HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-13 Planning PACKET
Total Page Number: 1
Total Page Number: 2
Planning CommissionMinutes
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 25, 2024
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
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Gregory Perkinson
Russell Phillips
Eric Herron
Kerry KenCairn
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt (absent)
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement:
The Commission will review an annexation and park installation proposal at 2228 East
Main Street, as well as an appeal of staff’s denial of a Verizon Wireless tower at the
SOU Science Building, at the July 9, 2024 Regular Meeting.
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.DISCUSSION ITEM
A. SOU Masterplan Background & Update Discussion
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman stated that the SOU Masterplan is a guiding document created by SOU, but also
references SOU as a special district and guides how the Commission is to review new development
in the area. Mr. Goldman described how SOU is proposing an update to the current Masterplan,
Page 1 of 4
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).
Total Page Number: 3
Planning CommissionMinutes
which was last updated in 2010, which will then present full changes to the Commission before
submitting them to the Council for approval.
Planning Manager Derek Severson stated that a formal SOU Masterplan update will come back to
the Commission as a legislative action in the Fall of 2024. He described key elements of the original
SOU Masterplan, which included: additional gateways and circulation; shifting student life to the
northside of Siskiyou; refined parking treatment; promoting alternative transportation; faculty
housing; and establishing a mixed-use corridor along Siskiyou Boulevard. Mr. Severson described
how the development of SOU changed since this Masterplan was adopted, such as the faculty
housing being converted into The Farm, and the Jefferson Public Radio (JPR) location shifting to the
Theater Arts building (see attachment #1).
Mr. Severson listed some potential issues as the Masterplan Update progresses, such as:
Public/Private Partnerships on Campus (Dorms were a PPP with American Campus
Communities)
Tree Removal Requirements (Could be more like Parks regulations)
Demolition Process
(Criteria for typical demolition have to do with waste stream and economically
beneficial re-use)
Parking & Parking Lots in light of eliminating parking minimums (Potential for solar
Installations)
Campus Art Installations & Sign Permit Program
Disposition of University-owned Properties (How to zone/regulate once private)
University District: Consistent palette of crosswalk markings, wayfinding and festival
street treatment
LEED certification requirements
Temporary Uses (such as the Growers Market) & Food Trucks
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Perkinson asked if there had been a discussion to expand the boundary line of the
University District. Mr. Goldman responded that he had been a party to some of those discussions,
but that the current SOU Masterplan does not have an adopted map with defined boundary lines
that would be subject to any wayfinding standards. He added that this could be a broader
discussion outside of the SOU Masterplan update because it would impact private property in the
vicinity.
Commissioner KenCairn asked if SOU has an arborist on staff. Mr. Severson responded that SOU did
in the past, one with which the City had a good working relationship.
Page 2 of 4
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).
Total Page Number: 4
Planning CommissionMinutes
Applicant Presentation
Alan Harper introduced himself as a land use attorney and a former member of the Commission.
Also present was Jim McNamara from the SOU Facilities Department. Mr. Harper stated that the goal
is to update the community on what SOU has accomplished thus far, and to begin laying the
groundwork for future projects to ensure their success.
Mr. McNamara spoke to the changing nature of the Masterplan, and how some projects succeeded
while others floundered. He noted that one key difference from the current Masterplan was the early
projection of SOU accommodating nearly 6,000 students by this time, while this number has reached
closer to 3,500. Because of this, no new building projects are being proposed, and instead an
emphasis is being made to make SOU a focal point of the community and to foster sustainability. Mr.
Harper emphasized SOU’s public outreach to the community as a cornerstone of the Masterplan.
Questions of the Applicant
Chair Verner asked inquired about rumors regarding combing senior housing and student housing
in the future. Mr. Harper responded that this has been implemented in other campuses and being
considered for SOU. Mr. McNamara added that a more diverse student age group for SOU is needed,
which senior housing could assist in achieving. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if SOU would
also consider other forms of additional housing, such as affordable housing, as many students find
themselves priced-out of the area. Mr. Harper responded that SOU is willing to innovate and is open
to pursuing all avenues.
Commissioner KenCairn noted that SOU should be held to the same standard as Parks, and
therefore should have a arborist on staff or have some form of contractual agreement to have an
arborist as part of the process.
Commissioner Knauer asked if the current developments surrounding SOU have improved the
student and faculty experience, and how the City could incentivize such developments. Mr. Harper
responded that this could be done by identifying potentially beneficial developments and then using
the zoning process to achieve this while maintaining appropriate oversight.
The Commission discussed including a daycare facility for students with children. Mr. McNamara
responded that SOU does have a daycare facility but that it is relatively small.
Mr. Harper informed the Commission that the SOU team would consult with other stakeholders
before bringing the final product back before the Commission.
B. SOU Business Venture Tournament Team Presentation
Page 3 of 4
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).
Total Page Number: 5
Planning CommissionMinutes
SOU MBA Program Coordinator Douglas Daley gave a brief background on the history of the
tournament and the struggles most businesses face (see attachment #2). He stated that most
business fail for a variety of reasons, but primarily because the business owners do not have
business backgrounds. This tournament would be open to students of all disciplines to foster ideas
on how best to use the now-vacant Ashland Street Cinema building, with $3,000 going to the
winning student. Mr. Daley described how students were required to attend a tournament workshop,
develop a business venture plan, give a 5-10 minute presentation, and create a one-minute or less
video pitch to market their pitch and receive student votes.
Mr. Daley noted that this “Shark-Tank” style tournament received a limited number of entrants due to
the heavy workload required and the demands of final exams.
Presentation
Holden Hellman introduced herself as an MBA student of SOU and active member of the community.
Her plan involved transforming the Ashland Cinema building into an informal public activity center
she titled Third Space. This would be act as a center for young people to engage with their
communities and build skills that are being lost, such as sewing or gardening. It could also cater to
young children, be leased for small events, and be used to soft-launch other entrepreneurial
ventures.
Jenny Chynoweth stated that the strongest projects are those that can generate funding for
themselves once they have been launched, which would be the primary function behind her
proposal, Rogue Immersive Arts, an immersive venue similar to the Van Gogh exhibit in London. Ms.
Chynoweth described how virtual reality could transform an interior space using lighting, sound,
projection mapping, and interactive displays to attract locals and tourist alike. She noted that the
immersive market is projected to expand by 20% by 2030, benefitting stakeholders and making the
space self-sufficient (see attachment #3).
VI.OPEN DISCUSSION - None
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 4 of 4
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).
Total Page Number: 6
ˣ˟˥ ˝˱̃̄˵̂ ˠ˼˱˾
Ashland Planning Commission
June 25, 2024Study Session
SOU Master Plan
Background &
Preliminary Discussion
2
Total Page Number: 7
June 25, 2024
Southern Oregon University Masterplan
Background & Preliminary Discussion
ϼ˜˹˷˸̄ ˥̀˴˱̄˵Ͻ ˑ˾̄˹˳˹̀˱̄˵˴ ˖˱˼˼ʿ˧˹˾̄˵̂ ϼ˂˄
Standard Legislative Public Process to Follow
˒˱˳˻˷̂˿̅˾˴
˜˹˻˵˼̉ ˙̃̃̅˵̃
˓˸˱˾˷˵̃
The 2010 SOU MP
For 2025-2035 SOU MP
Since 2010 SOU MP
3
BACKGROUNDЅ
SOME KEY ELEMENTS
Faculty Village
Gateways & Circulation
o
Shifting student life to
o
northside of Siskiyou.
Refine Parking Treatment
o
Promote Alternate Modes
o
Transportation Demand
o
Management
Mixed-Use Ashland Street
o
JPR Location
Faculty Housing
o
4
Total Page Number: 8
Since adoptionЅ
Faculty Village is now The
Farm/Center for
SOME KEY ELEMENTS
Sustainability
(Modification Approved)
Shifting student life to
northside of Siskiyou.
New Lithia Pavilion &
Refine Parking Treatment
o
Student Rec Center
Promote Alternate Modes
o
Constructed
Transportation Demand
o
Management
Two Residence Halls &
Dining Hall Constructed
New Theater Arts
Building & JPR
Constructed
JPR Location
Shifted to
Mixed-Use Ashland Street
o Theater Arts
Faculty Housing
Dorm Location Shifted &
o
Envelope Reserved
Along Ashland Street
5
˓˸˱˾˷˵̃ ˣ˹˾˳˵ ˝˱̃̄˵̂ ˠ˼˱˾ ˑ˴˿̀̄˹˿˾Ѕ
North Campus Village
\[Public/Private Partnership\]
Residences Halls (Shasta & McLoughlin) Replaced Cascade
Dining Hall (The Hawk)
˓˘ˑ˞˗˕ˣЅʾ
Lithia Pavilion
\[replaced McNeal Pavilion\]
Gym
Student Recreation Center
The Farm
Center for Sustainability/ThaldenPavilion
The Farm
Theater Arts Building
Theater
Jefferson Public Radio (JPR) previously to be at Walker/Ashland
6
Total Page Number: 9
New Residence Halls during 2013 Council, Planning Commission & Staff Tour
7
New Residence Halls during 2013 Council, Planning Commission & Staff Tour
8
Total Page Number: 10
New Residence Halls during 2013 Council, Planning Commission & Staff Tour
9
The Hawk Dining Hall during 2013 Council, Planning Commission & Staff Tour
10
Total Page Number: 11
2018 PC Retreat Site Visit to new Lithia Pavilion & Student Rec Center
12
Total Page Number: 12
2018 PC Retreat Site Visit to SOU Theatre & JPR Building
14
Total Page Number: 13
˓̅̂̂˵˾̄ ˝˱̃̄˵̂ ˠ˼˱˾Ͻ̃ ˦˹̃˹˿˾
for Jefferson Public Radio at the
Corner of Ashland Street & Walker Avenue
(now in Theater Arts on Mountain Avenue)
15
ThaldenPavilion at the Center for Sustainability on Walker Avenue (The Farm in the background)
16
Total Page Number: 14
˓˸˱˾˷˵̃ ˣ˹˾˳˵ ˂ˀˁˀ
Residence Halls & Dining Hall ʸϿ˞˿̂̄˸ ˓˱˽̀̅̃ ˦˹˼˼˱˷˵Ѐʹ
Replaced Cascade (SDC credits transferred)
Designation of Future Building Envelope along Ashland Street
Shift of Residential Population North of Siskiyou
Lithia Pavilion & Student Rec Center
Theater Arts Building (Theater & Jefferson Public Radio)
JPR was to have been at Walker/Ashland corner
Siskiyou Arboretum
Some lots on Roca have now sold out of SOU ownership
The Farm/Center for Sustainability
ˠ˿̄˵˾̄˹˱˼ ˙̃̃̅˵̃ʿˤ˸˵˽˵̃
Public/Private Partnerships on Campus (Dorms were a PPP with American Campus Communities)
Tree Removal Requirements (Could be more like Parks regulations)
Demolition Process
(Criteria for typical demolition have to do with waste stream and economically beneficial re-use)
Parking & Parking Lots in light ofeliminating parking minimums (Potential for solar Installations)
Campus Art Installations & Sign Permit Program
Disposition of University-owned Properties (How to zone/regulate once private)
University District: Consistent palette of crosswalk markings, wayfinding and festival street treatment
LEED certification requirements
Temporary Uses (like the Growers Market) & Food Trucks
17
Any Questions?
Total Page Number: 15
Total Page Number: 16
Gpvs!Efmjwfsbcmft
Total Page Number: 17
Total Page Number: 18
Total Page Number: 19
Total Page Number: 20
Total Page Number: 21
Total Page Number: 22
Total Page Number: 23
Total Page Number: 24
Total Page Number: 25
Total Page Number: 26
Total Page Number: 27
Total Page Number: 28
Total Page Number: 29
Total Page Number: 30
Total Page Number: 31
Total Page Number: 32
Total Page Number: 33
Total Page Number: 34
Total Page Number: 35
Total Page Number: 36
Planning CommissionMinutes
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 9, 2024
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. She noted that Commissioners Perkinson and MacCracken were attending the meeting
via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Gregory Perkinson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Eric Herron Paula Hyatt
Russell Phillips
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City Council will have a study session on July 15, 2024 to discuss Climate Friendly Areas
(CFAs).
The Council will review the Building Lands Inventory Resolution and two right-of-way
vacations on Fern Street and Mountain Meadow Drive on July 16, 2024. All three of these items
received recommendations for approval by the Commission.
On August 6, 2024 The Council will review a City limits map correction at 375 East Nevada
Street, where an inconsistency is shown between City and County maps. The Commission
initially reviewed this item on February 8, 2022, and found that there was no error per City
records, but the inconsistency remains and the Commission at the time was supportive of an
amendment to change the line in the event that the Council found it was warranted.
A sub-committee of the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee developed a
homeless services masterplan which will be reviewed by the Council on August 5, 2024.
Page 1 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 37
Planning CommissionMinutes
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Announcements
Commissioner MacCracken Jain gave the following announcements:
A new crosswalk, which was sponsored by the Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC),
was installed the evening of July 1st in the Plaza across from Lithia Park. The artist was
inspired by and used imagery from the indigenous Shasta people.
The PAAC approved a conceptual plan for a Playwright’s Walk in May, 2024. It is a
privately funded, philanthropic endeavor inspired by an Iowa City project highlighting
writers. The first phase is currently underway as a private enterprise but will be come
into City ownership at a later date.
The PAAC will provide its annual update to the Council on July 16, 2024.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.May 14, 2024 Regular Meeting
b.May 28, 2024 Study Session
Commissioners Perkinson/Knauer m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00233
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland Street (SOU Science Building)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/Verizon Wireless
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review Permit to install wireless
communication facilities (antennas and associated equipment) on the roof of the Science
Building at 1250 Ashland Street on the Southern Oregon University Campus. The application
also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit because with the installation of panels
proposed to screen the wireless communication facility installation, the building height will
exceed 40 feet. (The proposal is the same as one previously approved by the city in PA-2017-
01486 but which subsequently expired, and the applicant proposes to comply with the
conditions of the prior approval.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon
University District; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 15BB; TAX LOT #: 100
Chair Verner noted that the Commission received a public comment requesting that the meeting be
postponed in order to provide the public an opportunity to thoroughly review the packet materials.
Page 2 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 38
Planning CommissionMinutes
Planning Manager Derek Severson explained that a continuance of the meeting would violate the
federal ninety-day time limit in which the City must make a decision regarding appeals.
Chair Verner stated that three public comments had been submitted to staff since the packet was
published. These public comments were forwarded to the Commission and are included in the
Public Record.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed, though Commissioners KenCairn, Knauer, and Verner disclosed
site visits. Commissioner Perkinson recused himself from this portion of the meeting due to a past
association with SOU.
Chair Verner opened the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:13.
Staff presentation
Mr. Severson stated that William Johnson would be participating as part of staff’s presentation. Mr.
Johnson is a third-party consultant who reviewed the applicant’s initial analysis on behalf of the City
and found the application to lack several components, including no trend metrics, scale of
propagation plots, and a comprehensive alternate site analysis and collocation study. The lack of
these key materials resulted in staff’s denial of the application and the applicant’s subsequent
appeal (see attachment #1).
Mr. Severson described the Telecommunications Action of 1996 that include various guidelines that
cities must adhere to when reviewing wireless communication facility (WCF) applications. These
guidelines include:
No discrimination among providers.
No passing laws or taking actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless
service.
No regulating of wireless based on environmental concerns about radio frequency emissions
if the facility will operate within FCC standards.
Must act on siting requests in a reasonable period of time (90 days from submittal for
existing structures – i.e. by July 14, 2024 with extension here).
Must issue zoning denials in writing, supported by substantial evidence and findings
contained in a written record.
Mr. Severson stated that staff included two sets of findings, one for approval and one for denial, in
the meeting packet for the Commission’s consideration in order meet the July 14, 2024 deadline. He
displayed the proposed location of the WCF on the SOU science building, which is located to the east
of South Mountain Avenue and Ashland Street, and described how the applicants propose extending
Page 3 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 39
Planning CommissionMinutes
an existing screen wall in order to screen the installation from view. He noted that extending the wall
would largely conceal existing mechanical equipment on the roof that is currently visible.
Mr. Severson outlined the appellant’s six points of appeal, which included:
1.The Director erred by denying a proposal that is identical to the proposal approved in 2018.
2.The Director erred by denying the Application based exclusively on comments from the City
RF consultant which the Applicant was never provided an opportunity to respond to or
address.
3.The Director erred by denying the Application based on the City RF consultant’s request for
specific technical information that is not required under the City’s application submittal or
approval standards.
4.The Director erred by denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
demonstrate a “service gap” in the coverage area.
5.The Director erred in denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
demonstrate “that collocation or placement on an existing structure are not feasible.”
6.The Applicant reserves the right to raise additional appeal issues since AMC
18.5.010.050(G)(3) does not limit the appeal to the specific grounds listed in the notice of
appeal.
Mr. Severson described how the City’s standards for a wireless facility are considered in a “stepped
hierarchy” method, with the following installation options ranging from most preferred to the least
preferred method: collocation on an existing WCF; attached to an existing structure; an alternative,
concealed structure; or a free-standing support structure. He noted that the applicant would need to
explore the option of collocating at an existing WCF at the Raider Stadium before the option of
attaching the proposed WCF to an existing structure could be considered.
Mr. Johnson introduced himself as a former professor of telecommunications engineering at the
Rochester Institute of Technology. He stated that the possibility for other viable sites for this project to
be located were not easily ascertainable from the initial application that he reviewed on April 24,
2024. He elaborated that the mid-band spectrum and how it would propagate the area was omitted
from the application, stating that these radio signals would propagate differently in an urban
environment versus a rural one. Mr. Johnson explained that the location of this mid-band spectrum
is important to draw off customers from neighboring cells that have become too saturated, and that
staff could not properly evaluate the feasibility of alternative sites without this spectrum. Mr. Johnson
noted that this information is not explicitly required by Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), but that this
information is necessary for applications involving zoning considerations as a way to justify the
necessity for the proposal and show that the chosen location is the least intrusive to the
neighborhood. He stated that this information was subsequently supplied by the appellant with their
appeal application, but it did not specify which sector was designated as being over-saturated and
Page 4 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 40
Planning CommissionMinutes
requested that the applicant provide that information at the meeting. Mr. Johnson remarked that
four alternative sites were considered for the proposal, but all were too far to get maximum
coverage, and therefore the applicants justified the proposed location.
Mr. Severson stated the applicant had attempted to negotiate with the owner of the existing tower at
the Raider Stadium, AT&T, but found that the structure was not built to accommodate additional
buildings per conditions placed upon the structure by the Commission when it was approved. Mr.
Severson concluded that the applicant’s burden of proof has now been met and recommended that
the Commission uphold the appeal, reverse the original staff denial, and approve the request with
the conditions detailed in the staff report. He noted that these conditions are consistent with the 2018,
the exception being a condition requiring a signed copy of the lease as one was provided after the
2018 approval. Staff also recommended that the Commission adopt findings at the meeting in order
to comply with the ninety-day federal timeframe to render a decision, and that the findings supplied
in the packet could be revised to match the Commission’s verdict as needed.
Questions of Staff
Chair Verner asked if the screening wall would cover the entire length of the building. Mr. Severson
responded that it was his understanding that the proposed screening wall would only cover certain
portions of the roof but that the applicant could address that.
Commissioner Knauer requested clarification regarding the total height of the installation. Mr.
Severson responded that the total height of the building is 61ft with the existing mechanical
equipment, but that the proposed WCF installation would be obscured by the screening wall that
would reach 49ft. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the proposed screening wall extension
would only encompass the Science Building and not the connected buildings. Mr. Severson
responded that he did not believe it would but that the applicant could confirm that.
Appellant Presentation
Mike Connors introduced himself as a land use attorney for Hathaway Larson and the representative
for the applicant, Verizon Wireless, and also introduced Steve Kennedy, a third-party RF engineering
consultant who prepared the supplemental materials submitted with the appeal. Mr. Connors stated
that the application is identical to the original application, PA-2017-01486, which was approved and
subsequently appealed in 2018 before being affirmed by the Commission. He described how
mitigating factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, caused this land use approval to expire in 2020
and result in the new application.
Mr. Connors reiterated that the installation would be screened from view by extending the existing
wall and showed a map displaying the existing and proposed coverage, stating that the adjacent
WCFs are currently overloaded and require the new installation to increase capacity and alleviate
this data traffic buildup.
Page 5 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 41
Planning CommissionMinutes
Mr. Connors pointed out that the preferred design standards under AMC 18.4.10.040(B) referenced by
staff are the crux of the application, and provided an alternative site analysis detailing why the
chosen site was most suitable for the installation (see attachment #2). He stated that AT&T was
unable to allow collocation on its installation at the Raider Stadium due to the approved height and
structural considerations, a decision that neither SOU nor the City could impact.
Mr. Connors explained that staff found the application satisfied all applicable approval criteria, with
the exception of the preferred design requirement, and that the sole basis for denial was insufficient
RF information related to the need for the new WCF and the alternative site analysis. He stated that
the appellant’s grounds for appeal is that the application and approval criteria were identical to the
one approved in 2018, the appellant was not given the opportunity to the letter from the City’s RF
consultant, and that the RF consultant requested technical information that is not required for the
application.
Mr. Connor’s concluded that the appellant complied with the City’s request for additional information
and requested that the Commission uphold the appeal and approve the application.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if Mr. Johnson and staff agreed with the new materials shown
during the appellant’s presentation. Mr. Johnson requested clarification from the appellant on the
capacity information for forward data volume and average scheduled eligible users from
neighboring sites. Mr. Kennedy referred to the RF design analysis within the appellant’s submittal that
evaluated the current best servers available, and stated that the site to the northwest of the
proposed installation would be the one most likely to be offloaded. Mr. Goldman responded that
staff’s denial of the application contained a caveat that approval could be granted if the application
approval criteria were met, and that staff recommended approval of the application with the
supplemental materials provided.
Commissioner Knauer remarked that the Science Building’s façade would be significant with the new
screening wall and suggested that it be setback at that height. Mr. Connors responded he could not
consent to that on SOU’s behalf, and that a setback would be inconsistent with the existing wall and
require additional engineering.
Public Comments
Kelly Marcotulli/Ms. Marcotulli remarked that the Fire Department will not extinguish a fire unless
there is a power shutoff available onsite, and asked what the City’s plan was for a shutoff point in the
event of a fire. She recited the definition of radiation, stating that it is “the process of emitting radiant
energy in the form of waves or particles,” and that radiation sickness is “sickness that results from
exposure to radiation and is commonly marked by fatigue, nausea, vomiting, loss of teeth and hair,
Page 6 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 42
Planning CommissionMinutes
and in more severe cases by damage to blood-forming systems.” She requested information
regarding the City’s, SOU’s, and Verizon’s plan for people and animals who contract radiation
sickness from the installation. She cited how seventeen people became ill when Verizon installed a
WCF near their homes in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. She referred to one of the aforementioned public
comments submitted to staff by Martin Pall which detailed the potential negative health effects EMF
radiation could have on the brain. Ms. Marcotulli requested that the decision be delayed until it is
ascertained how the facility would be shut off in the event of a fire (see attachment #3).
Ms. Marcotulli inquired about the appeal process for this application if approved. Mr. Severson
responded that any appeal go to the Land use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Larry and Susan Graves/Mr. Graves remarked that the FCC claims preemptive authority over radio
frequency airwaves and that their regulations state that environmental concerns over the
installation of WCFs cannot be used to deny their application. He stated that there is a growing body
of evidence that RF radiation can be harmful, adding that telecommunications providers are unable
to obtain liability insurance against potential health and property damages. Mrs. Graves suggested
that the City coordinate with neighboring municipalities to sue the FCC into updating their safety
standards (see attachment #4).
Alan Rathsam/Mr. Rathsam pointed out that the City disregarded City codes when it permitted AT&T
to construct a WCF without the capability of accommodating for collocation in the future, stating
that the application violated AMC 18.4.19.040. This provision states that “all new wireless
communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on
the facility,” which was violated when the Commission upheld the City’s decision to allow the AT&T
tower to be installed at a reduced height, eliminating future collocation potential (see attachment
#5).
Will Wilkinson/Mr. Wilkinson expressed concern that the City did not enforce its collocation code
when it permitted the installation of the AT&T WCF at Raider Stadium. He requested that the
Commission require staff to consider three potential options: enforcing the collocation code; not
enforcing the collocation code; or modifying the code, particularly if it is unable to be enforced.
Elain Sayre/Ms. Sayre stated that she lives near the Science Building and expressed concern over
the proposed location of the WCF due to health reasons, but appreciated that the Commission
cannot consider those concerns due to federal regulations.
Jasmine Lyons/Ms. Lyons stated that she would have to relocate if the WCF was installed at this
location due to health concerns, and requested that the Commission consider the health impact.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Connors addressed health concerns due to RF emissions, stating that he appreciates those
Page 7 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 43
Planning CommissionMinutes
concerns but that federal law dictates emission standards and that WCFs are a national utility that
must be standardized. He added that the Commission should not need to make health decisions
when they are not public officials or scientists.
Regarding the Raider Stadium installation, Mr. Connors stated that the Commission had found that
AT&T did not satisfy the minimum height standard and its proposed installation was reduced from
95ft to 85ft. He added that the City does not require WCFs to be built to accommodate future
collocation, merely that they should provide for it when possible.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner KenCairn remarked that many of the public comments referred to 5G and clarified
that the proposed installation was 4G. Mr. Connors stated that the proposal is for a 4G tower.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Record at 8:24.
Discussion and Decision
Commissioner Knauer expressed appreciation to the arguments regarding collocation. He stated
that chosen location did not visually appeal to him, but that he understood the reasons it was
chosen. He added that SOU requires adequate coverage and requested that the structure be built in
such a way as to allow for future collocation. Mr. Goldman stated that collocation is available at the
Ashland Hills Hotel, which contains multiple carriers on its roof and is smaller than the proposed
location, and therefore the SOU site would be able to accommodate future collocation.
Commissioners KenCairn/Knauer m/s to uphold the appeal and reverse staff’s decision to deny
the application with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Roll Call Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 4-0.
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Approval of Draft Findings for PA-APPEAL-2024-00019, 1250 Ashland Street
Commissioners Knauer/KenCairn m/s to approve the findings as presented by staff. Roll Call Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00009
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2228 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Ashland Parks & Recreation/City of Ashland
Page 8 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 44
Planning CommissionMinutes
DESCRIPTION: A request to annex the 6.51-acre property at 2228 East Main Street and the adjacent
0.97 acres of East Main Street right-of-way into the City of Ashland with Suburban Residential (R-1-
3.5) zoning. The application also includes a request for Site Design Review approval to develop the
annexed property as a new public park to include restrooms, a bike park with pump track & skills
course, fenced dog park, play area, and a community garden. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Suburban Residential; ZONING: Existing – RR-5 (County); Proposed – R-1-3.5 (City); ASSESSOR’S MAP:
39 1E 11CB; TAX LOT #’s: 200
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners KenCairn, Knauer, and Perkinson conducted site visits. Chair Verner stated that she is
familiar with the site. No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson gave a brief timeline of this project, stating that the Parks &
Recreation Department held multiple meetings between 2019-2022, with the Parks Commission
approving a final design on November 8, 2023. He detailed the application’s request for annexation
and for Site Design Review of the property, stating that the proposed park would include restrooms, a
bike park with pump track and skills course, a fenced dog park, play area, and community garden
(see attachment #6).
Regarding the annexation approval criteria, Mr. Anderson stated that items A and C were met, while
D and E need to be addressed. Item B will be found to have been met provided that the application is
approved for Site Design Review for a park, which is an approved use in the requested zone. He noted
that items F, G, and H of the annexation approval criteria do not apply to this application. He stated
that the Site Design Review standards have largely been met, exceeded, or do not apply to the
application. He pointed out that the application included full frontage improvements along the
extent of East Main Street, as well as storm water detention on the north side of the property.
Mr. Anderson stated that findings would be adopted by the Commission on August 13, 2024
presuming it votes to recommend approval. The application would then go to the City Council for a
first reading on September 17, 2024, and a second reading on October 1, 2024.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if staff had received any public comments in opposition to
the dog park, to which Mr. Anderson responded that staff had not.
Applicant Presentation
Clark Stevens of Richard, Stevens, and Associates introduced his firm as the land use consultants for
the project, along with Piper von Chamier of Terrain Landscape Architecture to discuss site design
standards. Also in attendance was Rachel Dials, deputy Director of the Parks & Recreation
Page 9 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 45
Planning CommissionMinutes
Department to answer any operational inquiries.
Mr. Stevens described how the application met the applicable approval criteria, stating that the site
is within the City limits, that adequate City facilities are available, sufficient street capacity exists to
serve the project, and that the application is in compliance with state annexation procedures.
Ms. von Chamier provided a brief background on the project, which started in 2017 and culminated
with the proposal before the Commission. She emphasized the amount of community outreach
associated with the project and displayed the site plan showing the amenities of the park as shown
in the staff presentation. She pointed out that a 6ft tall fence would be installed on the east and west
side of the park to provide privacy to local residences, and a 36in tall fence around the play area to
prevent children from accessing the parking lot. A deer fence would also be installed around the
community garden, with an existing fence along Abbott Avenue to be retained.
Ms. von Chamier explained that the park would include shade structures and restrooms, as well as
path-lighting and an area for a future RVTD bus stop along East Main Street. She mentioned that
there would also be vehicular and bike access off of East Main Street, as well as bike access along
Abbott Avenue and Brooks Lane.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Knauer remarked that some public comments received expressed concern over
parking and asked if there would be sufficient parking for the expected usage. Mr. Stevens
responded that peak visitor hours during the week would largely be from the local community, such
as children visiting after school. He stated that the application’s traffic study determined that peak
park usage would not conflict with peak work traffic in mornings and evenings. He elaborated that
the park is expected to see more bicycle traffic, which would not require significant parking space.
Ms. von Chamier added that the applicants analyzed average parking usage from the existing dog
park, community garden, and the city of Redmond’s pump track to determine the number of parking
spaces required.
Commissioner Knauer expressed concern that the Parks & Recreation Department would be unable
to adequately maintain the proposed park due to the difficulty in maintaining current City parks. He
proposed allowing the new department Director, Rocky Houston, adequate time to acclimate to his
new position before moving forward with the proposal. Ms. Dials responded that the park was
designed for low maintenance and that she was confident it could be adequately maintained,
particularly once the department has a full staff. She added that the park may be a phased
development depending on budget considerations, especially since the state is still reviewing the
City’s grant application for the pump track. Chair Verner pointed out that the subject application is
only for the annexation of the property, the approval of which would allow the project to continue.
Commissioner KenCairn stated that the development of the park would be a lengthy process, which
Page 10 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 46
Planning CommissionMinutes
would allow the Parks Department ample time to hire additional maintenance staff. She commented
that the proposal includes amenities currently lacking in the City that would benefit the community.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 9:12 p.m.
Discussion and Decision
The Commission discussed the timing of the project and whether it would be prudent to delay
development. It was reiterated that this approval was merely for annexation and that maintenance
of the park would not be necessary for some time. Commissioner MacCracken Jain remarked that
the Commission’s decision regards land use, not the design of the park. Commissioner Knauer
agreed, and asked if this park would complete the City’s goal of having all residences within a half-
mile of a park. Ms. Dials responded that it would.
Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to recommend that this item be forwarded to City
Council for consideration based on staff’s recommendation and inclusive of staff’s recommended
conditions. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION - None
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 11 of 11
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).
Total Page Number: 47
Appeal Hearing
Planning Commission
July 9, 2024
Verizon Wireless
˒˵˶˿̂˵ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄Ѕ
Appeal Hearing of StaffϽs Administrative Denial
l
a
Site Design Review for rooftop WCF installation & Conditional Use Permit for
e
screening panels to exceed 40-foot height.
p
p
Staff Denial
A
found initial analysis silent to mid-band RF, which is 90%
n
of licensed spectrum; no trend metrics; scale of propagation plots;
o
alternate site analysis & collocation study were lacking.
z
i
r
On that basis, staff found that gap analysis and collocation study were
e
V
insufficient and denied the application.
Applicant Verizon Wireless Timely Filed an Appeal
Six points noted in appeal request
2
Total Page Number: 48
ˤ˵˼˵˳˿˽˽̅˾˹˳˱̄˹˿˾̃ ˑ˳̄˹˿˾ ˿˶ ˁˉˉˆЅ
No discrimination among providers.
No passing laws or taking actions that prohibit or have the effect of
Verizon Appeal
prohibiting wireless service.
Must act on siting requests in a reasonable period of time (
).
Must issue zoning denials in writing, supported by substantial evidence
and findings contained in a written record.
3
Notice Map
SOU Science Building
1250 Ashland Street
Total Page Number: 49
6
Total Page Number: 50
7
8
Total Page Number: 51
Points of Appeal
l
1.The Director erred by denying a proposal that is identical to the proposal approved in 2018.
a
2.The Director erred by denying the Application based exclusively on comments from the
e
City RF consultant which the Applicant was never provided an opportunity to respond to or
p
address.
p
3.The Director erred by denying the Application bas˵˴ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉ ˢ˖ ˳˿˾̃̅˼̄˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ˶˿̂
A
specific technical information that is not ̂˵́̅˹̂˵˴ ̅˾˴˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱̄˹˿˾ ̃̅˲˽˹̄̄˱˼ ˿̂
approval standards.
f
4.The Director erred by denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
o
˴˵˽˿˾̃̄̂˱̄˵ ˱ Ͽ̃˵̂̆˹˳˵ ˷˱̀Ѐ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˳˿̆˵̂˱˷˵ ˱̂˵˱ʾ
s
5.The Director erred in denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
t
˴˵˽˿˾̃̄̂˱̄˵ Ͽ̄˸˱̄ ˳˿˼˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˿̂ ̀˼˱˳˵˽˵˾̄ ˿˾ ˱˾ ˵̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ̃̄̂̅˳̄̅̂˵ ˱̂˵ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵ʾЀ
n
i
6.The Applicant reserves the right to raise additional appeal issues since AMC
o
18.5.010.050(G)(3) does not limit the appeal to the specific grounds listed in the notice of
P
appeal.
9
AMC 18.4.10
ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˧˓˖ ˢ˵˷̅˼˱̄˹˿˾̃
Regulates the placement, appearance and visual impacts of WCFϽs
while providing residents the ability to utilize wireless services.
Preferred Designs
˓˿˾̃˹˴˵̂˵˴ ˹˾ ˱ Ͽ̃̄˵̀̀˵˴ ˸˹˵̂˱̂˳˸̉Ѐʾ
#2 Attached
#1. Collocation
#4 Free-Standing
#3 Alternative
Support Structure
Structure
ˤ˿ ˱˾ ˕̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˣ̄̂̅˳̄̅̂˵
˟˾ ˱˾ ˕̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˧˓˖
˞˿ ˜˱̄̄˹˳˵ ˤ˿̇˵̂̃
˙˶ ʳˁ ˹̃ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
˓˿˾˳˵˱˼ʼ ˓˱˽˿̅˶˼˱˷˵
ˠ̂˵˶˵̂̂˵˴ ˟̀̄˹˿˾
˙˶ ʳˁʽ˃ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
˙˶ ʳˁ ʶ ʳ˂ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
10
Total Page Number: 52
Elsewhere in the Valley
Typical WCF Installations
11
Ashland
Typical WCF Installations
12
Total Page Number: 53
13
Third Party Review of Technical Submittals
1.Target area currently served by existing sites between one- and two-miles away. Sites at that distance
might provide some low-band RF coverage, but it is often unreliable and service quality depends on
̃̅˲̃˳̂˹˲˵̂ ˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˱˾˴ ˼˿˳˱˼ ˢ˖ Ͽ˳˼̅̄̄˵̂ʾЀ
Verizon Appeal
2.Existing spotty low-band (700/850MHz) RF coverage from existing neighbor sites provides about ten
̀˵̂˳˵˾̄ ˿˶ ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˲˱˾dwidth. Mid-band spectrum, which accounts for about 90 percent of
ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̃̅˲̃˳̂˹˲˵̂ ˲˱˾˴̇˹˴̄˸ʼ ˹̃ ˼˹˻˵̇˹̃˵ ̃̀˿̄̄̉ ˱˾d served from existing neighbor sites at or below
the outdoor service level. Third Party Reviewer concluded that Appellant has shown an RF service
coverage gap in the vicinity of the proposed site that could be remedied by a new WCF.
3.In addition to the RF coverage gaps, Appellant provided Forward Data Volume (FDV) and Average
Scheduled Eligible Users (ASEU) metric plots. Those plots showtwo issues that will affect reliable service.
First, the FDV plot shows that the serving sector cannot support the number of users and their
bandwidth demands during the busiest times each day. Second, the ASEU plot likely reflects the make-
and-break connections subscribers experience while trying to hold voice and data sessions on the LTE
network from the un-named sector. Both metrics tend to support AppellantϽs claim of need for a WCF
in the vicinity of the proposed site.
4.Appellant has also supplemented their matê˹˱˼̃ ̇˹̄˸ Ͽ˓̂˿̇˴ʽ̃˿̅̂˳˵˴Ѐ ˴˱̄˱ ˶̂˿˽ ̄˸˵ Ͽ Ookla Verizon
4G Ѐ ˴˱̄˱˲˱̃˵ ̄˸˱̄ ̃˸˿̇ ̅̃˵̂ ˴˵̆˹˳˵̃ ̂˵porting less-than-reliable service levels in the vicinity of the
proposed site. That crowd-sourced data is consistent with the existing RF coverage levels shown for
low-band and mid-band ˱˾˴ ˹̃ ˳˿˾̃˹̃̄˵˾̄ ̇˹̄˸ ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˑˣ˕˥ metrics that show excessive sessions
held by the existing WCF sector in question.
14
Total Page Number: 54
Third Party Review of Technical Submittals
5.Due to the propagation characteristics of both low-band and mid-band signals, any prospective
alternate sites that are more distant than AppellantϽs existing WCF sites are likely to fail to provide
sufficient signal strength to the target coverage area.
Verizon Appeal
ˆʾ˔˿˳̅˽˵˾̄˱̄˹˿˾ ˙̄˵˽ ʳ˂ Ͽˑ˼̄˵̂˾˱̄˵ ˣ˹̄˵ ˑ˾˱˼̉̃˹̃Ѐ ˼˹̃̄̃ ̃˹̄˵ ˾̅˽˲˵̂̃ ˁ ̄˸̂˿ugh 4. Sites 1, 2 and 3 are either
located near existing sites operated by Appellant or are at comparable distances to existing sites.
These alternate sites would likely have the same signal level issues discussed above for existing low-
band and mid-band service that create the need for a WCF in the vicinity of the proposed site.
7.Appellant states that Site 4, the 85-foot light pole location, provides acceptable performance, but
ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄ ̃̄˱̄˵̃ ̄˸˱̄ ˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˹̃ Ͽ˾ot availableʾЀ \[Appellant has provided significant additional
information in support of this assertion.\]
8.Additional alternate sites identified by city staff or during public comment near the target area, if any,
that have lower antenna center line (ACL) elevation or that are located at other coordinates will require
additional propagation modeling by Appellant to assess performance should they be considered.
15
Uphold the appeal.
Reverse the original staff denial.
Approve the request with the conditions detailed in the staff report, which
are consistent with those attached to the 2018 approval.
Adopt findings tonight to comply with the federal 90-day shot clock which
runs to July 14 ().
th
Staff Recommendations
1250 Ashland Street
Total Page Number: 55
Any questions?...
Appeal Hearing
Planning Commission
July 9, 2024
Verizon Wireless
MDF Madrone-2
Application No. PA-T1-2024-00233
Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)
1250 Ashland Street, Ashland, OR
Total Page Number: 56
Verizon applied for the identical rooftop
proposal in 2018 -PA #2017-01486.
City Staff approved the Application ÏDecision
appealed.
Planning Commission affirmed the Staff
decision and approved the Application.
Land use approval expired in 2020.
Proposed WCF
Southern Oregon University ÏScience
Building.
Rooftop site ÏAntennas and equipment on
rooftop (no ground equipment).
Extend the existing mechanical screening wall
to fully screen the WCF Ïmatch screening
wall.
SOU zone ÏWCF allowed subject to Site
Design Review.
Conditional Use Permit ÏExtending existing
screening wall that exceeds 40 ft. (49.1 ft.)
Total Page Number: 57
Total Page Number: 58
Coverage and capacity site.
Lack of reliable coverage for indoor and in-
vehicle users.
Surrounding WCFs are overloaded and
beyond capacity.
Problem will only get worse over time -
wireless data traffic increasing exponentially.
Total Page Number: 59
Current Coverage
Coverage With Proposed WCF
Total Page Number: 60
AMC 18.4.10.040(B) -Preferred Design
1.Collocation. Collocate new WCFs on pre-
existing structures with WCFs in place or on pre-
existing towers.
2.Attached to Existing Structure. If (1) above is
not feasible, WCFs shall be attached to pre-
existing structures.
3.Alternative Structure. If (1) or (2) above are not
feasible, alternative structures shall be used with
design features that conceal, camouflage, or
mitigate the visual impacts.
4.Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or
(3) above are not feasible, a monopole design
with vertical attached antennas or if not feasible
a platform design.
Alternative Sites Analysis
Alt No.1(Towerco120Ô wireless tower) ÏNot
within search ring, not satisfy coverage and
capacity objectives & too close to existing site
(Lithia).
Alt No. 2 (25Ô Rooftop -2290 Ashland St.) Ï
No existing WCFs (evaluated 2018), not
satisfy coverage and capacity objectives & too
close to existing site (Lithia).
Alt No. 3 (25Ô Rooftop -30 W. Hershey St.) Ï
No existing WCFs (evaluated 2018), not
satisfy coverage and capacity objectives & too
close to existing site (Ashland).
Total Page Number: 61
Alternative Sites Analysis
Alt No. 4 (AT&T 85Ô stadium light standard).
Applicant made repeated attempts over a one-
year period to explore this alternative before it
was constructed.
AT&T was unwilling and unable to allow
collocation due to the lower approved height
(original proposal 95Ô) and structural issues.
Southern Oregon University was unable or
unwilling to assist Verizon in facilitating
collocation discussions with AT&T.
The City was unable or unwilling to assist
Verizon in facilitating collocation discussions
with AT&T.
City Staff Decision
Staff decision concluded the Application satisfied
all the applicable approval criteria except the
preferred design requirement.
Sole basis for denial Ïlack of sufficient RF
information related to the need for the WCF and
the alternative sites analysis.
Staff position based exclusively on the City RF
consultantÔs 4/24/24 letter.
City RF consultantÔs letter merely requested
additional technical information and clarification.
The Applicant was not provided a copy of the City
RF consultantÔs letter or an opportunity to
respond.
Total Page Number: 62
Grounds for Appeal
The City approved the identical proposal in
2018 Ïsame proposal and approval criteria.
The Applicant was denied an opportunity to
respond to the City RF consultantÔs letter.
The City RF consultant requested technical
information that is not required to be
provided under AMC Chapter 18.4.10.
The Applicant already submitted substantial
evidence demonstrating a need for the WCF
and the lack of preferred alternatives.
The Applicant Submitted
Requested RF Information
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested information demonstrating
a need for the WCF -RF Design Analysis.
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested information demonstrating
the lack of preferred alternatives-Alternative Site
Analysis.
The CityÔs RF consultant reviewed this additional
information and agrees with the ApplicantÔs
analysis.
The City Staff agrees there are no preferred
alternative sites that are available.
Total Page Number: 63
The City approved the identical proposal in 2018
Ïsame proposal and approval criteria.
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested RF information.
The City RF consultant agrees that the Applicant
demonstrated a need for the WCF and the lack of
preferred alternative sites.
The City staff agrees the Application satisfies the
applicable approval criteria.
The Applicant requests the Planning Commission
approve the Application subject to the conditions
of approval.
Total Page Number: 64
Total Page Number: 65
Total Page Number: 66
Total Page Number: 67
Total Page Number: 68
Total Page Number: 69
PLANNING
COMMISSION
East Main Park
JULY09, 2024
Total Page Number: 70
Total Page Number: 71
Total Page Number: 72
Total Page Number: 73
Total Page Number: 74
Total Page Number: 75
Total Page Number: 76
Total Page Number: 77
ˡ̅˵̃̄˹˿˾̃ˏ
Total Page Number: 78
Total Page Number: 79
Total Page Number: 80
THE CITY OF ASHLAND
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 13, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T3-2024-00009AN)
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE OF A 6.51 )
ACRE PROPERTY INCLUDING 0.97 ACRES OF ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-)
WAY. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN )
FINDINGS,
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A CITY PARK.)
CONCLUSIONS,
)
AND ORDERS.
OWNER
CITY OF ASHLAND)
APPLICANT:
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION)
______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)The subject property is located at 2228 East Main Street and is tax lot #200 of Assessor’s
Map 39-1E-11-CB. Itis 6.51 acres in size and has a comprehensive plan designation of
‘Suburban Residential’ and a county zoning designation of RR-5 (Rural Residential).
2)The subject property is located on the south side of East Main, adjacent to Chautauqua Trace
Subdivision to the east and “Bud’s Dairy” Subdivision to the south. Along the west side of
the property are seven residential lots that front Clay Street. The subject property is within the
UGB (the UGB runs along the north side of the East Main Right-Of-Way), and the City Limits
is immediately adjacent to the south.
3)The subject property is identified on the adopted 2024 Parks Trails and Open Spaceas a park
and has been in the design process with the Ashland Parks Commission for several years. The
project received final approval from the Park Commission on November 08, 2023.
4)The application is a request for annexation and Site Design Review for the creation of a city
park.The applicant provided detailedresponses to all applicable approval criteria in the form
of findings of fact, as well as a Traffic Impact Analysis, legal description and survey of the
property, landscaping and civil engineering plans. These materials are on file at the
Department of Community Developmentand by their reference are incorporated herein as if set
out in full.
5)The Land Use Ordinance states that: “all annexations shall be processed under the Type III
procedure.” A Type III planning action is a legislative decision by definition, and isreviewed by
the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council
makes final decisions through enactment of an ordinance
AMC 18.5.8.050
6)The criteria of approval for Annexation are described in as follows:
An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in
below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose
subsectionsAthroughH
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 1
Total Page Number: 81
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 subsectionI.
A.
The annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.
B.
The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive 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
subsection18.4.6.030.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 areasshall 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 andincluded 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, orcan 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 multiuse 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
multiuse 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
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 2
Total Page Number: 82
local public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit
facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turnout lanes.
5.Timing of Transportation Improvements.All required transportation improvements
shall be constructed and installed in accordance with subsection18.4.6.030.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 subsection18.5.8.050.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 of
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 of
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 of the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
, above, the
2.As an alternative to providing affordable units per section18.5.8.050.G.1
applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development
complying with subsection18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC
501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under
ORS456.055to456.235.
a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the
standards set forth in sections18.5.8.050.G.5and18.5.8.050.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 non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, or a public corporation created
.
under ORS456.055to456.235
d.The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s
affordable housing program requirements.
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 3
Total Page Number: 83
e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall
exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in
subsection18.5.8.050.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
Table18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME
program.
4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that the affordable
housing units per subsection18.5.8.050.Gshall 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 subsections18.5.8.050.G.2through18.5.8.050.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, than would
development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of
.
subsection18.5.8.050.G.2
b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting
provided by the applicant provides adequate
subsection18.5.8.050.G.4
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
, are necessary due to local, state, or federal
subsection18.5.8.050.G.5
affordable housing standards or financing limitations.
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 4
Total Page Number: 84
7.The total number of affordable units described in this subsection 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 criteriafor 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 subsection18.5.8.050.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 chapter222or 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
, Exceptions to the Street
standards in this section using the criteria in section18.4.6.020.B.1
Design Standards, or chapter18.5.5, Variances
AMC 18.5.2.050
7)The criteria of approval for Site Design Revieware described in as follows:
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
), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and
underlying zone (part18.2
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 (part18.3).
C.Site Development and Design Standards.
The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part18.4, 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 part18.4if 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
substantiallynegatively 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;
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 5
Total Page Number: 85
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 section18.2.3.090
8)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 9,
2024. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the close of the
public hearing The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions of
approval.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18 is the
“Land Use Ordinance” and regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive
Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the
decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application
materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC.
2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at
the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the
th
subject property on June 19 (20 days prior to the July 9thMeeting).
2.2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
th
decision based on the applicationitself,the July 9Staff Report, the applicant’s public hearing
testimony, and the exhibits received.
2.3 The Planning Commission takes note of the shape and location of the subject property.
Assessor map 391E11CB (shown next page). The subject property is Tax Lot #200. The
Planning Commission notes that in this area the UGB Boundary runs along the northern side of
Main Street. The Planning Commission notes that the property is within the City’s UGB andis
contiguous with the current city limits (which are shown in thicker greylines). The Planning
Commission would further note that the dotted line shown is the recently completed property line
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 6
Total Page Number: 86
adjustment that some of the application materials describe as ‘ongoing’, or ‘concurrent.’
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Annexation meets all applicable
approval criteria described in AMC 18.5.8.050and detailed below.
2.4.1The first approval criterion for annexation is that “The annexed area is within the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary.” The Planning Commission notes that the map above
shows that the property is within the UGB and finds that this approval criterion has been
met.
2.4.2 The second approval criterion for annexation is that “the proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designations.” The Planning Commission notes that the
comprehensive plan designation of the property is suburban residential, and the property
does not yet have an assigned zone. The application requests a zone change to R-1-3.5
which would be appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan designation of suburban
residential. The Planning Commission notes that the table of allowed uses (AMC
18.2.2.030) indicates that a Park is permitted outright in the R-1-3.5 zone. Provided that
the development of the park is guided by Site Design Review, as is the case here,it can
be found that the proposal is consistent with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 7
Total Page Number: 87
designation. The Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion has been met.
2.4.3. The third approval criterion for annexation is that “The annexed area is
contiguous with the City limits.” The Planning Commission notes that the map above
shows that the property is contiguous with the City limits and finds that this approval
criterion has been met.
2.4.4 The fourth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate City facilities as
determined by the Public Works Department” The Planning Commission notes that the
application indicates that the property is served by all city utilities with a 12” sewer main
in East Main, an 8” water main that has been stubbed into the property at Abbott Ave,
and electrical available from either frontage. The Planning Commission notes that the
application explains the expected impact on sewer and water is de minimis based on the
few facilities being proposed. The Planning Commission notes that the Public Works
Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any City
facilities.
The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a complete set of plans for
the proposed civil improvements prepared by Powell Engineering & Consulting. These
provide complete details on frontage improvements including curb, gutter, planter strip
and sidewalk as well as a protected bike lane. The Planning Commission notes that the
Fire Marshal, it was determined that a fire hydrant was in fact, not required on the East
Main Frontage. The Planning Commission notes that a condition of approval has been
included below that the project engineer will be required to meet all Public Works
requirements. The Planning Commission finds that with the conditions of approval below
that this approval criterion has been met.
2.4.5 The fifth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate transportation can
and will be provided to serve the annexed area.” The Planning Commission notes that the
application material include a comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)whichstates
that “the traffic impact analysis conclude that the proposed East Main Street Park can be
approved without creating adverse impacts to the transportation system.” The Planning
Commission notes that these conclusions are supported by comparing the ‘no-build’ to
the ‘build’ level of service (LOS) conditions at selected intersections using estimated trip
generation processed using “SYNCHRO” timing software. The Planning Commission
notes that the TIA estimated the entire park will generate 442 average daily trips (ADT)
with 20 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 43 during the p.m. peak hour. The
TIA also examines Bike and Pedestrian traffic as well. The TIA concludes that “Streets
that serve the subject property will accommodate projected peak hour traffic volumes
while maintaining acceptable performance standards in accordance with the City of
Ashland and Jackson County Transportation System Plans (TSP).” The Planning
Commission finds that based on the the conclusions of the TIA that this approval
criterion has been met.
2.4.6The sixth and seventh approval criteria for annexation address residential density
and affordable housing, respectively. Both of those approval criteria provide a manner to
determine the required density / number of affordable units, and in each case “land area
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 8
Total Page Number: 88
dedicated as a public park” is specifically excluded. The present proposal includes that
the entire subject property is to be dedicated as a city park and has no residential
component. The Planning Commission notes that the residential density based on this
exclusion is zero.
The Planning Commission notes that with regard to ‘Goal-10’ compliance, the city
recently updated the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) update. The BLI found that within
the city it was estimated that 1,407 dwellings could be accommodated, with 1303
additional potential dwellings in the UGB. The BLI also determined, based on the
conclusions of the Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA), that the city had sufficient
capacity across all comprehensive plan designations with the existing city limits.
The Planning Commission notes that the one acre of land that was recently transferred
through a property line adjustment was not previously identified to be a park and that the
BLI identified the property to have development potential. The Planning Commission
notes that the reduction in potential development in terms of dwelling units based on this
lot line adjustment was five. Based on the above, The Planning Commission concludes
that the reduction in five potential dwelling units will not affect the conclusions of the
BLI that the city has sufficient residential land for the next twenty-year planning period.
The Planning Commission finds that because there is no residential development, and
that the reduction of five potential dwellings will not have a goal 10 impact these two
approval criteria are found to be satisfied.
2.4.5The eighth and final approval criterion for annexation requires that at least one of
five standards tobe met.The first of these is that “The annexation proposal shall meet the
requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.” The referenced section is the second
approval criteria which states, “that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan designations” and was discussed in section 2.4.2 above. The Planning Commission
notes again that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and finds that
since the second approval criterion this approval criterion has been met.
The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for
Annexation approval have been satisfied.
2.5The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review meets all
applicable approval criteria described in AMC 18.5.2.050 and detailed below.
2.5.1The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies
with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone.” The Planning Commission
notes that chapter AMC 18.2 provides for allowed uses and general regulations for base
zones. As discussed above a city park is permitted outright as an allowed use in the
proposed zone. The remainder of the relevant standards in the chapter provide setbacks
and lot coverage. The application shows that all proposed buildings exceed the required
setbacks minimums and that the proposed lot coverage is 24.5% when 55% is allowed for
the zone. The Planning Commission notes that based on the application materials it is
clear that all provisions of the underlying zone are met. The Planning Commission finds
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 9
Total Page Number: 89
that this approval criterion has been met.
2.5.2The second approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal
complies with all of the applicable overlay zone requirements.”The Planning
Commission notes that chapter AMC 18.3 provides regulations for all relevant overlay
zones. The only overlay zone that affects the property is the ‘Wildfire’ overlay zone
which covers the entire city. All proposed structures will be required to comply with the
‘fuel modification area’ as provided at AMC 18.3.10.100, and a condition of approval to
that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that with the
conditions of approval below that this approval criterion has been met.
2.5.3The third approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies
with all of the applicable Site Development and Design Standards.” The Planning
Commission notes that chapter AMC 18.4 provides for the Site Development and Design
Standards. As relevant here, this chapter regulates. 1) Building placement, 2) Parking
Standards, 3) Landscaping, 4) Tree Preservation, and 5) Public Facilities (these are
discussed in the fourth approval criterion below). The application materials include
detailed responses to each of these standards. In brief the only buildings proposed are the
bathroom and shade structures and the relevant standards for building design and
placement for Site Design Review are not applicable in this application. The application
notes that there are ten trees proposed for removal which are described as dead or dying.
The application also includes a tree protection plan as well as extensive documentation
on landscaping plant selection, irrigation, and installation.
The Planning Commission notes that theproposed parking lot is shown to meet all
standards and while not required includes pervious hard scape for the parking areas to
increase rain infiltration and reduce storm water runoff. The application notes that there
are “10 parking lot trees are proposed to shade 28 spaces, exceeding the ratio of 1 tree per
7 parking spaces.” Staff would note that our code has recently been updated to be in
compliance with the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking
which requires compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300
Standards and is a new component of the vehicle area design standards. They require that
the trees be planted in accordance with ANSI A300 standards including having ample
high-quality soil, space for root growth, and reliable irrigation according to the needs of
the species. It also requires that the parking lot tree canopy plan shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified
arborist and include certification that the plan is consistent with ANSI A300 standards.
Conditions of approval to this effect have been included below. The Planning
Commission finds that with the conditions of approval below that this approval criterion
has been met.
2.5.2The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies
with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate
capacity of City facilities.” The Planning Commission notes that the application proposes
a three-foot dedication along East Main St. to accommodate the required improvements.
The application indicates that 7.5’ park row and 6’ concrete sidewalk, a 5.5’ bike lane / 8’
buffered bike lane (where space allows), curb & gutter, storm drainage infrastructure,
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 10
Total Page Number: 90
streetlights and street trees are proposed. These improvements meet or exceed the
standards provided in Table 18.4.6.040.F for a two-lane avenue. All required public
improvements along the southern edge of the project are extant. The application
materials, as mentioned above, include detailed civil engineering drawings address sewer
connection, storm water facilities, and electrical utilities.
2.5.2The final approval criterion provides certain circumstances where the approval
authority may grant exceptions to the Site Development and DesignStandards. The
Planning Commission notes that the application has no requested exceptions and finds that
this approval criterion has been met.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make
approval
findings that each of the criteria of for Annexation and Site Design Review approval
have been met, as was presented in the applicant’s submittal, as well as the Staff Report dated
th
July 9, and by each of their reference are hereby incorporated herein as if set out in full.
2.7 Following the closing of the public hearing The Planning Commission deliberated and a
motion was made recommending approval of the Annexation and Site Design Review
application subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that with the conditions of approval included in this
decision below, the proposal satisfies the relevant approval criteria.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the request Annexation and Site Design Review is supported by evidence
approval
contained within the whole record and forwards a recommendation ofto City Council
including the conditions of approval below.
The conditions of approval are below:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way.
3)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification
Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be
provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new
landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028.
4)Electric services shall be installed underground, inspected and approved. The final
electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building,
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation.
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 11
Total Page Number: 91
5)That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at
the street shall be installed, inspected and approved.
6)That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak
rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection
system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved
public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland
Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the
building permit submittals.
7)That the building permit submittals shall include the following:
a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with
the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-3.5 zoning district. Lot coverage
includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation
areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping.
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T3-2024-00009
August 13, 2024
Page 12
Total Page Number: 92
Total Page Number: 93
Total Page Number: 94
Memo
DATE: August 13, 2024
TO:Planning Commissioners
FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager
RE: Climate Friendly Areas Update
Background
As Planning Commissioners are aware, in 2023 the state’s Climate Friendly & Equitable
Communities (CFEC) rulemaking required cities to study potential Climate Friendly Areas
(CFAs) to accommodate 30 percent of future population in pedestrian friendly, mixed-use
areas as a key strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For 2024, cities are required
to formally designate CFAs and update adopted maps and zoning ordinances accordingly.
Ashland has received a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) and is working with 3J Consulting, JET Planning and EcoNorthwest to complete this
state-mandated code work.
Consultant Selection
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) approved a grant request
for the City of Ashland's Climate Friendly Areas Code Update project. To spearhead this
initiative, 3J Consulting has been selected as the primary consultant, with additional market
analysis support provided by EcoNorthwest and code analysis by JET Planning. Together, they
will conduct comprehensive public engagement and draft the necessary code analysis to
align Ashland's zoning and development standards with the Climate-Friendly & Equitable
Communities principles.
Project Timeline
The timeline provided by DLCD in the contract with 3J Consulting stipulates that an adoption-
ready code must be drafted no later than the end of May 2025. This timeline differs from the
Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) target completion deadline of December 2024 but reflects the
extensive number of such projects being conducted simultaneously statewide and the State
funding cycle. Given the late start on initiating the projects (i.e. initial scopes were to being in
January and are being revised now to reflect the project just getting fully underway) and the
extended timeline needed to complete adequate public engagement, at its July 15 study
th
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 95
session the Council directed staff to request an alternative date to the December 31 target
st
completion date outlined in the State legislation. This alternative date would ensure that the
comprehensive public engagement and thorough draft code analysis conducted by 3J
Consulting, JET Planning and EcoNorthwest are not compromised, ultimately facilitating a
more robust and effective implementation of climate-friendly and equitable community
principles in Ashland. In preliminary discussions with DLCD staff, they’ve seemed open to
such a request.
Project Goals and Objectives:
Goal: Draft updated zoning and development code and zoning maps for CFAs in Ashland.
Objectives:
1.Review recommendations from the Council-approved Phase 1 CFA Study by the
Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG).
2.Use a market feasibility study to inform CFA code regulations.
3.Select CFAs to accommodate 30 percent of the city's future housing.
4.Prepare adoption-ready zoning and development standards.
5.Conduct public outreach to engage stakeholders.
Public Meetings and Community Outreach
The scope of work between DLCD and 3J Consulting for the Ashland Climate Friendly Areas
(CFA) Code Update project outlines the following public meetings and engagement
activities as recommended by the City Planning staff:
1.Stakeholder Interviews
Five consultant-led interviews with development interest stakeholders to inform
draft code audit and the market feasibility study (to be completed in July 2024).
2.Advisory Committees Public Meetings
Virtual presentations and discussions during the months of September and October
with:
Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC)
o
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)
o
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC)
o
Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee (SERJAC)
o
Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC)
o
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 96
3.Public Community Meeting
Open house meeting to present the project scope, goals, findings, and general
recommendations (Tentatively scheduled for 9/17/2024 in the Siskiyou Room).
One online survey to gather input from those unable to attend the public meeting.
4.City Study Sessions
Study Sessions to review final draft updates to City’s zoning ordinance, zoning map,
other development codes (as needed) and comprehensive plan. The Consultant will
prepare presentations for and attend the two study sessions in person.
Planning Commission Study Session
City Council Study Session
5.Public Hearings (Land Use Legislative Amendments)
Planning Commission public hearing to review proposed amendments and
provide recommendations to Council
City Council public hearing on final draft updates to City’s zoning ordinance, zoning
map, other development codes (as needed) and comprehensive plan, and
adoption of required supporting elements included walkable design standards
revisions, highway impact study, multi-modal gaps analysis and written findings
addressing all elements of the adoption package.
The CFEC rules also require jurisdictions in Oregon’s eight most-populated metropolitan
areas to implement land use regulations that support compact, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-
use development patterns in urban areas (i.e. not merely in the proposed CFAs). Cascadia
Partners is working with DLCD to develop a 'Walkable Design Standards' guidebook to help
these communities implement compliant regulations that meet the intent of the Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0330 and OAR 660-012-0405(4). Cascadia is also
developing a model code based on examples of best practices.
Jurisdictions will have broad latitude to adopt land use regulations covered in the guidebook
and model code in whole or in part. Ashland staff are serving on the State technical advisory
committee, along with staff from the eight other metropolitan areas, to aid Cascadia
Partners in developing the guidebook and model code, and Cascadia is also under contract
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 97
with DLCD to help Ashland identify any specific changes needed to bring our land use
regulations into compliance with the OAR. Staff and Cascadia have completed an initial
audit of Ashland's land use code in light of the OAR and are working to identify potential code
updates with the intention that these updates would be brought forward along with adoption
of the CFA's and associated regulations.
In addition to the parking regulation changes that were part of the first round CFEC rules
implemented, DLCD also has a project underway with Studio Davis to develop a Parking
Management Guide that would provide a roadmap for cities dealing with issues such as
parking enforcement, implementing paid parking, creating parking benefit districts and
parking lot design and landscaping. Ashland planning staff are part of the project
management team for this project as well and are working with the consultant to finalize the
guide which should be available to cities later this year.
Discussion Items
This is an informational update, and no formal action is requested at this time. The questions
below are to provide initial guidance to Planning Staff and the consultant team regarding key
aspects of the Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) Code Update project.
1.Deadline Extension Request: Is the Planning Commission supportive of the City formally
requesting an extension to the December 31, 2024, deadline from DLCD to align with the
consultant contract timeline? Factors to be emphasized in this request would include
efforts to ensure a comprehensive public engagement process, the necessary code
analysis, the number of projects moving forward concurrently (Economic Opportunities
Analysis, Manufactured Home Park Ordinance, Transportation System Plan, etc.) with a
finite number of staff and meeting hours available, and the need to coordinate
components including a required highway impact summary, a multi-modal gap analysis
and defensible written findings – none of which cannot be formalized until the final CFAs
are selected by Council. \[Note: Council was in favor of an extension request.\]
2.Height Allowances in C-1 or E-1 Zones: Should the height allowances required for CFAs (a
maximum height of at least 50 feet or four stories) be applied to all C-1 or E-1 zones,
modifying the land use zoning code universally, or should these allowances be restricted
only to the CFA overlay zones where they are required? What are the potential impacts
and benefits of each approach? Would the Planning Commission find this acceptable in
and/or around historic districts?
3.
Density Regulations in E-1/C-1 Zones: Is it advisable to eliminate maximum density
regulations in all E-1 and C-1 zones, or should this deregulation be limited to areas
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 98
designated under the CFA overlay? The existing zones have maximum densities of 15
dwellings per acre in E-1, and 30 units per acre in C-1. The Transit triangle overlay area
presently removes density maximums. What are the implications for housing diversity and
\[Note: Councilors were cautiously
community development under each scenario?
supportive of looking at applying the height and densities across the E1/C1 zones (i.e.
not limiting these changes to only the CFA areas) but wanted to ensure that these
changes did not impact historic areas or their edges. Councilors were also generally
supportive of looking at greater heights and minimum densities than the 50 feet and
15 dwelling units per acre required for cities of Ashland’s size. Council seemed
generally more open to universally removing maximum density limits in E1/C1 zones
than to allowing increased height across the board. Staff believe it would be worth
further exploring applying the required 15 dwelling unit/acre minimum density and
50-foot/four-story height limit across all E1 and C1 zones and considering a bonus
height allowance in the CFAs to allow up to 60 feet/five stories where the proposal
achieves at least a 20 dwelling unit/acre density.
4.Residential Overlay in E-1 Zones: Currently, mixed-use residential is only allowed in those
portions of the E-1 (Employment) zones where there is an -R (Residential) overlay. E-1
zones within the CFAs will need to allow residential, meaning that the -R overlay would
need to be extended into these areas, or the regulations adjusted to eliminate the -R
overlay and allow residential in all E-1 zones. \[Note: This issue was not considered by
Council.\]
5.
Boundary Adjustments to Exclude Multifamily Residential Zones: Should proposed CFA
boundaries be adjusted to include or exclude adjacent developed multifamily residential
zones. Including these residentially developed areas would bring CFAs closer to realizing
the hoped for 30 percent of population. Excluding these areas would retain their existing
standards and development patterns. The CFEC rules allow inclusion of adjacent
multifamily areas provided they have at least a 15-dwelling units per acre density. R-2
districts currently have a 13.5-dwelling units per acre base density, and a maximum height
of 35' or 2.5 stories. If such areas were to be included within the CFA boundaries Planning
Staff and the consultants would need to evaluate whether increased density or any other
regulatory changes for CFA designation would impact the existing character of these
\[Note: Councilors had some skepticism about inclusion of R-2 areas in the CFA’s,
zones.
particularly if it would alter the requirements applicable to those who had purchased
homes in those areas and/or change the character of those areas. They indicated
they would want to see a careful analysis of those areas and the impacts before
considering this option. Councilors also indicated they wanted to see a clear
separation between the SOU zone and the ‘Transit Triangle” CFA.\]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 99
6.New CFA zone or CFA overlay: Does the Council have a preference between creating a
new CFA zone and re-zoning the proposed CFAs, or creating a new overlay zone which
could be applied to the underlying zones of each area? A new zone could simplify the
application of the new rules, whereas a new overlay could be created and applied with
less disruption to the existing regulations and processes. \[Note: There was not a definitive
direction here, although staff’s sense was that the Council was at least initially more
inclined to using an overlay that to creating a new CFA zone.\]
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: DLCD CFA Overview
Attachment #2: Final/Approved CFA Study prepared with RVCOG
Attachment #3: CFA area maps
Attachment #4: DLCD Consultant Scope of Work
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 100
Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communities
Why this Rulemaking
In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a policy and goal to reduce
Oregon’s climate pollution by 75% by 2050. That’s what the
science calls for, if we’re going to avoid catastrophic impacts to
our environment, communities, and economy.
Fifteen years later, we’re far off track in our efforts to meet those
goals – and we’re already experiencing real-world impacts of
climate disruption, with increasing wildfires, in size, severity,
and timing, and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians
Oregon is dramatically off-track. If current trends
their homes, and their lives.
continue, Oregon will release more than 4 times more
transportation pollution than our goal by 2050.
We’re particularly off-track in reducing pollution from
transportation, responsible for about 38% of Oregon’s climate
pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce
transportation pollution by about 20% by 2050. That means
we’re polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme
weather events, more wildfires, more ocean acidification, and
more record heat waves. In response, Governor Brown directed
state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and
less driving.
Meanwhile, the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling
history and current patterns of inequity and discrimination,
including in our land use, zoning, and transportation
investment (and disinvestment) decisions. Wealth and health
Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in
have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of
recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean
others. This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing
more extreme and more frequent weather events
past harms.
such as heat bombs, droughts, and wildfires.
Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes
The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched
the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in
September 2020. The commission directed the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon’s land use
planning agency, to draft changes in Oregon’s planning system
for communities in Oregon’s eight most populated areas (see
map at right).
The rules require those communities to change their local
transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure
The rules apply in Oregon’s eight metropolitan
areas shown above.
Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and
don’t have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs.
The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation, housing, and
- 1 -
Total Page Number: 101
planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated
against.
What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don’t get in the
way of more walkable neighborhoods. The rules ask 15 communities to designate climate-
friendly areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing. The rules
don’t require taller buildings, but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly
areas, a minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood.
Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle
transformation, reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning
requirements to address critical gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask
communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met.
The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want
to build it and the market calls for it. There’s a lot of demand for housing where people can walk
to where they want to go. While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide
most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and
climate-friendly choices. Those could better meet the changing shape of American households,
as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again, people can choose what best meets
their needs.
Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making
One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased
emphasis on equity. The rulemaking has worked to integrate
equity, starting withthe rulemaking charge and title. Equity
was key as DLCD attempted to have the composition of the
advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon’s
communities, and equity was one of the first tasks tackled by
the group.
The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at
many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an
Equitable Outcomes Statement to guide the rulemaking
drafting and implementation. The rulemaking conducted a
racial equity analysis of the rules and an analysis on how the
rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities. The
committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item
in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought
1938 Redlining map of Portland. Redlining allowed
white people to build wealth through homeownership.
forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be.
The rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African American
people, Indigenous people, People of Color, people with limited English proficiency, people with
disabilities, low-income Oregonians, youth and seniors, and more. They require mapping of
traditionally underserved populations, local consideration of a set of anti-displacement actions
should decisions contribute toward displacement, centering the voices of underserved
populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on efforts to engage traditionally
underserved populations.
- 2 -
Total Page Number: 102
Climate-Friendly Areas
A climate-friendly area is an area where residents, workers, and
visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to
drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are
planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing, jobs,
businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to
be served, by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient
connections to key destinations within the city and region.
Why are climate-friendly areas important? A key component of
Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity
goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which Oregon already has some climate-friendly areas,
pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing
residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle.
to drive.
Before the automobile became common in American life, cities
grew more efficiently, with a variety of uses in city centers and
other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible
area. Over the last 100 years,the automobile and planning practices have served to separate
activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate-
polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. Climate-friendly areas will help to reverse these negative
trends, with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with
development and redevelopment over time.
The rules require cities, and some urbanized county areas, with a population over 5,000 within
the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable
mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries. The rules for the
Portland Metro area support implementation of the region’s 2040 Growth Concept. Areas will
be sized to accommodate a portion of the community’s housing, jobs, and services. Local
governments will determine where these areas will be located, but many of these areas will likely
be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher
densities.
Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure
is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options. The rules provide a
process for local governments to first identify potential climate-friendly areas, then later to
adopt development standards for the areas best-suited for this purpose. The rules provide some
minimum requirements for climate-friendly areas, with a set of clear and objective standards
that may be adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of
more than 10,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop
strategies to facilitate desired development.
Reforming Costly Parking Mandates
Excess parking has a significant negative impact on
housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing
development and business redevelopment, walkability,
air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general
community character. Parking mandates force people
who don’t own or use cars to pay indirectly for other
people’s parking. Carless households tend to be the
Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land.
poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly
Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red.
- 3 -
Total Page Number: 103
from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero
vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere,
creating incentives to own more cars and drive more.
The rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development.
The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of development,
such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family housing, and
historic buildings. The rules would completely remove parking mandates within one-half mile of
frequent transit and three-quarters of a mile of rail stops, where parking demand is lower per
unit.
The rules give communities options to improve parking management. Those who adopt best
practice parking policies would get more flexibility. The rules require cities with over 100,000
population that choose to continue to mandate off-street parking to eventually charge at least 50
cents per day for 10% of on-street parking spots.
Getting Ready for Oregon’s Electric Vehicle Future
Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon’s climate goals.
Oregonhas a vision where 90% of new vehicles will be electric by 2035. To
meet that goal, we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles. The
most convenient place to do so is at home, but many Oregonians live in
older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit.
Thus, the rules require new housing and mixed-use development with at
Building a complete network of EV
least five units would include electrical conduit (pipes) to 40% of spots,
charging stations at commercial and
ready for adding wiring and charging stations to support electric vehiclesas
multi-family housing locations could
the market expands.
cut up to 11.9% of climate pollution
Planning for a Future of Transportation Options
DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of
Transportation will provide a range of new and amplified services to help meet
greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants, technical assistance, tools,
and publications, to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the
state’s climate pollution reduction goals.
Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use
and transportation plans for decades. The updated rules would require local
governments in metropolitan areas to:
Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns, where
services are located and less driving is necessary;
Prioritize system performance measures that achieve community
Transportation options are
livability goals;
critical for everyone, but
Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on
particularly the roughly
single occupancy vehicles, including in walking, bicycling, and transit;
one-in-three Oregonians
Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and
who cannot drive.
Regularly monitor and report progress.
- 4 -
Total Page Number: 104
Planning to Meet Our Climate Goals
DLCD’s regional greenhouse gas reduction program allows areas to work
together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues. The flexible
regional planning process allows communities to study economic development,
fiscal impacts, resource use, pollution impacts, and the effects of different
choices on the state, region, community, or households. The results are
intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed
leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as
they review and update the area’s long-range plans and make investment
decisions.
The rules expand requirements for regional plans to meet the state’s climate
pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the next
largest metropolitan areas in the state (Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer)
initially. Other metropolitan areas will be required to evaluate their local plans
towards meeting the state’s climate pollution reduction targets and amend their
local plans towards meeting the target.
Community Engagement
We’ve heard from lots of Oregonians over the past
eighteen months. We’ve heard from a 40-person advisory
committee including representatives from all of Oregon’s
impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home
builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking
industry, affordable housing advocates, land use
advocates, community-based and other community-
serving organizations.
To supplement those deliberations, staff held two
separate series of virtual community conversations in
Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee
2021 – five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have
hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner
meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with
local elected officials, planning staff, and interest groups.
Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level
to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies.
We’ve heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of
meetings, community conversations, work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds
of people who’ve submitted comments (summary here). Our rules are better for it, having
continued to evolve and improve.
But the engagement won’t end there – the rules require local governments to engage their
communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you’re interested in
these issues, we encourage you to stay engaged.
- 5 -
Total Page Number: 105
Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines
Local governments are responsible for implementing the rules. Many of the rules take effect
when a community next conducts a major update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a
community’s core document describing its transportation needs and future plans. The rules
state most plans should be updated by December 31, 2029. The rules have Salem-Keizer and
Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional scenario plans and update their TSPs by
the end of 2027.
The land use components of the rules have specific deadlines. Communities are asked to study
potential Climate-Friendly Areas by December 31, 2023, and adopt Areas by December 31,
2024. Parking reform is scheduled to happen in two phases - the first at the end of 2022, and the
second by June 30, 2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates.
DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along
with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon
Housing and Community Services Department. The Oregon Legislature provided $768,000 to
assist with implementation on land use, and ODOT has identified another $18 million to assist
with transportation plan updates.
Learn More
Information on how to get implementation updates via email and many additional materials can
be found at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx
Contact Information
Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner
evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov
971-375-5979
Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner
cody.meyer@dlcd.oregon.gov
971-239-9475
Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner
kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov
503-602-0238
July 2022
- 6 -
Total Page Number: 106
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Rogue Valley
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Council of Governments
Fax (541) 664-7927
City of Ashland
Climate Friendly Area
Study
Produced by the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments, in collaboration with the City
of Ashland and 3J Consulting
2023
Total Page Number: 107
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Climate Friendly Area Project Staff
Brandon Goldman, Director of Community Development, City of Ashland
Derek Severson, Planning Manager, City of Ashland
James Schireman, Associate Land use Planner, RVCOG
Yazeed Alrashdi, Associate Transportation Planner, RVCOG
Anais Mathez, Project Manager, 3J Consulting
Scott Fregonese, Senior Project Manager, 3J Consulting
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 2 | Page
Total Page Number: 108
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Disclaimer:
The following study analyzes CFA candidates within the City of Ashland and explores paths forward and
potential scenarios should the city designate a Climate Friendly Area. By no means does this study alter
the current zoning, land uses, or other development regulations governed by the City of Ashland.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 3 | Page
Total Page Number: 109
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Contents
Chapter 1: Climate Friendly Area Regulations and Methodology Background ............................................ 6
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking .................................................................. 6
Climate Friendly Areas Overview ......................................................................................................... 7
Implementation Timeline ..................................................................................................................... 7
Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Community Engagement Plan ............................................................................................................ 10
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs ......................................................................................................... 11
Evaluate Existing Code ....................................................................................................................... 13
Identify Zoning Changes ..................................................................................................................... 15
Calculate CFA Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 15
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity ........................................................................................................ 16
Equity Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Candidate Climate Friendly Area Analysis................................................................................. 18
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs ............................................................................................................. 19
City Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Calculate Housing Units Needed ....................................................................................................... 21
Zoning Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Zoning Code Review ........................................................................................................................... 22
CFA Capacity Calculation ........................................................................................................................ 30
City Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity ........................................................................................................ 34
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 3: Anti-Displacement Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................. 40
CFA Redevelopment Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 40
Anti-Displacement Map Analysis ............................................................................................................ 40
.................................................................................................................. 40
............................................................................................................................. 40
........................................................................................................................... 40
.............................................................................................................................. 41
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 4 | Page
Total Page Number: 110
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
............................................................................................................................. 41
............................................................................................................................. 41
......................................................................................................................................... 41
Neighborhood Types Present Within the Proposed CFA........................................................................ 41
Suggested Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 43
Category A: Zoning and Code Changes ............................................................................................... 43
Category B: Reduce regulatory Impediments ...................................................................................... 43
Category C: Financial Incentives ......................................................................................................... 44
Category D: Financial Resources ......................................................................................................... 45
Category E: Tax Exemption and Abatement........................................................................................ 45
Category F: Land, Acquisition, Lease, and Partnerships ...................................................................... 46
Appendix A: Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix B: References .............................................................................................................................. 48
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 5 | Page
Total Page Number: 111
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 1: Climate Friendly Area Regulations and Methodology
Background
Introduction
Rogue Valley Council of Governments, in collaboration with the City of Ashland and the project
consultant, 3J Consultant, is conducting a study of potential Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) in accordance
with the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking (OAR 660-012-0310). The State
rules were initiated by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in response to
Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04 directing state agencies to take urgent action to meet
Oregon’s climate pollution reduction targets. The rules encourage climate-friendly development by
facilitating areas where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without
having to drive. A CFA aims to contain a variety of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. A CFA also
supports alternative modes of transit by being in close proximity to high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and
transportation infrastructure.
Phase 1 of this project is the CFA study which identifies candidate CFAs and analyzes what zones are
most aligned to the CFEC rules, and what adjustments to them would be required.
Phase 2 will encompass the actual designation of the Climate Friendly Areas under consideration, and
the adoption of maps and ordinances necessary to implement the CFEC initiative. Cities may use CFA
areas from the study or any other qualifying area.
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking
The Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking is part of Oregon’s longstanding effort to
reduce pollution from the transportation system, especially greenhouse gases that are causing a change
in climate and associated weather-related disruptions, including drought, wildfires, and warming
temperatures with greater variation overall.
The rules encourage climate-friendly development in Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs). Other provisions of
the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle transformation, reduce or
eliminate one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning requirements to address critical
gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask communities to identify transportation
projects needed to meet our climate goals.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 6 | Page
Total Page Number: 112
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Climate Friendly Areas Overview
A CFA is an area where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without
having to drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix
and supply of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to be served,
by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and
convenient connections to key destinations within the city and region. CFAs typically do not require
large parking lots and are provided with abundant tree canopy.
A key component of Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is
facilitating development of urban areas in which residents are less dependent on the single occupant
vehicle. Before the automobile became common in American life, cities grew more efficiently, with a
variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a
walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last 100 years, the automobile and planning practices have
served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon
climate-polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. CFAs will help to reverse these negative trends, with
some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and
redevelopment over time.
The rules require cities (and some urbanized county areas) with a population over 5,000, and that are
located within Oregon’s seven metropolitan areas outside of the Portland metropolitan area, to adopt
regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within their urban growth
boundaries. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
infrastructure is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options, and cities
and counties will prioritize them for location of government offices and parks, open space, and similar
amenities.
Implementation Timeline
The rules provide a two-phased process for local governments to first study potential CFAs, and then, in
a second phase, to adopt development standards for the area, or areas, that are most promising.
Key CFA Study Dates:
June 30, 2023 – CFA Study Funding Expires
December 31, 2023 – CFA Studies Due
December 31, 2024 – Adopt CFA land use standards and any map changes*
*Local governments may request an alternative date for the adoption of land use standards, as provided in OAR 660-012-
0012(4)(c).
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 7 | Page
Total Page Number: 113
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Goals
The purpose of this study is to identify candidate CFA areas that meet the size and locational criteria
required by OAR 660-012-0310(1). Relevant zoning codes will be reviewed, and suggestions will be made
regarding any changes that are necessary to bring zoning codes into compliance with CFEC rules. It is the
intention of the project management team that the candidate CFA selection prioritize community
context reflecting the most feasible zoning code changes, little to no infrastructure investment, and
alignment with citizen interests. The City of Ashland may move forward with the identified CFA area(s)
into Phase 2, or they can use what they learned from the study to choose a new area or areas for
adoption.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 8 | Page
Total Page Number: 114
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Methodology
The methodology was developed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and
was adapted to perform this CFA study. The Climate-Friendly Areas Methodology Guide goes over the
steps to perform the CFA study. The study goes through each of the eight steps highlighted in the
methodology guide, including locating and sizing CFA areas, evaluating existing code, identifying zoning
changes, calculating CFA Capacity and equity analysis. While the technical analysis team was responsible
for overseeing the steps reliant on GIS or analysis of the land use code, Step 1: Public Engagement Plan,
was drafted and prepared by 3J Consulting.
The diagram above shows a workflow for conducting a CFA study. This is not the only order in which the
Steps can be performed, but it is a recommended sequence for the purpose of clarity and efficiency.
To understand the context of the steps listed above, a summary of the rules, a CFA’s purpose, and what
requirements should exist or be adopted in CFA areas is necessary. According to DLCD, "a CFA is an area
where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to drive. They
are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing,
jobs, businesses, and services."
The following is a summary of the steps, rules, and regulations on the specifications of siting a CFA. The
CFA designation process first requires a study of potential candidate areas, ultimately ending in an
area(s) being designated as the City’s Climate Friendly Area. This process, slated to conclude by
December 2023, is known as phase 1. Phase 2: Adoption requires that cities implement the necessary
changes to the land use code to make the zones within the proposed CFA compliant with state
regulations, as provided in OAR 660-012-0310 through -0320.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 9 | Page
Total Page Number: 115
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Community Engagement Plan
This step is planned, drafted, and prepared by 3J Consulting, in coordination with city staff and the
technical analysis team. While the Community Engagement deliverables are distinctly separate from the
technical CFA Study, this study does take into account the community feedback from public meetings
throughout the study phases.
Local governments must develop a community engagement plan for the designation of CFAs that
includes a process to study potential CFA areas and to later adopt associated amendments to the
comprehensive plan and zoning code following the provisions of OAR 660-012-0120 through -0130:
-making must be consistent with statewide planning goals and local
plans
levels of decision-making, consider the effect on underserved populations, work to reduce
historic and current inequities, and engage in additional outreach activities with underserved
populations
include the planning area and engage with affected tribes
The community engagement plan must be consistent with the requirements for engagement-focused
equity analysis in OAR 660-012-0135(3). Equity analysis is required for a variety of transportation
planning actions under Division 12, including study and designation of CFAs. The purpose of an equity
analysis is to identify potentially inequitable consequences or burdens of proposed projects and policies
on impacted communities in order to improve outcomes for underserved populations.
The equity analysis must include robust public engagement, including a good-faith effort to:
reporting back information learned from the analysis and unresolved issues
—including lived
experience—on potential benefits and burdens on underserved populations
proposed changes for impacts on and alignment with desired key community
outcomes and performance measures under OAR 660-012-0905
people engaged
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 10 | Page
Total Page Number: 116
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs
Every potential CFA must follow the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking
(OAR 660-012-0310) requirements in order to be properly located and sized. The rules regarding
location for potential CFAs are universal for all cities.
The CFEC rules of OAR 660-012-0310 that must be followed in the CFA location process are:
CFA locations must be able to support development consistent with the land use requirements
of OAR 660-012-0320.
CFAs must be located in existing or planned urban centers (including downtowns, neighborhood
centers, transit-served corridors, or similar districts).
CFAs must be served by (or planned to be served by) high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
services.
CFAs may not be located in areas where development is prohibited.
CFAs may be located outside city limits but within a UGB following OAR 660-012-0310 (e).
CFAs must have a minimum width of 750 feet, including internal rights of way that may be
unzoned.
While the allowed land uses and denser environment will largely influence the choice of a CFA,
development feasibility is another important criterion to consider. The area chosen to be CFA should not
have infrastructure problems or limitations that could prevent the development of Climate Friendly
Areas. The infrastructure capacity of a candidate CFA will be discussed with city staff to determine if it is
a sufficient choice or to move forward with another candidate area.
City population is the primary determinant regarding CFA size requirements. There are two categories
for sizing a CFA: cities over 5,000 and cities over 10,000 in population. Ashland's population falls under
the second option for cities with populations greater than 10,000. Cities with a population greater than
10,000 must designate a minimum of one CFA that accommodates 30% of their current and projected
housing, the overall area being at least 25 acres in size. In addition, all CFAs must have a minimum width
of 750 feet.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 11 | Page
Total Page Number: 117
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
In discussing CFA requirements with city staff, the technical analysis team opted to utilize the
prescriptive standards as written by DLCD. The following table 1 shows the prescriptive standards
requirements that must be incorporated in the development code, in accordance with the City’s
population.
Table 1. Prescriptive Standards
Population Minimum Residential Density Max Building Height
5,001-24,999 15 dwelling units/net acre No less than 50 ft
25,000-49,999 20 dwelling units/net acre No less than 60 ft
50,000 or more 25 dwelling units/net acre No less than 85 ft
Because the city of Ashland falls within the 5,001 – 24,999 category, phase 2 will require adoption of
rules for a minimum residential density of 15 dwelling units/net acre and a maximum building height of
no less than 50 ft in height.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 12 | Page
Total Page Number: 118
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Evaluate Existing Code
The land use requirements established in OAR 660-012-0320, as shown below, are pivotal in
determining how much a base zone already aligns with CFA requirements.
Land Use Requirement for CFAs:
Development regulations for a CFA shall allow single-use and mixed-use development within
individual buildings or on development sites, including the following outright permitted uses:
Multifamily Residential
o
Attached Single-Family Residential
o
Other Building Types that comply with minimum density requirements
o
Office-type uses
o
Non-auto dependent retail, services, and other commercial uses
o
Child Care, schools, and other public uses
o
Maximum density limitations must be prohibited
Maximum block length standards must apply depending on acreage of site
Local governments shall establish maximum block length standards as follows:
Development sites < 5.5 acres: maximum block length = 500 feet or less
o
Development sites > 5.5 acres: maximum block length = 350 feet or less
o
Local governments shall prioritize locating government facilities that provide direct service to
the public within climate-friendly areas and shall prioritize locating parks, open space, plazas,
and similar public amenities in or near climate-friendly areas that do not contain sufficient
parks, open space, plazas, or similar public amenities.
Streetscape requirements in CFAs shall include street trees and other landscaping, where
feasible.
Local governments shall adopt policies and regulations in CFAs that implement the following:
Transportation review process in OAR 660-012-0325
o
Land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0330
o
Parking requirements in OAR 660-012-0435
o
Bicycle parking requirements in OAR 660-012-0630
o
Local governments may choose to either adopt density minimums and height maximums
(Option A – Prescriptive Standards) or adopt alternative development regulations to meet
performance standards (Option B – Outcome-Oriented Standards)
The following map 1 is the city’s zoning map, and helps convey where zones are located throughout the
city of Ashland.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 13 | Page
Total Page Number: 119
Map 1. City of Ashland Zoning Map
Available as an interactive map online at gis.ashland.or.us/planning/
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 14 | Page
Total Page Number: 120
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Identify Zoning Changes
Zoning in CFAs may need to change if the existing zoning does not meet the land use requirements in
OAR 660-012-0320. During phase 1 of the study, cities do not need to adopt the land use requirements,
but evaluation of necessary land use reforms may influence a base zone’s viability of being a potential
CFA candidate. Essentially, an existing zone that meets a large proportion of the CFA criteria will likely
feature the characteristics that define climate friendly areas, while zones that require intense reform
may not incentivize development due to lack of compatible land uses or alternative transit
infrastructure.
During the adoption phase, slated to occur in 2024, local governments will have to make and adopt all
necessary zoning changes and will need to provide DLCD with documentation that all adopted and
applicable land use requirements for CFAs are consistent with OAR 660-012-0320.
Calculate CFA Capacity
The proposed CFA(s) must meet the residential housing capacity threshold expressed in OAR 660-012-
0315(1). The target threshold to meet is at least 30% of current and projected housing needs citywide.
The total number of units necessary to meet all current and projected housing needs is derived from the
most recent adopted and acknowledged housing capacity analysis (HCA; also known as a housing needs
analysis or HNA) as follows:
Total number of units needed citywide
=
current number of existing units
+
projected number of units to meet future needs
After calculating the Total Units Needed, the technical analysis team proceeded to calculate the
potential housing unit capacity of the proposed CFA site. The following page goes over the equation that
will be used to calculate the Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 15| Page
Total Page Number: 121
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity
The following method was adapted from DLCD’s Climate-Friendly Areas methodology guide. The
calculation follows the prescriptive path requirements as described in the methodology guide. Total
Housing Unit Capacity in the CFA is estimated using the following variables:
1.The Net Developable Area in sq. ft. (a)
2.The maximum number of building floors (f)
3.The assumed percentage of residential use (r)
4.The average size of a housing unit in sq. ft. (s)
Using these, the housing unit capacity (U) in any part of a CFA can be given by a simple formula:
Housing Unit Capacity ()=( Net Developable Area Maximum floors Resident use percentage )
Note: In the above formula, the results are rounded up to the nearest integer.
The values to use for Assumed Percentage of Residential Use (r) and Average Size of a Housing Unit (s)
are given in the rules. Net Developable Area and Maximum Building Floor factors in the above
calculation require some additional sub-calculations. Each uniquely zoned area of the CFA will have its
own calculations of these factors and the above housing unit formula. Then they are summed for the
CFA to give the total Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 16| Page
Total Page Number: 122
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Equity Analysis
Local governments must determine if rezoning the potential CFA would be likely to displace residents
who are members of state and federal protected classes and identify actions to mitigate or avoid
potential displacement.
The CFA Study must include plans for achieving fair and equitable housing outcomes within CFAs
following the provisions in OAR 660-008-0050(4)(a)-(f). CFA studies must include a description of how
cities will address each of the following factors:
Location of Housing: How the city is striving to meet statewide greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals by creating compact, mixed-use neighborhoods available to members of
state and federal protected classes.
Fair Housing: How the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing for all state and federal
protected classes.
Housing Choice: How the city is facilitating access to housing choice for communities of
color, low-income communities, people with disabilities, and other state and federal
protected classes.
Housing Options for residents Experiencing Homelessness: How the city is advocating
for and enabling the provision of housing options for residents experiencing
homelessness and how the city is partnering with other organizations to promote
services that are needed to create permanent supportive housing and other housing
options for residents experiencing homelessness.
Affordable Homeownership and affordable Rental Housing: How the city is supporting
and creating opportunities to encourage the production of affordable rental housing
and the opportunity for wealth creation via homeownership, primarily for state and
federal protected classes that have been disproportionately impacted by past housing
policies.
Gentrification, Displacement, AND Housing Stability: How the city is increasing housing
stability for residents and mitigating the impacts of gentrification, as well as the
economic and physical displacement of existing residents resulting from investment or
redevelopment.
Please note, the equity analysis was performed with the guidance of DLCD’s Anti-Displacement and
Gentrification Toolkit. The Toolkit provides an in-depth resource for local government to address racial
and ethnic equity in housing production, including a list of strategies to mitigate the impacts of
gentrification and displacement. The toolkit helps and guides local governments to establishing a
framework for creating housing production strategies with a particular focus on the unintended
consequences of those strategies.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 17| Page
Total Page Number: 123
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 2:Candidate Climate Friendly Area Analysis
This section reviews the analysis components that were performed to derive the results of the study.
The technical analysis team began with initial candidate location suggestions from City Staff, then
calculated the housing capacity of the proposed CFAs boundary, and readjusting the CFAs size as needed
to accommodate the housing unit capacity.
The zoning analysis focuses on the land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0320 and compares them
with the city codes to find suitable zones that are fully or partially compliant with the CFA land use
requirements. The zoning analysis informs the team of the land use compatibility of the proposed CFAs.
Zoning analysis and identifying zoning changes go hand-in-hand. If existing development standards do
not meet CFA requirements, then identify the necessary changes to the specific zones and how to bring
them into compliance with the land use requirements or OAR 660-012-0320.
The GIS analysis helps determine the status of transportation infrastructure that is within or around the
proposed CFA and whether the proposed area satisfies the transportation connectivity aspect of the
regulations. A CFA site must be served by, or planned to be served by, high quality pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit services according to OAR 660-012-0310.
Capacity analysis determines whether the potential CFA, or a combination of CFAs, can accommodate
30% of citywide current and projected housing need. If identified CFA candidate area(s) are not
sufficient to accommodate at least 30% of housing need, resizing the proposed CFA area or identifying
additional candidate CFA areas must be performed.
Equity analysis must determine if rezoning the potential CFA would be likely to displace residents who
are members of state and federal protected classes and identify actions to mitigate or avoid potential
displacement. Chapter 2 of this study includes plans for achieving fair and equitable housing outcomes
within CFAs following the provisions in OAR 660-008-0050.
Overall, the analysis steps are intertwined with each other. Locating a CFA candidate, calculating
Housing Needs, Zoning analysis, GIS analysis, Capacity analysis are the steps to designate the
appropriate CFA area within the city.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 18| Page
Total Page Number: 124
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs
City Guidance
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 2 below. Staff selected these
areas not only for their designated zoning’s alignment to the CFA requirements, but also factored in
development potential. The Croman Mill and Railroad Property sites are largely undeveloped and
present strong cases for rapid CFA-related changes. The Transit Triangle is one of the priority CFA
options within the city and has the potential to be improved through redevelopment and development
of vacant properties. The prior approval of the Transit Triangle code amendments are largely compatible
with CFA, as such this transit served area has considerable redevelopment potential supporting the CFA
goals. Conversely, the Downtown area is largely built out, is a National Register Historic District,
indicating barriers to potential redevelopment. However, the current built environment is similar to
what is expected of CFAs and the C1-D (downtown Commercial) zone could be adapted to comply with
CFA guidelines with little trouble and may serve as useful tracts for CFA expansion in the future.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 19| Page
Total Page Number: 125
Map 2. CFA Candidates
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 20 | Page
Total Page Number: 126
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Calculate Housing Units Needed
As outlined in the methodology guide, the proposed CFA(s) must meet the residential housing capacity
threshold expressed in OAR 660-012-0315(1). The threshold to meet is that the cumulative capacity of
the CFA(s) is at least 30% of current and projected housing needs citywide. And this is derived by the
following formula:
Total number of units needed citywide
=
current number of existing units
+
projected number of units to meet future needs
The most recent Housing Capacity Analysis for the City of Ashland was published in May of 2021 and
projects housing needs and trends out to 2041. This analysis estimates there are currently 10,705
dwellings in the city, with a projected need of 858 units more by 2041.
10,705 + 858 = 11,563 projected housing units needed by 2041
Based on these estimates, the city of Ashland will need to locate and size CFA(s) that encapsulate 30% of
11,563 dwellings, or 3,469 units.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 21| Page
Total Page Number: 127
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Zoning Analysis
Zoning Code Review
Existing zoning codes were compared to the CFA requirements to identify those zones that are most
closely aligned with CFEC rules. Shown in Table 2 below, zones were scored for each criterion with 2
points for full compliance, 1 point for conditional or mixed compliance. Zones also earned 1 additional
point for having 40-foot building height maximums, while zones that have 35-foot maximums earned no
additional points. Green cells are those in compliance. Yellow cells are those that have partial or
conditional compliance or are closer to the 50-foot building height maximum, and overall are closer to
compliance than other options.
Any zone can be adjusted to be made CFEC-compliant, so CFAs are possible anywhere in the city, but
those zones that would take more legislative changes and create more dramatic changes to the built
environment relative to what is currently in the area are not prioritized.
The Croman Mill site was master planned in 2008 and this document includes several subzones that are
analyzed in Table 3. Much of the area is currently planned for non-residential uses, but City staff have
informed the RVCOG team that the property owner is presently working with a developer, TownMakers
LLC, to re-envision the area and propose major plan amendments which would newly incorporate
residential development throughout the area. While each subzone was scored individually, for the
purpose of analyzing prospective zoning changes the entire site has been attributed the attributes and
scores of the Mixed-Use subzone.
The Transit Triangle Overlay was also analyzed for its impact on relevant base zones and their CFA
suitability.
Overall, the scoring matrix indicates the suitability of the zones regarding the land use requirements.
However, the scores are only the first step of the analysis and the results they produce are only one
factor among several that the study analyzes. Therefore, a high scoring zone alone does not determine a
CFA candidate area. The location of the zones and surrounding transportation infrastructure must be
factored in the 2step of the study.
nd
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 22| Page
Total Page Number: 128
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Table 2. Zoning Code Analysis
ResidentialCommercial
Industrial
Scoring Matrix
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
Single Low Density High Density
SuburbanRuralWoodlandCommercialDowntownEmploymentIndustrial
M - MixedN = 0
FamilyMFMF
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
R-1R-1-3.5R-2R-3RRWRC-1C-1-DE-1M-1
Single Use
YYYYYYYYYY
Mixed Use
NNNNNNYYYN
Multi-FamilyNYYYNNCCCN
Single -Family AttachedCCCCCCCCCN
OfficeNNCCNNYYYY
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialNNCNNNYYCC
ChildcareCCCCCCYYYY
SchoolsCCCCCCNNNN
Other Public UsesNNNNNNMMYY
Government FacilitiesCCNNCCYYYY
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarYYYYYYNNNN
Maximum Block Length
YYYYYYYYYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
NNNYNNNNNN
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNNNNNNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
NNNCNNCCCN
Maximum Building Height
35353535353540404040
Score
10121315101020201914
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 23 | Page
Total Page Number: 129
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Table 3. Croman Mill Zoning Analysis
Scoring Matrix
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
Neighborhood Office/Compatible
Mixed UseOpen Space
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
CenterEmploymentIndustrial
M - MixedN = 0
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
NCMUOECIOS
Single Use
YYNNN
Mixed Use
YYNNN
Multi-FamilyYYNNN
Single -Family AttachedYYNNN
OfficeNYYYN
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialYMMMN
ChildcareYYYYN
SchoolsCCCCN
Other Public UsesYYYYY
Government FacilitiesYCCCY
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarNNNNY
Maximum Block Length
YYYYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
NNNNN
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
YYYYN
Maximum Building Height
50507575N/A
Score
212113138
Observations:
Single- and mixed -uses are permitted outright in all zones, but single use multi-family
residential is only available in higher density residential zones
Government facilities, parks, open space, plazas, and similar public amenities vary throughout,
but are generally more available in the Commercial zones
Maximum block length applies to all zones except C-1 and C-1-D
Most zones permit a portion of the required outright permitted uses (multifamily and single
family attached residential, office uses, non-auto dependent retail/services/commercial,
childcare, schools, and other public uses), but no zones permit all of them outright
The more greens and yellows, the more CFA-ready a zone is with less modification.
The Croman Mill District has the most qualifications for a CFA
Identify Zoning Changes
Zones were evaluated in more depth to determine the specific changes that are needed to bring them
into compliance with CFEC rules. The purpose of the initial zoning code evaluation was to identify those
zones that are the most CFA-ready, as a way to ensure that CFA-related changes occur where they will
fit well within the existing built environment and simplify the City’s process of updating zoning codes.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 24 | Page
Total Page Number: 130
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
CFA Compatible Zones
Croman Mill (CM)
Croman Mill District
Single Use
Y
The CM District Mixed Use Zone (CM-
Mixed Use
Y
MU) is close to CFA-compliance. It
Multi-FamilyY
permits outright all residential uses
Single -Family AttachedY
and already meets the building height
OfficeY maximum requirement.
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialM
ChildcareY
To be in line with CFA rules, the CM-
SchoolsC
MU zone would need to be expanded
Other Public UsesY
to the entire site and must permit
Government FacilitiesC
outright non-auto
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarN
retail/service/commercial, schools,
Maximum Block Length
Y
and civic uses. Parks and open space
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
N
must be allowed, density minimums of
Density Maximums Prohibited
N
15 du/acre or more enforced, and
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
Y
density maximums prohibited.
Maximum Building Height
50
Score21
Residential – High Density
The R-3 zone meets many of the CFA
Residential - High Density (R-3)
land use requirements, except for the
Single Use
Y
50 ft building height maximum and a
Mixed Use
Y
portion of the permitted uses. To meet
Multi-FamilyY
the CFEC requirements, the City of
Single -Family AttachedC
Ashland would have to adjust the
OfficeC
currently permitted outright building
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialN
height maximum from 35 ft (40 ft
ChildcareC
conditional) to 50 ft and change single-
SchoolsM
family attached, office uses, childcare,
Other Public UsesN
schools, and other public uses from
Government FacilitiesN
conditional to permitted outright uses.
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarY
An increase of residential density from
Maximum Block Length
Y
13.5 dwellings per acre would need to
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
M
be changed to a minimum density of
Density Maximums Prohibited
N
15 du/acre with no maximum
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
C
residential density. Non-auto
Maximum Building Height
35
dependent retail/services/commercial
and civic uses must be permitted, and
Score16
density maximums must be prohibited.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 25 | Page
Total Page Number: 131
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Commercia Downtown – Central Business District
The Downtown Commercial District is
Ashland’s Central Business District
(CBD), and is the city’s nexus for
employment, services, and
transportation. It is more suitable as a
CFA than most other zones because it
already has conditional building height
maximums of 55 ft and permits mixed
uses, government facilities, parks, open
space, and other similar public
amenities outright. The residential
density is currently 60 dwellings per
acre, yet there are no minimum density
requirements. To meet the full CFA
requirements in this area, Ashland
would need to mandate a minimum
density of at least 15 dwelling
units/acre, remove the density
maximum, and permit outright building
heights of 50 feet or more.
Commercial - Employment
The E-1 zone allows for a significant
cross section of CFA requirements, but
there are several uses like multi-family
and single-family attached residential,
and schools that would need to be
permitted outright to qualify as a CFA.
Within a designated CFA, parks and
open space also need to be allowed,
residential density minimums
established, and density maximums
prohibited. Like other Ashland zones,
building height maximums would also
need to be raised from a 40’ height to
50’. E-1 zoned properties are also
included within the Transit Triangle
Overlay, which is discussed later in the
document.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 26 | Page
Total Page Number: 132
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Other Residential Zones (R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, RR, WR)
The lower-density residential zones share a lot in common with each other. They allow single- and
mixed-uses and parks. They all partially or conditionally allow single-family attached, childcare, and
schools. All except for R-2 do not currently allow office or non-auto retail/service/commercial uses. With
the exception of R-2, these lower-density residential zones do not have density minimums except when
brought into the City through annexation or as a zone change. The R-2 zone requires a minimum density
of 80% the base density. These residential zones have maximum building heights of 35 ft.
Despite their low scores in our analysis, like all zones, these can be made compliant with CFEC rules with
certain changes. All office, non-auto retail/service/commercial, childcare, schools, and civic uses would
need to be permitted outright making these areas similar to Ashland’s commercial zones. To be
designated as qualified CFAs density minimums of 15 dwelling units per acres would need to be
established and enforced density maximums must be prohibited and building height maximums would
have to be raised to a minimum of 50 ft.
Other Commercial and Industrial Zones (C-1, M-1)
C-1 and M-1 zones both score very well in our analysis, but there are other factors that have left them as
lower priorities. C-1 scored essentially the same as C-1-D and it would need the same changes to
become CFA-ready. The C-1-D receives preference because it encompasses the part of the city with the
highest density of jobs and built housing potential, but the adjacent C-1 areas would make good
candidates to expand the CFA geographically if needed. C-1 also features prominently in the Transit
Triangle Overlay, which is discussed in the next section.
The M-1 zone scored fairly well in our analysis, but it is not prioritized because industrial uses are not as
easily relocated as other uses and the goal of the CFA project is to avoid creating undue burdens on the
local economy. Additionally, industrial uses do not coexist with residential uses the same way that
commercial uses do. That being said, if a portion of the M-1 zone is required to form the ideal CFA form,
non-auto retail/services/commercial and schools will need to be permitted outright. Multi-family and
single-family attached residential must be permitted along with parks and open space. Density
minimums of 15 dwelling units or more must be created and building height maximums need to be
raised to 50 ft. Density maximums would have to be prohibited, as well.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 27 | Page
Total Page Number: 133
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Transit Triangle
Transit
Base Zones
Triangle
Scoring Matrix
Overlay
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
Low Density High Density
CommercialEmployment
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
ResidentialResidential
M - MixedN = 0
Table 4.
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
Transit
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
C-1E-1R-2R-3
Triangle
Single Use
YYYY
Zoning
Mixed Use
YYYY
Analysis
Multi-FamilyMMMM
Single -Family AttachedCCCC
OfficeCCYY
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialYCCN
ChildcareYYCC
SchoolsNMMM
Other Public UsesMYNN
Government FacilitiesYYNN
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarNYYY
Maximum Block Length
NNYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
YYNY
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
YYNN
Maximum Building Height
50504040
Score
18211516
The Transit Triangle Overlay (TTO) is intended to diversify the mix of housing and business types along
major transit routes. Table 4 above shows that the overlay enhances the C-1 and E-1 zones within the
TTO and significantly improves their scores in our analysis. However, for the TTO, multi-family
residential uses are permitted only for rental and not for purchase. The main improvements to the C-1
and E-1 zones are the increased building height maximums, density minimums, and parks/open space.
Within the TTO, the C-1 and E-1 zones have excellent scores and are some of the best candidate areas
for CFA locations.
Map 3 on page 29 showcases the zones illustrates which best fit the CFA requirements. No zones are
currently in compliance with CFEC rules, but Tables 2 and 3 show that the Croman Mill, Residential –
High Density (RHD), and Commercial – Central Business District (CBD) zones stand out as being the
closest. Small changes to permitted uses and the building height maximum would bring most into
compliance.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 28 | Page
Total Page Number: 134
Map 3. Zoning Analysis
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 29 | Page
Total Page Number: 135
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
CFA Capacity Calculation
Candidate CFA locations have been identified and prioritized, and this step evaluates each area’s
housing capacity. If the proposed CFA’s boundaries do not encompass 30% or more of current and
future dwellings, there will be a need for boundaries to be adjusted or the creation one or more
additional CFAs. Additional CFA candidates that have been identified will be considered first for CFA
expansion if need be and the evaluation process will begin at Step 2 for these sites.
City Guidance
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 4 below. Staff selected these
areas not only for their designated zoning’s alignment to the CFA requirements, but also factored in
development potential as an additional factor. The Croman Mill and Railroad Property sites are largely
undeveloped and present strong cases for rapid CFA-related changes. The Transit Triangle is one of the
priority CFA options within the city and do have the potential to be improved within the existing uses
and make it more compatible as CFA requirement and it could look like a secondary downtown.
Conversely, the Downtown area is largely built out, indicating a barrier to potential redevelopment.
However, the current built environment is similar to what is expected of CFAs and could be adapted to
CFA guidelines with little trouble and may serve as useful tracts for CFA expansion in the future.
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 4 below. Staff’s selections
were made based not only on how well the designated zoning aligns with CFA requirements but also
considering the potential for development. Among these areas, the Croman Mill and Railroad Property
sites stand out due to their underdeveloped nature, making them suitable for rapid CFA-related
changes. Another noteworthy candidate area is the Transit Triangle Overlay, which holds a prime
position among the CFA options within the city. There is potential to enhance this area while
maintaining its existing uses, thereby making it more compatible with CFA requirements.
In contrast, the historic Downtown area is already extensively developed, posing a challenge for
potential redevelopment. Despite this, its current built environment closely resembles what is
envisioned for CFAs. With some adjustments, it could be brought in line with CFA guidelines without
significant difficulty. As such, it could serve as a valuable location for potential CFA expansion in the
future.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 30| Page
Total Page Number: 136
Map 4. Priority CFA Candidates
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 31 | Page
Total Page Number: 137
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Croman Mill
Image 1 - Croman Mill
The Croman Mill site is approximately 92 Acres in the
southeastern corner of the city (Image 1). It is served by
Siskiyou Blvd. at the south end and Mistletoe Rd. in the
north. A master plan for the site was adopted in 2008, but
development has yet to occur (Image 2). The plan calls for
office and industrial uses for most of the site. Also, there is
residential center and mixed-use zones allowed within the
Croman Mill site.
The Croman Mill site is viewed as an excellent CFA location
due to its redevelopment potential, large size, and
proximity to quality transit service and bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure.
Image 2 - Croman Mill Planned Zones
Railroad Property
The Railroad Property site is 57 Acres in the center of the
city, just a few blocks north of downtown (Image 3). The
site rests between the rail line and E Hersey St. The
northern half of the site is developed with commercial,
and employment uses, but the majority of the southern
portion of the site is undeveloped.
The 2001 master plan for the site shows a pedestrian-
focused mixed-use area intermingled with civic uses
adjacent to the existing northern commercial area
enhanced with new local streets connecting to E Hersey St
(Image 4).
Image 3 - Railroad Property Image 4 - Railroad Property Master Plan
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 32 | Page
Total Page Number: 138
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Downtown
Transit Triangle Overlay
The Transit Triangle is intended to facilitate a The downtown area closely resembles the
mix of housing types and businesses along vision of what a CFA can look like when it has
major transit corridors on Siskiyou Blvd., reached maturity and there would be few
Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd. The goal is adjustments needed to make it CFA-
to create an environment that is friendly to compliant. However, it is almost completely
walking, biking, and using transit. built out and there have been very few new
The Transit Triangle, as written, is close to construction projects in the area over the last
meeting CFA requirements and as a result it is 20 years.
considered one of the priority CFA options the However, the community has expressed
city can consider. The Transit Triangle has an interest in implementing CFA strategies
area of 167 acres and that area could significantly beyond what is minimally
theoretically have a considerable additional required, and the downtown area stands out
housing capacity. as an obvious place to include in any
expansion efforts.
Image 5 – Transit Triangle Image 6 – Downtown
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 33 | Page
Total Page Number: 139
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity
This method was adapted from the DLCD Climate-Friendly Areas Methods Guide. The calculation follows
the prescriptive path described in the methods guide. Total Housing Unit Capacity in CFA is estimated
using the following variables:
The Net Developable Area in sq. ft. (a)
The maximum number of building floors (f)
The assumed percentage of residential use (r)
The average size of a housing unit in sq. ft. (s)
Using these, the housing unit capacity (U) in any part of a CFA can be given by a simple formula:
Housing Unit Capacity ()=( Net Developable Area Maximum floors Resident use percentage )
Note: In the above formula, the results are rounded to the nearest integer.
Net Developable Area and Maximum Building Floor factors in the above calculation requires some
additional sub-calculations. The values to use for Assumed Percentage of Residential Use (r) and Average
Size of a Housing Unit (s) are given in the rules.
Each uniquely zoned area of the CFA will have its own calculations of these factors and the above
housing unit formula. Then they are summed for the CFA area to give the total Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 34 | Page
Total Page Number: 140
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Evaluation
Assumptions
Both the Croman Mill District and Railroad Property sites have significant development opportunities,
and while they are master planned, specific lots have not been identified. Additionally, while ongoing
master planning efforts are underway (Croman Mill District revisions), there are several changes being
worked on at the moment that could significantly affect the layout of these sites, the details of which
will not be available for some time. Therefore, it is prudent to use city standards to determine gross and
net block areas. The Right-of-Way (ROW) set aside is 20%, as that is the DLCD standard. We use the
street network plans when available to measure out the undevelopable area and subtract it from the
overall area. The same standards will be applied for the Transit Triangle area to calculate the housing
capacity of the site.
These calculations are based on the block level and do not count for interior lot setbacks. All sites are
within 0.5 miles of a frequent transit corridor according to OAR 660-012-0440, and parking minimums
cannot be mandated within this area. Values shown below may differ slightly from actual values due to
rounding.
Note that 30% of projected needed housing for the city is 3,469.
Gross Block Area = Block Length x Block width
Net Block Area = Gross Block Area –
Net Developable
= Net Site Area – (Green space, ROW, Streets, etc.)
Area
Building Floors = (Building Height Max -10) / 10
Housing Units = Housing Unit Size
Units per Acre = Housing Units / Net Area
City Standards
Block Length
Block Perimeter
Gross Block Area 3.67 Acres:
Right-of-Way Set-Aside (DLCD rule of thumb) 20%
DLCD CFA Standards
30%
Average Housing Unit Size 900
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 35 | Page
Total Page Number: 141
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Calculations
Croman Mill
Site Area 92.69 Acres
Green Space 10.1 Acres
Street Network 20 Acres
Approximately
Net Developable
65 Acres:
Area
Housing Units
5,142
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 148%
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 79
Croman Mil District Results
5,142 units is more than the Needed Housing Units the city will need to meet the CFA requirement of
30% of projected needed housing units, which is 3,469. The Croman Mill site has the potential to host
28% more than the required 30% of projected needed housing units. Please note that this calculation
accounts for the individual Housing Unit capacity of all the different planned land use zones, mainly
because different zones allow for different building heights, within the Croman Mill site .
The cumulative housing unit capacity across the site results in a total of 5,142 dwellings. Despite this
capacity based on maximum building size, minimum unit size, and maximum lot coverage, City Staff
anticipates that the more realistic development scenario would be closer to the minimum residential
density of 15 dwellings per acre, rather than the maximum calculated feasibility of up to 80 units per
acre. Thus, utilizing 15 units per acre across the 65 net developable acres of the Croman Mill District
would lead to a more limited capacity of 975 dwellings. In assessing the designated CFA sites, City Staff
would aim to ensure that the 3,469 dwelling units required within CFAs are achievable at the minimum
residential density required, rather than the maximum density achievable.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 36 | Page
Total Page Number: 142
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Transit Triangle Overlay
Site Area 162.89 Acres
Green Space 7.51 Acres
Approximately
R.O.W (DLCD Standard) 20 %
Net Developable
148 Acres 6,447,752
Area
Housing Units
7,524
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 217 %
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 52
Transit Triangle Overlay Results
The Transit Triangle overlay is capable of hosting around 7,524 units within it if developed in its entirety
at the maximum allowable residential density afforded within a CFA. This site alone can meet and
exceed the Projected Needed Housing for the city. Please note that this calculation accounts for the
individual Housing Unit capacity of all the different planned land use zones, mainly because different
zones allow for different building heights, within the Transit Triangle Overlay and
The sum of all the housing unit capacity for the site gives us 7,524 units based on maximum
development capacity. However, the Southern Oregon University zone (SO) portion within the Transit
Triangle Overlay is not accounted for in the calculations of the housing unit capacity. That zone is being
governed by the Southern Oregon University Masterplan. To avoid further complicating overlapping
zones and overlays, the SO zone is excluded from the CFA. City Staff have further determined a revised
residential density for the Transit Triangle Area, exclusive of the SO zone, based on the scenario where
the area is developed at the CFA minimum residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. This
calculation results in an estimated total of 2,220 dwelling units.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 37 | Page
Total Page Number: 143
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Railroad Property
Site Area 57.27 Acres
Green Space 6.41 Acres
Approximately
Street Network 12.52 Acres
Approximately
Net Developable
38.34 Acres
Area
Housing Units
2,226
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 64%
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 58
Railroad Property Results
The calculated 2,226 housing units of the Railroad Property are not independently enough to meet the
CFA requirement of 30% projected needed housing units. The site is short of 1,243 units from being
compliance with the CFA requirements were it the sole CFA within the city. Therefore, an expansion of
some kind must be considered.
One option for the city is to contemplate were the railroad site to be the primary CFA would be
enlarging the boundaries of the Railroad site to encompass the developed residential and commercial
regions nearby, which could bridge the existing gap were this site to be the exclusive CFA within
Ashland. CFAs. Alternatively, the city has the option to label the Railroad site as a secondary CFA site,
with the primary CFA sites being the Croman Mill District and/or Transit Triangle Overlay area.
Collectively, these sites would fulfill the CFA requirement to accommodate 30% of Ashland's housing
needs.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 38 | Page
Total Page Number: 144
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Conclusion
The Croman Mill and Transit Triangle sites both can provide ample room for CFA development to fulfill
the requirement of the CFEC rules for 30% of projected needed housing units. The specific boundaries
that have been analyzed could change in a variety of minor ways without bringing the unit count below
the necessary threshold.
The Railroad property falls short in covering 30% of the Projected Needed Housing for the city. In any
case, resizing the boundary could help increase the housing capacity of the site and bring it closer to
compliance with the 30% requirement of the CFEC, or best-case scenario it will bring the railroad
property to a full compliance with the 30% requirement of the CFEC.
The downtown area has been included in this discussion because it remains relevant to the CFA
transformation and may end up included in a broad CFA overlay that encompasses the major
employment, commercial, and higher-density residential areas of the city, even if it is not needed to
meet the housing requirement.
Overall, the city of Ashland does have a few options when designating a CFA site. The site will need to be
fully compliant with the CFEC land use regulations, and most of the sites do not need major updates to
bring them up to compliance with the CFEC regulations. Both Transit Triangle and Croman Mill sites are
compatible with the 30% projected needed housing in the city. However, the railroad property does not
have the capacity to host the full 30% of the projected needed housing, but it could act as a secondary
CFA and as a safety buffer for the projected housing units for the primary CFA(s). City Staff highlights
that if the potential CFA candidate areas, namely the Croman Mill District, the Transit Triangle Overlay
area, and the Railroad site, are individually developed to meet the minimum density requirement set for
designated CFAs (which is 15 units per acre), their combined residential development capacity even at
this minimum would successfully meet the CFA mandate of accommodating a minimum of 30% of
Ashland's housing demands.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 39 | Page
Total Page Number: 145
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 3:Anti-Displacement Mitigation Strategies
Council of GovernmentsCouncil of Governments
Rogue ValleyRogue Valley
CFA Redevelopment Outcomes
Due to the nature of the regulations, an area designated as a climate friendly area gains the capability to
be redeveloped for a wide variety of uses and dense housing types. While these factors intend to
promote nodes not reliant on personal automobile use, they also have the capability of creating
modernized, attractive, and competitively priced developments which can subsequently displace
protected classes. This trend, known as gentrification, can become a component of a climate friendly
areas if cities do not carefully analyze a CFA’s location and consider proper phase 2 protections to
ensure the developments remains accessible to all populations.
Anti-Displacement Map Analysis
Recognizing this potential threat, DLCD has prepared an anti-displacement guide. This guide classifies
areas by neighborhood type which are characterized by their income profile, vulnerable classes, amount
of precarious housing, housing market activity, and overall neighborhood demographic change. Each
area is identified through the DLCD anti-displacement map, which can be found here: Anti-Displacement
Map
Each neighborhood type is categorized as one of the following:
The tract is identified as a low-income tract, which indicates a neighborhood has lower median
household income and whose residents are predominantly low-income compared to the city average.
The neighborhood also includes precariously housed populations with vulnerability to gentrification and
displacement. However, housing market in the neighborhood is still stable with no substantial activities
yet. At this stage, the demographic change is not under consideration.
This type of neighborhood represents the early phase in the gentrification. The neighborhood is
categorized as a low-income tract having vulnerable people and precarious housing. The tract has a hot
housing market, yet no considerable changes are found in demographics related to gentrification.
These neighborhoods are identified as low-income tracts with a high share of vulnerable people and
precarious housing. The tracts are experiencing substantial changes in housing price or having relatively
high housing costs found in their housing markets. They exhibit gentrification-related demographic
change. The latter three neighborhoods on the table are designated as high-income tracts. They have
hot housing market as they have higher rent and home value with higher appreciation rates than the
city average. They also do not have precarious housing anymore. However, Late Gentrification type still
has vulnerable people with experiences in gentrification related demographic changes.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 40| Page
Total Page Number: 146
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
This type of neighborhood does not have predominantly low-income households, but still have
vulnerable population to gentrification. Their housing market exhibits high housing prices with high
appreciations as they have relatively low share of precarious housing. The neighborhood has
experienced significant changes in demographics related to gentrification.
The neighborhoods are categorized as high-income tracts. Their population is no longer vulnerable to
gentrification. Precarious housing is not found in the neighborhoods. However, the neighborhoods are
still experiencing demographic change related to gentrification with hot housing market activities.
The neighborhoods are identified as high-income tracts. They have no vulnerable populations and no
precarious housing. Their housing market has higher home value and rent compared to the city average,
while their appreciation is relatively slower than the city average. No considerable demographic change
is found in the neighborhoods.
The unassigned tracts have not experienced any remarkable changes in demographics or housing
markets. The neighborhood has been stable with unnoticeable change, yet this does not necessarily
mean that there is no need for extra care compared to other neighborhoods with assigned types.
Planners need to engage with the communities to make sure the neighborhood is stable while aligning
with community needs and desires.
Neighborhood Types Present Within the Proposed CFA
As proposed, the candidate CFA for Ashland currently lies within a census tract 18 of Jackson County,
which is identified by the neighborhood type: Late Gentrification, see the following map.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 41| Page
Total Page Number: 147
Map 5. DLCD Anti-Displacement Map
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 42 | Page
Total Page Number: 148
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Suggested Strategies
It is important to note that the while the project’s scope of work directly referenced DLCD’s housing
production strategies (HPS) as a component of the anti-displacement analysis, the City of Ashland has an
approved Housing Production Strategy report which satisfies DLCDs requirements and aims to ensure
sustainable and equitable residential development within the city. Because the housing production
study was put out for public comment on May 23 rd, 2023, the technical analysis in this report utilized
DLCD’s HPS for the purposes of the Climate Friendly Area analysis. Nonetheless, the technical analysis
team recommends use of the in-depth HPS report produced by the City of Ashland for phase 2 of the
CFA study.
Referring to DLCD’s housing productions strategies, which can be found here, RVCOG has identified the
following strategies to ensure that a climate friendly areas acts as an equitable community. In selecting
strategies RVCOG prioritized strategies color coded as green for the Late Gentrification neighborhood
type for their likeliness to generate little to no adverse impact, factoring in local context and feasibility
as well.
A03: Density or height bonuses for affordable housing.
Cities could consider introducing a height and density bonus for developments which introduce units
between 30% - 120% of the average median income (AMI). RVCOG suggests using the CFA thresholds as
a potential model for such bonuses, in the case of Ashland potentially allowing an increased 10 feet of
maximum height and additional 5 dwellings per acre. City Staff notes that Ashland presently allows an
affordable housing density bonus of up to two market rate units for every qualifying affordable housing
unit provided, accommodating up to a 35% increase in residential density.
A07: Single Room Occupancy
Single room units, such as junior accessory dwelling units, present a new housing typology not
commonly considered among residential zones. Enabling this use as a permitted accessory component
of a multi-unit development could provide developers with the opportunity to provide unique housing
arrangements and a variety of units at different price points. (New State Law)
A14: Re-examine Mandated Ground Floor Use
The City of Bend has determined that while lively streetscape in a dense environment is a worthy goal,
mandating that ground floors be occupied by commercial uses when the surrounding market forces
can’t support such a use can contribute to decreased development or loss of area for dwellings. City
Staff notes that HB 2984, passed in the 2023 State Legislative Session, allows the conversion of buildings
from commercial use to housing without a zone change or conditional-use permit. It prohibits local
governments from requiring more parking and limits collection of system development charges. This
statewide legislation effectively allows residential ground floor use within commercial buildings.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 43| Page
Total Page Number: 149
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
B10: Public Facility Planning
Factoring that some of the proposed CFA sites are largely vacant, assisting in providing public facilities
could make these sites more attractive for development. Furthermore, assisting in providing public
facilities may enable the city to prioritize key connections or better plan for expansion in the future.
B07: Flexible Regulatory Concessions for Affordable Housing
Considering that cities within the 10,000-24,999 population range are in one of the lower ranges for
prescriptive CFA standards, enabling affordable housing to move into some of the upper thresholds
could present a unique advantage further attract affordable housing. Furthermore, this strategy enables
a CFA to evolve directly in response to its City’s population growth, possibly resulting in a CFA pre-
emptively meeting the next threshold’s requirements.
B19: Survey Applicant on Development Program Decision-Making
User feedback can help illustrate frustrations or pitfalls in the planning process not seen by staff.
Utilizing a survey as litmus test for ease of development within a CFA can serve as an asset not only to
the CFA, but the City’s Planning department as a whole. City Staff notes that in February 2023 the City
Community Development Department surveyed all individuals that obtained a Planning Permit, or
Building Permit, from 2018-2022. The City is in the process of establishing a Development Process
Management Advisory Committee made up developers, builders, architects, and private planners, to
assist in reviewing the survey and to recommend areas to improve the permitting process and reduce
barriers to the development of needed housing.
C01: Reduce or exempt System Development Charges (SDCs) for needed housing.
SDC’s are often seen as necessary yet prohibitive cost associated with new development. Granting
exemptions for needed dense and affordable housing helps clear the way for development, while
commercial developers seeking to capitalize on attractive areas by constructing recreational or tourism
oriented, or general luxury developments can bear a larger part of the burden when it comes to needed
infrastructural growth. City Staff notes that Ashland presently waives all SDCs for qualified affordable
housing.
C04: Incentivize Manufactured and Modular Housing.
Manufactured and modular housing could be a popular option in vacant CFA areas as it can be
constructed for less cost and added on to as a larger population occupies the CFA. Modular housing also
supports homeownership rather rented housing, a notion that could ensure a CFA acts as equitable
community for permanent residents and doesn’t become an area merely for vacation rentals. City Staff
notes the City’s adopted Housing Production Strategy includes a strategic action to create a
Manufactured Park Zone to preserve existing parks and potentially identify opportunities for additional
manufactured home parks. Manufactured and Modular housing are presently permitted outright on
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 44| Page
Total Page Number: 150
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
individual residentially zoned lots within the City with the exception of designated National Register
Historic Districts.
D02: Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC).
Federal tax credits represent an external opportunity for an affordable housing development to feasibly
occur within a city. Disclaiming these opportunities to developers comes at little cost to the city, and can
facilitate mixed income housing that contributes to a more diverse set of demographics within a CFA.
D09: Demolition Taxes
A demolition tax can ensure that new development within a CFA introduces a greater density than the
existing structure or be forced to be pay a tax to fund a housing trust fund. Demolition taxes help
mitigate the effects of higher density, aging housing being replaced by lower density, newer, market-
rate homes, which could occur if the CFA is sited in a more historic area of a community, or the
introduction of the CFA regulation induces more affluent populations seeking proximity to mixed uses.
D09: Construction Excise Tax
Seeing as the CFA’s are located on vacant land, a construction excise tax (CET) seems to be an apt
solution to ensure development of a CFA accrues funds for affordable housing projects both within the
CFA and elsewhere. City Staff notes the City’s adopted Housing Production Strategy includes a strategic
action to evaluate establishing a CET to support affordable housing development within the community.
E03: Vertical Housing Development Zone Tax Abatement
This housing production strategy authorized ORS 307.841 directly aligns with the live work environment
that’s meant to appear within CFA’s and is natural candidate to assist in mixed use development. The
effectiveness of this strategy could be somewhat bound by a CFA’s respective height limits but coupled
with affordable housing density bonuses could be quite effective. City Staff notes that Ashland
presently established a Vertical Housing Development Zone to correspond with the Transit Triangle
Overlay rea. As this Transit Triangle area is a candidate for a CFA, this strategy is in already place within
one of the potential CFA areas under consideration.
E04 & E05: Multiple Unit Tax Exemptions (Property and Limited taxes)
Similar to the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement, the multiple unit tax exemptions could serve as a
symbiotic strategy to the type of development intended to occur within a CFA. Whether this strategy
seeks to aid in overall feasibility by being a long-term exemption or aid in the initial
E10: Delayed tax Exemptions
Delayed tax exemptions can be seen as a viable strategy to allow new development recoup construction
costs and establish a profitable base before falling below 80% AMI. This strategy could benefit initial
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 45| Page
Total Page Number: 151
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
developments in CFA’s, and later assist them in serving a new economic bracket when the area becomes
more developed.
F17: Designated Affordable Housing Sites
Designating CFA’s partly or entirely as affordable housing sites can ensure the best use of the land in the
future. While price control measures may ward off developers initially, highlighting tax exemptions and
streamlined planning process coupled with the relative newness of the CFA regulations may highlight
these areas as feasible location for affordable housing.
F19: Affordable Housing Preservation Inventory
Identifying and inventorying areas currently hosting affordable housing enables staff to examine what
contextual factors have led them to appear in their community, and informs areas to proceed with
caution when expanding the CFA.
City staff are encouraged to review and evaluate the list of strategies when it comes time for phase 2
zoning reform.
City Staff emphasizes that the strategic actions outlined in the approved Ashland Housing Production
Strategies will be evaluated in the context of identifying and implementing Climate Friendly Areas
(CFAs). A new CFA land use designation would be crafted with the primary goal of encouraging the
development of transit supported mixed-use, higher-density environments that actively diminish the
dependence on fossil fuels. The evaluation process will pay particular attention to addressing the
potential displacement of existing affordable housing within any designated CFA area while
simultaneously seizing the opportunities to foster necessary housing options within the designated
areas. This comprehensive approach underscores the city's commitment to both sustainable urban
development and the preservation of affordable housing for its residents.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 46| Page
Total Page Number: 152
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Appendix A: Acronyms
Regulatory:
LCDC = Land Conservation & Development Commission
•
DLCD = Department of Land Conservation & Development
•
OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules
•
CFA = Climate Friendly Area
•
CFEC = Climate Friendly & Equitable Community
•
Technical:
HNA = Housing Needs Assessment
•
HCA = Housing Capacity Analysis
•
HPS = Housing Production Strategy
•
NDA = Net Developable Area
•
HUC = Housing Units Captured
•
MF = Multifamily Housing
•
SF = Single Family Housing
•
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 47| Page
Total Page Number: 153
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Appendix B: References
Climate-Friendly Areas Methods Guide by DLCD.
CFA Anti-Displacement Analysis by DLCD.
Housing Production Strategy by DLCD.
The cover picture used in the study document is by Fred Stockwell
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 48| Page
Total Page Number: 154
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Climate Friendly Areas Study
City of Ashland, OR
R
ogue Valley
Council of Governments
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Fax (541) 664-792
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 49| Page
Total Page Number: 155
Total Page Number: 156
Total Page Number: 157
Total Page Number: 158
Total Page Number: 159
Total Page Number: 160
3J Scope of Work
Department of Land Conservation and Development
City of Ashland – Climate Friendly Areas Code Update
December 13, 2023
Note, the project did not begin in January as initially expected as the agreement and
consultant selection was not completed until April, and the Kickoff meeting with the
City of Ashland occurred on June 20th
Goals and Objectives:
Goal: To draft updated zoning and development code and zoning maps amendments related to the
designation of Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) within Ashland, Oregon.
Objective 1: Review analysis and recommendations from Phase 1: The City of Ashland Climate
Friendly Area Study completed by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG), in compliance
with OAR 660-012-0315(4) and (5) and reviewed by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD).
Objective 2: Use a market feasibility study to inform CFA code regulations and to evaluate impacts
that land use code modifications in accordance with the Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities
(CFEC) rules can be expected to have on market-viable development in CFAs.
Objective 3: Select one or more Climate-Friendly Areas to collectively accommodate 30% of the city’s
housing.
Objective 4: Prepare adoption-ready zoning and development standards implementing the CFA
requirements, including map updates.
Objective 5: Conduct public outreach through a variety of methods to engage internal and external
stakeholders .
Task 1: Project Management
The City and consultant will hold a kickoff meeting for the consultant to become familiar with local
conditions and planning documents, for City staff and the consultant to confirm the project
objectives and refine the project schedule, and for City staff to prepare for the project. The
consultant will contact City staff via conference or video call to establish project expectations and
familiarize themselves with city-specific concerns. The consultant will verify the action items
identified through this initial meeting with the City staff and will develop and share a proposed
schedule for the actions required for the completion of all tasks, building on the task timeline
included in this scope.
City staff and the consultant will participate in biweekly phone calls or virtual meetings to monitor
progress on key tasks throughout the course of the project.
1
Total Page Number: 161
Task 1 Consultant Deliverables:
1.1 Agenda and notes for kickoff meeting
1.2 Proposed Project schedule
1.3 Agenda and notes for project management team meetings
Task 1 City Deliverables:
1.1 Copy of relevant comprehensive plan and code sections, and other relevant City data or
documents
Timeline: January to December 2024
Task 2: Communications and Public Outreach Support
Task 2.a Public Involvement Plan
The consultant will support City staff with communications and public outreach related to the
project. The consultant will draft a Public Involvement Plan that builds upon the City’s CFA
Community Engagement Plan and the outreach already completed.
Task 2.b Stakeholder Interviews
City staff will identify and provide introductions to five (5) development interest stakeholders. The
consultant will schedule interviews with identified parties, conduct the meetings, and prepare a
written summary. Findings will inform the draft audit findings (Task 3) and the market feasibility
study (Task 4).
Task 2.c Advisory Committees
City staff will schedule and provide notice, agendas, and summaries for three (3) virtual and one (1)
in-person advisory committee meetings with the following groups to present the project scope,
goals, findings, and recommendations:
Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (virtual)
Housing and Human Services Policy Advisory Committee (in-person)
Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee (virtual)
Transportation Advisory Committee (virtual)
The consultant will coordinate with City staff on meeting arrangements and facilitate the meetings,
including developing additional materials to present the public involvement plan, draft audit, and
market feasibility study.
Task 2.d Public Meetings and Surveys
City staff will schedule one (1) public meeting to present the project scope, goals, findings, and
recommendations. Topics covered will include required CFA statutes and administrative rules, code
audit findings, market study findings, and code concepts. The consultant will coordinate with City
staff on meeting arrangements and facilitate the public meeting. The consultant will also prepare
one (1) online survey to allow participation from people who are unable to attend the meeting.
The consultant will prepare a summary of community engagement activities and results.
Task 2 Consultant Deliverables:
2
Total Page Number: 162
2.1 Draft public involvement plan
2.2 Final public involvement plan
2.3 Written summary of stakeholder interviews
2.4. Presentation materials and facilitation of four (4) advisory committee briefings
2.5 Presentation materials, facilitation, and summary of public meeting #1
2.6 Online survey #1
2.7 Community engagement summary
Task 2 City Deliverables:
2.1 Communications and public outreach coordination
2.2 Written review comments on draft public involvement plan
2.3 Identification and introduction to five key stakeholders
2.4 Advisory committee meeting notices, agendas, and summaries
2.5 Written review comments on public engagement materials
2.6 Public meeting notices and logistics
Timeline: January to September 2024
Task 3: Code Audit and Code Concepts
The consultant will review the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, housing plans or
policies, Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Study, and other land development documents, regulations, and
maps to identify legal or policy issues related to CFAs. The consultant will prepare a memorandum
that:
Describes the current comprehensive plan and zoning code relative to:
Requirements for Climate Friendly Areas in Administrative Rules (OAR-660-012-0310,
o
-0315, and -0320)
Land use regulations in areas identified in the City’s CFA study
o
Recommends code concepts or options to respond to findings from the assessment.
The consultant will meet with City staff to review current code and gaps identified through the code
audit, building upon issues raised at the kickoff meeting. The consultant, in consultation with City
staff, will develop a final code audit and code concepts memo.
The City will use this memo to select one or more Climate-Friendly Areas to collectively
accommodate 30% of the city’s housing.
Task 3 Consultant Deliverables:
3.1 Draft code audit and code concepts memo
3.2 Facilitation and summary of key items from one meeting with current planning staff
3.3 Final code audit findings and code concepts, integrating feedback stakeholder and community
engagement
Task 3 City Deliverables:
3.1 Participation in planning meeting
3.2 Written review comments on the draft code audit and code concepts memo
3.3 Select one or more Climate-Friendly Areas to collectively accommodate 30% of the city’s housing
3
Total Page Number: 163
Timeline: February to April 2024
Task 4: Market Feasibility Study
The consultant, in consultation with City staff, will develop a market feasibility study that evaluates
impacts that land use code modifications in accordance with the Climate Friendly & Equitable
Communities (CFEC) rules can be expected to have on market-viable development in up to three
potential CFAs.
The market feasibility study will aim to provide a data-driven foundation for informed decision-
making, ensuring that land use code amendments in Ashland's CFAs align with market realities and
contribute to a sustainable and vibrant urban environment. The study will evaluate how policy
choices on height limits, minimum density, ground floor commercial requirements, and other
relevant requirements could impact the type and scale of development that is most likely to occur in
the CFAs, given current market conditions, development costs, and demand for residential vs.
commercial development. The study will consider how existing financial incentives (such as the
Vertical Housing Development Zone) impact development feasibility. As described in Task 2, the
consultant will conduct interviews with up to three local industry experts to inform the study. The
consultant will summarize findings from the evaluation and offer recommendations on how the
code could best support market-feasible development.
Task 4 Consultant Deliverables:
4.1 Draft market feasibility study
4.2 Final market feasibility study that addresses comments from City staff and stakeholder
engagement
Task 4 City Deliverables:
4.1 Written review comments on the draft market feasibility memo
Timeline: February to April 2024
Task 5: Draft Code Update
Based upon the final code audit and code concepts, the consultant will prepare draft updates to the
city zoning ordinance, map, and other development codes to address the issues identified in Task 3.
Task 5 Consultant Deliverables:
5.1 Draft updates to the zoning ordinance, other development codes, zoning map, and comprehensive
plan
Task 5 City Deliverables:
5.1 Written review comments on the draft updates to the zoning ordinance, zoning map, other
development codes (as needed), and comprehensive plan
Timeline: April 2024 to July 2024
Task 6: Final Code Update
Following City staff review, the consultant will prepare final draft updates to City’s zoning ordinance.
The final draft code documents will be delivered in up to two formats depending on the City’s
4
Total Page Number: 164
preferences to support adoption: legislative formatting to indicate changes from existing code
language, in a locally preferred format, and clean text. The consultant will prepare draft findings for
the staff report. DLCD will provide City and Consultant with a Multimodal Transportation Gap
Summary and any required Highway Impacts Summary required in OAR 660-012-0325 to use in
completing this project.
Task 6 Consultant Deliverables:
6.1 Final draft updates to the zoning ordinance, zoning map, other development codes (as needed),
comprehensive plan in up to two formats
6.2 Draft findings for the staff report.
Task 6 City Deliverables:
6.1 Written review comments on the final draft updates to the zoning ordinance, zoning map, other
development codes (as needed), and comprehensive plan
Timeline: July to September 2024
Task 7: Adoption
City staff will schedule and provide notice and an agenda for one Planning Commission study
session and one City Council study session to review final draft updates to City’s zoning ordinance,
zoning map, other development codes (as needed) and comprehensive plan. The Consultant will
prepare presentations for and attend the two study sessions in person.
City staff will schedule and provide notice and an agenda for one Planning Commission hearing and
one City Council hearing to adopt final draft updates to City’s zoning ordinance, zoning map, other
development codes (as needed) and comprehensive plan. The Consultant will prepare presentations
for and attend the two hearings in person.
Task 7 Consultant Deliverables:
7.1 Final draft updates to the zoning ordinance, zoning map, other development codes (as needed),
comprehensive plan in up to two formats
7.2 Draft findings for the staff report.
Task 7 City Deliverables:
7.1 Written review comments on the final draft updates to the zoning ordinance, zoning map, other
development codes (as needed), and comprehensive plan
Timeline: October 2024 to December 2024
5
Total Page Number: 165
Total Page Number: 166
Total Page Number: 167
Total Page Number: 168
Memo
DATE: August 13, 2024
TO:Planning Commissioners
FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager
RE: Annual 2024 PC Retreat Considerations
It’s that time again… The Planning Commission’s last annual retreat was August 30, 2023.
Date & Time
For the last few years, the Planning Commission’s annual retreats have been held at
midday during the work week, whereas in the not-too-distant past retreats were held on
Saturdays from morning to mid-afternoon. Are Commissioners in agreement to continue
the midday, work week retreat? We’d like to come out of tonight’s meeting with a date and
time for the retreat set. Please bring your calendars.
Discussion Topics
Are there specific topics or issues Commissioners are interested in discussing?
Site Visits
There are relatively few recent projects at the point of being ready for site visits. Are there
any specific projects or sites that the Commission has interest in visiting?
Lunch Options
Do Commissioners have any preferences for lunch?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 169