [P] = 5.69 mgd [Q] = 7.025 mgd [R] = 0.000228 mgd [Sid-[T]_[U] $ 1,430 Sewer System Development Charge [U] * 22.16%= [V] Sewer SDC Reimbursement Fee [U] * 77.84%= [W] Sewer SDC Improvement Fee [X] Sewer System Development Charge [V] +[W] = [X] 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 65 Appendix Stormwater Systems Development Charge Methodology Improvement Fee—Water Quantity Portion [A] Portion of the Stormwater quantity management capital improvement program attributable to future development. Determined on a project-by-project basis and equal to the percentage increase in the design flow of each project in the Stormwater quantity management capital improvement multiplied by project cost. [B] Projected increase in Equivalent Service Units(ESUs).One ESU is equal to 3,030 square feet of impervious area.Total projected increase in ESUs is determined by dividing the total projected increase in impervious area of the City of Lake Oswego by 3,030. [A]/[B] = [C] Improvement Fee—quantity portion, per ESU. Improvement Fee—Quality Portion [D] Portion of the stormwater quality management capital improvement program attributable to future development. Equal to the percentage increase in total runoff multiplied by the total cost of the stormwater quality management capital improvement program. [D]/[B] = [E] Improvement Fee—quality portion, per ESU. Improvement Fee Calculation [C]+ [E] = [F] Stormwater improvement fee. Stormwater Management System Development Charge Only includes an Improvement Fee-No Reimbursement Fee. Page 66 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Transportation Systems Development Charges Rate Tables Transportation SDC Maximum Allowable Approved SDC Rate SDC Rate ITE per Unit39 per Unit Code Land Use Unit[A] [B] [C=B x.30]40 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 SFGFA $10,376 $ 3,113 130 Industrial Park 1,000 SFGFA 10,521 3,156 140 Manufacturing 1,000 SFGFA 5,971 1,791 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SFGFA 4,677 1,403 160 Data Center 1,000 SFGFA 1,952 586 Single-Family Detached 210 Housing/Duplex Dwelling unit 18,618 18,618 220 Apartment/ADU Dwelling unit 12,810 3,843 Residential 230 Condominium/Townhouse Dwelling unit 11,138 3,341 240 Mobile Home Park ODU 9,659 2,898 254 Assisted Living Bed 5,051 1,515 310 Hotel/Transient Lodging Room/Unit 15,481 4,644 320 Motel Room 11,095 3,329 411 City Park Acre 12,088 3,626 417 Regional Park Acre 9,837 2,951 430 Golf Course Acre 10,389 3,117 492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SFGFA 59,758 17,297 Recreational Community 1,000 SFGFA 54,000 16,200 495 Center 520 Elementary School 1,000 SFGFA 14,040 4,212 Middle School/Junior High 1,000 SFGFA 12,540 3,762 522 School 530 High School 1,000 SFGFA 11,729 3,519 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SFGFA 42,202 12,661 560 Church 1,000 SFGFA 26,065 7,817 565 Day Care Center 1,000 SFGFA 35,524 10,657 590 Library 1,000 SFGFA 99,452 29,836 610 Hospital 1,000 SFGFA 23,983 7,195 620 Nursing Home 1,000 SFGFA 14,212 4,264 710 General Office Building 1,000 SFGFA 16,516 4,955 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 SFGFA 53,820 16,146 720 Building State Motor Vehicles 1,000 SFGFA 238,268 71,840 731 Department 732 United States Post Office 1,000 SFGFA 174,121 52,236 750 Office Park 1,000 SFGFA 16,753 5,026 760 Research and 1,000 SFGFA 12,265 3,680 Development Center 770 Business Park 1,000 SFGFA 18,595 5,579 812 Building Materials and 1,000 SFGFA 84,999 25,500 Lumber Store 39 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average,per Resolution 17-08. 4°The 30%factor for the approved SDC Rate per Unit applies to all codes except ITE Code 210. Maximum Allowable was phased-in for ITE Code 210(Single-Family Detached Housing/Duplex),per Resolution 17-65. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 67 Appendix Transportation SDC Maximum Allowable Approved SDC Rate SDC Rate ITE per Unit' per Unit Code Land Use Unit[A] [B] [C=B x.30] Free-Standing Discount 1,000 SFGFA 75,803 22,741 813 Superstore 814 Variety Store 1,000 SFGFA 60,256 18,077 Free-Standing Discount 1,000 SFGFA 55,608 16,682 815 Store 816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000 SFGFA 51,070 15,321 817 Nursery(Garden Center) 1,000 SFGFA 163,297 48,989 820 Shopping Center 1,000 SFGLA 40,756 12,227 826 Specialty Retail Center 1,000 SFGLA 79,978 23,993 841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SFGFA 57,677 17,303 843 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SFGFA 53,685 16,106 848 Tire Store 1,000 SFGFA 33,656 10,097 850 Supermarket 1,000 SFGFA 93,303 27,991 Convenience Market 1,000 SFGFA 486,403 145,921 851 (Open 24 Hours) 857 Discount Club 1,000 SFGFA 83,453 25,036 Home Improvement 1,000 SFGFA 32,978 9,893 862 Superstore Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SFGFA 75,136 22,541 880 without Drive-Through Pharmacy/Drugstore with 1,000 SFGFA 72,576 21,773 881 Drive-Through 890 Furniture Store 1,000 SFGFA 3,602 1,081 912 Drive-in Bank 1,000 SFGFA 66,101 19,830 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SFGFA 73,741 22,122 932 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) 1,000 SFGFA 103,626 31,088 Restaurant 934 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 1,000 SFGFA 431,750 129,525 937 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through 1,000 SFGFA 660,538 198,161 938 Coffee/Donut Kiosk 1,000 SFGFA 603,064 180,919 944 Gasoline/Service Station VFP 116,269 34,881 945 Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market VFP 40,993 12,298 946 Gasoline/Service Station with Car Wash VFP 71,957 21,587 Source:ITE Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,compiled by FCS GROUP Abbreviations: SFGFA-square feet of gross floor area ODU-occupied dwelling unit VFP-vehicle fueling position 41 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(CCI)for 20-City Average,per Resolution 17-08. Page 68 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge Fee Methodology Residential Development a. An applicant for a building permit should complete a Lake Oswego Parks System Development Charges Application and SDC Calculation Worksheet indicating the type and number of new Dwelling Units to be included in the project. b. The Building Department enters the SDC rates per dwelling on the application form and calculates the SDCs to be paid by the Applicant. SDC Improvement Fee* Type of Dwelling Unit per Dwelling Unit Single Family Dwelling Unit $ 17,149 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $ 9,538 II. Non-Residential Development a. An applicant for a building permit should complete a Lake Oswego Parks System Development Charges Application and SDC Calculation Worksheet indicating the type and number of square feet of building space for each non-residential use to be included in the project. Guidelines for the number of square feet required for each employee are included in the table on the following page for major Standard Industry Classifications. Where a proposed use does not specifically match one of the classifications listed in the table,the listed classification which most closely matches the proposed use,as determined by the City Manager, may be substituted. b. The Building Department calculates the non-residential SDC Improvement Fee by: i. Dividing the building space(square feet)for each non-residential use in the development by the number of square feet per employee(from the guidelines in the Square Feet Per Employee table), and ii. Multiplying the result(from step 1) by the SDC rate Per New Employee($ 1,033 as of January 1, 2023).Any proposed use which constitutes 10%or less of the total building space should be considered an ancillary use and does not require a separate calculation; however,the building space for such uses must be included in the total for other non-residential uses. *Rates are based on Improvement Fee only(no Reimbursement Fee). 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 69 Appendix III. Senior and Affordable Housing Definitions(Per Resolution 08-42): a. "Congregate Housing" is defined as"multi-unit housing with self-contained apartments that contain cooking facilities which support independent lifestyles for those that have life-function disabilities due to age, medical,or mental condition,which do not require residential care or skilled nursing services. Congregate housing provides varying levels of support services, such as meals, laundry, housekeeping,transportation,and social, recreation,cultural and education activities. The full range of services normally associated with residential care facility,are not provided in association with congregate housing." (Section 50.02.005 Definitions,City Code) Rate Provision: Charged at 50%of the Multi-Family residential rate. b. "Residential Care Housing" is considered to be non-residential in nature and is defined as a facility that houses and provides services for 6 or more persons who may have a range of physical and mental health problems, including chronic and debilitating conditions requiring assistance with daily activities. This term is synonymous with other terms such as"assisted living facilities"and "adult care housing" used to describe housing which provides the range of services described below. Living units within residential care housing do not have cooking facilities. A range of services is provided including staff supervised meals, housekeeping and personal care medication supervision, recreation, cultural, social activities and transportation. Residential care housing facilities may include housing for persons needing intermediate care. These are persons who do not require around-the-clock nursing, but who do need preventative care,therapies at levels less than continuous licensed nursing care or observation. Intermediate care emphasizes personal, social and emotional/mental health care, but involves the availability of 24 hour service with physicians and nurses in supervisory roles. Skilled nursing services, including convalescent care, may be provided as an accessory and subordinate use in conjunction with residential care facilities. (Section 50.02.005 Definitions,City Code). Rate Provision: Charged at 50%of the Non-Residential rate. Page 70 2025 Master Fees and Charges Appendix SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE (Recommended guidelines from Metro Employment Density Study) Standard Industry Square Feet Standard Industry Square Feet Classification(SIC)* Per Employee Classification(SIC)* Per Employee 1-19 590 37 700 Agriculture., Fish &Forest Services; Transportation Equipment Construction; Mining 20 630 40-42,44,45,47 3,290 Food &Kindred Products Transportation and Warehousing 22, 23 930 43,46,48,49 460 Textile&Apparel Communications and Public Utilities 24 640 50, 51 1,390 Lumber&Wood Wholesale Trade 25, 32, 39 760 52-59 470 Furniture;Clay,Stone, &Glass; Misc. Retail Trade 26 1,600 60—68 370 Paper and Allied Finance, Insurance& Real Estate 27 450 70—79 770 Printing, Publishing&Allied Non-Health Services 28—31 720 80 350 Chemicals, Petroleum, Rubber, Leather Health Services 33, 34 420 81-89 740 Primary&Fabricated Metals Educational,Social, Membership Services 35 300 90—99 540 Machinery Equipment Government 36, 38 400 Electrical Machinery, Equipment * Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Standard Industrial Classification Manual IV. Modification, Expansion,or Redevelopment If the development is a modification or expansion of an existing structure,or redevelopment of a property from a previous use,the SDC amount is based on the net increase in the number of Dwelling Units and/or employees,calculated as follows: a. Calculate an SDC on the development as though the entire development was subject to the SDC; b. Calculate an SDC on the existing development, before modification,expansion,or redevelopment,as though the existing development was subject to the SDC; c. Calculate the net SDC amount by subtracting the result of Step b from the result of Step a; if the result is zero or less than zero, no SDC is due. 2025 Master Fees and Charges Page 71 Appendix Master Fees and Charges Resolution RESOLUTION 24-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REVISING FEES AND CHARGES AND UPDATING THE LAKE OSWEGO MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City has adopted from time to time various fees and charges for services; and WHEREAS,the City has found it necessary to add, revise, or delete various fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The revisions to fees and charges shown in Exhibit A are hereby adopted effective January 1, 2025, except where noted otherwise. Section 2. The revision to fees and charges shall be incorporated into the City's Master Fees and Charges schedule. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 17th day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Page 72 2025 Master Fees and Charges 14.1 o�� E 0 COUNCIL REPORT > V —w 0 OREGO� Subject: Resolution 24-47 and LORA Resolution 24-03, Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney/ Deputy LORA Counsel Report Date: November 18, 2024 Department: City Attorney's Office/ LORA Counsel Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑X Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: • City Council: Adopt Resolution 24-47 • LORA Board: Adopt LORA Resolution 24-03 Recommended Language for Motion: • City Council: Move to adopt Resolution 24-47. • LORA Board: Move to adopt LORA Resolution 24-03. Project/ Issue Relates To: Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable — Respect cv el'erce. Trust. Se-VI'', 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 BACKGROUND Legal and Related Services The 2016 Council / LORA Board adopted the AG Model Public Contracting Rules for soliciting and awarding public contracts,'while also retaining some Lake Oswego-specific public contracting rules.2 State law allows local governments to enter into personal services contracts, such as hiring outside professionals. When the City/ LORA hires for personal services, including legal services, it must choose based on factors in a solicitation document, regardless of the anticipated contract amount.3 Council / LORA Board may authorize exceptions to the general public contract solicitation requirements by adoption of"special procurements," which exempt certain public contracts from solicitation of multiple vendors, e.g., equipment repair and overhaul, concession and franchises, advertising, copyright and library materials, insurance, and sponsorship agreements.4 Delegation Authority State law sets certain procedures for how public contracts are solicited, selected, and awarded. Pursuant to those procedures, the decision to award a contract is made by the "contracting agency"— the Council / LORA Board. However, state law also allows the Council / LORA Board to delegate this authority to the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director. Like many other cities, the Council / LORA Board has authorized the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director to approve contracts on its behalf when the contract is less than a stated dollar maximum.' Lake Oswego Public Contract Rule 46-0140 contains a convenient chart for staff and the public to find the current delegated authority.' Intergovernmental Agreement to Sell Goods Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) are not "public contracts."' Similar to the delegation authority for public contracts below a certain amount, LOPCR 46-0140 is used to include the delegation of authority by the Council / LORA Board to allow the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director to enter into IGAs that are similar to a public contract, e.g., when the City/ LORA purchases goods, services, personal services and, rarer, public improvements from other governmental agencies, or IGAs for reciprocal support, e.g., mutual aid agreements or joint task forces. 1 OAR Ch. 137,Articles 046—049. 2 See City Resolution 16-29/LORA Resolution 16-03. 3 LOPCR 47-0277. 4 LOPCR 46-0131. 'City Resolution 18-03/LORA Resolution 18-01. 6 Amendment of the delegation of contracting authority is not subject to the statutory requirements for amendment of the public contracting rules because changing the parameters of the delegation of the City Manager/Executive Director to award contracts is not within the technical scope of the public contracting rules 7 ORS 279A.025(a)(A, E, F, I). Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 DISCUSSION Legal and Related Services This resolution proposes an amendment of the special procurement rule for personal service contracts relating to the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/or Human Resources Director obtaining outside legal counsel or contracting litigation /dispute resolution services. This amendment would allow, but not require, the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to direct appoint (select) the outside legal counsel or related legal services without seeking multiple quotes. A class special procurement is permitted by ORS 2796.085(1) for a class of contracts when it is demonstrated that: "(a) Is unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts; and (b)(A) Is reasonably expected to result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public; or (B) Otherwise substantially promotes the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements that are applicable under ORS 2796.055, 2796.060, 2796.065 or 2796.070 or under any rules adopted thereunder." Legal Services Avoiding Favoritism and Protecting Competition: Exemptions for legal services are unlikely to encourage favoritism or diminish competition because the selection of outside counsel is based on specialized legal expertise, not personal preference. Legal matters often require immediate attention, and only attorneys with relevant expertise and qualifications can be considered, which naturally limits the pool of candidates but ensures fair competition among qualified professionals. The City Attorney's/ LORA Counsel's/ Human Resources Director's role in choosing counsel focuses on professional criteria, such as expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest, which prevents favoritism. Promoting Substantial Cost Savings: The exemption is expected to result in cost savings because it allows the City Attorney/ LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to quickly hire outside counsel when legal matters arise or immediate legal expertise is needed. The standard procurement process can cause delays, leading to higher costs and legal risk if the City/ LORA misses deadlines, faces prolonged litigation, or is unable to respond effectively and proactively in legal disputes. Serving the Public Interest: Exempting legal services from the typical procurement process substantially promotes the public interest by ensuring the City/ LORA can address legal issues with the right expertise and without delay. This is crucial in matters where time-sensitive legal strategies are involved, such as litigation, settlement negotiations, and specialized property transactions. In such cases, the public's interest in protecting the city's legal rights is well served by allowing the City Attorney/ Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 LORA Counsel/Human Resources Director to appoint counsel based on professional judgment and immediate need. Related Legal Services Due to the nature and procedure of dispute resolution/ litigation,there are times when persons or firms provide related legal expenses that are to be shared with other parties to the dispute, such as the costs of a mediator, arbitrator, expert witnesses, or litigation support services are shared with other parties, and that the selection of the person or firm is one that must either be negotiated with other parties or is to be selected in the manner provided by the dispute resolution process, e.g., selection from the panel of available arbitrators from the Portland Arbitration Service. In such cases the City/ LORA is not able to solicit multiple providers. This special procurement authority for obtaining related legal services is unlikely to encourage favoritism or to substantially diminish competition because, as described above, the manner of selection is constrained by the process in working within the dispute resolution / litigation procedures. The special procurement will substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements for the same reasons stated above. Delegation of Authority Contract Amount Increase Currently the City Manager/ LORA Executive Director is authorized to award and execute public contracts and similar intergovernmental agreements for services, personal services, and goods for up to $250,000; contracts in excess of the amount require council approval, typically on the Council consent agenda. Staff time is required to prepare the council report and the award and execution is delayed until after the council meeting. This resolution would increase the delegated contract authority to $500,000. The City Manager/ LORA Executive Director will advise the Council for the first 2 years-- starting April 1, 2025 and quarterly through December 31, 2026—of the contracts that are awarded above in the $250,000 - $500,000 range, by providing the name of the vendor, the purpose/scope of the contract, and the contract amount. Intergovernmental Agreement to Sell Goods The amendment to LOPCR 46-0140 would allow the City/ LORA to sell goods under an IGA to another governmental agency on the same basis as the existing authority to purchase goods from that governmental agency. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 5 ALTERNATIVES City Council: The Council may adopt all or part of the recommended amendments to LOPCR 46- 0131 and 46-0140. If a part of the proposed amendments will not be adopted, a revised form a resolution will be presented to the Council at a later meeting. LORA Board: LORA Resolution 24-03 concurs in the amendments and findings in City Resolution 24-47. If the LORA Board wishes to adopt less or more of the amendments than adopted by the City Council, or different findings, a revised form of resolution will be presented to the LORA Board at a later meeting. RECOMMENDATION Following a public hearing to receive public comment: • City Council: Adopt Resolution 24-47. • LORA Board:Adopt LORA Resolution 24-03 (concurring in the amendment and findings of City Council Resolution 24-47) ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council: Resolution 24-47 2. LORA: LORA Resolution 24-03 — Respect. Fv- PPP,',P Trust. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 LORA RESOLUTION 24-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONCURRING IN THE AMENDMENT OF LAKE OSWEGO PUBLIC CONTRACT RULES 46-0131 SPECIAL PROCUREMENT (LEGAL AND RELATED SERVICES) AND 46-140 REGARDING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BY LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 24-47. WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board by Resolution 16-03 has previously adopted the Lake Oswego Public Contracts Rules (LOPCR) as the public contracting rules of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA), and WHEREAS, pursuant to LOPCR 46-0109 (LO) defines the "Local Contract Review Board" as the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board for contracts applicable to LORA (Section 1) and defines the "Contracting Agency" as LORA for contracts applicable to LORA (Section 2); and WHEREAS, the Board finds that there is a benefit to LORA to utilize the same public contracting rules for the procurement of goods, services, personal services and public improvements, due to increased familiarity by the shared staffing with the City of Lake Oswego, and due to familiarity by vendors with the LOPCRs on LORA projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego has adopted Resolution 24-47, which makes certain findings and adopts amendments to the Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules; and the Board concurs in the findings and that amendments to the LOPCRs should be applied to public contracts and intergovernmental agreements for and by LORA; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency: Section 1. The findings and amendments to the Lake Oswego Public Contract Rules 46-0131 and 46-0140 as stated in Lake Oswego City Council Resolution 24-47 (Exhibit A), are hereby adopted. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board on the 3rd day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M. Buck, Chair LORA Resolution 24-03 Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Kari Linder, Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, LORA Counsel LORA Resolution 24-03 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 24-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LAKE OSWEGO PUBLIC CONTRACT RULES 46-0131 SPECIAL PROCUREMENT (LEGAL AND RELATED SERVICES) AND 46-140 REGARDING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Council elects to increase the delegation of authority of the City Manager to execute public contracts and intergovernmental agreements for the purchase of goods, services and personal services to $500,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously delegated to the City Manager the authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purchase of goods, services and personal services below certain dollar value, which dollar value is similar to the authority delegated to enter into public contracts for goods, services, and personal services; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City Manager should have the same authority regarding intergovernmental agreements for the sale of goods, services and personal services; and WHEREAS, delegation of authority granted by the City Council to the City Manager to enter into intergovernmental agreements for goods, services and personal services was made a part of the Lake Oswego Public Contracting Rule 46-140 solely for ease of reference, because (a) the grant of delegation of authority to execute public contracts as permitted by ORS 279A.075 is not regarding the rules for the exercise of the City's procurement authority under ORS 279A.050 or ORS 279.070, and (b) intergovernmental agreements are not "public contracts" per ORS 279A.025(2)(a)(I); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to the nature of dispute resolution, there are times when persons or firms provide related legal expenses that are to be shared with other parties to the dispute, such as when the costs of a mediator, arbitrator, expert witnesses, or litigation support services are shared with other parties, and that the selection of the person or firm is one that must either be negotiated with other parties or selected in the manner provided by the dispute resolution process; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the procurement of outside legal services by the City's chief legal officer or Human Resources Director is a unique personal service. Legal matters often require immediate attention, specialized expertise, consistency of representation in ongoing legal matters, and ethical considerations specific to lawyers—practicalities which require an exemption that is unlikely encourage favoritism. Subjecting the acquisition and provisions of legal services to a regular solicitation process risks exposing the sensitive and confidential information inherent in those services and an exemption is likely to lead to cost savings. Making legal services contracts a "special procurement" substantially promotes the public interest by ensuring the city can address legal issues with the right expertise at the right time. Therefore, the City Council finds that the City Attorney should be able to direct appoint for outside legal services; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the findings stated in the Recitals above and in the Council Report. Section 2. Lake Oswego Public Contract Rule 46-0140 (LO) is amended to as shown below, deleted text shown by and additional text showed by double underline. Resolution 24-47 Page 1 of 4 46-0131 (LO) Class Special Procurement Exemptions [This LOPCR is in addition to the Model Rules; it does not revise a Model Rule.] The following classes of contracts, in addition to other classes of contract authorized in these rules, i.e., small procurement, intermediate procurement, emergency procurement, in OAR 137-47 and 137-49, are exempt from the competitive bidding procurement requirements of these Rules to the extent provided: (1). GOODS AND SERVICES /// (2). PERSONAL SERVICES The following personal services are designated as personal services and may be made by direct appointment by the PCO: (a) Legal and Related Services (i). Litigation or Potential Litigation—Shared Services: When a person or entity is to provide services related to the dispute resolution process (whether in a pending or likely dispute), including an agreed-upon contractual dispute resolution process, mediation, arbitration, or litigation), such as the engagement of the servicers of a mediator, arbitrator, technical expert witness, appraiser, court reporter, copy service, or other litigation related services and: (1) the selection process is pursuant to the agreed-upon dispute resolution procedure (e.g., selection of mediator(s) or arbitrator(s)), or (2) the person or firm has been selected by another party to the dispute and the City is to bear a portion of the cost in order to receive the benefit of the provider's service or work product, such as testimony, appraisal, deposition transcripts, and photocopies. (ii). Legal Advice and Related Services to City:The City Attorney or the Human Resources Director(with approval of the City Attorney) may retain outside legal counsel, expert witnesses and consultants to assist the City Attorney in providing legal advice or services to the City or to the Human Resources Director in labor and employment matters. (3). PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT /// (4). GOODS AND SERVICES and/or PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT /// 46-0140(LO) Awarding Authority for Contracts, Amendments and Intergovernmental Agreements [This LOPCR is in addition to the Model Rules; it does not revise a Model Rule.] (1). When a rule states that the Contracting Agency is authorized to award a contract, the council, board, or person authorized to award the Contract on behalf of the Contracting Agency shall be as provided in this section. (2). The Lake Oswego City Council shall award all public contracts for the City of Lake Oswego unless otherwise provided by this section, or by resolution of the Council. Resolution 24-47 Page 2 of 4 (3). The Board of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency shall award all public contracts for the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency unless otherwise provided by this section, or by resolution of the Board. (4). The Lake Oswego City Council, as the governing body of the City and LORA, hereby delegates authority to the PCO to Award Contracts and Amendments to Contracts, and to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements and Amendments to Intergovernmental Agreement as follows, and the PCO is hereby designated as the Awarding Authority and Change Order Authority, for the following classes of Contracts: Contract Awardable By PCO Special Limitations Maximum Amount /Scope Goods, Services, Personal Generally $500,000 Service contracts (including Amendments Architect, Engineer, Land Contract Amount $500,000 Surveyor, or Provider of Alter scope of work or time for performance None "Related Services" contracts for Public Improvements) Contract expense fully offset by fees, charges, $500,000 donations, or funds raised for services or programs offered through City Concession and Franchise Annual Gross Sales expected to exceed $500,000. Donated Goods and Services None Public Improvements, Public Generally $500,000 Works Amendments: Contract Amount $250,000 Alter scope of work or time for performance None Donated Public Improvement None Intergovernmental Agreements Authorized to be Executed by PCO Purchase or Sale of Goods and Generally $500,000 Services (materials, supplies, Donated Public Improvement None equipment, vehicles, services), Contract expense fully offset by fees, charges, $500,000 Personal Services donations, or funds raised for services or programs offered through City Donated Goods and Services None Amendments Contract Amount $500,000 Alter scope of work or time for performance None Public Improvements and Generally $500,000 Public Works; Personal Amendments: Services related to Public Contract Amount $500,000 Improvements and Public Alter scope of work or time for performance None Works Resolution 24-47 Page 3 of 4 Contract Awardable By PCO Special Limitations Maximum Amount /Scope Allocation of existing Agreement does not significantly affect the City's None equipment and personnel, ability to provide services within its own such as mutual aid agreements boundaries. or involvement in dedicated task forces. (5). Contracts, Amendments to Contracts, and Intergovernmental Agreements exceeding the above amounts shall be awarded or rejected by the City Council, following an evaluation and recommendation by the PCO, and the City Council is hereby designated as the Awarding Authority and Change Order Authority for such classes of contracts. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 3rd day of December, 2024. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Resolution 24-47 Page 4 of 4 15.1 o�" F °s� REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT mooro OREGO\--" Subject: Approval of Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) Board Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: December 3, 2024 Staff Member: Kari Linder, Recording Secretary Report Date: November 26, 2024 Department: City Manager's Office Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Board Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve the LORA meeting minutes as written. Project/ Issue Relates To: Issue before Board (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. October 15, 2024, Draft Regular LORA Meeting Minutes Respect. Excel'er.re Trust. Se-vim 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 Krc LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING h+ MINUTES "Slil" 0 V r October 15, 2024 OREG9 1. CALL TO ORDER, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) Chair Buck called the regular Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. on Tuesday, October 15, 2024. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Buck and Board Members Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup. Board Member Rapf was Excused. Staff Present: Martha Bennett, Executive Director; Ellen Osoinach, LORA Counsel; Kari Linder, Recording Secretary; Sidaro Sin, Redevelopment Manager Others Present: Eric Cress, Principal and President, Urban Development Partners; Kurtis Fusaro, Senior Development Manager, Urban Development Partners; Will Naito, Naito Development LLC 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Buck led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. BOARD BUSINESS 4.1 North Anchor Project Update. Mr. Sin advised the Board about upcoming work at the gas station site on State Street over the next four to six months. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had directed the City to decommission three underground storage tanks on site: two 6,000-gallon tanks and one 15,000- gallon tank,which had been under temporary closure permit since the City purchased the property in 2005. Decommissioning would involve conducting a study with test pits around the tanks to check for leaks, cleaning the tank interiors, and filling them with water rather than concrete slurry. This water-filling approach, approved by DEQ, would make it easier for Urban Development Partners (UD+P) to remove the tanks during future demolition work. Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 October 15, 2024 Mr. Cress reviewed the Board report via PowerPoint, reviewing changes to capital markets that could impact the project's financing. Mr. Fusaro continued the presentation with an update of UD+P's work with DEQ regarding the prospective purchaser agreement and environmental issues for Parcel C, which formerly housed a gas station and dry cleaner. The presentation also reviewed extended land use approvals and residential permits and noted that UD+P planned to resubmit the permit for the hotel due to changes in code. Mr. Naito resumed the presentation, reviewing five major hotel franchisors and the potential to incorporate soft brands/hotel collection into the project, summarizing operational advantages for hotel management and enhanced credibility a soft brand partnership would give project financing. Hotel franchisors had expressed interest, and the terms outlined by franchisors were favorable. Naito Development was undergoing an internal process to determine whether to flat the property. Mr. Cress added the hotel franchise process would be wrapped up when the last term sheet was received. There was an additional expense with soft brands and the partners had to weigh whether the additional financing attraction would outweigh the expense. Mr. Fusaro continued the presentation with an overview of the schedule for the next 12 months, noting the team hoped to begin a deep financing outreach for both equity and debt after November's election. In the beginning of the New Yeah, UD+P would go back in to resume the permitting process and hoped to start construction in the middle of the following year. Mr. Cress added the partners would continue to work on negotiating the soft brand over the next few weeks and summarized the extensive underwriting process involved. The financing position of trying to get through the election and getting everything in order applied both to the hotel and the apartments. Mr. Cress provided an update on building demolition and advised that UD+P's attorney had advised against proceeding with demolition due to liability concerns for UD+P and the City, particularly given the timeline. While UD+P could continue to explore options, no solution was evident. Board Member questions were addressed by the consultants as follows: • Mr. Cress indicated UD+P would pursue local financing and syndication for the apartments, while exploring a two-path approach for hotel financing including outside institutional capital and local financing/syndication. • Mr. Naito noted all soft brands contacted were familiar with Lake Oswego, except European- based Accor. • Mr. Cress said UD+P was as confident as possible regarding the schedule and breaking ground next summer. There was ambiguity to work through over the next eight weeks, but the company felt reasonably confident about gaining traction in December and early 2025. Financing remained the primary challenge, but the company felt better than it had in 12 months due to ebbing inflation. • They were not counting on further interest rate drops, though they did not expect rates to increase. The company planned to present based on current market conditions. Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 October 15, 2024 • Mr. Naito reported hotel soft brands had deep understanding of the regional market due to their Pacific Northwest presence, and all the brands contacted were interested in having an outpost in Lake Oswego. • Mr. Cress noted that while soft brands were well-informed about the local market, national financiers remained skeptical about the Portland region. Regional banks better distinguished Lake Oswego from Portland. • Mr. Fusaro explained the apartments were further along in permitting than the hotel. The hotel required resubmission due to code changes, with an estimated six-month process. • Mr. Fusaro and Mr. Cress discussed construction costs, noting recent stability in prices. While new Code requirements would increase some costs such as concrete, HVAC, and environmental standards; overall costs had decreased in other areas, resulting in no net escalation. 4.2 Approval of LORA Meeting Minutes. June 18, 2024, Draft Regular LORA Meeting Minutes Board Member Wendland moved to approve the LORA Meeting Minutes as written. Board Member Verdick seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Buck and Board Members Corrigan, Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, and Mboup, voting `aye', (6-0). 5. ADJOURNMENT, REDVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) Chair Buck adjourned the LORA meeting at 3:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kari Linder, Recording Secretary Approved by the LORA Board on {insert approval date). Joseph M. Buck, Chair Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 October 15, 2024