HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-09_Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
REGUULAR MEETING
OCTTOBER 9, 20112
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Ciic Center Cuncil Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
vvoo
II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1..August 28, 2012 Study SSession
2.. Septemberr 11, 2012 Reegular Meetingg
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS
Appproval of Finndings for PA-2012-011222, 175 Lithiaa Way.
A.
VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLLANNING ACCTION: #20122-00899
SUUBJECT PROOPERTIES:AAshland Schoool District PProperties
Ashland High School –– 201 S. Mountain Ave.
Ashland MMiddle Schoool & John Muir School – 1100 Walker AAve.
Bellview Elementary – 1070 Tolmann Creek Rd.
Helman Eleementary Scchool – 705 HHelman St.
Walker Eleementary Schhool – 364 WWalker Ave.
Briscoe Scchool – 265 NN. Main St.
Lincoln Scchool –
Ashland School Adminnistrative Serrvices – 885 Siskiyou Blvvd.
APPPLICANT: AAshland Schoool District
DEESCRIPTIONN: A requestt for a Condditional Use Permit appproval for thhe creation oof a
Maaster Sign PPermit Progrram for the Ashland Scchool Districct Propertiess. The program
inttends to set parameters for materiall, location, area and heigght for new sschool signss as
theey are needed. COMPREEHENSIVE PPLAN DESIGGNATION: Reesidential (MMulti-Family and
Single Family)); ZONING: RR-2 and R-1--5; ASSESSOOR’S MAP && TAX LOT#: 391E09DA 1100;
3991E10 1200 && 3600; 391EE14CA 4700; 391E04BD 2900; 391E005DD 2500; 391E09DD 1100
3991E09DA 65000.
VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HHEARING
A. PLLANNING ACCTION: #20122-01266
APPPLICANT: CCity of Ashland
DEESCRIPTIONN: Amending the City of AAshland Commprehensivee Plan to adoopt the Houssing
Neeeds Analysiis.
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
VIII. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS
A. Plaanning Commission Reccommendatioon on Unifiedd Policies annd Procedurees for City
Coommissions and Committtees.
IXX. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
August 28, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Eric Heesacker Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Dennis Slattery
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Heesacker announced he will not be present for the September 11 meeting. Commission Brown stated he will also be
out of town. Commissioner Kaplan stated he will not be present for the November 13 meeting.
Commissioner Dawkins informed the Commission of the Council’s 4-3 vote to reinstate the Planning Commission’s recommendation for
drive-thru windows. Council Liaison Dennis Slattery stated the Council was split on this issue, with some questioning why the banks
were not the ones bringing this change forward and whether the amendment was really necessary. The Commission held a brief
discussion about Council-Commission interactions and their desire to be more in tune with the Council. Several suggestions were
made to improve communication, including holding joint meetings, incorporating the Commission into the Council’s goal setting
process, and sending a Commission representative to the Council meetings.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Draft Housing Needs Analysis.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman and Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid presented the Draft Housing Needs Analysis to the
Commission. Ms. Reid explained the draft was taken before the Housing Commission at their last meeting and it is now coming before
the Planning Commission for review before staff begins the formal adoption process. Ms. Reid pointed out Statewide Planning Goal
#10 “To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state”, and stated in order to make this assessment the City completed the
Buildable Lands Inventory (approved last year) and the second part has been using the Housing Needs Model to determine the
housing needs of the City of Ashland. She explained the Housing Needs Model calculates the housing needs based on population
changes, demographic changes, housing incomes, household sizes, vacancy rates, housing tenure, and housing costs. In addition to
the Housing Needs Model, the Housing Needs Analysis utilized data from the U.S. Census Data, analysis of current market conditions,
community and property owner/manager questionnaires, population data, coordinated population projections, employment data,
housing and development data from Ashland and Jackson Co., the 2002 Ashland Housing Needs Analysis, and 2007 Rental Needs
Analysis.
Ms. Reid commented on the public participation process that was used to gather data and provided a summary of findings contained in
the Needs Analysis. Highlights of the findings include:
Ashland Planning Commission
August 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
Ashland is growing, but relatively slowly
Growth has not occurred evenly in all age groups
Fewer households own housing in Ashland compared to other areas
The fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland do not pay enough for a household to afford fair market rents
The number of low-income households has decreased since 2000 after having increased between 1998 and 2000
Housing sales prices increased nearly 50% between 1998 and 2001 and have remained higher than the regional average
The median home sales price in Ashland is not affordable to households with median incomes
The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than 10,000 annually
Ashland has a large deficit of affordable owner-occupied housing units
Few multi-family units were built between 2001 and 2010
Ashland is falling short of providing the housing types identified in the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis
Ashland has a relatively small inventory of land zoned for multi-family housing
Ms. Reid stated the recommendations in the Housing Needs Analysis are to encourage more multi-family housing, and to encourage
more affordable single-family housing types. She outlined the next steps in this process and stated: 1) staff will finalize the draft, 2) the
final document will be taken before the Housing and Planning Commissions for review and recommendation, and 3) the Needs
Analysis will be taken before the City Council for formal adoption.
Ms. Reid asked if the Commission has any questions or comments before the formal adoption process begins. The Commission
shared their general comments about the housing inventory in Ashland. The following is a summary of some of the questions and
comments that were raised:
Have rents stayed flat or increased in the last few years? Ms. Reid clarified the rental costs have remained fairly flat.
Comment was made that housing costs have continued to decrease and renters may be frustrated that their rates are not
going down as well.
Can the City require people to build rental housing instead of housing that is for sale? Mr. Molnar stated there are some legal
issues that would need to be addressed with this scenario, however the City was able to do this with the Croman Mill zoning
district and required housing to be a mix of rentals and for purchase units.
It seems that most of the parcels identified for multifamily housing are too small to accommodate this type of housing, is that
correct? Mr. Goldman clarified multifamily residential is more than one unit on a property. He stated while there are not a lot of
large lots that could accommodate five or ten units, there are a lot of opportunities for second units.
Comment was made supporting the finding that it is not possible to build affordable housing without subsidies, and
questioning what the City can do to encourage the public sector to participate. Additional comment was made to reduce or
remove the 60-year restriction on affordable units to motivate more people to build affordable housing.
Suggestion was made to lessen the current zoning restrictions so that it is possible to do more things in the zone, such as
pocket neighborhoods.
Suggestion was made to outright permit accessory residential units and to raise the threshold for requiring an additional
parking space.
Comment was made that there are other things aside from affordable housing that keeps families in the community, such as a
strong school system, child care and after school programs, and maintaining and attracting businesses that expand the City’s
economic base.
Comment was made voicing support for manufactured housing and potential changes to policies to encourage this type of
housing.
Mr. Molnar thanked the Commission for their feedback and reminded them to not lose sight of the accomplishments this community
has made in terms of affordable housing. He stated the City set a goal of 10% of new housing stock to be affordable units and we have
exceeded that; and have also provided subsidies to defer and waive fees for affordable units.
B.Business Retention & Expansion Survey Update.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the Commission and provided a brief presentation on the Business Retention
and Expansion Survey. He explained the City contracted the Ashland Chamber of Commerce to conduct this survey and explained the
survey gathered information in several areas, including: size and age of businesses interviewed, businesses past changes and future
Ashland Planning Commission
August 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
expectations, skill and training needs by occupation, areas of occupational training difficult to access in Ashland or the Rogue Valley,
future business expansion needs, and interest in conservation activities. Mr. Molnar also shared the top ten items that were learned
from the survey:
1)The advantages of doing business in Ashland are: quality of life, natural and cultural assets, and small-town feel. The
disadvantages are: a small labor pool, lack of specialized/technical skills, and limited market for products and services.
2)Most businesses maintained or increased sales during the recent recession.
3)Local businesses take pride in their employees, loyal customers, and “weathering the storm” during the recent recession.
4)Difficulties centered on hiring qualified and skilled workers, and the need for more technical, sales, and marketing training.
5)Over the past three years businesses increased purchases from regional sources and increased their sales to external
markets.
6)Businesses were optimistic, expecting gains in employment, sales, customers, and profits over the next three years.
7)Nearly half of the businesses expect to expand physically over the next three years, but had concerns about expanding in
their present location due to zoning restrictions or lack of space.
8)Businesses urged a streamlining of the local land use process and felt the effort would support future business development.
9)Interest in sustainable business programs and practices was prevalent across businesses.
10)Businesses were interested in deepening their connections with regional companies and institutions, particularly with SOU,
RCC, and SOREDI.
Mr. Molnar explained the next steps will include other entities in town conducting activities, and stated staff was concerned about some
of the comments about the perceived inability to expand and would like to meet with some of the businesses that had these concerns.
He added the Unified Code Project the Commission is currently working on will streamline the decision making process, although it will
not streamline approvals.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 28, 2012
Page 3 of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
September 11, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Richard Kaplan Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery, absent
Eric Heesacker
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the Dignity Village presentation will be held Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at
Wesley Hall, 175 N. Main Street.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. August 14, 2012 Regular Meeting
Commissioners Kaplan / Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-2012-00981, 541 Strawberry Lane/48 Westwood Street.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Marsh / Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action 2012-00981. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Marsh, Kaplan, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-01122
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 175 Lithia Way
APPLICANTS: First Place Partners
DESCRIPTION: A request for preliminary plat approval of a six-lot subdivision for the four vacant properties
located at 165-175 Lithia Way, at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. Also included is a request for Site
Review approval to construct a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building with a basement consisting of
commercial and residential space on the first floor and residential space on the second and third floors. An
Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards’ Downtown Design Standards (VI-B-3) is also proposed to allow
Ashland Planning Commission
September 11, 2012
Page 1 of 4
for recessed balconies on the front of the building. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING:
C-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOTS: 10100, 11601, 11701 and 15000.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
All members indicated they are familiar with the site; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the request before the Commission is for preliminary plat approval of a six-lot
subdivision including five building lots and a sixth open space/common area lot; site review approval to construct a three-story
18,577 sq.ft. mixed-used building with basement parking, commercial and residential on first floor, residential on the second and
third floors; and an exception to the Downtown Design Standards to allow balconies on the Lithia Way façade.
Mr. Severson called attention to the eight-lot subdivision approved for this site in 2007-2008, and a subsequent approval to
combine two of the lots and construct a mixed use building. Following this approval a fair amount of site work occurred,
including the demolition of the existing buildings and the installation of the majority of the infrastructure, however the approval
expired before construction of the mixed-use building could be initiated.
Mr. Severson stated the current request is largely similar to the previous application. The differences include: 1) reducing the
number of lots facing Lithia Way from five down to three, 2) removing the plaza area from the front of the building, and 3)
increasing the residential component to 10 units. Mr. Severson clarified an exception to the Downtown Standards for the small,
recessed balconies was requested and approved under the previous application.
Mr. Severson briefly outlined the proposed site plan and highlighted several elements of the application, including the plaza
space area, the walkway connection from First Street, the affordable unit proposed for the first floor, and the additional two feet
of sidewalk to be installed along the front of the site. Mr. Severson went on to say staff is recommending approval with the
conditions as proposed.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson commented on the code section that speaks to balconies. He stated the desire for downtown properties is to have
a strong storefront presence with buildings placed at the back of the sidewalk, and having second or third stories that are
significantly recessed back can degrade the sense of enclosure that is desired. He explained the exception criteria allows for
small balconies since the bulk of the façade remains at the zero setback, and noted the Historic Commission reviewed this
application and felt the small balconies worked well on this building.
Comment was made questioning what would happen if Lot 2 is not development, and whether the City could come back and
require the applicant to make the side of the building facing Lot 2 more attractive. Mr. Severson stated to his knowledge the City
has never gone back and asked an applicant to change their building after it has been approved and built, and stated the
applicant intends on placing a building on Lot 2 sometime in the near future.
Concern was raised about the nightly closure of the walkway through the building. Mr. Severson stated the applicant’s have
indicated the nightly closure is for security reasons, and the applicants can speak to this when they come forward.
Mr. Severson restated the elements of this application and also commented briefly on the plaza/open space area proposed for
the site.
Applicant’s Presentation
Mark Knox, John Galbraith, Jerome White and Randy Jones/Mr. Knox addressed the Commission and stated this project is
a re-do. He stated in many ways it is the same, but there are a few areas where it has been improved upon. He called attention
to the changes in the City Code since their last approval which required them to alter the design, including moving the building
up 8 ft., expanding the sidewalk width by 2 ft., and shifting the plaza area from the front of the building to the side. Mr. Knox
went on to comment on the recessed balconies and the exception language in the Code, and stated they believe they meet the
intent of Sections 18.80 and 18.72. Regarding the walkway, Mr. Knox clarified this is enclosed in the proposed building and
Ashland Planning Commission
September 11, 2012
Page 2 of 4
there is an alternate walkway open 24/7 through the open space area just 80 feet over. It was noted that the enclosed walkway
is also an emergency access from the building, and residents will be able to exit at the night when the walkway is secured. Mr.
Knox noted they more than meet the plaza requirements, and stated they are proving an affordable unit even though it is not
required at this time. Mr. Jones clarified the residential units will be condos, not apartments; and Mr. White pointed out the
locations of the Historic Commission’s recommendations on the site plan, and stated they support the changes.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Knox clarified the first floor windows are larger and will be transparent so that people can see inside. Mr. White added they
may install slightly tinted windows on the east side. Mr. Knox clarified this helps to reduce heat gain but you would still be able
to see inside.
Comment was made questioning if this applicant intends to build out all the lots. Mr. Jones answered he can’t say whether they
will build and own all five lots, however they certainly want to get this started. He added their intent, provided the level of
success with this first building, is to continue onto the next building and then the next.
Comment was made questioning the affordable housing unit. Mr. Knox clarified the Code states when you build more than 10
units, an affordable unit has to be provided, and they are right at 10. Mr. Jones added they want to build the affordable units as
they go and not delay it.
Public Testimony
Katherine Spierings/2240 Camp Baker Rd, Medford/Stated she is the owner of 164 B Street and commented on the
problems associated with the interface between this commercial site and an older neighborhood. She stated the livability of the
neighborhood is impacted by the Growers Market, the view of wheels entering and exiting the parking lot, and littering. She
stated the deterioration of the wooden fence is an additional problem and requested the fence be turned into a block wall. She
stated she is in favor of this project, but would like the Planning Commission to address the neighbors’ concerns for privacy.
Ms. Spierings was asked to clarify her request to the Commission. Ms Spierings answered she would like a continuation of the
block wall that exists on First Street, or something similar to stop people from pushing garbage into their yard and provide better
screening.
Stan Potocki/A letter submitted by Mr. Potocki was read aloud by Commissioner Dawkins. (See attached Exhibit #2012-01)
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Stated recessed balconies are permitted under the exception criteria and noted this only applies to the front of the
building. He stated the residential housing will be a benefit to the area as the residents will provide extra eyes on the street. Mr.
Knox noted they are not applying for a conditional use permit and everything they have proposed meets the standards.
Regarding the concerns raised by the neighbors, Mr. Knox stated the City should work to create a transitional zone and perhaps
allow for higher fence heights, but stated the applicant is not able to correct this issue.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 8:10 p.m.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Kaplan asked staff for clarification regarding Mr. Potacki’s letter, which states the City would not change his
zoning, and asked how this relates to the approval criteria for this project. Staff clarified Mr. Potacki’s issues do not relate to the
criteria.
Commissioner Marsh asked staff to comment on the fence on the northern part of the property. Staff indicated it is unclear
whether the fence is on the subject property or the adjacent residential property, and depending where it sits there are different
height allowances.
Commissioner Mindlin reopened the public hearing so the applicants could speak to the fence question.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 11, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Jones stated they are willing to maintain the fence if it is on their property and stated they want to be good neighbors and
work with the property owners to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone. He called attention to the dense hedge that is
listed on the plans that will get 30 feet deep and provide additional screening. Mr. Jones added the City currently leases this
property and are suppose to police it, and once their project is built and they have residents and commercial tenants, their on-
site management will be able to address these issues.
Commissioner Mindlin re-closed the hearing and the record.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Marsh / Kaplan m/s to approve Planning Action #2012-01122 with the affordable housing condition put
forward by staff and to direct staff to wordsmith a condition regarding landscape maintenance and screening of the
fence at the north property line. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh stated they reviewed and approved this project once
before and believes it has gotten better. She added she would like to put forward an amendment after the rest of the group
shares their comments. Commissioner Kaplan voiced his support for the project and believes the issues regarding the site
boundary and the homes will improve by having this complex built and properly managed. Commissioner Dawkins stated he will
vote in favor of this motion but would have preferred smaller units for people to live and work downtown.
Commissioners Marsh / Dawkins Miller m/s to amend the motion to require the walkway to remain open at all hours.
DISCUSSION: Staff clarified this walkway is inside the building. Commissioner Dawkins stated he did not know this and
withdrew his second. Commissioner Miller agreed to second the motion. Commissioner Marsh stated the walkway is within the
building, but not within the functional part of the building; and brought attention to the Masonic Walkway which remains open all
the time. Planning Manager Maria Harris read aloud the pedestrian access and circulation standards that apply to this project.
Commissioner Kaplan stated he does not support putting this requirement on the applicant. He stated security of the building is
important, however encouraged the applicants to minimize the number of hours it is closed. Commissioner Dawkins agreed and
stated it is within the owner’s rights to figure this out. Commissioner Marsh withdrew her motion.
Commissioner Marsh / Miller m/s to amend the original motion to include a condition that asks the owners to look at
leaving the gateway open for the most possible number of hours. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Miller, Mindlin,
and Kaplan, YES. Commissioner Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
Roll Call Vote on original motion as amended: Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Marsh, Kaplan and Mindlin, YES.
Motion passed 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 11, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Findings
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2012-01122
Ashland School District Properties
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING ACTION:
#2012-00899
APPLICANT:
Ashland School District
LOCATION:
Ashland School District Properties
Ashland School Administrative Services – 885 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland High School – 201 S. Mountain Ave.
Ashland Middle School & John Muir School – 100 Walker Ave.
Bellview Elementary – 1070 Tolman Creek Rd.
Helman Elementary School – 705 Helman St.
Walker Elementary School – 364 Walker Ave.
Briscoe School – 265 N. Main St.
Lincoln School – 320 Beach St.
ZONE DESIGNATION:
R-2 and R-1-5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Residential (Multi-Family and Single Family)
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
September 24, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT:
January 18, 2013
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.96 Sign Regulations
18.104 Conditional Use Permits
REQUEST:
Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the creation of a Master Sign
Permit Program for the Ashland School District Properties. The program intends to set
parameters for material, location, area and height for new school signs as they are needed.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
Ashland School District has received approvals for many of the signs on school campuses
over the years either combined with a Site Review approval or as a separate Conditional
Use Permit (CUP).
PA-1978-103 – Site Review approval for Administration Building at 885 Siskiyou
PA-1987 – Correspondence regarding large Ashland Grizzly Mural
PA-1997-101 – Walker Elementary School CUP for ground sign
PA-1997-021 – Ashland Middle School (AMS) CUP for sign program
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 1 of 9
PA-2000-033 – Bellview Elementary School CUP for ground sign
PA-2000-083 – Replacement scoreboard sign at Ashland High school
PA-2006-00250 – Modification of AMS sign program CUP
PA-2009-00322 – Helman Elementary School CUP for dragon mural
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Ashland School District is responsible for the operation of eight public schools (one is
outside of City limits and is not part of this land use application but is part of the school
districts sign program) and two support service properties.
The application is for the creation of a Master Sign Permit Program for Ashland School
District’s properties. The School District is requesting site identification signs, on-site
direction and additional signs to meet the needs of the various functions that occur on
school properties i.e. ground, wall signs, increased size of reader boards, score boards,
fundraising signs, and other banners, murals and wall graphics, etc.
Each one of the school district properties is in residential zones. Helman and Bellview are
in the R-1 Single-Family Residential zone, and Briscoe, Walker, AMS, Ashland High
School (AHS) and Lincoln are in the R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential zone.
According to Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Government Agencies are allowed to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a sign that does not conform to the
code when it can be determined that the signs are necessary to further the agency’s public
purpose.
In the past, individual schools have separately applied for a Conditional Use Permit when
they wish to install or modify a sign which exceeds the limits outlined in the Sign
Regulations for residentially zoned properties. In order for Ashland School District to
have cohesion with the sign permit and Conditional Use Permit applications, the City
encouraged the creation of a sign program that sets parameters on size, materials and
location for the future installation of signs on the School District properties. The Master
Sign Permit program would eliminate the need for a site by site Conditional Use Permit
application each time a sign is installed or modified and allow the signs to be changed as
needed with a basic sign permit so long as the parameters described herein are met.
Some of the schools have existing signs and the application lists the signs in place by
school. In addition, the application includes a description of the signs requested as part
of the application for a Maser Sign Permit.
1. Elementary School Campuses
Ground Signs
The applicant is proposing three new ground signs with changeable copy. A 36
square foot ground sign with changeable copy at Helman, and a 20 square foot
ground sign for Briscoe and Lincoln Elementary Schools. The area of changeable
copy was not proposed.
Secondary Signs and Building Identification Signs
No new directional signs proposed for the elementary schools.
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 2 of 9
Banners, Scoreboards
The elementary schools have the least amount of banners (each has a Box Top for
Education Banners long term, and other temporary banners for recruitments
similar to boy scouts, girl scouts, etc.). None of the elementary schools have a
score board visible from the public right-of-way.
2. Ashland Middle School (AMS) Campus
Ground Signs
Ashland Middle School has a Sign Permit Program and which allowed for a 27
square foot ground sign without changeable copy. The applicant is proposing a
new ground sign not to exceed 25 square feet and not to exceed 35 percent
changeable copy.
Secondary Signs and Building Identification Signs
No new directional signs proposed for the middle school.
Banners, Scoreboards
There is one small scoreboard sign near the gymnasium building at AMS is it not
visible from the public right-of-way.
3. High School (AHS) Campus
Ground Signs
The applicant has proposed a new ground sign on the Siskiyou Boulevard
frontage to replace the sign that is there. The new sign is proposed to be 40 square
feet in area, five feet tall, and have 35 percent changeable copy area.
Secondary Signs and Building Identification Signs
There are numerous secondary signs at AHS including grizzly paws and red
background, stenciled building identification signs which are approximately two
to three square feet in size, and directional and information signs which range
from approximately two square feet to eight square feet. No changes are proposed
to these signs.
Two new, 20 square foot signs have been proposed for two areas at AHS. One is
proposed near the intersection of Mountain and East Main to delineate the
location of the Lincoln Avenue baseball fields. Another is proposed near the
parking lot near the intersection of Iowa and Mountain.
Scoreboards
At the AHS there are four primary field areas including the Walter A. Phillips
Football Stadium, the track, the practice football field adjacent to the football
stadium on Morse, and the baseball/softball fields at Lincoln and East Main
Street. At these fields there are scoreboard signs which either pre-date the code or
have been approved through a separate Conditional Use Permit sign approval. No
new scoreboards have been proposed.
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 3 of 9
Mountain Avenue Theater Building Sign
The applicant has proposed a 60 square foot sign that has approximately 70
percent changeable copy for the Mountain Avenue Theater building. The sign
would be wall mounted above the theater building doors facing Mountain Ave.
The sign is proposed to be externally illuminated.
High School Gymnasium Wall Sign
A wall sign with a maximum of 60 square feet area of raised letters is proposed
between the pilaster columns on the gymnasium wall facing Mountain Avenue.
4. Temporary Banners, A frames, Moveable Signs, All Campus
At times temporary banners are placed on school properties for specific events or
club sign ups. It also appears that there are more permanent banners which are
placed on school properties and remain in place indefinitely (e.g. Box Tops for
Education).
The temporary banners advertising specific events, extramural athletics, club
signups and registrations, etc. appear to be similar in type to the temporary non-
illuminated signs allowed for non-profit and charitable organizations, with a
maximum area of sixteen (16) square feet in area, placed no more than seven (7)
days before an event and removed within two (2) days following the event.
The temporary banners which have received a more permanent treatment and are
primarily for communication to the general public are to be removed or moved to
a location that is not visible to the public right-of-way.
5. Administrative Services Building, Maintenance Yard
The one change proposed for the Administrative Services Building along Siskiyou
Blvd. is to remove repetitive signage and to slightly increase the area of the sign
identifying the Public Schools building. A specific sign area has not been
proposed and the area will be limited to 15 square feet. No changes have been
proposed for the maintenance yard.
6. Murals, All Campus
The existing murals visible from the street (i.e. public right of way) and
installation of new murals is not approved as part of this application. Since most
of the school campuses are composed of a number of structures with internal
courtyards, the regulation would not preclude the use of murals on the sides of
building facing the interior of the site that are not visible from the public right-of-
ways. According to Ashland Municipal Code wall graphics are prohibited and
murals and other wall graphics are subject to the requirements of Ashland
Municipal Code 2.29 for displays of Public Art.
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 4 of 9
7. Siskiyou Boulevard Median Displays
The placement of signs, flags, banners and balloons in the Siskiyou Boulevard
median in front of the high school to advertise sporting and other events is not
approved as part of this application as the planning approval does not extend
beyond the private properties of the School District. Any installation of signs,
flags, banners and balloons within the public right-of-way requires a permit from
the Public Works Department.
II. Project Impact
The request for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of signage by a Government
Agency is typically a “Type I” Administrative approval process. Due to the scope of the
application and that Staff did not feel some aspects of the application could be
administratively approved, a public hearing has been scheduled.
Applicable Sign Regulations
According to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Sign Regulations for Residential Signs in
18.96.070, one ground sign, or wall sign a maximum of 15 square feet in area, not to
exceed an overall height of five (5) feet above grade, setback ten (10) feet from property
lines is permitted in residential zones. Plastic exterior materials and internal illumination
is prohibited.
The Sign Regulations for Commercial and Employment (C-1/E-1) zoned properties in
general allow one ground sign per property no more than sixty (60) square feet in area,
and a maximum height of five (5) feet. Additionally, two-wall signs are permitted with a
total maximum area of sixty (60) square feet. The area of ground and wall signs allowed
is based on the business building frontage.Sign area of up to twenty (20) percent is
allowed as changeable copy. The code generally permits one ground and two wall signs
with a total maximum area of 120 square feet of sign area for C-1/ E-1 zoned properties.
Temporary banners are permitted in C-1/E-1 zones under a few circumstances,
fundraisers and grand openings. Temporary banners are allowed a maximum area of
sixteen (16) square feet in area, and can be placed no more than seven (7) days before an
event and removed within two (2) days following the event. Temporary banners and other
temporary displays are not permitted in residential zones.
The following sign policy is from the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. “The City shall
design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for specific development guidelines which will
ensure that strong sign regulations exist which ensure the number, size and placement of
signs are the minimum required for recognition by the public of the business at the site.”
III. Proposal and Concerns
The purpose of this application before the Planning Commission for a public hearing is to
determine a formula that achieves the needs of the school district while at the same time
being sensitive to the residential neighbors of the schools, and the business community
with respect to the number of signs, materials of signs and sign size generally allowed.
The challenge in considering a Conditional Use Permit for governmental signs is
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 5 of 9
determining a reasonable amount, size and type of signage “to further that agency’s
public purpose” within the context of the signage permitted throughout the community.
As proposed, the application is generally within the parameters of a previous similar
Master Sign Permit Program which was previously approved for the Southern Oregon
University campus. Staff’s primary concerns are the proposed wall sign at the High
School gymnasium (page 7 of application) and the Mountain Avenue theater sign (page
10 of application).
Gymnasium Wall Sign
The School District maintains that in order to establish Mountain Avenue as the
primary high school frontage a sign needs to be added to the wall of the
gymnasium facing Mountain Avenue near Iowa Street. There is an approximately
20 square foot wall sign engraved in the low wall adjacent to the class room
building along the same street frontage. The application states that the School
District would like to add up to 60 square feet of sign area on the gymnasium.
Staff concurs that some signage would be appropriate along the wall of the
gymnasium, but believes the maximum area between the proposed sign and the
existing ground sign should be a maximum of 60 square feet, combined.
Theater Sign
Staff is concerned about the proposed wall sign for the Mountain Avenue Theater
for the following reasons. The design of the sign appears to have a commercial
treatment and emphasizes its presence as an advertisement about the theater,
which is uniquely uncharacteristic of the majority signs installed by similar
institutions located within Ashland’s residential neighborhoods. Additionally, it
is uncommon to have a sign installed upon a relatively blank façade and visible
only to the residential zone. The request for 70% of the sign area to be of
changeable copy is 4.5 times greater than the maximum allowed by ordinance and
twice that permitted under the Southern Oregon University’s sign program.
Again, staff believes the amount of changeable copy is more closely associated
with what is expected in a commercial zone, rather than the underlying residential
district.
Staff believes that it would be more appropriate to install a similar ground sign as
proposed for the Siskiyou Boulevard frontage, in front of the theater along the
Mountain Avenue frontage. This would achieve two purposes - demonstrate to the
public that Mountain Avenue is the primary high school frontage and provide the
ability for the theater to advertise upcoming events as well as providing display
area for other campus information.
Staff suggests using the following parameters, which are summarized in the table below,
for evaluating the school district sign program. In terms of ground signs, staff believes
that 30 square feet is the largest area that should be permitted for the smaller school
campuses (Elementary and AMS) and 40 square feet for Ashland High School. The size
is based on the typical size of past approved government signs such as the ground sign at
Walker Elementary school. The elementary and middle school campuses have numerous
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 6 of 9
vehicular entrance / exists, and the ground signs are typically near the primary, public
vehicle access to the site.
Because the schools have specific messages about important dates and other information
for the parents/guardians of the students and occasionally, messages applicable to the
general public, changeable copy area is also requested. Because the message is directed at
a specific audience, who is aware of where the message is to be displayed, staff believes a
smaller area, more in line with the 20 percent changeable copy that is permitted by code
is more appropriate. A recent similar application for Southern Oregon University allowed
for 34 percent changeable copy on two new campus signs. Staff suggests the area allowed
for changeable copy be up to 35 percent of the total sign area.
The suggested size for secondary signs (ball-field identification, parent pick-up / drop off
zones, parking lots, etc) is 15 square feet. Fifteen square feet is the maximum area
allowed under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance for residentially zoned property.
Additionally, staff suggests any further building identification signs should be maximum
area of three square feet. For comparison, incidental signs are allowed to be between two
and three square feet in size in commercial and employment areas. In both instances no
changeable copy would be permitted.
Secondary Signs /
Ground Signs # Changeable Copy Y / N Temporary Signs
School Building
and area % Allowed / Banners
Identification
15 square foot max Max 16 sq. feet.
1 per school: max Ground: Y
area / No more than 7 days before
Elementary area of 30 square 35%
3 square foot max Removed 2 days after
feetOthers: N
area event.
15 square foot max Max 16 sq. feet.
1 per school: max Ground: Y
area / No more than 7 days before
AMS area of 30 square 35%
3 square foot max Removed 2 days after
feetOthers: N
area event.
15 square foot max Max 16 sq. feet.
1 per school Ground: Y
area / No more than 7 days before
AHS frontage: max area 35%
3 square foot max Removed 2 days after
of 40 square feet Others: N
area event.
In terms of the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, staff believes a finding
could be made that Ashland School District is a unique public entity within the City with
a need to identify and advertise the various functions the schools hold. The proposed
sign program enhances the schools ability to provide public notice of those events, and
warrants signage beyond the scope of what’s permitted under the sign regulations.
Schools themselves do not typically have similarity in bulk, scale, and coverage to the
structures in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In general, the application
proposes signage that is similar in scale to the campus area of the specific school they
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 7 of 9
serve and the neighborhood population they serve. An appropriately executed sign
program can improve the traffic generation on surrounding streets as it directs traffic to
the specific area of campus or specific structure relieving some potentially lost drivers or
wandering pedestrians. None of the proposed signs are to have internal illumination and
any external illumination would be directed at the sign. This will not negatively affect the
livability of the impact area by generating light, noise or glare.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 18.104.050 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use
is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are
not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact
area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
It is crucial that a sign program of this size, scale and scope is thoroughly evaluated in the
context of Ashland‘s approval criteria for Conditional Use Permit, and considering the
sign regulations that apply throughout the community.
According to Section 18.96.150 Governmental Signs, “Governmental agencies may apply
for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not conform to this Code when it is
determined that, in addition to the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to
further that agency's public purpose.” In making the decision, the Planning Commission
needs to consider the minimum signage necessary in terms of number, area, amount of
changeable copy to further the public purpose of the school district.
Staff believes the proposal could be found to meet the relevant standards in mostareas.
However,staff has identified a list of issues related to the approval criteriaapplicable to
the project with the primary concerns being the proposed High School gymnasium wall
sign and the theater wall sign.
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 8 of 9
Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve
the project, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2)That the wall sign(s) at Ashland High school shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet
total. The total maximum allowed square footage is sixty (60) square feet between
signs labeled W3 (new) and W4 (existing) on page 7 of the applicants findings dated
September 4, 2012.
3)That the new wall sign at Ashland High School on the gymnasium (W3 on pg. 7 of
the applicant’s findings dated September 4, 2012 shall not cover any architectural
features (decorative concrete band between the columns).
4)That the Ashland High School theater wall sign is not approved,
5)That the secondary ground signs proposed for the Lincoln Street ball fields and the
Iowa Street parking lot shall be limited in size to a maximum of 15-square feet. No
changeable copy is permitted.
6)That the new wall sign on the Ashland Public Schools Administrative Building shall
be limited to a maximum of 15 square feet.
7)No signs shall be composed of plastic except the cover of the changeable copy area
and the changeable copy itself.
8)No signs shall contain internal illumination.
9)That the Sign shown in box six labeled D at the High School Parking lot on Iowa and
Mountain shall be removed and the sign moved to a pole internal of the parking lot
area.
10)That the Master Sign Program document included in the application shall be updated
to reflect the conditions of approval, and submitted to the Ashland Planning Division
for review and approval.
11)That any future changes to the signage (e.g. size, number, type, material, changeable
copy, illumination) not included in the approved Master Sign Program per planning
approval PA 2012-00899 shall require a modification of the Conditional Use Permit
prior to installation.
Planning Action 2012-00899 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report adg
Applicant: Ashland School District #5 Page 9 of 9
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION:2012-00899
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Ashland School District Properties
Ashland High School – 201 S. Mountain Ave.
Ashland Middle School & John Muir School – 100 Walker Ave.
Bellview Elementary – 1070 Tolman Creek Rd.
Helman Elementary School – 705 Helman St.
Walker Elementary School – 364 Walker Ave.
Briscoe School – 265 N. Main St.
Lincoln School – 320 Beach St.
Ashland School Administrative Services – 885 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ashland School District
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the creation of a Master Sign Permit Program
for the Ashland School District Properties. The program intends to set parameters for material, location, area and
height for new school signs as they are needed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (Multi-Family and Single Family);
ZONING: R-2 and R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP & TAX LOT# : 391E09DA 100; 391E10 1200 & 3600; 391E14CA 4700;
391E04BD 2900; 391E05DD 2500; 391E09DD 1100 391E09DA 6500.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center
October 9, 2012
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2012\\2012-00899.doc
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development
of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered
beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2012\\2012-00899.doc
TYPE III
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PL-2012-01266
Housing Needs Analysis
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 02, 2012
PLANNING ACTION:
2012-01266
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
Ashland Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter VI \[Housing Element\]
Appendix A, entitled “Technical Reports and Supporting
Documents”
REQUEST:
Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance amending
the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the updated Housing Needs Analysis as a
supporting technical document.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background
In 2002, ECONorthwest prepared a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) which detailed
housing and demographic inconsistencies within the Current housing stock and projected
future need based on the Oregon Housing and Community Services Housing Needs
Model. In 2007 a Rental Needs Analysis was completed to assess the needed rental
housing types based on demographic information about Ashland households including
size, age, and incomes. This Rental Needs Analysis supplemented information in a
HNA. All of these studies attempt to project future housing needs relative to the existing
supply of land suitable for development.
The 2012 HNA, aims to quantify projected housing needs through the year 2040, and
compares those demographic needs with the currently available lands within the City’s
Urban Growth Boundary. This comparison provides the factual basis to answer the
questions of “how much residential single family and multi-family land is presently
available?”, “how many residential dwelling units can be accommodated on Ashland’s
remaining developable lands?” and, “is there enough appropriately zoned land to
accommodate Ashland’s future population?”
The HNA update was completed using the Housing Needs Model, which specifically
links income characteristics to the need for various housing types by price, density, and
location throughout the community. The Housing Needs Model used to derive future
projections was initially created by the State of Oregon as a tool for communities
throughout the state to ensure that projections of future housing needs were driven by the
demographics of the study area as opposed to simply projecting past trends in housing
production forward. The standard practice in Oregon had historically been to extrapolate
forward the past 5 or more years in housing production as the basis for determining a
region’s future housing requirements. While this market or demand driven approach was
commonly used to define the housing “needs” for an area, the true housing “needs” of
Planning Action PA 2012-01266 (HNA) Ashland Planning Department – HNA Staff Report 20121002
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4
that area’s population may not have been addressed. Using the most recent US Census
and American Community Survey data regarding age demographics, household sizes,
household wages and incomes, and local housing prices (rental and ownership) are some
of the inputs used in determining housing “needs” in this model. Local housing markets
are frequently not a “perfect” market where the “demand” or supply is in equilibrium and
balance with the “need”. In many regions, the new housing supply is a function of what
the local builders are inclined or able to produce, which may not be what the households
in the region actually need or desire and can afford without being cost burdened.
The HNA uses the housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland’s housing
needs to 2040. The HNA incorporates data from the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory
(BLI) and evaluates Ashland’s housing need by type and price in consideration of
available land designated by Zone within the City’s UGB. This HNA has also utilized
data from:
The Housing Needs Model
U.S. Census Data
Analysis of current market conditions
Community and property owner/manager questionnaire
Population Data from Portland State University’s Population Research Center
Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County
Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department
Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County
City of Ashland 2002 HNA & 2007 Rental Needs Analysis
Staff analyzed data from the aforementioned sources, used projections from the Housing
Needs Model, compared them to historic development trends and suggested
modifications based on the development mix needed to meet the future housing needs.
Additionally, staff related the needed housing type and affordability projections to the
potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on available lands within
the existing UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation.
th
The Planning Commission reviewed the initial draft HNA at a study session on July 25,
thth
2012. The Housing Commission’s reviews took place on August 8 and September 26,
2012. During these meetings revisions to the initial draft were discussed which have now
been incorporated into the final draft HNA. The revisions to the document’s “suggested
recommendations” are as follows: among those incorporated into the final document
were:
Examine opportunities for reductions in parking requirements for the
provision of apartments meeting certain conditions.
Studies have shown that
the number of vehicles per household is lower in areas that are more conducive to
walking and have greater access to transit (City of San Diego Feb. 2011) A unit’s
size and level of affordability are additional conditions that could be further
evaluated in consideration of needed parking and reducing parking requirements.
Evaluate land use incentives to provide for small lots intended for small unit
development
. The data show a strong correlation between lot size, unit size and
Planning Action PA 2012-01266 (HNA) Ashland Planning Department – HNA Staff Report 20121002
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4
housing cost. The City could consider reductions in minimum lot sizes in certain
residential zones to specifically promote the development of smaller dwelling
units.
Consider restricting uses in certain zones to apartments.
The building permit
data suggest that a significant amount of land designated for high-density multi-
family housing has been developed as single-family attached types that are owner
occupied units. Designation certain lands for multi-family rental units would
encourage development of apartments.
Consider allowing Accessory Residential Units as a permitted use in single
family zones.
The integration of ARUs into existing neighborhoods provides for
small dedicated rental units serving single or two person households, and could
also be a resource for more affordable housing types. The City should evaluate
existing density bonus allocations to better incentivize the voluntary inclusion of
affordable single family housing in future developments
The ordinance presented for consideration provides for adoption of the 2012 HNA as a
technical document in support of the Housing Element \[Chapter VI\] of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. In order to allow the HNA to be more regularly updated the
ordinance presented for consideration includes a provision allowing future updates of the
HNA to be approved by Resolution of the City Council. This provision will enable staff
to more readily update the HNA and present the revised technical document to the City
Council to account for changes in population projections, demographics, and residential
development potential.
II. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in
circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of
the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a
property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the
hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed
amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered.
The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After
receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing
on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the
Planning Action PA 2012-01266 (HNA) Ashland Planning Department – HNA Staff Report 20121002
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4
proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less
than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the
Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request,
except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new
evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The HNA currently presented reflects recent household demographics, housing development
and economic trends and provides an adequate factual basis to evaluate housing need and
land availability within Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the
City Council for the Ordinance adopting the HNA as a supporting technical document to
Chapter VI of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
Potential Motion
Move to recommend approval to the City Council of adoption of an Ordinance
amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Housing Needs
Analysis (2012) as a supporting technical document to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled “Technical Reports and Supporting
Documents”.
Attached
:
2012 Housing Needs Analysis Update
Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the HNA as a technical
supporting document
Appendix A of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan: Technical Reports and Supporting
Documents
Planning Application
Housing Commission Minutes 7/25/2012
Housing Commission Minutes 9/26/2012
Planning Action PA 2012-01266 (HNA) Ashland Planning Department – HNA Staff Report 20121002
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4
2
Findings 2
Recommendations 6
City Accomplishments 8
Section I: Introduction 9
9
10
11
13
Section II: Framework/Community Context 14
14
16
18
20
Section III: Housing Trends and Existing Conditions 23
23
25
26
29
31
33
Section IV: Housing Inventory
33
33
33
34
36
36
36
39
Section V: Housing Needs
39
39
41
42
43
43
Section VI: Baseline Forecast of Housing Demand 46
47
52
Section VII: Meeting Housing needs to 2040 56
62
Appendix
- 1 -
The 2012 Housing Needs Analysis provides a summary of housing and demographic trends
within the City of Ashland in an effort to allow the City to meet the population’s housing needs
in the future. This report is intended to provide an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since
the last detailed housing assessments were completed including the 2002 Housing Needs
Analysis and the 2007 Rental Needs Analysis. The following is a review of those trends, a brief
summary of steps the City has taken to address the findings, recommended actions identified in
the prior housing assessments, and an evaluation of what the results of those actions have been.
Ashland is growing-but relatively slowly
: The City of Ashland has grown in population from
16,234 in 1990 to 20,078 in 2010 according to the US Census. This 0.79% historical growth rate
is largely consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Jackson County’s population
estimate for the City of Ashland that predicts the population will continue to grow at an average
annual rate of approximately 0.75% between 2005 and 2060. Between 1990 and 2000
Ashland’s population grew by 20% while the population grew by only 2.8% in the decade
between 2000 and 2010. This marked disparity in population growth between these past two
decades may suggest that the actual annual growth rate is trending toward a diminishing growth
rate and if that proves to be the case it will be a trend which bears close monitoring.
Growth has not occurred evenly in all age groups
: The population growth rate of individuals
65 years old and older grew at a faster rate in Ashland than in the rest of the State, while the
population of individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 actually declined. In the last decades
Ashland has also seen a substantial decrease in the population of nearly all age groups between
15 and 55 (one exception was the 25-34 age groups which saw a 3.4% increase between 2000
and 2010). The populations of age groups 55 years old and older see growth with the exception
of that age group of 85 years old and older.
- 2 -
Figure 1. Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
over
yearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyears
5
Under
and
914192434445459647484
5
years
10152025354555606575
85
2000USCensus2010USCensus
This trend of an aging citizenry should persist into the future as the largest population growth has
been and will continue to be in the age groups represented by the large baby boom cohort. This
group which was in their 40”s and 50’s in 2000, and their 50’s and 60’s in 2010, (where those
groups saw increases of 110% and 85% respectively), will be in their 70’s and 80’s by 2020.
Overall the forecast for the State of Oregon (
Source: OREGON’S DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS February 2010, State
) anticipates there will be 53% more elderly in 2020 than in 2010. Given
Office of Economic Analysis
Ashland’s desirability as retirement destination such trending indicates Ashland will likely see a
continuation of this trend.
Fewer households own housing in Ashland compared to other areas
: The 2010 Census
showed 51% of Ashland households own their homes and 49% are in renter occupied housing.
Ashland has a lower percentage of homeowners and a higher percentage of renters than Jackson
County with a 63.3% ownership rate, the State of Oregon with a 63.8% ownership rate or the
Nation as a whole with at 66.6% homeownership rate. The 2000 Census data showed 52.3% of
housing units in Ashland were owner occupied and 47.7% of units were renter occupied. This
regional rental/owners disparity could be affected by the presence of the University which
increases the student age population that is typically in the market for rental housing, but also
shows a greater demand for rental units relative to the rest of the region.
- 3 -
The fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland do not pay enough for a household to
afford fair market rents
: Individuals employed in the fastest growing employment sectors in
Ashland, services and retail jobs; do not make enough money to pay fair market rent in Ashland.
However, this trend is not specific to Ashland; in general wages have been outpaced by housing
costs since the 1980’s.
The number of low-income households has decreased since 2000 after having increased
between 1998 and 2000
: Between 2000 and 2010 the estimated number of families and
individuals living below the poverty level has decreased from 12.5% to 11.5% and from 19.6%
to 18.8% respectively. Although the decrease is slight, it may signal a reversal in a trend
identified in the 2002 housing Needs Analysis which found an increase of 2.7% in the estimated
number of low-income households between 1998 and 2001. The 2010 Census now reports a
decrease in the number of households who report having an annual income of less than $75,000 a
year while the number of households reporting an income of over $75,000 has increased.
Housing sales prices increased nearly 50% between 1998 and 2001 and have remained
higher than the regional average
: Housing prices in the early part of the decade rose
precipitously, and in 2001 this trend was just getting started. In 2007 at the height of the housing
boom, the average home price in Ashland was $438,750. With the fall out of the housing market
in 2008 and the ensuing foreclosure crisis, housing prices in most areas fell drastically. Housing
prices also fell in Ashland during the recession, though not as significantly as in other parts of
the county. According to the Roy Wright Appraisal Service, 85 housing units sold in Ashland in
2011 the average sales price was $285,000.
The median home sales price in Ashland is not affordable to households with median
incomes:
the 2012 median household income for a family of four in the Medford/Ashland
Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a median priced home in Ashland a
household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the population reports having an
income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing stock is targeted to this group.
It is clear that there is an excess of ownership housing on the market at price ranges which are
not commensurate with the earning capability of the majority of the population in the region.
The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually:
The
findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census Data shows
that the City lacks an adequate number of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. Households making 30% of the Area
Median Income or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland households. Only 3.05%
of the City’s rental housing stock (approximately 152 units) is considered affordable to this
population. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable to those with
the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately 803 units
needed to house these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these
populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35, and to a lesser extent
over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The 729
- 4 -
households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be due
in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of non-
traditional students.
Ashland has a large deficit of affordable owner-occupied housing units
: The 2002 HNA
found that 46% of Ashland households earning below the median income could not afford to
purchase a house in Ashland. This number has grown to approximately 57% of Ashland
households; over half of the current population cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland.
The Housing Needs Model shows that there is a deficit of housing stock costing less than
$279,300, only 22% of all housing units for sale in Ashland, while there is a surplus of 2,255
units above that price.
Few multi-family units were built between 2001 and 2010
: The 2002 HNA found that only
9% of the building permits issued between 1990 and 2001 were for multi-family housing types.
Between 2000 and 2010, 19.6% of all building permits issued were issued for multiple family
units (two-family units to five or more). Though single family units tend to get developed at a
rate twice that of multi-family units, the City has seen a significant increase in the development
of multi-family units in the past ten years. However, not all of the newly built multi-family units
were rental units, and many rental units were lost in the same period to condominium
conversion.
Ashland is falling short of providing the housing types identified in the 2002 Housing needs
analysis
: The 2002 HNA found that more single-family units were being built than was
estimated to be needed, while both multi-family housing and government assisted housing types
were either falling short or not being built at all. It is clear that single-family ownership housing
development remains the most prevalent type of housing development within Ashland, while the
housing types most needed, including multi-family rentals and government assisted housing are
not being developed in accordance with needs.
Ashland has a relatively small inventory of land zoned for multi-family housing
: The 2011
Buildable Lands Inventory identified an existing capacity for up to 1,384 Multi-family units
within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Housing Needs Model anticipates up to 1,759 multi-
family housing units will be needed to satisfy the anticipated demand for multi-family units by
the year 2040. Without changes to allowable densities, increases in mixed use developments, or
an increase in land zoned for multi-family the City may exhaust the supply of land available for
multi-family housing by the year 2034.
- 5 -
Implications of previous housing trends:
The number of affordable units in Ashland causes households to compete against each
other for housing.
Land zoned for multiple-family is being consumed for single family ownership units such
as townhomes and condominiums.
Housing costs are forcing Ashland workers to live in other communities
Housing costs may be contributing to reductions in school enrollment.
Housing costs may place greater demands on transportation systems and parking (i.e.
with more people commuting).
Housing costs may limit economic development
Following is a summary of potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues
identified in the 2012 HNA.
Encourage more multi-family housing
: Promote policies that will increase the development of
multi-family housing and provide more affordable rental housing and to meet the needs of the
population. The 2002 HNA also recommended an increase in multi-family housing, and in the
last decade the historic development of multi-family rental housing has continued to be
insufficient to satisfy demand.
Suggestion
:Increase the land supply. The BLI data suggest that the City has capacity
for about1,384 multi-family dwellings whereas it is anticipated that 1,759 units will be
needed by 2040.One approach to encourage apartment development is to designate more
land for higher concentrations of residential units (High and Medium Density zones).
Suggestion
:Promote development of residential units in commercial and employment
zones.The BLI assumes commercial developments within employment and commercial
zones would only utilize 50% of their allowable residential capacity on average.
Increasing the prevalence of mixed use developments (beyond the 50% expectation) will
effectively increase the net supply of land and the total capacity for multi-family units.
Suggestion
:Consider restricting uses in certain zones to apartments. The building
permit data suggest that a significant amount of land designated for high-density multi-
family housing has been developed as single-family attached types that are owner
occupied units. Designating certain lands for rental units would encourage development
of apartments.
Suggestion
:Examine opportunities for reductions in parking requirements for the
provision of apartments meeting certain conditions. Studies have shown that the number
- 6 -
ofvehicles per household is lower in areas that are more conducive to walking and have
greater access to transit (City of San Diego Feb. 2011).A unit’s size and level of
affordability are additional conditions that could be further evaluated in consideration of
needed parking and reduced parking requirements.
Suggestion
:Consider policies that encourage redevelopment or adaptive reuse of
structures. The location of rental units is also important. Increasing the supply of rental
units near employment centers and the University will make these units more attractive.
Suggestion
:Develop more government-assisted housing: The data show a need for
nearly 800 dwelling units that are affordable to households with annual incomes of
$10,000 or less. About 30% of these households, however, are in the 18-24 age range and
another 25% are age 65 or over. The data suggest the City would need to develop as
many as 50 units per year for the next 20 years to address this need. Given the number of
total housing units developed in the City in any given year is typically less than 100, it is
unlikely such a target could be met. A more realistic target would be a target based on a
percentage of total units developed in collaboration with local housing organizations,
which would be 10-15 units annually.
Encourage more affordable single-family housing types
. The average sales price of a single-
family residence was over $282,000 in 2012. Following are some approaches that can increase
more affordable single-family housing types:
Suggestion:
Evaluate land use incentives to provide for small lots intended for small unit
development. The data show a strong correlation between lot size, unit size and housing
cost. The City could consider reductions in minimum lot sizes in certain residential
zones to specifically promote the development of smaller dwelling units.
Suggestion
:Evaluate land use requirements to reduce barriers for manufactured
housing. The City has identified a need of 2.4% of all future housing to be manufactured
homes in subdivisions and manufactured homes in parks. Revising existing policies to
more readily enable the placement of manufactured homes is one potential approach to
allowing more affordable single family housing.
Suggestion
:Evaluate land use incentives to promote affordable single family housing.
The City should evaluate existing density bonus allocations to better incentivize the
voluntary inclusion of affordable single family housing in future developments
Suggestion
:Consider allowing Accessory Residential Units as a permitted use in single
family zones. The integration of ARUs into existing neighborhoods provides for small
dedicated rental units serving single or two person households, and could also be a
- 7 -
resource for more affordable housing types. The City should evaluate ways to reduce
regulatory barriers to the voluntary inclusion of ARUs in future developments and
existing neighborhoods.
Suggestion
:Reduce development fees for low-income projects: The City should conduct
a careful review of the components of housing cost and calculate the percentage of total
unit cost that is a result of development fees.
Following the Completion of the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Action Plan the
City has completed a number of actions that directly address the recommendations identified in
the prior analysis including the following:
Develop land use policies and incentives to encourage the development of affordable and
needed housing types;
Passed annexation and zone change ordinance requirements to require the
o
inclusion of affordable housing in new developments of a type commensurate
with the market rate units provided
Passed condominium conversion ordinance requirements that help preserve multi-
o
family rental housing and affordable housing.
Passed minimum density ordinance requirements to ensure multi-family zoned
o
properties are developed at a minimum of 80% the base density and are thus not
developed as large single family lots.
Passed an ordinance amendment permitting small accessory residential units to be
o
located on small lots in multi-family zones.
Develop more government-assisted housing
Coordinated with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to develop 60 new
o
units of government assisted affordable rental housing and assisted the project
through joint acquisition of land, CDBG awards, and reduced development fees.
Reduce development fees for low-income projects
Amended the City’s Affordable Housing System Development Charge waiver
o
program to ensure a minimum period of affordability of 30 years for assisted
units.
Amended the City’s Community Development and Engineering fee waiver
o
program to make affordable units automatically eligible for the waivers.
Developed a Housing Trust Fund framework for the dedication of resources to
o
assist the City in meeting housing needs,
Develop Organizational Capacity for Affordable Housing
Dedicated General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
o
resources to maintain a full time Affordable Housing Program staff position to
- 8 -
work with providers of affordable housing to develop more government assisted
housing locally;
Prioritized the use of CDBG funds to support the development of affordable
o
housing consistently awarding the funds to projects that increase the supply of
affordable housing
City efforts, in collaboration with the local organizations providing affordable housing, have
resulted in over 10% of all housing units developed since 2002 have been secured as
1
affordable to low-moderate income households. This percentage equates to a total of 178
units secured as affordable over the last decade.
The housing needs analysis serves as a background report to the Housing Element of the City of
Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of undertaking an analysis of housing needs is to
increase the probability that needed housing types will be built and to ensure that the city has a
suitable amount of land to meet the housing development needs.
A housing needs analysis should include a comprehensive analysis of factors affecting housing
needs and an up-to-date knowledge of trends affecting housing. Such factors along with
household income and cost information, affect the need for various housing types in a
community.
Background-Oregon Planning Requirements for Housing
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.296 contains two key objectives. These relate to housing
and land, as follows:
Housing: Ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix needed to meet a
community’s housing needs over the next 20 years; Land: Ensure that there is enough buildable
land to accommodate the 20 year housing need inside the urban growth boundary (UGB).
The City of Ashland is not required by state planning requirements to undertake a periodic
review of housing need since ORS 197.296 only applies to communities with a population of
25,000 or more. However, as a guide to providing for the current and future housing needs of its
citizenry, a housing needs analysis is a valuable tool. A housing needs analysis provides elected
and appointed officials and city staff with the necessary data to make decisions that balance the
needs of the community with regard to housing, redevelopment, annexation and growth
management, the preservation of farm land and rural areas with the need to accommodate
1
See chart “Affordable Units per year” in Appendix D
- 9 -
population growth and economic development. This analysis reviews current conditions and sets
the framework for policy discussions on housing needs.
Purpose-Housing Need versus Housing Demand
No one would argue that that everyone should have access to decent, safe and affordable
housing, but what does that really mean? Historically the evolution of housing and the housing
market have not always provided those basic elements of housing which many of us now take for
granted. The market has not always had an incentive or a mandate to provide those basic
elements nor was there always agreement on what constituted decent, safe, or affordable when
applied to housing units.
Decent Housing
: The term decent housing speaks to the physical condition of housing
units. Housing that lacks bathroom facilities, electricity, basic plumbing and heating and
is free of open exterior holes or cracks, and infestation. One measure of safe and decent
housing is the Housing Quality Standards (HQS) checklist developed by HUD (see
appendix D).
Safe Housing
: Prior to 1927 there were no building codes, with the evolution of
homeowner’s insurance and the fallout of multiple tragedies due to fire, many
communities adopted Uniform Building Codes to create safety standards and regulate the
building industry to ensure that such tragedies were averted. In the 1990’s the ICC
(International Code Council) codes were adopted in most states across the country in an
effort to standardize the accepted safety of residential and commercial buildings
nationwide.
Affordable Housing
: Affordable housing refers to a household’s ability to find housing
within their financial means. The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and
utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of household income. When gross rent levels
exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it places a significant burden
on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of their income toward
housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than 50% of their
income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When households are
housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are
compromised.
“Needed housing”:
As used in ORS 197.307, “needed housing” means housing types
determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at
particular price ranges and rent levels, including the following housing types:
Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for
o
both owner and renter occupancy;
Government assisted housing;
o
Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to
o
197.490;
Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family
o
residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured
dwelling subdivisions.
- 10 -
Growth Management and Housing Affordability
While state policy does not make a clear distinction between need and demand, it is instructive to
make such a distinction based on housing policy:
Housing Need
is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities plan for
housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. Thus, Goal 10 implies that
everyone has a housing need. However standards defined by public agencies that provide
housing assistance (primarily HUD), identify several need components: financial need, housing
condition, crowding, and needs of special populations.
Housing Market Demand
is what households demonstrate they are willing to purchase or rent
in the market place. Growth in population leads to a demand for housing units that is usually
met primarily by the construction of new housing units by the private sector based on
developer’s best judgments about the types of housing that will be absorbed by the market.
It is the role of cities under Goal 10 to adopt and implement policies that will encourage the
provision of housing units that meet the needs of all residents. It is unlikely that the housing
market in any area will provide housing to meet the needs of every household. However, it is
incumbent upon the jurisdiction to endeavor to meet the basic housing needs of its citizenry.
At the extreme there is homelessness: some people do not have any shelter at all. Close behind
follows substandard housing (with health and safety problems), space problems (the structure is
adequate but overcrowded), and economic and social problems (the structure is adequate in
quality and size, but a household has to devote so much of its income to housing payments that
other aspects of its quality of life suffer).
Moreover, while some housing is government assisted housing, public agencies do not have the
financial resources to meet but a small fraction of that need. New housing does not and is not
likely to fully address all these needs because housing developers, like any other business,
typically try to maximize their profits.
A common assumption concerning the impact of growth management policies is that by limiting
the supply of developable land, such policies reduce the supply of housing. Basic economic
theory suggests that if housing supply is low relative to demand, than the price for it will be high,
reducing its affordability. However, this is a simplistic view. Housing prices are determined by
a variety of complex factors, such as the price of land, the supply and types of existing housing,
the demand for housing, the amount of residential choice in the region, and household mobility.
Further in a community like Ashland, that is an attractive destination for both tourism and
retirement, the “demand” for housing in the community is not isolated to the existing residential
base. Rather national market forces are also factors in establishing local housing prices as the
potential buyers of Ashland’s housing stock come from many areas around the country.
- 11 -
A report by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy entitled “The
Link between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence,” by
Chris Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Gerritt Knapp and Casey Dawkins. The report, a comprehensive
review of the academic literature on the link between growth management and housing
affordability, found that:
Market demand, not land constraints, is the primary determinant of housing prices
.
Whether growth management programs are in place or not, the strength of the housing
market is the single most important influence on housing prices. For example, Portland’s
growth in housing prices is more attributed to increase housing demand, increased
employment and rising incomes than to its urban growth boundary.
However, both traditional land use regulations and growth management policies can raise
the price of housing, but they do so in different ways:
Traditional zoning and other planning and land use controls limit the supply and
accessibility of affordable housing, thereby raising home prices by excluding
lower-income households. Such policies, already widespread in the U.S., include
requirements for low-density, rules on minimum housing size, or bans against
attached or cluster homes.
Growth management policies improve the supply and location of affordable
housing and accommodate other development needs, thereby increasing the
desirability of the community and thus the price of housing. However, higher
housing prices are often offset by lower transportation and energy costs and better
access to jobs, services, and amenities.
Since housing prices may increase in any land use environment, the decision for local
governments is between good and bad regulation to improve housing choice. Traditional
land use practices tend to zone for low-density, expensive homes that exclude lower-
income households. Good growth management policies tend to incorporate policies that
increase housing densities, mandate a mix of housing types, and promote regional fair
2
share housing.
The housing needs assessment contained in this report will be used by the City of
Ashland Community Development Department and the Ashland Housing Commission to
develop a set of strategies to address housing needs in Ashland. The overarching goal is
to ensure the development of a stable supply of housing for current and future residents
of Ashland at all income levels, and household types.
More specifically, this report is intended to present an evaluation of housing trends in
Ashland since the last detailed assessment was completed in 2002, and project current
and future housing needs based on 2010 Census data, community questionnaires, and the
2
The Brookings Institute, 2002.
- 12 -
Housing Needs Model created by former Oregon Housing and Community Services
Economist Richard Bjeeland. Specifically, the report:
Describes socioeconomic characteristics and trends that affect housing;
Describes recent housing development trends;
Describes housing condition, tenure, and sales;
Assesses trends in jobs/housing location;
Quantifies housing needs by type and density, and compares it with household
incomes and other factors.
Housing Needs Analysis Organization
Following the introduction are sections presenting population trends and forecasts, rental housing
and ownership housing development trends, forecasts based on population growth, affordability
needs, and employment trends with relation to population changes and housing needs. Next the
analysis will detail the City’s existing housing inventory, its current gaps and surpluses with
future housing need projections based on the data from the Housing Needs Model and reconcile
those projections with existing and proposed land inventory. Lastly the needs analysis will
propose possible policy options for insuring that the City meets the housing and land use needs
of the population well into the future.
- 13 -
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) worked together to identify data and methodology gaps in
implementing the State’s housing goal. The result is the Oregon Housing Model, which
specifically links income and age to housing need and affordability. The analysis uses this
housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland’s housing needs to 2040. The analysis
will examine Ashland’s housing stock in conjunction with the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory
(BLI) and will then evaluate Ashland’s housing need by type and price.
This analysis has been compiled using the following data sources:
U.S. Census Data
Analysis of current market conditions
Community and property owner/manager questionnaire
The Housing Needs Model
Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County
Population Data from Portland State University’s Population Research Center
Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department
Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County
All other citations and resources are referenced in the footnotes and attached
bibliography.
Historic Population Trends
Incorporated in 1874, Ashland had a population of just 300. Located on a stage line with
established woolen and lumber mills, the economy of the city at that time was predominantly
agricultural. By 1900 the City had a grown to 3,000 residents. Ashland became the division
point for the Southern Pacific’s San Francisco-Portland rail line. The city experienced a
population boom with the coming of the rail road. In 1899 a normal school was established.
Over time the institution became known as Southern Oregon State College and eventually
Southern Oregon University. The University has helped attract diverse populations to the
community contributing to both the economic and cultural development of the community.
Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew steadily to 7,739. Then with the emergence of the
timber industry in the Rogue Valley, the city once again experienced a population boom almost
doubling in size to 12,342, by 1970. The decade between 1970 and 1980 saw heavy migration to
Oregon from other states, in that time the City’s population increased by approximately 2,600
people. By the late 1970’s the main economic support for the Ashland community came from the
- 14 -
growth of the tourism industry spurred by the popularity of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
The travel/tourism industry helped to establish a base for the hospitality industry, retail shops,
and restaurants, as well as other cultural and artistic venues. By 1980, population growth tapered
off as the City experienced the impacts of a statewide recession and the decline in the timber
industry. The city long known for its cultural attractions and quality of life became an ideal spot
for retirees. At the same time, mills were closing taking with them the living wage jobs that they
provided to many area families. Despite the presence of Southern Oregon State College, the
number of people aged 15-29 began to decrease. By the mid 1990’s an alarming trend of
elementary school closures swept the city as families moved away in search of living wage jobs
and affordable housing in neighboring cities.
3
This is especially
Jackson County has a retirement population that exceeds the state average.
true of Ashland which has been an attractive area for retirees. A demographers report completed
for the Ashland School District by Portland State University’s Population Research Center noted
that; “the largest population growth has been and will continue to be in age groups represented
by the large baby boom cohort.” In 2000 there was an influx of people in the 40-50 age range,
4
and it is estimated that by 2020 the age will range from 60-70. This trend, illustrated in Table
1.1 below, is seen in retirement communities throughout the nation as the Baby Boomers,
America’s largest generation ages. This has had a disproportionately greater impact on areas like
Ashland and the rest of Southern Oregon, as they are popular areas for retirement. It is expected
that the retirement population will continue to grow, at the same rate or faster than it has in the
past two decades. The impact of a significant retiree population has had a marked affect on
several aspects of the Ashland community. The needs of a largely older, retired population have
significantly affected the types of employment found in Ashland and surrounding areas. There
has been a significant increase in the number of health care, medical, and support service jobs
due to this trend. Similarly, the rise in retail and service sector jobs is associated with this trend.
Unfortunately these new employment opportunities on average offer relatively low wages.
While the increase of the retirement population has created a demand for low wage jobs, it has
also driven up the cost of living, specifically with regard to real estate. Lastly, as mentioned
above, the increase in retirement age residents and the high cost of living has created a situation
whereby families are finding housing and/or employment elsewhere, which is having an impact
on local schools.
3
Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006, pg. 23.
4
Population Research Center, Portland State University, Ashland School District Population and Enrollment
Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19, (Demographer Report), December 2008, Pg. 7.
- 15 -
Table 2.1
5
Ashland Population by Age Group
% of % of % of % of
1990 2000 2008 2010
total total total total
Under age 5 793 4.8% 802 4.1% 1,315 6.3% 1068 5.3%
Age 5-9 923 4.7% 1,065 5.1% 1002 5%
Age 10-14 1,144 5.9% 951 4.6% 1206 6.0%
5,391 33.2%
Age 15-19 1,906 9.8% 1,613 7.8% 1655 8.2%
Age 20-24 2,314 11.9% 2,251 10.8% 1885 9.4%
Age 25-34 2,174 11.1% 2,873 13.8% 2248 11.2%
5,126 31.5%
Age 35-44 2,378 12.2% 2,096 10.1% 1918 9.5%
Age 45-54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 2,072 10.0% 2694 13.4%
Age 55-59 551 3.3% 1,042 5.3% 1,822 8.8% 1806 9.0%
Age 60-64 595 3.6% 694 3.6% 1,318 6.3% 1406 7.0%
Age 65-74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% 1,671 8.0% 1562 7.8%
Age 75-84 771 4.7% 1,143 5.9% 1,279 6.2% 1259 6.3%
85 and over 184 1.1% 481 2.5% 456 2.2% 394 2.0%
Total
16,234 19,522 20,782 20,103
100% 100% 100% 100%
Population
Total
Population3,380 20.8% 4632 23.8% 6546 31.6% 6,427 32%
55 and older
Economic Conditions
As noted in the narrative above, the City’s economic development grew out of its location along
major transportation routes, agricultural pursuits, and natural and cultural resources. As
industries based on natural and agriculture resources waned, those farm and factory/mill jobs
were replaced by predominantly service sector employment and health care driven by a shift in
the population toward an older demographic (see table 1.2 above). Often these service sector
jobs offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and less steady employment. These factors contributed
greatly to a decrease in living wage jobs within the city, prompting many young families to seek
employment elsewhere and lowering the median income of the area significantly. The 2006-
2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates the median household income for the City
of Ashland at $40,140. This is lower than the median household income of Jackson County as a
whole which is estimated to be $44,142, and significantly lower than the median income of the
average American household, at $51,914. Similarly, the percentage of families and individual
living below the poverty level is substantially greater in Ashland than in Jackson County, in the
State of Oregon or in the rest of the Nation. See table 1.2 below for details.
5
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 1990, 2000
statistical abstract of the United States.
- 16 -
Table 2.2
Percent in Poverty
Household type Ashland Jackson State of United States
County Oregon
Percentage of families in 11.5%9.9%9.6% 10.1%
poverty
Percentage of Individuals 18.8%14.0%14.0% 13.8%
in poverty
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
6
According to 2000 Census Data the highest proportion of low- and moderate-income
households are found in the central areas of the city north of Siskiyou Blvd, primarily in census
tracks 19.1, 19.2 and 18.4. This area has a larger proportion of the city’s multi-family properties
and is located near the University. Census data does not account for the student or seasonal
population so no conclusions can be drawn about how the student population affects these census
tracts. Census data does show however that these census tracts have the highest percentage of
minority populations and can be considered a concentration of minority population in the city
with 18, 15, and 15 percent minority populations in each census tract respectively.
Income in Oregon has been below the national average for the last quarter of a century. There
are four basic reasons that income has been lower in Oregon and Jackson County than in the U.S.
Wages for similar jobs are lower;
The occupational mix of employment is weighted toward lower paying occupations;
A higher proportion of the population in Jackson County consists of seniors who receive
only social security;
Due to a higher proportion of seniors in the population, there is a lower proportion of
7
working age residents.
6
2010 Census information at that level is not yet available.
7
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Economic Opportunities Analysis 2007.
- 17 -
Table 2.3
Household Income 2000-2010
Number of
Percentage of Number of Percentage of
households
households households households
(2000) (2000) (2010) (2010 )
All Households 8,552 100% 9,339 100%
Less than 10,000 1,173 13.7% 906 9.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 918 10.7% 677 7.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,300 15.2% 1,203 12.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,090 12.7% 1,286 13.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,141 13.3% 1,490 16.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,309 15.3% 1,553 16.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 789 9.2% 779 8.3%
$100,000 to $149,999 545 6.4% 819 8.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 166 1.9% 294 3.1%
$200,000 or More 121 1.4% 332 3.6%
Median Income $32,670 $40,140
Sources: U.S Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census data
Employment
Census counts estimate that 16,564 residents are 16 years old and older; of that number 10,322
are in the labor force. The unemployment rate in Ashland at the time of the American
Community Survey 2006-2010 5-year estimates was 8.1%. However, current Oregon
Employment Department data shows the unemployment rates for Jackson County in March of
2012 were 10.6% down from 11.3% in March of 2011. The unemployment rate for the State of
Oregon is slightly higher than that of the rest of the country; though significantly lower than that
of Jackson County at 8.6%.
Between 2000 and 2007 Jackson County added 10,246 jobs, twelve percent over the seven year
period. Growth slowed in early 2008 and in October 2008 the country began to post year to year
job losses. By 2010, employment had fallen below its 2004 level, mainly due to the loss of 9,550
8
jobs between 2007 and 2010. In a recent press release, the Oregon Employment Department
stated. “As the recovery from the Great Recession continues, unemployment rates continue their
slow downward drift. Unlike Oregon overall, job growth has yet to resume in the Rogue Valley.
But we were in a deep hole and it will take a number of years to gain back all of the jobs lost. As
government sectors are continuing to grapple with revenue losses, these sectors are poised for
9
continued job cuts.” Though all sectors of the economy have experienced severe job losses and
contraction, the public sector, construction and the hospitality industry, three major employers in
the region and in Ashland have been hard hit by the recent economic downturn. It would be
difficult to estimate the true impact that the economic downturn has had on the employment
8
Current Employment by Industry,” Oregon Employment Department, OLMIS. Average annual non-farm
employment in Jacskon County was 83,910 in 2007, 75,640 in 2008, and 74,360 in 2010.
9
Recent Trends: Region 8, Guy Tauer, Published April 1, 2012, Oregon Employment Department, Worksource
qualityinfo.org
- 18 -
trends in the City of Ashland at this time. However, it is easy to surmise that there is a delicate
balance to an economy based on health care, education, tourism, and recreation. Industries that
rely on discretionary income often are the first to suffer in an economic downturn. Within the
City of Ashland the hospitality industry, food service, retail trade, and entertainment top the list
of industries in which a majority of area residents are employed. See table 1.4 below.
Table 2.4
Employment and Industry
Industry Ashland Medford Jackson State of
County Oregon
Education Services, Health Care, Social 27.9% 20.1% 21.1% 20.9%
Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 16.6% 11.7% 10.5% 9.2%
Accommodation, and food service
Retail Trade 11.9% 18.2% 16.3% 12.3%
Professional, Scientific, Management, 13.1% 8.9% 9.1% 10.0%
Administrative, waste management
Manufacturing 4.9% 8.8% 8.8% 11.8%
Construction 4.8% 6.1% 7.3% 7.0%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental 3.3% 6.9% 5.5% 6.4%
and Leasing.
Source: Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Table 2.4 shows that the predominant industries in Medford and Ashland are largely similar, but
that the macro-economies of Jackson County and the State of Oregon as a whole show a more
equitable distribution of employment throughout several diversified industries, though all
employment within the state relies heavily on Education, Health Care, and Social Assistance.
All of the predominant industries in the state show a particular vulnerability toward the housing
and stock market’s collapse and the ensuing economic downturn. This no doubt accounts for the
State of Oregon having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
Many Ashland Residents are employed outside of the City, and conversely many employees of
Ashland businesses live outside of the Ashland Community. The 2006-2010 American
Community Survey estimates that 68.6% of workers 16 years old and older commute an average
of 16 minutes to get to their place of employment. The majority of those commuting to work
drove alone, 6.2 percent carpooled, 1.3 percent took public transportation, and 18 percent used
other means. The remaining 13.3 percent worked at home. This number has grown since 2000,
when 65.2% of workers reported commuting to work. Workers who routinely commute to work
put added strain on both the environment through the production of pollution and the demand for
fossil fuels, and public infrastructure such as roadways and parking. The City of Ashland
continues to experience issues with traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and parking. The lack
of housing which is affordable, accessible, and located near employment options continues to
strain the city’s resources and hamper its economic development.In the 2006 Workforce
Housing Summit Workbook, Guy Tauer, Regional Economist with the Oregon Employment
- 19 -
Department stated “Many communities and businesses have realized that their future economic
prosperity is dependent on being able to provide adequate and affordable housing for their
10
workforce, and have taken a proactive approach to dealing with this impending crisis.”
In 2011 the Ashland City Council Adopted an Economic Development strategy which was the
result of an extensive public process guided by two sub-committees appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the Council. The subcommittees consisted of representatives from the business
community, economic professionals, regional and state economic development agencies and
community stakeholders.
The Economic Development strategy identifies several strengths and weaknesses in the current
economic environment. Namely, the City’s primary economic industry which once consisted of
mill/factory work has been replaced by tourism. The nature of tourism in the region is seasonal
and the wages are traditionally low.
Two factors stand out as having an adverse impact upon the potential for economic development
in Ashland; housing affordability, particularly the lack of workforce housing and the limited land
11
The City adopted a Buildable Lands Inventory update in
supply for industrial development.
2011 which has since determined that the current supply of developable commercial lands is
12
greater than the land need projected by the EOA (Appendix Table A4).
Community Visions and Values
In April 2009, the Ashland City Council began work on goals to guide the City’s work for the
next 18 to 24 months. To guide their goal setting, the City Council first defined their values. They
described, in positive terms, the things they use to make decisions about what is good for the
community and good for the City of Ashland as an organization. As members of the Ashland City
Council, we value:
Participatory government.
We value government that is open, accessible, honest and
democratic. We value responsive and visionary leadership by elected officials. We have
professional, high quality staff. We seek to be efficient and effective with public funds.
Our citizens are engaged with their local government as volunteers and in critical
community decisions.
Natural Environment.
Our town is part of nature’s community. We seek to enhance the
quality of water, land, air, and wildlife. We actively support energy conservation and
alternative energy generation. Our parks and open spaces provide habitat for plants and
animals and access to nature for our residents.
Responsible Land Use
. We value sustainable use of land, water, energy, and public
services; our architectural heritage; and buildings with quality design and construction.
10
Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006.
11
Economic Opportunity Analysis for the City of Ashland, Eco-northwest, 2007.
12
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Buildable Lands Inventory 2001, pg 11.
- 20 -
We value a vibrant downtown, Lithia Park and strong neighborhoods. We support transit,
bicycling, and walking throughout our land use plans.
Free Expression
. We invite the exchange of diverse ideas. We value the social,
economic, and creative contributions of the arts, cultural activities, and community
events.
Diversity
. We are a welcoming community that invites and respects the individuality and
contributions of all people.
Economy
. We value an economy that creates wealth for all. We strive to nurture
homegrown business and to connect local consumers to local products. Our economy
supports arts and culture, connects to Southern Oregon University, and supports high
quality public services. We value a business community in tune with the environment and
that provides good wages and economic choices for individuals and families.
Distinctiveness
. Ashland is a unique part of the Rogue Valley. We depend on
partnerships in our community and region to meet many of the needs of our residents. At
the same time, we value our ability to develop innovative approaches and to chart our
own course.
Education
. We value lifelong education. We value the social, economic, cultural, and
civic contributions of strong, integrated educational institutions.
Basic Needs
. We believe each person needs public safety, water, sanitation, adequate
food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care.
Community
. We believe Ashland is a unique and special place. Residents participate in
community life and feel a sense of belonging. Community gardens, neighborhoods,
schools, volunteerism, and events bring our residents together. Residents look out for
each other and support those in need.
What objectives do housing policies try to achieve?
The development of new housing units is primarily driven by the private market and are built and
owned privately. While land use powers of local governments can impact the development of
certain housing types, the primary role of local governments has been on regulation to promote
public health and safety and to provide for the installation of infrastructure. Housing policies
work to address housing in four categories:
Community Life. From a community perspective, housing policy is intended to provide
and maintain safe, sanitary and satisfactory housing with efficiently and economically
organized community facilities to service it. In other words, housing should be
coordinated with other community and public services. Although local policies do not
always articulate this, they are implicit in most local government operations.
- 21 -
Comprehensive plans, zoning, subdivision ordinances, building codes, and capital
improvement programs are techniques most cities use to manage housing an its
development. Local public facilities such as schools, fire and police stations, parks, and
roads are usually designed and coordinated to meet demands created by housing
development.
Social and equity concerns. The key objective of social goals is to reduce or eliminate
housing inadequacies affecting the poor, those unable to find suitable housing, and those
discriminated against. In other words, communities have an obligation to provide safe,
satisfactory housing opportunities to all households, at costs they can afford, without
regard to income, race, religion, national origin, family structure, or disability.
Design and environmental quality. The location and design of housing affect the natural
environment, residents’ quality of life, and the nature of community life. The objectives
of policies that address design and environmental quality include neighborhood and
housing designs that meet: household needs, maintain quality of life, provide efficient use
of land and resources, reduce environmental impacts, and allow for the establishment of
social and civic life and institutions. Most communities address these issues though local
building codes, comprehensive land use plans, and development codes.
Stability of production. Housing is a factor in every community’s economy. The cyclical
nature of housing markets, however, crates uncertainties for investment, labor, and
builders. The International City Manager’s Association suggests that local government
policies should address this issue-most do not. Moreover, external factors (e.g. interest
rates, cost building materials, etc.) that bear upon local housing markets tend to
undermine the effectiveness of such policies.
- 22 -
Analysis of historical development trends provides insights into how the local housing market is
working. The housing type, mix, and density of past trends are key variables in forecasting
future land need. To undertake such an analysis the following parameters are established:
Determine the time period for which the data must be gathered.
Identify types of housing to address (all needed housing types).
Evaluate permit/subdivision data to calculate the actual mix, average actual gross density,
and average actual net density of all housing types.
In completing this analysis the City reviewed the housing mix and density of development that
occurred from 2000 through 2011 (as the 2002 HNA reviewed that data through 2001). This
long term analysis provides greater insight into the functioning of the local housing market than
would a typical five year period given fluctuation especially in consideration of the national
housing market collapse following the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2008.
Table 3.1 shows the actual type distribution of new housing units developed between 2000 and
2011.
Table 3.1
Housing mix by Permit Issued 2000-2011
Housing Type BuildingsUnitsPercent of Units
Single-Family
1159 1159 80.3%
Two-Family
19 38 2.6%
Three and Four-Family
14 45 3.1%
Five or More
30 202 13.9%
Total 1222 1444 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau data 2000 and 2010
According to Census Data, Ashland added 1,444 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2011.
This is a 16% increase in the total number of dwellings over 10 years. This rate of unit growth is
down from 26% in the previous ten year period. As seen in the table above (Table 3.1), the trend
identified in both the 2002 HNA and the 2007 RNA, of single family development over multi-
family development has continued.
Residential Construction Trends
Housing development trends identified in the 2002 HNA have persisted. Namely single family
housing development has continued to outstrip the development of multi-family housing by a
significant margin. The need for multi-family housing continues to grow, while the development
of multi-family housing continues to lag. Rental units in price ranges affordable to those with
- 23 -
the lowest incomes are in the most demand. Lastly, ownership housing affordable to those
making median income to 120% of Area Median Income in Ashland despite recent gains is still
out of reach.
Single Family
In 2000 the estimate of one-unit detached, and one-unit attached dwelling units represented
65.3% of the housing stock. The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that one-unit attached and detached
units make up 71.9% of the City’s housing stock. This is an increase of 6.6% over the past
decade. There has been and continues to be a clear trend of the development of single-family
housing types over all other housing types.
Multi-family
The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that Ashland’s housing stock is made up primarily of single
family units, with only 29.4% multi-family units. This disparity in the development of single
family versus multi-family development is shown in table 3.1 above.
Condominium Ownership
The City allows conversion of existing apartments to ownership units only in cases where 25%
of the units converted are affordable and where the current residents have first right of refusal.
The Affordable Housing Program parameters under resolution 2006-13 establish that rental
apartments converted into condominiums are to be affordable at the 80% income level for a
period of not less than 30 years. Since 2003, ninety-two units have converted from rental units
to condo-minimized ownership units. Twenty-eight of those units which have converted have
been deed restricted as affordable. In that same period sixty-three new Condominium units have
been developed. Since 2008 no new condominium units have been built or converted.
Retirement and assisted living
The City of Ashland has three large retirement/assisted living facilities and one nursing home.
Altogether these facilities comprise 293 dwelling units and maintain an average occupancy rate
of approximately 82%. These facilities were developed primarily in the 1980’s and early
1990’s. No new facilities have been developed in the last decade.
Group care homes
The City currently has a total of five group homes for youth and special needs populations able
to accommodate up to 28 individuals. The University has four group housing complexes on
campus offering a total of 1070 beds. The university is currently in the process of building a
new residence hall which is estimated to house over 800 people within two separate buildings.
However, these new beds will not increase capacity but will replace existing beds currently
available in other complexes whose space will be converted to other uses.
- 24 -
Table 3.2
2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Housing Units by Type
Units In Structure
20002000 % 2010 2010 % % Change
Estimate Estimate
9,071 100% 10,230 100% 12.8%
Total Housing Units
5,375 59.3% 6,503 63.6% 21%
1-Unit, detached
544 6.0% 853 8.3% 56.8%
1-Unit, attached
458 5.0% 526 5.1% 14.8%
2 Units
3-4 Units 641 7.1% 530 5.2% -17.3%
5-9 Units 609 6.7% 513 5.0% -15.8%
10-19 Units 380 4.2% 405 7.3% 6.6%
20 or More Units 821 9.1% 746 7.3% -9.1%
Mobile Home 225 2.5% 154 1.5% -31.6%
Table 3.3
Homeownership/Rental Rate Comparison
% Renters 2000 % Owners 2000 % Renters 2010 % Owners 2010
Ashland
47.7% 52.3% 49% 51%
Jackson County
33.5% 66.5% 36.7% 63.3%
State of Oregon
35.7% 64.3% 36.2% 63.8%
U.S. Census Bureau
Income and affordability of Housing
Housing costs are influenced by several factors, including: lot size, land cost, availability of
materials, labor, interest rates, and supply and demand. Housing Choice is often driven by a
household’s income. Similarly, income is a key indicator of a households’ ability to find and
retain safe, decent housing. Income is also the main determinant in most householders’ housing
choice. A household which is cost burdened by a rent or mortgage payment (an amount which
requires a 30% or more of a household’s income) is less stable and more susceptible to losing
that housing should some disruption to employment, health crisis or other unexpected
circumstance arise. These vulnerable households can then fall into homelessness, or require state
or federal assistance to become stable again. Ability of a household to afford monthly rent or
mortgage costs will, for the most part, also be the determining factor in where a householder
chooses to live. Often the household will forego other housing priorities, such as square footage,
bedroom size, household amenities, commute time to work, and other quality of life choices due
to housing affordability.
Renter households are two times more likely to be cost burdened than owner households.
Approximately 2,737 or 63% of renter households experience cost burden, while only 1,352 or
48% of homeowners experience cost burden from housing costs. This can be attributed in part to
a higher percentage of low-income rental households than owner households. In 2000, 37% of
Ownership households paid less than 15% of their incomes toward mortgage costs, while a full
- 25 -
13
45% of renters paid more than 35% of their incomes toward housing costs. In the ensuing
decade the rapid rise in housing values has substantially increased the costs of homeownership,
but even with that increase homeowners as a group still tend to experience less cost burden than
renters.
As seen in Section II- Framework for Housing Needs-Community Context, the City of Ashland
has a higher percentage of families and individuals living below the poverty level than Jackson
County or the State of Oregon as a whole. The City also has a higher proportion of lower paying
service sector jobs and a higher percentage of seniors in the population than in other parts of the
County or State. These factors contribute to the large percentage of households experiencing
cost burden.
According to the State Housing and Community Services Department, housing cost in 1990 was
increasing at a rate of 9% while household income increased at an annual rate of 2%. Between
2000 and 2010 median mortgage costs for homeowners in Ashland went up by 53%. Rental
costs for Ashland residents increased 47% in that same period. While median Household income
14
increased by only 22.9%. This long term trend of housing costs outstripping incomes has
exacerbated the demand for affordable housing throughout the state. The increasing need for
affordable housing units has taxed the traditional methods of funding affordable housing and
cannot be sustained into the future should the trend continue.
Rental Units
2008-2010 ACS estimates that 48.2% of all occupied housing units or 4,498 are renter occupied
units. Fair Market rents for Jackson County as established by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development mandate the maximum amount that projects developed using Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) or Tax-Exempt bonds are allowed to charge. These amounts
correspond to the HUD income guidelines for that area. In 2012 the Fair Market rent for a two
bedroom unit was $807 a month. In order for an individual to afford a rental unit at that rate, and
not experience cost burden, they would need to earn $15.13 an hour.Currently the 2008-2010
ACS estimates that the median income for a worker in Ashland is $19,042 per year or $9.92 an
hour. Currently a HUD regulated two bedroom unit in Ashland is mandated to rent for $590 a
month.
In 2012 the City of Ashland posted a questionnaire on the City’s website that looked as specific
housing related questions some of which corresponded to questions posed in the 2007 Rental
Needs Analysis’ random call survey conducted by Riley Research. The City also sent out a
business reply mailer to a selected list of rental property owners and property management
companies compiled from two sources; the City’s business license registry( which included all
businesses who rent six or more units), and the list of rental properties developed by SOU
13
2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2000 Census.
14
Ibid.
- 26 -
planning students in 2007. The information gathered from the community questionnaire and the
direct mailing are cited throughout this document.
One question posed asked respondents to rate rental housing options in three areas on a scale of
one to ten. Of the 110 respondents that answered the question, the majority believed that the
availability of rental options, the quality of rentals, and rental pricing were all less than
satisfactory. While the majority of the respondents felt that rent availability and quality were
somewhat satisfactory, the overwhelming majority of respondents felt that rental pricing was
unsatisfactory.
Chart 3.1
Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income):
As shown in Chart 3.2
below, the findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census
Data, the City of Ashland has a shortage of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. According to the Housing Needs
Analysis, only 3.05% of the City’s rental housing stock meets the needs of this population at
approximately 152 units. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable
to those with the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately
803 units to meet the needs of these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to
these populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35 and to a lesser
extent over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The
- 27 -
729 households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be
due in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of
non-traditional students. Currently there are approximately 100 households who receive a rental
subsidy voucher from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to offset housing
costs. There are 142 project based subsidized rental units located within the City of Ashland. Of
these units 73 are set to expire within the next 5 years and the waiting list for portable vouchers
through the Housing Authority of Jackson County is approximately three to four years out.
Households making 30% of the AMI or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland
households.
Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income):
The current supply of housing
units affordable to low-income populations represents approximately 5.68% of the City’s rental
housing stock or 283 units. The current estimated need for housing affordable to this income
group is 1,052 units; leaving a gap of approximately 769 units. The proportion of households
represented by this income group is fairly evenly dispersed though all age groups and represents
11.3% of all households.
Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% of Area Median Income):
The current supply of
housing units affordable to moderate income populations represents approximately 49.3% of the
City’s rental housing stock or 2,453 units. This is by far the majority of the City’s rental housing
stock, however at the low end of the income scale (50%) nearly half of the units that fall in this
rental category would not be affordable. The need for rental units at this price point is in far less
demand as the current need is estimated to be 1,420 units, leaving a surplus of 1,034 rental units
affordable to people making between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI.
Median Income and above (100% and above):
The current supply of housing units affordable
to the population making above 80% AMI represents approximately 42% of all rental housing
units. At 2,088 units, rental housing units in this price range (approximately $898-over $1,133 a
month) are in the least demand, with current need estimated to be approximately 840 households
able to afford units in this price range, creating a surplus of 1,248 units. The surplus in units may
be due to the fact that households that are able to afford a higher rent may be opting for a unit
below that which that household may be able to afford, thereby exacerbating the deficit of rentals
at the lower end of the income scale.
- 28 -
CChart 3.2
Current Houssing Balannce-RentalUnits by ccost range
20000
15000
10000
5000
00
0$194$195$$422$4233$655$656$897$$898$1132$1133+
5000
10000
ousing StockCrrent NeeCurrent Surplus
HHuudd
Ownershhip Units
Extremelly-Low Incoome (Less thhan 30% ofAArea Mediann Income):
An individuual making 330%
of AMI oor $12,300 aa year accordding to the 20012 HUD inncome guidellines would be able to affford
to purchaase a housingg unit for a mmaximum off $51,115. TThere is veryy little availaability of houusing
at this inccome level, Rogue Valleey Habitat foor Humanityy provides hoousing targetting extremeely
low-income househoolds,but withh the extremmely low purcchase price tthe private mmarket is unaable
to providde ownershipp units at thiss level. Somme Mobile annd Manufacttured home uunits in a parrk
might be within this pprice range.
Low-Incoome (Betweeen 30% andd 50% of Areea Median IIncome):
Thhe Housing NNeeds Analyysis
estimatess that there aare 150 existting units avaailable for $72.3 thousannd and beloww, and an
estimatedd need of 401 units at thiis level. Thiis leaves a gap of 251 owwnership uniits affordable to
househollds earning 330%-50% off the AMI.
Moderatte Income (BBetween 50%% and 80% oof Area Meddian Incomee):
The numbber of ownerrship
units avaailable that arre affordablee to people mmaking 50%% to 80% of AAMI is estimmated to be
approximmately 260.The estimateed need for oownershipuunits costing between $722K-$185.3KK is
2,070. Thhe units at thhe high end oof the price sscale would be unaffordable to thosee earning bellow
50% of AAMI.
- 29 -
MedianIIncome:
Thhere is a limiited supply oof ownershipp units afforddable to thosse earning
median inncome. Acccording to thhe National AAssociation oof Home Buuilders Afforrdable Housiing
15
Price Callculator, a householdmmaking the mmedian incomme for the MMedford/Ashlland area could
afford to purchase a hhouse for $1163,126. The calculator assumes a 220% down paayment, currrent
interest rrates on a 30 year fixed loan assuminng a 90% loaan to value ratio. The Housing Needds
Model esstimates thatt there are appproximatelyy 410 units aavailable bet3300 and beloow.
ween $185,
While maany househoolds earning median incoome could quualify for a lloan to purchhase a housee at
the lowerr end of the scale, those same househholds wouldd be cost burddened it theyy had to pay a
mortgagee on a housinng unit of ovver $163,0000.
Over 78%% of the Cityy’s ownershiip housing sttock consists of units whhich cost $2779,300 and
above,wwhile the demmand for houusing units inn that price rrange is onlyy about 1,7500 householdss.
From Chhart 3.3 beloww it is clear tthat the private market hhas providedd a surplus off high cost
housing,over 2,255 uunits, while the remaininng 22% of thhe housing sttock availabble for sale
costing leess than $2779,300 is in ssuch demandd that there is a housing gap of 3,1477 units. The
highestddemand is for those unitss affordable tto householdds making thhe 100% AMMI to 120% AAMI
at approxximately 1,332 househollds.
CChart 3.3
CurrrentHoousingBaalanceOOwnershhipUnitss
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
72.3K723K<110.1K110.1K<147.6K147.6K<1855.3K185.3K<279.3K279.3++
1000
HousingSStockCuurrentNeedCurrenntSurplus
15
Nationall Association oof Homebuilderrs affordabilityy calculator:
http://wwww.nahb.org/genneric.aspx?geneericContentID==78355
- 30 -
While it is clear that it is not profitable for the private market to build housing targeting those
households at the 50% of AMI and below, housing units targeting 50% to 100% AMI while
slightly more feasible still requires some incentive and subsidy to make the development
feasible. Further, these units will have to compete with units of a similar price in the nearby
markets of Talent, Phoenix, and Medford, which while requiring a longer commute time, can
often offer more house for the same or even a lower price. At the same time the only entities
that can provide ownership housing targeting moderate and low-income households are
affordable housing providers, which utilize federal, state and local tax credit and subsidy
programs in order to develop such units. These entities are few in a small region like Southern
Oregon and must compete with the rest of the state for funding. Capacity building for these
affordable housing entities can be difficult as affordable housing financing can be a complex and
highly competitive process, and more so in a time of shrinking federal and state funding for such
programs.
Buildable land supply
Land supply affects land price and by extension, housing price.Statewide Planning Goal 10, and
ORS 197.296, requires communities to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable residential land
within their Urban Growth Boundaries. The City of Ashland’s supply of buildable lands was
recently quantified in the 2011 Buildable Lands inventory adopted in November 2011.
The land availability component of a Buildable Lands Inventory needs to be compared to the
expected demand for various housing types to ensure minimum 20 year availability. This
Housing Needs Analysis provides a detailed assessment of precisely what mix of housing types
will be needed through 2040 (see Table 7.1). Using this projected housing type need, and
correlating it to the land availability in each Comprehensive Plan designation we can ascertain
whether sufficient land will be available over the next 20 years or longer.
Table 3.4
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
SFRMultifamilyTotals
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010
BLI)
146913842853
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis
1557 1759 3316
through 2040
Deficit by 2040 -88 -375 -463
Annual units needed through 2040 55.6 62.8 118.4
Total Year Supply 26.4 22.0 24.1
- 31 -
The City estimates vacant buildable lands in all designations that allow residential uses have a
total capacity of 2853 dwelling units within the urban growth boundary. This estimate includes a
50% reduction for residential on Commercial and Employment Lands as such units are not
required and it is unlikely that all future commercial development will incorporate a residential
component. As demonstrated in Table 3.4 this capacity would accommodate approximately 22
years of multi-family housing growth, and 26.4 years of single family development.
Distribution of these potential housing units on available buildable lands based on
comprehensive plan designation is more fully detailed below.
Table 3.5
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units by Type
Existing Dwelling
Net Buildable
distributed into existing capacity
Comprehensive Plan Unit Capacity
Acres
(2011 BLI)
SFRMulti-family
Per Airport
Airport 0 0 0
Master Plan
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384
Expected Dwelling Units
Note: on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be
permitted as such units are not required.
- 32 -
Single Family and Manufactured housing, detached
2010 ACS estimates that there are 10,203 total housing units within the City of Ashland. Of that
total 6,710 are 1 unit detached, and 46 are Mobile home units on individual lots. Between 1990
and 2010 there has been a marked increase in the supply of attached and detached single family
units. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of single family detached units increased by 52%,
between 2000 and 2010 that increase was 21%. While the number of mobile home units in the
City decreased by 1.5%. (See Table 3.2 on page 24).
Manufactured housing units in parks
As mentioned above the number of mobile home units located in the City has decreased in
recent years after remained fairly consistent. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of mobile
home units in the City increased by 18%, then between 2000 and 2010 the number of mobile
home units decreased by 9% for an overall 20 year decrease of 1.9%. There are currently two
mobile home parks within the City. A park formerly located across the street from “Upper
Pines”, known as “Lower Pines” was sold and the purchasers redeveloped the land in to a mixed
use commercial development, the loss of this park may account for the decrease in units between
2000 and 2010.
Multiple or single-family units, attached
;
2010 ACS estimates that there are 810 1- unit attached, 424 duplexes (2-units), and 2,194 units
of three or more, down from 2,451 just ten years earlier. All together multi-family and single
family attached housing types make up 38.2% of the total housing stock. Another trend which
is highlighted in the Table 3.2 on page 24 has been the decrease of medium and large scale
multi-family developments. The number of multi-family units consisting of more than 4 housing
units has decreased significantly between 1990 and 2005. Complexes consisting of between 5
and 19 saw a decrease of 2% between 1990 and 2000, similarly complexes consisting of more
than 20 units saw a 9.1% decrease between 2000 and 2010. This is due in part to the conversion
of multi-family rental properties to saleable condominium units, caused by the high land values
of the past decade within the City of Ashland. In 2006, the City passed a condominium
conversion ordinance in an effort to mitigate the loss of existing affordable and market rate rental
properties which were not being replaced by the market.
In 2007, a comprehensive inventory of multi-family housing units was completed by Southern
Oregon University. This inventory also took into account additional uses of properties located in
these multi-family zoned areas. This inventory allowed the City to see patterns of development
within these areas. One pattern that stood out from the data collected was that single family units
on single parcels were the most common housing type found in these multi-family zones. Single
- 33 -
family homes comprised one third of all housing units in these zones. This highlights another
predominant problem with the development of multi-family properties, the majority of the
property zoned for multi-family, higher density development does not build out as such
contributing to a lack of more affordable housing types.
Government assisted housing (below market-rate housing)
Most people think of government assisted housing as Public housing or subsidized housing
through the Housing Choice Voucher (formerly known as the Section-8 program) program
However, there are several different avenues in which the government assists developers to
provide affordable housing. Many large scale developments utilize a combination of funding
sources in order to complete a project. Detailed below are a few of the most prevalent types of
government assisted housing programs:
Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC):The Federal Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit Program assists both for-profit and non-profit housing developers in financing affordable
housing projects for low-income families and individuals. Some local developers of affordable
housing are eligible to apply to Oregon Housing and Community Services which allocates funds
based on a statewide Consolidated Plan. The City of Ashland has two projects totaling 66 units
developed using LIHTCs and expects to see another six unit tax credit project developed in the
near future.
Public Housing Assistance-Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing
Authority of Jackson County is the local provider of HUD funded housing programs such as the
Housing Choice Voucher program and the Public Housing program. Currently the Housing
Authority receives approximately 1390 Housing Choice Vouchers for all of Jackson County.
Just over 100 of those vouchers are provided to City of Ashland residents. There are no public
housing units in Jackson County.
Home Program: The City of Ashland is not currently a participating jurisdiction for HUD’s
HOME funds. Some local developers of affordable housing are eligible to apply to Oregon
Housing and Community Services which allocates funds based on a statewide Consolidated Plan.
USDA Rural Development Mutual Self Help Home Loans/SHOP: The Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Development offers several loan options to assist low to moderate income
households attain homeownership. In recent years the City of Ashland has awarded Rogue
Valley Community Development Corporation CDBG funds to help leverage funds and initiate
two Self help homeownership projects comprising 30 units that utilized funds from Rural
Development programs. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has utilized Self
Help Ownership Program (SHOP) grant funds awarded to Community Frameworks from HUD
on these projects. Similarly USDA Rural Development also offers low-interest loans and grants
to assist low to moderate income homeowner’s complete health and safety repairs on their
homes. The City also contains three large scale multi-family projects financed with Rural
- 34 -
Development loan funds. All together these units account for 153 units of below market rate and
subsidized housing within the City.
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG): The City of Ashland is a Participating
Jurisdiction for the Community Development Block grant program and as such receives an
annual allocation of funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
undertake a variety of activities including the provision of affordable housing. The City has
often prioritized the use of CDBG funding in support of affordable housing projects.
Table 4.1
Government Assisted Rental Units
Property Name Property Assistance Number of Number of IncomeContract
Type Type Units Assisted LimitExpiration Date
Units
Ashley Garden Family RD 40 20 60% RD
Ashley Senior Senior RD 62 41 60% RD
Stratford Family Section 8 51 17 100% RD
16
Chief Tyee Family Section 8 32 29 30% 7/31/09
Donald E. Lewis Senior Section 8 40 40 30% 5/11/10
Star Thistle Disabled Section 8 12 12 50% 9/30/09
Sun Village Family Section 8 12 12 30% 1/20/13
17
Takilma Village Family Section 8 14 14 60% 8/31/09
18
Johnston Manor Senior Section 8 34 34 60% 12/26/08
TOTAL 297 219
Seasonal Units
The City of Ashland has a thriving tourism industry. Consequently many housing units in the
City are utilized on a seasonal rather than year round basis. It is difficult to discern the actual
number of seasonal and vacation rental units there are in the City, due to the proliferation of
unregistered units, however the City does keep a database of businesses registered as travelers
accommodations located within the City. In May of 2012 a total of seventy five businesses have
registered with the city as having a traveler’s accommodation or vacation rental units; these units
come in many forms, from hostel, motels, and hotels, to individual cottage units and bed and
breakfasts. Many of these housing units represent units not meant for year round occupancy, so
although counted by census in the housing total, they are counted as vacant units. Between
2000 and 2010 the number of these units has doubled, and they now represent 3.8% of the City’s
housing stock. These units will not contribute to the overall housing inventory available to meet
the types of housing need quantified in this analysis.
16
The owners of the Chief Tyee complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer
mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding.
17
The owners of the Takilma Village complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2010.
18
The owners of the Johnston Manor complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer
mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding.
- 35 -
Owner Occupied units
Owner occupied units represent 51.6% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4,856 owner-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 10,210 individuals. The average
household size for owner-occupied dwelling units is 2.10 people per unit.
Rental Units
Renter occupied units represent 48.4% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4553 renter-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 8,907 individuals. The average
household size for renter-occupied dwelling units is 1.96 people per units, slightly less than the
household size of the average owner occupied unit.
Housing Age and Condition
The majority of housing in Ashland, 59.6%, was built prior to 1979; with 16.6% or 1,695 units
being built prior to 1939. Despite the relative age of much of the housing stock, there are very
few units which lack basic amenities. Only 1.9% of all occupied housing units lacked complete
plumbing or kitchen facilities. 47.6% of all housing units were built between 1970 and 2000,
19
with the most new building activity taking place between 1990 and 2000. Though there are
many other factors that contribute to housing considered to be substandard those factors are not
accounted for in the Census information. There is little other comprehensive data to gain an
accurate picture of substandard housing conditions within the City.
Lead Based Paint Hazards: The age of the housing unit is a leading indicator of thepresence of
–
leadhazard, along with building maintenance. Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978.
Of the 10,319 total housing units in the City of Ashland 68% (7,000) were built prior to 1980.
The 1999 national survey found that 67% of housing built before 1940 had significant LBP
hazards. This declined to 51% of houses built between 1940 and 1959, 10% of houses built
20
between 1960 and 1977 and just 1% after that. Based on those estimates, over 3,300 homes
pose potential lead-based paint hazards in Ashland.
Vacancy Rates
Between 2000 and 2010 vacancy rates for rental and ownership units have remained relatively
unchanged. At 4.2% and 1.0% respectively, rental and ownership vacancy rates in 2010 are
relatively low. Survey results, census data, and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates
show that the vacancy rates in Ashland typically range between 3% and 4%. A recent
survey/questionnaire conducted in 2012 by the City showed the current rental vacancy rate to be
1%. This rate is below that of the overall rate for Jackson County at 3% and for the state of
19
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.
20
Clickner, R. et al. (2001) National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing, Final Report, Volume 1: Analysis of
Lead Hazards. Report Office of Lead Hazard Control, US Department of Housing And Urban Development.
- 36 -
Oregon as a whole at 5.6%. The overall impact of a low vacancy rate is that there are fewer
options in the rental market when people are looking for a unit to rent.
Housing Value
Housing value is a key indicator of housing affordability. The housing market has been
extremely volatile in the past decade since the last Housing Needs Analysis was completed.
However, despite a housing boom and the ensuing bust that played out in the intervening decade,
the findings of this recent effort are much the same as they were in 2002.
In the decade since the last HNA was completed housing costs within the City of Ashland have
grown at a rate much faster than that of Jackson County, and the State of Oregon as a whole.
The 2002 HNA reported an average home price of $277,742, which was an increase of 50% from
1998 (MLS reported and average sale price of $187,258 at that time). At the height of the
housing boom in 2007 the median price for an existing home in Ashland was $438,750; by April
of 2012 the median price for an existing home was $282,500; a reduction of 36% in a five year
21
period. So while home prices rose precipitously, they fell equally so, ending with the City’s
housing price at a 14 year gain of 50.9%.
Owner Occupied unit values:
According to the 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, the Median
Home price for Ashland is $408,400 while the individual median income for workers is $19,042.
In order to afford a home in Ashland at the median price a household would have to earn
$75,000 a year, which is well above Median Household, Median Family and Median worker’s
income at $40,140, $52,940, and $19,042 respectively. In 2011 the average sales price according
to the Roy Wright appraisal service, was $285,000, while this number is substantially lower than
the median compiled by the census in 2010, it is still out of reach for households earning the
median income in Ashland. The 2012 median household income for a family of four in the
Medford/Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a home in Ashland
at the 2011 median price a household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the
population reports having an income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing
stock is targeted to this group. Conversely for a home to be affordable to a median household
with an income of $58,500 a house could cost no more than $220,000. At this price there are 31
units out of 212 currently listed as available for sale within Ashland.
Residential Home Sales:
Recent data from the Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service
(SOMLS) show that the median residential sale price of a home in Ashland has dropped
considerably since the peak of the housing boom in 2007 by 36.2%; from a high of $438,750 to a
low in 2012 of $282,500. The 2010 Census estimates the median home price at $408,400, which
may reflect the market at a higher point when census data was collected, than the more recent
SOMLS data.
21
SOMLS Home sale statistics.
- 37 -
CChart 4.1
ExistingHHome Saless-Ashland//JacksonCCounty
500,0000
450,0000
400,0000
350,0000
300,0000
250,0000
200,0000
150,0000
100,0000
50,0000
0
20002007720112012
Existing Home ales MedinCunty Existing Home ales
SSaaooSS
- 38 -
Projecting Ashland’s Housing need
Section III looked at housing and economic trends that effect housing demand in Ashland.
Section IV evaluated the existing housing stock targeted to various demographic groups within
the population. This section will assess the City’s housing stock based on the current needs and
those likely to persist or arise into the future. Section I, makes the distinction between housing
need and housing demand. Housing demand is housing that the market built or is likely to build
in the future. Housing need is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities
plan for housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. This section focuses on
two specific need components: housing needs by housing type and density as implied by
households’ ability to afford housing, and the needs of special populations.
Methodology
The following analysis uses a methodology suggested by Planning for Residential Growth: A
Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas produced by the Transportation and Growth Management
Program (TGM). The steps outlined in that document have been followed where feasible. City
staff also contracted with former State of Oregon Economist, Richard Bjelland, to update the
Housing Needs Model he created for Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and
which has been used as a basis for projecting housing needs throughout the state in numerous
Housing Needs Analysis. The Housing Needs Model utilized a methodology based on housing
tenure, price, and housing type choices to determine housing needs, rather than a market or
demand driven approach which was commonly used to define housing needs for an area. Rather
than looking at historic housing production trends then projecting them forward, the Housing
Needs Model looks at the age/income demographic of a study area and projects those
demographic trends into the future as the market driven method will show development trends,
those historic trends may not have been meeting the housing needs of the population to begin
with . Where needed data obtained from the Housing Needs Model was supplemented with data
obtained from a City conducted survey of property owners and an online questionnaire, and
census data comparisons.
Populations Projections
The components of population change are births, deaths, and migration. In compiling data on
population rates for the city of Ashland four main sources of data were used. The Certified
population counts provided by Portland State University’s Population Research Center, the 2005-
2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2010 Census, and the coordinated
population estimates through Jackson County’s Comprehensive Plan.
- 39 -
The primary indicator of future housing need is the projected population growth and the
demographics of that population. The City’s Comprehensive Plan projects an approximate
population growth rate of 0.75% per year. This equates to approximately 187 new residents per
year. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below look at population change over the past two decades and
compares the differences in the population projections between the PSU population Research
Center and the U.S. Census data with the Comprehensive Plan Projections. The Census data
from the twenty year period is in line with the City’s comprehensive plan projections for
population growth, while the PSU population counts based on the 2000 Census estimates a
slightly (though not significantly larger) growth rate across the board. It is also clear from the
tables below that the City of Ashland grows at a much slower rate than that of Medford or the
County as a whole. If the trend continues into the next three decades then Ashland’s population
should grow by approximately 6,000 and be slightly below the 28,670 projected by the County’s
coordinated population estimate.
Table 5.1
City 1990 2000 % Change 2010 % Change Average
1990-2000 2000-2010 Annual
growth rate
Ashland 16,234 19,532 20% 20,078 2.8% .79%
Medford 46,951 63,154 34.5% 74,907 18.6% 1.98%
Jackson County 146,389 181,269 23.8% 203,206 12.1% 1.29%
U.S. Census. Historic AAGR (average annual growth rate)
Table 5.2
City Estimate Census Change % Change Average
July 1, 2010 April 1, 20002000-20102000-2010 Annual
growth rate
Ashland
21,460 19,5221,9389.9% 0.9%
Medford
77,485 63,68713,79821.7% 2.2%
Jackson County
207,745 181,26926,47614.6% 1.5%
PSU Population Research Center data estimate based on 2000 Census Data
Table 5.3
verage
1990 2000 2010 A
Annual
Age Groups
Popula% of Popul% of PercentPopul% of Percent
growth
tiontotalation totalChange ation totalChange
rate
from 1990from 2000
pop. pop. pop.
Under 19
4,775 24.5% 4,931 24.5% 3.3% 0.33%
6,184 38% 14.6%
20-24
2,314 11.9% 1,885 9.4% -18.5% -1.85%
25-34
2,174 11.1% 2,248 11.2% 3.4% 0.34%
31.5
5,126 -11.2%
35-44
%
2,378 12.2% 1,918 9.5% -19.3% -3.13%
45-54
1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 110% 2,694 13.4% -17.1% 3.72%
55-64
1,146 6.9% 1,736 8.9% 51.5% 3,212 16% 85% 9.01%
65-74
1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% -0.5% 1,562 7.8% 22.8% 1.11%
75+
955 5.8% 1,624 8.4% 70.4% 1,653 8.3% 1.8% 3.65%
Total population
19,5220,10
16,234 100% 100% 20.3% 100% 3% 1.19%
23
U.S. Census Bureau
- 40 -
Age of Householder and age of projections
There is a direct correlation between age of householder, income of householder and housing
type. For example, an individual 35 years old to about 65 years old earning area median and
above is more likely to move from rental housing to ownership housing because that individual
has the means to purchase housing and the ability to maintain that housing and live
independently. Similarly, households that are considered moderate income and below (80%
AMI) have higher rental rates due to an inability to purchase housing despite other factors
including ability to maintain that housing and to maintain an independent lifestyle. Those
populations considered elderly move from homeownership to renter as they lose the ability to
maintain their housing units and an independent lifestyle.
As shown in table 5.3 above, the group represented by ages 25-44 in 1990 was the largest age
group at 31.5%. A decade later that population counted toward the 45-55 age group, which grew
in that ten year period by 110% accounting for the aging of the existing population, but also an
in-migration of a substantial number of peoples in that age group. In that same period the City
saw a distinct shift, from a population more evenly distributed between all age groups to a
population more heavily populated by peoples in age groups of 45 years old and older. The last
decade saw these age groups grow by double digits while younger age groups experienced little
or even negative growth (-11.2 in the 35-44 age group). By 2010 nearly all age groups under 45
years old saw negative growth rates, with the exception of age groups under 19 years and 25
through 24. However, these age groups grew at a rate of less than one third of the overall annual
average population growth, while age groups represented by 55-64 year olds grew at a rate
nearly 10 times that of the general population. These projections show that the trend pointed out
in the 2002 HNA still bears out; though the Ashland population is growing at a steady (albeit
slow) rate, this growth is not divided evenly across all age groups.
If this trend of aging households in Ashland continues into the future, housing targeting those
populations 75 years old and older will need to be developed. That is housing that
accommodates aging in place and ADA accommodations. The housing needs of elderly
populations could also require units with less square footage and fewer bedrooms and with little
to no landscape maintenance. Lastly, as householder’s age, homeownership becomes less
economically advantageous and often homeowners opt to rent. Consequently the market for
large single family houses on large lots could decline as the largest segments of the population
ages.
Theoretically, as older householders move out of existing single family units, the ownership
housing freed up will serve as more affordable options for the next generations moving out of
rentals and into homeownership. But if these population trends continue that may not be the
case. For as those existing households age out of their current residences the population
replacing them, those households 44 years and under, are showing growth rates below that of the
general population and in some instances negative growth rates, which will lead to less demand
for and a surplus of existing ownership units.
- 41 -
The population is projected to grow by 8,567 individuals over the next 30 years. The Housing
Needs Model estimates that the City will need to add 2,657 new housing units to accommodate
the increased populations. If the trends of the past few decades bear out, the majority of these
new housing units will be targeted to older households.
Housing ownership by age of householder
The 2012 to 2022 Ashland School District Enrollment Forecast shows a long term trend of
declining birth rates within the Ashland School district. Similarly the forecast shows a general
declining population of younger households with children over the last decade and partially
22
attributes this to an inability of young families with children to afford housing in Ashland. The
school district demographic report also cites low birth rates and in-migration of householders 45
years old and older as other factors which contribute to the general aging of the Ashland
23
These trends point to
population and consequently the reduction in school district enrollment.
an increasing percentage of ownership housing being occupied by older householders. It is clear
in table 5.4 below that the two biggest factors in determining homeownership are income and age
of householder. As household income increases among all age groups so too does the rate of
homeownership. This is also true of age, showing older householders with the highest
percentages of homeownership despite income.
Table 5.4
Percentage of Homeownership by Age and Income, 2010 HNM
Household Age of Head of Household
Income
15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K
2.9%7.9%16.0%25.0%43.0%46.1%40.0%
10<20K 3.6%12.7%25.0%37.0%47.0%61.0%56.2%
20<30K 6.0%16.6%36.0%45.0%54.0%73.2%67.1%
30<40K 7.9%23.9%48.0%53.7%60.0%74.4%70.1%
40<50K 10.8%32.9%58.1%62.4%80.0%91.0%84.0%
50<75K 22.5%49.9%72.0%82.9%88.6%92.1%91.2%
75K+32.0%75.0%83.0%92.0%96.0%97.0%93.0%
Household Income
The Oregon Housing Needs Model Methodology states that “household income is the key
variable in determining the affordability component of housing need and is strongly correlated
with housing tenure”. The Housing Needs Model estimates that there is currently a significant
gap of housing units at price ranges affordable those with the lowest incomes and surplus of
housing units affordable to those making above the area median income. Households who
experience cost burden are more vulnerable and at a higher risk of homelessness. As seen in
22
Ashland School District. Ashland School district Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19. Portland State
University Populations Research Center. December 2008, page 1.
23
Ashland School District. Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2012-13 to 2021-22. page
12.
- 42 -
tables 5.4 and 5.5 age and income are the two biggest factors in housing choice. Table 5.4 above
shows the relationship between age and income on homeownership rates; homeownership rates
rise with increasing income and as householder’s age. Whereas the relationship of age and
income to rental units is the converse; as incomes and ages rise rental rates decrease.
Table 5.5
Percentage of Renters by Age and Income, 2010 HNM
Household Age of Head of Household
Income
15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K 97.1%92.1%84.0%75.0%57.0%53.9%60.0%
10<20K 96.4%87.3%75.0%63.0%53.0%39.0%43.8%
20<30K 94.0%83.4%64.0%55.0%46.0%26.8%32.9%
30<40K 92.1%76.1%52.0%46.3%40.0%25.6%29.9%
40<50K 89.2%67.1%41.9%37.6%20.0%9.0%16.0%
50<75K 77.5%50.1%28.0%17.1%11.4%7.9%8.8%
75K+68.0%25.0%17.0%8.0%4.0%3.0%7.0%
Income Projections
Household income is difficult to predict. Based on past trends, incomes are expected to increase
(Median Household Income increased by 22.9% over the past decade).
Poverty Status
In 2000 12.5% of Ashland families, and 19.6% of all individuals lived below the federal poverty
level. By 2010 those numbers have declined slightly to 11.5% and 18.8% respectively.
Household Size and composition
Household size within the City of Ashland has been decreasing slowly over the past two decades.
Currently the average household size is estimated to be 2.08 persons per unit for owner-occupied
households and 2.06 for renter households. The 2000 census estimated the average household
size of owner-occupied units to be 2.30 and for renter occupied units to be 1.98. The average
estimated household size for all housing types was 2.14. The Housing needs model uses a
current household size of 2.119 and for forecasting purposes uses the same estimate.
The 2007 RNA conducted property interviews with five property managers and from that
information and the information gathered from a needs analysis conducted concurrently,
Ferrarini and Associates determined that the greatest need in Ashland at that time was for the
development of more studio apartments followed by a need for a relatively modest number of
one bedroom and three bedroom units. The analysis also showed that there was an oversupply of
24
two-bedroom rental units. The following table is from that report and illustrates their findings.
24
City of Ashland Rental Needs Analysis. Ferrarini & Associates, Inc 2007.
- 43 -
Table 5.6
City of Ashland Rental Housing Need by Unit Type RNA 2007
Type Demand Supply Net Need
Studio 1,039 392 647
1 Bedroom 1,290 1,188 102
2 Bedroom 872 1,676 (804)
3+ Bedroom 900 846 54
Total
4,102 4,102 0
25
Source: US Census and Ferrarini & Associates
An updated analysis of household size and type found much the same thing. There is a definite
lack of studio units for the growing percentage of 1-person households among both renter and
owner-occupied households, both of which grew at two and three times the rate respectively of
the total populations of all renter and owner households. This could be attributed to three
factors; the disproportionate growth of older households, a nearly 50% reduction in the number
of 1-room dwelling units between 2000 and 2010, and the disparate increase in one and two
person households. One factor that is estimated to have a substantial impact on the housing
market is the steep decline of all owner occupied households larger than two individuals. These
findings were further substantiated in the property owner and manager questionnaires sent out by
the City in early 2012 which showed that studios were most in demand, while two bedrooms
were in least demand.
Table 5.7
Housing Units by Room Size
Rooms 2000 % 2000 2010 %2010 % Change
1 Room 493 5.4% 247 2.4% -49.9%
2 Room 692 7.6% 515 5.0% -25.6%
3 Room 870 9.6% 1,252 12.2% 43.9%
4 Room 1,856 20.5% 2,043 20.0% 10.1%
5 Room 1,822 20.1% 2,168 21.2% 19%
6 Room 1,498 16.5% 1,601 15.7% 6.9%
7 Room 827 9.1% 1,387 13.6% 67.7%
8 Room 624 6.9% 521 5.1% -16.5%
9 or More 389 4.3% 469 4.8% 20.6%
U.S. Census Bureau
25
Ibid.
- 44 -
Table 5.8
Owner Occupied Units by Household Size
HH Size
2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change
Total 4,456 100 4,856 100% 9%
1-person 1,117 25.1% 1,460 30.1% 30.7%
2-person 1,946 43.7% 2,212 45.6% 13.7%
3-person 647 14.5% 623 12.8% -3.7%
4-person 532 11.9% 412 8.5% -22.6%
5-person 157 3.5% 103 2.1% -34.4%
6-person 45 1.0% 34 .7% -24.4%
7 or more 12 0.3% 12 .2% 0%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.9
Renter Occupied housing by household size
HH Size 2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change
Total 4,081 100% 4,553 100% 11.6%
1-person 1,722 42.2 2,086 45.8% 21.1%
2-person 1,361 33.3% 1,336 29.3% -1.8%
3-person 594 14.6% 646 14.2% 8.8%
4-person 262 6.4% 305 6.7% 16.4%
5-person 90 2.2% 118 2.6% 31.1%
6-person 33 .8% 41 .9% 24.2%
7 or more 19 0.5% 21 0.5 10.5%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.10
Estimate of Rental Units Needed by Household Size and Type
26
Needs Analysis No. of HH Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom
1-person
2,086 1,252 834
2-person
1,336 601 601 134
3-person
646 291 355
4-person
305 31 274
5-person
118 118
6-person
41 41
7-person
21 21
Demand 4,553 1,252 1,435 923 943
Supply
255 1,506 3,647 4,822
Surplus/Deficit (997) 71 2,724 3,879
U.S. Census Bureau
26
Estimated household preferences based on percentages from the 2007 RNA-derived from Riley Research
community survey. (60%-studio, 40% & 45%-1bdrm, 45%,40% & 10%-2bdrm, 10%,60%,90%&100%-3+bdrm)
- 45 -
This section concludes with a baseline forecast of housing demand. The baseline forecast
represents our best estimate of how the market will perform over the next twenty years. The
forecast assumes no changes in current City policy. In summary it is intended to provide a
rough estimate of what the housing market will build in Ashland over the next twenty years.
The forecast relies on the County’s coordinated population forecast as its foundation but also
utilizes assumptions about average household size, persons in group quarters, and housing trends
from a variety of sources including prior years census information and the Housing Needs
Model.
Table 6.1
Table 6.1-Baseline forecast of Housing Demand 2010-2040
Variable Value
Current Future Change
Population
20,07828,6708,492
Persons in Group Quarters 9611,450489
Occupied DU 9,40912,9623,553
Single Family Dwelling Units
27
Percent Single Family DU 71.9%73.9%
Number of Single Family DU 7,3569,5912,235
28
Persons in single family HH 14,93320,1415,208
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
2,235
Total New Single Family needed
Multiple Family Dwelling Units
Percent Multi-Family DU 26.6%25.5%
29
Number of Multiple-family DU 2,7203,311591
Persons in Multiple-Family HH 5,5226,9851,463
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
591
New Multiple-Family DU
Totals
Total occupied dwelling units -
Aggregate HH size 2.032.1
Vacant dwelling units - 583
Total new Dwelling units needed -2,657
Dwelling units needed annually 88.6
27
Future projections based on 2009ACS units by tenure and HNA Template 2-projected future housing status as of
2040.
28
Persons in household is calculated using aggregate household size per 2006-2010 ACS, the occupancy of the unit
is not determined to be either rental or ownership households.
29
Same as above.
- 46 -
Table 6.1 is a baseline forecast of housing demand. That is to say that the table extrapolates the
housing mix that would occur in the future based on past trends and market demand. The
forecast utilizes data from two sources; the 2010 Housing Needs Model (which uses the county
coordinated population projection) estimates for housing occupancy, household size, and
vacancy rate, and the 2007-2009 American Community Survey estimates of total population in
occupied housing units by tenure by units in structure (see appendix). This projection is solely
based on housing demand and past trends, and predicts what the housing market demand would
provide in the next 20 year period. However, housing market demand does not correlate to the
housing needs of the community, as can be seen from the table. The housing market would
continue to provide a surplus of single family housing units further intensifying the need for
multi-family housing and housing that is affordable to the majority of Ashland’s residents. To
base the housing needs of future populations upon historic trends would be to continue the
inequities of the past into the future, and that is not the goal of this needs analysis. Instead, the
needs analysis will use this baseline forecast to show how development trends within the city
should be modified in order to meet the needs of the population rather than the demands of the
private market.
Housing needs by type and density
We begin our analysis of housing need by reviewing the housing needs identified in the City’s
2002 HNA. The results show some profound differences between identified need by type and
permits issued by type. The number of single-family permits issued in the decade between the
last HNA and this current effort shows that the number of Single Family units continues to be
developed at a rate nearly double that of multi-family.
The 2002 study identified needed housing for the 20-year period between 2000 and 2020. At
this point, the City is one-fifth of the way through that planning period. While some differences
between identified need and what housing has been built can be explained by the cyclical nature
of the housing market, particularly in multiple family housing, the development of the most
needed housing types, low-cost ownership and government assisted and affordable rentals, lack
the funding and support to develop at the levels that the community needs. These trends will
continue, as long as the private market is driven by profit and the federal budget for affordable
housing continues to be reduced.In Summary, the City is continuing to fall short of providing
needed housing types as identified in earlier studies.
The baseline forecast however, is a forecast of housing demand. Other data presented in Section
III, suggest that the market is not meeting the housing needs of many Ashland residents and
workers. The continued disparity in the increase in housing costs compared to the increase in
wages has aggravated the problem. Moreover, even if housing prices increase at a slower rate,
the types of jobs forecast to grow in Ashland will not allow workers to afford housing. In
- 47 -
summary, the financial need is substantial and a large deficit of lower cost units exists several
points should be kept in mind when interpreting this data:
Because all of the affordability guidelines are based on median family income, the
percentage of households meeting the income criteria are comparable in all jurisdictions.
For example, 36% of households earn 80% of the area median income. Thus, the income
guidelines provide a rough estimate of financial need and may mask other barriers to
affordable housing such as move-in costs, competition for housing from higher income
households, and availability of suitable units.
The ratios applied in the HUD income guidelines are defined such that somewhere
around 40% of households will always be considered low income. Ashland will add
more than 8,492 households between 2010 and 2040. Assuming 36% of these new
households are considered low-income by HUD, about 3,057 of these new households
will be low-income.
Table 6.2
Rental Units needed by Type
Type Demand Supply Net Need/Surplus
Studio 1,252 255 -997
1-Bedroom 1,435 1506 71
2-Bedroom 923 3647 2,724
3+ Bedroom 943 4,822 3,879
Housing Affordability
The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of
income. When gross rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it
places a significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of
their income toward housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than
50% of their income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When
households are housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are
compromised.
Historically a large percentage of renters in Ashland expend more than 30% of their income on
housing costs. The 2009-2010 American Community Survey data showed that 63% of renters in
Ashland were cost burdened, of the 4,313 renter households in Ashland 2,714 pay more than
30% of their income toward housing costs. This is a 10% increase in the number of renters who
- 48 -
were identified as housing cost burdened by the 2000 Census at 56%. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City needs 1,163 units targeting those with those lowest incomes, with
rents below $195 a month, 1,166 units with rents between $195-422, and 243 units with rents
between $423-655. It is expected that the City will have a surplus of all units with rents at $656
and above. The Housing Needs Model shows that the majority of the rental units will need to be
targeted to those households earning 50% AMI and below. (See appendix)
Homeowners experience less cost burden than renters, but there continues to be a deficit of
housing for moderate to above median income households and a surplus of units targeting those
earning $75,000 a year and above, which is less than 25% of the population. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City will need; 402 housing units available under $72.3k, 950 units with
sale prices between $72.3k-110.1k, 916 units with sale prices between $110.1k-147.6k, 745 units
with sale prices between $147.6k-185.3k, and 1,594 units with sale prices between $185.3k-
279.3k. The majority of the ownership units will be targeted to those making the area median
income to 120% of the AMI. The model assumes a surplus of units priced at $279.3k and above.
(See appendix)
Housing Density
Figure 6.1on page 50, show housing density in terms of units per acre mapped by census block.
The City is comprised primarily of land zoned for single family dwelling units. Due to the high
cost of land in the City of Ashland, most developments maximize the allowable density. One
exception is land zoned for multi-family development. Thought there is more land zoned for
single family development, land zoned for multi-family developments is often developed as
single family attached due to market forces, high end multi-family developments such as
condominiums and townhouses are more economically attractive to private market developers
looking to maximize density and profits. This has made it difficult for non-profit and for-profit
developers to construct affordable and market rate multi-family rental complexes which were
shown to be the housing type most in demand by the 2007 RNA. Similarly many of the existing
affordable and market rate units are HUD expiring use properties, once the HUD contract has
expired the rental units can convert to market rate rentals or be condo minimized.
- 49 -
Figure 6.1
The findings of the Housing Needs Model and an analysis of income and housing cost indicate
that:
A median family household cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland.
The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually.
The city needs approximately 803 additional units costing less than $200 per month.
These units fall in the category of government assisted housing.
Only 232 owner-occupied units in Ashland are valued, under $110,000 or about 4.5% of
all owner occupied units. The small number of owner-occupied units valued under
$110,000 limits ownership options in Ashland for households earning less than $40,000
annually.
In summary, our evaluation of housing mix, density, and affordability suggests that the City
continues to struggle with issues of affordability and needs to plan for a larger share of multiple
family housing, and for a greater number of single family housing types on smaller lots.
Housing tenure remained fairly constant at 52% and 48% respectively for owners and renters,
though the ownership rate for Ashland is lower than that of the surrounding areas it is similar to
other communities which contain universities.
- 50 -
Figure 6.2
Owner Occupied units by affordability
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
<72.372.3<110.1K110.1K<147.6147.6<185.3k185.3k<279.3k279.3k
OwnershipUnitsExistingOwnershipUnitsNeeded
Figure 6.3
Rental Units needed by affordability
- 51 -
1200
1000
800
of
Units
Number
600
400
200
0
019419542242365565689789811321133+
RentalAmountinDollars
ExistingRentalUnitsNeededRentalUnits
Housing needs of special populations
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) identify several “special populations” that
have housing needs distinctly different than the general population. These include the frail and
elderly, farm workers, peoples with disabilities, persons recently released from state institutions,
and persons infected with the HIV virus, among others. The housing needs of these special
populations are highly dependent on individual circumstances. It is not uncommon for the same
individual to be classified into two or more of the categories. As such, it is very difficult to
develop an estimate of the number and type of housing units needed to accommodate these
special populations. In this section we estimate the number of persons with such disabilities and
provide projections based on data provided by the 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special
Needs Populations compiled by OHCS.
Senior housing
The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by OHCS to
prioritize funding for new affordable housing units throughout the state looks at the number of
housing units available to and the population of various special needs households by County.
The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for senior housing is detailed in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3
Senior Housing vs. Population (Jackson County)
Special Needs population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Elderly 1,119 8,047 13.9% 6,928
Frail Elderly 8 919 0.9% 911
- 52 -
Section IV-Ashland’s Housing Inventory, details the number of existing retirement and assisted
living units within the City. The 2010 Housing Needs Model estimates that a total of 257 new
units will need to be added to the City’s existing stock to house populations’ ages 65 years old
and older. Of those units 83 rentals and 174 ownership units will be needed to accommodate the
housing needs of seniors.
Special needs housing
The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by Oregon
Housing and Community Services to prioritize funding for new affordable housing units
throughout the state looks at the number of housing units available to various special needs
households by County. The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations
estimates that that there are very few housing units currently in existence throughout the county
for the majority of the people who could be categorized as having special needs. See table 6.4
below for details.
Table 6.4
Special Needs Housing vs. Population (Jackson County)
Special Needs Population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Alcohol & Drug Rehab 54 4,440 1.2% 4,386
Chronically Mentally Ill 47 2.842 1.7% 2,795
Developmental Disability 44 794 5.5% 750
Domestic Violence 33 170 19.3% 137
Farm workers 77 3,735 2.1% 3,658
HIV/AIDS 4 136 2.9% 132
Physically Disabled 44 497 8.9% 453
Released Offenders 0 194 0.0% 194
As seen in the table above there is currently a significant housing gap to serve special needs
populations. If a proportionate percentage of the population were to be extrapolated forward to
the 2040 population projection for the County, peoples with special needs would be an estimated
6.3% of the County’s population or 11,031 people. As the population increases it is evident that
the number of housing units available to serve populations with special needs will continue to
fall far short of the need for such housing unless a concerted effort to develop housing is
encouraged.
Housing Stock available to persons with Disabilities
Census data reports that 2,379 people five years old and older with disabilities resided in
Ashland in 2000. Peoples with Disabilities made up 12.8% of the population at that time. The
2010 Census and the 5-year American Community Survey estimates do not provide updated
information about peoples with disabilities. However, as the City of Ashland has a greater
percentage of the population which is 50 years old or older it can be expected that as the
- 53 -
population ages housing that meets the changing needs of the population will need to be
provided. Currently the extent of housing stock available to peoples with disabilities is not
known. However four complexes representing 148 units designated for seniors and peoples with
disabilities are listed on the preservation property list which are in danger of expiring as
dedicated affordable housing for seniors and peoples with disabilities.
Housing Stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS
Information on the housing stock available for persons with HIV/AIDS is currently unavailable
for the Medford/Ashland MSA. State of Oregon department of health services records show that
30
there are 149 people with HIV/AIDS living in Jackson County. The number of people with
HIV/AIDS living within the City of Ashland is not known. Consequently, the City does not
prioritize or track the development of housing stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS.
Homeless Needs
It is estimated that in 2008, 1 in every two hundred people in the state of Oregon was homeless.
Data from the Point in Time homeless Count conducted across the State of Oregon and
throughout the U.S. in January 2008 showed that Oregon has the highest concentration of
homeless people of any state at .54 percent or 20,653. The 2011 Point in Time homeless count
for Jackson County totaled 1,049 people. Totals are not broken out per jurisdiction but are for
the entire Continuum of Care region. Of the 1,049 respondents 39% identified themselves as
chronically homeless (continuously homeless for a year or more or had at least four episodes of
homelessness in the past three years), 48%, or 502 respondents were families with children. The
majority of the respondents 26% cited “couldn’t afford rent” at the reason for leaving their last
living arrangement.
Ashland School District
An article published in the Ashland Daily Tidings reported on a rise in poverty in rural areas.
Specifically, the article cited dramatically increased poverty rates among children in areas deeply
31
affected by the recession including Medford and Ashland. The Ashland School District
reported that for the 2010-2011 school year 84 children currently attending school within the
district report being homeless. This number is up from 62 the previous year. Figure 5
30
State of Oregon, Department of Health Services Website:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/docs/Livingcounty.xls
31
Hammond, Betsy. “Rural Students most likely to live in poverty Some Southern Oregon districts see high rates.”
Ashland Daily Tidings 01 Dec. 2009.
- 54 -
20011 One-Nigght Homeless Countt for Jackson Countyy
Single Addult Men
One Pareent Family Wiith Children
Couplewwithout childreen
Two pareent Family witth Children
Unaccommpanied Youthh (17 or undeer)
Other
OregonHHousing andd Communityy Services reeceive federaal and state rresources to be used to
supportsservices for hhomeless poopulations.TThey includee: Emergency Housing AAccount,
Emergenncy Shelter ggrants, State Homeless AAssistance Prrogram, Shellter Plus Carre, and
Supplemmental Assistaance for Faccilities to Asssist Homelesss. Additionnally, under tthe Federal
Continuuum of Care pprogram admministered byy HUD, locaal governmennts and agenncies can appply
for federaal funding foor programs and servicess to prevent and combat homelessneess. The Jackkson
CountyCContinuum oof Care has bbeen the reciipient of McKKinney Vennto funds sincce 2000. Thhe
City of AAshland doess not directlyy receive anyy funds to asssist homelesss persons orr persons at risk
of becomming homelesss, and theree is no longer a local orgganization that provides sservices to
homelesss populations; however CCity of Ashland residentts can accesss available seervices,
programss and funds tthrough ACCCESS, Inc. tthe regional Communityy Action Ageency that serrves
Jacksonaand Josephinne Counties. Similarly, many non-pprofit agenciees that proviide housing oor
supportsservices for hhomeless poopulations are eligible to apply for fuunds throughh OHCS or
throughtthe Jackson CCounty Conntinuum of CCare.
In 2007, Interfaith Caare Communnity of Ashlaand (ICCA),, the sole proovider of hommeless serviices
locatedwwithin the Ciity of Ashlannd, closed itss Ashland loocation and cconsolidatedits operationns to
that agenncy’s Medforrd office. Siince the losss of ICCA thhe City passeed an ordinannce to set upp an
emergenccy shelter inn times of incclement weaather. Severaal local faith based organnizations andd
Peace Hoouse, a local non-profit,offer weeklyy hot meals, showers, annd occasionaally a place too
sleep. Thhough there are limited llocal housing resources for the City’’s homeless populations,,
there are several orgaanizations thhat provide eemergency shhelter, transiitional housiing, and otheer
resourcess and supporrtive services for homeleess individuaals in Medfoord, but manyy of the Cityy’s
homelesss lack the ressources for oor have transsportation to get to thosee providers inn Medford wwhich
is 19 miles away.
- 55 -
Rental units at price ranges affordable to those with the lowest incomes (>$10,000 a year) would
serve to reduce homelessness. The 2010 Housing Needs Model shows this population has the
greatest need for housing. It is known that households who experience cost burden, those who
pay a disproportionate percentage of wages toward housing costs, are the most vulnerable, and
have an increased risk for falling into homelessness. Similarly, individuals and families
transitioning from homelessness often have little or no ability to pay housing costs. These
individuals and families need housing that is either subsidized or extremely affordable in able to
work toward stabilization and self-sufficiency.
- 56 -
Housing Distribution Strategy
In order to meet housing needs of the community over the planning period (Through the year
2040), some modification in the current distribution of housing that is being developed by the
demand driven market will be required. The proposed modification is shown in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1
Housing Type Distribution
Housing Type TotalEstimate
FutureFinal Target Current Needed
Housing of Existing
Needed/Distribution of Approx.Distribution to
32
UnitsUnits
Gap Housing by Distribution meet future
33
Needed Type in 2040 by Typeunit need
in 2040
Single Family
8,913 7,356 1,557 65.80% 80.26% 45.50%
Manufactured 325 154 171 2.40% - 5.0%
DU in Park
Duplex Units 420 526 -106 3.10% 2.63% N/A
Tri-Quad Units 569 530 39 4.20% 3.12% 1.1%
5+ Multi-Family 3,319 1,655 1,655 24.50% 13.99% 48.4%
Total
13,545 10,230 3,315 100% 100% 100%
This distribution modification is further exemplified by the 2010 Housing Needs Model outputs
for unit type based on income and affordability. Based on Census data for income, the City
needs many more low cost rental units, which are often multi-family units and government
assisted housing units whether through tax-credits, loans, or subsidies in the form of project
based or portable housing vouchers. The City has a deficit of ownership units below $279k. The
Housing Needs Model shows a total deficit of 2,719 ownership units affordable to people
making below $75,000 annually.
In order to achieve the desired distribution by 2040, the City will need to modify the
development mix in favor of multi-family units over that of predominantly single family units
which has historically prevailed. The City will need to substantially increase its stock of multi-
family units in order to meet the desired distribution by 2040, skewing the development of such
units beyond parity with the development of single family units to close the gap.
32
From 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
33
Number derived from Census Building Permit Data 2000-2011. See Appendix for details.
- 57 -
Table 7.2
Estimate of Income and Affordability - Housing Needs Model 2010
Rentals/monthly rent Number of Existing Units Current Needed Units Current Surplus/Gap
0-$194 152955 -805
$195-422 2831,052 -769
$423-655 1,052940 112
$656-897 1,401480 922
$898-1132 830557 273
$1133+ 1,258283 975
Total 4,9764,266 710
Ownership Unit Values
<$72.3k 150401 -251
$72.3k<110.1k 82749 -667
$110.1k<147.6k 18665 -648
$147.6<185.3k 160656 -497
$185.3k<279.3k 6761332 -656
$279.3k+ 40041750 2255
50895552 -463
Total Units
Challenges and Recommendations
Challenges
To the degree the 2010 Housing Needs Model projections are accurate representations of
Ashland’s future housing needs, then City may be faced with the following challenges over the
next 20 years:
How and where to zone and “protect” land for affordable rental and ownership housing as
well as multiple-family housing at all levels.
How to encourage developers to build what Ashland needs (by price/affordability), rather
than the products they are comfortable building or which yield the greatest profit.
How to continue to create and sustain Ashland’s great neighborhoods.
House to create a variety of housing types and incomes in neighborhoods.
How to encourage effective partnerships to increase funding for low-income housing and
provide responsive, coordinated and effective housing choices and service.
Goals
To provide for the needs of the expected population growth in Ashland over the next 20 years
and maintain a diversity of income, cultural, and age groups in Ashland’s population, consistent
with other plan goals.
- 58 -
Objectives
Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if increased growth
pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important
to Ashland’s character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district,
and college, service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local
industries, and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed income. (Ashland
Comprehensive Plan)
Increase owner-occupied households to comparable levels with county and state ownership
averages.
Recommendations
The City needs to look ways to encourage;
Rental housing at rates affordable to low to moderate income households,
Ownership housing opportunities that are targeted to the 76% of the population that earns
less than $75,000 a year,
More housing types targeted to seniors and peoples with disabilities,
More studios and one bedroom units,
More multi-family housing types,
Manufactured housing in parks and on single family lots.
Challenges
To ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-
section of Ashland’s population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the
city. (Ashland Comprehensive Plan)
Objectives
Conserve land and reduce the impact of land prices on housing to the maximum extent possible.
Recommendations
Encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area,
Consider mixed uses wherever they will not disrupt an existing residential area,
Support efforts for rehabilitation and preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods,
Consider allowing and encouraging accessory apartments in new and existing,
neighborhoods as an outright permitted activity in single family zones,
Consider restricting the development of detached single family residential units in multi-
family zones.
- 59 -
Challenges
The local economy does not provide wages that are commensurate with housing costs.
49% of homeowners with mortgages, 14% of homeowners without mortgages, and 63% of renter
households spent more than 30% of household income on housing costs.
Objectives
In order to provide for the long-term self-sufficiency of Ashland’s low- and moderate-income
households, the issue of affordable housing must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. In
addition to the land use related actions already identified, the following actions may help meet
the objectives of decreasing the percentage of households who experience cost burden.
Recommendations
Provide more economic opportunities for Ashland residents by improving the local
economy and attracting more “family wage” jobs,
Support efforts of affordable housing providers, including; the Housing Authority of
Jackson County, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity, Access, Inc. Ashland Community
Land Trust, and Umpqua Community Development Corporation. To provide affordable
housing, financial assistance, and services to Ashland low and moderate income, elderly,
and special needs households,
Dedicate Community Development Block Grant funds as projects and needs arise,
Work with employers to better understand the demographics and housing preferences of
their workforce.
Conclusion
The identification of a set of land use policies that will lead to the development of more
affordable housing while achieving other community goals is difficult at best. Ashland however,
is not the only community in Oregon, or the United states that is facing housing affordability
problems. A considerable body of literature exists on land use policy and affordable housing that
summarizes approaches that communities have used to address the housing affordability issue.
In general, communities should review policies to ensure that (1) they do not create barriers or
exclude to any housing types, and (2) they reduce the cost of housing.
Below is a brief summary of some of the policy approaches that communities can consider to
address housing affordability.
Remove Barriers: Barriers to construction of needed housing or efficient use of land are
those that public policy has imposed. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if
it has evidence that the market wants to build needed housing types or densities but is kept
from doing so by public policies. The City should review policies to weed out ineffective
- 60 -
policies, obsolete design standards unnecessarily burdensome permitting processes and
inadequate or inappropriate zoning.
Provide Incentives: Incentives are measures that increase the likelihood that developers will
provide needed housing or use land efficiently as a result of reduced costs. A community
would select measures in this category, if it has evidence that the market might be willing to
build a certain type or density of housing, but there is uncertainty about the success in the
market place and/or current economic conditions for such development are less than optimal.
Explore cost reducing measures including costs of public services and facilities, development
fees, and other processing costs. An example of a less commonly considered incentive
includes working with neighborhood groups to address concerns. If successful, this can
reduce costs of lengthy appeals to the developer.
Require Performance: These measures are mandatory plan policies and code requirements
affecting development. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if it has
evidence that the market is not likely to respond, at the level of incentive that a community
can provide.
The public sector is not directly producing the housing. Therefore, estimates of the likely
effect of these measures should be qualified by some uncertainty about exactly how the
private sector will respond. For example, if higher density requirements or mandatory
design standards are perceived by the development community (designers, builders, lenders
as unprofitable or unmarketable, the desired housing may not get built in the community. In
the case of up-zoning for higher densities, this may result in no housing development instead
of housing at lower densities. For this reason, jurisdictions should seek a balance in
adopting regulations and try to redirect, not stifle market forces that produce most of a
community’s housing. In many cases, requirements should be applied uniformly on all
developments so that no particular development gains a competitive advantage. This will
encourage developers to find ways to produce the product within market constraints.
Review development standards? Lot size typically impacts the price of lots, the size of
housing units allowed and the overall price of housing units.
Evaluate minimum lot sizes and setbacks, maximum heights and lot coverage of all zones.
Evaluate compatibility standards, particularly for multiple-family developments and infill
sites.
Evaluate incentives for the development of smaller units.
- 61 -
Appendix
- 62 -
Table A-1
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
SFRMultifamilyTotals
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010
BLI)
146913842853
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis
17593316
1557
through 2040
Deficit by 2040
-88 -375 -463
Annual units needed through 2040 62.8118.4
55.6
Total Year Supply
26.422.024.1
- 63 -
Table A-2
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units by Type
Existing
Netdistributed into existing
ComprehensiveDwelling Unit
Buildablecapacity
PlanCapacity
Acres
(2011 BLI)
SFRMulti-family
Per Airport
Airport 0 0 0
Master Plan
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384
Expected Dwelling Units
Note: on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be
permitted as such units are not required.
- 64 -
Table A- 3a
Housing Units by Type 2002-2011
Data Derived from City Database (EDEN)
Year Permit Issued Group
Mixed Use – Multi-Accessory New
Homes
aboveFamilyResidential Condominium
commercial Units Units (not
including mixed
use)
2002 3---30 (SOU)
2003 2---
2004 2---
2005 426 68
2006 22 5448
2007 13 227
2008 9280
2009
0110
2010
060 40
2011 209 (SOU)
3
Total 58 96 27 63 239
Table A-3b
Units per Year by Type 2002-2011
Data on single family and multi-family development derived from Census data
YearSingleMulti-Accessory Condominium Group Homes Manufactured
PermitFamilyFamilyResidential Conversions Homes
Issued Units
2002 99 9 - - 30 (SOU) 1
2003 125 64 - 14 0
2004 103 55 - 4 0
2005 128 43 6 22 0
2006 47 57 4 34 0
2007 52 11 2 8 0 1
2008 20 12 8 10 0 0
2009 25 1 1 0 0 0
2010 34 10 4 0 0
2011 24 6 2 0 209 (SOU)
Total 657 268 27 92 209 2
- 65 -
Table A-4
Comprehensive Plan# of ParcelsNet Buildable Acres
Airport 9 Per Airport Master Plan
Commercial 52 15.8
Croman Mill 31 62.8
Downtown 17 2
Employment 114 105.1
HC 10 1.4
HDR 48 8.9
Industrial 6 12.1
LDR 83 38.1
MFR 115 30.8
NM 77 17.7
SFR 552 214
SFRR 27 48
SOU 19 19.5
Suburban R 50 42.3
Woodland 30 4.3
Totals 1240622.8
Source: Table 3.3 from the BLI: Buildable acres: UGB & City Limits
- 66 -
Table A5
Ashland’s largest employers
Business # of Employees % of Population
Southern Oregon University Approx. 750 3.6%
Ashland Community Hospital 410 1.9%
Oregon Shakespeare Festival 398 1.9%
Ashland Public Schools 350 1.6%
City of Ashland 229 1.1%
Butler Ford Approx. 160 0.7%
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 130-150 0.6%
Ashland Food Co-Op 130 0.6%
Pro Tool Approx. 100 0.4%
Linda Vista Approx. 75 0.3%
Albertsons 72 0.3%
Plexis Approx 70 0.3%
Safeway 65 0.3%
Town and Country Chevrolet 50 0.2%
Cropper Medical 50 0.2%
Bi-Mart 45 0.2%
Source: City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce website: www.ashlandchamber.com.
- 67 -
Table A6
Population Projections
- 68 -
ORDINANCE NO. _________
_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO ADOPT THE HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS AS A SUPPORTING
DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
additions
Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified.
boldlined throughbold underline
Deletions are and additions are in .
WHEREAS
, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS,
the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or.
App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS,
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the
availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which
are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households
WHEREAS,
the Housing Needs Analysis (2012) reflects the projected housing need in
comparison to the supply of developable land within the Ashland City Limits and Urban
Growth Boundary based upon specific land classification and constraints to
development according to the Buildable Lands Inventory adopted in 2011.
WHEREAS,
the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised
public hearing on October 9, 2012 and, following deliberations, recommended approval
of the amendments;and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public
hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 6, 2012; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public
hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving
adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter;
and
WHEREAS
, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to
protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the
City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed,
that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported
by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by this reference.
SECTION 2.
The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled “Technical
Reports and Supporting Documents” is attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit B. Previously added support documents are acknowledged on this Appendix.
SECTION 3.
The document entitled “The City of Ashland Housing Needs Analysis,
(2012),” attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference is
hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter VI, \[HOUSING
ELEMENT\] the Comprehensive Plan.
.
SECTION 4.
The document entitled “The City of Ashland Housing Needs Analysis,”
may be updated by Resolution of the City Council to account for population and
demographic changes, consumption of buildable land by development, and re-
development, as reflected in Census data and in the issuance of Building Permits by the
City.
SECTION 5 Severability.
. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses.
SECTION 6Codification.
.Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Comprehensive Plan and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”,
“section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or
re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e.
Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any
cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
_______________________________
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2012.
___________________
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
_________________________
David Lohman, City Attorney
Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents
City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan
Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within
the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not
serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the
documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy
amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist
the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions.
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions
The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions.
1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources.
1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by
Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009.
Chapter VI, Housing Element
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter VI, Housing Element.
1. City of Ashland: Housing Needs Analysis (2012) by Ordinance ___________ on ________________.
Chapter VII, Economy
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter VII, The Economy.
1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
Chapter XII, Urbanization
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter XII, Urbanization.
1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 16, 2011.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
July 25, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
ChairRegina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present:Council Liaison
Regina AyarsCarol Voisin
Brett Ainsworth
Staff Present:
Barb Barasa
Evan LasleyLinda Reid, Housing Specialist
Ben Scott Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Commissioners Absent
Richard Billin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Lasley/Scott m/s to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote:
All Ayes minutes were approved as presented.
FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE REVIEW/UPDATE
Reid presented the Fair Housing Ordinance draft having received it back from the City Legal Department. Most of
the changes were minor with the exception of section “N” Fair Housing Officer. The Legal Department suggested
that the City Attorney, the City Administrator, the Municipal Judge and the Director of Development meet together
and discuss who should be the designated Fair Housing Officer and serve in that role. Currently it is the City
Attorney. Since that meeting has not taken place the agenda item has been bumped from the August City Council
meeting and Reid is not sure when it will go forward. Reid will bring it back to the Housing Commission once the
amendment has been made. At this point all Fair Housing complaints that come to the City get evaluated by Reid
and then are referred to BOLI with the State or to HUD with the Federal Government. Reid did not believe that the
City Attorney has had to act in this capacity in the past.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT 2012 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Reid explained that the Housing Needs Analysis serves a couple of purposes. This report gives the City a look at
what the housing needs and demands are within the community and match those up with our inventory of land.
ORS 197.267 requires that cities of a certain size undertake a Housing Needs Analysis periodically. Ashland is not
large enough to be compelled to do a Housing Needs Analysis; we do it so we can help the elected and appointed
officials plan and prepare for housing needs, stated Reid.
This draft will be presented next to the Planning Commission at a study session followed by a public hearing at
both the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. This analysis will be
useful in terms of reviews with planning actions and would be adopted by the City Council as an appendage to the
Comprehensive Plan. This draft is still in the preliminary stages but Reid would like some feedback from the
Commissioners.
1
The Commissioners discussed the potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues identified in the
2012 Housing Needs Analysis. One topic discussed was the evaluation of parking requirements and potential
reductions to promote smaller unit sizes. Goldman said a recent change to parking standards was made city wide
with the Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone. A unit 500 square feet or less does not need additional parking spaces
and an increase to on street parking was made. An allowance was also made allowing seven bike parking spots to
substitute for automobile parking which would most benefit places such as apartments.
.
The Commissioners inquired if Southern Oregon University expects to fill all the new Dormitory rooms being built
off of Walker Street. They questioned the need for so many units taking into consideration the current enrollment.
The college owns many private rental properties which are not included in the count. Would this create vacancies
with those homes when the dorm rooms are filled, asked the Commissioners? Goldman stated that none of the
SOU owned units are indicated in their 2020 master plan as going into market rate housing. Reid stated that
Census data used to compile the housing information in the Housing Needs Analysis does take into account SOU
multi-family rental properties and counts the dorms as group housing.
The Commissioners agreed when Reid presents this draft to City Council she needs to focus on the
recommendations that staff is making in order to help address the housing issues. What kind of housing are we
going to need to accommodate the future population of Ashland?
The Housing Needs Analysis shows that homeownership rates in Ashland lag behind that of Medford, Jackson
County and the State of Oregon. Ownership and rental rates are more of a 50/50 split in Ashland rather than a
60/30 ownership to rental rate which it the average for the County and the State.
The chart on page 65 of the HNA shows a simple breakdown of existing units. If development continues as it has
historically, the City will be looking at a deficit of rental units by 2040. The main purpose of the chart is to determine
if the City has enough land in each zone to accommodate the development of needed housing types.
The Commissioners will take the opportunity to continue to review the Housing Needs Analysis and then get back
with Reid with any comments or recommendation of changes. After that it will go to a public review before the
Planning and Housing commission.
CLAY STREET REVIEW DISCUSSION
The Commissioners reviewed the three options for the property located at 360 Clay Street.
Land Bank until current land values increase.
Sell the land for Market Value
Solicit a proposal for an affordable/mixed-income development
The Commissioners recommended that Reid does a survey of housing providers to see what their future plans
might be. At one point Jackson County Housing Authority was interested in developing the property.
Reid said that Oregon Housing announced their 2012 consolidated funding cycle awards last week. Access was
fully funded for their six unit Hyde Park project located in Ashland onDollarhide. The Southern Oregon region
received a large amount of the funding. Reid said a wide variety of funding is available through the State of Oregon,
HUD (Federal Government), Oregon Trust fund money, Home Money, low income tax credits, Oregon affordable
tax credits.
After Reid surveys the Housing providers the Commissioners will discuss at next month’s regular meeting in August
the options and make a recommendation to go to the City Council.
Scott/Lasley m/s to move the Housing Commission meeting to the Siskiyou Room at the department of Community
Development and Engineering located at 51 Winburn Way. Voice vote; All Ayes, motion passed. The meeting will
be at 4:00 p.m.
2
SECONDARY GOAL DISCUSSION
Two of the Housing Commission secondary goals are looking at multi-family zoning and manufactured housing.
The Commissioners are concerned about the obstacles preventing home owners from building affordable units.
The Commissioners discussed the possibility of restricting Single Family Homes in Multi-Family zones. Goldman
explained that in 2004 the City passed a minimum density ordinance for Multi-Family zones. It states that an
applicant would need to build out at 80 percent the base density at a minimum. He suggested asking the people
who own property in Multi-Family zones if they would have a concern with an added limitation.
Goldman gave an update on the vacant land inventory in Ashland. R-3 is a High Density Residential zone and R-2
is Multi-Family Residential. Goldman said there is roughly 40 acres of vacant land available in those two zones to
meet the City’s multi-family needs.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Council –
No report
Staff-
At the August regular Housing Meeting City Recorder Barbara Christianson and City Attorney, David Loman
will be giving a presentation on Commission ethics and rules.
ND
AUGUST 22, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Housing Trust Fund
Clay Street property options
Fair Housing Ordinance Options
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
th
First Reading of the Fair Housing Ordinance, City Council-Aug 7, 2012
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
August 22, 2012 4:00-6:00 PM in the Siskiyou Room located at the Community Development and Engineering
Building at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland Oregon.
ADJOURNMENT
- The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
3
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
September 26, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
ChairRegina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room located at the Community
Development and Engineering offices at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present:Council Liaison
Regina AyarsCarol Voisin
Brett Ainsworth
Staff Present:
Barb Barasa
Evan LasleyLinda Reid, Housing Specialist
Ben Scott Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk
Michael Gutman, arrived at 4:10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ainsworth/Lasley m/s to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice
Vote: All Ayes; minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland Senior Planner spoke. Goldman acknowledged that the Normal neighborhood
Master Planning effort is now well under way. The City has had interviews with most of the property owners in the
area as well as received surveys back with responses on how they would like to see their neighborhood developed.
Goldman explained this is of interest to the Housing Commission as it’s the last large area, approximately 94 acres,
rd
for residential development within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. On October 23 at 7:00 p.m. there will be a
th
public design charrette at the Ashland Middle School followed by a second meeting on October 25. At the first
charrette a concept plan that has already been drafted will be presented allowing the participants to have the
th
opportunity to give input on what they would like to see. The next meeting on the 25 will have a revised plan
showing those changes and suggestions from the prior meeting. Goldman invited the Commissioners to attend
those meetings.
COMMISSIONER ETHICS TRAINING
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder and David Lohman, City Attorney gave a presentation on the Rules,
Regulations, Laws and Ethics of public servants. They were asked by City Council to provide training to the
Commissions giving them the information they need to know what is expected of them.
The following are some of the main points;
All public records associated with this commission are public record, notes, agendas, reports,
correspondence, pictures, emails etc.
If using your own computer it can be called up for public records
Communicate with each other through your staff Liaison
All business must be conducted in a setting the public has access to
If a quorum is not met everybody goes home and no meeting can be held
1
All meetings are open to the public, held within the City limits and have a 36 hour public notice
Minutes are not verbatim they are a record of what happened at the meeting
Do not use your public position to obtain financial benefit
Gifts, including services, cannot be accepted if they are not available to everyone in the community
Remember that everything is about Perception,how will it be perceived?
Disclose, Disclose, Disclose. If any decision you are about to make can be a financial benefit or detriment
to you your family or associated businesses, disclose it.
If there is a conflict of interest do not participate and leave the room
City of Ashland Code of Ethics says do not accept any valuable gift from a source directly or indirectly
interested in business dealings with the City.
Do not speak for the City in your Housing Commission capacity unless the commission deputized you to do
so for them.
Christenson asked the Commissioners for their input on uniform policies and procedures in section 2.10 of the
City Municipal Code. They are looking to define what excused and unexcused absences are regarding
Commissioner’s meeting attendance. What is considered an excused absence and what does unexcused
mean? What should the reporting method be? Christenson asked the Commissioners to send their ideas and
suggestions to Reid who will forward them on to her.
Christensen thanked the Commissioners for volunteering and the time they devote to the Commission. It is
very much appreciated. This presentation on Ethics training is available on the City Website
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT REVIEW (CAPER)
Reid explained that the CAPER is the City’s annual report to HUD which is a required document for receiving
Community Development Block Grant Funds. With our CDBG funds we create a five year grant application called
the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan sets goals for the money we receive. In January people apply for
those funds. The City awards those funds based on the priorities that are set in the Consolidated Plan as well as
which goals have been met and which have not. The City would encourage funding for those goals which we have
not yet attained. We then do an Action Plan and award the funds. Reid tracks the recipient’s progress throughout
the year to see that they are meeting the goals they set. The CAPER explains what the City said they were going to
accomplish and what they actually did accomplish. All the information in the CAPER was what happened for the
year 2011.
Ayars opened up the public hearing for comments. No one in the audience made comments, the public hearing
was closed.
Ainsworth/Gutman m/s to approve the CAPER as presented. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed
unanimously.
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING
Reid gave an update on the Housing Needs Analysis. In July the Housing Commission reviewed and made their
suggestions and comments followed by the Planning Commission who also reviewed the document and made
suggestions. Some of those suggestions were incorporated into the document. This final document is now ready
th
to go before the Planning Commission again on October 9 for a public hearing and then on to the City Council for
th
adoption on November 6.
Reid cleared up a misconception about what this document actually is. This document is about what the City is
more likely to see with regard to future housing populations rather then what the City would like to see. All this
document can do is see what we have now and project that forward into the future. What does our population look
like now and how is that going to change over a 20 year period and how do we meet the needs of that population.
Reid pointed out a couple of the changes to the recommendations that were made to the document;
Examine opportunities for reductions in parking requirements for the provisions of apartments meeting
certain conditions.
2
Evaluate land use incentives to provide for small lots intended for small unit development
It was suggested to add “multi-family” to the sentence, “Designating certain lands for rental units would
encourage development of apartments”.
This will be a technical supporting document to the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan. It will help with
decisions as the City goes forward with planning actions to see what types of housing is needed. If the Council
th
adopts this on November 6 it would be appropriate for the Housing Commission to move forward with some of the
recommendations as they select goals for the coming year.
COMMISSIONS EXCUSED ABSENCE POLICY DISCUSSION
City Administrator, David Kanner is asking for feedback on how to define excused and unexcused absences,
membership reduction and potential changes to the code regarding being physically present at meetings verses
participating by phone.
The Commissioners discussed ideas.
Regarding missing two meetings in a row, felt this should be over a period of a year January through
December not six months
Commissioners felt it would be more appropriate for the Mayor to write the criteria of what is excused and
what is not excused. Should be his discretion for those guidelines. They would like to see medical
emergencies, illnesses, unplanned events
Liked the idea of giving the Chair as well as the Staff Liaison an eight hour notice of absence prior to the
meeting. This allows the Commission to determine if they will have a quorum.
Would like to encourage the possibility of the Commissions and Council to participate in public meetings by
phone or skype.
The Commissioners liked the moving to a seven member Commission from a nine member commission,
though would rather the quorum be based on the seats filled rather than total number of seats.
TH
, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
OCTOBER 24
Quorum Check – Gutman will not be present
Vacation Rentals – agenda item
Discussion of meeting times place
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
Goal Setting retreat – Saturday November 17, 2012 9:00 – 12:00 at the Parks Department
No meeting is scheduled for December
October 24, 2012 4:00-6:00 PM in the Siskiyou Room located at the Community Development and Engineering
Building at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland Oregon.
ADJOURNMENT
- The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
3
DISCUSSION ITEM
_________________________________
Unified Policies and Procedures for
City Commissions and Committees
From:
"Dave Kanner" <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us>
To:
david@davidwolske.com, fluerys@ashland.or.us, pastapiatti@gmail.com,
tuneberl@ashland.or.us, rparker@mind.net, truea@ashland.or.us, danmaymar@aol.com,
chamberc@ashland.or.us, shobro@jeffnet.org, guntera@ashland.or.us, reginariley@jeffnet.org,
reidl@ashland.or.us, "pam marsh" <pam.marsh@gmail.com>, molnarb@ashland.or.us,
carol@davisandcline.com, ann@ashland.or.us, dyoung@jeffnet.org, faughtm@ashland.or.us,
upperlimbit@wildblue.net, pinam@ashland.or.us
Sent:
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:33:57 PM
Subject:
Request for board and commission input
HelloallΑ
Youarereceivingthiseitherbecauseyouarethechairofacityboardorcommission,oryouareastaff
liaison.Ifyouareneither,Iwouldappreciateyouforwardingthistothecorrectperson.
TheCityreceivedarequestfromtheTransportationCommissiontoreduce
itsmembershipfromnineto
sevenandwearebringinganordinancetodothattotheCouncilnextmonth.Themayorhasaskedme
tocheckwithotherboardsandcommissionstoseeifthereareanyothersthatbelievetheirappointee
numbershouldbereduced.
Inaddition,themayorhasquestionsabouthowtherecentchangeinthedefinitionofquorumis
workingforallofyou(amajorityofallpositionsontheboardorcommission,notjustamajorityof
currentlyfilledpositions).
WearealsoseekingfeedbackonhowtodefineͻĻǣĭǒƭĻķğĬƭĻƓĭĻͼorapolicyonmultipleabsences,as
wellasapotentialchangeinCityCodethatwouldallowCityCouncilorsorboardandcommission
memberswhocannotbephysicallypresenttoparticipateinmeetingsbyphone.
Pleasehaveyourboard/commissiondiscusstheaboveatyournextmeetingandprovideyourfeedback
tome.IplantotakethistotheCouncilattheirNovember5studysessionandIwouldideallyliketo
haveallfeedbackbyOctober30atthelatest.
Thanks,
Dave
DaveKanner,CityAdministrator
CityofAshland
20EastMainStreet,AshlandOR97520
(541)5522103or(541)4886002,TTY8007352900
FAX:(541)4885311
ThisemailisofficialbusinessoftheCityofAshland,anditissubjecttoOregonpublicrecordslawfor
disclosureandretention.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleaseletmeknow.Thankyou.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 26, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Conference Room, 51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Eric Heesacker April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
(Arrived at 7:15 pm)
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Dennis Slattery
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Dawkins noted he attended the Plaza Design Public Outreach Meeting and the architects have requested feedback from
the Planning Commission. Dawkins shared his preference for more hardscape and trees in large containers, and requested the
Commission take a few minutes to discuss the conceptual designs at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
PRESENTATION
A.Ethics & Commission Guidelines (Dave Lohman, City Attorney)
City Attorney Dave Lohman provided a presentation on public records law, definition of public meetings, public meeting requirements,
rules and regulations, and ethics. (Copy of presentation is attached to minutes.)
General Questions
The commissioners posed several questions to Mr. Lohman, including:
What is the statute of limitation for how long members need to keep meeting notes and recordings?
Answer: 6 years.
Can commissioners attend public events if there is a quorum of members present?
Answer: As long as the commissioners are not deliberating on a particular issue, this is not considered a public meeting and
members are free to attend.
The Planning Commission is subject to Oregon statutes, Ashland’s Code of Ethics, and state statutes specific to Planning
Commissions; which one takes precedence?
Answer: The Commission is subject to all three laws and need to make sure they are adhering to the most strict rules
(Ashland Code of Ethics)
Does the Commission have to elect a new chair every year, or does “term” indicate a member can be chair for two
consecutive four year terms?
Answer: Mr. Lohman stated there are different practices on the different commissions and this needs to get cleared up. He
stated his opinion is that term means four years, but others have disagreed with him. Commissioner Dawkins commented that
he believes when the Commission discussed this, the intent was for a one-year term for officers. Comment was made that
this may be an issue with small commissions that have frequent turn-over; and perhaps this should be a recommendation
Ashland Planning Commission
June 26, 2012
Page 1 of 3
instead of a requirement. Additional suggestion was made for the vice chair to take over as chair after their first year, which
could provide for a learning period.
Are commissioners allowed to testify before the City Council?
Answer: Mr. Lohman cited the language in AMC 2.10.110 and stated it is his understanding that commissioners can speak
before the City Council as private citizens, however he will need to get back to the Commission on this question.
Commissioner Marsh commented that it is unfortunate when a member goes before another body and speaks out against the
position the Planning Commission has adopted.
Does Commissioner Miller have a conflict of interest regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan?
Discussion/Answer: Commissioner Miller explained she owns property in the project area and asked if she could participate in
the deliberations. She added she could provide some background information which may be helpful. Mr. Lohman stated under
state law, it is an actual conflict of interest if the outcome could benefit or hurt her financially. He stated she likely has an
actual conflict of interest and advised that she not participate in the discussions or deliberations. He added she could testify
as a private citizen in front of the City Council, but should not testify before the Planning Commission. The Commission held
general discussion about the bias issue. Comment was made that when a member is on record of having a clear bias or a
predisposed position, it undermines the decision making process and that person should step aside.
What is the definition of an excused absence?
Answer: Mr. Lohman stated this is an issue that needs to be addressed and asked for the Commissions input. Suggestion
was made to establish a yearly minimum attendance percentage, rather than a limit on unexcused absences in a row.
Comment was made that it is important for a member to notify staff if they cannot attend. Support was voiced for an annual
attendance rate and 80% was suggested.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00573
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: Not property-specific
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new "Chapter XV - Regional Plan" element to the City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Plan (“the RPS Plan”) and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson
County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region’s
population, but before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent,
Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive
plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the
city’s existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of
the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with
no identified urban reserves.)
Associate Planner Derek Severson gave a brief overview of the Regional Plan and the Regional Problem Solving process (RPS). He
explained the proposed adoption of the new “Regional Element” to the City’s Comprehensive Plan incorporates the portions of the
Regional Plan applicable to Ashland and clarified Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that we are the only jurisdiction
to not identify urban reserves and have chosen to accommodate growth through efficient land use planning instead. He stated this new
Element serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the City’s participation in the plan and to provide a framework if the City
chooses to pursue the creation of urban reserves in the future.
Mr. Severson provided some background and noted the Planning Commission issued a recommendation in 2010 to ensure Ashland’s
values are pushed forward through the RPS process, and the City Council adopted a resolution in 2011 that reiterated those
recommendations. Mr. Severson stated the primary issues identified in the 2011 resolution included: 1) retaining Urban Fringe
minimum lot sizes, 2) to not require jurisdictional exchange, 3) regional housing strategy timeline, 4) population figures consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, 5) address high value farm lands, and 6) more efficient land use transportation. He stated through the City’s
participation in this plan, there has been a 110-acre reduction of farm lands in the URA’s; all jurisdictions must adhere to specific
density commitments; 49% of new dwellings and 44% of new commercial must be mixed use, pedestrian friendly, or in a transit
oriented district by 2020; and conceptual land use and transportation plans will be required for urban reserves.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 26, 2012
Page 2 of 3