Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-08-08 Planning PACKET
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. June 27, 2023 STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager Doug Knauer Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Eric Herron Gregory Perkinson Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The City Council approved the findings for PA-T2-2023-00041, Tax Lot 404 Clinton Street at their last meeting, and that the timeframe to submit an appeal has closed. The applicants for PA-T3-2023-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North have asked staff to review the articles of remand that were sent by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). III.PUBLIC FORUM Ϻ ˞˿˾˵ IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Chamber of Commerce Economic Diversification Study (Chamber Staff) Presentation Mr. Goldman stated that two pieces of public testimony were submitted to staff prior to the meeting, both of which were shared with the Commission (see attachment #1). Page 1 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Sandra Slattery, Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce, spoke about the diversification strategies being considered by the City to revitalize the economy following the COVID- 19 pandemic. The Chamber of Commerce employed the services of ECONorthwest, which also ˳˿˾˴̅˳̄˵˴ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˘˿̅̃˹˾˷ ˠ̂˿˴̅˳̄˹˿˾ ˣ̄̂˱̄˵˷̉ (HPS) study, to assist in identifying potential revitalization strategies (see attachment #2). Ms. Slattery stated that the Chamber and ECONorthwest conducted a study and developed an actionable plan, while also engaging in public out-reach to garner feedback from the community. Through these methods ECONorthwest and the Chamber were able to develop a plan that utilized the strengths and weaknesses of the City. Ms. Slattery stated that this resulted in the development of a plan with four core pillars to increase the economic diversification of the City; 1) fostering business growth by improving public sector collaboration, supporting specialty districts, and establishing small batch Ashland; 2) diversifying tourism by providing more opportunities for residents to engage with nature and the community; 3) rediscovering downtown by investing in public spaces; 4) ˵̈̀˱˾˴˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ̄˱˼˵˾̄ ̀˿˿˼ ˲̉ ˸˹̂˹˾˷ ́̅˱˼˹˶˹ed workers to fill vacancies in the workforce, particularly in health care. Questions Commissioner Knauer asked if the Chamber spoke with business owners about the types of buildings they look for and want to see developed more. Ms. Slattery responded that they ensured that developers were present during the process, who were able to provide valuable feedback for the study. Commissioner Knauer asked if the City had that building space available, and Ms. Slattery responded that it would need to be built. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked how the Chamber and ECONorthwest identified the four pillars in their presentation. Ms. Slattery responded that they were developed through the study and as part of the public outreach process. She added that some of the priorities identified could evolve ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˶̅̄̅̂˵ ˱˾˴ ˱̃ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˷˿˱˼̃ ˳˸˱˾˷˵ʾ ˣ˸˵ ˵˽̀˸˱̃˹̊˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ˹̄ ̇˹˼˼ ˲˵ ˱ ˶˼̅˹˴ ̀̂˿˳˵̃̃ʾ Chair Verner asked what the implementation timeframe would be. Ms. Slattery stated that separate groups handling the different pillars have already begun to establish their own timelines, with some groups also creating subcommittees to assist in the implementation process. Commissioner Perkinson inquired about the challenges to implementation that the City could face. Ms. Slattery responded that ECONorthwest determined that success would be dependent upon the coordinated efforts of both staff and the participating committees. Commissioner Perkinson asked how the community would be involved in the process, and Ms. Slattery replied that the Chamber has an extensive and multi-layered communications plan to inform the community, including utilizing social media. Councilor Hyatt added that the Chamber has a record of successfully convening Page 2 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ partners and that the Council is has heard the call from the community to revitalize the downtown area. Commissioner Knauer commended Ms. Slattery for her report, but lamented the lack of a core objective. Ms. Slattery agreed, stating that the values of the community will help guide the initiatives. She emphasized the importance of community members like the Commission in helping drive those ˳˿˾̆˵̂̃˱̄˹˿˾̃ʾ ˣ˸˵ ˳˿˽˽˵˾̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ˕˓˟˞˿̂̄˸̇˵̃̄ ˹̃ ˵̈˳˹̄˵˴ ˱˲˿̅̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˸˱˽˲˵̂Ͻ̃ ̇˿̂˻ʼ ˱˾˴ ̄˸˱̄ the goals and initiatives will evolve as time goes on. Chair Verner invited Ms. Slattery to return in a year to give the Commission an update on the ˓˸˱˽˲˵̂Ͻ̃ ̀̂˿˷̂˵̃̃ʾ Public Testimony Michael Orendurff/˝̂ʾ ˟̂˵˾˴̅̂˶˶ ˳˿˽˽˵˾˴˵˴ ̄˸˵ ˓˸˱˽˲˵̂Ͻ̃ ̀˼˱˾ʼ ˲̅̄ ̃̄˱̄˵˴ ̄˸˵̂˵ ̇˵̂˵ ̃˿˽˵ aspects unaccounted for in its study. He implored the City to develop a plan to make biking more accessible and safer in the City, citing economical, environmental, and safety reasons for encouraging cycling and the creation of dedicated bike lanes. B.Ashland Climate & Environmental Policy Advisory Committee Natural Gas Ordinance Update (CEPAC Chair Bryan D. Sohl) Presentation Chair Bryan Sohl of the Climate & Environmental Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC) provided the Commission with a brief update regarding legislation to reduce greenhouse emissions. He was encouraged by Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) guidelines that promote pedestrian-safe works, but stated that Oregon is significantly behind in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Chair Sohl voiced his support for an ordinance developed by young activists to eliminate the use of gas in all new commercial and residential developments in the City. He stated that an edict of the Ashland Climate Plan is to educate City staffers about it, and so all Commissions and Committees should consider climate action goals in every decision they make. Chair Sohl stated that there is an increased risk of childhood asthma associated with increased exposure to methane gas. He informed the Commission that the Rogue Climate Action Team (RCAT) brought an ordinance proposal before the Council that would eliminate gas from any new developments, and that the CEPAC had been directed to study the feasibility of such an ordinance. Chair Sohl stated that the city of Berkeley had approved a similar ordinance, but it was struck down by the California 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. The RCAT has now limited the ordinance to only effect th residential developments in the hope of passing a more legally viable version. Page 3 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Chair Sohl stated that the RCAT and CEPAC have identified three alternative options for an ordinance applying to new residential construction; 1) an emissions based strategy; 2) a local amendment to the State Building Code; 3) and applying restrictions in new rights-of-way (ROW). He stated that the CEPAC had requested that the Council direct City staff to work CEPAC to create the new ordinance, and provided the Commission with an outline of an adoption schedule (see attachment #3). C. DRAFT Ashland Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Study Staff Presentation Mr. Severson briefly provided a background on the Climate Friendly Area (CFA) guidelines and their goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These guidelines are targeted at metropolitan areas and would affect 60% of the Oregon population. With regards to land use, these guidelines would designate walkable areas, reform parking, and support electric vehicles. Mr. Severson described how the City has employed a public engagement process for this initiative, and has received assistance from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) in this endeavor. The City has identified The Croman Mill Site, the Railroad Property, and the Transit Triangle ˱̃ ̀˿̄˵˾̄˹˱˼ ̃˹̄˵̃ ˶˿̂ ˓˖ˑ̃ʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˾˵˵˴ ̄˿ ˱˳˳˿˽˽˿˴˱̄˵ ˃ˀʵ ˿˶ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˳̅̂̂˵˾̄ ̀˿̀̅˼˱̄˹˿˾ and expected growth by 2041. Downtown would serve as a secondary CFA site if necessary, but is already largely built out with limited capacity for development. Mr. Severson spoke to the viability of establishing CFAs in the identified sites, and noted that staff is working on several plans to mitigate any potential population displacement as a result of redevelopment (see attachment #4). Questions of Staff Chair Verner expressed concern that the housing density guidelines from the state were not viable, ˱˾˴ ˱̃˻˵˴ ˸˿̇ ̃̄˱˶˶ ̃˱̇ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉ ˴˵̆˵˼˿̀˹˾˷ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˳˿˽˹˾˷ ̉˵˱̂̃ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˗˿˼˴˽˱˾ ̃̄˱̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̃̄˱˶˶Ͻ̃ goal is to apply CFA guidelines to areas that are readily available for development or redevelopment, and not merely to apply the guidelines to areas that already have high density housing. He added that the CFA guidelines call for a density of 15 units per square acre at a minimum, and the City need not exceed that rate. Commissioner Knauer asked if the City was directed to identify more than one area as a CFA, and whether the development of all three designated areas would be more than the City would require. ˝̂ʾ ˣ˵̆˵̂̃˿˾ ̂˵̃̀˿˾˴˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ̃̄˱̄˵ ̇˱̃ ̃˱̄˹̃˶˹˵˴ ̇˹̄˸ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˶˹̂̃̄ ̃˹̄˵ʼ ˲̅̄ ̄˸˱̄ ̃̄˱˶˶ ̇˱˾̄˵˴ ̄˿ find a viable way to meet these guidelines and therefore chose three sites. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if having CFAs would be practical for the City to manage, Page 4 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ and commented that the vision for Ashland should fit into the broader strategy for the City. Mr. Goldman responded that the Commission has not yet conducted an assessment of the designated areas, and that this is merely an initial presentation based on the report done by RVCOG. The City can now refine its plan and create a final document by the end of the year. Chair Verner asked what ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ̄˹˽˵˼˹˾˵ ̇˹˼˼ ˲˵ ˹˾ ̂˵̆˹˵̇˹˾˷ ̄˸˵̃˵ ˹˾˹̄˹˱̄˹̆˵̃ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˗˿˼˴˽˱˾ ̂˵̃̀˿˾˴˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ˹̄ ̇˿̅˼˴ begin in October or November of 2023, starting with a review of the parking initiatives. Public Comments Robert Cortright/Mr. Cortright stated that he had submitted written comments to staff before the meeting. He informed the Commission that he previously worked with the DLCD regarding climate issues before he retired. He stated that the City does not need paper capacity, it requires the land ˾˵˳˵̃̃˱̂̉ ̄˿ ˱˳˳˿˽˽˿˴˱̄˵ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˾˵˵˴̃ ˿̆˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˾˵̈̄ ˂ˀʽ˂˅ ̉˵˱̂̃ʾ ˘˵ ˱˼̃˿ ˵˾˳˿̅̂˱˷˵˴ ̃̄˱˶˶ ̄˿ use the alternative path allowed by the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) guidelines to develop a more practical estimate of the housing capacity for CFAs. D. 2023 Annual Planning Commission Retreat The Commission discussed which items should be reviewed at the annual retreat. Chair Verner and Commissioner Knauer expressed an interest in learning more about protocols and proper meeting procedures for the Commission, as well as how to effectively run a public meeting. The Commission also discussed relationship between the Council and the Commission, particularly with regards to larger projects, like the Croman Mill Site development. Councilor Hyatt commented that she had benefited from a review of the difference between Type I, Type II, and Type III planning actions, and recommended a review of those items for all new Commissioners. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that there are no items scheduled for the July 11, 2023 meeting, and that all of these items could be reviewed in a similar manner to a Study Session. The Commission agreed. The Commission decided to hold its annual retreat on August 29, 2023. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Submittedby, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Page 5 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). June27,2023 TO:AshlandPlanningCommission FROM:BobCortright 1 SUBJECT:CLIMATEFRIENDLYAREASTUDYSUGGESTIONS AsyoureviewthedraftstudyofClimateFriendlyAreas(CFAs)pleaseconsiderandfocusonthe goalandintendedoutcomeofthiswork:whichisthatatleast30%ofthecity’stotalhousing unitswouldbelocatedinCFAs.ForAshland,thatmeansby2041atotalofabout3500housing unitswouldbeinCFAneighborhoods.ItisnotclearfromtheCFAstudywhetherthecitywill achievethisgoal. Ihavetwosuggestionsforyourconsideration: 1.Directcitystafftocalculatehowmuchofthecity'sfuturehousinggrowth willneedtobelocatedinCFAstomeetthe30%goal.Asnotedabove,theCFA studyindicatesthatabout3500housingunitswillbeneededinCFAs.However,while thestudyestimatesthehousingcapacityofproposedCFAs,itdoesnotindicatehow muchhousingiscurrentlylocatedintheseareas.That’ssignificantbecausethecity expectsonlyabout900additionalhousingunitstobebuiltinthecityby2041.(Packet, page175)Consequently,unlessthereareabout2600housingunitscurrentlyinthese CFAsand“abuttingareas”it’sunclearthatthecitywillreachthe30%goal. 2 Censusinformationisreadilyavailabletoestimatehowmuchhousingiscurrentlyin theseareas.Inaddition,thecityshouldestimatehowmuchhousingisexpectedineach oftheseareasunderexistingadoptedplans.Localandregionaltransportationplans includedetailedhousingallocationstospecificareas-transportationanalysiszones- TAZswhichprovidethisinformation. 2.EncouragethecitystafftousethealternativepathallowedbyCFECrulesto prepareamorerealisticestimateofthecapacityofproposedCFAs.The draftstudyusesthe“prescriptive”pathintheCFECrulestoestimatehousingcapacityof proposedCFAs.Itshouldbeapparentthattheprescriptivemethod-whichassumes 1 RetiredTransportationPlanner.For25years,Iservedastheleadtransportationplannerforthe OregonDepartmentofLandConservationandDevelopment(DLCD).Icurrentlyworkwithseveral environmentalandclimateadvocacygroupsinOregontosupporteffortstorevisestate,regionaland locallanduseandtransportationplanstomeetstategoalstoreduceclimatepollution. CFECrulesallowthecitytocount"abutting"oradjoiningareaswithhighdensityresidentialthatare 2 outsideofCFAsaspartofCFAsforpurposesofmeetingthe30%goal.Theideaistoincludeareasthat are"closeenough"toCFAssothattheyfunctionaspartofaCFAbecausepeoplemightwalkorbiketo theCFA.TheCFECrulerequiresthatsuchareasbewithina1/2mile"walkingdistance"ofaCFAin ordertoqualify. thatlandswithinCFAswillbeuniformlydevelopedorredevelopedathighdensities (50-70unitsperacre)dramaticallyoverestimatesthecapacityoftheseareasto accommodatenewdevelopmentoverthenext20years. WhiletheCFECrulesincludethe“prescriptivemethod”theyalsoallowcitiestouse alternativemethodsthatbetterreflectlocalplansandconditions.InJanuary,1000 FriendsandIwrotetometropolitancitiesalertingthemtolikelyproblemswithDLCDs “prescriptivemethod”andrecommendinguseofthealternativeoptionallowedbythe CFECrules.Asthecitymovesforward,youshouldtakeadvantageofthisalternative approachtouselocalknowledgeandinformationtodevelopamorereasonableand realisticestimateofthecapacityoftheseareastoaccommodatenewhousingoverthe next20-25years. net developable area is calculated “regardless of existing development” Ashland Economic Diversification Ashland Chamber of Commerce leverages Develop an economic plan that existing strengths, addresses weaknesses, and explores exciting new initiatives to further diversify the local economy. Process Engagement - 231 Survey Respondents - 45 Stakeholder Conversations - 4 Focus Groups - 4 Peer City Conversations Wide Range of Input What are Ashland’s greatest strengths? Educational Strong EngineHealthcare Established Walkable Fast Fiber TourismDowntownNetwork What are Ashland’s greatest weaknesses? Disruptions High Cost of Lack of Public to Tourism Workforce Sector and Arts HousingCollaboration What are Ashland’s greatest threats? Demographic Climate Housing ShiftsChangeAffordability What are Ashland’s greatest opportunities? Diversify Rediscover Tourism Downtown Expand Foster Talent PoolBusiness Growth Strategy Groupings –Four Pillars Experienced business leaders have been Once the goal is complete, the chair may selected to lead each pillar committee. The choose to change membership that best chair or co-chairs of the committee worked fits the next identified goal (SMES) with chamber leadership to identify the first While the chair or co-chairs will remain the goal for the committee to work on. same to encourage continuity of the vision Chair (with chamber consultation) identifies and increase efficiency, rotating the community members that could help membership will the most on achieving the identified goal Encourage more participation due to The committees are intentionally small (5-the smaller time commitment 7) so that they can be flexible and nimble Allow for goals to be specifically but also utilizing SMES (subject matter targeted with subject matter experts experts) as needed Involve a greater number of committee members with the project Pillar One: Foster Business Growth –Four focus areas A strong economy is one in which innovative, responsible business owners are supported and trusted to execute on º®«¯¸Ɏ¼¯¹¯µ´ȌɎ"»¸¸«´º²¿Ɏ ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏ«©µ´µ³¿Ɏ¯¹ facing some headwinds as the risk of change can dampen the potential for positive growth. But the risk of not allowing for growth is already showing in the inability for businesses to expand in the city or for many Ashland workers to live in ºµ½´ȌɎ ©º¯µ´Ɏ¯¹Ɏ´««ª«ªɎɋɎº®µ»gh much of it depends more on mindset than money. This pillar is a continuation of the successful Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) program the Chamber has run for more than 15 years. 1. Improve Public Sector Collaboration The key to Ashland developing the variety of firms needed for a dynamic, balanced economy is allowing young companies to find space, establish themselves and grow. Based on data and stakeholder discussions, there are currently challenges to business retention and growth. Unfortunately, many come from the public sector. This challenge is not unique to Ashland, as many communities struggle to balance the fears of existing residents with the hope of future workers and residents that would also like to benefit from opportunities in Ashland. We believe the two biggest barriers are simple: culture and clarity. Of specific concern is clarity, with businesses expressing frustration that expectations shift during a permitting process or are left to discretionary actors facing political pressure. 2. Support Specialty Districts Ɏ¨§²§´©«ªɎ«©µ´µ³¿Ɏ©§´Ɏ§²¹µɎ¨«Ɏ¸«¬²«©º«ªɎ¯´Ɏ§Ɏ©¯º¿ȟ¹Ɏgeography and having different areas with identities that each exert their own gravity. In addition to Downtown, there are three districts that show strong potential to continue developing into distinct, mixed-use areas of the city: University District, Railroad District, and the Croman Mill District. Each brings its own potential to expand past residential and commercial into areas like research, flex industrial, entertainment or small manufacturing. 1.University District ɎɋɎ2µ»º®«¸´Ɏ.¸«µ´Ɏ4´¯¼«¸¹¯º¿Ɏ®§¹Ɏº®«Ɏ¶µº«´º¯§²ɎºµɎº¸§´¹¬µ¸³Ɏ´µºɎµ´²¿Ɏ§Ɏ¬«½Ɏ properties on its campus, but its role within the city. We are excited to see the plans developing for some strategic locations into dense, mixed-use buildings that cater to students, young professionals and even seniors. The organization can establish an anchor for both residential and commercial development. The Chamber is already working with SOU on a University District committee. 1.Railroad District ɎɋɎ ²¸«§ª¿Ɏ§Ɏ¶µ¶»²§¸Ɏ¶§¸ºɎµ¬Ɏº®«Ɏ©¯º¿ȍɎ½¯º®Ɏ¹µme strategic investments this area could act as a walkable, nearby counterbalance to the Downtown and provide the opportunity to define a separate cluster of retail and nightlife activities. 1.Croman Mill District ɎɋɎ/«¸®§¶¹Ɏº®«Ɏ¶¸µ¶«¸º¿Ɏ½¯º®Ɏº®«Ɏ³µ¹º potential to redefine its area, the former Croman Mill site can provide the type of residential and commercial development at scale to significantly expand the growth of the city. 3. Establish Small Batch Ashland Key ingredients to a thriving micro-batch community are: (1)A strong customer base that has disposable incomes and values authentic goods; (2)A city brand that signifies quality and craft; and (3) A culinary community that supports restauranteurs and food entrepreneurs. These are all elements that few cities outside of Ashland have in high concentration. To better support current (or future) small food and beverage manufacturers, the city can provide the tools for those entrepreneurs to easily scale production. By partnering with an operator of a co-working or makerspace, a small facility could be developed with the equipment (bottling, labeling, etc.) that can be a common barrier to growth. This same model can be created for the visual arts producer underscoring the creative class that chooses to live in Ashland and could better thrive with more collaboration and support. This also ties into the Revitalize the Downtown pillar to more effectively use commercial properties. 4. Resilient/Sustainable Business Practices A resilient economy is only as strong as its individual businesses, and one strategy to make the entire local economy more flexible is to help those businesses develop plans to manage disruptions. Many businesses have adjusted their operations over the previous three years in response to the ongoing challenges of the pandemic. Expand the "®§³¨«¸ȟ¹Ɏ$³«¸«´©¿Ɏ/¸«¶§¸«ª´«¹¹Ɏ3µµ²Ɏ*¯ºɎ and the Smokewise Ashland Website in partnership with Ashland Fire & Rescue and Jackson County Emergency Preparedness Expand the successful Language of Business series to help small businesses find needed resources for business growth and expansion Provide technical assistance for businesses and expand partnerships Encourage businesses to develop continuity of operations plans Pillar Two: Diversify Tourism –Four focus areas ¹Ɏ´µº«ªɎ¯´Ɏº®«Ɏ26.3Ɏ§´§²¿¹¯¹ȍɎºµ»¸¯¹³Ɏ³§¿Ɏ¨«Ɏ ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏ¨¯ggest strength but is also has weaknesses. From the location quotient analysis, it is clear that tourism generates significant employment in the service industry, lodging and retail services. Specifically, concerns relate to the previous overreliance on specific institutions to drive visitors to the city, primarily the Oregon Shakespeare Festival have created new opportunities for expansion and growth. The last few years have revealed how the tourism industry will need to continue to evolve to maintain the level of visitors to which Ashland is accustomed. In terms of sectors, outdoor recreation and culinary experiences are an obvious area for growth that have already been successful particularly in the last decade but have even more opportunities for growth. With regard to the structure of the tourist season, the key objective is to more evenly spread visitation throughout the year to avoid smoke disruptions. Additionally, younger visitors appear to favor a more diverse array of activities and amenities. 1. Outdoor Recreation Outdoor Recreation has always been as a regional attraction. The Rogue Valley provides a wide variety of hiking, rafting, biking, snow sports and other ways to enjoy º®«Ɏ§¸«§ȟ¹Ɏª¯¹º¯´©ºɎ´§º»¸§²Ɏ¨«§»º¿ȌɎ ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏ»´¯·»«Ɏ¸µ²«Ɏ¯´Ɏº®¯¹Ɏ¯´ª»¹º¸¿ȟ¹Ɏ«©µ¹¿¹º«³Ɏ¯¹Ɏ its ability to provide quality lodging, quality food options, and ample shopping. Encourage amenities that signal to outdoor recreation enthusiasts that their needs are being considered (private/public bike storage, trail information, river conditions, dog boarding needs). Expand opportunities for children to participate in outdoor activities. (Day camps, trails, climbing) Partner with event coordinators to bring wider variety of events into the downtown and other areas of the city. Build live music, food around them. 2. Broaden Culinary Experiences: Ashland has a strong reputation of great restaurants, spectacular vineyards, and specialty item like high-quality chocolate. With a growing interest in how products are made and access to fre ingredients, more visitors would take advantage of unique opportunities for culinary experien while in the area. Cross-promote the various existing experiences that exist (wine tours, farm visits, etc.) to visito coming for different reasons (theater, outdoor recreation, etc.) by continuing and expanding partnering with Rogue Valley Vintners, Rogue Valley Food Trail and established culinary entit that can collaborate. Explore experiences such as cooking classes, coffee roasting, chocolate making, etc. that local experts could host and cater to both visitors as well as residents. 3. Extend the Event Calendar Plan more spring, fall, and winter events. Create new fall event for 2023, spring 2024. ¹®²§´ªɎ,¿¹º«¸¿Ɏ%«¹ºɎɋɎ.©ºµ¨«¸ɎŵųɉŵŵȍɎŵųŵŶ Market experiences like fall foliage, continue to promote holiday shopping and family travel, winter skiing or spring break trips to pull more visitors in during non-summer months. Support performing arts businesses that attempt to expand their offerings into other seasons. Create opportunities for pop-up music events throughout the year especially in the Downtown. Leverage partners and opportunities in the off-season such as new winery events with Rogue Table and Rogue Valley Vintners. Bring back elements of the former Ashland Culinary festival such as chef demos, winemaker and beer dinners and pairings and tours. 4. 4. Expand Visitor Types Ashland has a strong potential to evolve its visitor given the foundation of its new brand launched by Travel Ashland in 2021 that provides a platform for targeting established personas, interests such as the outdoors, wine and culinary, family fun and the way in which they travel. Pillar Three: Rediscover Downtown –Four focus areas Objective: Create a Vibrant Downtownthrough investing in public spaces, diversifying our visitors, and building flexible commercial spaces . The core of every city is its downtown. Downtowns create economic efficiencies through the concentration and specialization of firms. Moreover, the economic health of a downtown area typically reflections the overall economic health of a locality. In short, downtown is the living room of a town and reflects the overall community. ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏªµ½´ºµ½´Ɏ¯¹Ɏ§Ɏ±«¿Ɏ§¹¹«ºɎºµɎº®«Ɏ²µ©§²Ɏ«©µ´omy in multiple ways, some of which have been maximized, and others which remain underleveraged. For tourists, the downtown brings together performing arts, shopping, dining, and park amenities all within a walkable area. For residents, there is a symbolic value to the downtown. Even if they may not be attending performances or shopping regularly at some of the stores, they appreciate certain elements (farmers markets, holiday shopping, etc.) at certain times of the year. A targeted approach to update and invigorate downtown will not only support the tourist market in attracting more and more diverse visitors, but also strengthen an asset that may prove attractive to future residents. Young professionals have come to assume that a central business district will be walkable, mixed use and full of bars and restaurants to appreciate after work hours. 1. Invest in Public Spaces The downtown is emerging not only from a period of pandemic-induced dormancy, but also a transition from a focus on a certain era of OSF visitors to a broader group with broader needs. It is an opportune time to explore updating the look and feel of the public spaces. ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏªµ½´ºµ½´Ɏ¯¹Ɏ½«²©µ³¯´Ɏ§´ªɎ½§²±§¨²«Ɏªµ½´ºµ½´Ɏ½¯º®Ɏ§Ɏ¹eries of wide, tree-lined sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly crosswalks. There is a need for additional investment in the public space: bump out crosswalks, bike infrastructure, contemporary wayfinding, improved lighting, landscaping, maintenance and public art. There is also need for strategic façade improvements and related public-facing private investments that help to maintain the charm of the downtown but create a more contemporary feel. To add a more unique, authentic vibrancy, additional creative placemaking could be used to partner with artist, entrepreneurs and the community to activate underutilized spaces. For the downtown to maintain and grow its number of visitors, there is a need to expand the tourist base to include more young families, people of color, and customers of different types of goods and services. Maintain public safety 2. Diversify Downtown Visitors This action ties in with the Diversify Tourism pillar but expands beyond overnight visitors to include residents of Ashland and the Rogue Valley and day visitors. These events and draws can be short term in duration and specific to a particular type of demographic Working closely with locals interested in creating more events but needing streamlining of permitting is critical Creating events and assisting others through process and promotions 3. Support Flexible Commercial Spaces The traditional separation of spaces into specific uses has been eroding over the last decade as some business owners are rethinking what a store, bar, office, etc. means. Current business owners may need more flexible or outdoor spaces; for example a retail location that includes space in the back for fabrication, a restaurant that would like to put outdoor seating in parking spaces, artist studios that also include a gallery, co-working spaces that want to partner with a bottle shop, bars that want to allow for live music, art galleries that are wine bars or restaurants that are just take- out windows. The pandemic particularly showed how vib¸§´ºɎ ¹®²§´ªȟ¹Ɏµ»ºªµµ¸Ɏ¹¶§©«¹Ɏ©§´Ɏ¨«Ɏ with some minimal flexibility. 4.Create a Solar Downtown Climate change haunts Ashland. While there are few things that can directly mitigate the risk of future wildfires, the city can embrace the challenge of minimizing its carbon footprint and meeting the ambitious targets identified ¯´Ɏº®«Ɏ"¯º¿ȟ¹Ɏ©²¯³§º«Ɏ§©º¯on plan. The city can mobilize its downtown building owners to embrace rooftop solar and demonstrate the potential of renewable energy. Given the number of visitors that come to the downtown, the city has an opportunity to educate and empower visitors to embrace the challenge ahead. Engaging digital signage can show in real time the power that could be generated by collective action from a cohort of responsible business owners. Not only would this help Ashland in its efforts to demonstrate its modern sensibility, but it would support a burgeoning local solar industry. Pillar Four: Expand Talent Pool -Four focus areas Without qualified workers, Ashland employers will be unable to expand and develop the next generation of local leadership in the private sector. Labor attraction, availability, and skills sets are already hindering growth. The causes are both obvious and obscure, but one is clear: lack of workforce housing. The lack of supply and cost of existing housing causes a large number of Ashland workers to live in other communities. This impacts traffic (and related environmental effects), reliability during weather emergencies, enrollment levels at local schools, local political representation, and commitment to the long-term viability of Ashland. There are various approaches that Ashland and the region can and are taking to address this structural challenge. 1. Train World-Class Healthcare Workforce Objective: Identify the root causes/drivers related to the barriers to workforce growth and development in the healthcare sector for our region and make recommendations for improvements. The healthcare industry generates a significant array of accessible and in-demand careers that provide family-sustaining wages. Ashland has large local employers, a growing senior population that will require additional assistance in the future, and local educational resources to train the future of healthcare. The healthcare community is also aware of the changes underway in the industry: more outpatient services, a focus on wellness and functional medicine, and development of regional approaches to patient attraction. Fully leveraging the opportunities available in health care may be the most direct approach to generating quality jobs that allow workers to live in Ashland and the Rogue Valley. 2. Attract Remote Workers One of the traditional assumptions of job creation is that local job growth depends on local company growth. This has been diminished by the economic adjustments that took place during the pandemic. For an increasing number of workers, the workplace is wherever they can open a laptop and connect to the internet. Ashland is the type of place that can benefit from these changes, with the features that attract many remote workers: strong quality of life amenities and a fast internet connection. The benefit to Ashland is more talented young workers that support other local businesses and may settle down and start families. 3. Increase Workforce Housing & Childcare Supply The lack of childcare in Ashland and the region were cited as significant hindrances to employee attraction and retention. 4. Align Employer Needs with Regional Labor One of the challenges in the local labor market is a disconnect from what employers need and the skill set of local workers. In some cases, this relates to midcareer workers and in others with young workers. To benefit both workers and employers, more can be done to align needs and resources to develop those skills, either via educational Potential Partners:Potential Partners: iiaiaiaii PoPPPoPPPPPoPoPPPPPoPoPoPPPPoooooooottteteeeeeeeenttii PPPPPPPPPPoooooteteeiaiii PoPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPote PPPPPtentntiaii PPPPPPPPPPPPPoteee PPPPPPPPPPoentiai PPPPPteeenia PoPPotetentntiaa te PoPoPoPPPoPPotteeeeeeentntntntnttntiaiiaaaaaa Pooottteeentntntntiaiaaaaaaa oooottteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeniaaa oootttteeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaa otettteeeeeeeeentnniiaaaaa teeeeeeiaiaiaia Pootteeeeeeaa tteeeennnn PoPoPooooeeeeeeeeeeeeennniaiaiiiaiaaaa PoPPotteeeeeeentntnttiaiaia eeeeeeeennttntiaiiaaaaa Poteteteeeenttntttiaiiaiaiaiaiaiaa ooeia institutions or via employer training programs. ooottteeentntniiaa ooottteeeeeeenntntnntnntiaiiaiiiaaa otttteeeenaa Ptteeennnnntnttiaiaaaaa ottteeeenntnttiaiaaa otttttteeennnnnntnttttttiiaiaaaaaaaaaaaa Poooottttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeennttttttiiaaaaaa Pttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeennnnttttttiiiiaiiaaaaaa PPPPPPPPPPPPPoooooootttttttttttttteeeeentnttiiiiiaaaaaaaaaa PPPPooooooooooottteeeeeeeeeeeentntnnttttttaaaaa Partnerships are critical to the success of the plan Each pillar includes Ashland businesses, government and regional partners 3®«Ɏ ¹®²§´ªɎ"®§³¨«¸ɎɋɎ©µ´¼«´«¹ȍɎ¬§©¯²¯º§º«¹Ɏ§´ªɎ¶»¸¹»«¹Ɏ´««ª«ªɎ©®§´«¹Ɏ§¬º«¸Ɏ©²«§¸²¿Ɏ defining obstacles to growth and identifying opportunities to pursue /»¨²¯©Ƀ¶¸¯¼§º«Ɏµ¸§´¯À§º¯µ´¹Ɏ§´ªɎ´µ´Ɏ¶¸µ¬¯º¹Ɏ¶§¸º¯©¯¶§º«Ɏµ´Ɏ«§©®Ɏ¶¯²²§¸ɎɋɎ2.1$#(ȍɎ SCORE, Rogue Workforce Partnership, Rogue Valley Food Systems, Rogue Valley Vintners, Travel Southern Oregon, and others $ª»©§º¯µ´ɎɋɎ2µ»º®«¸´Ɏ.¸«µ´Ɏ4´¯¼«¸¹¯º¿ȍɎ1µ»«Ɏ"µ³³»´¯º¿Ɏ"µ²²«« &µ¼«¸´³«´ºɎɋɎ"¯º¿Ɏµ¬Ɏ ¹®²§´ªȍɎ)§©±¹µ´Ɏ"µunty, SBA/SBDC, Travel Oregon, Business Oregon, staff and elected officials at all levels where appropriate This plan is meant to leverage our strengths as a community and region g d n i e :s THROUGH BUILDING CODES p o y u t. y o 8 l l e sg o t s r 0 e e o h FOR ASHLAND 12/31/23 n el s c r 0 v t e oi g l 2c ad e r n n !!rd a e ar d d t u u ao WW e d n e5 NOW IN EFFECT o c OO hh t tpe U g 6 t NN c e p . ns s Ce y i YY lxt l n o L i ee l AA L reo f m d n e d r , W W c g o A u RR s o rp w r EE a t c nap dg DD e n 2L t N N k a a n e l i 9 UU aw sl a l .c p p e n r xr e i g o m n le e o an w t ri n e p 2 sk d p v m w 4 8 o a 1 e p , e o9 4 o AMRTld571 y B l l i ) M ty r c n i a r a t m s i i m r D o P r ( C e l g ) y n y t r a r i r a e )T p m y t i oi r r r s a P P n ( m a d i r r a T P o ( r l i a R ) y n r w a o d t n n o w c o e D S ( d 207 percent of needed housing. n e i : h p y ), or any project-specific st The prescriptive methodology set forth in the CFEC rules and associated guidance looks at the full potential developability ˿̂ ̂˵ʽ˴˵̆˵˼˿̀˱˲˹˼˹̄̉ ˿˶ ˱ ˓˖ˑ Ϻ ˼˵̃̃ ˱˾ ˱˼˼˿̇˱˾˳˵ ˶˿̂ ̃̄̂˵˵̄̃ Ϻ as though it will redevelop from bare ground without consideration for existing buildings, code-required on-site stormwater detention, parking that might be voluntarily open space, plaza space or landscaping. Under this methodology, the potential build-out of the Croman Mill District by itself is envisioned at a density of 79 dwelling units per acre yielding 5,142 dwelling units and more than providing for the 30 percent of current and future housing required o g le w sn o e ol r vu r o e 52 dwelling units per acre t e t g s d t 7,524 new dwelling units n ed l ee o r a e rr g h e p d cu t n t d Ѐ n ae t a u n i e f n 7 r u m p f e T 6 r 1 e o t i o m d y r s l -p e d n e t oo t e l t a n r a p e u e T v o a l c m i e e x y a l d v o e r ey p l i g p d r e e r t pnk h ai s t AULϿL y B ̄˸˿̅˷˸ ˾˿ ˼˿˾˷˵̂ ̂˵́̅˹̂˵˴ under the CFEC rules. provided ( Given the level of development and the historic status, the Downtown was considered a CFA and was not analyzed under the 64 percent of needed housing.lens of the prescriptive CFA y: g o l o 58 dwelling units per acre t d 2,226 new dwelling units u o o h t d h e t e i t m s w i n ̃˵˳˿˾˴˱̂̉ L d - w r g e o e n t p i t t k n o s lc ri methodology. s i t w er g a t n ov e p s e i e e D R t h t lD D e m potential y a e yc B e i l r n r r t i e o s o i u g t t - r q f s ai f a e . LorNH d e t p o d a n a l . p d t e e . t p e r n o t l e S e v m. , e p d d o e l nt e u p v o y e l d d e a r g t r e o a d l n . n n s u n eo i ra n l t r c a p l or a P e p 7 t p 5s n .ru a x - e oM n h r t 1 a p u 0 e l p o0 ASC2 14 ) on 1.44 acres = 28.47 units per acre density gpgp( While Croman by itself could satisfy the CFEC requirements based upon the methodology prescribed, for staff the underlying assumptions of that methodology do not seem totally in In those areas where there is some measure of existing development such as in the downtown, it is neither realistic nor desirable to assume that all existing development will While parking is no longer required, it seems safe to assume that developers, tenants, buyers and financial institutions will at least in the near-term want some parking to Even with increased height and no limits on density, in the near-term developers will likely With these factors in mind, staff believe that the combination of CFAs under consideration here are a more realistic attempt to not only meet the CFEC requirements, but also to achieve their underlying intent. To that end, staff note that, if future development were to provide only 15 dwelling units per acre density which is one of the minimum development ˽˵̄̂˹˳̃ ̅˾˴˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˓˖˕˓ ̂̅˼˵̃ʼ ̄˸˵ ˳˿˽˲˹˾˵˴ ̀˿̄˵˾̄˹˱˼ ˓˖ˑϽ̃ ˹˴˵˾̄˹˶˹˵˴ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ̃̄̅˴̉ ̇˿̅˼˴ yield 3,770 units. The projected housing need required to be addressed under CFEC for provided menu of strategic options. Staff are working to update this \[Already section as a number of the recommendations are already in place \[Recent process\] \[Already in work within the framework and scale they are familiar with in southern Oregon. These are consultant-recommendations based on a state- t n \[Looking at TIF for Croman\] \[Already in place\] e m e t a g nb i A s e u x s o a U T h r e d o n e o l s o d F e Z i e e t ld e g n n b en te u a r a o do rm r f r place for affordable housing.\] t p o G S s be razed in pursuit of this new vision. f o fl accommodate the motor vehicles. C n d g e a oD e i nv rt i S t e oa n t a f D line with real world experience. d n p g s i n a tg l e i m in Ashland, including:a n P s i e M M us x y Ashland is 3,469 units. t t nu ie e l n i o o r n e i c bH o l a m ym e F ta e i a c c cc s x i i u in place\] l t E n a r l d - b e e pe e u D s V R R i P : : : : : 1 D 3 3 4 0 0 - 01 1 i 0 t AABCE n A l l i M t c n i r a t s i m D o r C e l g y n t r a i e r T p t o i r s P n d a r a T o r l i a R n w o t n w o D 17 Complete by 12/31/2024 Comp. Plan Element, Maps & Codes Eliminate Mandates or Complete by 12/31/2023 Select Options Complete by 12/31/2023 In Progress In Effect Now 12/31/2022 Reduced Parking Mandates t c e* f 3 f E2 / 1 n i 3 / w 2 1 o y N B 36 served populations impacted in seeking to insure equitable outcomes. Identify potential CFA’s to accommodate 30 percent of projected total Public Engagement Plan, Stakeholder Interviews to identify under- ˙˽̀˼˵˽˵˾̄˵˴ ̄˸̂˿̅˷˸ ˒̅˹˼˴˹˾˷ ˓˿˴˵̃ population in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas. Kestrel Park Cottages ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. July 11, 2023 y REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager Doug Knauer Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Eric Herron Gregory Perkinson Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: The City Council is holding a retreat on July 17, 2023, where they will discuss the role of Advisory Committees, as well as an overview of master plans regarding the future development of the southeast portion of the City. III.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 16, 2023, Regular Meeting Commission MacCracken Jain noted a non-substantive grammatical correction to page 5 of the minutes. Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to approve the consent agenda with a correction. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM - None Page 1 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ V.OTHER BUSINESS A. Oregon's Land Use Planning Program Mr. Goldman gave a brief background on Planning in Oregon, starting in 1973 with Oregon Senate Bill 100, also known as the Oregon Land Use Act. This established a comprehensive land use planning ̀̂˿˷̂˱˽ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ̃̄˱̄˵ʼ ˱˾˴ ̇˱̃ ˱˹˽˵˴ ˱̄ ̀̂˿̄˵˳̄˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ̃̄˱̄˵Ͻ̃ ˾˱̄̅̂˱˼ ̂˵̃˿̅̂˳˵̃ʼ ˱˾˴ ˽˱̂˻˵˴ ˱ ̃˹˷˾˹˶˹˳˱˾̄ ̃˸˹˶̄ ˹˾ ˟̂˵˷˿˾Ͻ̃ ˼˱˾˴ ̅̃˵ ̀˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˗˿˼˴˽˱˾ ˴˵̄˱˹˼˵˴ ˟̂˵˷˿˾Ͻ̃ ˁˉ ˣ̄˱̄˵̇˹˴˵ ˜˱˾˴ ˥̃˵ Planning Goals, but noted that only the first 14 goals apply to the City. He noted several key ˳˿˽̀˿˾˵˾̄̃ ˿˶ ˟̂˵˷˿˾Ͻ̃ ˜˱˾˴ ˥̃˵ ˠ̂˿˷̂˱˽ʼ ˹˾˳˼̅˴˹˾˷ˋ ̄˸˵ ˵̃̄˱˲˼˹̃˸˽˵˾̄ ˿˶ ˷˿˱˼ʽ˲˱̃˵˴ ̀˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ˋ statewide planning goals; the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs); citizen involvement; economic development; providing for housing development to meet the needs of the population; and the integration of transportation systems (see attachment #1). Discussion Commissioner Knauer requested clarification regarding local and state guidelines over land use. Mr. Goldman responded that local governments could pass ordinances are still required to meet statewide goals. States can find that a city is not meeting certain goals, but cities are given a level of discretion based on their specific needs. Mr. Goldman noted that there has been a recent shift from the state handing down statewide requirements that will override local decisions, such as the elimination of parking requirements for new developments. Councilor Hyatt asked staff what prohibited the City from expanding its UGB line. Mr. Goldman responded that these limits fall under the statewide goals, and that each city is required to identify its population growth per year. Using this figure, the City is expected to have enough land to accommodate its predicted population growth until 2041. Mr. Severson added that the City had committed to using its available land before increasing its UGB. The Commission discussed how population growth is calculated by Portland State University. Commissioner KenCairn asked why properties off of East Main Street had not been annexed into the City yet. Mr. Goldman responded that all annexed properties need to be adjacent to the City Limits, and that one of the greatest ˿˲̃̄˱˳˼˵̃ ̄˿ ˱˾˾˵̈˱̄˹˿˾ ˹̃ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄˹˵̃Ͻ ˼˱˳˻ ˿˶ ˱˳˳˵̃̃ ̄˿ ˓˹̄̉ ̅̄˹˼˹̄˹˵̃ʾ ˤ˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾ ˲̂˹˵˶˼̉ discussed the process for annexing land into the City. Decision Making & Meeting Procedure o Mr. Severson spoke to the difference between the different types of permits that the Planning Division reviews, focusing on those that do not go before the Commission. These include permits for food trucks, fences, signs, and Land Use Compliance Statements, and are completed by planners Page 2 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ provided the applications meet requirements. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that preapplications are required before any land use decisions are made, and must be submitted six months before development begins. A conference is scheduled between staff and the applicants two weeks after the application is received, allowing time for comments to be submitted by City departments and any issues to be raised with the applicant prior to them submitting an application. Mr. Goldman noted that preapplications are a conceptual process where staff can warn an applicant if their submittal is unviable or if revisions should be made. Mr. Goldman briefly described the differences between Type I, Type II, and Type III planning actions. He stated that Type I planning actions are reviewed by staff only, and are only seen by the Commission if they get appealed. The City is required to make a final decision 120 days after the application is determined to be complete, including time for any appeals made, though the applicant can opt to extend the decision period past 120 days. Commissioner Knauer asked if staff had ever reviewed their noticing distance of 200ft around the subject property of a planning action. Mr. Goldman responded that the state guideline is 100ft from the subject property, so the City has doubled this noticing area in order to garner maximum feedback from potentially affected parties. Mr. Severson detailed how Type II applications require approval from the Commission before findings are approved and adopted, provided no participating parties appeal the decision. He described how the Commission is required to either Continue a Public Hearing or to leave the Record open for at least seven days if a party requests it. These extensions take place within the 120-day decision period, so staff must remain aware of this when scheduling reviews by the Commission. Chair Verner asked if the Commission has the ability to schedule an additional meeting if under a time constraint to review an application. Mr. Severson responded that the City needs to adhere to noticing requirements, which would make adding impromptu meetings difficult. Commissioner Knauer asked if the 120-day approval period is definitive. Mr. Goldman responded that it can be extended up to 365 days with the explicit approval from the applicant. Mr. Severson stated that Type III planning actions are items that require ordinance changes, such as the Grand Terrace annexation, and also require noticing to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). These items receive a recommendation from the Commission, with the Council making the final determination. Mr. Severson stated that parties can appeal a decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which can affirm, remand, or reverse a decision back to the City. If remanded, the City has 120 days to address the issues for which it was remanded. Chair Verner asked how many times an application can be appealed to LUBA, and Mr. Severson responded that any appeal must be limited to issues from the most recent application. The Commission discussed the recent remand of the Grand Page 3 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Terrace annexation at 1511 Highway 99 North, which was remanded on two main issues. The Commission will have a limited Public Hearing to address those remand issues at its August 8, 2023 meeting. Public Meeting Law o Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that Public Meeting Law (PML) applies to all public governing bodies with the authority to render decisions on policy or administration. All public meetings are open to the public unless an executive session is authorized. Notices are provided to all interested parties, minutes are taken for the meeting, and all votes are cast publicly. The City issues public notices to the Ashland News to inform the community of all upcoming meetings. Mr. Goldman stated that all meetings between members of the governing body must comply with PML, including in- person meetings, group emails or communications, lunch meetings, or phone calls. Staff recommended that Commissioners not meet in person outside of an established meeting, even if they would not have a quorum. Mr. Goldman described how the Oregon Government Ethics Law applies to all public officials or those serving the state of Oregon, whether they be paid or not. These ethics standards are particularly important during elections, as no official can advocate for or against any candidate or position in their official capacity. Mr. Goldman briefly defined a conflict of interest, whether it be actual or potential. He stated that an actual conflict of interest is one where any action, decision, or recommendation by a person acting in an official capacity would gain from a decision made by that official. An official must announce this conflict publicly and recuse themselves. A potential conflict of interest is one that could provide a tangential benefit to the official, such as a review of a planning action that involves a friend or family member. An official is not necessarily required to recuse themselves from such a decision, but must publicly announce the conflict of interest. Councilor Hyatt suggested that any Commissioner who believes they have a conflict of interest contact the City Attorney prior to the meeting. B. Discussion of City Council and Planning Commission Coordination Mr. Goldman began by emphasizing the importance of having a Commissioner present at Council meetings where a planning action that the Commission made a recommendation on is being reviewed. He stated that the Council values the opinion of the Commission, and weighs its recommendation greatly. He informed the Commission that Commissioner Knauer had attended a number of Council meetings as a private citizen, similar to the late Michael Dawkins who attended Council meetings as a de facto liaison. The Commission discussed designating a member of the Page 4 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Commission as one who could attend all Council meetings where an item that was previously reviewed by the Commission will be discussed (see attachment #2). ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˵̂ ˛˾˱̅˵̂ ˱̃˻˵˴ ̇˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ̂˿˼˵ ̇˹˼˼ ˲˵ ˹˾ ̂˵˷˱̂˴̃ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˓̂˿˽˱˾ ˝˹˼˼ ˣ˹̄˵ project. Councilor Hyatt stated that the Council will be garnering feedback from as many advisory ˲˿˴˹˵̃ ˱̃ ̀˿̃̃˹˲˼˵ʼ ˱˾˴ ̄˸˱̄ ˓˿̅˾˳˹˼ ̂˵˼˹˵̃ ˿˶ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ̂˵˳˿˽˽˵˾˴˱̄˹˿˾̃ ̇˸˵˾ ˽˱˻˹˾˷ decisions, particularly for appeals. She commented that the Croman Mill Site project is in a nebulous state because no application has been submitted yet, but that it will go through all proper procedures once one has been submitted. Commissioner MacCracken Jain if the liaison position is formalized, Mr. Goldman responded that the liaison is an official role but does not have a vote on the Commission. Councilor Hyatt commented that she will publicly announce any prior knowledge if the Council will be reviewing an item that was previously seen by the Commission, but that all Commission meetings are open to the Council to view. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman announced that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be providing preliminary results on July 31, 2023 from their tests of the Croman Mill Site. The site will need to undergo a cleanup before development can begin. The Commission discussed the Croman Mill Site development, and Mr. Goldman announced that Townmakers, LLC will be providing an update to the Commission at its July 25, 2023 Study Session. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the Commission has any directive to work with the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and if there were opportunities for better coordination between bodies. Councilor Hyatt stated that there is an intersection between land use and transportation, but that a planning action also needing to go before the TAC could result in the application going beyond its 120-day review period. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the TAC does ̀̂˿̆˹˴˵ ̂˵˳˿˽˽˵˾˴˱̄˹˿˾̃ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˣ˵̆˵̂̃˿˾ ˱˴˴˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˠ̅˲˼˹˳ ˧˿̂˻̃ Department will be developing a new transportation plan to coincide with the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines, which the Commission will be involved in. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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 1). Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF LIMITED PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2022-00004 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North APPLICANT/OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda Zare DESCRIPTION:Annexation The City Council previously approved the of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. These properties are located in Jackson County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation they are to be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Outline Plan Residential (R-2). In addition to Annexation, the approved application included Site Design Review subdivision approval to create 12 lots; to construct 230 apartments in ten Exception to the Street Design StandardsTree buildings including 37 affordable units; an ; and Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. This approval was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and has been remanded to the city to consider two issues: 1) That the city erred in approving an exception to the on-street parking requirement in AMC 18.3.9.060; and 2) That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of 500 square feet. This Planning Commission hearing will be strictly limited in scope to the consideration of these two issues on remand. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: Existing Multi-Family Residential; County , Proposed RR-5 Rural ResidentialCity R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; MAP: 38 1E 32; 1700 & 1702 PLANNING COMMISSION LIMITED PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center/City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold a limited public hearing on the above described remand issues for PA-T3-2022-00004 on the meeting date and time shown above. The meeting will be held at the Ashland Civic Center/Ashland City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street in Ashland, Oregon. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going RVTV Prime. to rvtv.sou.edu The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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 This hearing specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. will be limited to the two issues on remand as they relate to the applicable criteria. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant is available on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/grandterrace. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available on-line athttp://www.ashland.or.us/PCpacketsseven days prior to the Planning Commission hearing.Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. During the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission Chairperson will allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance only concerning the two remand issues described above. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the two remand issues. Those wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the th August 8 PC Hearing Testimony August 7, 2023. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 8 th PC Hearing Testimony subject line August 8, 2023. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oraltestimony will also be taken via Zoom during the in-person public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony via Zoom duringthe hearing, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 7, 2023. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email August 8 Speaker Request 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -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 Planning Manager Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to this application, at 541-552-2040 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us. AMC 18.5.8.050 Annexation Approval Criteria & Standards An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsections A through H below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. A. The annexed area is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master, or area plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The annexed area is contiguous with the city limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required public facility improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 1.For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets bordering on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards unless exception criteria apply. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2.For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area. Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the approval authority may require the construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use paths connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of the development proposed concurrently with the annexation. 3.For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation). exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or multi-use paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with significant pedestrian activity. 4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. Timing of Transportation Improvements. 5. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park, shall not be included. G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed area for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park. a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. 2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non- profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and 18.5.8.050.G.6. b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d. e. Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in 18.5.8.050.G.4. 3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development. a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program. Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Minimum Required Floor Area for Affordable Units Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to floor area, interior finishes and materials, and housing type provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 6.Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, then would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. b. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. c. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. 7.The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing. H. One or more of the following standards are met. 1. The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B, above. 2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute. 3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the city limits. I.Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria and standards in this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances. AMC 18.3.9.040.A Performance Standards Options Subdivision/Outline Plan Approval Criteria & Standards 3. Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. 4. Approval of the Outline Plan. a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety. b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished. AMC 18.5.2.050 Site Design Review Approval Criteria & Standards An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. (Ord. 3147 § 9, amended, 11/21/2017) AMC 18.4.6.020.B Exception to the Street Design Standards Approval Criteria & Standards 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. AMC 18.5.7.040.B Tree Removal Permit Approval Criteria & Standards 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Memo DATE: August 8, 2023 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager RE: Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand of PA-T3-2022-00004 1511 Highway 99 North Annexation Approval Background In December of 2022, the City Council approved the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific (CORP) railroad property. These properties are currently zoned Rural Residential (RR-5) in Jackson County; with Annexation they are to be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). In addition to Annexation, the approved application included Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including 38 affordable units; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height. The record for this application can be reviewed on-line at: https://www.ashland.or.us/grandterrace. subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and has been remanded to the City to consider two issues: 1) That the city erred in approving an exception to the on-street parking requirement in AMC 18.3.9.060; and 2) That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of 500 square feet. To consider these two remand issues, staff has scheduled this limited public hearing before the Planning Commission. The notices mailed to parties made clear that the substance of the hearing would be strictly limited in scope to the consideration of only these two issues on remand from LUBA. Remand Issue #1: On-Street Parking Exception The originally approved application included a request for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options (Chapter 18.3.9) to create 10 buildable lots and two common open space properties. During the public hearing process, the Planning Commission noted that AMC 18.3.9.060 dealing with Parking Standards for subdivisions proposed under AMC 18.3.9 required that: All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3, Parking, Access, and Circulation. A.On-Street Parking Required. At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided, in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone, with the exception of cottage housing developments, and for all developments in R-2 and R-3 zones that create or improve public streets. B.On-Street Parking Standards. On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection 18.4.3.060.A. While no Variance or Exception to this standard had been requested as part of the original application, the Planning Commission determined that AMC 18.3.9.060 was applicable, that COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 an Exception to the Street Design Standards was the appropriate procedure if on-street parking would not be provided, and that such an Exception was merited. New Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules were adopted July 21, 2022, by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in response to Executive Order #20-04 by Governor Kate Brown and took effect August 17, 2022. The CFEC rules address how cities may regulate a variety of land use and transportation issues, including a number of changes to the ways cities may regulate parking. Among the new CFEC rules: Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-Cities and counties may not require more than one parking space per unit in residential developments with more than one dwelling unit on a single legally established property.Parking spaces are defined in OAR 660-012-on and off-street spaces designated for automobile parking, other than parking spaces reserved for carpools, vanpools, or parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act. OAR 660-012-Cities and counties may not require parking for the following Affordable housing as defined in OAR 660-039-0010; proposed in the application under consideration are smaller than 750 square feet, and under the new CFEC rules the city may not require parking for this development type. OAR 660-012-Cities and counties may not enforce parking mandates for development on a lot or parcel that includes land within one-half mile or routes in the community if the scheduled frequency is at least once per hour during peak service.-012-00005(27), parking mandates are defined as requirements to include a minimum number of off-street parking spaces with development or redevelopment, or a fee-in-lieu of providing parking for residential development.In this ins on Highway 99 North, which fronts directly on the subject properties here, with a peak hour scheduled frequency of every 20 minutes, and as such qualifies as frequent transit. Under the new CFEC rules, Ashland may not enforce parking mandates (i.e., require off-street parking) for the subject properties. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Under OAR 660-012-implement the requirements of OAR 660-012-0430 and 660-012-0440 when reviewing development applications submitted after December 31, 2022. Conservation and Development (DLCD) has been that cities must either modify their regulations or implement these new rules directly from the OAR and disregard local regulations. Ashland is in the process of amending its parking codes to comply with these new CFEC rules, and others which took effect on June 30, 2023, and has received an extension allowing these code amendments to occur no later than December 31, 2023. In the interim, the City has been directly applying the applicable state rules. With regard to the current application, it was initially submitted on July 8, 2022, however it remains in process now more than eight months after these new CFEC rules have taken effect. The Performance Standards subdivision process requires a preliminary or outline plan review followed by a final plan review, so prior to the physical development of the site, another development application for final plan approval will be required at which time the applicant will not be subject to parking requirements under the new CFEC rules and could request to amend their proposal accordingly. ave the discretion to assess the current request based on the new CFEC rules, which remove the requirement for parking since all proposed residential units are smaller than 750 square feet. The fact that the CFEC parking regulations have been in effect for eight months, along with the LUBA remand for further review leading to the final decision of the City to occur after the new regulations were implemented, supports the consideration of the application under the current State law specified in OAR 660-012-0430 and 0440. Additionally, the applicant will need to submit a second development application, Final Plan review, during which the city will be unable to enforce parking requirements under the new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. Therefore, the staff recommends evaluating the current request under the new CFEC rules without requiring parking, considering the nature of the proposed residential units. help transportation choices and improving equity. to a project that combines small market rate units with deed-restricted affordable housing, situated on a transit route and providing substantial improvements to support transit and pedestrian travel is exactly what the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules seek COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 to enable, and requiring an applicant to withdraw and reapply with an identical proposal now in order to be subject to the new rules, when their application is still in process eight months after the new rules have taken effect, would pose an unreasonable impediment which would discourage the production of needed housing during a housing crisis. CFEC parking rules are appropriate here, to not require either on- or off-street parking, and to amend the findings for the original approval accordingly. Remand Issue #2: Affordable Unit Sizes The original application identified each of the ten identical buildings proposed as containing 20 one-bedroom units of 499.5 square feet each, and three studio units of 250 square feet each. Two of these ten buildings were to be relied on in meeting the affordability requirements, which were a total of 38 deed restricted affordable units assuming that the applicant either builds the units themselves or does so in cooperation with a non-profit affordable housing provider partner. AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires that the minimum square footage for affordable one-bedroom units be 500 square feet, and that the minimum square footage for affordable studios be 350 square feet. The adopted conditions relating to affordability are: Condition #7e. \[That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:\] A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, and that should the applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI. Condition #10g. If the applicant opts to dedicate land area to a non-profit affordable housing developer, dedication shall occur in a manner consistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and recording of deed restrictions guaranteed affordability described herein shall occur in conjunction with plat signature and recording. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 That the affordable unit sizes as approved do not comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires that affordable studios be a minimum of 350 square feet and that affordable one-bedroom units be a minimum of In response to this issue, the applicant has provided a revised floor plan demonstrating how the one-bedroom units could be modified by reducing their recessed entry depth by three- inches in order to achieve the required 500 square feet per affordable one-bedroom unit. AS PROPOSED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 25.98 square feet for recessed entry = 499.02 square feet. AS MODIFIED: 12.5 x 42 = 525 square feet less 24.8975 feet for recessed entry = 500.1025 square feet. In addition, the applicant notes that affordable basement level studios would be modified to be 499.5 square feet to significantly exceed the required 350 square feet per affordable studio unit. Here, staff would also note that the affordability requirement for this project calls for 38 affordable units to be provided. Each building proposed has 20 one-bedroom units, and assuming that two buildings will be developed by an affordable housing provider partner or the applicant themselves, the 38 required affordable units could be accommodated entirely with one-bedroom units, leaving one one-bedroom unit and three studios in each of the two buildings to be rented at market rate or provided as voluntarily affordable (i.e. not deed- restricted and not subject to the square footage requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3.). Staff believe that the second remand issue can be fully addressed by increasing the size of the one-bedroom units by a de minimis amount to comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 and making clear that as configured in the original proposal the studio units need not be considered among the required affordable units. If this approach is satisfactory to the Planning Commission and City Council, staff would recommend that Condition #7e be modified as follows: Condition #7e. A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that: 1) where the required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, 2) and that should the applicant opt to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI, and 3) that each of the required affordable units comply with the minimum affordable units size requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, with one bedroom affordable units being a minimum of 500 square feet, and affordable studio units being a minimum of 350 square feet. If the Planning Commission accepts the approaches outlined above for both of the remand issues, staff will draft findings and bring them back to the September meeting for adoption. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC July 18, 2023 REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF LUBA No. 2023-007 REMAND On behalf of the Property Owner, Casita Development LLC, lease accept this request for review and public hearing of the Remand of a Land Use Board of Appeals Decision LUBA No. 2023-007, Final Opinion and Order, published on May 09, 2023. It can be found that the record of PA-T3-2022-0004, the conand the record demonstrates compliance with the City of Ashland standards subject to remand. Summary of Assignments of Error Subject to Remand: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR B . Second Subassignment of Error AMC 18.3.0.060(A) provides: On-Street Parking Required. At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be -street parking requirements for all development in an R-1 zone, lopments in the R-2 and R- 3 zones that create or improve public streets. AMC 18.3.9.060(A) at all, let alone by AMC 18.3.9.060(B). Record 69 (expressly concluding - respondent's brief, we will not consider it. The city may choose, on remand, to consider 51 Or LUBA 454,472 (2006) (LUBA will remand a decision where an alte Opinion and Order Pg. 10; Lines 16 – 24; Pg. 11; Lines 1 and 2). -assignment of error wa error is sustained, in part. Remand Review of LUBA Final Opinion and Order (LUBA 2023-007) (PA-T3-2022-0004) Page 1 of 3 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC RESPONSE: (OAR) and Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) which direct on Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance rulemakingadopted,Climate Friendly and Equitable (CFEC) Rules that have direct consequences on the city’s ability to require both on- site -site parking. The adopted OAR mandated that larger remove parking mandates. As of January 1, 2023, consistent with OAR 660-012-400, Parking Management, that required that , Ashland no longer requires on-site parking from AMC 18.4.3.040, for dwelling units that are less than 750 square feet in area (OAR 660-012-0430(3d), -12-0430)(3e) frequent transit corridors (OAR 660-012-440(3). OR HWY 99 is a frequent transit corridor with Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) Route 10 and a transit stop for the southbound bus is proposed on the property frontage route per OAR 660-012-0440(3c). Ashland Planning Department. Following State approval of amendments to OAR 660-012-400 through OAR 660-012-0450, a map are no longer enforced as of January 1, 2023 was presented to Ashland Planning Commission at a on , 2022. This map is included as an exhibit. August 9 th Whereparking areas are provided, must comply with the CFEC standards, Oregon Building Code Standards for access to EV charging (OAR 660-012-0410), and city of Ashland Standards for landscaping, stormwater management, accessibility, and the city’s parking area development standards. This addresses the remand of the First Assignment of Error, Second Sub assignment of Error (LUBA Final Opinion and Order. Pages 9-11 and Page 12 Lines 1-4). B. Fourth Assignment of Error Second Sub Assignment of Error - The City’s decision is inconsistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G3. AMC 18.5.8.05.G.3 requires that the minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as outlined in Table 18.5.8.050.G.c, The -bedroom units) and 250 square feet (studio units). RESPONSE: The any designated one-bedroom units are enlarged to 500 square feet in gross habitable Remand Review of LUBA Final Opinion and Order (LUBA 2023-007) (PA-T3-2022-0004) Page 2 of 3 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC area.Anydesignatedordable studio units will be enlarged to no less than 350square feet. This is in conformance . “ .” These square footages are consistent with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unit size standards as found in Table 18.5.8.050(G)(3). Therefore, it can be found that comply with Oregon amend their decision to comply with the 1, 2023 in lieu of applying parking mandates under AMC 18.4.3.040 and as directed in the LUBA Final Opinion and Order to Remand PA-T3-2022-0004. Thank you, Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC ments: LUBA Final Opinion and Order Floor Plans (First Floor and Basement) CFEC Parking Handout Rapid Transit Map il Remand Review of LUBA Final Opinion and Order (LUBA 2023-007) (PA-T3-2022-0004) Page 3 of 3 Memo DATE: August 8, 2023 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Derek Severson, RE: Croman Mill Site Sampling Results & Next Steps Background On-site sampling at the Croman Mill site was conducted on during the first week of May Environmental Quality (DEQ) was on hand to oversee this sampling work and to answer questions from interested parties including citizens, staff, and Council members. Preliminary results of that sampling work have come back, and the property owners representatives, their environmental consultants and DEQ staff were on hand to discuss the preliminary results and next steps at the July 31, 2023, Council study session. As Planning Commissioners are aware, Townmakers LLC has expressed interest in acquiring the property for redevelopment, and the city is currently analyzing the Ultimately, the cleanup of the property is the necessary first step for any sort of redevelopment to move forward. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) serves as the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing the voluntary cleanup of the former Croman Mill site, and It is important to note that the City of Ashland does not possess review or approval authority over the cleanup plan. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Test Results Testing supervised by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) the week of May 5th at the former Croman Mill site revealed the presence of diesel and oil-range hydrocarbons in groundwater and pondwater, exceeding safe drinking water limits. Some shallow soils contained dioxins and furans above acceptable levels, while other soil detections were generally within permissible limits, with a few exceptions. In communications with Planning staff, Anthony B. Chavez, RG, the Project Manager/Geologist for Western Region Environmental Cleanup & Emergency Response with the Oregon DEQ, provided the following initial summary of the results: Diesel and oil-range hydrocarbons were present in groundwater and per billion (ppb). The highest detection was 1,100 ppb from the pond. Groundwater had up to 720ppb oil. Other tested compounds in groundwater and pondwater were found below DEQ risk thresholds. Generally, this type of are available for consumption. The pond may need to be evaluated for potential ecological concerns. Dioxins and furans were found in shallow soils (0-6 inches) at a few locations above DEQ risk levels. The highest concentration was found at the south wood burner, location DU03 at 152.5 parts per trillion (ppt). Expected screening levels for dioxin in shallow soil will be future residential (4.7ppt), urban residential (12ppt), occupational workers(16ppt), construction workers (170ppt), and excavation workers (4,800ppt). For the planned mixed-use development, the dioxin needs to meet the residential standards. This can be done either by direct removal and sampling confirmation or by covering with clean fill and maintaining a minimum three-foot layer thickness. Except for oil and benzo(a)pyrene detections (2,200 parts per million \[ppm\] and 160ppm respectively) from shallow soil at the maintenance shop at DU06, thresholds for oil and benzo(a)pyrene are 1,100ppm and 0.11ppm, respectively. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Next Steps To address the identified contamination, SCS Engineers, Environmental Consultants and Contractors, will develop a work plan for approval. This plan will include targeted soil removal, confirmation soil sampling, and additional shallow soil sampling to assess potential offsite contaminant migration. Moreover, surrounding areas of the planned excavation will undergo further sampling to determine the extent of the contamination. The July 31 Council packet includes the full sampling report at: st https://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/2023-07-31_Croman_Cleanup_Update_CC.pdf. The meeting video will be posted at: https://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=745 when available. REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1: Preliminary Date Table with Test Results from SCS Engineers Attachment #2: Sampling Map (Figure 4-1) Attachment #3: Staff Questions/DEQ Responses COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Table 1. Preliminary Summary of Groundwater and Surface Water Analytical Results Croman Site, Ashland, OR DEQ RBC DEQ RBC DEQ Chronic DEQ Chronic Screening Screening Screening Screening DU05-SU05-DU05-SU05- Levels LevelsValuesValues 230505-Pond01230505-Pond02 Sample IDB02-15GWB03-19GW GW from GW from Residential Occupational ResidentialCommercial temporary boring north Area of the Site Pond WaterPond Water (DS)(DS)(WI)(WI) boring near of former pumpUSTs NWTPH- Gx, Dx /L (g) 110 gasoline50U50U50U50U450120520 230250590600 100 Diesel4304001700 42072011001100 100 Motor Oil4304001700 RCRA 8 Metals dissolved /L ()(g) 100 Silver10 U10 U820NVNV 0.052 arsenic 15 U15 U0.31NVNV 4000 Barium574033000NVNV 20 Cadmium0.29 J0.19 J160NVNV ------ Chromium1.8 J1.1 JNVNV 15 Lead9.0 U9.0 U9.0 U9.0 U15NVNV ------ Selenium20 U20 UNVNV PAHs /L (g) ------ 2-Methylnaphthalene0.065 J0.03 J0.1 U0.11 U NITINITI 510 Acenaphthene0.081 J0.032 J0.0089 J B0.11 U2500 NITINITI ------------ Acenaphthylene0.094 U0.017 J0.0061 J B0.11 U 0.03 Benzo\[a\]anthracene0.094 U0.098 J0.033 J B0.11 U0.38 1902300 0.025 Benzo\[a\]pyrene0.094 U0.09 J0.1 U0.11 U0.47 NVNV 0.25 Benzo\[b\]fluoranthene0.094 U0.10.1 U0.11 U>S NVNV ------ Benzo\[g,h,i\]perylene0.094 U0.10.1 U0.11 U ------ >S>S Benzo\[k\]fluoranthene0.094 U0.096 J0.025 J B0.11 U NVNV >S>S Chrysene0.094 U0.10.1 U0.11 U NVNV 0.025 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene0.094 U0.094 J0.1 U0.11 U0.47 NVNV >S Fluoranthene0.094 U0.096 J0.1 U0.11 U>S NITI, NVNITI, NV 280 Fluorene0.0940.034 J0.1 U0.11 U1300 NITINITI >S Indeno\[1,2,3-cd\]pyrene0.094 U0.097 J0.1 U0.11 U>S NVNV 0.17 Naphthalene0.049 J0.1 U0.1 U0.11 U0.72 1150 ------ Phenanthrene0.049 J0.063 J0.1 U0.11 U ------ 110 Pyrene0.094 U0.096 J0.1 U0.11 U>S NITINITI >S Anthracene0.094 U0.055 J0.1 U0.11 U>S NITINITI ------ 1-Methylnaphthalene0.058 J0.027 J0.1 U0.11 U NITINITI VOCs /L (g) --- Acetone4015 U11 J6.7 J--- NITINITI 1100 Toluene1.0 U0.33 J1.41.0 U630036000150000 Notes: GW = groundwaterg/L = micrograms per liter DS =ingestion or inhalation from tap water. WI = groundwater volatilization to indoor air analyses not performed 230 = above the DEQ RBC for this analyt e J = estimated concentration above detection limit but below the method reporting limit U = not detected above the MRL shown. B = analyte detected in the sample and the laboratory blank. NITI = no inhalation toxicity NV = not volatile --- = RBC not listed for this analyte >S = The groundwater RBC exceeds the solubility limit. Oregon RBCs from "Risk Based Concentrations for Individual Chemicals, Revision May 2018 and amended June 2023. Volatilization to indoor air screening values from the June 2023 DEQ Table 1. Chronic and Acute Vapor Intrusion Risk-Based Concentrations. SCS Engineers Preliminary Results.xlsx 6/16/2023 SCS Engineers 6/19/2023 Excavation Worker (DC) Screening Acenaphthene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U10 U9.7 U9.9 U10 U6.6 J35 U35 U2.8 J6.3 J9.9 U10 U4,700,00070,000,000590,000,000 DEQ RBC Benzo\[b\]fluoranthene9.6 J34 U200 J170 J200 J2.9 J4.8 J3.7 J3.6 J9.9 U35 U12 J152104.7 J10 U1100210004,900,000Indeno\[1,2,3-cd\]pyrene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U2.2 J9.7 U9.9 U10 U9.9 U28 J29 J8.9 J979.9 U10 U1,10021,0004,900,000 2.6 J10 U1102100490,000Dibenz(a,h)anthracene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U10 U9.7 U9.9 U10 U9.9 U35 U35 U10 U299.9 U10 U1102,100490,00040 J92U/64U340 U/240 U340 U/240 U91U/64U90U/63U87U /61U92U/65U230590140 ,000 Benzo\[k\]fluoranthene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U10 U9.7 U9.9 U10 U9.9 U35 U35 U3.5 J769.9 U10 U>Csat>Csat>CsatChrysene8.2 J34 U36 J320 U32 J3.2 J5.6 J5.6 J4.5 J3.7 J9.8 J35 U171704 U10 U>Csat>Csat>CsatFluoranthene7.3 J34 U330 U320 U330 U5.8 J6.5 J7.7 J7.7 J1424 J24 J171804.5 J10 U>Csat>Csat>CsatFluorene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U10 U2.9 J2.4 J2.9 J4.5 J9.1 J3.9 J10 U8.2 J9.9 U10 U>Csat>Csat>CsatNaphthalene5.4 J11 J330 U320 U330 U7.5 J201722108.6 J9.9 J8 J171.8 J1.1 J5,30023,000>CsatPyrene33 U34 U29 J20 J25 J4.7 J4.2 J6.4 J6 J8.9 J10 J9.6 J241803.9 J10 U>Csat>Csat>Csat 36041 J H49 U H110014000> Max Level 7.1 U8.4 U120020000> MaxDiesel (DRO)6658 U15 J16 J15 J12 J35 J27 J35 J5622 J18 J2806248 U H49 U H110014000> Max Barium515653110759598445757492008115,000220,000>MaxAnthracene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U10 U2 J9.9 U10 U9.9 U35 U35 U8 J219.9 U10 U>Csat>Csat>Max Silver0.8 U0.71 U0.730.76 U0.68 U0.76 U0.72 U0.89 U0.87 U0.72 U0.67 U0.75 U0.73 U390580049000 Cadmium0.038 J0.035 J0.37 U0.058 J0.047 J0.046 J0.059 J0.45 U0.43 U0.13 J0.11 J0.045 J0.37 U78110097004.7164800 Total Mercury0.0360.0610.040.0390.120.0890.0970.050.013 J0.014 J0.0490.0430.0570.019233502900 Lead2.96.95.24.84.2118.27.58.79.54.35.920209.43.4400800800 Arsenic 2.32.32.22.92.22.32.31.1 J1.5 J2.22.34.92.30.431.9420 Total Chromium12 B13 B11 B22 B15 B18 B18 B7.61114 B21 B31 B20 B---------Selenium1.4 U1.3 U1.3 U1.4 U1.2 U1.4 U1.3 U1.6 U1.6 U1.3 U1.2 U1.3 U1.3 U---------Acenaphthylene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U1.7 J9.7 U9.9 U10 U9.9 U35 U35 U3.3 J3.3 J9.9 U10 U---------Benzo\[a\]anthracene33 U34 U36 J22 J32 J10 U2.8 J3.2 J10 U1.8 J35 U35 U8.5 J1402.7 J10 U---------Phenanthrene11 J34 U330 U320 U330 U7.7 J1715172622 J23 J20783.4 J10 U---------1-Methylnaphthalene2.7 J34 U330 U320 U330 U1.3 J3.1 J2.3 J3.6 J7.9 J1.9 J2.4 J6.6 J4 J0.62 J10 U--------- Occupational Screening DEQ RBC Level (DC) Residential Screening DEQ RBC Level (DC) 2-Methylnaphthalene4.4 J34 U330 U320 U330 U1.9 J4.8 J3.8 J5.4 J163.7 J4.4 J148.2 J1 J10 U---Benzo\[g,h,i\]perylene33 U34 U330 U320 U330 U2.7 J2.2 J2.3 J10 U9.9 U34 J4013922.5 J10 U--- Landfill 230502- North DU07- Native Area 230502-Landfill North DU07- Area Fill Maintenance DU06-SU04- 230505-0.5 Shop - East 160 Maintenance DU06-SU03- Shop - north 230504-0.5 2200 Benzo\[a\]pyrene5.5 J34 U90 J76 J87 J2.6 J9.7 U9.9 U10 U9.9 U35 U35 U8.4 J Table 2. Preliminary Summary of Analytical Results from Soil and Sediment Samples e product is present. DU05-SU06 Sediments COMP02 230505- Pond 23.6039.9720.65146.3122.2152.524.776.82 J6.91 J - heavy oil (RRO)19028 J180200190110360300360350310240 cenario DU05-SU06- . Sediments COMP01 230505- Pond >Max = This constituent RBC for this pathwasy is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg, therefore is deemed not to pose a risk in this s >Csat = This soil RCB exceeds the limit of three-phase equiplibrium patritioning. If concentrations greater than Csat, then fre Croman Site, Ashland, Oregon Oregon RBCs from "Risk Based Concentrations for Individual Chemicals, Revision May 2018 and amended June 2023. DU01 analyzed for full list of SVOCs, which includes PAHs, by EPA 8270D. Elevated reporting limits due to the method. Veneer Mill DU04-SU02230504-0.5 south - Page 1 of 2 Veneer mill - DU04-SU01- 230504-0.5 H = ssample analyzed past holding time; B = analyte detected in the sample and the laboratory blank. east g/Kg = microgram per kilogram; pg/g = picogram per gram 230505-0.5-REP2 Wood South Burner DU03- J = estimated concentration above detection limit but below the method reporting limit. 230505- Wood South Burner - 54.27267.8 REP1 0.5- 99.8 DU03 230505- Wood South Burner DU03- 0.5 ND = not detected above the laboratory method detection limi 230504- Wood t North Burner DU02- 0.5 treatment 230504- 0.5 REP2 Dip Tank Wood DU01- Remaining SVOCsNDNDND treatment DC = dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion 230504- 0.5 REP1 Dip Tank Wood U = not detected above the MRL shown. DU01-160 = above the DEQ RBC for this analyte 28.1 treatment --- = RBC not listed for this analyte mg/Kg = milligram per kilogram; 230504- Dip Tank Wood DU01- 0.5 MRL = method reporting limit analyses not performed boring near Temporary Sample IDB02-8B03-17 pump gasoline (GRO)5.9 U6.2 U NW of Temporary former USTs Notes: g borin Dioxins and Furans (pg/g) NWTPH- Gx, Dx (mg/Kg)2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent RCRA 8 Metals (mg/Kg) Preliminary Results.xlsx g/Kg) Area of the Site g/Kg) g/Kg) total PCBs Average SVOCs ( 95%UCL PAHs ( PCBs ( SCS Engineers 6/19/2023 Table 2. Preliminary Summary of Analytical Results from Soil and Sediment Samples Croman Site, Ashland, Oregon Page 2 of 2 Background Metals Clean Fill and/or (Cascade Range) Clean Fill 120000 1100025000110001000010000 110031003700110055006800 0.170.540.520.240.29 630200250730110110360230 193477 Diesel (DRO)SilverArsenic gasoline (GRO)heavy oil (RRO) Total Mercury Lead BariumCadmiumTotal Chromium Selenium Dioxins and Furans (pg/g) NWTPH- Gx, Dx (mg/Kg)2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent RCRA 8 Metals (mg/Kg) Indeno\[1,2,3-cd\]pyrene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Benzo\[b\]fluoranthene 2-Methylnaphthalene1-Methylnaphthalene Benzo\[k\]fluoranthene Benzo\[a\]anthracene Benzo\[g,h,i\]perylene Remaining SVOCs Preliminary Results.xlsx Acenaphthylene Benzo\[a\]pyrene g/Kg) Acenaphthene Area of the Site Phenanthrene g/Kg) g/Kg) Naphthalene Fluoranthene Anthracene total PCBs Sample ID Chrysene Average SVOCs ( Fluorene 95%UCL PAHs (Pyrene PCBs ( DU07 DU05 DU08 DU02 DU01 DU06 S U 0 3 S U 0 4 DU03 DU04 L E G E N D SU01 DU01 =Green Chain, Former Wood Treatment Area Wood Waste Burner DU02 = SU02 DU03 =Wood Waste Burner Veneer Mill - Drum and DU04 = Light Ballast Storage DU05 =Pond DU06 =Truck and Maintenance Extent of Former Shop Croman Mill Property DU07 = North Landfill Area DU08 =Fuel Shed and former USTs DU09 =Site-wide Groundwater Proposed Temporary GW Sampling Locations 0200400 SCALE IN MILES PROJECT NO.DES BY SITE PLAN DATE 04222021.00L.E.L. FEBRUARY 2023 Environmental Consultants and Contractors SCALECHK BY CROMAN PROPERTY AS SHOWNB.L. FIGURE 15940 SW 72nd Avenue 146 MISTLETOE ROAD 4-1 Portland, Oregon 97224 CAD FILEAPP BY ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 639-9201 FAX: (503) 684-6948 FIGURE 4-1S.L. From: CHAVEZ Anthony * DEQ <Anthony.CHAVEZ@deq.oregon.gov> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 02:17 PM To: Greg Aitken <greg.aitken@external.ashland.or.us> Cc: HANSON Don * DEQ <Don.HANSON@deq.oregon.gov>; SHULTZ Brad * DEQ <Brad.Shultz@deq.oregon.gov>; ZANNI Jason * DEQ <Jason.ZANNI@deq.oregon.gov>; Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>; Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; SAWKA Nancy * DEQ <Nancy.SAWKA@deq.oregon.gov> Subject: RE: July 31 Ashland city council study session re: former Croman Mill \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hi Greg, please see embedded DEQ responses below in blue bold. Thank you, Anthony _______________________________________________________________ From: Greg Aitken <greg.aitken@external.ashland.or.us> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 9:34 AM To: CHAVEZ Anthony * DEQ <Anthony.CHAVEZ@deq.oregon.gov> Cc: HANSON Don * DEQ <Don.HANSON@deq.oregon.gov>; SHULTZ Brad * DEQ <Brad.Shultz@deq.oregon.gov>; ZANNI Jason * DEQ <jason.zanni@deq.oregon.gov>; Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>; Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Subject: July 31 Ashland city council study session re: former Croman Mill Thank you for the preliminary report, Anthony, and your assistance in making good progress with environmental site investigation of the former Croman property. By this Thursday, July 20, City staff need to produce an information packet for Council members that includes a simplified plain language summary of the preliminary results. Are you able to generate something along these lines, along with a site plan showing sampling locations? We would also like to include this on our city website for public information about the Croman project. 1.Please include the property owner's estimated schedule for the submittal of the interim remedial action workplan to DEQ, and the anticipated schedule for interim actions. We have inquired with Croman’s consultant and will follow up when a response is received. The work plan is anticipated quickly, as their contractor has some time this summer. 2.The reported dioxin and TPH results indicate that it would be prudent to sample downgradient surface water in order to rule out off-site impacts. Did DEQ have an opportunity to consider the merit of sampling potential ditch locations raised by city staff at the May 2 site visit and in the May 4, 2023 email? DEQ previously and currently advised that surface water or sediment sampling be completed near the site border to assess for potential offsite migration. In our most recent meeting, Croman agreed to more reconnaissance and surface water (or sediment) sampling where possible between the source areas and receiving water bodies. 3.By Thursday, July 20, city staff need to finalize the list of project representatives attending the Council study session, and provide participants with a videoconference link. Please provide a list of participants. Will the property owner be represented by SCS Engineers? DEQ has not communicated with Croman about their potential attendance at the City Council meeting. Please remind us when this meeting is occurring so we can let the owner know, and DEQ can confirm what staff will be able to attend. 4.In light of the dioxin results, will site security be enhanced to clearly identify and prevent access to the three identified areas of concern? At a minimum, it would be prudent to post signage and install fencing to secure the wood treatment dip tank area, the north wood burner, and the south wood burner. These areas are currently not secure to prevent access to trespassers and authorized site workers. Based on current site security measures (private fenced property) and moderate dioxin detections, DEQ does not believe additional security is needed. 5.Please be prepared to address the current regulatory status of the stockpiled materials. DEQ’s solid waste program will answer. The owner indicated during our last meeting that no materials, except for some asphalt and solid waste, have left the site for several months, and that they were giving notice to the City prior to that of other materials going off-site (i.e., wood waste). City staff would welcome an opportunity to discuss these items further, in advance of the Council study session. Please let us know how we can facilitate your work on this important project, thank you Anthony. We could meet prior to the study session. If you would like to do that, please provide some days/times for consideration. Greg Aitken Community Development, City of Ashland