05/22/2026
More Parking Questions ... and Tiny Homes?
I’ll save you another 35+ minutes of listening/watching time from the City Council’s May 11 parking discussions – this one on the parking-in-lieu fee. And you’ll get a bonus because you’ll get the tiny house news too.
Parking First…
The clip here will give you a 7 minute history of parking-in-lieu fees in the city. (You can skip ahead to the tiny homes discussion if you prefer).
The parking-in-lieu fee is a fee that the City of Hood River allows a developer of residential or commercial property to pay in lieu of (i.e. in place of) providing the number of parking spaces that their development would otherwise require under the city’s building codes.
Final decision after 35+ minutes of discussion: Council voted to add a study of the existing parking-in-lieu fees into the parking study already budgeted, as long as the cost doesn’t exceed an additional $50,000.
We’ll hear about that parking study results in a few months.
Main points in the discussion (including things councilors didn’t know but I’ll point out):
- Over the years, sometimes fees were really high and that seemed to inhibit development projects in the downtown corridor.
- Also... sometimes the in-lieu fees were really low but there wasn’t development either.
- The fees in place now seemed to have encouraged development that takes advantage of those fees to avoid building parking, creating other problems.
- Multiple councilors admitted to having heard the concerns about the parking problems that would have come with the Marriott hotel (had it been approved). That’s why public comments make a difference!
Councilors considered hosting an extended work session members of the public who could share thoughts about parking fee strategies. This didn’t go anywhere out of concerns that there’d be insufficient real info to actually come to any conclusions.
Councilor Cavaleri was concerned about whether it was appropriate to use the fees held in the Reserve Funds for In-Lieu Parking to fund a traffic study. She thought the fees were to be reserved for a parking garage.
Councilor Stepina responded "I think it CAN, it doesn't have to" (i.e. the fees don't HAVE to go towards buildng more parking). Timestamp around 2:36:48 on the full video.
My take: In fall 2020, the city council passed resolution 2020-18. That’s on the City’s website (under “Resolutions”) and includes this sentence:
“Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be deposited into a dedicated fund to be used for the development and provision of public parking facilities, consistent with HRMC 17.24.010(b)"
HRMC (Hood River Municipal Code reads: “Use of Fees. In-lieu parking fees shall be deposited in a dedicated fund for the development and provision of public parking facilities. The collected fees may be applied ONLY to development and provision of public parking that serves the Central Business District, Heights Business District or Waterfront, or the development of City-owned parking lots located in nonresidential zones. Development and provision of parking to which the fees are applied MUST be consistent with the City’s adopted parking management plan. Development and provision of parking includes, but is not limited to, paving, striping, sidewalks, acquisition of real property, payment of administrative costs, and construction. (Ord. 2056 §2 (Exh. 😎, 2020)” (ONLY and MUST capitalized by ME)
SO ... in my amateur reading of this ... YES, the in-lieu fees are reserved for things like building parking garages. But NO, the wording doesn’t suggest funding parking STUDIES.
I suggest the City pay for its parking studies out of the fees it’s collecting from the transient lodging taxes (from hotels) or from parking passes.
Tiny Homes
The upshot? There isn’t enough housing at price points where middle and lower income households can find housing they can afford. City Council asked staff to look into what is involved in allowing RVs, trailers, and tiny homes (the ones with wheels) to be placed long-term on private property like someone’s driveway or parking lot.
Discussion – everyone wants to help with the housing shortage. Planning Director Nilsen said that the city can’t just copy the code used in Portland – this would be a land-use rule, require exensive public engagement and hearings, and significant staff work.
Council members then talked about what a tiny home is, different building standards for a manufactured home versus an RV or tiny home, the choice of tiny homes for lifestyle, etc.. .
Nilsen explained the extensive work required to actually move forward with creating the code – again saying that the rules set in Portland may not be the same that Hood River residents would want.
City Manager Elder pointed out that the City Council has added multiple new priorities to the work staff already has, and suggested that it may be time to assess what is underway and to update the work plan.
Meanwhile, remember that there are also unintended consequences that code changes will need to consider (fees, safety, compliance, enforcement costs, penalties for non-compliance).
The Oregonian’s May 19th story on a tiny home’s toxic fumes from an unconnected toilet shows just one example of a problem and how it affected the neighbors who had lived next door for 40 years. ... https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2026/05/a-tiny-home-moved-in-next-door-and-this-couple-says-they-now-wears-gas-masks-because-of-its-toilets-odors.html
More to come on this too.
Link if you or family/friends prefer YouTube: https://youtu.be/kw1nMLUWuJI?si=JeCRZotlQtivZ8hZ