HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-28 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda:
March 28, 2007 5:30 Î 7:30pm
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street
1. (5:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min)
th
Jan 24 2007 minutes
2. (5:35) Public Forum (10 min)
items not on the agenda
3. (5:45) 2007 Community Development Block Grant
Action Plan Development Hearing and Proposal Evaluation (30 min)
Staff Report
Applicant Presentation (RVCDC)
Public Comment
Commission deliberation
Commission recommendations
4. (6:15) Unfinished Business (35 min)
Annexation Ordinance Development
Commission deliberation
Commission recommendations
5. (6:50) Reports and Updates (35 min total)
Subcommittee Reports (10 min)
Education
Finance
Land Use
Liaison reports (10 min)
Council; Parks; Schools; Planning; Tripartite
Pre-app review board (none)
Staff update (10 min)
Condominium Conversion Ordinance
th
Council Hearing April 17, 2007
Other Business from Housing Commission Members (5 min)
6. (7:25) Future Meeting Agenda Items (5min)
Next Regular Meeting
th
April 26 2007, 5:30-7:30, Community Development Building
2007 CDBG Action Plan review
Rental Needs Analysis Report
Housing Trust Fund Mission Statement & Survey Results
7. (7:30) Adjournment
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present SOU Liaison
Bill Street, Chair Sunny Lindley, absent
Liz Peck
Carol Voisin
Council Liaison
Aaron Benjamin Cate Hartzell, absent
Steve Hauck
Regina Ayers, new member Staff Present
Richard Billin, new member Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Absent Members David Stalheim, Community Development Director
No absent members
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the November 20, 2006 meeting and the December 18, 2006 meeting were approved.
2. COMMISSIONER WELCOME
Street introduced the two newest members of the Housing Commission, Regina Ayars and Richard Billin. He also introduced David
Stalheim, Community Development Director.
3. PUBLIC FORUM
Anyone wishing to speak concerning the Oak Knoll Golf Course may do so when that item comes up on the agenda.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Annexation Ordinance Development
Goldman explained the oversights from the previous annexation ordinance. The revised version should allow for more flexibility
concerning the following:
a. Flexibility within the income standards
b. Construction standards (square footage of affordable housing units)
c. Construction timing (when affordable units are developed)
d. Percentage of built-out market rate units allowed
e. Scattered or clustered development
Darcy Strahan, Regional Advisor to the Director Oregon Housing & Community Services was available for questions. She is willing
to meet with the Housing Commission when needed.
Public Comment: Mark DiRienzo, 320 E. Main, Suite 202, Ashland, land planner and real estate developer made the following points:
a. Qualifying applicants Î He would like to see the City take an aggressive role in handling the qualification paths. It is
daunting for developers.
b. Percentage of affordability Î Encourage developers with a density bonus.
c. He would encourage scattered affordable housing.
d. Period of affordability Î rental or Ðfor purchaseÑ Î donÓt complicate it.
e. Timing of construction Î It can be burdensome.
f. Cash in lieu of built affordable housing.
Goldman will draft ordinance language and bring it back to the Housing Commission for further discussion.
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting to 8:00 p.m. Street finished the other agenda items before going back to Agenda Item
5.
6. REPORTS AND UPDATES - The Reports and Updates are included in the packet.
7. COMMISSION COORDINATION Î Street reviewed and there were no comments.
8. FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS Î Contact Street if there is anything to add.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Discuss potential redevelopment of Oak Knoll Golf Course as ÑLithia Park EastÒ and mix of market rate and workforce housing. (Street)
At last monthÓs meeting, Street proposed the Commission have a brief discussion about the potential of using the Oak Knoll golf
course property for affordable housing and recommended to the Parks Department and City Council that they look at that possibility.
This is an idea that has come up a few times over the last couple of years. The Commission reviewed information about Oak Knoll
produced by Rich Rosenthal, Chair of the Parks Commission. RosenthalÓs report is available on the CityÓs website. Street said a
portion of the land could be used for market rate housing, affordable housing and a park. In order to finance such a project, it would
take local, state, federal and private funding. This is just one of several properties the Housing Commission is considering.
PUBLIC INPUT N = Neutral O = Opposed P = Proponent
Ron Roth, 6950 Old Highway 99 S. (N) David Wilkerson, 1120 Barrington Circle (O)
Suzanne Frey, 1042 Oak Knoll Drive (O) Eric Campbell, 768 Park Street (O)
Allen Baker, 1042 Oak Knoll Drive (O) Mike Morrison, 737 N. Laurel (O)
Ron Tracy, 1138 Augusta Court (O) Christina Bagi, 929 Cypress Point Loop (O)
Ronald Corallo, 805 Indiana (O) Tom OÔRourke, 742 Fairway Court (O)
Dottye D. Nahirny, 2880 Wedgewood Lane (O) George Cota, 4300 Highway 66 (O)
Jms. Renteria, 614 Oak Knoll Drive (O) Greg Lemhouse, 2850 Wedgewood Lane (O)
Allen Walters, 775 St. Andrews (O) Earle Sloan, 816 Roca (O)
Joanne Johns, 790 Acorn Circle (O) Jerry Hauck, 847 Garden Way (O)
Alice Hardesty, 575 Dogwood Way (P)
COMMISSIONERSÔ DISCUSSION
The Commissioners expressed their thanks to those who spoke. The discussion was valuable. Though the neighbors expressed things
they were against, there was also an expression of those things they were in favor of such as alternate sites and alternate projects.
They heard criticisms of the existing facility as well. The neighbors were encouraged to stay involved. If this item is discussed
further, it will be done at a public meeting. No action was taken.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 2007
Receive public Comment regarding Development of the
2007 CDBG Action Plan
Public Hearing on the 2007 CDBG award allocation
Note: RVCDC Proposal was distributed at the February meeting.
Please bring that document for review.
Ashland Housing Commission Packet
March 28, 2007
Staff Evaluation
DATE: March 28, 2007
TO: Ashland Housing Commission and City Council
FROM: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist
RE: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
2007 Request for Proposals
The City of Ashland received one proposal requesting $32,000 of $183,900 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that are competitively
available. These funds comprise a carryover of $13,800 prior year CDBG funds that
were unexpended, in addition to the competitive 2007 CDBG allocation of $170,190.
The total City of Allocation for the 2007 CDBG program year is $212,738 of which
20% ($42,548) is reserved for administration of the CDBG program. In the 2007
Request for Proposals (RFP) it was noted that 15% (initially estimated at $32,000) of
the total 2007 allocation was potentially available to projects that provided direct
services to Homeless or Special needs populations.
The sole proposal the City received is a request to utilize CDBG funds to provide
direct services to homeless and very low-income youth.
The City of Ashland Housing Commission is to hold a public hearing and review the
grant request on March 28, 2007. The Housing Commission shall make a
recommendation on a grant award to the City Council. Subsequently, the City
Council will hold a public hearing on April 3th, 2007 to make a final decision on the
grant award.
StaffÓs recommendations regarding the allocation of the 2007 CDBG funds and prior
year carry-over is provided on the final page of this document.
Proposals Received
One proposal was received and is listed below:
Organization Proposed Project CDBG Funds
Requested
Support of
Rogue Valley Community $32,000 for public
Development Corporation services
(RVCDC)
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
Funding Requested/Available
A total of $183,990 is available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting
the CDBG national objectives, and are consistent with the City of Ashland 2005-
2009 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support
public services is limited to $31,190.
Of the entire $212,738 in 2007 CDBG funds available to the City:
20% ($42,548) is reserved for administration costs associated with the CDBG
program.
80% ($170,190) is competitively awarded to projects addressing low-moderate
income needs as identified in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. The needs are
prioritized in the plan which establishes creation or retention of affordable housing as
the primary use for these funds.
15% ($31,910) is available to projects that provide direct client services to homeless
or special needs as identified in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. It is important to
note that these funds are not a dedicated Ðset-asideÑ for this use but rather
considered available up to 15% of the yearly allocation. The Ðsocial serviceÑ 15% is
competitively awarded with all applications and is thus part of the Ð80%Ñ noted above.
In addition to the $212,738 awarded to the City in 2007, we have $13,800 in carry
over funds to be re-programmed (not the administrative and social service set asides
do not apply to this $13,800)
These funds will be available upon approval of the 2007 Action Plan,
modification of the 2006 Action Plan, and upon completion of any regulatory
requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. The
funds will be available on July 1, 2007, or upon final approval of the Federal Budget
by the US Congress, which ever is later.
Upon final selection of the award recipients by the Ashland City Council, the
City will develop an Action Plan outlining how the CDBG funds will be used by the
selected subrecipient(s). This 2007 Action Plan will go before the Ashland Housing
Commission at as public hearing for review and approval to ensure consistency with
the awards designated by the City Council. The US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the
City to ensure the activities funded are constant with federal requirements, and with
the local Consolidated Plan.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
Assessment
Staff has assessed the Rogue Valley Community Development proposal to
determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal
addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal
regulations.
First the proposed projects must meet the national objective of the
Community Development Block Grant program.
Second, all CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the CDBG
federal regulations.
Finally, if the proposals meet all federal requirements and are selected for a
CDBG award, then many federal regulations must be met throughout the
course of the project.
For instance, all projects funded, in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an
environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), construction projects must use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates, housing
involving structures built prior to 1978 must undergo lead-based paint abatement,
and any project involving displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the
federal funded project are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act,
and most importantly the beneficiaries from the application of CDBG funds must
qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements. Areas of concern are
described for each proposal received. The Housing Commission, and City Council,
can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and
meets an objective as outlined in the CityÓs 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Should it be determined by the Housing Commission and City Council, that the
proposed project does not constitute an efficient or eligible use of CDBG funds, the
Council could determine that the City will act directly as the grantee to develop a
project that is consistent with CDBG program requirements. This is particularly
relevance in this 2007 round of funding in that the City only received one request for
$32,000 of $183,990 available, thus there remains $151,990 left un-requested.
In recent years the City has aimed to expend accumulated past carryover to avoid a
determination of non-compliance with the HUD timeliness standard and has made
significant progress in this regard. Although Staff does not believe the City will
classified as untimely on June 30, 2007 given the expenditure of nearly all prior year
carryover in 2006, we still should aim to remain compliant with the timeliness
standard by aiming to expend all available funds by June 30, 2008.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation
The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) proposal is to
use up to $32,000 in CDBG funds to assist in providing a public service through the
payment of a part of the salary for their YouthBuild Program coordinator/trainer. The
intention behind the support of the YouthBuild program is to provide education and
counseling to low-income and at-risk youth while simultaneously having their labor
contribute to the development of affordable housing. Specifically RVCDC expects to utilize
the YouthBuild crew to assist in the development of 6 affordale homes through the Self-Help
Program at 795 Park Street. The development of these units was previously supported by a
contribution of $271,000 in CDBG funding from the City of Ashland, and the development
has received all applicable Planning approvals to proceed.
As a qualified Community Based Development Organization(CBDO) RVCDCÓs project as
proposed could qualify as a public service activity qualifying under 24 CFR 570.204(b)(2)(i)
which as "any service provided by a CBDO that is specifically designed to increase
economic opportunities through job-training and placement and other employment support
services".
In order for the project to be an eligible use as job-training , the City must ensure that the
activity specifically economic opportunities for youth that live in Ashland. This component of
qualification proves the more difficult issue with RVCDCÓs application. Although the
application before the City of Ashland indicates that ÐsomeÑ of the participants would be
Ashland residents. Additionally in looking at the resident make-up of the prior Youthbuild
crew of 20 participants it is estimated only 2 were from Ashland. To be eligible for CDBG
funds through the Ashland program, the majority must be residents to demonstrate that the
activity Ðprimarily benefitsÑ Ashland youth.
RVCDC contends that they would aggressively market the YouthBuild program to Ashland
residents to create a pool of YouthBuild participants that are residents of Ashland.
In discussions with RVCDC they have elaborated that it is the intention of RVCDC
and the Job Council to develop two separate Youthbuild crews with one being
residents of Ashland, and one being residents of Medford or other areas. RVCDC
has further indicated that they will draw on the local Department of Human Services
office, a listing of recent High school drop-outs, and other Ashland based
organizations to identify a pool of YouthBuild participants.
Staff finds that the RVCDC proposal is consistent with the 2005-2009 Consolidated
Plan Goal #12:
Goal 12: Promote and support activities in the community that improve or provide
access to
economic opportunities for extremely low- and low-income residents of Ashland.
12.1 Support organizations that provide job training and access to employment for
extremelylow- and low-income persons, homeless persons and persons with special
needs (B).
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
In evaluating the proposal and the economic opportunity goal above it is evident that
the classification of ÐBÑ as a priority indicates that although the City did not directly
anticpate using CDBG funds for such an activity it is an acceptable application:
B: The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
Further, depending on the population of participants RVCDC contends that the
proposal it may qualify under other Goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan
Goal 4: Support services for homelessness prevention and transition. Where
possible, give funding priority to services that are part of a comprehensive approach
that improves the living conditions of clients. Safety net services, or services that
meet basic needs shall only be funded with CDBG dollars if it can be demonstrated
that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that
will eventually help them obtain self-sufficiency.
4.1 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that assist the homeless and those at risk
of homelessness, provide transition assistance to the homeless, and help
preventhomelessness (A).
Goal 6: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs.
People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with
developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe
mental illness, persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with
HIV/AID or related illnesses.
6.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that provide support services for extremely
low- and low-income special needs populations (B).
Given the targeted population of participants of the Youthbuild program it is likely
that a number of individuals will have drug dependency issues or be either homeless
or at risk of homelessness and therefore could be considered qualified under Goal 4
or 6.
CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria
The final step in the process of evaluating the proposals typically is for the Housing
Commission to apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best
meet the City's spending priorities. However as the City only received one proposal in the
2007 year establishing a rank is irrelevant as no comparison with alternative proposals is
possible. However the categories proposed do provide a valuable way for individual
Commissioners to guage the effectiveness of the proposal in meeting City objectives.
A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG
Consolidated Plan
B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed
project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process
that improves their living conditions. ÐSafety netÑ services, or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can
be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self
sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs.
C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem.
D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the
units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given
E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs
shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and
moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given.
F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community
G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher
the ranking the project shall be given
H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service
provided by another organization
I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project
J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic
K. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project
L. The project is ready for implementation within a year of a CDBG award notification
M. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity.
Staff Recommendation
Staff sees that RVCDCÓs proposal is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with
the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. Further the
activity, although not defined as creating affordable housing, does provide vital assistance to
an ongoing affordable housing project previously funded with CDBG. The economic
development activity as proposed thus has multiple benefits to the City of Ashland in that
low income youth at risk of homelessness will develop marketable skills for future job
placement, while simultaneously assisting in the development of six housing units for low
income households in Ashland. RVCDC has experience operating the Youth build crew as
evidenced by the successful completion of the 9-unit town home project on Siskiyou this last
December.
Staff recommends an award of $31,190 to RVCDC for the proposed
YouthBuild Project. This recommendation is $810 less than the requested
amount of $32,000 to reflect the reduced amount available due to the actual HUD
allocation being less than anticipated. The $31,190 amount is equal to %15 of our
annual award allocation for 2007.
Unrequested funds
In the event RVCDC is awarded $31,190 the City will still have an unallocated
remainder of $152,080 in our HUD line of credit. The city has not received any
funding requests in 2007 to meet the objective of providing of affordable ownership
and/or rental housing. In support of these goals (Goals 1, 2, and 3 in the
Consolidated Plan) staff believes the City should work with community groups and
organizations to identify a project whereby this goal and objective can
be achieved in the 2007 fiscal year. As the City of Ashland is the recipient of funds
from HUD, we can act directly to apply funds to projects that meet our Consolidated
Plan goals. Once a project is identified in which the $150,080 would be contributed,
it would be incumbent upon the City to modify the annual Action Plan to reference
the specific project and hold public hearings regarding the proposed use of the
CDBG funds. As the Commission is aware the City has already identified that the
proceeds of the sale of the Strawberry Lane properties will be directed toward
development of an affordable housing project. In lieu of carrying over these funds to
2008, or issuing a new RFP, staff believes the City can expedite the expenditure of
the un-requested CDBG funds through application on a qualified project in this
program year.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
2007 CDBG Proposals- Staff Evaluation
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Ashland Annexation / Zone Change
Ordinance Development
Ashland Housing Commission Packet
March 28. 2007
Commission Communication
Discussion Item Annexation/Zone Change Ordinance Amendments
Dept: Planning Department
Date: March 27, 2007
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist
Over the course of the last year the Housing Commission and Planning Commission have examined
AshlandÓs current annexation policies specifically as they relate to the development of affordable
workforce housing. As drafted the existing ordinance achieves the primary goal in this regard and is
seen as a model that other communities in the state have examined in their efforts to address the
increasing lack of housing affordability. However experience in application with any ordinance functions
to highlight areas that could be adjusted to better suit the intentions of the community.
Prior to 2003 the annexation ordinance required that 25% of the units be affordable but did not establish
a period of affordability and established that covered affordable housing units (25% of the base density)
were all targeted to households at the 120% Area Median Income level. In 2003 the ordinance was
further amended to provide a range of income levels that could be targeted with the affordable units
from 60%AMI to 120%AMI. This menu of options for satisfying the affordability provision provided an
incentive for a developer to provide units to lower income ranges as the number of units to be provided
was also a sliding scale based on income level:
60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI
15% 20% 25% 35%
The 2003 revisions established a 60 year period of affordability in an effort to retain covered units as
affordable as long term affordable housing and address a failing that had allowed units that were
annexed under the prior code to be annexed as affordable and immediately convert to market rate
units. Additionally the 2003 revisions allowed for the dedication of a sufficient amount of land to be
transferred to a non-profit or community development corporation to be a means of satisfying the
annexation requirement relating to provision of affordable housing.
Since 2003 with a number of applications for annexation and zone changes processed, potential
revisions to the existing ordinances have been identified to ensure the provision of affordable housing is
both timely and equitable. These issues are as follows:
Construction Timing
Construction Standards
Distribution of Affordable Housing
Percentage of affordability
Cash-in-Lieu fees
Land Dedication
Construction Timing
Issue: Under the existing ordinance there is no established criteria that addresses how a project is to
be phased, specifically identifying at which point affordable housing units are constructed relative to the
market rate units within the development.
Remedy: Develop code language consistent with the intention to meter in affordable units with the
market rate units.
Example language:
For all residential annexations, a development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that
that the Affordable Housing Units per 18.108.030(G)\[the section of code that established the
required percentage of units\] shall be made available for occupancy on approximately the same
schedule as the projects market rate units including:
a. That 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate
units.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 10% of the market rate units, the
final 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy.
Exception:
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(X) \[the
section establishing the timing requirement above\] may be approved as exceptions by the
Planning Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting 18.106.030(G)5 provided by the applicant provides
adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion
Construction Standards
Issue: Staff believes that to ensure that units developed to meet AshlandÓs affordable housing program
meet a minimum standard of acceptable space that it is imperative to add language to the annexation
and zone change ordinance that clearly establishes minimum unit sizes.
Remedy: For a clear and objective standard, and consistency in state funding opportunities, it will be
recommended that the ordinance reference the limits established limits from the State of Oregon Home
Program in the table below:
Studio One Two Three Four
Unit Size
bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom
Min. sq. ft. 350-375 600 800 1000 1250
Further the concern has been raised that the affordable units should be commensurate in type and
materials, to the market rate units provided but with recognition that final interior selection of materials
may not be directly comparable (e.g. Formica counters versus granite, carpet vs. hardwood floors etc).
Example language:
The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix, and design and materials, as the
market rate units in the development. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit
shall comply standards applied by the Oregon State HOME program based on number of
bedrooms. Interior features of the affordable units shall not be required to be the same as or
equivalent to the market rate units, so long as they are of good quality and consistent with
current building standards
Distribution of Affordable Housing
Issue: The desire articulated by the Housing Commission and other community members has
consistently been to ÐscatterÑ affordable housing throughout the community and on individual projects to
reduce the potential for stigmatization of a Ðlow-income areaÑ and further to support income integration
as a community value. In large developments the ÐclusteringÑ of affordable housing can function to
create an economic/income division between the future households and as such distribution thought a
development of the affordable is preferable. Concern had been raised by non-profit housing providers
that mandating a method of scattered site development may impede funding sources, specifically state
funding sources. The State representative from the department of Housing and Community Services
has indicated that this is not the case and that scattered site proposals can be funded without
compromise. The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has indicated that the economy
of scale of ÐclusteredÑ development is beneficial to their application of the Self Help Program and as
such did not recommend language that required scattering of units.
Remedy: With these considerations in mind, articulating in the ordinance language that affordable
units shall be distributed throughout the development could be beneficial. However allowing an
exception to be approved by the planning commission would be prudent to allow senior assisted living,
special needs housing, or proposals such as RVCDCs to be approvable without meeting the standard
for distribution. However projects not meeting the test for an exception would be held to scattered
integration.
Example language:
That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project, and that no more than
four affordable housing units be located adjacent to one another.
Exception:
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(X) \[the
section establishing the distribution requirement above\] may be approved as exceptions by
the Planning Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting 18.106.030(G)X is
necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing financing limitations that require
a clustering of the affordable units, or;
That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish
additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development
meeting the distribution requirement of 18.106.030(G)5
Percentage of affordability
Issue: As mentioned previously the existing ordinances do provide a menu of options to meet the
affordability standards, yet as crafted they can only be applied by selecting a target income range and
providing all required affordable units in that specific range. For instance, an application for annexation
could not propose to provide some units to very low-income households, some to low income
households and some to moderate or median income households in an effort to develop a mixed
income project and meet the ridged percent allocation standards in the current ordinance.
Remedy: A modification that allows affordable units to be provided at various income levels to meet the
standards for inclusion of affordable units within a project may be beneficial. In aiming to address this
desire for flexibility in targeting various incomes the idea of establishing an equivalency value to a unit
provided at a particular income range has been devised. This would allow an applicant to provide a mix
of housing targeted to households earning 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% of the area median income.
Example Language:
For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and
involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a
Residential Overlay (R-Overlay):
The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers or renters shall be equal or
exceed 25% of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein:
a) Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120% the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit
b) Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100% the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c) Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80% the
area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
d) Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80% the
area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit.
Existing Ordinances Proposed Remedy
100 unit annexation or zone-100 unit annexation or zone-change with 25 ÐEquivalency unitsÑ
change with 15-35% of the required to be affordable.
units required to be
affordable depending on
120%AMI = 0.75 unit (ownership only)
income range targeted as
100% AMI unit or greater = 1 unit (ownership only
required under the current
61- 80% AMI unit = .1.25 units
ordinance.
60% AMI or less = 1.5 units.
120%AMI 35 33
100%AMI 25 25
80%AMI 20 20
60%AMI 15 17
Land Dedication
Issue: Currently AshlandÓs Annexation requirements do allow the potential to satisfy the affordability
requirements if a developer transfers land to a non-profit affordable Housing provider. The land needs
to have infrastructure in place for future development. This method of satisfying the affordability
requirement has merit as many for-profit developers have little experience in developing affordable
housing and as such providing the set aside land (consistent with any scattering requirements) is a
method they can choose to move forward with a development. However, if changes to the ordinance
discussed previously are incorporated that address distribution of affordable units, construction timing,
and construction standards, it would be necessary to modify the land dedication section accordingly.
There may be circumstances in which the Planning Commission and City Council would wish
to retain some measure flexibility to entertain an alternative offer of land that may ultimately
succeed in the provision of more affordable housing than would otherwise be expected on the
specific development site. For example an annexation of a 12 unit development may provide
3 units onsite, however if the applicant proposed to dedicate alternative property that could
accommodate 6 affordable units this option may be something to consider.
Remedy: Modify the land dedication section to address any newly applicable criteria and to allow the
City to evaluate alternative land dedication proposals at the CityÓs discretion.
Example Language
In lieu of providing affordable units per section 18.106.030(G)(1) the applicant may provide
Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development through transfer to a non-profit
(IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the
purpose of complying with subsection 18.106.030(G)(1)(b). The land shall be located within
the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.106.030(G)(\[construction standards section\]),
18.106.030(G)(\[construction timing section\]) and 18.106.030(G)6 (\[distribution section\]) and
all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer.
Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the City, affordable housing developer, or
Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project and shall be deed restricted to
comply with AshlandÓs affordable housing program requirements.
Exception
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(2),
18.06.030.G(5), and/or 18.06.030G(6) may be approved as exceptions by the Planning
Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the
city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the
distribution requirement of 18.106.030(G)\[land dedication\].
Cash-in-Lieu fees
Issue: The City of AshlandÓs options do not provide an alternative for In-Lieu fees. Such fees are often
an option for developers to contribute a set amount into an affordable housing fund, to enable the City
to apply those funds to meet its housing goals in another manner or through purchase of another site or
support of housing programs.
Remedy: Should the City wish to examine in-lieu fees as a viable option in the future it seems
appropriate to incorporate language in a modified annexation or zone-change code at this time that
would maintain that option.
Example Language
A cash-in-lieu equivalent contribution as an alternative to the provision of affordable housing
through 18.106.030(G)(1) or the provision of land through 18.106.030(G)(\[land dedication
section\]) may satisfy affordable unit obligations by making contributions to the cityÓs
affordable housing fund if authorized by city ordinance or resolution*.
a) The city administrator is authorized to adjust the cash-in-lieu contribution on an annual
basis to reflect changes in the median sale price for detached and attached housing,
using information provided by Jackson County Assessor records for the City of
Ashland.
b) The city administrator shall establish an affordable housing fund for the receipt and
management of permanently affordable unit cash-in-lieu financial contributions.
Monies received into that fund shall be utilized solely for the construction, purchase,
maintenance of affordable housing or for the costs of affordable housing programs.
* No ordinance or resolution has been enacted for cash-in-lieu fees and the
methodology to establishment of actual contribution amounts has not been done. This
section of code would allow the City to develop such a program in the future, until then
the applicants could not exercise a Cash-in-lieu option.
EXISTING ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 18.106
18.106.010 Procedure.
18.106.020 Application.
18.106.025 Initiation by Council.
18.106.030 Approval Standards.
18.106.040 Boundaries.
18.106.050 Statutory procedure.
SECTION 18.106.010 Procedure.
All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. (ORD 2791, 1997)
SECTION 18.106.020 Application.
Except for annexations initiated by the council or commission pursuant to section 18.106.025, application
for annexation shall include the following information:
A. Consent to annexation which is non-revokable for a period of one year from its date.
B. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special
districts defined in ORS 222.510.
C. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description and
map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and
monumented as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation.
D. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030.
E. Written request by the property owner for a zone change. Provided, however, no written request
shall be necessary if the annexation has been approved by a majority vote in an election meeting
the requirements of Section 11g of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.
47). (ORD 2792, 1997)
SECTION 18.106.025 Initiation by Council.
A proposal for annexation may be initiated by the council or commission on its own motion. The
approval standards in section 18.106.030 shall apply. Provided, however, that in the case of annexation
pursuant to section 18.106.030.4 (current or probable public health hazard due to lack of full City sanitary
sewer or water services) or section 18.106.030.6 (the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island"
completely surrounded by lands within the city limits), the approval standards in section 18.106.030.E, F
and G shall not apply. (ORD 2792, 1997)
SECTION 18.106.030 Approval Standards.
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to
conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria:
A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an
allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works
Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as
determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined
by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department
can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a
moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate
capacity exists system-wide for these facilities.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the
purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards:
1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed,
along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial
street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-
street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact
of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All
streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future
street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City,
provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included
with the application for annexation.
2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be
constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be
provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site
shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall
be indicated.
3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be
constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the
annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided
as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is
within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site
shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian
destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian
facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be
extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider,
provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus
shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed
and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the
annexed property.
Page 2 of 4
www.ashland.or.us Annexations
fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of
the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the
zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant
natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or
owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after
approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the
minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum
density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain
corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included.
G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and
involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a
Residential Overlay (R-Overlay):
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of
median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of
median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of
median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of
median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit
(IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for
the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the
project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for
transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or
Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project.
The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding
down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument,
shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years.
Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum
density bonus of 25 percent.
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-
year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within
the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which
development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces,
there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive
residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from
vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections
from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or
Page 3 of 4
www.ashland.or.us Annexations
fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted
use concurrent with the annexation request; or
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or
water services; or
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer
service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer
service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has
been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within
the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997)
(Ord 2895, Amended, 04/15/2003)
SECTION 18.106.040 Boundaries.
When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of
property in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of
land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff
Advisor, in a report to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other than
the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the Planning Commission
and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly. (ORD 2792,
1997)
SECTION 18.106.050 Statutory procedure.
The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS Chapter 222 the applicant
proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely.
(ORD 2792, 1997)
Page 4 of 4
www.ashland.or.us Annexations
fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900