Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-25_Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, Aug25, 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.August 11, 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 25, 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/91234454016 V.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED 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. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION VII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: September 8, 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 1 of 1 Total Page Number: 1 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. August 11, 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.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 1 of 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). Total Page Number: 3 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 explainedthat 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. GIS identified 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 2 of 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). Total Page Number: 4 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 statedthat 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 Liningerasked 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 3 of 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). Total Page Number: 5 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 4 of 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). Total Page Number: 6 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 5 of 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). Total Page Number: 7 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 6 of 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). Total Page Number: 8 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 7 of 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). Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 13 Total Page Number: 14 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT August 25, 2026 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. BACKGROUND At the August 11, 2026 Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the Commission rejected the initial language brought forth by staff and left the hearing and the record open. The hearing was continued until 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 to allow further consideration of the issues. th The materials presented here are intended to supplement the August 11 packet materials. th Key points in the August 11 discussion included: Commissioners indicated that the ordinance language needed to better distinguish between pre-Hillside Ordinance and post-Hillside Ordinance lots for clarity and readability. Commissioners discussed whether to include an upper limit on driveway grade variances for pre-Hillside Ordinance lots that cannot otherwise meet the standard. Commissioners discussed clarifying the variance consideration in the standard, versus relying on the variance criteria in AMC 18.5.5. Whether relief from the driveway grade standards should be dependent on when the property was purchased (and what the driveway grade standard was at the time of purchase). ORDINANCE AMENDMENT A.Summary of the Proposed Amendments Based on discussion at the August 11, 2026 hearing, staff have reworked the Flag Drive Grades section (AMC 18.6.3.060) below with an eye to: Clarity in addressing specific exceptions for pre-/post-1997 lots as detailed below in F.2 and F.3 Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4 Total Page Number: 15 Providing a clear statement in F.5 and F.6 that a variance application would need to include a recommendation from the Fire Code Official so that it would be available in the record as part of the variance review process. Finally, clarifying the variance criteria with some redundancy from the Variance Chapter (i.e. “unique or unusual”) although the AMC 18.5.5 criteria will still apply. These changes in F.6 aim to clarify that protecting natural areas could be a rationale for a steeper drive through a variance, rather than a drive that met grade but involved greater disturbance of natural areas. The proposed new language is as follows: F.Flag drive grades. 1.General standard. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. 2.Exception for lots created after the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a lot created on or after the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, including a lot created through a flag lot partition, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent. 3.Exception for lots of record predating the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a legal lot of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent \[ - option - , but no greater than 25 percent\]. 4.Cumulative length limitation. The cumulative length of all sections of a flag drive exceeding 15 percent grade approved through a variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall not exceed 200 feet. 5.Fire Code compliance. A flag drive approved under a variance granted under subsection F.2 or F.3 remains subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. 6.Variance criteria. A variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall meet the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. Circumstances supporting a variance under this subsection include, but are not limited to, a demonstration, based on a stamped engineer’s drawings, that no alignment meeting the general 15 percent grade standard of this subsection can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot, or that a steeper alignment would better avoid or reduce impacts to natural or physical features of the site, such as water resource protection zones, trees, rock outcroppings, or areas best left in an undisturbed natural state. In evaluating a variance under this subsection, the approval authority may consider unique or unusual site conditions, including topographic constraints, access limitations, and the avoidance or reduction of impacts to natural and physical features, in determining whether the requested grade is the minimum necessary to reasonably develop the lot while minimizing site disturbance. The Fire Code Official shall make a Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4 Total Page Number: 16 recommendation on each variance application regarding fire apparatus access and fir and life safety, and the recommendation shall be considered by the approval authority. B. Ownership Trigger th At the August 11meeting, Planning Commissioners also discussed the possibility of limiting a steep-grade exception only to lots that have remained under the same ownership since the Hillside Ordinance took effect in 1997. In staff research into Jackson County records, seven of the 13 lots identified as potential candidates for driveway grade variances have changed hands since the ordinance change in 1997. In staff’s assessment, the problem with such an approach is that land use rights and limits in Oregon almost always run with the land, not with a particular owner. Grandfathered and nonconforming use rights transfer to new owners for exactly that reason, and there is no real tradition in municipal codes of tying a development standard like a driveway grade to unbroken ownership. Owner-based eligibility does typically show up in the farm and forest dwelling statutes, and even there the legislature had to spell it out expressly, the courts read it narrowly, and the entitlement generally still transfers once approved. Were relief from the driveway grade standard to be conditioned upon continuous ownership, a lot that its 1997 owner could build on today would become unbuildable the day it is sold or inherited, which recreates the same no-relief problem the exception is meant to fix and pushes it onto buyers and heirs who had nothing to do with when the lot was created. This would raise the city’s takings exposure rather than lowering it, and it would be difficult to administer since staff would need to track chain of title as an eligibility question, with the pool of qualifying lots shrinking over time until none were left. Staff would note that Measure 37 tried to do something similar by making relief turn on when an owner acquired their property. It was essentially an ownership-date entitlement, and it created enough legal and administrative problems that the voters had to pass Measure 49 a few years later to rein it in and put the focus back on the land and clear standards. For staff, that history is a useful caution to keep in mind. The fairness argument for favoring longtime owners over someone who bought a steep lot knowing its limits is a real point the Commission can weigh, but it runs against the overwhelming practice in Oregon land use, and staff's recommendation is that the entitlement should run with the land so we are not creating unbuildable lots with no path to relief for future owners. 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 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4 Total Page Number: 17 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. C. Conclusions and Recommendations th In staff’s opinion, the revisions above respond to the issues raised on August 11 and continue to provide 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 recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed amendments to the City Council. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing and first reading at the City Council on September 15, 2026. D. 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; th AMENDING AMC 18.5.3.060, as amended in the August 25 staff report.” Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4 Total Page Number: 18 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 additions to 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 13 lots are potentially subject 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 4 Total Page Number: 19 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, which was continued to August 25, 2026, where, following deliberations, the Commission 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 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, 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. 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.. F. Flag drive grades. 1. General standard. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. 2. Exception for lots created after the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a lot created on or after the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, including a lot created through a flag lot partition, a variance ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 2 of 4 Total Page Number: 20 may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent. 3. Exception for lots of record predating the Hillside Development Standards.For a flag drive serving a legal lot of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent. 4. Cumulative length limitation. The cumulative length of all sections of a flag drive exceeding 15 percent grade approved through a variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall not exceed 200 feet. 5. Fire Code compliance. A flag drive approved under a variance granted under subsection F.2 or F.3 remains subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. 6. Variance criteria. A variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall meet the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. Circumstances supporting a variance under this subsection include, but are not limited to, a demonstration based on stamped engineer’s drawings that no alignment meeting the general 15 percent grade standard of this subsection can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot, or that a steeper alignment would better avoid or reduce impacts to natural or physical features of the site, such as water resource protection zones, trees, rock outcroppings, or areas best left in an undisturbed natural state. In evaluating a variance under this subsection, the approval authority may consider unique or unusual site conditions, including topographic constraints, access limitations, and the avoidance or reduction of impacts to natural and physical features, in determining whether the requested grade is the minimum necessary to reasonably develop the lot while minimizing site disturbance. The Fire Code Official shall make a recommendation on each variance application regarding fire apparatus access and fir and life safety, and the recommendation shall be considered by the approval authority. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 3 of 4 Total Page Number: 21 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 4 of 4 Total Page Number: 22 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 Total Page Number: 27 Total Page Number: 28 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Total Page Number: 34 Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 Total Page Number: 37 Total Page Number: 38 Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46 Total Page Number: 47 Total Page Number: 48 Total Page Number: 49 Total Page Number: 50 Total Page Number: 51 Total Page Number: 52 Efbs!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!Nfncfst- J!bn!xsjujoh!up!pqqptf!uif!qspqptfe!bnfoenfout!up!uif!Òbh!esjwf!tuboebset!jo!uif! Btimboe!Nvojdjqbm!Dpef!BMVP!29/6/4/171/G/!)Psejobodf!$441:-!Qmboojoh!Bdujpo! QB.M.3137.11131*/ J!dpvdi!nz!dpnnfout!bqqsjtfe!pg!uif!sfdfou!dibohft!jo!uif!tubuf!boe!opx!uif!qsp. qptfe!dibohft!bu!Btimboe!Djuz!Dpvodjm!up!mjnju!ofjhicps!opujÑdbujpo!boe!joqvu/!! Xf!nvtu!npwf!bifbe!dbsfgvmmz!boe!opu!dsfbuf!b!ofx!ÆifbebdifÇ!mjlf!uif!2::8! ÆCvjmebcmfÇ!dmbttjÑdbujpot!pg!fyusfnf!ijmmtjef!qspqfsujft/!!Boe!xf!nvtu!bmtp!lffq! jo!njoe!uibu!jo!uif!gvuvsf-!cfdbvtf!pg!!IS!5148-!uif!efwfmpqfs0bqqmjdbou!xjmm!cf!uif! pomz!qbsuz!uibu!dbo!bqqfbm!b!qspkfdu!mfbwjoh!pvu!djuj{fo!joqvu"! J!pckfdu!up!uif!qspqptfe!dibohf!gps!uif!gpmmpxjoh!sfbtpot;! 2*!Qbsu!4;!!Cz!tubgg!Ñhvsft-!uifsf!bsf!24!qspqfsujft!bggfdufe!cz!uif!Ijmmtjef!Efwfm. pqnfou!Tuboebset-!boe!pomz!7!pg!uiptf!qspqfsujft!sfnbjo!xjui!uif!tbnf!pxofs! )ps!gbnjmz*!gspn!2::8!up!opx/!!Xf!tipvme!opu!hjwf!bewbodfe!bqqspwbm!pg!hsfbufs! uibo!26&!wbsjbodf!gps!uif!7!mput!xjuipvu!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!sfwjfx/!!JuÉt!ifmqgvm! up!sfnfncfs!uibu!Psfhpo!Gjsf!Dpef!bmmpxt!gps!21&!esjwfxbz!dpeft!boe!xf!bsf!hp. joh!xbz!qbtu!uibu!jo!ujnft!pg!jodsfbtfe!Ñsf!ebohfs/ 3*!Qbsu!4;!!Uifsf!jt!op!efÑojujpo!pg!xibu!tuboebset!xpvme!bqqmz!up!uif!7!mput!jg! uifz!bsf!tpme<!xjmm!gvuvsf!ofx!pxofst!cf!hjwfo!uiftf!wbsjbodft@!!Jo!boz!dbtf-! fbdi!mpu!tipvme!cf!sfwjfxfe!sfmbufe!up!jut!pxo!dibsbdufsjtujdt/ 3*!!Qbsu!4;!!Jg!b!mpu!xbt!qvsdibtfe!bgufs!uif!Ijmmtjef!Efwfmpqnfou!Tuboebset-!Psej. obodf!Op/!3919-!)pg!Efd/!4-!2::8*-!uibu!qvsdibtfs!xbt!ps!tipvme!ibwf!cffo!gvmmz! bxbsf!pg!uif!qspqfsuzÉt!dpotusbjout!boe!tipvme!opu!cf!hjwfo!bewbodfe!bqqspwbm!gps! wbsjbodft!bcpwf!uif!qsftfou!dpef/!!Jg!fyufovbujoh!djsdvntubodft!pddvs-!uifz!tipvme! cf!sfwjfxfe!cz!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!bt!boz!puifs!wbsjbodf!xpvme!cf/ Total Page Number: 53 4*!!Jo!Qbsu!6!boe!uif!mbtu!qbsu!pg!Qbsu!7;!!Jo!Qbsu!6-!ÆGjsf!Dpef!PgÑdjbmÇ!offet!up!cf! gvsuifs!tqfdjÑfe!boe!b!qspdftt!beefe!uibu!jodmveft!uxp!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo! nfncfst!bddpnqboz!uif!Gjsf!pgÑdjbm!up!ejtdvtt!xijmf!po.tjuf!gps!gvmm!voefstuboe. joh!pg!uif!sfbtpot!gps!qpttjcmf!bqqspwbm!boe!tufqt!gps!tvdi!bqqspwbm/!! Å!Qvuujoh!b!obz!ps!zbz!up!b!qspkfdu!tipvme!opu!cf!qvu!jo!uif!iboet!pg!pof!vofmfdufe! pgÑdjbm!.!uifsf!jt!upp!nvdi!dibodf!pg!joÒvfodf!.!opu!ofdfttbsjmz!cfdbvtf!pg!hsbgu-! cvu!cfdbvtf!b!tvckfdujwf!ujmufe!efdjtjpo!upxbse!b!lopxo!ps!ÆhppeÇ!ps!Ñobodjbmmz! tvqqpsujwf!djuj{fo!tipvme!opu!cf!mfgu!up!pof!vofmfdufe!sfqsftfoubujwf0qfstpo/!!Uif! tbje!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpofst!xpvme!sfqpsu!cbdl!gps!Dpnnjttjpo!dpotjefsbujpo/ ! Jo!dpodmvtjpo-!J!xbou!up!tibsf!xiz!juÉt!jnqpsubou!up!hfu!djuj{fo!joqvu/!!J!sfdfoumz! wjtjufe!xjui!b!Djuz!Dpvodjm!Nfncfs!xip!tubufe!uibu!uif!sfbm!qmboojoh!qspcmfn!jt! uibu!Æsjdi!ofjhicpst!ijsf!uif!nptu!fggfdujwf!mboe.vtf!mbxzfst!cfdbvtf!uifz!epoÉu! xbou!uifjs!ofjhicpsippe!bggfdufe!cz!dibohf/Ç!!J!sftqpoefe!uibu;!2*!nboz!puifs! qfpqmf!xip!dbsf!bcpvu!uiftf!jttvft!bsf!cvtz!sbjtjoh!ljet!boe!lffqjoh!kpct!boe!dboÉu! lffq!usbdl!pg!BMM!uif!jttvft!cvu!uifz!dbsf-!tp!uibolt!up!tpnf!pg!uif!ÆsjdiÇ!poft! xip!ifmq-!pckfdu-!ps!hvjef!vt<!boe!3*!uiftf!jowpmwfe!ÆqspcmfnÇ!djuj{fot!bsf!opu!bmm! tfmg.joufsftufe<!nz!xjgf!boe!J!mjwf!b!ibmg!njmf!bxbz!gspn!uif!bggfdufe!ijmmtjef!mput! boe!xf!ibwf!pxofe!pvs!ipvtf!gps!bmnptu!61!zfbst/!!Xf!bsf!jowpmwfe!cfdbvtf!xf! mpwf!Btimboe!boe!bsf!epjoh!xibu!xf!dbo!up!fodpvsbhf!sfbtpobcmf!efwfmpqnfout<! xf!sfnfncfs!uif!nvetmjeft!uibu!pddvssfe!jo!uif!mbuf!:1Ét!xifsf!uxp!pg!pvs!gsjfoetÉ! ipnft!xfsf!eftuspzfe!boe!xf!tff!uif!efcbdmf!pg!43:!Hsbojuf!uibu!qbttfe!x0!mjuumf! djuj{fo!joqvu/!!Xf!gfbs!uibu!jg!pvs!djuz!sfqsftfoubujwf!hpwfsojoh!cpejft!npwf!up!mjnju! pvs!jowpmwfnfou!bt!ejtdvttfe!jo!Dpvodjm-!xf!)Btimboe*!xjmm!bmm!qbz!jo!uif!gvuvsf/ Uibol!zpv!gps!uif!xpsl!zpv!ep!bt!pvs!sfqsftfoubujwft/ Epvh!boe!Mjoeb!Tnjui Btimboe Total Page Number: 54 Total Page Number: 55 Bvhvtu!35-!3137 Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo Djuz!pg!Btimboe Wjb!fnbjm;!QD.qvcmjd.uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt Re: PA-L-2026-00020 / Ordinance No. 3309, flag driveway grades Efbs!Dpnnjttjpofst; Uxp!xfflt!bhp!zpv!wpufe!op!po!uijt!psejobodf-!6!up!1/!Zpv!btlfe!tubgg!gps!uxp!uijoht!cfgpsf!zpv!xpvme mppl!bhbjo;!sfwjtfe!mbohvbhf-!boe!uif!qvsdibtf!boe!usbotgfs!ebuft!gps!uif!24!mput/!Uif!sfwjtfe!mbohvbhf jt!jo!zpvs!qbdlfu/!Uif!mpu!ebuft!bsf!opu/!Boe!uif!ofx!wbsjbodf!tujmm!ibt!op!vqqfs!mjnju!po!ipx!tuffq!b esjwfxbz!dbo!cf/ Jo!Bqsjm!uif!tubuf!mboe!vtf!cpbse!ifme!Btimboe!up!jut!pxo!dpef;!op!esjwfxbz!wbsjbodf!tuffqfs!uibo!29 qfsdfou-!voefs!boz!djsdvntubodf/!Uif!wfstjpo!jo!gspou!pg!zpv!upojhiu!ublft!pvu!uibu!mjnju!boe!qvut opuijoh!jo!jut!qmbdf/!Bo!pxofs!xjui!b!36!qfsdfou!esjwfxbz!dpvme!btl!gps!b!wbsjbodf/!Tp!dpvme!pof!bu!46/ Opuijoh!jo!uif!psejobodf!tbzt!ipx!tuffq!jt!upp!tuffq/ Uiftf!bsf!ijmmtjef!mput!jo!b!djuz!uibu!cvsot/!Btimboe!Gjsf(t!pxo!Kvmz!nfnp!jo!zpvs!sfdpse!tbzt!uif!gjsf dpef!ipmet!gjsf!bddftt!spbet!up!21!qfsdfou-!tuffqfs!pomz!xjui!uif!gjsf!dpef!pggjdjbm(t!tjho.pgg/!Bo!fohjof uibu!dboopu!dmjnc!b!esjwfxbz!tupqt!bu!uif!cpuupn!pg!ju/!Uif!dsfx!xbmlt!vq!upxbse!uif!ipvtf!xijmf!uif qfpqmf!jo!uif!ipvtf!bsf!uszjoh!up!esjwf!epxo!uif!tbnf!obsspx!esjwf/!Uibu!jt!xibu!b!hsbef!dfjmjoh!jo!uif dpef!jt!gps/ Uif!tubgg!sfqpsu!epft!nfoujpo!b!36!qfsdfou!dfjmjoh/!Ju!bqqfbst!jo!csbdlfut-!bt!bo!pqujpo/!Uif!psejobodf jutfmg-!uif!ufyu!uif!Dpvodjm!xpvme!bduvbmmz!bepqu-!ibt!op!dfjmjoh!bu!bmm/!B!mjnju!xsjuufo!joup!uif!dpef!ipmet po!jut!pxo/!Xjuipvu!pof-!fwfsz!tuffq!esjwfxbz!cfdpnft!b!tfqbsbuf!bshvnfou-!efdjefe!dbtf!cz!dbtf/ Xibu!nbef!zpv!wpuf!op!po!Bvhvtu!22!jt!tujmm!jo!uif!ufyu-!boe!uif!mpu!ebuft!zpv!btlfe!gps!bsf!tujmm!opu!jo uif!qbdlfu/!Qmfbtf!wpuf!op!bhbjo/!Jg!uif!djuz!xbout!uijt!up!npwf!gpsxbse-!xsjuf!b!gjsn!dfjmjoh!joup!uif psejobodf!jutfmg-!bee!uif!mpu!ebuft-!boe!ibwf!uif!gjsf!dpef!pggjdjbm!sfwjfx!uibu!gjobm!ufyu/ Uibol!zpv!gps!uif!dbsf!zpv!uppl!xjui!uijt!po!Bvhvtu!22/ Tjodfsfmz- Kbnjo!Hjfstcbdi Fyfdvujwf!Ejsfdups-!Sphvf!Bewpdbuft Xsjujoh!jo!nz!joejwjevbm!dbqbdjuz 362!Uxjo!Pblt!Spbe Kbdltpowjmmf-!PS!:8641 kbnjoAsphvfbewpdbuft/psh Total Page Number: 56 Preservation of issues for the record J!sfrvftu!uibu!uijt!mfuufs!cf!foufsfe!joup!uif!sfdpse!pg!QB.M.3137.11131!boe!uibu!uif!gpmmpxjoh!jttvft!cf!qsftfswfe!gps sfwjfx!voefs!PST!2:8/946)4*<!fbdi!jt!sbjtfe!xjui!tvggjdjfou!tqfdjgjdjuz!gps!uif!Dpnnjttjpo-!uif!Dpvodjm-!boe!tubgg!up sftqpoe/!)2*!Qspqptfe!BND!29/6/4/171/G/4!mbdlt!bo!btdfsubjobcmf!tuboebse;!uif!Bvhvtu!36!tubgg!sfqpsu!)qbdlfu!q/!27* tubuft!uif!qspwjtjpo!xjui!bo!vqqfs!mjnju!pomz!bt!b!csbdlfufe!pqujpo!)”b!wbsjbodf!nbz!cf!hsboufe!gps!b!hsbef!jo!fydftt!pg 26!qfsdfou!\\!.!pqujpo!.!-!cvu!op!hsfbufs!uibo!36!qfsdfou^•*-!xijmf!uif!buubdife!psejobodf!)qbdlfu!q/!32*!dpoubjot!op!vqqfs mjnju<!uif!tvhhftufe!npujpo!sfdpnnfoejoh!bqqspwbm!”bt!bnfoefe!jo!uif!Bvhvtu!36ui!tubgg!sfqpsu•!epft!opu!jefoujgz xijdi!ufyu!jt!sfdpnnfoefe-!boe!uif!dpejgjdbujpo!bvuipsjuz!jo!Tfdujpo!4!pg!uif!psejobodf!dboopu!sftpmwf!b!tvctuboujwf qpmjdz!pqujpo!bgufs!bepqujpo/!)3*!Uif!bnfoenfou!mbdlt!bo!befrvbuf!gbduvbm!cbtf!)Tubufxjef!Qmboojoh!Hpbm!3<!PST 2:8/721!fu!tfr/*;!eftqjuf!uif!Dpnnjttjpo(t!vobojnpvt!Bvhvtu!22!ejsfdujpo!uibu!tubgg!”qspwjef!qvsdibtf0usbotgfs!ebuf jogpsnbujpo!gps!uif!24!jefoujgjfe!mput-•!uif!Bvhvtu!36!qbdlfu!dpoubjot!op!mpu!mjtu-!uby!mpu!ovncfst-!beesfttft-!ps!ebuft- pomz!uif!tubufnfou!uibu!”tfwfo!pg!uif!24!mput!jefoujgjfe!bt!qpufoujbm!dboejebuft!gps!esjwfxbz!hsbef!wbsjbodft!ibwf dibohfe!iboet!tjodf!uif!psejobodf!dibohf!jo!2::8•<!uif!sfdjubmt!dpvou!25!mput!jo!uif!Bvhvtu!22!psejobodf!boe!24!jo!uif Bvhvtu!36!psejobodf!xjuipvu!fyqmbobujpo<!boe!uif!bggfdufe!mput!bsf!jefoujgjfe!jo!uif!sfdpse!pomz!po!b!djuzxjef.tdbmf nbq/!)4*!Op!gjoejoht!beesftt!dpotjtufodz!xjui!uif!Btimboe!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo-!jodmvejoh!Fowjsponfoubm!Sftpvsdft Qpmjdz!5:!)spvuft!”xjef!fopvhi!up!bddpnnpebuf!jodpnjoh!gjsf!bqqbsbuvt!boe!fwbdvbujoh!sftjefout!tjnvmubofpvtmz•*< BND!29/6/:/131/C!jt!sfdjufe!cvu!bqqmjfe!up!opuijoh/!)5*!Uif!Gjsf!Dpef!Pggjdjbm(t!Kvmz!31-!3137!nfnpsboevn!sfwjfxfe tvqfstfefe!esbgu!mbohvbhf!)”uif!qspqptfe!mbohvbhf!jo!Tfdujpo!6•*<!uif!ufyu!ibt!tjodf!cffo!sfxsjuufo!boe!op!tvqqmfnfoubm nfnpsboevn!po!uif!dvssfou!ufyu!bqqfbst!jo!uif!sfdpse<!dpotvmubujpo!tipvme!buubdi!up!uif!ufyu!bduvbmmz!bepqufe!)tff!PST 479/14:)4*<!3136!Psfhpo!Gjsf!Dpef-!jodmvejoh!uif!E219/2!Vojgpsn!Bmufsobuf!Dpotusvdujpo!Tuboebse!boe!gjsf!bqqbsbuvt bddftt!hsbef!qspwjtjpot*/!)6*!Uif!sfdpse!epft!opu!jefoujgz!uif!46.ebz!qptu.bdlopxmfehnfou!opujdf!up!uif!Efqbsunfou!pg Mboe!Dpotfswbujpo!boe!Efwfmpqnfou!)PST!2:8/721<!PBS!771.129.1131<!BND!29/6/2/181*-!ops!boz!opujdf!voefs!PST 338/297!jg!bqqmjdbcmf<!uijt!jttvf!sftpmwft!jg!uif!opujdf!jt!jefoujgjfe/!)7*!Esbgujoh!efgfdut!jo!qspqptfe!G/4!boe!G/7;!uif op.dpogpsnjoh.bmjhonfou!efnpotusbujpo!jt!tubufe!bt!jmmvtusbujpo!)”jodmvef-!cvu!bsf!opu!mjnjufe!up•*!sbuifs!uibo sfrvjsfnfou<!”njojnvn!ofdfttbsz•!jt!qfsnjttjwf!)”nbz!dpotjefs•*!boe!lfzfe!up!uif!voefgjofe!qisbtf!”sfbtpobcmz efwfmpq!uif!mpu•<!”cvjmebcmf!bsfb!pg!uif!mpu•!jt!voefgjofe<!uif!psejobodf!epft!opu!tubuf!uif!fwfou!cz!xijdi!b!mpu!jt ”dsfbufe•!gps!fmjhjcjmjuz!voefs!G/30G/4<!uifsf!jt!op!bqqmjdbcjmjuz!qspwjtjpo!gps!qfoejoh!ps!sfnboefe!bqqmjdbujpot<!uif uvsobspvoe!sfrvjsfnfout!pg!BND!29/6/4/171/K!bsf!vobeesfttfe!gps!uiftf!mput<!boe!Qiztjdbm!boe!Fowjsponfoubm Dpotusbjout!sfwjfx!jt!lfzfe!up!obuvsbm!tmpqft!pwfs!36!qfsdfou!sbuifs!uibo!up!mpu.dsfbujpo!ebuf/!)8*!Uif!qspdftt!boe!bqqfbm sjhiut!uibu!xjmm!hpwfso!gvuvsf!wbsjbodft!voefs!uijt!qspwjtjpo!bsf!vosftpmwfe-!jodmvejoh!uif!joufsbdujpo!pg!dibqufs!29/6/6 ejtdsfujpobsz!sfwjfx!xjui!uif!”dmfbs!boe!pckfdujwf•!sfdjubm!boe!xjui!Psejobodf!Op/!4418!bt!bdufe!po!cz!uif!Dpvodjm/!J sfrvftu!uibu!uif!sfdpse!sfnbjo!pqfo!uispvhi!boe!bgufs!uif!Djuz!Dpvodjm(t!Tfqufncfs!26-!3137!ifbsjoh-!uibu!J!sfdfjwf xsjuufo!opujdf!pg!uif!Dpnnjttjpo(t!sfdpnnfoebujpo!boe!uif!Dpvodjm(t!efdjtjpo-!boe!uibu!uif!sjhiu!up!tvqqmfnfou!uijt uftujnpoz!cf!sftfswfe/!Bmm!jttvft!sbjtfe!ifsf!boe!cz!puifs!qbsujdjqbout!bsf!qsftfswfe!gps!bqqfbm/ Total Page Number: 57 Total Page Number: 58 Total Page Number: 59 Total Page Number: 60 Total Page Number: 61 Total Page Number: 62 Total Page Number: 63 Total Page Number: 64 Total Page Number: 65 Total Page Number: 66 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, Aug25, 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.August 11, 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 25, 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/91234454016 V.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED 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. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION VII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: September 8, 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 1 of 1 Total Page Number: 1Total Page Number: 67 Total Page Number: 2Total Page Number: 68 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 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.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 1 of 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). Total Page Number: 3Total Page Number: 69 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 explainedthat 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. GIS identified 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 2 of 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). Total Page Number: 4Total Page Number: 70 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 statedthat 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 Liningerasked 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 3 of 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). Total Page Number: 5Total Page Number: 71 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 4 of 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). Total Page Number: 6Total Page Number: 72 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 5 of 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). Total Page Number: 7Total Page Number: 73 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 6 of 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). Total Page Number: 8Total Page Number: 74 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 7 of 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). Total Page Number: 9Total Page Number: 75 Total Page Number: 10Total Page Number: 76 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11Total Page Number: 77 Total Page Number: 12Total Page Number: 78 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 13Total Page Number: 79 Total Page Number: 14Total Page Number: 80 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT August 25, 2026 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. BACKGROUND At the August 11, 2026 Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the Commission rejected the initial language brought forth by staff and left the hearing and the record open. The hearing was continued until 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 to allow further consideration of the issues. th The materials presented here are intended to supplement the August 11 packet materials. th Key points in the August 11 discussion included: Commissioners indicated that the ordinance language needed to better distinguish between pre-Hillside Ordinance and post-Hillside Ordinance lots for clarity and readability. Commissioners discussed whether to include an upper limit on driveway grade variances for pre-Hillside Ordinance lots that cannot otherwise meet the standard. Commissioners discussed clarifying the variance consideration in the standard, versus relying on the variance criteria in AMC 18.5.5. Whether relief from the driveway grade standards should be dependent on when the property was purchased (and what the driveway grade standard was at the time of purchase). ORDINANCE AMENDMENT A.Summary of the Proposed Amendments Based on discussion at the August 11, 2026 hearing, staff have reworked the Flag Drive Grades section (AMC 18.6.3.060) below with an eye to: Clarity in addressing specific exceptions for pre-/post-1997 lots as detailed below in F.2 and F.3 Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 4 Total Page Number: 15Total Page Number: 81 Providing a clear statement in F.5 and F.6 that a variance application would need to include a recommendation from the Fire Code Official so that it would be available in the record as part of the variance review process. Finally, clarifying the variance criteria with some redundancy from the Variance Chapter (i.e. “unique or unusual”) although the AMC 18.5.5 criteria will still apply. These changes in F.6 aim to clarify that protecting natural areas could be a rationale for a steeper drive through a variance, rather than a drive that met grade but involved greater disturbance of natural areas. The proposed new language is as follows: F.Flag drive grades. 1.General standard. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. 2.Exception for lots created after the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a lot created on or after the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, including a lot created through a flag lot partition, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent. 3.Exception for lots of record predating the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a legal lot of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent \[ - option - , but no greater than 25 percent\]. 4.Cumulative length limitation. The cumulative length of all sections of a flag drive exceeding 15 percent grade approved through a variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall not exceed 200 feet. 5.Fire Code compliance. A flag drive approved under a variance granted under subsection F.2 or F.3 remains subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. 6.Variance criteria. A variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall meet the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. Circumstances supporting a variance under this subsection include, but are not limited to, a demonstration, based on a stamped engineer’s drawings, that no alignment meeting the general 15 percent grade standard of this subsection can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot, or that a steeper alignment would better avoid or reduce impacts to natural or physical features of the site, such as water resource protection zones, trees, rock outcroppings, or areas best left in an undisturbed natural state. In evaluating a variance under this subsection, the approval authority may consider unique or unusual site conditions, including topographic constraints, access limitations, and the avoidance or reduction of impacts to natural and physical features, in determining whether the requested grade is the minimum necessary to reasonably develop the lot while minimizing site disturbance. The Fire Code Official shall make a Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4 Total Page Number: 16Total Page Number: 82 recommendation on each variance application regarding fire apparatus access and fir and life safety, and the recommendation shall be considered by the approval authority. B. Ownership Trigger th At the August 11meeting, Planning Commissioners also discussed the possibility of limiting a steep-grade exception only to lots that have remained under the same ownership since the Hillside Ordinance took effect in 1997. In staff research into Jackson County records, seven of the 13 lots identified as potential candidates for driveway grade variances have changed hands since the ordinance change in 1997. In staff’s assessment, the problem with such an approach is that land use rights and limits in Oregon almost always run with the land, not with a particular owner. Grandfathered and nonconforming use rights transfer to new owners for exactly that reason, and there is no real tradition in municipal codes of tying a development standard like a driveway grade to unbroken ownership. Owner-based eligibility does typically show up in the farm and forest dwelling statutes, and even there the legislature had to spell it out expressly, the courts read it narrowly, and the entitlement generally still transfers once approved. Were relief from the driveway grade standard to be conditioned upon continuous ownership, a lot that its 1997 owner could build on today would become unbuildable the day it is sold or inherited, which recreates the same no-relief problem the exception is meant to fix and pushes it onto buyers and heirs who had nothing to do with when the lot was created. This would raise the city’s takings exposure rather than lowering it, and it would be difficult to administer since staff would need to track chain of title as an eligibility question, with the pool of qualifying lots shrinking over time until none were left. Staff would note that Measure 37 tried to do something similar by making relief turn on when an owner acquired their property. It was essentially an ownership-date entitlement, and it created enough legal and administrative problems that the voters had to pass Measure 49 a few years later to rein it in and put the focus back on the land and clear standards. For staff, that history is a useful caution to keep in mind. The fairness argument for favoring longtime owners over someone who bought a steep lot knowing its limits is a real point the Commission can weigh, but it runs against the overwhelming practice in Oregon land use, and staff's recommendation is that the entitlement should run with the land so we are not creating unbuildable lots with no path to relief for future owners. 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 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4 Total Page Number: 17Total Page Number: 83 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. C. Conclusions and Recommendations th In staff’s opinion, the revisions above respond to the issues raised on August 11 and continue to provide 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 recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed amendments to the City Council. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing and first reading at the City Council on September 15, 2026. D. 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; th AMENDING AMC 18.5.3.060, as amended in the August 25 staff report.” Planning Action PA-L-2026-00020 Cont’d Hearing Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4 Total Page Number: 18Total Page Number: 84 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 additions to 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 13 lots are potentially subject 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 4 Total Page Number: 19Total Page Number: 85 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, which was continued to August 25, 2026, where, following deliberations, the Commission 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 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, 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. 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.. F. Flag drive grades. 1. General standard. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. 2. Exception for lots created after the Hillside Development Standards. For a flag drive serving a lot created on or after the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, including a lot created through a flag lot partition, a variance ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 2 of 4 Total Page Number: 20Total Page Number: 86 may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent. 3. Exception for lots of record predating the Hillside Development Standards.For a flag drive serving a legal lot of record created before the effective date of the Hillside Development Standards, Ordinance No. 2808, adopted December 3, 1997, a variance may be granted for a grade in excess of 15 percent. 4. Cumulative length limitation. The cumulative length of all sections of a flag drive exceeding 15 percent grade approved through a variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall not exceed 200 feet. 5. Fire Code compliance. A flag drive approved under a variance granted under subsection F.2 or F.3 remains subject to the fire apparatus access requirements of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required by the Fire Code Official. 6. Variance criteria. A variance under subsection F.2 or F.3 shall meet the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. Circumstances supporting a variance under this subsection include, but are not limited to, a demonstration based on stamped engineer’s drawings that no alignment meeting the general 15 percent grade standard of this subsection can provide vehicular access to a buildable area of the lot, or that a steeper alignment would better avoid or reduce impacts to natural or physical features of the site, such as water resource protection zones, trees, rock outcroppings, or areas best left in an undisturbed natural state. In evaluating a variance under this subsection, the approval authority may consider unique or unusual site conditions, including topographic constraints, access limitations, and the avoidance or reduction of impacts to natural and physical features, in determining whether the requested grade is the minimum necessary to reasonably develop the lot while minimizing site disturbance. The Fire Code Official shall make a recommendation on each variance application regarding fire apparatus access and fir and life safety, and the recommendation shall be considered by the approval authority. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 3309 Page 3 of 4 Total Page Number: 21Total Page Number: 87 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 4 of 4 Total Page Number: 22Total Page Number: 88 Qpufoujbm!Tubgg!Ejsfdujpo Dibqufs!29!Dpef!Bnfoenfout!up!Tvqqpsu!Ipvtjoh!Efwfmpqnfou Uif!Djuz!Dpvodjm!ibt!jefoujgjfe!b!tfu!pg!Dibqufs!29!tuboebset!boe!benjojtusbujwf!qsbdujdft!uibu!bsf!mjnjujoh mboe!vujmj{bujpo!boe!voofdfttbsjmz!dpotusbjojoh!ipvtjoh!efwfmpqnfou!jo!Btimboe/!Dpvodjm!ejsfdut!uif Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Efqbsunfou!up!sfuvso!xjuijo!71!ebzt!xjui!qspqptfe!dpef!bnfoenfou!dpodfqut beesfttjoh!fbdi!jufn!cfmpx-!pshboj{fe!joup!gjwf!dbufhpsjft;!qspdftt!boe!qspdfevsft-!mpu!boe!efotjuz tuboebset-!fnfshjoh!boe!qsphsfttjwf!ipvtjoh!uzqft-!efwfmpqnfou!tuboebset!dsfbujoh!vodfsubjouz-!boe ufsnjopmphz/!Fbdi!jufn!tipvme!dpnf!cbdl!up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!boe!Djuz!Dpvodjm!gps!sfwjfx!cfgpsf gpsnbm!bepqujpo/ J/!Qspdftt!boe!Qspdfevsft 2/!Qsf.Bqqmjdbujpo!Dpogfsfodft Nblf!qsf.bqqmjdbujpo!dpogfsfodft!pqujpobm!gps!Uzqf!J!bqqmjdbujpot-!boe!sfbttftt!uif!qsf.bqqmjdbujpo qspdftt!bt!b!xipmf!up!fotvsf!ju!dpoujovft!up!efmjwfs!wbmvf!qspqpsujpobuf!up!uif!ujnf!ju!beet/!Sfgfssbm efqbsunfout-!jodmvejoh!Qvcmjd!Xpslt-!ibwf!tdbmfe!cbdl!uif!mfwfm!pg!efubjm!qspwjefe!bu!qsf.bqqmjdbujpo!˜ vujmjuz!jogpsnbujpo!uibu!xbt!qsfwjpvtmz!qspwjefe!bt!b!nbuufs!pg!dpvstf-!gps!fybnqmf-!jt!opx!pgufo!pnjuufe/ 3/!Gjoejoht!Bepqujpo!Ujnfmjof BND!29/6/2/171!qspwjeft!uibu!uif!ifbsjoh!cpez!efmjcfsbuft!boe!efdjeft!cbtfe!po!uif!sfdpse!bu!uif dpodmvtjpo!pg!uif!ifbsjoh-!cvu!jo!qsbdujdf-!xsjuufo!gjoejoht!bsf!opu!bepqufe!uibu!ojhiu!˜!bepqujpo!jt!uzqjdbmmz efmbzfe!uxp!up!gpvs!xfflt-!up!b!tvctfrvfou!tuvez!tfttjpo!ps!uif!Dpnnjttjpo(t!ofyu!sfhvmbs!nffujoh/ Cfdbvtf!uif!efdjtjpo!jt!opu!gjobm!boe!uif!bqqfbm!qfsjpe!epft!opu!cfhjo!voujm!uif!efdjtjpo!jt!nbjmfe-!uijt!hbq ejsfdumz!fyufoet!uif!Djuz(t!fggfdujwf!sfwjfx!ujnfmjof/!Tubgg!tipvme!qsfqbsf!bepqujpo!gjoejoht!jo!bewbodf!pg uif!efdjtjpo!nffujoh!xifofwfs!qsbdujdbm!˜!jodmvejoh!gjoejoht!tvqqpsujoh!b!mjlfmz!efojbm!˜!tp!uif Dpnnjttjpo!dbo!bepqu!gjoejoht!uif!tbnf!ojhiu!jo!nptu!dbtft-!sftfswjoh!fwjefoujbsz!ifbsjoht!boe dpoujovbodft!gps!hfovjofmz!dpouftufe!nbuufst/ 4/!Benjojtusbujwf!Qspqfsuz!Mjof!Bekvtunfout Qspqfsuz!mjof!bekvtunfout!tipvme!cf!qspdfttfe!benjojtusbujwfmz-!jo!bddpsebodf!xjui!PST!:3-!boe!tipvme opu!sfrvjsf!b!ofx!tvswfz!ps!b!ofx!qmbu!gjmjoh!jo!fwfsz!dbtf/!Tubgg!tipvme!jefoujgz!uif!njojnvn epdvnfoubujpo!bduvbmmz!offefe!up!wfsjgz!b!qspqptfe!bekvtunfou!boe!tusfbnmjof!uif!qspdftt!bddpsejohmz/ 5/!Cpoejoh!pg!Sfrvjsfe!Jnqspwfnfout!gps!Gjobm!Qmbu!Sfmfbtf Bqqmjdbout!tipvme!cf!bcmf!up!cpoe!sfrvjsfe!jnqspwfnfout!jo!psefs!up!sfdfjwf!gjobm!qmbu!bqqspwbm-!sbuifs uibo!dpnqmfujoh!bmm!jnqspwfnfout!cfgpsf!uif!qmbu!dbo!cf!sfdpsefe/!Bmmpxjoh!cpoejoh!bu!gjobm!qmbu!˜ dpotjtufou!xjui!uif!xbz!nboz!Psfhpo!kvsjtejdujpot!iboemf!tvcejwjtjpo!jnqspwfnfout!˜!xpvme!mfu dpotusvdujpo!mpbot!dmptf!boe!cvjmejoh!qfsnjut!jttvf!po!b!opsnbm!ujnfmjof-!jotufbe!pg!tubmmjoh!cfijoe dpnqmfufe!qvcmjd!jnqspwfnfout/ Qbhf!2 Total Page Number: 89 6/!Benjojtusbujwf!Sfwjfx!Qsbdujdft!boe!Dvmuvsf Ejsfdu!uif!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Ejsfdups!up!sfwjfx!dvssfou!qsbdujdft!bspvoe!tubgg.mfwfm!ejtdsfujpo!boe sfgfssbm!pg!bqqmjdbujpot!up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo-!xjui!uif!hpbm!pg!sftpmwjoh!npsf!bqqmjdbujpot benjojtusbujwfmz!xifsf!uif!dpef!bmmpxt-!boe!up!sfqpsu!cbdl!po!boz!dibohft!offefe!up!tvqqpsu!uibu!hpbm/ JJ/!Mpu!boe!Efotjuz!Tuboebset 7/!Mpu!Dpwfsbhf Sfnpwf!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft!puifs!uibo!tusvduvsft!gspn!uif!mpu!dpwfsbhf!dbmdvmbujpo!)BND!29/7/2/141*/ Btimboe!dvssfoumz!dpvout!hsbwfm!xbmlxbzt-!hsbwfm!qbet-!efdlt-!boe!qfswjpvt!dpodsfuf!upxbse!uif dpwfsbhf!mjnju!˜!b!cspbefs!efgjojujpo!uibo!nptu!ofjhicpsjoh!Sphvf!Wbmmfz!dpnnvojujft!vtf-!xijdi!dpvou tusvduvsft!pomz!boe!beesftt!puifs!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft!uispvhi!tupsnxbufs!sfwjfx/!Tupsnxbufs!efufoujpo boe!sfufoujpo!sfrvjsfnfout!bepqufe!tjodf!uif!mpu!dpwfsbhf!tuboebse!xbt!dsfbufe!opx!nbobhf!svopgg ejsfdumz-!nbljoh!uif!jodmvtjpo!pg!uiftf!puifs!tvsgbdft!jo!uif!dpwfsbhf!mjnju!sfevoebou!˜!b!sfdfou!uisff.mpu qbsujujpo!po!Qjof!Tusffu-!gps!fybnqmf-!sfrvjsfe!spvhimz!%2:-111!jo!po.tjuf!efufoujpo!jogsbtusvduvsf!up!gvmmz nbobhf!tjuf!tupsnxbufs/!Uijt!dibohf!jt!bmtp!b!qsbdujdbm!qsfsfrvjtjuf!gps!tfwfsbm!pg!uif!efotjuz!jufnt cfmpx/ 8/!Njojnvn!Mpu!Tj{f!boe!uif!Qfsgpsnbodf!Tuboebset!Pqujpo Fwbmvbuf!sfevdjoh!tuboebse!njojnvn!mpu!tj{ft!)BND!29/3/6/141*!boe!fyqboejoh!ps!npsf!gmfyjcmz!bqqmzjoh uif!Qfsgpsnbodf!Tuboebset!Pqujpo!pwfsmbz!)BND!29/4/:*!up!bmmpx!tnbmmfs!mput!boe!jodsfbtfe!efotjuz!jo npsf!bsfbt!pg!uif!djuz/ 9/!Beejujpobm!Bddfttpsz!Exfmmjoh!Vojut Bnfoe!BND!29/3/4/151!up!bmmpx!vq!up!uxp!bddfttpsz!exfmmjoh!vojut!qfs!mpu-!dpotjtufou!xjui!uif!bqqspbdi uif!Djuz!pg!Ubmfou!ibt!bepqufe/ JJJ/!Fnfshjoh!boe!Qsphsfttjwf!Ipvtjoh!Uzqft :/!Gmbh!Mpu!Tuboebset Bnfoe!BND!29/6/4!up!bmmpx!beejujpobm!exfmmjoht!tfswfe!cz!b!tjohmf!gmbh!mpu!esjwfxbz!boe!sfevdf!esjwfxbz eftjho!tuboebset-!tvckfdu!up!Gjsf!Efqbsunfou!bqqspwbm/ Tubgg!tipvme!bmtp!beesftt!esjwfxbzt!boe!qvcmjd!sjhiut.pg.xbz!uibu!fydffe!bo!29&!hsbef!jo!bddfttjoh mbxgvm!mput!pg!sfdpse-!bo!jttvf!dvssfoumz!tdifevmfe!cfgpsf!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!po!9022!)uif!qbdlfu xbt!opu!zfu!gjobmj{fe!bu!uif!ujnf!pg!uijt!nfnp*/!Nptu!qspqfsujft!xjmm!opu!cf!bggfdufe-!cvu!b!iboegvm!gbdf!sfbm ibsetijq/!Bu!42:!Xftu!Tusffu-!b!mpu!dsfbufe!jo!uif!mbuf!2:91t-!uif!qspqfsuz!jt!op!mpohfs!efwfmpqbcmf cfdbvtf!Xftu!Tusffu!fydffet!b!35&!hsbef!boe!uif!dpoejujpo!pg!bqqspwbm!sfrvjsft!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!gmbh esjwfxbz!tuboebset/!Po!Hsbojuf!Tusffu-!mput!tfswfe!cz!bo!fyjtujoh!tibsfe!esjwfxbz!uibu!bmsfbez!fydffet 29&!dboopu!cf!cvjmu!po!cfdbvtf!boz!esjwfxbz!fyufotjpo!jt!pvu!pg!dpnqmjbodf!gspn!uif!pvutfu!)tff!uif MVCB!efdjtjpo!po!342!Hsbojuf!Tusffu*/ Qbhf!3 Total Page Number: 90 Tubgg!tipvme!bmtp!sfwjtju!uif!dvssfou!svmf!bqqmzjoh!gmbh!mpu!esjwfxbz!tuboebset!up!boz!esjwfxbz!mpohfs!uibo 61!gffu-!sfhbsemftt!pg!dpogjhvsbujpo/!Uif!tdsffojoh!tuboebse!jo!qbsujdvmbs!˜!b!dpoujovpvt!tusjq!pg!gfodjoh ps!tisvccfsz!bmpoh!uif!esjwfxbz!˜!nblft!tfotf!gps!b!usvf!gmbh.qpmf!esjwfxbz-!cvu!dsfbuft!bo voofdfttbsz!gmbnnbcmf!mboetdbqjoh!tusjq!boe!spvujofmz!usjhhfst!bwpjebcmf!wbsjbodf!sfrvftut!xifo!bqqmjfe up!tibsfe!esjwfxbzt!ps!puifs!mpoh!esjwfxbzt!uibu!bsf!opu!jo!b!gmbh!mpu!dpogjhvsbujpo/ 21/!Ijmmtjef!Tmpqf!Tuboebset Dmbsjgz!tubgg(t!ejtdsfujpo!voefs!BND!29/4/21!up!fyfnqu!ps!tusfbnmjof!sfwjfx!xifsf!pomz!b!tnbmm-!jtpmbufe qpsujpo!pg!b!mpu!fydffet!uif!46&!tmpqf!uisftipme!˜!gps!fybnqmf-!b!tmpqf!dsfbufe!cz!b!esjwfxbz!ps!cvjmejoh qbe!dvu!sbuifs!uibo!uif!mpu(t!voefsmzjoh!upqphsbqiz/ 22/!Tvqqpsujwf!Tjohmf!Sppn!Pddvqbodz!)TSP*!Ipvtjoh Bnfoe!Dibqufs!29!up!fyqmjdjumz!efgjof!boe!qfsnju!tvqqpsujwf!tjohmf!sppn!pddvqbodz!ipvtjoh-!dpotjtufou xjui!sfdfou!Psfhpo!mfhjtmbujpo!sfrvjsjoh!djujft!up!bmmpx!TSP!efwfmpqnfou!˜!cvjmejoht!xjui!bu!mfbtu!gpvs sfoufe-!mpdlbcmf!sppnt!uibu!qspwjef!mjwjoh!boe!tmffqjoh!tqbdf!cvu!tibsf!ljudifo!ps!cbuisppn!gbdjmjujft!˜!jo nboz!sftjefoujbm!{poft/!TSP!ipvtjoh!jt!pof!pg!uif!gfx!ipvtjoh!uzqft!uibu!dbo!cf!efmjwfsfe!rvjdlmz!boe!bu hfovjofmz!mpx!dptu<!Dibqufs!29!epft!opu!dvssfoumz!efgjof!ju!bt!b!ejtujodu!vtf!ps!tqfdjgz!xijdi!sftjefoujbm {poft!qfsnju!ju/ 23/!Sfdsfbujpobm!Wfijdmft!bt!bo!Bmmpxfe!Ipvtjoh!Uzqf Bmmpx!uif!vtf!pg!SWt!bt!ipvtjoh!pvusjhiu!jo!bmm!sftjefoujbm!{poft-!mjnjufe!up!pof!SW!qfs!sftjefoujbm!mpu- qspwjefe!uif!wfijdmf!jt!opu!qbslfe!xjuijo!uif!gspou!zbse!tfucbdl/!Tubuf!mbx!bmsfbez!sfdphoj{ft!SWt!bt!bo bmmpxfe!ipvtjoh!uzqf!jo!uif!nbovgbduvsfe!ipnf!qbsl!{pof<!uifsf!jt!op!qsjodjqmfe!cbtjt!gps!qfsnjuujoh!uibu vtf!jo!pof!sftjefoujbm!{pof!xijmf!qspijcjujoh!ju!jo!fwfsz!puifs!sftjefoujbm!{pof/!SWt!bsf!bnpoh!uif!nptu bggpsebcmf-!qpsubcmf-!boe!sfbejmz!bwbjmbcmf!obuvsbmmz!pddvssjoh!ipvtjoh!uzqft!jo!uif!dvssfou!nbslfu-!boe bmmpxjoh!pof!qfs!mpu!djuz.xjef-!tvckfdu!up!uif!gspou.zbse!tfucbdl!mjnjubujpo-!xpvme!nfbojohgvmmz!fyqboe Btimboe(t!tvqqmz!pg!mpx.dptu!ipvtjoh!xjuipvu!ofx!dpotusvdujpo/ JW/!Efwfmpqnfou!Tuboebset!Dsfbujoh!Vodfsubjouz 24/!Tpmbs!Bddftt!Tuboebset Btimboe(t!tpmbs!bddftt!tuboebset!)BND!29/5/9*!nbef!tfotf!xifo!bepqufe-!cvu!npefso!fofshz!dpeft!˜ jodmvejoh!Fbsui!Bewboubhf!boe!tjnjmbs!tuboebset!˜!ibwf!tjhojgjdboumz!sfevdfe!ipnft(!sfmjbodf!po!qbttjwf tpmbs!eftjho-!xijmf!uif!tuboebse!jutfmg!dsfbuft!sfbm!dptut;!ju!sfrvjsft!xjefs!mput!uibo!uif!voefsmzjoh!{pojoh ejtusjdu!puifsxjtf!sfrvjsft-!sfevdjoh!uif!ovncfs!pg!mput!bdijfwbcmf!po!opsui.tpvui!psjfoufe!tusffut-!boe!jut tfucbdl!dbmdvmbujpo!˜!xijdi!nfbtvsft!tmpqf!gspn!uif!njeqpjou!pg!uif!tvckfdu!qspqfsuz!up!b!qpjou!261!gffu up!uif!opsui!˜!dbo!buusjcvuf!b!tuffq!tmpqf!up!b!mpu!uibu!jt!opu!bduvbmmz!tuffq-!qbsujdvmbsmz!xifsf!b opsui.tpvui!psjfoufe!mpu!ibt!boz!fbtu.xftu!dsptt.tmpqf/!Bu!njojnvn-!ofxmz!dsfbufe!joufsjps!mput!xjuijo!b tjohmf!tvcejwjtjpo!ps!qbsujujpo!tipvme!cf!fyfnqufe!gspn!tpmbs!tfucbdl!sfrvjsfnfout-!xijmf!fyjtujoh!ipnft boe!qspqfsujft!po!uif!qspkfdu(t!opsui!qfsjnfufs!dpoujovf!up!cf!qspufdufe/!Tubgg!tipvme!bmtp!sfwjfx!uif voefsmzjoh!tfucbdl!dbmdvmbujpo!nfuipe!up!dpssfdu!uif!tmpqf.nfbtvsfnfou!ejtupsujpo!eftdsjcfe!bcpwf/ Qbhf!4 Total Page Number: 91 25/!Mboetdbqf!Cvggfst Dmbsjgz!uibu!mboetdbqf!cvggfs!tuboebset!˜!jodmvejoh!uif!fjhiu.gppu!cvggfs!sfrvjsfe!cfuxffo!qbsljoh!tqbdft boe!tusvduvsft!˜!bsf!joufoefe!gps!mbshfs.tdbmf-!uzqjdbmmz!nvmujgbnjmz!efwfmpqnfou-!opu!fwfsz!Tjuf!Eftjho Sfwjfx!jowpmwjoh!buubdife!ipvtjoh/!Bqqmjfe!up!b!evqmfy-!usjqmfy-!ps!rvbeqmfy-!uijt!cvggfs!dpotvnft!tjuf bsfb!xjuipvu!b!dmfbs!cfofgju-!tjodf!uif!qbsljoh!tqbdf!cfjoh!cvggfsfe!uzqjdbmmz!tfswft!uif!wfsz!voju!ju!tjut cftjef!sbuifs!uibo!bo!vosfmbufe!qspqfsuz/!Tubgg!tipvme!fwbmvbuf!b!sfevdfe!ps!fyfnqufe!tuboebse!gps tnbmmfs!buubdife!ipvtjoh!uzqft/ 26/!Dpoejujpobm!Vtf!Qfsnju!Dsjufsjb Efgjof!uif!”bmm!puifs!gbdupst!gpvoe!sfmfwbou•!dbudi.bmm!jo!uif!dpoejujpobm!vtf!qfsnju!bqqspwbm!dsjufsjb!)BND 29/6/5/161*!xjui!npsf!tqfdjgjd-!qsfejdubcmf!gbdupst/!Uijt!dbudi.bmm!jt!ftqfdjbmmz!ejggjdvmu!up!bqqmz!xifsf!b dpoejujpobm!vtf!qfsnju!jt!usjhhfsfe!opu!cz!bo!bduvbm!dibohf!jo!vtf-!cvu!cz!b!dpogmjdu!cfuxffo!uif!ovncfs!pg vojut!b!{pof!bmmpxt!boe!uif!Nbyjnvn!Qfsnjuufe!Gmpps!Bsfb!)NQGB*!tuboebse!˜!bt!jo!b!sfdfou!Opsui!Nbjo Tusffu!bqqmjdbujpo!qspqptjoh!gpvs!exfmmjoht-!uif!ovncfs!pg!vojut!uif!{pof!boujdjqbuft-!uibu!sfrvjsfe!b dpoejujpobm!vtf!qfsnju!tpmfmz!cfdbvtf!uif!bttpdjbufe!gmpps!bsfb!fydffefe!uif!gjyfe!NQGB!dbq/!Tubgg tipvme!fwbmvbuf!b!npsf!ubjmpsfe!bqqspwbm!qbuixbz!gps!sfrvftut!up!fydffe!NQGB!uibu!bsf!puifsxjtf dpotjtufou!xjui!uif!{pof(t!bmmpxfe!voju!dpvou/ 27/!Tusffu!Tuboebset Btimboe(t!tusffu!eftjho!tuboebset!bsf!ejggjdvmu!up!nffu!jo!gvmm!po!ofbsmz!boz!jogjmm!ps!qbsujujpo!bqqmjdbujpo-!boe bt!b!qsbdujdbm!nbuufs-!nptu!ofx!tvcejwjtjpot!boe!mboe!ejwjtjpot!sfrvjsf!bo!fydfqujpo/!Uijt!gvodujpot!bt!b tjhojgjdbou-!mbshfmz!vojoufoujpobm!cbssjfs!up!njeemf!ipvtjoh!mboe!ejwjtjpot!jo!qbsujdvmbs-!boe!beet!vodfsubjouz up!boz!bqqmjdbujpo!jowpmwjoh!gspoubhf!jnqspwfnfout!˜!jo!bu!mfbtu!pof!dbtf-!b!tvctuboujbm!efwfmpqnfou qspqptbm!bu!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!boe!Ijhixbz!77!ibt!opu!npwfe!gpsxbse-!jo!qbsu!cfdbvtf!gvmm!gspoubhf jnqspwfnfout!xfsf!ftujnbufe!bu!spvhimz!%911-111/!Tubgg!tipvme!fwbmvbuf!bo!benjojtusbujwf!”Mfhbdz Tusffu•!efufsnjobujpo!qspdftt-!npefmfe!po!Nfegpse(t!bqqspbdi-!voefs!xijdi!Qvcmjd!Xpslt!dbo!gjoe!uibu tmpqf-!vujmjujft-!fyjtujoh!usfft-!fodspbdinfout-!boe!bekbdfou!jnqspwfnfout!˜!opu!uif!dpef!tuboebse!bmpof ˜!tipvme!efufsnjof!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!gspoubhf!jnqspwfnfou!gps!bo!fyjtujoh-!tvctuboebse!tusffu-!xjuipvu sfrvjsjoh!b!wbsjbodf!ps!fydfqujpo/ 28/!Njeemf!Ipvtjoh!Mboe!Ejwjtjpot!boe!Sjhiu.pg.Xbz!Jnqspwfnfout Fwbmvbuf!boe!dpssfdu!uif!jodpotjtufodz!cfuxffo!uif!Djuz(t!usfbunfou!pg!tuboebse!qbsujujpot!boe!Njeemf Ipvtjoh!Mboe!Ejwjtjpot!po!qspqfsujft!xjui!tvctuboebse!sjhiu.pg.xbz!jnqspwfnfout/!Uif!Djuz!dvssfoumz bmmpxt!b!tuboebse!mpu!tqmju!po!b!qspqfsuz!xjuipvu!gvmm!sjhiu.pg.xbz!jnqspwfnfout-!cvu!epft!opu!fyufoe!uif tbnf!usfbunfou!up!b!Njeemf!Ipvtjoh!Mboe!Ejwjtjpo!po!uibu!tbnf!qspqfsuz!˜!sbjtjoh!dpnqmjbodf!dpodfsot voefs!uif!tubuf(t!Njeemf!Ipvtjoh!Mboe!Ejwjtjpo!nboebuf/ W/!Ufsnjopmphz 29/!Bddfttpsz!Voju!Ufsnjopmphz Bnfoe!Dibqufs!29!up!sfqmbdf!uif!ufsn!”Bddfttpsz!Sftjefoujbm!Voju!)BSV*•!xjui!”Bddfttpsz!Exfmmjoh!Voju )BEV*-•!dpotjtufou!xjui!tubuf!tubuvuf/ Qbhf!5 Total Page Number: 92 Gps!fbdi!jufn-!tubgg!tipvme!jefoujgz!uif!tqfdjgjd!dpef!tfdujpot!sfrvjsjoh!bnfoenfou-!boz!mfhbm!ps!tubuf!mbx dpotjefsbujpot-!boe!b!sfdpnnfoefe!ujnfmjof!gps!gpsnbm!bepqujpo/!Jufnt!uibu!dbo!cf!beesfttfe!uispvhi uif!ipvtflffqjoh!bnfoenfou!qspdftt!bmsfbez!voefsxbz!tipvme!cf!gmbhhfe!gps!jodmvtjpo!jo!uibu!qbdlbhf< jufnt!sfrvjsjoh!b!qvcmjd!ifbsjoh!tipvme!cf!tdifevmfe!bt!qspnqumz!bt!qsbdujdbm/!Uif!pckfdujwf!pg!uijt ejsfdujpo!jt!opu!up!sftpmwf!fwfsz!pqfo!qpmjdz!rvftujpo!xjuijo!71!ebzt-!cvu!up!fotvsf!uif!Djuz!ibt!b!dmfbs- tubgg.wfuufe!qbui!˜!xjui!dpodsfuf!ofyu!tufqt!boe!b!qvcmjd!qspdftt!˜!gps!beesfttjoh!fbdi!jufn/ Qbhf!6 Total Page Number: 93 “ ” Councilor Dahle and Councilor Sherrell have presented a requestto Council to direct . These code amendments are external to the current workplan of the department. C The Community Development Department has an establishedworkplanbased onpriorities set by Counciland mandated by the State. This includes developing and implementing strategies from the Housing Production Strategy, participating in the development of the Transportation System Plan, preparing for code amendments related to the Community n Plan, and implementing a number of state-mandate changes. Moving forward with these newly code amendments will likely remove or delay one or more of these priorities and thus should be considered in the context of the Department’s full workplan. Over thchanges that shift a number of planning actions from legislative to administrative processes. These changes include preparing new forms, new notices, new templates, , updating the website, etc. S’s capacity to prepare “code amendment concepts” for the eighteen proposed amendments will be limited. th October 20with a project list of all ongoing city-requested planning projects, so that Council can consider Councilor Dahle’s and Councilor Sherrell’s proposal in the context of the department’s already established workload. Total Page Number: 94 William H. Sherlock • Attorney • Partner Dawn A. Furtado • Senior Paralegal lsherlock@eugenelaw.com dfurtado@eugenelaw.com Zack P. Mittge • Attorney zmittge@eugenelaw.com Emil J. Sadofsky • Attorney esadofsky@eugenelaw.com , 2025 Via E-mail: PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us & derek.severson@ashlandoregon.gov Ashland City Council c/o Ashland Planning Department Community Development and Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way 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 DearPlanning Commission: 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. Our office submitted a letter, dated August 10, 2026, in opposition to the original proposed language of PA-L-2026-00020, and attorney Emil Sadofsky appeared at the August 11, 2026, Planning Commission hearing to provide a statement summarizing our objections to the proposed ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.3.060 (the “Ordinance”). Planning Commission staff’s changes to the language of the Ordinance do not address the objections we raised, the concerns of Ashland residents, or the Planning Commission’s reasoning for rejecting the Ordinance. The proposed changes to the language of the Ordinance do not materially change the substance of the Ordinance as originally drafted. The new language changes the paragraph structure and wording of the Ordinance and may serve to make the Ordinance clearer. The new language also makes express reference to variance criteria that were already applicable to the original ordinance. Nothing in the Total Page Number: 95 Ashland City Council August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 4 ___________________________________________ new language addresses any of the concerns raised in our letter of August 10, 2026. A brief summary of those arguments follows: (1) the proposed changes are contrary to state law; (2) the proposed changes are contrary to the City of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan; (3) the proposed changes are contrary to the City of Ashland’s 2025 Community Wildfire Protection Plan; (4) the proposed changes negatively impact environmental and geological public interest; (5) the proposed changes will make Ashland an extreme outlier among Oregon municipalities with respect to the driveway grades it allows; and (6) the proposed changes lack a reasonable relationship to legitimate development needs. Our August 10, 2026, letter also noted that there was no indication that, underAMC 18.5.3.060.I, Planning Commission staff consulted with the Fire Department. After testimony from the Fire Department at the August 11, 2026, public hearing, we are convinced that the Fire Department was consulted. However, the Fire Department representative’s failure to articulate objective standards for when the Fire Department would deny a variance in excess of 18% does nothing to eliminate concerns over subjective and ad hoc standards for approval of dangerously steep driveways. For a full treatment of these issues, refer to our letter of August 10, 2026, which we have attached to this letter as Exhibit 1. A. The City of Ashland’s Exposure to Inverse Condemnation Liability Based on the 1997 Hillside Development Standards is Minimal. Government action that deprives an owner of all economically viable uses of their land can constitute a taking and entitle the owner to a claim for compensation against the government actor. Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution. An owner may also bring a federal claim under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 185 (2019). The standard under Oregon law is that a regulation constitutes a taking only when it deprives the owner of “any economically viable use of the property.” Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State, 339 Ore. 136, 150 (2005). Oregon statutory law allowsownersto seek compensation for certain regulations that reduce the value of their property. ORS 185.305. However, the statutory remedy is never available when the regulation was passed for the protection of public health and safety. The Ordinance proposes to amend the language of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (“ALUO”) that expressly states its purpose to “promote public health \[and\] safety…” AMC 18.5.3.010(D). Thus, the avenue for an owner of a hillside lot to seek compensation from the City of Ashland for denial of a development permit based on the city’s driveway grade is barred as a statutory claim. Both Oregon and federal constitutional law require claimants alleging a regulatory taking show that the challenged regulation deprived their property of all economically valuable uses. Regulations that make a lot difficult to develop for the owners intended use do not give rise to a claimforcompensation from the regulator. The burden is on the owner to show that no economically viable use is possible given the regulatory framework. The City of Ashland’s exposure to a claim for compensation from owners affected by the hillside development standardsisminimal because those owners must show that the regulations render the parcel entirely unbuildable and unsuitable for any other use, including sale to adjacent property owners. To makethis showing, the landowner must demonstrate that no development plan or other use is available under the current regulatory framework. Total Page Number: 96 Ashland City Council August 25, 2026 Page 3 of 4 ___________________________________________ B.The Proposed Changes Do Nothing to Insulate the City of Ashland Against Inverse Condemnation Liability. Under very limited circumstances, an owner canmake a federalclaim for compensation based on a regulation reducing the value of the owner’s land; however, an owner’s knowledge of the regulation at the time of purchase generally defeats such a claim. Where a regulation effects a reduction in value of land the court considers: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and(3) the character of the governmental actions. Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State Land Use Comm'n, 950 F.3d 610, 617 (2020). Where owners purchased land with constructive knowledge of pending land use regulations that would reduce the land’s value, the court held that the owner had no reasonable investment backed expectations of using the land in a manner that did not conform with the pending regulations. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Ore. 172, 185 (1993). The existence of Ashland’s already adopted hillside development standards is an even stronger argument against investment backed expectationsthan in Dodd because the regulations in Dodd had not been fully adopted at the time the landowners took possession. Any owners seeking compensation under federal law for the reduction in value of their land based on the hillside development standards will need to demonstrate thattheir possession of the land occurred prior to their notice of the Ashland hillside development standards. C. The Planning Commission Has Already Rejected the Ordinance for Good Reason. The proposed changes to the Ordinance do nothing to ameliorate the concerns of residents or the potential risks to public safety and health. At the August 11, 2026, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject the Ordinance. Commissioner Maher’s motion was based on the importance of considering the safety and legality of driveway slopes and whether increasing the variance served the public good. He questioned the benefit to the public of making an exception for such a small number of lots. Commissioner Maher’s concerns are well founded. Passing the Ordinance caters to the desires of a small group of elite landowners and disregards the needs and safety of the vast majority of Ashland residents. After the Planning Commission passed the motion to deny the Ordinance, the Planning Commission passed another motion to continue the hearing with amended language. The stated reasoning for the second motions was to: (1) create a more clear and objective standard; (2) to include language that limits application of the variance exception to owners who had purchased the lot after adoption of the city hillside standards. The proposed new language of the Ordinance does nothing to address the Planning Commission’s requests. The new language does not create a more clear and objective standard. Instead, it references directly the standards that would already have been applied to a variance request. The proposed new language does not limit the application of the variance exception to legacy owners, failing to provide the City of Ashland with additional protections against inverse condemnation exposure. Total Page Number: 97 Ashland City Council August 25, 2026 Page 4 of 4 ___________________________________________ D.Conclusion The new language of the Ordinance is substantively indistinguishable from the original language. The Planning Commission has already rejected this proposal for good reason. The Ordinance endangers the public for the benefit of the small group of wealthy landowners. We urge the Planning Commission to remain consistent in their rejection of the Ordinance. Very truly yours, H UTCHINSON C OX William H. Sherlock Zack P. Mittge EmilJ. Sadofsky EJS/df Total Page Number: 98 EXHIBIT 1 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. Total Page Number: 99 EXHIBIT 1 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.” Total Page Number: 100 EXHIBIT 1 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. Total Page Number: 101 EXHIBIT 1 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) \[hereinafter Ashland CWPP\]. Total Page Number: 102 EXHIBIT 1 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. Total Page Number: 103 EXHIBIT 1 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. Total Page Number: 104 EXHIBIT 1 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 Total Page Number: 105 EXHIBIT 1 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 Total Page Number: 106 EXHIBIT 1 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. Total Page Number: 107 EXHIBIT 1 Ashland City Council August 10, 2026 Page 10 of 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 Total Page Number: 108 Total Page Number: 109 Total Page Number: 110 Total Page Number: 111 KBDL!EBWJT TBN!!C/!EBWJT!)2:34.3128* TJEOFZ!F/!BJOTXPSUI!)2:38.3114* DISJTUJBO!F/!IFBSO EPOBME!N/!QJOOPDL!.!Sfujsfe EBOJFM!M/!IBSSJT!.!Sfujsfe FVHFOF!W/!BOEFSTPO EBWJE!W/!HJMTUSBQ!.!Sfujsfe SBDIFMF!S/!TFMWJH TVTBO!WPHFM!TBMBEPGG!.!Sfujsfe HBSSJTPO!G/!UVSOFS!.!Sfujsfe BOESFX!N/!OBSVT BQ SPGFTTJPOBM D PSQPSBUJPO F TUBCMJTIFE!2:64 626!F BTU N BJO!T USFFU B TIMBOE-!P SFHPO:8631 )652*!593.4222!}!xxx/ebwjtifbso/dpn B VHVTU 36-!3137 UP;!!!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!)QD.qvcmjd.uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt* GSPN;!!Disjt!Ifbso!)difbsoAebwjtifbso/dpn* SF;!!Qmboojoh!Bdujpo!QB.M.3137.11131!.!Esbgu!Psejobodf!Op/!441:!Bnfoejoh! !BND!29/6/4/171!)Gmbh!Esjwf!Hsbeft*<!Dpoujovfe!Ifbsjoh!pg!Bvhvtu!36-!3137 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dibjs!boe!Dpnnjttjpofst; J!tvcnju!uijt!dpnnfou!jo!tvqqpsu!pg!uif!qspqptfe!bnfoenfout!up!BND 29/6/4/171/!Cz!xbz!pg!ejtdmptvsf-!uijt!gjsn!sfqsftfout!Cszbo!boe!Tufqibojf!EfCpfs-!uif pxofst!pg!b!mbxgvm!mpu!pg!sfdpse!bu!342!Hsbojuf!Tusffu!dsfbufe!jo!2::6!xjui!Qmboojoh Dpnnjttjpo!bqqspwbm-!boe!cfgpsf!uif!Djuz!bepqufe!uif!Ijmmtjef!Efwfmpqnfou!Tuboebset/! Uif!pomz!gfbtjcmf!bddftt!up!uifjs!mfhbm!mpu!jt!bo!fyjtujoh!tibsfe!esjwfxbz!xjui!b!hsbef fydffejoh!29&/!Uif!EfCpfst(!qfoejoh!mboe!vtf!nbuufs!boe!fotvjoh!MVCB!efdjtjpo jmmvtusbuft!qsfdjtfmz!uif!qspcmfn!uif!esbgu!psejobodf!jt!eftjhofe!up!tpmwf-!boe!J!pggfs uiftf!dpnnfout!gspn!uibu!wboubhf!qpjou/ 2/!!Tvctfdujpo!G/4!!tipvme!cf!bepqufe/!!Bt!dvssfoumz!dpotusvfe-!BND!29/6/4/171/G dbufhpsjdbmmz!cbst!boz!wbsjbodf!gps!b!gmbh!esjwf!hsbef!bcpwf!29&!hsbef-!op!nbuufs!uif djsdvntubodft/!Gps!uif!tnbmm!tfu!pg!mbxgvm!mput!pg!sfdpse!dsfbufe!xjui!Djuz!bqqspwbm cfgpsf!Efdfncfs!4-!2::8!)gfxfs!uibo!31!djuzxjef-!cz!tubgg(t!dpvou*-!boe!xiptf!mfhbdz bddftt!bmsfbez!fydffet!uibu!hsbef-!uif!dvssfou!wbsjbodf!tuboebse!pqfsbuft!opu!bt!b efwfmpqnfou!sfhvmbujpo!cvu!bt!bo!pvusjhiu!qspijcjujpo!po!boz!vtf!pg!b!mbxgvmmz!dsfbufe sftjefoujbm!mpu/!B!dsjufsjb.cbtfe!wbsjbodf!qbui!sftupsft!xibu!uif!Ijmmtjef!Tuboebset!xfsf ofwfs!joufoefe!up!fmjnjobuf;!uif!bcjmjuz!pg!uiftf!hsboegbuifsfe!mput!up!cf!efwfmpqfe!bu!bmm/ Tubgg(t!ubljoht!bobmztjt!jt!xfmm!ublfo-!boe!uif!bnfoenfou!bmtp!bmjhot!uif!dpef!xjui!uif Djuz(t!pcmjhbujpot!sftqfdujoh!ipvtjoh!qspevdujpo!po!sftjefoujbmmz!{pofe!mboe/ 3/!!Uif!pqujpobm!ibse!dbq!pg!36&!jo!G/4!tipvme!cf!pnjuufe<!uif!wbsjbodf dsjufsjb!bsf!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!tbgfhvbse/!Uif!sfe.ufyu!pqujpo!xpvme!usbef!pof dbufhpsjdbm!cbs!gps!bopuifs/!Uif!mput!G/4!beesfttft!ublf!bddftt!pwfs!mfhbdz!esjwfxbzt xiptf!hsbeft!bsf!gjyfe!gbdut!pg!upqphsbqiz!boe!ijtupsz<!b!gjyfe!ovnfsjd!dfjmjoh!xjmm Qbhf!.3. Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo QB.M.3137.11131 Bvhvtu!36-!3137 jofwjubcmz!fydmvef!tpnf!pg!uif!wfsz!mput!uif!fydfqujpo!fyjtut!up!sfmjfwf-!sfdsfbujoh!uif op.sfmjfg!qspcmfn!uif!bnfoenfou!jt!nfbou!up!gjy/!Uif!hfovjof!tbgfhvbset!bsf!bmsfbez!jo uif!esbgu;!uif!G/7!sfrvjsfnfou!pg!tubnqfe!fohjoffsjoh!efnpotusbujoh!uibu!op dpogpsnjoh!bmjhonfou!dbo!qspwjef!bddftt!boe!uibu!uif!sfrvftufe!hsbef!jt!uif!njojnvn ofdfttbsz<!uif!gvmm!BND!29/6/6!wbsjbodf!dsjufsjb<!boe!uif!G/6!sfrvjsfnfou!pg!b sfdpnnfoebujpo!gspn!uif!Gjsf!Dpef!Pggjdjbm!jo!fwfsz!dbtf/ Jg!uif!Dpnnjttjpo!opofuifmftt!sfubjot!b!ovnfsjd!dfjmjoh-!uif!psejobodf!tipvme tqfdjgz!uibu!ju!jt!nfbtvsfe!bt!uif!bwfsbhf!hsbef!pg!uif!gmbh!esjwf!sbuifs!uibo!bu!boz!tjohmf qpjou!ps!tfdujpo-!tp!uibu!tipsu-!fohjoffsfe!usbotjujpot!ep!opu!ejtrvbmjgz!bo puifsxjtf.bqqspwbcmf!bddftt/ 4/!!Uif!G/5!dvnvmbujwf.mfohui!mjnjubujpo!tipvme!opu!bqqmz!dbufhpsjdbmmz!up G/4!mput/!Nboz!qsf.2::8!mput!ublf!bddftt!pwfs!fyjtujoh!tibsfe!esjwfxbzt!uibu!bmsfbez!svo xfmm!cfzpoe!311!gffu!bu!hsbeft!bcpwf!26!qfsdfou/!Jg!G/5(t!311.gppu!dvnvmbujwf!dbq!bqqmjft xjuipvu!sfmjfg!up!G/4!wbsjbodft-!b!tvctfu!pg!hsboegbuifsfe!mput!xjmm!sfnbjo!vocvjmebcmf opuxjuituboejoh!uif!ofx!fydfqujpo/!!Uibu!xpvme!bhbjo!sfqspevdf!uif!dbufhpsjdbm!cbs voefs!b!ejggfsfou!tvctfdujpo/!J!sfdpnnfoe!fjuifs!uibu!G/5!bqqmz!pomz!up!G/3!)qptu.2::8* wbsjbodft-!ps!uibu!G/5!fyqsfttmz!qfsnju!uif!dvnvmbujwf!mfohui!gps!bo!G/4!mpu!up!cf beesfttfe!uispvhi!uif!tbnf!wbsjbodf-!tvckfdu!up!uif!tbnf!G/6!boe!G/7!tbgfhvbset/!Bu njojnvn-!G/5!tipvme!dpvou!pomz!ofxmz!dpotusvdufe!esjwfxbz!tfdujpot!bhbjotu!uif 311.gppu!mjnju-!opu!up!b!qsf.fyjtujoh!mfhbdz!esjwfxbz!uif!bqqmjdbou!eje!opu!dsfbuf!boe dboopu!dibohf/ 5/!!Tubgg!jt!dpssfdu!uibu!fmjhjcjmjuz!tipvme!svo!xjui!uif!mboe/! Bo!pxofstijq.dpoujovjuz!usjhhfs!xpvme!sfoefs!b!cvjmebcmf!mpu!vocvjmebcmf!vqpo!tbmf!ps joifsjubodf-!dpousbsz!up!uif!tfuumfe!Psfhpo!qsbdujdf!uibu!mboe!vtf!foujumfnfout!boe opodpogpsnjoh!sjhiut!svo!xjui!uif!mboe/!Gvsuifs-!ju!xpvme!cvsefo!uif!Djuz!xjui dibjo.pg.ujumf!benjojtusbujpo!xijmf!tufbejmz!tisjoljoh!uif!dmbtt!pg!fmjhjcmf!mput!upxbse {fsp/!Uif!Nfbtvsf!4805:!fyqfsjfodf!dpvotfmt!bhbjotu!pxofstijq.ebuf!foujumfnfout/ Uif!bnfoenfou!qsftfswft!uif!qspufdujwf!qvsqptf!pg!uif!Ijmmtjef!Efwfmpqnfou Tuboebset;!opuijoh!jo!ju!jt!tfmg.fyfdvujoh-!fwfsz!bqqmjdbujpo!nvtu!tbujtgz!uif!wbsjbodf dsjufsjb!cbtfe!po!tubnqfe!fohjoffsjoh!qmbot-!boe!gjsf.mjgf.tbgfuz!sfwjfx!sfnbjot joefqfoefou/!!Ju!tjnqmz!fotvsft!uibu!b!tnbmm!dmbtt!pg!mbxgvmmz!dsfbufe!mput!xijdi!ibwf ijtupsjdbmmz!cffo!jodmvefe!jo!uif!Djuz“t!cvjmebcmf!mboet!jowfoupsz-!bsf!opu!dpotjhofe!up qfsnbofou!vocvjmebcjmjuz!cz!b!tuboebse!bepqufe!bgufs!uifjs!dsfbujpo/! J!vshf!uif!Dpnnjttjpo!up!sfdpnnfoe!bqqspwbm!up!uif!Djuz!Dpvodjm!xjui!uif bekvtunfout!eftdsjcfe!jo!qbsbhsbqit!3!boe!4/ Uibol!zpv!gps!zpvs!dpotjefsbujpo/ E BWJT-I FBSO-!B OEFSTPO!'!T FMWJH B!Qspgfttjpobm!Dpsqpsbujpo 626F BTU N BJO!T USFFU!}!B TIMBOE-!P SFHPO!:8631 Qipof;!)652*!593/4222!}!Gby;!)652*!599.5566!}!Xfc;!!xxx/ebwjtifbso/dpn Qbhf!.4. Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo QB.M.3137.11131 Bvhvtu!36-!3137 Sftqfdugvmmz!tvcnjuufe- E BWJT!I FBSO!B OEFSTPO!'T FMWJH-QD Disjtujbo!F/!Ifbso!)PTC!$:2293:* difbsoAebwjtifbso/dpn E BWJT-I FBSO-B OEFSTPO!'T FMWJH B!Qspgfttjpobm!Dpsqpsbujpo 626F BTU!N BJO!T USFFU!}B TIMBOE-P SFHPO!:8631 Qipof;!)652*!593/4222!}!Gby;!)652*!599.5566!}!Xfc;!!xxx/ebwjtifbso/dpn