Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-11_Planning MIN Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission 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 11, 2026 REGULAR MEETING Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street.Commissioner Maher attended the meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Jay Lininger Carmel Zahran, Deputy City Attorney Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Russell Phillips Mark Shay, Deputy Fire & Life Safety Chief John Maher Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Absent Members: Council Liaison: Eric Herron Jeff Dahle Susan MacCracken Jain II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements–None 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports–None III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.July 14, 2026 Regular Meeting Commissioners Lininger/Phillipsm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented.Voice Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Lininger,Phillips,and Verner:AYE. Motion Passed 5-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM Chair Verner pointed toa lettersubmitted by Joseph Kauthon August 6, which requestedthata comprehensive study on urban growth, climate change, and the urban heat island effectbe initiated by the City(see attachment #1). The Commission directed staff to invite Mr. Kauth to present his th concerns in personat the August 25meeting. Page 1of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 V.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.PLANNING ACTION:PA-L-2026-00020 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.5.3.060: Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission is a draft ordinance amending AMC 18.5.3.060 to establish a variance process for flag drive and driveway grades serving legal lots of record created before the City adopted its Hillside Development Standards in 1997, and a request to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The amendment was originally included in the Senate Bill 974 implementation package (draft Ordinance No. 3307) and has been separated into a standalone ordinance, draft Ordinance No. 3309, so that it can be considered on its own merits. Chair Verner noted that a number of public comments had been submitted into the record after the packet had been posted (see attachment #2). Staff Presentation Planning staff presentedthe amendment to AMC 18.5.3.060 to allow variance for driveway grades over 18% for flag lots established before the 1997 Hillside Development Standards (Ordinance No. 2808). Mr. Severson explained that current rules allow up to 15% with an 18% variance, andLUBA's 2026 reversal of a City decision to exceed 18% led to this action. The amendment wouldn't sanction specific projects or new lots with steeper driveways; applicants for pre-1997 lots must apply individually, proving topographic restrictions and meeting AMC 18.5.5 criteria. GISidentified 13 lots likely constrained by grade issues(see attachment #3). The Oregon Fire Code's access requirements remain unchanged. Deputy Fire Chief Mark Shayaffirmed fire code reviews address grade, surface, clearance, length, and parking. He mentioned that steep grades might require residential sprinklers, better fuel management, or alternate access designs. Staff confirmed sending the required 35-day DLCD notice. Questions of Staff The Commission raised concerns about the clarity of the ordinance language, noting that members of the public appeared confused about whether the amendment would apply beyond the targeted pre-1997 lots, and suggested restructuring the language to more explicitly limit its scope. The Commission inquired whether the minimum deviation standard was explicitly embedded in this section; staff confirmed it is covered by the general variance criteria chapter. Chair Verner requested that any driveway approval require review by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Staff confirmed that existing physical and environmental constraints permit requirements already mandate such review for development on slopes exceeding 25 percent natural grade, making a separate requirement within this section redundant. Page 2of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 Commissioners asked Deputy Chief Shea about the practical maximum grade a fire apparatus could navigate, the factors that would cause him to deny a proposed driveway, and what mitigation measures would support steeper grades. Deputy Chief Shayexplained that the fire code sets a 10 percent grade guideline but that Ashland's topography routinely exceeds this, and that different apparatus are deployed based on conditions. He stated that if fire code requirements could not be met through any available mitigation, he would recommend denial. He further confirmed that a single home or flag lot serving two to three homes does not require a second access point under the Oregon Fire Code. Commissioner Lininger raised the question of what happens if a pre-1997 lot is found to be undevelopable because no viable driveway alignment can satisfy both planning and fire requirements. Deputy City AttorneyCarmel Zahrannoted that such a situation could give rise to a takings claim, which would be analyzed on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis. Commissioner Lininger asked whether the purchase date of a current lot owner relative to the 1997 standards adoption would be relevant to a potential takings analysis. Ms. Zahranacknowledged it could be a relevant factor, though not necessarily dispositive, and that the question warranted further research. Commissioner Maherasked whether these variance decisions would come before the Planning Commission or be decided administratively by staff. Staff noted that with changes in state law, residential variances were trending toward administrative approval, with appeals available only to the applicant under House Bill 4037. Public Comments The following speakers spoke in opposition to the ordinance: Jay Reeck, representinghimself and Sarah Samehvia Zoom Emil Sadofsky, representing Hutchinson Coxvia Zoom Carey Mastain Steve Rouse, representing Rogue Advocates David Oursler had requested to speak via Zoomprior to the meetingbut was unavailable Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:08pm. Deliberations and Decision The Commission discussed the public’sconcerns about public safety, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the disproportionate benefit to a small number of lots. Commissioner Lininger notedthat he would prefer staff to return with clearer and more objective language and potentially to limit the variance's availability to lots whose current owners obtained possession before the 1997 standards were adopted. Page 3of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 Commissioners Maher/Lininger m/s to reject the proposed code amendment to AMC 18.5.3.060 (draft Ordinance No. 3309). Roll Call Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Lininger,Phillips, and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 5-0. Following the vote, the Commission discussed options for next steps. After consultation with staff and Ms. Zahran, it was clarified thatanynew language prepared for the Commission's consideration would need to be made available for public comment, requiring the public hearing and record to be reopened rather than merely continuing deliberations on a closed record. Commissioners Lininger/Maher m/s to reopen the Public Record and to continue the Public Hearing to the August 25, 2026 meeting, with staff directed to provide purchase/transfer date information for the 13 identified lots and to develop revised ordinance language for Commission consideration.Roll Call Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Lininger,Phillips, and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 5-0. th The Public Record was reopened at 8:32pmand the Public Hearing was continued to the August 25 Planning Commission meeting. 2. PLANNING ACTION:PA-L-2026-00019 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCEAMC 18.2.2.030: Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.2.5.090: Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexe REFERENCES: AMC 18.2.5.100: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) AMC 18.3.4.040: Normal Neighborhood District Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.050: North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.100: Site Development and Design Standards (North Mountain Neighborhood) AMC 18.3.9.040: Review Procedures and Criteria (Performance Standards Option) AMC 18.5.1.010: Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure AMC 18.5.5.030: Review Procedure (Variances) AMC 18.6.1.030: Definitions REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission includes draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement Senate Bill 974 (2025) and a request to forward Page 4of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 a recommendation to the City Council. The draft ordinance amends AMC 18.2.5.090, AMC 18.3.5.100, AMC 18.3.9.040, Table 18.5.1.010, AMC 18.5.5.030, and AMC 18.6.1.030. Code changes to comply with SB 974 are required to be in effect by July 1, 2026. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 2138 (2025) requirements with regard to Single Room Occupancies (SROs) are proposed for AMC 18.2.2.030, 18.2.5.100, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050 and 18.6.1.030.D. These SRO requirements must be implemented by January 1, 2027; additional code changes with regard to other sections of HB 2138 will be brought forward as a separate package following further state rulemaking. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 4037(2026) are proposed for AMC 18.5.1.050 to establish a uniform review procedure for applicationsfor housing subject only to clear and objective standards, consistent with amendments to ORS197A.400 operative July 1, 2026. SB 974, HB 2138, and HB 4037 together revise the stateframework for the review of residential development applications. Chair Verner noted that a public comment had been submitted by Steve Rouse on behalf of Rogue Advocates after the packet had been posted (see attachment #4). Staff Presentation Planning Supervisor Derek Seversonprovided a brief presentation on draft Ordinance No. 3307, a package of code amendments implementing three pieces of recent Oregon state legislation: Senate Bill 974, House Bill 2138, and House Bill 4037. The Commission had previously reviewed this material at study sessions in April and May 2026, and the City Council was briefed on June 1, 2026. The amendments are collectively intended to streamline residential development review, expand housing opportunities, and align local procedures with state law. Senate Bill 974 requires that qualifying housing applications subject to clear and objective standards be processed as Type 1 administrative decisions without a quasi-judicial public hearing. It reduces the notice radius from 200 feet to 100 feet for such applications, retains a 14-day written comment period, and allows planning commission hearings only on appeal of non-clear-and-objective applications. The draft ordinance also raises the outline/final plan concurrent submission threshold for Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivisions to 20 lots and classifies qualifying variances as Type 1 actions. Design standards may not be applied to developments of 20 or more units for single-and two-family dwellings, with a sunset date of January 1, 2033 embeddedin the ordinance. House Bill 2138 establishes Single Room Occupancy (SRO) standards, allowing up to 6 SRO units on lots permitting detached single-family housing and permitting up to three times the maximum density in multifamily zones for SRO developments. Staff also presented a clarifying amendment to AMC 18.2.5.100(B)(5)(a) to remove an ambiguous phrase indicating that sanitary and food preparation facilities "may be provided within the unit or as shared facilities," which could be read to allow a unit to have both a private kitchen and private bathroom—making it a standard dwelling unit Page 5of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 rather than an SRO. The corrected language would end that sentence after "facilities" and rely on subsections B and D to clarify that an SRO unit may have one or the other, but not both. House Bill 4037 restricts the review of clear-and-objective housing applications to Type 1 administrative decisions, limits notice to 100 feet, and limits appeal rights exclusively to the applicant—eliminating neighbor and third-party appeals at both the local level and before LUBA. Staff noted that zone changes and annexations were not amended, as a conflict between SB 974's administrative processing requirements and existing Oregon law requiring ordinance adoption via public hearing remains unresolved. Questions of Staff Commissioner Lininger questioned the legal basis for delegating initial decision-making power for housing applications solely to administrative staff. He cited ORS 197A.400(4)(c), ORS 197.195, and ORS 227.175(10) as possibly allowing local governments to reserve this authority for the Planning Commission through a Type 1 non-hearing process. He suggested amending the ordinance to let the Planning Commission decide on housing applications without public hearings. Staff warned this would shift the current practice, where most Type 1 decisions are staff-handled, adding a new layer to the code. Staffnoted the same standards apply regardless of whether staff or the Commission decides, raising public expectations for hearings that aren’t possible. The Deputy City Attorney agreed on the legal challenge, stating other Oregon cities were also figuring outcompliance and needed more clarity. Commissioners Phillips/Lininger m/s to extend the meeting by 30 minutes to 10:00pm. Voice Vote: Commissioners Phillips, Maher, Lininger, and Verner: AYE. Commissioner KenCairn: NAY. Motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Maher asked what the repercussions could be for the City if it failed to approve the state-mandated legislation. Mr. Goldman responded that if the City applied law that was inconsistent with state law,then an applicant could appeal that decision to the Land use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or potentially to the state circuit court. He added that the City must present its adopted ordinance to the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD), and that if the adopted ordinancewas found to be inconsistent with state lawthentheDLCD would direct the City to amend the ordinance to be in alignment. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Maherexpressed supportstaff's recommendation, emphasizing the legislation's goal to speed up housing approvals administratively. Page 6of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 Commissioner Phillips suggested keeping the 200-foot notice where possible and revising the PSO threshold to 12 lots, rather than the 20 lots stated, consistent with prior discussions. Staff agreed these adjustments could be included. Commissioner Maher moved to approve the staff-recommended motion with two modifications: retaining the 200-foot notice radius for applications where state law still permits it, and reducing the PSO concurrent submission threshold from 20 to 12 lots. DISCUSSION: Commissioners Lininger/Phillips m/sto amend the motion to modify AMC 18.5.1.050(C)(1) to allow the Planning Commission to make initial decisions on clear-and- objective housing applications under a Type 1 non-hearing procedure, relying on the limited land use decision procedures of ORS 197.195 and ORS 227.175(10).Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Lininger and Verner: AYE. Commissioners KenCairn, Phillips, and Maher: NAY. Amendment Failed 2-3. Roll Call Voteon original motion: Commissioners Phillips, Maher, KenCairn, Lininger, and Verner: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION th The Commission reiterated its desire to have Mr. Rauth attend the August 25meeting to discuss his public testimony in person. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:53p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 7of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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). August 8, 2026 Subject: Changes to Driveway Code – AMC 18.5.3.060 : PA-L-2026-00020 Ordinance: No. 3309 Dear Planning Commission Members, has proposed No. 3309 -L-2026-00020, changing (). The proposal is in city codes and policies, land use ordinances, and legal papers, one of LUBA’s rulings was LUBA No. 2025-053; April 29, 2026. The proposed lots created before the Hillside No. 2808 (December 3, 1997). Under any lots created before December 3, 1997, and apply to “newly created lots.” (when ) -undeveloped lots while at the undeveloped The City’s proposed amendment is internally inconsistent, yielding a code that both allows and prohibits . The proposed amendment is out of sync with ) and is not required by state law. As the Ashland Planning Report for the August 11 Planning states, “It is not mandated by state law.” The ORS 476.120; 837-039-0006(1). In order to that is equal to or more stringent OAR 837-039-0006(2). inconsistent with the City of Ashland’s C P and slope It would reduce shade and increase stream temperatures – 1 – … … sides of their dwelling. A ltural purposes. The Ashland city limits abut Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Resources, p. 29-30. , a -case s -prone areas CWPP, p. 68. directly counter to the City’s commitment to “b CWPP, p. 196, CO-1.2. . -out in the code, the amendments are wholly inconsistent with the CWPP and should not be incorporated with the proposed amendments. created ’s -2708 is in compliance with the hillside lots from well- and long-standing safety-oriented . Plan and should therefore not be adopted. no other allowing genesis of this proposed and ill- Jackson County, Oregon are necessary to allow for a ma 2 100-foot Oregon City, Oregon engineer." Portland, Oregon -d--apparatus-access-roads? Lake Oswego, Oregon 2025 Oregon Fire Code " by the ." -d--apparatus-access-roads? -countys--safety- Under I., ” \[1997 c. 409 §1\]. 3 The August 11, 2026 Planning Commission an unsigned from to the , No. 3309. Although the marshal endorses the ordinance , he clearly states that will need to assess each proposed amendment on a case-by-case basis. This places undue burden on a single person, the Marshal, to rule on part of the process City planning Planning Commission, and the public. The proposed language bypasses any input of the City Commission, and public, as the sole arbiter of the outlier cases contemplated by the proposed language. The Planning Commission should ordinance on the basis that it is bypassing public process and places undue burden on a single person to for ly, about three- As the proposed amendments to AMC are contrary to the minimum standards imposed by the and inconsistent with cil adopt the the City of Ashland when it comes . If th community its conscience, and we will our n. especially in light of this moment to do the right thing proposed . . ry Lane and to be incorporatedinto the public record City of Ashland August 11,2026 Planning Commission May26,2026Commission LUBA No.- December 2, 1997 Procedural Error As the Planning As of August 6, 2026, there is -L-2026-00020 below aon Therefore, the Planning Commission should deferCityis not ,“D. ” Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 11, 2026 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 Approval of Minutes 1. July 14, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes 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 10:00 a.m. on August 11, 2026 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/97730215434 V.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PLANNING ACTION:PA-L-2026-00020 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.5.3.060: Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission is a draft ordinance amending AMC 18.5.3.060 to establish a variance process for flag drive and driveway grades serving legal lots of record created before the City adopted its Hillside Development Standards in 1997, and a request to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The amendment was originally included in the Senate Bill 974 implementation package (draft Ordinance No. 3307) and has been separated into a standalone ordinance, draft Ordinance No. 3309, so that it can be considered on its own merits. 2. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2026-00019 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.2.2.030: Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.2.5.090: Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes AMC 18.2.5.100: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) AMC 18.3.4.040: Normal Neighborhood District Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.050: North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.100: Site Development and Design Standards (North Mountain Neighborhood) Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda AMC 18.3.9.040: Review Procedures and Criteria (Performance Standards Option) AMC 18.5.1.010: Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure AMC 18.5.5.030: Review Procedure (Variances) AMC 18.6.1.030: Definitions REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission includes draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement Senate Bill 974 (2025) and a request to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The draft ordinance amends AMC 18.2.5.090, AMC 18.3.5.100, AMC 18.3.9.040, Table 18.5.1.010, AMC 18.5.5.030, and AMC 18.6.1.030. Code changes to comply with SB 974 are required to be in effect by July 1, 2026. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 2138 (2025) requirements with regard to Single Room Occupancies (SROs) are proposed for AMC 18.2.2.030, 18.2.5.100, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050 and 18.6.1.030.D. These SRO requirements must be implemented by January 1, 2027; additional code changes with regard to other sections of HB 2138 will be brought forward as a separate package following further state rulemaking. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 4037 (2026) are proposed for AMC 18.5.1.050 to establish a uniform review procedure for applications for housing subject only to clear and objective standards, consistent with amendments to ORS 197A.400 operative July 1, 2026. SB 974, HB 2138, and HB 4037 together revise the state framework for the review of residential development applications. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION VII.ADJOURNMENT Next meeting Date: August 25, 2026 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Page 2 of 2 Total Page Number: 2 Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. July 14, 2026 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Jay Lininger Scott Fleury, Public Works Director Susan MacCracken Jain Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant John Maher Kerry KenCairn Absent Members: Council Liaison: Eric Herron Jeff Dahle II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The Manufactured Home Park Zone ordinances passed the first reading and are set for final adoption by City Council on July 21st.A modified ordinance for Manufactured Home Park Tenant Protections will also have its first readingBy the Councilon July 21st. The City's long-range strategic plan is nearing completion and will go to Council for adoption later in the summer. The August 11th regular meeting will include two ordinances: o Implementation of Senate Bill 974 o Addressing flag drive variances for grades over 18%. The Community Center will hold a ribbon-cutting and opening on Wednesday, July 22nd, from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. TheCommission’sJuly 28th Study Sessionwas cancelled. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None Page 1 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.June 9, 2026 Regular Meeting Commissioners KenCairn/Liningerm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented.Voice Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Lininger, Phillips, MacCracken Jain,and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Transportation System Plan & Public Engagement Plan Update Mr. Goldmanprovided an overview of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update, with Public Works Director Scott Fleury providing additional information via Zoom. The TSP is a state-required, long-term plan for all transportation modes, last updated in 2013. The current update seeks alignment with new state rules, including climate initiatives. Funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Alta Planning and Design leads the project, with Fehr & Peers handling traffic analysis and emergency evacuation. Starting on June 29th, the project spans two years, with public engagement in fall 2026 and a draft planned for mid-to-late 2027. The Commission will serve in dual roles: overseeing public engagement and conducting public hearings on the TSP, forwarding recommendations to the Council. Topics discussed included integrating parking management into the TSP and coordination with existing advisory committees rather than forming a new committee. There are two additional focuses: wildfire evacuation analysis and enhanced trail network connections. 2.Planning Commission ORS Research and Legal Resources Senior Planner Aaron Anderson outlined legal research resources for Commissioners and the use of external information, especially in quasi-judicial contexts. He noted that while law research is finefor Commissioners to engage in, introducing outside evidence in such proceedings can lead to remand. General knowledge of existing conditions is acceptable; however, independent site investigations or receiving testimony outside public hearings are not. The presentation covered variousonline resources, including the Oregon Legislative Assembly website, relevant ORS chapters (notably ORS 197), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660 and 661), and the LUBA website's headnotes and opinions. The U.S. Supreme Court's archive for cases like Nollan and Dolan was also highlighted(see attachment #1). Page 2 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 VI.OPEN DISCUSSION 1. Planning Commission Annual Retreat Initial Discussion The Commission discussed potential agenda topics, with interest expressed in incorporating Transportation System Plan-related discussion, particularly as the project will be further along by fall. The Commission generally favored a fall date, consistent with last year's October retreat. Staff will coordinate availability and bring forward a confirmed dateat a later meeting. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:53p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 3 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail 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 COMMISSION Legal Research JUL 14, 2026 Total Page Number: 6 Individual Legal Research Oregon law generally discourages decision-makers from gathering their own facts outside the hearing record. However, researching the law itself is usually appropriate. 3 Key Distinction vǒğƭź Wǒķźĭźğƌ !ƦƦƌźĭğƷźƚƓ Α 5ĻĭźƭźƚƓ ƒğƉĻƩƭ ƓĻĻķ Ʒƚ careful to not introduce extra evidence information via their own research tƚƌźĭǤ LƒƦƌĻƒĻƓƷğƷźƚƓ Ή \[ĻŭźƭƌğƷźǝĻ ğĭƷźƚƓƭ Α ƩĻƭĻğƩĭŷ of the law is acceptable. 4 Total Page Number: 7 Examples IMPROPERUSUALLY ACCEPTABLE Commissioner visits the property alone General knowledge possessed by a local and observes facts not introduced into official. evidence. Familiarity with community conditions. Commissioners research traffic counts, Information already contained in the wetlands, neighborhood impacts, record. property history, etc., then relies on that information. Commissioners obtain information from neighbors outside the hearing. 5 Oregon Law Pending Legislation https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws ORS (Oregon Revised Statues) Relevant Land Use Chapters ORS chapter92Subdivisions and Partitions ORS chapter195Local Government Planning Coordination ORS chapter 197Comprehensive Land Use Planning ORS chapter 227City Planning and Zoning OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/ OAR chapter 661Land Use Board of Appeals OAR chapter 660 LCDC and implementation of all statewide planning goals. 6 Total Page Number: 8 The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Pages/default.aspx Headnotes Headnotes are brief, categorized summaries of the legal points established in decisions made by LUBA. They are organized by subject matter to serve as a research aid. They summarize the board's conclusions on specific legal doctrines. Final Opinions the decision being reviewed is affirmed, reversed, remanded, transferred, invalidated, or whether the appeal is dismissed. bĻǞ Α ƒƚƓƷŷƌǤ ĭğƭĻ ƭǒƒƒğƩźĻƭ Published Orders When LUBA feels a procedural order is sufficiently unique or instructive to merit public dissemination they publish them. 7 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) https://www.supremecourt.gov/ https://www.oyez.org/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-133 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-518 8 Total Page Number: 9 ˡ̅˵̃̄˹˿˾̃ˏ Total Page Number: 10 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT August 11, 2026 PLANNING ACTION:PA-L-2026-00020 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCEREFERENCES: AMC 18.5.3.060: Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission is a draft ordinance amending AMC 18.5.3.060 to establish a variance process for flag drive and driveway grades serving legal lots of record created before the City adopted its Hillside Development Standards in 1997, and a request to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The amendment was originally included in the Senate Bill 974 implementation package (draft Ordinance No. 3307) and has been separated into a standalone ordinance, draft Ordinance No. 3309, so that it can be considered on its own merits. BACKGROUND Ashland adopted its Hillside Development Standards in 1997 through Ordinance No. 2808. Those standards, now part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints provisions of the Land Use Ordinance, are designed to limit grading, erosion, and wildfire risk on steep terrain. As part of that framework, AMC 18.5.3.060.F limits new flag drive grades to a maximum of 15 percent and allows a Variance up to 18 percent, provided the cumulative length of the steeper sections does not exceed 200 feet. The grade standards have historically been applied when new lots are created, since conforming access must be demonstrated before a final plat is signed. Many hillside lots, however, were legally created before 1997, when no maximum driveway grade applied. On some of these lots the terrain is steep enough that no driveway alignment meeting the current grade standards can reach a buildable part of the property. In past cases the City granted Variances allowing grades steeper than 18 percent for lots in this situation, reasoning that a lawfully created lot should not be left without any means of access. In April 2026 the Land Use Board of Appeals remanded a City decision that had approved a driveway grade Variance for a hillside lot created in 1995. The Board concluded that the current wording of AMC 18.5.3.060.F does not allow a Variance for a grade above 18 percent under any circumstance. The decision turned on the wording of the code rather than the merits of the practice, and it brought to light a limitation that affects pre-1997 hillside lots throughout the city rather than any single property. As the code now stands, any lot of record whose topography cannot accommodate an 18 percent driveway has no path to relief and is potentially undevelopable. The proposed amendment responds to that gap. It is not mandated by state law, but it advances the same goal as the SB 974 package of removing regulatory barriers to needed housing, and it codifies the City’s established practice in clear terms. Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4 Total Page Number: 13 I. Ordinance Amendment A. Summary of the Proposed Amendment The amendment to AMC 18.5.3.060.F distinguishes two situations that the current code blends together. For new flag drives serving newly created lots, the existing rule is unchanged: the maximum grade is 15 percent, and a Variance may allow up to 18 percent but no steeper, with the cumulative length of the steeper sections limited to 200 feet. Conforming access continues to be demonstrated at the time lots are created. For legal lots of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, a Variance may allow a grade steeper than 18 percent, but only where the applicant demonstrates that, due to topographic constraints, no driveway alignment meeting the standard grades can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot. The relief is limited to the minimum deviation necessary to make access possible, and every such Variance remains subject to the full approval criteria of chapter 18.5.5, Variances, and to engineering review. B. Relationship to the Oregon Fire Code The amendment operates only within the land use code. It does not amend, modify, or waive any requirement of the Oregon Fire Code, and the two regulatory systems continue to function independently. 1. Under AMC 18.5.3.060.I, flag drives are deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads and are subject to all requirements of the Oregon Fire Code. The amendment does not change this provision. 2. The proposed language includes an express statement that no variance granted under the subsection modifies or waives fire apparatus access requirements, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. 3. The Fire Code contains its own grade standards and its own approval process, administered by the Fire Code Official independently of the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor. That framework gives the Fire Code Official discretion to approve steeper grades where conditions warrant and to require alternative protection measures, such as automatic sprinkler systems, where access is constrained by topography. 4. A land use variance under this provision establishes only that the driveway grade standard of the land use ordinance may be exceeded. It does not authorize construction. Any driveway approved under such a variance must still obtain independent approval under the Oregon Fire Code before development can proceed. Staff received a memorandum dated July 20, 2026 from Ashland Fire & Rescue Deputy Chief Mark Shay, Fire Code Official, confirming support for the proposed variance language. The memorandum notes that any variance granted under the amendment remains subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, and that grade is only one of several factors, including length, width, vertical clearance, and surface composition, evaluated in that review. The memorandum further notes that where fire apparatus access issues cannot otherwise Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4 Total Page Number: 14 be resolved, the Uniform Alternate Construction Standard under Section D108.1 of the 2025 Oregon Fire Code allows the Fire Code Official to work with the Building Official to establish alternative construction standards. The Fire Code Official's memorandum is attached to this staff report. C. Citywide Applicability Using the 2023 Buildable Lands Inventory and slope data, staff identified 74 vacant properties within Hillside Development Lands located on slopes in excess of 25 percent. Most of these lots can be developed without any need for the proposed variance, either because the driveway is 50 feet or less in length and does not trigger the flag drive standards, or because the driveway can be designed to meet the 18 percent limit through site specific solutions such as cutting a short driveway into the slope or building a street level garage on an elevated foundation. Within that larger group, staff’s topographic analysis and review of the Buildable Lands Inventory identified 14 legal lots of record created before the Hillside Development Standards were adopted that may be unable to achieve conforming driveway access due to topographic constraints. These 14 lots share the same regulatory circumstance, which is why staff recommends a legislative amendment of general applicability rather than case by case interpretation. The ordinance itself grants no development approval. Whether any individual property qualifies for a variance will be determined through a future quasi-judicial variance proceeding, with public notice to surrounding property owners, an opportunity to be heard, applicable appeal rights, and review against the approval criteria of chapter 18.5.5, in addition to independent Fire Code review and a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit where required. D. Discussion The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the flag drive grade concept as part of the SB 974 implementation package at Planning Commission study sessions on April 14, 2026 and May 26, 2026, and at the City Council study session on June 1, 2026. Draft Ordinance No. 3309 incorporates the direction provided at those sessions, including the limitation of relief to legal lots of record created before the 1997 adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. Separating the amendment into its own ordinance keeps the state mandated SB 974 package on its compliance timeline while allowing this local policy choice to be discussed, and if necessary modified, without affecting that package. The Hillside Lands standards addressing slope stability, erosion, wildfire safety, and emergency access remain fully intact. II. Procedural 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: B. Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4 Total Page Number: 15 Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. III. Conclusions and Recommendations The amendment provides a uniform, criteria based relief mechanism for a defined set of lawfully created lots while preserving the protective purpose of the Hillside Development Standards and the independence of Fire Code review. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing and first reading at the City Council on September 15, 2026. IV. Suggested Motion “I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve first reading of Ordinance No. 3309, titled AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VARIANCES FOR FLAG DRIVE AND DRIVEWAY GRADES SERVING LEGAL LOTS OF RECORD CREATED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THEHILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; AMENDING AMC 18.5.3.060, as presented in the staff report and attachments.” Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4 Total Page Number: 16 Total Page Number: 18 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 ORDINANCE NO. 3309 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.5.3.060 RELATING TO VARIANCES FOR FLAG DRIVE AND DRIVEWAY GRADES SERVING LEGAL LOTS OF RECORD CREATED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Annotated to show deletions and additionsto the Ashland Municipal Code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through, and additions are bold underlined, and WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: unchanged text that is omitted for brevity is indicated by “. . .” WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland adopted the Hillside Development Standards through Ordinance No. 2808 on December 3, 1997, establishing development standards for hillside lands, including maximum grade standards for flag drives and driveways; and WHEREAS, subsection 18.5.3.060.F of the Ashland Municipal Code limits flag drive grades to a maximum of 15 percent and allows variances up to 18 percent for a limited cumulative length, but does not provide a variance pathway for legal lots of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards where topographic constraints prevent any driveway alignment from meeting the maximum grade standards; and WHEREAS, a review of the City’s buildable lands inventory and Geographic Information System data identified 74 legal lots of record within the City of Ashland that were created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standard, of which 14 lots are potentiallysubject to the Flag Drive standards to obtain compliant driveway access due to topographic constraints, demonstrating that the amendment addresses a circumstance of citywide applicability rather than an individual property; and WHEREAS, land use decisions of the City, including decisions on variance applications, are subject to review by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and establishing clear and objective approval criteria for driveway grade variances serving legal lots of record created before the Hillside Development Standards provides an adequate factual base and reviewable standards for such decisions; and WHEREAS, in April 2026 the Land Use Board of Appeals remanded a City decision approving a driveway grade variance, concluding that subsection 18.5.3.060.F as currently written does not authorize a variance for a grade in excess of 18 percent under any circumstance; and ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 1 of 3 Total Page Number: 21 WHEREAS, a variance process for flag drive grades serving legal lots of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808 (adopted December 3, 1997), where topographic constraints prevent compliance with maximum grade standards, allows development of existing lots while preserving fire apparatus access requirements under the Oregon Fire Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland considered the proposed amendments at a duly advertised public hearing on August 11, 2026, and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the proposed amendments on September 15, 2026; and he City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing WHEREAS, t and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, in order to protect and benefit the health, safety, and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, an adequate factual base exists for the amendment, the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the amendment is fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Subsection 18.5.3.060.F \[Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, and the remainder of section 18.5.3.060 remains unchanged: 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria . . . F. New Ff lag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for new 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 of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Variances may be granted for grades in excess of 18 percent for driveways serving legal lots of record that were created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808 (adopted December 3, 1997), where the applicant demonstrates that, due to topographic constraints, no driveway alignment meeting the maximum grade standards of this subsection can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot. Driveways approved under such a variance remain subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. . . . ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 2 of 3 Total Page Number: 22 SECTION 2. Severability. Each section of this ordinance, and any part thereof, is severable, and if any part of this ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, “chapter” or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2 and 3) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _______day of____________________, 2026, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _______day of____________________, 2026. SIGNED and APPROVED this ________ day of __________________________, 2026. ATTEST: __________________________________ __________________________________Tonya Graham, Mayor Alissa Kolodzinski, City Recorder Reviewed as to form: ___________________________________ Johan Pietila, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 3 of 3 Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 ASHLANDFIRE&RESCUE DATE:July 20, 2026 TO:Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director FROM:Mark Shay, Deputy Chief Fire & Life Safety RE:Ordinance 3309 I have reviewed Ordinance 3309 in excess of 18 percent for driveways serving legal lots of record,that were created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Ordinance No. 2808. The proposed language in Ordinance 3309outlines that the variance will remain subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the fire code official. As just one of the factors evaluated when assessing proposed access roadsand driveways for emergency service access. In addition to assessing the grade of proposed fire apparatus access, overall length, width, vertical clearance and road surface composition are evaluated. In some instances, where fire apparatus access issues cannotbe resolved, the Uniform Alternate Construction Standard (UACS) as outlined in Section D108.1 of the 2025 Oregon Fire Code can be utilized. The UACS standard allows the fire code official to collaborate with the building code official to implement construction standards as outlined in OAR918-480- 0125. The 2025 Oregon Fire Code limits fire apparatus access grade to 10%, with the exception of any steeper grade which may receive approval from the fire code official. The languagein Ordinance 3309outlines that any proposed variance remains subject to the ability to evaluate each proposed development on a case-by-casebasis, as the fire code official,I am support the revisions as outlined in Ordinance 3309. ASHLANDFIRE&RESCUE 455 Siskiyou BlvdTel:541.482.2770marshall.rasor@ashland.or.us Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.488.5318 ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 27 Total Page Number: 28 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Total Page Number: 34 Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 Total Page Number: 37 Total Page Number: 38 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT August 11, 2026 PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2026-00019 APPLICANT: City of Ashland AMC 18.2.2.030: UsesAllowed byZone ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.2.5.090: Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes AMC 18.2.5.100: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) AMC 18.3.4.040: Normal Neighborhood District Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.050: North Mountain Neighborhood UsesAllowed by Zone AMC 18.3.5.100:Site Development andDesign Standards (North Mountain Neighborhood) AMC 18.3.9.040: Review Procedures and Criteria (Performance Standards Option) AMC 18.5.1.010: Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure AMC 18.5.5.030: Review Procedure (Variances) AMC 18.6.1.030: Definitions REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission includes draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implementSenate Bill 974 (2025) and a request to forward a recommendationto the City Council. The draft ordinance amends AMC 18.2.5.090, AMC 18.3.5.100, AMC 18.3.9.040, Table 18.5.1.010, AMC 18.5.5.030, and AMC 18.6.1.030. Code changes to comply with SB 974 are required to be in effect by July 1, 2026. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 2138 (2025) requirements with regard to Single Room Occupancies (SROs) are proposed for AMC 18.2.2.030, 18.2.5.100, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050 and 18.6.1.030.D. These SRO requirements must be implemented by January 1, 2027; additional code changes with regard to other sections of HB 2138 will be brought forward as a separate package following further state rulemaking. Additional amendments implementing House Bill 4037 (2026) are proposed for AMC 18.5.1.050 to establish a uniform review procedure for applications for housing subject only to clear and objective standards, consistent with amendmentsto ORS 197A.400 operative July 1, 2026. SB 974, HB 2138, and HB 4037 together revise the state framework for the review of residential development applications. STATE LEGISLATION REQUIREMENTS Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 9 Total Page Number: 41 SenateBill974(2025). SB 974 requiresthat the initial decision on certain residential land use applications be made administratively, without a quasi-judicial public hearing. The bill applies to applications for a zone change to allow a denser residential use designation, a planned unit development, or a variance from a residential approval standard, where the propertyis, at the time of application, inside the urban growth boundary and zoned primarily for residential use or mixed residential use or planned for residential use. The bill does not apply to applications that would reduce minimum residential density, final subdivision or partition plats, residential construction permits under the building code, final engineering plans, or applications subject to ministerial or other expedited approval procedures. For qualifying applications, the bill requires mailed notice to owners of property within 100 feet of the site, a 14 day written comment period before the decision, prescribed notice content including the applicable criteria and appeal rights, and an affidavit or certification of the notice given. The decision must be accompanied by a brief statement explaining the criteria, the facts relied upon, and the justification for the decision. The initial decision must be made without a a local government may provide a hearing on appeal, which may be limitedto the hearing; record or may allow new testimony, in which case the hearing must comply with ORS 197.797. SB 974 also amends ORS 197.830 and ORS 197.835 to establish the pathways for appeal of these decisions to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Separately, SB 974 establishes a review timeline for final engineering plans for residential development inside the UGB: a 30 day completeness check and a 120 day period to complete final review and approve or deny site development permits, enforceable by writ of mandamus. Because final engineering review occurs after land use approval and is administered by the Engineering Division, no Land Use Ordinance amendment is required; the Engineering Division is aware of the new timelines. Finally, SB 974 prohibits applying residential design standards to housing development inside the UGB unless the application is for a multifamily structure as defined in ORS 197A.465 or for fewer than 20 residential units. Standards regulating aesthetics such as facade materials, roof decoration, window trim, porches, and yard landscaping cannot be applied to qualifying one and two family developments of 20 or more units. The prohibition does not extendto setbacks, building height, accessibility, fire ingress or egress, public health or safety, water quality, hazard, or natural resource regulations, and it sunsets January 2, 2033. The operative date for these provisions is July 1, 2026. HouseBill2138(2025). HB 2138 makes broad changes to Oregon housing law. Among other provisions, it expands the middle housing types that cities must allow, revises the definitions of cottage cluster, duplex, triplex, and quadplex, allows bonus units where middle housing includes accessible or affordable units, requirescities to allow single room occupancy developments of up to six units on lots zoned for a detached single unit dwelling and up to three times maximum density on multiunit zoned lots, restructures expedited land divisions with a 63 day decision timeline and applicant Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 9 Total Page Number: 42 only appeal, integrates middle housing land divisions into localreview, revises the review timelines in ORS 227.178, and voids certain private covenants thatrestrict middle housing. Local implementationis required no later than January 1, 2027, with state rulemaking to be complete by January 1, 2028. HB 2138 includes a requirement thatcitiesallow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) as a housing type. SROs are not currently addressed in the Land Use Ordinance,however they are now addressed in building codesand there hasalreadybeen one application for an SRO (431 North Main Street) and other cities in the region are beginning to see SRO applications as well. On thatbasis, staffare proposing newSRO regulations toaddressthese requirements now. Staff will return to the Commission with additional HB 2138 implementation amendments as a separate legislative package. HouseBill4037(2026). HB 4037 amendsORS 197A.400 toestablish uniform procedures forlocal government review of applications for the development of housing subject only toclearand objective standards, conditions, and procedures. For qualifying applications, ORS 197A.400(5) sets a ceiling on mailed notice, limiting recipients to owners of record within 100 feet of the subject property and not permitting notice to any other party, such as a neighborhood or community organization; the bill also provides that a local government may not require a public hearing prior to a decision, and may limit any local appeal opportunity to the applicant only. The most consequential change HB 4037 makes tolocal practice is a state mandated limit on who may appeal a decision on a qualifying housing application. For an application for the development of housing subject only to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures under ORS 197A.400(1), the following are set by state law and are not local policy choices: 1. No public hearing before the initial decision. The State mandates an administrative decision. The Staff Advisor issues the decisionbased on the applicable clear and objective standards, and the application is not referred to the Planning Commission for the initial decision. 2. A local appeal to the PlanningCommission is available only to the applicant. Under ORS 197A.400(5)(c), the opportunity for a local appealislimited to the applicant. Neighboring property owners and other members of the public who receive notice and submit written comments may participate in the initial decision, but they may not appeal that decision to the Planning Commission. 3. An appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals is available only to the applicant. Under ORS 197A.400(6), and notwithstanding the general standing provisions of ORS 197.825, only the applicant may appeal the City's decision on a qualifying application to LUBA. This is a departure from Ashland's standard Type I procedure. Under the general Type I appeal provisions in AMC 18.5.1.050.G, the applicant, the owner of the subject property, any person Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 9 Total Page Number: 43 entitled to notice, and any person whosubmittedwritten comments may appeal a decision to the Planning Commission.HB 4037 removes that broader appeal right for this narrow category of housing applications and reserves the appeal, both locally and at LUBA, to the applicant alone. Thepracticaleffectistoclose the localappealpaththat neighboring residents would otherwise use to challenge these housing decisions before the Planning Commission. That result is the stated purpose of the legislation. The Legislature intended to reduce the delay and uncertainty caused by third party objections and appeals for housing that already meets clear and objective standards, and to give applicants a more predictable and timely path to a final decision. The draft ordinance implements these state mandated limits through the amendments to AMC 18.5.1.050, which route qualifying applications to Type I review, limit notice to nearby owners of record, provide that these applications are not referred to the Planning Commission, and restrict both the local appeal and the appealto LUBA to the applicant consistent with ORS 197A.400(6). The state law exemptions continue to apply. Applications for residential development within a HistoricDistrict, and applications for which the applicant elects discretionary review designated under ORS 197A.400(3), are not subjectto these appeal limits and retain the review andappeal procedures otherwise assigned by the code. Theseamendments became operative July 1, 2026. Because HB 4037 is already in effect,its requirements govern qualifying housing applications submitted on or after that date, whether or not the local code has yet been amended. Consistent with ORS 197.646, where a local government has not updated its land use regulations to reflect a newly operative state statute, the statute applies directly to land use decisions. Adopting these amendments therefore does not establish new local policy. It conforms the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to state law already in effect, so that applicants, staff, and the public work from a single, consistent set of local procedures rather than applying the statute directly alongside code language that does not yet reflect it. I. Ordinance Amendments A.Summary of Proposed Code Amendmentsfor SB974 The draft ordinance makes the following amendments to bring the Land Use Ordinance into compliancewith SB 974. Ashland’s existing Type I procedure in AMC 18.5.1.050 already aligns closely with the SB 974 model: it provides an administrative decision by the Staff Advisor, mailed notice of application to surrounding owners, a 14 daywrittencomment period, a written decision supported by findings, and an appeal to the Planning Commission. For applications subject only to clear and objective standards, HB 4037 limits that appeal to the applicant.The amendments also reduce the Type I mailed notice radius from 200 feet to 100 feet,for both the notice of application and the notice of decision. HB 4037 sets 100 feet as the maximum notice radius for these applications, and the City applies that radius to all Type I applications to avoid a disparate notice standard within the same procedure. The amendments thereforework primarily Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 9 Total Page Number: 44 by moving qualifying applications into the Type I procedure and defining which applications qualify. 1.Urban Housing Application definition (AMC 18.6.1.030). A newdefinition of Urban Housing Application(UHA)is added, tracking the applicability and exclusion language ofSB 974 for the application types the cityisimplementing administratively.Thedefinitioncovers applications for a PerformanceStandardsOptions subdivision or a variance from a residential approval standard, on property that is, at the time of application, within the UGB and zoned primarily for residential use or mixed residential use or planned for residential use. Zone changes to allow a denser residential use designation are addressedseparately in Section B below, and are not included in the local UHAdefinition due to a conflictwith ORS 227.186. The definition excludes applications that would reduce minimum residential density and applicationssubjectto ministerial or other expedited approval procedures, and states that the initial decision on a UHA is an administrative Type I action not subject to quasi-judicial review unless appealed. The Performance Standards Options chapter is Ashland’s planned unit development equivalent, and the findings for the ordinance willmake that equivalence explicit. 2. Performance Standards Options subdivisions (AMC 18.3.9.040 and Table 18.5.1.010). OutlinePlan approval is changedfrom the Type II procedure to the Type I procedure, with the corresponding reference change from section 18.5.1.060 to section 18.5.1.050, and Table 18.5.1.010 is amended to match. The two-tiered Outline and Final Plan structure is retained. The threshold above which prior Outline Plan approval is mandatory is raised fromten lots to 20 or more lots, expanding the ability tofile Outline and Final Plans concurrently. Final Plan review remains Type I, with a housekeeping deletion of the concurrent review reference to the Type II procedure. Under this structure all PSO subdivisions receive an administrative initial decision with notice and comment, and a hearing occurs only on appeal to the Planning Commission, consistent with SB 974. 3. Variances (AMC 18.5.5.030). A new item 9 is added to the list of Type I Variances: Variances involving Urban Housing Applications (UHAs). Variances from residential approval standards that meet the UHA criteria will receive an administrative initial decision with the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission. All other Variances retaintheirexisting Type I or Type II classification. 4. Residential design standards (AMC 18.2.5.090 and AMC 18.3.5.100). AMC 18.2.5.090 is amended so the general design standards for single family dwellings and duplexes do not apply to new one and two family developments of 20 or more residential units in any zone. AMC 18.3.5.100 in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan district is amended so that the specific residential design standards in subsections A.1 through A.3, A.6, and B.1 through B.2 are not applied to one and two family developments of 20 or more Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 9 Total Page Number: 45 residential units. Generally, Ashland’s site development and design standards do not otherwise apply to one and two family development, so these twotargeted exemptions bring the code into compliance with the SB 974 design standard prohibition. B.AnnexationandZoneChangecriteriaarenotproposedforamendment SB 974 includes zone changes to allow denser residential use designations among the applications to be decidedadministratively without aninitial hearing. Staffare not proposing amendments to the city’s Zone Change procedures or criteria in chapter 18.5.9, or to the Annexation procedures and criteria in chapter 18.5.8, to implement thiselement of the bill. The reason is a direct conflict with other state law. ORS 227.186(2) provides that all legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning, or zoning adopted by a city shall be by ordinance, and ORS 227.186(5) requires prescriptive mailed notice to affected property owners that states the date of a public hearing on the proposed change. Zoning map amendments in Ashland are adopted by ordinance of the City Council following a noticed public hearing, consistent with these statutes and with Article X of the City Charter. Annexations likewise are legislative decisions of the Council processed under ORS chapter 222 and AMC 18.5.8, and are accompanied by ordinances establishing the zoning and comprehensive plan designations of the annexed territory.Processing these legislative actionsadministratively, without a hearing and without Council adoption by ordinance, would comply withSB 974 while violatingORS 227.186. The state has not yet provided rulemaking or guidance reconciling these statutes. In staff’s assessment, retaining the existing zone change and annexation procedures, which comply with ORS 227.186, until the conflict is resolved through rulemaking or legislation avoids the potential for drawn out procedural appeals that could adversely affect both applicants and the city. Staff will monitor Department of Land Conservation and Development rulemaking and returnwith amendments if the conflict is resolvedin a manner that requires local implementation. C. Applications submitted on or afterJuly 1, 2026 The urban housing application provisions of SB 974 become operative on July 1, 2026. Under ORS 197.646, when a new state land use statute becomes applicable and a local government has not yet amended its comprehensive plan or land use regulations to implement it, the statute applies directly to land use decisions. This means qualifying urban housing applications submitted on or after July 1, 2026 may be processed under the requirements of SB 974, including administrative review without an initial hearing, regardless of whether the local code amendments are yet in effect. The proposed ordinance incorporates these allowances for urban housing development into the Ashland Land Use Ordinance so that applicants, staff, andthe public work from a single, consistent set of local procedures rather than applying the statute directly alongside conflicting local code language. Adopting the amendments reduces uncertainty about which procedure governs a given application, ensures local notice, comment, findings, and appeal provisions Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 9 Total Page Number: 46 match statelaw,and preserves the local appeal to the Planning Commission thatSB 974 permits, except for applications subject only to clear and objective standards, for whichHB 4037 limits the appeal to the applicant. D.HouseBill2138(HB 2138) With the passage of HB 2138, cities are required to allow up tosixSROunits on each lot or parcel zoned toallow for the development of a detached single-family dwelling. In addition, for lots or parcels zoned to allow multi-unit housing and having a base density of five or more dwelling units, citiesmustallow up tothreetimes the number of units allowed by the maximum density standards (i.e. each SRO unit counts as one-third of a unit of density). There are also limits on how much parking can be required, but as Ashland no longer hasoff-street parking requirements these limits do not apply. Thedraft ordinance makes the following amendmentsimplementing House Bill 2138 (2025) with regard to Single Room Occupancies (SROs): the ‘Allowed Uses by Zone’ Table in AMC 18.2.2.030 is updated to include SROs; a new section AMC 18.2.5.100 addressing SROs is added; the allowed uses tables for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood (AMC 18.3.4.040) and the North Mountain Neighborhood (AMC 18.3.5.050) are updated; and a new definition of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) is included as a dwelling type in AMC 18.6.1.030.D. The SRO requirements must be implemented by January 1, 2027; additional code changes with regard to other sections of HB 2138 will be brought forward as a separate package following further state rulemaking. E. House Bill 4037 (HB 4037) The draft ordinance amends AMC 18.5.1.050 to provide that an application for the development of housing subject only to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures under ORS 197A.400(1) is reviewed under the Type I procedure, notwithstanding anyother review procedure otherwise assigned by this code, except an application for residential development within a designated HistoricDistrict under ORS 197A.400(2), or an application reviewed under discretionary approval criteria at the election of the applicant under ORS 197A.400(3). Consistent with ORS 197A.400(5) and (6), notice of such anapplication islimited to owners of record within the applicable notice radius, no public hearing is held prior to the initial decision, and appeal of the decision, both to the Planning Commissionand to the Land Use Board of Appeals, islimited to the applicant. The current working draft of AMC 18.5.1.050 removes the existing requirement tomail notice to a recognized neighborhood or community organization (current subsection 18.5.1.050.B.1.d). For applications reviewed under ORS 197A.400, ORS 197A.400(5), as amended by HB 4037, sets a ceiling on mailed notice, limiting recipients to owners of record within 100 feet of the subject property and not permitting notice to be extended to neighborhood or community organizations for those applications. Becausethis notice itemis being eliminatedfor applications governed by HB 4037, staff recommends removing it from AMC 18.5.1.050.B.1 for all Type I applications forconsistency.TheCity does not presently maintain a database of recognized neighborhood or community organizations and has not historically provided this notice in practice. Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 9 Total Page Number: 47 F.Discussion The proposed amendments are the product of an iterativereview process before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Commissionreviewed the requirements of Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 2138 and staff’s preliminary code conceptsat study sessions on April 14, 2026 and May 26, 2026, and the City Council wasbriefed on the legislation and the proposed local approach at its study session on June 1, 2026. Draft Ordinance No. 3307 incorporates the recommendations and direction provided to staff at those sessions, including retention of the two tieredOutline andFinalPlan reviewprocess with the concurrent review threshold raisedto 20 or more lots, classification of qualifying Variances as Type I actions subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, and retention of the existing Zone Change and Annexation procedures pending resolution of the conflict with ORS 227.186. For clarity, a flag drive grade clarification for pre-existing legal lots of record including an effective date for preexisting lots has been shifted to a separate ordinance. As noted at those study sessions, state guidance on implementation of SB 974 and HB 2138 remains limited.Thestatuteestablishes the overall procedural requirements but provides little direction on how local governments should restructure existing review classifications such as the Type I and Type II procedures, leaving jurisdictions to align their codes in a manner that meets the intent of the legislation while maintaining internal consistency. Staff believe the draft ordinance accomplishes this as it satisfies the state mandates for administrative review, notice, comment, findings, appeal of urban housing applications and single room occupancies while preserving Ashland’s established public notice practices and the local appeal to the Planning Commission that state law permits for urban housing applications, subject to the HB 4037 limitation that restricts the appeal to the applicant for applications reviewed under clear and objective standards. Staff will continue to monitor Department of Land Conservation and Development rulemaking under both bills and will return to the Commission with any needed refinements. II. Procedural 18.5.9.020ApplicabilityandReviewProcedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: B. Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 9 Total Page Number: 48 1.ZonechangesoramendmentstotheZoningMaporotherofficialmaps, except whereminoramendmentsorcorrectionsmaybeprocessedthroughtheTypeII procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. III. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. The proposed amendments are scheduled for a public hearing and first reading at the City Council on August 18, 2026. IV. Suggested Motion “I movethat the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve first reading of Ordinance No. 3307, titled an Ordinance relating to supporting housing production through streamlined review of residential development applications; implementing Senate Bill 974, House Bill 2138,and House Bill 4037 ; amending AMC 18.2.2.030, AMC 18.2.5.090, AMC 18.3.4.040, AMC 18.3.5.050, AMC 18.3.5.100, AMC 18.3.9.040, AMC 18.5.1.010, AMC 18.5.1.050, AMC 18.5.5.030, and AMC 18.6.1.030, and adding a new subsection AMC 18.2.5.100 as presented in the staff report and attachments." Planning Action PA-L-2026-00019 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 9 Total Page Number: 49 Total Page Number: 50 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 51 Total Page Number: 52 ORDINANCE NO. 3307 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUPPORTING HOUSING PRODUCTION THROUGH STREAMLINED REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPLEMENTING SENATE BILL 974 (2025), HOUSE BILL 2138 (2025), AND HOUSE BILL 4037 (2026); AMENDING AMC 18.2.2.030, AMC 18.2.5.090, AMC 18.3.4.040, AMC 18.3.5.050, AMC 18.3.5.100, AMC 18.3.9.040, AMC 18.5.1.010, AMC 18.5.1.050, AMC 18.5.5.030, AND AMC 18.6.1.030; AND ADDING AMC 18.2.5.100 Annotated to show deletions and additions to the Ashland Municipal Code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through, and additions are bold underlined, and unchanged text that is omitted for brevity is indicated by “. . .” WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the 2025 Oregon Legislative Assembly enacted Senate Bill 974 (2025), establishing state mandated changes to local land use review procedures for certain residential development applications, referred to in the bill as urban housing applications; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 974 (2025) requires that the initial decision on an urban housing application, including certain zone changes to allow denser residential uses, Performance Standards Options subdivisions, and variances involving property within the urban growth boundary that is zoned primarily for residential use or mixed residential use or planned for residential use, be made administratively without an initial quasi-judicial public hearing, subject to mailed notice to owners within 100 feet and recognized neighborhood or community organizations, a 14 day written comment period, and a public hearing only on appeal; and WHEREAS, ORS 227.186 requires zone changes to be adopted by ordinance after a public hearing, a requirement that conflicts with Senate Bill 974's administrative review process for zone changes, and this ordinance therefore limits the local definition of Urban Housing Application to Performance Standards Options subdivisions and variances, without extending administrative review to zone changes; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 974 further prohibits the application of certain residential design standards, including standards regulating aesthetics, landscaping, building orientation, and building design, to one and two family residential developments of 20 or more residential units, with this prohibition scheduled for repeal on January 2, 2033; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Oregon Legislative Assembly also enacted House Bill 2138 (2025), which among other provisions expands the required allowance of middle housing types, requires cities to allow single room occupancy developments within the urban growth boundary, ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 1 of 11 Total Page Number: 53 establishes expedited land division and middle housing land division procedures, and revises mandatory review timelines for residential development applications; and WHEREAS, the 2026 Oregon Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 4037 (2026), which amends ORS 197A.400 to establish uniform procedures for local government review of applications for the development of housing that are subject only to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures, with the amendments operative on July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, ORS 197A.400(5), as amended by House Bill 4037 (2026), provides that for such applications a local government may provide notice of the application only to owners of record of property located within 100 feet of the subject property, may not require a public hearing prior to making a decision on the application, and may provide an opportunity for a local appeal only to the applicant; and WHEREAS, ORS 197A.400(6), as amended by House Bill 4037 (2026), provides that notwithstanding ORS 197.825, only the applicant may appeal a decision on such an application to the Land Use Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, ORS 197A.400(2) exempts applications for residential development within historic areas designated for protection under a statewide land use planning goal protecting historic areas, and existing review procedures continue to apply within the City’s designated Historic Districts; and WHEREAS, local land use regulations implementing Senate Bill 974 are required to be in effect by July 1, 2026, local land use regulations implementing House Bill 2138 are required to be adopted no later than January 1, 2027, the amendments to ORS 197A.400 made by House Bill 4037 (2026) became operative on July 1, 2026 and apply to qualifying housing applications submitted on or after that date, and amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance are necessary to align the City’s application review procedures, notice provisions, and appeal processes with state law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland considered the proposed amendments at a duly advertised public hearing on August 11, 2026, and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the proposed amendments on August 18, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that, in order to protect and benefit the health, safety, and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, that the amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 2 of 11 Total Page Number: 54 SECTION 1. Table 18.2.2.030 \[Uses Allowed by Zone\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to address allowing Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses as follows: Table 18.2.2.030. Uses Allowed by Zone B. Residential Uses R-1-C-1 & Special Use R-1 R-2 R-3 RR WR E-1 M-1 3.5 C-1-D Standards See SRO standards in Sec. 18.2.5.100 Sec. 18.2.3.130 for dwellings in C-1 … zone and E-1 zone Single Room S S S S S S S S N Occupancy (SRO) Dwellings and additions in … Historic District Overlay, see Sec. 18.2.3.120 and 18.2.5.070 SECTION 2. Section 18.2.5.090 \[Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.2.5.090 Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings and duplexes constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones. Notwithstanding the foregoing, residential design standards shall not apply to new one- and two-family developments of twenty (20) or more residential units in any zone as provided in Section 8 of Senate Bill 974 (2025). This temporary exemption shall remain in effect through January 1, 2033, and shall expire on January 2, 2033, consistent with Section 9 of Senate Bill 974 (2025). ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 3 of 11 Total Page Number: 55 . . . SECTION 3. Section 18.2.5.100 \[Single Room Occupancy\] is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code to read as follows: 18.2.5.100 Single Room Occupancy A. Single Room Occupancy (SRO). Single Room Occupancy (SRO) means a residential development with no fewer than four attached or detached units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space for the exclusive use of an occupant but require that the occupant share sanitary or food preparation facilities with other units in the occupancy. Units with private sanitary and food preparation facilities are not an SRO. B.Single room occupancies must comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the applicable zoning district: 1. Single room occupancies are permitted as follows: a. Up to six SRO units are permitted on any lot or parcel on which a detached single-unit dwelling is a permitted use, regardless of the base density otherwise applicable to the lot or parcel. b. On any lot or parcel on which multiunit housing with five or more dwelling units is allowed, SRO units are permitted up to three times the number of dwelling units allowed by the maximum density standards applicable to the lot or parcel. c. Where both subsections 1.a and 1.b apply to a lot or parcel, the provision allowing the greater number of SRO units governs. d. In Commercial and Employment zones (C-1, C-1-D and E-1) multi-unit residential development is subject to the requirements of AMC 18.2.3.130. 2. Review Procedure. a. Six or Fewer Units.Requires a building permit. b. More Than Six Units.Requires Site Design Review. See AMC 18.5.2. 3. Single room occupancies must include a minimum of fourSRO units that are independently rented and lockable. 4. Each unit must provide living and sleeping space for the exclusive use of the occupant. 5. Sanitary and Food Preparation Facilities Conditions. a. Every unit must have access to both sanitary facilities and food preparation facilities, which may be provided within the unit or as shared facilities. ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 4 of 11 Total Page Number: 56 b. An SRO unit may include private sanitary facilities or private food preparation facilities, but not both. At least one of these facility types must be shared among the units in the SRO occupancy. c. A facility type that is not shared must be provided within each unit for the exclusive use of the occupant. d. A unit containing both private sanitary facilities and private food preparation facilities is a dwelling unit, not an SRO unit. Such a unit does not count toward the minimum number of SRO units, and is subject to the density and development standards otherwise applicable to dwelling units in the zone. 6. Single room occupancy units may not be used as Traveler’s Accommodations. SECTION 4. Table 18.3.4.040 \[Normal Neighborhood District Uses Allowed by Zone\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to address include Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses in Table 18.3.4.040 as follows: 1 Table 18.3.4.040. Normal Neighborhood District Uses Allowed by Zone 2 Normal Neighborhood District Zones NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-1-3.5-C NN-2 A. Residential Uses Single Room Occupancy (SRO), S S S S section 18.2.5.100 SECTION 5. Table 18.3.5.050 \[North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to include Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses in Table 18.3.5.050 as follows: 1 Table 18.3.5.050. North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone 2 North Mountain Neighborhood Zones NM-R-1-7.5 NM-R-1-5 NM-MFNM-CNM-Civic A. Residential ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 5 of 11 Total Page Number: 57 2 North Mountain Neighborhood Zones NM-R-1-7.5 NM-R-1-5 NM-MFNM-CNM-Civic Single Room Occupancy S S S S N (SRO), section 18.2.5.100 SECTION 6. Subsection 18.3.5.050 \[Allowed Uses\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Single Room Occupancy as a permitted use with special use standards as follows: 18.3.5.050.D … 14. Single Room Occupancy (SRO). Subject to the standards in section 18.2.5.100. SECTION 7. Subsection 18.3.5.100.A \[North Mountain Neighborhood District - Site Development and Design Standards – Housing\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, and the remainder of section 18.3.5.100 remains unchanged: 18.3.5.100 Site Development and Design Standards A. Housing. The following design standards apply to residential developments. AMC 18.3.5.100.A.1-A.3, AMC 18.3.5.100.A.6, and AMC 18.3.5.100.B.1-B.2 shall not be applied to one- and two-family developments of 20 or more residential units prior to January 2, 2033, consistent with the temporary design standard exemption established under Senate Bill 974. While the standards are specific, the intent is not to limit innovative design, but rather provide a framework for clear direction and minimum standards. … SECTION 8. Section 18.3.9.040 \[Review Procedures and Criteria\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.3.9.040 Review Procedures and Criteria . . . A. Outline Plan. A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten twenty (20) or more lots, prior outline plan approval is mandatory. ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 6 of 11 Total Page Number: 58 1. Review Procedure. The Type IIType I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 18.5.1.060 shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. . . . B. Final Plan. 1. Review Procedure. The Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed concurrently, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. . . . SECTION 9. Table 18.5.1.010 \[Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure\] in section 18.5.1.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to change the review procedure for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Option from Type II to Type I, as shown below, and the remainder of Table 18.5.1.010 remains unchanged: Planning Actions Review Applicable Regulations Procedures . . . Performance Standards Option Outline Plan Type II Chapter 18.3.9 Type I Final PlanType I Chapter 18.3.9 Minor Amendment Ministerial Subsection 18.5.3.020.F . . . SECTION 10. Section 18.5.1.050 \[Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice)\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, and the remainder of section 18.5.1.050 remains unchanged: 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) Type I decisions are made by the Staff Advisor, following public notice and a public comment period. Type I decisions provide an opportunity for appeal to the Planning Commission. An application for the development of housing is subject to a clear and objective standard, applying the standards, conditions, and procedures identified in ORS 197A.400(1). Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance assigning a review procedure, an application for residential development within a designated Historic District shall be reviewed under a Type 1 procedure. An application for which the applicant elects review under the discretionary approval of ORS 197A.400(3) shall be reviewed under the review procedure prescribed by this code. ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 7 of 11 Total Page Number: 59 . . . B. Notice of Application. 1. Mailing of Notice of Application. The purpose of the notice of application is to give nearby property owners and other interested people the opportunity to review and submit written comments on the application before the City makes a decision on it. Within ten days of deeming a Type I application complete, the City shall mail a notice of a pending Type I application to the following. a. Applicant. b. Owners of the subject property. c. Owners of record for properties located within 200 feet 100 feet of the perimeter of the subject site. d. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the City that includes the area of the subject property. e. Where an application subject to Type I review is preceded by a Type II decision, to parties of record from the subject Type II decision. f. For applications to amend an approval, to persons who requested notice of the original application that is being amended or modified, except that where the mailing address of a person entitled to notice is not the same as the mailing address of record in the original approval, the City is not required to mail notice. . . . 6. Housing Applications Subject to Clear and Objective Standards. Notwithstanding subsections 18.5.1.050.B.1.c and 18.5.1.050.D.1.c, for an application for the development of housing subject only to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures pursuant to ORS 197A.400(1), the notice of application and the notice of decision shall be mailed to owners of record for properties located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the subject site, consistent with the notice limitations of ORS 197A.400(5)(a). This subsection does not apply to an application reviewed under discretionary approval criteria at the election of the applicant pursuant to ORS 197A.400(3). C. Decision. 1. At the conclusion of the comment period, the Staff Advisor shall review the comments received and prepare a decision approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the applicable ordinance criteria. The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within 45 days of the City’s determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period. Alternatively, the Staff Advisor may transmit written comments received along with a copy of the application to the Planning Commission for review and decision at its next regularly scheduled meeting. An application for the development of housing is subject to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures pursuant to ORS 197A.400(1) and shall not be referred to the Planning Commission for review and decision under this subsection or subsection 18.5.1.050.C.2. ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 8 of 11 Total Page Number: 60 . . . D. Notice of Decision. 1. Mailing of Notice of Decision. Within five days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision, the City shall mail notice of the decision to the following. a. Applicant. b. Owners of the subject property. c. Owners of record for properties located within 200 feet100 feet of the perimeter of the subject site. d. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the City that includes the area of the subject property. d.e.Parties of record; this includes any group or individual who submitted written comments during the comment period. e. f.Those groups or individuals who requested notice of the decision. f. g. For applications to amend an approval, to persons who requested notice of the original application that is being amended or modified, except that where the mailing address of a person entitled to notice is not the same as the mailing address of record in the original approval, the City is not required to mail notice. … G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision, except as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1.d. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property. b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline. d. Notwithstanding subsections 18.5.1.050.G.1.a through 18.5.1.050.G.1.c, for a decision on an application for the development of housing subject only to clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures pursuant to ORS 197A.400(1), only the applicant may appeal the decision at the local level, pursuant to ORS 197A.400(5)(c). Pursuant to ORS 197A.400(6), only the applicant may appeal such a decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. . . . SECTION 11. Section 18.5.5.030 \[Review Procedure\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 9 of 11 Total Page Number: 61 18.5.5.030 Review Procedure Applications for Variances are reviewed as follows. A. Type I. The following Variances are subject to the Type I review procedure in section 18.5.1.050. 1. Sign placement, per chapter 18.4.7. 2. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in chapter 18.4.7. 3. Up to a 50 percent reduction of standard yard requirements. 4. Parking in setback areas. 5. Up to ten percent reduction in the required minimum lot area. 6. Up to ten percent increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. 7. Up to 20 percent reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. 8. Up to ten percent variance on height, width, depth, length, or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. 9. Variances involving Urban Housing Applications (UHAs). B. Type II. Variances not listed in subsection 18.5.5.030.A, above, are subject to the Type II review procedure in section 18.5.1.060. (Ord. 3229 § 12, amended, 12/19/2023) SECTION 12. Section 18.6.1.030 \[Definitions\] of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Urban Housing Application (UHA), to be placed in alphabetical order: Dwelling. A structure conforming to the definition of a dwelling under applicable building codes and providing complete, independent living facilities for one family, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. Buildings with more than one set of cooking facilities are considered to contain multiple dwelling units unless the additional cooking facilities are clearly accessory to the primary use, such as an outdoor grill or wet bar. For the purposes of this title, the following types of dwelling units are defined as follows: … Single Room Occupancy (SRO). Single Room Occupancy (SRO) means a residential development with no fewer than four attached or detached units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space for the exclusive use of an occupant but require that the occupant share sanitary or food preparation facilities with other units in the occupancy. A unit with both private sanitary and private food preparation facilities is a dwelling unit, not an SRO unit. … ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 10 of 11 Total Page Number: 62 Urban Housing Application (UHA) – A land use application for a Performance Standards Options subdivision or a variance from a residential approval standard, involving property that is, at the time of application, within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and zoned primarily for residential use or mixed residential use, or planned for residential use. An urban housing application does not include an application that would reduce the minimum residential density of land, or an application subject to a ministerial or other expedited approval procedure, including a residential use allowed outright. The initial decision of the city on an urban housing application is an administrative (Type I) action and is not subject to quasi-judicial review unless appealed as provided in this ordinance and applicable state law. SECTION 13. Severability. Each section of this ordinance, and any part thereof, is severable, and if any part of this ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 14. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, “chapter” or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 8 and 9) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _______day of____________________, 2026, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _______day of____________________, 2026. SIGNED and APPROVED this ________ day of __________________________, 2026. ATTEST: __________________________________ Alissa Kolodzinski, City Recorder __________________________________ Tonya Graham, Mayor Reviewed as to form: ___________________________________ Johan Pietila, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 3307 Page 11 of 11 Total Page Number: 63 Memo DATE:May 26, 2026 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE:Legislative Amendmentsin Senate Bill 974 As has been previously discussed, the 2025 regular legislative session was unusually active in the land use and housing arena andresulted in several significant bills becoming law. Several of the enacted bills directly affect local planning and development codes, while others influence housing production more indirectly through funding programs or changes to statewide planning expectations. Together, they reflect a statewide shift toward more predictable and efficient review of housing projects and expanded housing opportunities across a wider range of housing types and income levels. Of the recent legislation, Senate Bill 974, directs local governments to process certain housing applications administratively and within defined timelines, with hearings occurring only on appeal where allowed. This is a significant shift in the land use process Type I, Type II, and Type II application noticing and processing. The goal is to reduce delay and limit discretionary review while still requiring cities to update local codes to align procedures, notice, and appeal processes with state law. Staff are bringing forth the following code amendments to implement the SB974 amendments. Senate Bill (SB) 974Amendments SB 974 introduces the concept of an urban housing application and, for certain specific types of residential approvals, requires that the initial decision be made administratively without a hearing. SB 974 includes three primary areas of focus: The following new definition of an Urban Housing Application (UHA) is proposedto be added to AMC Chapter 18.6.1 : Urban Housing Application (UHA)A land use application including certain zone changes (residential up-zones), Performance Standards Options subdivisions, and variances involving property within the urban growth boundary (UGB) zoned primarily COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 for residential or mixed-use development or proposed for residential use. The initial decision of the city on an Urban Housing Application is an administrative (Type I) action and is not subject to quasi-judicial review unless appealed. SB 974 -day shot- development applications, similar to the shot-clock for land use applications. Since this relates to the Engineering reviewof civil drawings following land use approval, it is not governed by the Ashland Land Use Ordinance,and no land use ordinance changes are proposed. The Engineering Division is aware of the new requirements. SB 974 requires certain residential development applicationsto be processed administratively without an initial quasi-judicial hearing. For zone changes to allow denser residential uses, Performance Standards Options subdivisions, and Variancesrelated to urban housing applications on land inside the UGB and zoned for residential and mixed uses, SB974 calls for an initial decision to be made administratively, without a public hearing unless an appealis requested. This will entail a number of changesprimarily to AMC Chapter 18.5 with regard to application review procedures. With regard to zone changes to increase residential density, staff have not proposed any changes to implement this requirement out of concern that the requirements of SB974 to administratively approve up-zoning requests directly conflictwith Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.186(2) and (5) which require zone changes be made by ordinance with proper public notice through a(Type III) assessment, retaining existing codes which comply with the ORS until state rulemaking occurs avoids the potential for drawn-out procedural appealswhich could adversely impact both applicants and the city. With regard to Performance Standards Options subdivisions, proposed amendments are detailed below to make all PSO subdivisions subjectto administrative review and approval with the possibility for appeal to the Planning Commission. As proposed, the two-tiered Outline and Final Plan subdivision process is retained, and the threshold to allow concurrent Outline and Final Plan reviews is increased from ten lots to 20or more. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 AMC 18.3.9.040Review Procedures and Criteria A.Outline Plan.A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten 20 or more lots, prior outline plan approval is mandatory. 1.Review Procedure.The Type I Iprocedure in section 18.5.1.050 18.5.1.060shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. . . . B.Final Plan. 1.Review Procedure.The Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed concurrently, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. Table 18.5.1.010.Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure Planning ActionsReview ProceduresApplicable Regulations Outline Plan Type I IChapter 18.3.9 For Variances,those involving urban housing applications have been made a Type I procedures subject to administrative approval with the possibility for an appeal to the Planning Commission, as detailed below. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 18.5.5.030Review Procedure Applications for Variances are reviewed as follows. A.Type I.The following Variances are subject to the Type I review procedure in section 18.5.1.050. 1.Sign placement, per chapter 18.4.7. 2.Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in chapter 18.4.7. 3.Up to a 50 percent reduction of standard yard requirements. 4.Parking in setback areas. 5.Up to ten percent reduction in the required minimum lot area. 6.Up to ten percent increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. 7.Up to 20 percent reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. 8.Up to ten percent variance on height, width, depth, length, or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. 9.Variances involving Urban Housing Applications (UHAs). SB 974 also prohibits certain design standards for one-and two-family residential developmentsof 20 or more residential units. Standards regulating aesthetics, landscaping, building orientation, parkingor building design cannot be applied. This prohibition does not apply to setbacks, accessibility, size limitations or any review under applicable building or fire codes, or public health or safety regulations. Generally, site development and design standards are not applicable to one-and two-family residential development proposals. Proposed amendments to the general design standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes in AMC 18.2.5.090 are detailed below: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 18.2.5.090Standards for Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes A.The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings and duplexes constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones or to new one-and two-family developments of 20 or more residential units in any zone. B.Single-family dwellings and duplexes subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1.Dormers; 2.Gables; 3.Recessed entries; 4.Covered porch entries; 5.Cupolas; 6.Pillars or posts; 7.Bay window (min. 12" projection); 8.Eaves (min. 6" projection); 9.Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16"). (Ord. 3263 §5, amended, 06/03/2025; Ord. 3199 §11, amended, 06/15/2021) Proposed amendments to the design standards found in AMC 18.3.5.100are detailed below: 18.3.5.100Site Development and Design Standards COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 A.Housing.The following design standards apply to residential developments. AMC 18.3.5.100.A.1-A.3, AMC 18.3.5.100.A.6 and AMC 18.3.5.100.B.1-B.2 shall not be applied to one-and two-family developments of 20 or more residential units. While the standards are specific, the intent is not to limit innovative design, but rather provide a framework for clear direction and minimum standards. Driveway Grades for Existing Lots (Unrelated to SB 974) With a recent Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruling, it is clear that the existing language in Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria relative to driveway grade prevents the city from approving a Variance for ˱˾̉ ˶˼˱˷ ˴̂˹̆˵̇˱̉with a grade in excess of 18 percent.This would have the potential to render any pre-existing legal lots of record inaccessible if a driveway to reach it could not be constructed with a finished grade that was less than 18 percent.The flag drive grade standards generally apply to new lots (i.e. must be met before signature of plat), and city decisions have previously approved variances for pre-existing lots where no alternative access meeting the codified flag drive grade was available. Given that code amendments are under consideration, staff believeit would be prudent to address this known code issuenow, and we have included code F.Flagdrive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives serving newly created lots for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Variances may also be approved for grades in excess of 18 percent for driveways serving pre-existing legal lots of record which would otherwise be inaccessible. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. Next Steps Code changes to comply with SB 974 are intended to be implemented by cities by July 1, 2026. As previously noted, state guidance on implementation of Senate Bill 974 remains limited at this time, with the statute establishing overall procedural requirements but providing little direction on how local governments should restructure existing review classifications such as Type I and Type II processes. In particular, the law clearly requires that qualifying urban housing applications be processed without an initial hearing butdoes not COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 provide detailed direction on how to treat specific permit types, including variances, within existing local frameworks. As a result, jurisdictions are left to interpret and align their procedures in a manner that meets the intent of the legislation while maintaining internal consistency within their land use codes. amendments and schedule public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council as soon as possible. Attachments: 1.Senate Bill 974 Code Changes Roadmap 2.Senate Bill 974 Enrolled COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.govTTY: 800.735.2900 William H. Sherlock • Attorney • Dawn A. Furtado • Senior Paralegal lsherlock@eugenelaw.com dfurtado@eugenelaw.com Zack P. Mittge • Attorney zmittge@eugenelaw.com August 7, 2026 Via E-mail PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.gov and derek.severson@ashlandoregon.gov Ashland Planning Commission c/o Planning Supervisor Derek Severson Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: SB974 Changes City File No.: PA-L-2026-00020 Our Clients: Len and Karen Eisenberg, Kent and Pamela McLaughlin Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of our clients, Len and Karen Eisenberg, and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, we hereby provide comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to flag drive standards in the proposed amendments to the City of Ashland Municipal Code. Please include this letter in the record of these proceedings and provide copies of all future notices associated with the proposed amendments to our office. The Proposed Changes are Contrary to State Law. Although packaged with the legislative amendments for Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 974 (2025), the proposed amendments to the flag drive standards at Ashland Land Use Ordinances (ALUO) 18.5.3.060.F are both contrary to state law and not legislatively required. Oregon municipalities exercise planning and zoning responsibilities in accordance with state comprehensive land use planning requirements. ORS 197.175 mandates that cities and counties prepare, adopt, amend, and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and enact land use regulations to implement those comprehensive plans. ORS § 197.175. The Oregon Legislative Assembly has found that uncoordinated land use threatens the orderly development, environment, health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of the people of Oregon. ORS § 197.005. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 2 of 10 ___________________________________________ Pursuant to ORS 197.180, state agencies and local governments must carry out planning duties and take actions affecting land use in compliance with adopted goals and in a manner compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. ORS§ 197.180. Due to the statewide concern relating to the availability of safe housing, local governments must ensure that development standards do not discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. ORS 197.307. However, local governments must maintain clear and objective standards for safety through the authorized issuance of land use regulations that restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety. ORS § 195.305(3)(b). While SB 974 was adopted in June of 2025 to streamline certain residential development processes, it is very careful not to impact residential design standards that protect the public from natural hazards, and particularly the risk of fire. Indeed, the Senate Bill’s streamlining expressly “does not apply to land use regulations or requirements that are related to…accessibility, fire ingress or egress, public health or safety…or that implement statewide planning goals relating to….natural hazards.” SB 974, § 8(2). However, staff are trying to boot-strap amendments to section 18.5.3.060.F, which would adversely impact accessibility, fire ingress and egress, public health and safety, and the City’s attempts to protect the public from natural hazards. The specific provision at issue, section 18.5.3.060.F, establishes the maximum grade for driveways that serve flag lots. Under the land use standards currently in effect, the maximum grade for a flag 1 drive is 15%, but the City may permit variances which allow driveway grades up to 18%. As the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), recently determined “\[t\]he plain terms of ALUO 18.5.3.060.F do not allow a variance of over 18 percent grade.” Eisenberg et al. v. City of Ashland, Or. LUBA (LUBA No. 2025-053; April 29, 2026) (slip op at 15). The proposed amendments would eliminate that 18% maximum grade cap for flag drives serving any existing lot. Under the terms of the proposed amendments, the 18% cap on flag drive grades does not apply to any existing lots and would only expressly apply to “newly created lots” after the 2 date of the amendment. 1 “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 of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances.” 2 “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives serving newly created lots for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Variances may also be approved for grades in excess of 18 percent for driveways serving pre-existing legal lots of record which would otherwise be inaccessible. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances.” Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 3 of 10 ___________________________________________ The Oregon State Fire Code establishes minimum standards for the protection of life and property against fire, based on applicable standards prescribed from time to time by the National Fire Protections Association. ORS § 476.120; OAR 837-039-0006(1). To establish uniform protections throughout the state, the Oregon state legislature charged local jurisdictions with adopting either the state fire code or a local fire code that is equal to or more stringent than the protections in the state fire code standards. OAR 837-039-0006(2). In this case, the proposed amendment is contrary to state law, as it would allow development that is inconsistent with the slope requirements of the fire code. In particular, Appendix D, section D103.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, adopted and unmodified by the City of Ashland, specifies that “Fire apparatus 34 access roads shall not exceed 10% in grade.” Or. Fire Code app. D, § D103.2 (2025). As SB 974 does not require the City to adopt variance standards to its fire ingress or egress standards, and the proposed amendments are contrary to the minimum standards imposed by the Oregon Fire Code, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend removal of the proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F. B. The proposed change is contrary to the City of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F are also inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and specifically the City’s wildfire hazard provisions. The City’s comprehensive plan emphasizes the heightened risk and significant adverse impacts posed by wildfire in the community and particularly the risks of fire in the wildland/urban interface stating: Wildfire hazard presents an unusually high threat to very important area environmental resources in Ashland, particularly in the forested area south of town. A wildfire in that area would adversely affect soils and slope stability and lead to increased erosion. If wildfire reached the Ashland watershed, resulting erosion would affect drinking water quality. Vegetation loss during a wildfire would increase precipitation runoff, thereby increasing flood potential. It would reduce shade and increase stream temperatures – a condition that would adversely affect fish resources. Air quality would suffer during the wildfire burn, especially if the valley was experiencing an air inversion – a frequent event during the local wildfire season. * * * * During the past decade many people have declared their intention to ‘get back to nature.’ Many people are leaving metropolitan areas, building houses in forested natural settings, and leaving vegetation right up to the sides of their dwelling. Although no guarantee can protect a house in such a setting from wildfire, preventative measures can be taken to reduce the hazard. Recent land use policies have put added 3 The provision of Appendix D is specifically adopted into the requirements of the Oregon Fire Code by section 101.2.1. 4 ORC app. D, §103.2 was adopted by the City of Ashland in its Municipal Code under Section 15.28.010 and left unmodified by Section 15.28.070. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 4 of 10 ___________________________________________ development pressure on hillsides and valley lands are not being preserved for agricultural purposes. The Ashland city limits abut National Forest land in these hillside areas which lead immediately into the Ashland Watershed. City of Ashland, Or., Comprehensive Plan § 4.25, at 29–30 (July 2005). \[hereinafter Comprehensive Plan\]. To protect “life, property and environmental resources in Ashland’s suburban/wildland interface area from the devastating effects of wildfire” and to decrease the risks of wildfire “spreading to the Ashland watershed from the urban/wildland interface area” the City makes a special provision for fire access. Id. at 31. Specifically, Policy 49 of the Comprehensive Plan requires “more than one ingress/egress route or road widths wide enough to accommodate incoming fire apparatus and evacuating residents simultaneously in an emergency situation.” Comprehensive Plan § 4.25, Policy 49, at 31 (July 2005). In essence, this policy requires that at least one access point must be sufficient to accommodate fire apparatus and emergency response access. Because ALUO 18.5.3.060.I designates all flag drives as Fire Apparatus Access Roads subject to the Oregon Fire Code requirements and because flag drives typically are the sole access point to properties on flag lots, the proposed elimination of the maximum variance grade of 18% is contrary to Ashland policy and would insufficiently accommodate flag lot access to fire apparatus and emergency response vehicles. The 10% grade selected for the Oregon Fire Code recognizes the limitations of fire and emergency vehicles. A fire truck when fully loaded can weigh in excess of 30,000 to 80,000 pounds. Grades of fire apparatus access routes can severely impact the ability of these vehicles to access a fire, as a driveway that has an angle of approach that it too steep for the vehicle will be inaccessible. Moreover, steep grades pose significant risks for these vehicles that can stall on steep grades or lose traction and braking ability (particularly during adverse weather conditions such as rain, snow or ice). As the proposed amendment would make the sole fire apparatus access for flag lots insufficient to accommodate fire apparatus and emergency response vehicles, it poses an unacceptable risk to dwellings with the wildland/urban interface as well as a heightened community-wide risk of fire, erosion, flooding, and impact to the City’s drinking water. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this aspect of the proposed amendment. C. The proposed change is inconsistent with the City of Ashland’s 2025 Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In October of 2025, partially in response to the 2020 Almeda Fire which ignited within the Ashland City limits and “devastated neighboring communities and claimed three lives,” the City proactively adopted its Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP is a comprehensive blueprint to protect Ashland from wildfires designed around a series of specific initiatives. City of Ashland, 2025 Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan 20, 23 (June 24, 2025) \[hereinafter Ashland CWPP\]. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 5 of 10 ___________________________________________ As with the comprehensive plan, the CWPP emphasizes the difficulties posed by development within the wildland/urban interface, and specifically the risks posed by limited evacuation routes: It is not a question of if, but when, another major wildfire will affect Ashland. How and where that fire (and subsequent fires) burns could profoundly shape the city’s future. While we may be fortunate once again, there is also the risk of a worse-case scenario. Assessments show that Ashland and nearby communities face high wildfire risk, driven by natural conditions and human influences. The growing built environment, including homes, infrastructure, and cultural landmarks is increasingly vulnerable due to expansion into fire-prone areas and limited evacuation routes (Federal Emergency Management Agency \[FEMA\], 2023). Ashland CWPP, at 68 (emphasis added). The CWPP identifies evacuation as the top concern amongst Ashland residents. Id. at 90. Driveway length and width were also evaluated as “they play a crucial role in allowing first responders to reach properties safely and ensuring a smooth evacuation for occupants.” Id. at 91. The CWPP requires that the City “\[a\]ssess wildfire hazards on primary evacuation routes and possible refuge areas and mitigate.” Id. at 102, HS-2.1. The proposed amendment contradicts this initiative. Steeper flag drives would allow the creation of additional residential development in the wildland/urban interface which would be inaccessible to first 5 responders attempting to reach the property, and on slopes that are prone to rapid and intense fires. Moreover, allowing lots of record to merely opt out of necessary fire access via the City’s variance process runs directly counter to the City’s commitment to “Bolster wildfire resilience requirements for city development through consistent planning and zoning.” Ashland CWPP, at 196, CO-1.2 (emphasis added). Wildfire risks are a citywide concern and require consistent application of current standards to ensure citywide protection. As the proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F constitute abject favoritism to allow a single property to jeopardize the fire safety for the entire community based on a special variance carve-out in the code, the amendments are wholly inconsistent with the CWPP and should not be incorporated with the proposed amendments. 5 As pointed out in the comprehensive plan: “Steep slopes intensify wildfire in two ways. They increase precipitation runoff, decrease soil moisture and create dry vegetation. Vegetation moisture stress was particularly evident in the summer of 1981 when Fall seemed to come early to the hills south of town. This leaf color change was not ‘fall color,’ but drying caused by a lack of moisture. Wildfire also burns more intensely and faster on a steep slope by pre-heating the vegetation ahead of the actual fire front. Narrow, steep canyons act very much like a chimney during a wildfire, funneling heat and fire upward.” Comprehensive Plan, § 4.25, at 30. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 6 of 10 ___________________________________________ D.The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Negatively Impact Environmental and Geological Public Interest. Beyond wildfire prevention, the City of Ashland’s existing regulations explicitly recognize that development on steep slopes creates environmental and geological hazards including soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, and slope failure. Comprehensive Plan § 4.11, at 10-12 (July 2005). The current regulatory framework aims to protect natural and topographic character, environmental resources, aesthetic qualities, and restorative value of lands. Comprehensive Plan § 4.11, Policy 5, Policy 13, at 11-12 (July 2005). Increasing permissible grades for flag drives would directly undermine these protective purposes by authorizing more intensive disturbance of steep terrain. The proposed amendment would increase the cumulative length and steepness of grading permitted for flag drive construction, thereby expanding the area of hillside disturbance and intensifying erosion potential. Steeper grades accelerate stormwater runoff velocity, increasing erosive force and sediment transport to lower slopes. Construction of driveways on grades exceeding current variance limits would require more extensive cut-and-fill operations, resulting in the destabilization of natural slope profiles and increasing landslide risk. Multiple Oregon jurisdictions require geotechnical reports prepared by registered engineering geologists or geotechnical engineers for development on slopes of 15% or greater, recognizing that professional analysis of site geology, soil strength, slope stability, and erosion potential is essential to protect public safety and environmental resources. Lebanon, Or., Municipal Code § 16.11.040 (2026). These reports must demonstrate that proposed development will result in suitable, stable building sites and must provide recommendations for grading procedures, corrective measures, and methods to maintain slope stability while minimizing erosion and environmental variance from natural conditions. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040. The necessity for such professional analysis underscores the significant geological risks associated with steep slope development. Increasing permissible flag drive variance grades would only exacerbate these risks. E. The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Would Allow Flag Driveway Grades Far Steeper Than Any Other Jurisdiction in Oregon. A search through multiple county and city codes throughout counties or towns in Oregon demonstrate that no other jurisdiction would allow flag lot driveways with a 24% grade, which is the grade of the above referenced DeBoer property that is clearly the subject of this proposed and ill-advised code amendment. This consistent recognition that steep grading poses heightened safety risks that require strict and consistent regulation is only furthered by the county and city codes’ shared common purposes: ensuring public health, safety, and general welfare; addressing potential risks from steeply sloped sites and geologic hazard areas; minimizing hazards from fire, water, and unstable soils; ensuring slope stability and environmental resource protection; and reducing risks of hillside erosion, sedimentation, landslide damage, loss of vehicular control, impediments to emergency access, and infrastructure failures. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 7 of 10 ___________________________________________ Jackson County, Oregon Jackson County’s Land Development Ordinance 9.9.5.A.5 states that, “\[w\]henthe road grade exceeds 10%, the fire district or, if not within a fire district, the County fire safety inspector or Department of Forestry shall be consulted to determine whether additional fire safety measures are necessary to allow for a maximum finished grade of 15%. A grade of up to 18% may be allowed for intervals of up to 100 feet provided there are no more than three (3) 100-foot sections of over 15% grade per 1,000 feet. The approach from a public road or private road cannot exceed 10% grade for a distance of 40 feet.” Oregon City, Oregon In Oregon City, “\[n\]o driveway with a slope of greater than fifteen percent shall be permitted without approval of the city engineer.” Oregon City, Or., Municipal Code § 16.12.035.K.3. Additionally, the city engineer is authorized to deny driveway access if a proposed driveway would cause a significant traffic safety hazard. Oregon City, Or., Municipal Code § 16.12.035.L. Portland, Oregon Portland allows driveway grades up to 15%. Additionally, Portland permits grades up to 18% with sprinklers, if approved by the fire official. Portland, Or., City Code tit. 17, § 17.28.110 (2026). Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego strictly follows the Oregon Fire Code for grading maximums. Consequently, Lake Oswego’s maximum driveway grade is set at 10%, with exceptions upon approval up to 15% as grades greater than 15% add additional hazards and create the possibility of hazardous conditions for firefighting and medical responses. Roseburg, Oregon Roseburg’s development regulations require that a driveway used to access parking must have a maximum grade of 15% at any point. Roseburg, Or., Municipal Code § 12.06.030(Q)(4) (2026). Additionally, with the approval of the Fire Chief, driveways that are greater than 12% grade and 100 feet in length may have intermittent sections of grades up to a maximum of 20% provided that: (i) The 100-foot distance back from the structure maintains the 15% grade described herein; (ii) Travel widths, turnouts, and level pad areas are provided as determined necessary for fire protection and emergency access purposes; and (iii) An approved fire apparatus turnaround area having a grade no greater than 10% is provided. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(D)(8)(e). Furthermore, Roseburg's hillside development overlay regulations apply to areas with slopes greater than 12% and require that development ensure public health, safety, and general welfare while addressing risks from steeply sloped sites and geologic hazard areas. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(A), (C). The regulations aim to minimize hazards from fire, water, and unstable soils, ensure Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 8 of 10 ___________________________________________ slope stability, protect environmental resources, and reduce risks of erosion, sedimentation, and landslide damage. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(A). The City has authority to issue stop work orders and require restoration when development alters hillside areas in violation of code provisions, as such development constitutes a public nuisance posing risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100. Lebanon, Oregon Lebanon's steep slope development overlay zone applies to residential areas with slopes of 15% or greater to provide for adequate access for emergency services, protect public health and safety, and minimize the potential for earth movement and resultant hazards to life and property, among other key purposes. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040(A). Except for lots, parcels and roads created prior to the adoption of Lebanon’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan and its 1980 Zoning Ordinance, Lebanon’s code does not permit new driveways where street grades exceed 15%. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040(E)(2)(b)(i). Sheridan, Oregon Sheridan’s hillside development overlay applies to properties with slopes of 10% or greater. Sheridan, Or., Municipal Code § 16.290.020 (2025). Sheridan’s code requires that grades and alignments of driveways in hillside areas must provide maximum safety and convenience, with maximum intermittent grades of 15% for maximum distances of 200 feet and maximum sustained grades of 10%. Sheridan Municipal Code § 16.290.090. Grading performed within hillside development areas must account for environmental characteristics including geological features, stream beds, drainageways, and tree cover, and must utilize best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, and flooding while having minimal environmental effect. Sheridan Municipal Code § 16.290.100(A). Phoenix, Oregon Phoenix strongly discourages flag lots within its boundaries, but where proposed, flag lot grading may not exceed 12% with allowances for residential streets to have segments with grades up to 15% for distances no greater than 250ft. Phoenix, Or., Land Dev. Code § 3.5.2(I)(3) (2026). F.The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Do Not Appear to Comply with ORS § 368.039(3). Under AMC 18.5.3.060.I: “Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof.” Accordingly, flag drives are deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads and are therefore subject to ORS 368.039, which states, in relevant part: 3. Before adopting or amending any comprehensive plan, land use regulation or ordinance that establishes specifications and standards for roads and streets, a Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 9 of 10 ___________________________________________ governing body of a county or city shall consult with the municipal fire department or other local firefighting agency concerning the proposed specifications and standards. The county or city governing body shall consider the needs of the fire department or firefighting agency when adopting the final specifications and standards. \[1997 c.409 §1\] ORS § 368.039. It does not appear from the material provided to the public thus far that the City has consulted the local Fire Marshal or Fire Department as to the advisability of allowing the development 6 of a flag lot that has only a single access driveway in excess of 200 feet with a 24% grade. G.The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Lack a Reasonable Relationship to Legitimate Development Needs. Oregon law requires that land use regulations imposing conditions or restrictions on development bear a reasonable relationship or nexus to the impacts created by the proposed use. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 387 (1994). A regulatory requirement must be roughly proportional to the use of the property rather than serving as a pretextual excuse for imposing conditions when a landowner seeks permits. Id. at 391. Conversely, an amendment that relaxes protective standards of variances must demonstrate that the relaxed standards adequately protect legitimate public interests and that special circumstances relating to a specific piece of land make compliance with applicable zoning provisions “an undue or unnecessary hardship.” Id.at 380. The proposed amendment seeks to accommodate a specific development proposal requiring driveway grades exceeding current variance limits. However, the fact that a particular parcel's topography is incompatible with existing safety and environmental standards further evidences that increased or eliminated grading maximums are unreasonable and unsafe. Oregon municipalities consistently maintain that slopes of certain steepness present inherent unsuitability for development regardless of individual landowner preferences. The proposed amendment would move regulatory policy away from this protective framework without evidence of safely accommodated increased grades or adequately protecting legitimate public interests including public health and safety and mitigation of environmental and geological impacts. Oregon's statewide land use planning framework emphasizes coordination to protect health, safety, and environmental quality. ORS § 197.005. The overarching principles guiding Oregon's land use program include providing a healthy environment, ensuring a desirable quality of life, and equitably allocating benefits and burdens of land use planning ORS § 197.010. Relaxing hillside development standards to accommodate individual development preferences would shift safety and environmental burdens onto the broader community while concentrating development benefits to individual landowners, contrary to these equitable allocation principles. 6 The City's notice of the proposed code amendments states that it will post meeting materials on-line 20 days prior to the hearings (Planning Commission 7/14 Hearing; and City Council 8/4 Hearing) at the webpage in the notice (https://ashlandoregon.gov/SB974). As of July 6, 2026, no meeting materials have been made available on-line at the webpage in the notice. Ashland City Council August 7, 2026 Page 10of 10 ___________________________________________ C ONCLUSION Oregon law expressly authorizes municipalities to enact land use regulations that restrict or prohibit activities for protection of public health and safety. ORS § 195.305. The current 18% variance limit for flag drives represents a carefully calibrated balance between development opportunity and public health and safety protection. Eliminating this threshold would move Ashland's standards in the opposite direction from the protective approach reflected in Ashland’s existing regulations and comparable Oregon jurisdictions and would undermine the foundational public health and safety purposes of the municipal code. SB 974 does not require the proposed amendment ALUO 18.5.3.060.F. The proposed amendment is not only contrary to fire protections in state law, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and the 2025 Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan, but are also contrary to other critical environmental and geological concerns. Oregon law authorizes municipalities to restrict development to protect public health, safety, and environmental resources, and courts recognize that property access rights are subordinate to legitimate governmental interests in regulating steep slope development. The proposed amendment lacks reasonable justification, as the unsuitability of certain parcels for development under existing standards does not establish that Ashland should weaken those standards. Maintaining current grade limitations protects the public health, safety, environmental quality, and long-term community welfare that Ashland's code regulations already aim to secure. Thus, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend rejection of the proposed variance amendment. Respectfully submitted, H UTCHINSON C OX William H. Sherlock Zack P. Mittge WHS/df To: Ashland Planning Commission From: Rogue Advocates PO Box 624 Ashland, Oregon 97530 RE: Draft Ordinance No. 3309 Dear Planning Commission, August 10, 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ordinance 3309. Rogue Jackson and Josephine County. Many of our members reside within the Ashland city limits. The current version of ALUO 18.5.3.060.F has been in the city code since 1997, primary reasons for this code section are to protect the safety of citizens, protect the safety of -urban interface from unwise development. The proposed draft fail all these protections for “existing lots”. No Limit on Flag Driveway Steepness The rewrite of this code section adds a new category that the planning departments estimates is 14 existing lots than 18 percent that could not be safely developed under current code. There research indicates there is no jurisdiction in Oregon that sets no limit on driveway steepness. No Limit on Driveway Length or Turnout Requirements The current code allows new s a maximum cumulative length of 200 feet . The new language states no existing lots. Our research found no jurisdiction in Oregon that fails to set a limit on the length of steep driveways exceeding 18 percent. How does section J of this code section requiring turnouts apply? Failure To Comply With Comprehensive Plan The Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Resources states that in order to protect “life, property and environmental resources in Ashland’s 49 states “Require more than one ingress/egress route or road widths wide simultaneously in an emergency situation.” (pg. 31) The proposed code revision fails to address or satisfy this section of the Comprehensive Plan. The majority of these “existing lots” with steep slopes prepare Findings addressing compliance with Policy 49. Conclusion The proposed code revision weakens safety responders, and the wildland/suburban interface. Steve Rouse President Rogue Advocates William H. Sherlock • Attorney • Partner Dawn A. Furtado • Senior Paralegal lsherlock@eugenelaw.com dfurtado@eugenelaw.com Zack P. Mittge • Attorney zmittge@eugenelaw.com August 10, 2026 Via E-mail PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.gov and derek.severson@ashlandoregon.gov Ashland Planning Commission c/o Planning Supervisor Derek Severson Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: PA-L-2026-00020; Ordinance #3309 City File No.:PA-L-2026-00020 Our Clients: Len and Karen Eisenberg, Kent and Pamela McLaughlin Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of our clients, Len and Karen Eisenberg, and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, we hereby provide comments in opposition to the proposed legislative amendment (Ordinance #3309) to flag drive standards in the proposed amendments to the City of Ashland Municipal Code. Please include this letter in the record of these proceedings and provide copies of all future notices associated with the proposed amendments to our office. A. The Proposed Changes are Contrary to State Law. Although the City staff initially packaged the flag driveway amendments with the legislative amendments for Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 974 (2025), the proposed amendments to the flag drive standards at Ashland Land Use Ordinances (ALUO) 18.5.3.060.F are both contrary to state law and not legislatively required. Oregon municipalities exercise planning and zoning responsibilities in accordance with state comprehensive land use planning requirements. ORS 197.175 mandates that cities and counties prepare, adopt, amend, and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and enact land use regulations to implement those comprehensive plans. ORS § 197.175. The Oregon Legislative Assembly has found that uncoordinated land use threatens the orderly development, environment, health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of the people of Oregon. ORS § 197.005. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 2 of 10 ___________________________________________ Pursuant to ORS 197.180, state agencies and local governments must carry out planning duties and take actions affecting land use in compliance with adopted goals and in a manner compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. ORS § 197.180. Due to the statewide concern relating to the availability of safe housing, local governments must ensure that development standards do not discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. ORS 197.307. However, local governments must maintain clear and objective standards for safety through the authorized issuance of land use regulations that restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety. ORS § 195.305(3)(b). While SB 974 was adopted in June of 2025 to streamline certain residential development processes, it is very careful not to impact residential design standards that protect the public from natural hazards, and particularly the risk of fire. Indeed, the Senate Bill’s streamlining expressly “does not apply to land use regulations or requirements that are related to…accessibility, fire ingress or egress, public health or safety…or that implement statewide planning goals relating to….natural hazards.” SB 974, § 8(2). However, staff are still trying to boot-strap amendments to section 18.5.3.060.F, which would adversely impact accessibility, fire ingress and egress, public health and safety, and the City’s attempts to protect the public from natural hazards. The specific provision at issue, section 18.5.3.060.F, establishes the maximum grade for driveways that serve flag lots. Under the land use standards currently in effect, the maximum grade for a flag 1 drive is 15%, but the City may permit variances which allow driveway grades up to 18%. As the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), recently determined “\[t\]he plain terms of ALUO 18.5.3.060.F do not allow a variance of over 18 percent grade.” Eisenberg et al. v. City of Ashland, Or. LUBA (LUBA No. 2025-053; April 29, 2026) (slip op at 15). The proposed amendments would eliminate that 18% maximum grade cap for flag drives serving legal lots of record that were created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance #2808 (adopted December 3, 1997). Under the terms of the proposed amendments, the 18% cap on flag drive grades does not apply to these existing lots and would only expressly apply to 2 new flag drives after the date of the amendment. 1 “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 of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances.” 2 “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives serving newly created lots for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Variances may also be approved for grades in excess of 18 percent for driveways serving pre-existing legal lots of record which would otherwise be inaccessible. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances.” Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 3 of 10 ___________________________________________ The Oregon State Fire Code establishes minimum standards for the protection of life and property against fire, based on applicable standards prescribed from time to time by the National Fire Protections Association. ORS § 476.120; OAR 837-039-0006(1). To establish uniform protections throughout the state, the Oregon state legislature charged local jurisdictions with adopting either the state fire code or a local fire code that is equal to or more stringent than the protections in the state fire code standards. OAR 837-039-0006(2). In this case, the proposed amendment is contrary to state law, as it would allow development that is inconsistent with the slope requirements of the fire code. In particular, Appendix D, section D103.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, adopted and unmodified by the City of Ashland, specifies that “Fire apparatus 34 access roads shall not exceed 10% in grade.” Or. Fire Code app. D, § D103.2 (2025). As mentioned, SB 974 does not require the City to adopt variance standards to its fire ingress or egress standards. Additionally, the proposed amendments are contrary to the minimum standards imposed by the Oregon Fire Code. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend removal of the proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F. B. The proposed change is contrary to the City of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F are also inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and specifically the City’s wildfire hazard provisions. The City’s comprehensive plan emphasizes the heightened risk and significant adverse impacts posed by wildfire in the community and particularly the risks of fire in the wildland/urban interface stating: Wildfire hazard presents an unusually high threat to very important area environmental resources in Ashland, particularly in the forested area south of town. A wildfire in that area would adversely affect soils and slope stability and lead to increased erosion. If wildfire reached the Ashland watershed, resulting erosion would affect drinking water quality. Vegetation loss during a wildfire would increase precipitation runoff, thereby increasing flood potential. It would reduce shade and increase stream temperatures – a condition that would adversely affect fish resources. Air quality would suffer during the wildfire burn, especially if the valley was experiencing an air inversion – a frequent event during the local wildfire season. * * * * During the past decade many people have declared their intention to ‘get back to nature.’ Many people are leaving metropolitan areas, building houses in forested natural settings, and leaving vegetation right up to the sides of their dwelling. Although 3 The provision of Appendix D is specifically adopted into the requirements of the Oregon Fire Code by section 101.2.1. 4 ORC app. D, §103.2 was adopted by the City of Ashland in its Municipal Code under Section 15.28.010 and left unmodified by Section 15.28.070. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 4 of 10 ___________________________________________ no guarantee can protect a house in such a setting from wildfire, preventative measures can be taken to reduce the hazard.Recent land use policies have put added development pressure on hillsides and valley lands are not being preserved for agricultural purposes. The Ashland city limits abut National Forest land in these hillside areas which lead immediately into the Ashland Watershed. City of Ashland, Or., Comprehensive Plan § 4.25, at 29–30 (July 2005). \[hereinafter Comprehensive Plan\]. To protect “life, property and environmental resources in Ashland’s suburban/wildland interface area from the devastating effects of wildfire” and to decrease the risks of wildfire “spreading to the Ashland watershed from the urban/wildland interface area” the City makes a special provision for fire access. Id. at 31. Specifically, Policy 49 of the Comprehensive Plan requires “more than one ingress/egress route or road widths wide enough to accommodate incoming fire apparatus and evacuating residents simultaneously in an emergency situation.” Comprehensive Plan § 4.25, Policy 49, at 31 (July 2005). In essence, this policy requires that at least one access point must be sufficient to accommodate fire apparatus and emergency response access. Because ALUO 18.5.3.060.I designates all flag drives as Fire Apparatus Access Roads subject to the Oregon Fire Code requirements and because flag drives typically are the sole access point to properties on flag lots, the proposed elimination of the maximum variance grade of 18% is contrary to Ashland policy and would insufficiently accommodate flag lot access to fire apparatus and emergency response vehicles. The 10% grade selected for the Oregon Fire Code recognizes the limitations of fire and emergency vehicles. A fire truck when fully loaded can weigh in excess of 30,000 to 80,000 pounds. Grades of fire apparatus access routes can severely impact the ability of these vehicles to access a fire, as a driveway that has an angle of approach that it too steep for the vehicle will be inaccessible. Moreover, steep grades pose significant risks for these vehicles that can stall on steep grades or lose traction and braking ability (particularly during adverse weather conditions such as rain, snow or ice). As the proposed amendment would make the sole fire apparatus access for flag lots insufficient to accommodate fire apparatus and emergency response vehicles, it poses an unacceptable risk to dwellings with the wildland/urban interface as well as a heightened community-wide risk of fire, erosion, flooding, and impact to the City’s drinking water. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this aspect of the proposed amendment. C. The proposed change is inconsistent with the City of Ashland’s 2025 Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In October of 2025, partially in response to the 2020 Almeda Fire which ignited within the Ashland City limits and “devastated neighboring communities and claimed three lives,” the City proactively adopted its Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP is a comprehensive blueprint to protect Ashland from wildfires designed around a series of specific initiatives. City of Ashland, 2025 Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan 20, 23 (June 24, 2025) \[hereinafter Ashland CWPP\]. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 5 of 10 ___________________________________________ As with the comprehensive plan, the CWPP emphasizes the difficulties posed by development within the wildland/urban interface, and specifically the risks posed by limited evacuation routes: It is not a question of if, but when, another major wildfire will affect Ashland. How and where that fire (and subsequent fires) burns could profoundly shape the city’s future. While we may be fortunate once again, there is also the risk of a worse-case scenario. Assessments show that Ashland and nearby communities face high wildfire risk, driven by natural conditions and human influences. The growing built environment, including homes, infrastructure, and cultural landmarks is increasingly vulnerable due to expansion into fire-prone areas and limited evacuation routes (Federal Emergency Management Agency \[FEMA\], 2023). Ashland CWPP, at 68 (emphasis added). The CWPP identifies evacuation as the top concern amongst Ashland residents. Id.at 90. Driveway length and width were also evaluated as “they play a crucial role in allowing first responders to reach properties safely and ensuring a smooth evacuation for occupants.” Id. at 91. The CWPP requires that the City “\[a\]ssess wildfire hazards on primary evacuation routes and possible refuge areas and mitigate.” Id. at 102, HS-2.1. The proposed amendment contradicts this initiative. Steeper flag drives would allow the creation of additional residential development in the wildland/urban interface which would be inaccessible to first 5 responders attempting to reach the property, and on slopes that are prone to rapid and intense fires. Moreover, allowing lots of record to merely opt out of necessary fire access via the City’s variance process runs directly counter to the City’s commitment to “Bolster wildfire resilience requirements for city development through consistent planning and zoning.” Ashland CWPP, at 196, CO-1.2 (emphasis added). Wildfire risks are a citywide concern and require consistent application of current standards to ensure citywide protection. As the proposed amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F constitute abject favoritism to allow a single property to jeopardize the fire safety for the entire community based on a special variance carve-out in the code, the amendments are wholly inconsistent with the CWPP and should not be incorporated with the proposed amendments. 5 As pointed out in the comprehensive plan: “Steep slopes intensify wildfire in two ways. They increase precipitation runoff, decrease soil moisture and create dry vegetation. Vegetation moisture stress was particularly evident in the summer of 1981 when Fall seemed to come early to the hills south of town. This leaf color change was not ‘fall color,’ but drying caused by a lack of moisture. Wildfire also burns more intensely and faster on a steep slope by pre-heating the vegetation ahead of the actual fire front. Narrow, steep canyons act very much like a chimney during a wildfire, funneling heat and fire upward.” Comprehensive Plan, § 4.25, at 30. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 6 of 10 ___________________________________________ D.The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Negatively Impact Environmental and Geological Public Interest. Beyond wildfire prevention, the City of Ashland’s existing regulations explicitly recognize that development on steep slopes creates environmental and geological hazards including soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, and slope failure. Comprehensive Plan § 4.11, at 10-12 (July 2005). The current regulatory framework aims to protect natural and topographic character, environmental resources, aesthetic qualities, and restorative value of lands. Comprehensive Plan § 4.11, Policy 5, Policy 13, at 11-12 (July 2005). Increasing permissible grades for flag drives would directly undermine these protective purposes by authorizing more intensive disturbance of steep terrain. The proposed amendment would increase the cumulative length and steepness of grading permitted for flag drive construction, thereby expanding the area of hillside disturbance and intensifying erosion potential. Steeper grades accelerate stormwater runoff velocity, increasing erosive force and sediment transport to lower slopes. Construction of driveways on grades exceeding current variance limits would require more extensive cut-and-fill operations, resulting in the destabilization of natural slope profiles and increasing landslide risk. Multiple Oregon jurisdictions require geotechnical reports prepared by registered engineering geologists or geotechnical engineers for development on slopes of 15% or greater, recognizing that professional analysis of site geology, soil strength, slope stability, and erosion potential is essential to protect public safety and environmental resources. Lebanon, Or., Municipal Code § 16.11.040 (2026). These reports must demonstrate that proposed development will result in suitable, stable building sites and must provide recommendations for grading procedures, corrective measures, and methods to maintain slope stability while minimizing erosion and environmental variance from natural conditions. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040. The necessity for such professional analysis underscores the significant geological risks associated with steep slope development. Increasing permissible flag drive variance grades would only exacerbate these risks. E. The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Would Allow Flag Driveway Grades Far Steeper Than Any Other Jurisdiction in Oregon. A search through multiple county and city codes throughout counties or towns in Oregon demonstrate that no other jurisdiction would allow flag lot driveways with a 24% grade, which is the grade of the above referenced DeBoer property that is clearly the subject of this proposed and ill-advised code amendment. This consistent recognition that steep grading poses heightened safety risks that require strict and consistent regulation is only furthered by the county and city codes’ shared common purposes: ensuring public health, safety, and general welfare; addressing potential risks from steeply sloped sites and geologic hazard areas; minimizing hazards from fire, water, and unstable soils; ensuring slope stability and environmental resource protection; and reducing risks of hillside erosion, sedimentation, landslide damage, loss of vehicular control, impediments to emergency access, and infrastructure failures. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 7 of 10 ___________________________________________ Jackson County, Oregon Jackson County’s Land Development Ordinance 9.9.5.A.5 states that, “\[w\]hen the road grade exceeds 10%, the fire district or, if not within a fire district, the County fire safety inspector or Department of Forestry shall be consulted to determine whether additional fire safety measures are necessary to allow for a maximum finished grade of 15%. A grade of up to 18% may be allowed for intervals of up to 100 feet provided there are no more than three (3) 100-foot sections of over 15% grade per 1,000 feet. The approach from a public road or private road cannot exceed 10% grade for a distance of 40 feet.” Oregon City, Oregon In Oregon City, “\[n\]o driveway with a slope of greater than fifteen percent shall be permitted without approval of the city engineer.” Oregon City, Or., Municipal Code § 16.12.035.K.3. Additionally, the city engineer is authorized to deny driveway access if a proposed driveway would cause a significant traffic safety hazard. Oregon City, Or., Municipal Code § 16.12.035.L. Portland, Oregon Portland allows driveway grades up to 15%. Additionally, Portland permits grades up to 18% with sprinklers, if approved by the fire official. Portland, Or., City Code tit. 17, § 17.28.110 (2026). Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego strictly follows the Oregon Fire Code for grading maximums. Consequently, Lake Oswego’s maximum driveway grade is set at 10%, with exceptions upon approval up to 15% as grades greater than 15% add additional hazards and create the possibility of hazardous conditions for firefighting and medical responses. Roseburg, Oregon Roseburg’s development regulations require that a driveway used to access parking must have a maximum grade of 15% at any point. Roseburg, Or., Municipal Code § 12.06.030(Q)(4) (2026). Additionally, with the approval of the Fire Chief, driveways that are greater than 12% grade and 100 feet in length may have intermittent sections of grades up to a maximum of 20% provided that: (i) The 100-foot distance back from the structure maintains the 15% grade described herein; (ii) Travel widths, turnouts, and level pad areas are provided as determined necessary for fire protection and emergency access purposes; and (iii) An approved fire apparatus turnaround area having a grade no greater than 10% is provided. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(D)(8)(e). Furthermore, Roseburg's hillside development overlay regulations apply to areas with slopes greater than 12% and require that development ensure public health, safety, and general welfare while addressing risks from steeply sloped sites and geologic hazard areas. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(A), (C). The regulations aim to minimize hazards from fire, water, and unstable soils, ensure Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 8 of 10 ___________________________________________ slope stability, protect environmental resources, and reduce risks of erosion, sedimentation, and landslide damage. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100(A). The City has authority to issue stop work orders and require restoration when development alters hillside areas in violation of code provisions, as such development constitutes a public nuisance posing risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Roseburg Municipal Code § 12.04.100. Lebanon, Oregon Lebanon's steep slope development overlay zone applies to residential areas with slopes of 15% or greater to provide for adequate access for emergency services, protect public health and safety, and minimize the potential for earth movement and resultant hazards to life and property, among other key purposes. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040(A). Except for lots, parcels and roads created prior to the adoption of Lebanon’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan and its 1980 Zoning Ordinance, Lebanon’s code does not permit new driveways where street grades exceed 15%. Lebanon Municipal Code § 16.11.040(E)(2)(b)(i). Sheridan, Oregon Sheridan’s hillside development overlay applies to properties with slopes of 10% or greater. Sheridan, Or., Municipal Code § 16.290.020 (2025). Sheridan’s code requires that grades and alignments of driveways in hillside areas must provide maximum safety and convenience, with maximum intermittent grades of 15% for maximum distances of 200 feet and maximum sustained grades of 10%. Sheridan Municipal Code § 16.290.090. Grading performed within hillside development areas must account for environmental characteristics including geological features, stream beds, drainageways, and tree cover, and must utilize best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, and flooding while having minimal environmental effect. Sheridan Municipal Code § 16.290.100(A). Phoenix, Oregon Phoenix strongly discourages flag lots within its boundaries, but where proposed, flag lot grading may not exceed 12% with allowances for residential streets to have segments with grades up to 15% for distances no greater than 250ft. Phoenix, Or., Land Dev. Code § 3.5.2(I)(3) (2026). F. The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Do Not Appear to Comply with ORS § 368.039(3). Under AMC 18.5.3.060.I: “Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof.” Accordingly, flag drives are deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads and are therefore subject to ORS 368.039, which states, in relevant part: 3. Before adopting or amending any comprehensive plan, land use regulation or ordinance that establishes specifications and standards for roads and streets, a Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 9 of 10 ___________________________________________ governing body of a county or city shall consult with the municipal fire department or other local firefighting agency concerning the proposed specifications and standards. The county or city governing body shall consider the needs of the fire department or firefighting agency when adopting the final specifications and standards. \[1997 c.409 §1\] ORS § 368.039. It does not appear from the material provided to the public thus far that the City has consulted the local Fire Marshal or Fire Department as to the advisability of allowing the development of a flag lot that has only a single access driveway in excess of 200 feet with a 24% grade. G.The Proposed Amendments to ALUO 18.5.3.060.F Lack a Reasonable Relationship to Legitimate Development Needs. Oregon law requires that land use regulations imposing conditions or restrictions on development bear a reasonable relationship or nexus to the impacts created by the proposed use. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 387 (1994). A regulatory requirement must be roughly proportional to the use of the property rather than serving as a pretextual excuse for imposing conditions when a landowner seeks permits. Id. at 391. Conversely, an amendment that relaxes protective standards of variances must demonstrate that the relaxed standards adequately protect legitimate public interests and that special circumstances relating to a specific piece of land make compliance with applicable zoning provisions “an undue or unnecessary hardship.” Id.at 380. The proposed amendment seeks to accommodate a specific development proposal requiring driveway grades exceeding current variance limits. However, the fact that a particular parcel's topography is incompatible with existing safety and environmental standards further evidences that increased or eliminated grading maximums are unreasonable and unsafe. Oregon municipalities consistently maintain that slopes of certain steepness present inherent unsuitability for development regardless of individual landowner preferences. The proposed amendment would move regulatory policy away from this protective framework without evidence of safely accommodated increased grades or adequately protecting legitimate public interests including public health and safety and mitigation of environmental and geological impacts. Oregon's statewide land use planning framework emphasizes coordination to protect health, safety, and environmental quality. ORS § 197.005. The overarching principles guiding Oregon's land use program include providing a healthy environment, ensuring a desirable quality of life, and equitably allocating benefits and burdens of land use planning ORS § 197.010. Relaxing hillside development standards to accommodate individual development preferences would shift safety and environmental burdens onto the broader community while concentrating development benefits to individual landowners, contrary to these equitable allocation principles. Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 10of 10 ___________________________________________ Conclusion Oregon law expressly authorizes municipalities to enact land use regulations that restrict or prohibit activities for protection of public health and safety. ORS § 195.305. The current 18% variance limit for flag drives represents a carefully calibrated balance between development opportunityand public health and safety protection. Eliminating this threshold would move Ashland's standards in the opposite direction from the protective approach reflected in Ashland’s existing regulations and comparable Oregon jurisdictions and would undermine the foundational public health and safety purposes of the municipal code. Neither Oregon law nor SB 974 requires the proposed amendment ALUO 18.5.3.060.F. The proposed amendment is not only contrary to fire protections in state law, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and the 2025 Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan, but arealso contrary to other critical environmental and geological concerns. Oregon law authorizes municipalities to restrict development to protect public health, safety, and environmental resources, and courts recognize that property access rights are subordinate to legitimate governmental interests in regulating steep slope development. The proposed amendment lacks reasonable justification, as the unsuitability of certain parcels for development under existing standards does not establish that Ashland should weaken those standards. Maintaining current grade limitations protectsthe public health, safety, environmental quality, and long-term community welfare that Ashland's code regulations already aim to secure. Thus, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend rejection of the proposed variance amendment. Respectfully submitted, H UTCHINSON C OX William H. Sherlock Zack P. Mittge WHS/df