The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Item - 2023-09-05 - Number 9.1 - Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules (PP 22-0001) 9.1 COUNCIL REPORT ___ o QREGDNI' Subject: Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities Rules (Parking) (PP 22-0001) Meeting Date: September 5, 2023 Staff Member: Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager Report Date: August 25, 2023 Department: Community Development Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: On January 20, 2023, the City received ❑X Council Direction approval from the Department of Land Conservation ❑ Consent Agenda and Development for a deadline extension until December 31, 2024 to comply with Phase B of the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed work plan and direct staff to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the State's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities parking rules by December 31, 2024. Recommended Language for Motion: n/a Project/ Issue Relates To: Implementing requirements for Phase B of the State's Climate- Friendly and Equitable Communities rules for parking reform. Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): Provide direction on the City's response to Phase B of the State's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules for parking reform. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities: "Combat climate change and strengthen the community's resilience to climate impacts" and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Provide direction to staff on a proposed work plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)'s Climate- Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) parking rules by December 31, 2024. Resr.Dect. Fx:-ellerce Trust. Servine. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Council's September 5 study session, a representative from DLCD will provide an overview of the CFEC rules for parking reform and staff will provide an update on the City's efforts to comply with CFEC requirements. Staff will then ask Council for direction on a proposed work plan to develop code amendments that comply with Phase B of the CFEC parking rules by December 31, 2024. The City already complies with Phase A of the CFEC parking requirements under OAR 660-012- 0430 and 660-012-0440 through the direct application of the DLCD rules, which became effective on January 1, 2023. Phase A required cities 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 DLCD requirements for electric vehicle conduits under OAR 660- 012-0410 through the direct application of the rule, which became effective on April 1, 2023, and the state building code (ORS 455.417(4)). This rule mandates that 40% of all vehicle parking spaces must have "electrical service capacity," e.g., 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 select from the Parking Reform Options and implement. See Parking Reform Phase B, below. Since the last City Council update, the City requested and 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 3 and 7).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. BACKGROUND On March 10, 2020, then-Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-04 (Attachment 10), 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. Respect, Excelferce. Trust. Servi. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 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 8, 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 8). 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 Reform Phase B— DLCD-approved alternative deadline is December31, 2024 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 [OAR 660- 012-04301 and 660-012-044021. Beginning on January 1, 2023, the following parking rules became applicable by direct application of the DLCD rules to new development in Lake Oswego: • No parking is required within % mile of rail stations or 1/2 mile of frequent transit corridors (one-hour or greater service); • Only one parking space per unit is required for multifamily residential development, regardless of location; and i 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. Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Servic.c. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 • No parking is required for small residential units (<750 square feet), affordable units', child care uses, facilities for people with disabilities, or shelters. 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 Council to apply these rules directly—instead of adopting them as amendments to LOC Chapter 50, the Community Development Code ("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. A map of areas where parking requirements have been superseded pursuant to Phase A of the CFEC parking reform [OAR 660-012-0440] is included below and in Attachment 4; 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. (Staff Memo continues on next page) 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." Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 5 ;. ity of Lake Oswego \ • Properties a Hair mile from Bus Lines 35 -= r ,� bail'mile is straight out from Dos route. • L ' k v — - -- Lake Oswego dly Llmil9 In - _ — L15H$on.nsarg —Rte.5 6 0.25 0.5 5hit,(..i_______ ---,5 F 1iI6 a O. 41110rTiit#'' Imb ..- f" 131IneitijaAtilt ,..,.,r.„,..1......:y4.___ . ti'llMIAto,r4.71124g.,.td,ft.d." 46,0_,._ oriir _ • -—- •- III —. "PM!;;'`'.-.: ;'-'7..7:::..-.7-::'--C.7..7-.:;.114iiir=71‘4:..‘ = !OITA 1 IF:--..!. .-- , \ 7 0 4 la , , / . II"f -- gE.la.rt�ha \ _ . AM)1110 eilselaw-eokr,...__ -' & Y\ \LJ . r. rtir+r■ I ■■n en i■- 1.1■ I I MIN L. 4o0.% I.* illik'. • . MUM I 1 tietAirj I 2 I IIMMI. ilIFS AiecC:. A. 1 Mac.. IFiipow I t4. I .... At_4.1eAr {p: r. L , . . ..,.... _ 5 . ,, ` , . x Respect. Fx.ellence. Trust. Servi e. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 6 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 rule. As such, 40%of all vehicle parking spaces are now required to have "electrical service capacity," e.g., 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's parking areas, 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, this rule is applied directly; no changes have been made to the Development Code to implement this requirement. The online code notes this requirement in LOC 50.06.002.2.a.i by an Editor's Note. 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 generally do not apply to cities in the Portland metropolitan area, as they are intended to support the implementation of the existing Metro 2040 Growth Concept. Because cities in the Portland metropolitan area were already required to designate Town Centers and adopt implementing regulations in compliance with Metro's 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, such cities—including Lake Oswego - do not need to take additional action to comply with the CFEC rules for housing in climate-friendly areas. Staff notes that the City's existing Town Centers were mapped in Lake Grove and Downtown, and these will serve as the City's "Climate-Friendly Areas" for the purpose of CFEC compliance. Again, no additional action is required for the City of Lake Oswego to comply with these rules. a Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=293028. 5 Available at https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_455.417. 6 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. Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 7 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN UPDATE Under CFEC rules for Scenario Planning (OAR Chapter 660, 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. (OAR 660-044-0045). 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. (OAR 660-045-0055). TSPs in metropolitan areas must include the elements required by OAR 660-0012-01008. The elements that will be new to Lake Oswego's TSP are indicated in boldface, below: (2)A transportation system plan shall include the following core elements: (f)Areas with concentrations of underserved populations as provided in OAR 660-012- 0125, identified using best available data; (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 On July 10, 2023, Metro released a draft 2023 RTP and made the document available for public comment. 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 REFORM - 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 3) 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 8 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=292997. 'Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301173. 1°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. 1z 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. Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 8 required under House Bill 2003 (2019)[codified within ORS 197.290 - .296]. 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. 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 660-012-041516. 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 1/2 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 appropriate locations, such as downtowns, designated regional or community centers, and transit-oriented developments. Staff notes that, under Metro's existing Functional Plan requirements, Lake Oswego (LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(3)— 125% of unadjusted minimum parking requirement) 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). Parking Reform Options [OAR 660-012-0420 through 04501 Further requirements for compliance with Phase B of CFEC parking reform are outlined in OAR 660-012-042016 through 660-012-045017. 14 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301177. is Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301178. 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. Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 9 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 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% mile walking distance 5. No more than 1/2 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 but would require the City to impose an extensive list of additional restrictions on those requirements. Requirements for Option 1 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, as explained above under Parking Phase A. 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, Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 10 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 neighborhoods listed above, including those areas that are more than one-half mile from Bus Line#35. As described in Attachment 2, 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 will provide parking spaces even where they are not required. Per Attachment 6: 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 8 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 other Phase B CFEC parking rules. 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 Development Code partially complies with some 18 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301179. Respect, Excelferce. Trust. Servic.c. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 11 of these requirements (as indicated by regular typeface), the Development 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 (Staff Memo continues on next page) 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)). Respect. Excelferce. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 12 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: (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 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 20 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301180. 21 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. Respect. Fx.eller:ce. Trust. Servi e. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 13 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; (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 implemented by employers with 50 or more employees in the Portland Metro area because such employers are already required by the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to provide incentives for commuting by means other than a single-occupant vehicle. For example, the City of Lake Oswego employs more than 50 people and meets DEQ requirements by providing free TriMet bus passes and designating preferential carpool parking spaces. However, it is unclear whether compliance with these DEQ rules also satisfies the CFEC rules because no cash amount is paid to employees commuting in a mode that does not use parking. If this Option 2 were selected, the City could comply with provision D by imposing a tax on commercial parking lots (the City currently has no known commercial parking lots) and provision E by amending the Development Code to reduce the minimum parking requirement for multifamily housing citywide. However, the remaining choices under Option 2 (provisions A, B, and, if a commercial parking lot were to operate in Lake Oswego, provision D) are more difficult to implement. The implementation of any of these three provisions would have a budgetary impact, which could be negative as currently there would not be any offsetting tax receipts because 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" —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. Regarding provision D, a tax on commercial parking lot revenue would likely have the same administrative difficulty as the administration of the transient room tax. While amending the Development Code and other parts of the City Code to meet at least three of the five provisions Respect, Excelferce. Trust. Servi. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 14 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 code amendments to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for several types of development, uses, and 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 would be 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)ZZ, excerpted below. The 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 % 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; 22 Available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=301181. Resr.Dect. Fx.eller:ce. Trust. Servi e. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 15 (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; (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 1/2 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 at least one parking district with a residential parking permit program. Creating a new program such as this could have significant budgetary impact and the associated costs for a city the size of Lake Oswego have not yet been estimated. 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. For more discussion of unbundled parking, see Option 2—"Fair Parking" Approach, above. (Staff Memo continues on next page) Resr.Dect, Fx-eller:ce. Trust. Servie. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 16 Proposed Project Schedule As mentioned above, the City has received approval from DLCD for an alternative deadline of December 31, 2024, to adopt code amendments to comply with the parking rules for Phase B of CFEC (see Attachments 3 and 7). A tentative project schedule for Phase B of the parking reform requirements of CFEC is included in Attachment 1; a summary of key dates is provided below. CFEC Parking Reform Phase B—Project Schedule Rulemaking Updates & Extension Request Council Study Session tt1 Jun 21, 2022 [Jun 2022-Jul 2023] PC Update tt1 Jun 27 PC Update tt2 Jan 9, 2023 PC Work Scssion #1 Jul 21. Work Plan &Scoping CC Study Session#2 Sep 5, 2023 [Aug—Sep 2023] PC Work Session #2 Sep 25 Evaluation of Parking Alternatives PC Work Session #3 Nov 27 [Oct—Dec 2023] CC Study Session #3 Dec 5 Initial Concepts& Recommendations CC Study Session #4 Feb 6, 2024 [Jan— Mar 2024] PC Work Session #4 Feb 26 Public Workshop Event Mar 7 Refined Parking Concepts CC Study Session #5 May 7 [Apr— May 2024] PC Work Session #5 May 29 Draft Code Amendments CC Study Session #6 Aug 20 [Jul— Nov 2024] PC Work Session #6 Aug 26 CFEC Parking Code Amendments PC Hearing Oct 14 [Jul— Nov 2024] CC Hearing Nov 19 Final Adoption Dec 3, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed work plan for compliance with Phase B of the State's Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities parking rules by December 31, 2024. ATTACHMENTS 1. CFEC Project Schedule, 08/21/2023 2. Sightline Institute article, "Parking Mandates Are Vanishing Across Oregon," 07/20/2023 3. DLCD - CFEC Rules Alternative Date Request Granted, 01/20/2023 4. CFEC Parking Phase A Map, 01/01/2023 5. DLCD Handout - Parking Supply, Car Ownership, and Driving Rates, 11/02/2022 Respect. Fx.ellence. Trust. Servi e. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 17 6. DLCD Handout- What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced, 10/04/2022 7. CFEC Rules Alternative Date Request, 12/19/2022 8. DLCD - CFEC Program Overview, 07/21/2022 9. DLCD - CFEC Implementation Guide, 07/21/2022 10. Oregon Governor Executive Order 20-04, 03/10/2020 Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ATTACHMENT 1 Climate-Friendly& Equitable Communities (CFEC) Code Amendments Rulemaking Updates& Extension Council Study Session tt1 Jun 21, 2022 Request [Jun 2022—Jul 2023] Planning Commission Update #1 Jun 27 Planning Commission Update 1t2 Jan 9, 2023 Planning Commission Work Session tt1 Jul 21 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 tt2 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 1 OF 2 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 1.3 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 Repor 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 riPS City Council Public Hearing#1 (CC-PH) LICE 1D 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 1/PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Sightline INSTITUTE PARKING MANDATES ARE VANISHING ACROSS OREGON Six months into the pioneering state policy, regulatory costs are falling and projects are springing to life. Author:Catie Gould it 10 (yfgir,®n202fitat 2:34 pm lee datetg00123rate'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. fttOeldeldafiu®emmrs amgssue here,"said Anne Catlin,the comprehensive planning manager for Albany,Oregon.When Albany fitgaidinefitinditipetdletberildprithivOnneAldnottiegieuvemperfrom the public testi &itniially,geatkingnintmieiaf the most contentious issues for local governments.Any relaxation of parking mandates—rules that pr stidetpunkfrgerlsileg spaces for any new home or business—is a political hot potato.But new flfhartalaleearthat status quo o tdleleed whet dmortiilgms'e t: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." yyt 1 detduns could choose to either eliminate all parking mandates or enact a host of more complicated regulations if th g tpiannesptciaspametingtt#rues.The two other compliance paths include regulations ranging from pricing one in ten on-street parkin ;: •V;::II,:I.mittifticlemtptaiotibaktinglrlititing btne 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 parking requirements citywide i More things More things I s ffummary of policy options presented to the Salem Climate Action Plan Committee by city ste City of Salem. FavieW. rs d;'eid2sNravtoveteel to go with the simple but sweeping Option 1:Portland,Salem,Corvallis,Tigard,Bend,Albany, eaillising ir:a_+;aline liveeinstommunities 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 ftsErnclabeg ftIrpiiFiirqpiaritiesi iwasn't the dramatic leap it would have been a year ago.Last January,state rules lifted parking echditatrdhosefimpserttrtstittittdveldors and within three-quarters of a mile of rail stations.City-generated maps have reveal oeajbdityTtkicdsffra i(erc¢y fatties.In Corvallis,those transit-adjacent areas covered 65 percent of the city.For Gresham,53 per TdtfeoslimetytEflLvtiimlmiUtimdhairenhiFteof likely to be low-density residential neighborhoods,industrial land,or open space."Most our transportation corridor,"Catlin said."It was an easy decision." rr 22 0001 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 1 OF 6 Transit Corridor Parking Exemptions Map: Areas within One Half Mile Radius Around Albany Transit Routes i (1 1. ... ......_• ,... 6 ..1.1..r . ' h_ '-' 1. ter., • _ ,� . ."..,,,'It•*;-. \ ,,:'.-L.-- -- I% s IMMIR 1 0 • • • ! r fittifonusaillstitaipatimextistag alliang®e wantime.If transit service were downgraded,building owners filighimmlElszetyneeding 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. fiat tit service changes are already putting zoning maps in planned improvement to bus line 71 in Milwaukie this upcoming September would have iegtbasgsJ the}frpieiirohm b i e city without minimum parking requirements from 78 percent to 95 percent.Rather than keep adjusti eliminate parking mandates later this year. ftriblitilitlimffsingvas near transit,the state has also done away with parking mandates for a long list of uses for equity reason &ribllityliai boost OilubiectsflikeitieNrziodaan EadiNibsiatlkisad,iii ive more expansion plans scuttled over two parking spaces last year. STATE RULES REDUCE BARRIERS TO NEW BUSINESSES baitaftdikeradziElpthaiTedfkaitswellIzilAuritcbtfigb,evsbeoE parking minimums pose barriers to redevelopment. Bsipbtifiarai plreeag's state rules,they didn't have a lot of options for reforming those counterproductive codes without an arduo afritptboyaitylisonitrgwr restaurant in downtown Central Point,a small city outside Medford,that closed before the pandemic. bete .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 2/PAGE 2 OF 6 l,' �� +� eALemi a re,-I_ Y;7--::;aGF,.f.4 This empty 1964 building has a non-conforming parking lot,adding a barrier to re-use.Image by Loopnet. dgtw#1oq»midi kSesktfms tirispattisara#the current gravel lot wouldn't meet the city's requirements for a parking lot."Anyb ddt aiktercwidllbg atszkiiruhtittpay for the parking lot,have it striped,landscaped accordingly,and then provide the requir raliaslpgeirtretlfeoitiiKieS;"said Stephanie Holtey,planning director for the city of 20,000.'The improvements for those facilities TilithpdaiyitivvpqMprantarEeati as planning to amend the code to give downtown properties like this relief from parking minimums,but RigelabpohLtllde]toltuaisaeted a process to consider various possible code changes until 2024.But now,the mandates are simp filditifitypatiTiparelvvas@itpividt back in January.Tigard had already exempted some areas of the city,like downtown ::I dhThBgar chlhaaglertfiauteiparking requirements.But elsewhere,parking minimums have still regularly caused headaches for T ffrehtislyn§messesroamiIibbditplinegtevvtinsgemrsking lots are stuck at the same size as di 1{ h, •tea — a K Tigard Plaza.Photo by Catie Gould. tierityeijttrmsel t t e itiiirByQiisessed with arcade games since he was a kid,he 2114piUtclraihistapplloatgcforftblnecustomers to start asking if they served beer.They didn't.But demand was high enough that E state liquor license soon afterward. @oroiagbi11N4Aypaircirrift apxpitcation couldn't be approved because the new building use,now categorized as entertainment,require pbrbisgttlsadottre[fetenen ithiBil store that vacated the space two years prior.Meanwhile,Elting was watching potential revenue w ffiftethigarginrgilisevembuitserAmialsometimes take o Eltigtqtaintlkeatibtinalidemfraiether businesses in the strip were already allowed to serve alcohol,and there was a second par tftliFdtingth tennsvaYwargd®tstiot;dThii$ mtiety aitpatiteulthe change here." PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 3 OF 6 1'-,[ III Ili!,!1 M IC It6 F lip c i s 4 r F i 1 Jordan Elting at his business,Reset Button Arcade,in Tigard.Photo by Cabe Gould. ElltirtgsattpaptipAehtbibo Biatik sdemae elentairrendsifnansphiedkavviilurdiga tde'atpyckould sign o in December to eliminate its parking minimums citywide. tklneetteilk c6ktlfniglneow how I felt about it when I ratosdattielptakitagckbange in Tigard.But then the city jalgr>'fingt._.n anUe eefatllpsleEaell 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." TdaeEpilltittLEttirgavdhrficemygoo.Schuyler Warren,a senior planner for the city,estimated that no longer having to work through €tbqutt ltbdverufstheed+kifrrtimiey.sta LOCAL OPPOSITION REMAINS 6flf®layidtttdike Oregon's new rules,which the state called"Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities,"or CFEC for short. Ntsrpillalemra rhnamisblerdranges,"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! tharinitfmtm for supporting a sustainable Northwest. Donate Today STIs 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. tltartyqfiialnleiiitgaeforthatrtbleidtatewide relaxation of parking minimums is just one rule in a larger adopted package.Other mand cequiteifireertdlfoariaiaydfelpegaging minimums,electric car charging,and tree canopy coverage.That is in addition to designating tfttnag ntylnecigjeedtaun.:in itirtlaeibn planning.As a whole,the package has been criticized as overly prescriptive.This month, ?rldnillion in funding to assist cities with implementation costs—an unusually large sum,but far less than cities said they'd btatgortleftrthem partway,the state agency in charge,the Department of Land Conservation and Development,relaxed some rules t agenidAtv,rthfipostafk Ipitiaeeti its standard for the mandatory amount of tree shade over large parking lots:40 percent canopy cover A BOOST FOR MIDDLE HOUSING ilikTheiiditlitairOgieing spaces has been particularly helpful for projects that add more homes to existing lots.In Ashland,a fo titaibtletletmtwiding couple of parking spaces for other outdoor amenities.In 2022,the four two-bedroom homes would have requi tfriatfeertVe bmkskivinerte?ade¢t id4ro}diprDttVositgd g ritect Tom DeVore,"but there are trade-o Ortistbptrdioalte@uaa7eslkedprking 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 2/PAGE 4 OF 6 gYhtfmante reps iEltiarrgrepecbtlitrt Ashland renters would expect at least one parking spot for each household.Trimming their desi tie allowed them to add a play area for children,shared gardens,and a larger shared patio.They plan to break ground in July. Ceytlaar Lai her,1esntbes,rimrai;lettalpthuilder located in Eugene,called the state action a blessing."Thank god for CFEC,"he said. ffralr dt r temljame oe* 8apedtadeidnra aie glad 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. firtitinichalkihjiggiameigfErnEflOrtintatitiwTheftour new homes 6ifikiimtftorwbmht$115,000 apiece,with one of them being fully accessible.Referred to as"grow homes,"three of them wil f€te£atquarlaingiepo hers can add more living space later on.None of the homes will have a dedicated o z-...ileald'iniddttlyitbeArEg of projects Oregon hoped to create when it —from duplexes to cottage clusters—in 2019.But though the fa ingidgritypdseNfS8Osowrfehal,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. yeEtnIvillteithp3Iymatesbatizladellt taf 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. It11064 _ V ! II- 1 � . . •, ...._ , ... . _ -________________.._ ._ _. Gokutan eet Grow Homes will add these four new homes to an existing backyard.Image by fiespitertbeciling&tigirbgrigtytagausetirerfamatitjirsItionds over the lack of parking. 6@® ulesrinave 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 . , �rwr rNra *� .. . ;,: ti,..: • r " .�• tit II I t "Ito r I . ii _ I ll , _ _ ,.... Pt: f y— � Four Ways to Improve Portland's Housing fieregon's Land Use Law Creates Wild From Vermont to Oklahoma,Legislatures ffrdability Mandate Adapted Communities Challenge Parking Mandates August 1,2023 July25,2023 July20,2023 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 5 OF 6 ,. '', — 14k y aia r 1 ti . Boise Poised for First Step Towards More Getting Beyond the Detached House in ff6iatiierhtp,&sing Vancouver,BC June 9,2023 June 7,2023 e341titliveecrayitytop headlines F f. Tess nia edie anc it t.rdview te,anests,please contact Serena Larkin °Fri�ay,curates by tree news editors of ssigfitline Institute. Sightline Institute is a 507(c03 non-prof t organization and does not support,endorse,or oppose any candidate or political party. See our picks here Klakeaa ow tiass farfsigidbnsoreatminable solutions. Tagged in:CFECclimate-friendly and equitable communities literidhlgusinesses ©2023 Sightline Institute.All Rights Reserved. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 6 OF 6 ATTACHMENT 3 January 20, 2023 Scot Siegel, Community Development Director City of Lake Oswego .w�►� 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 3/PAGE 1 OF 3 Sincerely, 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 3/PAGE 2 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 3/PAGE 3 OF 3 1 0 1 City of Lake Oswego ' ,� (1 Properties a Half Mile*from Bus Lines 35 n *Half mile is straight out from bus route. IiiLake Oswego City Limits N II %44 ,t USB Boundary Rte.35 r � ` a 0 0.25 0.5 10/6/2022 i� � ��iW� �� j Mile .1,1111114, ft' ii ) Alle 14-1 4 AP,' 1,„,mrmmie air., AiellailiF ihno _olti 41t ] ig ebb MI ile/ie itzx Ir.Lett. az:ta2. '- I — 2*1 NI VIZ 6717S i Ill - %gin i a 4,... r.,... a Fogg i I 8 :!t:re:....:: ....Ia.: ..._, cn • III 1 . lir, _...r iswiirio*Id - , r DPOr4Eardill (... ---- _ i . rk_t_Maximen 4 efflialt.flOrr--1 --TI‘'- ' v , I __I — ri ri 14 u •-*-01--!7,„,,2411:-tv.av A r t 0 i e.e i I ir 4 u,\ •- `',____`__ TAS6 PrV SE• k Grove Blvd II ; i -I As, it:f4p1011„ •um/ 1 1►r:■ q•,��I�' 1�i\i� inii-.fj i�u =nu � I— — ��IIIIIIbAIE ��} I._ AY .0.10,11( IJ� titipli.„ vir Alligovf\ ___- _11141 ! 11‘ ■nn Ails�lu n■■■ulr \rr"\0. b\;'A IQ ❑;■Q ■®11■p■., m 1..1■.■■®ter �/G ,e'.- 'F1115ii. r piii"l1'':1 Wr.onE_ul__.m_m_._%g ss 1 1111 r■w' 1111 1■■..L■ ■■ Lp �� nn■n■■1■.■■ ■ . / s .11■■■ ■1.■■1111■u1 1 .1■i■■ql■■■■! , n�.iniii'!..I mo f��,,.t�tr�"1- \•.N. P : :I:y a _ ,omill dips alp' I. - Illrtt,#Sv • V MEM Wm.::ii Eli si I r.— M i--allitiI-f . W' •.,..,. V II wW)-.-.of' t'i*,r0-4/4 \•% \ - Iskt joitik\\ �'� � / • � faS Ber9•c. _�� , � 510 `r�P • 4 L-7111-7--/--w \...tit ,.. 4,*• ar-r „, ,._. ...I, _,.._\,1.,44, --..„ _1(di gig ilk. z. , _AL.. viia,,,. ,,„, Itn, ''' im re „Amok'g!,4 II __. ..41111/1111\A 4 41$14 ' ,..--frk fro ,)i. 00 kiiiiAlit f -5A------. \ %. IWO*''- ‘ PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 4/PAGE 1 OF 1 ,�` ( , / \ 4a\r� \ \ \ ATTACHMENT 5 Parking Supply, Car Ownership, (44 and Driving Rates OREGON Department of The evidence from five studies Land Conservation &Development lopment 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. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 5/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 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 5/PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 6 More Housing, More Business, Lower Costs, and Parking Still Supplied: Nor What Happens When Parking Mandates are Reduced OREGON of New Oregon standards reduce how much parkingcan be mandated bylocal governments in Departmentd b' 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 1 OF 5 More Housing, More Business, Lower Costs, and Parking Still Supplied Nor 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 2 OF 5 Los Angeles, California Net New Housing Units 19,000 Los Angeles removed downtown parking mandates in 1999, as part 9000 of its Adoptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO). In the previous 30 years, 8'000 7,DDD downtown Los Angeles added about 4,300 housing units. In the decade following the ordinance, over 9,200 housing units were boon unm s,00D added, about 70%of which relied on provisions in the ARO. One ,OC° analyst argues, "the ARO created more housing in less than ten 30D0 years than had been created in the previous thirty."The ARO also 2,0D0 provided alternative regulations on fire and earthquake standards, 1,000 . and allowed changes of use without variances. Because some of the D 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2D00-201C 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, Less parking was built; and different amounts of parking provided among developments. Meanwhile, condo 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 6/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 21st 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 6/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 1/4 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 6/PAGE 5 OF 5 ATTACHMENT 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. n .11111111 o o� 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 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 'A-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 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 Siegel 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 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 Sub tasks: 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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/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 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 7/PAGE 11 OF 11 ATTACHMENT 8 (44 Climate-Friendly and OREGON Department of Equitable Communities Land Conservation & 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 °% Oregon's climate pollution by 75%by 2050.That's what the 1920 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 ti " �ITnnd.,Pl.na,Inwnmnt.) --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 -20% climate disruption,with increasing wildfires, in size, severity, L° 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 climate4.? ' 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 '740 1r t 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. y1 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-Reiter 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[iogue 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 8/PAGE 1 OF 6 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 equity,starting with the rulemaking charge and title. Equity x ` was key as DLCD attempted to have the composition of the 4 'rl, advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon's �fOm, communities, and equity was one of the first tasks tackled by .4 r hoc rll. the group. '�� ,� v..a The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at NI �"',, �?' J� ''00 414414 'manyof its meetings discussingequity, and developed an Equitable Outcomes Statement to guide the rulemaking �''-t � ®��4 rt , - drafting and implementation.The rulemaking conducted a �� racial equity analysis of the rules and an analysis on how the Wirv.. kt"' _ rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities.The ,��4� committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item E ' 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 8/PAGE 2 OF 6 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 drive.They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are = / planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing,jobs, • businesses, and services.These areas are served, or planned to be served,by high quality pedestrian,bicycle, and transit infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient M ,`,; `� - _ ' connections to key destinations within the city and region. '77 • ` yr 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 10o 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 10,00o will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop strategies to facilitate desired development. Reforming Costly Parking Mandates I .. - ! _ �_ . • Excess parking has a significant negative impact on •' it i T r *,__. " housing costs,business costs,the feasibility of housing ,_ I L. p. ..1 ,1 4 development and business redevelopment,walkability, y -, 1 p ;"° !bat 1211 ofr I fr'; air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general a ' • IA r+ i "a i `Hr , F • ` community character. Parking mandates force people , ' s 11 U11 Ir ® g 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 8/PAGE 3 OF 6 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 100,000 population that choose to continue to mandate off-street parking to eventually charge at least 50 cents per day for 10% 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. �` Oregon has a vision where 90%of new vehicles will be electric by 2035.To 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 greenhouse gas reduction goals,including grants,technical assistance,tools, and publications,to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the state's climate pollution reduction goals. l ' Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use i. and transportation plans for decades.The updated rules would require local 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 8/PAGE 4 OF 6 Planning to Meet Our Climate Goals DLCD's regional greenhouse gas reduction program allows areas to work al together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues.The flexible Mod ListsProJeG' 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 ffir44 ;i tiP#We've heard from lots of Oregonians over the past , eighteen months.We've heard from a 4o-person advisory 2 . committee including representatives from all of Oregon's , impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home firc ` . builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking industry, affordable housing advocates,land use f ,,,�advocates, community-based and other community- �. �` serving organizations. S EPuuJpr p :,.�hibn I WIN To supplement those deliberations, staff held two 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 8/PAGE 5 OF 6 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 30, 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.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner cody.meyer@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-239-9475 Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov 503-602-0238 July 2022 PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 8/PAGE 6 OF 6 ATTACHMENT 9 Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities 0 Implementation Guide Nur 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 8— 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 1 OF 12 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 2 OF 12 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) gm 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 1 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 3 OF 12 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 UGB expansions Bend Parking A EV Conduit HNA Performance after June 2027 TSP Parking B Transportation Standards and with HNA/ TPR Dev. Regs. Modeling 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 TPR Dev. Regs. / Eugene Parking A EV Conduit Transportation Performance Eugene 2026 HNA Springfield Additional CFA for Parking B Modeling Standards UGB expansions after June 2027 Lane County3 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 4 OF 12 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 Corvallis Area TPR major report TPR minor report (5/31) (major in TPR minor report (5/31) (5/31) 2028) (5/31) EV Conduit Transportation Performance Adair Village Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Corvallis 2027 CFA Study CFA Codes MZE 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 TPR minor report TPR major report TPR minor report TPR major report Middle Rogue (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Gold Hill EV Conduit Transportation Performance Rogue River Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Parking A CFA Study CFA Codes Performance Additional CFA for TSP Grants Pass EV Conduit Transportation UGB expansions HNA 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 5 OF 12 Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 Rogue Valley TPR minor report TPR minor report TPR major report (5/31) (5/31) (5/31) Central Pt 2027 Ashland CFA Study Central Point Ashland 2029 EV Conduit Performance TSP Eagle Point Parking A Transportation Medford Parkin Modeling Standards Additional CFA for TPR Dev. Regs. 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 6 OF 12 Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660-012-0012(3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2028 2029 Scenario Plan (6/30) Scenario Plan code amendments and TPR minor report Scenario Plan work TPR minor report Salem/Keizer program (6/30) TPR major report TSP (6/25) (5/31) (major in (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 HNA TPR Dev. Regs. UGB expansions Keizer Performance Parking' 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 Turner Parking A EV Conduit Transportation TPR Dev. Regs. Parking B Modeling Performance Standards PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 7 OF 12 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 Portland Metro TPR major report TPR minor report (5/31) (major in TPR minor report (5/31) (5/31) 2028) (5/31) 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 GroveEn 2026: Sherwood, Lake Oswego, Transportation Troutdale,Tualatin; Parking A Happy Valley, Performance Milwaukee, Oregon Modeling 2027: Gladstone, Cit , Portland, Hillsboro Lake Standards ,Tigard, y Oswego, Milwaukie, Cornelius Sherwood,Tigard, Oregon City Portland, West Linn, Troutdale,Tualatin, Wilsonville pm West Linn, Wilsonville (10k+) Clackamas County, Transportation Performance Washington County Parking A Parking B Modeling Standards Multnomah County4 4 Cities within Multnomah Co. have land use authority for unincorporated areas within UGB. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 8 OF 12 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 or 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 9 OF 12 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 50¢/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 %z 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 10 OF 12 Climate-Friendly Areas CFA Study CFA Codes OAR 660-012-0315 Due December 31,2023 per OAR 660-012-0320 via OAR 660-012-0315(6) OAR 660-012-0012(5)(b) Due Date December 31, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(c) • 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 11 OF 12 • 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 ATTACHMENT 9/PAGE 12 OF 12 OF' O Office of the Governor ' State of Oregon `o' \/8 59 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 10/PAGE 1 OF 14 OF O Office of theGovernor State of Oregon '_' 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 10/PAGE 2 OF 14 Office of the Governor State of Oregon ° Z �,859 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 10/PAGE 3 OF 14 Office of the Governor F` oq State of Oregon =J \•.,859,/ 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 10/PAGE 4 OF 14 OF O Office of the Governor Q • State of Oregon f85% 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 10/PAGE 5 OF 14 O F O, Office of the Governor State of Oregon \ /859..; 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 10/PAGE 6 OF 14 Office of the Governor :°F 0R� a O State of Oregon �N ,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 10/PAGE 7 OF 14 OF Office of the Governor � o State of Oregon :'Z /859/ 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 10/PAGE 8 OF 14 , Office of the Governor 0F State of Oregon i859� 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 10/PAGE 9 OF 14 Office of the Governor State of Oregon 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 10/PAGE 10 OF 14 OF Office of the GovernoI. r State of Oregon ,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 QualitL Commission and Oregon Department of Energy. PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 11 OF 14 OF O,. Office of the Governor State of Oregon ,859 Z, 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 10/PAGE 12 OF 14 OF O\ Office of the Governor State of Oregon 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 10/PAGE 13 OF 14 .F Office of the Governor A .AAA State of Oregon " : : Z =5g 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& day of March, 2020. logs NI"! A/ Kate Brown GOVERNOR Alit / 1 4% ATTEST: *sue ^' � (Ga `' = _ , VJ gg * � Fa \x* 7 f ,�*/ `j,y - ei 42x_ait.6_.) 859 Bev Clarn SECRETARY OF STATE PP 22-0001 ATTACHMENT 10/PAGE 14 OF 14