Council keeps to Option 1 on state CFEC parking rules, staff to remove citywide minimums and refine lot‑design standards

Wilsonville planners briefed the City Council on proposed development code amendments to comply with Oregon’s Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) parking rules and the council reconfirmed support for removing most parking minimums under the city’s preferred compliance path (Option 1).

Daniel Polly, planning manager, and consultant Brian Davis summarized the CFEC background and the two broad compliance approaches presented to council: Parking A (already in effect for transit proximity areas) and Parking B (required in some cases outside transit proximity with multiple compliance options). Polly said local feedback during previous hearings and an open house favored Option 1 — eliminating minimums and letting market demand determine parking supply in most areas — and that staff’s recommended direction remains to pursue Option 1.

Under Option 2 (a menu approach), staff briefed council on possible requirements the city could adopt in non‑transit‑proximate areas if it retained minimums: unbundled residential or commercial parking (leasing or selling parking separately from units), a state‑defined flexible commute benefit for employers with 50+ employees (the state sets a $50 minimum reimbursement or equivalent), reduced per‑unit parking maximums (for example, 0.5 space per unit), and a tax on commercial parking revenue. Polly cautioned that some menu items (for example unbundling) would impose substantial administrative work and enforcement requirements.

Council discussion highlighted a tension between preserving local flexibility and meeting the state rules. One councilor said Option 1 is “the least offensive” of the options because it preserves market signals; another warned Option 2 could effectively require more parking than Option 1. Polly and Davis said that because much of Wilsonville is already within transit proximity or built out, eliminating minimums would probably have modest effects on built form and that underwriters and market demand will often determine whether developers provide parking.

Polly also addressed multiple development code changes with single and multiple compliance paths. Single‑path changes include updating EV‑ready infrastructure requirements, lowering some parking maximums where the rules prescribe them, and updating bicycle parking requirements. For middle‑sized parking areas — roughly between 40 and 200 spaces — staff presented two choices: (a) apply the existing enhanced large‑lot standards (currently triggered at >200 spaces) down to >40 spaces, or (b) adopt a three‑tier approach that keeps the city’s existing low‑tier standards for small lots (<40), applies a limited enhanced standard to the middle tier (40–200), and preserves the full enhanced standards for the largest lots (>200). Planning Commission recommended the three‑tier approach to avoid imposing large‑lot landscaping and drive‑aisle standards on modestly sized parking areas.

The CFEC rules require tree canopy minimums for parking; the rules allow a solar array option as a partial substitute. The Planning Commission recommended allowing developers to meet a 30% tree canopy requirement plus an on‑site solar alternative that covers the remaining prescribed climate benefit rather than a strict 40% tree canopy mandate. Councilors agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation to allow the tree+solar flexibility; staff said they can add specificity if council wants (for example whether on‑site solar must offset lot lighting or can be net‑metered to the grid).

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Councilors directed staff to proceed with code amendments consistent with Option 1 (eliminating most parking minimums) and to return with language that: (1) implements a three‑tier parking lot standard; (2) preserves edge screening and parking‑lot landscaping while avoiding excessive new land requirements in the middle tier; and (3) allows the Planning Commission’s recommended tree canopy plus solar option with added clarity on how solar counts will be measured.

Ending

Staff will draft development code amendments consistent with council guidance and return to the Planning Commission and council for public hearings and formal adoption.