Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-09 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DraftMinutes June 14, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Senior Planner Kerry KenCairn Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Lynn Thompson Eric Herron Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Norton began by welcoming Eric Herron to the Planning Commission Community Development Director Bill Molnar informed the Commission that agenda item C, a presentation on Ashland’s Characteristics, Demographics and Urban Form, had been removed from the agenda and would be discussed at the June 28, 2022 meeting. Mr. Molnar made the following announcements: He confirmed that the Commission’s annual retreat will be held on June 16, 2022. The Commission will meet at 8:30 a.m. at Moxie Café & Market before conducting site visits. The sites visited will be 329 Granite Street, the West Village Subdivision, and Clear Creek Drive. They will then reconvene at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way. Staff was informed that the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had affirmed the City’s decision to approve a Wireless Communication Facility at 351 Walker Ave. The appellants had identified four assignments of error on the part of the City which were ultimately dismissed by LUBA. III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. May 10, 2022 Regular Meeting Commissioners Verner/Knauer m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Herron abstained due to the meeting taking place before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. OTHER BUSINESS A.Housing in E1/C1 Zones Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2022 Page 1 of 4 Staff Presentation Senior Planner Brandon Goldman gave a presentation regarding an amendment regarding housing in E-1 and C-1 Zones. City Council had sent the proposed amendment back to the Commission with suggested changes. One of the suggested changes would be to allow mixed-use commercial buildings to convert up 100% rental housing on the ground floor with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and with the condition that they would return to commercial use at a later date (see attachment #1). Project Goals and Objectives Ordinance Development Timeline Ordinance Provisions Ordinance Applicability Employment Lands Need Council Hearing - Direction Considerations Next Steps Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson voiced approval for the City Council’s recommendations. She noted that one of the main obstacles to approving up to 100% rental housing in mixed-use buildings was the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) issue of removing employment lands without conducting a new EOA beforehand. Commissioner Thompson asked if the City’s Chamber of Commerce study would make a new EOA unnecessary. Mr. Goldman responded that it may be premature to consider whether the study conducted by the Chamber of Commerce would be sufficient to eliminate the need for another EOA. Mr. Molnar stated that staff had been in contact with the state regarding the ordinance, but it was unclear if a new EOA would be required. He noted that the state was supportive of the proposed amendment. Mr. Molnar added that mixed-use property owners would still have a great deal of flexibility in determining the percentage of employment housing on the ground floor, and that the new amendment would only apply if they passed the 65% mark. Commissioner Thompson inquired if the City Council would be able to adopt an ordinance if uncertainty remained around this issue. Mr. Molnar responded that the review period should provide sufficient time to determine if a new EOA is necessary. Commissioner Dawkins inquired if the ordinance would only apply to new buildings, or if it would also include existing vacant commercial properties. Mr. Goldman responded that the ordinance would apply to any development wishing to utilize this provision, provided that the development not be more than ten acres or only one-story tall. However, an existing two-story building on a lot that is less than ten acres could utilize the provisions in the ordinance as previously recommended by the Commission. Commissioners Dawkins and Verner commended the presentation as a good summary of the work done by the Commission on this topic, and while also providing a good blueprint moving forward. Mr. Molnar pointed out that 40% of the City’s Employment and Commercial Zones do not allow for residential developments, so their uses would be unchanged. He added that not all developments, particularly those in commercial zones, choose to operate as mixed-use buildings. Commissioner KenCairn expressed concern over the difficulty of mixed-use buildings transitioning back to commercial once the time-frame had lapsed, and inquired if this ordinance would be driven by market-driven factors. Mr. Goldman responded that it would give developments far more flexibility in their use, but that there is no guarantee that these developments will expand their residential use as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Molnar added that staff is considering some flexibility in the ordinance, particularly by not imposing a term of affordability, and that the target is instead based on household income. This is due to some developers raising concerns over the financial feasibility of developments under deed restrictions that require specific terms. Chair Norton commented that a CUP will be much easier to implement, which could appeal to potential developers. He added that a CUP could influence how future commercial buildings are developed in order to accommodate residential use. Chair Norton stressed the important of affordable housing in a community, and was encouraged by the City Council’s approach to creating the necessary housing. Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2022 Page 2 of 4 B. Middle Housing Lot Division & Expedited Land Division Code Changes Staff Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation regarding Senate Bill 458, which include changes to Middle Housing Lot Divisions (MHLD) and Expedited Land Division codes. He gave a brief background on House Bill 2001 and Senate Bill 458 on MHLDs and their implementation. Under SB 458 Expedited Land Divisions would not be considered land use actions, and as such could not be appealed to the Planning Commission. Instead, an initial administrative decision could be appealed to a referee/hearings officer, and would not be subject to appeal to LUBA. The noticing area for Expedited Land Divisions will be reduced to 100ft, with a final decision needing to be made by the City within 63 days, unless extended by the City Council. This is in contrast to the current 120 day decision period for land use actions (see attachment #2). Questions of Staff Commissioner KenCairn inquired if staff’s decision to not include existing Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) and duplexes in the code change was a strategy to keep them as rentals. Mr. Severson responded that it should be considered, and that parking should also be taken into account in those discussions. Commissioner KenCairn voiced support for retaining their rental status, but commented that whether an ARU or duplex can be rented or sold should not be based on when it was developed. Mr. Molnar stated that this discussion has been ongoing since the City adopted its first Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, and that the state seems to be offering flexibility in how to adopt the new code changes. Commissioner Knauer asked how much of the City’s housing stock would be affected by the code changes and if staff has a targeted number of rental units in the City that they are attempting to reach. Mr. Goldman responded that the City contains 47% rental and 53% ownership units, but that many rentals are detached single-family dwellings that could be converted into ownership units. He commented that some of those rental units would not be able to be converted and sold because they would not be able to separate its utilities from the main dwelling, or because they would not comply with fire safety requirements. Commissioner Thompson noted that, when the duplex ordinance was first considered, it was decided that detached and attached structures could be defined as duplexes. She asked what would be required for an ARU to be converted into a duplex in order to be sold, and also what the new code said about vertical duplexes. Mr. Severson stated that they will likely see applications to convert an ARU into a duplex as long as the building meets the requisite criteria. He stated that cities would not be required to allow vertical duplexes, but that they could be discussed by the Commission. Mr. Molnar added that vertical duplexes would likely not be permitted because they would share the same lot space. Chair Norton inquired if staff had received any applications for dwellings to be converted into a duplex since the provision for duplexes had been passed. Mr. Severson stated that he was not aware of any. Chair Norton speculated on the number of buyers who would purchase a Single Family Residence (SFR) with the purpose of selling part of it as a duplex, and asked staff what the parking requirements would be for an SFR. Mr. Severson responded that parking could take up no more than a 25ft wide paved area, or 25% of the front yard, whichever is greater. He added that no cover for parking would be required. D. Election of Officers Chair Norton stated that both offices of the Commission, Chair and Vice-Chair, are up for election. He added that he had been Chair for the past two years, and that no member can be Chair for more than three. Chair Norton also informed the Commission that a significant amount of support and insight from staff would be imparted to whomever is Chair of the Commission. Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to elect Commissioner Norton as Chair. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to nominate Commissioner Verner as Vice-Chair. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Review of code amendments targeted at increasing housing on City zoned employment lands. March 16, 2021 December 2020 Research and Development Ordinance Review Future Public Hearings o o o o o Middle Housing Land Divisions Legislative Timeline HB 2001 Requirements 7¨³§ ("ͷ͵͵Ͷ #®£¤ #§ ­¦¤²Ȃ Middle Housing Land Divisions Items for Next Draft Legislative Amendment Next Steps ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Draft Minutes June 28, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Eric Herron Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: The appeal of the Commission’s denial of PA-T2-2022-00037, 165 Water Street has been postponed at the request of the appellant. An extension for the appeal was granted by the City Council. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Characteristics, Demographics and Urban Form Presentation Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that the City Council had held two special sessions in May, 2022 to discuss the City’s general fund and provide information on the biennial budget, and the characteristics of the City. He gave a brief history on the City’s growth management, and the physical constraints that define the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Staff Presentation Planning Manager Brandon Goldman gave a presentation on the characteristics, demographics, and urban form of the City. He stated that staff had been working with City Manager Joe Lessard to identify areas of note, such as tourist spots and natural environments, that give character to the City. He added that the City is also known for its schools and vibrant art scene. Mr. Goldman summarized the demographics of the City as: low but steady population growth; an aging population over the national trend; high housing costs; majority of households comprise 1-2 individuals; one-in-five households having children; and an increasing divide between low-income and high-income households and their ability to purchase a house (see attachment #1). Mr. Goldman summarized the future buildable land within the City Limits. He pointed out that there are 475 buildable acres for potential residential properties within the City Limits and UGB, and that the City is currently at 80% buildout for residential units. He stated that staff identified Limited Capacity Developable Residential Lots as properties with a maximum building potential of one or two additional dwellings. He added that a total of 500 lots were identified to fit this criteria, for a potential total of 597 additional dwelling units on those properties. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that there were 185 net acres available for Commercial, Employment, and Industrial use, and that the development rate of Commercial lands in the City is 1/5 the estimate th provided by the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis. Mr. Goldman pointed out several districts to be considered as Opportunity Districts along the central transit route through the City, which could provide additional business and housing growth. These areas were identified as the Downtown District, for Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 1 of 3 entertainment and cultural buildings; the University District for education and customer service buildings; and the Croman Mill District for future employment and mixed-use residential buildings. Mr. Goldman noted that the Rogue Valley Transportation District has indicated that it would reroute transit lines to include the Croman Mill District once it has been established. Mr. Goldman stated that these Opportunity Districts could have many benefits from a land-use perspective, including promoting mixed-use and economic development, reducing traffic congestion and increasing pedestrian activity, and reducing vehicle emissions and limiting urban sprawl into surrounding farmland. Mr. Goldman stated that staff had identified three potential zones to be used for urban reserve areas and future growth, and included the northside of East Main Street, Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou Boulevard, and the Billings Farm. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson commented that the presentation displaying residential land does not factor in the possibility of second units on a property in the form of Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) or duplexes. She added that, with the increase in residents working from home, that the potential for commercial developments only in Commercial Zones or being limited to traditionally commercial buildings. Mr. Goldman agreed, and responded that staff had been conservative in its estimates of future growth. He elaborated that some of the graphs included had been based on a 2019 study of the City’s buildable land inventory, which preceded the state’s requirement that medium-sized cities allow ARUs or duplexes on any lots that allow a single-family residence. Commissioner Thompson asked how this could affect the results of a study that attempts to quantify the City’s potential for additional residential units. Mr. Goldman responded that not all single-family lots could accommodate an ARU or be converted into a duplex, and therefore an exact number is difficult to ascertain. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the status of the Imperatrice Ranch that had been considered as a site for affordable housing in the past. Mr. Goldman responded that the 640 acre property had originally been purchased by the City in order to be used as part of a waste-water treatment facility. It has since been identified as a potential surplus property, but no decision has been made. The property is located outside of the UGB, so its development capacity is limited by what is permissible by the County, and is unlikely to be used for affordable housing unless the UGB is expanded to encompass the property. Commissioner Thompson questioned if the property could instead be used as an urban reserve area, to which Mr. Goldman responded that any urban reserve areas would need to be contiguous with the City Limits. Mr. Molnar stated that the Imperatrice Ranch property would be extremely difficult to incorporate into the UGB, and that there are more efficient areas for expansion. He added that staff and City Council are examining zoning amendments to the Railroad District and the Croman Mill Site as areas to expand city services. Commissioner Dawkins inquired if Interstate 5 (I-5) created the same physical barrier in regards to annexation that railroads have caused. Mr. Molnar responded that he would need to reexamine a decision handed down by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), but that railroads are typically privately owned and still pose a barrier to annexation. Mr. Molnar stated that railroads are not considered a public right-of-way, but that he believed a local or state highway would not inhibit the City’s contiguous expansion. B.Food Truck Discussion Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that there was renewed interest in the City revising its ordinances regarding food trucks and easing their permitting process. He remarked that the Commission had made some changes several years ago to provide flexibility for short-term food trucks, but that any long-term placement of a food truck currently requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which could take up to 45 days to complete. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman began by identifying different types of food trucks, as a different application process will likely be required for each. These included: 1.Food Trucks - placed in surplus parking areas. 2.Food Cart Parks - would provide seating, restrooms, be semi-permanent and could be moved if the property-use changed. 3.Street Trucks - access from the sidewalk for customers and would use the public right-of-way. 4.Private Plaza Areas - for use in large open spaces, such as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and could provide seating and host a variety of food truck options. Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 2 of 3 5.Special Events – temporary use, such as block parties, weddings, and could provide on-site catering. Mr. Goldman detailed how vacant and underused properties could be used by food trucks without impacting any existing on-site uses. He showed various sites in the city that could accommodate food trucks, such as Russ Johnson Tire, which has been vacant for a number of years, and the Grower’s Market, which already hosts food trucks once a week. Mr. Goldman drew attention to several points that required deliberation before approval could be considered, including signage, trash and recycling, fire safety and accessibility, and permit processing. Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner inquired if food trucks could operate on Lithia Way across from Plaza West. Mr. Goldman responded that the City’s ordinance relating to streets currently prohibits commercial activities in streets and public right-of-way, so it would need to be changed before proceeding. He added that food trucks could be a good opportunity for entrepreneurs to begin their business and eventually transition to a brick and mortar restaurant. Commissioner KenCairn if the limited application of special event food trucks would be to prevent them from becoming a permanent fixture. Mr. Goldman responded that special event food trucks would only be used for large, temporary events, because a reoccurring events could more heavily impact the area. Commissioner KenCairn stated that the success of a food truck is based on its reliability, and that she supported not assigning permanent locations for food trucks, but instead providing opportunities for them to operate consistently without requiring building space. Mr. Goldman agreed, adding that other cities have instituted term limits before a food truck would need to change locations. This would limit the impact on the area and also allow food truck vendors to reach a variety of markets. There was general support from the Commission to allow greater flexibility and access for food trucks within the City. Commissioner Knauer commented that food trucks are an important business in Philadelphia and other areas, and that he believes that they are underutilized in the City. Commissioner Thompson emphasized that she appreciated the impacts associated with food trucks and why they currently require a CUP, but endorsed allowing them greater flexibility. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern over food trucks taking up valuable parking, particularly in the downtown area, but generally endorsed the suggestions from staff. Commissioner Herron recommended that the Commission prioritize allowing greater flexibility for CUP’s before addressing permanent food truck permits, as those would take more time to consider. He commented that food trucks could provide additional dining options for areas of the City with fewer restaurants, and added that some restaurant owners might not be in favor of allowing food trucks near their businesses. Mr. Molnar pointed out that establishing a more flexible permitting process could decrease code compliance issues with unpermitted food trucks, and that an increasing number of cities are making more allowances for food trucks. Mr. Goldman added that the long permitting process will often prohibit food trucks from being used at special events, and a more streamlined process could increase their use for such occasions. Councilor Hyatt agreed with Mr. Goldman and conveyed how food courts have helped create a greater sense of community in Bend. She endorsed the potential change to the ordinance and expressed a desire to see this brought before the City Council. Chair Norton outlined the advantage of developing a greater permitting system for food trucks is establishing concrete criteria they operate under, such as signage and garbage disposal. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2022 Page 3 of 3 . . Incomes: Department Housing and Urban Development annual median income for the Medford- Ashland MSA (family of 4). Food Trucks Ashland Planning Commission Study Session June 28, 2022 Individual Food Trucks Solo Venders located in underutilized parking spaces on commercial properties. Variety Variety Food Truck Parks Often known as food truck ȧparksȨ or ȧcourtsȨ: Semi- permanent food truck centers with multiple vendors, often with shared seating and restrooms Variety Food Trucks located on the Street street and accessed from the Vendors public sidewalk. Depending on the scale of Public or Private plazas, they can accommodate Food Trucks, Food Carts, and customer seating. Outdoor eating space is presently one allowable element satisfying the Plaza Space Standards within the Detail Site Review Zone. (18.4.2.040.D.2.c.vi) . Variety Plaza Areas Variety Special Events Temporary Use ÂPop-up for special events such as employee appreciation events, private catering, holiday celebrations. Vacant and Underutilized Properties Currently vacant properties, and underutilized areas, offer an opportunity for the temporary or intermittent placement of food trucks or parks without impacting any existing uses. Next Steps Location Trash & Recycling Signage Circulation Permitting Process Policy Considerations Ordinance Development Public Hearings and Adoption ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Draft Minutes July 26, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members: Council Liaison: Eric Herron Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: The City Council will be discuss allowing staff and the Commission to explore more allowances for food trucks at their August 2, 2022 meeting. City code requires this step and it is expected to be a formality. Beth Goodman from ECONorthwest will be providing the Council with an update on the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) at their August 15, 2022 meeting. Staff is expected to provide an early draft ordinance for food trucks to the Commission in August. The Commission should expect to discuss housing in Employment Zones in August, as well. The Commission will review the annexation and site review of the Highway 99 project after the Land Use Board of Appeals reversed the Commission’s approval of said project. The Commission will then advise the Council on the consistency of the application with annexation standards before the Council makes a final determination. The Commission should anticipate a full docket in September and October. Chair Norton drew attention to a memo distributed to the Commission from the City. This memo spoke to the City’s potential decision to relegate some standing commissions to ad hoc commission status, where they would only meet when necessary. He expressed concern with losing the tree Commission’s expertise in reviewing planning actions, as the Commission has relied on this expertise in the past. Mr. Molnar stated that he had spoken with City Manager Joe Lessard about the Commission’s reliance upon the Tree Commission in terms of technical expertise, and that staff is currently discussing ways to keep the Tree Commission involved. III. PUBLIC FORUM David Runkel: Mr. Runkel expressed concern with KDA Homes’ plans to expand the Mountain Meadows development. His concerns included: the proposed housing density; limited ingress and egress areas; potentially congested traffic in narrow streets and alleys; and environmental concerns. Mr. Runkel and many of his neighbors have sent letters voicing their concerns to staff and the Commission. Daniel DeRoux: Mr. DeRoux echoed Mr. Runkel’s concerns, emphasizing the danger that narrow and potentially congested streets would cause emergency vehicles, making any necessary evacuations difficult. He stated that these could create dangerous or life-threatening conditions, particularly in light of the Almeda Fire. He added that he and his neighbors have no objection to the development itself, merely the proposed density and the resulting traffic issues. Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 1 of 4 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Housing Production Strategy Update – ECONorthwest Presentation Planning Manager Brandon Goldman informed the Commission that the HPS was now halfway through its 15 month development process. There have been three advisory committee meetings which were attended by Commissioners KenCairn and Verner. Presentation Beth Goodman from ECONorthwest provided the Commission with a summary of the HPS’s findings and potential strategies that have been developed thus far. First they examined the City’s housing needs as it relates to income, and how the HPS could be used to support development of new housing for certain income levels, specifically those households earning 50% or less of the Median Family Income (MFI) of Jackson County. Ms. Goodman stated that their data indicated that approximately 36% of City households are extremely low to very low income, even if their income levels were to increase. Additionally, those of middle income households could not afford to purchase a house, but could afford market-rate rentals. Ms. Goldman related how looking at cost burden was important in determining housing need. A household is considered cost- burdened if it spends 30% or more of its income on rent, or were severely cost-burdened if they spent 50% or more of their income on rent. Their data showed that 63% of Ashland’s renters were cost-burdened, and 35% were severely cost-burdened. Fewer homeowners are cost-burdened, though 31% were still considered to be cost- or severely cost-burdened. Ms. Goodman detailed how the City’s housing needs differed by groups, particularly the homeless population. Over 800 people were homeless in Jackson County per a 2021 Oregon Housing and Community Services study, with 10% of those being from Ashland. She pointed out that certain groups were more likely to be homeless, including racial or ethnic groups, individuals over 65, and people with disabilities. Ms. Goodman lauded the City’s existing policies to address its housing needs, and provided a further list of actions that could be taken. She noted that the City is not required to follow any of these initiatives, but it would be required to address any necessary accessibility standard changes. The initiative list recommended to the City include: Encourage development of low- and moderate-income affordable rental housing Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units Preserve existing supply of low- and moderate-income affordable housing Ms. Goodman also recommended that the City consider multiple funding sources to enact these initiatives, including the establishment of a Construction Excise Tax (CET), Urban Renewal, and identifying additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Goodman strongly recommended that the City consider utilizing Urban Renewal funds because of its flexibility to assist new developments and necessary infrastructure (see attachment #1). Questions and Deliberation Mr. Goldman cautioned the Commission against attempting to develop more code changes than can be accomplished over the HPS’s eight-year period. He recommended that the Commission consider strategies that would have the greatest impact over the long-run or are considered a high priority. Commissioner Thompson inquired how ECONorthwest had acquired its data regarding income in Jackson County, and expressed concern that the MFI of the City was lower than that of both Eagle Point and Central Point. Ms. Goodman responded MFIs were self-reported on a census sent to county residents, and that it should be noted that Ashland has a high number of college students which could affect the findings. Commissioner Thompson wondered what the implications of using income as a metric for gauging MFI were when considering the increasing number of seniors in the City. This could result in a high number of people reporting a low income, while holding onto a significant amount of accumulated wealth. Ms. Goodman agreed that those in the middle-income might have more accumulated wealth, but stated that those reporting less than $20,000 MFI were likely accurate. She stated that these findings were also corroborated by the reported number of cost-burdened homeowners, and that this is a pattern seen in other cities experiencing similar housing needs. Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner KenCairn expressed concern that the Historic District could be adversely affected by code changes proposed by ECONorthwest which would allow the development of higher density housing in R-3 Zones. Ms. Goodman responded that the presentation had not yet been updated, but that Commissioner KenCairn’s concerns had been included in the HPS. Commissioner Verner requested more information regarding land banks and trusts. Mr. Goldman gave a brief history of land trusts that existed in the City. The Housing Commission had worked closely with the City Council at the time to create the Ashland Community Land Trust, a non-profit organization, in the early 2000s. The organization used Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other funding sources to purchase properties, and then developed affordable housing on those properties. The organization retained ownership of the land, and provided a viable way for homeowners to purchase a house without being subjected to rising land costs. Rogue Valley Community Development was another non-profit that had existed to develop the land trust model in order to provide affordable housing. Neither organization was able to keep up with rising land costs and have since dissolved, and the housing units that were land trusted went to two other non-profit organizations who maintain the leases on the land. There is no organization that is actively pursuing the acquisition of properties to add to a land trust, but NeighborWorks Umpqua has indicated that this could be a valuable model and has shown interest in creating a new lease-hold agreement that could be implemented for the acquisition of additional parcels. Commissioner Thompson questioned how land trusts could be a viable strategy if past organizations had been forced to dissolve. Mr. Goldman responded that Ashland Community Land Trust was a volunteer organization, unlike NeighborWorks Umpqua which can seek out funding outside the boundaries of the City. Ms. Goodman described land trusts as one of the few ways to create affordable homeownership, but pointed out that they don’t create a large number of units because of the cost barrier. She then described a land bank as the City’s acquisition of parcels over time for the purpose of developing affordable housing. Ms. Goodman suggested a CET and Urban Renewal grants as a good source of funding for such endeavors. She concluded by relating how Hood River had assembled several parcels of land and then selected a developer who proposed the development of mixed-income housing as a way to address its housing needs. She noted that Hood River is considering a general obligation fund to provide the capital necessary for the project and to fund similar developments to further alleviate its housing needs. Commissioner Thompson inquired if land trusts were used as rentals or for purchase. Ms. Goodman responded that it is typically used to increase homeownership, but that it would be at the City’s discretion. She pointed out that Eugene had used publicly owned land for income-restricted affordable housing developments. Commissioner Knauer remarked that he would be hesitant to utilize the Urban Renewal funding program for any of these initiatives. Ms. Goodman responded that Urban Renewal has changed over time, and that the technical term for it is now Tax Increment Financing. A city would select a blighted area needing Urban Renewal and would freeze its tax base for a 20 year period. As new development occurred in that area the property taxes generated would increase and result in a tax increment. The developments funded by this tax could be used for market-rate housing or income-restricted housing, but she cautioned that the funding should largely be utilized for projects that would generate additional tax revenue. The goal would be to attract new developments in the area, which would increase the tax revenue and assist in funding the project. Ms. Goodman mentioned that this program would not cause school districts to miss out on new funding because they would be reimbursed by the state. Chair Norton voiced concerns over using Urban Renewal funding in the City, particularly due to the City’s low levels of blight. He suggested that the private properties and private developers be entrusted with creating needed housing. Chair Norton highlighted the need to get feedback from developers in order to ascertain the best way to encourage development. Ms. Goodman responded that the HPS would be getting feedback from developers as a next step, and recommended that the Commission not reject Urban Renewal without further study. Commissioner Knauer asked if Urban Renewal would lead to displacement, and Ms. Goodman emphasized that this form of Urban Renewal was different than past models and would not cause displacement. Commissioner Thompson remarked that the difficulty in creating manufactured home parks would be the lack of a viable location in the City. Ms. Goodman clarified that the development of manufactured home parks would likely not be possible in the City, particularly due to the fact that very few developers build them in Oregon. Commissioner Thompson asked if there was any prediction of how much the recent state required code changes would alleviate the City’s housing needs, namely the duplex and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinances. Ms. Goodman replied that ADUs and duplexes would not significantly improve the City’s residential inventory. She elaborated that existing developments would be unlikely to increase housing or be converted into quadplexes. Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Goodman impressed upon the Commission that there would be no simple fix to the City’s housing needs, and that any changes would be incremental. She added that any significant changes would likely not be seen within their lifetime. Mr. Goldman added that the Snowberry project off of Clay street was the result of wide variety of factors over an extended period of time, and no one fix would have led to the development of that neighborhood. Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that the recent Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) found that land available for housing lay outside the city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He noted that one element that these areas had in common was their lack of expensive infrastructure, and recommended that the Commission not dismiss Urban Renewal as a potential funding source. Ms. Goodman stated that she strongly recommended that the Commission consider Urban Renewal. Commissioner Verner asked if a CET would work in the City. Ms. Goodman responded that it had worked well in Medford and that there was not reason it could not work in Ashland. She noted that Medford conducted extensive outreach to gather feedback from developers before enacting their CET, and recommended similar outreach. She pointed out that the City could set the tax at any level for commercial and industrial developments, but cautioned that it not be set unreasonably high in order to not repel businesses. Chair Norton supported keeping Urban Renewal on the list of viable funding strategies, especially if freezing the tax base was a firmly established facet of that plan. Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that Talent, Phoenix, and Medford appeared to be using Urban Renewal to great effect. Ms. Goodman explained that Urban Renewal was one of the only flexible funding sources for this type of project. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Ashland: Housing Production Strategy Planning Commission Meeting #2 July 26, 2022 Tonight’s Discussion… Housing Need in Ashland Initiatives Approach to Strategies Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need Next Steps Project Schedule and Primary Tasks We are here Housing Need in Ashland Financially Attainable Housing HUDÔs Median Family Income (MFI) for Jackson County in 2020 is $73,100 Median Home Sale Price in Ashland: $549,900 A household would need to earn between $140,000 and $157,000 (192% if MFI) to afford these prices. Median Gross Rent in Ashland: $1,085 A household would need to earn about $44,000 or 60% of MFI to afford this rent. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jackson County, 2020. Oregon Employment Department. . Share of Households by Income Level, Ashland This chart is based on the HUD MFI for Jackson County and the ACS household income distribution for Ashland. Publicly Subsidized AffordableMiddle Income Market Rate 0%-60% MFI60%-120% MFI 120%+ MFI Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019, Table B19001; HUD, FY 2021 MFI. Housing Need in Ashland Housing Cost Burden by Tenure, Ashland, 2014-2018 About 63% of AshlandÔs renters, and 31 % of homeowners, were cost burdened or severely cost burdened. About 35% of AshlandÔs renters were severely cost burdened, meaning they paid 50% or more of their gross income on housing costs. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS Tables B25091 and B25070. Cost Burden by Tenure and Income, 2015-2019 Cost Burden by Income for RenterHouseholds, Cost Burden by Income for OwnerHouseholds, Ashland, 2015-2019Ashland, 2015-2019 Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 Increasing Housing Costs Median Home Sale Price, Ashland and Comparison Cities, November 2021 Ï January 2022 The median price of a home in Ashland increased 33% from $415,000 in the November 2018 to $550,000 in November 2021. Housing Needs Often Differ by Group Point-in-Time Homelessness Estimates, Jackson County, People experiencing 2017-2021 homelessness: 831 Temporarily or chronically 712 679 Alone or with children Ashland: about 10% of Jackson CountyÔs population of people experiencing homelessness Racial or ethnic groups People over 65 years old People with disabilities Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services. Note: OHCS reported two counts in 2021 Ïestimated and reported counts. This is the estimated counts. Existing Policies to Address Ashland Housing Needs Affordable Housing Programs: Reduced / Waived Building Permit fee, Planning fees, or SDCs Density Bonuses Affordable Housing Trust Fund CDBG funds Land Trusts Public Land Disposition Parcel assembly Inclusionary zoning for annexations/ certain zone changes Tenant Rights (Ordinance 2939) Market-rate Housing Programs: Middle housing code ADU code update Ïremoved barriers Live-Work housing or Mixed-use housing in commercial zones Zoning provisions to encourage density SDC Financing Credits Vertical Housing Tax Credit Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need in Ashland Initiatives Approach Encourage development of low-and moderate- income affordable rental housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for unregulated rental households earning between 60% and 120% of MFI ($43,900 to $87,700). Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for homeownership for households earning less 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units. There are limited options available in Ashland that are affordable to households with income of less than 60% of MFI ($43,900). This initiative supports development of housing affordable in this income group. Preserve existing of low-and moderate- income affordable housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for households earning less than 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). Questions for the Planning Commission Are the actions included in this presentation the appropriate actions to address unmet housing need in Ashland? Are we missing any actions that should be included in the HPS? Should we remove any of the actions from the list to include in the HPS? Are there actions that we need to do additional research or refinement on to better fit them to address Ashland unmet housing needs? Next Steps Final HPS & Contextualized KickoffStrategiesDraft HPS Adoption Housing Need JanMar ÏSept Jul ÏFeb Nov ÏApr Feb ÏMay 202220222022 -2023 TECHNICAL 2022 -2023 2022 ANALYSIS Identify policy gaps & Project Kickoff Adopt the strategy Analyze housing need & Compile and have potential strategies anti displacement public review of the Evaluate strategies considerations report Engage housing producers & service providers OUTREACH AC meetings (3)AC meeting #5 PC presentation Presentation to PC HHSC presentationHHSC presentation CC presentation AC meeting #1 PC work session PC work session Interviews CC presentation w/developers or Open House service providers (8) DELIVERABLES 3 memos summarizing Summary of major Engagement Draft HPS report Final HPS report existing / potential tasks preparation measures Project schedule Housing need & anti- Summary of developer displacement memo interviews We are here Memo DATE: August 9, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Derek Severson, Senior Planner RE: Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) Rulemaking Implementation Timeline The Land Conservation & Development Commission (LCDC) adopted new Climate Friendly & Equitable Community (CFEC) rules at its July 2022 meeting. Background As was previously discussed, in 2007 the Oregon state legislature adopted a goal of reducing Oregon greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent by 2050 as this level of reduction was necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts to our environment, communities, and economy. 15 years later, Oregon is off track in meeting this goal, and the state is experiencing wildfires increasing in size, severity and timing, and record heat waves. Oregon is particularly off-track in reducing pollution from the transportation sector, which is responsible for at least 38 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. On its current path, Oregon will only reduce transportation pollution by about 20 percent by 2050. In seeking to avoid more weather events, more wildfires, more ocean acidification, and more record heat waves, the Governor directed state agencies to initiate a rulemaking effort to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and less driving. The which was just completed seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles encouraging walking, biking and transit, as well as by supporting greater usage of electric vehicles. This is to be accomplished through the creation of more pedestrian friendly areas with compact, mixed-use changes to parking mandates; prioritizing investments in high quality, connected and safe pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks; and changing the methodology used in transportation planning including the standards used to determine the success or failure of a roadway. Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Study pursuant to OAR 660-012-0315 st The rules adopted July 21 itan areas identify CFAs which would accommodate all current and future housing needs. CFAs are to have a minimum residential density requirement of 15 dwelling units per net acre with minimum building heights of no less than 50 feet/four stories, or demonstrate that alternative measures will achieve 20 dwelling units and 20 jobs per net acre; and include limits on what minimum parking requirements can be applied. Parking mandates will not be allowed at all within ½-mile of frequent transit where most CFAs are likely to be located, and will also not be allowed within ½-mile of CFAs themselves unless parking management policies are enacted and parking for multi- family units is unbundled. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Cities will first conduct a study of likely CFAs and after analysis to ensure that the identified areas can the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Cities and counties are to use the study process to identify the most promising area or areas to be chosen as CFAs, but are not required to subsequently adopt and zone every studied area as a CFA. To facilitate the CFA study, DLCD will be providing technical assistance funds for consultants to support both the technical analysis necessary in identifying likely engagement process. For Ashland, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) will be conducting the technical analysis and 3-J Consulting, Inc. will be conducting the public engagement process as well as a required anti-displacement analysis of the identified CFAs. These same consultants will likely be conducting similar work for most if not all communities in the Rogue Valley, so there are likely to be some efficiencies gained by having a single consistent approach across the region. Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Codes pursuant to OAR 660-012-0320 Once likely CFAs have been identified, which must occur by December 31, 2023, the next step for cities will be to adopt a Climate Friendly Element to the Comprehensive Plan along with updated Comprehensive Plan maps to include the identified CFAs and to revise land use codes accordingly. The city will need to prepare supporting findings as wells as identify on-going and newly added housing production strategies to promote affordable housing within CFAs. Transportation System Plans will need to be made consistent with the new rules at their next update. This second step is to be completed by December 31, 2024. (It is anticipated that state funding will again be available to fund consultants for both the technical work and public outreach process for the map adoption and code amendments.) Implementation Timeline The LCDC-adopted timeline for CFEC-related tasks is below: CFEC Parking Minimums (Parking I) by December 31, 2022 CFEC Electrical Vehicle Conduit Requirements by March 31, 2023 CFEC Parking Minimums (Parking II) by June 30, 2023 Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) Study consultant work through June 30, 2023 \[\] CFA Public Engagement Process consultant work through June 30, 2023 \[Technical Assistance by 3J Consulting, Inc.\] Final CFA Study report due to DLCD by December 31, 2023 CFA Transportation Modeling by June 30, 2024 CFA Designation, Maps & Code Amendments consultant work through June 30, 2024 \[Consultants still to be determined based on available Technical Assistance funds.\] CFA Designation, Maps and Code Amendments Adoption by 12/31/2024 Staff Recommendations This item is strictly informational, and is provided to give an overview of items that are likely to be coming to the Planning Commission with some frequency over the next two-and-a-half years. Attachments One-Page Overview of Climate Friendly Areas (from DLCD) Climate Friendly & Equitable Community Rulemaking Overview (from DLCD) Climate Friendly & Equitable Community Rules Implementation Guide (from DLCD) Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Climate Friendly Areas As part of the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is considering rules to facilitate the development of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in Oregon’s eight metropolitan areas. Because the Portland Metro region has implemented similar requirements, climate friendly area rules will operate differently in that region, reinforcing the region’s Climate Smart Communities program. What is a Climate Friendly Area? A climate friendly area is an area where residents, workers, and visitors canmeet most of their daily needs without having to drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to be served, by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable and convenient connections to key destinations within the city and region. Whyare Climate Friendly Areas important? A key component of Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle. Before the automobile became common in American life, cities grew more efficiently, with a variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last 100 years, the automobile and planning practices have served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate-polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. Climate friendly areas will help to reverse these negative trends, with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and redevelopment over time. Proposed Rules: Metropolitan Cities to Designate and Plan for Climate Friendly Areas The proposed rules will require cities (and some urbanized county areas) with a population over 5,000 within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries. Areas will be sized to accommodate a portion of the community’s housing, jobs, and services. Local governments will determine where these areas will be located, but many of these areas will likely be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher densities. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options. The rules provide a process for local governments to first designate climate friendly areas, then later to adopt development standards for those areas. The rules provide some minimum requirements for climate friendly areas, with a set of clear and objective standards that may be adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of more than 10,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop strategies to facilitate desired development. Draft Rule Language is available at: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/LAR/Pages/CFEC.aspx Questions? Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner, kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov, 503-602-0238 Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Why this Rulemaking In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a goal to reduce Oregon’s climate pollution by 75% by 2050. That’s what the science calls for, if we’re going to avoid catastrophic impacts to our environment, communities, and economy. Fifteen years later, we’re far off track in our efforts to meet those goals – and we’re already experiencing real-world impacts of climate disruption, with increasing wildfires, in size, severity, and timing,and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians Oregon is dramatically off-track. If current trends their homes, and their lives. continue, Oregon will release more than 4 times more transportation pollution than our goal by 2050. We’re particularly off-track in reducing pollution from transportation, responsible for about 38% of Oregon’s climate pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce transportation pollution by about 20% by 2050. That means we’re polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme weather events, more wildfires, more ocean acidification, and more record heat waves. In response, Governor Brown directed state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and less driving. Meanwhile, the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling history and current patterns of inequity and discrimination, including in our land use, zoning, and transportation investment (and disinvestment) decisions. Wealth and health Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean others. This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing more extreme and more frequent weather events past harms. such as heat bombs, droughts, and wildfires. Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in response to Governor Brown’s order. It directed the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD), Oregon’s land use planning agency, to draft changes in Oregon’s planning system forcommunities in Oregon’s eight most populated areas (see map at right). The rules requirethose communitiesto changetheir local transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure The rules apply in Oregon’s eight metropolitan Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and areas shown above. don’t have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs. The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation, housing, and - 1 - planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated against. What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don’t get in the way of more walkable neighborhoods. The draft rules ask cities to designate climate-friendly areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing. The rules don’t requiretaller buildings, but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly areas, a minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood. Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growingelectric vehicle transformation, reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning requirements to address critical gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met. The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want to build itand the market calls for it. There’s a lot of demand for housing where people can walk to where they want to go. While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and climate-friendly choices.Those could better meet the changing shape of American households, as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again, people can choose what best meets their needs. Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased emphasis on equity. The rulemaking has worked to integrate equity, starting withthe rulemaking charge and title. Equity was key as DLCD attemptedto have the composition of the advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon’s communities, and equity wasone of the first tasks tackled by the group. The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an Equitable Outcomes Statementto guide the rulemaking drafting and implementation. The rulemaking conducteda racial equity analysis of the rulesand an analysis on how the rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities. The committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought 1938 Redlining map of Portland. Redlining allowed white people to build wealth through homeownership. forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be. The rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African American people, Indigenous people, People of Color, people with limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, low-income Oregonians, youth and seniors, and more. They require mapping of traditionally underserved populations,local consideration of a set of anti-displacement actions should decisions contribute toward displacement, centering the voices of underserved populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on effortsto engage traditionally underserved populations. - 2 - Climate-Friendly Areas A climate-friendly area is an area where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to be served, by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient connections to key destinations within the city and region. Why are climate-friendly areas important? A key component of Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which Oregon already has some climate-friendly areas, pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle. to drive. Before the automobile became common in American life, cities grew more efficiently, with a variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last 100 years, the automobile and planning practices have served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate- polluting vehiclesto meet daily needs. Climate-friendly areas will help to reverse these negative trends, with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and redevelopment over time. The rules require cities,and some urbanized county areas, with a population over 5,000 within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries. The rules forthe Portland Metro area support implementation of the region’s 2040 Growth Concept. Areas will be sized to accommodate a portion of the community’s housing, jobs, and services. Local governments will determine where these areas will be located, but many of these areas will likely be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher densities. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure is available within these areas toprovide convenient transportation options. The rules provide a process for local governments to first identify potentialclimate-friendly areas, then later to adopt development standards for theareasbest-suited for this purpose. The rules provide some minimum requirements for climate-friendly areas, with a set of clear and objective standards that may be adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of more than 10,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop strategies to facilitate desired development. Reforming Costly Parking Mandates Excess parking has a significant negative impact on housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing development and business redevelopment, walkability, air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general community character. Parking mandatesforce people who don’t own or use cars to pay indirectly for other people’s parking. Carless households tend to be the Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land. poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red. - 3 - from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter householdsown zero vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere, creating incentives to own more cars and drive more. Therules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development. The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family housing, and historic buildings. The rules would completelyremove parkingmandates within one-half mile of frequent transitand three-quarters of a mile of rail stops, where parking demand is lower per unit. The rules give communities options to improve parking management. Those who adopt best practice parking policies would get more flexibility. The rules require cities with over 100,000 populationthat choose to continue to mandate off-street parkingto eventually charge at least 50 cents per day for 10%of on-street parking spots. Getting Ready for Oregon’s Electric Vehicle Future Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon’s climate goals. Oregonhas a vision where 90% of new vehicles will be electric by 2035. To meet that goal, we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles. The most convenient place to do so is at home, but many Oregonians live in older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit. Thus, the rules requirenewhousing and mixed-use development with at Building a complete network of EV least five units would include electrical conduit (pipes) to 40% of spots, charging stations at commercial and ready for adding wiring and charging stations to support electric vehiclesas multi-family housing locations could the market expands. cut up to 11.9% of climate pollution Planning for a Future of Transportation Options DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of Transportation will provide arange of new and amplified services to help meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants, technical assistance, tools, and publications, to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use and transportation plans for decades. The updated rules would require local governments in metropolitan areas to: Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns, where services are located and less driving is necessary; Prioritize systemperformance measures that achieve community Transportation options are livability goals; critical for everyone, but Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on particularly the roughly single occupancy vehicles, including in walking, bicycling, and transit; one-in-three Oregonians Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and who cannot drive. Regularly monitor and report progress. - 4 - Planningto Meet OurClimateGoals DLCD’s regional greenhouse gas reduction programallows areas to work together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues. The flexible regional planning process allows communities tostudy economic development, fiscal impacts, resource use, pollution impacts, and the effects of different choices on the state, region, community, or households. The results are intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as they review and update the area’s long-range plans and make investment decisions. The rules would expand requirements for regional plans to meet the state’s climate pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the next largest metropolitan areas in the state (Eugene-Springfield and Salem- Keizer) initially. Other metropolitan areas will berequired to evaluate their local plans towards meeting the state’s climate pollution reduction targets and amend their local plans towards meeting the target. Community Engagement We’ve heard from lots of Oregonians over the past eighteen months. We’ve heard from a 40-person advisory committee including representatives from all of Oregon’s impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home builders, realtors, representatives ofthe trucking industry, affordable housing advocates, land use advocates, community-based and other community- serving organizations. To supplement those deliberations, staff held two separate series of virtual community conversations in Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee 2021 – five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with local elected officials,planning staff, and interest groups. Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies. We’ve heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of meetings, community conversations, work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds of people who’ve submitted comments (summary here).Our rules are better for it, having continued to evolve and improve. But the engagement won’t end there – the rules require local governments to engage their communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you’re interested in these issues, we encourage you to stay engaged. - 5 - Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines Local governments are responsible for implementingthe rules. Many of the rules take effect when a community next conducts a major update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a community’s core document describing its transportation needs and future plans.The rules state most plans should be updated by December 31, 2029. The rules have Salem-Keizer and Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional scenario plans and update their TSPs by the end of 2027. The land use components of the ruleshavespecific deadlines. Communities are asked to study potential Climate-Friendly Areas by December 31,2023, and adopt Areas by December 31, 2024. Parking reform is scheduled to happen in two phases - the first at the end of 2022, and the second by June 30,2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates. DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department. The Oregon Legislature provided $768,000 to assist with implementationon land use, and ODOT has identified another $18 million to assist with transportation plan updates. Learn More Information on how to get implementation updates via emailand many additional materialscan be found at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx Contact Information Evan Manvel, Climate MitigationPlanner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner cody.meyer@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-239-9475 Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov 503-602-0238 July2022 - 6 - 0012(5)(d); either directly apply state administrative rules or amend annual 12 - and counties outside of Metro to submit yearly reports. The reporting requirements are listed in the row of each le - The reporting requirement 008 on of per OAR 660 0210; decision must Metro must be jurisdictions in the table listed below. The proposed rules do not establish an use development applications, require 40% of spaces have conduit to serve electric vehic updated every 6 years; outside of Metro must be updated every 8 -Regional Transportati Friendly and 2 Page Update required by OAR Chapter 660exempt from these (Also known as a Housing applies to each jurisdiction individually, although jurisdictions may coordinate to submit one report for the metropolitan area. Inside Metro, tation performance standards for plan amendments and development review - HNA is an additional task that is not part of Climate within - 012 HNA The designation of major reports in this guide are based on expected dates of not - 0900(5)). 660 e are listed below and in the schedule. . OAR implementation deadline if ‘TSP Update’ and ‘TSP Development Regulations’ are not shown in the schedule. They ar for cities over 10,000 population Analysis (HNA) required to submit individual reports). transportation modeling or analysis used for a land use decision must comply with dates. . - 0010(3))012 . - Capacity Analysis, or HCA)be as determined by actual RTP adoption (OAR 660 compliance Equitable Communities. - ds 008 Nee - Additional CFA Designations for UGB Expansions is required beginning June 30, 2027 (OAR 660 Housing alternate Rules 0012(5)(a). – years. 0045 ly Applicable requirements. A deadline for these tasks may be established through approval of HNA TPR Reporting with their own applicability date - 2022 012 - not , 012 - July 21 ; implement by March 31, 2023 per OAR 660 (cities and counties within Metro - ; effective as of June 30, 2024 per OAR 660 (TPR) , and Individual 0012(4)(b). transportation system plan all Implement s apply to 0330) Transportation Planning Rule - - 012 012 - Implement multiple transpor Cities only; for new multifamily and multi . TPR Development Regulations - will - update timeline unless indicated commercial and residential land use regulations (660 0215; effective as of June 30, 2025 per OAR 660 report separate from the major task groups and . a major (light blue background) major reporting will be completed by Metro equired with – cities of . TPR Development Regulations . timing 630) 0410) local development standards 0900 requires – not increase VMT per capita – -Transportation Modeling updates. The and 012 - Performance Standards 012 related regulations; r - specific bicycle parking (660 - Guide TSP Update 660 metropolitan area OAR - – Implementation 012 , no EV Conduit Plan (RTP) ( - 60 charging updates : Rules 6 Note OAR - 012 12 jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds of 0400 to comply with the 0010(2) requires the designation of additional climate friendly of TPR minor report within TPR Dev. Regs. r report expected the year 3 Page (5/31) 2029 TSP CFA Codes within 545 days of exceeding the population threshold, and adopt Additional CFA for UGB expansions report in after June 2027 2028 - major . TPR majo HNA 012 2028) TPR minor 0012(3) - - ( 660 2028 (5/31) 2026 OAR ; 2024: Middle Rogue; 2025: Bend, Rogue Valley - 012 allows one year for jurisdictions that surpass population thresholds in - Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 TPR minor report Performance Performance Performance StandardsStandardsStandards (5/31) 2025 specifies CFA compliance timelines for - report rowth Transportation Transportation Transportation 008 CFA Codes -2022 ModelingModelingModeling 660 1 2024 (5/31) areas as cities over 10,000 grow, in conjunction with required HNA updates. G opulation major , OAR July 21 Keizer TPR Additionally, - , Salem following adoption of RTP update. Future RTP updates expected every 4 years. P Albany CFA Study EV ConduitEV Conduit CFA Study Parking BParking B )(a) and (b) e for submittal of the CFA Study. 2023 Central Lane, Corvallis; 2023: . Such jurisdictions must submit a 4 0310(parking rules to which they become subject. - 012 (A) Parking AParking A 2022 - f) 660 )( 4 : 0012( OAR Next expected RTP updates: 2022 - - Friendly Areas 365 days of the deadlin 012 than 5,000 population Benton County, Linn - Jefferson, Tangent, Guide 660 County, Marion 5,000 or 10,000 Millersburg OAR Albany Area Implementation – inside UGB) - County Climate Parking Albany fewer and ( 1 12 applicable because of TPR minor report TPR minor report ot assumed to be applicable because the TPR Dev. Regs. Regs 4 Page (5/31)(5/31) 2029 TPR Dev. TSPTSP odes are not assumed to be ) Additional CFA for UGB expansions after June 2027, UGB expansions Additional CFA for code and minor report TPR minor report TPR Dev. Regs. HNA 2026 in and with HNA Dev. Regs.TPR Dev. Regs. after June 2027 2028 2026) TSP (12/31)(2026)(2026) major amendments ugene 2026 Updates report Plan (5/31) 2028) 0012(3) - ( ( cenario (5/31) 2026 TSPTSP TSP TPR major TPR - However, Parking A, Parking B, CFA Study, and CFA Codes are n 012 S E ( - CFA C Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 TPR minor report TPR minor report Performance Performance Performance Performance HNA and Performance StandardsStandardsStandardsStandardsStandards Springfield , (5/31)(5/31) 2025 tudy S CFA ). Deschutes Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is >5,000. However, Parking A, Parking B, 0400(1)(b) 0400(1)(b)). TPR minor report report Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation - CFA CodesCFA Codes 012 2022 ModelingModelingModelingModelingModeling (5/31)(5/31) 2024- - 012 HNA minor ; OAR 660 , July 21 - 0310(3); OAR 660 TPR 3) 0310( ork - (6/30) Scenario Plan 012 EV Conduit ConduitEV Conduit Lane Co. population within UGBs in the metropolitan area is >5,000. w CFA StudyCFA Study - Parking BParking BParking B - (12/31) 012 Plan OAR 660 2023 program - county does not provide urban services to these areas (OAR 660 cenario EV the county does not provide urban services to these areas ( S Parking AParking AParking A 2022 2 Guide Deschutes County Central Lane 3 Implementation Bend Area Lane County Springfield Coburg Eugene Bend 23 12 report of TPR minor report TPR Dev. Regs.TPR Dev. Regs. 5 Page (5/31)(5/31) 2029 major TSPTSP TPR Additional CFA for UGB expansions UGB expansions Additional CFA for minor report TPR minor report in Corvallis 2027 after June 2027after June 2027 2028 (major (5/31) 2028) HNA 0012(3) - (5/31) 2026 TPR - 012 - Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 report TPR minor report Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance StandardsStandardsStandardsStandardsStandardsStandards (5/31)(5/31) 2025 major TPR report report Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation CFA CodesCodes 2022 ModelingModelingModelingModelingModelingModeling (5/31) (5/31) 2024 TPR minor major , July 21 CFA TPR EV ConduitEV ConduitEV ConduitEV Conduit CFA StudyCFA Study Parking BParking BParking BParking B 2023 Parking AParking AParking AParking A 2022 HNA fewer than 5,000 population fewer than 5,000 population Guide Josephine County Middle Rogue Corvallis Area Benton County Jackson County Implementation Adair Village Rogue River Grants Pass Philomath Hill Corvallis )) inside UGBinside UGB Gold (( 12 of TPR Dev. Regs. 6 Page 2029 TSP Additional CFA for UGB expansions report Central Pt 2027 Ashland 2029 after June 2027 2028 (5/31) major HNAHNA 0012(3) - 2026 TPR - 012 - Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 TPR minor report Performance Performance Performance StandardsStandardsStandards (5/31) 2025 TPR minor report Transportation Transportation Transportation CFA Codes 2022 ModelingModelingModeling (5/31) 2024 , July 21 HNA EV Conduit EV Conduit CFA Study Parking BParking B 2023 Medford Parking AParking A 2022 fewer than 5,000 population Guide Valley Jackson County Central Point Implementation Jacksonville Eagle Point Rogue Phoenix ) Medford inside UGB Ashland Talent ( 12 of TPR minor report 7 Page (5/31) 2029 Additional CFA for expansions TPR minor report in after June 2027 2028 major 2028) 0012(3) - ( (5/31) 2026 UGB - 012 - Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 lan code and TPR minor report TPR Dev. Regs.TPR Dev. Regs.TPR Dev. Regs.TPR Dev. Regs. Performance Performance Performance Performance StandardsStandardsStandardsStandards amendments TSP (6/25) (5/31) 2025 TSPTSPTSPTSP P cenario S (6/30) Salem and Keizer report Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation CFA CodesCFA Codes 2022 ModelingModelingModelingModeling (5/31) lan 2024 major HNA , P July 21 cenario TPR S Scenario Plan work (6/30) EV ConduitEV Conduit CFA StudyCFA Study Parking BParking BParking B 2023 program Parking AParking AParking A 2022 fewer than 5,000 population Guide Salem/Keizer Marion County Implementation Polk County ) inside UGB r Keizer Turne Salem ( 12 of report 8 Page - , Climate (5/31) 2029 TPR minor (d) ) 4 0012( Troutdale, Tualatin; Cornelius, Tigard, TPR minor report 2026: Sherwood, 2027: Gladstone, 2028 in - major 012 Oregon City 2028) - HNA 660 0012(3) - ( OAR (5/31) 2026 - ; 012 Transportation System Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area - Compliance date for tasks in italics can be modified per OAR 660 TPR minor report adopters to boundaries and HNA Performance Performance Performance adopt Center StandardsStandardsStandards Forest Grove (5/31) zoning 2025 - Non Metro to establish adoption of Centers report requirements for Transportation Transportation Transportation 2022 ModelingModelingModeling . 0900(2), TPR Reporting . (5/31) 2024 major within UGB , July 21 TPR areas West Linn, Oswego, Milwaukie, Fairview, Gresham, Cities within Multnomah Co. have land use authority for unincorporated Lake HNA Happy Valley, Beaverton, EV ConduitEV Conduit Parking BParking B Parking B - 2023 012 Wilsonville Hillsboro Portland, - 660 OAR 0140, Friendly Area implementation within Metro; - 012 - Parking AParking AParking A 660 2022 OAR TPR Rules specific to Metro: Rivergrove, King City, City, Maywood Park, \[various jurisdictions\] Beaverton, Cornelius, Washington County Region 2040 Centers Troutdale, Tualatin, 4 Milwaukie, Oregon Portland Metro Multnomah County Sherwood, Tigard, Clackamas County, Guide Grove, Gladstone, Durham, Johnson , Gresham, Happy 10k+) Fairview, Forest Valley, Hillsboro Metro UGMFP City, Portland, Lake Oswego, Implementation Wood Village ( Wilsonville West Linn, 4 Task Summaries Parking A Reduced Mandates – OAR 660-012-0430 and OAR 660-012-0440 Effective date December 31, 2022 per OAR 660-012-0012(5)(e)– applies to development applications submitted after that date; either directly apply state administrative rules or amend local development standards Reduced mandates for specific developments – cannot mandate more than 1 space/unit for residential o developments with more than 1 unit No mandates for small units, affordable units, childcare, facilities for people with disabilities, shelters o Reform near transit - no parking mandates allowed within ¾ mile of light or heavy rail stations or ½ o mile of frequent transit corridors Parking B Parking Regulation Improvement – OAR 660-012-0405 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) - amend development standards Preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking o Allow redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses o Allow and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parking for other uses o Allow and facilitate shared parking o Parking lots more than ¼ acre in size must install 50% tree canopy OR solar panels, solar/wind fee-in- o lieu, or green energy per OAR 330-0135-0010; requires street trees and street-like facilities along driveways Adopt parking maximums in locations such as downtowns, regional or community center, and transit- o oriented developments. Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More Populous Cities – 660-012-0415 By June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) Cities >100,000 population, or >25,000 population if in Portland Metro, set certain parking maximums o in specified areas Cities >200,000 population also: o Studyuse of on-street timed parking in CFA and transit areas (OAR 660-012-0435 & 0440) Implement parking management before authorizing new 100+ stall parking garages Implement TDM management strategies before authorizing new 300+ stall garages Adopt design requirements so ground floor of parking garage convertible to other uses Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 9 of 12 Parking Mandate Reform Effective date June 30, 2023 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f) Option 1Options 2 and 3 OAR 660-012-0420OAR 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens – adopt eight land use regulations related to reduced mandates based on factors such as shared parking, solar panels, parking space accessibility, on-street parking; unbundling of parking from rent for multifamily units near transit (OAR 660-012- 0425) Cities with populations 100,000+ adopt on-street parking prices equivalent to at least 50/day per spot for 5%/10% of total on-street parking supply by September 30, 2023/2025 Repeal all ¢ (OAR 660-012-0450; effective dates per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(g)) parking mandates Parking Reform Approaches within the Choose ONE of the following (option 2 -or- option 3) jurisdiction Policies to take effect no later than June 30, 2023 (effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f)) Option 2 Option 3 OAR 660-012-0445(1)(a) - OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b) - Adopt regulations Adopt at least 3 of 5 policies below minimizing or exempting required parking for 15 development types (summarized below) 1.Unbundle parking for residential No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small no additional units sites, vacant buildings, studio/one bedrooms, action needed 2.Unbundle leased commercial historic properties, LEED or Oregon Reach Code parking developments, etc. 3.Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for redevelopments/additions. businesses with more than 50 Adopt parking maximums. employees 4.Tax on parking lot revenue No parking mandates within ½ mile walking distance 5.No more than ½ space/unit of Climate-Friendly Areas. mandated for multifamily Designate district to manage on-street residential development parking. Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 10 of 12 Climate-Friendly Areas CFA Study CFA Codes OAR 660-012-0315 OAR 660-012-0320 via OAR 660-012-0315(6) Due December 31, 2023 per Due Date December 31, 2024 per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(c) OAR 660-012-0012(5)(b) Required for all CFAs: CFA location and size standards per OAR 660-012-0310(2) Allowed uses per OAR 660-012-0320(2) >10,000 population Inclusion of existing abutting residential and employment zones Dwelling Unit Capacity of at least 30% without zoning amendments per OAR 660-012-0320(3) of current housing needs analysis (OAR Prioritization of public buildings, open spaces per OAR 660-012- 660-012-0315(1); capacity calculated 0320(4) per methodology in OAR 660-012- Block length maximums per OAR 660-012-0320(5) 0315(2) Address other development regulation requirements per OAR Population 5,000 -10,000 660-012-0320(7) Designate at least 25 acres of CFA (OAR Eliminate mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt 660-012-0315(3)) parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily Displacement analysis, fair and units (OAR 660-012-0435) equitable outcomes plan, and Housing and Employment Targets narrative summary of public OAR 660-012-0320(8) or (9) engagement (OAR 660-012-0315(4)) Option AOption B Residential minimum Standards other than Option A density standards and proposed by jurisdiction that achieve allowed building height not target dwelling unit and employment less than specified by OAR per acre 660-012-0320(8) Transportation System Plan Update TSPupdates may use OAR 660-012-0015 if OAR 660-018-0020 is notice provided by December 31, 2022 (OAR 660-012-0012(2)(a)). Minor TSP updates need not meet all updated requirements if the updated portions of the plan meet new requirements, and OAR 660-018-0020 notice is provided by June 30, 2027(OAR 660-012- 0012(2)(b)). Compliance deadline for Eugene-Springfield and Salem -Keizer determined by OAR 660-044-0015 Scenario Planning. Cities and Counties over 5,000 population and outside the Portland metropolitan areas must adopt major TSP update by December 31, 2029 (OAR 660-012-0012(4)(a)). Generalized Scope and Process Overall TSP update requirements (OAR 660-012-0100 and 0105) Public Engagement and Equity TSP Planning Engagement generally (OAR 660-012-0120) o Equity and Underserved Populations (OAR 660-012-0125, identifying underserved populations; OAR o 660-012-0130, Decision-Making with Underserved Populations; OAR 660-012-0135, Equity Analysis) Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 11 of 12 System Inventories and Existing Conditions General inventory requirements (OAR 660-012-0150) o Transportation System Planning Area (OAR 660-012-0110) o Land use assumptions (OAR 660-012-0340) o Modal inventory requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0505); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0605); Transit o (OAR 660-012-705); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0805) Funding projections (OAR 660-012-0115) o Goals, Targets, and Project Prioritization VMT Targets – base year and horizon year (OAR 660-012-0160) o Adoption of Transportation Performance Standards (OAR 660-012-0215) o Project Prioritization (OAR 660-012-0155) o TSP Contents Modal design and planning requirements: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0510); Bicycle (OAR 660-012- o 0610); Transit (OAR 660-012-710); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0810) Modal projects: Pedestrian (OAR 660-012-0520); Bicycle (OAR 660-012-0620); Transit (OAR 660-012- o 720); Streets and Highways (OAR 660-012-0820) Transportation Options Planning (OAR 660-012-0145) – transportation demand management, transit o options and incentives Enhanced review of select roadway projects (OAR 660-012-0830) – for facilities that may increase o driving capacity Prioritization framework (OAR 660-012-0155) o Unconstrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0170) – combination of modal projects; must meet VMT per o capita targets from OAR 660-012-0160; Project Prioritization Framework (OAR 660-012-0155) Financially-Constrained Project List (OAR 660-012-0180) o Created from unconstrained list per procedures in OAR 660-012-0180(3) Sum of projects on list not to exceed 125% of funding available from OAR 660-012-0115 Transportation Planning Rule Development Regulations Land use requirements (OAR 660-012-0330) Effective date per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(e) – TSP Adoption Neighborhood circulation (OAR 660-012-0330(3)) Mixed use and commercial districts (OAR 660-012-0330(4)) Slow streets for neighborhoods (OAR 660-012-0330(5)) Auto-oriented land uses (OAR 660-012-0330(6)) Allow for Low car districts (cities of 100k+, OAR 660-012-0330(7)) Protection of transportation facilities (OAR 660-012-0330(8)) Bicycle Parking (660-012-0630) Effective date – with OAR 660-012-0330 compliance at TSP Adoption (OAR 660-012-0330(4)(g)) \[note – implementation of OAR 660-012-0330 and 660-012-0630 within a CFA is required upon adoption of CFA Zoning\] Implementation Guide July 21, 2022 Page 12 of 12 Memo DATE: August 9, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Derek Severson, Senior Planner RE: Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) Rulemaking Upcoming Parking Rule Changes The Land Conservation & Development Commission (LCDC) adopted new Climate Friendly & Equitable st Community (CFEC) rules at its July 21 meeting. Staff wanted to provide an update on these rules specifically with regard to parking, since the parking rules will have the most immediate impact, and to seek some feedback from the Commission as we consider implementation of the new rules. Background As part of the CFEC rulemaking, parking rules will change significantly in the new year i metropolitan areas, and there will also be new rules in support of electric vehicle charging shortly thereafter. In discussing the rule changes, the Department of Land Conservations & Development (DLCD) explains that excess parking has a significant negative impact on housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing development and business redevelopment, walkability, air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general community character. Statistics indicate that about one-sixth of Oregon renter households do not own a vehicle, and carless households tend to be the poorest households. Parking mandates force those to subsidize . The rulemaking proceeds on the assumption that parking rules must seek greater equity in this regard. The new rules seek to have the diversity of parking needs met by the diversity of development, and would reduce costly parking mandates for desired types of development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, and historic buildings, and would also reduce mandates in certain areas, where parking demand is lower per unit including climate friendly areas (CFAs) which will have a higher concentration of jobs and housing, and walkable areas already well-served by transit. The rules seek to address the negative impacts of larger parking lots by requiring that they be designed to be pedestrian-friendly and include either solar power or trees, and also require that 40 percent of new residential parking spaces be capable of electric vehicle charging (with conduit and electric capacity, but without a requirement to provide wiring or chargers). climate pollution reduction goals. DLCD emphasizes that in the absence of parking mandates, developers are still likely to provide parking in an amount they believe will satisfy buyers, renters and lenders. Reducing or removing parking mandates will not eliminate parking, it will simply shift the responsibility for determining how much parking should be provided from the public sector to the private sector. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us The first tier of new parking rules under the CFEC rulemaking will take effect December 31, 2022 and require: That cities may not mandate more than one parking space per unit for residential developments with more than one unit (OAR 660-012-0430). That cities may not mandate parking for small units (< 750 square feet), affordable units, publicly supported housing, single room occupancy houses, childcare, facilities for people with disabilities, and shelters (OAR 660-012-0430). That cities may not enforce parking mandates for developments within ½-mile of frequent transit ƷŷĻ ƒƚƭƷ ŅƩĻƨǒĻƓƷ ƷƩğƓƭźƷ ƩƚǒƷĻ ƚƩ ƩƚǒƷĻƭ źƓ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ źŅ ƷŷĻ ƭĭŷĻķǒƌĻķ ŅƩĻƨǒĻƓĭǤ źƭ ğƷ ƌĻğƭƷ ƚƓĭĻ ƦĻƩ ŷƚǒƩ ķǒƩźƓŭ ƦĻğƉ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ has a scheduled frequency of once every 20 minutes during peak service hours. Route 10 includes North Main Street, East Main Street through the downtown, Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street and the Transit Triangle bounded by Ashland Street, Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou Boulevard (See Staff Exhibit S-1 below). This first tier of changes to allowable parking requirements within a ½-mile of Route 10 will eliminate the ability to require parking for roughly 80 percent of the tax lots in the city (OAR 660-012-0440). Requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure will require that new private multi-family residential or mixed-use developments with more than five units provide capacity and install conduit to support electric vehicle charging stations to serve at least 40 percent of all parking spaces, although chargers themselves will not have to be installed. This requirement takes effect on March 31, 2023 (OAR 660-012-0410/ORS 455.417) and will be implemented through state building codes. Figure 18.4.3.030.C.5 and Staff Exhibit S-1. After December 31, 2022, off-street parking cannot be mandated in the area shown in green which is within ½-This equates to 79.4 percent of tax lots and 69 percent of the land area within the Urban Growth Boundary. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us The second tier of parking rules takes effect beginning June 30, 2023, and provides three options for additional parking reforms. Essentially, cities must either repeal their parking mandates entirely or adopt a more complex series of reforms from the menu of options listed below: Implementation Timeline As noted above, the first tier of the parking rule changes takes effect beginning December 31, 2022. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure requirements take effect March 31, 2023. The second tier of new parking rules takes effect beginning June 30, 2023. Cities will either need to adopt new ordinances in keeping with the rulemaking or implement the new parking requirements directly from the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). Staff Recommendations Roughly 80 percent of tax lots within the Urban Growth Boundary, and 69 percent of the total land area, are within ½-or those areas, the city will be unable to enforce any off-street st parking requirements after December 31. Beginning in June of 2023, the city will also need to remove off-street parking requirements in or near Climate Friendly Areas that are being identified as part of the CFEC rulemaking, and reduce parking required based on shared parking, solar panels, EV charging, car sharing, parking space accessibility, on-street parking and garage parking, and unbundle parking for multi- family residential near transit. There is a menu of additional options, as detailed above, and some Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us combination of these will need to enacted to further reduce off-street parking required (unless off-street parking requirements are eliminated entirely. The areas where it will continue to be possible to require off-street parking if Options 2 or 3 are selected - are primarily hillside residential zones well to the south of Siskiyou Boulevard, the North Mountain Neighborhood, Oak Knoll and the airport, and when existing development, physical constraints, and city- owned properties are considered in these area there is likely to be a very limited potential for additional development. The Planning Commission and Council will ultimately need to determine whether there is any benefit to retaining off-street parking requirements in these limited areas that are far from transit and outside of climate friendly areas, or if it would be more prudent to simply remove off-street parking requirements In stafwherever mandates are ultimately eliminated, any parking that is provided should continue to be designed and installed according to the following current standards: 18.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces 18.4.3.060 Parking Management Strategies 18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation In addition, staff believes that existing parking maximums in AMC 18.4.3.030.B which limit parking which is provided to no more than 110 percent of what is currently required should be retained. The current parking maximums were adopted in order to limit the adverse impacts of large parking areas to the built and natural environment Staff would appreciate Planning Commission feedback on preferable options for off-street parking requirements, retention of existing parking standards and parking maximums where possible, and any additional issues or concerns the Commission identifies. Attachments Parking Reform Overview from DLCD Parking & Electric Vehicles Overview from DLCD Oregon Just Slashed Parking Mandates. Five Things That Might Happen Next Less Parking Could Mean More Housing Pew Charitable Trusts A Business Case for Dropping Parking Minimums Planning Magazine, June 2022 Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Parking Reform Summary July 11, 2022 Rules Implementing OAR 660-012-0400 through 0450 (see also definitions in 0005 and deadlines and processes in 0012) Who do the rules apply to, and when is action needed? The parking reforms apply to the 48 Oregon cities in Oregon’s eight metropolitan areas (Albany, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene/Springfield, Grants Pass, Portland Metro, Rogue Valley, Salem/Keizer), and counties in these areas, with more than 5,000 people inside the urban growth boundary but outside city limits with urban sewer and water services (Clackamas, Marion, Washington). Some of the rules take effect December 31, 2022; others require action by March 31, 2023 or June 30, 2023. Why reform costly parking mandates? Parking mandates, also known as minimum parking requirements, are a one-size-fits-all approach that ends up hiding the costs of parking in other goods, from housing to business costs to wages. That means the costs of car ownership and use are subsidized, leading people to own more cars and drive more than they would if they were aware of the true costs. Providing 300 square-feet of parking lot for each car that wants a parking spot is a significant cost – in the thousands, and often tens of thousands, of dollars. Because of the cookie-cutter approach of mandates, parking is often over-built, adding unnecessary costs, while pushing apart buildings and making areas less walkable. That means more driving, and more pollution. A better approach, one that has been used by communities around the world for decades, is to let the free market provide parking where there is demand. Experience shows lenders usually require sufficient off- street parking, and developers will build it, especially when the on-street parking is properly managed. How do cities and counties amend their codes to meet the requirements in the rules? The cleanest path to meet rules requirements is to update local zoning and development codes to meet the requirements in OAR 660-012-0405 through 0415, and repeal all parking mandates. The provisions of 0425 through 0450 do not apply to communities without parking mandates. Many of the requirements in 0405 through 0415 may already be in city code, as some of those provisions have been required by the Transportation Planning Rules for many years. If a community prefers to keep some mandates, the provisions in 0425 through 0450 reduce the mandates and the negative impacts of remaining mandates. Questions? Evan Manvel Climate Mitigation Planner evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov 971-375-5979 Phase 1 – Reform Near Transit; Certain Uses by December 31, 2022 Apply to development applications submitted after December 31, 2022 (amend code or directly apply these rules) 0430 Cannot mandate more than 1 space/unit for residential developments with more than 1 unit No mandates for small units, affordable units, child care, facilities for people with disabilities, shelters 0440 No parking mandates allowed within ¾ mile of rail stations or ½ mile of frequent transit corridors Phase 2 – More Reform, Choose an Approach by June 30, 2023 or alternative date 0405 Parking Regulation Improvement Preferential placement of carpool/vanpool parking Allow redevelopment of any portion of a parking lot for bike or transit uses Allow and encourage redevelopment of underused parking Allow and facilitate shared parking New developments with parking lots more than ¼ acre in size must install 50% tree canopy OR solar panels; requires street trees and street-like facilities along driveways Parking maximums in appropriate locations (in existing TPR) 0410 Electric Vehicle Charging *due March 31, 2023 New private multi-family residential or mixed-use developments install conduit to serve 40% of units 0415 Provisions Specific to More Populous Cities Cities >25,000 in metro or >100,000 outside set certain parking maximums in specified areas (additional provisions for 200,000+ population cities, i.e. Portland, are not listed here) 0420-0450 Three options for parking reform Option 1Options 2 and 3 660-012-0420 660-012-0425 through 0450 Reduce parking burdens – reduced mandates based on shared parking, solar panels, EV charging, car sharing, parking space accessibility, on-street parking, garage parking. Must unbundle parking for multifamily units near frequent transit. May not require garages/carports. Climate-friendly area parking – remove mandates in and near climate-friendly areas or adopt parking management policies; unbundle parking for multifamily units Cities pop. 100,000+ adopt on-street parking prices for 5% of on-street parking Repeal spaces by September 30, 2023 and 10% of spaces by September 30, 2025 parking Option 2Option 3 mandates all of the below enact at least three offive policies 1.Unbundle parking for No mandates for a variety of specific uses, small residential units sites, vacant buildings, studios/one bedrooms, historic buildings, LEED or Oregon Reach Code 2.Unbundle leased commercial developments, etc. parking No additional No additional parking forchanges in use, 3.Flexible commute benefit for redevelopments, expansions of over 30%. action needed businesses with more than 50 employees Adopt parking maximums. 4.Tax on parking lot revenue No mandates within ½ mile walking distance of Climate-Friendly Areas. 5.No more than ½ parking space/unit mandated for Designate district to manage on-street residential multifamily development parking. Improved Parking Management and Electric Vehicle Charging The Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules reduce costly parking mandates in Oregon’s eight metropolitan areas, and support electric vehicle charging. Why Reform? Housing Costs, Pollution, Walkability, Equity, and More Excess parking has a significant negative impact on housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing development and business redevelopment, walkability, air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general community character. Parking mandates push uses apart, making areas less walkable. They also force people who don’t own or use cars to pay indirectly for other people’s parking. Carless households tend to be the poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly from development to development; about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero vehicles. Rules: Decrease Costly Parking Mandates, Particularly for Certain Types of Development and in Certain Areas The rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development. The rules would reduce costly parking mandates for desired types of development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, and historic buildings. Rules would also reduce mandates in certain areas, where parking demand is lower per unit: areas with a higher concentration of jobs and housing, and walkable areas well-served by transit. The rules give communities options to improve parking management. Those who adopt best practice parking policies would get more flexibility. The rules require Oregon’s most populous cities to do more if they choose to keep costly mandates, by charging at least 50 cents per day for 5%, and eventually 10%, of on-street parking spaces. Good parking management reduces how much non-drivers subsidize those who drive. The rules address negative impacts of large parking lots by requiring lots be designed to be pedestrian-friendly and include either solar power or trees. The rules also would require 40% of new parking spaces in multifamily housing have conduit for electric vehicle charging (just conduit, not wiring or chargers). Electric vehicles are a key part of meeting Oregon’s climate pollution reduction goals. Common Concerns: Parking with Disabilities, Parking Supply, and Areas of High Demand The rules would not limit required parking for people with mobility-related disabilities. Removing requirements to include parking in each development does not mean no parking will be built. Two decades of experience with lower parking mandates have demonstrated lender requirements and market dynamics usually result in parking being built. However, just like today’s parking rules, cities must sometimes deal with “spillover” parking, and where more people are trying to park than spaces exist. This calls for improved management of on-street parking spaces, not one-size-fits-all mandates. DLCD has publications, staff and grants to help with this. Rules Language is available at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx Questions? Evan Manvel, Land Use and Transportation Planner, evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov, 971-375-5979