All right, it's 6 30, so good evening.

I want to call this uh Tiger City Council workshop meeting to order.

Um before we begin today's workshop, I just want to provide a really brief update.

Um council members and city staff have continue to meet with members of our community, including business groups and faith leaders who have shared ongoing anxiety related to recent federal enforcement activity across the country and here locally.

I just want to be clear that at least to me personally, the safety of our community members remain a top priority, and that includes the safety of our police officers as well as uh city staff.

The city remains attentive to concerns that have already been raised.

Our staff and the police tiger police department will continue to monitor the situation and coordinate as appropriate within our authority.

As always, we are open to conversation.

Community members are welcome to reach out to the council or the city if that if they have any questions or concerns.

Uh with that, I will turn us uh to today's uh workshop agenda.

Uh city uh recorder Craig, uh, would you please conduct a roll call youth councillor Helleck?

Here Mayor Who?

Here, Councillor Robbins here, Councillor Schlack.

Here.

Councillor Shaw.

Here, Council President Wolf.

Here.

Councillor Anderson.

Here.

Councillor Godusi.

Present.

All right.

Please everybody stand and uh join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

United States of America.

In T Republic, for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everybody.

Uh council and city staff.

Do you have any non-agenda items?

None from us, Mayor.

Uh seeing none, let's move on to public comments.

Um, public comments is not dialogue.

Um either I or staff will follow up to address the issues brought forward in this comments.

The calling number is 503 966 4101.

And those wishing to comment should call now to get into the queue.

Anyone present wanting to comment should sign up on the public comment form at the front of the room.

Uh first, uh, written public comment.

We receive no written public comment by noon today.

So let's move on to in-person um public comment.

Uh so those who sign up, um uh when I call your name, please come forward to the microphone.

Uh, you will have two minutes to speak.

Um so I the first person that I will invite to um speak is Gabriel Velasquez.

Good evening, Gabe.

Please state your name and where you live, and you will have two minutes after that.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor Who, Council President Wolf and Tiger City Council.

For the record, my name is Gabriel Olijio Velasquez, and I'm the chair of the Tiger Town Town Center Price Commission.

However, I'm here on a uh personal uh mission.

Uh I want to start off tonight uh with this.

You have done a wonderful job with River Terrace 2.0.

The emphasis on parks, walkability, commercial development, and housing is commendable, and it shows a kind of thoughtful deliberation that's gone into this project.

Tonight, when you're presented with three options for housing density, I hope you continue with the same thoughtful deliberate deliberation and move forward with the densest of the three options.

We have been talking for a while about the need for increased uh access and affordability here in Tigered for many Native residents like myself.

We want to remain in Tiger and build our adult lives here.

I am recently uh engaged and want to buy house for my family, but I want to do that here in the city.

I've called I've called the city home for my entire life.

Denser housing not only increases the sheer number of homes of the market, which would help with accessibility and affordability, but also priced much more reasonably.

A new homeowner cannot afford an $800,000 home.

We can break into the housing market with affordable priced hybrid housing.

I've watched with excitement as River Terrace 2.0 gets closer to fruition.

And I would like more people to see the care you have all put into this project.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Gabe.

And next person is Mark Farr.

Hi, Mark.

Mayor Mark Fair Metropolitan Land Group by actually live over.

It's green.

All right, let's start that again.

Yeah.

Mayor, uh, members of the city council, Mark Farrow with Metropolitan Land Group.

Um Metropolitan Land Group is a property owner in River Terrace 2.0, and that's the reason that we're here today.

You've got some interesting policy discussions, policy considerations that staff is gonna um tee up for you.

You've got a tough job trying to balance the needs of the future residents, the current residents, as well as what staff has brought forward to try to push you in a certain in a certain direction.

And staff uh we recognize is trying to also do the same, trying to bring you a product that represents what you have asked or prior councils have asked for in the plan.

Unfortunately, we think that potentially there's still some work to do with this plan, and we'd love to see that.

We'd love to see as staff rolls through the different policy areas that you consider not just the negative impacts, which are pointed out very plainly, but the positive impacts that not going with some of these specific recommendations could have.

The staff has been great at pointing out the negatives, but we think that there's some positives potentially to not choosing a certain a certain path and maybe considering some of the alternate paths that are directed in there.

We recognize that when staff went out to the community, they it was essentially like being at a all you can eat buffet where it was like, do you want the steak?

Do you want the shrimp?

Do you want the lobster?

And of course, everyone said yes to everything.

Now, unfortunately, we are left feeling like we were just at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

We feel bloated, and this plan is a bit bloated, and we ask that you look at each of the policy areas and push back and say, what are the positives of not doing the gold standard and getting everything we want and maybe coming down uh to a di to a different level?

So I'll see my time's up.

I'll stop there.

Happy to obviously answer any questions and dialogue in the future about this.

But we just ask that maybe you push back on staff uh as they go through the policies.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Anyone else now sign up?

All right, seeing none, let's go on to the phone of video testimony.

Mr.

Walter, are there any callers in the queue for phone or video testimony?

I believe we have one caller in the queue.

All right, would you please uh pass that person in the house?

Okay.

Hi there.

This is Vigas.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Uh so please state your name and where you live.

And after that, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Sure.

My name is Lady Get Mutler, and I live uh in River Terrace 1.0.

Um, and I I will take uh just a minute or so of time here because I am actually at my elementary school friends uh family dance event.

So it's a little crazy.

Um but I wanted to call in.

Um I served on the uh River Terrace 2.0 Community Advisory Committee brought here, um, and I'm a resident at the end of River Terrace 1.0.

Um, and I am very excited about the future of the neighborhood.

Um, I know there are challenges, but I personally would um encourage um the city to consider denser housing options than river terrace, um, because we are truly in an emergency level housing shortage in our region, and I think most of you know are keenly aware of that.

Um, but I believe you know, more homes of many types are desperately needed, and I do believe that we can add density without negative consequences when it is done intentionally and thoughtfully.

The city of Tibert is fortunate to have incredibly skilled and passionate people working on this project from city staff to multiple consultancy that has very much impressed me and in my work with them and learning from them.

And I really do think that because of their expertise um you know and the values that the city holds, we can plan for density that still includes great green spaces, connected neighborhoods, and thriving resilient communities.

But the last thing I want to say is actually echoing something that I said to council in public comment several months ago, which is that I would really encourage the council to pursue every level lever available to you to increase housing affordability in our city.

And one tool that I'd love to see explored is the idea of social housing.

This model is newer in the US, but it's very popular in Europe and it has worked well in some locations in the Northeast.

But the basic idea is that municipalities use their bond issuing authority to fund new mixed income housing, including market rate, not and this is very different than you know the standard regulated affordable housing or public housing.

But it's a way to expand supply while maintaining long-term affordability and local control.

I'm happy to send council uh some information via email on this as well.

And that's all I have today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Water, are there any other callers?

There are no other callers.

Thank you very much.

Um let's go on to move on to the main topic of this evening, which is River Tars 2.0 policy workshop.

This item will be presented by community development director Kirkman, assistant committee director Warren, as well as Senior Planet Gata.

Council will consider each policy questions in sequence organized by topic area.

Good evening.

Good evening, City Council, Honorable Mayor Who.

I'm pleased to join you all for a River Terrace 2.0 policy workshop this evening.

So as Mayor Who began explaining the structure of tonight's workshop will go policy by policy.

We have prepared a set of slides that we'll run through along the way.

And we have also prepared some follow-up information for council that has been printed out.

And Councillor Shaw, you should have that in your inbox so that we will be going through follow-up information as we approach each policy.

So we'll be spending roughly 20 minutes per policy.

It'll be my goal to keep my portions to about five minutes to leave the rest of the time for council discussion and deliberation.

So if Carol, if you wouldn't mind bringing up the slides, that would be great.

Robert, could you put the first slide up?

Oh, yeah, I'm pulling it up right now.

Actually, go ahead.

Great, thank you so much.

So the policies we're discussing this evening focus on housing, parks, transportation, and natural resources.

Tonight we're not presenting any new policies to council.

Rather, we're exploring policies that have been previously presented to council over the last year and those that have been considered since the concept plan began.

So if we can move to the next slide, please.

The purpose of our workshop today is to revisit any outstanding policy issues.

Again, we're focusing on these four topic areas.

And it's staff's goal to provide council with the information that you need to deliberate and provide direction to staff so that the River Terrace 2.0 community plan project can move forward along its current timeline.

And we request that council provide explicit direction to staff.

If there is not a consensus reached among council, then we request that you take an informal vote to provide us with that direction on each issue.

And in the policy follow-up materials, there are a set of key questions at the bottom of each piece of paper to really make sure that we are getting the full scope of information that is needed from council.

And again, it's critical that we get policy direction on all of these topics this evening or given alternative direction to return to council with more analysis with the understanding that that would cause a delay in the project.

Right now, if we're able to move forward with policy direction, we are on schedule for an adoption process in November and December of this year.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so the current policy proposal surrounding parking is that we retain the current citywide policy that no minimum parking requirements applied to development.

And with that, it is the goal of the project to maximize on-street parking, use design solutions to leverage on-street parking and maximize it to reduce parking conflicts.

Alternative policy options that council may consider, these are examples, are to adopt minimum parking requirements for commercial, which is within the realm of state law, or to consider adopting minimum parking requirements for all development, which is not currently enforceable under state law.

I won't go through the impacts one by one since the policy memo that was distributed did go through these, and this is just a summary to remind council of the major points.

So on the follow-up information sheet, I am going to be walking council through this document since you haven't seen it before, and also for the benefit of those who don't have access to this document, but it will be added to the record, so it will be available for review afterwards.

So part of the parking discussion is trying to understand what recent development in the area has done.

So our prime example of a recent development that has been done without minimum parking requirements is the Kingston Terrace Town Center development, just south of River Terrace 2.0.

This development is entitled and will be constructed by Risewell Homes.

They were a developer in River Terrace 1, and they're a prospective developer of a portion of River Terrace 2.0.

So this development is 22 units per net acre, and it has a little less than 1200 units.

And it's a range, right?

Not every row house has two parking spaces, some have one, some even have four.

So this information is provided as background.

This development also has maximized on-street parking in a way similar to staff's plans for design requirements in River Terrace 2.0, and they've been able to provide over 1,300 street parking spaces.

So staff prepared a parking analysis comparing this Kingston Terrace Town Center development to similar development in River Terrace One.

The first example does not have a comparable example in River Terrace 1, but it is very similar to Beaverton's West End development.

So in this first scenario, you're seeing a picture of six apartment buildings.

Some parking spaces are provided in garages, and others are yes, that is the picture on the first page at the bottom.

And then there are surface parking lots on either side of the building.

So this is apartments and commercial development.

When you break down the parking provided, they have provided one and a half parking spaces per apartment unit, which is actually the max amount allowed by metro.

And two spaces per 1,000 square feet are provided per commercial area.

What is unique about this area is that they've been able to angle parking, which is something we're considering for River Terrace 2.0, to provide 71 on-street spaces and a rather compact area.

And when you average this for all housing units, it ends up being 1.7 parking spaces available on average per unit.

And that means that the development has leveraged on-street parking to surpass the parking maximums that are set by metro.

So if you go to the next example, which is with the red cars.

And on the southern block, it's detached homes with individual driveways, which have been spaced out far enough to locate parking in between the driveways, which is also the plan of River Terrace 2.0.

In doing so, they have they've allocated 3.9 uh parking spaces on average per unit.

Um if you compare that to a development in River Terrace, um we used the example of Shoals Meadow, although this type of design is rather common in River Terrace.

Um you can see that in this case with single detached and row houses with rather few on street parking spaces, they were only able to provide 3.3 parking spaces on average per unit.

So this difference between concentrating parking on private properties so that you're using your garage if it's available, and if you had a driveway, um means that there's not enough space on the road for people to park in front of their homes, which is people's preference, that's human behavior.

Instead, we're able to use design changes through the development code that would, similar to the river, um, excuse me, the Kingston Terrace example, we're able to require development to space driveways further apart to make sure that there are parking spaces directly in front of homes, and also increasing parking availability in those neighborhoods compared to what we saw in River Terrace One.

So a key point I just want to make is in the Kingston Terrace example, they have 41 units compared to 38, only three fewer in River Terrace One.

Um, but they were able to provide 61 street parking spaces compared to 25 in River Terrace One.

So there's a big difference in how design was able to maximize street parking.

And one last example, if you flip the page over, there are three pictures at the top of the next page.

This is the same River Terrace development.

And the first two pictures are pictures of uh cars parked uh in well, they're not parked in legal parking spaces.

Um while the third picture is showing where the um river terrace parking plan provided all the parking, which is on a side street.

So they were able to meet land use requirements, um, the code requirements at the time by allocating parking on side streets, which is just not being used.

It's it doesn't match up with human behavior and personal preference.

So the main takeaways from this is that we're able to use design problems to solve for these uh parking conflicts that we're experiencing in neighborhoods like River Terrace One.

Um we're seeing that private development, even when not required to provide parking, is doing so sometimes in excess of what was done when parking was required.

Um, and it's also become clear that there are opportunities for operational changes such as curbside management and other enforcement measures that could further improve the on-street parking conditions and further reduce conflict and maintenance challenges.

So the questions for council this evening is if you would like to retain the current citywide uh parking policy, meaning no minimum parking would apply to development in River Terrace 2.0.

Thank you.

All right, so I will enter 10 questions before we went into any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for the additional um pictures and stuff.

It's really helpful.

Um if we were to choose option one of the the alternatives of uh regulating commercial parking, what are the benefits of that?

Um to be honest, I'm struggling to think of benefits.

Um I think in the planning world, um, we've learned a lot about the negatives of requiring parking, uh typically making development more expensive and uh taking up land that could otherwise be used for housing.

Um I think in terms of a benefit, um, we want to make sure the viability of our commercial areas is sound.

Um historically, we've been seeing that developers like this um Kingston Terrace Town Center development, they are providing parking that's uh commiserate with market demand.

But we have seen requiring uh off-street parking for commercial development tends to result in a surplus of parking.

Um depending on any individual development, it could be um shared with apartments, but that depends on uh if they're built at the same time, if it's a mixed use development.

Um but Skylar, do you have any other uh positives?

Well, it certainly becomes easier to park if um sorry, Scalar Warren, assistant director of community development.

Uh it certainly becomes easier to park in peak usage times, if you have more surface area for parking.

Um, and then it basically comes down to a policy trade-off, right?

And so Washington Square Mall is kind of like the one that we use as a good example of um here is an area that uh was built to minimum parking requirements at the time.

Um as a result, we have a lot of unused paved space.

And we use this one as an example, not because the you know, this is a bad development.

We use this as an example because at that scale, it shows how out of scale the parking requirements can be, because they are based on uh the ITE manual, which is an engineering manual that looks at peak trips.

And so it's often said that in the shopping centers, these these peak trips are basically based on you know Black Friday type of traffic that you would see.

But most of the time um it's overparked, and so you have the uh the negative consequences of that heat island stormwater uh runoff, that kind of thing.

But there's no doubt that during those peak times, one positive is that you know it becomes much easier to park in that location.

And that's one of the reasons that I think um historically that was um the practice.

Council President Wolf, question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Brittany, for um the added information and walking us through it.

And I think I have a similar question.

I don't have an interest in in trying to recommend um for housing uh parking that doesn't align with state law that doesn't make sense to me.

But I guess I'm a little um I'm struggling a little bit to use what I think is um like pure residential models to then kind of understand a commercial impact if we were to allow for additional um space around commercial because Skylar, I appreciate kind of the is this just a peak problem.

Um, but I also would think from a business perspective, if it's not unfortunately, and I don't see us transitioning to transit soon, as I think we all had hoped over the years.

Um so I guess that's where I kind of sit as well, is just more that commercial opportunity.

Um so this was great information, but it then it also doesn't kind of address uh commercial component.

But that's question, I guess more of a comment than a question, but thank you.

Yeah, um counselor Wolf, if I may, the first example on page one does include commercial.

Um but that's just at 1.7 versus the much higher numbers.

Um so you're saying that I'm sorry, it's uh like a lot that I'm trying to stick in my head for all these policies.

So um this would be the model on the commercial space, um, which would be the um yeah, the off-street um so it because the colors do they mean anything to me?

They do.

Um I don't I didn't want to go through it only because it um it might not be very relevant to the conversation, but the orange is the dedicated commercial spaces.

Okay.

But a key part of this type of development, similar to the West End district in Beaverton, is that and and just a kind of uh fact of parking demand uh for residential development versus commercial development, residential um development needs parking in the evenings, right?

When people are home from work.

Thank you.

I think it's working.

Um thank you.

Commercial development requires parking during the day.

So there's this ability to leverage parking spaces for both uses when demand is low at different times in the day.

So in this example, they do have dedicated commercial parking spaces.

Um there are, of course, dedicated residential spaces.

Um, but for example, all of the street parking during the day, vast majority would be available to commercial uses, and the inverse would be true in the evening.

Um so this type of development is common in mixed use areas, and um at least in the West End example has uh provided adequate parking.

All right.

Uh you have a question, youth counselor.

Please go ahead.

Uh can we wait for common later?

Uh go ahead, counselor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just to get that comparison because you compared this to West End.

Do you happen to have what West End's numbers are?

Unfortunately, there was not enough time to dig into that analysis.

But West End district was subject to minimum parking requirements.

We do know that based on when it was developed.

Counselor Shaw, you have a question.

Uh yes, thank you.

You're on mute again.

Wants to do it on its own.

I appreciate uh the materials.

Did I miss getting this materials ahead of time?

And I apologize, I'm not there person, but is this um the documents that we received the first time we're seeing this?

Because I um it's a lot to digest.

There's a lot of information that wasn't provided and a lot you didn't have time for.

So uh just want to see if I had missed something.

Thank you.

No, this is the first time it was available.

I apologize for the short notice.

I'd like to follow up with that.

Um Councilor Shaw, the the intent of the materials tonight were the follow-up questions we received from council to um hopefully enhance the the the conversation.

And so, for example, the uh worksheets that we have for parking were some questions that we had heard with regards to other other developments that had parking and uh what they may look like and also kind of a visual for um council president Wolf.

The visual on the back side on the second page was trying to give us uh to give the council a idea of what to expect when looking at utilizing our curbside management for things like on more additional on-street parking, which was kind of our intent was to be able to give you some additional examples past the um materials that were there.

So which is why I think appreciate yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that very much.

But um, since we haven't had time to digest and you're asking us to make policy decisions tonight, um they just that doesn't equate for me because the information I would like to have digested ahead of time.

So that's all I was asking.

But thank you.

I I recognize those were some of the answers to the questions we had asked uh just a week or so ago.

All right.

So any other question before I ask council member to provide feedback.

Uh so uh I will rotate, but this time that start with Tom uh Councillor Anderson.

Any comments or council uh policy direction, please.

Um I think the no minimum parking requirements work.

Um I think the developers have in mind what they want and and really can come up with more parking.

If they don't have sufficient parking, their units don't sell.

So I would just let them figure it out.

So current policy.

Current policy.

Okay, counselor.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do like the way that West End is put together.

Um but I don't know that without the parking requirements, it would be put together the same way.

I would like to think that the fair market is going to work the way that it needs to, and they're going to just end up having the parking that they need, because if you don't, commercial is not going to be viable.

So I don't think that we necessarily need to implement something in order to get that done.

So current policy.

Current policy is for.

Okay.

But I would like that information just to see if that ends up being in line with this.

Counselor Shaw, are you comfortable making recommendation?

Uh not particularly, but uh I think we have a lot of information that we haven't been provided with.

But um, I think at this point, um, knowing that there's a lot more policy to discussion to be had, I could accept the no minimum or current policy, but I too, as part of the economic development strategy team, um, am very concerned we could be making some decisions without commercial input and it could negatively impact the city.

So um it's with qualifications.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I would just go on the line.

Uh so I I uh I also would like to keep the current policy proposal.

I uh I like the idea uh echoing you know, counselor Anderson said I I trust the developer will figure out market demand.

And I I would like to and also like the city using design and management to make sure that we there will be enough parking.

So for me, it's also keep the current policy.

Council President Wolf.

And while I have reservations around commercial, um I'm not gonna have the city uh direct that and let the market play out.

So thank you, Councillor Schlack.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to thank the team for their uh materials they put together.

I recognize some of these streets since I live over there.

I may have taken one of those photos now that I think of it.

Um yeah, I um support the current policy proposal.

Um I agree that especially when it comes to commercial development, the market the developers are likely to figure out what they need and design accordingly.

My big concern is around residential based on the examples that have been provided, and I think the um design standards that can be used to maximize on-street parking will be sufficient to mitigate my concerns.

Thank you.

Counselor Robinson I want to echo counselor Schlack's gratitude for all the extra data and the pictures and drawing things out and listening to my repeated questions about parking, because I know I harp on that a little bit.

Um I too will go with leaving the policy as is.

I have less reservations about commercial because I think again the developers and the people who are going to be putting the businesses there, you know, it makes a lot of sense that they're gonna want people to be able to go there and shop.

Um I worry that the commercial is not necessarily integrated with the residential as much as we had kind of hoped.

So all the extra parking in the commercial is not necessarily going to benefit all of the residential, maybe the sum where it's kind of this mixed use, and that can be lovely in a really urban kind of feeling.

Um I still have reservations about uh residential parking, especially in in apartments, but the numbers here I can't argue with those, and I can't we can't force you to make more because it would be against state law.

You know, I could push to say we should do it anyway, but that's just opening us up to costly arguments.

So I'll stop asking about what you counselor Helleck.

Hi.

Um I do agree with the keeping the policy as is, but I would say that maybe straying a little bit from the West End layout, because as someone who spent my entire summer there every morning and a lot of afternoons, it was very packed, and I was working there, and it was really difficult to get parking because of residents parking in commercial areas and whatnot.

And so I found that it wasn't enough parking in the mornings and in the afternoons, but midday it was usually okay.

All right, so that's pretty clear-cut.

Unanimous, keep the current policy.

Let's move on to the next topic.

Great.

Next slide, please.

Great, thank you.

So now we're gonna talk about housing policy.

So there are two policies.

Um we have one handout on the housing density topic.

We do not have a handout on the housing options policy.

Um so if you please go to the next slide, we'll start with housing density.

And I'll wait until the papers are distributed okay.

So for housing density, the current proposal is that River Terrace 2.0 provide an average of 20 units per net acre, which would result in approximately 4600 units.

Um the alternative policy options for council to consider as examples are an average of 18 units per acre, which lowers housing units by about 500 units, or 16 units per net acre, which um drops it down to 3700 units.

Um of the main questions um that council posed of staff were what would the effects of a change in density be on commercial viability and transit viability?

Um, also on parking and traffic.

Um, and um are housing production goals set by the state of Oregon.

So the follow-up information that's provided on the handout deals with a few of those issues that we were able to research and work with our consultant team to provide some more information.

So we'll start with commercial viability impacts.

So our consultant, Echo Northwest, who is our lead consultant, they were able to provide an opinion on the potential impacts that reducing density may have on commercial viability.

They also reviewed the market analysis that was prepared by Johnson Economics in 2025, which assessed viability specifically for a grocery anchored commercial center along Shoals Ferry.

So based on that assessment and their expertise, the industry standard for grocery store when they're doing their own assessment is typically they want 5,000 households within a two mile radius before they're even interested in considering an area to locate a new grocery store.

So it's not that river terrace 2.0 density affects the attractiveness for a grocery store to locate in this area.

It affects our competitiveness.

So by reducing density, the risk would be that this area would rely more on pass by vehicle traffic, especially for that northern commercial area off of Shoals Ferry Road, where we have about 10 acres of commercial set aside rather than focusing on more of those neighborhoods serving commercial uses that the community has asked for.

So moving on to transportation impacts.

So when you think about vehicle ownership, it varies based on is it an apartment, is it a row house, is it a single detached home?

And it wasn't possible to tease out that information to give you an accurate assessment of how many fewer cars might be located, but it was possible to tease out the change in traffic during peak times on our busy major roads, both surrounding River Terrace 2.0 and the made main artery mountainside way that will go through the neighborhood.

So if you look at the table, the first column is telling you how many trips occur on each of these roads when you have 20 units on average per net acre.

And then the second column is the percent change, the reduction in traffic if the density is lowered to 18 units per acre, and then if it's lowered to 16 units per acre, that's the drop compared to 20 units per acre.

So the key things to point out here are that the largest drop is on Mountain Sideway, which is internal to River Terrace 2.0.

And the reason for that is because most traffic in River Terrace 2.0 are those who live in River Terrace 2.0, right?

So if there are fewer households, fewer trips on that main artery.

However, when you look at the surrounding arterials, Shoals Ferry, Roy Rogers, and then the collectors as well, we have Bull Mountain and Beef Bend on there.

So Shoals Ferry Road, for example, dropping the density only gets you 2% or 5% less because there are a bunch of other people traveling from other parts of the region.

And these numbers are also looking at trips from all destinations and origins in all traveling directions.

So it's not, you know, this is not saying during peak times it's 2% less only traveling east on Shoals Ferry, it's actually both directions.

So this is just highlighting that the major difference in reducing traffic impacts would come internally to River Terrace 2.0 and there would be minor improvements in traffic operations on the surrounding streets.

According to our traffic consultant, you know, when we're looking at 5-6% as the most significant improvement, that would not be a noticeable change to someone traveling on those roads in terms of having to wait longer at a light or just taking longer to get to your destination.

And if you'll flip to the back, the next section talks about transit.

So we were able to connect with TriMet to provide comment on the potential impacts that a reduction in density might have on transit viability and their ability to provide transit service in River Terrace 2.0.

They replied that more density does mean more propensity for transit ridership, but that is not the only predictor of transit ridership.

They said that a healthy mix of housing and incomes in the area is also important.

And they did say that the biggest factor for them, of course, is the agency's long-term budget forecast.

But even though they've been experiencing these service cuts and they know there are budget challenges, they did reiterate their commitment to serve this area in the future.

The next section and the last one before we'll open it up for discussion, is council also asked if it would be possible to assess the anticipated revenue that would be generated through taxes, for example, for future development in River Terrace 2.0 and compare that to the cost to provide city services.

We did reach out to our consultant, Echo Northwest, and they confirmed that not only is it not possible to do that type of analysis in time for this meeting, it's also outside of the project's uh scope for our equitable finance strategy.

They estimate it would cost between eight and ten thousand dollars to add such an analysis to the project.

Um and staff is here to ask council this evening if you would like us to add that to the project scope.

Um if so, we expect information would be ready in time for the um either late March council update that we have, um, and if not uh for a follow-up in April.

Um so the questions this evening are if council supports the proposed housing density of an average of 20 units per acre, um, or if council would like to set an alternative policy, um, and if an alternative policy is identified, we would specifically like to understand council's priorities around housing.

Um, there are opportunities to prioritize middle housing, for example, um, or support um apartments, for example, to maintain the viability of the mixed use areas or other options.

So we'd like to hear more from council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so uh counselor Shah, uh Council Gozussi mentioned that he took screenshot of the handout and send you a copy.

So uh you should have a copy of that.

But before uh we go on to comments, uh please um questions, Councillor Schlack.

Thank you, Mayor.

Oh, go ahead.

Uh one quick note I I want to confirm, Councilor Shaw, we did email you the um documents.

Do you have that?

Yes, I have both the email and also what uh Councilor Caducy sent, which is an easier format to read.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

Counselor Schlack.

Thank you.

Um regarding the commercial viability on the northern side of River Terrace 2.0, you mentioned it's would be mainly determined by drive-through traffic along Shoals Ferry.

And I just want a quick reminder because of course we have Beaverton um developing out that way, but the urban growth boundary is tile flat road, if I remember correctly.

So as far as like drive-through, that's really towards the edge of where a lot of it would be before it's just country road, right?

That's correct.

Although our market analysis did show that it is adequate to support commercial, but yes.

For the clarification.

Any council president Wolf.

Brittany, thank you again.

Um, just for um uh comment um, because some of the comments that we received is the density should be greater than river terrace uh 1.0.

So just for a fact to be shared publicly right now, the average units for river terrace is what?

So we did our best to put together an estimate uh prior to this meeting, although we need to uh do a bit more research.

We got the numbers at five o'clock today, um, and we need to vet the methodology that was used.

Um the results were about 12 units per acre, although we think that's an undercount.

Um, so we'll be reporting back to council with um the correct calculation.

But certainly far below um the 20.

Um and I guess that's kind of where I wanted to create an understanding of what river terrace is when we're talking numbers, so people have a sense of what that is.

Correct.

Yeah, we looked at we looked at density by subdivision as well.

So we looked at an overall number, but um when you look at those developments in river terrace that have um concentrations of row houses, and there's not very much middle housing.

We actually found it was about 0.05% duplexes and triplexes, and I think it was 14% row houses, so a rather small percentage.

Um but when you do look in those neighborhoods, um, we're looking more at 14, um, 12 to 14.

Um, and then there are also apartment areas which are like 27 units per acre.

So we're gonna look at those numbers a little more closely.

And unfortunately, it's not available more concretely this evening.

And I'm I might add one thing here.

One of the difficulties in getting this data together is that there's a difference between built density and policy density.

And generally it's it's hard to make them line up uh partially because uh planned density, um, we give sort of blanket uh reductions for things like right of way that are really an overestimate of the amount of right-of-way that would actually be there.

Um when we go back and we try to true these things up, it becomes a little more difficult to get the everything to match up.

So it is likely that because of the you know, formulaic way in which right of way is removed from the uh net development area, that the effective density would probably come in under 20 units per acre.

But again, it kind of depends on like how much right of way a developer puts into a development um, and if they go over that 20% allocation they give, or whether they come in under it, generally they come in under it because more right of way is less land available for development.

Uh council Shaw, you have a question.

Yes, uh, and thank you.

That was um I appreciate uh getting receiving the information.

Thank you very much.

Um with regards to um the housing unit goals within Metro and what had been approved for expansion.

Um does the 18 or 16 unit meet that qualification or even less?

And given particularly since uh River Terrace 1.0 was 12 units that I did here, you were thinking that that could be an undercount.

But do we have an idea of um what that uh per acre would be to still hit the housing goals for the metro?

Thank you.

We could try and do some rough math.

Um I don't know that off the top of my head.

Yeah.

I think so.

I I'm doing some math on the fly in my head.

Um so for every two units per acre you go down, you were losing about 400 units.

Um given that the 3,000 unit target was what was in the metro conditions, um, we probably couldn't go below 13 units per acre and hit that number.

And my math schools might be a little rusty, but that's kind of what I came up with there.

Use the counselor Halek?

When you say 20 units per acre, are you talking about like all types of units?

All of them.

Do you have a priority for what types?

Yeah, thank you.

Um so when we talk about uh density in this case, we're talking about average.

So all of the housing types, all of the buildable land in River Terrace 2.0.

So there are different zones that have different minimum densities and different allowed housing types.

So there will be some areas that are rather kind of low to medium density of 10 units per acre, we're proposing.

Um, and then where there are apartments, it's a bit higher.

It's 28 units per acre.

So by doing the average of 20, it allows us to focus on middle housing.

Um, so most of the area is um zoned in a way that would have 18 units per net acre, which supports um more row houses, uh duplexes, triplexes, things like that.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Go ahead, Council Robbins.

Thank you.

And so forgive me if I'm conflating any of these because we have the requirement that Metro had of 3,000 homes to do the urban growth boundary extension, right?

And then sometimes I hear like 7,000, I think that we need total, but I don't know how long that has been.

But I was just looking through emails today to try to prepare for this, and I see that back in November we had a housing plan update.

And during that, because we asked some questions, we got some more information.

Tiger's own a target for our six-year production cycle.

No, I don't know when that six years is.

Whatever our goal is for the next six years or 20 years, or because I I just see a lot of numbers, and so I'm having trouble figuring out which number is our goal.

So I'll I'll do my best to answer this.

This is a very complex question.

Um and this gets into how we do forecasting region-wide for population growth and housing need.

Um the reason that you see different numbers is because different methodologies are going to give you different numbers.

Um our housing needs analysis that was completed with the River Terrace 2.0 concept plan did show a need for 7,000 homes, I think total citywide, right?

And some of those were assumed to be coming from infill or redevelopment.

Um the ONA targets that are published right now for the city of Tiger, you can consider those as sort of like I I don't know how best to describe it.

It's almost sort of like a guess that DLCD uh made.

Uh and they don't have any real regulatory impact yet.

We are in the process under uh statutory requirements to complete a new housing capacity analysis and housing production strategy by uh June 2027.

That process will determine what our new housing needs analysis is, or or what our new housing need numbers are that are in the ONA targets.

However, we don't just get to decide that through that process, there will be an allocation that is made regionally.

You know, we know what the regional capture rate will be, will be assigned a certain number of homes, and will be assigned a certain number of homes within the different income bands.

So our expert on that, who's Trinity Miller will be running that project.

She knows more about how uh DLCD and Metro will be working with us to set those targets.

Suffice to say that when that analysis is done, unlike the one that was done in uh 2021 that was completed in 2021, this one will now it will account for all of the land that will have been brought into the city's uh corporate boundaries, which would be River Terrace 2.0.

And so those numbers that were in the ONA draft did not do that, right?

And so now we're gonna have to account for all of this extra land and what are we gonna put there?

And we're gonna have uh housing targets that are set based on that capacity, that new capacity that's come into the system.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Oh, Council Gaducey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so overall, any recommendations that we were to make, if the developer were to come and say we recommended 20 units and they wanted to do 18 or 17, is that something that they can just do?

What ends up being the process there?

So, really, what is the decision that we're making and what happens if a developer decides to do something else?

Yeah, that's a great question.

And I'll start and um Skylar, you can follow up.

Um, so there's a couple different aspects to this.

Um, the 20 units per acre that would uh if that were set this evening would primarily play into the zoning map, how we disperse density throughout the planning area.

It would also affect the housing types that might be allowed in those different areas, kind of the mix of things that you would see throughout the neighborhood.

When it comes time for development, um the story is a little bit different because developers have the option to go through what's called a planned development process, which is a discretionary process, and it means that developers can propose an alternative way of distributing housing throughout their own development site.

So it means that they won't necessarily, well, they're not they're not going to have to follow the zoning map to a T.

They can present something different.

Um part of that is we can't predict what that could look like, but that flexibility is there to hit the 20 units per acre on average while giving developers the flexibility to be creative and distribute housing in a different way than we foresaw during this process.

President Wolf.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so Brittany, help me just visualize in you've probably shared this before.

Instead of just the numbers, if we um said 18 instead of 20, what do you visualize as the housing mix?

What's the impact of uh do you see developers probably how would that change?

And that would just help me a lot to kind of see that.

Um, I was actually gonna ask Brittany if on that last question before you answer that one.

If you want to talk about the reductions that are offered through the um Title 13 preservation process.

Is that still in the plan?

No, okay.

Never mind.

So um if we were to change the density down to 18 units per acre, um that can materialize in a variety of different ways.

I will give some examples, but this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, and we basically have to go back and recalibrate the maps and the housing types.

So essentially what we're trying to do is uh continue to balance policy priorities.

Um we have a couple different ones which compete slightly, right?

So um commercial viability, for example, really relies on units within walking distance of those commercial areas.

So on in one scenario, we could prioritize that and retain um apartments and middle housing close to those commercial areas and reduce density in other areas, which would likely mean fewer middle housing units in that middle density area.

Um it could mean just more single detached units and slightly larger lots.

Um to what degree larger, I can't answer that.

Um instead, if we decide that middle housing is the priority, we can do our best to continue balancing commercial viability.

Um, but we would likely reduce apartments by either reducing acreage of those higher density zones or keeping the acreage roughly the same, but lowering the density in those areas, right?

So you kind of can play with the densities, the acreage, um, and do it that way.

I would say the kind of least impactful option would be to increase the lowest density of that 10 unit per acre area, just kind of unit for unit, you're not really gonna get as much play by uh changing those acreage numbers.

All right.

So uh just to be clear again, you asked us what direction.

So if we're not picking the current policy proposal, you want us to tell you we want to prioritize commercial or so can you repeat that again?

Of course, yes.

If the council wishes to go with an alternative policy direction, um we would greatly appreciate feedback on what housing priority or kind of what those competing factors um which competing factors should outweigh another.

Um so basically what is the housing priority here if we do lower the density.

Okay.

So I will start this time with the youth counselor.

First, if you feel comfortable, please go ahead.

I think sticking with the proposed policy with the 20, I think would be best.

All right, counselor Robinson.

I think we should reduce it to 18 units per acre and focus on middle housing, being that that focusing on the higher density apartments provides more more housing in general, but not more purchasable housing where someone could start developing long-term wealth per se, or at least owning something.

So, mayor.

You know, when I started all of this entire process, I was at 16 units, but right now I would go with the current policy.

Because we don't have that much control over what specifically gets built.

We're really just setting a lot of guardrails of of sort of likelihood of outcomes, increasing certain likelihoods.

And for me, I really want to make sure that we have transit options so we don't have another disconnected suburb.

I really want to ensure we have thriving commercial areas, increase the likelihood of that.

I know during the economic development strategy plan we talked about the 99W corridor, but I think in the future we'll also be talking about the Roy Rogers corridor once that all area all gets built out.

And I also personally selfishly really would like a grocery store on that side of town.

Recognize that the current uh density gets us there already, or the current amount of units, but I just would like to have more increase the competitiveness like you talked about.

It also increases the likelihood of different housing options that are affordable for people and uh different housing types for people with different needs and different income levels.

So those are I kind of want everything.

I think 20 units increases the likelihood of a number of areas.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Parson Wolf.

Um I agree with Councillor Robbins.

So my focus would be 18 with the emphasis on middle housing and maybe a reduction in some of the apartments.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And I would like to keep the current proposal.

Counselor Shaw.

Yes, thank you.

Um I would like to go with option two.

Um I think averaging 16 units, um, making it more livable and less dense.

Um we've seen from a college development albanita that dense is not working.

Also um with the less uh units per net acre, there's plenty of areas that have been built out for commercial purposes.

If you look at Durham or Trader Joe's, um certainly there is a lot of commercial viability, there's transportation there.

So I would go with option two.

Thank you.

And unfortunately, I'm gonna have to sign off after this, and I apologize.

Okay, and which area would you like to focus on middle housing, commercial what trade-offs?

Middle housing, please.

Middle housing.

Middle housing.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I do have some concerns with the 20 units.

So although I do want to push for affordable housing, that's nearly double what River Terrace 1.0 is if we're assuming the 12 is correct.

And I don't think that the infrastructure on Bull Mountain and uh beef band would support that at this time.

Um so I would go with I mean ideally option one, but maybe option two.

Um I'll say option one just because we have more.

And middle housing too.

And middle housing.

Ideally we would be able to have that higher density somewhere like that northern Shoals Ferry area where we can end up having the commercial, and then that one end up sort of offsetting in terms of getting that plus the middle housing elsewhere because I feel those roads have better infrastructure to support it.

But I don't see the 20.

Thank you.

Counselor Anderson.

Uh I would go for less density myself.

Um I think if we so a good community has to have a mix of of rentals and purchases.

And it also has to have affordable housing, which I think we've really done a good job at River Terrace One, but uh other infill areas in the area that we've we've addressed a lot of affordability.

Tiger really doesn't have many executive homes compared to our neighbors.

And when I'm saying you'll say, well, we have Bull Mountain, but if you realize that Bull Mountain was built in the 80s and 90s, we haven't had anything new.

And our neighbors, you know, a million dollar home is not not down common anymore.

And two million dollar homes.

If you're gonna have executives bring their companies here, they want a place to live.

So it gives a bigger uh variety if you can get a large enough lot to build something like that, if you could find a developer.

I know developers wanted to build that because they they're selling.

And uh there are people that are looking for those.

And they're they're looking at Hillsborough and Beaver Ton, like Oswego, of course.

Um but but of course with a mix.

So I would say rentals, so apartments.

Uh with some bigger lots.

So I would say well, my my perfect scenario would be option two, but I could compromise to option one.

And middle housing or middle housing, well, townhouses work.

I don't think the clusters are going to work up there.

Um I would say I would say more rentals.

Okay.

So we have uh go ahead, Counselor Schlack.

Sorry.

And just to add because there were several questions layered in, I just like to make a pitch for definitely I would like to have the team work with the consultant to estimate anticipated revenue compared to city services as well as part of this decision.

I know it's a separate one, but I really since we're facing a six million dollar general fund shortfall.

I think it's really important that we understand how this new development will impact our existing city services, including police library and public works.

So I I feel comfortable spending that money to ensure we have an accurate long-term forecast.

Thank you.

Counselor Robin, would you like to go ahead with that study?

I do think we need that information, yes, but I also question how long is that going to take?

Because how come we don't already have that information?

Which I know this is a long-term project, so I don't mean that in any way snarky at all.

But how how has that not already been figured out if for this big big project?

And if we do that study, how long is it going to take?

And is that going to further delay everything?

Because I get the feeling tonight that we have to make these decisions tonight.

So then if we get that information and it says going to 18 units is going to cost us an extra million dollars a year or something like that, can we change it at that point?

Or so the this is quite the dilemma, I think, to not have this information.

Go ahead, Councillor Schlack.

Well, if I may, um, based on the information that they provided, it wouldn't delay the timeline for anything.

This would just be for our own city's long-term financial health as opposed to based basically based on the decisions now.

What is the long-term impact to city revenues and cities and city services, not uh trying to change anything related to density.

If we go with 18 units, which sounds to be the consensus, that is the decision.

It's just additional information that impacts long-term policy decisions.

Correct.

We would do that analysis based on the density that is set tonight.

Um and I will say part of the reason why it was out of scope of the project is because generally speaking, we know that residential development does not bring in enough revenue to fully cover its own costs.

That's why commercial development is so important.

Um so that's that's really why we're kind of going based on uh existing assumptions.

So anybody who would have been.

I do have an extra comment then.

I'm sorry.

So if having this study is not going to change our mind at all, I don't see the point in spending the money on that when we are facing a six million dollar shortfall.

However, I do realize it's only $10,000, which is hardly anything, so I'm not gonna argue with everyone else who wants to do it.

But it does feel like why do it if we can't change anything after this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um you all know how I feel about consultants, but overall, because this is not going to change the direction or change tonight's decision, I would prefer to not.

Um overall, depending on what the decision we make tonight is, even if we do get numbers that do you know look at the overall scope, we're not changing that overall scope for police or public works anytime soon anyways.

So by the time those decisions are going to be made, we'll have that retrospective data anyways.

So this will give us information that we can't use in the meantime, and by the time we will need it, we will already have the retrospective information.

Counselor President Wolf, y yes study, no study.

Um well, I guess having the information is important.

I think that um counselor Gaducy makes a good point in terms of what is the um immediate information that we need to make a budget decision.

It's not relevant because it's not generating revenue.

So is there better information when it actually becomes more developed or closer to that point and the the data is better?

So I'm I'm wondering, I agree that it's good information to have, but the timing of it probably um I would defer as well, if that makes sense.

Delay, no.

No, okay.

Yeah, I I would say no to counselor Shah Left, so Counselor Anderson, yes and no for the study.

Uh we're gonna go in the whole, either way, right?

So um if we can find some commercial areas, that would be great.

I don't know if it's manufacturing or if it's flex space.

Um but commercial pay is better than then residential for here.

The less housing.

Um I guess we get hurt less, but you still have to have police and fire to come out to those areas.

So I would say no.

It's there's gonna be a number, but it's okay.

It's gonna be hard either way.

All right.

All right.

So there are four votes for option one, and three of which focus on middle housing and one is on rental.

So I don't know how how to interpret that.

So the can the gener the majority uh does not want to uh go ahead with the revenue study compared to CERT services.

Mayor, is it is it safe to say then that the project team can move forward with council support at an 18 unit per acre target?

Yes.

Even without consensus, you're comfortable with the we have four four counselors, so that's majority.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, it's very clear.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on to the next topic.

Great.

Um next slide, please.

So the next policy is the undersupplied housing options proposal.

Um this is a point-based system that would require between 10 and 15 percent undersupplied housing options uh in a development.

Um this would include housing options um kind of through this points system, including smaller units that would be more appropriate for like a starter home or sizing down, family size apartments being those rental um opportunities, uh common courtyards, um, and then accessible and affordable units, of course.

Um so the alternative policy options that staff is providing as examples are um to reduce complexity in the points system.

We could set a um just a percentage of housing options required.

Um, or we could remove the requirement altogether and focus on an incentive-based approach.

Um I'll add quickly that the project is already um preparing a slew of incentives um to support affordable housing, uh workforce housing, et cetera.

Um but we uh do not we have not studied uh if an incentive only approach would be uh effective at providing these options.

Um but we can certainly look into that more.

All right.

Any questions before I no question no question start this time we'll start with counselor Godusi.

Policy?

No, he went first already, so option one, option two.

Is so is option one the current policy as well?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

No, nope, sorry.

The current policy proposal is the point system.

Yeah, points.

Option one would just be a set percentage, um which would kind of eliminate the flexibility that a point system provides.

Um, but it is uh a more direct method.

What is the point system?

Sure.

So the point system would provide a menu of housing options uh in the development code that developers could choose from, and the code would assign a certain number of points to each option.

And sometimes there might be tiers within that, right?

An example of this would be if you take smaller units, for example, maybe more of like a mid-size 1600 square foot unit is half a point, but maybe a 1200 square foot or less unit is a full point.

So it allows you to kind of mix and match points, double up on points in one unit, like a smaller affordable unit.

Um, and uh it just provides that flexibility through a menu while a set percentage, which is option one, um, would mean you know how many total units in the development have to be one of these options.

It would still be a menu, but there would be no points, no double counting mix and matching.

Less f lax fas less flexible.

Less flexible.

Still, you know, they still have a menu, they still have options, but less flexibility.

Thank you.

I would like to keep the current policy.

Uh yeah, for me, I want to keep the current policy, but I still have concern about complexity.

I don't know if you heard from the developer recently, because I know at the beginning they they were complaining it's too complex, but hopefully that you will find a way to work together to make it easier.

But I prefer current policy.

So agreed.

And the most recent thing that we've heard is it is still complex.

Um so one idea that we have to help with that is to provide um like a development handbook, um, kind of a guide for developers to navigate not just this part of the code, but the entire River Terrace 2.0 code so that it provides examples of implementing this and how to do it so it can hopefully help reduce that complexity.

Thank you.

Council Parson Wolf, what's your preference?

Um existing policies.

Thank you.

Council of Schlack.

Current policy.

Thank you.

Counselor Robbins.

Same current policy.

Uh youth counselor Helleck.

Same policy.

And if you were to have that handbook, would we also have access to that handbook as well?

Yes, absolutely.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Council Anderson.

Well I would go with option two.

I would remove them completely.

Um maintain the incentives.

It really depends on the zoning map once you get the zoning map and and who which developer owns that piece of property and and what they're looking at for zoning.

Um there may be a there may be a parcel that they can't get 15% of those in there.

So what are they going to do?

Are they going to swap with somebody?

Um I would go for option two, but the majority wants to keep the current policy.

So thank you.

All right.

All right, so let's move on to the next topic.

Great.

Next slide, please.

So now we'll talk about parks.

Um so we do have a handout on parks.

Umbo, if you wouldn't mind.

And Robert, if you would please go to the next slide.

So in the interest of time, I'll give you the overview while the paper is being passed out.

Um so for parks, we're considering two things, both parks level of service and community parks.

Um parks level of service is a standard, it's a ratio of how many acres of parks land should be provided per 1,000 residents.

It's a typical standard use in parks planning.

And it's being used uh as a part of the long-range planning effort for River Terrace 2.0.

Um in this case, we're proposing uh to have a 5.9 acre per 1,000 residents uh parks level of service.

Um I believe that might be a typo.

I believe that should say 5.3, apologies.

Um 5.3 acre per 1,000 um residents parks level of service, which would result in 59 acres of parks.

Um these are this would all be usable parks focused acreage, including uh one up to one community park, uh six miles of trails, um, eight neighborhood parks, um, and also 28 acres of publicly accessible um natural areas um incorporated into the parks.

Um the alternative policy examples that we've provided here are council could choose to increase parks level of service for either community parks uh and or neighborhood parks.

We heard from council during the November 18th update that there was a concern um about the uh lower parks level of service.

So a way to raise that would be to increase acreage.

Um I'd like to note here that there is another scenario where it could be more appropriate to increase the neighborhood parks level of service and eliminate community parks from this area due to other existing community parks and facilities in the area and future development um of Losich Park.

Option two is to use the River Terrace One methodology, which is on this handout that I've provided to you, which we'll go through shortly.

Um it would change the makeup of the different types of parks that would be provided in River Terrace 2.0.

It would increase community parks.

Um it would include inaccessible natural areas in the calculation, which don't provide a parks purpose, um, but they do provide a green space purpose.

Um but it would reduce neighborhood parks and trails.

So um if we move to the handout, I'm gonna walk you through some complex uh level of service comparisons.

So please feel free to interrupt me as I go through this document since it all kind of follows in a linear fashion.

So the first table is comparing this parks level of service um standard that River Terrace 2.0 is proposing to what was proposed with River Terrace, um, King City's Kingston Terrace development and Wilsonville's frog pond development.

These four areas were chosen because a lot of existing parks planning efforts in nearby cities do not use parks level of service.

So it's kind of slim pickings to get an apples to apples comparison here.

And in fact, I had to go in and calculate the parks acreage and the level of service based on some entitled land use approvals as well.

So that's just a background note that level of service is not the only method used for parks planning.

So River Terrace 2.0 is the leftmost column.

You can see what we're proposing to get to that 59 acres.

Although the total natural area acreage is expected to be closer to 90 acres, that 2.5 acres per thousand is only intended to be those natural areas that act as a park.

They look, feel, and are used like a park.

While other areas like River Terrace, Kingston Terrace, and Wilsonville, they use open space more generally in parks level of service planning, to mean any kind of natural area is lumped into this parks metric.

So River Terrace 2.0 is taking a much different approach to only focus on those areas that are going to be parks because we have other regulations like Title 13 and Goal 5 requirements from the state that will handle natural resource preservation.

So when you look at the level of service numbers in the bottom row, certainly River Terrace 2.0 stands out as the lowest number.

There is because we're treating natural areas very differently in this area.

And actually, if we followed the River Terrace 1 methodology for natural areas, it would bring our level of service up to seven.

So it actually puts us on par and a little bit higher than the level of service used in the Kingston Terrace Town Center area, which is 6.7.

And if you'll recall from the parking discussion, Kingston Terrace Town Center has a density of 22 units per acre.

So I'm happy to answer any other questions that council has on that, but I'd like to move on to the next table, which is a different aspect of parks planning.

We can plan for parks, but what matters for residents is what's built.

So when we're talking about parks planning at this stage in the community planning process, it doesn't fully equate to what's going to get built because when a developer comes in for land use, there are a bunch of things that aren't parks that typically count towards an open space requirement.

Things like private recreation areas, there are some private pools in River Terrace One.

Those count towards meeting an open space requirement, but they don't provide a parks purpose, right?

So there's going to be a discrepancy here in the numbers.

So if you look at the first column, River Terrace 1 planned acres, you can see that 64 acres roughly, including unusable open space natural areas were planned for River Terrace 1.

But when you break it down by what was actually built, it's significantly less.

It's 49, about 50 acres total to date.

But when you're only looking at those publicly accessible parks acres, it's 22.

22 acres is built in River Terrace 1 today.

So when we think about what we're proposing for River Terrace 2.0, remember when development occurs in the future, we're likely not going to get that full 59 acres, but by focusing our parks planning on just those acres that will be used for parks, it does help accomplish those outcomes.

So here we're targeting 59 acres of public usable parkland.

So if we go to the back side of the sheet, council did follow up with a question asking for more information about if River Terrace One parks are used more or less similarly to other parks in Tiger.

We relied on both anecdotal information from our parks maintenance staff and also residents in River Terrace One.

And it has become clear that River Terrace One parks are used very well.

They're used at a level similar to other parks in Tiger that offer similar amenities.

And if council wished to commission a study to formally study usage rates and get counts for park usage, that's an option.

It's typically something that's done by a third party.

So this comparison uses our current PARF of $9 per $9.38 per household.

And I want to point that out because the PARF is charged per household, so after development occurs, which will be years from now, and the PARF does increase incrementally year over year.

So the current rate was just used for comparison purposes.

But based on the current PARF, the projected revenue is slightly less than $500,000 per year.

And when you calculate the number of staff needed to maintain 59 acres of parks and the equipment needed, you get a range between six and eight full-time staff needed to maintain the park acres in River Terrace 2.

And the reason there's a range is because there are a lot of unknowns.

So as you might imagine, more staff is needed to maintain more amenities or amenities that require special um you know licenses and equipment.

So thinking about a splash pad, for example, it needs uh some certifications and it requires a lot more maintenance, right?

So that would be that high end of eight full-time staff.

Things like sports fields also, depending on the level of amenities, programming, if there's parking, for example, that increases it.

Um on the low end, we estimate six staff would be needed, and this gets to those natural areas, assuming that those have low impact, um, lower amenities and uh less uh landscaping because they're natural areas and don't need irrigation and heavy landscaping.

So when you break it down uh on the low end, we estimate that the PARF would cover 50% of the total operations and maintenance costs for parks in river terrace 2.0.

And on the high end, it would be about 40% coverage of those costs.

And this is compared to the citywide metric, which is 54% of um parks operations and maintenance is covered by the PARF.

Um the last thing I wanted to call out is something I already touched on a bit, but um again, we're dealing with a lot of unknowns with our park planning process at the moment.

Um as we get into the finance strategy, we'll dig into this more.

Um, but we did want to acknowledge that depending on the level of amenities in the park, it will change the operations and maintenance responsibilities and cost uh within that six to eight full-time staff range.

Um and our questions for council tonight are if council supports the proposed parks level of service as is, or if council would like to select another policy.

Um we'd also like to follow up on a question about regulation sized sports fields and if council feels that River Terrace 2.0 should provide this citywide need.

Um if so, uh at what scale?

What type of fields, what scale of amenity for that would be necessary?

Um there's an option to use short-sided fields, so non-regulation size, smaller fields that are not programmed and just available to the neighborhood is also an option rather than regulation size.

Um lastly, we want to um request council's feedback on community parks.

Um given um parks land in the area, both in Tigered and uh in the region nearby.

Um, does River Terrace 2.0 need to have a community park considering their maintenance uh needs and also that typically community parks have to be purchased at fair market value for the cost of the land.

This was what happened with Blueberry Hill Park.

Um so we would like to confirm if one community park, no community parks, or more than one are needed in this area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's very good explanation, though, everything in salary for my strong reaction when you say splash back, just bring back some memories.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

Mayor, just one quick note that I will give on your PARF calculation based on the council's direction at 18 units per acre.

Thank you.

Thank you, Skylar.

I actually did that math as well, and it's 36% would be covered by the PARF with the 18 units breaker.

36%.

Thank you for doing that on the fly math.

When we just change it to 18, yeah.

So counselor, any question?

Go ahead, Council Schlack.

I'm sorry, can you just restate that portion specifically the percentage since we have a couple of percentages in that section?

Of course.

Which one should I be comparing that 36 to?

Of course.

So if you look at the table under households, we'd be at 18 units per acre, so 4,100 homes or households.

Still that's still assuming the max of eight uh FTE, which brings it down to 36% of operations and maintenance costs would be covered by the park and recreation fee.

Okay, so it would be the 36% because compared to the 40% though.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Council Robbins.

If we since we have said to reduce the number of units per acre, does that mean we will reduce the overall number of parks or size of the parks?

And if so, then will the costs be a little bit better covered?

I think it would improve slightly.

So we didn't have time to totally parse it out.

Um but if you drop it by roughly uh 500 homes, that whittle, you know, the the level of service calculation is per thousand.

So you're kind of half of that metric.

So it does whittle it down a bit, um, and it would it would shrink the gap by 1%, 2% is my best guess.

Okay.

Council President Wolf for your question.

Um just wondering um going back to when you all presented the parks information and we talked about the reduction.

Um has there been any kind of circle back to community um of kind of where a lot of that communication was versus where we are now, and just curious if you got any kind of feedback from some of those initial groups.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so we have not circled back with the community.

The community made it abundantly clear more park land is better.

Um so we didn't revisit that.

Um this was shared with developers, um, not during a developer forum, um, but during uh more one-on-one meetings or small group meetings.

Um and the feedback has been if we increase parks land even above what's already proposed, which is rather significant, um, that it becomes even more challenging to balance the housing goals, the natural resources goals, the parks goals, the commercial goals, et cetera.

So the infrastructure goals.

So there was um some concern uh voiced by the developers who we spoke with.

All right.

All right.

If there are no more questions, Counselor Robin, would you feel comfortable going first to all right?

Please, thank you.

Um so number one, do you support a proposed uh policy?

Yes, okay.

Yes, I do.

Um I think you know, well, I guess one one concern I have is is like our developer guest here said, we're not hearing any positive.

I don't know the positives of changing to something else.

I mean, I can imagine, but um but I I'm not sure if if there is a significant positive to changing to one of the other plans, but I think the plan we have is fine.

I think the the current calculation that we're using for River Terrace Timpoint North seems more realistic with what you're gonna get in the end, right?

Because it's it's just the parks, not the natural areas and the water drainage and stuff.

Um as far as the you know, if the the regulation size sports fields is a citywide need, if that's a citywide need, then yes, we should meet that because this neighborhood is kind of far out.

And so then I think kids want to play in their soccer league in their neighborhood or at least some of the time.

And if you had to pile your kids in and then drive all the way up across town to another regulation field, it just makes those fields more crowded.

So I think yes, we should meet that need.

Oh, and for community parks, I think we should have everybody share the blueberry hill community park and have more neighborhood parks or the regulation fields or something.

So number three, you mean no no no community park.

Okay.

Thank you.

Can I please follow up?

I apologize to interrupt.

Um I failed to mention that we did get some information from a developer who has recently constructed some baseball fields.

Um so they were able to put together a cost estimate, at least on the construction side.

Um just to give an idea of um if we do incorporate regulation-sized sports fields in River Terrace 2.0, what that could look like on the development side.

Um for two baseball fields, irrigation of that, um, a small parking lot and site work, the estimate was about two million for construction.

Um I just wanted to also remind council of Rick Grew and our parks managers feedback just about the um the cost and challenge of uh maintaining and programming that type of space.

Um certainly we'll move forward with council's direction, but I feel it's an important point to add.

Okay.

So did I give like a contradictory answer then?

Because I said no community park, but yes.

So if you have a regulation size field, is it mean it's a community park?

Traditionally, that's where they're located.

Um but I mean, yes.

Okay, well then so um so this is very difficult because then because the sentence in here says a community, a citywide need.

So I feel like yes, we should meet a citywide need.

But if can like kids playing soccer, can they play that on a short-sided field?

I don't know.

Can they does anyone know that?

Do soccer games happen on the one for little kids, I believe they do for rec leagues.

Um kind of keep in your back pocket as a policy-making body, is that we do have this uh land in Lossage Park, uh, which is not a park yet, right?

But it's sitting there and it's been bought with park bond money.

Um, if council were to move forward with a lower recommendation for community parks, one way to reconcile that me between the two positions that you're laying out there is that we could offer no community parks with this development, and then down the road, the city could develop more recreational type facilities in Los Angeles, which was the original goal for it, should funding be available.

And so it's a way to sort of uh push that part of the decision further down the road.

And so I think um yeah, I just want to you know offer that because you brought up you know there seem to be a disconnect between those two.

So that's one way to reconcile it.

So that's helpful.

And so then no community parks and yes to short-sided fields or some sort of designated field, so it's not a park with hills, so you can't play soccer on at least everywhere, right?

Okay.

Is that better?

Yeah, but that's that's very good.

Consular Schlack.

So um, I wish this is the one I had the least sort of linear thought process of of what I wanted, because uh realistically, I don't I don't I'm gonna just sort of talk through where I'm at right now.

We're gonna create 18 units an acre wood per acre, which is still much higher than we have in River Terrace 1.0, real and we've issued a consensus sort of decision that we want more middle housing.

Realistically, they're not gonna have yards of of any comparable scope to anything that was built, say on Bull Mountain or or even two decades ago, right?

So we're gonna need more park space just by virtue of that, if we're gonna try and make this livable.

Um I'm also not convinced we can afford that much based on looking at the numbers and um just sort of considering the entire fiscal situation.

I mean, we're gonna build a lot of stuff out in River Terrace 2.0, and we're not really gonna know what the drain on existing city services and city funding is gonna be, which is why I had advocated for that that study up front.

I recognize we're gonna have a parks and recreation fee discussion uh coming up later this spring, which I hope will kind of address some of it, but it ongoing service funding is something I'm very concerned about.

Um I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place between affordability and what we need, but um thinking about what's over there, I would say I would like to see a community park, uh two community parks, honestly, just because we need one on the west side, we need one on the south side.

Realistically, you're not gonna be able to walk up to Blueberry Hill Park from uh from Beef Bend Road if you're in the southern section of it.

And if you're going to drive, there's no parking over there.

It's going to be street parking like we saw earlier mixed with all the residential.

It's just not going to be a really great option.

As far as regulation-sized sports fields, I'd love to see that.

But I keep coming back to we have Mountainside High School right at the top of Scholes Ferry and Roy Rogers.

We have Art Rutkin over there.

And we even have Scholes Scholes Heights Elementary, not far from there.

So realistically, if you're going to go play dodgeball with your friends, you probably would have your parent take you up there and you'd use the baseball field or the soccer field or whatever at one of these local schools.

That's what I did when I was a kid.

So I'm not while I want to see short-sighted fields, I'm not necessarily convinced we need regulation-sized baseball fields, for instance.

That's just just where I'm at on it.

Now I sub I don't quite know what option working backwards, I don't know what option that really puts me in.

I mean, I I'm kind of fine with current policy proposal, but I feel like I'm going with increased parks level of service based on what I said.

Counselor Schlack, would it be helpful to look at the parks map, the proposed park system map, just to see where the proposed parks are located to kind of see that geographic distribution?

Yes, that would be great if we could pull that up.

Robert, can you please go towards slide 14-ish?

There's a slide.

The next one, I think.

Yes.

Thank you.

So on this map, um, you're seeing um different potential areas that might be suitable to a community park, um, and then neighborhood parks.

So let's focus on the neighborhood parks just for a moment.

So there are um four, nope, one, two, three, four, five in the uh west section at the top of the screen, and another three um towards the bottom in the south area.

Um and keeping in mind that the proposal is to have larger neighborhood parks in River Terrace 2.0 than what was built in River Terrace.

So in River Terrace, um the largest um kind of usable park space that's not natural area is about an acre and a half.

There might be one that's a little bit larger than that, but we're proposing um two and a half acres as that target um acreage for a neighborhood park, which would allow one, maybe two um short-sided sports fields in a park of that size while still allowing some room for other amenities.

Um so if the direction of council is to prioritize these non-regulation sized sports fields, um, it is possible to put one, maybe two of those in neighborhood parks, which are more um geographically distributed throughout the neighborhood and and more walkable.

So that could be accommodated with the current proposal.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you for pulling this up.

This makes me feel much better about the the geographic distribution because yeah, you're not gonna walk from beef bend up to Blueberry Hill Park.

And even if you drove, there's not gonna be any realistic parking up there for the reasons we discussed all the issues with River, not all the issues, but the issues with River Terrace 1.0.

Um based on this information, I'm comfortable moving forward with um the current proposal.

Thank you for letting me talk out what I was thinking.

And you were still like two I'm uh satisfied with the current the current proposal as is, which is up to one community park.

Just one community park.

Just one community park.

Yes, I apologize for the confusion.

I'm just trying to keep track of the council president Wolf.

Number one, well, we can go through two, three, two, one to a counselor schlack, or you can go one, two, three.

See how how you would like to make my life a little bit more difficult going backwards.

See if I can try.

Um, Councillor Schlack, I appreciate the questions.

Um to be honest, I'm kind of at the 50,000 feet that I want to retain the amount of acres we have defined as park space.

Because I think that's just important to develop a community, have space to be and enjoy.

Um I'm wrestling, so that's my biggest priority, right?

Retain the amount of acres proposed.

Um I have mixed feelings about short fields.

I'm curious about utilization and because back to a lot of the elementary schools back when you know, like your kiddos are playing kiddo size this size, um, they often add practice fields at our elementaries.

So I'm trying to figure out the value of having non-regulated fields as such a big investment of space.

Um so um I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but I'm not gonna follow my sword for it.

Uh I just want green space for families to be out, be active and enjoy um living in River Terrace 2.0.

So I'm indifferent.

So I don't know if that makes me in one.

And if community park makes sense, I'm really excited about what the opportunity will be at um Los Lake when that's developed.

Uh maybe there's a future parks bond in our you know um uh uh destiny.

I would love to see that.

But um anyway, uh one.

I don't care.

I mean it's getting late.

And I'm just like save the green space.

That's what I care about.

So for community park, you have you're fine with the current proposal of one.

Um going back to the regulation size sports field, you will say no.

Or no.

Okay.

And short short side field.

I would like to better understand its utilization, because I don't believe it's necessary.

I don't have that data.

So why are you talking about short side field or the full size, right?

No, I don't I don't think there's space for full size.

Okay, but how about cost?

And short-side of field, yes, no?

Well, no, I think you can go to the elementary schools.

And uh how about the level of service?

Current proposal.

It's fine.

Oh, it's fine.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm sorry, the level of service was okay.

It's fine.

Okay.

So I'm keeping track of it too.

So go ahead.

Um can I please just add one thing about short-sighted fields?

Um I can't fully answer your question about how well they're used.

Um we did hear from the community that there is a desire for kind of multi-purpose green space.

And that's something that short-sighted fields can provide.

Okay.

And you guys, this is what I would say is I want the space.

I want you all to understand what you think best delivers the service that the communities.

I mean, I I'm specific about some things, but this one is you guys decide.

What does this community want?

And I'm great with that.

I just want to reserve the space.

Yeah.

That's my fundamental belief.

Yeah.

So thank you.

And thank you, Council President.

And I agree with you.

And um I I'd have to keep reminding myself that the calculation for parks is a little bit different, right?

Because you are not counting open space, sound open space.

So that's for that reason.

I think the current level of service is adequate because we we are you know, you're not counting open space, but open space will be their additional ones.

So and for me, it's not necessarily park, it's this distance between your next door neighbor, right?

So that's why I'm happy with the current um level of service.

And yeah, I'm I'm not I don't think RiverTest must provide regulators and short side of field.

I don't know.

Um I will say no.

And um community park, I think one is reasonable.

And um if we want more, we it I think it's better handles through the system level planning rather than go ahead, Council Personal Wolf.

So, Mayor, just to clarify, Britney, based on what your follow-up is, right?

I I do support if it's the unreg regulated size because that's what the community wants, then I'm great with that.

So I just wanted to give that clear.

So thanks.

All right.

So maybe question 2.2 is kind of but okay, counselor Godusi, go ahead.

Um Thank you, Mayor.

For question one.

My main concern is similar to River Terrace 1.0, whatever we have planned isn't necessarily what's gonna come to fruition.

So if we're currently planning for something that's less than River Terrace 1.0, what will actually come to be is going to be even less than that.

If I may, the um if you look at on the first page, um if you compare the bottom table, the last two columns, the left River Terrace Acres to date and the right being what's proposed.

Um if you look at that 22 publicly accessible acres number in River Terrace One, um, that is significantly less than what is proposed in River Terrace 2.

So I completely agree.

59 acres in River Terrace 2 is likely not going to be the full publicly accessible acreage just based on how uh the land use process works.

Um but I can confidently say it would still be uh notably more than what was built in River Terrace One.

Perfect.

That's what matters most to me really because of the location.

And once you start to get West, if it has similar issues and restrictions that the lost such property has just because of the location and the wildlife there, I'm worried that our they will not feel like parks or look like parks.

Um as long as they are publicly accessible and look like parks.

And I'm fine with the number and what's currently proposed.

Okay.

Um for number two, I don't think that programming would necessarily be appropriate within the neighborhood.

So having regulation sized sports fields that would then be supportive of large programs, things like Albion and the things that we have at Cook Park.

And I know that the parks department has been wanting to build those relationships with a lot of the schools in order to bring that sort of regulation size to places where they're not using it all the time.

So we have the infrastructure there.

So trying to move that and play with that.

That said, I really do think that those short-sighted fields are going to be important within the neighborhood.

It helps increase activity, it helps make health fun, not just for kids, for adults as well.

You throw down cones and whatever we could do to get people moving is going to be very important.

So with that, I would want to move forward with one community park.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Anderson.

I agree with Councilor Gadussi.

Oh, yes.

Easy.

Easy peasy.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And no, no, yes.

And then one community park.

Okay.

All right.

So here's the count total.

We have unanimous agreement on question number one.

We will keep the current the proposed level service.

For number two, uh, we all say no to regulation regulation size sports.

I think there's four or five yes short side of fields.

And for number three, we have five votes for one park and one vote for zero parks.

Oh, yeah.

And sorry, youth counselor.

I I think all good.

Um I just saying.

Oh, sorry.

Yes.

On one two, I would say yes.

I think that having at least one regulation size sports fields would be important as someone who has used those before and who knows a lot of people who do.

And I don't think that the short-sighted fields are really going to satisfy those needs.

And then yes, with one community park.

Okay.

So much as I would like like 30.

That's not possible.

I know.

So yeah.

So yeah, so council direction is we keep the current proposed park service level for River Towers 2.0.

No regulated size sports field.

Probably short-sided fields and one community park.

All right.

It's very clear.

So let's move on to the next.

Great.

The next slide, please.

And I believe this is our last one.

So we're going to talk about one natural resources policy.

If we go to the next slide.

So the current policy proposal is the customized Title 13 compliant natural resources protection approach that staff presented to council back in October.

This approach uses a tiered structure and includes a baseline of protections to ensure that we meet Metro's Title 13 requirements.

Excuse me, the tiered structure of this is that it prioritizes protection of the highest value habitat and it allows more development in the lower quality areas of natural resources, opening up more land when appropriate to balance our housing goals.

So the alternative police policy options that staff provides as examples are in if council felt it was necessary to protect more natural resources, we could choose to adopt Metro's model code.

The model code it's a bit more complicated than this, but essentially 80% natural resources protection is required.

And that is compared with our approach, which again includes that tiered approach so that we have some areas that can even be reduced down to 60% protected where appropriate.

So the Metro Model Code would result in more protection.

Option two, if council felt like the direction was to further reduce natural resources protection to free up more land for housing, um potentially commercial and parks, we can look at if it's possible to reduce protections at all.

I will note that we might only have a few percentage points to reduce the amount in order to maintain compliance with Title 13.

Uh we'd have to do an analysis, but any more than that.

Um it's our uh strong feeling that it would not comply with Title 13 provisions.

Um I do not have a handout on this one, but happy to answer any questions that council has.

All right, thank you.

And just a reminder, we'll have up 12 minutes left for this discussion.

So counselor Schlack, your question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just for uh a refresher for me, we talked about parks, what and trails, you know, all that, which is easy to understand.

But natural resources, what sort of examples could you give me of what this is separate from what we just discussed?

Yeah, great question.

Um, so in this case, Title 13 is regulating two types of habitat, riparian, which is around bodies of water, um, and upland, which is everything else.

Um, so we rely on clean water services to regulate our riparian areas.

So our customized approach does not change any applicable regulations around our riparian areas.

Um so this tiered approach is our upland, which is our dense forest patches.

Um the highest value um areas are our Oregon-white oak groves, dense large patches of forest, um, our kind of second-tier resources are our less dense forest or smaller clusters of forest, um, and then vegetation that is within a certain distance of stream.

So it's um using Metro's methodology to inventory the natural resources in the area and uh placing them into categories based on how well they support habitat or uh climate resilience.

All right.

So uh remind me again how many acres you had estimated total for housing with this.

Um acres for housing?

Like acres everywhere for housing.

Sure.

Um so the gross acreage is 490.

The um natural resources are about 90, but that couldn't fluctuate uh depending on which path development takes what I think our remainder was hovering somewhere right around uh 300 acres of available land.

Yeah, and so uh you know it could be a little bit higher, a little bit lower than that, but that's that's after you take out streets and parkland as well.

So, like Brittany said, it's um it's more like 90 acres for Title 13.

Okay.

And is 90 acres Title 13 compliant?

It is, it's actually um probably slightly more.

So we have about 160 acres of natural resources.

Um Metro has vetted our customized approach and feels comfortable with an estimate of 90 acres being protected.

Um it's not explicitly in Title 13, but Metro has communicated that this area must protect at least half of its natural resources, so that's 80.

Um so we're certainly shooting for more than the minimum.

Thank you.

Council Robins.

Thanks.

I'll try to be quick.

Um a lot of the regulations that we're or policies that we're trying to do are balancing what housing needs or commercial needs with developer needs and stuff.

And um, so I'm seeing here that the issues with the the custom plan that we have.

Uh developers are concerned that it um concerns about flexibility and preference for performance-based discretionary approach, but also concerns about the approach conflicts with housing goals.

Um I'm guessing what that means is developers might think that if we want to protect a lot of natural resources, then we're infringing on the number of houses or homes that we can put.

But so you know, our options are stick with what we are, do the metro model code, which which is just 80% across the board, or reduce protections, which I think would be a mistake because if we don't comply with Title 13, then in the end we're stuck and have to that would be a mistake.

So are developers happier with the Metro model code, or do they like the flexibility?

I mean, I imagine most developers, if I was a developer, I'd probably like little regulations so I could figure it out myself, right?

And so um I'm wondering, do they which of those two of the model metro model code and our code, which which do they prefer, which is easier for them?

Yeah, I think you uh really touched on the main point.

So flexibility is number one, and uh reducing that conflict between housing goals, parks goals, and natural resources goals.

Um, they all conflict, and parks have um actually as well.

Um they all vie for the same land, right?

Um so what we've heard is um Title 13 um and this customized approach we're putting forward does protect a great deal of natural resources.

Um as I mentioned, it is slightly above what Metro has communicated is that bare minimum.

Um and that is also to balance community priorities, um which one of the uh top comments we've gotten is protect as much nature as you possibly can.

Um so uh this is our attempt at balancing that.

From developers, um we have heard the model code.

So the 80% is coming from what's called the clear and objective path.

You're following set standards.

That's not workable.

80% is uh a quite a lot more than the flexibility that would be provided through our customized approach.

So there is not support from the development community to go with the model code.

However, there is an interest in the flexibility that you mentioned that they feel like they can um do the assessments themselves and put forward a more performance-based plan that balances these conflicting um priorities.

Um our concern with that, oh, and I should mention that the model code does have a performance-based path through a discretionary process.

The problem with that is that Metro, because we are going through this community plan process, is requiring that we prove numerically that we can provide this greater than 50% protection of resources.

So if we don't have a baseline protection for all development, then we don't see a path possible to demonstrate to Metro that we're definitely able to meet their standards for Title 13 if we just leave it all open to be determined at the time of development.

Um that's a long answer, but it's kind of the two pieces of the model code.

Option two would certainly be supported if there were uh by developers if there were reductions possible.

Again, I think that there are a couple percentage points.

Um instead of 60% protection, maybe it's 58 57% protection um just as an example.

All right, so in the interest of time, any short questions?

All right, so this time I go start.

I start first.

I will I will support a current policy proposal for all the reasons stated, and option two is just not an option for me.

I want protect, I want to protect uh nature area.

So counselor person wolf.

Current policy.

Counselor Schlack.

Current policy, um, housing and commercial space is a huge priority for me considering all that we've talked about this evening.

Counselor Robins.

Current policy.

Use counselor.

Option one.

Uh counselor Anderson.

Current policy.

Council Cruzisi.

Uh counselor uh current policy.

All right.

So current policy it is.

All right.

Anything else that you you need on us?

Is that I hope that's very clear.

Um thank you so much.

Um this is very helpful, and I'll I really appreciate you uh holding this uh work session and and have us one-on-one.

So personally I feel I have much better understanding of what we are doing.

So um so other than the uh density, I think um we are pretty much uh sticking with the current policy.

So um thank you so much.

Great.

Thank you all so much for your time and your input.

Yeah, so let's see.

Uh there being no other item, the meetings are adjourned.

Good night, Tiger.