HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-12_Planning MIN
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.
August 12, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Susan MacCracken Jain Derek Severson, Planning Manager
John Maher Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Eric Herron Jeff Dahle (absent)
Kerry KenCairn
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the annexation of 1511 Highway 99 at
their meeting on Tuesday, August 19.
The City Council will be reviewing the second reading of ordinances implementing the SOU
Masterplan at their next meeting.
The Parks Department will hold an open house on August 14 from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the
Senior Center to gather feedback on the East Main park project.
The Water Treatment plant work on Granite Street is underway, with the culvert crossing
currently in process and a temporary pedestrian crossing over Ashland Creek in place.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1.July 22, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes
Chair Verner noted that Staff had submitted revised minutes for the July 22, 2025 Special Meeting
Page 1 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
which clarified Staff announcements regarding the SOU Masterplan project.
Commissioners Phillips/Maher m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as amended by Staff. Voice
Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
Alison Laughlin/Ms. Laughlin spoke regarding dangerous flooding conditions at Roca Street and Fern
Street.
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of revised Findings on remand from City Council for PA-T2-2024-00053, 231
Granite Street
Chair Verner explained that the Planning Commission's earlier decision regarding 231 Granite Street
had been appealed to the City Council. While the Council upheld the Commission's decision, they
requested more robust findings in anticipation of a possible appeal to the Land use Board of Appeals
(LUBA.) The revised findings before the Commission included suggested revisions from staff, the
applicants, Commissioner Phillips, and Chair Verner (see attachment #1).
Chair Verner noted that a question had been raised about section 2.5 of the findings, which contained
the statement "the Commission notes that with the proposal one additional home serving a lot with a
pre-existing easement will be served from the shared driveway." Staff clarified that this referred to the
home proposed in the application, not implying additional future construction.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Maher and Phillips disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Decision
Chair Verner proposed removing a sentence in the middle of page 6 that stated "The Commission
finds that the proposed development reduces adverse impacts, potential hazards, and limits the
amount of hillside disturbance," stating that it went beyond what the Commission had directly found.
Commissioners Phillips/Maher m/s to approve the amended findings, incorporating revisions from
staff and the updated condition 2.5 provided by Chair Verner, and also included removing the
sentence "The Commission finds that the proposed development reduces adverse impacts,
potential hazards, and limits the amount of hillside disturbance." Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed 4-0.
Page 2 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00059
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600
OWNER/APPLICANT: PDK Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standard
Option (PSO) subdivision. The Subdivision Outline Plan was approved by the Ashland Planning
Commission adopted findings approving PA-T2-2024-00054, on January 14, 2025. The
Proposed final plan come before the Planning Commission because a section that was
approved as an alley is now proposed to be pedestrian access due to the existing adjacent
grade. The application also includes a modification to the previous Site Design Review.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain l; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04 AD; TAX
LOTS: 8600
Chair Verner acknowledged public comments received before the meeting but after the packet had
been published (see attachment #2).
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Phillips and Verner disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson briefly outlined the project with the following proposed changes to the
previously approved plan: altering a vehicle traffic connection to a pedestrian pathway; changing
building layouts and elevations; removing underbuilding parking in favor of a small parking area on
Julian Court; and lowering building heights. Items addressed were increasing rights-of-way from 47 to
48 feet and additional alleyway dedications. Staff also added Condition #8 regarding new irrigation,
and removed a mistakenly included condition related to another planning project (see attachment
#3).
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Phillips requested clarification regarding the walkway's grade; Mr. Anderson confirmed
a 15% grade with steps. Mr. Goldman elaborated that improvements in the public right-of-way often
exceed ADA standards in the City due to the terrain, while internal sidewalks and the ADA parking
space would be subject to ADA accessibility requirements.
Applicant Presentation
Applicant Mark Knox explained that the civil plans revealed the grade was steeper than initially
anticipated, especially at the connection to Patton Lane, resulting in the proposed revisions. The
applicant team determined that while a vehicle connection wasn't feasible, a pedestrian connection
would align with the North Mountain plan's goal of facilitating pedestrian movement. He noted that the
15% grade was a worst-case scenario, and the addition of steps would likely reduce it to about 12%. He
Page 3 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
mentioned that other paths in the development also have similar grades with steps. Applicant Kyle
Taylor explained that the requested modifications were refinements from the outline plan. He
explained that the team had struggled with the grade on the pedestrian path and needed to drop the
buildings to address neighbor concerns about views. This made the parking underneath the buildings
unreasonable, so the parking was relocated and the structures rearranged while maintaining the
same number of units with similar square footage. He noted that pushing the building frontage on
Patton down would make it appear more like a single-story property from the uphill perspective.
Questions of the Applicant
Chair Verner asked about a market for small units, with the applicant responding to demand focused
on affordable and workforce housing.
Public Comments
Mark Abelle/Mr. Abelle raised concerns regarding wildfire risk and advocated for changes enhancing
safety.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:50 p.m.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner Russell requested clarification on the conditions of approval. Staff confirmed that the
original condition #2 had already been removed from the packet prior to distribution, and the new
condition regarding irrigation would be added as condition #8.
Commissioners Russell/Maher m/s to approve the application consistent with the conditions
recommended by staff, with the addition of Condition #8 as proposed by staff. Roll Call Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed planning its annual retreat, including potential topics, such as wildfire risk
and how it pertains to land use, Public Meeting law, and a site visit to projects completed with the
previous year. The date of the retreat was not determined.
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 4 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 12, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2024-00053,)
INCLUDING REVIEW ON REMAND PURSUANT TO #PA-APPEAL-2025-)
00021,A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL(P&E) CONSTRAINTS )
REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-)
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 231)
GRANITE STREET.IN ADDITION TO THE P&EPERMIT, THE )
FINDINGS,
DEVELOPMENT REQUIRESA VARIANCE TO FLAG DRIVE)
CONCLUSIONS &
STANDARDS OF AMC 18.5.3.060.FFOR BOTH MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY )
ORDERS.
GRADE AND LENGTH, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE )
REMOVAL OF74 TREES INCLUDING NINE SIGNIFICANT TREES,AND)
ANEXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE )
LANDS.)
)
OWNERS:
BRYAN & STEPHANIE DEBOER)
APPLICANT:
CARLOS DELGADO,ARCHITECT
_______________________________________________________________
RECITALS:
1)The subject property is tax lot#1800of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-08-DAand has a site address
of231GraniteStreet.
2)The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5) andis 2.182acres in size.
3)The subject property was created prior to the current Physical & Environmental Constraints
Ordinance (AMC 18.3.10) and has an average slope ofapproximately27percent. As provided
at AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1.a, “Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or
equal to 35-percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an
accessory residential unit or a duplex…”
4)The application proposes the construction of a new single-family residential home which
requires a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit due to thesite’s
topography.The application also requires aVariance to the flag drive standards in AMC
18.5.3.060.F, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees including nine significant trees, and
an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
5)On January 31, 2025,theapplicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.050.B.4aNotice of Complete applicationand public meetingwas posted on February
19, 2025 at theentrance of the access easement along Granite Streetin clear view from the
public right-of-waythat accesses the subject property. Notice was also mailed to all property
owners of record within 200 feet of the subject parcel.
6)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held apublic hearing on March 11,
2025. The meeting was conducted in person and electronically via Zoom. Public testimony
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 1
was received,and exhibits were presented.Prior to the closing of the public hearing, members
of the public requested that the hearing be continued. As provided under ORS 197.767.6.a-e,
the Planning Commission voted to close the hearing but leave the public record opento allow
for new information from parties of record for seven days (until March 18 at 4:30 p.m.),
rebuttal from parties of record for the next seven days (until March 25 at 4:30 p.m.), and for a
final seven days, only the applicant could provide their final legal arguments, but not new
evidence, in response to all previously submitted information(until April 1 at 4:30 p.m.). The
Planning Commission reconvened for deliberation on April 8, 2025at 7:00 p.m.The Chair
provided her summation of all conditions of approval recommended by the Staff Advisor,
Commissioners and through public comments contained within the whole record.Following
deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to a numberof
modified conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
7)On May 2, 2025, a timely appeal of Planning Action #PA-T2-2024-00053 was filed by
appellants Leonard Eisenberg and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, represented by attorney Zack
P. Mittge of Hutchinson Cox. The appeal challenged the Planning Commission’s April 22,
2025 decision to approve a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, a Variance
to the flag drive standards, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and
a Tree Removal Permit for development of a single-family residenceat 231 Granite Street.
8)The City Council held a hearing on July 15, 2025, to consider an appeal (PA-APPEAL-2025-
00021) of the Planning Commission’s approval of PA-T2-2024-00053 for development at 231
Granite Street. Upon review of the 25 assignments of error raised by the appellants, the Council
determined that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in
the record and did not involve legal or procedural errors. As part of its decision, the Council
settled the record and excluded untimely written submittals in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.060.I.5. The Council affirmed the Commission’s decision and rejected the appeal, and
remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of amending its April
22, 2025 findings to provide more specificand detailed findings in support of the approval
based on the established and settled record. The Council’s Findings dated July 15, 2025, are
incorporated into the record of decision.
9)The criteria for approval for a Physical& Environmental (P&E)Constraints Review Permit
are described inthe AshlandMunicipal Code (AMC)18.3.10.050which requiresthat all of
thefollowing criteria are met:
A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts
to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been
minimized.
B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create
and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development
of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance.
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 2
10)The criteria for approval for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands
are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.090.H which require that all of
the following criteria are met:
1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under
this chapter.
3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter18.3.10, Physical
and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section18.3.10.090, Development Standards
for Hillside Lands.
11)The criteria for approval for a Variance are described in the AshlandMunicipal Code (AMC)
18.5.5.050 which require that all of the following criteria are met
1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special
or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features,
adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be
sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical
circumstances related to the subject site.
3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For
example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land
division approval previously granted to the applicant.
12)The criteria for approval of a Tree Removal Permit are described in the AshlandMunicipal
Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met:
a.Thetreeis proposed forremovalin 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 part18.4and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacenttrees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on thetreedensities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to thetree removalhave been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone.
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 3
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 landscapingdesigns that
would lessen the impact ontrees, 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 theremovalof eachtreegranted
approval pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes,and
recommends as follows:
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all the informationnecessary to render
a decision based on thecompleteapplicationmaterials,staff report, public hearing testimonyand
exhibits;and by theirreference each of these are incorporated hereinas if set out in full.
2..2The Planning Commission findsthatAMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development
of land envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan to encourage efficient use of land resources among
other goals. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make
findings that each of the requestedactions has been shown to meet the relevant approval criteria
or to meet those approval criteria through the imposition of certain binding conditions of approval.
2.3.The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to: “Provide
for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of
physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and
reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive
development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.”
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site development does not create soil erosion,
sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, or severe cutting or scarring.
The Commission finds that the intent of the hillside development standards are to encourage a
sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural
and visual character of the City.
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 4
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development complies with the criteria from
AMC 18.3.10.050.A., B., and C., for the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit
The
for the development of hillside lands that include areas of greater than 35 percent.
Commission finds that the proposed erosion control and wildfire hazard mitigation
measures, including selective tree removal and tree preservation, will allow the hillside
development to proceed in compliance with applicable standards for areas with slopes
greater than 35 percent.
The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all
development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area.
Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable, except that existing parcels
without adequate buildable area, less than or equal to 35 percent, shall be considered buildable
for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex.
The Commission finds that the subject parcel was created prior to the adoption of the hillside
regulations and the standard AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1. The Commission finds that the subject
property does not have adequate building area of less than or equal to 35percent when
considering the need to minimize broader disturbance by limiting development of the site to an
area as near the existing driveway location as possible while also providing for site access and
vehicular circulation.
The Commission finds that, consistent with AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3, the portion of the driveway
on land greater than 35 percent does not exceed 100 feet in length.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed home and outdoor area havebeen located in
the northeast portion of the property to minimize hillside disturbance by limiting cuts and fill for
construction. The Commission finds the proposed building design with the approved exception,
reduces hillside disturbance through slope-responsive design, and that the height, roof forms, and
off-sets reflect the irregular form of the property consistent with the building design standards
from AMC 18.3.1.090.E.
The Commission finds that through the application of the requirements of the Hillside
Ordinance, under the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a civil engineer and a structural
engineer, with the implementation of erosion control measures, preservation of a substantial area
of the property in a natural state, tree protection/preservation, selected tree removal for site
access and implementation of a wildfire fuels management plan, potential adverse impacts have
been minimized.
The Commission recognizes that development of the 2.18-acre site is focused on in the area
nearest the location of the vehicular access easement, therefore retaining the majority of the large
property in an undeveloped state.
The construction of a single-story residence with a basement reduces the building height and
limits visual impacts to adjacent properties. The residence is cut into the hill's slope without the
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 5
use of substantial amounts of fill. The Commission finds that the proposed cut slopes are retained
and terraced with the terraces planted with erosion control vegetation, and do not exceed the
maximum allowed vertical height as allowed in AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.
The Commission finds proposal minimizes slope failure and potential impacts to the subject
property or adjacent properties through the implementation of appropriate drainage and retaining
wall construction. The proposed development has stepped structural retaining walls to lessen the
impact of a structure on the lot through the use of terracing and erosion control plant materials.
The Commission finds that the proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowedper
AMC 18.3.10.090.B.3. To ensure the development is balanced with environmental preservation,
by limiting excessive grading and modification of hillside slopes, the required percentage of the
site to remain undisturbed is 52 percent \[27% average slope + 25% = 52% required to be retained
in a natural state\].
The Commission finds that the site grading has been proposed, considering the factors found in
AMC 18.10.090.B.8. The area of the proposed patio,pool, and pool deckiswithin an area of
excavation for the construction of the residence that will provide a contractor staging area during
the construction of the residence.
The Commission finds that the pool is a lap pool, proposed in an area where the majority of the
existing grade is slopes of less than 25 percent. The Commission finds that pools are
discouraged but
not prohibited.TheCommission finds that the proposed location of the
proposed building pad, the patio area, and the pool are within an area of least slope, closest to the
driveway access location, with as much of the remaining lot area as possible retained in the
natural state of the original slope. The Commission finds that the proposed development reduces
adverse impacts, potential hazards, and limits the amount of hillside disturbance.
The Commission finds that there is 18,738 square feet of disturbance proposed on the 94,960
squarefoot lot, which equates to 80 percent (75,969 square feet) of the lot being retained in a
natural state.This is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required.
The Commission finds that the site is heavily treed, and the plan seeks to reduce fuel loads in the
wildfire land overlay adjacent to the construction, while protecting healthy, preservable trees to
reduce adverse impactsto the subject property or to adjacent properties.The Commission finds
that the proposed development minimizes fire hazard through the implementation of a fire
management plan. The Commission finds the proposed tree removal is consistent with AMC
18.3.9.110 requirements for wildfire hazards mitigation plan and an adequate wildfire mitigation
zone surrounding the development area.
The Commission finds that under the oversight of the city of Ashland Fire Marshal, adequate fire
truck apparatus access has been proposed. The proposed paved driveway with pull-outs and
adequate turning radius provides adequate fire apparatus access. In addition to the fire apparatus
access, there will be residential fire sprinklers, and a nearby private fire hydrant is present within
the neighborhood, accessed from the shared, private driveway. An outdoor pool can provide
emergency firefighting water outflow. The proposed fire safety measures demonstrate that all
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 6
reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment and potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and impacts minimized.
The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards
fora Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10.
The proposed area of development is in the least-steep portion of the lot, near the end of the
private drive, and the application has made every effort to minimize the impacts to the site by
locating the home as close to the driveway access as possible, in this area of least-steep slopes.
The Planning Commission finds that the application includes erosion and sediment control plans
as well as a geotechnical report and that by following the recommendations in both, the potential
hazards will have been mitigated. The Planning Commission findsthat the landscaping plan and
erosion control plan will minimize any adverse impactsthrough the control of storm water
drainage upon the subject property and prevention of off-site drainage, with temporary and
permanent erosion control measures,and preservation of a substantial amount of trees upon the
subject propertyirreversible actions have been considered more seriously than reversible actions,
and that the single-family home retains substantially more of the site in its natural state than
required by ordinance.
2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the application,as originally submitted,involved two
Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The first of these was to AMC
18.3.10.090.E.2.c requires that downhill building wall heights greater than 20 feet require
at least a six-foot step back. The Commission rejects the applicant'sassertion that this standard
was limited to the wall face, and that the height measurement considered in the standard did not
include the fascia androofing above. As such, while they had proposed an 18-foot 9-inch wall
face, with the inclusionof the fascia and roof above, the total height above natural grade was 23-
feet 10-inches tall withoutthe requisite setback. The Planning Commission, however, finds that
excluding the fascia and roof measurements from the wall height would run counter to the intent
of the standard,which seeks to have the structure step back meaningfully with the hillside.
The Commission therefore finds that the proposal as presented requires an Exception. In
considering this Exception, the Commission notes that the application asserts that the building
step backs are minimal to keep the building shorter and closer to parallel with the slope of the
lot, without interfering with the ridgeline, explaining that the lot is one long, consistent linear hill
with rock outcroppings, and the proposed structure has differentiated it's masses to mimic these
smaller masses. The applicantfurther asserts that the design minimizes alteration of the area of
natural slope retention and protects thetopographic character and integrity of the hillside lands.
The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the Exception allows
for a reasonable use that complements the natural and aestheticcharacter of the city on a
challenging site. The Commission finds that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
The Commission finds that the proposed
design standard for a six-foot step back.
development area is located near the driveway access, with a reduced setback on the uphill
side of the house due to slopes exceeding 35 percent.The proposed structure is located to
minimize hillside disturbance; a larger step back into the hillside would require grading
into steeper slopes and disturb a greater area of the property.
The Commission finds the
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 7
requires
structure requestsan exception to the standards in one portion of the structure where
the grade is steeper, and the exception does not apply to the entire downhill wall. The
Commission finds that the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The
Commission concludes that in this instance, the Exception is merited subject to a condition that
with final grading, the total height of the wall, fascia,and foot above shall not exceed 25 feet.
The second Exception requested involved AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d, which requires that,
"Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes
longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet." The applicant had initially
requestedan Exception to provide only a four-to five-foot offset where six feet was required;
however,subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the applicant provided revised designs
providing thefull required offset while the record remained open to the submittal of new
materials. As such, thePlanning Commission finds that the second Exception is no longer
necessary and has included acondition (#9e) below requiring that the building permit drawings
reflect the revised design.
2.5The Planning Commission further notes that the application requiresa Varianceto the flag
drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F which speaks to the maximum grade and length of flag
driveways. AMC 18.5.3.060.F specifically provides that, “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a
maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of
15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances
across multiple sections ofthe flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required
to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter18.5.5Variances.”
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed driveway is via an existing shared access
easement toutilize an existing long, steep, partially paved private driveway. The proposed
drivewayextension to serve the subject property is approximately 197feet in total lengthfrom
the terminus of the existing drivewayand has anaverage slope of approximately 24 percent.
The Planning Commission finds that the lot configuration, site topography,existing driveway
grade and existing naturalfeatures are unique circumstances that prevent meeting the standard.
The existing drivewayserving the lot and the adjacent properties to the east exceeds a15 percent
grade and is a legal, non-conforming situation. The averageexisting property grade before
driveway construction is 27 percent, and there is no feasible area to mitigate the driveway grade
withswitchbacks,given the narrow 33.04-foot width of the flagpole portion of the lot
configuration and the location of the accesseasementto the property. The Commission finds that
noalternative driveway access is available.
The Commission further finds that allowing access via the existing easement to this otherwise
landlocked parcel for the development of a residential dwelling on an existing legal lot of record
utilizing the shared driveway is the minimum necessary to address the unique physical
circumstances relatedto accessingthe subject property.
The Commission further notes that the proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and as
proposed the residence will have a fire suppression system to mitigate fire risk, and that the
driveway grade and the final driveway design will be reviewed by theFire Marshal for
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 8
compliance with all applicable fire codes. To ensure compliance with the requirements for a fire
suppression system, driveway grade and turnoutdimensions and location, adequate hydrant
pressure, and fuels management, the Commission has included conditions ofapproval ( #10, 11,
&12) addressing these criteria.
The Commission notes that staff have provided a March 22, 1992,letter from the Planning
Director,John McLaughlin,to the record, which discussed access to the subject property in the
early 1990s.This letter stated that access from Granite Street would be the "most appropriate"
means to accessthe subject property if an access easement were to be acquired. The alternative
access consideredat the time, via a driveway from Strawberry Lane, was noted as requiring a
Variance to allow formore parcels to takeaccess off a private easement than was allowed. A
subsequent August 12,1992 letter from McLaughlin stated, "To summarize the above statements,
if an easement isgranted for access to lot 1800 from the existing drive from Granite Street, the
City will allow thisas the driveway to this parcel, even though it exceeds the current allowable
grades. Further, aminor land partition survey will be required for the parcels to approve the
boundary lineadjustment previously made illegally. Once these are complete,parcels 1800 and
1801 becomebuildable parcels, subject to all development requirements of the City regarding
drivewaysurfacing and hydrant/sprinkler requirements. " The required partition plat was
recorded as P-43-1996 on April 12, 1996. Based on this historical information, the Commission
finds that thedriveway grade was recognized as an issue with the lot's creation, that the lot
creation predates thecurrent hillside standards, and that the need for a Variance has not been
self-imposed by the currentproperty owners nor the applicants.
The Commission finds that the driveway's location is determined by the existing private drive
andthe lot's flagpole configuration, which extends to the established driveway access. The
natural slope within the flagpole area averages 27 percent, making it impossible for the applicant
to comply with the standard requirement for a driveway on slopes less than 15 percent for a flag
driveway, 18 percent with a variance to the flag driveway standards. The Commission finds the
property grades prevent development of a driveway that complies with the maximum grade, and
is a unique circumstance that applies to this property and the proposed driveway extension of the
existing shared driveway.
The Commission finds that, as the proposed building area is situated immediately adjacent to the
end of the flag pole along the east property line, it is evident that the proposed building location
minimizes the length of the driveway to the greatest extent feasible while still providing
necessary vehicular and emergency vehicle access to the property.
The Commission finds that the existing driveway accessing the adjacent properties and the
subject property leading to the proposed driveway is in excess of 15 percent. The Commission
finds the only way to access the legal, developable lot of record is via the existing driveway
connecting to the proposed driveway. Because the existing grade and the proposed grade exceed
18 percent, the variance to increase the grade to the proposed approximately 24 percent is the
minimum necessary.
The Commission finds that the proposal’s benefit of development of a permitted residential
dwelling on a residentially zoned, legal lot of record with access via the existing access easement
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 9
and the existing shared driveway benefitting the subject property and the adjacent properties
furthers the purpose of the land development ordinance which is to encourage the most
appropriate and efficient use of the residentially zoned land with a residential home.The
Commission finds that the development of residentially zoned property, utilizing a legal access
easement and the development of a driveway, will not have a substantial negative impact on the
adjacent properties. The Commission finds that thecity of Ashland Fire Marshal has reviewed
the proposed driveway grades, turnout locations, and hydrant access and has indicated that the
proposal with the fire suppression system provides adequate fire apparatus access and does not
substantially increase fire-fighting response times or emergency vehicle access to the adjacent
properties.
The Commission concludes that the requested flag drive Variance is the minimum necessary
deviation to facilitate development of the site while ensuring compliance with safety and
accessibility requirements. The Variance criteria are met, as the standard code provisions for
maximum driveway grade and length do not account for the unique physical characteristics and
topography of the site, which is recognized as a pre-existing legal lot of record.
2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are 74 tree removals proposed as part of the
application, including nine significant trees. The application materials explain that there are
hundreds of trees on the property and the adjacent properties and that the design of the project
has sought to minimize required tree removals. The application states that those trees identified
for removal are being removed because they are" ... within the building envelope/footprint ...
within the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance. " The application
asserts that, "The tree assessment retains most of the siteslope stabilizing trees ... The property
will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small-diameter fuels, the dead trees, and
the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan,
including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction." With that said, the
application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit consistent with the standards from
AMC 18.3.10.090.D.5, and AMC 18.5.7.404 to remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees,
to develop the site and reduce wildfire fuels in the area of disturbance, with the majority of the
property and the majority of the trees preserved as they are outside of the area of proposed
development.
The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) reviewed the initial application which
identified the removal of 67 trees at their regular monthly meeting. While expressing that the
number of trees proposed for removal was substantial, the TMAC recognized that all trees
proposed for removal were either within the building envelope or very close to the excavation
required for the construction of the proposed site development.
The most significant tree near the project, a 36-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Madrone is
partially on an adjacent property, and it initially appeared that the Tree Protection Plan provided
adequate protection to its critical root zone. Revised submittals received on March 18, 2025
included several trees that were not originally identified on the tree inventory, including two ten-
to 12-inch d.b.h. Madrones on the property line, as well as a revised location for the 36-inch
Madrone that is also on or near the property line, but within the access easement, thus necessary
to remove. The Planning Commission finds that while the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone and seven
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 10
additional trees that were to be removed were not initially identified in the applicant's submittals;
their presence was raised during the hearing, and subsequent to the close of the hearing, they
were identified in revised submittals while the record remained open and therefore received due
process.
The applicant's narrative and final argument submittals made clear that the 36-inch d.b.h.
Madrone tree was within the driveway easement, and that its removal was necessary to construct
the driveway and to provide access to the property. The Planning Commission concludes that the
driveway construction will significantly impact the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone's root system, and
that its removal is necessary in order to provide driveway access to this otherwise landlocked
property.
The Commission finds that the removal of the trees will not have significant negative impact on
erosion, soil stability, protection of adjacent trees or windbreaks. The Commission finds that the
trees proposed for removal consists of primarily small-diameter trees within the development
area and removed for wildfire fuels reduction and nine significant trees that are within areas of
development where a structure, patio, driveway, retaining wall, erosion control vegetation
adjacent to the areas disturbed by construction that will not be subject to erosive action due to
construction/development. The Commission finds that the removal of the nine significant trees
and the smaller diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission finds that there
are hundreds of trees upon the subject property and within 200 feet of the subject property. There
are numerous large-stature madrone trees upon the subject property and on the adjacent
,.tT
properties. There are numerous ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and oak treeshe removal of the
nine significant trees and the small diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on
the tree canopies, species, and tree density.
The Commission finds that the proposal mitigates for each significant tree proposed for removal
and proposes twelve mitigation trees.
2.7The Planning Commission discussed the applicant’s voluntary proposal to provide a public
pedestrian access easement across the property along the TID Trail. While such a dedication is not
a requirement for the development of a single-family home, the Commission recognized the public
benefit of formalizing trail access in this location. As a result, the proposal has been included as
Condition of Approval #14, reflecting the applicant’s willingness to dedicate the easement and
the Commission’s support for securing long-term public access along the trail corridor.
2.8The Planning Commission notes that after the hearing was closed but while the record
remained open, six comments were received from non-parties of record.The Planning
Commission finds that because the hearing was closed and the record left open to new submittals
only from parties of record who had participated orally or in writing while the hearing was open,
these six comments must be excluded from the record and were not considered by the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission further notes that while the record remained open to new submittals,
th
on March 18Planning staff provided memos to the record responding directly to a number of
public comments that had been submitted. Staff responses are adopted here as findings of the
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 11
Commission as if set forth in full.
2.9In summary, the applicantshavesubmitted substantial findings addressing allthe relevant
approval criteriaand applicable standards for the planning action, the requested Exception and
the Variances. The application addresses the unique factorsrequiring the need for the requested
Variance due to the site’s topography and the fact that the lot is pre-existing with little to no
slopes under 25percent to develop, and much of the lot having 25to 30percent slopes, or
greater, along with the requirementto take access via apre-existing easement from Granite
Street, which is an existing driveway with aconsiderable slope, greater than the maximum
allowed 15percent driveway grade.This driveway location allows for access to an otherwise
landlocked property from an existing driveway.
2.10The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the
applicable approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable
criteria for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC
18.3.10.050, for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands in AMC
18.3.10.090.H,for aVariance as provided at AMC 18.5.5.050, and for a Tree Removal Permit to
remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees, as provided at AMC 18.5.7.040.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the whole record of the public hearing on this matter, and all materials
submitted by staff, the applicant and other participants, the Planning Commission concludes that
the applicant's site planning, building design, engineering and landscape planning have
adequately addressed the criteria and standards for the approval of a Physical & Environmental
(P&E) Constraints Review Permit with an associated Exception to the Development Standards
for Hillside Lands to allow a downhill wall height exceeding 20 feet, a Variance to the flag drive
standards for maximum grade and length in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, and a Tree Removal Permit to
remove a total of 74 trees, including nine significant trees. Therefore, the Planning Commission
approves the application, with the attached conditions of approval, noting that this decision is
supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
1.Thatallproposalsoftheapplicantbecomeconditionsofapproval.
2.AVerificationPermitshallbeappliedforandapprovedbytheAshlandPlanningDivision
priortositework,treeremoval,buildingdemolition,and/orstorageofmaterials.The
VerificationPermitistoinspecttheidentificationofthe74treestoberemovedandthe
installationoftreeprotectionfencingfortheremainingtreesonandadjacenttothesite.The
treeprotectionshallbechainlinkfencingsixfeettallandinstalledinaccordancewith
18.61.200.B.
3.AllrecommendationsoftheTreeManagementAdvisoryCommittee,whereconsistentwith
theapplicableordinancesandstandardsandwithfinalapprovaloftheStaffAdvisor,shallbe
conditionsofapprovalunlessotherwisemodifiedherein.
4.Priortobuildingpermitissuance:
a.Theplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermitshallbeinsubstantialconformancewith
thoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication.Iftheplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermit
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 12
arenotinsubstantialconformancewiththoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication,an
applicationtomodifytheVarianceandPhysicalandEnvironmentalConstraints
Reviewpermitapprovalshallbesubmittedandapprovedpriortoissuanceofabuilding
permit.
b.Identificationofalleasements,includingpublicandprivateutilityeasements,mutual
accesseasements,publicpedestrianaccesseasements,andfireapparatusaccess
easementsshallbeidentifiedonbuildingpermitplans.
c.SolarsetbackcalculationsdemonstratingthatallnewconstructioncomplieswithSolar
SetbackStandardAintheformula\[(Height–6)/(0.445+Slope)=RequiredSolar
Setback\]andelevationsorcrosssectiondrawingsclearlyidentifyingthehighest
shadowproducingpoint(s)andtheheight(s)fromnaturalgradeshallbemet.
d.Lotcoveragecalculationsincludingallbuildingfootprints,driveways,parking,and
circulationareas.Lotcoverageshallbelimitedtonomorethan20percentasrequired
inAMC18.2.5.030.C.
e.Stormwaterfromallnewimpervioussurfacesandrunoffassociatedwithpeakrainfalls
mustbecollectedonsiteandchanneledtotheCitystormwatercollectionsystem(i.e.,
curbgutteratpublicstreet,publicstormpipeorpublicdrainageway)orthroughan
approvedalternativeinaccordancewithAshlandBuildingDivisionpolicyBD-PP-
0029.On-sitecollectionsystemsshallbedetailedonthebuildingpermitsubmittals.
f.ArevisedTreeProtectionPlanconsistentwiththestandardsdescribedin18.4.5be
submittedforapprovalbytheStaffAdvisor.Thetreeprotectionfencingshallbe
installedaccordingtotheapprovedplanpriortoanysitework,storageofmaterials
onsiteorissuanceofthebuildingpermit.Theplanshallidentifythelocationand
placementoffencingaroundthedriplinesoftreesidentifiedforpreservation.The
amountoffillandgradingwithinthedriplineshallbeminimized.Cutswithinthedrip
lineshallbenotedonthetreeprotectionplanandshallbeexecutedbyhandsawand
kepttoaminimum.Nofillshallbeplacedaroundthetrunk/crownroot.
g.Noconstructionshalloccurwithinthetreeprotectionzoneincludingdumpingor
storageofmaterialssuchasbuildingsupplies,soil,waste,equipment,orparked
vehicles.
h.Alandscapingandirrigationplantoincludeirrigationdetailssatisfyingthe
requirementsoftheSiteDesignandUseStandardsWaterConservingLandscaping
GuidelinesandPoliciesshallbeprovided.
i.Thetreeprotectionandtemporaryerosioncontrolmeasures(i.e.siltfenceandbale
barriers)shallbeinstalledaccordingtotheapprovedplanandapprovedbytheStaff
Advisorpriortoanysitework,storageofmaterials,issuanceofanexcavationpermit
andissuanceofabuildingpermit.Theerosioncontrolmeasuresshallbeinstalledas
identifiedintheMarquess&Associates’reportdatedDecember5,2024andas
approvedbyPublicWorks.
j.Awrittenverificationfromtheprojectgeotechnicalexpertaddressingtheconsistency
ofthebuildingpermitsubmittalswiththegeotechnicalreportrecommendations(e.g.
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 13
gradingplan,stormdrainageplan,foundationplan,etc.)shallbesubmittedwiththe
buildingpermit.
k.Applicantshallprovidedocumentationfortheaccesseasement.
l.Applicantshallhavetheretainingwalldesignedbytheprojectengineertoconform
withAMC18.3.10.090.B.
5.Mitigationtrees,tobeplantedon-site,off-site,orpaymentinlieu,shallbeplantedattherate
of1:1ofregulatedtreeremovals.
6.ApreconstructionconferencetoreviewtherequirementsoftheHillsideDevelopmentPermit
shallbeheldpriortositework,theissuanceofanexcavationpermitortheissuanceofa
buildingpermit,whicheveractionoccursfirst.TheconferenceshallincludethePlanning
Department,BuildingDepartment,theprojectengineer,projectgeotechnicalexperts(i.e.
Marquess&Associates),landscapeprofessional,arborist(i.e.Canopy)andthegeneral
contractor.Theapplicantorapplicant’s’representativeshallcontactthePlanningDepartment
toschedulethepreconstructionconference.
7.Thefoundationplansofthehouseshallbestampedbyanengineerorarchitectwith
demonstrablegeotechnicaldesignexperienceinaccordancewithAMC18.3.10.090.F.
8.Allmeasuresinstalledforthepurposesoflong-termerosioncontrolandfiremitigation,
includingbutnotlimitedtovegetativecover,rockwalls,retainingwallsandlandscapingshall
bemaintainedinperpetuityonallareasinaccordancewith18.3.10.090.B.7.a.
9.PriortoCertificateofOccupancy:
a.Thelandscapingandirrigationforre-vegetationofcut/fillslopesanderosioncontrol
shallbeinstalledinaccordancewiththeapprovedplan.Vegetationshallbeinstalledin
suchamannerastobesubstantiallyestablishedwithinoneyearofinstallation.
b.Alllandscapinginthenewlandscapedareasshallbeinstalledaccordingtothe
approvedplanandtiedintotheonsiteirrigationsystem.
c.Marquess&Associatesshallprovideafinalreportindicatingthattheapproved
grading,drainageanderosioncontrolmeasureswereinstalledaspertheapproved
plans,andthatallscheduledinspectionswereconductedbytheprojectgeotechnical
expertperiodicallythroughouttheproject.
d.Theflagdriveshallbepavedto12feet,haveaverticalclearanceof13-feet,6-inches
andbeabletowithstand44,000lbs.ofpressure.Theflagdriveshallbeconstructedso
astopreventsurfacedrainagefromflowingovertheprivatepropertylinesand/or
publicwayinaccordancewith18.76.060.B.
e.ThehouseshallbeconstructedasshownontheamendedplanssubmittedonMarch12,
2025,withthe6-foothorizontaloffset,perAMC18.3.10.090.E.2.
f.Applicantshallprovideasurveyor’smapthatconfirmsthedrivewaygradedoesnot
exceed24percentandthatthelengthoftheportionofthedrivewayinexcessof35
percentslopesdoesnotexceed100feet,perAMC18.3.10.090.A.2.
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 14
10.RequirementsoftheAshlandFireDepartmentshallbemet,includingthatalladdressingshall
beapproved,thatfireapparatusaccessbeprovided,thatafinalapprovaloftheaccessplan
(turnouts,etc.)beobtained,thatafiressuppressionsystembeinstalledinthehome,thatanew
firehydrantandpumpbeinstalled,ifnecessary,andthatafuelbreakisrequired.
11.Priortobringingcombustiblematerialsonsite,applicantsshallprovidedocumentationoffire
hydrantlocationwithin600feetofthesouthwestcornerofthehouseandoftheaccess
(easement).
12.AFirePreventionandControlPlanaddressingtheGeneralFuelModificationArea
requirementsinAMC18.3.10.100.A.2shallbeprovidedpriortobringingcombustible
materialsontotheproperty.Newlandscapingproposedshallcomplywiththesestandardsand
shallnotincludeplantslistedontheProhibitedFlammablePlantListperResolution2018-
028.
13.FinalgradingandretainingwallplansshallmeettheterracingrequirementsofAMC
18.3.10.090.B.4.btothesatisfactionoftheStaffAdvisor.
14.Priortoissuanceofbuildingpermitsfortheproposedresidence,applicants/propertyowners
shallexecuteanddelivertotheCityaperpetualpublictraileasementinfavoroftheCityof
Ashlandalongtheexisting“DitchTrail”,whichgenerallyfollowstheTalentIrrigation
District’s(TID)“AshlandCanal”asittraversesthesubjectproperty(TaxLot1800).
ApplicantsshallalsoprovideacenterlinelegaldescriptionoftheEasementAreatobe
appendedtotheeasementdocumentandreflectinganeasementarea10-feetinwidthandshall
includethetraveledportionoftheexistingDitchTrailcrossingtheproperty.Thiscondition
wasvoluntarilyofferedbytheapplicants/propertyownersandthispublictraileasementisnot
anexactionrequiredbytheCityandisnotsubjecttoconstitutionaltakingsconcernsor
nexus/proportionalityanalysis.
August 12, 2025
Planning Commission ApprovalDate
PA-T2-2024-00053
August 12, 2025
Page 15
Comments on Planning Action: PA-T1-202500268
Subject Property: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600
Kestrel Park Phase III
August 8, 2025
The proposed development is a present and future threat to this
neighborhood and city. In the event of an emergency, such as a
residents of our beautiful city could be in extreme wildfire
danger. This building project next to the Mountain Meadows Community, is
a potential threat to this neighborhood. This neighborhood houses mostly
senior residents. Who are walking their dogs slowly down the streets. An
increase in street traffic, more moving cars, could be a threat to our
neighbors.
Wildfire tragedies are beautiful community of Paradise, CA
burned in a horrible wildfire. People could not escape the wildfire in their
town because the lack of adequate exits for all of the cars. Too many
deaths occurred. The Kestrel plan is for very small apartments-it looks
like a Motel many as another 17 cars would be added to our area.
2025 Community wildfire protection plan update: Due to climate change
our chance (City of Ashland) of being destroyed by a wildfire, is in the top
97% could be destroyed by traffic bottlenecks in the too few
evacuation routes. There are too few evacuation paths out of our
streets are narrow, and there is overdevelopment. Many of
the new developments are high-density, too many people in one
dangerous for all.
It is time for our City Council to reduce the high-density projects in this city.
According to the City funded KLD report 2021: it would take at least 3 hours
and 10 minutes to evacuate the city!!!!!
Public safety is more important that meeting the financial
plans.
Sincerely,
Lyn Gutierrez 907 Plum Ridge Drive, Ashland, OR (805) 714-3334
Daniel DeRoux
dderoux@gmail.com
New data and findings place the current dense-building proposal for Kestrel Phase 3
directly at odds with the City of Ashland’s own wildfire studies and expert
recommendations.
2025 Draft Wildfire Protection Plan
The makes this clear:
“It’s imperative that we re-imagine our community and
behavior, lest we risk more frequent and more severe losses
as the climate continues to change. We have an enormous
opportunity right now. We can avoid a serious fire if we plan
carefully and begin making needed changes right now.”
against increasing density in wildfire-vulnerable
The plan specifically advises
areasmore likely than 97% of U.S.
. It also identifies Ashland as being
communities
to experience a catastrophic wildfire.
Public Safety data shows:
traffic bottlenecks, blocked evacuation
A 2024 citywide survey ranked
routes, and lack of evacuation alternativestop wildfire concern
as the
(Public Interest Rating 100/100).
narrow streets and
The third-highest concern (PIR 80) was
overdevelopment impeding evacuation
.
confusion about evacuation
Residents and survey respondents also reported
procedures
and how to interpret emergency messages.
foreseeable hazards
These are not hypothetical issues—they are supported by the
city’s own research and public feedback.
CONFLICT WITH CITY’S OWN EXPERT ADVICE
The current plan increases density in an area where:
1-Evacuation times are already dangerously limited.
2-Infrastructure cannot handle additional population during an emergency.
3-The City’s own wildfire consultants have recommended reducing, not
increasing, density.
LIABILITY ISSUES
Moving forward without addressing these documented safety risks creates potential
legal exposure
for the City.
While governmental immunity can limit liability, there is precedent for lawsuits and
settlements when a municipality:
clear, repeated warnings
Ignores from experts and the public.
foreseeable danger
Approves development in the face of .
its own safety codes or evacuation plans
Fails to enforce .
Recommendation:
Reduce the number of units at Kestrel Phase 3 to align with wildfire safety best
practices, the 2025 Draft Wildfire Protection Plan, and the clear priorities of
Ashland’s residents.
This is the third time I have testified on this matter—my concerns are shared by
hundreds of neighbors
who will be directly impacted. The choice before you is
whether to follow the City’s own evidence-based guidance, or to take a risk that
cannot be undone once the next wildfire comes.
Area 6
Area 6