HomeMy WebLinkAbout3085 Housing Needs Analysis
ORDINANCE NO. 3~~5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Annotated to show delet-iens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers,
as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall
possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have
perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative
powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v.
International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730,
734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the availability of
adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the
financial capabilities of Oregon households
WHEREAS, the Housing Needs Analysis (2012) reflects the projected housing need in comparison
to the supply of developable land within the Ashland City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary
based upon specific land classification and constraints to development according to the Buildable
Lands Inventory adopted in 2011.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing
on October 9, 2012 and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the Housing Needs
Analysis upon amendment to include information about the student population and information on
the 60-year annexation and zone change programs.
WHEREAS, the City Council(of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on
the above-referenced amendments on November 6, 2012. The City Council subsequently met on
February 4, 2013 at a study session to discuss further amendments to the Housing Needs Analysis.
A duly advertised public hearing was held on August 20, 2013, regarding the amendments.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and
record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in
accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to
amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base
exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that
such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and
Supporting Documents" is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. Previously added
support documents are acknowledged on this Appendix.
SECTION 3. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Housing Needs Analysis, (2012),"
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference is hereby added to the above-
referenced Appendix to support Chapter VI, [HOUSING ELEMENT] the Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are
severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity
of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or
another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided
however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 4-5) need not be
codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical
errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in ace rdanee with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of tyl~ 2013,
an my PASSED and ADOPTED this .S day of !/K 2013.
lit
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day o2013.
Stromberg, Mayor
Rev' wed as to for
Da id Lohm n, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
:r: A
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
i
A Technical Supporting Document to the Housing Element of the
City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan
Prepared by the City of Ashland Community Development Department
Approved by the Ashland City Council [date]
Table of Contents
~ExecutlvegSumm`aimy a
• Findings 3
• Potential Strategies 6
• City Accomplishments 8
Sectidn Ir Intr•,oduct10n
• Background-Oregon Planning Requirements for Housing 10
• Purpose-Housing Need versus Housing Demand I I
• Housing Needs Analysis Organization 14
Sect>on III Framework/aCommuni`ty;Coritext 4 16
• Historic Population Trends 15
• Economic Conditions 17
• Employment 19
• Community Visions and Values 20
Seetion IiI4 Housin>; T4tends and~Existng Conditions ' 23`
• Residential Construction Trends 23
• Income and Affordability of Housing 26
• Rental Units 27
• Ownership units 30
• Buildable land supply 32
Section IV Housing In ,ent0ry 34
• Single Family and Manufactured housing, detached 34
• Manufactured Housing in Parks 34
• Multiple or single-family units, attached 34
• Government assisted housing 35
• Owner Occupied units 37
• Renter Occupied Units 37
• Housing Ag-e and Condition 37
~Sectton V• Housing Needs 1' ~;~t ' 40
• Projecting Ashland's Housing need 40
• Population Proiections 40
• Age of Householder and age of projections 42
• Housing ownership by age of householder 43
• Household Income 44.
• Household Size and Composition 45
°Sectton UI Baseline Forecast of~Hou i! d N 4S"
• Housing needs by type and density 49
• Housing needs of special populations 54
Section uII Meeting I:Iousing need§ fo 2040 $ = ? 59
Arp'pendfx ea.%et MF ~ r.'a ~ * ~t ~ 64
_I_
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
The 2012 Housing Needs Analysis provides a summary of housing and demographic trends
within the City of Ashland in an effort to allow the City to meet the population's housing needs
in the future.
Ashland combines a small town atmosphere with the cultural and educational opportunities of a
larger urban center. Entrepreneurs and small business, artisans, students and families have all
come to Ashland to enjoy the lively town center, the mild climate and sense of community.
Tourism and students have been essential to the evolution of Ashland's character by supporting
the town's two largest industries, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and Southern Oregon
University.
In the last twenty years, there has been a shift toward a more service- and retail-oriented
economy throughout the area. While this has been a national trend, this trend in Ashland has also
been impacted by the migration of middle- and upper-income "Baby Boomers" and retirees from
California and the Midwest to Southern Oregon, attracted by the mild climate and the relatively
more affordable cost of living. As a nationally recognized retirement destination and the home
of Southern Oregon University, the demographics of Ashland differ from cities of comparable
size due to a higher concentration of students and elderly residents.
The City of Ashland has long worked to maintain a compact urban form and provide multimodal
transportation options to allow residents to use less energy and spend less money to get around,
whether by making fewer or shorter car trips, or using other less expensive modes of
transportation like bicycling, walking, or transit. Given transportation costs typically represent
the second highest household expense, following housing, it is expected that through a decrease
in transportation costs as a result of efficient urbanization, and improved multi-modal
transportation options, the City can continue to improve the overall affordability of living in
Ashland.
The traditional measure of housing affordability used by housing providers, lenders, and most
consumers recommends that housing should cost less than 30% of income and it is this measure
that is used in this analysis to be consistent with this established standard. Although the Housing
Needs Model used to conduct this analysis does utilize a combined housing + transportation cost
level of affordability, it is important to note that savings in transportation costs are certainly a
mitigating factor in evaluating the total affordability of housing choices. ,
This report is intended to provide an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since the last
detailed housing assessments were completed including the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and
the 2007 Rental Needs Analysis. The following is a review of those trends, a brief summary of
-2-
steps the City has taken to address the findings, recommended actions identified in the prior
housing assessments, and an evaluation of what the results of those actions have been. The 2012
Housing Needs Analysis does not establish new policy but rather provides technical information
and a framework for future discussions in relation to the City's future housing needs.
Findings
Ashland is growing-but relatively slowly: The City of Ashland has grown in population from
16,234 in 1990 to 20,078 in 2010 according to the US Census. This 0.79% historical growth rate
is largely consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Jackson County's population
estimate for the City of Ashland that predicts the population will continue to grow at an average
annual rate of approximately 0.75% between 2005 and 2060. Between 1990 and 2000
Ashland's population grew by 20% while the population grew by only 2.8% in the decade
between 2000 and 2010. This marked disparity in population growth between these past two
decades may suggest that the actual annual growth rate is trending toward a diminishing growth
rate and if that proves to be the case it will be a trend which bears close monitoring.
Growth has not occurred evenly in all age groups: The population growth rate of individuals
65 years old and older grew at a faster rate in Ashland than in the rest of the State, while the
population of individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 actually declined. In the last decades
Ashland has also seen a substantial decrease in the population of nearly all age groups between
15 and 55 (one exception was the 25-34 age groups which saw a 3.4% increase between 2000
and 2010). The populations of age groups 55 years old and older see growth.
Figure 1. Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
N m N N N N m m m N (0 ~
W d N Ol W W W d W Cl d d ~
m a m v v v a m v v o W>
ti rv m v in ~n ~ n ao v o
O N O ~/f N of u1 O of vi of
•-I N N N t+1 R vl l0 l~ n 00
X2000 US Census X2010 US Census
-3-
This trend of an aging citizenry should persist into the future as the largest population growth has
been and will continue to be in the age groups represented by the large baby boom cohort. This
group which was in their 40"s and 50's in 2000, and their 50's and 60's in 2010, (where those
groups saw increases of 110% and 85% respectively), will be in their 70's and 80's by 2020.
Overall the forecast for the State of Oregon anticipates there will be 53% more elderly in 2020
than in 20101. Given Ashland's desirability as retirement destination such trending indicates
Ashland will likely see a continuation of this trend.
Fewer households own housing in Ashland compared to other areas: The 2010 Census
showed 51 % of Ashland households own their homes and 49% are in renter occupied housing.
Ashland has a lower percentage of homeowners and a higher percentage of renters than Jackson
County with a 63.3% ownership rate, the State of Oregon with a 63.8% ownership rate or the
Nation as a whole with at 66.6% homeownership rate. The 2000 Census data showed 52.3% of
housing units in Ashland were owner occupied and 47.7% of units were renter occupied. One
factor that may influence this regional rental/owners disparity may be the presence of the
University, which increases the student age population and number of renter households relative
to the rest of the region.
The fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland do not pay enough for a household to
afford fair market rents: Retail and Service are the fastest growing employment sectors in
Ashland. The average monthly earnings from jobs in the Retail sector ($2420) and Service
sector ($2271)2 are insufficient to afford fair market rents in Ashland when measured as
spending less than 30% of one's income on housing costs. However, this trend is not specific to
Ashland; in general wages have been outpaced by housing costs for at least the past decade.
The number of low-income households has decreased since 2000 after having increased
between 1998 and 2000: Between 2000 and 2010 the estimated number of families and
individuals living below the poverty level has decreased from 12.5% to 11.5% and from 19.6%
to 18.8% respectively. Although the decrease is slight, it may signal a reversal in a trend
identified in the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis which found an increase of 2.7% in the estimated
number of low-income households between 1998 and 2001. The 2010 Census now reports a
decrease in the number of households who report having an annual income of less than $75,000 a
year while the number of households reporting an income of over $75,000 has increased.
Housing sales prices in Ashland have decreased over the last decade after increasing nearly
50% between1998 and 2001, but still remain higher than the regional.average: Housing
prices in the early part of the decade rose precipitously, and by 2007 at the height of the housing
boom, the average home price in Ashland was $438,750. With the fall out of the housing market
r OREGON'S DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS February 2010, State Office of Economic Anatysis
1 CA 2011 - Oregon Employment Department for Jackson County
-4-
in 2008 and the ensuing foreclosure crisis, housing prices in most areas fell drastically. Housing
prices also fell in Ashland during the recession, though not as significantly as in other parts of
the county. According to the Roy Wright Appraisal Service the average sales price in Ashland in
2012 was $282,0003.
The median home sales price in Ashland is not affordable to households with median
incomes: the 2012 median household income for a family of four in the Medford/Ashland
Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a median priced home in Ashland a
household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the population reports having an
income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing stock is targeted to this group.
It appears there is an excess of ownership housing on the market at price ranges which are not
commensurate with the earning capability of the majority of the population in the region.
Comparing the area median income to the median housing cost is an accepted industry wide
standard of determining affordability, however as noted previously a significant portion of
Ashland's new population is comprised of retirees who may have low incomes, yet have
sufficient assets to purchase a home. The comparison between median incomes and median
housing sales price does serve to illustrate the level of affordability of the housing market for
working households with limited assets.
The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually: The
findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census Data shows
that the City lacks an adequate number of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. Households making 30% of the Area
Median Income or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland households. Only 3.05%
of the City's rental housing stock (approximately 152 units) is considered affordable to this
population. The City's current need for rental housing in a price range affordable to those with
the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately 803 units
needed to house these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these
populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35, and to a lesser extent
over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The 729
households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be due
in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of non-
traditional students.
Ashland has a large deficit of affordable owner-occupied housing units: The 2002 HNA
found that 46% of Ashland households earning below the median income could not afford to
purchase a house in Ashland. This number has grown to approximately 57% of Ashland
households; over half of the current population cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland. As
a University town it is reasonable to assume that a number of student households that fall into
this income bracket are not presently in the market to purchase a home pending graduation from
3 http:/Aw .roywdghtappmisal.wndxSites/Appraisers/RayWdghtAppmis UContenVUploadedFiles/MONTHLYO/o2OSTATS.pdf
-5-
School and obtaining permanent employment, which may be reflected in the higher proportion of
rental units within Ashland when compared to the County or State. For residents earning below
the median income seeking to purchase housing the Housing Needs Model shows that there is a
deficit of housing stock costing less than $279,300, only 22% of all housing units for sale in
Ashland, while there is a surplus of 2,255 units above that price.
Few multi-family units were built between 2001 and 2010: Between 2000 and 2010, 19.6%
of all building permits issued were issued for multiple family units (two-family units to five or
more)The 2002 HNA found that only 9% of the building permits issued between 1990 and 2001
were for multi-family housing types.. Though single family units tend to get developed at a rate twice
that of multi-family units, the City has seen a significant increase in the development of multi-family
units in the past ten years. However, not all of the newly built multi-family units were rental units, and
many rental units were lost in the same period to condominium conversion.
Ashland is falling short of providing the housing types identified in the 2002 Housing needs
analysis: The 200214NA found that more single-family units were being built than was estimated to be
needed, while both multi-family housing and government assisted housing types were either falling short
or not being built at all. It is clear that single-family ownership housing development remains the most
prevalent type of housing development within Ashland, while the housing types most needed, including
multi-family rentals and government assisted housing are not being developed in accordance with needs.
Ashland has a relatively small inventory of land zoned for multi-family housing: The 2011 Buildable
Lands Inventory identified an existing capacity for up to 1,384 Multi-family units within the Urban
Growth Boundary. The Housing Needs Model anticipates up to 1,759 multi-family housing units will be
needed to satisfy the anticipated demand for multi-family units by the year 2040. Without changes to
allowable densities, increases in mixed use developments, or an increase in land zoned for multi-family
the City may exhaust the supply of land available for multi-family housing by the year 2034.
Potential Strategies
Following is a summary of potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues
identified in the 2012 HNA. These strategies are included primarily to provide a framework for
future discussions in relation to the City's future housing needs. They do not serve to establish
new policy direction, or compel any specific action, by the City. Elected and appointed officials
may choose to further consider such potential strategies to inform future policy decisions
necessary to adequately plan for and balance the needs of the community with regard to housing,
Encourage more multi family housing: Consider policies that will increase the development of
multi-family housing and provide more affordable rental housing to meet the needs of the
population. The 2002 HNA also recommended an increase in multi-family housing, in the last
decade the historic development of multi-family rental housing has continued to be insufficient
to satisfy demand despite some significant developments such as resulted from the City's
-6-
partnership with the Housing Authority of Jackson County in developing 60 units of affordable
rental housing.
Suggestion: Increase the land supply. The BLI data suggest that the City has capacity
for about 1,384 multi-family dwellings whereas it is anticipated that 1,759 units will be
needed by 2040. One approach to encourage apartment development is to designate more
land for higher concentrations of residential units (High and Medium Density zones).
Suggestion: Promote development of residential units in commercial and employment
zones. The BLI assumes commercial developments within employment and commercial
zones would only utilize 50% of their allowable residential capacity on average.
Increasing the prevalence of mixed use developments (beyond the 50% expectation) will
effectively increase the net supply of land and the total capacity for multi-family units.
Suggestion: Consider restricting uses in certain zones to apartments. The building
permit data suggest that a significant amount of land designated for high-density multi-
family housing has been developed as single-family attached types that are owner
occupied units. Designating certain lands for rental units would encourage development
of apartments.
Suggestion: Examine opportunities for redactions in parking requirements for the
provision of apartments meeting certain conditions. Studies have shown that the number
of vehicles per household is lower in areas that are more conducive to walking and have
greater access to transit (City of San Diego Feb. 2011). A unit's size and level of
affordability are additional conditions that could be further evaluated in consideration of
needed parking and reduced parking requirements.
Suggestion: Consider policies that encourage redevelopment or adaptive reuse of
structures. The location of rental units is also important. Increasing the supply of rental
units near employment centers and the University will make these units more attractive.
Suggestion: Develop more government-assisted housing in coordination with established
housing providers: The data show a need for nearly 800 dwelling units that are affordable
to households with annual incomes of $10,000 or less. About 30% of these households,
however, are in the 18-24 age range and another 25% are age 65 or over. The data
suggest the City would need,to develop as many as 50 units per year for the next 20 years
to address this need. Given the number of total housing units developed in the City in
any given year is typically less than 100, it is unlikely such a target could be met. A
more realistic target would be a target based on a percentage of total units developed in
collaboration with local housing organizations, which would be 10-15 units annually.
-7-
Encourage more affordable single-family housing types. The average sales price of a single-
family residence was over $282,000 in 2012. Following are some approaches that can increase
more affordable single-family housing types for a range of households:
Suggestion: Evaluate land use incentives to provide for small lots intended for small unit
development. The data show a strong correlation between lot size, unit size and housing
cost. The City could consider reductions in minimum lot sizes in certain residential
zones to specifically promote the development of smaller dwelling units.
Suggestion: Evaluate land use requirements to reduce barriers for manufactured
housing. The City has identified a need of 2.4% of all future housing to be manufactured
homes in subdivisions and manufactured homes in parks. Revising existing policies to
more readily enable the placement of manufactured homes is one potential approach to
allowing more affordable single family housing. The City is presently considering such
changes in the draft Unified Land Use Ordinance that would reduce such barriers for
manufactured housing.
Suggestion: Evaluate land use incentives to promote affordable single family housing.
The City could evaluate existing density bonus allocations to better incentivize the
voluntary inclusion of affordable single family housing in future developments
Suggestion: Consider allowing Accessory Residential Units as a permitted use in single
family zones. The integration of ARUs into existing neighborhoods provides for small
dedicated rental units serving single or two person households, and could also be a
resource for more affordable housing types. The City could consider ways to reduce
regulatory barriers to promote the voluntary inclusion of ARUs in future developments
and existing neighborhoods.
Suggestion: Reduce developmentfees for low-income projects: The City could undertake
a careful review of the components of housing cost and calculate the percentage of total
unit cost that is a result of development fees. As the City presently waives a number of
fees for affordable housing the City may also consider the establishment of a cap on fees
waived in any given year.
-8-
City Accomplishments
Following the Completion of the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Action Plan the
City has completed a number of actions that directly address the recommendations identified in
the prior analysis including the following:
• Developed land use policies and incentives to encourage the development of affordable
and needed housing types;
o Passed annexation and zone change ordinance requirements to require the
inclusion of affordable housing in new developments of a type commensurate
with the market rate units provided and deed restricted for a period of 60 year
(Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.106.030).
o Passed condominium conversion ordinance requirements that help preserve multi-
family rental housing and affordable housing deed restricted for a period of 30
years per resolution 2006-13.
o Passed minimum density ordinance requirements to ensure multi-family zoned
properties are developed at a minimum of 80% the base density and are thus not
developed as large single family lots.
o Passed an ordinance amendment permitting small accessory residential units to be
located on small lots in multi-family zones.
• Developed more government-assisted housing
o Coordinated with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to develop 60 new
units of government assisted affordable rental housing and assisted the project
through joint acquisition of land, CDBG awards, and reduced development fees.
• Reduced development fees for low-income projects
o Amended the City's Affordable Housing System Development Charge waiver
program to ensure a minimum period of affordability of 30 years for assisted
units.
o Amended the City's Community Development and Engineering fee waiver
program to make affordable units automatically eligible for the waivers.
-9-
o Developed a Housing Trust Fund framework for the dedication of resources to
assist the City in meeting housing needs.
• Developed Organizational Capacity for Affordable Housing
o Dedicated General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
resources to maintain a full time Affordable Housing Program staff position to
work with providers of affordable housing to develop more government assisted
housing locally;
o Prioritized the use of CDBG funds to support the development of affordable
housing consistently awarding the funds to projects that increase the supply of
affordable housing
City efforts, in collaboration with the local organizations providing affordable housing, have
resulted in over 10% of all housing units developed since 2002 being secured as affordable to
low-moderate income households. This percentage equates to a total of 178° units secured as
affordable over the last decade.
° See chart "Affordable Units per year" in Appendix D
-lo-
Section I - Introduction
The housing needs analysis serves as to provide technical information to help inform the
Housing Element of the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of undertaking an
analysis of housing needs is to increase the probability that needed housing types will be built
and to ensure that the city has a suitable amount of land to meet the housing development needs.
A housing needs analysis should include a comprehensive analysis offactors affecting
housing needs and an up-to-date knowledge of trends affecting housing... Such factors
along with household income and cost information, affect the need for various housing
types in a community's
The housing needs assessment contained in this report will be used by the City of Ashland
Community Development Department, the Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council to assist in evaluating strategies to address housing
needs in Ashland. The overarching goal is to ensure the development of a stable supply of
housing for current and future residents of Ashland at all income levels, and household types.
More specifically, this report is intended to present an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland
since the last detailed assessment was completed in 2002, and project current and future housing
needs based on 2010 Census data, community questionnaires, and the Housing Needs Model
created by the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department for use by City's in
Oregon to evaluate housing need. Specifically, the report:
• Describes socioeconomic characteristics and trends that affect housing;
• Describes recent housing development trends;
• Describes housing condition, tenure, and sales;
• Assesses trends in jobs/housing location;
• Quantifies housing needs by type and density, and compares it with household incomes
and other factors.
Background - Oregon Planning Requirements for Housing
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.296 contains two key objectives. These relate to housing
and land, as follows:
.-Housing: Ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix needed to meet a
community's housing needs over the next 20 years;
'Adams, B. and Smith, E. et al. Planning for Residential Growth: A workbook for Oregon's Urban alas. Transportation Growth
Management Program, Salem, Oregon, June 1997. Pg 25.
Land: Ensure that there is enough buildable land to accommodate the 20 year housing
need inside the urban growth boundary (UGB).
The City of Ashland is not required by state planning requirements to undertake a periodic
review of housing need since ORS 197.296 only applies to communities with a population of
25,000 or more. However, as a guide to providing for the current and future housing needs of its
citizenry, a housing needs analysis is a valuable tool. A housing needs analysis provides elected
and appointed officials and city staff with the necessary data to make decisions that balance the
needs of the community with regard to housing, redevelopment, annexation and growth
management, the preservation of farm land and rural areas with the need to accommodate
population growth and economic development. This analysis reviews current conditions and sets
the framework for future policy discussions regarding housing needs.
Housing Need versus Housing Demand
Establishing the basis to evaluate Housing Need reflects the broad mandate of the Statewide
Planning Goals and Guidelines, Goal 10 Housing that requires communities plan for housing that
meets the needs of households at all income levels. Thus, Goal 10 implies that everyone has a
housing need. Standards utilized by public agencies that provide housing assistance (primarily
HUD), identify several need components: financial need, housing condition, crowding, and
needs of special populations.
Housing Market Demand is what households demonstrate they are willing to purchase or rent
in the market place. Growth in population leads to a demand for housing units that is usually
met primarily by the construction of new housing units by the private sector based on
developer's best judgments about the types of housing that will be absorbed by the market.
It is the role of cities under Goal 10 to adopt and implement policies that will encourage the
provision of housing units that meet the needs of all residents. It is unlikely that the housing
market in any area will provide housing to meet the needs of every household. However, it is
incumbent upon the jurisdiction to endeavor to meet the basic housing needs of its citizenry.
At the extreme there is homelessness: some people do not have any shelter at all. Close behind
follows substandard housing (with health and safety problems), space problems (the structure is
adequate but overcrowded), and economic and social problems (the structure is adequate in
quality and size, but a household has to devote so much of its income to housing payments that
other aspects of its quality of life suffer).
Moreover, while,some housing is government assisted housing, public agencies do not have the
financial resources to meet but a small fraction of that need. New housing does not and is not
likely to fully address all these needs because housing developers, like any other business,
typically try to maximize their profits.
-12-
In conducting the Housing Needs Analysis the following definitions of common terms are
utilized:
• Decent Housing: The tern decent housing speaks to the physical condition of housing
units. Housing that includes bathroom facilities, electricity, basic plumbing and heating
and is free of open exterior holes or cracks, and infestation is considered decent housing.
One measure of safe and decent housing is the Housing Quality Standards (HQS)
checklist developed by HUD (see appendix D).
• Safe Housing: Prior to 1927 there were no building codes, with the evolution of
homeowner's insurance and the fallout of multiple tragedies due to fire, many
communities adopted Uniform Building Codes to create safety standards and regulate the
building industry to ensure that such tragedies were averted. In the 1990's the ICC
(International Code Council) codes were adopted in most states across the country in an
effort to standardize the accepted safety of residential and commercial buildings
nationwide. An un-safe building is one that fails to meet the minimum standards
established in by the building codes adopted by the community. Inversely Safe Housing
would be a unit in compliance with those minimum standards.
• Affordable Housing: In general terms affordable housing refers to a household's ability
to find housing within their financial means. The standard measure of affordability as
defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is when the
cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of household income. When gross
rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it places a
significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of their
income toward housing costs are called "Cost burdened". Householders who pay more
than 50% of their income toward housing costs are called "severely cost burdened".
When households are housing "cost burdened" their ability to pay for the other
necessities of life are compromised. There are four broad terms that are commonly used
when talking about housing affordability.
o Workforce Housing: the term "workforce housing" generally refers to housing
for that segment of the population that earns too much to qualify for government
assisted ownership and rental programs, but too little to purchase units without
assistance or afford to rent without experiencing cost burden. This population
often falls into the 80% to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) category.
o Affordable Housing: As stated previously this term refers to a household's
ability to find housing within their financial means. HUD defines housing
affordability is housing costs that are 30% or less of a households income.
o Low-Income Housing: refers to housing which is targeted to households making
below a certain income level, between 80% and 30% AMI. These units are
typically mandated by their funding mechanisms to rent or sell at a rate which is
-13-
below market rate and which theoretically would be affordable to a household at
the targeted income level.
o Subsidized Housing: refers to housing which is targeted to those with the lowest
incomes of 30% AMI and below, and is made affordable due to a "subsidy" to
buy down the rental cost.
Table 1.1
Income Level Number of Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
Extremely Law Income 12300 14050 15800 17550 19000 20400 21800 23200
30%
Low Income (50%) 20500 23400 26350 29250 31600 33950 36300 38650
Income at 60% of Median 24600 28080 31620 35100 37920 40740 43560 46380
Moderate Income (80%) 32800 37450 42150 46800 50550 54300 58050 61800
Median Income (100%) 41000 46800 52700 58500 63200 67900 72600 77300
Income at 120% of Median 49200 56160 63240 70200 75840 81480 87120 92760
• "Needed housing": As used in ORS 197.307, "needed housing" means housing types
determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at
particular price ranges and rent levels, including the following housing types:
o Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for
both owner and renter occupancy;
o Government assisted housing;
o Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to
197.490;
o Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family
residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured
dwelling subdivisions.
A common assumption concerning the impact of growth management policies is that by limiting
the supply of developable land, such policies reduce the supply of housing. Basic economic
theory suggests that if housing supply is low relative to demand, than the price for it will be high,
reducing its affordability. However, this is a simplistic view. Housing prices are determined by
a variety of complex factors, such as the price of land, the supply and types of existing housing,
the demand for housing, the amount of residential choice in the region, and household mobility.
Further in a community like Ashland, that is an attractive destination for both tourism and
retirement, the "demand" for housing in the community is not isolated to the existing residential
base. Rather national market forces are also factors in establishing local housing prices as the
potential buyers of Ashland's housing stock come from many areas around the country.
A report by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy entitled "The
Link between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence," by
Chris Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Gerritt Knapp and Casey Dawkins. The report, a comprehensive
14
review of the academic literature on the link between growth management and housing
affordability, found that:
Market demand, not land constraints, is the primary determinant of housing prices.
Whether growth management programs are in place or not, the strength of the housing
market is the single most important influence on housing prices. For example, Portland's
growth in housing prices is more attributed to increase housing demand, increased
employment and rising incomes than to its urban growth boundary.
However, both traditional land use regulations and growth management policies can raise
the price of housing, but they do so in different ways:
• Traditional zoning and other planning and land use controls limit the supply and
accessibility of affordable housing, thereby raising home prices by excluding lower-
income households. Such policies, already widespread in the U.S., include requirements
for low-density, rules on minimum housing size, or bans against attached or cluster
homes.
• Growth management policies improve the supply and location of affordable housing and
accommodate other development needs, thereby increasing the desirability of the
community and thus the price of housing. However, higher housing prices are often
offset by lower transportation and energy costs and better access to jobs, services, and
amenities.
Since housing prices may increase in any land use environment, the decision for local
governments is between good and bad regulation to improve housing choice. Traditional
land use practices tend to zone for low-density, expensive homes that exclude lower-income
households. Good growth management policies tend to incorporate policies that increase
housing densities, mandate a mix of housing types, and promote regional fair share
housing.6
Housing Needs Analysis Organization
Following the introduction are sections presenting population trends and forecasts, rental housing
and ownership housing development trends, forecasts based on population growth, affordability
needs, and employment trends with relation to population changes and housing needs. The
analysis details the City's existing housing inventory, its current gaps and surpluses in
consideration of future housing need projections based on the data from the Housing Needs
Model, and reconciles those projections with existing land inventory within the City's Urban
Growth Boundary. Lastly the needs analysis will identify possible policy options for future
consideration relating to the housing and land use needs of the population well into the future.
6 The Brookings Institute, 2002.
-15-
Section II - Framework for the Needs
Analysis-Community Context
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) worked together to identify data and methodology gaps in
implementing the State's housing goal. The result is the Oregon Housing Model, which
specifically links income and age to housing need and affordability. The analysis uses this
housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland's housing needs to 2040. The analysis
will examine Ashland's housing stock in conjunction with the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory
(BLI) and will then evaluate Ashland's housing need by type and price.
This analysis has been compiled using the following data sources:
• U.S. Census Data
• Analysis of current market conditions
• Community and property owner/manager questionnaire
• The Housing Needs Model
• Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County
• Population Data from Portland State University's Population Research Center
• Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department
• Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County
• All other citations and resources are referenced in the footnotes and attached
bibliography.
Historic Population Trends
Incorporated in 1874, Ashland had a population of just 300. Located on a stage line with
established woolen and lumber mills, the economy of the city at that time was predominantly
agricultural. By 1900 the City had grown to 3,000 residents. Ashland became the division point
for the Southern Pacific's San Francisco-Portland rail line. The city experienced a population
boom with the coming of the rail road. In 1899 a normal school was established. Over time the
institution became known as Southern Oregon State College and eventually Southern Oregon
University. The University has helped attract diverse populations to the community contributing
to both the economic and cultural development of the community.
Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew steadily to 7,739. Then with the emergence of the
timber industry in the Rogue Valley, the city once again experienced a population boom almost
doubling in size to 12,342, by 1970. The decade between 1970 and 1980 saw heavy migration to
Oregon from other states, in that time the City's population increased by approximately 2,600
people. By the late 1970's the main economic support for the Ashland community came from the
-16-
growth of the tourism industry spurred by the popularity of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
The travel/tourism industry helped to establish a base for the hospitality industry, retail shops,
and restaurants, as well as other cultural and artistic venues. By 1980, population growth tapered
off as the City experienced the impacts of a statewide recession and the decline in the timber
industry. The city long known for its cultural attractions and quality of life became an ideal spot
for retirees. At the same time, mills were closing taking with them the living wage jobs that they
provided to many area families. Despite the presence of Southern Oregon State College, the
number of people aged 15-29 began to decrease.
Jackson County has a retirement population that exceeds the state average.7 This is especially
true of Ashland which has been an attractive area for retirees. A demographers report completed
for the Ashland School District by Portland State University's Population Research Center noted
that; "the largest population growth has been and will continue to be in age groups represented
by the large baby boom cohort." In 2000 there was an influx of people in the 40-50 age range,
and it is estimated that by 2020 the age will range from 60-70.8 This trend, illustrated in Table
L I below, is seen in retirement communities throughout the nation as the Baby Boomers,
America's largest generation ages. This has had a disproportionately greater impact on areas like
Ashland and the rest of Southern Oregon, as they are popular areas for retirement. It is expected
that the retirement population will continue to grow, at the same rate or faster than it has in the
past two decades. The impact of a significant retiree population has had a marked affect on
several aspects of the Ashland community. The needs of a largely older, retired population have
significantly affected the types of employment found in Ashland and surrounding areas. There
has been a significant increase in the number of health care, medical, and support service jobs
due to this trend. Similarly, the rise in retail and service sector jobs is associated with this trend.
Unfortunately these new employment opportunities on average offer relatively low wages.
While the increase of the retirement population has created a demand for low wage jobs, it has
also driven up the cost of living, specifically with regard to real estate. Lastly, the Ashland
School District Demographer's report 9, as mentioned above, surmised that the increase in
retirement age residents and the high cost of living is cited as having an impact on local school
enrollment. Consistent with the demographers reports projecting decreasing enrollment
Ashland's elementary, middle and high schools have all lost enrollment in the past decade from
3,255 students enrolled in K-12 in Fall of 2001 to an enrolment of 2,721 this last year.
1 Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006, pg. 23.
8 Population Research Center, Portland State University, Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19,
IDemogrepher Report), December 2008, Pg. 7.
Ibid.
-17-
Table 2.1
Ashland Population by Age Grouplo
1990 % of 2000 % of 2008 of 2010 % of
total total to, al total
Under age 5 793 4.8% 802 4.1% 1,315 6.3% 1068 5.3%
Age 5-9 923 4.7% 1,065 5.1% 1002 5%
Age 10-14 1,144 5.9% 951 4.6% 1206 6.0%
Age 15-19 5,391 33.2% 1,906 9.8% 1,613 7.8% 1655 8.2%
Age 20-24 2,314 11.9% 2,251 10.8% 1885 9.4%
Age 25-34 2,174 11.1% 2,873 13.8% 2248 11.2%
Age 35-44 5,126 31.5% 2,378 12.2% 2,096 10.1% 1918 9.5%
Age 45-54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 2,072 10.0% 2694 13.4%
Age 55-59 551 3.3% 1,042 5.3% 1,822 8.8% 1806 9.0%
Age 60-64 595 3.6% 694 3.6% 1,318 6.3% 1406 7.0%
Age 65-74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% 1,671 8.0% 1562 7.8%
Age 75-84 771 4.7% 1,143 5.9% 1,279 6.2% 1259 6.3%
85 and over 184 1.1% 481 2.5% 456 2.2% 394 2.0%
Total
Population 16,234 100% 19,522 100% 20,782 100% 20,103 100%
Total
Population 55 3,380 20.8% 4632 23.8% 6546 31.6% 6,427 32%
and older
Economic Conditions
As noted in the narrative above, the City's economic development grew out of its location along
major transportation routes, agricultural pursuits, and natural and cultural resources. As
industries based on natural and agriculture resources waned, those farm and factory/mill jobs
were replaced by predominantly service sector employment and health care driven by a shift in
the population toward an older demographic (see table 1.2 above). Often these service sector
jobs offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and less steady employment. The 2006-2010 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates the median household income for the City of Ashland at
$40,140. This is lower than the median household income of Jackson County as a whole which
is estimated to be $44,142, and significantly lower than the median income of the average
American household, at $51,914. Similarly, the percentage of families and individuals living
below the poverty level is substantially greater in Ashland than in Jackson County, in the State of
Oregon or in the rest of the Nation. See table 1.2 below for details.
IoUnited states. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 Amencan Community survey 5-Year Estimates and 1990. 2000 statistical abstract of the
United States.
_Ig_
Table 2.2
Percent in Poverty
Household type Ashland Jackson County I State of Oregon United States
Percentage of families in 11.5% 9.9% 9.6% 10.1%
poverty
Percentage of Individuals in 18.8% 14.0% 14.0% 13.8%
poverty
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5 -year Esvimates
According to 2000 Census Data' 1 the highest proportion of low- and moderate-income
households are found in the central areas of the city north of Siskiyou Blvd, primarily in census
tracks 19.1, 19.2 and 18.4. This area has a larger proportion of the city's multi-family properties
and is located near the University. Census data does not separate out the student or seasonal
population so no conclusions can be drawn about how the student population affects these census
tracts. Census data does show however that these census tracts have the highest percentage of
minority populations and can be considered a concentration of minority population in the city
with 18, 15, and 15 percent minority populations in each census tract respectively.
It is well documented that college towns tend to have higher poverty rates according to the U.S.
Census due to the impact of students that live off campus (students who live in dormitories are
not included in the poverty rate calculation) and this trend in Ashland is consistent with other
college towns in Oregon. According to the 2007-2011 ACS the City of Corvallis shows 28.9%
of people living below the poverty level while the City of Eugene shows that 21.5% of people
are living below the Federal poverty level. While the presence of students living off campus in
the community has been shown to skew the census poverty rates within a city, the impact of
SOU students are somewhat diffused throughout the Medford-Ashland metropolitan statistical
area (MSA) which has a population of just over 200,000. Consequently the student population
living within the Ashland Community represents approximately 12% of the population of
Ashland (which is approximately 20,000), since many of the students list mailing addresses that
are elsewhere in the MSA. (See table 3.2 on page 27 for a breakdown of student population by
mailing address).
Income in Oregon has been below the national average for the last quarter of a century. There
are four basic reasons that income has been lower in Oregon and Jackson County than in the U.S.
• Wages for similar jobs are lower;
• The occupational mix of employment is weighted toward lower paying occupations;
• A .,higher proportion of the population in Jackson County consists of seniors who receive
only social security;
• Due to a higher proportion of seniors in the population, there is a lower proportion of
working age residents. 12
" 2010 Census information at that level is not yet available.
11 City of Ashland, Planning Department, Economic Opportunities Analysis 2007.
-19-
Table 2.3
Household Income 2000-2010
Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of
households households households households (2010 )
2000 2000 2010
All Households 8,552 100% 9,339 100%
Less than 10,000 1,173 13.7% 906 9.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 918 10.7% 677 7.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,300 15.2% 1,203 12.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,090 12.7% 1,286 13.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,141 13.3% 1,490 16.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,309 15.3% 1,553 16.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 789 9.2% 779 8.3%
$100,000 to $149,999 545 6.4% 819 8.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 166 1.9% #332 94 3.1%
$200,000 or More 121 1.4% 3.6%
Median Income $32,670 40,140
Sources: U.S Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census data
Employment
Census counts estimate that 16,564 residents are 16 years old and older; of that number 10,322
are in the labor force. The unemployment rate in Ashland at the time of the American
Community Survey 2006-2010 5-year estimates was 8.1%. However, current Oregon
Employment Department data shows the unemployment rates for Jackson County in March of
2012 were 10.6% down from 11.3% in March of 2011. The unemployment rate for the State of
Oregon is slightly higher than that of the rest of the country; though significantly lower than that
of Jackson County at 8.6%.
Between 2000 and 2007 Jackson County added 10,246 jobs, twelve percent over the seven year
period. Growth slowed in early 2008 and in October 2008 the country began to post year to year
job losses. By 2010, employment had fallen below its 2004 level, mainly due to the loss of 9,550
jobs between 2007 and 2010.13 In a recent press release, the Oregon Employment Department
stated. "As the recovery from the Great Recession continues, unemployment rates continue their
slow downward drift. Unlike Oregon overall, job growth has yet to resume in the Rogue Valley.
But we were in a deep hole and it will take a number of years to gain back all of the jobs lost. As
government sectors are continuing to grapple with revenue losses, these sectors are poised for
continued job cuts."14 Though all sectors of the economy have experienced severe job losses
and contraction, the public sector, construction and the hospitality industry, three major
employment sectors in the region and in Ashland have been hard hit by the recent economic
downturn. It would be difficult to estimate the true impact that the economic downturn has had
on the employment trends in the City of Ashland at this time. However, it is`easy to surmise that
there is a delicate balance to an economy based on health care, education, tourism, and
" Current Employment by Industry," Oregon Employment Department, OLMIS. Average annual non-farm employment in Jackson County
was 83,910 in 2007, 75,640 in 2008, and 74,360 in 2010.
14 Recent Trends: Region 8, Guy Tauer, Published April 1, 2012, Oregon Employment Department, Worksource qualityinfo.org
-20-
recreation. Industries that rely on discretionary income often are the first to suffer in an
economic downturn. Within the City of Ashland the hospitality industry, food service, retail
trade, and entertainment top the list of industries in which a majority of area residents are
employed. See table 1.4 below.
_21 _
Table 2.4
Employment Industry Ashland Medford Jackson State of
Count Oregon
Education Services, Health Care, Social 27.9% 20.1% 21.1% 20.9%
Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 16.6% 11.7% 10.5% 9.2%
Accommodation, and food service
Retail Trade 11.9% 18.2% 16.3% 12.3%
Professional, Scientific, Management, 13.1% 8.9% 9.1% 10.0%
Administrative, waste management
Manufacturing 4.9% 8.8% 8.8% 11.8%
Construction 4.8% 6.1% 7.3% 7.0%
Flnance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental and 3.3% 6.9% 5.5% 6.4%
Leasing.
Source: Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survev 5-Year F.sfinuacs.
Table 2.4 shows that the predominant industries in Medford and Ashland are largely similar, but
that the macro-economies of Jackson County and the State of Oregon as a whole show a more
equitable distribution of employment throughout several diversified industries, though all
employment within the state relies heavily on Education, Health Care, and Social Assistance.
All of the predominant industries in the state show a particular vulnerability toward the housing
and stock market's collapse and the ensuing economic downturn. This no doubt accounts for the
State of Oregon having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
Many Ashland Residents are employed outside of the City, and conversely many employees of
Ashland businesses live outside of the Ashland Community. The 2006-2010 American
Community Survey estimates that 68.6% of workers 16 years old and older commute an average
of 16 minutes to get to their place of employment. The majority of those commuting to work
drove alone, 6.2 percent carpooled, 1.3 percent took public transportation, and 18 percent used
other means. The remaining 13.3 percent worked at home. This number has grown since 2000,
when 65.2% of workers reported commuting to work. Workers who routinely commute to work
put added strain on both the environment through the production of pollution and the demand for
fossil fuels, and public infrastructure such as roadways and parking. In the 2006 Workforce
Housing Summit Workbook, Guy Tauer, Regional Economist with the Oregon Employment
Department stated "Many communities and businesses have realized that their future economic
prosperity is dependent on being able to provide adequate and affordable housing for their
workforce, and have taken a proactive approach to dealing with this impending crisis." 15
Community Visions and Values
, i
In April 2009, the Ashland City Council began work on goals to guide the City's work for the
next 18 to 24 months. To guide their goal setting, the City Council first defined their values. They
described, in positive terms, the things they use to make decisions about what is good for the
"Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006.
_22_
community and good for the City of Ashland as an organization. As members of the Ashland City
Council, we value.
• Participatory government. We value government that is open, accessible, honest and
democratic. We value responsive and visionary leadership by elected officials. We have
professional, high quality staff. We seek to be efficient and effective with public funds.
Our citizens are engaged with their local government as volunteers and in critical
community decisions.
• Natural Environment. Our town is part of nature's community. We seek to enhance the
quality of water, land, air, and wildlife. We actively support energy conservation and
alternative energy generation. Our parks and open spaces provide habitat for plants and
animals and access to nature for our residents.
• Responsible Land Use. We value sustainable use of land, water, energy, and public
services; our architectural heritage; and buildings with quality design and construction.
We value a vibrant downtown, Lithia Park and strong neighborhoods. We support transit,
bicycling, and walking throughout our land use plans.
• Free Expression. We invite the exchange of diverse ideas. We value the social,
economic, and creative contributions of the arts, cultural activities, and community
events.
• Diversity. We are a welcoming community that invites and respects the individuality and
contributions of all people.
• Economy. We value an economy that creates wealth for all. We strive to nurture
homegrown business and to connect local consumers to local products. Our economy
supports arts and culture, connects to Southern Oregon University, and supports high
quality public services. We value a business community in tune with the environment and
that provides good wages and economic choices for individuals and families.
• Distinctiveness. Ashland is a unique part of the Rogue Valley. We depend on
partnerships in our community and region to meet many of the needs of our residents. At
the same time, we value our ability to develop innovative approaches and to chart our
own course.
• Education. We value lifelong education. We value the social, economic, cultural, and
civic contributions of strong, integrated educational institutions.
• Basic Needs. We believe each.person needs public safety, water, sanitation, adequate
food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care.
• Community. We believe Ashland is a unique and special place. Residents participate in
community life and feel a sense of belonging. Community gardens, neighborhoods,
- 23 -
schools, volunteerism, and events bring our residents together. Residents look out for
each other and support those in need.
What objectives do housing policies try to achieve?
The development of new housing units is primarily driven by the private market and are built and
owned privately. While land use powers of local governments can impact the development of
certain housing types, the primary role of local governments has been on regulation to promote
public health and safety and to provide for the installation of infrastructure. Housing policies
work to address housing in four categories:
• Community Life. From a community perspective, housing policy is intended to provide
and maintain safe, sanitary and satisfactory housing with efficiently and economically
organized community facilities to service it. In other words, housing should be
coordinated with other community and public services. Although local policies do not
always articulate this, they are implicit in most local government operations.
Comprehensive plans, zoning, subdivision ordinances, building codes, and capital
improvement programs are techniques most cities use to manage housing and its
development. Local public facilities such as schools, fire and police stations, parks, and
roads are usually designed and coordinated to meet demands created by housing
development.
• Social and equity concerns. The key objective of social goals is to reduce or eliminate
housing inadequacies affecting the poor, those unable to find suitable housing, and those
discriminated against. Communities address this goal through working to provide safe,
satisfactory housing opportunities to all households, at costs they can afford, without
regard to income, race, religion, national origin, family structure, or disability.
• Design and environmental quality. The location and design of housing affect the natural
environment, residents' quality of life, and the nature of community life. The objectives
of policies that address design and environmental quality include neighborhood and
housing designs that: meet household needs, maintain quality of life, provide efficient use
of land and resources, reduce environmental impacts, and allow for the establishment of
social and civic life and institutions. Most communities address these issues though local
building codes, comprehensive land use plans, and development codes.
• Stability of production. Housing is a factor in every community's economy. The cyclical
nature of housing markets, however, creates uncertainties for investment, labor, and
builders. The International City Manager's Association suggests that local government
policies should address this issue, although most community policies do not. Moreover,
external factors beyond the control of local governments (e.g. interest rates, cost building
materials, etc.) that bear upon local housing markets tend to undermine the effectiveness
of such policies.
-24-
Section III - Housing Trends & Existing
Conditions
Analysis of historical development trends provides insights into how the local housing market is
working. The housing type, mix, and density of past trends are key variables in forecasting
future land need. To undertake such an analysis the following parameters are established:
• Determine the time period for which the data must be gathered.
• Identify types of housing to address (all needed housing types).
• Evaluate perrr» t/subdivision data to calculate the actual mix, average actual gross density,
and average actual net density of all housing types.
In completing this analysis the City reviewed the housing mix and density of development that
occurred from 2000 through 2011 (as the 200214NA reviewed that data through 2001). This
long term analysis provides greater insight into the functioning of the local housing market than
would a typical five year period given fluctuation especially in consideration of the national
housing market collapse following the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2008.
Table 3.1 shows the actual type distribution of new housing units developed between 2000 and
2011.
Table 3.1
Housing mix by Permit Issued i2000-2011
Housing Type Buildings Units Percent of Units
Single-Family 1159 1159 80.3%
Two-Family 19 38 2.6%
Three and Four-Family 14 45 3.1%
Five or More 30 202 13.9%
Total 1222 1444 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau data 2000 and 2010
According to Census Data, Ashland added 1,444 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2011.
This is a 16% increase in the total number of dwellings over 10 years. This rate of unit growth is
down from 26% in the previous ten year period. As seen in the table above (Table 3.1), the trend
identified in both the 2002 HNA and the 2007 RNA, of single family development over multi-
family development has continued.
Residential Construction Trends
Housing development trends identified in the 2002 HNA have persisted. Namely single family
housing development has continued to outstrip the development of multi-family housing by a
-25-
significant margin. The need for multi-family housing continues to grow, while the development
of multi-family housing continues to lag. Rental units in price ranges affordable to those with
the lowest incomes are in the most demand. Lastly, ownership housing affordable to those
making median income to 120% of Area Median Income in Ashland despite recent gains is still
out of reach.
Single Family
In 2000 the estimate of one-unit detached, and one-unit attached dwelling units represented
65.3% of the housing stock. The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that one-unit attached and detached
units make up 71.9% of the City's housing stock. This is an increase of 6.6% over the past
decade. There has been and continues to be a clear trend of the development of single-family
housing types over all other housing types.
Multi family
The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that Ashland's housing stock is made up primarily of single
family units, with only 29.4% multi-family units. This disparity in the development of single
family versus multi-family development is shown in table 3.1 above.
Condominium Ownership
Conversion of existing apartments to ownership units within Ashland requires that the current
residents have first right of refusal and additionally may trigger a requirement that up to 25% of
the units converted are affordable. The Affordable Housing Program parameters under
resolution 2006-13 establish that rental apartments converted into condominiums which are to be
affordable must be sold to households earning 80% AMI for a period of not less than 30 years.
Since 2003, ninety-two units have converted from rental units to condo-minimized ownership
units. Twenty-eight of those units which have converted have been deed restricted as affordable.
In that same period sixty-three new Condominium units have been developed. Since 2008 no
new condominium units have been built or converted.
Retirement and assisted living
The City of Ashland has three large retirement/assisted living facilities and one nursing home.
Altogether these facilities comprise 293 dwelling units and maintain an average occupancy rate
of approximately 82%. These facilities were developed primarily in the 1980's and early
1990's. No new facilities have been developed in the last decade.
Group housing
The City currently has a total of five group homes for youth and special needs populations able
to accommodate up to 28 individuals. The University has four group housing complexes on
campus offering a total of 1070 beds. The university is currently in the process of building a
new residence hall which is estimated to house over 700 people within two separate buildings.
-26-
However, these new beds will not increase capacity but will replace existing beds currently
available in other complexes whose space will be converted to other uses.
Southern Oregon University (SOU) housing and enrollment
As mentioned in the section on group housing above, SOU maintains four group housing
complexes with the current capacity to house 1,070 individuals. SOU also maintains two large
scale multi-family developments, Old Mill Village Phase I and II, which constitutes their family
housing units. These two rental complexes are comprised of 130 and 35 units respectively and
offer a range of 1 bedroom units to 4 bedroom units with a base capacity to house approximately
384 individuals. SOU also maintains approximately 28 single family houses varying in size
from studio to 4-bedroom. Taken altogether SOU has the ability to house approximately 1,490-
1,520 individuals. In fall of 2012, SOU had a total enrollment of 6,336 students (exclusive of
dual high school credit students). Of that total 912 student resided in dormitories, 125 students
resided in family student housing (this total does not include family members who are not
currently enrolled students who also reside in the family housing complexes), and 2,376 students
resided in non-college owned housing within the City of Ashland. The remaining 2,923 students
resided outside of Ashland. Table 3.2 below provides a breakdown of the areas where the
majority of SOU students reside.
Table 3.2
Place of Residence* Number of Students Percentage
SOU Dormitories 912 14%
SOU Family Housing 125 2%
Ashland 2,376 38%
Medford 843 13%
Areas outside of Medford and Ashland 2,080 33%
Total 6336 100%
-Place of residence is determined by mailing address (Source-SOU Institutional Research Center Fall 2012)
Table 3.3
2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Housing Units by
Units In Structure 2000 Estimate 2000 % 2010 2010 % % Change
Estimate
Total Housing Units 9,071 100% 10,230 100% 12.8%
1-Unit, detached 5,375 59.3% 6,503 63.6% 21%
1-Unit, attached 544 6.0% 853 8.3% 56.8%
2 Units 458 5.0% 526 5.1% 14.8%
3-4 Units 641 7.1% 530 5.2% -17.3%
1 -5-9 Units 609 6.7% 513:- 5.0% -15.8%
10-19 Units 380 4.2% 405 7.3% 6.6%
20 or More Units 821 9.1% 746 7.3% -9.1%
Mobile Home 225 2.5% 154 1.5% -31.6%
-27-
Table 3.4
Homeownership/Rental Rate Comparison
% Renters 2000 % Owners 2000 % Renters 2010 % Owners 2010
Ashland 47.7% 52.3% 49% 51%
Jackson Count 33.5% 66.5% 36.7% 63.3%
State of Oregon 35.7% 64.3% 36.2% 63.8%
U.S. Census Bureau
Income and Affordability of Housing
Housing costs are influenced by several factors, including: lot size, land cost, availability of
materials, labor, interest rates, and supply and demand. Housing choice is often driven by a
household's income. Similarly, income is a key indicator of a households' ability to find and
retain safe, decent housing. Income is also the main determinant in most householders' housing
choice. A household which is cost burdened by a rent or mortgage payment (an amount which
requires 30% or more of a household's income) is less stable and more susceptible to losing that
housing should some disruption to employment, health crisis or other unexpected circumstance
arise. These vulnerable households can then fall into homelessness, or require state or federal
assistance to become stable again. The ability of a household to afford monthly rent or
mortgage costs is a determining factor in where a householder chooses to live. Often the
household will forego other housing priorities, such as square footage, bedroom size, household
amenities, commute time to work, and other quality of life choices due to housing affordability.
Renter households are two times more likely to be cost burdened than owner households.
Approximately 2,737 or 63% of renter households in Ashland experience cost burden, while only
1,352 or 48% of homeowners experience cost burden from housing costs. This can be attributed
in part to a higher percentage of low-income rental households than owner households. In 2000,
37% of Ownership households paid less than 15% of their incomes toward mortgage costs, while
a full 45% of renters paid more than 35% of their incomes toward housing Costs .16 In the
ensuing decade the rapid rise in housing values has substantially increased the costs of
homeownership, but even with that increase homeowners as a group still tend to experience less
cost burden than renters.
As seen in Section IT- Framework for Housing Needs-Community Context, the City of Ashland
has a higher percentage of families and individuals living below the poverty level than Jackson
County or the State of Oregon as a whole, however this is not unusual for a city with a large
population of college students. The City also has a higher proportion of lower paying service
sector jobs and a higher percentage of seniors in the population than in other parts of the County
or State. These factors may contribute to the large percentage of households experiencing cost
burden.
18 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2000 Census.
-28-
According to the State Housing and Community Services Department, housing cost in 1990 was
increasing at a rate of 9% while household income increased at an annual rate of 2%. Between
2000 and 2010 median
mortgage costs for homeowners Chart 3.1
in Ashland went up by 53%. Rising Housing and Transportation Costs vs. Incomes
for the Median-Income Household In the Largest 25 Metro Areas
Rental costs for Ashland (costs and income are not adjusted for inflation)
residents increased 47% in that sons - - - -
same period. While median +52%
Household income increased by o sow - -
only 22.9%. 17 This long term +44%
trend of housing and N ao% +33%
transportation costs a
c 30% - _
outstripping incomes has +25%
exacerbated the demand for Ion
affordable housing throughout
V
the state. The increasing need i 1% -
for affordable housing units has
taxed the traditional methods of ou - -
Housing Transportation Combined Household
funding affordable housing and Costs Costs Housing Income
+ Transportation
cannot be sustained into the Costs
future should the trend Source: Housing +T•mssportation(H+T)Affordabiliiyliderappliedto2000Censusdaraand
2006-2010Arrrerican Canmumin'Summ'data (CenterforNeiglrborhood TeclmologvandCento-
continue. for HousingPolic) f.'s
Rental Units
2008-2010 ACS estimates that 48.2% of all occupied housing units or 4,498 are renter occupied
units. Fair Market rents for Jackson County as established by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development mandate the maximum amount that projects developed using Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) or Tax-Exempt bonds are allowed to charge. These amounts
correspond to the HUD income guidelines for that area. In 2012 the Fair Market rent for a two
bedroom unit was $807 a month. In order for an individual to afford a rental unit at that rate, and
not experience cost burden, they would need to earn $15.13 an hour. Currently the 2008-2010
ACS estimates that the median income for a worker in Ashland is $19,042 per year or $9.92 an
hour. Currently a HUD regulated two bedroom unit in Ashland is mandated to rent for $590 a
month.
i
In 2012 the City of Ashland posted a questionnaire on the City's website that looked at specific
housing related questions some of which corresponded to questions posed in the 2007 Rental
Needs Analysis' random call survey conducted by Riley Research. The City also sent out a
" Ibid.
-29-
business reply mailer to a selected list of rental property owners and property management
companies compiled from two sources; the City's business license registry( which included all
businesses who rent six or more units), and the list of rental properties developed by SOU
planning students in 2007. The information gathered from the community questionnaire and the
direct mailing are cited throughout this document.
One question posed asked respondents to rate rental housing options in three areas on a scale of
one to ten. Of the 110 respondents that answered the question, the majority believed that the
availability of rental options, the quality of rentals, and rental pricing were all less than
satisfactory. While the majority of the respondents felt that rent availability and quality were
somewhat satisfactory, the overwhelming majority of respondents felt that rental pricing was
unsatisfactory.
Chart 3.2
Satisfaction with Rental Housing Options
10
8
6
4
2
0 lug
Availabilityof Quality of available Pricing of available
Options options options
Avgerage ranking on a scale of 1-10
(1 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied" )
Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income): As shown in Chart 3.2
below, the findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census
Data, the City of Ashland has a shortage of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. According to the Housing Needs
Model, only 3.05% of the City's rental housing stock meets the needs of this population at
approximately 152 units. The City's current need for rental housing in a price range affordable
to those with the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately
803 units to meet the needs of these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to
these populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35 and to a lesser
-30-
extent over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The
729 households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be
due in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of
non-traditional students. Currently there are approximately 100 households who receive a rental
subsidy voucher from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to offset housing
costs. There are 142 project based subsidized rental units located within the City of Ashland. Of
these units 73 are set to expire within the next 5 years and the waiting list for portable vouchers
through the Housing Authority of Jackson County is approximately three to four years out.
Households making 30% of the AMI or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland
households.
Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income): The current supply of housing
units affordable to low-income populations represents approximately 5.68% of the City's rental
housing stock or 283 units. The current estimated need for housing affordable to this income
group is 1,052 units; leaving a gap of approximately 769 units. The proportion of households
represented by this income group is fairly evenly dispersed though all age groups and represents
11.3% of all households.
Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% of Area Median Income): The current supply of
housing units affordable to moderate income populations represents approximately 49.3% of the
City's rental housing stock or 2,453 units. This is by far the majority of the City's rental housing
stock, however at the low end of the income scale (50%) nearly half of the units that fall in this
rental category would not be affordable. The need for rental units at this price point is in far less
demand as the current need is estimated to be 1,420 units, leaving a surplus of 1,034 rental units
affordable to people making between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI.
Median Income and above (100% and above): The current supply of housing units affordable
to the population making above 80% AMI represents approximately 42% of all rental housing
units. At 2,088 units, rental housing units in this price range (approximately $898-over $1,133 a
month) are in the least demand, with current need estimated to be approximately 840 households
able to afford units in this price range, creating a surplus of 1,248 units. The surplus in units may
be due to the fact that households that are able to afford a higher rent may be opting for a unit
below that which that household may be able to afford, thereby exacerbating the deficit of rentals
at the lower end of the income scale.
-31-
Chart 3.3
Current Housing Balance-Rental Units by cost range
2000
1500
i
1000
500 -
i
o _
0-$1~ $1954$423-$655 $656-$897 $898-$1132 $1133+
-500
i
-1000
■ Housing Stock ■ Current Need ■ Current Surplus
Ownership Units
Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income): An individual making 30%
of AMI or $12,300 a year according to the 2012 HUD income guidelines would be able to afford
to purchase a housing unit for a maximum of 551,115. There is very little availability of housing
at this income level, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity provides housing targeting extremely
low-income households, but with the extremely low purchase price the private market is unable
to provide ownership units at this level. Some Mobile and Manufactured home units in a park
might be within this price range.
Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income): The Housing Needs Analysis
estimates that there are 150 existing units available for $72.3 thousand and below, and an
estimated need of 401 units at this level. This leaves a gap of 251 ownership units affordable to
households earning 30%-50% of the AML
Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% ofArea Median Income): The number of ownership
units available that are affordable to people making 50% to 80% of AMI is estimated to be
approximately 260. The estimated need for ownership units costing between $72K-$185.3K is
-32-
2,070. The units at the high end of the price scale would be unaffordable to those earning below
50% of AMI.
Median Income: There is a limited supply of ownership units affordable to those earning
median income. According to the National Association of Home Builders Affordable Housing
Price Calculator's, a household making the median income for the Medford/Ashland area could
afford to purchase a house for $163,126. The calculator assumes a 20% down payment, current
interest rates on a 30 year fixed loan assuming a 90% loan to value ratio. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that there are approximately 410 units available between $185,300 and below.
While many households earning median income could qualify for a loan to purchase a house at
the lower end of the scale, those same households would be cost burdened it they had to pay a
mortgage on a housing unit of over $163,000.
Over 78% of the City's ownership housing stock consists of units which cost $279,300 and
above, while the demand for housing units in that price range is only about 1,750 households.
From Chart 3.3 below it is clear that the private market has provided a surplus of high cost
housing, over 2,255 units, while the remaining 22% of the housing stock available for sale
costing less than $279,300 is in such demand that there is a housing gap of 3,147 units. The
highest demand is for those units affordable to households making the 100% AMI to 120% AMI
at approximately 1,332 households.
Chart 3.4
Current Housing Balance-ownership Units
5000
4000
3000
2000 i
1000 <
I
0 _W1
t
72.3K"'""I 723K<11 110.1K~1 i447.6K<1 K85.3K~2 9. k 279.3+
-1000
■ Housing Stock ■ Current Need ■ Current Surplus
re National Association of Homebuilders affordability calculator: http:/Nw .nahb.org/genedc.aspx?genedeContentlD=78355
-33-
While it is clear that it is not profitable for the private market to build housing targeting those
households at the 50% of AMI and below, housing units targeting 50% to 100% AMI while
slightly more feasible still require some incentive and subsidy to make the development
financially viable . Further, these units will have to compete with units of a similar price in the
nearby markets of Talent, Phoenix, and Medford, which while requiring a longer commute time,
can often offer more household amenities for the same or even a lower price. At the same time
the only entities that can provide ownership housing targeting moderate and low-income
households are affordable housing providers, which utilize federal, state and local tax credit and
subsidy programs in order to develop such units. These entities are few in a small region like
Southern Oregon and must compete with the rest of the state for funding. Capacity building for
these affordable housing entities can be difficult as affordable housing financing can be a
complex and highly competitive process, and more so in a time of shrinking federal and state
funding for such programs.
Buildable land supply
Land supply affects land price and by extension, housing price. Statewide Planning Goal 10, and
ORS 197.296, requires communities to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable residential land
within their Urban Growth Boundaries. The City of Ashland's supply of buildable lands was
recently quantified in the 2011 Buildable Lands inventory adopted in November 2011.
The land availability component of a Buildable Lands Inventory needs to be compared to the
expected demand for various housing types to ensure minimum 20 year availability. This
Housing Needs Analysis provides a detailed assessment of precisely what mix of housing types
will be needed through 2040 (see Table 7.1). Using this projected housing type need, and
correlating it to the land availability in each Comprehensive Plan designation we can ascertain
whether sufficient land will be available over the next 20 years or longer.
Table 3.5
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010 BLI)
1469 1384 28S3
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis through 1557 1759 3316
2040
Deficit by 2040 -88 -375 463 a
Annual units needed through 2040 55.6 62.8 118.4
Total Year Supply 26.4 22.0 24.1
-34-
The City estimates vacant buildable lands in all designations that allow residential uses have a
total capacity of 2,853 dwelling units within the urban growth boundary. It is important to note
that the inventory of available land includes a significant number of small lots within the City
limits that can only accommodate 2-4 additional units given their size. The need for larger
developments of multifamily housing (5+ units) requires larger undeveloped properties of the
type that are typically located outside the City Limits, yet within the Urban Growth Boundary.
The estimate of dwelling unit capacity includes a 50% reduction for residential on Commercial
and Employment Lands as such units are not required and it is unlikely that all future
commercial development will incorporate a residential component. As demonstrated in Table
3.5 this capacity would accommodate approximately 22 years of multi-family housing growth,
and 26.4 years of single family development.
Distribution of these potential housing units on available buildable lands based on
comprehensive plan designation is more fully detailed below.
Table 3.6
Future Needed Distributed . Comprehensive Designation
Net Buildable Existing Dwelling Unit Dwelling Units by Type distributed
Comprehensive Plan Acres Capacity into existing capacity
(2011 BLI) SFR Multi-family
Air ort Per Airport
p Master Plan 0 0 0
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
. ;1+62
Totals ' , 6228 4 2853 , , 714691 ' ° 1384'
Note: Expected IAve7/ing Units on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be permitted as
such units are not required.
-35-
Section IV - Ashland's Housing Inventory
Single Family and Manufactured housing, detached
2010 ACS estimates that there are 10,203 total housing units within the City of Ashland. Of that
total 6,710 are 1 unit detached, and 46 are Mobile home units on individual lots. Between 1990
and 2010 there has been a marked increase in the supply of attached and detached single family
units. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of single family detached units increased by 52%,
between 2000 and 2010 that increase was 21%. While the number of mobile home units in the
City decreased by 1.5%. (See Table 3.3 on page 24).
Manufactured housing units in parks
As mentioned above the number of mobile home units located in the City has decreased in
recent years after remaining fairly consistent. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of mobile
home units in the City increased by 18%, then between 2000 and 2010 the number of mobile
home units decreased by 9% for an overall 20 year decrease of 1.9%. There are currently two
mobile home parks within the City. A park formerly located across the street from "Upper
Pines", known as "Lower Pines" was sold and the purchasers redeveloped the land in to a mixed
use commercial development, the loss of this park may account for the decrease in units between
2000 and 2010.
Multiple or single-family units, attached;
2010 ACS estimates that there are 810 1- unit attached, 424 duplexes (2-units), and 2,194 units
of three or more, down from 2,451 just ten years earlier. All together multi-family and single
family attached housing types makeup 38.2% of the total housing stock. Another trend which
is highlighted in the Table 3.3 on page 24 has been the decrease of medium and large scale
multi-family developments. The number of multi-family units consisting of more than 4 housing
units has decreased significantly between 1990 and 2005. Complexes consisting of between 5
and 19 saw a decrease of 2% between 1990 and 2000, similarly complexes consisting of more
than 20 units saw a 9.1% decrease between 2000 and 2010. This is due in part to the conversion
of multi-family rental properties to saleable condominium units, caused by the high land values
of the past decade within the City of Ashland. In 2006, the City passed a condominium
conversion ordinance in an effort to mitigate the loss of existing affordable and market rate rental
properties which were not being replaced by the market.
In 2007, a comprehensive inventory of multi-family housing units was completed by Southern
Oregon University. This inventory also took into account additional uses of properties located in
these multi-family zoned areas. This inventory allowed the City to see patterns of development
within these areas. One pattern that stood out from the data collected was that single family units
on single parcels were the most common housing type found in these multi-family zones. Single
-36-
family homes comprised one third of all housing units in these zones. This highlights another
predominant problem with the development of multi-family properties, the majority of the
property zoned for multi-family, higher density development does not build out as such
contributing to a lack of more affordable housing types.
Government assisted housing (below market-rate housing)
Most people think of government assisted housing as Public housing or subsidized housing
through the Housing Choice Voucher (formerly known as the Section-8 program) program
However, there are several different avenues in which the government assists developers to
provide affordable housing. Many large scale developments utilize a combination of funding
sources in order to complete a project. Detailed below are a few of the most prevalent types of
government assisted housing programs:
Low-income Housinv Tax Credit Program (LIHTC): The Federal Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit Program assists both for-profit and non-profit housing developers in financing affordable
housing projects for low-income families and individuals. Some local developers of affordable
housing are eligible to apply to Oregon Housing and Community Services which allocates funds
based on a statewide Consolidated Plan. The City of Ashland has two projects totaling 66 units
developed using LIHTCs and expects to see another six unit tax credit project developed in the
near future.
Public Housing Assistance-Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing
Authority of Jackson County is the local provider of HUD funded housing programs such as the
Housing Choice Voucher program and the Public Housing program. Currently the Housing
Authority receives approximately 1,390 Housing Choice Vouchers for all of Jackson County.
Just over 100 of those vouchers are provided to City of Ashland residents. There are no public
housing units in Jackson County.
Home Program: The City of Ashland is not currently a participating jurisdiction for HUD's
HOME funds. Some local developers of affordable housing are eligible to apply to Oregon
Housing and Community Services which allocates funds based on a statewide Consolidated Plan.
USDA Rural Development Mutual Self Help Home Loans/SHOP: The Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development offers several loan options to assist low to moderate income
households attain homeownership. In recent years the City of Ashland has awarded Rogue
Valley Community Development Corporation CDBG funds to help leverage funds and initiate
two Self help homeownership projects comprising 30 units that utilized funds from Rural
Development programs. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has utilized Self
Help Ownership Program (SHOP) grant funds awarded to Community Frameworks from HUD
on these projects. Similarly USDA Rural Development also offers low-interest loans and grants
to assist low to moderate income homeowner's complete health and safety repairs on their
homes. The City also contains three large scale multi-family projects financed with Rural
-37-
Development loan funds. All together these units account for 153 units of below market rate and
subsidized housing within the City.
Communih, Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG): The City of Ashland is a Participating
Jurisdiction for the Community Development Block grant program and as such receives an
annual allocation of funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
undertake a variety of activities including the provision of affordable housing. The City has
often prioritized the use of CDBG funding in support of affordable housing projects.
Table 4.1
Government Assisted Rental Units
Property Name Property Assistance Number of Number of Income Contract
Type Type Units Assisted Limit Expiration Date
Units
Ashley Garden Family RD 40 20 60% RD
Ashley Senior Senior RD 62 41 60% RD
Stratford Family Section 8 51 17 100% RD
Chief T ee Family Section 8 32 29 30% 7131/09
Donald E. Lewis Senior Section 8 40 40 30% 5111/10
Star Thistle Disabled Section8 12 12 50% 9130/09
Sun Village Famil Section 8 12 12 30% 1120/13
Takilma Villa a Famil Section 8 14 14 60% 8/31/09
Johnston Manor Senior Section 8 34 34 60% 12/26/08
TOTAL 297 219
Seasonal Units
The City of Ashland has a thriving tourism industry. Consequently many housing units in the
City are utilized on a seasonal rather than year round basis. It is difficult to discern the actual
number of seasonal and vacation rental units there are in the City, due to the proliferation of
unregistered units, however the City does keep a database of businesses registered as travelers
accommodations located within the City. In May of 2012 a total of seventy five businesses have
registered with the city as having a traveler's accommodation or vacation rental units; these units
come in many forms, from hostel, motels, and hotels, to individual cottage units and bed and
breakfasts. Many of these housing units represent units not meant for year round occupancy, so
although counted by census in the housing total, they are counted as vacant units. Between
2000 and 2010 the number of these units has doubled, and they now represent 3.8% of the City's
housing stock. These units will not contribute to the overall housing inventory available to meet
the types of housing need quantified in this analysis.
19 The owners of the Chief Tyee complex opted out of their HUD conbact in 2009. This complex is no longer mandated to be affordable
although it was initially developed using HUD funding.
The owners of the Takilma Village complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2010.
2' The owners of the Johnston Manor complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer mandated to be affordable
although it ms initially developed using HUD funding.
-38-
Owner Occupied Units
Owner occupied units represent 51.6% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4,856 owner-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 10,210 individuals. The average
household size for owner-occupied dwelling units is 2.10 people per unit.
Renter Occupied Units
Renter occupied units represent 48.4% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4,553 renter-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 8,907 individuals. The average
household size for renter-occupied dwelling units is 1.96 people per units, slightly less than the
household size of the average owner occupied unit.
Housint Ate and Condition
The majority of housing in Ashland, 59.6%, was built prior to 1979; with 16.6% or 1,695 units
being built prior to 1939. Despite the relative age of much of the housing stock, there are very
few units which lack basic amenities. Only 1.9% of all occupied housing units lacked complete
plumbing or kitchen facilities. 47.6% of all housing units were built between 1970 and 2000,
with the most new building activity taking place between 1990 and 2000.22 Though there are
many other factors that contribute to housing considered to be substandard those factors are not
accounted for in the Census information. There is little other comprehensive data to gain an
accurate picture of substandard housing conditions within the City.
Lead Based Paint Hazards: The age of the housing unit is a leading indicator of the presence of
lead -hazard, along with building maintenance. Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978.
Of the 10,319 total housing units in the City of Ashland 68% (7,000) were built prior to 1980.
The 1999 national survey found that 67% of housing built before 1940 had significant LBP
hazards. This declined to 51 % of houses built between 1940 and 1959, 10% of houses built
between 1960 and 1977 and just 1% after that. 23 Based on those estimates, over 3,300 homes
pose potential lead-based paint hazards in Ashland.
Vacancy Rates
Between 2000 and 2010 vacancy rates for rental and ownership units have remained relatively
unchanged. At 4.2% and 1.0% respectively, rental and ownership vacancy rates in 2010 are
relatively low. Survey results, census data, and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates
show that the vacancy rates in Ashland typically range between 3% and 4%. A recent
. survey/questionnaire conducted in 2012 by.the City showed the current rental vacancy rate to be
1%. This rate is below that of the overall rate for Jackson County at 3% and for the state of
" United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2008 Amencen Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.
's Clickner, R. at al. (2001) National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing, Final Report, Volume 1: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Report
office of Lead Hazard Control, US Department of Housing And Urban Development.
-39-
Oregon as a whole at 5.6%. The overall impact of a low vacancy rate is that there are fewer
options in the rental market when people are looking for a unit to rent.
Housing Value
Housing value is a key indicator of housing affordability. The housing market has been
extremely volatile in the past decade since the last Housing Needs Analysis was completed.
However, despite a housing boom and the ensuing bust that played out in the intervening decade,
the findings of this recent effort are much the same as they were in 2002.
In the decade since the last HNA was completed housing costs within the City of Ashland have
grown at a rate much faster than that of Jackson County, and the State of Oregon as a whole.
The 2002 HNA reported an average home price of $277,742, which was an increase of 50% from
1998 (MLS reported and average sale price of $187,258 at that time). At the height of the
housing boom in 2007 the median price for an existing home in Ashland was $438,750; by April
of 2012 the median price for an existing home was $282,500; a reduction of 36% in a five year
period. 24 So while home prices rose precipitously, they fell equally so, ending with the City's
housing price at a 14 year gain of 50.9%.
Owner Occupied unit values: According to the 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, the Median
Home price for Ashland is $408,400 while the individual median income for workers is $19,042.
In order to afford a home in Ashland at the median price a household would have to earn
$75,000 a year, which is well above Median Household, Median Family and Median worker's
income at $40,140, $52,940, and $19,042 respectively. In 2011, the average sales price
according to the Roy Wright appraisal service, was $285,000, while this number is substantially
lower than the median compiled by the census in 2010, it is still out of reach for households
earning the median income in Ashland. The 2012 median household income for a family of four
in the Medford/Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a home in
Ashland at the 2011 median price a household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8%
of the population reports having an income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership
housing stock is targeted to this group. Conversely for a home to be affordable to a median
household with an income of $58,500 a house could cost no more than $220,000. At this price
there are 31 units out of 212 currently listed as available for sale within Ashland.
Residential Home Sales: Recent data from the Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service
(SOMLS) show that the median residential sale price of a home in Ashland has dropped
considerably since the peak of the housing boom in 2007 by 36.2%; from a high of $438,750 to a
low in 2012 of $282,500. The 2010 Census estimates the median home price at $408,400, which
may reflect the market at a higher point when census data was collected, than the more recent
SOMLS data.
21 SOMLS Home sale statistics.
-40-
Chart 4.1
Existing Home Sales-Ashland/Jackson County
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
~ f
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
l
0
2000 2007 2011 2012
■ Existing Home Sales Median ■ County Existing Home Sales
-41 -
Section V - Housing Needs
Projecting Ashland's Housing need
Section III looked at housing and economic trends that effect housing demand in Ashland.
Section IV evaluated the existing housing stock targeted to various demographic groups within
the population. This section will assess the City's housing stock based on the current needs and
those likely to persist or arise into the future. Section 1, makes the distinction between housing
need and housing demand. Housing demand is housing that the market built or is likely to build
in the future. Housing need is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities
plan for housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. This section focuses on
two specific need components: housing needs by housing type and density as implied by
households' ability to afford housing, and the needs of special populations.
Methodology
The following analysis uses a methodology suggested by Planning for Residential Growth: A
Workbook for Oregon's Urban Areas produced by the Transportation and Growth Management
Program (TGM). The steps outlined in that document have been followed where feasible. City
staff also contracted with former State of Oregon Economist, Richard Bjelland, to update the
Housing Needs Model he created for Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and
which has been used as a basis for projecting housing needs throughout the state in numerous
Housing Needs Analysis. The Housing Needs Model utilized a methodology based on housing
tenure, price, and housing type choices to determine housing needs, rather than a market or
demand driven approach which was commonly used to define housing needs for an area. Rather
than looking at historic housing production trends then projecting them forward, the Housing
Needs Model looks at the age/income demographic of a study area and projects those
demographic trends into the future as the market driven method will show development trends,
those historic trends may not have been meeting the housing needs of the population to begin
with . Where needed data obtained from the Housing Needs Model was supplemented with data
obtained from a City conducted survey of property owners and an online questionnaire, and
census data comparisons.
Populations Proiections
The components of population change are births, deaths, and migration. In compiling data on
population rates for the city of Ashland four main sources of data were used. The Certified
population counts provided by Portland State University's Population Research Center, the 2005-
2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2010 Census, and the coordinated
population estimates through Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan.
-42-
The primary indicator of future housing need is the projected population growth and the
demographics of that population. The City's Comprehensive Plan projects an approximate
population growth rate of 0.75% per year. This equates to approximately 187 new residents per
year. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below look at population change over the past two decades and
compares the differences in the population projections between the PSU population Research
Center and the U.S. Census data with the Comprehensive Plan Projections. The Census data
from the twenty year period is in line with the City's comprehensive plan projections for
population growth, while the PSU population counts based on the 2000 Census estimates a
slightly (though not significantly larger) growth rate across the board. It is also clear from the
tables below that the City of Ashland grows at a much slower rate than that of Medford or the
County as a whole. If the trend continues into the next three decades then Ashland's population
should grow by approximately 6,000 and be slightly below the 28,670 projected by the County's
coordinated population estimate.
Table 5.1
City t tit % Change 2010 % Change Average
1990-2000 2000-2010 Annual
growth rate
Ashland 16,234 19,532 20% 20,078 2.8% .79%
Medford 46,951 63,154 34.5% 74,907 18.6% 1.98%
Jackson County 146,389 181,269 23.8% 203,206 12.1% 1.29%
U.S.Census. Historic AAGR (average annual growth rate)
Table 5.2
City Estimate July Census Change % Change Average
1,20 10 April 1, tit 2000 -2010 2000-2010 Annual
growth rate
Ashland 21,460 19,522 1,938 9.9% 0.9%
Medford 77,485 63,687 13,798 21.7% 2.2%
Jackson County 207,745 181,269 26,476 14.6%
PSU Population Research Center data estimate based on 2000 Census Data
-43-
Table 5.3
1990 02000 2010 Average
Annual
Age Groups Populat % of Populati % of Percent Popul % of Percent growth rate
ion total on total Change ation total Change
.POP, from 990 • 000
Under 19 POP 4,775 24.5 4,931 24.5% 3.3% 0.33%
20-24 6,184 38% 1% 14.6%
2,314 % 1,885 9.4% -18.5% -1.85%
25-34 2,174 11.1 2,248 11.2% 3.4% 0.34%
5,126 31.5% % -11.2%
35-44 2,378 122 1,918 9.5% -19.3% -3.13%
45.54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 166 110% 2,694 13.4% -17.1% 3.72%
%
55.64 1,146 6.9°% 1,736 8.9°% 51.5% 3,212 16% 85°% 9.01°
65.74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% -0.5% 1,562 7.8% 22.8% 1.11%
75+ 955 5.8% 1,624 8.4% 70.4% 1,653 8.3% 1.8% 3.65%
Total population 16,234 100% 19,522 100°% 20.3% 20310 100°% 3°% 1.19%
U.S. Census Bureau
Age of Householder and age ofprojections
There is a direct correlation between age of householder, income of householder and housing
type. For example, an individual 35 years old to about 65 years old earning area median and
above is more likely to move from rental housing to ownership housing because that individual
has the means to purchase housing and the ability to maintain that housing and live
independently. Similarly, households that are considered moderate income and below (80%
AMI) have higher rental rates due to an inability to purchase housing despite other factors
including ability to maintain that housing and to maintain an independent lifestyle. Those
populations considered elderly move from homeownership to renter as they lose the ability to
maintain their housing units and an independent lifestyle.
As shown in table 5.3 above, the group represented by ages 25-44 in 1990 was the largest age
group at 31.5%. A decade later that population counted toward the 45-55 age group, which grew
in that ten year period by 110% accounting for the aging of the existing population, but also an
in-migration of a substantial number of peoples in that age group. In that same period the City
saw a distinct shift, from a population more evenly distributed between all age groups to a
population more heavily populated by peoples in age groups of 45 years old and older. The last
decade saw these age groups grow by double digits while younger age groups experienced little
or even negative growth (-11.2 in the 35-44 age group). By 2010 nearly all age groups under 45
years old saw negative growth rates, with the exception of age groups under 19 years and 25
through 24. However, these age groups grew at a rate of less than one third of the overall annual
average population growth, while age groups represented by 55-64 year olds grew at a rate
nearly 10 times that of the general population. These projections show that the trend pointed out
-44-
in the 2002 HNA still bears out; though the Ashland population is growing at a steady (albeit
slow) rate, this growth is not divided evenly across all age groups.
If this trend of aging households in Ashland continues into the future, housing addressing the
needs of those populations 75 years old and older will need to be developed. Such as housing
that accommodates aging in place and includes ADA accommodations. The housing needs of
elderly populations could also require units with less square footage, fewer bedrooms and
reduced landscape maintenance. Lastly, as householder's age, homeownership becomes less
economically advantageous, elderly homeowners may opt to sell their homes and rent instead.
These factors could increase the demand for rental housing as this segment of the population
ages.
Theoretically, as older householders move out of existing single family units, the ownership
housing freed up will serve as more affordable options for the next generations moving out of
rentals and into homeownership. But if these population trends continue that may not be the
case. For as those existing households age out of their current residences the population
replacing them, those households 44 years and under, are showing growth rates below that of the
general population and in some instances negative growth rates, which will lead to less demand
for and a surplus of existing ownership units.
The population is projected to grow by 8,567 individuals over the next 30 years. The Housing
Needs Model estimates that the City will need to add 2,657 new housing units to accommodate
the increased populations. If the trends of the past few decades bear out, the majority of these
new housing units will be targeted to older households.
Housing ownership by age of householder
The 2012 to 2022 Ashland School District Enrollment Forecast shows a long term trend of .
declining birth rates within the Ashland School district. Similarly the forecast shows a general
declining population of younger households with children over the last decade and partially
attributes this to an inability of young families with children to afford housing in Ashland.25 The
school district demographic report also cites low birth rates and in-migration of householders 45
years old and older as other factors which contribute to the general aging of the Ashland
population and consequently the reduction in school district enrollment.26 These trends point to
an increasing percentage of ownership housing being occupied by older householders. It is clear
in table 5.4 below that the two biggest factors in determining homeownership are income and age
of householder. As household income increases among all age groups so too does the rate of
,,homeownership. This is also true of age, showing older householders with the highest
percentages of homeownership despite income.
"Ashland School District. Ashland School district Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19. Portland State University Populations
Research Center. December 2008, page 1.
Ashland School District. Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2012-13 to 2021-22. page 12.
-45-
Table 5.4
Percentage Age and Income, 2010 HNIV
Household Age of Head of Household
Income 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K 2.9% 7.9% 16.0% 25.0% 43.0% 46.1% 40.0%
10<20K 3.6% 12.7% 25.0% 37.0% 47.0% 61.0% 56.2%
20<30K 6.0% 16.6% 36.0% 45.0% 54.0% 73.206. 67.1%
30<40K 7.9% 23.9% 48.0% 53.7% 60.0% 74.4% 70.1%
40<SOK 10.8% 32.9% 58.1% 62.4% 80.0% 91.0% 84.0%
50<75K 22.5% 49.9% 72.0% 82.9% 88.6% 92.1% 91.2%
75K+ 32.0% 75.00% 83.0% 92.0% 96.0% 97.0% 93.0%
Household Income
The Oregon Housing Needs Model Methodology states that "household income is the key
variable in determining the affordability component of housing need and is strongly correlated
with housing tenure". The Housing Needs Model estimates that there is currently a significant
gap of housing units at price ranges affordable those with the lowest incomes and surplus of
housing units affordable to those making above the area median income. Households who
experience cost burden are more vulnerable and at a higher risk of homelessness. As seen in
tables 5.4 and 5.5 age and income are the two biggest factors in housing choice. Table 5.4 above
shows the relationship between age and income on homeownership rates; homeownership rates
rise with increasing income and as householder's age. Whereas the relationship of age and
income to rental units is the converse; as incomes and ages rise rental rates decrease.
Table 5.5
Percentage . Renters by Age and Income, 2010 HNIVI
Household Age of Head of Household
Income 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K 97.1% 92.1% 84.0% 75.0% 57.0% 53.9% 60.0%
110<20K 96.4% 87.3% 75.0% 63.0% 53.0% 39.0% 43.8%
1 20<30K 94.0% 83.4% 64.0% 55.0% 46.0% 26.8% 32.9%
1 30<40K 92.1% 76.1% 52.0% 46.3% 40.0% 25.6% 29.9%
40<50K 892% 67.1% 41.9% 37.6% 20.0% 9.0% 16.0%
150<75K 77.5% 50.1% 28.0% 17.1% 11.4% 7.9% 8.8%
75K+ 68.0% 25.0% 17.0% 8.0% 4.0% 3.0% 7.0%
Income Projections
Household income is difficult to predict. Based on past trends, incomes 'are expected to increase (Median
Household Income increased by 22.9% over the past decade).
-46-
Poverty Statvs
In 2000 12.5% of Ashland families, and 19.6% of all individuals lived below the federal poverty
level. By 2010 those numbers have declined slightly to 11.5% and 18.8% respectively.
Household Size and composition
Household size within the City of Ashland has been decreasing slowly over the past two decades.
Currently the average household size is estimated to be 2.08 persons per unit for owner-occupied
households and 2.06 for renter households. The 2000 census estimated the average household
size of owner-occupied units to be 2.30 and for renter occupied units to be 1.98. The average
estimated household size for all housing types was 2.14. The Housing needs model uses a
current household size of 2.119 and for forecasting purposes uses the same estimate.
The 2007 RNA conducted property interviews with five property managers and from that
information and the information gathered from a needs analysis conducted concurrently,
Ferrarini and Associates determined that the greatest need in Ashland at that time was for the
development of more studio apartments followed by a need for a relatively modest number of
one bedroom and three bedroom units. The analysis also showed that there was an oversupply of
two-bedroom rental units. The following table is from that report and illustrates their findings. 27
Table 5.6
2007
City of Ashland Rental Housing Need by Unit Type RNA Type Demand Supply Net Need
Studio 1,039 392 647
1 Bedroom 1,290 1,188 102
2 Bedroom 872 1,676 (804)
3+ Bedroom 900 846 54
Total 4,102 4,102 0
Source: US Census and Felrarini & Associates
An updated analysis of household size and type found much the same thing. There is a definite
lack of studio units for the growing percentage of 1-person households among both renter and
owner-occupied households, both of which grew at two and three times the rate respectively of
the total populations of all renter and owner households. This could be attributed to three
factors; the disproportionate growth of older households, a nearly 50% reduction in the number
of I-room dwelling units between 2000 and 2010, and the disparate increase in one and two
person households. One factor that is estimated to have a substantial impact on the housing
market is the steep decline of all owner occupied households larger than two individuals. These
findings were further substantiated in the property owner and manager questionnaires sent out by
2' City of Ashland Rental Needs Analysis. Fertadni 8 Associates, Inc 2007.
Ibid.
-47-
the City in early 2012 which showed that studios were most in demand, while two bedrooms
were in least demand.
Table 5.7
Housing Units by .Room Size
Rooms 2000 %2000 2010 %2010 % Change
1 Room 493 5.4% 247 2.4% -49.9%
2 Room 692 7.6% 515 5.0% -25.6%
3 Room 870 9.6% 1,252 12.2% 43.9%
4Room 1,856 20.5% 2,043 20.0% 10.1%
5Room 1,822 20.1% 2,168 21.2% 19%
6 Room 1,498 16.5% 1,601 15.7% 6.9%
7 Room 827 9.1% 1,387 13.6% 67.7%
8 Room 624 6.9% 521 5.1% -16.5%
9 or More 389 4.3% 469 4.8% 20.6%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.8
Owner • Units by Household Size
HH Size 2000 2000% 2010 2010% Change
Total 4,456 100 4,856 100% 9%
1-person 1,117 25.1% 1,460 30.1% 30.7%
2-person 1,946 43.7% 2,212 45.6% 13.7%
3-person 647 14.5% 623 12.8% -3.7%
4-person 532 11.9% 412 8.5% -22.6%
5-person 157 3.5% 103 2.1% -34.4%
6-person 45 1.0% 34 .7% -24.4%
t?
F 7 or more 12 0.3% 12 .2% 0%
U.S. Census Bureau
-48-
Table 5.9
Renter • housing by household size
HH Size 2000 20000 2010 20100 % Change
Total 4,081 100% 4,553 100% 11.6%
1-person 1,722 42.2 2,086 45.8% 21.1%
2-person 1,361 33.3% 1,336 29.3% -1.8%
3-person 594 14.6% 646 14.2% 8.8%
4-person 262 6.4% 305 6.7% 16.4%
5-person 90 2.2% 118 2.6% 31.1%
6-person 33 .8% 41 .9% 24.2%
7 or more 19 0.5% 21 0.5 10.5%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.10
Estimate of Rental Units Needed by Household Size and .-21
Needs Analysis No. of HH Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom
1-person 2,086 1,252 834
2-person 1,336 601 601 134
3-person 646 291 355
4-person 305 31 274
5-person 118 118
6-person 41 41
7-person 21 21
Demand 4,553 1,252 1,435 923 943
Supply 255 1,506 3,647 4,822
Surplus/Deficit (997) 71 2,724 3,879
U.S. Census Bureau
~ Estimated household preferences based on percentages from the 2007 RNA-derived from Riley Research community survey. (60%-studio,
40% & 45%-1 bdon, 45%,40% & 10%-21adnn, 10%,60%,90%8100%-3+1bdnn)
-49-
Section VI - Baseline forecast of Housing
Demand
This section concludes with a baseline forecast of housing demand. The baseline forecast
represents our best estimate of how the market will perform over the next twenty years. The
forecast assumes no changes in current City policy. In summary it is intended to provide a
rough estimate of what the housing market will build in Ashland over the next twenty years.
The forecast relies on the County's coordinated population forecast as its foundation but also
utilizes assumptions about average household size, persons in group quarters, and housing trends
from a variety of sources including prior year's census information and the Housing Needs
Model.
Table 6.1
Table Demand 2010-2040
Variable Value
Current Future Change
Population 20,078 28,670 8,492
Persons in Group Quarters 961 1,450 489
Occupied DU 9,409 12,962 3,553
Single Family Dwelling Units
Percent Single Family DU 71.9% 73.9%
Number of Single Family DU 7,356 9,591 2,235
Persons in single family HH 14,933 20,141 5,208
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
Total New Single Family needed 2,235
Multiple Family Dwelling Units
Percent Multi-Family DU 26.6% 25.5%
Number of Multiple-family DU 2,720 3,311 591
Persons in Multiple-Family HH 5,522 6,985 1,463
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
New Multiple-Family DU 591
Totals
Total occupied dwelling units -
Aggregate HH size 2.03 2.1
Vacant dwelling units - 583
Total new Dwelling units needed - 2,657
Dwelling units needed annually 88.6
Table 6.1 is a baseline forecast of housing demand. That is to say that the table extrapolates the
housing mix that would occur in the future based on past trends and market demand. The
3 Future projections based on 2009ACS units by tenure and HNA Template 2-projected future housing status as of 2040.
31 Persons in household is calculated using aggregate household size per 2006-2010 ACS, the =upancy of the unit is not determined to be
either rental or ownership households.
3' Ibid.
-50-
forecast utilizes data from two sources; the 2010 Housing Needs Model (which uses the county
coordinated population projection) estimates for housing occupancy, household size, and
vacancy rate, and the 2007-2009 American Community Survey estimates of total population in
occupied housing units by tenure by units in structure (see appendix). This projection is solely
based on housing demand and past trends, and predicts what the housing market demand would
provide in the next 20 year period. To base the housing needs of future populations upon historic
trends would be to continue the inequities of the past into the future, and that is not the goal of
this needs analysis. Instead, the needs analysis will use this baseline forecast to show how
development trends within the city could be modified in order to meet the needs of the
population rather than the demands of the private market.
Housing needs by type and density
We begin our analysis of housing need by reviewing the housing needs identified in the City's
2002 HNA. The results show some profound differences between identified need by type and
permits issued by type. The number of single-family permits issued in the decade between the
last HNA and this current effort shows that the number of Single Family units continues to be
developed at a rate nearly double that of multi-family.
The 2002 study identified needed housing for the 20-year period between 2000 and 2020. At
this point, the City is one-fifth of the way through that planning period. While some differences
between identified need and what housing has been built can be explained by the cyclical nature
of the housing market, the development of the most needed housing types, low-cost ownership
and affordable rentals, have a decreased margin of return when compared to the development of
market rate housing. The City could explore more creative funding sources including alternative
public- private funding and tax credits. In Summary, the City is continuing to fall short of
providing needed housing types as identified in earlier studies.
The baseline forecast is a forecast of housing demand. Other data presented in Section III,
suggest that the market has not been meeting the housing needs of many Ashland residents and
workers, as the increase in housing and transportation costs have continued to outpace increases
in wages. In summary, the financial need is substantial and a large deficit of lower cost units
exists several points should be kept in mind when interpreting this data:
• Because all of the affordability guidelines are based on median family income, the
percentage of households meeting the income criteria are comparable in all jurisdictions.
For example, 36% of households earn 80% of the area median income. Thus, the income
guidelines provide a rough estimate of financial need and may mask other barriers to
affordable housing such as move-in costs, competition for housing from higher income
households, and availability of suitable units.
• The ratios applied in the HUD income guidelines are defined such that somewhere
around 40% of households will always be considered low income. Ashland will add
-51-
more than 8,492 households between 2010 and 2040. Assuming 36% of these new
households are considered low-income by HUD, about 3,057 of these new households
will be low-income.
Table 6.2
needed Rental Units Type
Type Demand Supply Net Need/Sur lus
Studio 1,252 255 -997
1-Bedroom 1,435 1506 71
2-Bedroom 923 3647 2,724
3+ Bedroom 943 4,822 3,879
Housing Affordability
The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of
income. When gross rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it
places a significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of
their income toward housing costs are called "Cost burdened". Householders who pay more than
50% of their income toward housing costs are called "severely cost burdened". When
households are housing "cost burdened" their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are
compromised.
Historically a large percentage of renters in Ashland expend more than 30% of their income on
housing costs. The 2009-2010 American Community Survey data showed that 63% of renters in
Ashland were cost burdened, of the 4,313 renter households in Ashland 2,714 pay more than
30% of their income toward housing costs. This is a 10% increase in the number of renters who
were identified as housing cost burdened by the 2000 Census at 56%. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City needs 1,163 units targeting those with those lowest incomes, with
rents below $195 a month, 1,166 units with rents between $195-422, and 243 units with rents
between $423-655. It is expected that the City will have a surplus of all units with rents at $656
and above. The Housing Needs Model shows that the majority of the rental units will need to be
targeted to those households earning 50% AMI and below. (See appendix)
Homeowners experience less cost burden than renters, but there continues to be a deficit of
housing for moderate to above median income households and a surplus of units targeting those
earning $75,000 a year and above, which is less than 25% of the population. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City will need; 402 housing units available under $72.3k, 950 units with
-52-
sale prices between $72.3k-1 10.1k, 916 units with sale prices between $110. 1 k-147.6k, 745 units
with sale prices between $147.6k-185.3k, and 1,594 units with sale prices between $185.3k-
279.3k. The majority of the ownership units will be targeted to those making the area median
income to 120% of the AMI. The model assumes a surplus of units priced at $279.3k and above.
(See appendix)
Housing Density
Figure 6. Ion page 50, show housing density in terms of units per acre mapped by census block.
The City is comprised primarily of land zoned for single family dwelling units. Due to the high
cost of land in the City of Ashland, most developments maximize the allowable density. One
exception is land zoned for multi-family development. Though there is more land zoned for
single family development, land zoned for multi-family developments is often developed as
single family attached due to market forces, high end multi-family developments such as
condominiums and townhouses are more economically attractive to private market developers
looking to maximize density and profits. This has made it difficult for non-profit and for-profit
developers to construct affordable and market rate multi-family rental complexes which were
shown to be the housing type most in demand by the 2007 RNA. Similarly many of the existing
affordable and market rate units are HUD expiring use properties, once the HUD contract has
expired the rental units can convert to market rate rentals or be condo minimized.
-53-
Figure 6.1
CITY or
C_ ASHLAND
Xouaehold Gar Acre
\ Census sus aua 200 3000
Nae: Dexviry uladauona are Eased an the 2300
Us Censor k Group emnmdes
lthu... tuN as Mme outa de the Gly U.N.:
peke and C .Vab: Gas CWH: IlmEplaina
and other unde:NWed xm are Inducted In the
dmaiy ntlndalion from the U5 Canaua data.
7
I ~ P
l _ VV--
Households
Per 1
Acre ~!I_ 1 1
0.81 \
1.15
15.2
2-2.5
2-2.5 ~A -
® 25-3.5
3'5- 4.W
4.5- 5.82
The findings of the Housing Needs Model and an analysis of income and housing cost indicate
that:
• Without a significant down payment a median income household cannot afford to
purchase a median cost home in Ashland.
• The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually.
• The city needs approximately 803 additional units costing less than $200 per month.
These units fall in the category of government assisted housing.
Is Only 232 owner-occupied units in Ashland are valued, under $110,000 or about 4.5% of
all owner occupied units. The small number of owner-occupied units valued under
$110,000 limits ownership options in Ashland for households earning less than $40,000
annually.
In summary, the evaluation of housing mix, density, and affordability suggests that the City
should plan for a larger share of multiple family housing, and for a greater number of single
family housing types on smaller lots. Housing tenure remained fairly constant at 52% and 48%
-54-
respectively for owners and renters, though the ownership rate for Ashland is lower than that of
the surrounding areas it is similar to other communities which contain universities.
Figure 6.2
Owner Occupied units by affordability
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
O
<72.3 72.3<110.1K 110.1K<147.6 147.6<185.3k 185.3k<279.3k 279.3k+
■ Ownership Units Existing ■ Ownership Units Needed
Figure 6.3
Rental Units needed by affordability
1600
1400
1200
1000
0
N
M c 800
E
z' 600
400
200
0
0-194 195-422 8423-655 65p6-897 898-1132 1133+
■ Existing Rental Unitsl Ami~leelt~ed~tle t^ al Units
-55-
Housing needs of special populations
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) identify several "special populations" that
have housing needs distinctly different than the general population. These include the frail and
elderly, farm workers, peoples with disabilities, persons recently released from state institutions,
and persons infected with the HIV virus, among others. The housing needs of these special
populations are highly dependent on individual circumstances. It is not uncommon for the same
individual to be classified into two or more of the categories. As such, it is very difficult to
develop an estimate of the number and type of housing units needed to accommodate these
special populations. In this section we estimate the number of persons with such disabilities and
provide projections based on data provided by the 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special
Needs Populations compiled by OHCS.
Senior housing
The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by OHCS to
prioritize funding for new affordable housing units throughout the state looks at the number of
housing units available to and the population of various special needs households by County.
The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for senior housing is detailed in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3
Population Senior Housing vs. Special Needs population Existing Units Population %of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Elderly 1,119 8,047 13.9% 6,928
Frail Elderly 8 919 0.9% 911
Section IV-Ashland's Housing Inventory, details the number of existing retirement and assisted
living units within the City. The 2010 Housing Needs Model estimates that a total of 257 new
units will need to be added to the City's existing stock to house populations' ages 65 years old
and older. Of those units 83 rentals and 174 ownership units will be needed to accommodate the
housing needs of seniors.
Special needs housing
The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by Oregon
Housing and Community Services to prioritize funding for new affordable housing units
throughout the state looks at the number of housing units available to various special needs
households by County. The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations
estimates that there are very few housing units currently in existence throughout the county for
people who could be categorized as having special needs. See table 6.4 below for details.
-56-
Table 6.4
Special Needs Housing vs. Population (Jackson County)
Special Needs Population Existing Units Population of Housing Housing Gap
Available Available
Alcohol& Drug Rehab 54 4,440 1.2% 4,386
Chronically Mentally III 47 2.842 1.7% 2,795
Developmental Disability 44 794 5.5% 750
Domestic Violence 33 170 19.3% 137
Farm workers 77 3,735 2.1% 3,658
HIV/AIDS 4 136 2.9% 132
Physically Disabled 44 497 8.9% 453
Released Offenders 0 194 0.0% 194
As seen in the table above there is currently a significant housing gap to serve special needs
populations. If a proportionate percentage of the population were to be extrapolated forward to
the 2040 population projection for the County, peoples with special needs would be an estimated
6.3% of the County's population or 11,031 people. As the population increases it is evident that
the number of housing units available to serve populations with special needs will continue to
fall far short of the need for such housing unless a concerted effort to develop housing is
encouraged.
Housing Stock available to persons with Disabilities
Census data reports that 2,379 people five years old and older with disabilities resided in
Ashland in 2000. Peoples with Disabilities made up 12.8% of the population at that time. The
2010 Census and the 5-year American Community Survey estimates do not provide updated
information about peoples with disabilities. However, as the City of Ashland has a greater
percentage of the population which is 50 years old or older it can be expected that as the
population ages housing that meets the changing needs of the population will need to be
provided. Currently the extent of housing stock available to peoples with disabilities is not
known. However four complexes representing 148 units dedicated as affordable housing for
seniors and peoples with disabilities are identified on the preservation property list and which are
nearing the end of their designated term of affordability. .
Housing Stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS
Information on the housing stock available for persons with HIV/AIDS is currently unavailable
for the Medford/Ashland MSA. State of Oregon department of health services records show that
there are 149 people with HIV/AIDS living in Jackson County.33 The number of people with
"State of Oregon, Department of Health Services Website: http://w .oregon.gov/DHS/phfhiv/data/domfLivingwunty.xls
-57-
HIV/AIDS living within the City of Ashland is not known. Consequently, the City does not
prioritize or track the development of housing stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS.
Homeless Needs
It is estimated that in 2008, 1 in every two hundred people in the state of Oregon was homeless.
Data from the Point in Time homeless Count conducted across the State of Oregon and
throughout the U.S. in January 2008 showed that Oregon has the highest concentration of
homeless people of any state at .54 percent or 20,653. The 2011 Point in Time homeless count
for Jackson County totaled 1,049 people. Totals are not broken out per jurisdiction but are for
the entire Continuum of Care region. Of the 1,049 respondents 39% identified themselves as
chronically homeless (continuously homeless for a year or more or had at least four episodes of
homelessness in the past three years), 48%, or 502 respondents were families with children. The
majority of the respondents 26% cited "couldn't afford rent" as the reason for leaving their last
living arrangement.
Ashland School District
An article published in the Ashland Daily Tidings reported on a rise in poverty in rural areas.
Specifically, the article cited dramatically increased poverty rates among children in areas deeply
affected by the recession including Medford and Ashland.34 The Ashland School District
reported that for the 2010-2011 school year 84 children currently attending school within the
district report being homeless. This number is up from 62 the previous year.
'd Hammond, Betsy. `Rural Students most likely to live in poverty Some Southern Oregon districts see high rates." Ashland Daily Tidings 01
Dec. 2009.
-58-
Figure 5
2011 One-Night Homeless CountforJackson County
■ Single Adult Men
• One Parent Family "ith Children
■Couplewithout children
■Two parent Family with Children
■ Unaccompanied Youth (17 or under)
r • Other
Oregon Housing and Community Services receive federal and state resources to be used to
support services for homeless populations. They include: Emergency Housing Account,
Emergency Shelter grants, State Homeless Assistance Program, Shelter Plus Care, and
Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist Homeless. Additionally, under the Federal
Continuum of Care program administered by HUD, local governments and agencies can apply
for federal funding for programs and services to prevent and combat homelessness. The Jackson
County Continuum of Care has been the recipient of McKinney Vento funds since 2000. The
City of Ashland does not directly receive any funds to assist homeless persons or persons at risk
of becoming homeless, and there is no longer a local organization that provides services to
homeless populations; however City of Ashland residents can access available services,
programs and funds through ACCESS, Inc. the regional Community Action Agency that serves
Jackson and Josephine Counties. Similarly, many non-profit agencies that provide housing or
support services for homeless populations are eligible to apply for funds through OHCS or
through the Jackson County Continuum of Care.
In 2007, Interfaith Care Community of Ashland (ICCA), the sole provider of homeless services
located within the City of Ashland at that time, closed its Ashland location and consolidated its
operations to that agency's Medford office. Since the loss of ICCA the City passed an ordinance
to set up an emergency shelter in times of inclement weather. Several local faith based
-S9-
organizations and Peace House, a local non-profit, offer weekly hot meals, showers, and
occasionally a place to sleep. Though there are limited local housing resources for the City's
homeless populations, there are several organizations that provide emergency shelter, transitional
housing, and other resources and supportive services for homeless individuals in Medford, but
many of the City's homeless lack the transportation resources to get to those providers in
Medford which is 19 miles away.
Rental units at price ranges affordable to those with the lowest incomes (>$10,000 a year) would
serve to reduce homelessness. The 2010 Housing Needs Model shows this population has the
greatest need for housing. It is known that households who experience cost burden, those who
pay a disproportionate percentage of wages toward housing costs, are the most vulnerable, and
have an increased risk for falling into homelessness. Similarly, individuals and families
transitioning from homelessness often have little or no ability to pay housing costs. These
individuals and families need housing that is either subsidized or extremely affordable in able to
work toward stabilization and self-sufficiency.
-60-
Section VII - Meeting Housing Needs
Housing Distribution Strategy
In order to meet housing needs of the community over the planning period (Through the year
2040), some modification in the current distribution of housing that is being developed by the
demand driven market will be required. The proposed modification is shown in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1
Housing Type Distribution
Housing Type Total Estimate of Future Final Target Current Needed
Housing Existinsq Needed/G Distribution of Approx. Distribution to
Units Unitsa ap Housing by Type Distribution by meet future
Needed in in 2040 Type36 unit need
2040
Single Family 8,913 7,356 1,557 65.80% 80.260/6 45.50%
Manufactured DU 325 154 171 2.40% - 5.0%
in Park
Duplex Units 420 526 -106 3.10% 2.63% N/A
Tri-Quad Units 569 530 39 4.20% 3.12% 1.1%
5+Multi-Famil 3,319 1,655 1,655 24.50% 13.99% 48.4%
Total 13,545 10,230 3,315 100% 100% 100%
This distribution modification is further exemplified by the 2010 Housing Needs Model outputs
for unit type based on income and affordability. Based on Census data for income, the City
needs many more low cost rental units, which are often multi-family units and government
assisted housing units whether through tax-credits, loans, or subsidies in the form of project
based or portable housing vouchers. The City has a deficit of ownership units below $279k. The
Housing Needs Model shows a total deficit of 2,719 ownership units affordable to people
making below $75,000 annually.
In order to achieve the desired distribution by 2040, the City will need to balance the
development mix in favor of multi-family units over that of predominantly single family units
which has historically prevailed. The City will need to substantially increase its stock of multi-
family units in order to meet the desired distribution by 2040, skewing the development of such
units beyond parity with the development of single family units to close the gap.
's From 20062010 American Community Survey.
Number derived from Census Building permit Data 2000-2011. See Appendix for details.
-61-
Table 7.2
Model Estimate of Income and Affordability - Housing Needs 2010
Rentals/month) rent Number of Existing Units Current Needed Units Current Surplus/Gap
0-$194 152 955 -805
$195.422 283 1,052 -769
$423-655 1,052 940 112
$656-897 1,401 480 922
$898-1132 830 557 273
$1133+ 1,258 283 975
Total 4,976 4,266 710
Ownership Unit Values
<$72.3k 150 401 -251
$72.3k<1 10.1 k 82 749 -667
$110.1k<147.6k 18 665 -648
$147.6<185.3k 160 656 -497
$185.3k<279.3k 676 1332 -656
$279.3k+ 4004 17 2255
Total Units 5089 5550 52 -463
Challenges and Potential Strategies
The following challenges and objectives are derived primarily from the City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The goals and priorities outlined in the Comprehensive
plan remain the guiding principles for housing policy within the community. The potential
strategies contained in this section are offered as a menu of items for further consideration and
are not conclusions of fact.
To the degree the 2010 Housing Needs Model projections accurately predict Ashland's future
housing needs, then City may be faced with the following challenges over the next 20 years:
• How and where to zone and "protect" land for affordable rental and ownership housing as
well as multiple-family housing at all levels.
• How to encourage developers to build what Ashland needs (by price/affordability), rather
than the products they are comfortable building or which yield the greatest profit.
• How to continue to create and sustain Ashland's great neighborhoods.
• House to create a variety of housing types and incomes in neighborhoods.
• How to encourage effective partnerships to increase funding for low-income housing and
provide responsive, coordinated and effective housing choices and service.
Challenge
To provide for the needs of the expected population growth in Ashland over the next 20 years
and maintain a diversity of income, cultural, and age groups in Ashland's population, consistent
with other plan goals.
-62-
Objectives
Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if increased growth
pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important
to Ashland's character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district,
and college, service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage tamers in local
industries, and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed income. (Ashland
Comprehensive Plan)
Potential Strategies
The City may consider ways to encourage;
• Rental housing at rates affordable to low to moderate income households,
• . Ownership housing opportunities that are targeted to the 76% of the population that earns
less than $75,000 a year,
• More housing types targeted to seniors and peoples with disabilities,
• More studios and one bedroom units,
• More multi-family housing types,
• Manufactured housing in parks and on single family lots.
• Work with affordable housing providers to apply for tax credits for low-income housing.
• Explore options for use of public property in support of workforce housing.
Challenue
To ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-
section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the
city. (Ashland Comprehensive Plan)
Objectives
Conserve land and reduce the impact of land prices on housing to the maximum extent possible.
(Ashland Comprehensive Plan)
Potential Strategies
• Encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area,
• Consider mixed uses wherever they will not disrupt an existing residential area,
• Support efforts for rehabilitation and preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods,
• Consider allowing and encouraging accessory apartments in new and existing,
neighborhoods as an outright permitted activity in single family zones,
• Consider restricting the development of detached single family residential units in multi-
family zones.
• Explore alternative public/private funding strategies such as tax credit or bond funding.
• Prioritize the retention of vulnerable properties through renewal of HUD/USDA funding.
• Explore vertical housing tax credits for mixed use developments.
-63-
Challenge
49% of homeowners with mortgages, 14% of homeowners without mortgages, and 63% of renter
households spent more than 30% of household income on housing costs. The local economy
does not provide wages that are commensurate with housing costs.
Objectives
In order to provide for the long-term self-sufficiency of Ashland's low- and moderate-income
households, the issue of affordable housing must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. In
addition to the land use related actions already identified, the following actions may help meet
the objectives of decreasing the percentage of households who experience cost burden.
Potential Strategies
• Provide more economic opportunities for Ashland residents by improving the local
economy and attracting more "family wage" jobs,
• Support efforts of affordable housing providers, including; the Housing Authority of
Jackson County, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity, Access, Inc. Ashland Community
Land Trust, and Umpqua Community Development Corporation. To provide affordable
housing, financial assistance, and services to Ashland low and moderate income, elderly,
and special needs households,
• Dedicate Community Development Block Grant funds as projects and needs arise,
• Work with employers to better understand the demographics and housing preferences of
their workforce.
• Promote an urban form and transportation system that reduces household transportation
costs.
• Remain award of federal and state legislation related to housing.
Conclusion
The identification of a set of land use policies that will lead to the development of more balanced
housing inventory while achieving other community goals is difficult at best. Ashland however,
is not the only community in Oregon, or the United states that is facing housing affordability
problems. A considerable body of literature exists on land use policy and affordable housing that
summarizes approaches that communities have used to address the housing affordability issue.
In general, communities should review policies to ensure that they do not create barriers to or
exclude any housing types, and they reduce the cost of housing.
Below is a brief summary of some of the policy approaches that communities can consider to
address housing affordability.
• Remove public policy barriers that impede the construction of needed housing, or
efficient use of land. To the degree evidence is found that the market wants to build
-64-
needed housing types or densities but is kept from doing so by public policies, the City
could review policies to amend or repeal such ineffective policies.
• Provide Incentives: Incentives are measures that increase the likelihood that developers
will provide needed housing or use land efficiently as a result of reduced costs. To the
degree that evidence is found that the market might be willing to build a certain type or
density of housing, but there remains uncertainty about the success in the market place
and/or current economic conditions for such development are less than optimal, the City
may explore incentives likely to remove such uncertainty
• Explore cost reducing measures including costs of public services and facilities,
development fees, and other processing costs. An example of a less commonly
considered incentive includes working with neighborhood groups to address concerns. If
successful, this can reduce costs of lengthy appeals to the developer.
• Review development standards? Lot size typically impacts the price of lots, the size of
housing units allowed and the overall price of housing units.
• Evaluate minimum lot sizes and setbacks, maximum heights and lot coverage of all
zones.
• Evaluate compatibility standards, particularly for multiple-family developments and infill
sites.
• Evaluate incentives for the development of smaller units.
The public sector typically does not produce housing directly. Therefore, estimates of the
likely effect of these measures should be qualified by some uncertainty about exactly how the
private sector will respond. For example, if higher density requirements or mandatory design
standards are perceived by the development community (designers, builders, lenders) as
unprofitable or unmarketable, the desired housing may not get built in the community. For
this reason, jurisdictions should seek a balance in adopting regulations and try to redirect, not
stifle market forces that produce most of a community's housing.
-65-
Appendix
-66-
Table A-1
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
Capacity SFR Multi-family Totals
Existing Dwelling Unit 1469 1384 2853
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis 1557 1759 3316
through 2040
Deficit by 2040 -88 -375 -463
Annual units needed through 2040 55.6 62.8 118.4
Total Year Supply 26.4 22.0 24.1
-67-
Table A-2
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units • Type
Net I Existing Dwelling distributed into existing
Comprehensive Buildable Unit Capacity capacity
Plan Acres 1
Airport Per Airport
Master Plan 0 0 0
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
; Sh
Totals 622.8 28531469 9384
. r~
Note: Drpected Dwelling Units on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be permitted as
such units are not required.
j
-68-
Table A- 3a
Housing Units by Type 2002-2011
Year Permit Mixed Use - Multi- Accessory New Group
Issued above Family Residential Condominium
commercial Units Units (not
including mixed
use)
2002 3 30 SOU
2003 2
2004 2 - - -
2005 4 26 6 8
2006 22 5 4 48
2007 13 2 2 7
2008 9 2 8 0
2009 0 1 1 0
2010 0 60 4 0
2011 3 209 SOU
Total 58 96 27 63 239
Table A-3b
Units per Year by Type t2002-2011
Data on single family and multi-family development derived from Census data
Year Single Multi- Accessory Condominium Group Homes Manufactured
Permit Family Family Residential Conversions Homes
Issued Units
2002 99 9 - 30 (SOU) 1
2003 125 64 14 0
2004 103 55 - 4 0
2005 128 43 6 22 0
2006 47 57 4 34 0
2007 52 11 2 8 0 1
2008 20 12 8 10 0 0
2009 25 1 1 0 0 0
2010 34 10 4 0 0
2011 24 6 2 0 209 (SOU)
Total 657 268 27 92 209 2
-69-
Table A-4
Buildable Comprehensive Plan # of Parcels Net Airport 9 Per Airport Master Plan
Commercial 52 15.8
Croman Mill 31 62.8
Downtown 17 2
Employment 114 105.1
HC 10 1.4
H D R 48 8.9
Industrial 6 12.1
LDR 83 38.1
MFR 115 30.8
NM 77 17.7
SFR 552 214
SFRR 27 48
SOU 19 19.5
Suburban R 50 42.3
Woodland 30 4.3
Totals 1240 = 6228~~ 5
Source: Table 3.3 firom the BLI. Buildable acres: UGB & City Limits
-70-
Table A-5
employers
Ashland's largest Business # of Employees % of Population
Southern Oregon University Approx. 750 3.6%
Ashland Community Hospital 410 1.9%
Oregon Shakespeare Festival 398 1.9%
Ashland Public Schools 350 1.6%
City of Ashland 229 1.1%
Butler Ford Approx. 160 0.7%
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 130-150 0.6%
Ashland Food Co-Op 130 0.6%
Pro Tool Approx. 100 0.4%
Linda Vista Approx. 75 0.3%
Albertsons 72 0.3%
Plexis Approx 70 0.3%
Safeway 65 0.3%
Town and Country Chevrolet 50 0.2%
Cropper Medical 50 0.2%
Bi-Mart 45 0.2%
Source: Chip oJAshland, Chamberof Commerce websile: www.ashlandchamnber.com.
-71-
Table A-6
Population Projections
33000
32000 31633
31000 -
30000 -
29000 28670 30139
28000 -
77000 - - - -
26055
26000
25000 -
24000
23000
22000 - -
uooo
20000 20255
19000
18000 -
17000
16000
15000
14000 - -
13000
12000
11000
30000
-.-Historic population -Ashland Comprehensive plan projection
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Forecast (Table 7) -Jackson County RP8 2005-2060 projection (0.76% growth)
linear (Historic Population)
-72-
Table A-7
Program
Housing Units Covered by the City of Ashland Affordable Housing Year Deed Restricted Number of Period of Units that have Affordability Trigger
Units affordability (in expired or paid
years) off
1992 5 20 5 SDC Deferral
1993 0 0 0 N/A
1994 14 20 8 SDC Deferral
1995 4 20 3 SDC Deferral
1996 6 0 6 N/A
1997 12 20 11 SDC Deferral
1998 14 20 13 SDC Deferral
1999 10 20 9 SDC Deferral
2000 9 20 6 SDC Deferral
2001 1 20 0 SDC Deferral
2002 1 20 0 SDC Deferral
2003 3 20 1 SDC Deferral
2004 19 20-99 1 SDC/CDBG/Condo Conversion/Land
Trust
2005 8 20-99 0 SDC/CDBG/Condo Conversion/Land
Trust
2006 19 20-99 0 SDC/CDBG/Condo Conversion/Land
Trust
2007 12 20-99 0 SDC/CDBG/Condo Conversion/Zone
Change/OHCS/Land Trust
2008 6 99 0 SDC/CDBG/Annexation/Land Trust
2009 8 99 0 SCD/Annexation/Land Trust
2010 9 60-99 0 SDC/Annexation/Land Trust/CDBG
2011 60 60 0 SDC/CDBG/Annexation/OHCS
2012 0 0 0 N/A
2013 6 60 0 SDC/CDBG/Annexation/OHCS
Total Units 226 63
Total Units Remaining in Program 163
1 1.-
-73-
Exhibit B
Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents
City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan
Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within
the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not
serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the
documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy
amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist
the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions.
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions
The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions.
1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources.
1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by
Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009.
Chapter VI, Housing Element
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter VI, Housing Element.
1. City of Ashland: Housing Needs Analysis (2012) by Ordinance on
Chapter VII, Economy
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter VII, The Economy.
1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
Chapter XII, Urbanization
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter XII, Urbanization.
1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 16, 2011.