Commission directs staff to refine parking alternatives for McLaughlin Promenade; no immediate ban enacted

The Oregon City Commission on Sept. 3 directed staff to return with refined parking alternatives for residents near McLaughlin Promenade and paused on a blanket prohibition of parking on promenade property.

The commission revisited a months‑long review of private encroachments, parking patterns and potential park designation for McLaughlin Promenade. Staff provided an updated property list and schematic maps showing where on‑street parking could be added or reconfigured along adjacent streets (Third, Fourth and First streets) to offer alternatives if promenade parking were restricted.

A motion to prohibit any parking on Promenade property was introduced and seconded earlier in the meeting but failed on a roll‑call vote (the motion did not receive the required majority). Commissioners then discussed a compromise path: staff should study alternatives that would maximize legal on‑street spaces near the promenade (including examining head‑in parking, angled configurations, and use of existing residential parking permit areas) and return to the commission with specific, engineered options.

Russ (full name not given in the record), a neighborhood speaker, urged consistency and historical review of prior commission policy records, noting a 1990 policy that had addressed permissive use of the promenade for vehicular access. He said earlier practice and community stewardship supported careful, consistent decision‑making about parking near the park.

Commissioners debated whether portions of the existing paved promenade roadway should be reconfigured or removed to create continuous park space, whether the paved areas function as a city street, and how first‑responder access, addresses and servicing needs would be affected if the roadway were altered. Commissioner Smith proposed a long‑term idea to tighten the road alignment so frontages become consistent across the block; some commissioners said realigning the roadway would be a long, potentially expensive multiyear effort and preferred interim options.

The commission approved a motion directing staff to develop parking alternatives for nearby public rights‑of‑way (Third, Fourth and First streets) and to maximize on‑street capacity where feasible. Staff were also given latitude to propose creative solutions that deviate modestly from current standards if that increases usable spaces. After staff returns with engineered options, the commission said it would consider a definitive decision about parking on the promenade property, including whether to adopt a no‑parking rule paired with alternative parking capacity.

The commission also discussed turning portions of the promenade roadway into pedestrian dead‑ends and removing asphalt to restore parkland in specific segments; staff were asked to evaluate first‑responder access and feasibility. The motion to direct staff passed unanimously on roll call.