HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-26 Planning MIN
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
Minutes
July 26, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM,viaZoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairnDerek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Eric HerronPaula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement:
The City Councilwill be discussallowing staff and the Commission to explore more allowances for food trucks
at their August 2, 2022 meeting.City code requires this step and it is expected to be a formality.
Beth Goodman from ECONorthwest will be providing the Council with an update on the Housing Production
Strategy (HPS) at their August 15, 2022 meeting.
Staff is expected toprovide an early draft ordinance for food trucks to the Commission in August. The
Commissionshould expect to discuss housing in Employment Zones in August, as well. The Commission will
review the annexation and site review of the Highway 99 project after the Land Use Board of Appeals reversed
the Commission’s approvalof said project.The Commission will then advise the Council on the consistency of
the application with annexation standards before the Council makes a final determination.The Commission
should anticipate a full docket in September and October.
Chair Norton drew attention to a memo distributed to the Commission from the City. This memo spoke to the City’s potential
decision to relegate some standing commissions to ad hoc commission status, where they would only meet when necessary. He
expressed concern with losing the tree Commission’s expertise in reviewing planning actions, as the Commission has relied on
this expertise in the past. Mr. Molnar stated that he had spoken with City Manager Joe Lessard about the Commission’s reliance
upon the Tree Commissionin terms of technical expertise, and that staff is currently discussing ways to keep the Tree
Commission involved.
III.PUBLIC FORUM
David Runkel:Mr. Runkel expressed concern with KDA Homes’ plans to expand the Mountain Meadowsdevelopment. His
concerns included: the proposed housing density; limited ingress and egress areas;potentially congestedtraffic in narrow streets
and alleys; and environmental concerns. Mr. Runkel and many of his neighbors have sent letters voicing their concerns to staff
and the Commission.
Daniel DeRoux:Mr. DeRoux echoed Mr. Runkel’s concerns, emphasizing the danger that narrow andpotentiallycongested
streets would cause emergency vehicles, makingany necessary evacuationsdifficult. He stated that these could create
Ashland Planning Commission
July 26, 2022
Page 1of 4
dangerous or life-threatening conditions, particularly in light of the Almeda Fire. He added that he and his neighbors have no
objection to the development itself, merely the proposed density andthe resultingtraffic issues.
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Ashland Housing Production Strategy Update –ECONorthwest Presentation
Planning Manager Brandon Goldman informed the Commission that the HPS was now halfway through its15 monthdevelopment
process. There havebeen three advisory committee meetings whichwere attended byCommissioners KenCairn and Verner.
Presentation
Beth Goodmanfrom ECONorthwestprovided the Commission with a summary of the HPS’s findingsand potential strategies that
have been developedthus far. First they examined the City’s housing needs as it relates to income, and how the HPS could be
used to support development of new housing for certain income levels, specificallythosehouseholds earning 50% or less of the
Median Family Income (MFI) ofJackson County. Ms. Goodman stated that their data indicated that approximately 36% of City
households areextremely low to very lowincome, even iftheirincome levelswere toincrease. Additionally, those of middle
income households could not afford to purchase a house, but could afford market-rate rentals.
Ms. Goldman related howlooking at cost burden was important in determining housing need. A household is considered cost-
burdened if it spends 30% or more of its income on rent, or were severely cost-burdened if theyspent 50% or more of their
income on rent. Their data showed that 63% of Ashland’s renters were cost-burdened, and 35% were severely cost-burdened.
Fewer homeowners are cost-burdened, though 31% were still considered to be cost-or severely cost-burdened.
Ms. Goodman detailedhow the City’s housing needs differed by groups, particularly the homeless population. Over 800 people
were homeless in Jackson County per a 2021 Oregon Housing and Community Services study, with 10% of those being from
Ashland. She pointed out that certain groups were more likely to be homeless, including racial or ethnic groups, individuals over
65, and people with disabilities.
Ms. Goodmanlauded the City’s existing policies to address its housing needs, and provided a further list of actions that could be
taken. She noted thatthe City is not required to follow any of these initiatives, but it would be required to address any necessary
accessibility standard changes. The initiative list recommended to the City include:
Encourage development of low-and moderate-income affordable rental housing
Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership
Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units
Preserve existing supply of low-and moderate-income affordable housing
Ms. Goodman also recommended that the City consider multiple funding sources to enact theseinitiatives, including the
establishment of a Construction Excise Tax(CET),Urban Renewal,and identifyingadditional funds to support the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Goodman strongly recommended that the City consider utilizing Urban Renewal funds because of its
flexibility to assist new developments and necessary infrastructure(see attachment #1).
Questions and Deliberation
Mr. Goldman cautionedthe Commission against attempting to develop more code changes than can be accomplished over the
HPS’s eight-year period.He recommended that the Commission consider strategies that would have the greatest impact over the
long-run or are considered ahighpriority.
Commissioner Thompson inquired how ECONorthwest had acquired its data regarding income in Jackson County, and expressed
concern that the MFI of the City was lower than that of both Eagle Point and Central Point.Ms. Goodman responded MFIs were
self-reported on a census sent to county residents, and that it should be noted that Ashland has a high number of college
students which couldaffectthe findings. Commissioner Thompson wondered what the implications of using income as a metric
for gauging MFI were when considering the increasing number of seniors in the City.This could result in a high number of people
reporting a low income, while holding onto a significant amount of accumulated wealth.Ms. Goodman agreed that those in the
middle-income might have more accumulated wealth, but stated that those reporting less than $20,000 MFI were likely accurate.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 26, 2022
Page 2of 4
She stated that thesefindings were alsocorroboratedby the reported number of cost-burdened homeowners, and that this is a
pattern seen in other cities experiencing similarhousing needs.
Commissioner KenCairn expressed concern thatthe Historic District could be adversely affected bycodechanges proposed by
ECONorthwest whichwouldallowthe development of higher density housing in R-3 Zones. Ms. Goodman responded that the
presentation had not yet been updated, but that Commissioner KenCairn’s concerns had been included inthe HPS.
Commissioner Verner requested more information regarding land banks andtrusts.Mr. Goldman gave a brief history of land
truststhat existed inthe City.The Housing Commissionhadworked closely with the City Council at the time to create the Ashland
Community Land Trust, a non-profit organization, in the early 2000s. The organization used Community DevelopmentBlock
Grants (CDBG) and other funding sources to purchase properties, and then developedaffordable housing on those properties.
The organization retained ownership of the land,and provided aviable way for homeowners to purchase a house without being
subjected to rising land costs.Rogue Valley Community Development was another non-profit that hadexisted to develop the land
trust modelin order to provide affordable housing.Neither organization wasable to keep up with rising land costs and have since
dissolved, and the housing units that were land trusted went to two other non-profit organizationswho maintain the leases on the
land. There is no organization that is actively pursuing the acquisition of properties to add to a land trust, but NeighborWorks
Umpqua has indicated that this could be a valuable modeland has shown interest in creating a new lease-hold agreement that
could be implemented for the acquisition of additionalparcels.
Commissioner Thompson questioned how land trustscould be a viable strategy if past organizations had been forced to dissolve.
Mr. Goldman responded that Ashland Community Land Trust was a volunteer organization, unlike NeighborWorks Umpqua which
can seek out funding outside the boundaries of the City. Ms. Goodman described land trusts as one of the few ways to create
affordable homeownership, but pointed out that they don’t create a large number of units because of the cost barrier. She then
described a land bank as the City’s acquisition of parcels over time for the purpose of developing affordable housing.Ms.
Goodman suggested a CETand Urban Renewal grants as a good source of funding for such endeavors. She concluded by
relating how Hood River had assembled several parcels of land and then selected a developer who proposed the development of
mixed-income housingas a way to address its housing needs.She noted that Hood River is considering a general obligation fund
to provide the capital necessary for the project and to fund similar developments tofurtheralleviate itshousing needs.
Commissioner Thompson inquired if land trusts were used as rentals or for purchase. Ms. Goodman responded that it is typically
used to increase homeownership, but that it would be at the City’s discretion. She pointed out that Eugene had used publicly
owned land for income-restricted affordable housing developments.
Commissioner Knauer remarked that he would be hesitant to utilize the Urban Renewal fundingprogramforany of these
initiatives. Ms. Goodman responded that Urban Renewal has changed over time, and that the technical term for it is now Tax
Increment Financing.A city would select ablightedareaneedingUrban Renewaland would freeze its tax basefor a 20 year
period. As newdevelopment occurredin that areathe property taxes generated would increase and result in a tax increment. The
developmentsfunded by this taxcould beusedfor market-rate housing or income-restricted housing, but she cautioned that the
funding shouldlargelybe utilizedfor projects that would generate additional tax revenue. The goal would be to attractnew
developmentsinthe area, which would increase the tax revenue and assist in funding the project. Ms. Goodman mentioned that
this program would not causeschool districtstomiss out on new fundingbecause they would be reimbursed by the state.
Chair Nortonvoiced concerns overusing Urban Renewal funding in the City, particularly due to the City’s lowlevelsof blight. He
suggested that the private propertiesand private developersbe entrusted with creatingneeded housing.Chair Nortonhighlighted
the need to get feedback from developers in order to ascertain the best way to encourage development. Ms. Goodman responded
that the HPS would be getting feedback from developers as a next step, and recommended that the Commission not rejectUrban
Renewalwithout further study. Commissioner Knauer asked if Urban Renewal would lead to displacement, andMs. Goodman
emphasized that this form of Urban Renewal was different thanpast models and would not cause displacement.
Commissioner Thompson remarked that the difficulty in creating manufactured home parks would be the lack of a viable location
in the City. Ms. Goodman clarified that the development of manufactured home parks would likely not be possible in the City,
particularly due to the fact that very few developers build them in Oregon.Commissioner Thompson asked if there was any
predictionofhowmuch the recentstate required code changes would alleviate the City’s housing needs, namely the duplex and
Ashland Planning Commission
July 26, 2022
Page 3of 4
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinances. Ms. Goodman replied that ADUsand duplexeswould not significantly improve the
City’s residential inventory.She elaborated that existing developments would be unlikely to increase housing or be converted into
quadplexes.
Ms. Goodman impressed upon the Commission that there would be no simple fix to the City’s housing needs, and that any
changes would be incremental. She added that any significant changes would likely not be seen within their lifetime. Mr. Goldman
added that the Snowberry project off of Clay street was the result of wide variety of factors over an extended period of time, and
no one fix would have led to the development of thatneighborhood.Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that the recent Housing
Capacity Analysis (HCA) found that land available for housing lay outside the city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
He noted that one element that these areas had in common was their lack of expensive infrastructure, and recommended that the
Commission not dismiss Urban Renewal as a potential funding source.Ms. Goodman stated that she strongly recommended that
the Commission consider Urban Renewal.
Commissioner Verner asked if a CETwould work in the City.Ms. Goodman responded that it had worked well in Medford and that
there was not reason it could not work in Ashland. She noted that Medford conducted extensive outreach to gather feedback from
developers before enacting their CET,and recommended similar outreach. She pointed out that the City could set the tax at any
level for commercial and industrial developments, but cautioned that it not be set unreasonablyhigh in order to not repel
businesses.
Chair Norton supported keeping Urban Renewal on the list of viable funding strategies, especially if freezing the tax base was a
firmly established facet of that plan.Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that Talent, Phoenix, and Medford appearedto be using
Urban Renewal to great effect. Ms. Goodman explained that Urban Renewal wasone ofthe only flexible funding sourcesforthis
type of project.
V.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:26p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
July 26, 2022
Page 4of 4
Ashland: Housing Production Strategy
Planning Commission Meeting #2
July 26, 2022
Tonight’s Discussion…
Housing Need in Ashland
Initiatives Approach to
Strategies
Strategies to Accommodate
Housing Need
Next Steps
2
Project Schedule and Primary Tasks
We are
here
3
Housing Need in Ashland
Financially Attainable Housing
HUD’s Median Family Income (MFI) for Jackson County in 2020 is $73,100
Median Home Sale
Price in Ashland:
$549,900
A household would need
to earn between
$140,000 and $157,000
(192% if MFI) to afford
these prices.
Median Gross Rent in
Ashland: $1,085
A household would need
to earn about $44,000 or
60% of MFI to afford this
rent.
5
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jackson County, 2020. Oregon
Employment Department. .
Share of Households by Income Level, Ashland
This chart is based
on the HUD MFI for
Jackson County and
the ACS household
income distribution
for Ashland.
Publicly Subsidized AffordableMiddle Income
Market Rate
0%-60% MFI60%-120% MFI
120%+ MFI
6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019, Table B19001; HUD, FY 2021 MFI.
Housing Need in Ashland
Housing Cost Burden by Tenure, Ashland, 2014-2018
About 63% of Ashland’s
renters, and 31 % of
homeowners, were cost
burdened or severely cost
burdened.
About 35% of Ashland’s
renters were severely cost
burdened, meaning they paid
50% or more of their gross
income on housing costs.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS Tables B25091 and B25070.
7
Cost Burden by Tenure and Income, 2015-2019
Cost Burden by Income for RenterHouseholds, Cost Burden by Income for OwnerHouseholds,
Ashland, 2015-2019Ashland, 2015-2019
Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019
8
Increasing Housing Costs
Median Home Sale Price, Ashland and Comparison Cities, November 2021 –
January 2022
The median price of a home in
Ashland increased 33% from
$415,000 in the November
2018 to $550,000 in
November 2021.
9
Housing Needs Often Differ by Group
Point-in-Time Homelessness Estimates, Jackson County,
People experiencing
2017-2021
homelessness:
831
Temporarily or chronically
712
679
Alone or with children
Ashland: about 10% of
Jackson County’s population
of people experiencing
homelessness
Racial or ethnic groups
People over 65 years old
People with disabilities
Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services.
10
Note: OHCS reported two counts in 2021 –estimated and reported counts. This is the estimated counts.
Existing Policies to Address Ashland Housing Needs
Affordable Housing Programs:
Reduced / Waived Building Permit fee, Planning fees, or SDCs
•
•Density Bonuses
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
•
•CDBG funds
Land Trusts
•
•Public Land Disposition
Parcel assembly
•
•Inclusionary zoning for annexations/ certain zone changes
Tenant Rights (Ordinance 2939)
•
Market-rate Housing Programs:
•Middle housing code
ADU code update –removed barriers
•
•Live-Work housing or Mixed-use housing in commercial zones
Zoning provisions to encourage density
•
•SDC Financing Credits
Vertical Housing Tax Credit
11
Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need in Ashland
Initiatives Approach
Encourage development of low-and moderate-
income affordable rental housing.
This initiative
seeks to increase the housing options for unregulated rental
households earning between 60% and 120% of MFI ($43,900 to
$87,700).
Increase opportunities for affordable
homeownership.
This initiative seeks to increase the housing
options for homeownership for households earning less 120% of MFI
(less than $87,700).
Encourage development of income-restricted
affordable housing units.
There are limited options
available in Ashland that are affordable to households with income of
less than 60% of MFI ($43,900). This initiative supports development
of housing affordable in this income group.
Preserve existing of low-and moderate-
income affordable housing.
This initiative seeks to
increase the housing options for households earning less than 120% of
MFI (less than $87,700).
13
15
Questions for the Planning Commission
Are the actions included in this presentation
the appropriate actions to address unmet
housing need in Ashland?
Are we missing any actions that should be
included in the HPS?
Should we remove any of the actions from
the list to include in the HPS?
Are there actions that we need to do
additional research or refinement on to
better fit them to address Ashland unmet
housing needs?
16
Next Steps
Final HPS &
Contextualized
KickoffStrategiesDraft HPS
Adoption
Housing Need
JanMar –Sept Jul –Feb
Nov –Apr
Feb –May
202220222022 -2023
2022 -2023
2022
•Identify policy gaps &
•Project Kickoff
•Adopt the strategy
•Analyze housing need &
•Compile and have
potential strategies
anti displacement
public review of the
•Evaluate strategies
considerations
report
•Engage housing
producers & service
providers
•AC meetings (3)
•AC meeting #5
•PC presentation
•Presentation to PC
•HHSC presentation•HHSC presentation
•CC presentation
•AC meeting #1
•PC work session
•PC work session
•Interviews
•CC presentation
w/developers or
•Open House
service providers (8)
•3 memos summarizing
•Summary of major
•Engagement
•Draft HPS report
•Final HPS report
existing / potential
tasks
preparation
measures
•Project schedule
•Housing need & anti-
•Summary of developer
displacement memo
interviews
We are here
Los AngelesPortlandSeattleBoise