OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Cornelius City Council Work Session and Regular Meeting - August 4, 2025

City Council — Monday, August 4, 2025
BodyCornelius, Oregon
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, August 4, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:06

The City Council.

0:08

This is our work session.

0:09

This is Monday, August 4th, 2025.

0:12

We're in the council chambers.

0:13

We're also on the Zoom webinar, TV C T V live stream.

0:18

And we also have available the wordly live translation.

0:22

Those things are all on the agenda.

0:24

You can find them there.

0:25

And tonight's work session is parking management for climate-friendly and equitable communities compliance.

0:31

And it's presented to us by Barbara Fryer, community development director.

0:35

Barbara, you've got the floor.

0:36

Good evening.

0:37

So thank you.

0:39

So you folks remanded the ordinance back to planning commission.

0:47

So we had a workshop with planning commission, another work session.

0:52

And they are insistent that the option that they recommended is the best option.

1:02

So I'm going to go through this one more time.

1:06

So compliance for all options are identified here.

1:11

So parking area design reforms.

1:13

So requiring a certain amount of coverage for shading or solar, having carpool spaces if the business has certain number of employees, EV parking requirements for developments with five or more multifamily developments, bike parking, and eliminating parking minimums within one half mile of a dare and baseline, which is the blue area.

1:48

So it doesn't matter what color blue, but it's all the blue, it's just the GIS exercise.

1:53

So that's no matter which option we choose.

1:58

So the option that PC recommended twice is option one, and that would be no parking minimums anywhere in the city.

2:10

Anytime we annex, it would apply there as well.

2:24

And I know the color might not work for you, but this is kind of a summary of everything.

2:32

So the gold that's along the top is common to every option.

2:44

And then the whitish color is unique to each of the two and three options.

2:50

So we'll go through that.

2:55

So climate-friendly areas are the town center.

2:59

Okay.

3:01

If we eliminate parking minimums throughout the city, which is option option one, we don't have to do additional parking requirements in our town center.

3:12

Options two and three, we would need to do that blue box on the two exhibits, which would require no parking minimums in this blue area, which is one quarter mile from the town center, which is our adopted climate-friendly area.

3:33

Um we would have to manage parking by one of the following: either adopting a parking benefit district, where we would have paid on-street parking, and some revenues would be dedicated to public improvements in the area.

3:50

So you would take out the admin costs, and then whatever is left, you would then reinvest in the area.

3:58

Or adopting land use amendments to require no more than one half off-street parking space per dwelling unit in the area.

4:10

And the third option is no parking minimums for commercial development.

4:21

But most of that would be taken care of if we just eliminated parking minimums throughout the city.

4:27

So that's why option one is preferred by planning commission because it's easier to administer.

4:34

So then if we go to option two, the fair parking policy as DLCD calls it.

4:43

So we just talked about those.

5:00

So a subdivision is not the same.

5:03

If it's one lot and it's a condominium, or it is a multifamily development or a mixed use development, then we would have to apply this.

5:16

So and it applies retroactively.

5:20

So Plaza Los Amigos, when they lease a new space, a new residential unit, we would have to come up with a mechanism to have them report to us the rent structure for the unit and the rent structure for the parking space, and they'd have to sell it separately.

5:40

Every multifamily development that has five or more units, it would apply to.

5:54

So either unbundling commercial parking.

5:59

So Walmart, they couldn't have free parking for their employees or customers.

6:07

So just think of how complicated that would be.

10:00

So we could designate one residential parking district or a parking benefit district where on-street parking is managed through paid permits, meters, or other payment systems, or require again all multifamily residential units be unbundled, the parking be unbundled.

10:13

So in addition to all of this, options two and three also has to remove requirements for garages and carports throughout the city, allow garage parking spaces if they're provided to count as any required parking, allow shared parking to meet minimums.

10:37

We already do that one, allow required parking within 2,000 feet of a site, and ADA parking can be designated within 200 feet, and then allow cumulative parking reductions.

10:54

So if you provide three kilowatt hours of solar or wind, that will reduce your parking requirement by one space.

11:08

And then if you provide mobility accessible spaces, so wheelchair accessible spaces in your development, you could reduce it for one space for every two units.

11:26

So somebody could do three or four different things and really reduce the minimum.

11:47

So what that means is if somebody builds an ADU, if somebody does a middle housing but doesn't divide it, they just do a duplex or a quad or they have their own home, and then they build two or three other homes on that site.

12:08

And then no parking minimums would be allowed for the uses that are listed there.

12:13

So residential care facilities, group homes, training homes, conversion facilities, residential treatment homes, daycare facilities, single room occupancy or residential units smaller than 750 square feet, affordable housing.

12:33

We wouldn't be able to require any parking.

12:36

That's not to say they won't provide it, but we couldn't require it for affordable housing or publicly supported housing, and emergency and transitional shelters and domestic violence shelters, we wouldn't be able to require minimum parking.

12:53

So that's for options two and three.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Safety███████████████████19%
Urban Planning███████████████15%
Parking Management████████████12%
Transportation Safety██████████10%
Land Use██████████10%
Public Engagement█████████9%
Procedural█████████9%
Library Services█████5%
Immigration Enforcement Support████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Cornelius City Council Work Session and Regular Meeting - August 4, 2025

The meeting began with a work session on parking management for climate-friendly and equitable communities compliance, followed by a regular council meeting that included public comments, presentations on public safety and library levies, and a land use decision. The council discussed three options for complying with state mandates, leaning toward option 1 (eliminating parking minimums citywide) but requesting further analysis and community input.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the consent agenda (motion by Councilor Godines, second by Councilor Colgan, unanimous).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Aaron Nolley (Laurel Woods resident) presented a petition signed by dozens of residents requesting pedestrian safety improvements: painted crosswalks, marked parking at parks, yellow no-parking zones, flashing crosswalk signs, and tree trimming at specific intersections (Ginger & 26th, Heather & 26th, Jasper & 24th, Jasper & 26th roundabout). He noted that overgrown trees block driver views and that near misses have occurred. Council thanked him and said staff would review the requests, but noted that uniform application across the city must be considered.
  • Ken Welch (resident on S 26th Ave for 20 years) criticized the city for four years of delays in addressing traffic safety on S 26th, citing four hit vehicles (one pinning him in his truck), persistent speeding, and a stop sign at Dogwood being ignored. He referenced emails from staff promising improvements and said the city told residents to "suck it up" because the street is a collector. He demanded speed bumps, crosswalks, or opening alternative exits. Council acknowledged the issue and noted that the street was planned for high traffic, but that driver behavior needs improvement.

Discussion Items

  • Parking Management Compliance Work Session (presented by Community Development Director Barbara Fryer):
    • All three options require common design reforms: parking area shading/solar, carpool spaces, EV capacity for 5+ unit multifamily, bike parking, and elimination of parking minimums within 1/2 mile of a frequent bus route (blue area on map).
    • Option 1 (recommended by Planning Commission): Eliminate parking minimums citywide, applicable to future annexations. No additional town center requirements.
    • Option 2 (Fair Parking Policy): Requires unbundling parking from rent, paid parking districts, or residential parking permits. Complex retroactive requirements for multifamily (5+ units) and commercial parking (e.g., Walmart).
    • Option 3 (Regulatory Reform): Requires at least one pricing mechanism (residential parking district or parking benefit district). Maximum parking limits: no more than 0.5 off-street spaces per dwelling unit in climate-friendly area, and no parking minimums for affordable housing, shelters, ADUs, etc.
    • Costs for parking districts: meters $500-$1,000 per stall install, $150-$200 annual; payment systems (QR code) startup $100,000 + $10,000/month; enforcement $30-$60/hour plus equipment ($1,000 handheld to $65,000 vehicle-mounted).
    • Councilors expressed frustration that the state mandate is punitive for small cities like Cornelius, where the 1/2-mile buffer covers most of the city. Councilor Godines, Councilor Colgan, and Mayor Delane leaned toward Option 1 to avoid costly enforcement, but requested more detailed scenarios and a joint work session with Planning Commission. Council also discussed a possible town hall to educate the public.
    • Staff noted the city is currently operating under Option 1 de facto, but no formal adoption has occurred.
  • Washington County Sheriff's Office Update and Public Safety Local Option Levy (presented by Undersheriff Cook):
    • Jail staffing nearing full capacity; facility upgrades ongoing; 572 beds with three pods closed; partnering with Yamhill County and using community correction center (60-100 beds).
    • Highlighted countywide teams: Community Violence Reduction Team (45 search warrants, 100+ firearms seized), Search and Rescue (48 missions in 2024, volunteers aged 14-20), and Drone Team (500+ missions in 2024).
    • Public Safety Levy (Measure 34-345) on November ballot: 66 cents per $1,000 assessed value (average $19/month, $6 increase from expiring levy). Funds sheriff's patrol, jail, district attorney, community corrections, juvenile, mental health response, and drug enforcement (seized 1.3 million fentanyl pills in 3 years). If not passed, services would be reduced.
    • Councilor Godines raised concerns about ICE collaboration: Undersheriff confirmed the sheriff's office does not enforce immigration laws and maintains a sanctuary policy. They encourage reporting suspicious activity to non-emergency dispatch.
  • Washington County Cooperative Libraries Local Option Levy (presented by Assistant County Administrator Marnie Kyle):
    • Measure 34-345: replaces expiring 22-cent levy with 37 cents per $1,000 assessed value (average $129/year, $10.75/month; $54/year increase). Funds 16 libraries, digital collection, courier service (2.5 million items delivered), 2.4 million visits, 7.2 million checkouts in FY23-24. If not passed, reduced hours, fewer books, and reduced services.
    • Council encouraged public to vote and support the levy.

Key Outcomes

  • Ordinance 2025-06 (North 10th Avenue Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change): Approved unanimously. Applies city R7 zoning to three annexed properties (within city limits and UGB) and retains county AF5 zoning outside UGB. Includes a trip cap of 12 trips per property, as recommended by ODOT.
  • Appointment of Daniel Rodriguez to the Public Infrastructure Advisory Board (Position 8, term through December 2027): Approved unanimously.
  • Future actions on parking: Council directed staff to prepare detailed scenarios (e.g., Grande redevelopment, east development) and schedule a joint work session with Planning Commission, followed by a public town hall. No formal vote on options was taken.

Meeting Transcript

The City Council. This is our work session. This is Monday, August 4th, 2025. We're in the council chambers. We're also on the Zoom webinar, TV C T V live stream. And we also have available the wordly live translation. Those things are all on the agenda. You can find them there. And tonight's work session is parking management for climate-friendly and equitable communities compliance. And it's presented to us by Barbara Fryer, community development director. Barbara, you've got the floor. Good evening. So thank you. So you folks remanded the ordinance back to planning commission. So we had a workshop with planning commission, another work session. And they are insistent that the option that they recommended is the best option. So I'm going to go through this one more time. So compliance for all options are identified here. So parking area design reforms. So requiring a certain amount of coverage for shading or solar, having carpool spaces if the business has certain number of employees, EV parking requirements for developments with five or more multifamily developments, bike parking, and eliminating parking minimums within one half mile of a dare and baseline, which is the blue area. So it doesn't matter what color blue, but it's all the blue, it's just the GIS exercise. So that's no matter which option we choose. So the option that PC recommended twice is option one, and that would be no parking minimums anywhere in the city. Anytime we annex, it would apply there as well. And I know the color might not work for you, but this is kind of a summary of everything. So the gold that's along the top is common to every option. And then the whitish color is unique to each of the two and three options. So we'll go through that. So climate-friendly areas are the town center. Okay. If we eliminate parking minimums throughout the city, which is option option one, we don't have to do additional parking requirements in our town center. Options two and three, we would need to do that blue box on the two exhibits, which would require no parking minimums in this blue area, which is one quarter mile from the town center, which is our adopted climate-friendly area. Um we would have to manage parking by one of the following: either adopting a parking benefit district, where we would have paid on-street parking, and some revenues would be dedicated to public improvements in the area. So you would take out the admin costs, and then whatever is left, you would then reinvest in the area. Or adopting land use amendments to require no more than one half off-street parking space per dwelling unit in the area. And the third option is no parking minimums for commercial development. But most of that would be taken care of if we just eliminated parking minimums throughout the city. So that's why option one is preferred by planning commission because it's easier to administer. So then if we go to option two, the fair parking policy as DLCD calls it. So we just talked about those. So a subdivision is not the same. If it's one lot and it's a condominium, or it is a multifamily development or a mixed use development, then we would have to apply this. So and it applies retroactively. So Plaza Los Amigos, when they lease a new space, a new residential unit, we would have to come up with a mechanism to have them report to us the rent structure for the unit and the rent structure for the parking space, and they'd have to sell it separately. Every multifamily development that has five or more units, it would apply to. So either unbundling commercial parking. So Walmart, they couldn't have free parking for their employees or customers. So just think of how complicated that would be. So we could designate one residential parking district or a parking benefit district where on-street parking is managed through paid permits, meters, or other payment systems, or require again all multifamily residential units be unbundled, the parking be unbundled. So in addition to all of this, options two and three also has to remove requirements for garages and carports throughout the city, allow garage parking spaces if they're provided to count as any required parking, allow shared parking to meet minimums.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com