Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-02-11 Planning PACKET
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 11, 2025 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. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff Announcements 2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. January 14, 2025 Regular Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by February 11, 2025 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/95600353277 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2024-00254, Sutton Place TL 1600, The Oaks of Ashland Subdivision VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED A. Settlement of the Record B. Deliberations PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00255 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 110 Terrace St. OWNER: Shirley D Patton Trust APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it applies to how a Peer Respite Home (as defined at ORS 430.626) are regulated. The interpretation requests that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110 Terrace Street be classified as a similar use to types of Group Living that are permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39-1E-09-BC; TAX LOT: 8000 VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00010 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 300 Clay St. OWNER: Bentella LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Development DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation and zone change for a 4.8-acre property, along with adjacent Right-of-Way (ROW), for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application also includes a request for a 25-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan Approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision, as well as a limited activities WRPZ permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential; ZONING: County RR-5 (R-1-3.5 requested); MAP: 39-1E-11-CB Tax Lot 1100; TAX LOT: 1100 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Ashland Modified Flood Zone along Hamilton Creek IX. OPEN DISCUSSION X. ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: February 25, 2025 Next Meeting Date: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashlandoregon.gov. 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). Page 2 of 2 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. January 14, 2025 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Perkinson and Phillips attended the meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager Gregory Perkinson Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Susan MacCracken Jain Kerry KenCairn Absent Members: Council Liaison: Vacant II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The City’s annual town hall meeting was scheduled for January 22, 2025. The Jackson County Planning Commission will be hearing a request for the Urban Growth Boundary line adjustment related to 375 and 475 East Nevada Street on January 15, 2025. This item previously came before the Commission in 2021, PA-T2-2021-00031. City Manager Sabrina Cotta will present the updated Commissions and Committees handbook at the January 28, 2025 Study Session. Appointments for Council Liaisons to Commissions and Committees will be determined by the Mayor and are scheduled for January 21, 2025. The Commission will review an application for the annexation of 300 Clay Street at its February 11, 2025 meeting. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. December 10, 2024 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 6 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 Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked that her question on page 3 of the minutes be amended to more accurately reflect her inquiry regarding the density requirements of Area 7. Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with the correction requested by Commissioner MacCracken Jain. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.INFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2024-00054, Kestrel Park Phase III Chair Verner stated that a non-substantive spelling error in the findings had been pointed out by Commissioner Phillips to staff. This change was made to the draft findings prior to the meeting. Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Phillips m/s to approve the findings with the non-substantive correction noted by Commissioner Phillips. Commissioners KenCairn and Herron recused themselves due to past involvement with the applicant. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00255 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 110 Terrace St. OWNER: Shirley D Patton Trust APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it applies to how a Peer Respite Home (as defined at ORS 430.626) are regulated. The interpretation requests that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110 Terrace Street be classified as a similar use to types of Group Living that are permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39-1E-09-BC; TAX LOT: 8000 Chair Verner noted that staff had received numerous public comments since the meeting packet had been distributed (see attachment #1). Page 2 of 6 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 Ex Parte Contact Commissioners MacCracken Jain, KenCairn, Herron, and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed ex parte contact with a member of the public who informed her that this item was on the agenda. Commissioner MacCracken Jain disclosed three ex parte contacts, but stated that they were unsolicited and did not get into the content of the project, merely that this meeting was scheduled. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman briefly described a Peer Respite Center and that the interpretation request argued that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110 Terrace Street should be classified as a similar use to Group Living, that are permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Goldman stated that staff’s focus of the interpretation came down to a determination of whether the proposed Peer Respite Center is a group-living situation, as suggested by the applicant, or a Traveler’s Accommodation as interpreted by staff per the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). Questions of Staff - None Applicant Presentation Property owner Kent Patton stated that this facility would serve the community by assisting those who suffer from mental illness or are unable to help themselves. Attorney for the applicant Jennifer Bragar stated that federal law requires a dialogue between the City and the applicant for such a project, but that the City does not have reasonable accommodation processes and has not been in communication with the applicant since the proposal was submitted. Ms. Bragar stated that only one Peer Respite Center had been approved in Jackson County thus far. Ms. Bragar stated that no person seeking respite would be charged rent, unlike short-term tourists, and that residents would return to it when needed, which would designate the facility as a home under the Fair Housing Act. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Herron asked if the owner would live on site. Ms. Bragar responded that they would not. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the applicant sought other locations for the facility that Page 3 of 6 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 would not require accommodations. Ms. Bragar responded that no RR.5 Zone would permit this facility. Public Comments The following public speakers spoke in favor of the applicant: Tom Stenson Victor Rico Debbie Neisewander Grace Pettygrove The following speakers spoke in favor of the staff interpretation: Rob Patridge Sydnee Dreyer Ron Rusnak Karen Grove Jay Ach David Allman David Downey Jr. James McGinnis Mr. Goldman read a public comment that was submitted into the record by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon just prior to the meeting (see attachment #2). Applicant Rebuttal Applicant Shirley Patton stated that she regretted any distress that the application had caused her former neighbors but that the proposed home would benefit those in need. Ms. Bragar requested that the meeting be continued and that the record be left open to allow additional testimony to be submitted. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. The Public Record was left open to allow written testimony to be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on January 22, 2025. Any party-of-record will then have until 4:30 p.m. on January 30, 2025 to offer a rebuttal to those comments received by January 22. The applicant will have until 4:30 p.m. on February 7, 2025 to offer final arguments or comments. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00254 SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Oaks of Ashland Open Space - Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1600) 554 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1500) 562-570 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1800) Page 4 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes PROPERTY OWNERS: The Oaks of Ashland Homeowners Association(HOA)(Tax Lot #1600) Mukesh & Sheetal Sheoran (554 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1500) Bruce A. Theisen Trust (562-570 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1800) APPLICANTS: Vincent Haynes, Michael Thornton and Fred Frantz for The Oaks of Ashland HOA DESCRIPTION: A request for an amendment of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision approval (PA #2000-127) to remove a condition of approval which required that a Public Pedestrian Access Easement (PPAE) be provided to connect Highway 66 to Sutton Place through the subdivision open space and continuing on between the properties at 554 Sutton Place and 562/570 Sutton Place. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: R-1-10; MAP: 39 1E 11 DD; TAX LOTS: 1500, 1600 & 1800 Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Herron, KenCairn, and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed that she was approached by a former Commissioner about this project. Staff presentation Planning Manager Derek Severson briefly described the subject easement, properties, and as-built plans from the Public Works Department. He stated that the planned pedestrian connectivity had not been realized and that existing slopes discouraged the easement’s full use. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the requested modifications to Condition #17 of the Oaks of Ashland Subdivision approval, PA-2000-127, with the addition of two conditions suggested by staff. Applicant Presentation Applicant Vincent Haynes, President of the Oaks of Ashland Homeowner’s Association (HOA) stated that the removal of the easement would not deprive nearby residents of any key aspects of the HOA, and the its removal would benefit the neighborhood and requested that the application be approved. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 9:06 p.m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to support staff’s recommendation and approve the request with the two conditions suggested by staff. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed 6-0. VII.OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Verner asked if any Commissioners wished to put forth a candidate for Vice-Chair. Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s to elect Commissioner KenCairn as Vice-Chair. Voice Vote: All Page 5 of 6 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: 7 Planning CommissionMinutes AYES. Motion Passed 6-0. Chair Verner stated that the Mayor had appointed John Maher to occupy the vacant seat on the Commission. VIII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 6 of 6 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: 8 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 FINDINGS _________________________________ Approvalof Findings for Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T1-2024-00254,A) REQUEST FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION OF THE OAKS OF ASHLAND ) SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (PA #2000-127) TO AMEND A CONDITION ) OF APPROVAL #17WHICH REQUIRED THAT A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ) ACCESS EASEMENT (PPAE) BE PROVIDED TO CONNECT HIGHWAY ) 66 TO SUTTON PLACE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE ) AND CONTINUING ON BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES AT 554 SUTTON ) PLACE AND 562/570 SUTTON PLACE.) )FINDINGS, OWNER:THE OAKS OF ASHLAND HOMEOWNERS’ASSOCIATION )CONCLUSIONS, (HOA) (TAX LOT #1600))AND ORDERS. MUKESH & SHEETAL SHEORAN (554 SUTTON PLACE, TAX LOT ) #1500) ) BRUCE A. THEISEN TRUST (562-570 SUTTON PLACE, TAX LOT ) #1800) ) APPLICANT:VINCENT HAYNES, MICHAEL THORNTON AND FRED ) FRANTZ FOR) THE OAKS OF ASHLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA)) _______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1)The subject properties are tax lots 1500, 1600and 1800 of Assessor’s Map 39 1E 11DD and are addressed as 554 Sutton Place and 562-570 Sutton Place. The open space under HOA ownership has no address. The properties were created as Lots 11 and 12 and Open Space #2 of The Oaks of Ashland Subdivision approved through Planning Actions #2000-127 and #2001-022 and recorded as County Survey #17184. 2)The properties are 0.22 acres, 0.15 acres, and 0.39 acres in size and are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-10) and located in the PSO and Airport overlays.The minimum lot size in the R-1-10 zone is 10,000 square feet asset out at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.5.030 which provides the ‘Unified Standards for Residential Zones.’ 3)The properties aresteeplysloped at approximately 27 percent average slopedown to the Northeast towards Ashland Street/Highway 66. 4)The Ashland Street/Highway 66 right-of-way (ROW) is fully improved with curb, gutter, and curbside sidewalks in place along the full frontage of The Oaks of Ashland Subdivision. 5)The Ashland Municipal Code(AMC)Chapter 18 is the City’s Land Use Ordinance(LUO). Chapter 18.5.3 provides for regulations for land divisions which are “clear and objective.” PA-T1-2024-00254 February 11, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 13 6)The request is for modification to the list of conditions of the original 27-lot subdivision approval, which included twenty-four (24) residential lots and three (3) common open space areas, to amend condition of approval #17 which required apublic pedestrian access easement (PPAE) alongthe shared boundary between Lots 11 and 12 andthrough Open Space #2 of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision. The proposed amendment is to remove the PPAE requirement. 7)The applicant’s proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Developmentand by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 8)The criteria of approval for Outline Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. b.Adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the street standards. h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. 9)The criteria for approval for Major Modification are described in AMC 18.5.6.030.C. as follows: 1.Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lotshall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings.(Ord.3229 § 13,amended,12/19/2023) 10)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 14, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to PA-T1-2024-00254 February 11, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 14 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 FINDINGSOF FACT 2.1The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the City’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUOregulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encouragesefficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that 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. 2.2The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera th decision based on the applicationitself,the January 8, 2025 Staff Report, the applicant’s testimony,the exhibits received and public testimony received at the public hearing. 2.3The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and 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 subject property on December 19, 2024(26days prior to the January 14, 2025 hearing). 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that thesubject property was subdivided in 2001into its present configuration, and discussion during that hearing suggested that the PPAE was not viewed as necessary if full frontage improvements were provided along the subject property’s Highway 66 frontage. The Commission finds that while the original subdivision conditions ultimately required the PPAE and called for it to be paved and improved to meet accessibility standards, the average slope within the PPAE is approximately 27 percent which makes paving or meeting accessibility standards difficult or impossible. The Commission further finds that the PPAE as provided is redundant in light of the full frontage improvements, and does not provide any real accessibility benefit versus using the sidewalk. 2.5The Planning Commission finds that the request to modify Condition #17 of PA #2000- PA-T1-2024-00254 February 11, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 15 127 is considered a Major Modification per AMC 18.5.6.030.A.7, as it involves a “Change to a condition of approval…that could have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties….” Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to modify the conditions of the approval for the 2001Oaks of AshlandSubdivision Outline Plan meets all applicable criteria as described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 and AMC 18.5.6.030.C.as detailed below. 2.6.1The first relevant approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that: “The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.”The Planning Commission notes that this is an all-encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purposes of resolving this criterion we rely on the entirety of th the record including the applicant’s submittal, and the Staff Report dated January 8. The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that are set out below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.6.2The second and third relevant approval criterion are that “Adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity.”\[emphasis added\] and that “The development complies with street standards.” The Planning Commission notes that due to the steep slope within the required PPAE, it cannot be paved or meet the originally-intended accessibility standards but that the sidewalk provided along Highway 66 provided the desired accessibility to achieve adequate transportation, making the PPAE largely redundant. The Planning Commission findsthat this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.6.3The fourth relevant criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, “The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.” The Planning Commission finds that the development of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision hasnot preventedthe adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.7 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was th held on January 14, 2025,where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made approving the modification to the Outline Planto allow for removal of a condition of approval.The applicationwas approvedsubject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. 2.8The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant’s submittal, and the th Staff Report dated January 8. Each of these by theirreference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. PA-T1-2024-00254 February 11, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 16 2.8.1The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria of approvalfor Major Modification and OutlinePlanhave been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that therequestfor aMajor Modification of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision approval (PA #2000-127) to amend condition of approval #17is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved including the conditions of approval below. The conditions of approval are below: 1.That Condition #17 of PA #2000-127 is amended to remove the public pedestrian access easement requirement through Open Space #2. All remaining conditions of approval of Planning Action #2000-127 shall remain in effect. 2.That the applicants shall be responsible for completing any required public process for the city to abandon the public pedestrian access easement through Open Space #2 and Subdivision Lots #11 and #12 which will likely require requests to the Public Works Department and City Manager’s office to conduct a required public hearing and approve the signature of a quitclaim deed. February 11, 2025 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T1-2024-00254 February 11, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 17 Total Page Number: 18 PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 21 Total Page Number: 22 Jennifer M. Bragar 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850 AttorneyPortland, Oregon 97204 Admittedin Oregon, Washington, Tel503-894-9900 and CaliforniaFax 971-544-7236 jbragar@tomasilegal.comwww.tomasilegal.com February 7, 2025 BY EMAIL City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Applicant's Final Written Argument - City File No. PA-T1-2024-00255 DearCommissioners: As you know, this office represents Stabbin' Wagon ("Applicant"), in the above-referenced application for a reasonable accommodation and code interpretation to operate a respite home at property located at 110 Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon (the "Mountain Beaver House"). Applicant has received a grant from the Oregon Health Authority("OHA")toprovide peer respite housing and services to four members of the community experiencing mental illness at any given time, and to use the Mountain Beaver House as a stable, safe environment for providing such services. This letter is submittedas Applicant's final written argument in the record for the above- referenced file in support of the application. Please include this letter in the record. The Planning Commission should approve the application based on Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation to operate a peer respite homein the RR-.5 zone under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"). Further,the Planning Commission should also find that the Ashland Land Use Ordinance ("ALUO" or "Code") allows for approval of Applicant's proposed use under the Code's similar use provision, and that the application materials and Applicant's submittals during the open record period support a finding that Applicant's proposed use is asimilar useto Group Living, in particularResidential Care Homes, which are permitted outright in the RR-.5 zone.To be clear, peerrespite is a type of Group Living and is most similar to Residential Care, but recallthatthe list of Group Living examples in the Code is not exclusive. Finally, it would bea violation of federal nondiscrimination laws for the Planning Commission to base its decisionon testimony which asserts generalized fears and unfounded concerns arising from stereotypes of people experiencing mental illness. I. The City should grant Applicant's request for asimilar useinterpretationbecause a peer respite home is asimilar use to Group Living, in particular Residential Care Homes, which arepermitted outright in the RR-.5 zone. Under ALUO 18.1.5.040, where a proposed use is not specifically identified by the Code, or the Code is unclear as to whether the use is allowed in a particular zone, another,similar use that is permitted in the subject zone may be identified, and the Code may be applied accordingly. STABBI-LU1\\00802896.005 Total Page Number: 23 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 2 A peer respite home is similar toGroup Living, such as Residential Care Homes, which arepermitted in all residential zones, including the RR-.5 zone. ALUO 18.2.2.030.Group Living is the residential occupancy of a structure by a group of people. ALUO 18.6.1.030 (Group Living definition).Group Living structures do not include self-contained units but rather have common facilities for residents including those for dining, social and recreational, and laundry. ALUO 18.6.1.030 (Group Living definition).A Residential Care Home is aresidential treatment home, as defined it ORS 443.400. ALUO 18.6.1.030 (Residential Care Homedefinition).Under ORS 443.400, a "residential treatment home" is a facility that provides for five or fewer individuals with mental, emotional or behavioral disturbances or alcoholor drug dependence, residential care and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous properties. Like a Residential Care Home, Applicant's peer respite home willserve as aresidence for a group offour people—Applicant has voluntarily limited the number of people served to four. Also like a Residential Care Home, Applicant's peer respite home willnot include self-contained units, but ratherwillprovide common facilities for residents. Under Applicant's OHA Grant Agreement("Grant Agreement"),Applicant must: "Manage a home-like space ("home")…. The home must: i. Have a private room for each participant. ii. Have shared community spaces including common areas and a full kitchen. iii. Be stocked with basic food in the kitchen for participants’ consumption, free of charge." Applicant's Open Record Letterof January 22, 2025 ("Open Record Letter"),Attachment 6, p. 8. Like a Residential Care Home, Applicant's peer respite home will provide residential care and treatment to individuals experiencing mental or emotional disturbance. For the purposes of the Grant Agreement, these individuals are peoplewith mental illness or trauma response symptoms who areexperiencing acute distress, anxiety,or emotional pain. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 7. The objective of Applicant's peer respite home is to provide voluntary, non- clinical, peer-delivered services for crisis support in a home-like setting to people who need a safe space to seek support, stabilize, and/or coordinate higher levels of psychiatric care.Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 7. Thelocation of Mountain Beaver House is essential to Applicant's mission of providing respite to its clients. People stay at peer respites for any number of reasons:recenttrauma and loss; avoiding hospitalization and overwhelmed by distressing urges or disturbing or suicidal thoughts; beingoverwhelmed by their current living situation; or perhaps they are feeling very alone in the world and wanting to be around caring people. Open Record Letter, Attachment 5, pp. 8-10. In all cases, it is important for respite to occur is a stable, safe, and homelike environment such as exists at Mountain Beaver House, to help people who are experiencing mental illness. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 6. This location in a quiet, residential neighborhood with proximity to Lithia Park is ideal in that it facilitates recovery through respite activities such as hiking, biking, gardening, getting out into nature, doing yoga or meditating,andtaking space to clear one's thoughts. Open Record Letter, Attachment 5, p. 10. That the property is well-suited as a place for such activities isshown in the photographs of Mountain Beaver House in Open Total Page Number: 24 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 3 Record Letter, Attachment 7, and inwhat appears to be drone footage submitted by Mr. Patridge on January 14, 2025. This setting is necessary for the respite environment to allow residents to stabilize their mental state and to have a place to live. The Applicant is aware thatunder ALUO 18.1.5.040, uses that are specifically prohibited by the Code, and uses that are similar to uses that are specifically prohibited by the Code, are not allowed. A peer respite home is not similarto a Travelers' Accommodation, which is primarily distinguishable from residential usesin that a Traveler's Accommodationis made available to travelers—as opposed to members of the community—for-pay or other compensation. ALUO 18.6.1.030, defining Travelers' Accommodations; and seedefinitions for Hotel/Motel, Hostel, Room and Board Facility. Travelers' Accommodations are not required to provide communal spaces, meals, and the like. See, e.g., ALUO 18.6.1.030 (Hotel/Motel definition). It stands to reason that such uses would not be allowed in residential zones, such as the RR-.5 zone, in that they operate in a fundamentally different fashion than a residence. Opponents attempt to make much out of the grant funding supporting the Applicant's work. But, having state support for an organization that funds both the physical respite home and the peer-to-peer support workers does not transform this accommodation for people with disabilities to living and enjoy a housing opportunity in the RR-.5 zone into a Traveler's Accommodation. Rather, the grant supports the workers who are necessaryin providing care and connection to services to individuals seeking respite and a place to call home during the respite. The fact that peer-to-peer support workers are necessary and available to allow these people experiencing mental illness to enjoy the home is exactly why the Code provides for Group Living use classifications.Further, the setup for the respite home is to keep people experiencing mental illness from becoming transient and to allowthem to avoid hospitalization or residing in hotelsand motels, shelters, or on the streets while they are experiencing mental illness. Unlike a Traveler's Accommodation, Applicant's peer respite home will cater specifically to local residents at no cost.The stated purpose of Applicant's peer respite home is to serve members of theSouthern Oregon community,not vacationers or other travelers. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 6.Applicant's services, which are unpaid, are intended and designedto be a part of the local continuum of care, providing additional support to complementexisting crisis response servicesoperating in the area. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, pp. 6, 9. In particular, individuals, including persons of color and people who experience behavioral health needs, who are not comfortable engaging in services or treatment at traditional medical facilities may feel more comfortable accessing support in a peer respite setting, resulting in more individuals receiving the support they need to live independently in their communities. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 6.In this way, Applicant's peer respite home will help to allow local residents to remain a part of the fabric of the community as they cope with or overcome mentalillness or emotional pain. The sole point of comparison between a peer respite home and a Travelers' Accommodation is the duration of occupancy by an individual occupant during a single stay. The Memoranda of Planning Staff and the Assistant City Attorney too narrowlyand resolutelyfocus onthis point. Not only does this limited focus disregard the more numerous and significant differences between a peer respite home and a Travelers' Accommodation detailed above,itfails Total Page Number: 25 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 4 to acknowledge that the duration of occupancy by aresident is frequently temporaryfor residential uses. As Applicant has previously stated, the City does not monitor single-family homes or residential care homes to ensure that each resident, guest,lessee, or sub-lesseeoccupies a residential structure for the requisite period to qualify as a "long-term occupancy" under the code. Categorizing a peer respite home as a Traveler's Accommodation based solely on the length of an individual stay is at odds with the whole text of the code defining a Traveler's Accommodation and impermissibly treats residential use by individuals experiencing mental illness differently than other residential uses. The crux of a reasonable accommodation claim is a facially neutral requirement that is consistently enforced. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1266 (9th Cir. 2004). The way in which Planning Staff suggest that the Commission interpret the Code, despite its apparent neutrality by focusing on duration of stay to the exclusion ofall else,burdens people experiencing mental illness in a manner different and greater than it burdens others, and therefore will necessitatean accommodation. Id.at 1267. The purpose of the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement is to guard against the facade of "equal treatment"when particular accommodations are necessary to level the playing field.Id.(citing Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.,364 F.3d 1075, 1086 (9th Cir. 2004)). Under ALUO 18.1.5.040, the City is empowered to adapt its Code to new usesby analogy to similar usesalready defined under the Code. Here, Applicant's peer respite home is easily analogous to Residential Care Homes,which are allowed outrightin the RR-.5 zone. The City need not inflexibly interpret and apply its Code to foreclose a peer respite home in the RR-.5 by pigeonholing a use that is otherwise indistinguishable from permitted residential uses.This is an ill-fitting and unnecessary categorizationthat places a greater burden on people with disabilities. As noted in the Assistant City Attorney's Memorandum of January 22, 2025, entitled "RE: 110 Terrace Street," "It is worth noting that while our previous opinion concluded that the peer respite center most closely resembled a 'traveler's accommodation,' an alternative interpretation is possible."This Commission can level the playing field for community members experiencing mental illness by interpreting the Code, as is easily done within the existing framework,to allow them to live and receive the supportthey need in the RR-.5 zone. The Commission need only acknowledge that Applicant's proposed use is similar to Residential Care Facilities, and not Traveler's Accommodations, as is demonstrated above. To the extent that it excludes Applicant's peer respite home from the RR-.5 zone, Planning Staff's original recommended code interpretation, and where it appears to rest in its January 30, 2025 memorandum,is discriminatory because people who do not have mental illnesses or other similar disabilities do not need to reside, short or long term, in peer respite homes. To argue that such an interpretation does not discriminate against people with disabilities is to say that people without disabilitiesare equally unable to occupy peer respite homes in RR-.5 zoned areas, homes that they neither need nor want. This is akin to arguing that zoning out a dialysis center from a neighborhood is not discriminatory because it equally excludes people with and without kidney disease from getting dialysis.It is an act of discrimination against those with disabilities in violation of the ADA and FHA. The Commission canfurtheravoid a discriminatory outcome by approving the Applicant's reasonable accommodation request. Total Page Number: 26 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 5 II. The City should grant Applicant's requestfor a reasonable accommodation because permitting a peer respite home in the RR-.5 zone does not fundamentally alter the City's zoning scheme. Applicant appreciates that the additional Staff Memorandum of January 22, 2025, entitled "Re: Fair Housing and Reasonable Accommodation," provides resources related to the FHA and encourages the Planning Commission to seriously consider granting Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation. A reasonable accommodation is appropriate here because Applicant's peer respite home is not meaningfully distinguishable in terms of its nature or intensity of use from other residential uses allowed outright in the RR-.5 zone, namely, single-family homes. As a result, the City cannot demonstrate that permitting Applicant's peer respite home in the RR-.5 zone will fundamentally alter the City's zoning scheme, and, therefore, the City must grant Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7). As an initial matter, the January 29, 2025 letter from Sydnee Dreyer, entitled "Re: PA-T1- 2024-00255 – 110 Terrace Street"("Dreyer Rebuttal Letter") states that Applicant's proposed use does not qualify as a "dwelling" under the FHA. Dreyer Rebuttal Letter, p. 1. This is against the weight of authority. Courts have previously found that thetransitory use of a property for noncommercial housing purposes is consistent with the definition of a dwelling under the FHA. See, e.g.,Step by Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112, 126 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding specifically that a respite houseconstitutes a dwelling under the FHA). In an attempt to support the assertion that Applicant's use is not a dwelling within the meaning of the FHA, the Dreyer Rebuttal Letter improperly cites to Lakeside Resort Enter v. rd Sup’rs of Palmyra TP("Lakeside"),455 F.3d154, 158 (3Cir. 2006). However, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Lakesideacknowledges that several other courts have addressed the issue of whether transitory uses may qualify for FHA protections, "coming out on both sides." Id.Further, the court ruled that a stay of 14.8 days in a drug and alcohol treatment facility is longer than the average stay in a hotel/motel or bed and breakfast (or in Ashland's terms a traveler's accommodation). Id.at 159. The 14 day period for respite housing is similar to Lakeside, in that residents will use respite instead of becoming transients who need to rely on hotels, motels, or shelters. The Mountain Beaver House residents intend to and will treat the home as a place of return during their residency. Id. In other words, a respite home is a dwelling under the FHA. th More importantly, there is more persuasivecase law, particularly fromour own 9Circuit Court of Appeals, holding thattransitory housing can comewithin the scope of "dwelling" as contemplated by the FHA.West v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 21-CV-02370-EMC, 2022 WL 1556415, at *16-18 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2022); cf. Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell, 74 F.3d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1996)(assuming that a homeless shelter is a dwelling for purposes of FHA). At the same time, the Dreyer Rebuttal Letter makes no mention of the ADA, which requires a reasonable accommodationindependently of the FHA. Even assuming, arguendo, Applicant's proposed use werenot a "dwelling" under the FHA (which it is), the ADA would stillrequire the City to make reasonable accommodations in non-dwelling zoning situations involving people with disabilities. Bay Area Addiction Rsch. & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179F.3d 725, 730 Total Page Number: 27 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 6 (9th Cir. 1999). Either way, the reasonable accommodation process is required, andany discussion of the "dwelling" issue is a red herring while the ADA remains in play. The only question is whether the accommodation is reasonable. A reasonable accommodation, such as the accommodation that Applicant requests, is one which does not fundamentally alter the City's zoning scheme. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7). Implicit in the rhetoric of project opponents and Planning Staff is the assumptionthat the distinction between a 30-day occupancy and a 14-day occupancyis somehow afundamental element of the Code. This isa wholly unexamined, unsupported position. Meanwhile, Applicant's peer respite home is not, in any significant respect, distinguishable in terms of its nature or intensity of use froma single- family home used as a single-family home. Like a single-family home, Applicant's peer respite home will occupy a singledwelling unit, including independent living facilities for a group of people operating much like a family. ALUO 18.6.1.030;ALUO 18.6.1.030. Intrinsic to the nature of a peer respite home is that residents, like members of a family,make shared use of communal spacesand engage in group activities, as well keepingengaged with their individual school, work, or community obligations. Open Record Letter, Attachment 5, p. 9. Accordingly, Applicant's requested accommodation does not undermine the City's existing zoning scheme and is clearly reasonable. No information inthe record supports the assertions that the accommodation of asingle peer respite home with no more than four residents willresult in increasedtraffic, parking issues, and fire risk beyond a single-family home. To the extent that reasonsfor the forgoing concerns have been offered during this process, that reasoning can be applied equally to single-family homes. As examples: residents of single-family homes may come and go by vehicle as they please, have unlimited visitors and deliveries, and may require frequent in-home medical care or other servicesreceived at the residence; residents of single family homes may own and store number of vehicleson their properties; andresidents of single-family homes may smoke and dispose of cigarettes outdoors in ashtrays. Applicant's proposed use isformallythe sameand functionally similar to a single-family home, and is unlikely to result in any greater adverse negative neighborhood impacts than a single-family home. In fact, Applicant's proposed use is likelyless intense than a single-family home. Under the Grant Agreement, Applicant must keep a stocked pantry, obviating the need for uncoordinated grocery trips by residents or food deliveriesby outside providers, and Applicant must ensure that the home is a safe place, reducing any risk of fire. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, pp. 8-9. Additionally, as shown by the photographs ofMountain Beaver House, the property has ample onsite parking, and will not contribute to demands for street parking. Open Record Letter, Attachment 7.Finally, as the Grant Agreement requires, the respite home will always be staffed as an additional layer of support for residents experiencing mental illness and residents will not be alone in dealing with home safety and fire risk. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, page 8. Applicant's request is for the City to reasonably accommodate one respite home with no more than four residents to be locatedat the Mountain Beaver House in order to allow people experiencing mental illness to reside in the RR-.5 zone. The project opponents and record do not demonstrate that granting Applicant's request will result in a greater intensity of use than a single- Total Page Number: 28 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 7 family home, or thatpermitting Mountain Beaver Houseto operate as a peer respite homewill fundamentally alter the City'szoning scheme. The fact that the Assistant City Attorney acknowledges in her Memorandum of January 22, 2025, entitled "Re: 110 Terrace Street," ("January 22 Attorney Memorandum") that it is already possible to interpret the City'scode to allow a peer respite home in the RR-.5 zone reinforces that Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation will not fundamentally undermine the City's zoning scheme. Accordingly, the City must grant Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7). Applicant generally agrees with the Assistant City Attorney that future Code modifications may be warranted to allow future use ofpeer respite homes specifically.SeeJanuary 22 Attorney Memorandum, p. 2. However, ifthe Planning Commission elects to deny Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation and,instead, consider potential future Code modificationsas the Assistant City Attorney has suggested as the resolution, this is still a denial of Applicant's request in violation of the ADA and FHA. City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 th F.3d 802, 806 (9Cir. 1994), aff'd sub nom. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 th (1995); Pac. Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1157 n.15(9Cir. 2013). Further, requiring Applicant and Applicant's clients to standby for an indefinite period of time while the City contemplates the possibility of a legislative fix would lead to uncertainty and cause undue delay in allowing people experiencing mental illness to receive treatment and to live in the RR-.5 zone. Such decision would, therefore, have a disparate impact on people with disabilities.Likewise,requiring Applicant to secure a conditional use permit for a structure in a multi-family zone(as a Traveler's Accommodation with all of the siting constraints), as Planning Staff have previously suggested, severely limits the neighborhoods where people with disabilities may live and increases the cost of their housing, and, therefore impacts them disparately. Such discriminatory effects arealso inviolation of the FHA and ADA. 24 CFR 100.500(a); 42 USC § 12101(a)(5). Regardless of whether the City may consider futureCode modifications for peer respite homes, the Planning Commission must grant Applicant's present request for a reasonable accommodation. Finally,theCity may not attach conditionsof usethat the City does not impose on other homes to the approval of Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation of a home for people with disabilities, as project opponentshave suggested the City should.Such conditions single out Applicant's clients with disabilities by burdening them with unnecessarilygreater restrictions than are applied to their neighbors without disabilities.No one else in the neighborhoodis required to: forfeit their home should anyone on the premises have a prior criminal conviction and any person who is required to register for an offense is required to do so as a matter of law enforcement; refrain from coming going from their residence past 10:00 pm or before 7:00 am; or establish an evacuation plan and limitations on visitors. Finally, the Grant Agreementrequires the Applicant to comply with all laws, which includes use or distribution of controlled substances, which shall not occur on the property. Open Record Letter, Attachment 6, p. 16. Project opponents provide no basis for imposing additional restrictions on Applicant's peer respite home than those imposed on single-family homes and, therefore, the proposed conditions of use are unreasonable. Total Page Number: 29 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 8 Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the proposed conditions in the Dreyer Rebuttal Letter, which conditions could have and should been offered during open record period to allow Applicant to further respond, the Applicant is willing to agree to the following conditions: 1.The House Rules shall state that the illegal use, manufacture, or distribution of a controlled substance shall not be allowed. 2.No new resident to the respite home shall arrive for the first time before 9:00 am or after 9:00 pm. 3.The House Rules shall include an evacuation and safety plan. 4.The House Rules will state that visiting hours to the respite home are 9:00 am to9:00 pm. 5.House Rules shall be distributed to each resident. 6.The Applicant shall install an address sign at the top of the entry driveway with appropriate lighting that is consistent with City Code. As with Applicant's reasonable approach to this application, it is willing to subject Mountain Beaver House to certain rules that would not otherwise apply to other single-family residences. In addition, this is a reminder that the reasonable accommodation process includes a conversation, and if the Planning Commission has questions about the Mountain Beaver House operations, it 1 may ask the Applicant during the February 11, 2025 meeting. III. The City cannot incorporate private discrimination intoits decision-making process. As the Assistant City Attorney's Memorandum of January 3, 2025, entitled "Re: Letter of Interpretation – Re. 110 Terrace Street, Ashland OR" mentions, the City has a dutyto ensure equal and non-discriminatory housing and zoning practices. TheCity may not baseits decisions on perceived harm from stereotypes and generalized fears, and it may not incorporate private discrimination—especially that received through public testimony—in its decision-making process. Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 49 (2nd Cir. 1997). Many of the public comments received by this Commission are from neighbors voicing generalized fears rooted in stereotypes and misunderstanding of people experiencing mental illness. As an example, the multitude of comments about increased fire risk are based on the unfounded assumption that people experiencing mental illness are more likely than the general population to be smokers, to disposeof cigarettes improperly, and to otherwise start fires.Not only do the comments related to fire risk derive from negative stereotypes of people experiencing mental illness, those comments are also based on the misconceptionthat the fire risk at 110 Terrace Street is greater than in other places in Ashland where Applicant might otherwise be permitted to site its proposed use. The Ashland-area fire risk map submitted by project opponents shows that the Mountain Beaver House at 110 Terrace Street, Ashland, is in a moderate fire risk—as opposed 1 While some public comments contend that prior land use discussions with City staff stand in place for a dialogue regarding reasonable accommodation, no support for such anassertion exists. While Applicant may have had earlier interactions with planning staff through its consultants and other attorneys, a reasonable accommodation request was only made with the present application. Total Page Number: 30 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 9 2 to high fire risk—area. The map also shows that much ofthe built part of Ashland, including the downtown core and almost everything below Siskiyou Boulevardis also in a moderate risk area. This includessubstantial areas zoned for higherintensity uses, such as R-2, C-1, and C-1-D.Thus, no information related to fire risk demonstrates that Applicant'speer respite home for four people is unsafe, particularlywhere room and boarding facilities and concert halls are permitted outright and electrical substations and fueling stations are permitted conditionallyin areas of the City that are also located in a moderate fire risk area. Likewise, comments related toa general increase incrime are based on the misconception that people experiencing mental illness are more likely to commit crimes or to associate with people who commit crimes. The comments fail to provide any relevant support for such an assertion.In particular, one comment that associates Applicant's proposed use with increased crime cites to an article discussing that the presence of AirBnB and VRBO rentalshave been found to lead to increased crime in neighborhoods because, among other things, "\[s\]hort-term renters may be more likely to carry valuable items" and "offenders may learn to return to areas with more 3 short-term rentals to find unguarded targets." These observations are inapplicable to Applicant's proposed use, which is not a short-term rental and is not in an area with short-term rentals. Similarly, comments that assume that Applicant's clients experiencing mental illness will be drug users andmanufacturersandsex offenders are unsupported and prejudiced. The comments mentioning drug use and needle exchange conflatethe Applicant with the people on whose behalf the reasonable accommodation is requested. Just like a City with various departments tasked with the provision of different services, a non-profit organization may also have multiple internal divisions that provide services that are separate and distinct from one another. In this manner, Applicant's needle exchange program is separate and distinct from Applicant's housing and peer- to-peer respite services program. The needle exchange aspect of Applicant's services will not operate out of the Mountain Beaver House. As the Grant Agreement specifies, only respite housing and services are authorizedon the property, and OHA provides significant oversite to the grant recipient. The comments discussing a prohibition againstsex offenders on the property mistake the province of Oregon's land use system, which is notto track sex offenders. Criminal statutes, namely the provisions ofORS Ch. 163A, provide registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders. The requirements under ORS Ch.163A apply to Applicant's clients in the same manner that they apply to all other residents of the state. Finally, comments suggesting that the operation of a peer respite home at Mountain Beaver House may decrease property valuesare likewise invalidand without basis. Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 42;and seeOpen Record Letter, Attachments 10 and 11. The purpose of a reasonable accommodation is to allow people with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Excluding disabled people fromAshland's residential neighborhoods to preserve property values worksin the opposite direction and is an act of discrimination. In general, the fears asserted by neighbors are without grounds and amount to thinly-veiled discrimination against 2 Comment entitled, "Subj: PA-T1-2024-00255, NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE" and dated January 10, 2025, Figures 1-3. 3 Comment entitled "Zoning Decision: Concerns Regarding Requested Land-Use at 110 Terrace Street" anddated January 8, 2025. Total Page Number: 31 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 7, 2025 Page 10 people experiencing mental illness, and the Planning Commission may not rely on them in its decision-making process. IV. Further response to Planning Staff's January 30, 2025 memorandum. OnFebruary 3, 2025, Applicant submitted its Objection and Request to Reject New Evidence Improperly Submitted, which the Planning Commission has not yet ruled on. Applicant reiterates its request for the Commission to reject the new evidence improperly submittedby project opponents and Planning Staff after the close of the open record periodon January 22, 2025. If the Commission declines to do so,Applicant reminds the Commission that it has not requested an accommodation for a Traveler's Accommodation. The City's track record of enforcing its prohibition on Traveler's Accommodation in single-family residential zones is not relevant here. The City continues to insist on comparing apples to oranges; Applicant's proposed use does not involve lodging made available to travelers for compensation. Rather, Applicant proposes to provide housing and respite services to members of the community at no cost. If the Planning Commission embraces Planning Staff's position (Traveler's Accommodation or a legislative process to amend the Code) then it will only be evidence that the reasonable accommodation had been denied from the outset,that no dialogue ever occurred, and that a reasonable accommodation 4 was not fairly considered as the outcome was subject to prejudgment. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and all the materials and information provided by the Applicant in the record, Applicant respectfully request that the Commission determine that Applicant's peer respite home is allowed as aGroup Living withsimilar use to a Residential Care Facilityin the RR-.5 zone, or, alternatively,the Commission shouldmake a reasonable accommodation to allow up to four people experiencing mental illness to reside in the Mountain Beaver House at 110 Terrace Street to receive respite services and housing. If a reasonable accommodation is granted, the Applicant is willing to accept the following conditions: 1.The House Rules shall state that the illegal use, manufacture, or distribution of a controlled substance shall not be allowed. 2.No new resident to the respite home shall arrive for the first timebefore 9:00 am or after 9:00 pm. 3.The House Rules shall include an evacuation and safety plan. 4.The House Rules will state that visiting hours to the respite home are9:00 amto9:00 pm. 5.House Rules shall be distributed to each resident. 6.The Applicant shall install an address sign at the top of the entry driveway with appropriate lighting that is consistent with City Code. 4 In fact, Planning Staff's willingness to suggest a code amendment as a potential resolution is acknowledgement that such change would not fundamentally undermine the zoning scheme. Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Jennifer M. Bragar 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850 AttorneyPortland, Oregon 97204 Admittedin Oregon, Washington, Tel503-894-9900 and CaliforniaFax 971-544-7236 jbragar@tomasilegal.comwww.tomasilegal.com February 3, 2025 BY EMAIL City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Applicant's Objection and Request to Reject New Evidence Improperly Submitted – City File No. PA-T1-2024-00255 DearCommissioners: As you know, this office represents Stabbin' Wagon ("Applicant"), in the above-referenced application for a reasonable accommodation and code interpretation to operate a respite home at property located at 110 Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon (the "Mountain Beaver House"). This letter is submittedas Applicant's objection and request that the Planning Commissionreject new evidence improperly submitted by project opponentsand by planning staffduring the rebuttal period. Please include this letter in the record, as Applicant is required to raise procedural errors to preserve the issue for appeal. Brown v. City of Portland, 33 Or LUBA 700, 704 (1997), and Frewingv. City of Tigard, 47 Or LUBA 331 (2004) (citing the due process protections under Fasano). When a local government receives new evidence after the evidentiary record is closed, even from City staff, the local government must either: (1) reject the new evidence as untimely; or (2) reopen the record to allow other participants an opportunity torespond to the new evidence. Ploeg v. Tillamook County, 50 Or LUBA 608, 617-618 (2005).To do otherwise constitutes a procedural error. J4J Misc PAC v. City of Jefferson, 75 Or LUBA 120, 142-143 (2017). Pursuant toORS 197.797(6)(c) andALUO 18.5.1.060(D)(6),Applicant's express request at theJanuary 14, 2025hearing,and the Planning Commission's grant of that request, all new evidence in this matter was required to be submittedinto the recordby January 22, 2025, at which point the evidentiary record was closed. Therefore, the appropriate time for project opponents and planning staff to submit new evidence related to issues raised at the hearing or already in the record was on or before January 22, 2025. However, between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025, project opponents and planning staff impermissibly submitted several pieces of new evidence that could have and should have been submitted duringthe open record period. Although these parties had the right to respond to new issues raised, there was no continuing right toinclude new evidence between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025. To extend that rightwould lead to a never-ending open record period, STABBI-LU1\\00802657.005 Total Page Number: 34 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 3, 2025 Page 2 which would inordinately delay and prolong the land use reviewperiod beyond allowable timelines and increase the burden to the Applicant who is requesting a reasonable accommodation. In all cases, the project opponents and planning staff were well aware of the content of the application and all the issuestargeted by the new evidencewere aired either in written materials before the Planning Commission at the hearing on January 14, 2025, or raised during the hearing. The improper submittals betweenJanuary 23, 2025 and 30, 2025 could all have been made by January 22, 2025. The specific objections set forth below describe where during the hearing or in the Applicant's (or record) materials the issues were on recordduring the open record period between January 14, 2025 and January 22, 2025. Importantly, Applicant has not been provided with anadequateopportunity to respondto this new evidence, prejudicing Applicant's substantial rights. Applicant's substantial rights have been prejudiced because, should the new evidence been submitted at the appropriate time, Applicant could have and would have provided a response duringthe open record period to any such evidence. The Planning Commission should resolve this procedural errorcommitted by project opponents andplanning staff and reject the following improperly submitted evidenceas part of the Commission'sdeliberative processat its meeting on February 11, 2025, prior to making its decision on the merits of the application: 1 Portions of January 29, 2025 Letter from Sydnee Dreyer (pp. 1-17) Exhibit Ais new evidence improperly submitted and should be rejected; and the link to the September 2022 Peer Run RFPG Information Session ("RFPG Information Session") on page 3 is an attempt to improperly submit new evidenceand should be rejected.Therefore, the paragraph on page 3 of the letter beginning with "The proposed use"includes arguments that incorporate and rely on Exhibit Aand should be rejected. The application materials addressed Applicant's proposed use,and any comments regarding the Applicant's operations could have been correctly raised, and any new evidence related to those comments could have been correctly submitted during the open record period that ended January 22, 2025. Exhibit Bis new evidence improperly submittedand should be rejected. Therefore, the paragraph beginning with "The applicant indicates" includesarguments that incorporate and relyon Exhibit B and should be rejected.At the hearing, Applicant explainedthat a request for a reasonable accommodationis intended to be a dialogue between the party seeking the accommodation and the governmental body responsible for considering the request. At the same time, the Applicant raised the issuethat the City has not engaged in dialogue with the Applicant. Planning Commission Hearing, January 14, 2025, minutes 31:04 - 32:25.If the project opponents represented by Sydnee Dreyer wanted to question whether a reasonable 1 The new evidence is incorporated into comments shared with the Applicant by the City on January 30, 2025 as a PDF entitled "110 Terrace St - Public Comment Rebuttals Received by 01/30/25." Page numbers identifying specific comments herein correspond to the page numbers of the PDFand should be rejected. Total Page Number: 35 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 3, 2025 Page 3 accommodation dialogue had occurred, they could have presented the evidence byJanuary 22, 2025. The January 29, 2025 Letter from Sydnee Dreyer shouldbe rejected,or a redacted version of the letter that omits the improperly submitted materialsshould be considered by the Planning Commission. Such redacted letter is attached here as Attachment 1. Attachment to January 29, 2025 Letter from Maylee Oddo and Brock Dumont(pp. 20-39) Theaforementioned letter from Sydnee Dreyeris included as an attachment to this letter. The same portions of that letter asdiscussed above should be rejected here, too. The January 29, 2025 Letter from Maylee Oddo and Brock Dumont should be rejected, or a redacted version of the letter that omits the improperly submitted materials should be considered by the Planning Commission.Such redacted letter is attached here as Attachment 2. Portions January 30, 2025 Letter from Rob Patridge (pp. 43-68) Exhibit B is new evidence improperly submittedand should be rejected. Under item 3), on page 3(Mr. Patridge's page numbering), the paragraph beginning with "While I would not recommend it,"includes arguments that improperly incorporate and relyon Exhibit Band should be rejected. Applicant's proposed number of residents and staffing requirements under the grant were discussed at length during the hearing on January 14, 2025. Planning Commission Hearing, January 14, 2025, minutes 43:58 – 45:12.This project opponent could have submitted thenew evidence contained inExhibit B during the open record period ending on January 22, 2025, just as he did with his earlier submittal of Exhibit A,which is a repeat submittal in this letter. Exhibit Cis new evidence improperly submittedand should be rejected. Under item 3), on page 4,the paragraph beginning with "Before you try to draw" includes arguments that improperly incorporate and relyon Exhibit Candshould be rejected. During the January 14, 2025 hearing, Planning Commissioners asked about Applicant's site selection process. Planning Commission Hearing, January 14, 2025, minutes 49:20 – 49:35. If this project opponent had evidence he wanted to submit about site selection, he could have done so during the open record period ending January 22, 2025. The January 30, 2025 Letter from Rob Patridgeshould be rejected, or a redacted version of the letter that omits the improperly submitted materials should be considered by the Planning Commission.Such redacted letter is attached here as Attachment 3. January 30, 2025 Memorandum of City of Ashland Planning Staff(pp. 69-70) The list of past code enforcement casesand other new factual informationon page 1 (planning staff's page numbering)is new evidence improperly submitted. On page 1, the paragraph beginning with"The City of Ashland Code Compliance Division regularly enforces" and Total Page Number: 36 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY February 3, 2025 Page 4 ending with "Traveler's Accommodations are not permitted in single family neighborhoods" includes arguments that improperlyincorporate and rely on the list of past code enforcement casesand should berejected. On page 2, the paragraph beginning with "Concerns regarding potential disparate enforcement,"also improperly includes arguments that relyon thelist of past code enforcement cases and should be rejected.Applicant raised the issue that the City does not monitor the length of occupancy by guestsor lessees of owners ofsingle-family dwellings in the City's residential zonesduring and prior to the January 14, 2024 hearing. Planning Commission Hearing, January 14, 2025, minutes 47:20 –47:44;andJanuary 14, 2025,Applicant Letter, p. 7. Planning staff could have submitted evidence intended to counter these concerns by January 22, 2025. The January 30, 2025 Memorandum of Planning Staffshould be rejected, or a redacted version of the letter that omits the improperly submitted materials should be considered by the Planning Commission.Such redacted letter is attached here as Attachment 4. Applicant requests that the Planning Commission reject the foregoing new evidence improperly submittedby project opponents and Planning Staffafter the close of the evidentiary record in order to avoid prejudicing Applicant's substantial rights. The original versions should be rejected, and the redacted versions in Attachments 1-4 could be accepted instead. Alternately, Applicant requests that the Planning Commission reopen the record to allow Applicant to respond to the new evidence submitted.However, the Applicant cautions the Commission that an unreasonable delay in granting arequest for areasonable accommodation has been interpreted by some courts as ashow of bad faith in the interactive process of negotiating an accommodation, or even an outright failure to provide an accommodation. See, e.g, Beck v. Univ. th of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7Cir. 1996) (stating that "\[a\] party that obstructs or delays the interactive process is not acting in good faith"); Valle-Arce v. P.R. Ports Auth., 651 F.3d st 190, 200-201 (1 Cir. 2011) (stating that "unreasonable delay may amount to a failure to provide reasonable accommodations); see also guidance in the record attached to the January 22, 2025, Assistance City Attorney Memo stating that local governments should review reasonable accommodation requests through mechanisms "that operate promptly and efficiently, without imposing significant costs or delays." Reopening the record at this time will prolong review and cause undue delay to Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation to provide housing and peer respite service to members of the Ashland community experiencing mental illness, which is a recognized disability under the FHA and ADA. Further, ORS 197.797(6)(c)and ALUO 18.5.1.060(D)(6) provide a particular format and timeline which the Planning Commissionshould adhere to. No reason has been given for re- opening the record or deviating from the established protocol in this case. To the extent the Planning Commission gives special indulgence and extra opportunity for objectors to the present application that it does not routinely extend to developments not involving people with disabilities, that effort to expand the record appears to be discriminatory. The ADA and the FHA prohibit requiring one procedurefor people with disabilities "but notof other people," nor may the Planning Commissionapply a "procedure, neutral on its face . . . in a discriminatory manner." United States v. Vill. of Palatine, Ill., 37 F.3d 1230, 1234 (7th Cir. 1994). Total Page Number: 37 Total Page Number: 38 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 17 Total Page Number: 39 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 17 Total Page Number: 40 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 17 Total Page Number: 41 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 17 Total Page Number: 42 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 17 Total Page Number: 43 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 17 Total Page Number: 44 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 17 Total Page Number: 45 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 17 Total Page Number: 46 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 17 Total Page Number: 47 Attachment 1 Page 10 of 17 Total Page Number: 48 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 17 Total Page Number: 49 Attachment 1 Page 12 of 17 Total Page Number: 50 Attachment 1 Page 13 of 17 Total Page Number: 51 Attachment 1 Page 14 of 17 Total Page Number: 52 Attachment 1 Page 15 of 17 Total Page Number: 53 Attachment 1 Page 16 of 17 Total Page Number: 54 Attachment 1 Page 17 of 17 Total Page Number: 55 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 20 Total Page Number: 56 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 20 Total Page Number: 57 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 20 Total Page Number: 58 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 20 Total Page Number: 59 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 20 Total Page Number: 60 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 20 Total Page Number: 61 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 20 Total Page Number: 62 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 20 Total Page Number: 63 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 20 Total Page Number: 64 Attachment 2 Page 10 of 20 Total Page Number: 65 Attachment 2 Page 11 of 20 Total Page Number: 66 Attachment 2 Page 12 of 20 Total Page Number: 67 Attachment 2 Page 13 of 20 Total Page Number: 68 Attachment 2 Page 14 of 20 Total Page Number: 69 Attachment 2 Page 15 of 20 Total Page Number: 70 Attachment 2 Page 16 of 20 Total Page Number: 71 Attachment 2 Page 17 of 20 Total Page Number: 72 Attachment 2 Page 18 of 20 Total Page Number: 73 Attachment 2 Page 19 of 20 Total Page Number: 74 Attachment 2 Page 20 of 20 Total Page Number: 75 Attachment 3 Page 1 of 26 Total Page Number: 76 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 26 Total Page Number: 77 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 26 Total Page Number: 78 Attachment 3 Page 4 of 26 Total Page Number: 79 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 26 Total Page Number: 80 Attachment 3 Page 6 of 26 Total Page Number: 81 Attachment 3 Page 7 of 26 Total Page Number: 82 Attachment 3 Page 8 of 26 Total Page Number: 83 Attachment 3 Page 9 of 26 Total Page Number: 84 Attachment 3 Page 10 of 26 Total Page Number: 85 Attachment 3 Page 11 of 26 Total Page Number: 86 Attachment 3 Page 12 of 26 Total Page Number: 87 Attachment 3 Page 13 of 26 Total Page Number: 88 Attachment 3 Page 14 of 26 Total Page Number: 89 Attachment 3 Page 15 of 26 Total Page Number: 90 Attachment 3 Page 16 of 26 Total Page Number: 91 Attachment 3 Page 17 of 26 Total Page Number: 92 Attachment 3 Page 18 of 26 Total Page Number: 93 Attachment 3 Page 19 of 26 Total Page Number: 94 Attachment 3 Page 20 of 26 Total Page Number: 95 Attachment 3 Page 21 of 26 Total Page Number: 96 Attachment 3 Page 22 of 26 Total Page Number: 97 Attachment 3 Page 23 of 26 Total Page Number: 98 Attachment 3 Page 24 of 26 Total Page Number: 99 Attachment 3 Page 25 of 26 Total Page Number: 100 Attachment 3 Page 26 of 26 Total Page Number: 101 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 102 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2 Total Page Number: 103 Total Page Number: 104 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 105 Total Page Number: 106 Total Page Number: 107 Total Page Number: 108 Jennifer M. Bragar 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850 AttorneyPortland, Oregon 97204 Admitted in Oregon, Washington, Tel503-894-9900 and CaliforniaFax 971-544-7236 jbragar@tomasilegal.comwww.tomasilegal.com January 22, 2025 BY EMAIL City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re:Applicant's Open Record Submission - City File No. PA-T1-2024-00255 DearCommissioners: As you know, this office represents Stabbin' Wagon ("Applicant"), in the above-referenced application for a reasonable accommodation and code interpretationto operate a respite home at property located at 110 Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon (the "Mountain Beaver House"). Applicant wishes to provide peer respite housing and services to four members of the community experiencing mental illness at any giventime, and to use the Mountain Beaver House as a stable, safe environment for providing such services. This letter is submitted in further support of the application.Please include this letter in the record. I.A peer respite at Mountain Beaver House will be a benefit to the community. th According to the 2024 State of Mental Health in America Report,Oregon ranked 47 out of 50 states in terms of access to care compared to the prevalence of mental illness. Attachment 1.In Governor Kotek's2025 State of the State address, she acknowledged the significant work that needs to be done to easeOregon's ongoing mental health crisis. Attachment 2, pp. 2-3.In particular, the Governor highlighted residential and community-based providers as a means for increasingcapacity for mental health and substance abuse treatmentand as an alternative to hospitalization or homelessness. Attachment 2, p. 3. Mountain Beaver House meets that need. Turning to Ashland, between January 2024 and November 2024, 29 community members attempted or died by suicide, 15 community members overdosed, some fatally, and 5 community members were placed on psychiatric hold. Attachment 3.Inresponse to inadequate access to mental and substance use disorder treatment,Ashland City Council's 2024 Homeless Service Masterplan Report proposes that the City "establish medical respite beds (step down housing after hospitalization/treatment)" and "make zoning changes to facilitate innovation around service provision." Attachment 4. A primary aim of peer respite is to support people through difficult times while avoiding hospitalization and other invasive and life-disrupting interventions—just as state and local leaders Total Page Number: 109 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY January 22, 2025 Page 2 1 have called for. See Attachment 5,excerpts from Peer Respite Handbookwhich is the guidebook for Mountain Beaver House staffanda nationally recognized recovery model to help people who are experiencing mental illness, and Attachment 6, Oregon Health Authority ("OHA") Grant Agreement, p. 6. The proposed Mountain Beaver House peer respite will help to close the immense gap between people experiencing mental illness in solitude and available care options. The Mountain Beaver House peer respite will also providelinks to further assistance that Ashland community membersso truly need.As Ms. Neisewander'stestimony at the hearing expressed, even just a single day can make a significant difference in the lives and outcomes for people experiencing mental illness. The location of Mountain Beaver House is essential to Applicant's mission of providing respite to its clients. People stay at peer respites for any number of reasons:recenttrauma and loss; avoiding hospitalization and overwhelmed by distressing urges or disturbing or suicidal thoughts; beingoverwhelmed by their current living situation; or perhaps they are feeling very alone in the world and wanting to be around caring people.Attachment 5, pp. 8-10.As recognized by Oregon's legislature, respite homes have been created to support people with disabilities in high need of care and treatment. House Bill 2980 (2021). In all cases, it is important for respite to occur is astable, safe, and homelike environment such as exists at Mountain Beaver House, to help people who are experiencing mental illness.Attachment 6, p. 6. This location in a quiet, residential neighborhood with proximity to Lithia Park is ideal in that it facilitates recovery through respite activities such as hiking, biking, gardening, getting out into nature, doing yoga or meditating,andtaking space to clear one's thoughts. Attachment 5, p. 10,andshown in photographs of Mountain Beaver House in Attachment 7.This setting is necessary for the respite environment to allow residents to stabilize their mental state and to have a place to live. Siting a peer respite at Mountain Beaver Housewill be a benefitfor the community. Residents of peer respite homes have a relatively low likelihood of risky or unsafe behavior because their presence and treatment is voluntarily and the relationship established between residents, care providers, and the broader community is one of mutuality and respect. Attachment 5,p. 5. Peer respite clients are community members, and allowing them to remain a part of the community fabric through difficult times creates safer, not more dangerous, neighborhoods. Attachment 5, p. 7. As theexcerpts from thePeer Respite Handbook and the photographs inAttachment 7 show, the Mountain Beaver House peer respitewill provideexactly what mental health professionals and leaders describe as needed services and housing for people experiencing mental illness, and will be a positive contribution to the overall wellbeing ofthe neighborhood and community.The fact that 110 Terrace Street, Ashland,is available for such use and fits the respite environment so well is a gift for Ashland, andthe City should grant Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation to allow peer respite at Mountain Beaver House. /// 1 Davidow, Sera. Peer Respite Handbook: A Guide to Understanding and Developing Supportive PeerRespites. Western MassachusettsRecovery Learning Center Community. Denver: Outskirts Press, 2017. Total Page Number: 110 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY January 22, 2025 Page 3 II. The City must respondwith flexibilityto Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation. The staff report ignores thatthe Mountain Beaver House is a dwelling. Both Applicant and Disability Rights Oregon("DRO") have cautioned this Commission that the City has an obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Fair Housing Act ("FHA")to make reasonable accommodations to enable people with disabilities, including those experiencing mental illness, to live in the RR-.5 zone. City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, th 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9Cir. 1994), aff'd sub nom; City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. th 725 (1995); Pac. Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142,1157 n.15(9 Cir. 2013); and seeDRO's January 13, 2025 letter(the "DRO Letter"), p. 2. The City has not engaged in a dialogue withApplicantabout therequest for reasonable accommodation to reach a solution that allows for flexibility toenable people with disabilities to live in the RR-.5 zone. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7).It is not too late for the Commission to work with Applicant to develop amutual solutionand address this necessary request to allow therapeutic respite at the Mountain Beaver House location. If after reading all of this information, the Commission (or staff) have any questions about how the respite homewill operate, please let us know and we will respond. Again, areasonable accommodation request involves a conversation, so the strict confines of land use review processes do not foreclose continuing the conversation, notwithstanding the open record, response, and final written argument period currently applied to this application review process. III. The City may not rely on the length of occupancy, traffic, or parking requirements as grounds for denial of Applicant's request for a reasonable accommodation where those characteristics are indistinguishable from those impacts fromuses permitted outright in the RR.-5 zone. The City cannot demonstrate how Applicant's requested modifications would fundamentally alter the essential nature of the City's zoning scheme. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7). As Applicant has previously explained,in its January 14, 2025,letter the Planning Commission, the Staff Report fails to meet this requirement. Applicant's proposal is for the residential use of an existing house. Housing four people in an existing house does not fundamentally alter the rural residential zoning scheme because it makes anticipated use of an existing property for continued residential purposes. In addition to the reasonspreviously articulated, Applicant's proposed use is not meaningfully distinguishable from uses permitted outright in the RR-.5 zone for the following reasons. /// Total Page Number: 111 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY January 22, 2025 Page 4 A. The City does not monitor the length of occupancy forresidents insingle-family homes. As noted in the DRO Letter, "the \[C\]ity's definition of a single-family dwelling does notrequire a long- term occupancy. Nothing in the code clearly prevents homeowners from leasing or subleasing their home for short periods of time. Nothing in the code clearly prevents homeowners from leasing or subleasing their home for short periods of time. A quick review of VRBO and AirBnB postings shows dozens of homes for rent for short periods of time in residential zones of Ashland, either where traveler’s accommodations are prohibited or where conditional use permits are required but are not listed in the advertisement. Taking steps to enforce a short-term occupancy requirement selectively against homes for people with disabilities violates the FHA. Pac. Shores Properties, 730 F.3d at 1164." DRO Letter, p. 5, see also Attachment 8. Applicant reiterates DRO's observation that the City does not monitor the length of occupancy of single-family homes with regard to leases and subleases. Applicant also adds that the City does not monitor other forms of temporary occupancies of single-family homes, such as overnight visitors—guests from out-of-town, romantic partners staying the night, and children's sleepovers.As described at the hearing, the fundamental nature of the use is indistinguishable from other residential uses except that the people experiencing mental illness require respite 2 workers on site to enjoy the residence in the RR-.5 zone. B. Applicant's proposed use will not result in greater trafficthan a single-family home. The Applicant proposes to allow four residents to live in Mountain Beaver House, coinciding with the number of bedrooms in the house. Generally, the comments submitted voicing concerns related to increased traffic do not offer any evidence to show a greater impact than from any other house in the RR-.5 zone. Some comments point to visits from police, fire trucks, and emergency medical services. It is unreasonable to assume that these types of visits will happen with sufficient frequency to cause significant traffic concerns, or at any greater frequency than any other residential use in the zone. Other comments point to food service,property maintenance, and family visits. These comments ignorethe fact that single-family homes also receive a variety of deliveries—from Amazon, from FedEx, from Uber Eats—all with unregulated frequency. Such comments also ignore the fact that single-family homes also require maintenance from contractors and that single families receive visitors, family and otherwise. The record does not support a claim that operating a peer respite at Mountain Beaver House will cause more traffic impacts than other residential uses in the RR-.5 zone. 2 As Applicant stated at the hearing, the Traveler's Accommodation comparison is a straw man intended to transform a reasonable accommodation for housing into an economic development endeavor. Attached is Ordinance 3108, adopting the City's Traveler's Accommodation rules, which seek to prevent these short-term vacation rental type uses from changing the character of the residential neighborhood. Applied to this context, "neighborhood character" is coded language used to keep people with disabilities out of residential neighborhoods. Attachment 9. Total Page Number: 112 T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY January 22, 2025 Page 5 C. The Mountain Beaver House has sufficient onsite parking for Applicant's proposed use. When compared to parking requirements for related uses, Applicant's proposed use would require a maximum of one space per three beds/rooms.ALUO 18.4.3.040 (providing parking requirements for convalescent homes), or two parking spots. A single-family residence has no maximum number of parking space limitation. ALUO 18.4.3.040. Given that Applicant has agreed to limit the number of residents to four at any given time, the total required number of parking spaces is two, if using the convalescent home measurement. Even assuming eachresident and staff member requires their own parking space,there is more than adequate space on the property to accommodate six vehicles, two in the carport and at least four alongside the driveway. Attachment 7, pp. 6-7.The property can comfortably accommodate at least sixparked vehicles without interfering with the driveway or neighboring roadway. Significantly, there are no parking requirements for single-family homes. ALUO 18.4.3.040. However, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a single family could require six parking spaces at agiven time. For example, a couple and their two teenage children, each of whom own a car, live in a house together.The couple has developed, as of right, an Accessory Dwelling Uniton their propertyforone partner'saging parents, each of whom own a car. More common, a family owning two cars frequently has four guests, all of whom arrive in a separate vehicle. The record does not support a claim that operating a peer respite at Mountain Beaver House will cause more parking impacts than other residential uses in the RR-.5 zone. IV. Property value is not a criterionfor approval of this application, but even if it were, group homes have been shown not to impact property values. During the public hearing, opponents of Applicant's reasonable accommodation request made statements suggesting thattheir concerns about the operation of a peer respite at Mountain Beaver House are rooted in the perception that such recoveryhousing may decrease property values. Applicant provides the following evidence of peer-reviewed studies performed that show that group homes providing services to people with mental illness had no adverse effect on property values in surrounding neighborhoods. Attachment 10 and Attachment 11.These studies support that the Mountain Beaver House proposal for respite willnot adversely impact neighboring property values and that public concerns regarding property values do not match the data. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully reiterates its request for a reasonable accommodation. The Planning Commission should approve the reasonable accommodation request to allow up to four people experiencingmental illness to reside in the Mountain Beaver Total Page Number: 113 Total Page Number: 114 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 Total Page Number: 115 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3 Acknowledgments Mental Health America (MHA) was founded in 1909 and is the leading national nonprofit dedicated to the promotion of mental health, well-being, and illness prevention. Our work is informed, designed, and led by the lived experience of those most affected. Operating nationally and in communities across the country, Mental Health America advocates for closing the mental health equity gap, while increasing nationwide awareness and understanding through public education, direct services, tools, and research, making MHA a national standard bearer in public mental health advocacy and community-based solutions. MHA dedicates this report to mental health advocates who fight tirelessly to help expand access to care and reduce disparities and inequities for people with mental health concerns. To our affiliates, thank you for your incredible state-level advocacy and dedication to promoting recovery and protecting the rights of all. Special thanks to: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), and the Department of Education (DoE), who every year invest time and money to collect the national survey data, without which this report would not be possible. This report was researched, written, and prepared by Maddy Reinert, Danielle Fritze and Theresa Nguyen. Citation: Reinert, M, Fritze, D & Nguyen, T (July 2024). 4.Mental Health America, Alexandria VA. 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 Alexandria, VA 22314-1520 www.mhanational.org Copyright © 2024 by Mental Health America, Inc. Total Page Number: 116 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3 Overall Ranking State Rank Massachusetts 1 An overall ranking of 1-13 indicates lower prevalence of mental illness and Connecticut 2 Maine 3 higher rates of access to care. An overall ranking of 39-51 indicates higher New York 4 prevalence of mental illness and lower rates of access to care. The New Jersey 5 combined scores of all 15 measures make up the overall ranking. The District of Columbia 6 overall ranking includes both adult and youth measures, as well as Vermont 7 prevalence and access to care measures. New Hampshire 8 Hawaii 9 Pennsylvania 10 The 15 measures that make up the overall ranking include: Michigan 11 Virginia 12 1.Adults with Any Mental Illness (AMI) Wisconsin 13 2.Adults with Substance Use Disorder in the Past Year Maryland 14 Illinois 15 3.Adults with Serious Thoughts of Suicide Rhode Island 16 4.Youth with at Least One Major Depressive Episode (MDE) in California 17 the Past Year Delaware 18 5.Youth with Substance Use Disorder in the Past Year Kentucky 19 6.Youth with Serious Thoughts of Suicide Ohio 20 Florida 21 7.Youth (Ages 6-17) Flourishing Kansas 22 8.Adults with SUD Who Needed But Did Not Receive Minnesota 23 Treatment Indiana 24 9.Adults with AMI Who Are Uninsured Iowa 25 10.Adults Reporting 14+ Mentally Unhealthy Days a Month Georgia 26 Utah 27 Who Could Not See a Doctor Due to Costs South Dakota 28 11.Adults with AMI with Private Insurance That Did Not Cover North Carolina 29 Mental or Emotional Problems South Carolina 30 12.Youth with MDE Who Did Not Receive Mental Health Arkansas 31 Services Nebraska 32 13.Youth with Private Insurance That Did Not Cover Mental or Louisiana 33 Mississippi 34 Emotional Problems New Mexico 35 14.Students (K+) Identified with Emotional Disturbance for an Texas 36 Individualized Education Program West Virginia 37 15.Mental Health Workforce Availability Oklahoma 38 Alabama 39 Wyoming 40 The chart is a visual representation of the Washington 41 sum of the scores for each state. It provides Tennessee 42 North Dakota 43 an opportunity to see the difference between Missouri 44 ranked states. For example, Massachusetts Idaho 45 (ranked one) has a score that is lower (better Colorado 46 than the average) than Virginia (ranked 12). Oregon 47 Ohio (ranked 20) has a score that is closest Alaska 48 Montana 49 to zero (the average). Arizona 50 Nevada 51 ЊЎ͵ЉЉ ЊЉ͵ЉЉ Ў͵ЉЉ Љ͵ЉЉ ΏЎ͵ЉЉ ΏЊЉ͵ЉЉ 9 Total Page Number: 117 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 6 Total Page Number: 118 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 6 Total Page Number: 119 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 6 Total Page Number: 120 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 6 Total Page Number: 121 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 6 Total Page Number: 122 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 6 Total Page Number: 123 Attachment 3 Page 1 of 4 Data collected from Ashland Police Department by Ms. Debbie Neisewander January 2024-November 2024 January 2024 Overdose (2) 1/13-Garfield St. non-fatal 1/22100blk Helman fatal Suicide Attempt (4) 1/15-400 blk Stadium 1/20-100 blk Hargadine 1/21-2300 blk Ashland St. 1/29-400 blk Stadium Sudden Death(2) 1/26-600 blk E Main 1/29-600 blk Liberty February 2024 Overdose (3) 2/17-1100 blk E Main 2/26-2200 blk Ashland St. 2/10-0 blk Central Ave non-fatal (Narcan) redacted info Suicide Attempt(4) 2/6location redacted 2/19-location redacted 2/24-location redacted 2/27-location redacted Sudden Death (3) 2/1-200 blk VanNess 2/25200 blk Walker 2/27500 blk N Main Psych Hold (1) 2/7location redacted March 2024 Overdose (2) 3/71400 blk Ashland St no info Total Page Number: 124 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 4 3/291500 blk Siskiyou non-fatal/Narcan Suicide Attempt (8) 3/6 800 blk Siskiyou 3/6300 blk W Nevada 3/15100 blk Lincoln attempt 3/18200 blk Lithia Way 3/23700 blk Ashland St 3/252300 blk Siskiyou 3/26300 blk Engle 3/29400 blk Siskiyou Sudden Death (4) 3/91500 blk Oregon St 3/10300 blk Holly 3/19500 blk Faith 3/24500 blk Laurel April 2024 Overdose (1) 4/101200 blk Siskiyou non-fatal/Narcan May 2024 Suicide/Attempt (1) 5/19400 blk Stadium transported Overdose (1) 5/271000 blkOak Knoll no further information Psych Hold (1) 5/19500 blk Siskiyou June 2024 Overdose (3) 6/17100 blk Lincoln Narcan no information 24-1288 6/8-3rd/ASt. no information -24-1217 6/242300 blk Ashland St. 24-1345 Suicide/Attempt(5) 6/70 blk Winburn Way -24-1207 Total Page Number: 125 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 4 6/11300 blk Engle 24-1245 6/1300 blk Engle 24-1262 6/14100 blk Lincoln 24-1271 6/201300 blk Quincy St 24-1310 Sudden Death (6) 6/7100 blk S. Pacific Hwy 24-1215 6/15300 blk Oxford 24-1279 6/16100 blk Lincoln 24-1287 6/18600 blk Oak St 24-1298 6/20100 blk Maple 24-1313 6/30100 blk California A/M 24-1382 Psych Hold (1) 6/4400 blk Chestnut 24-1190 July 2024 Suicide (3) 7/6200 blk Siskiyou 24-1426 7/7Oak Knoll/Salishan Court 7/1124-14662200 blk Ashland St Sudden Death(4) 7/2400 blk N Main 24-1396 7/11100 blk Mtn View 24-1465 7/14300 blk Oxford 24-1484(12 y/o boy) 7/172300 blk Black Oak 24-1504 Overdose (0) August 2024 Suicide (1) 8/241600 blk Ashland St 24-1778 Sudden Death (2) 8/211800 blk Ventura 24-1749 8/25200 blk N Mtn 24-1780 Overdose (2) 8/52300 blk Ashland St 24-1647 8/131600 blk Ashland St 24-1698 Total Page Number: 126 Attachment 3 Page 4 of 4 Mental Health Hold (2) 8/15Garfield Park Becca Battaglia 24-1711 8/13200 blk Grant St. 24-1771 CPR (1) 8/7Blue Sky Lane 24-1655 Person Down (1) 8/9200 blk Pioneer24-1666 September 2024 Overdose (1) 9/24300 blk High St 24-1986 Sudden Death (2) 9/20800 blk Oak St. 24-1954 9/212200 blk Ashland St 24-1968 October 2024 Suicide (1) 10/50blk Garfield 24-2063 Sudden Death (4) 10/2100 blk W Hersey 24-2050 10/2100blk Logan 24-2053 10/70 blk Logan 24-2078 10/181100 blk Siskiyou 24-2136 November 2024 Suicide (2) 11/2400 blk Park Ridge Place 24-2226 11/7300 blk Grant St 24-2260 Sudden Death (3) 11/21500 blk Clover Lane 24-2336 11/23800 blk Plum Ridge 24-2356 11/250 blk Garfield St. 24-2366 Total Page Number: 127 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 5 Total Page Number: 128 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 5 Below are excerpts from the 2022 report to the President from the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) identifying the needs and challenges to addressing the issues of homelessness. Communities face many challenges in the work to prevent and end homelessness, including: Lack of Housing Supply: Housing ultimately ends homelessness, but prior to the pandemic, the U.S. lacked an estimated 7 million affordable and available homes for renters with the lowest incomes, disproportionately impacting people of color especially Black/African Americans. Rise of Rent Amid Slow Wage Growth: Wages continue to fail to keep up with rising rents. According to a 2021 report, in no state can a person working full-time at the federal minimum wage afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent. As a result, 70% of the lowest-wage households routinely spend more than half of their income on rent, placing them at risk of homelessness if any unexpected expenses or emergencies arise. Inadequate Access to Quality Health Care, Education, and Supportive Services: Low-barrier, culturally and linguistically competent, and accessible supportive servicesincluding mental and substance use disorder treatment often are not available or funded at a level to meet the need, especially in rural areas. People seeking these services may face long waits or may not receive them at all, and service providers may only be reimbursed for a fraction of the cost of care. Limited Alternatives to Unsheltered Homelessness: The number of people living in tents and vehicles continues to rise. In many communities, a rise in encampments has resulted in the criminalization of homelessness through sigh and distrust; breakdowns in connection with outreach teams, health care facilities, and housing providers; and overall disruption to the work of ending homelessness. : The pandemic has strained the capacity of service providersmany of whom earn wages low enough to qualify them for the programs they help administer. Many are overwhelmed and exhausted from the pressure and trauma associated with supporting not only the people they serve but also themselves and their families during a sustained global pandemic. As a result, many programs experience high rates of staff turnover, which can disrupt continuity of care and limit positive outcomes. Total Page Number: 129 Attachment 4 Page 3 of 5 Total Page Number: 130 Attachment 4 Page 4 of 5 Total Page Number: 131 Attachment 4 Page 5 of 5 Total Page Number: 132 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 14 Total Page Number: 133 Attachment 5 Page 2 of 14 - Total Page Number: 134 Attachment 5 Page 3 of 14 MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS -- - - -- - 24 Total Page Number: 135 Attachment 5 Page 4 of 14 - -- 25 Total Page Number: 136 Attachment 5 Page 5 of 14 - -- 26 Total Page Number: 137 Attachment 5 Page 6 of 14 - 27 Total Page Number: 138 Attachment 5 Page 7 of 14 28 Total Page Number: 139 Attachment 5 Page 8 of 14 DAY-TO-DAY STRUCTURE - - 37 Total Page Number: 140 Attachment 5 Page 9 of 14 - 38 Total Page Number: 141 Attachment 5 Page 10 of 14 - - 39 Total Page Number: 142 Attachment 5 Page 11 of 14 -- 40 Total Page Number: 143 Attachment 5 Page 12 of 14 - 41 Total Page Number: 144 Attachment 5 Page 13 of 14 - 42 Total Page Number: 145 Attachment 5 Page 14 of 14 WHO USES A PEER RESPITE? -- 43 Total Page Number: 146 Attachment 6 Page 1 of 42 Grant Agreement Number 180848 STATE OF OREGON GRANT AGREEMENT You can get thisdocumentin other languages, large print, braille, or a format you prefer free of charge. Contact the Agreement Administrator at the contact information found below. We accept all relay calls. This Agreement is between the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Oregon Health Authority, hereinafter referred to as Ð OHA,Ñ and Stabbin Wagon PO Box 8814 Medford, Oregon 97504 Attn: Melissa Jones Telephone: (541) 292-7016 E-mail address: info@mountainbeaverhouse.org hereinafter referred to as Ð Recipient.Ñ The program to be supported under this Agreement relates principally to OHAÓ s Health Systems Behavioral Health Adult Mental Health Program 500 Summer Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Agreement Administrator: Kendall Burns or delegate Telephone: (971) 239-6455 E-mail address: kendall.f.burns@oha.oregon.gov 1. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall become effective on the later of: (I) the last date all required signatures in Section 6., below have been obtained, or (II) November 1, 2023, provided it is (i) signed by all parties on or before such date, and (ii) when required, approved in writing by the Oregon Department of Justice on or before such date, and (iii) when required, approved in writing by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. Unless extended or terminated earlier in accordance with its terms, this Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2025. Agreement termination shall not extinguish or prejudice OHAÓs right to enforce this Agreement with respect to any default by Recipient that has not been cured. 180848/LOB Page 1 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 147 Attachment 6 Page 2 of 42 2. Agreement Documents. a. This Agreement consists of this document and includes the following listed exhibits which are incorporated into this Agreement: (1) Exhibit A, Part 1: Program Description (2) Exhibit A, Part 2: Disbursement and Financial Reporting (3) Exhibit A Part 3: Special Provisions (4) Exhibit B: Standard Terms and Conditions (5) Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements (6) Exhibit D: Recipient Budget (7) Attachment 1 Template Declaration of Restrictive Covenants There are no other Agreement documents unless specifically referenced and incorporated into this Agreement. b. In the event of a conflict between two or more of the documents comprising this Agreement, the language in the document with the highest precedence shall control. The documents comprising this Agreement shall be in the following descending order of precedence: this Agreement less all exhibits, Exhibits B, A, D and C. 3. Grant Disbursement Generally. The maximum not-to-exceed amount payable to Recipient under this Agreement, which includes any allowable expenses, is $1,500,000.00. OHA will not disburse grant to Recipient in excess of the not-to-exceed amount and will not disburse grant until this Agreement has been signed by all parties. OHA will disburse the grant to Recipient as described in Exhibit A. 4. Contractor or Subrecipient Determination. In accordance with the State Controller Ó s Oregon Accounting Manual, policy 30.40.00.104, OHAÓ s determination is that: Recipient is a subrecipient Recipient is a contractor Not applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #(s) of federal funds to be paid through this Agreement: N/A 180848/LOB Page 2 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 148 Attachment 6 Page 3 of 42 5. Recipient Information and Certification. a. Recipient Information. Recipient shall provide the information set forth below. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Recipient Name (exactly as filed with the IRS): Street address: City, state, zip code: Email address: Telephone: ( ) Fax: ( ) Is Recipient a nonresident alien, as defined in 26 USC § 7701(b)(1), a foreign person, or a foreign entity? (Check one box): YES NO Business Designation. (Check one box): Professional Corporation Nonprofit Corporation Limited Partnership Limited Liability Company Limited Liability Partnership Sole Proprietorship Corporation Partnership Other Recipient Proof of Insurance. Recipient shall provide the following information upon submission of the signed Agreement. All insurance listed herein and required by Exhibit C, must be in effect prior to Agreement execution. Professional Liability Insurance Company: ___________________________________________ Policy #: ______________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ Commercial General Liability Insurance Company: ____________________________________ Policy #: ______________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ Automobile Liability Insurance Company: ___________________________________________ Policy #: ______________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ WorkersÓ Compensation: Does Recipient have any subject workers, as defined in ORS 656.027? (Check one box): YES NO If YES, provide the following information: WorkersÓ Compensation Insurance Company: ________________________________________ Policy #: ______________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ b. Certification. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, by signature on this Agreement, the undersigned hereby certifies under penalty of perjury that: (1) Recipient is in compliance with all insurance requirements in Exhibit C of this Agreement and notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, Recipient shall deliver to the OHA Agreement Administrator (see page one of this Agreement) the required Certificate(s) of Insurance within 30 180848/LOB Page 3 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 149 Attachment 6 Page 4 of 42 days of execution of this Agreement. By certifying compliance with all insurance as required by this Agreement, Recipient acknowledges it may be found in breach of the Agreement for failure to obtain required insurance. Recipient may also be in breach of the Agreement for failure to provide Certificate(s) of Insurance as required and to maintain required coverage for the duration of the Agreement; (2) Recipient acknowledges that the Oregon False Claims Act, ORS 180.750 to 180.785, applies to any ÐclaimÑ (as defined by ORS 180.750) that is made by (or caused by) the Recipient and that pertains to this Agreement or to the project for which the grant activities are being performed. Recipient certifies that no claim described in the previous sentence is or will be a Ðfalse claimÑ (as defined by ORS 180.750) or an act prohibited by ORS 180.755. Recipient further acknowledges that in addition to the remedies under this Agreement, if it makes (or causes to be made) a false claim or performs (or causes to be performed) an act prohibited under the Oregon False Claims Act, the Oregon Attorney General may enforce the liabilities and penalties provided by the Oregon False Claims Act against the Recipient; (3) The information shown in this Section 5.a. Ð Recipient Information Ñ, is RecipientÓs true, accurate and correct information; (4) To the best of the undersignedÓs knowledge, Recipient has not discriminated against and will not discriminate against minority, women or emerging small business enterprises certified under ORS 200.055 in obtaining any required subcontracts; (5) Recipient and RecipientÓs employees and agents are not included on the list titled ÐSpecially Designated NationalsÑ maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury and currently found at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx; (6) Recipient is not listed on the non-procurement portion of the General Service AdministrationÓs ÐList of Parties Excluded from Federal procurement or Non-procurement ProgramsÑ found at: https://www.sam.gov/SAM; (7) Recipient is not subject to backup withholding because: (a) Recipient is exempt from backup withholding; (b) Recipient has not been notified by the IRS that Recipient is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends; or (c) The IRS has notified Recipient that Recipient is no longer subject to backup withholding. (8) RecipientÓs Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) or Social Security Number (SSN) provided to OHA is true and accurate. If this 180848/LOB Page 4 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 150 Attachment 6 Page 5 of 42 information changes, Recipient shall provide OHA with the new FEIN or SSN within 10 days. RECIPIENT, BY EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT RECIPIENT HAS READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 6. Signatures. This Agreement and any subsequent amendments may be executed in several counterparts, all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of the Agreement and any amendments so executed shall constitute an original. Stabbin Wagon By: Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Date State of Oregon, acting by and through its Oregon Health Authority By: Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Date Approved by: Interim Director, OHA Health Systems Division By: Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Date Approved for Legal Sufficiency: Approved via email by Shannon OÓFallon, Senior Assistant Attorney General on October 27, 2023; email in agreement file. 180848/LOB Page 5 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 151 Attachment 6 Page 6 of 42 EXHIBIT A Part 1 Program Description 1. Purpose. This work will implement House Bill 2980 (2021), codified at ORS 430.275, which established and funded four Peer-Run Respite Programs in Oregon. Programs will be located in the following areas of the state: The Portland Metro Area, Central or Eastern Oregon, Southern Oregon, and the coastal region; this specific Program will operate in the Southern area of Oregon. This Program will provide Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Services. The Program must provide support for up to six individuals for up to two weeks at a time. ORS 430.275(2)(a). 2. Program Description and Overview. Peer-Run Respites are voluntary, non-clinical, short-term residential peer support provided in a home-like setting to individuals in mental or emotional distress whose experiences may lead to the need for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital services. These supports are provided by a peer run organization and directed and delivered by individuals with lived experience in coping with, seeking recovery from or overcoming challenges related to mental health or trauma responses. Peer-Run Respites are fully independent, separate, and autonomous from other mental health agencies and the majority of individuals who oversee the organizationÓs operations have received behavioral health services and/or have lived experience with behavioral health needs. Persons of color often face historical trauma and structural racism in accessing traditional medical settings. Individuals, including persons of color and people who experience behavioral health needs, who are not comfortable engaging in services or treatment at traditional medical facilities may feel more comfortable accessing support in a peer respite setting, resulting in more individuals receiving the support they need to live independently in their communities. By providing a place for individuals to receive support before they reach a crisis point, this could result in reduced numbers of individuals ending up in the hospital or jail Î two outcomes that disproportionately impact communities of color. Peer-Run Respite Programs will complement existing local crises response services. OHA will collaborate with county behavioral health departments, contractors, and other mental health agencies and organizations to incorporate peer run respites into the overall continuum of care. 180848/LOB Page 6 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 152 Attachment 6 Page 7 of 42 3. Definitions. The terms below shall have the following meanings: a. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Services means the provision of effective, equitable, understandable, and respectful quality care and services that are responsive to diverse cultural beliefs and practices, preferred languages, health literacy, and other communication needs. b. Gender-affirming and responsive services means services that holistically attend to but are not limited to transgender, gender-nonconforming, non-binary, Two Spirit and intersex peopleÓs physical, mental, and social health needs and well- being while respectfully affirming their gender identity. Gender affirming care is sensitive and responsive to an individualÓs gender identities and expressions. Gender affirming care complies with non-discrimination laws. c. Guest means an individual with mental illness or trauma response symptoms who is experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional pain. d. LGBTQIA2S+ affirming and inclusive services means services that proactively create an environment that intentionally and purposefully supports members of the LGBTQIA2S+ community and are services that treat LGBTQIA2S+ community members with respect, dignity and provide equitable access to services, supports, and opportunities in a manner that sustains their whole selves. e. Peer-run organization has the meaning given that term in ORS 430.275. f. Peer Respite Services has the meaning given that term ORS 430.275. g. Recovery Principles means a set of principles and values that are holistic, strength-based, mutually supportive, respectful, individualized and person- directed, and that support self-direction, empowerment, responsibility, and hope for people. h. Trauma Informed Practices means strengths-based practices that seek to understand trauma and how it impacts peopleÓs lives. Trauma-informed practices emphasize physical, psychological, and emotional safety for everyone and supports people in having choice and control of their own lives. 4. Goals and Objectives. The funding provided through this Grant Agreement will allow Recipient to provide voluntary, non-clinical, peer-delivered services for crisis support in a home like setting, provided by people who have lived experience with mental health services, to guests across Oregon who need a safe space to seek support, stabilize, and/or coordinate higher levels of psychiatric care. 180848/LOB Page 7 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 153 Attachment 6 Page 8 of 42 By creating a safe space and resource for guests who do not need a hospital level or emergency department level of support will create a lower cost, person centered, and trauma informed alternative to emergency room visits or hospitalization for individuals experiencing mental distress. 5. General Grant Activities. Recipient must: a. Collect data on guests in accordance with OAR Chapter 950, Division 030. b. Comply with the requirements set out in ORS 430.275 and OAR 309, Division 20. c. Manage a home-like space (Ð home Ñ) for at least four (4) but not more than six (6) guests who may stay for up to two weeks at a time. Guests may have multiple stays as long as they are not consecutive. The home must: i. Have a private room for each participant. ii. Have shared community spaces including common areas and a full kitchen. iii. Be stocked with b asic food in the kitchen for participantsÓ consumption, free of charge. iv. Meet applicable ADA requirements. d. Provide voluntary peer-support services to guests at the home. e. Hire staff that provide services at the home and who operate the home that are peers with first-hand lived experience with mental health challenges, emotional distress, extreme states, and / or trauma. f. To the extent practicable, hire bilingual Spanish speaking staff. g. Comply with these minimum staffing requirements: i. Have at least two peer support workers present at the home from 9 AM to 9 PM daily. ii. Have at least one peer support worker in the house at all times. iii. Have at least one on-call worker available at all times. iv. Have two outreach and administrative coordinators to: 1. Schedule work shifts, trainings and staff meetings 2. Maintain relations with community partners. 3. Create opportunities for supervision and co-reflection. h. Provide staff training and ensure all staff are appropriately trained prior to services being offered in the home. Training must include but is not limited to OHA approved adult mental health peer specialist training. i. Require staff providing services at the home to have the following certifications: i. Peer Support Specialist Adult Mental Health; or 180848/LOB Page 8 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 154 Attachment 6 Page 9 of 42 ii. Peer Wellness Specialist. j. Ensure that on-site staff are responsible for the tasks associated with daily operations, including but not limited to the delivery of peer services, participant intake, turning over rooms for new arrivals, administering evaluation forms to program participants and ensuring that the program maintains the values of a peer respite at all times. k. Develop programs for guests rooted in values of self-determination, recovery principles, and the idea that an experience of crisis can be turned into an opportunity for learning and growth, including but not limited to i. Creating opportunities for guests to provide feedback, share their experiences, engage in advocacy, and participate in collective decision making about operations at the respite. ii. Collecting feedback from guests on their experiences staying at peer respite. iii. Utilizing feedback to develop and or make changes to programmatic policy and procedure as feasible. iv. Elevating the voices, experiences, and needs of current and or former guests to the OHA technical assistance learning collaborative meetings. l. Conduct community-based outreach and education regarding peer respite services that are offered, by at a minimum: i. Connecting with relevant community partners and providers throughout the continuum of care. ii. Providing community partners with necessary information on how to make referrals to the peer respite program. iii. Providing ongoing outreach to develop working relationships with community partners, as well as local and statewide behavioral healthcare providers to ensure that peer respite guests have access to higher levels of care if needed. m. Have policies and procedures that: i. Ensure initial interactions with guests seek to understand guestÓs hopes for staying at the home. ii. Ensure clear communication with guests about the voluntary nature of the services, house rules, length of stay, no cost for services, services offered, participation in services being self-directed, services are non-clinical, and recipientÓs values. iii. Provide meaningful opportunities for guests to take part in decision- making, program planning, and program evaluation. iv. Ensures the home is a safe space for staff and guests. n. Have an advisory board that is majority peer based. 180848/LOB Page 9 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 155 Attachment 6 Page 10 of 42 o. Hold monthly team meetings for all staff. p. Provide staff supervision. q. Provide staff the opportunity for peer-based co-reflection. 6. Oversight and Coordination Requirements Recipient must: a. Allow OHA or its designees to access the peer respite center to conduct investigations and assessments, as necessary, to ensure residents receive the quality and scope of services required. b. Participate in quarterly technical assistance meetings with OHA and other peer respite programs on a schedule provided by OHA, which OHA shall provide in writing. 7. Reporting Requirements. Recipient shall provide the following program reports: a. Program Evaluation Report. Submit an evaluation summary that gauges the fidelity of the RecipientÓs program to the peer run-respite model. Additional details of this evaluation can be found in the handbook created by advocates who have experience implementing these programs in other states. Peer Respite Handbook: A guide to understanding, building, and supporting peer respites. https://www.peerrespite.com/manuals Evaluation Reporting Period Report Due November 1, 2023 Î June 30, 2024 July 31, 2024 July 1, 2024 Î January 31, 2025 February 28, 2025 February 1, 2025 Î June 30, 2025 July 31, 2025 b. Quarterly Report. OHA will establish reporting format requirements for the Quarterly Report by providing written notice to Recipient at least 30 days prior to the due date of a report. Reporting will include the following information: (1) Number of guests served. (2) Average duration of the stay at the home. (3) Demographic data on guests, including self-reported demographics, in accordance with OAR 950, Division 30. (4) Data on gender, and age of residents, if not captured under (3). (5) Grievances and safety concerns of guests and staff. (6) Summary of RecipientÓs community engagement efforts. (7) Summary of feedback received in guest surveys. (8) Summary of any additional feedback or narratives highlighting the successes, recovery, and resilience of residents. 180848/LOB Page 10 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 156 Attachment 6 Page 11 of 42 Reporting Period Report Due st November 1, 2023 Î June 30, 2024 July 31 2024 July 1, 2024 Î September 30, 2024 October 31, 2024 October 1, 2024 Î December 29, 2024 January 31, 2025 January 1, 2025 Î March 31, 2025 April 30, 2025 April 1, 2025 Î June 30, 2025 July 31, 2025 180848/LOB Page 11 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 157 Attachment 6 Page 12 of 42 EXHIBIT A Part 2 Disbursement and Financial Reporting 1. Grant Payment Disbursement. a. Recipient shall prepare and electronically submit written invoices or documentation to hsd.contracts@odhsoha.oregon.gov. Recipient shall include in each invoice, in addition to the information required in paragraphs c and d below, at a minimum, the Agreement number; reference to the particular budget category included in Exhibit D; the invoice period dates; and the invoice totals for the subject period. b. Within 15 calendar days of execution of Agreement, OHA will disburse $25,000. c. OHA will disburse grant monies related to the lease of property or property purchase as applicable based on the grant proposal, within 15 calendar days of receipt of an invoice, if the costs are consistent with Exhibit D: ¤ An invoice for up-front lease costs must include but is not limited to identifying the property for lease, the lease period, the rental amount, any deposit required, and the total amount due upon execution of the lease. ¤ An invoice for property purchase costs must include but is not limited to identifying the property to be purchased, the property purchase total cost, the amount of a down payment, loan interest rate if applicable, estimated amount of mortgage payments if applicable, and closing costs. d. OHA will disburse grant monies for service start-up costs, within 15 calendar days of receipt of an invoice, if costs are consistent with Exhibit D. The invoice must include an attestation that Recipient will be ready to provide services within 6 months of receipt of the start-up costs with a detailed description of start-up costs needed, including but not limited to supplies and staff costs. e. For the quarter following disbursement of grant funds related to service start-up costs, and for the remaining quarters in the grant period, OHA will disburse the remaining grant funds in equal quarterly amounts. Disbursement will be made th by the 10 day of the end of the quarter. f. Allowable expenses. All grant funds provided under this Agreement must be spent by Recipient on expenses reasonably necessary to carry out the grant requirements described in this Agreement, including Exhibit A Part 1, in accordance with the specific constraints set forth below in (i) and (ii), and in accordance with RecipientÓs 180848/LOB Page 12 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 158 Attachment 6 Page 13 of 42 budget incorporated as Exhibit D. Recipient will keep detailed records of the grant funds spent. Upon OHA written request to Recipient to review the detailed records of grant funds spent, Recipient will provide OHA access to these records within 72 hours. Any funding unexpended or uncommitted at the end of the Agreement period must be promptly, and in no case exceed 45 days from the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, returned to OHA. Funding may not be used for any expenses incurred prior to the start date of this Agreement. Notwithstanding paragraphs b. through e. above, OHA will not disburse more than $750,00 in any fiscal year. 180848/LOB Page 13 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 159 Attachment 6 Page 14 of 42 EXHIBIT A Part 3 Special Provisions 1. Real Property Purchase, Renovation, or Improvement. Except as otherwise expressly agreed by OHA in writing, when grant funds under this Agreement in the amount of $10,000 and above are to be used for purchase of or improvements to real property, Recipient shall, prior to such expenditure, notify OHA and execute a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to secure such real property or improvements. The Declaration of Restrictive Covenants shall be substantially in the form attached to this Agreement as Attachment 1 and shall be filed, at the RecipientÓs expense, in the re al property records of each county in which the real property is located. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the obligations set forth in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants shall continue in force and effect until the expiration of such obligations under the terms of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and the Recipient acknowledges and agrees that such obligations will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 2. Vehicle funding request for grants: When OHA payments in the amount of $1,000 and above are to be used for purchase of a vehicle, as security for the RecipientÓs performance of its obligations under this Agreement, the Recipient grants to OHA a security interest in all of the RecipientÓs rights, title, and interest in and to the goods, i.e., the vehicle. The Recipient agrees that from time to time, at its expense, the Recipient will promptly execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take all further action, that may be necessary or desirable, or that OHA may reasonably request, in order to perfect and protect the security interest granted under this Agreement or to enable OHA to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies under this Agreement with respect to the vehicle. Recipient must forward by e-mail a copy of the title application showing the OAC c/o Oregon Health Authority, Health Systems Division as the Security Interest Holder to OHA within five (5) calendar days of the acquisition from the seller. Recipient shall submit copy of the title application to OHA via. email at HSD.Contracts@odhsoha.oregon.gov. File Security Interest Holder information as follows: Oregon Health Authority Health Systems Division 500 Summer Street NE, E86 Salem, OR 97302 180848/LOB Page 14 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 160 Attachment 6 Page 15 of 42 3. Dedicated Use Requirement Vehicles costing $1,000 or more must be used to provide the service for which OHA approved the payments. Dedicated use must continue for the useful life of the vehicle or five years whichever is less. 4. Removal of Liens The following steps describe the process for removal of liens prior to the expiration of the dedicated use period described in Section 4 of this Exhibit A, Part 3: To release a vehicle title on which OHA is listed security interest holder, Recipient must make a request in writing to OHA. The request must specify why the vehicle is being disposed of and the intended use of any payments realized for the transaction. OHA may approve or deny the request in its sole discretion. 180848/LOB Page 15 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 161 Attachment 6 Page 16 of 42 EXHIBIT B Standard Terms and Conditions 1. Governing Law, Consent to Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, ÐClaimÑ) between OHA or any other agency or department of the State of Oregon, or both, and Recipient that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this Section be construed as a waiver by the State of Oregon of the jurisdiction of any court or of any form of defense to or immunity from any Claim, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise. Each party hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of such court, waives any objection to venue, and waives any claim that such forum is an inconvenient forum. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 2. Compliance with Law. Recipient shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the Recipient and this Agreement. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3. Independent Parties; Conflict of Interest. a. Recipient is not an officer, employee, or agent of the State of Oregon as those terms are used in ORS 30.265 or otherwise. b. If Recipient is currently performing work for the State of Oregon or the federal government, Recipient by signature to this Agreement, represents and warrants that Recipient Ó s participation in this Agreement creates no potential or actual conflict of interest as defined by ORS Chapter 244 and that no statutes, rules or regulations of the State of Oregon or federal agency for which Recipient currently performs work would prohibit Recipient Ó s participation under this Agreement. If disbursement under this Agreement is to be charged against federal funds, Recipient certifies that it is not currently employed by the federal government. 4. Grant Funds; Disbursements. a. Recipient is not entitled to compensation under this Agreement by any other agency or department of the State of Oregon. Recipient understands and agrees that OHAÓ s participation in this Agreement is contingent on OHA receiving appropriations, limitations, allotments or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow OHA, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to participate in this Agreement. b. Disbursement Method. Disbursements under this Agreement will be made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). Upon request, Recipient shall provide its taxpayer identification number (TIN) and other necessary banking information to receive EFT disbursement. Recipient shall maintain at its own expense a single 180848/LOB Page 16 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 162 Attachment 6 Page 17 of 42 financial institution or authorized disbursement agent capable of receiving and processing EFT using the Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfer method. The most current designation and EFT information will be used for all disbursements under this Agreement. Recipient shall provide this designation and information on a form provided by OHA. In the event that EFT information changes or the Recipient elects to designate a different financial institution for the receipt of any disbursement made using EFT procedures, the Recipient shall provide the changed information or designation to OHA on an OHA-approved form. OHA is not required to make any disbursement under this Agreement until receipt of the correct EFT designation and disbursement information from the Recipient. 5. Recovery of Overpayments and Misexpended Funds. Any funds disbursed to Recipient under this Agreement that are expended in violation or contravention of one or more of the provisions of this Agreement or expended while Recipient is in violation of any term or condition of this Agreement ÐMisexpended FundsÑ or that remain unexpended on the earlier of termination or expiration of this Agreement ÐUnexpended FundsÑ must be returned to OHA. Recipient shall return all Misexpended Funds to OHA promptly after OHAÓ s written demand and no later than 15 days after OHAÓ s written demand. Recipient shall return all Unexpended Funds to OHA within 14 days after the earlier of termination or expiration of this Agreement. OHA, in its sole discretion, may recover Misexpended or Unexpended Funds by withholding from payments due to Recipient such amounts, over such periods of time, as are necessary to recover the amount of the overpayment. Prior to withholding, if Recipient objects to the withholding or the amount proposed to be withheld, Recipient shall notify OHA that it wishes to engage in dispute resolution in accordance with Section 13 of this Exhibit. 6. Reserved. 7. Indemnity. RECIPIENT SHALL DEFEND (SUBJECT TO ORS CHAPTER 180) SAVE, HOLD HARMLESS, AND INDEMNIFY THE STATE OF OREGON AND OHA AND THEIR OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS FROM AND AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, SUITS, ACTIONS, LOSSES, DAMAGES, LIABILITIES, COSTS AND EXPENSES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES, RESULTING FROM, ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF RECIPIENT OR ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, SUBCONTRACTORS, OR AGENTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. THIS SECTION SHALL SURVIVE EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. 8. Default; Remedies; Termination. a. Default by Recipient. Recipient shall be in default under this Agreement if: (1) Recipient institutes or has instituted against it insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy proceedings, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or ceases doing business on a regular basis; or (2) Recipient no longer holds a license or certificate that is required for Recipient to perform its obligations under the Agreement and Recipient 180848/LOB Page 17 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 163 Attachment 6 Page 18 of 42 has not obtained such license or certificate within 14 calendar days after OHAÓ s notice or such longer period as OHA may specify in such notice; or (3) Recipient commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, obligation or agreement under this Agreement, fails to perform any obligation under this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof, or so fails to pursue performance of any obligation as to endanger Recipient Ó s performance under this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and such breach, default or failure is not cured within 14 calendar days after OHAÓ s notice, or such longer period as OHA may specify in such notice. b. OHAÓ s Remedies for Recipient Ó s Default. In the event Recipient is in default under Section 8.a., OHA may, at its option, pursue any or all of the remedies available to it under this Agreement and at law or in equity, including, but not limited to: (1) termination of this Agreement under Section 8.e.(2); (2) withholding all or part of funds not yet disbursed by OHA to Recipient; (3) initiation of an action or proceeding for damages, specific performance, or declaratory or injunctive relief; or (4) exercise of its right of recovery of overpayments and misexpended under Section 5. of this Exhibit B. These remedies are cumulative to the extent the remedies are not inconsistent, and OHA may pursue any remedy or remedies singly, collectively, successively or in any order whatsoever. If a court determines that Recipient was not in default under Section 8.a., then Recipient shall be entitled to the same remedies as if this Agreement was terminated pursuant to Section 8.e.(1). c. Default by OHA. OHA shall be in default under this Agreement if OHA commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, or obligation under this Agreement, and such breach or default is not cured within 30 calendar days after Recipient Ó s notice or such longer period as Recipient may specify in such notice. d. Recipient Ó s Remedies for OHAÓ s Default. In the event OHA terminates the Agreement under Section 8.e.(1), or in the event OHA is in default under Section 8.c. and whether or not Recipient elects to exercise its right to terminate the Agreement under Section 8.e.(3), RecipientÓs sole monetary remedy will be a claim for unpaid invoices or for reimbursement or disbursement of funds authorized by this Agreement but not yet invoiced. In no event shall OHA be liable to Recipient for any expenses related to termination of this Agreement or for anticipated profits or loss. 180848/LOB Page 18 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 164 Attachment 6 Page 19 of 42 e. Termination. (1) OHAÓ s Right to Terminate at its Discretion. At its sole discretion, OHA may terminate this Agreement: (a) For its convenience upon 30 days Ó prior written notice by OHA to Recipient; (b) Immediately upon written notice if OHA fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations, allotments or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to continue supporting the program; or (c) Immediately upon written notice if federal or state laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that OHAÓ s support of the program under this Agreement is prohibited or OHA is prohibited from paying for such support from the planned funding source. (d) Immediately upon written notice to Recipient if there is a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of any person receiving funds or benefitting from services under this A greement Ð OHA Client Ñ, including any Medicaid Eligible Individual, under its care. (2) OHAÓs Right to Terminate for Cause. In addition to any other rights and remedies OHA may have under this Agreement, OHA may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Recipient, or at such later date as OHA may establish in such notice if Recipient is in default under Section 8.a. (3) Recipient Ó s Right to Terminate for Cause. Recipient may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days written notice to OHA or at such later date as Recipient may establish in such notice, if OHA is in default under Section 8.c. and OHA fails to cure such default within 30 calendar days after OHA receives Recipient Ó s notice or such longer period as Recipient may specify in such notice. (4) Mutual Termination. The Agreement may be terminated immediately upon mutual written consent of the parties or at such other time as the parties may agree in the written consent. (5) Return of Property. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever, Recipient shall immediately deliver to OHA all of OHAÓs property that is in the possession or under the control of Recipient at that time. This Section 8.e.(5) survives the expiration or termination of this Agreement. (6) Effect of Termination. Upon receiving a notice of termination of this Agreement or upon issuing a notice of termination to OHA, Recipient shall immediately cease all activities under this Agreement unless, in a notice issued by OHA, OHA expressly directs otherwise. 180848/LOB Page 19 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 165 Attachment 6 Page 20 of 42 9. Insurance. Recipient shall maintain insurance as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto. 10. Records Maintenance, Access. Recipient shall maintain all financial records relating to this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, Recipient shall maintain any other records, books, documents, papers, plans, records of shipments and payments and writings of Recipient, whether in paper, electronic or other form, that are pertinent to this Agreement, in such a manner as to clearly document Recipient Ó s performance. All financial records, other records, books, documents, papers, plans, records of shipments and payments and writings of Recipient whether in paper, electronic or other form, that are pertinent to this Agreement, are collectively referred to as ÐRecords.Ñ Recipient acknowledges and agrees that OHA and the Oregon Secretary of State Ó s Office and the federal government and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to all Records to perform examinations and audits and make excerpts and transcripts. Recipient shall retain and keep accessible all Records for the longest of: a. Six years following final disbursement and termination of this Agreement; b. The period as may be required by applicable law, including the records retention schedules set forth in OAR Chapter 166; or c. Until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or related to this Agreement. 11. Information Privacy/Security/Access. If this Agreement requires or allows Recipient or, when allowed, its subcontractor(s), to have access to or use of any OHA computer system or other OHA Information Asset for which OHA imposes security requirements, and OHA grants Recipient or its subcontractor(s) access to such OHA Information Assets or Network and Information Systems, Recipient shall comply and require all subcontractor(s) to which such access has been granted to comply with OAR 943-014- 0300 through OAR 943-014-0320, as such rules may be revised from time to time. For purposes of this S ection, ÐInformation AssetÑ and ÐNetwork and Information SystemÑ have the meaning set forth in OAR 943-014-0305, as such rule may be revised from time to time. 12. Assignment of Agreement, Successors in Interest. a. Recipient shall not assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without prior written consent of OHA. Any such assignment or transfer, if approved, is subject to such conditions and provisions required by OHA. No approval by OHA of any assignment or transfer of interest shall be deemed to create any obligation of OHA in addition to those set forth in this Agreement. b. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, and permitted assigns. 13. Resolution of Disputes. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. In addition, the parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or arbitrator (for non-binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 14. Subcontracts. Recipient shall not enter into any subcontracts for any part of the program supported by this Agreement without OHAÓs prior written consent. In addition to any 180848/LOB Page 20 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 166 Attachment 6 Page 21 of 42 other provisions OHA may require, Recipient shall include in any permitted subcontract under this Agreement provisions to ensure that OHA will receive the benefit of subcontractor activity(ies) as if the subcontractor were the Recipient with respect to Sections 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of this Exhibit B. OHAÓs consent to any subcontract shall not relieve Recipient of any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement. 15. No Third Party Beneficiaries. OHA and Recipient are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit or right, whether directly, indirectly or otherwise, to third persons any greater than the rights and benefits enjoyed by the general public unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Agreement. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 16. Severability. The parties agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 17. Notice. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any communications between the parties hereto or notices to be given hereunder shall be given in writing by personal delivery, facsimile, e-mail, or mailing the same, postage prepaid to Recipient or OHA at the address or number set forth in this Agreement, or to such other addresses or numbers as either party may indicate pursuant to this Section. Any communication or notice so addressed and mailed by regular mail shall be deemed received and effective five days after the date of mailing. Any communication or notice delivered by e-mail shall be deemed received and effective five days after the date of e-mailing. Any communication or notice delivered by facsimile shall be deemed received and effective on the day the transmitting machine generates a receipt of the successful transmission, if transmission was during normal business hours of the Recipient, or on the next business day if transmission was outside normal business hours of the Recipient. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to be effective against the other party, any notice transmitted by facsimile must be confirmed by telephone notice to the other party. Any communication or notice given by personal delivery shall be deemed effective when actually delivered to the addressee. OHA: Office of Contracts & Procurement 500 Summer Street NE, E-03 Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: 503-945-5818 Fax: 503-378-4324 This Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 180848/LOB Page 21 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 167 Attachment 6 Page 22 of 42 18. Headings. The headings and captions to sections of this Agreement have been inserted for identification and reference purposes only and shall not be used to construe the meaning or to interpret this Agreement. 19. Amendments; Waiver; Consent. OHA may amend this Agreement to the extent provided herein, the solicitation document, if any from which this Agreement arose, and to the extent permitted by applicable statutes and administrative rules. No amendment, waiver, or other consent under this Agreement shall bind either party unless it is in writing and signed by both parties and when required, approved by the Oregon Department of Justice. Such amendment, waiver, or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that party of that or any other provision. This Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 20. Merger Clause. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein, regarding this Agreement. 180848/LOB Page 22 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 168 Attachment 6 Page 23 of 42 EXHIBIT C Insurance Requirements Recipient shall obtain at RecipientÓs expense the insurance specified in this Exhibit prior to performing under this Grant Agreement and shall maintain it in full force and at its own expense throughout the duration of this Grant Agreement, as required by any extended reporting period or tail coverage requirements, and all warranty periods that apply. Recipient shall obtain the following insurance from insurance companies or entities that are authorized to transact the business of insurance and issue coverage in the State of Oregon and that are acceptable to OHA. Coverage shall be primary and non- contributory with any other insurance and self-insurance, with the exception of Professional Liability and WorkersÓ Compensation. Recipient shall p ay for all deductibles, self-insured retention and self- insurance, if any. 1. WORKERSÓ COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERSÓ LIABILITY All employers, including Recipient, that employ subject workers, as defined in ORS 656.027, shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for those workers, unless they meet the requirement for an exemption under ORS 656.126(2). Recipient shall require and ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. If Recipient is a subject employer, as defined in ORS 656.023, Recipient shall also obtain employers' liability insurance coverage with limits not less than $500,000 each accident. If Recipient is an employer subject to any other stateÓs workersÓ compensation law, Recipient shall provide workersÓ compensation insurance coverage for its employees as required by applicable workersÓ compensation laws including employersÓ liability insurance coverage with limits not less than $500,000 and shall require and ensure that each of its out-of-state subcontractors complies with these requirements. 1. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Required Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in a form and with coverage that are satisfactory to the State. This insurance shall include personal and advertising injury liability, products and completed operations, contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this Grant Agreement, and have no limitation of coverage to designated premises, project or operation. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. 2. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE Required Not required Automobile Liability Insurance covering RecipientÓs business use including coverage for all owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage. This coverage may be written in combination with the Commercial General Liability Insurance (with separate limits for Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability). Use of personal automobile liability insurance coverage may be acceptable if evidence that the policy includes a business use endorsement is provided. 3. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY: Required Not required Professional Liability covering any damages caused by an error, omission or any negligent acts related to the services to be provided under this Agreement by the Recipient and RecipientÓs 180848/LOB Page 23 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 169 Attachment 6 Page 24 of 42 subcontractors, agents, officers or employees in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. Annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. If coverage is on a claims made basis, then either an extended reporting period of not less than 24 months shall be included in the Professional Liability insurance coverage, or the Recipient shall provide continuous claims made coverage as stated below. 4. EXCESS/UMBRELLA INSURANCE A combination of primary and excess/umbrella insurance may be used to meet the required limits of insurance. 5. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION Recipient shall waive rights of subrogation which Recipient or any insurer of Recipient may acquire against OHA or State of Oregon by virtue of the payment of any loss. Recipient will obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not OHA has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the Recipient or the RecipientÓs insurer(s). 6. TAIL COVERAGE If any of the required insurance is on a claims made basis and does not include an extended reporting period of at least 24 months, Recipient shall maintain either tail coverage or continuous claims made liability coverage, provided the effective date of the continuous claims made coverage is on or before the effective date of this Grant Agreement, for a minimum of 24 months following the later of (i) RecipientÓs completion and OHAÓs acceptance of all activities required under this Grant Agreement, or, (ii) OHA or Recipient termination of this Grant Agreement, or, iii) The expiration of all warranty periods provided under this Grant Agreement. 7. CERTIFICATE(S) AND PROOF OF INSURANCE Recipient shall provide to OHA Certificate(s) of Insurance for all required insurance before performing any activities required under this Grant Agreement. The Certificate(s) shall list the State of Oregon, its officers, employees and agents as a Certificate holder. The Certificate(s) shall also include all required endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this Grant Agreement. If excess/umbrella insurance is used to meet the minimum insurance requirement, the Certificate of Insurance must include a list of all policies that fall under the excess/umbrella insurance. As proof of insurance, OHA has the right to request copies of insurance policies and endorsements relating to the insurance requirements in this Grant Agreement. 8. NOTICE OF CHANGE OR CANCELLATION The Recipient or its in surer must provide at least 30 daysÓ written notice to OHA before cancellation of, material change to, potential exhaustion of aggregate limits of, or non-renewal of the required insurance coverage(s). 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENT REVIEW Recipient agrees to periodic review of insurance requirements by OHA under this Agreement and to provide updated requirements as mutually agreed upon by Recipient and OHA. 10. STATE ACCEPTANCE All insurance providers are subject to OHA acceptance. If requested by OHA, Recipient shall provide complete copies of insurance policies, endorsements, self-insurance documents and related insurance documents to OHAÓs representatives responsible for verification of the insurance coverages required under this Exhibit. 180848/LOB Page 24 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 170 Attachment 6 Page 25 of 42 Page 25 of 42 Budget Exhibit D \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ 180848/LOB OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 Total Page Number: 171 Attachment 6 Page 26 of 42 Page 26 of 42 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ 180848/LOB OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 Total Page Number: 172 Attachment 6 Page 27 of 42 Attachment 1 After Recording Return to: Oregon Health Authority Heath Systems Division 500 Summer St SE, E86 Salem, OR 97301 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDERÓS USE STATE OF OREGON OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (this Ð Declaration Ñ) is made and entered into this day of \[insert date when ready to sign\] (the Ð Effective Date Ñ) by and between Stabbin Wagon, an Oregon 501c3 Nonpr ofit Organization (Ð Declarant Ñ) and the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon Health Authority and its Health Systems Division (Ð OHA Ñ) pursuant to ORS 430.275 and Oregon Laws 2021, chapter 626. OHA and Declarant may be referred to herein joint ly as the Ð Parties Ñ or individually as a Ð Party Ñ. RECITALS A. The Oregon State Legislature appropriated $6 million in funds for the biennium ending June 30, 2023 in House Bill 2980 (2021) (now codified as Oregon Laws 2021, chapter 626) (Ð 2980 Funds Ñ) to OHA for capital, start-up, and operational costs related to Peer Run Respite statewide. HB 2980 provides funding for four peer run respite homes in the following regions, The Portland Metropolitan Area, Southern Oregon, The Coastal Region, and Central or Eastern Oregon. B. OHA issued two Request for Grant Proposals for the creation and operation of Peer-Run Respite Programs in Oregon (as hereinafter defined) for peer run organizations to pilot peer respite service. ÐPeer respite servicesÑ means volunta ry, nonclinical, short-term residential peer support provided in a homelike setting to individuals with mental illness or trauma response symptoms who are experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional pain that may lead to the need for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital services. C. Declarant applied and awarded an amount not to exceed ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, $1,500,000.00 in 2980 Funds (the Ð Peer Run Respite Grant Ñ) pursuant to that certain Grant Agreement dated \[insert month and day of grant agreement Î executed date (date last signed)-- and as amended if there is that date too\], 2023 by and between the Parties (the Ð Peer Run Respite Grant Agreement Ñ). D. The Oregon State LegislatureÓs Joint Committee on Ways and Mean s stated in the Budget Report and Measure Summary for House Bill 2980 that the OHA was appropriated funds for the creation and 180848/LOB Page 27 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 173 Attachment 6 Page 28 of 42 operation of Peer-Run Respite Programs in Oregon (Ð 2980 Funds Ñ). 2980 Funds are f or the creation and operation of Peer-Run Respite Programs in Oregon. E. Declarant applied and awarded an amount not to exceed ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, $1,500,000 in 2890 Funds (the Ð Peer Run Respite Grant Ñ) pursuant to that certain Grant Agreement dated \[insert month and day of grant agreement Î executed date (date last signed)-- and as amended if there is that date too\], 2022 by and between the Parties (the Ð Peer Run Respite Grant Agreement Ñ). F. DeclarantÓs use of the Grant is for the purpose of funding the purchase of real property, construction, and renovation or other eligible capital costs related to the Project (as hereinafter defined) that will serve individuals with a \[insert population diagnosis including but not limited to SPMI, SUD or other as applicable to respective questions\] (c ollectively, the Ð Improvements Ñ). The Improvements will be situated on certain real property located in the city of \[City\], \[County\] County (the Ð County Ñ), State of Oregon, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the Ð Property Ñ). The Property, together with the Improvements, is referred to herein as the Ð Project Ñ. G. A condition of the Grant Agreement provides that to the extent that Grant funds are to be used for purchase, construction or renovation of real property, Declarant is required to execute a Declaration. Pursuant to that condition, OHA has required Declarant to execute this Declaration, as a condition to DeclarantÓs use of the Grant for the purchase or renovation of the Property for purposes of the Project. H. The Parties desire that this Declaration be recorded in the relevant records of the County at DeclarantÓs cost and that certain terms herein constitute restrictive covenants and equitable servitudes running with the Property and governing, among other things, the maintenance, monitoring, and operation of the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and sufficient consideration, including the terms, conditions, covenants, warranties, and undertakings set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. INCORPORATION. The foregoing recitals and exhibit(s) to this Declaration are incorporated into this Declaration by reference to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, provided, however, that the incorporated items do not modify the express provisions of this Declaration. 2. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF DECLARANT. Declarant represents, warrants and covenants that: 2.1. Organization and Authority. (a) Declarant is a 501c3 Nonprofit Organization validly created and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. (b) Declarant has all necessary right, power and authority under its organizational documents to 180848/LOB Page 28 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 174 Attachment 6 Page 29 of 42 (a) execute, deliver and record this Declaration, and (b) incur and perform its obligations under this Declaration. 2.2. Use of Grant Funds. Declarant has used or will use the Grant funds only for the Project costs as provided for in the Grant Agreement. 2.3. Full Disclosure. Declarant has disclosed in writing to OHA all facts that may materially adversely affect the Project, or the ability of Declarant to perform all obligations required by this Declaration. Declarant has made no false statements of fact, nor has it omitted information necessary to prevent any statements from being misleading, regarding the Grant, the Project and this Declaration. The information contained in this Declaration is true and accurate in all respects. 2.4. Pending Litigation. Declarant has disclosed in writing to OHA all proceedings, environmental or otherwise, pending (or to the knowledge of Declarant, threatened) against or affecting Declarant, in any court or before any governmental authority or arbitration board or tribunal, that, if adversely determined, would materially adversely affect the Project or the ability of Declarant to perform all obligations required by this Declaration. 2.5. No Defaults. (a) No Defaults or Events of Default exist or occur upon authorization, execution or delivery of this Declaration. (b) Declarant has not violated and has not received notice of any claimed violation of, any agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which the Project or its property may be bound, that would materially adversely affect the Project or the ability of Declarant to perform all obligations required by this Declaration. 2.6. Compliance with Existing Agreements and Applicable Law. The authorization and execution of, and the performance of all obligations required by, this Declaration will not: (i) cause a breach of a material agreement, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, or other instrument, to which Declarant is a party or by which the Project or any of DeclarantÓs property or assets may be bound; (ii) violate any provision of the applicable enabling statutes, code, charter, ordinances or other Oregon law pursuant to which Declarant was organized or established; or (iii) violate any laws, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, or court orders related to Declarant, the Project or DeclarantÓs properties or oper ations. 2.7. Governmental Consent. Declarant has obtained or will obtain all permits and approvals, and has made or will make all notifications, declarations, filings or registrations, required for the making and performance of its obligations under this Declaration and undertaking and completion of the Project, including without limitation, all land use approvals and development permits required under local zoning or development ordinances, state law and federal law for the use of the land on which the Project will be located. 2.8. Responsibility. Declarant assumes full responsibility for timely and appropriate completion of the Project, for ownership of the Project, for its operation in accordance with this Declaration and the Grant Agreement and acknowledges that OHA has no direct or contractual responsibility for the Project, for ownership of the Project, or for its operation. 180848/LOB Page 29 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 175 Attachment 6 Page 30 of 42 3. ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF DECLARANT. Declarant also represents, warrants, and covenants that: 3.1. Fair Housing and Other Civil Rights Compliance. Declarant shall comply with all applicable state and federal nondiscrimination laws, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3.2. Use Restrictions. (a) Peer Respites will provide continuous peer support to a minimum of 4 guests and a maximum of 6 for up to two weeks at a time in a homelike setting to individuals with mental illness or trauma response symptoms who are experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional pain that may lead to the need for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital services. For the duration of the Use Restriction Period (as hereinafter defined), Declarant will continuously rent or hold vacant and available within the Project, \[4-6 units or beds or other\] of Peer Respite Beds (collectively, the ÐHousing Units \[or Beds\]Ñ) to serve individuals with mental illness or trauma response symptoms who are experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional pain that may lead to the need for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital (collectively, the Ð Use Restrictions Ñ). For the purposes of this Declaration, Ð\[Type of housing or other\] means \[peer respite beds\] for individuals with mental illness or trauma response symptoms who are experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional pain that may lead to the need for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital. (b) st Use Restriction Period. For a period of twenty (20) years from December 31 of the year that the Project is completed or until December 31, 2043, whichever is later (the Ð Use Restriction Period Ñ), Declarant is required to provide and comply with the requirements of the Use Restrictions. 3.3. Habitability; Other Compliance. Throughout the Use Restriction Period, Declarant will manage the Project in a safe and sanitary condition that is satisfactory to OHA and in accordance with applicable zoning, code and habitability requirements. 3.4. Financial Records. Declarant shall keep accurate books and records regarding use of the Grant and maintain them according to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to Declarant in effect at the time. 3.5. Inspections; Information. Declarant shall permit the State and any party designated by the State: (i) to inspect the Project and (ii) to inspect and make copies of any accounts, books and records, including, without limitation, DeclarantÓs records regarding receipts, disbursements, contracts, in vestments and any other related matters. 3.6. Reports. (a) Declarant shall prepare and electronically submit written quarterly reports that satisfy OHA requirements of the continued use of the Project for the agreed purpose as defined in this 180848/LOB Page 30 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 176 Attachment 6 Page 31 of 42 Declaration. (b) The quarterly reports are due to OHA no later than April 15 (January 1-March 31), July 15 (April 1- June 30), October 15 (July 1- September 30), and January 15 (October 1-December 31) each year. (c) The quarterly reports will provide data as OHA requests, including data on clients served by the property/ facility. OHA will provide the reporting form and instructions for completion and submission of this quarterly compliance report. Recipient may be required to provide capacity and utilization rates every 60 days or more frequently as requested by OHA. (d) Declarant shall supply any other reports and information related to the Project as the State may reasonably require. 3.7. Records Maintenance. Declarant shall retain and keep accessible all books, documents, papers, and records that are directly related to this Declaration, the Project, or the Grant throughout the Use Restriction Period and for a minimum of six (6) years, or such longer period thereafter, as may be required by OHA. 3.8. Corrective Action. As a consequence of its monitoring, review of quarterly reports or otherwise, OHA may identify deficiencies in DeclarantÓs compliance with this Declaration. OHA may require action by Declarant (satisfactory to OHA) to correct such deficiencies. Declarant must correct such deficiencies within thirty (30) days of notice by OHA of such deficiencies unless earlier correction is required by OHA to address material health or safety needs of Project users. The reasonableness of such corrective actions is subject to OHA in its sole discretion. Nothing in this Section 3.8 is intended or may be construed to impose any duty on OHA to identify deficiencies in DeclarantÓ s compliance with this Declaration or to require any action by Declarant to correct such deficiencies, and Declarant remains solely responsible for compliance with this Declaration. 3.9. Insurance, Damage. Declarant shall maintain insurance policies with responsible insurers or self- insurance programs, insuring against liability and risk of direct physical loss, damage or destruction of the Project, at least to the extent that similar insurance is customarily carried by entities constructing, operating and maintaining similar properties/facilities. 4. FURTHER ASSURANCES. 4.1. Further Acts. Declarant, at any time upon request of OHA, will do, make, execute and deliver all such additional and further acts, instruments or papers as OHA may require in its sole discretion to protect OHAÓs rights under this Declaration. 4.2. Reliance. OHA may rely upon statements, certificates, and other records of Declarant and its agents and assigns, including as to accuracy, genuine nature, and proper execution of such statements, certificates, and other records. 5. COVENANTS AND EQUITABLE SERVITUDES TO RUN WITH THE LAND. 5.1. Inducement. Declarant represents, covenants and warrants that the issuance to it of the Grant described herein by OAC is an inducement to Declarant to complete the Project and to operate the Project in accordance with the Grant Agreement and this Declaration. In consideration of the issuance of the 180848/LOB Page 31 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 177 Attachment 6 Page 32 of 42 Grant, Declarant has entered into this Declaration and has agreed to restrict the operation of and uses to which the Project can be put on the terms and conditions set forth herein. Therefore, Declarant covenants, agrees and acknowledges that OAC has relied on this Declaration in determining to issue the Grant. 5.2. Covenants; Equitable Servitudes. (a) OHA and Declarant hereby declare their express intent that throughout the Use Restriction Period the covenants, restrictions, charges and easements set forth herein, including the Use Restrictions, will be deemed covenants running with the Property and will create equitable servitudes running with the Property, and will pass to and be binding upon OHAÓs and Declarant's successors in title including any purchaser, grantee or lessee of any portion of the Project and any other person or entity having any right, title or interest therein and upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, successors and assigns of any purchaser, grantee or lessee of any portion of the Project and any other person or entity having any right, title or interest therein. (b) Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof or interest therein will contain an express provision making such conveyance subject to the covenants, restrictions, charges and easements contained herein; provided, however, that any such contract, deed or other instrument will conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants, regardless of whether or not such covenants are set forth or incorporated by reference in such contract, deed or other instrument. (c) Any and all legal requirements for the provisions of this Declaration to constitute restrictive covenants running with the Property and applying to the Project as a whole, or to create equitable servitudes with respect to same in favor of OHA, are deemed satisfied in full. (d) The consent of any recorded prior lien holder on the Project, including the Property, is not required in connection with recording this Declaration, or if required, such consent has been or will be obtained by Declarant. 5.3. Burden and Benefit. (a) Declarant hereby declares its understanding and intent that the burdens of the covenants and equitable servitudes, including the Use Restrictions, set forth herein touch and concern the Property, and the Project as a whole, in that DeclarantÓs legal interest in the Project is rendered less valuable thereby. (b) Declarant hereby further declares its understanding and intent that the benefits of such covenants and equitable servitudes touch and concern the Property, and the Project as a whole, by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Project by tenants, intended beneficiaries (in addition to OHA) of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which the Grant was issued. 5.4 Right of Modification. OHA may compromise, waive, amend or modify the terms of this Declaration including, but not limited to the restrictive covenants and equitable servitudes created hereby, with the written consent of Declarant or subsequent Project owners, as it so determines in OHAÓs sole discretion to be to the benefit of OHA, the Project, or OHA efforts to provide or maintain safe and sanitary conditions of the Project. 180848/LOB Page 32 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 178 Attachment 6 Page 33 of 42 To be effective, any compromise, waiver, amendment or modification of this Declaration must be in writing, signed by an authorized OHA representative. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 6.1. Compliance with Applicable Laws and Requirements. (a) Compliance. Declarant shall comply with and shall ensure that the Project complies with all federal, state and local laws, rules regulations, codes, ordinances, and orders applicable to the Project. (b) Contracts; Subcontracts. Declarant shall ensure that all contracts and subcontracts related to the Project or this Declaration comply with the terms and conditions hereof, including containing a provision to that effect therein. (c) Endurance of Obligations. Declarant will remain fully obligated under the provisions of this Declaration notwithstanding its designation of any third-party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the Project with respect to which Grant funding is being provided. 6.2. Indemnity. Declarant assumes sole liability for breach of the conditions of the Grant Agreement (including all terms and conditions of this Declaration) by Declarant or any of its officers, agents, employees, and assigns. Declarant will save, hold harmless, indemnify and defend the State of Oregon, OAC, OHA and their officers, agents, employees, members and assigns, from all suits, actions, claims, losses or damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature, kind or description, including attorney fees (collectively, ÐClaimsÑ) related to the Grant, the Project, this Declaration or resulting from or arising out of the acts, omissions, neglect or misconduct of Declarant or its subcontractors, agents, or employees under this Declaration or related to the Grant, Project, to the extent permitted by law. Neither Declarant nor any attorney engaged by Declarant may defend any Claim in the name of the State of Oregon (including any agency of the State of Oregon), nor purport to act as legal representative for the State of Oregon, without first receiving from the Oregon Attorney General, in a form and manner determined appropriate by the Oregon Attorney General, authority to act as legal counsel for the State of Oregon, nor may Declarant settle any Claim on behalf of the State of Oregon without the approval of the Oregon Attorney General. If the State of Oregon assumes its own defense, Declarant will be liable for the attorney fees of the State of Oregon, including but not limited to any fees charged by the Oregon Department of Justice. 6.3. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance by Declarant of the terms of this Declaration. 6.4. No Discrimination; Marketing. Except as permitted by law, Declarant will not inappropriately discriminate in the provision of housing or services on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, family status, age, disability or the receipt of public assistance. 6.5. Notice. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Declaration, any notices required or permitted to be given under this Declaration will be given in writing, by personal delivery, or mailing the same, postage prepaid, to OHA or Declarant at the following addresses: 180848/LOB Page 33 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 179 Attachment 6 Page 34 of 42 If to OHA: Oregon Health Authority Health Systems Division 500 NE Summer Street Î E-86 Salem, OR 97301 If to Declarant: \[insert RecipientÓs name\] \[insert RecipientÓs preferred mailing address\] \[Insert attention to: name if they have one\] or to such other address a party may indicate to the other pursuant to this Section. Any notice so addressed and mailed will be effective five (5) days after mailing. Any notice by personal delivery will be deemed to be given when actually delivered. 6.6. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Unless and only to the degree expressly provided otherwise in this Declaration, OHA on behalf of the OAC, and Declarant are the only Parties to this Declaration and are the only Parties entitled to rely on and enforce the terms of this Declaration. Nothing in this Declaration gives, is intended to give, or will be construed to give or provide any benefit or right not held by or made generally available to the public, whether directly indirectly or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are expressly identified in this Declaration and only to the degree they are expressly described as intended beneficiaries of particular terms of this Declaration and only with such remedies as expressly given herein with respect to such interests. 6.7. Declarant Status. (a) Independent Contractor. Declarant shall perform all obligations under this Declaration and will timely satisfy its obligations hereunder as an independent contractor. Declarant is not an officer, employee or agent of the State, as those terms are used in ORS 30.265 or otherwise, with respect to performance under this Declaration. (b) Declarant Responsible for Insurance Coverage. Declarant agrees that insurance coverage, whether purchased or by self-insurance, for DeclarantÓs agents, employees, officers and/or subcontractors is the sole responsibility of Declarant. (c) Non-Federal Employment Certification. Declarant certifies that it is not employed by or contracting with the Federal Government for performance covered by this Declaration. (d) Good Standing Certification. Declarant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that neither Declarant nor any of its principals, officers, directors or employees providing services under this Declaration: (i) Is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any state or federal department or agency; (ii) Has within a three (3) year period preceding this Declaration been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract related to a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; or 180848/LOB Page 34 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 180 Attachment 6 Page 35 of 42 commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen property; (iii)Is presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in subsection (d)(ii) of this Section; (iv) Has within a three (3) year period preceding this Declaration had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and (v) Is included on the list titled ÐSpecially Designated Nationals and Blocked PersonsÑ maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury and currently found at: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx 6.8. Termination. OHA may terminate this Declaration in whole or in part, without further liability and without impairment of its remedies, effective upon delivery of written notice to Declarant, under any of the following conditions: (a) If funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained or is not continued at levels sufficient to allow for delivery of full Grant funding; or (b) If federal or state laws, regulations, rules or other requirements are modified or interpreted in such a way that the intended use of Grant funding for the Project is no longer allowable or appropriate or the Project is no longer eligible for the Grant funding identified in this Declaration from the planned funding source(s); or (c) If any authority required by law or regulation to be held by Declarant to complete the Project ends for any reason; or (d) If Declarant is unable or fails to commence the Project within six (6) months from the date of this Declaration; or (e) If Declarant breaches or fails to timely perform any of its obligations under this Declaration, or any other applicable Grant document and such breach is not cured within the grace period, if any, provided for cure in the applicable document; or (f) If OHA determines that any representation, warranty or covenant of Declarant, whether in whole or in part, is false, invalid, or in default; or (g) If Declarant (i) applies for or consents to the appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a receiver, custodian, trustee, or liquidator of itself or all or substantially all of its property, (ii) admits in writing its inability, or is generally unable, to pay its debts as they become due, (iii) makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (iv) commences a voluntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code (as now or hereafter in effect), (v) is adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent, (vi) files a petition seeking to take advantage of any other law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, liquidation, winding-up, or composition or adjustment of debts, (vii) fails to controvert in a timely and appropriate manner, or acquiesces in writing to, any petition filed against it in an 180848/LOB Page 35 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 181 Attachment 6 Page 36 of 42 involuntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code (as now or hereafter in effect), or (viii) takes any action for the purpose of effecting any of the foregoing. (h) Termination of this Declaration does not terminate or otherwise impair or invalidate any remedy available to OHA or to Declarant hereunder, at law, or otherwise. 6.9. Declarant Default. Any of t he following constitutes an Ð Event of Default Ñ of Declarant: (a) Any false or misleading representation is made by or on behalf of Declarant, in this Declaration or in any document provided by Declarant to OHA related to this Grant or the Project. (b) Declarant fails to perform any obligation required under this Declaration and that failure continues for a period of 30 calendar days after written notice specifying such failure is given to Declarant by OHA, or such longer period as OHA may agree to in writing, if OHA determines in its sole discretion that Declarant has instituted and is diligently pursuing corrective action. (c) Declarant: (i) applies for or consents to the appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a receiver, custodian, trustee, or liquidator of itself or of all of its property, (ii) admits in writing its inability, or is generally unable, to pay its debts as they become due, (iii) makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (iv) is adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent, (v) commences a voluntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, (vi) files a petition seeking to take advantage of any other law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or adjustment of debts, (vii) fails to controvert in a timely and appropriate manner, or acquiesces in writing to, any petition filed against it in an involuntary case under the Bankruptcy Code, or (viii) takes any corporate action for the purpose of effecting any of the foregoing. (d) A proceeding or case is commenced, without the application or consent of Declarant, in any court of competent jurisdiction, seeking: (i) the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, or the composition or readjustment of debts, of Declarant, (ii) the appointment of a trustee, receiver, custodian, liquidator, or the like of Declarant or of all or any substantial part of its assets, or (iii) similar relief in respect to Declarant under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or adjustment of debts, and such proceeding or case continues undismissed, or an order, judgment, or decree approving or ordering any of the foregoing is entered and continues unstayed and in effect for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, or an order for relief against Declarant is entered in an involuntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code. 6.10. OHA Default. OHA will be in default under this Declaration if it fails to perform, observe or discharge any of its covenants, agreements, or obligations under this Declaration. 6.11. Remedies. (a) Repayment. If this Declaration or any part hereof, terminates prior to the term of the Use Restriction Period, Declarant will, within thirty (30) days of written demand for repayment by OHA on behalf of OAC, repay the Grant multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is 20 minus the number of full years that have transpired between the year the Project is completed and the year of PayeeÓs demand and the denominator of which is 20. The Parties recognize that the Grant amount in this formula for the amount subject to demand for repayment by OHA on the behalf of OAC is 180848/LOB Page 36 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 182 Attachment 6 Page 37 of 42 subject to change. The Grant amount will be reduced to the amount of Grant funds actually used and in DeclarantÓs final budget approved for Project costs under the terms of the Grant Agreement. Upon repayment of the Grant less any reduction under the formula, this Declaration shall terminate. (b) Deficiencies. OHA may, from time to time, identify and direct Declarant to correct deficiencies (including deficiencies by the Owner) in its compliance with this Declaration, which it shall correct as so directed. (c) Extension of Use Restriction Period. OHA may by written notice extend the Use Restriction Period described in this Declaration for periods of time matching corresponding periods of time during which OHA determines Declarant to be in material noncompliance with any of the terms of this Declaration. Such extens ions may be recorded in the countyÓs property records. (d) Additional Remedies. If Declarant defaults in the performance or observance of any covenant, agreement or obligation set forth in this Declaration (including correction of deficiencies), and if such default remains uncured by Declarant for a period of thirty (30) days or less (depending upon the requirements of the notice, lesser notice periods being reserved for matters that OHA determines in its sole discretion relate to material health or safety needs of Project occupants) after notice thereof shall have been given by OHA, or if such default runs for a period of thirty (30) days from the date Declarant should, with due diligence, have discovered such default, then OHA may declare an Event of Default to have occurred hereunder provided, however, if a default is not reasonably capable of being cured within thirty (30) days or any lesser notice period provided by OHA, OHA may, in its sole discretion, extend the correction period for up to six (6) months, but only if OHA determines in its sole discretion there is good cause for granting the extension; and provided further, however, in the event of a foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or similar event with respect to the Project or the Property, the correction period for the successor for an existing default will be no less than thirty (30) days from the earlier of the date the successor obtains control or becomes the owner of the Project. To the extent that the default is not corrected within the above-described period including extensions, if any, granted by OHA, an Event of Default will be deemed to occur and OHA may exercise its rights and remedies under this Section. Following the occurrence of an Event of Default hereunder OHA may, at its option, take any one or more of the following steps in addition to all other remedies provided in this Declaration, by law, or in equity: i. By mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity, require Declarant specifically to perform its obligations under this Declaration or enjoin any acts or things that may be unlawful or in violation of the rights of OHA under this Declaration; ii. Obtain the appointment of a receiver to operate the Project in compliance with this Declaration; iii. Withhold from Declarant, suspend or terminate, or (upon thirty (30)-days written demand) require the repayment of all or part of any disbursed Grant funds or other funding assistance provided by OHA to Declarant with respect to the Project; iv. Declare Declarant, its owners, principals, employees, and agents ineligible to receive further OAC or OHA funds or other OAC or OHA financial assistance, including with respect to other projects or requests for same, for such period as OHA determines in its sole discretion; 180848/LOB Page 37 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 183 Attachment 6 Page 38 of 42 v. Offset amounts due from repayment of the Grant against other funding awarded or to be awarded to Declarant; vi. Have access to, and inspect, examine and make copies of, all of the books and records of Declarant pertaining to the Project and to inspect the Project itself; vii. Enter onto the Property and correct Events of Default with respect to the Project at DeclarantÓs expense, which expense Declarant will repay to OHA within ten (10) days of any presentment of charges for same; and viii. Take such other action under this Declaration, at law, in equity, or otherwise as may be available to OHA. (e) Survival of Remedies; Remedies Not Exclusive; Non-Waiver. The rights and remedies of OHA provided for in this Declaration, which by their nature are intended to survive termination of this Declaration, will survive the termination of the Use Restriction Period and of this Declaration. Furthermore, such remedies will not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise. No failure of or delay by OHA to enforce any provision of this Declaration will constitute a waiver by OHA of that or any other provision, nor will any single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege under this Declaration preclude any other or further exercise of such right, power or privilege or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege. 6.12. Severability. If any term or provision of this Declaration is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties will be construed and enforced as if this Declaration did not contain the particular term or provisions held to be invalid. 6.13. Survival of Obligations. The obligations of Declarant as set forth in this Declaration will survive the expiration or termination of the Grant Agreement. 6.14. Attorney Fees. Subject to Article XI, Section 7, of the Oregon Constitution, in the event a lawsuit or other proceeding is instituted regarding this Declaration, the prevailing party in any dispute arising under this Declaration will, to the extent permitted by law, be entitled to recover from the other(s) its reasonable attorney fees and all costs and disbursements incurred at trial, in mediation, and on appeal. Reasonable attorney fees will not exceed the rate charged to OHA by its attorneys. This provision does not apply to lawsuits or other proceedings instituted or maintained by or against tenants or other third- party beneficiaries hereunder, if any, for which lawsuits or other proceedings no award of attorney fees is permitted. 6.15. Construction. The Parties to this Declaration acknowledge that each party and its counsel have participated in the drafting and revision of this Declaration (or knowingly and voluntarily waived the partyÓs right to do so). Accordingly, the Parties agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not apply in the interpretation of this Declaration or any amendment, modification, supplementation or restatement of the foregoing or of any exhibit to this Declaration. 6.16. Captions. The captions or headings in this Declaration are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions of this Declaration. 180848/LOB Page 38 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 184 Attachment 6 Page 39 of 42 6.17. Execution and Counterparts. This Declaration may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be an original, all of which will constitute but one and the same instrument. 6.18. Governing Law; Venue: Consent to Jurisdiction. This Declaration will be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, Ð Claim Ñ) related to this Declar ation will be conducted exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County, Oregon (unless Oregon law requires that it be brought and conducted where the real property is located) or, if necessary, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event will this provision be construed as a waiver by OHA or the State of Oregon of any form of defense or immunity, whether it is sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise, from any Claim or from the jurisdiction of any court. OHA and the State of Oregon expressly reserve all sovereignty rights. DECLARANT, BY EXECUTION OF THIS DECLARATION, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. 6.19. Merger Clause. This Declaration, along with the Grant Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. No modification or amendment of this Declaration will bind either Party unless in writing and signed by the Parties (and the necessary approvals obtained), and no waiver or consent will be effective unless signed by the party against whom such waiver or consent is asserted. Such waiver or consent, if given, will be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Declaration. 6.20. No Limitations on Actions of OHA in Exercise of Its Governmental Powers. Nothing in this Declaration is intended, nor will it be construed, to in any way limit the actions of OHA in the exercise of its governmental powers. It is the express intention of the Parties hereto that OHA will retain the full right and ability to exercise its governmental powers with respect to Declarant, the Project, this Declaration, and the transactions contemplated by this Declaration to the same extent as if it were not a party to this Declaration or the transactions contemplated hereby, and in no event will OHA have any liability in contract arising under this Declaration, or otherwise by virtue of any exercise of its governmental powers. (Signature Pages Follow) 180848/LOB Page 39 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 185 Attachment 6 Page 40 of 42 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OHA and Declarant have caused this Declaration to be signed by their duly authorized officers on the Effective Date. OHA: STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY (OHA) Health Systems Division By: STATE OF OREGON ) : ss County of Marion ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _____ 2023, by____________________________, for and on behalf of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its ___________________. _____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: _________________ 180848/LOB Page 40 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 186 Attachment 6 Page 41 of 42 DECLARANT: \[use same signature block as was use for Grant Agreement\] By: \[Insert Recipient signerÓs name\] STATE OF OREGON ) : ss County of \[insert county name\] ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _____ 2023, by____________________________, for and on behalf of _______________ acting by and through its ___________________. _____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: _________________ 180848/LOB Page 41 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 187 Attachment 6 Page 42 of 42 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Real property in the County of \[insert county where property is located\], State of Oregon, described as follows: \[Insert legal description\]. Situs Address: \[insert street, city, state, zip address of where property is located\] 180848/LOB Page 42 of 42 OHA Grant Agreement (reviewed by DOJ) Updated: 5/10/2023 \[ĻǝĻƌ Ќ Ώ wĻƭƷƩźĭƷĻķ Total Page Number: 188 Attachment 7 Page 1 of 7 Total Page Number: 189 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 7 Total Page Number: 190 Attachment 7 Page 3 of 7 Total Page Number: 191 Attachment 7 Page 4 of 7 Total Page Number: 192 Attachment 7 Page 5 of 7 Total Page Number: 193 Attachment 7 Page 6 of 7 Total Page Number: 194 Attachment 7 Page 7 of 7 Total Page Number: 195 Attachment 8 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 196 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 2 Total Page Number: 197 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 17 Total Page Number: 198 Attachment 9 Page 2 of 17 Total Page Number: 199 Attachment 9 Page 3 of 17 Total Page Number: 200 Attachment 9 Page 4 of 17 Total Page Number: 201 Attachment 9 Page 5 of 17 Total Page Number: 202 Attachment 9 Page 6 of 17 Total Page Number: 203 Attachment 9 Page 7 of 17 Total Page Number: 204 Attachment 9 Page 8 of 17 Total Page Number: 205 Attachment 9 Page 9 of 17 Total Page Number: 206 Attachment 9 Page 10 of 17 Total Page Number: 207 Attachment 9 Page 11 of 17 Total Page Number: 208 Attachment 9 Page 12 of 17 Total Page Number: 209 Attachment 9 Page 13 of 17 Total Page Number: 210 Attachment 9 Page 14 of 17 Total Page Number: 211 Attachment 9 Page 15 of 17 Total Page Number: 212 Attachment 9 Page 16 of 17 Total Page Number: 213 Attachment 9 Page 17 of 17 Total Page Number: 214 Attachment 10 Page 1 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 1 of 38 Total Page Number: 215 Attachment 10 Page 2 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 2 of 38 Total Page Number: 216 Attachment 10 Page 3 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 3 of 38 Total Page Number: 217 Attachment 10 Page 4 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 4 of 38 Total Page Number: 218 Attachment 10 Page 5 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 5 of 38 Total Page Number: 219 Attachment 10 Page 6 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 6 of 38 Total Page Number: 220 Attachment 10 Page 7 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 7 of 38 Total Page Number: 221 Attachment 10 Page 8 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 8 of 38 Total Page Number: 222 Attachment 10 Page 9 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 9 of 38 Total Page Number: 223 Attachment 10 Page 10 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 10 of 38 Total Page Number: 224 Attachment 10 Page 11 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 11 of 38 Total Page Number: 225 Attachment 10 Page 12 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 12 of 38 Total Page Number: 226 Attachment 10 Page 13 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 13 of 38 Total Page Number: 227 Attachment 10 Page 14 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 14 of 38 Total Page Number: 228 Attachment 10 Page 15 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 15 of 38 Total Page Number: 229 Attachment 10 Page 16 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 16 of 38 Total Page Number: 230 Attachment 10 Page 17 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 17 of 38 Total Page Number: 231 Attachment 10 Page 18 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 18 of 38 Total Page Number: 232 Attachment 10 Page 19 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 19 of 38 Total Page Number: 233 Attachment 10 Page 20 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 20 of 38 Total Page Number: 234 Attachment 10 Page 21 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 21 of 38 Total Page Number: 235 Attachment 10 Page 22 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 22 of 38 Total Page Number: 236 Attachment 10 Page 23 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 23 of 38 Total Page Number: 237 Attachment 10 Page 24 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 24 of 38 Total Page Number: 238 Attachment 10 Page 25 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 25 of 38 Total Page Number: 239 Attachment 10 Page 26 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 26 of 38 Total Page Number: 240 Attachment 10 Page 27 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 27 of 38 Total Page Number: 241 Attachment 10 Page 28 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 28 of 38 Total Page Number: 242 Attachment 10 Page 29 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 29 of 38 Total Page Number: 243 Attachment 10 Page 30 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 30 of 38 Total Page Number: 244 Attachment 10 Page 31 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 31 of 38 Total Page Number: 245 Attachment 10 Page 32 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 32 of 38 Total Page Number: 246 Attachment 10 Page 33 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 33 of 38 Total Page Number: 247 Attachment 10 Page 34 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 34 of 38 Total Page Number: 248 Attachment 10 Page 35 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 35 of 38 Total Page Number: 249 Attachment 10 Page 36 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 36 of 38 Total Page Number: 250 Attachment 10 Page 37 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 37 of 38 Total Page Number: 251 Attachment 10 Page 38 of 38 Exhibit 8 Page 38 of 38 Total Page Number: 252 Attachment 11 Page 1 of 5 Effects of Group Homes on Neighborhood Property Values Carey S. Ryan and Ann Coyne Abstract: Several indicators of property values were examined to determine the effect that group homes have on property values. Data were collected for 525 houses which sold around 13 group homes. Independent variables were the time of sale (before or after group home occupancy) and distance from the group home. No significant differences were found in length of rime on the market and sale/list ratios. Exceptionally high sale prices in certain areas are believed to have accounted for significant differences in list and sale prices. The results support the notion that group homes do not adversely affect neighborhood property values. T he Eastern Nebraska Community Office of with friends or alone. Skills and abilities deter- Retardation (ENCOR) was formed in 1970 to mine the level of staff support. In some cases, it provide community-based services to persons may be 24-hour supervision. In others, staff per- with mental retardation. Their services include sons may drop in for only an hour or two each residential services which are provided through week. the establishment of small group homes in which ENCOR maintains residences within neigh- individuals with mental retardation live with staff borhoods such that they are not landmarks. support. Neither the residential facilities nor their resi- dents are intended to be more conspicuous than Group homes located in two of the five coun- any other segment of their community. ties served by ENCOR were selected for the Study. Douglas County (population approxi- Residential services, like all other ENCOR ser- mately 411,000) includes the city of Omaha—a vices, are based on the theory of normalization. metropolitan area of Nebraska. Omaha is de- That is, they are based on the belief that all scribed as a medium sized service center. A sub- people, whether or not they have mental retar- stantial proportion of its economic activity stems dation, should have the opportunity to enjoy the from agriculture. same environment and have access to the same resources. Indeed, such opportunities are essen- Sarpy County (which is adjacent to Douglas tial if people are to grow and learn to live as part County) b the location of the Strategic Air Com- of the larger society. mand (SAC)—Offutt Air Force Base. SAC is an important part of the economy in Sarpy County There are two aspects involved in living as part and the leading employer in the metropolitan of the larger society. One is the physical setting or area. integration of the person's home. The other is The stability of the population in the Omaha social integration or the day-to-day interaction metropolitan area is comparable to cities of simi- with other individuals in the community includ- lar size in the United States. ing neighbors, merchants, etc. Exclusion by the community can be a major barrier facing Approximately 12% of the population is black, providers and consumers of community-based which is about the national average. About 2.1% residential services. The community may exclude is Chicano according to documented reports (D. persons with mental retardation by blocking their Dimartino, University of Nebraska at Omaha entrance into the community through zoning Center for Applied Urban Research, personal laws, city ordinances, and various informal communication, February, 1985). methods such as neighborhood and community The purpose of ENCOR's residential services pressure (Aviram & Segal. 1973). Thus, neigh- is to prepare children and adults with mental borhood and community acceptance is an im- retardation for the independent use of the same portant part of assisting persons with mental re- residential environments and other community tardation to live as part of the larger society. resources and settings available to ail citizens. Before making a decision to rent a house in Some individuals live in a group of two or three. which to provide residential services to persons Others live in their own homes or apartments Exhibit 9 Page 1 of 5 Total Page Number: 253 Attachment 11 with mental retardation. ENCOR staff personsintended use of a house as a group home. Thus, Page 2 of 5 routinely conduct neighborhood surveys. Staffthe study was replicated and the date of occu- persons inform the neighbors of the agency'spancy was used to define the establishment of the programs ana goals. provide some reading mate-group home. rial, answer questions, and solicit their opinion Again, the results showed that group homes on having a residence in their neighborhood. i.e., did not adversely affect neighborhood property favorable, no opinion, or unfavorable. Their re- values. Three homes showed no statistically sig- sponses are only one factor on which the decision nifiant differences in che before and after mea- to rent a house is made. sures for the two variables. For two homes, there was a statistically significant difference such that One area of concern to potential and current the measures after the date of occupancy were neighbors of ENCOR residences and to the more positive than the before measures for at agency, is the effect that group homes have on least one of the variables. neighborhood property values. Such community concerns can be a major barrier towards the Other researchers have reported chat property physical and social integration of persons with values in communities with group homes had the mental retardation. This study examines several same increase (or decrease) in market prices as measures of property values to determine what other similar neighborhoods; that the close effects, if any, the presence of ENCOR group proximity of neighboring properties to a group homes have on neighborhood property values. home did not significantly affect their market Such research should prove useful as a source of values; that adjacent properties did not experi- information to the agency and property owners. ence property value declines; and that the estab- lishment of the group homes did not generate a Literature Review higher degree of neighboring property turnover than in other similar neighborhoods (Mambort Several studies (Caulkins, Noak & Wilkerson, Thomas 8c Few, 1981; Wolpert, 1978). 1976; City of Lansing Planning Department, In another study, property transactions were 1976: Dear, 1977; Developmental Disabilities examined for houses located in the immediate Program, 1982; Knowles & Baba, 1973; Wiener, area of a group home, those located on the same Anderson 8c Nietupski, 1982) examining various street, and chose located in che same block. An measures of property values have revealed no analysis of turnover rates, mean selling prices. evidence that neighborhood values are adversely mean annual rates of appreciation, che mean affected by the presence of a group home. number of days properties were listed before A study issued by the Metropolitan Human selling, and the actual selling prices as per- Services Commission (Wagner & Mitchell, 1980) centages of the asking prices showed no evidence in Columbus, Ohio examined real estate that property values or marketability were ad- transactions which occurred before and after the versely affected by che establishment or presence location of group homes serving a variety of of group homes in residentially zoned neighbor- populations including developmentally disabled hoods (Wickware & Goodale, 1981). women. No statistical differences were found Thus, researchers examining a number of pos- between the before and after measures of prop- sible indicators of property values have found no erty values. Indicators of value used were the evidence that che presence of group homes af- time that a parcel remained on the market and fects property values. The methodology has sale price as a percentage of list price. A quick included che analysis of real estate transactions sale was assumed to be more beneficial to the occurring before the establishment of group seller so that a better investment could be made homes with those occurring after, the use and the inconvenience involved in the sales pro- comparison neighborhoods or a matched control cess could be eliminated. The price ratio was group, and the analysis of real estate transactions used to permit comparisons of different real for houses located at progressively further dis- properties and to decrease the biasing effects of tances from the group home. time and history. According to Wagner and Mitchell (1980), the study was criticized for defining location date as Method the purchase date of the facilities studied. That Overview is, it was suggested that property values would In order to determine che effects that group not be affected by the presence of a group home homes serving individuals with mental retarda- until the neighborhood became fully aware of the Exhibit 9 Page 2 of 5 Total Page Number: 254 Attachment 11 Page 3 of 5 tion have on neighborhood property values, prior to the date of occupancy. For the other property transactions occurring during a period eleven group homes neighbors would not have if time both before and after the occupancyknown. dates of group homes were analyzed. In addition, Data were collected for those homes that sold property transactions were analyzed in relation within 1200 feet of each group home. Each house to their distance from the group homes. Thus, was determined to be in a certain zone with ref- effects, if any, can be seen as occurring after the erence to the group home, i.e., Zone 1 included establishment of the group homes and/or as a houses located within 400 feet of the group result of proximity to the group homes (di- home. Zone 2 included those located between 400 and 800 feet of the group home, and Zone minishing as distance from the group home in- 3 included those located between 800 and 1200 creases). feet of the group home. In cases where the di- viding line ran through a house, the house was Group Home Selection included in the zone nearest to the group home. Of the 537 houses located in the Zone 1 Thirteen group homes administered by areas around the group homes, 111 sales took ENCOR were selected for the study. The fol- place. Of the 1,118 houses in the Zone 2 areas. lowing criteria were used in the selection process: 246 sales took place. Finally, of the total 1.381 (1) 24-hour staff coverage; (2) occupancy by two houses located in the Zone 3 areas, 225 sales took or more clients; (3) location in Douglas or Sarpy place. County, Nebraska; and (4) location in a primarily Turnover rates were calculated for each zone non-rental neighborhood (e.g., not located in an of each group home based on the number of apartment complex). Facilities established prior property transactions that occurred and the total to 1978 were not included because of a lack of number of houses in each zone. The latter in- available information. formation was derived from aerial photographs which were obtained from the Omaha and Data Collection Bellevue (Nebraska) City Planning Departments. Rates were calculated separately for before and Data were collected from the Omaha Statistical after the group home occupancy dates as well as Marketing Analysis (Multiple Listing Service) and by zone. included the following: (I) the date each house Sale price/list price percentages were individu- sold: (2) the amount of each transaction; (3) the ally calculated for each transaction. list price of each house sold; (4) the number of days each house was on the market; and (5) the address of each house sold. Data was also col- lected from the 1980 Census on Population and Results and Discussion Housing on median housing value for each Market Time group home neighborhood. Data did not include those houses sold by the owner (which, according. A two-way analysis of variance indicated there to a local real estate agent are minimal) and those were no statistically significant differences in che houses that never sold and went off the market as number of days that houses were on the market this information was not available. before being sold. This held true for both inde- pendent variables—distance from the group Data were collected on a total of 525 homes for home and whether a house sold before or after the period of time from one year before (n = the occupancy date of the group home. There 198) to three years after (n = 327) the date of was also no significant interaction. occupancy for each group home. Occupancy dates were used rather than dates of leases as it is believed that it is at occupancy when neighbors Turnover Rate become aware that individuals with mental retar- Turnover for homes before and after the es- dation have moved into the homes. It should be tablishment of the group homes was analyzed noted that neighborhood surveys (the soliciting 2 using chi-square. The chi-square x 7.82, df = of neighbors' opinions prior to renting) were 1) was significant at the .05 level. Turnover after begun by ENCOR only in July of 1980. Thus, for the establishment of the group homes was sig- two of the thirteen group homes, neighbors nificantiv lower than turnover before While this would have become aware of the potential estab- most likely represents a slow-down in the housing lishment of a group home in their neighborhood Exhibit 9 Page 3 of 5 Total Page Number: 255 Attachment 11 Page 4 of 5 lishment of the four group homes. An analysis market, it also indicates that presence of a group was done on the list and sale prices for properties home does not increase turnover. around the nine other group homes in = 273 and it can be concluded chat che presence of a n = 277, respectively). There were no significant group home in a neighborhood did not adversely differences by zone when data for one year be- affect (i.e.. cause an increase in) che number of fore the establishment of the group homes were property transactions in a neighborhood- compared with che data for one year after che establishment of the group homes. List Price,. Sale Price, and The median housing value for Zone 3 areas around and che four group homes where ex- Sale/List Rates ceptional sales occurred was 344,320. In contrast. che mean list price for homes in chose areas that Two-way analyses of variance revealed a sig- sold after che establishment of the group homes nificant interaction effect of distance from che was $65,670 and the mean sale price was group home and time of sale (i.e whether che $63,230. Some of the actual sale prices in this house sold before or after the occupancy date of group were $107,500, $80,000, $95.000, and the group home) on both list and sale prices (F = 382,500. 3.33.2/254 df,p < .022 and F = 4.19, 2/523 df,p < .016 respectively). After group home estab- The median housing value for Zone 3 around lishment, there was a greater increase in list the nine group homes where no exceptional sales prices and sale prices further away from some of occurred was $45,270. The mean list and sale the group homes. However, there was no signifi- prices were $43,160 and $41,350, respectively. cant difference in the sale/list ratios (i.e., sale Thus, the data suggests chat for some reason prices expressed as percentages of list prices). (probably unrelated to the presence of a group Thus, homeowners were still getting the same home in che neighborhood) a few exceptionally percentage of their asking price for their prop- high sales occurred in Zone 3 around four of the erty regardless of the distance from che group group homes after group home establishment home or whether the house sold before or after which may have caused a significant difference the group home was established. by zone in che overall analysis. Overall che list and sale prices increased in every zone after the group homes were estab- Discussion lished. However, it appeared chat in Zone 3 list The results of this analysis of several possible prices were considerably higher after the estab- indicators of property values are very similar to lishment of che group homes. Table 1 shows the chose that have been reported in similar studies mean list and sale prices and the mean sale/list of group home effects on property values. Re- ratios by zone and time of sale. sults for three of che five indicators—the length It appeared however that these differences by of time a house remained on che market, che rate zone existed only around four of che thirteen of turnover in the neighborhood, and the sale- group homes where exceptionally high sales ap- price as a percentage of che list price—lend sup- pear to have occurred in Zone 3 after che estab- Exhibit 9 Page 4 of 5 Total Page Number: 256 Attachment 11 Developmental Disabilities Program. (1982). Policy port to the notion that group homes do not ad- Page 5 of 5 Analysis Series No. II: An Analysis of Minnesota Prop- versely affect neighborhood property values. In- erty Values of Community Intermediate Care Facilities for deed, turnover rates appeared to be lower and Mentally Retarded (ICF-MRs). St. Paul, MN: Devel- the sale prices and list prices significantly in- opmental Disabilities Program, Department of En- creased after group homes were established. This ergy, Planning and Development. is probably the result of the overall slowdown of Knowles, E.S., & Baba, R.K. (June 15, 1973). The Social the housing market and inflation of housing costs Impact of Croup Homes: A Study of Small Residential in the 1979-83 period of the study rather than Services Programs in First Residential Areas. Green Bay, anything related to group home establishment. WI: University of Wisconsin. Although differences were found in list and sale Mambort, T., Thomas, E.B., & Few, R.G. (1981). prices by zone, there is evidence to suggest that Community Acceptance: A Realistic Approach. Montgom- these differences may be due to factors unrelatedery County, OH: Montgomery County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. to the presence of group homes. In four specific Omaha Statistical Marketing Analysis—Multiple List- areas exceptionally high list and sale prices for ing Service. (1976-1983). Omaha, NE: Omaha homes selling after the establishment of the Board of Realtors. group homes were noted. When these areas were Wagner, C.A., & Mitchell, C M. (1980). Croup Homes Removed from the analysis the apparent dif- and Property, Values: A Second Look. Columbus, OH: ferences disappeared. It appears that neighbor- Metropolitan Human Services Commission. hood fears of lowered property values are un- Wickware, S., & Goodale, T. (1981). Research in funded. Canada—Group Homes and Property Values. Mental Retardation (Canadian Journal), 31(1), 30. Wiener, E., Anderson, R.J., & Nietupski, J. (1982). References Impact of community-based residential facilities for mentally retarded adults on surrounding property values using realtor analysis methods. Education and Aviram, U., & Segal, S. P. (1973). Exclusion of the Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17(4), 278-282. mentally ill. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29, 126- Wolpert, J. (1978). Group homes for the mentally re- tarded: An investigation of neighborhood property Caulkins, Z., Noak, J., & Wilkerson, B. (December 6, impact. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton Univer- 1976). The Impact of Residential Care Facilities in De- sity, prepared for the New York State Office of catur. Decatur, IL: Macon County Community Men- Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. tal Health Board. Albany, NY. y of Lansing (Michigan) Planning Department. City (1976). The influence of halfway houses and foster care facilities upon property values. Lansing, MI. Dear, M. (1977). Impact of mental health facilities on property values. Community Mental Health Journal, 13(2). 150-157. Exhibit 9 Page 5 of 5 Total Page Number: 257 Memo DATE: 1/22/2025 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney RE: 110 Terrace Street rd memorandum, utilized statutory Our previous opinion, detailed in the January 3 construction to determine how the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) definition of a peer respite center aligns with the Ashland Municipal Code. This interpretation highlighted the significant emphasis on long-term occupancy in the definitions of other group living uses within the code, leading us to conclude that the closest equivalent to a peer respite center was a "traveler's accommodation." This interpretation must be considered in conjunction with Director Goldman's memorandum, which emphasizes the current lack of a comprehensive legislative framework governing peer respite center operations. This absence of specific rules necessitates a reliance on the plain language of our existing zoning code. Peer respite centers are new and no precedent or established procedures exist for their classification. This is similar to the situation with the legalization of marijuana dispensaries, when that occurred a few years ago, where the state provided a timeframe for the city to update its code accordingly. Our previous interpretation centered on the ORS's explicit 14-day limit on peer respite stays. While bright-line rules (in contrast with discretionary standards) are common in law, the 14-day restriction strongly suggested a transitory use, akin to "traveler's accommodation." Had the group living situation involved a more permanent occupancy (30 days or longer), the need for statutory interpretation would have been unnecessary, as it would have clearly fallen under existing code provisions. It's important to note the City’s neutral application of this rule. In the past, the City has previously denied other transitory uses in similar residential zones, specifically yoga and woodworking classes, which were also based on short-term occupancy models. While arguments in support of the application emphasized the facility's function, the central issue is the program's inherently transient nature, reflected in its 14-day stay limit. Policy discussions regarding the intended uses of different zones are important but should occur separately from this interpretation, in a legislative, policy-making setting. 1 Total Page Number: 258 Memo The central issue remains the transitory aspect of the program. Further context is provided by the City’s understanding that the applicant secured a lease agreement before contacting the City, and initial discussions with the planning department indicated a classification more closely resembling a "traveler's accommodation." This lack of clarity, led to the current timing of this question of interpretation being presented before the Planning Commission: a focused analysis of this specific property's use instead of a broader discussion about potential code modifications or other areas in the City that where the statutory construction is better applied. It is worth noting that while our previous opinion concluded that the peer respite center most closely resembled a "traveler's accommodation," an alternative interpretation is possible. The Planning Commission could instead agree with the Applicant's classification of a peer respite center as a form of "group living" and not take the same emphasis that staff has taken. This office reviewed the case law provided by the applicant and advocates and broadly agree with many of the statements and positions taken. However, the cases are so fact-specific and this office did not find a direct enough equivalent to change statutory construction approach this office took in approaching this novel question. This situation warrants a broader discussion regarding potential code modifications to address peer respite centers specifically, as suggested by Director Goldman's memorandum. 2 Total Page Number: 259 Memo DATE: January 22, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director RE: Fair Housing and Reasonable Accommodation During the January 14th public hearing regarding the land use interpretation application for a "Peer Respite Center" under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (PA-T1- 2024-00255), and in materials submitted with the application, the Applicant requested that the Planning Commission consider the application of Fair Housing and Reasonable Accommodation guidance in evaluation of the land use planning application. To support this request and provide a thorough framework for evaluation, the Applicant also requested that the record remain open for the submission of additional written testimony. In response to this request, Planning Staff has provided the following resources to ensure the Commission is equipped with relevant and authoritative guidance regarding the Fair Housing Act and its implications for zoning and land use decisions: 1.Group Homes, Local Land Use and the Fair Housing Act - Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This document addresses the relationship between group homes, local land use regulations, and the Fair Housing Act, providing clarity on how zoning practices should support inclusivity and compliance with federal law. 2.Building Inclusive Communities- Fair Housing Council of Oregon Guide for Public Officials This guide offers practical advice and best practices for fostering inclusivity in local communities. It emphasizes the role of public officials in creating equitable housing opportunities. 3.Planning and Fair Housing – American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service Paper. This paper provides an overview of the intersection of planning practices and fair housing regulations, highlighting the importance of recognizing group homes as a residential use under zoning codes. These documents collectively outline the principles of the Fair Housing Act and its application to land use and zoning, particularly regarding the inclusion of group homes within residential zones. Planning Staff believes this information will assist the Planning Commission in evaluating the proposed Peer Respite Center use within the context of applicable laws and best practices. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 260 Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please contact Planning Staff prior to the continuation of the public hearing. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Attachments: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 261 Total Page Number: 262 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 263 Total Page Number: 264 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 265 Total Page Number: 266 Total Page Number: 267 Total Page Number: 268 Total Page Number: 269 Total Page Number: 270 Total Page Number: 271 Total Page Number: 272 Total Page Number: 273 Total Page Number: 274 Total Page Number: 275 Total Page Number: 276 Total Page Number: 277 Total Page Number: 278 Total Page Number: 279 Total Page Number: 280 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 281 Total Page Number: 282 January 29, 2025 City of Ashland Planning Commission c/o Brandon Goldman brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re:PA-T1-2024-00255 – 110 Terrace Street Dear Commissioners: As previously stated, our office represents David W. and Carolyn Allman, the owners of property located at 134 Terrace Street, Ashland. This letter is submitted for the record in response to the materials submitted during the first open record period of the foregoing matter. As testified previously, our client contends that the proposed use is not similar to a residential use under the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) and therefore should not be approved under AMC 18.1.5.040. Moreover, if the legislature had intended to pre- empt cities’ zoning laws, it would have done so (See HB 2006 which explicitly exempted emergency shelters from local land use regulation; HB 2001 requiring cities with a population of at least 25,0000 to allow middle housing in residential areas). Nor is the use a “dwelling” under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). To qualify as a “dwelling” under the FHA the use must meet a 2-factor test: 1) whether the facility is intended or designed for occupants who would intend to remain for a significant period of time; and 2) whether the occupants view the facility as a place to return to. rd Lakeside Resort Enter v. Sup’rs of Palmyra TP, 455 F/3d 154. 158 (3 Cir. 2006). A determination of whether a stay is a significant period of time is fact specific. In Lakeside, the court found that although the average stay was 14.8 days the facility qualified as a dwelling because the actual duration of stay varied widely, sometimes up to a year, and the short duration was usually caused by health conditions or insurance issues. Therefore, since the stay length was kept short by outside factors the average stay length was not dispositive, and the facility was a dwelling because it was intended for longer use. Page 1 Total Page Number: 283 In contrast, here, the intended stay is of short duration; specifically, a stay cannot exceed 14-days. ORS 430.275(2)(a). In fact, the very definition of a peer respite service means: “voluntary, nonclinical, short-term residential peer support.” ORS 430.275(1)(a)(Emphasis added). (“Each peer respite center may provide up to two weeks of continuous …services). ORS 430.275(2)(a)(Emphasis added). Applicant argues that since there is no guarantee an individual resides long-term in a single- family home or residential care home, duration should not be a factor here. However, as with Lakeside, the fact that someone might move out sooner due to outside factors is not determinative of whether a person can remain for a significant period of time. The statute makes clear that a peer respite center is not intended for significant or long-term residential stays and therefore is not a dwelling under the FHA. As for the Applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation, the City need not reasonably accommodate this particular use in this particular location. The applicant states: “Excluding people experiencing mental illness, particularly those who need and desire respite housing as a means to stabilize their mental illness, from living in the RR-.5 zones, and for that matter, all single-family zones, is likely to reinforce existing patterns of segregation and to have a disparate impact on people with disabilities. (Letter from Jennifer M. Bragar, January 14, 2025, p.4). However, City zoning does not prohibit disabled individuals from living in this zone. Disabled (including mentally ill) individuals may reside in a single-family home alone, or with family or friends, or in a residential care home, as an outright permitted use. Additionally, nursing homes, convalescent homes and residential care facilities are permitted in the RR-.5 zone as a conditional use. It is an unfounded statement that because a peer respite center cannot be located here, the City’s zoning code discriminates against disabled persons living in a single-family zone. As noted in the Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (https://www.justice.gov/crt/joint-statement- department-justice-and-department-housing-and-urban-development) (the DOJ Memo), included in the record, a reasonable accommodation might mean waiving a setback requirement to allow better access for those with mobility impairments, but not all requested modifications are reasonable. To determine whether a modification is reasonable the City must look to: 1) whether the request imposes an under burden or expense on the local government; and 2) does it create a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme. Id. Here the requested accommodation creates a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme, as the use is not residential in nature, but rather transitory as argued previously in the record. It is expressly intended to provide “short-term residential” use, inconsistent with the City’s definition of Residential Use which is: “Long-term occupancy of a dwelling unit, which may be owner-occupied or rented. Occupancy of a dwelling unit for shorter periods (i.e., less than 30 days) of time is considered an overnight accommodation for transient individuals. See also, definitions of Accessory Page 2 Total Page Number: 284 Travelers’ Accommodation, Hotel/Motel, and Travelers’ Accommodation.” AMC 18.6.1. Unlike a request to merely allow an increased setback as a reasonable accommodation, the current request requires the City to fundamentally alter its zoning scheme to allow a prohibited transitory use and is therefore not a reasonable accommodation request. In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing arguments, should the City determine that it is necessary or desirable to grant a reasonable accommodation, conditions should be imposed to ensure that the proposed use does not create an undue burden to neighboring properties or property owners. It is noteworthy that the proposed application provides no information as to how the program will be run. For example, when can an individual move in or out of the facility? Will prospective guests come and go 24/7? What steps are in place should an individual arrive at the premises but be turned down either because the 4-beds are filled or because the individual’s mental state is such that the person cannot be served by the facility. These questions are particularly problematic because the state has yet to establish any rules as to how such a facility will operate, what safety plans should be in place, what to do if a person is turned away for service, etc. In fact, in reviewing the September 2022 Peer Run Respite RFGP Information Session (https://youtu.be/faP7eh5bnTk) many of these questions were raised by prospective grantees and the state acknowledged that it did not have answers and that it would be up to each individual facility to provide a plan for emergencies, or to deal with guests who arrive but cannot be served. Has any such plan been provided to the City and are there steps in place to ensure the facility is prepared to address emergencies, evacuations, or turning a prospective guest away, who may be in a state of mental crisis, from the facility? Are there any standards to prevent housing of “current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders” who, per the DOJ Memo, are not considered disabled under the FHA by virtue of that status. The proposed use at this location presents particular challenges unique to this site. Access to the site is via a blind driveway shared with our clients, the driveway surface to the premises is not in good repair and measures only 7’ 8” wide, is not lighted, is in a high wildfire risk zone, and is difficult to find at night (See Exhibit A, Photos of Driveway and Entrance off Terrace). In viewing the September 2022 RFGP Information Session cited above, the state advises that use and access to a facility will be flexible, and that “people can refer themselves”. People can “show up and ask for support”. Id. In this case, given the access to the site, the inadequate driveway condition, and the hazard zone, conditions should be imposed for the protection of the respite center as well as neighboring property owners to ensure that potential guests who just “show up” can find the facility safely, do not disturb our clients in the middle of the night because of confusion as to the location of the site, can exit in the event of emergency evacuation, etc. To that end, any approval should include conditions of approval that may include, but not be limited to, the following: Page 3 Total Page Number: 285 1) Evidence of rules restricting guests from active use of controlled substances while on the premises. 2) Evidence of rules restricting those convicted of illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders, from staying at the premises. 3) Rules prohibiting smoking outdoors and/or rules to ensure that any outdoor smoking is contained within a designated area designed to reduce the risk of wildfire. 4) Rules prohibiting checking in or out of the facility between the hours of 10pm to 7am to limit disruption to neighbors. 5) Potential signage and lighting to identify the driveway, with lighting designed to shield the light away from the property located at 134 Terrace Street. 6) Requirement that the site be assessed by Ashland Fire and Rescue to determine whether any items need to be addressed to reduce fire risk. 7) Evidence of an evacuation and safety plan in the event of emergencies. 8) Evidence of a plan to address turning away guests arriving at the premises (for example will staff drive them elsewhere, get them a ride, etc. so a person in a state of mental distress is not simply wandering from a relatively remote location back to town). 9) Evidence of a plan to deal with violations such as illegal drug use, violent behavior or other severe safety hazards (for example, will such issues result in eviction from the premises). 10) Information as to whether there are rules regarding visitors and how that will be handled. 11) Evidence of adequate insurance to address potential hazards involved in running this facility. For example, if a guest damages neighboring property, is there adequate insurance to cover these costs. The applicant indicates that the City has failed to engage in a dialogue regarding the requested reasonable accommodation. However, information received pursuant to a public records request indicates that the applicant has been involved in a dialogue with the City for over a year and yet it does not appear that any evidence has been provided as to how this facility will be run, and how it will address potential emergencies. (See Exhibit B, Timeline of Events). It is also apparent that the applicant moved forward with a lease and investment in the use before it ever applied to the City for approval. The application should not be approved simply because the applicant proceeded without assuring this location was legally permissible or adequate. While it is an unfortunate series of events that is undoubtedly costly and frustrating to the applicant, that could have been avoided had the applicant completed its due diligence before proceeding with development of the site. In conclusion, the application should be denied as the use is not permitted in the zone. A reasonable accommodation is not required as the use is not a dwelling under the FHA and the accommodation request is not reasonable in that it would result in a Page 4 Total Page Number: 286 fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme. In the event that the City disagrees and moves forward with approval of the use, reasonable conditions should be imposed to ensure that the use does not have an undue impact on the property or the neighbors. O’CONNOR WEST, LLC /s/ Sydnee Dreyer Sydnee B. Dreyer, OSB No. 954710 sbd@PacificLand.law SBD: c: Clients Page 5 Total Page Number: 287 EXHIBIT A Photos of Driveway A view of the blind driveway entrance from Terrace Page 6 Total Page Number: 288 A view of the driveway entrance – Allman Property to the right of the driveway Page 7 Total Page Number: 289 Page 8 Total Page Number: 290 Narrow driveway to premises – measures 7’ 8” Page 9 Total Page Number: 291 From:info@mountainbeaverhouse.org To:Burns Kendall Frances Cc:Rappaport Beau; Haiani Israa A; kelly szott Subject:Zoning timeline and overview Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 1:07:28 PM Attachments:MBH Zoning Timeline.docx Hi Kendall and Beau, Kendall, here is an overview of the steps we have taken to obtain zoning. Please let us know if you need any additional information or have questions. As you know, we've balanced this work with other work including policy and procedure development, staff trainings, etc. I do want to highlight that our current timeline has not changed substantially since our Quarter 1 report was submitted to OHA on July 1, 2024. At that time, we documented the communications we had received from OHA regarding delays and the issue of contract compliance: "we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” I've mentioned this previously, but I wanted to let you know we are in the final steps of hiring 5 additional per diem employees. We intend to hire additional employees this fall, to ensure we have proper staffing when we open. We'll look forward to meeting with you and Beau soon. Thanks, Derek On 2024-10-03 16:36, info@mountainbeaverhouse.org wrote: >Hi Kendall, > > thanks for your call yesterday. > > You requested a detailed write-up of the steps we've taken to resolve >the zoning issues. We are working on that for you. > > Regarding the next steps around a "request for reinterpretation" that >our land use consultant and attorney advised, we are working to get >that for you as well, but may be delayed because our land use >consultant is currently experiencing a medical emergency. > > please let us know if you need anything else. > > Thanks, > > Derek > > On 2024-10-02 11:39, Burns Kendall Frances wrote: Total Page Number: 292 >>Hello, >> >>Please see section EXHIBIT A Part 2 Disbursement and Financial >>Reporting. Please note that further invoices will not be approved as >>the organization is out of compliance with the terms of the grant and >>has not met milestone of opening within six months of the start up >>costs being received. At this time, the organization has not provided >>a sufficient plan or timeline for opening in Southern Oregon. I need a >>detailed plan and timeline for opening within 3 months. I've cc'd >>Israa to assist us in scheduling a time to meet with myself and Beau. >> >>Regards, >> >>Kendall Burns (she/her) >>Peer-Run Respite Coordinator >>Oregon Health Authority >>Office of Recovery and Resilience >>971-239-6455 >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: info@mountainbeaverhouse.org <info@mountainbeaverhouse.org> >>Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:53 PM >>To: HSD Contracts <HSD.Contracts@odhsoha.oregon.gov> >>Cc: Burns Kendall Frances <Kendall.F.Burns@oha.oregon.gov> >>Subject: Invoices 500 + 600 >> >>Think twice before clicking on links or opening attachments. This >>email came from outside our organization and might not be safe. If you >>are not expecting an attachment, contact the sender before opening it. >> >> >> >>Hello, >> >>Here are our invoices for Q1 and Q2 of the 2024-2025 fiscal year. >>Please let us know if you need anything else. >> >>thanks, >> >>Derek Total Page Number: 293 This is a timeline and basic overview of the steps we have taken to secure a rental and zoning approval for the peer respite. November 2023 We began looking for rental properties. December 2023 We made initial contact with the local municipalities regarding zoning peer respites. We met with OHA and FolkTime for TA in-person training. We showed OHA and FolkTime images of the house at 110 Terrace Street; Kendall Burns and Peter Starkey advised us to secure the property first and address zoning with the city after securing the lease. Based on initial discussions with the City of Ashland, City planning staff stated that our zoning “is most similar to either a convalescent home or residential care facility.” City staff outlined the process for being zoned as such via a Conditional Use Permit process. We began contacting lawyers who could help us with the conditional use permit process. We spoke with Alecia Leduc-Montgomery, Corinne Celko and Tonia Moro. We began working with the landlord, Kent Patton, to secure the house. We conducted outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. January 2024 We continued consulting lawyers with next steps along the conditional use permit process, including Lanier Land Consulting LLC. We chose to work with land use consultant, Amy Gunter and land use attorney, Chris Hearn. February 2024 We worked with Amy Gunter and Chris Hearn to submit our pre-application paperwork to the city of Ashland, we secured a March 20th 2024 date for our pre-application meeting. March 2024 We continue to work with Amy Gunter in preparation of our March 20th meeting Page 10 Total Page Number: 294 The written comments from our pre-application meeting with the City stated: “If it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets the definition of a ‘residential care facility’ then it would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In the Land Use Ordinance, the definition of Residential Care Facility falls under ‘Group Living.’ The ‘Group Living’ definition invokes long-term residential occupancy. For staff the concern is whether the transient nature of the proposed respite center would offend the definition of ‘Residential Care Facility’... Due to the transient nature of the proposal, it may be determined that it qualifies as a ‘Travelers’ Accommodations,’ in which case it would be a prohibited use in the zone and not able to be approved.” In our pre-application meeting with the City, city staff stated that they would be able to re-interpret zoning if they receive a declaration from OHA or a letter of intent from legislators stating how the respites should be zoned. We scheduled a meeting with Amy Gunter and our staff to begin discussions with OHA regarding a path forward. In an email to OHA staff, Amy Gunter stated: “In my experience as a planning consultant, Peer Respite homes will face challenges in many Oregon communities without further guidance from the Oregon Housing Authority on the intent of the emergency Legislative Action (House Bill 2980 (2021)... A letter from the OHA that directs cities to allow for Peer Respite in residential settings similar to all other addiction/recovery homes, domestic violence shelter type of facilities that provide housing for five or fewer individuals with mental, emotional, or behavioral disturbances or alcohol or drug dependence, residential care, and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous properties are similar in type, kind, and function as the intended legislative action for Peer Respite Centers would eliminate the city desire to use discretion because they don't know what to call a Peer Respite Center within the context of their codes.” April 2024 We continued discussions with Amy Gunter, our staff, OHA and the City of Ashland including a meeting with all parties on April 23rd. During meetings between our staff and OHA, OHA informed us that we would not be penalized or viewed as out of compliance for opening delays caused by zoning issues. We reiterated this mutual understanding in an email to Kendall Burns, dated April 16, 2024: “As discussed, this delay is caused by zoning issues outside of our control, and OHA has stated that we will not be penalized or considered out of compliance with our contract for zoning-related delays.” In this same email, we said our hope was to resolve zoning issues by July 25, 2024. Page 11 Total Page Number: 295 We followed up on outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. May 2024 We received a detailed explanation and next steps for zoning from our land use consultant. This explained the timeline for zoning with the City of Ashland, given the results of our pre-application meeting: “The city has a 30-day review window from when the application is submitted and paid. In that 30-day window, the application is deemed complete or incomplete. When the application is deemed complete, a notice of application (if a staff decision) or notice of hearing (what they said they would do to notify the neighborhood) goes out to all property owners within 200 feet of the property boundaries. “Staff Decision (Type 1): A typical CUP for a Traveler's Accommodation or a Residential Care Facility (similarin type, kind, and function) would be reviewed within 30-day, noticed for 14 day public comment period, staff takes about 20 days following the comment period to make their decision. That decision is sent to the same notice area with a 12 day appeal period. The city averages about 75 days to process these. They have 120 days by state statue. “Assuming there will be a public hearing because staff believes that it should be considered like a Transient Occupancy vacation rental… “The application is a Type 2 and is heard before the planning commission as a quasi-judicial procedure. The meeting follows Roberts Rules of Order. A hearing is opened and there are specific rules to who can participate based on signing up during the public testimony stage. A planning commission hearing is typically about 45 days after submittal. “The planning commission reviews the application during their meeting, takes public testimony, and reviews the staff recommendations. The applicant gives a 15-minute presentation and the public gets 3-5 min to comment. The hearing closes and no more public comment is allowed. The Planning Commission forms a decision and makes findings based on the code criteria recommending approval or denial. The following month, the findings are adopted. Whenthe hearings process is involved, the timeline is approximately 160 days (30-day pre-review and 130-day application processing period). The decision can be appealed by anyone in the applicant, anyone in the notice area or anyone in the public that commented during the public Page 12 Total Page Number: 296 comment period or during a hearing. In both decision processes, state law gives the city 180 days to process the decision.” We began outreach to community partners to receive support related to our zoning issues. We met with attorney Chris Hearn to proceed with next steps with our conditional use permit process. Chris stated he would research the issues for the best path forward, given our goals and timeline. We requested that land use consultant Amy Gunter research additional locations where we could operate a peer respite with fewer zoning barriers. June 2024 We pursued a three pronged plan for next steps: (1) work with land use consultant and land to obtain zoning at 110 Terrace Street; (2) research other properties in Jackson or Josephine county where we could move without zoning barriers; (3) contact local elected officials to problem solve zoning. We updated OHA on these steps and our timeline via an email on June 28, 2024, including: “as previously discussed, we are still compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” In this email, we stated: “we anticipated that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025.” We began outreach to Representative Pam Marsh regarding our zoning delays. July 2024 Our staff and landlord had multiple conversations with Representative Pam Marsh regarding zoning issues, Representative Marsh conducted outreach to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Rep. Nosse, Kevin Fitts, ABLE House, FolkTime, and others. Our landlord also informed us that we would speak with a former Ashland city administrator regarding these issues. Based on his review and interpretation of materials, our attorney Chris Hearn advised that he “call \[Ashland\] City Attorney Doug McGeary and see if he will get the Planning Department to re-interpret the provisions of City’s short-term rental ordinance differently.” Hearn also advised that we should conduct outreach to Representative Pam Marsh. Amy Gunter completed research regarding additional municipalities where we could move with fewer zoning restrictions: “All localities (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Jackson County have some sort of Page 13 Total Page Number: 297 restriction upon occupancy of any sort that is 30 days or less… a political challenge could be raised where there are occupancy specifications in the ordinance.” After requesting an extension on our grant contract we were informed by Kendall Burns: “At this time \[the contract\] cannot be extended past June 30th 2025.” Due July 31, 2024, our Quarter 1 report provided substantial updates to OHA regarding our zoning. We set a 3 month goal to “determine the appropriate path forward for becoming zoned, and continuing working toward the goal of zoning.” We set 6 month goals: “analyze and if needed revise peer respite budget to be consistent with current timelines around zoning, staffing, etc.” and “obtain zoning necessary to operate peer respite.” In response to the question “Please list obstacles you have overcome, that you are currently facing, and those you anticipate?” we stated: “The Office of Recovery and Resilience staff are aware of the current details regarding our obstacles to obtaining zoning approval from the City of Ashland, and more details can be provided if needed. In short, our zoning obstacles have delayed opening of the peer respite by at least 6 months. Our current timeline for opening is January 2025, however, this is contingent on zoning approval from the City of Ashland.” In response to a question about our timeline for opening, we stated: “As described in an email to OHA dated 6/28/24, we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” August 2024 On August 22, our attorney Chris Hearn stated via email that he had a “favorable discussion” with city attorney Doug McGeary wherein McGeary said he would “see what he could do in terms of potentially advising Planning staff to adopt a more favorable interpretation of the City’s ordinance provisions relating to travelers accommodations and group homes. We continued discussions with our landlord on how to proceed with obtaining support from Representative Pam Marsh. On August 30, Chris Hearn informed us of his most recent communications with Ashland Attorney Doug McGeary. Via email, McGeary stated to Hearn: Page 14 Total Page Number: 298 "You make a compelling argument that the peer respite center does not operate on a commercial basis, but it also doesn't fit within the single-family residential use category either. In fact, as Brandon indicated (and this has probably been your concern), there isn't a permitted use category under which you could apply for a Conditional Use Permit in this zone. Brandon and his team have discussed this issue with the state, and their recommendation is to find a location where such use is allowed, most likelyin multi-family residential zones (R-2, R-3) or commercial zones. It seems the city has been considering psilocybin health centers in commercial zones with minimal resistance, so your client's use would not be unusual. I understand this is of little comfort if your clients have already purchased or leased the house with the intent to use it as a peer respite center." September 2024 We discussed next steps with attorney Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter, and conducted outreach again to Rep. Marsh. Rep. Marsh discussed the Feb - June legislative session, and stated via email “Unfortunately, I don’t know any quick solutions.” We updated Kendall Burns with our barriers to zoning, and asked whether OHa had any thoughts on next steps. We also inquired whether there were other OHA staff outside of the Office of Recovery and Resilience we should engage with. Kendall Burns referred us to Steve Sadden of Bay Area First Step, and we had a meeting to discuss how Bay Area First Step has resolved zoning issues on the South Coast. Sadden referred us to a Portland attorney named Jennifer Bragar for additional guidance regarding ADA accommodations and zoning. In a meeting with Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter we determined two paths forwards: (1) in lieu of a Conditional Use Permit application, we will submit a “request for formal interpretation” with the City of Ashland; (2) we will continue looking for alternative properties where we can move the respite, and if possible, hire realtors and Amy Gunter to aid in this search. October 2024 We contacted Jennifer Bragar regarding guidance around ADA accommodations and zoning, per Sadden’s recommendation. We visited a new potential property where we could move to in Ashland. Page 15 Total Page Number: 299 J!bn!xsjujoh!up!fyqsftt!nz!dpoujovfe!tvqqpsu!gps!uif!\[pojoh!Joufsqsfubujpo!cz!Btimboe!Qmboojoh! tub!boe!uif!Djuz!Buupsofz-!uibu!b!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Dfoufs!jt!opu!b!qfsnjuufe!vtf!jo!b!SS./6!\[pof! boe!uibu!GIB0BEB!epft!opu!sfrvjsf!b!Æsfbtpobcmf!bddpnnpebujpoÇ!gps!uijt!qspqptfe!vtf/ Uif!jnqpsubou!gbdupst!jo!nbljoh!tvdi!bo!\[pojoh!Joufsqsfubujpo!bsf; 2*Dmjfou!tubzt!bu!uif!qspqptfe!gbdjmjuz!bsf!mjnjufe!up!25!ebzt!cz!Psfhpo!mbx/!Uifsf!xpvme!cf! op!mpoh.ufsn!sftjefout!bu!uif!gbdjmjuz-!uifsfgpsf!uif!qspqptfe!gbdjmjuz!xpvme!opu!cf!b! ÆsftjefodfÇ!ps!ÆipnfÇ!voefs!mfhbm!efÑojujpo!ps!voefs!boz!dpnnpo!tfotf!voefstuboejoh!pg! uif!ufsnt< 3*Uif!gbdjmjuz-!voefs!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!xpvme!mfhbmmz!cf!b!cvtjoftt!pqfsbujpo-!bmcfju!b!opo.qspÑu! cvtjoftt/!Uif!qspqfsuz!jt!mfbtfe!gspn!b!Qpsumboe!pxofs!gps!%4-9610npoui/!Uif!gbdjmjuz! xpvme!cf!tubfe!cz!qbje!fnqmpzfft-!uifsf!up!dbsf!gps!tipsu.ufsn!dmjfout/!Psfhpo!PIB!xjmm! qbz!gps!uif!dmjfou!dbsf!voefs!uif!hsbou!up!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo/!Uijt!npefm!jt!op!ejfsfou!uibo-! gps!fybnqmf-!Mb!DmjojdbÉt!njttjpo!up!qspwjef!mpx!ps!op.dptu!ifbmuidbsf-!xjui!sfjncvstfnfou! gps!dbsf!dpnjoh!gspn!PIB/!Bo!pdf!pg!Mb!Dmjojdb!xpvme!opu!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!b!SS./6!\[pof-! eftqjuf!uif!pshboj{bujpoÉt!wbmvf!up!uif!dpnnvojuz/ 4*Uifsf!bsf!fyjtujoh!{poft!jo!Btimboe!xifsf!b!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Dfoufs!dpvme!cf!mpdbufe!xjuipvu! b!{pojoh!dibohf!ps!joufsqsfubujpo/!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!xbt!nbef!bxbsf!pg!uiftf!{poft!fbsmz!jo! jut!joufsbdujpot!xjui!Btimboe!Qmboojoh/!Voepvcufemz!TubccjoÉ!XbhpoÉt!qmboojoh!dpotvmubou! xbt!bmtp!xfmm!bxbsf!pg!uif!fyjtujoh!{pojoh!boe!mjlfmz!qbttfe!uijt!jogpsnbujpo!po!up!uifjs! dmjfou/ 5*GIB!boe!BEB!efÑof!dfsubjo!Æqspufdufe!dmbttftÇ!pg!qfpqmf!xip!bsf!dpwfsfe!cz!uiftf!uxp! mbxt/!Qfpqmf!ibwjoh!qtzdijbusjd!ejtbcjmjujft!bsf!pof!qspufdufe!dmbtt/!Ipxfwfs!GIB0BEB! tusjdumz!efÑof!qtzdijbusjd!ejtbcjmjujft/!Nptu!pg!uif!dmjfou!dpoejujpot!eftdsjcfe!jo!TubccjoÉ! XbhpoÉt!bqqmjdbujpo-!tvqqpsujoh!nbufsjbmt-!boe!dpnnfout-!boe!uiptf!dpoejujpot!mjtufe!jo! uif!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Iboecppl-!bsf!opu!dpoejujpot!dpwfsfe!voefs!BEB!)FFPD!Fogpsdfnfou! Hvjebodf!po!uif!Bnfsjdbot!xjui!Ejtbcjmjujft!Bdu!boe!Qtzdijbusjd!Ejtbcjmjujft-!:26/113-!ebufe! 4.36.:8!boe!vqebufe!4.36.3122*/!Beejujpobmmz-!vtf!pg!jmmfhbm!esvht!tqfdjÑdbmmz!ejtrvbmjÑft! bozpof!gspn!dmbjnt!voefs!GIB0BEB/ 6*Fwfo!jg!TubccjoÉ!XbhpoÉt!dmjfoufmf!xbt!efufsnjofe!up!rvbmjgz!gps!GIB0BEB!qspufdujpot-!uif! mbxt!sfrvjsf!pomz!Æsfbtpobcmf!bddpnnpebujpo/Ç!GIB0BEB!hvjebodf!epdvnfout-!f/h/-!Kpjou! Tubufnfou!pg!EPK!'!IVE-!hspvq!Ipnft-!Mpdbm!Mboe!Vtf-!boe!uif!Gbjs!Ipvtjoh!Bdu-! 9.29.2:::-!tubuf!uibu!uiftf!Gfefsbm!mbxt!ep!opu!qsf.fnqu!mpdbm!{pojoh!dpeft/!Gvsuifsnpsf-! uijt!hvjebodf!tubuft!uibu!jg!Æuif!qspqptfe!vtf!dsfbuf)t*!gvoebnfoubm!bmufsbujpo!jo!uif!{pojoh! tdifnf!/!/!/!uif!sfrvftufe!bddpnnpebujpo!jt!vosfbtpobcmf/Ç! 7*Bmmpxjoh!b!tipsu.ufsn!usfbunfou!cvtjoftt!jo!b!SS./6!\[pof!jt!b!gvoebnfoubm!{pojoh!dibohf/! Tvdi!b!{pojoh!dibohf!dpvme!sfbtpobcmz!gpsftffo!up!mfbe!up!mfhbm!dibmmfohft!pg!BtimboeÉt! sftusjdujpot!po!usbwfmfstÉ!bddpnnpebujpot!boe0ps!ipnf.cbtfe!cvtjofttft-!cpui!pg!xijdi! sfrvjsf!pxofst!up!mjwf!po.qsfnjtft-!vomjlf!uif!qspqptfe!gbdjmjuz/!Ju!dpvme!qpufoujbmmz!tfu!b! qsfdfefou!up!pqfojoh!bmm!sftjefoujbm!bsfbt!up!boz!cvtjofttft!xibutpfwfs/ Boz!pof!pg!uiftf!tjy!gbdupst!joejwjevbmmz!jt!hspvoet!gps!ejtbmmpxjoh!b!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Dfoufs! cvtjoftt!jo!bo!SS./6!\[pof/!B!efdjtjpo!jogpsnfe!cz!bmm!tjy!pg!uiftf!gbdupst!dbo!pomz!cf!up! ejtbmmpx!uif!gbdjmjuz/ Jo!tipsu-!uif!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!ibt!tuspoh!mfhbm!sfbtpot!up!ejtbmmpx!uif!qspqptfe!gbdjmjuz!jo!b! SS./6!{pof/!J!tvqqpsu!tvdi!b!efdjtjpo!up!ejtbmmpx!uif!gbdjmjuz/ `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Kbz!Bdi!!.!!242!Ufssbdf!Tusffu-!Btimboe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Kbovbsz!3:-!3136 Total Page Number: 300 UP;!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo! SF;!TubccjoÉ!XbhpoÉt!bqqmjdbujpo!gps!b!{pojoh!joufsqsfubujpo!uibu!xpvme!bmmpx!uifn!up svo!b!qffs.sftqjuf!dfoufs!jo!b!SS./6!ofjhicpsippe!)Qmboojoh!Bdujpo!QB.2.3135.11366*! EBUF;!Kbovbsz!3:-!3136! J!ibwf!sfbe!uif!nbufsjbmt!tvcnjuufe!cz!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!boe!uif!djuz!pg!Btimboe!tjodf!uif! Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!nffujoh!po!Kbovbsz!25-!3136/!J!dpoujovf!up!tvqqpsu!uif!jojujbm! joufsqsfubujpo!cz!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Tubgg!boe!Btimboe!Djuz!Buupsofz!uibu!b!qffs!sftqjuf! dfoufs!jt!nptu!tjnjmbs!up!usbwfmfsÉt!bddpnnpebujpo-!b!tipsu.ufsn!pddvqbodz!uibu!jt!opu! bmmpxfe!jo!pvs!ofjhicpsippe!{pofe!SS./6/! Ju!tipvme!cf!opufe!uibu!nptu!pg!uif!ipnft!jo!pvs!ofjhicpsippe!bsf!pxofs!pddvqjfe/!Pof!sfbtpo! qfpqmf!diptf!up!qvsdibtf!ipnft!jo!uijt!ofjhicpsippe!jt!cfdbvtf!uif!{pojoh!qspijcjut!cvtjoftt.uzqf! bdujwjujft!tvdi!bt!BjsC'Ct/!Jg!uif!djuz!dibohft!uif!{pojoh!up!bmmpx!b!tipsu.ufsn!pddvqbodz! cvtjoftt-!uifz!xjmm!ibwf!cfusbzfe!uif!sftjefout!cz!dibohjoh!uif!svmft!pg!uif! ofjhicpsippe!bgufs!qfpqmf!ibwf!bmsfbez!qvsdibtfe!uifjs!ipnf/!Epft!uif!djuz!sfbmmz! xbou!up!jokfdu!b!cvtjoftt!gbdjmjuz!joup!b!SS./6!ofjhicpsippe-!uivt!pqfojoh!b!ÆqboepsbÉt! cpyÇ!pg!BjsC'Ct!boe!puifs!cvtjofttft@! ! TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!jt!b!cvtjofttÅju!jt!sfdfjwjoh!tubuf!gvoet!up!svo!uif!dfoufs!)%861-111! ibt!bmsfbez!cffo!sfdfjwfe!xjui!op!sftvmu!qspevdfe*!boe!uif!ipvtfÉt!pxofst!)xip!mjwf!jo! uif!Qpsumboe!bsfb*!bsf!sfdfjwjoh!bo!bcpwf.nbslfu!sfou!pg!%49610npoui/!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo! jt!sfdfjwjoh!gvoet!up!qspwjef!tfswjdft!up!dmjfout<!uifsfgpsf-!ju!jt!b!cvtjoftt/! ! J!ibwf!sfbe!uif!nbufsjbmt!tvcnjuufe!cz!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!bcpvu!Nfoubm!Ifbmui!jo!Bnfsjdb-! Ipnfmftt!Tfswjdft-!boe!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Dfoufst!)jo!hfofsbm*!boe!uifjs!bqqmjdbujpo!up!uif! Psfhpo!Ifbmui!Bvuipsjuz/!Cvu!opxifsf!jo!uiftf!nbufsjbmt!jt!tqfdjÑd!jogpsnbujpo!qspwjefe! bcpvu!ipx!TubccjoÉ!Xbhpo!qmbot!up!svo!uifjs!gbdjmjuz-!f/h/;!ipx!ep!dmjfout!rvbmjgz!gps!uif! nbyjnvn!25.ebz!pddvqbodz!boe!xip!nblft!uibu!efdjtjpo@<!!xibu!jg!qfpqmf!tipx!vq!bu! uif!epps!xifo!uifz!bsf!bmsfbez!gvmm@<!xibu!xjmm!uifz!ep!jg!dmjfout!sfgvtf!up!mfbwf!bgufs!25! ebzt@<!ipx!xjmm!uifz!qsfwfou!uif!vtf!pg!jmmfhbm!esvht-!bo!bdujwjuz!qspijcjufe!jo!uif!gbdjmjuz! cz!Tubuf!mbx/!Uijt!mbtu!rvftujpo!jt!qbsujdvmbsmz!dpodfsojoh!hjwfo!uibu!uif!bqqmjdbouÉt! qsfwjpvt!fyqfsjfodf!ibt!cffo!Æibsn!sfevdujpoÇ!tfswjdft!up!esvh!beejdut-!b!hspvq!opu! jodmvefe!jo!uif!mjtu!pg!ejtbcjmjujft!beesfttfe!cz!uif!Bnfsjdbot!xjui!Ejtbcjmjuz!Bdu!)BEB*/! ! Jo!tvnnbsz-!jg!uif!gbdjmjuz!xbt!bduvbmmz!b!hspvq!ipnf!xifsf!qfpqmf!xjui!nfoubm! ejtbcjmjujft!mjwfe!uphfuifs!po!b!tfnj.qfsnbofou!cbtjt-!uifz!dpvme!cf!joufhsbufe!joup!pvs! dpohfojbm!ofjhicpsippe!bt!xfmdpnfe!sftjefout/!Tvdi!b!vtf!njhiu!cf!dpotjtufou!xjui! pvs!{pojoh/!Ipxfwfs-!uijt!tipsu.ufsn!sftjefodz!cvtjoftt-!xjui!volopxo!svmft!boe! sfhvmbujpot-!jt!opu!dpotjtufou!xjui!pvs!{pojoh/!Uijt!sfbtpojoh!jt!tvqqpsufe!cz!Qmboojoh! tubgg!boe!uif!Djuz!Buupsofz/!Xf!vshf!zpv!up!ejtbmmpx!uijt!gbdjmjuz!jo!b!SS./6!{pof/! ! Tjodfsfmz-!Lbsfo!Hspwf-!242!Ufssbdf!Tu-!Btimboe!PS! Total Page Number: 301 Total Page Number: 302 On Jan 8, 2025, at 6:24PM, J Maylee Oddo <j.maylee.oddo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Aaron, I would like to share with the Ashland Planning Commissions my concerns on the application for a Peer Respite Home at 110 Terrace Street. I am a resident of Terrace Street and feel approval of this application would negatively impact our household. Although I am in support of creating affordable housing and generating income for others, this application only allows a maximum of 14-day residency which resembles a Traveler’s Accommodation which is not allowable for our Zone RR-.5/RR-1 area. The research indicates that this type of type of short term residency has a negative effect on providing affordable housing by its nature in increasing property cost and value. (c.f. urblandland article.) Traveler’s Accommodation resembles AirBnb and VRBO rentals which, though it provides economic benefit to the property owner, ithas been found to have a negative impact on neighborhoods: Creating opportunities for crime: Short-term renters may be more likely to carry valuable items, making them targets for theft. They may also be less likely to report criminal activity. Eroding the social fabric of a neighborhood: The transient nature of short-term rentals can make it harder for neighborhoods to manage crime. Attracting offenders: Offenders may learn to return to areas with more short-term rentals to find unguarded targets. Increasing the proportion of vacant properties: Vacant properties are easier to burgle. Increasing the likelihood of criminal damage: Temporary occupants may be more likely to cause criminal damage. Also, given the nature of Peer Respite Home zoning, I believe that it will increase traffic on our narrow gravel road that is very frequently used by families (including those with young children) for walking and biking, creating increased safety hazards. I urge the planning committee to deny this application and others like it within our community. Thank you for taking the time to read this email and consider these arguments against this application. Sincerely, Total Page Number: 303 Untitled attachment 00035.htm\[1/30/2025 12:19:12 PM\] J. Maylee Oddo Brock Dumont 601 Terrace Street Ashland, OR 97520 Total Page Number: 304 Untitled attachment 00038.htm\[1/30/2025 12:19:26 PM\] January 29, 2025 City of Ashland Planning Commission c/o Brandon Goldman brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re:PA-T1-2024-00255 – 110 Terrace Street Dear Commissioners: As previously stated, our office represents David W. and Carolyn Allman, the owners of property located at 134 Terrace Street, Ashland. This letter is submitted for the record in response to the materials submitted during the first open record period of the foregoing matter. As testified previously, our client contends that the proposed use is not similar to a residential use under the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) and therefore should not be approved under AMC 18.1.5.040. Moreover, if the legislature had intended to pre- empt cities’ zoning laws, it would have done so (See HB 2006 which explicitly exempted emergency shelters from local land use regulation; HB 2001 requiring cities with a population of at least 25,0000 to allow middle housing in residential areas). Nor is the use a “dwelling” under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). To qualify as a “dwelling” under the FHA the use must meet a 2-factor test: 1) whether the facility is intended or designed for occupants who would intend to remain for a significant period of time; and 2) whether the occupants view the facility as a place to return to. rd Lakeside Resort Enter v. Sup’rs of Palmyra TP, 455 F/3d 154. 158 (3 Cir. 2006). A determination of whether a stay is a significant period of time is fact specific. In Lakeside, the court found that although the average stay was 14.8 days the facility qualified as a dwelling because the actual duration of stay varied widely, sometimes up to a year, and the short duration was usually caused by health conditions or insurance issues. Therefore, since the stay length was kept short by outside factors the average stay length was not dispositive, and the facility was a dwelling because it was intended for longer use. Page 1 Total Page Number: 305 In contrast, here, the intended stay is of short duration; specifically, a stay cannot exceed 14-days. ORS 430.275(2)(a). In fact, the very definition of a peer respite service means: “voluntary, nonclinical, short-term residential peer support.” ORS 430.275(1)(a)(Emphasis added). (“Each peer respite center may provide up to two weeks of continuous …services). ORS 430.275(2)(a)(Emphasis added). Applicant argues that since there is no guarantee an individual resides long-term in a single- family home or residential care home, duration should not be a factor here. However, as with Lakeside, the fact that someone might move out sooner due to outside factors is not determinative of whether a person can remain for a significant period of time. The statute makes clear that a peer respite center is not intended for significant or long-term residential stays and therefore is not a dwelling under the FHA. As for the Applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation, the City need not reasonably accommodate this particular use in this particular location. The applicant states: “Excluding people experiencing mental illness, particularly those who need and desire respite housing as a means to stabilize their mental illness, from living in the RR-.5 zones, and for that matter, all single-family zones, is likely to reinforce existing patterns of segregation and to have a disparate impact on people with disabilities. (Letter from Jennifer M. Bragar, January 14, 2025, p.4). However, City zoning does not prohibit disabled individuals from living in this zone. Disabled (including mentally ill) individuals may reside in a single-family home alone, or with family or friends, or in a residential care home, as an outright permitted use. Additionally, nursing homes, convalescent homes and residential care facilities are permitted in the RR-.5 zone as a conditional use. It is an unfounded statement that because a peer respite center cannot be located here, the City’s zoning code discriminates against disabled persons living in a single-family zone. As noted in the Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (https://www.justice.gov/crt/joint-statement- department-justice-and-department-housing-and-urban-development) (the DOJ Memo), included in the record, a reasonable accommodation might mean waiving a setback requirement to allow better access for those with mobility impairments, but not all requested modifications are reasonable. To determine whether a modification is reasonable the City must look to: 1) whether the request imposes an under burden or expense on the local government; and 2) does it create a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme. Id. Here the requested accommodation creates a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme, as the use is not residential in nature, but rather transitory as argued previously in the record. It is expressly intended to provide “short-term residential” use, inconsistent with the City’s definition of Residential Use which is: “Long-term occupancy of a dwelling unit, which may be owner-occupied or rented. Occupancy of a dwelling unit for shorter periods (i.e., less than 30 days) of time is considered an overnight accommodation for transient individuals. See also, definitions of Accessory Page 2 Total Page Number: 306 Travelers’ Accommodation, Hotel/Motel, and Travelers’ Accommodation.” AMC 18.6.1. Unlike a request to merely allow an increased setback as a reasonable accommodation, the current request requires the City to fundamentally alter its zoning scheme to allow a prohibited transitory use and is therefore not a reasonable accommodation request. In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing arguments, should the City determine that it is necessary or desirable to grant a reasonable accommodation, conditions should be imposed to ensure that the proposed use does not create an undue burden to neighboring properties or property owners. It is noteworthy that the proposed application provides no information as to how the program will be run. For example, when can an individual move in or out of the facility? Will prospective guests come and go 24/7? What steps are in place should an individual arrive at the premises but be turned down either because the 4-beds are filled or because the individual’s mental state is such that the person cannot be served by the facility. These questions are particularly problematic because the state has yet to establish any rules as to how such a facility will operate, what safety plans should be in place, what to do if a person is turned away for service, etc. In fact, in reviewing the September 2022 Peer Run Respite RFGP Information Session (https://youtu.be/faP7eh5bnTk) many of these questions were raised by prospective grantees and the state acknowledged that it did not have answers and that it would be up to each individual facility to provide a plan for emergencies, or to deal with guests who arrive but cannot be served. Has any such plan been provided to the City and are there steps in place to ensure the facility is prepared to address emergencies, evacuations, or turning a prospective guest away, who may be in a state of mental crisis, from the facility? Are there any standards to prevent housing of “current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders” who, per the DOJ Memo, are not considered disabled under the FHA by virtue of that status. The proposed use at this location presents particular challenges unique to this site. Access to the site is via a blind driveway shared with our clients, the driveway surface to the premises is not in good repair and measures only 7’ 8” wide, is not lighted, is in a high wildfire risk zone, and is difficult to find at night (See Exhibit A, Photos of Driveway and Entrance off Terrace). In viewing the September 2022 RFGP Information Session cited above, the state advises that use and access to a facility will be flexible, and that “people can refer themselves”. People can “show up and ask for support”. Id. In this case, given the access to the site, the inadequate driveway condition, and the hazard zone, conditions should be imposed for the protection of the respite center as well as neighboring property owners to ensure that potential guests who just “show up” can find the facility safely, do not disturb our clients in the middle of the night because of confusion as to the location of the site, can exit in the event of emergency evacuation, etc. To that end, any approval should include conditions of approval that may include, but not be limited to, the following: Page 3 Total Page Number: 307 1) Evidence of rules restricting guests from active use of controlled substances while on the premises. 2) Evidence of rules restricting those convicted of illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders, from staying at the premises. 3) Rules prohibiting smoking outdoors and/or rules to ensure that any outdoor smoking is contained within a designated area designed to reduce the risk of wildfire. 4) Rules prohibiting checking in or out of the facility between the hours of 10pm to 7am to limit disruption to neighbors. 5) Potential signage and lighting to identify the driveway, with lighting designed to shield the light away from the property located at 134 Terrace Street. 6) Requirement that the site be assessed by Ashland Fire and Rescue to determine whether any items need to be addressed to reduce fire risk. 7) Evidence of an evacuation and safety plan in the event of emergencies. 8) Evidence of a plan to address turning away guests arriving at the premises (for example will staff drive them elsewhere, get them a ride, etc. so a person in a state of mental distress is not simply wandering from a relatively remote location back to town). 9) Evidence of a plan to deal with violations such as illegal drug use, violent behavior or other severe safety hazards (for example, will such issues result in eviction from the premises). 10) Information as to whether there are rules regarding visitors and how that will be handled. 11) Evidence of adequate insurance to address potential hazards involved in running this facility. For example, if a guest damages neighboring property, is there adequate insurance to cover these costs. The applicant indicates that the City has failed to engage in a dialogue regarding the requested reasonable accommodation. However, information received pursuant to a public records request indicates that the applicant has been involved in a dialogue with the City for over a year and yet it does not appear that any evidence has been provided as to how this facility will be run, and how it will address potential emergencies. (See Exhibit B, Timeline of Events). It is also apparent that the applicant moved forward with a lease and investment in the use before it ever applied to the City for approval. The application should not be approved simply because the applicant proceeded without assuring this location was legally permissible or adequate. While it is an unfortunate series of events that is undoubtedly costly and frustrating to the applicant, that could have been avoided had the applicant completed its due diligence before proceeding with development of the site. In conclusion, the application should be denied as the use is not permitted in the zone. A reasonable accommodation is not required as the use is not a dwelling under the FHA and the accommodation request is not reasonable in that it would result in a Page 4 Total Page Number: 308 fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme. In the event that the City disagrees and moves forward with approval of the use, reasonable conditions should be imposed to ensure that the use does not have an undue impact on the property or the neighbors. O’CONNOR WEST, LLC /s/ Sydnee Dreyer Sydnee B. Dreyer, OSB No. 954710 sbd@PacificLand.law SBD: c: Clients Page 5 Total Page Number: 309 EXHIBIT A Photos of Driveway A view of the blind driveway entrance from Terrace Page 6 Total Page Number: 310 A view of the driveway entrance – Allman Property to the right of the driveway Page 7 Total Page Number: 311 Page 8 Total Page Number: 312 Narrow driveway to premises – measures 7’ 8” Page 9 Total Page Number: 313 From:info@mountainbeaverhouse.org To:Burns Kendall Frances Cc:Rappaport Beau; Haiani Israa A; kelly szott Subject:Zoning timeline and overview Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 1:07:28 PM Attachments:MBH Zoning Timeline.docx Hi Kendall and Beau, Kendall, here is an overview of the steps we have taken to obtain zoning. Please let us know if you need any additional information or have questions. As you know, we've balanced this work with other work including policy and procedure development, staff trainings, etc. I do want to highlight that our current timeline has not changed substantially since our Quarter 1 report was submitted to OHA on July 1, 2024. At that time, we documented the communications we had received from OHA regarding delays and the issue of contract compliance: "we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” I've mentioned this previously, but I wanted to let you know we are in the final steps of hiring 5 additional per diem employees. We intend to hire additional employees this fall, to ensure we have proper staffing when we open. We'll look forward to meeting with you and Beau soon. Thanks, Derek On 2024-10-03 16:36, info@mountainbeaverhouse.org wrote: >Hi Kendall, > > thanks for your call yesterday. > > You requested a detailed write-up of the steps we've taken to resolve >the zoning issues. We are working on that for you. > > Regarding the next steps around a "request for reinterpretation" that >our land use consultant and attorney advised, we are working to get >that for you as well, but may be delayed because our land use >consultant is currently experiencing a medical emergency. > > please let us know if you need anything else. > > Thanks, > > Derek > > On 2024-10-02 11:39, Burns Kendall Frances wrote: Total Page Number: 314 >>Hello, >> >>Please see section EXHIBIT A Part 2 Disbursement and Financial >>Reporting. Please note that further invoices will not be approved as >>the organization is out of compliance with the terms of the grant and >>has not met milestone of opening within six months of the start up >>costs being received. At this time, the organization has not provided >>a sufficient plan or timeline for opening in Southern Oregon. I need a >>detailed plan and timeline for opening within 3 months. I've cc'd >>Israa to assist us in scheduling a time to meet with myself and Beau. >> >>Regards, >> >>Kendall Burns (she/her) >>Peer-Run Respite Coordinator >>Oregon Health Authority >>Office of Recovery and Resilience >>971-239-6455 >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: info@mountainbeaverhouse.org <info@mountainbeaverhouse.org> >>Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:53 PM >>To: HSD Contracts <HSD.Contracts@odhsoha.oregon.gov> >>Cc: Burns Kendall Frances <Kendall.F.Burns@oha.oregon.gov> >>Subject: Invoices 500 + 600 >> >>Think twice before clicking on links or opening attachments. This >>email came from outside our organization and might not be safe. If you >>are not expecting an attachment, contact the sender before opening it. >> >> >> >>Hello, >> >>Here are our invoices for Q1 and Q2 of the 2024-2025 fiscal year. >>Please let us know if you need anything else. >> >>thanks, >> >>Derek Total Page Number: 315 This is a timeline and basic overview of the steps we have taken to secure a rental and zoning approval for the peer respite. November 2023 We began looking for rental properties. December 2023 We made initial contact with the local municipalities regarding zoning peer respites. We met with OHA and FolkTime for TA in-person training. We showed OHA and FolkTime images of the house at 110 Terrace Street; Kendall Burns and Peter Starkey advised us to secure the property first and address zoning with the city after securing the lease. Based on initial discussions with the City of Ashland, City planning staff stated that our zoning “is most similar to either a convalescent home or residential care facility.” City staff outlined the process for being zoned as such via a Conditional Use Permit process. We began contacting lawyers who could help us with the conditional use permit process. We spoke with Alecia Leduc-Montgomery, Corinne Celko and Tonia Moro. We began working with the landlord, Kent Patton, to secure the house. We conducted outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. January 2024 We continued consulting lawyers with next steps along the conditional use permit process, including Lanier Land Consulting LLC. We chose to work with land use consultant, Amy Gunter and land use attorney, Chris Hearn. February 2024 We worked with Amy Gunter and Chris Hearn to submit our pre-application paperwork to the city of Ashland, we secured a March 20th 2024 date for our pre-application meeting. March 2024 We continue to work with Amy Gunter in preparation of our March 20th meeting Page 10 Total Page Number: 316 The written comments from our pre-application meeting with the City stated: “If it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets the definition of a ‘residential care facility’ then it would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In the Land Use Ordinance, the definition of Residential Care Facility falls under ‘Group Living.’ The ‘Group Living’ definition invokes long-term residential occupancy. For staff the concern is whether the transient nature of the proposed respite center would offend the definition of ‘Residential Care Facility’... Due to the transient nature of the proposal, it may be determined that it qualifies as a ‘Travelers’ Accommodations,’ in which case it would be a prohibited use in the zone and not able to be approved.” In our pre-application meeting with the City, city staff stated that they would be able to re-interpret zoning if they receive a declaration from OHA or a letter of intent from legislators stating how the respites should be zoned. We scheduled a meeting with Amy Gunter and our staff to begin discussions with OHA regarding a path forward. In an email to OHA staff, Amy Gunter stated: “In my experience as a planning consultant, Peer Respite homes will face challenges in many Oregon communities without further guidance from the Oregon Housing Authority on the intent of the emergency Legislative Action (House Bill 2980 (2021)... A letter from the OHA that directs cities to allow for Peer Respite in residential settings similar to all other addiction/recovery homes, domestic violence shelter type of facilities that provide housing for five or fewer individuals with mental, emotional, or behavioral disturbances or alcohol or drug dependence, residential care, and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous properties are similar in type, kind, and function as the intended legislative action for Peer Respite Centers would eliminate the city desire to use discretion because they don't know what to call a Peer Respite Center within the context of their codes.” April 2024 We continued discussions with Amy Gunter, our staff, OHA and the City of Ashland including a meeting with all parties on April 23rd. During meetings between our staff and OHA, OHA informed us that we would not be penalized or viewed as out of compliance for opening delays caused by zoning issues. We reiterated this mutual understanding in an email to Kendall Burns, dated April 16, 2024: “As discussed, this delay is caused by zoning issues outside of our control, and OHA has stated that we will not be penalized or considered out of compliance with our contract for zoning-related delays.” In this same email, we said our hope was to resolve zoning issues by July 25, 2024. Page 11 Total Page Number: 317 We followed up on outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. May 2024 We received a detailed explanation and next steps for zoning from our land use consultant. This explained the timeline for zoning with the City of Ashland, given the results of our pre-application meeting: “The city has a 30-day review window from when the application is submitted and paid. In that 30-day window, the application is deemed complete or incomplete. When the application is deemed complete, a notice of application (if a staff decision) or notice of hearing (what they said they would do to notify the neighborhood) goes out to all property owners within 200 feet of the property boundaries. “Staff Decision (Type 1): A typical CUP for a Traveler's Accommodation or a Residential Care Facility (similarin type, kind, and function) would be reviewed within 30-day, noticed for 14 day public comment period, staff takes about 20 days following the comment period to make their decision. That decision is sent to the same notice area with a 12 day appeal period. The city averages about 75 days to process these. They have 120 days by state statue. “Assuming there will be a public hearing because staff believes that it should be considered like a Transient Occupancy vacation rental… “The application is a Type 2 and is heard before the planning commission as a quasi-judicial procedure. The meeting follows Roberts Rules of Order. A hearing is opened and there are specific rules to who can participate based on signing up during the public testimony stage. A planning commission hearing is typically about 45 days after submittal. “The planning commission reviews the application during their meeting, takes public testimony, and reviews the staff recommendations. The applicant gives a 15-minute presentation and the public gets 3-5 min to comment. The hearing closes and no more public comment is allowed. The Planning Commission forms a decision and makes findings based on the code criteria recommending approval or denial. The following month, the findings are adopted. Whenthe hearings process is involved, the timeline is approximately 160 days (30-day pre-review and 130-day application processing period). The decision can be appealed by anyone in the applicant, anyone in the notice area or anyone in the public that commented during the public Page 12 Total Page Number: 318 comment period or during a hearing. In both decision processes, state law gives the city 180 days to process the decision.” We began outreach to community partners to receive support related to our zoning issues. We met with attorney Chris Hearn to proceed with next steps with our conditional use permit process. Chris stated he would research the issues for the best path forward, given our goals and timeline. We requested that land use consultant Amy Gunter research additional locations where we could operate a peer respite with fewer zoning barriers. June 2024 We pursued a three pronged plan for next steps: (1) work with land use consultant and land to obtain zoning at 110 Terrace Street; (2) research other properties in Jackson or Josephine county where we could move without zoning barriers; (3) contact local elected officials to problem solve zoning. We updated OHA on these steps and our timeline via an email on June 28, 2024, including: “as previously discussed, we are still compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” In this email, we stated: “we anticipated that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025.” We began outreach to Representative Pam Marsh regarding our zoning delays. July 2024 Our staff and landlord had multiple conversations with Representative Pam Marsh regarding zoning issues, Representative Marsh conducted outreach to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Rep. Nosse, Kevin Fitts, ABLE House, FolkTime, and others. Our landlord also informed us that we would speak with a former Ashland city administrator regarding these issues. Based on his review and interpretation of materials, our attorney Chris Hearn advised that he “call \[Ashland\] City Attorney Doug McGeary and see if he will get the Planning Department to re-interpret the provisions of City’s short-term rental ordinance differently.” Hearn also advised that we should conduct outreach to Representative Pam Marsh. Amy Gunter completed research regarding additional municipalities where we could move with fewer zoning restrictions: “All localities (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Jackson County have some sort of Page 13 Total Page Number: 319 restriction upon occupancy of any sort that is 30 days or less… a political challenge could be raised where there are occupancy specifications in the ordinance.” After requesting an extension on our grant contract we were informed by Kendall Burns: “At this time \[the contract\] cannot be extended past June 30th 2025.” Due July 31, 2024, our Quarter 1 report provided substantial updates to OHA regarding our zoning. We set a 3 month goal to “determine the appropriate path forward for becoming zoned, and continuing working toward the goal of zoning.” We set 6 month goals: “analyze and if needed revise peer respite budget to be consistent with current timelines around zoning, staffing, etc.” and “obtain zoning necessary to operate peer respite.” In response to the question “Please list obstacles you have overcome, that you are currently facing, and those you anticipate?” we stated: “The Office of Recovery and Resilience staff are aware of the current details regarding our obstacles to obtaining zoning approval from the City of Ashland, and more details can be provided if needed. In short, our zoning obstacles have delayed opening of the peer respite by at least 6 months. Our current timeline for opening is January 2025, however, this is contingent on zoning approval from the City of Ashland.” In response to a question about our timeline for opening, we stated: “As described in an email to OHA dated 6/28/24, we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” August 2024 On August 22, our attorney Chris Hearn stated via email that he had a “favorable discussion” with city attorney Doug McGeary wherein McGeary said he would “see what he could do in terms of potentially advising Planning staff to adopt a more favorable interpretation of the City’s ordinance provisions relating to travelers accommodations and group homes. We continued discussions with our landlord on how to proceed with obtaining support from Representative Pam Marsh. On August 30, Chris Hearn informed us of his most recent communications with Ashland Attorney Doug McGeary. Via email, McGeary stated to Hearn: Page 14 Total Page Number: 320 "You make a compelling argument that the peer respite center does not operate on a commercial basis, but it also doesn't fit within the single-family residential use category either. In fact, as Brandon indicated (and this has probably been your concern), there isn't a permitted use category under which you could apply for a Conditional Use Permit in this zone. Brandon and his team have discussed this issue with the state, and their recommendation is to find a location where such use is allowed, most likelyin multi-family residential zones (R-2, R-3) or commercial zones. It seems the city has been considering psilocybin health centers in commercial zones with minimal resistance, so your client's use would not be unusual. I understand this is of little comfort if your clients have already purchased or leased the house with the intent to use it as a peer respite center." September 2024 We discussed next steps with attorney Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter, and conducted outreach again to Rep. Marsh. Rep. Marsh discussed the Feb - June legislative session, and stated via email “Unfortunately, I don’t know any quick solutions.” We updated Kendall Burns with our barriers to zoning, and asked whether OHa had any thoughts on next steps. We also inquired whether there were other OHA staff outside of the Office of Recovery and Resilience we should engage with. Kendall Burns referred us to Steve Sadden of Bay Area First Step, and we had a meeting to discuss how Bay Area First Step has resolved zoning issues on the South Coast. Sadden referred us to a Portland attorney named Jennifer Bragar for additional guidance regarding ADA accommodations and zoning. In a meeting with Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter we determined two paths forwards: (1) in lieu of a Conditional Use Permit application, we will submit a “request for formal interpretation” with the City of Ashland; (2) we will continue looking for alternative properties where we can move the respite, and if possible, hire realtors and Amy Gunter to aid in this search. October 2024 We contacted Jennifer Bragar regarding guidance around ADA accommodations and zoning, per Sadden’s recommendation. We visited a new potential property where we could move to in Ashland. Page 15 Total Page Number: 321 Total Page Number: 322 Total Page Number: 323 Total Page Number: 324 Total Page Number: 325 Total Page Number: 326 Total Page Number: 327 Total Page Number: 328 2025-0023 022 01/13/2025 Total Page Number: 329 2025-0023 023 01/13/2025 Total Page Number: 330 Total Page Number: 331 TUBCCJO!XBHPO!HSBOU!BHSFFNFOU!291959!.!QFFS!SVO!SFTQJUF Jowpjdf!$EbufBnpvouBqqspwfe0EfojfeOpuft!gspn!Hsbou!Sfdjqjfou 222034034%36-111Bqqspwfe Eftdsjqujpo!!!!!!!Mjof!Jufn 4!Fnqmpzff!Tbmbsjft!!!!!%9-361/11 Cfofgut!!!!!!%3-173/61 Jotvsbodf!)DHM!'!QM!Mjbcjmjuz!boe!Xpslfst!Dpnq*!!!!!%:-111/11 Fnqmpzff!gjohfsqsjoujoh!'!cbdlhspvoe!difdlt!!!!!%971/11 Cppllffqjoh-!qbzspmm!boe!puifs!benjo!tvqqpsu!!!!!%4-111/11 Bewjtpsz!Cpbse-!Dpnnvouz!Qbsujdjqbout-!Qbsujdjqfou!Jodfoujwft-!Wpmvouffst!!!! !%2-938/61 UPUBM!!!!!!%36-111/11 32302703134%22-311Bqqspwfe Eftdsjqujpo!!!!!!!Mjof!Jufn Vq.gspou!mfbtf!dptut!gps!221!Ufssbdf!Tusffu-!Btimboe-!PS!.!jodmveft!gjstu!boe!mbtu!npoui sfou!boe!tfdvsjuz!efqptju/!Mfbtf!xjmm!svo!202035!. 23042036/!Npouimz!sfou!jt!%4-961/11/ %21-311/11 Benjo!tvqqpsu0joejsfdu!dptut!%2-111/11 UPUBM!%22-311/11 423027034%4:6-291BqqspwfeUijt!jt!bo!jowpjdf!gps!tfswjdf!tubsu.vq!dptut!upubmjoh!%4:6-291/!Qmfbtf!tff!uif!ofyu!qbhf gps!b!efubjmfe!eftdsjqujpo!pg!tubsu.vq!dptut/!)tff!efubjm!cfmpx++*!Cz!tvcnjuujoh!uijt jowpjdf-!xf!buuftu!uibu!xf!xjmm!cf!sfbez!up!qspwef!tfswdft!xjuijo!7!npouit!pg sfdfjwjoh!uif!tubsu.vq!dptu!gvoejoh/!! 361603203135%429-731Bqqspwfe Eftdsjqujpo!Mjof!jufn Tubggjoh!xbhft-!po!dbmm!tujqfoet-!qfs!ejfn!dpwfsbhf-!boe!%249-554/54 fnqmpzff!ubyft Qbsu!ujnf!boe!gvmm!ujnf!cfofgjut!%61-111 Sfou!%31-111 Vujmujft!%6-111 Pggjdf-!Ipvtf!boe!Dmfbojoh!Tvqqmjft!%9-287/68 Qipof!boe!Joufsofu!Tfswjdft!%5-111 Tubgg!Usbjojoh!boe!Efwfmpqnfou%%36-111 Bsut!boe!Ipvtf!Bdujwujft!%6-111 Usbotqpsubujpo!Gvoe!%24-111 Ipnf!Gvsojtijoh!boe!Pggjdf!Frvjqnfou!%6-111 BEB!Ipnf!Sfrvjsfnfou!'!Puifs!Ipnf!Npejgjdbupot!%21-111 Cppllffqjoh-!qbzspmm!boe!puifs!benjo!tvqqpsu!.!jodmveft!%46-111 mboe!vtf!boe!{pojoh!dpotvmubujpot/!mbcps!boe!gfft UPUBM!%429-731 3135.3136!R2!rvbsufsmz!ejtcvstfnfout 611:04103135%298-611 Efojfe 3135.3136!R3!rvbsufsmz!ejtcvstfnfout 711:04103135%298-611 Efojfe %861-111 UPUBM BQQSPWFE Bnpvou!up Ebuf ++ 2025-0036 001 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 332 2025-0036 002 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 333 2025-0036 003 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 334 2025-0036 004 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 335 Stabbin Wagon )µ®¨¢¤ 3´¡¬¨³³¤£ ® ΐΑȝΐΕȝΑΏΑΒ )µ®¨¢¤ ¥®± Oregon Health Authority '± ³ !¦±¤¤¬¤³ Ͱ 180848 0 ¸ ¡«¤ ³® Stabbin’ Wagon )µ®¨¢¤ Ͱ 3 )µ®¨¢¤ 0¤±¨®£ $ ³¤² 12/16/23 - 5/31/24 )µ®¨¢¤ £ $¤²¢±¨¯³¨® This is an invoice for service start-up costs totaling $395,180. Please see the next page for a detailed description of start-up costs. By submitting this invoice, we attest that we will be ready to provide services within 6 months of receiving the start-up cost funding. 2025-0036 005 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 336 2025-0036 006 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 337 Stabbin Wagon )µ®¨¢¤ 3´¡¬¨³³¤£ ® ΔȝΑΐȝΑΏΑΓ )µ®¨¢¤ ¥®± Oregon Health Authority '± ³ !¦±¤¤¬¤³ Ͱ 180848 0 ¸ ¡«¤ ³® Stabbin’ Wagon )µ®¨¢¤ Ͱ 450 )µ®¨¢¤ 0¤±¨®£ $ ³¤² Startup period (2023-2024 fiscal year) )µ®¨¢¤ £ $¤²¢±¨¯³¨® Description Line item Staffing wages, on call stipends, per diem coverage, and $138,443.43 employee taxes Part time and full time benefits $50,000 Rent $20,000 Utilities $5,000 Office, House and Cleaning Supplies $8,176.57 Phone and Internet Services$4,000 Staff Training and Development $$25,000 Arts and House Activities $5,000 Transportation Fund $13,000 Home Furnishing and Office Equipment $5,000 ADA Home Requirement & Other Home Modifications $10,000 Bookkeeping, payroll and other admin support -includes land $35,000 use and zoning consultations. labor and fees TOTAL $318,620 2025-0036 007 01/14/2025 Total Page Number: 338 Total Page Number: 339 From:info@mountainbeaverhouse.org To:Burns Kendall Frances Cc:Rappaport Beau; Haiani Israa A; kelly szott Subject:Zoning timeline and overview Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 1:07:28 PM Attachments:MBH Zoning Timeline.docx Hi Kendall and Beau, Kendall, here is an overview of the steps we have taken to obtain zoning. Please let us know if you need any additional information or have questions. As you know, we've balanced this work with other work including policy and procedure development, staff trainings, etc. I do want to highlight that our current timeline has not changed substantially since our Quarter 1 report was submitted to OHA on July 1, 2024. At that time, we documented the communications we had received from OHA regarding delays and the issue of contract compliance: "we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” I've mentioned this previously, but I wanted to let you know we are in the final steps of hiring 5 additional per diem employees. We intend to hire additional employees this fall, to ensure we have proper staffing when we open. We'll look forward to meeting with you and Beau soon. Thanks, Derek On 2024-10-03 16:36, info@mountainbeaverhouse.org wrote: >Hi Kendall, > > thanks for your call yesterday. > > You requested a detailed write-up of the steps we've taken to resolve >the zoning issues. We are working on that for you. > > Regarding the next steps around a "request for reinterpretation" that >our land use consultant and attorney advised, we are working to get >that for you as well, but may be delayed because our land use >consultant is currently experiencing a medical emergency. > > please let us know if you need anything else. > > Thanks, > > Derek > > On 2024-10-02 11:39, Burns Kendall Frances wrote: Total Page Number: 340 >>Hello, >> >>Please see section EXHIBIT A Part 2 Disbursement and Financial >>Reporting. Please note that further invoices will not be approved as >>the organization is out of compliance with the terms of the grant and >>has not met milestone of opening within six months of the start up >>costs being received. At this time, the organization has not provided >>a sufficient plan or timeline for opening in Southern Oregon. I need a >>detailed plan and timeline for opening within 3 months. I've cc'd >>Israa to assist us in scheduling a time to meet with myself and Beau. >> >>Regards, >> >>Kendall Burns (she/her) >>Peer-Run Respite Coordinator >>Oregon Health Authority >>Office of Recovery and Resilience >>971-239-6455 >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: info@mountainbeaverhouse.org <info@mountainbeaverhouse.org> >>Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:53 PM >>To: HSD Contracts <HSD.Contracts@odhsoha.oregon.gov> >>Cc: Burns Kendall Frances <Kendall.F.Burns@oha.oregon.gov> >>Subject: Invoices 500 + 600 >> >>Think twice before clicking on links or opening attachments. This >>email came from outside our organization and might not be safe. If you >>are not expecting an attachment, contact the sender before opening it. >> >> >> >>Hello, >> >>Here are our invoices for Q1 and Q2 of the 2024-2025 fiscal year. >>Please let us know if you need anything else. >> >>thanks, >> >>Derek Total Page Number: 341 This is a timeline and basic overview of the steps we have taken to secure a rental and zoning approval for the peer respite. November 2023 We began looking for rental properties. December 2023 We made initial contact with the local municipalities regarding zoning peer respites. We met with OHA and FolkTime for TA in-person training. We showed OHA and FolkTime images of the house at 110 Terrace Street; Kendall Burns and Peter Starkey advised us to secure the property first and address zoning with the city after securing the lease. Based on initial discussions with the City of Ashland, City planning staff stated that our zoning “is most similar to either a convalescent home or residential care facility.” City staff outlined the process for being zoned as such via a Conditional Use Permit process. We began contacting lawyers who could help us with the conditional use permit process. We spoke with Alecia Leduc-Montgomery, Corinne Celko and Tonia Moro. We began working with the landlord, Kent Patton, to secure the house. We conducted outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. January 2024 We continued consulting lawyers with next steps along the conditional use permit process, including Lanier Land Consulting LLC. We chose to work with land use consultant, Amy Gunter and land use attorney, Chris Hearn. February 2024 We worked with Amy Gunter and Chris Hearn to submit our pre-application paperwork to the city of Ashland, we secured a March 20th 2024 date for our pre-application meeting. March 2024 We continue to work with Amy Gunter in preparation of our March 20th meeting Page 10 Total Page Number: 342 The written comments from our pre-application meeting with the City stated: “If it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets the definition of a ‘residential care facility’ then it would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In the Land Use Ordinance, the definition of Residential Care Facility falls under ‘Group Living.’ The ‘Group Living’ definition invokes long-term residential occupancy. For staff the concern is whether the transient nature of the proposed respite center would offend the definition of ‘Residential Care Facility’... Due to the transient nature of the proposal, it may be determined that it qualifies as a ‘Travelers’ Accommodations,’ in which case it would be a prohibited use in the zone and not able to be approved.” In our pre-application meeting with the City, city staff stated that they would be able to re-interpret zoning if they receive a declaration from OHA or a letter of intent from legislators stating how the respites should be zoned. We scheduled a meeting with Amy Gunter and our staff to begin discussions with OHA regarding a path forward. In an email to OHA staff, Amy Gunter stated: “In my experience as a planning consultant, Peer Respite homes will face challenges in many Oregon communities without further guidance from the Oregon Housing Authority on the intent of the emergency Legislative Action (House Bill 2980 (2021)... A letter from the OHA that directs cities to allow for Peer Respite in residential settings similar to all other addiction/recovery homes, domestic violence shelter type of facilities that provide housing for five or fewer individuals with mental, emotional, or behavioral disturbances or alcohol or drug dependence, residential care, and treatment in one or more buildings on contiguous properties are similar in type, kind, and function as the intended legislative action for Peer Respite Centers would eliminate the city desire to use discretion because they don't know what to call a Peer Respite Center within the context of their codes.” April 2024 We continued discussions with Amy Gunter, our staff, OHA and the City of Ashland including a meeting with all parties on April 23rd. During meetings between our staff and OHA, OHA informed us that we would not be penalized or viewed as out of compliance for opening delays caused by zoning issues. We reiterated this mutual understanding in an email to Kendall Burns, dated April 16, 2024: “As discussed, this delay is caused by zoning issues outside of our control, and OHA has stated that we will not be penalized or considered out of compliance with our contract for zoning-related delays.” In this same email, we said our hope was to resolve zoning issues by July 25, 2024. Page 11 Total Page Number: 343 We followed up on outreach to other peer respites to understand how they had been zoned. May 2024 We received a detailed explanation and next steps for zoning from our land use consultant. This explained the timeline for zoning with the City of Ashland, given the results of our pre-application meeting: “The city has a 30-day review window from when the application is submitted and paid. In that 30-day window, the application is deemed complete or incomplete. When the application is deemed complete, a notice of application (if a staff decision) or notice of hearing (what they said they would do to notify the neighborhood) goes out to all property owners within 200 feet of the property boundaries. “Staff Decision (Type 1): A typical CUP for a Traveler's Accommodation or a Residential Care Facility (similarin type, kind, and function) would be reviewed within 30-day, noticed for 14 day public comment period, staff takes about 20 days following the comment period to make their decision. That decision is sent to the same notice area with a 12 day appeal period. The city averages about 75 days to process these. They have 120 days by state statue. “Assuming there will be a public hearing because staff believes that it should be considered like a Transient Occupancy vacation rental… “The application is a Type 2 and is heard before the planning commission as a quasi-judicial procedure. The meeting follows Roberts Rules of Order. A hearing is opened and there are specific rules to who can participate based on signing up during the public testimony stage. A planning commission hearing is typically about 45 days after submittal. “The planning commission reviews the application during their meeting, takes public testimony, and reviews the staff recommendations. The applicant gives a 15-minute presentation and the public gets 3-5 min to comment. The hearing closes and no more public comment is allowed. The Planning Commission forms a decision and makes findings based on the code criteria recommending approval or denial. The following month, the findings are adopted. Whenthe hearings process is involved, the timeline is approximately 160 days (30-day pre-review and 130-day application processing period). The decision can be appealed by anyone in the applicant, anyone in the notice area or anyone in the public that commented during the public Page 12 Total Page Number: 344 comment period or during a hearing. In both decision processes, state law gives the city 180 days to process the decision.” We began outreach to community partners to receive support related to our zoning issues. We met with attorney Chris Hearn to proceed with next steps with our conditional use permit process. Chris stated he would research the issues for the best path forward, given our goals and timeline. We requested that land use consultant Amy Gunter research additional locations where we could operate a peer respite with fewer zoning barriers. June 2024 We pursued a three pronged plan for next steps: (1) work with land use consultant and land to obtain zoning at 110 Terrace Street; (2) research other properties in Jackson or Josephine county where we could move without zoning barriers; (3) contact local elected officials to problem solve zoning. We updated OHA on these steps and our timeline via an email on June 28, 2024, including: “as previously discussed, we are still compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” In this email, we stated: “we anticipated that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025.” We began outreach to Representative Pam Marsh regarding our zoning delays. July 2024 Our staff and landlord had multiple conversations with Representative Pam Marsh regarding zoning issues, Representative Marsh conducted outreach to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Rep. Nosse, Kevin Fitts, ABLE House, FolkTime, and others. Our landlord also informed us that we would speak with a former Ashland city administrator regarding these issues. Based on his review and interpretation of materials, our attorney Chris Hearn advised that he “call \[Ashland\] City Attorney Doug McGeary and see if he will get the Planning Department to re-interpret the provisions of City’s short-term rental ordinance differently.” Hearn also advised that we should conduct outreach to Representative Pam Marsh. Amy Gunter completed research regarding additional municipalities where we could move with fewer zoning restrictions: “All localities (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Jackson County have some sort of Page 13 Total Page Number: 345 restriction upon occupancy of any sort that is 30 days or less… a political challenge could be raised where there are occupancy specifications in the ordinance.” After requesting an extension on our grant contract we were informed by Kendall Burns: “At this time \[the contract\] cannot be extended past June 30th 2025.” Due July 31, 2024, our Quarter 1 report provided substantial updates to OHA regarding our zoning. We set a 3 month goal to “determine the appropriate path forward for becoming zoned, and continuing working toward the goal of zoning.” We set 6 month goals: “analyze and if needed revise peer respite budget to be consistent with current timelines around zoning, staffing, etc.” and “obtain zoning necessary to operate peer respite.” In response to the question “Please list obstacles you have overcome, that you are currently facing, and those you anticipate?” we stated: “The Office of Recovery and Resilience staff are aware of the current details regarding our obstacles to obtaining zoning approval from the City of Ashland, and more details can be provided if needed. In short, our zoning obstacles have delayed opening of the peer respite by at least 6 months. Our current timeline for opening is January 2025, however, this is contingent on zoning approval from the City of Ashland.” In response to a question about our timeline for opening, we stated: “As described in an email to OHA dated 6/28/24, we currently anticipate that our opening will be delayed until \[at\] least January 1, 2025. As stated by OHA staff, we remain compliant with our contract and we will not be penalized for these delays.” August 2024 On August 22, our attorney Chris Hearn stated via email that he had a “favorable discussion” with city attorney Doug McGeary wherein McGeary said he would “see what he could do in terms of potentially advising Planning staff to adopt a more favorable interpretation of the City’s ordinance provisions relating to travelers accommodations and group homes. We continued discussions with our landlord on how to proceed with obtaining support from Representative Pam Marsh. On August 30, Chris Hearn informed us of his most recent communications with Ashland Attorney Doug McGeary. Via email, McGeary stated to Hearn: Page 14 Total Page Number: 346 "You make a compelling argument that the peer respite center does not operate on a commercial basis, but it also doesn't fit within the single-family residential use category either. In fact, as Brandon indicated (and this has probably been your concern), there isn't a permitted use category under which you could apply for a Conditional Use Permit in this zone. Brandon and his team have discussed this issue with the state, and their recommendation is to find a location where such use is allowed, most likelyin multi-family residential zones (R-2, R-3) or commercial zones. It seems the city has been considering psilocybin health centers in commercial zones with minimal resistance, so your client's use would not be unusual. I understand this is of little comfort if your clients have already purchased or leased the house with the intent to use it as a peer respite center." September 2024 We discussed next steps with attorney Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter, and conducted outreach again to Rep. Marsh. Rep. Marsh discussed the Feb - June legislative session, and stated via email “Unfortunately, I don’t know any quick solutions.” We updated Kendall Burns with our barriers to zoning, and asked whether OHa had any thoughts on next steps. We also inquired whether there were other OHA staff outside of the Office of Recovery and Resilience we should engage with. Kendall Burns referred us to Steve Sadden of Bay Area First Step, and we had a meeting to discuss how Bay Area First Step has resolved zoning issues on the South Coast. Sadden referred us to a Portland attorney named Jennifer Bragar for additional guidance regarding ADA accommodations and zoning. In a meeting with Chris Hearn and Amy Gunter we determined two paths forwards: (1) in lieu of a Conditional Use Permit application, we will submit a “request for formal interpretation” with the City of Ashland; (2) we will continue looking for alternative properties where we can move the respite, and if possible, hire realtors and Amy Gunter to aid in this search. October 2024 We contacted Jennifer Bragar regarding guidance around ADA accommodations and zoning, per Sadden’s recommendation. We visited a new potential property where we could move to in Ashland. Page 15 Total Page Number: 347 Djuz!pg!Btimboe Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Efqbsunfou 62!Xjocvso!Xbz-!Btimboe-!Psfhpo!:8631 652/663/3183!}!UUZ!911/846/3:11 Njdibfm/tvmmjwboAbtimboepsfhpo/hpw! Gspn;!Spo!Svtobl!boe!Mjtb!\[johbsfmmj 437!Sjehf!Spbe Btimboe-!Psfhpo !Sfhbsejoh;!!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Ipnf!bu!221!Ufssbdf Uif!Tijsmfz!E/!Qbuupo!Usvtu/!Lfou!Qbuupo!)tpo* Ofjhicpsippe!Dibsbdufs! Cz!dibohjoh!uif!{pojoh!pg!221!Ufssbdf!Tusffu-!ju!xjmm!gpsfwfs!bmufs!uif! Dibsbdufs!pg!uif!Ofjhicpsippe/! Ofjhicpsippe!dibsbdufs!tipvme!cf!uif!ovncfs!pof!jttvf/ /!!Uif!pxofst!boe!bqqmjdbout!ep!opu!mjwf!ifsf!jo!Btimboe/!Uifsf!xjmm!cf!op! pof!up!tvqfswjtf!ps!nbobhf!ipx!uif!Qffs!Sftqjuf!Ipnf!xjmm!cf!svo!ps! vtfe!bt!tubufe/!!Kvtu!b!tnbmm!bnpvou!pg!nfejb!sftfbsdi!bcpvu!Cfbwfs! Nu/Ipvtf-!boe!Tubccjo!Xbhpo!xjmm!tipx!uibu!uifz!ep!opu!ibwf!hppe! tuboejoh!jo!boz!pg!uif!dpnnvojujft!xifsf!uifz!ibwf!usjfe!up!hbjo!b! gppuipme/ Total Page Number: 348 /!!Uifsf!jt!b!qpttjcjmjuz!uif!qfpqmf!xip!tipvme!opu!cf!uifsf!xjmm!cf!vtjoh! uif!ipvtf!boe!ibohjoh!pvu!uifsf/!Xjmm!uif!ovncfs!pg!qfpqmf!po!uif!qspqfsuz! cf!sftusjdufe!up!uif!ovncfs!pg!qfpqmf!tmffqjoh!jo!uif!ipvtf@!!Nbsl!nz! xpset/!Uifsf!xjmm!cf!b!hboh!pg!qfpqmf/!!!Uifz!ibwf!b!Usvdl0Wbo!xijdi!uifz! vtf!up!ejtqfotf!offemft!boe!nfejdbujpo!ju!xjmm!nptu!mjlfmz!cf!qbslfe!po!uif! 221!Ufssbdf!qspqfsuz/!!!Ju!dpvme!cf!b!!qmbdf!esvh!beejdut!xjmm!iboh!pvu/!!!Uijt! usvdl!xjmm!qspcbcmz!cf!po!uif!qspqfsuz!boe!vtfe!up!ejtqfotf!up!esvh!beejdut/!! Uiftf!qfpqmf!nbz!opu!cf!tmffqjoh!jo!uif!ipvtf-!cvu!ibohjoh!pvu!uifsf!bmm! ebz/ /!!Xip!xjmm!npojups!uif!qmbdf!boe!uif!cvtjoftt!uifz!bsf!svoojoh/!!Ipx!xjmm! uif!qfpqmf!xip!xjmm!tubz!uifsf!cf!tfmfdufe@!!!Xjmm!uif!tubgg!cf!bcmf!up!tubz! uifsf@!!Jt!uif!Qffs!Ipvtf!tubgg!dfsujÑfe@!!!Ipx!ep!uifz!hfu!dfsujÑfe!boe! xip!difdlt!up!tff!uibu!uifz!bsf@!! /!!Ju!jt!pvs!pqjojpo!uibu!jg!uijt!qbttft!boe!{pojoh!jt!dibohfe-!zpv!xjmm!tff! Dbnqfs!Wbot-!ufout-!qfpqmf!tmffqjoh!jo!dbst-!qfpqmf!mpjufsjoh!boe!mjuufsjoh! bu!uif!221!Ufssbdf!beesftt/!Puifst!nbz!cf!ejtqfotjoh-!vtjoh-!tfmmjoh-! hspxjoh-!gpsnvmbujoh!dpouspmmfe!tvctubodft/!! /!!Ipx!xjmm!uif!bqqmjdbout!qpttjcmz!nbobhf!bmm!uif!sfrvjsfnfout;!!Tbgfuz-! cvjmejoh!dpeft-!fhsftt-!offemf!boe!esvh!xbtuf-!qbsljoh-!uif!mjtu!hpft!po! boe!po/!Xibu!bttvsbodft!ps!CPOE!ibt!cffo!tipxo!uibu!uifz!xjmm!gvmÑmm!uif! svmft!boe!dpeft@! /!!Uif!qspqfsuz!jt!pomz!sfbdife!cz!b!tibsfe!esjwfxbz!dbvtjoh!ivhf! qspcmfnt!up!uif!ofjhicpst/!Ipx!nboz!dbst!boe!usvdlt!b!ebz!xjmm!vtf!uif qspqfsuz@!Ipx!nboz!wfijdmft!xjmm!cf!bmmpxfe!up!qbsl!po!uif!qspqfsuz/!Jg!opu! sfhvmbufe-!upp!nboz!dbst!dpvme!dbvtf!ibwpd!jo!dbtf!pg!Ñsf!ps!ifbmui! fnfshfodz/ /!!Lfou!Qbuupo!)tpo!pg!pxofs!Tijsmfz!Qbuupo*!bqqmjfe!gps!{pojoh!wbsjbodft! kvtu!b!dpvqmf!pg!zfbst!bhp-!boe!uibu!xbt!efojfe/!!Ijt!joufoujpo!xbt!up! tvcejwjef!boe!qmpu!mput!up!cvjme!beejujpobm!ipvtft/!Ijt!npuifs-!Nst/!Qbuupo-! xbt!pl!xjui!uibu!bmtp/!Xf!ibwf!rvftujpot!pg!ipx!tjodfsf!uif!Qbuupo!Usvtu! jt/ Total Page Number: 349 /!!!Qmboojoh!dpnnjttjpo<!!Jg!zpv!hsbou!!uijt!bqqmjdbujpo-!xf!cfmjfwf!zpv!xjmm! cf!tffjoh!Lfou!Qbuupo!jo!uif!dpnjoh!ebzt!tffljoh!beejujpobm!bqqspwbm!gps! uif!sjhiu!up!cvjme!npsf!vojut!tp!uifz!dbo!ibwf!npsf!qfpqmf!tubz!uifsf/! /!!Boe!mbtumz-!Uijt!hspvq½Cfbwfs!Nu/Ipvtf-!boe!Tubccjo!Xbhpo!hspvq!jt! xpsljoh!xjui!b!wfsz!tqfdjÑd!hsbou/!Ju!jt!fwfo!rvftujpobcmf!uibu!uif!hsbou!xjmm! cf!fyufoefe/!Jg!uifz!ep!opu!sfdfjwf!beejujpobm!boe!dpoujovfe!gvoejoh½uifo! xibu!jt!up!cfdpnf!pg!uif!sf{pojoh@ /!!Jg!zpv!bhsff!up!uijt-!uifo!zpv!nvtu!bhsff!up!bmm!Sftqjuf!Ipnft!boe!tipsu! ufsn!ipvtjoh!jo!b!tjnjmbs!qspqfsuz/!Epft!uijt!nfbo!uibu!uijt!{pof!dibohf! xpvme!bmmpx!fwfszpof!jo!Btimboe!up!!ibwf!BjsC'C!tubzt!vq!up!25!ebzt@ /!!Jo!dpodmvtjpo-!Xf!lffq!ifbsjoh!gspn!ofjhicpst!uibu!jg!uif!Djuz!pg! Btimboe!epft!opu!bmmpx!uif!sf{pojoh!uifsf!xjmm!cf!b!dpvsu!Ñhiu!gspn!uif! bqqmjdbout-!Cfbwfs!Nu/Ipvtf-!boe!Tubccjoh!Xbhpo/ Qmfbtf!ep!opu!cvdlmf!voefs!uijt!uisfbufo!pg!mbxtvjut!boe!ep!uif!sjhiu!uijoh! gps!Btimboe/!Lffq!pvs!ofjhicpsippe!dibsbdufs!boe!qsftfswf!pvs!upxo/! !Xf!wpuf!OP!po!uijt!sf{pojoh-!ps!sfjoufsqsfubujpo!pg!{pojoh!bt!ju!jt! qsftfoufe/! Uibol!Zpv! Spo!Svtobl!boe!Mjtb!\[johbsfmmj Total Page Number: 350 Memo DATE: January 30, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director RE: 110 Terrace Street – PA T1-2024-00255 Traveler Accommodation City enforcement During the public comment period following the close of the public hearing on January 14th, written testimony was received asserting that the City of Ashland’s enforcement of prohibitions on Traveler’s Accommodations (TAs) in single-family zones is disproportionate in its application, particularly as it pertains to individuals with disabilities. The City of Ashland Code Compliance Division regularly enforces the prohibition of Traveler’s Accommodations (TA) in single-family residential zones. The enforcement of land use regulations related to short-term rental operations is an ongoing effort intended to maintain the availability of long-term residential housing and ensure compliance with Ashland’s zoning regulations. Specifically, in the last two years: 2023: There were nine (9) TA enforcement cases, of which six (6) were operating in single- family zones illegally, and 3 were operating in allowable zones (R-2/R-3) but without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 2024: There were twelve (12) TA enforcement cases, of which six (6) were operating in single- family zones illegally, and 6 were operating in allowable zones but without a CUP. 90% of cases were initiated proactively by Code Compliance, with the remaining 10% resulting from neighbor complaints. These recent enforcement efforts do not include the routine inquiries received by the Planning Division from residents exploring short-term rental opportunities through the use of their homes in single family neighborhoods. Those inquiring are informed that Traveler’s Accommodations are not a permitted use in single family zones. Given Ashland’s status as a well-established tourist destination, attracting approximately 400,000 visitors annually, the City’s land use ordinances are intentionally structured to balance tourism- related accommodations with the preservation of long-term residential housing stock. The COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 351 prohibition of Traveler’s Accommodations (TAs) in single-family residential zones serves to protect housing availability for full-time residents and maintain the character and stability of established neighborhoods. At the same time, the Ashland Land Use Ordinance directs TAs to areas that are more suitable for short-term lodging, including neighborhoods in closer proximity to tourist destinations, commercial centers, and higher-capacity streets. This strategic placement ensures that visitors can readily access amenities, dining, and entertainment options without adding unnecessary vehicle trips through lower-density residential areas. By concentrating short-term rental activity in higher-density, mixed-use, and commercially zoned areas, the City seeks to support the economic vitality of its tourism sector while minimizing potential disruptions to neighborhoods primarily intended for long-term residential use. This policy framework not only protects housing for residents but also facilitates a more seamless visitor experience by locating short-term accommodations within walking distance of Ashland’s key attractions and commercial centers. By applying these zoning standards consistently, the City ensures that its approach to regulating Traveler’s Accommodations aligns with both housing preservation goals and the economic realities of a tourism-driven community. It is important to clarify that the current land use interpretation request regarding 110 Terrace Street is not an enforcement action by the City of Ashland. Rather, it is a request initiated by the applicant seeking clarity on whether the proposed use as a Peer Respite Center should be classified under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as a Residential Care Home, rather than as Traveler’s Accommodation. To the City’s knowledge, the applicants sought this interpretation before commencing any operation of a Peer Respite Center at the subject property. Concerns regarding potential disparate enforcement were raised in public testimony. However, the City actively monitors and enforces its prohibition of unpermitted Traveler’s Accommodations in single-family residential zones, applying the same standards uniformly to all property owners and occupants without regard to their characteristics, identity, or personal circumstances. As evidenced by past Code Compliance cases, the City’s enforcement actions are based solely on the use of the property for short-term stays of less than 30 days, which effectively change the nature of the dwelling from long-term residential use to short-term, intermittent occupancy. The prohibition of Traveler’s Accommodations in single-family zones is not subject to discretionary interpretation based on the intent of the property owner or the nature of the guests but is instead a straightforward application of land use regulations intended to distinguish between permanent housing and transient lodging. Indeed, providing for a use exception here is asking for the City to not neutrally apply its own code. This approach ensures the consistent application of zoning standards and reflects the City’s ongoing efforts to maintain compliance with Ashland’s land use regulations and preserve residential neighborhoods for long-term occupancy. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 352 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 353 Total Page Number: 354 Total Page Number: 355 Total Page Number: 356 Total Page Number: 357 Total Page Number: 358 Total Page Number: 359 Total Page Number: 360 PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ Total Page Number: 361 Total Page Number: 362 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00010 SUBJECT PROPERTY:300 Clay St. OWNER:Bentella LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Development DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation and zone change for a 4.8-acre property, along with adjacent Right-of- Way (ROW), for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application also includes a request for a 25-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan Approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision, as well as a limited activities WRPZ permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Suburban Residential; ZONING: County RR-5 (R-1-3.5 requested); MAP: 39-1E-11-CB Tax Lot 1100;TAX LOT:1100 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday February 11, 2025 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street 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: 363 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to https://rvtv.sou.eduand selecting ‘RVTV Civic.’ Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/95600353277. All application materials are available on-line and written comments will be accepted via e-mail to PC-public- testimony@ashlandoregon.govor can be provided in person or via Zoom during the public hearing. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria will be available on-line at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/no lessthan 20 days prior to the meeting date shown above.A copy of the staff report will be available on-line in the Commission packet at: https://ashlandor.portal.civicclerk.com/?category_id=30 seven days prior to the meeting date shown above. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person during business hours at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.r.us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states thatfailure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govwith the subject line “February 11PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 10, 2025. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govwith the subject line “February 11 PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken both in person and via Zoom during the public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony via Zoom, please send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govby 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 10, 2025. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email “February 11PC Speaker Request”, 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/95600353277 During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Aaron Anderson, the staff planner assigned to this project, at 541-552-2052 orvia e-mail to: aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). 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: 364 OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, commonareas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. AMC 18.5.8.050 Annexation Approval Criteria & Standards An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsections A through H below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteriaand standards, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. A.The annexed area is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B.The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master, or area plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C.The annexed area is contiguous with the city limits. D.Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department;the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required public facility improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. E.Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 1.For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets bordering on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed 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 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: 365 dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2.For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area. Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the approval authority may require the construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use paths connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing theimpact of the development proposed concurrently with the annexation. 3.For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation). exist, or can and will be constructed.Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or multi-use paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with significant pedestrian activity. 4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. 5.Timing of Transportation Improvements.All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. F.For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park, shall not be included. G.Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed area for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any unbuildablelots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park. a.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. 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: 366 2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non- profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and 18.5.8.050.G.6. b.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non–profit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d.The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s affordable housing program requirements. e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in 18.5.8.050.G.4. 3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development. a.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3, or asestablished by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program. Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 –Minimum Required Floor Area for Affordable Units Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio350 1 Bedroom500 2 Bedroom800 3 Bedroom1,000 4 Bedroom1,250 4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. a.That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. b.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. 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: 367 a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b.Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to floor area, interior finishes and materials, and housing type provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 6.Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 – G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. a.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, then would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. c.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financinglimitations. 7.The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding upfractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing. H.One or more of the following standards are met. 1.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B, above. 2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute. 3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the city limits. I.Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria and standards in this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances. 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: 368 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 369 Total Page Number: 370 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – February 11, 2024 PLANNING ACTION:PA-T3-2024-00010 OWNER: Bentella LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services LOCATION: 300 Clay Street. 39-1E-11-CB Tax Lot 1100 ZONE DESIGNATION: County RR-5 (R-1-3.5 requested) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay 18.3.11 Water Resources Protection Zones 18.4.5Tree Preservation and Protection 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.7Tree Removal Permits 18.5.8 Annexations 18.5.9 Comp Plan, Zoning & LUO Amendments 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: September 18, 2024 APPLICATION COMPLETE:December 20, 2024 DLCD NOTICE: January 6, 2025 *36 days in advance* PUBLICMEETINGNOTICE:January 22, 2025 *20 days in advance* MEETING DATE: February 11, 2025 120-DAY DEADLINE:(*Type III applications not subject to 120-day limits) PROPOSAL: A request for annexation and zone change fora4.8-acre property, along with adjacent Right-of-Way(ROW), for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application also includes a request for a 29-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, as well as a limited activitiespermit for public utilities within the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). Annexations require that at least 25% of the base density be affordable housing. In the present application there are eight affordable housing units proposed at 80% area median income (AMI) to meet this requirement. I.Introduction The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 25-lots for residential development, 21 of them are proposed for single family residential(SFR) development, four lots proposed with four-plex townhomes, and four additional lots to be dedicated asopen space area. The SFR lots may be Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 1of 19 Total Page Number: 371 developed with either Accessory Residential Units (ARU) or duplexes as required by House Bill 2001. The 16 dwellings in the fourplexes plus the 21 SFR lots sums to a proposed density of 37 dwelling units. Because the proposal is an annexation there is also a requirement for affordable housing which is discussed further below. The application also includes a request to remove four trees. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance requires a two-step procedure for subdivisions for subdivisions greater than ten lots. This means that following this planning action an application for Final Plan Approval will still be required prior to review and approval of the final plat. The townhomes development is presented as a concept design and is not seeking Site Design Review at this time, and instead the application indicates that the Site Design Review will be applied for concurrently with the application for Final Plan approval. 1)Site Description The subject property is Tax lot #1100 of Assessor Map 39-1E-11-CB and is addressed as 300 Clay Street. The subject property is 4.8 acres and gentle slopes to the north at approximately three percent slope. The property has 328 feet of frontage along Clay St. which is fully improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Engle Street terminates on both the north and south side of the property. The property is mostly vacant with the exception of a small residence that the County Assessor indicates was built in 1920. The residence is listed as 631 square feet and is indicated to be in poor condition. The application materials indicate that to the east of the home that there is also “an 819 square foot shed, a small horse shelter, and a 208 square foot carport structure.” 2)Natural Features The application explains that the trees on the property consist of “a 16-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) conifer tree directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing residence. A 16-inch DBH Cottonwood tree in the northwest corner of the property and grouping of willows including a 16-inch DBH, 15-inch DBH and 18-inch DBH willow tree.” The application explains that “The majority of trees are landscape trees on the adjacent properties. There is a row of Leyland Cypress along the east property line and shade trees in the yards of the properties to the north of the subject property.” The adopted Wetland Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) maps indicate wetlands in two locations; however, the application materials include a wetland delineation, reviewed and approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL),whichdeterminedthat the actual area of wetland is much smaller than on the City’s adopted WRPZ maps. The application notes that over the years as development has occurred more of the irrigation waters that used to be in open ditches have instead been rerouted to pipe and other storm drain infrastructure. This has caused a great reduction in water that has historically fed some of these wetlands and resulted in a reduction intheir size over the years. In 2022 the most recent wetland delineation was performed and approved by the DSL. The map from the approved wetland delineation shows the extent of the wetland at the north of the subject property and indicates thatthe area of the wetland is 0.0096 acres or 418 square feet. The application materials propose a twenty-foot buffer around the identified wetland to be dedicated as an open space amenity. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 2of 19 Total Page Number: 372 II.Project Proposal – Annexation and Outline Plan Subdivision 1)Annexation AMC 18.5.8.030 provides that: “all annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure.” A type III planning action is a legislative decision by definition. Legislative requests are not subject to the 120-day review period under subsection 18.5.1.090.B (ORS 227.178). Type III actions are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council makes final decisions on legislative proposals through the enactment of an ordinance. The approval criteria for annexation can be summarized as follows: A.That the annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). B.That the annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations. C. That the annexed area is contiguous with the city limits. D. That adequate City facilities are available as determined by Public Works. E.That adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. F.That the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, G. The total number of affordable units shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated. H. This is a provision to allow certain properties to annex even if their development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Not applicable in the present case as the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.) I. Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards The property is both within the UGB and contiguous with the city limits as shown inthe City geographic information system (GIS) and shown below. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 3of 19 Total Page Number: 373 The UGB runs along East Main Street which is 0.2 miles to the north demonstrating that the property is within the UGB. The subject property is immediately adjacent to City Limits to the north, south and east as shown above. This satisfies the first and third approval criteria. The second criteria of approval for annexation are that the “proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations.” As mentioned above, 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. AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides the residential density for a PSO subdivision. For the R-1-3.5 zone it specifies aresidential density of 7.2 dwelling unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan requires that a proposal in this zone to develop with at least 90% of the base density (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56 * 0.9 ~ 31 dwelling units). The present proposal leverages affordable housing density bonus, discussed further below, to exceed the base density for a total of 37 dwellings. Based on the allowed bonus findings can be made that the proposed density of residential development, including the proposed affordable housing, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. Staff conclude that based on the proposed number of dwellings, the size of the property, and the requested zoning, that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fourth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate City facilities as determined by the Public Works Department.” The property is served by all city utilities. Clay Street contains an eight-inch water main, eight-inch sewer main, and an 18” storm water main. Engle has eight-inch water mains at both the north and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a ten-inch sewer main at the north stub of Engle Street. Due to the nature of gravity systems and the topography of the site no sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 4of 19 Total Page Number: 374 City facilities. Staff conclude that based on the proposed facilities that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fifth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area.” The application material includes a trip generation assessment and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) findings prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation and Engineering. These materials detail the expected trip generation of the proposed development and show that the proposed development is below the requirements for a complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as the development is expected to only generate 30 weekday peak hour trips where the threshold for a TIA is 50 newly generated vehicle trips. The proposed development includes the creation of new local neighborhood roads connecting Engle Street, as well as a new neighborhood street connecting to Clay Street. All proposed public facilities are proposed to be constructed to City of Ashland Standards. Staff conclude that based on the proposed facilities as well as the engineering memo that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The sixth approval criteria for annexation is “That the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone.” As was discussed above 90% of the base density for the property is 31 units (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56 * 0.9 ~ 31). The present proposal leverages affordable housing density bonus to exceed the base density for a total of 37 dwellings. Staff notes that 37 exceeds 31 and conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The seventh approval criteria for annexation is that “The total number of affordable units shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated.””AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1 provides that “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 area including wetlands. Additionally, AMC 18.5.8.050.G.7 provides that “The total number of affordable units described in this subsection shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. As discussed above the wetland delineation determined that the area of the wetland is 0.12 acres. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units we calculate the density excluding the wetland area,as follows: 4.8 acres - 0.012 acres = 4.788 acres x 7.2 dwelling units per acer = 34.47 dwelling units x 0.25 = 8.6 ~ 9 affordable dwelling units. The application materials propose eight units targeted to households earning 80% area median income (AMI) or less. Affordable units at 80% AMI units have an ‘equivalent value’ of 1.25. To determine how many 80% AMI units are required to meet the calculated number of affordable units you take the calculated value, in this case nine dwelling units, and divide by 1.25 which is the ‘equivalent value’ for units restricted to 80% AMI. The quotient provides the number of 80% AMI units required to meet that value which is then rounded up (9 affordable units / 1.25 the 80% equivalent value = 7.2 ~ 8). Therefore, a total of eight 80% AMI units satisfies the nine affordable units required. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will bemet. The eighth approval criterion for annexation is a provision to allow properties to annex even if their development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in particular circumstances. The criterion requiresat least one of five standards to be met.The first of these is that “The Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 5of 19 Total Page Number: 375 * annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.”The citation to AMC 18.5.8.050.B is actuallythe second approval criterion. As discussed above, the second approval criterion provides that the “proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations.” Since the second criterion of approval was satisfied above then it follows that this eighth approval criterion is also satisfied. The ninth and final approval criterion for annexation relates to requested exceptions. The present application includes no requests for exceptions or variances and can be found to be satisfied. Finally, the Land Use Ordinance requires that “the applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS chapter 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely” (AMC 18.5.8.070). The application states that the annexation procedure outlined in ORS 222.125 should be utilized for the annexation and goes on to say that “This procedure allows for annexation without the need for an election when all landowners in the proposed territory, as well as a majority of the electors, consent in writing. The applicant is the sole owner and can provide written consent within the annexation territory.” Based on the fact that there is a single property being proposed to annex Staff conclude that findings can be made that this standard is met. 2)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline Plan Approval The Purpose of the Performance Standards Option is set out at AMC 18.3.9.010 and states that “The purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.” The property is not within the PSO overlay however the code provides at AMC 18.3.9.030.D four situations where the use of the Performance standard are allowed. The first of these is that the property is greater than 2 acres and also greater than 200’ in average width. The subject property meets both of these requirements to utilize the PSO standards outside of the overlay. The proposal includes twenty-one lots for single family homes, and four lots in the east of the subdivision that will be each developed with fourplex townhomes. There is a private street that extends into the development to provide rear-loaded access to six of the single-family lots as well as private parking for the town homes. There are also four lots providing open space one of * The other four options are for the situations where the annexation would be allowed even if the development is not consistent with the Comprehensive plan: 2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS chapter 222 or successor state statute. 3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the City limits. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 6of 19 Total Page Number: 376 which includes the delinated wetland and another for storm water retention. The proposed subdivision Site Plan is shown below: The approval criteria for outline plan include eight items which are summarized as follows: 1)The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. 2)Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access. 3)The natural features, such as wetlands andlarge trees, are included in unbuildable areas. 4)The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. 5)There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. 6)The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. 7)The development complies with the street standards. 8)The proposed development meets the common open space standards. Next, we briefly address each of the approval criteria, and any needed conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with the applicablestandards. The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.”This is an all-encompassing criterion that allows the Planning Commission to make findings that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable and how the requirements of them have been met. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.070. The Staff notes that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 7of 19 Total Page Number: 377 First, we address AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides for residential density for a PSO subdivision. As discussed above, for the R-1-3.5 zone is a density of 7.2 dwelling unit per acre. As discussed further below in the sixth approval criterion, this section also provides the details for Density Bonus Point Calculations and provides that “a maximum bonus of 35 percent is allowed. Developments shall receive a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit provided.” The base density for the zone is 34.56 . The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of the available bonus units. Next, AMC 18.3.9.060 provides the requirements for the provision of on-street parking which requires one parking space per lot, with the exception that “the total number of on-street spaces required should not surpass the available street frontage.” The proposed site plans show a total of 21 parking spaces along one side of both streets throughout the subdivision. Finally, AMC 18.3.9.070 provides for the setback standards for a PSO subdivision. The Code requires that “Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone.” Staff notes that Clay Street is the ‘front yard’ frontage for the parent parcel, as such a fifteen foot setback along Clay Street is required, which is what is shown in the applicants site plan. For the PSO Solar Setback the section invokes the standards at AMC 18.4.8. which requires that “land divisions which create new lots shall be designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north- south lot dimension” when taking into account the slope of the property. Based on the slope of the property and the equations in the code this requires a North-South dimension of at least 71.9- feet. Lots #1 through #15 all have a N/S dimension of over 100-feet meeting this requirement. Lots #16 through #21, due to their orientation, do not meet this standard and instead have a N/S dimension of roughly 40-feet, and multi-family lots #24 and #25 also fail to meet this standard. The code provides that “If the applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the standards set forth in subsection A, above, a solar envelope shall be used to define the height requirements that will protect the applicable solar access standard.” In the present application the applicant proposes what has historically been referred to as the ‘MillPond standard’ and states that “the request would be to allow a five-foot shadow up the adjacent south wall of the structure to the north.” and suggests that this will allow for the construction of two-story homes on these lots. A condition of approval invoking the ‘MillPond standard’ has been included below, but staff has reservations that it will enable two story construction on these lots. Staff believe that the multi- family fourplexes and two-story construction on lots #17-#21 may require solar variances to enable two story construction. Because lots #16 and #25 are adjacent to the perimeter of the property they will either need to meet Solar Standard A or secure a solar variance from the property to the north. The applicant has provided findings addressing each of the approval criteria in detail, and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. With the application materials fully considered staff concluded that findings can be made that all applicable ordinance requirements have been met and that the firstcriterion of approval has been met. The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access.” As discussed in the fourth approval criteria for annexation above the property is served by all city utilities. Clay Street contains an eight-inch water main, eight-inch Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 8of 19 Total Page Number: 378 sewer main, and an 18” storm water main. Engle has eight-inch water mains at both the north and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a ten-inch sewer main at the north stub of Engle Street. Due to the nature of gravity systems and the topography of the site no sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any City facilities. Staff conclude that, based on the proposed facilities,that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The third approval criterion is that “the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas.” The primary natural featureson the site are adelineatedwetland that was discussed above and several trees. The map from the approved wetland delineation shows the extent of the wetland at the north of the subject property and indicates that the area of the wetland is 0.0096 acres or 418 square feet. The application materials propose a twenty-foot buffer around the identified wetland to be dedicated as an open space amenity. In addition to the wetland there are a number of significant tree on the property including: “a 16-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) conifer tree directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing residence. A 16-inch DBH Cottonwood tree in the northwest corner of the property and grouping of willows including a 16-inch DBH, 15-inch DBH and 18-inch DBH willow tree nears the north property line, east of Engle Street intersection into the property.” Four of these treesare proposed for removal as they are in conflict with the proposed street right-of-way (ROW) and building envelopes. When considering the wetland delineation and the open space being dedicated for its protection Staff conclude that, based on the proposed facilities, that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fourth approval criterion is that “the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.” The subject property is surrounded by lands that are fully developed. To the north is Bud’s Dairy Subdivision, to the south is the Snowberrybrook development, and to the eastis a manufactured home park. The western side of the project fronts Clay Street. Based on the above Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met The fifth approval criterion is that “there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.” The application states that “With the Final Plan application, the subdivision Homeowners Association formation documents and Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions will be provided. The CC&Rs will provide details regarding the maintenance of the open spaces, common areas, wetlands area and buffer maintenance and management within the subdivision.”A condition of approval has been included below that will require the applicant to provide CC&R’s for review that include sufficient maintenance for the private drive and all common area amenities. The CC&Rs shall also address fence standards adjacent to open space. Staff conclude that with the creation of the HOA with binding CC&R’s findings can be made that this approval criterion has been met. The sixth approval criterion is that “the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.” As discussed in the second approval criteria for annexation the application requests a zone change from the county zone to R-1-3.5. As discussed above, the base density for the zone is 34.56 (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56). AMC 18.3.9.050.B.3 provides a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit provided up to maximum bonus of 35-percent, this would allow for up to an additional 12 units over the based density. The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of the Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 9of 19 Total Page Number: 379 available bonus units for calculated bonus of 8.7%, which is well below the 35 percent available. Staff conclude that the proposed 37 dwellings are within the allowed base and bonus density standards and that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The seventh approval criterion is that “the development complies with the street standards.” The application includes detailed civil engineering plans including street cross sections showing a 47’ ROW, 22’ paved width including seven-foot planter strip and five-foot sidewalk which meets the standards shown in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.4.b. ’Neighborhood Street, Parking One Side.’ There are however two locations on the preliminary plat and civil site plans that show only 46’ feet of proposed ROW dedication. A condition of approval is included below that will require the revised civil plans at Final Plan approval to indicate 47’ of ROW dedication. Staff conclude that with the condition of approval added below that this approval criterion will be met. The eighth and final approval criterion is that “the proposed development meets the common open space standards.” The proposed subdivision includes four open space areas totaling 16,102 square feet. The requirement for minimum open space for a PSO subdivision is five percent of total lot area for developments with a base density of 10 units or more. The subject property is 209,088 square feet in size, five percent of that is 10,454. Based on the above the applicant is providing a total of 7.7% in open space which exceeds the required minimum. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met 3)Limited Activities And Uses in the WRPZ As explained above the property has locally identified wetlands from the City’s Local Wetland Inventory (LWI). Since that time there have been two separate wetland delineations performed by qualified environmental specialists. The first was conducted in 2015 and was approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL), however wetland delineations expire after five years. Because the 2015 delineation expired an additional delineation was conducted and approved by the DSL in 4/10/2023 (see DSL WD# 2022-0352). The application statesthat based on the area of the wetland, the wetland is not a Significant Wetland, but a small, 418.76 square foot (.0096 acre) wetland area, as such they propose a twenty-foot buffer around this 419 square foot area. Among the listed “limited activities and uses” that are allowed in the WRPZ area is the Installation of public and private storm water treatment facilities. The application states that “The proposed stormwater lateral dispersal trench is a permitted use within the Water Resource Protection Zone. The utility is outside of the wetland area and is proposed at the outer edge of the 20-foot wetland buffer zone.”, and that “The areas of disturbance will be reseeded with a native grass mix that is appropriate for planting in the wetland buffer zone.” The application suggests that the installation of the storm water dispersal may in fact actually help preserve the wetland while so many wetlands are starved from their natural water sources. 4)Site Design Concept Attached townhome style housing requires Site Design Review. In the present application no Site Design Review approval is being requested, instead the Site Design Review will be conducted concurrently with the second step of the PSO subdivision which is Final Plan Approval. For this reason, we do not dwell on the details of the four proposed four-plex buildings other than to remark that this is consistent with the proposed density. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 10of 19 Total Page Number: 380 5)Tree Removal The application includes a request to remove four trees. The application describes the removals as follows: “There are three deciduous trees that have a DBH of 12-inches or more that are proposed for removal and one tree conifer tree greater than 16 inches DBH. These trees are within the area of the public streets, the alley and within the building envelope area of the development area of the lots. The tree removal is necessitated by the construction of public streets, an alley and residential dwellings.” (Applicant findings p. 46). To approval the removal of a non-hazard tree it needs to be shown that “The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.” When considering the location of these trees being within the proposed street dedication and building envelopes, the proposed removals are, in staffs view, found to meet the standards. Pursuant to AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2.e the applicant will be required to mitigate for the removal of each tree. In review of the preliminary landscape plan, it is demonstrated that the number of trees to be planted far exceeds the four that are required to mitigate these proposed removals. The application will be reviewed by the Tree Management Advisory Committee at their February th 6 meeting, and their findings will be presented at the hearing before the Planning Commission. 6)Public Input Notice was posted at the property frontage, as well at the end of each street stub, and mailed to all properties of record within 200’ of the subject property on January 22, 2025. At the time of this writing no formal public comment has been received. III.Procedural –Approval Criteria 1)Annexation AMC 18.5.8.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for annexation: An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsectionsAthroughHbelow. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with 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 Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 11of 19 Total Page Number: 381 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 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. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 12of 19 Total Page Number: 382 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. 2.As an alternative to providing affordable units per section18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the 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. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 13of 19 Total Page Number: 383 d.The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s affordable housing program requirements. 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. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 14of 19 Total Page Number: 384 b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection18.5.8.050.G.4provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. c. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, state, or federal affordable housing standards or financing limitations. 7.The total number of affordable units described in this 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 standards in this section using the criteria in section18.4.6.020.B.1, Exceptions to the Street Design Standards, or chapter18.5.5, Variances. 2)Outline Plan AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for Outline Plan approval. 3.Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 15of 19 Total Page Number: 385 development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the street standards. h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. 3)Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) AMC 18.3.11.060.D provides the approval criteria and standards for a WRPZ Limited Activities and Uses Permit. D.Limited Activities and Uses Permit. All limited activities and uses described in section 18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a limited activities and uses permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1.All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable. 2.The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on water resources. 3.On stream beds or banks within the bank-full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided exceptwhere no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. 4.Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands. 5.Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.3.11.110, Mitigation Requirements. 6.Long-term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 16of 19 Total Page Number: 386 4)Tree Removal AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 provides the approval criteria and standards for a Tree Removal Permit for anon-hazardous tree. 2.Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the city council approval the annexation and Outline Plan for the subdivision. If the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe application,staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B within 18 months of this outline plan approval. The application for Final Plan approval will be required to include the following: a.That the revised civil and site plans that are to be submitted with Final Plan approval indicate 47’ of ROW for both Engle and Street and Caldera Lane. b.Provide CC&R’s for review that include sufficient maintenance for the private drive and all common area amenities. c.That pursuant to AMC 13.24.010.C that the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Director for approval of the proposed street name of Calera Lane. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 17of 19 Total Page Number: 387 3)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. c.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, 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. d.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 5)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. 6)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.For Lots #1-16 & 25 Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. c.For Lots #16-24 Demonstrate compliance with the approved solar setback showing that any shadows cast do not exceed five feet above the finished floor elevation of the main level of a house on the respective lots to their north, assuming the affected house is built six feet from the shared property line. d.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. e.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, Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 18of 19 Total Page Number: 388 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. Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) Owner:Bentella LLCPage 19of 19 Total Page Number: 389 Total Page Number: 390 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 391 Total Page Number: 392 Total Page Number: 393 Total Page Number: 394 Total Page Number: 395 Total Page Number: 396 Total Page Number: 397 Total Page Number: 398 Total Page Number: 399 Total Page Number: 400 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 401 Total Page Number: 402 PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address APPLICANT NamePhoneE-Mail Address _____________________________________________City ____________________State ________ Zip Please MarkAll That Apply Total Page Number: 403 Total Page Number: 404 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Total Page Number: 405 Total Page Number: 406 Total Page Number: 407 Total Page Number: 408 Total Page Number: 409 Total Page Number: 410 Total Page Number: 411 Total Page Number: 412 Total Page Number: 413 Total Page Number: 414 Total Page Number: 415 Total Page Number: 416 Total Page Number: 417 Total Page Number: 418 Total Page Number: 419 Total Page Number: 420 Total Page Number: 421 Total Page Number: 422 Total Page Number: 423 Total Page Number: 424 Total Page Number: 425 Total Page Number: 426 Total Page Number: 427 Total Page Number: 428 Total Page Number: 429 Total Page Number: 430 Total Page Number: 431 Total Page Number: 432 Total Page Number: 433 Total Page Number: 434 Total Page Number: 435 Total Page Number: 436 Total Page Number: 437 Total Page Number: 438 Total Page Number: 439 Total Page Number: 440 Total Page Number: 441 Total Page Number: 442 Total Page Number: 443 Total Page Number: 444 Total Page Number: 445 Total Page Number: 446 The Staff Advisor may make a determination based on the Water Resources map, field check, and any other relevant maps, site plans, and information that a Water Resource or Water Resource Protection Zone is not located on a particular site or is not impacted by proposed development, activities or uses. Total Page Number: 447 Total Page Number: 448 Total Page Number: 449 Total Page Number: 450 Total Page Number: 451 Total Page Number: 452 Total Page Number: 453 Total Page Number: 454 (541) 482-6474 terrain@bisp.net Total Page Number: 455 Total Page Number: 456 Total Page Number: 457 Total Page Number: 458 (541) 482-6474 terrain@bisp.net Total Page Number: 459 Total Page Number: 460 Total Page Number: 461 Total Page Number: 462 Total Page Number: 463 Total Page Number: 464 Total Page Number: 465 Total Page Number: 466 Total Page Number: 467 Total Page Number: 468 Total Page Number: 469 Total Page Number: 470 Total Page Number: 471 Total Page Number: 472 Total Page Number: 473 Total Page Number: 474 Total Page Number: 475 Total Page Number: 476 Total Page Number: 477 Total Page Number: 478 Total Page Number: 479 Total Page Number: 480 Total Page Number: 481 Total Page Number: 482 Total Page Number: 483 Total Page Number: 484 Total Page Number: 485 Total Page Number: 486 Total Page Number: 487 Total Page Number: 488 Total Page Number: 489 Total Page Number: 490 Total Page Number: 491 Total Page Number: 492 Total Page Number: 493 Total Page Number: 494 Total Page Number: 495 Total Page Number: 496 Total Page Number: 497 Total Page Number: 498 Total Page Number: 499 Total Page Number: 500 WY All Primary 48" Depth, 1' sand E ID RH LA OL D All Secondary 36" Depth, 1' sand All Equipment and Conduit to be placed in PUE Lots 1-8 Secondary (1) 3" PVC 350 AL to HH Lots 15-21 HH to meters (1) 3" PVC 4/0 AL Lots 9-14 (1) 3" PVC 350 AL to 2-pack meter bases 575-SECT-ASH Lots 22-25 per N.E.C, Car Chargers per N.E.C. 644-TRANS-ASH C Phase, KVA TBD OPEN 644-TRANS-ASH B Phase, 50 KVA OPEN H5112356 H5112357 H5112355 H5112354 H5112353 H5112358 H5112360 H5112359 OPEN H5112359 575-VFI-PCORP 644-TRANS-ASH 644-TRANS-ASH 644-TRANS-ASH A Phase, 50 KVA A Phase, 50 KVA C Phase, KVA TBD 300 Clay St Subdivision Qsjou!Ebuf;!302303135 Total Page Number: 501 MEMORANDUM Total Page Number: 502 Existing RR-5 Zoning Proposed R-1-3.5 Zoning Total Page Number: 503 Total Page Number: 504 Total Page Number: 505 Total Page Number: 506 Total Page Number: 507 Total Page Number: 508 Total Page Number: 509 Total Page Number: 510 *9F< 3K=z UUS +MDLA>9EADQ &GMKAF? *GO0AK= Description Low-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have two or three floors (levels). Various configurations fit this description, including walkup apartment, mansion apartment, and stacked townhouse. ~ O9DCMH 9H9JLE=FL LQHA;9DDQ AK LOG GJ L@J== >DGGJK AF @=A?@L OAL@ <O=DDAF? MFALK L@9L 9J= 9;;=KK=< by a single or multiple entrances with stairways and hallways. ~ E9FKAGF 9H9JLE=FL AK 9 KAF?D= KLJM;LMJ= L@9L ;GFL9AFK K=N=J9D 9H9JLE=FLK OAL@AF O@9L 9HH=9JK to be a single-family dwelling unit. ~ second floors. Access to the individual units is typically internal to the structure and provided through a central entry and stairway. ~ a townhouse dwelling unit that only shares walls with an adjoining unit, the stacked townhouse units share both floors and walls. Access to the individual units is typically internal to the structure and provided through a central entry and stairway. Multifamily housing (mid-rise) (Land Use 221), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), affordable housing (Land Use 223), and off-campus student apartment (low-rise) (Land Use 225) are related land uses. Land Use Subcategory Data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is ½ mile or less. Additional Data For the three sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.72 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the two sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96.2 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time-of-day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip UXU 2JAH %=F=J9LAGF +9FM9D TTL@ #<ALAGF ~ 4GDME= V Total Page Number: 511 generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). For the three sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents, there was an average of 2.72 residents per occupied dwelling unit. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Source Numbers 188, 204, 237, 300, 305, 306, 320, 321, 357, 390, 412, 525, 530, 579, 583, 638, 864, 866, 896, 901, 903, 904, 936, 939, 944, 946, 947, 948, 963, 964, 966, 967, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1036, 1047, 1056, 1071, 1076 %=F=J9D 3J:9F1M:MJ:9F 9F< 0MJ9D *9F< 3K=K SSSV\\\\ UXV Total Page Number: 512 UXW 2JAH %=F=J9LAGF +9FM9D TTL@ #<ALAGF ~ 4GDME= V Total Page Number: 513 %=F=J9D 3J:9F1M:MJ:9F 9F< 0MJ9D *9F< 3K=K SSSV\\\\UXX Total Page Number: 514 UXY 2JAH %=F=J9LAGF +9FM9D TTL@ #<ALAGF ~ 4GDME= V Total Page Number: 515 Total Page Number: 516 Total Page Number: 517 Total Page Number: 518 Total Page Number: 519 Total Page Number: 520 Total Page Number: 521 Total Page Number: 522 Department of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 FAX (503) 378-4844 www.oregon.gov/dsl 2º§º«Ɏ+§´ªɎ!µ§¸ªɎ Ɏ 3¯´§Ɏ*µº«±Ɏ &µ¼«¸´µ¸Ɏ Ɏ 2®«³¯§Ɏ%§§´Ɏ 2«©¸«º§¸¿Ɏµ¬Ɏ2º§º«Ɏ 3µ¨¯§¹Ɏ1«§ªɎ 2º§º«Ɏ3¸«§¹»¸«¸Ɏ Total Page Number: 523 Total Page Number: 524 Total Page Number: 525 Total Page Number: 526 Total Page Number: 527 Total Page Number: 528 \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hi Aaron, Sorry for the lack of detail on the trees. There are four to be removed. One is an 18" Pine, one is a 14" apple, one is a multi-stemmed Cottonwood tree that is 10" X 3 and the other is an 18" X 5 Cottonwood. Attached are three photos showing the Pine, one with the Pine and the multi-stemmed 10" X 3 Cottonwood, and the other showing the larger cottonwood. All of the off-site trees are protected with fencing on the property lines. Thank you, Amy ¤ŗĩƇđϼ¡ňêŏŏijŏĩϼѐϼ?đƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂϼ¨đŵƚijąđŹ 541-951-4020 www.rogueplanning.com This communication, including any attachments hereto or links contained herein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments from your system. While Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC strives to make the information in all reports as timely and accurate as possible, Rogue Planning makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this report, and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this report. On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:32AM Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us> wrote: Hi Amy, °İêŏńŹ϶Ĩŗŵ϶ƢŗƇŵ϶ƂijŎđ϶ŗŏ϶Ƃİđ϶Ųİŗŏđ϶ŁƇŹƂ϶ŏŗƜЀ϶ As we discussed the findings state: There are three deciduous trees that have a DBH of 12-inches or more that are proposed for Total Page Number: 529 removal and one tree conifer tree greater than 16 inches DBH. These trees are within the area of the public streets, the alley and within the building envelope area of the development area of the lots. The tree removal is necessitated by the construction of public streets, an alley and residential dwellings. Can you please use the attached plan and indicate which of the trees on that plan correspond with the proposed removals. I need to get this sent out to the Tree MAC today so that they can review it next week, so if you can get ƂİijŹ϶ăêąń϶Ƃŗ϶Ŏđ϶ŴƇijąńňƢ϶fЪċ϶êŲŲŵđąijêƂđ϶ijƂϼ϶ Thank you! Aaron Anderson CFM, Sr. Planner Pronouns he, him City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.552.2052 | TTY 800.735.2900 aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland) Total Page Number: 530 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2052 Total Page Number: 531 Total Page Number: 532 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 533 Total Page Number: 534 Total Page Number: 535 Total Page Number: 536