HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1004 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, October 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5:30 p.m. Study Session
1 . Look Ahead Review
2. Does the Council have questions for the consultant team of Kittelson and
Associates, Inc. regarding the implementation of the Transportation System Plan
update? [30 Minutes]'
3. Will the Council add code language to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), creating
an Advanced Financing of Public Improvement section? [30 Minutes]
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
"
~
'"
m
N N N N ~ N <D 0: ::; 0; - - - ;;; ::: ;; '" '" .... '" '" ... '" N -
'" ... '" N 0 '" ... '"
:>0 :>;JJ ~ :> Cll"Tl ~~ :> lJ on :> ~ 00 ~ ~ ~i; ~I 6'~ 00 CllI ;JJ jj:> :> 0
"-a. "-'" "Tl 03 S" 0 iil (ii' =u "- 9: a. 9: a. _, 0 g 0'0 '0 0;'
3 -, 3 '" Z :J III '" III 0 '" 0 < "- III C. ~'O "- <,,- f5a: 0''Si '0 0
-, :J _, 0 i3 g-~ ~a {i '" c: ;JJ III III ~ :r a. III i3 III III III ~ :r 1::0 i3 c:
:!. m :J - s: '" :J CD CD CD :J - Q ::> '"
_,c: < :J '" 0 :J III < o '" :J III o < <
'" :J rJI :=-. !!!. III :J '" -, 0 III !it ~. < '" o :J 0 !!!. '" - o :J 0 ,,-!!!. !!!. '"
-0 =to '" -lJ :J _ :J 0 ~' S- '" !il - 0 a '" !il 0'
iil '" ~!2: "- :J ,,-0 '0 :J ~a
!!l.:J a ~ S:1ll 0 0' " ::03 Cll a ::03 0 0 :J
=CD cr <D ~~ "- '" :J 0 "Tl Cll c: G) 3 "TlCll '" 0 - III
0", n a 5' !:, en 5" 5. '" m .,- ;JJ
:J _ :J .. n Q :J s: ~~ c: n -, III '" G) 0'
-;ol!! 'Ii 0 III a: Q :J 0 III a: g.~ C' 0 "Tl
::oJ' 0 III '0 n - Cll -, CD 0 ~~ 0
~ :J =-~ ., c: :>< :J g III :J :J -, III :J CD lJ c: .
'" :> 0 n 3 ~5 r 0' g,
-. (ii' -, '" ~ a. iil ;JJ '" '" 5' a. co n C en ;JJ ~co 0 0 0' ;JJ
g.,,- g.", "Tl 5' ""3 III 0 0 e,3 0 III ~
'" u ,,- ;JJ '" S n 0' 0' ~ n ~ S
m 5" c: '" :a :J m
III III ~ III '0 '" 0 5' CD 'j2 00 5' :> '"
B~ ~ :J -;0 '" III P 0 '" 0 0 < iil 3 '"
e,,,- '" ~ - c: '" ~ "- Q c: -, "- Q 5' "Tl c: C'
'" 5' iii '" ~ '" '" iii 0 '" '" c: '" '" z iii
'" n 0 0 e r ~ '" :J =t'" 5' :J cO CD
.2: '" ~ 0 '" lJ ~ ig 10 0 lJ ~
'" ,,- - III 0' 0' 0 Q '" i3 [0 Q III '"
"- 0 0 co III 0 "Tl
'" III r -< '" ;;; iil "Tl :J :J
0 3 0 a. iil 0 0 ~ '" ~ iil "- ::>0 :lr
III cO '" :J '-- "- 0 0
:J ~ 5' I!! c: '" s: 5' U 0' c: c: '" s: 5' U ~ g '< :J c: .
'" :l '" iil :l U '" :l en
"- '" ~ ~ ~ '" III 0' :l 2, _, III 0' C' z iil &
n Q 0 " '" 3 ",. :><:J '" P !2. III
n iil a. '" 0 " ~ '" III II> '" 0 :l iil ,,- ~I
,,- iii III s: "Tl '" '" :a 3: ii~ "Tl'" '" '" ~ ,,' 3: .
III s: '< 0' a. '" 5' - n S- 'n S- o' ~ 0
cO iil '" !!l. s: '"
c: g? :l '" III 0 ?' 0 '" 0 ,,- :J '" 0 -
'" :J ~ "" :l 5' '" - - ~ 5' '" 0' III - a.
'" 0' iil 0 S 0 ~ '" 3 en ~. 0' ~ '" '" ~. .
- '" '" '" 0 :J ~
Q ,,' !a ~ ::; ~ '0 '" 0 ~ '0 :J 5'
;JJ c: :J ,,- ~g c: en III .
!!!. lJ 0 0' !1: ~ '" ;JJ !1: :> '< n :J
s: ;!- ~ "- '" 0' ., '" 0 0
c: n i3 '" ,,- 0' E ,,- 0' ~ CD ;:t '"
:J 0 '0 ..... III III 0 5' ~ III 3 '"
.cr c: '" '" P a. 0 .2: a. 0 iil f;::1
::> 0 co 0 :>
,,' ~ 0 :a :a u
0 lJ '0 0
!!!. 3 iil i3 iil '0 -;0 ,,-
'0 '" PI
n 0 '0 U co U !!!. 0
0 5' iil 5' .2:
c: '!.
::> co 3 co
r r lJ ., lJ "Tl "Tl n r lJ lJ r r ., lJ lJ n lJ r r n "Tl ., ., "
'" '" ~ III 5' 5' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 5' @'
co co ;!- :!! . .
!!!. !!!. III III !!!. !!!. !!!. 0 !!!. !!!. 3 III 0
'" " :J '" :J iil 0 .
n 0 0 n n 0 0 .
'" '" '" '" lJ " .
0 I 0 0 < Q. :;
r ;JJ 0' ....
~ '" f!'! .
,.,
(Jl -
(Jl
..
0 0 0 c 0 0 0
;0 ;0 ;0 Z 0 0 0 3 -
~ ~ ~ " Z Z Z
Z (Jl (Jl (Jl '"
(Jl -
(Jl
0 00 c c 0 0 0 0
;0 ;0 ;0 Z Z 0 ;0 ;0 ;0
0 0 0 " " Z " 0 0 0
N N N Z Z (Jl N N N
(Jl (Jl
(Jl (Jl
Oc ;oc c c 0 0 0 " ~
;oz mZ Z Z 0 0 0 ;0
0" (Jl:!J " " Z Z Z m
':"z Z Z Z (Jl (Jl (Jl (Jl '"
0
;0
0
N
.
..
..
8.
'"
'"
"
'"
"
~
o
I
-10
J: _.
1ii~
-0
cn-
)>)>
UI
O~
;:0-
)>g:
"TIc,
-10
)>0
ZC:
O::l
cng,
C:s:
lD...
'-...
m....
0:;'
-Ice
-Ir-
00
o~
J:)>
)>~
Z...
C)"'
mc'
I
\
'" '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" . N N '" '"
.... '" '" "'''' - 0 '" '" .... '"
;JJ enm en 0 fm lJ I 0:>0 IO 0
J:l Dim " a. i3 ~ "- ~ 0 0;' 0;'
-0 '" 5' 0 9:39: 3 0 0
0 '" - III o 0 iii ::J -.:::J c: c:
::> 00' :J, III 5' e- m 2.m ~'" '"
S- _:l fE :J 3"g 3 :l '" :l '" '" '"
S:a 0 !!l. 0 -0 '" -. 0'
'" '" iil '" '" 0
n 5' '" " :J :l :l
0 "'n ~ :J ~ 0' I .., !:!:om '" 0 ~
c: ~~ 0 ;~ " 0' ~g~ '" "
:J - 0' "- :l O'b III '"
-Ill -'" 0
g n c: O'~ '" ;;ag c;:o!:! ~ !i iil .
iP, 0 '" c 9: 0 ~. c1" (ij"
0 c: ;JJ en 5' 2'fE iii ;Ill '" c: !!l.
:J '" n :J ~ - ~ ill ~~2: ~
!l. c: '" ~' "-,,, o.
r '" ,,- ~ '" !an '" ~ :J '" 0
C' g. ~. ~ c: '" cn~CC c: :l
iii o III '" iii III - 0
~ O'b en 0' = II '" n
III ~ o " CD ~r o '" ~ '" 0 -
:.!'" a- 0 '" '" 3 < U o :i" '" '" 0 '" c: "T1
S:1ll II> " 3 g: :J '" '" :l ~"
en III a- III 0 II> '" -,'" 0' g~ '" III 0 3 g ,
'" ~ c: o. '" ;:a :J '" " c: ~ .
<! o I!! :l :l 0 0 5 ; o "- :l "'G)
o. ~~ ~ 0 a. '" - - ~~ 9: () ~ :J 0 0;'
'" III 5. 3 ,,- n :J ,,- ;-!!!. '"
'" 3: :l D> '" '" III - III III 3: n .
~ '" 0 :J 3 c;: :J '" -. :J cO '" g ~ 0..
!1 !!. 0 "- ~'i 0 o '" CD 3 -
:J '" 0'_ c: - -Ill
2- ~. iD '" '" oS ~I '" '" ~. ,,-- 3 .
c;;~ III '" '"
Q. ;JJ CD 0 ;JJ Q ,,-"- in.
o. ",I!! ::.. '" o. '" - '" .
,,- III 0' CD ,,- s: ;:0 0'
III a-I!! '" ~ III c: :J
~ III G> a. :J :;
~~ a- nt '-
'" o. '" 0
~ III ~ ". 5 ,,-
.e '" !!!. :J
3 n
0
c:
::>
:> s: ;JJ ;JJ r ;JJ ;JJ ;JJ r r n "T1
"- ~ '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~. .
3 0 0 0 0 0 CO 3 .
5. Q 0 0 !!!. 0 0 0 !!!. !!!. .
a. a. a. a. a. 0 .
~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" .
~ <
.
I -
,.
I .
I
I
I
I
I en (Jl
(Jl (Jl
I 00 ;;;
";0
99 ::,
~ '"
I '" .
0 Z 0 " ;;; I 0
;0 m 0 ;0 ;0
0 :; Z 0 ~ ';:, 0
N (Jl 0 = N
<;;
0 " " "
0 ;0 ;0 ;0
z m m m "
(Jl (Jl (Jl (Jl
,
..
..
"
~
'"
m
'"
8.
'"
i3
i3
~
o
Jo
J: _.
Cii~
CiiS,
)>)>
In
o~
~~
"TIc,
-10
)>0
zc:
O::l
cng,
C:s:
lD...
ffi~
O::l
-Ice
-Ir-
00
O~
J:)>
)>~
Z...
C)0l
mc'
I
Jo
J: _.
1ii~
-0
cn-
)>)>
UI
O~
;:0-
I )>g:
"TIc,
-10
" )>0
~ I Zc:
'"
m O::l
'" cng,
8.
'" I C:s:
lD...
'-...
m....
I 0:;'
-Ice
-Ir-
00
I o~
J:)>
)>~
I z...
C)0l
mc'
I I
I
I
I
I
I
'" I
;:, I
'"
;:,
~
0
I (Jl
(Jl
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
, Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Transportation System Plan Update
October 4, 2010 Primary Staff Contact:
Public Works E-Mail:
Community De I pment Secondary Contact:
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
James Olson 541 552-2412
olsoni{al,ash land.or. us
Michael R, Faught
30 minutes
Question:
Does the Council have questions for the consultant team of Kittelson and Associates, Inc. regarding the
of the Transportation System Plan update?
Staff Recommendation:
This is not an action item.
Background:
Marc Butorac, Principal Engineer with Kittelson and Associates will provide a presentation of the
ongoing Transportation System Plan (TSP) update project. He will provide an overview ofthe project
including the proposed schedule and will introduce the project website that hils been created to
facilitate information sharing with the public and various team members.
Proiect Summarv
The TSP update is funded, in part, by a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant
administered by ODOT, On June 1,2010 the Council approved an intergovernmental agreement
between the City and ODOT to complete the update at a total cost of$416,740, (The City's
contribution is $241,740.)
The project began on June 28th ofthis year with the "kick-off' meeting. The first efforts were directed
toward the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) to provide input and guidance
throughout the project. The TAC is comprised of representatives from the following organizations:
. City of Ashland Community Development and Public Works Departments (4 persons)
. Jackson County Roads and Parks
. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
. RVMPO and RVCOG
. Ashland Transportation Commission
. Ashland Planning Commission
. ODOT
. Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU)
. Ashland School District No.5
. Southern Oregon University
. Ashland Police Department
. Ashland Chamber of Commerce
. Freight Delivery Businesses
Page I of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Transportation and Planning Commissions are taking a leading role in the update process and have
planned to meet together on eight occasions throughout the project to review progress by the
consultant and provide specific input and guidance. Their first meeting was August 24, 2010.
Related City Policies:
The TSP update supports the Council Goal to: "develop an integrated land use and transportation plan
to increase the viability oftransit, bicycles, walking and other alternative modes of transportation;
reduce per capita automobile vehicle miles traveled; provide safe walking and bicycle routes to home,
work, shopping and schools; implement environmentally responsible design standards; and minimize
new automobile-related infrastructure."
Council Options:
Not applicable.
Potential Motions:
Not applicable.
Attachments:
Letter to Council dated September 16, 2010
Technical Memorandum No, I and 2
Page 2 of2
r.l'
/' /v/l
"I
['~,~
IKDTTEl.SON & ASSOCIATES, iNC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700. Portland, OR 97205 . 503.228.5230 ,. 503.273.8169
September 16, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
RE: Ashlalld Trallspol'tatioll System Plall Update
Dear City Council Members,
We are looking forward to working with you on the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
(TSP) Update, We appreciate the energy and time you're willing to invest in this project and
believe your efforts will ensure that the update process results in a plan that meets the goals and
objectives of the City and other project stakeholders.
The purpose of this welcome letter is to;
· Provide an overview of the project and present the current schedule and key near term
dates;
. Introduce the public project website that was created to facilitate sharing information with
and receiving input from the public; and,
. Provide an introduction for our discussion at the October 4th City Council meeting.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City adopted its current TSP in 1998. In 2008 some Chapters of the TSP were updated but not
adopted. TI,is project will review both the 1998 TSP and the 2008 update work and prepare a
complete update to the City's TSP and take it through the adoption process. The update process
will include evaluating existing transportation conditions within the Ashland Urban Growth
BOlmdary for all modes of transportation. The analysis will include a review of the entire
transportation system for overall circulation, connectivity, and opportunities for enhancing non-
auto travel within the City, The phuming horizon is 2034 to provide consistency with other local
and regional planning efforts. The resulting Updated TSP will guide the transportation
infrastructure, policies, plans, and funding needs over the next 24-year period,
SCHEDULE AND UPCOMING MEETING DATES
Below is the current schedule for the City of Ashland TSP update. The project work is anticipated
to be completed in approximately 18 months with the adoption phase starting in November 2011.
Over the course of the project, the Planning Commission (PC) is currently scheduled to have eight
joint meetings with the Transportation Commission (TC) related to the TSP Update and
Pedestrian Node Concept Plans being developed as part of this project.
FILENAME: C:\OOCUME~l \olsonj\LOCALS~l \ Temp\XPgrpwise\Project Overview Letter.doc
~'"
"'''
"t><n
~~
<:
.!!!
Q,
E
~
~
U)
<:
o
~
o
5}
<:
['!
I-'
"t>
<:
.!!!
<:
'"
'"
I
I i
I I
Ii
i
I I
I I
'x I .
,.-r I
-, 'i'
I
I
I
,
I
-I
~ i'i~
~
;!~
:~
~!
!~
I
I
,
i
I
,
,
i
I
!
I
I
i
I i
I i
-* I i
,___.__1_ I I
I i 1';-
! i l~,
I' I
I I :11
i ! I I
1.,+11- ~
II :
,:t ~mi'
.~' ill j
I
I
I
~ I
~ I
a: !..,
: I ~
i ~ It
~'''I
[I~i
o~
!!i
:;:
.
!:'
.
-.
~ ..~
N
<~
,t
.
.
-.
.
-~
E
~
"t>
<:
['!'"
o~
E~
~\O
-~
'u '-
<:"
~.Q
B~
c1t
O~
I
!
I
I
,
! ~
i~
I ~ I
I ~ i
~l
0'
1ii
"
o
0.
.
"
.
;::.,
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
,
i
-i-j
I I
,
I
I_ I
i
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
J
I
1
I I
i I
i i
f !
, I
! l
! I ':
I
i "I
'"I II
I I
I J ,
i i
I I
l r',
II!
-t L-- i"
, I
! I
- I- "
I I
-j--- -!--,---
! !
, I
, ,
I I !
j I
. I
~ I .~ I ~ !
1! I -.>-: g.1'
.'( c 1 g .~
:g i : 018 ~ 1
~ I ~ ~ I s
g , ~ I Z ;;:
~! <3 ! .~ I ~
.!: I ~ I t; .~,
.~ I 5 l ~ lii I
W ~ I 0. t .:i
, I ,
I
, ~"I
III: [
~ '
I
! 'I
!
I
I
;~1
, I
I
.. -f __n p-
I
I
,"
r
"
I
r
I
I
! '
"
I I
, I
: I i
~'-;-T --- ~
~
'E
E
.
"
>-
g
,
,.
..
u
'.
~
u
If!
I
I
!
,
---"j'
i ' !-
: _____I
I
I
,~ I
;;'
E
J!! I
" I
~ ~ ~
~ t ~ I ~
5 >-1 >.
9 U) I U)
iii g j ~
8 ~ I iii
" 151"
r:: a. &.
. . .
" " "
~ ~ ~
Gi ~ iV
Gi III c:
a: a u:
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
j
,
.1
!I
~I
:0
.
"
"
;;'
~
(Jl
I:
j'
I
I
I
I
I
,
r
i
I
,
o
.
Q
.
"
.
x
.
o
- ':
E
E
o
"
Q
.
"
.
.
~
.
f
..
.
~
c
o
"r:
E
~
"
Q
C
..
C
.
~
.
Q
C
'.
.
.
x
"
c
.
o
"
~
i3
{r
,
:
.
o
x
.
~
o
u
~
~
.
Q
~
.
;
.
o
;;
.
E
E
o
"
.
~
.
c
o
~
~
"::;
E
E
o
"
Q
C
..
.
.
~
E
'.
,
<:
o
~
"
<:
.!!!
~
~
0;
'1j
;:l
~
u
.5
....
'"
'<lI
>.
:a
'1j
<:
<lI
'7ii
u
<lI
-:6
.....
o
'1j
<:
<lI
<lI
-:6
'i3
S
;:
o
<:
6
o
~
<Jl
~
'"
'1j
>.
j!
'7ii
....
<lI
>
<lI
CJ)
6
0..
o
o
0;
o
~
'1j
6 ,~
0.. ....
o ~
o <lI
0; Cl
.e ~
o
~
6
0.. E
g ci. OJ
r' 0 s::
o ,::I
d " f-<
.....
o d
N .....
",0
N N
.... ,,'
~ N
0, ....
~ <lI
U ..c
o .8
u
N 0
.. ,
00.....
,.8 ..
<lI 0..
~ ~
u ~
5 ~
p... u u
.... ;.:l ;.:::l
!~~
d
....
~
00
....
<lI
il
<lI
U
<lI
o
I
N
..
0..
o
..c:
~
o
3:
u
.!;;
:G
~
.~
~
'"
<:
o
!tl
lJ
;,;;
. . .
City Council Memorandum
September 16, 2010
Ashland Transportation System' Plan Update
Page 3
OVERVIEW OF DELIVERABLES & MEETINGS
The project process wnI include a combination of revised chapters from the 1998 TSP and reports
focused on various elements of the transportation system plan. These reports will serve as the
building blocks to prepare the Updated TSP document. These deIiverables will be prepared in
coordination with a series of TAC meetings and joint pcrrc meetings and public workshops.
These interactions will help to guide the development of the plan as well as build the necessary
consensus and support to gain acceptance and adoption by the City of Ashland Planning
Commission and City Council. The general chronology of activities is summarized below. Figure
1 provides a Project Roadmap which shows the sequence of public involvement activities with
the deliverables and meetings throughout the project.
. Technical Memorandum #1 . Existing Policies, Plans, Rules, and Regulations: Summary
of documents that relate to the Updated Ashland TSP (COMPLETED)
. Technical Memorandum #2 - Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria (COMPLETED)
o TAC Meeting #1
o Joint PC{TC Meeting #1
o CC Meeting #1
. Technical Memorandum #3 . Transportation System Inventory (IN PROCESS)
· Technical Memorandum #4 . Baseline Existing System Conditions Report
o TAC Meeting #2
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #2
. Technical Memorandum #5 . Future System Conditions Report
o TAC Meeting #3
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #3
· Technical Memorandum #6 - Develop Pedestrian Node Concepts and Supporting
Documentation
o Key Participant Meetings #1 and #2
o Public Workshop #1 and #2
o TAC Meeting #4
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #4
. Technical Memoranduni #7 - Develop and Analyze Alternatives
o Key Participant Meeting #3
o Public Workshop #3
o TAC Meeting #5
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #5
Kittelson & Assoclatesl Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City Council Memorandum
September 16, 2010
AShland Transportation System Plan Update
Page 4
. Technical Memorandum #8 - Develop Sustainability Policies
o T AC Meeting #6
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #6
. Technical Memorandum #9 - Identify Preferred and Cost-Constrained Alternatives
o T AC Meeting #7
o Joint PCrrc Meeting #7
. Prepare Draft TSP, Implementing Ordinances and Findings
o TAC Meeting #8
o Joint pcrrc Meeting #8
. Revise Draft Updated TSP, Implementing Ordinances and Findings
o Plarming Commission Hearing
o City Council Hearing
. Final TSP Update
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
'Ii'"
~~
0;:'"
..Q.
"
..
o
c:
'"
t-
'"
't:
e
.l;
.1
!
~
:?
i
~
u
~
a
.
;;
~
o
.
.
.
.~
:ii:l:-
.r~"
Q
o
iT"
. ,
'.
B~
~~~
~ ;;;
\LIe::
e,;
>-<
8
..
. ~
>i..'i:
'.0 )
O-!c:
~!i ,
~n] /
Co
lU
E
'a
lU
0
~
1:; ~~ ;
," ~ 0_
~: 1 ~.
~ QI .. OQ
Il..S
~~.: - . .5:
.... ~
;S 0 ~<~ 0 .!l~
.. o. ~
-ll Q. ~~
"0
o~
c:o PI
......
t-M' QI
"'~ ..
....~ ::J
"::. Cl
~g> .-
",,,, I&.
:;~
E~
.0
.0
ll.
.~
.
.
~!!
< .
0'"
U.
.~
,
s
~
'"
.
D
<
.
.
"
U
~
.C
. .
Iii~ a
~~~
-:,
<0
< .
5 ii'
=:'l
~ ~ \/
.0
1~
]!Z
11.
<.
H
'0
11.
.'
<
Z
o~
SF
""-
51
-'l~
~
.2~
'''N
'<.
. .
.
o
o.
~~
~ g \
.0 )
. .
~~
'!l:Z
~ ~ . .
.D.
.. ~> > < .
.~ 'a~~
Q:1;M . . /
'<" ~~ E....
.. .!!b~
. ~ -"'<
0 < .
I,
~
.
~
.
~
o
~
1___
"
.
f~ -;
~i~~l
~l8g
't:I_-fIl+-
-f~;i~
o~
,
, .
5;
!I..1i
~:
.!l~
--
.~
ME:
:il%o
'-'
..
5
!~
~~ )
D:~
~
~<
5~ :;.
.~.
no'
~g~
.-~
. .
0>
.
o
. 'ii.~ g'
c: ....c
,..
:c3~~1
:l?o-g
O;t.
,
I
01
z,
~I
w.
-"
I
m
~ CC
'f E~
E ]I! E
8~E<l.1
~.~ g i
.g'E~~
~ ~.Q.g
.c(01iiii
ii ot: t:
.!!.s ~&.
C I: U) Ul
fi~~~
~O:'=1-
U. B II
UUOD..
~o..l-~
c:
a
!!
o
,,-
c:
!!!
t:
~
<J
..
.,;-
J!!
,~
u
a
:::
'"
'"
c:
a
!!1
1J
>2
City Council Memorandum
September 16,2010
Ashland Transportation System Plan Update
Page 6
COMPLETE MEETING SCHEDULE
The current meeting schedule is summarized in Table 1. For each meeting, the date and
time and key deliverables to be discussed is listed.
Table 1
City of Ashland TSP Meeting Schedule
Meeting Date lit Time Dellverables
Kick'off Meeting June 28, 2010, I p.m. . Work Schedule
TAC #1 August 24, 2010, 10:30 a,m. . Project Webslte
. Draft Technical Memo #1
Joint PC/TC #1 August 24, 2010, 7 p.m. . Draft Technical Memo #2
CC Meeting October 4, 2010, 5:30 p.m. . Project Kick-off wi CC
. Draft Technical Memo #2
TAC #2 October 26, 2010, 10:30 a.m. . Drart Technical Memo #3
. Draft Technical Memo #4
Joint PC/TC #2 October 26, 2010, 7 p,m, . Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility GIS
Map
TAC #3 January 25, 2010, 10:30 a.m.
. Travel Survey Results
Joint PC/TC # 3 January 25, 2011, 7 p,m, . Draft Technical Memo #5
Public Workshop # I October 27, 2010, TBD
Public Workshop #2 December 8, 2010, TBD . Drart Technical Memo #6
. Draft Code Outline
TAC #4 February 22, 2011, TBD
Joint PC/TC #4 February 22, 2011, 7 p.m.
Public Wor1<shop #3 March 2011 - Date TBD
TAC #S April 26, 2010, 10:30 a,m, . Draft Technical Memo #7
Joint PC/TC #5 April 26, 2011, 7 p.m.
TAC #6 May 24, 2011, 10:30 a.m.
. Draft Technical Memo #8
Joint PC/TC #6 May 24, 2011, 7 p.m.
TAC #7 July 26, 2011, 10:30 a.m. . Drat! TeChnical Memo #9
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City Council Memorandum
September 16, 2010
Ashland Transportation System Plan Update
Page 7
Meeting Date 8r. Time Deliverables
Joint PC/TC #7 July 26, 2011, 7 p.m.
TAC #B October 25, 2011, 10:30 a,m. . DraftTSP
. Draft Implementing Ordinances
Joint PC/TC #7 October 25, 2011, 7 p.m. . Draft Findings
Joint Work Session TBD
Planning Commission . Revised TSP
Hearing January 12, 2012, 7 p.m. . Revised Implementing Ordinances
. Revised Findings
City Council Hearing January 19, 2012, TBO
PROJECT WEBSITE
A project website accessible by the public was created to facilitate sharing information'
with the community and receiving input from the co;nrnunity. The address for this
website is http://ashlandtsp.com. The website includes:
. Latest news updates;
. A calendar with project related events and meetings open to the public;
. A project schedule;
. Information on opportunities for the public to be involved;
. Draft documents for public review;
. Photo gallery;
. Project resources;
. Information on the project participants (i.e., Technical Advisory Committee,
Project Management Team and Consultant Team); and
· A place for the public to directly provide input, comments or questions to the
project team.
The public website is active on the web; please refer interested parties/citizens to the
public website where'they can learn more about the project and provide input.
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MATERIALS/AGENDA
Materials to provide additional background for the October 4th, 2010 City Council
meeting are included in this packet. These background items include:
. Technical Memorandum #1: Review of Policies, Plans, Ri.des and Regulation
· Technical Memorandum #2: Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
. Article from the Planning Commissioners Journal on Highway Level of Service
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City Council Memorandum
September 16, 2010
Ashland Transportation System Plan Update
Page 8
The TSP Update's draft goals, objectives and evaluation criteria are described in
Technical Memorandum #2 (see attached). TIley are based on the transportation related
Comprehensive Plan goals, in combination with the city's goals related to sustainability
and the environment. They are to:
1) Create a "green" template for other communities in the state and nation to
follow.
2) Make safety a priority for all modes of travel.
3) Maintain small-town character, support economic prosperity and accommodate
future growth.
4) Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail,
air, transit, and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and
through the City of Ashland.
On October 4th, 2010 we hope to engage you ,in a discussion about the goals and
objectives of the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update and focus the
discussion on not just where but what Ashland would like to be in the future and what
types of measures are necessary to get there. We know that ultimately you achieve what
you measure and believe Ashland has a desire to move beyond vehicle level of service
as the inain emphasis for transportation plaruling and decision making. We look
forward to discussing and getting feedback from you on the realm of options we should
be considering as we move forward through this process,
CONTACJINFORMATION
If you have questions regarding any of the information above, please contact me, the
project manager, at 503-228-5230 or by email atswright@kittelson.com. Alternatively,
you may contact the City of Ashland project manager, Jim Olson at 514-488-5347 or by
email atolsoni@ashhind.or.us.
Sincerely, .
KITIELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
J~W)~
Susan Wright, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
I.
f',
! KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING
610 SW Alder Slreet, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169
MEMORANDUM
I.
Date:
To:
Cc:
From:
Project:
Subject:
September 15, 2010 Project #: 10633.0
Jim Olson, City of Ashland
Project Management Team, Ashland Transportation Commission,
Ashland Planning Commission
Susie Wright, PE, Marc Butorac, PE, and Erin Ferguson
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
Draft Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
This memorandum presents goals, objectives and a draft set of evaluation criteria for the City of
Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) update, The goals and objectives will help guide the
TSP update process, The evaluation criteria will be used to set policies and identify "preferred
alternatives", which will comprise the list of recommended projects and associated policy, code
amendments, and funding actions in the TSP.
The goals below are based on evaluating the transportation elements in the current City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan, the City of Ashland's land use and transportation goals, and City
Council's goals related to sustainability and the environment. The specific objectives and
evaluation criteria were developed based on the goals. The project objectives and evaluation
criteria will serve as the means by which the TSP goals are realized. Following the goals,
objectives, and evaluation criteria below is a discussion of the evaluation process to be used to
evaluate policies and alternatives as well as an evaluation matrix to be used in later project
selection.
Goals
The transportation related goals from the applicable sections of the City of Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan are provided below.
Street Section
. To provide all citizens with safe and convenient transportation while reinforcing the
recognition of public rights-of-way as critical public spaces.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Section
. To raise the, priority of convenient, safe, accessible, and attractive walking and bicycling
networks.
. To support and encourage increased levels of walking and bicycling.
FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\i0633 - CITY OF ASHLAND TSP UPDATE\REPDRT\MEMO
2\FlNAL \10633_ TECHMEM02]/NAL.DOC
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 2
. To emphasize environments, which enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage.
. To dedicate funding and staff support to implement the goals and policies of this section.
Public Transit Section
. To create a public transportation system that is linked to pedestrian, bicycle and motor
vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle.
Commercial Freight and Passenger Section
. To provide efficient and effective movement of goods, services and passengers by air, rail,
water, pipeline, and highway freight transportation while maintaining the high quality of
life of Ashland.
For reference, the polides relnled to each of the above goals are provided as Attachment "A ". The polides
being addressed as part of the TSP Update are identified.
DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE GOALS
The City of Ashland's TSP was last updated in its entirety in 1998; a partial update of a few
chapters was completed in 2008. However, the as a whole, the current TSP no longer fully reflects
the City of Ashland's desired land use and transportation goals. The transportation related
Comprehensive Plan goals identified above, in combination with the City Council's goals related
to sustainability and the environment, were combined to develop the following list of goals for
the Transportation System Plan Update that address this particular gap. The goals of the
Transportation System Plan Update are to:
1) Create a "green'" template for other communities in the state and nation to follow.
2) Make safety a priority for all modes of travel.
3) Maintain small-town character, support economic prosperity and accommodate future
growth.
4) Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail, air,
transit, and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through the City
of Ashland.
An underlying goal of the TSP update process is to satisfy the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-012) for a TSP update. This includes collaborating with the City
of Ashland's residents and h'ansportation users through the Transportation Commission,
Planning Commission, public open houses, key participant workshops, and the public website. It
also includes ensuring compliance with the TSP content requirements of the TPR and consistency
with the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP), Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), adopted local,
regional and state plans, and ODOT's TSP guidelines as well as coordinating with and being
consistent with the transportation plans of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
(RVMPO) and Jackson County.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15,2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 3
Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
Based on the goals for the TSP Update, objectives and evaluation criteria were organized into the
following four categories: sustainability and environment, safety, land use integration, and
mobility and accessibility,
The goal associated with each category and the corresponding objectives and evaluation criteria
are below,
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT
Goal #1: Create a "green" template for other communities in the state and nation to follow.
Objectives
lA. Create a prioritized list of active transportation (e.g., travel by bicycle, by foot and/or a
combination of non-auto modes), green projects that reduce the number of auto trips,
auto trip length, and vehicle emissions.
lB. Expand active transportation infrastructure to include features that encourage non-auto
travel. Potential features include bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, wider bicycle trails,
and improved lighting for bicycles and pedestrians.
Ie. Establish targets for increasing biking, walking, and transit trips over the nextS, 10, and
20 years.
10, Develop plans for pedestrian-oriented, mixed land-use activity centers with an active
transportation focus and green infrastructure.
IE. Identify ways to reduce carbon impacts through changes to land use patterns and
transportation choices to make travel by bicycle, as a pedestrian and by transit more
viable.
11', Update City of Ashland code street design standards to provide more flexibility and
options for enhanced active transportation facilities.
IG. . Implement environmentally responsible or green design standards.
1 H. Investigate creative, cutting edge ways including policies to increase active
transportation trips in the City of Ashland.
Criteria
1 Cl. Potential to increase citY-wide transit ridership.
lC2. Potential to increase citY-Wide travel by bicycle.
1 C3. Potential to increase city-wide travel by walking.
lC4. City-wide vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) (as a surrogate for vehicle emissions).
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System PliJn
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 4
lC5. Average trip length for City of Ashland residents (surrogate for street connectivity and
integrated land use),
lC6. Level of impact on environmentally sensitive areas.
SAFETY
Goal #2: Make safety a priority for all modes of travel.
Objectives
2A. Coordinate with safe routes to school (SRTS) plans for local schools including Southe~n
Oregon University.
2B. Develop an access management plan that can be adopted into code and enforced.
2C. Strategically plan for safety and operational improvements for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
20. Develop recommendations for realigning the highly skewed intersections within the
City of Ashland that indicate there is notable potential to improve safety.
2E. Recommend appropriate means for managing state highways and major arterials to
meet local and through traffic needs in terms of mobility, access, and safety.
2F. Incorporate the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) into development review and capital
projects evaluation processes.
2G. Reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the
next 20 years.
2H. Reduce the frequency of bicycle and pedestrian related crashes in the City of Ashland
by 50% in the next 20 years,
Criteria
2CI. Projects located within SRTS plan area.
2C2. Nwnber of access points for motorists based on street classification and desired street
character.
2C3. Number of conflict points between all modes of travel including crossing points for
pedestrians and bicyclists along major arterials.
2C4, Miles of designated facilities (on-street and off-street) for bicyclists and pedestrians
provided,
2C5. Intersection visibility and sight distances available to motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists at intersections and key decisions points.
2C6. Street cross-section, design, and traveler visual cues are consistent with desired vehicle
speed and roadway use.
Kittelson & Associates, lne.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15,2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 5
2C7. Estimated reduction in the frequency of fatal and serious injmy crashes.
2C8. Estimated reduction in the frequency of bicycle and pedestrian related crashes.
LAND USE INTEGRATION
Goal #3: Maintain small-town character, support economic prosperity and accommodate future
growth,
Objectives
3A, Develop an integrated land use and transportation plan to increase the viability of
active transportation.
3B. Consider modal equity when integrating land use and transportation to provide travel
options for system users.
3C. Identify opportunities, guidelines and regulations for bicycle, pedestrian and transit
supportive land uses within the City of Ashland,
3D, Identify transportation projects or system adjustments that improve development
potential and support increased mixed use development within the current Urban
Growth Boundary.
3E. Identify adjustments to transportation and land use codes and regulations that will
facilitate higher density developments in transit corridors, and shorter trip length and
non-motorized modes of travel throughout the City of Ashland.
3F. Incorporate the Highway Capacity Manual multi-modal procedures into development
review and capital improvement project evaluation processes.
Criteria
3Ct. Appropriate density and mixture of land uses,
3C2. Potential changes to average trip length.
3C3. Viability and attractiveness of non-auto travel.
3C4. Potential increased attraction to developers and businesses.
MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
Goal #4: Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail, air,
transit, and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through the City of
Ashland.
Kittelson 8: Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 151 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 6
Objectives
4A. Identify ways to improve street connectivity to provide additional travel routes to the
state highways for bicyclists, pedestrians, and autos.
4B, Identify ways to provide sufficient levels of mobility and accessibility for autos while
making minimal investment in new automobile focused infrastructure,
4C. Upgrade pedestrian facilities to ADA compliant standards.
4D. Develop alternative (e,g., multimodal) mobility standards that allow for planned
congestion to help achieve multimodal and land use objectives.
4E. Identify corridors where the alternative mobility standards could be beneficial to
achieve multimodal and land use objectives,
4F. Recommend creativel innovative ways to more efficiently managel operatel and fund
the transportation system,
4G. Create a comprehensive transportation system by better integrating active
transportation modes with transit and travel by auto.
Criteria
4Cl. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes.
4C2. City-wide VMT and 'vehicle hours traveled (VHT).
4C3. Percent of pedestrian facilities compliant with ADA standards.
4C4, Ability of alternative mobility standard to enhance the achievement of multi modal and
land use objectives.
4C5. Average corridor travel speed on major thoroughfares compared to the desired
operating speeds given roadway function, class and desired character.
4C6. Average planned density and land use mix on transit corridors.
4C7. Creates opportunity for safe, convenient and comfortable multimodal facilities.
4C8. Pedestrian and bicycle network coverage near transit stops.
4C9. Roadway geometry provides for freight mobility where it is needed.
Evaluation Process
A qualitative process using the criteria above will be used to evaluate the policies and alternatives
developed through the TSP update., The rating method used to evaluate the alternatives is
described below,
. Most Desirable: TIle concept addresses the criterion and/or makes substantial
improvements in the criteria category. (+2)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ash/and Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 7
. Moderately Desirable: The concept partially addresses the criterion andlor makes some
improvements in the criteria category. (+1)
. No Effect: The criterion does not apply to the concept or the concept has no influence on
the criteria, (0)
. Least Desirable: The concept does not support the intent of and/or negatively impacts the
criteria category. (-1)'
At this level of screening, the criteria will not be weighted; the ratings will be used to inform
discussions about the benefits and tradeoffs of each alternative.
Table 1 presents the evaluation matrix that will be used to qualitatively evaluate the policies and
alternatives developed through the TSP update.
Table 1
Evaluation Matrix
Criteria
Reference Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Measures
Number
Sustainablllty and Environment
To what extent does the alternative increase the viability of transit use
through things such as Increased service frequency or coverage,
Increased transit stop amenities, reduced fares, improved pedestrian
lCl City-wide transit ridership and bicycle access, transit-supportive land use densities, and other
similar techniques?
Measured by potential transit ridership increase relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative increase the viability of travel by
bicycle via bicycle facilltles (bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards), bicycle
City-wide percent of travel route connectivity, bkycle route signage, improved lighting, increased
lC2 by bicycle bicyde parking, Improved land use Integration, higher land use
densities, and other similar techniques?
Measured by potential percent of travel by bicycle relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative increase the viability of travel by
walking via Increased sidewalk and shared path connectivity, walking
City-wide percent of travel route signage, Improved quality of experience for pedestrians, reduced.
lC3 by walking walking distances, improved lighting, improved land use Integration,
higher land use densities, and other similar techniques?
Measured by potential percent of travel by walking relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative provide for alternative modes,
enhanced connectivity, and Improved land-use Integration thereby
lC4 City-wide VMT reducing vehicle miles traveled?
Measured by potential VMT reduction relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative enhance connectivity for all
modes, improve land use integration and increase land use density
lC5 Average trip length thereby reducing trip lengths?
Measured by potential average trip length reduction relative to
Baseline
level of impact on To what extent does the policy or alternative impact known
lCG environmentally sensitive environmentally sensitive areas?
areas Measured as none, moderately or high level of impact
Kittelson & AS$(Jdates, Inc.
Portfand, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 8
Safety
Does the proposed pedestrian or bicycle improvement project have the
additional benefit of being located within a SRTS plan area and
Project located within SRTS enhance safety for trips made by youth?
2Cl plan area
Measured as providing no, moderate or significant enhancements for
student travel.
To what degree does the alternative provide connectivity that enables
the street to better reflect reasonable access spacing given Its
2C2 Number of access points classification and desired operations?
Measured relative to existing access conditions
To what extent does the alternative minimize potential for severe
crashes?
2C3 Number of cenfUct points
Measured as relative impact between alternatives in regards to conflict
between modes and speed differential
To what degree does the alternative provide additional miles of
Designated bicycle and designated pedestrian and/or bicycle fadlitles that establishes a
2C4 pedestrian facilitfes (on- separate travel way from vehicular traffic?
street and off-street) Measured as increase In miles of desIgnated pedestrian/bicycle
facilities relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative improve sight distance for all
system users allowing each to adequate time to Identify conflicts?
2CS Sight distance available
Measured as relative ,Impact between alternatives for providing
adequate sight distance based on desired and operating speeds
To what degree does the alternative provide appropriate vlsual and
Street cross.section, physical cues through design elements and characteristics to convey
2C6 horizontal alignment, and the desired street character and operations?
vertical alignment Measured by qualitative analysis of consistency In design and visual
cues relative to driver expectations and desired street operations
To what extent does the alternative reduce the estimated frequency of
Reduce frequency of fatal fatal and serious injury crashes?
2C7
and serious Injury crashes Whenever possible, measured using procedures In the HSM for
estimating and predicting crash frequency.
To what extent does the alternative reduce the estimated frequency of
Reduce frequency of pedestrian and bicycle related crashes?
2ea pedestrian and bicycle
related crashes Whenever possible, measured using procedures In the HSM for
estimating and predicting crash frequency.
Land Use Integration
To what extent do development patterns and the mix of land uses
Development patterns and make traveling as a pedestrian, bicydlst andlor transit rider if feasible,
3Cl mixture of land uses convenient, effldent, and comfortable?
Measured relative to Baseline land use density and mixture.
To what degree are land use types dense and well mixed such that
3C2 Average trip length average trip lengths for Qty of Ashland residents are reduced?
Measured relative to Baseline average trip length.
To what degree are transportation fadlities (transit service, sidewalks,
bicycle lanes, separated mixed-use paths, parks, public squares) for
3C3 Viability of non-auto travel non-auto travelers Integrated into plans for dense, well mixed land use
types?
Measured relative to facilities and Integration present In Baseline
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15i 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 9
To what degree does the alternative or policy facilitate new
development consIstent with the project goal and objectives,
encourage investment in the community, and/or create a promising
Increased attraction to climate for vibrant businesses?
3C4 developer.; and businesses
Measured relative to current economic and development policies and
review processes.
Mobility and Accessibility
To what degree "does the alternative provide for Increased pedestrian
Pedestrian and bicycle and bicyclist travel?
4Cl
volume Measured by potential increase in pedestrian and bicyclist volume
relative to Baseline.
To what extent does the alternative provide for enhanced network
City-wide VMT and VHT connectivity and modal choices thereby reducing trip lengths and
4C2 increasing options for non-auto travel?
Measured by potential for VMT and VHT reduction relative to Baseline
To what extent does the alternative provide opportunities to upgrade
4C3 ADA Compliance pedestrian facilities to ADA standards?
Measured by percent of pedestrian fadlities meeting ADA standards.
Ability of alternative To what extent does the alternative mobility standard(s) facilitate
mobUity standard to achieving or support multi modal and land use objectives?
4C4 facilitate achieving
multi modal and land use Qualitative assessment based on standards being considered and
objectives desired objectives to be achieved
Average corridor travel To what degree does the alternative provide for mobility along key
speed relative to thoroughfares?
4CS designated speed limits
and desired roadway Measured by relative comparisons of average travel speed to Baseline
character alternative and to designated speed limits
Average planned density To w~t degree Is land use density and mixed uses focused on transit
4C6 and land use mhc on transit corridor.; such that travel by transit Is more attractive and feasible?
corridors Measured relative to Baseline land use density and mixture.
Opportunities for safe, To what degree does the alternative further the goal of a multimodal
convenient, and transportation system?
4C7
comfortable multlmodal Measured by degree to which alternatives provides for robust facilities
facilities and network connectivity
To what extent does the alternative Increase or improve the
Pedestrian and blcyde pedestrian and bicycle network coverage near transit stops?
4C8 network coverage near
transit Measured by percent increase in pedestrian and bicyde network
coverage near transit stops relative to Baseline
Roadway geometry To what extent does the alternative adhere to design standards for
4C9 prOVides for freight designated freight routes?
mobility where needed Measured by relative number of likely design exceptions
We look forward to discussing the Draft goals, objectives and evaluation criteria presented above
with you and other affected stakeholders in more detail. Members of this project's Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), the City of Ashland's Transportation Commission (TC), and the City
of Ashland's Planning Commission (PC) will all have the opportunity to review, discuss, and
provide comments on these draft goals, objectives and evaluation criteria. Based on these
comments, we will revise the goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria to produce a final set that
will be used as the City of Ashland TSP update moves forward.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland TlOnsportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 10
Attachment "A"
Below are the transportation related goals and policies from the City of Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan. The specific policies that pertain to the Transportation System Plan Update
(and ,the Pedestrian Node Concept Plans being developed as part of the TSP Update) are
highlighted in bold text, .
Chapter 10 Transportation, Section 3 The Street System (10.03)
Section 10.03.04 Goal
To provide all citizens with safe and convenient transportation while reinforcing the recognition
of public rights-of-way as critical public spaces.
Section 10.03.05 Policies
1. Provide zoning that allows for a mix of land uses and traditional neighborhood
development, which promotes walking and bicycling. (To be addressed in pedestrian node
concept areas (i,e" Task 6) within the City of Ashland TSP update.)
2. Periodically review and revise street design standards. Incorporate traditional neighborhood
design elements such as, but not limited to, planting strips, minimum necessary. curb radii,
alleys and skinny streets in standards. The street design standards shall incorporate the land
use and design guidelines in the Street Classifications section of this element.
3. Design streets as critical public spaces where creating a comfortable and attractive place that
encourages people to walk, bicycle and socialize is balanced with building an efficient travel
corridor.
Design streets with equal attention to all right-of-way users and to promote livability of
neighborhoods.
4. Enhance the streetscape by code changes specifying placement of critical design elements
such as, but not limited to, windows, doorways, signs and planting strips. (To be addressed in
pedestrian node concept areas (i.e., Task 6) within the City of Ashland TSP update,)
5. Reduce excessive street pavement width in order to facilitate convenient pedestrian and
bicycle circulation, to facilitate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation, to reduce the
costs of construction, to provide for more efficient use of land and to discourage excessive
traffic volumes and speeds.
6. Encourage a connected street network pattern, as topography allows, to promote pedestrian
and bicycle travel. Off-street pathways should be connected to the street network. Block
perimeters should be 1,200 to 1,600 feet and the distance between streets should be a maximum
of 300 to 400 feet.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 20JO
Project #: 10533,0
Page 11
7. Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure Ashland Street is developed as a multi-modal
corridor including attractive landscaping, sidewalks, bike lanes and controlled access.
Development along Ashland Street shall be compatible with and support a multi-modal
orientation. (To be addressed in pedestrian node concept areas and TSP elements,)
8. Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure that Siskiyou Boulevard is developed as a multi-
modal corridor with sidewalk and bike lane facilities appropriate to the volume and speed of
motor vehicle traffic. (To be addressed in pedestrian node concept areas,)
9. Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure that A Street and B Street are developed as multi-
modal corridors. Development along A Street and B Street shall be compatible with and support a
multimodal orientation.
10. When designing and funding facilities, consider all the costs of automobile use compared with
using other forms of transportation. These costs include social costs, and air, noise and water
pollution.
11. Advocate regional land-use patterns that support multi-modal transportation.
12. Encourage the use of all modes of travel that contribute to clean air and energy efficiency.
13. Integrate traffic calming techniques into city street design standards to reduce automobile
speeds within new and existing neighborhoods.
14. Develop a process for traffic control management for the systematic treahuent of traffic
problems in the existing and future street network. Traffic control includes general laws and
ordinances, traffic control devices and traffic calming techniques. The process should include a
regular inventory of neighborhood traffic problems, at both intersection and other locations on
the street, throughout Ashland, and standards to identify conditions, which need attention.
15. Develop a process for identifying and addressing areas prone to traffic accidents.
16. Maintain carrying capacity, safety and pedestrian, bicycle, public lransit and motor vehicle
movement on boulevards, aveilUes and neighborhood collectors through driveway and curb
cut consolidation or reduction.
17. Direct driveway access onto streets designated as boulevards and avenues should be
discouraged whenever an alternative exists or can be made available.
18. Require design that combines multiple driveway accesses to a single point in residential
and commercial development.
19. Develop a process for evaluating the consistency of curb cut requests with the Comprehensive
Plan and Land Use Ordin"!1ce. '
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 12
20, Maintain street surfaces to achieve maximum pavement life so that road conditions are good
. '
and pavement maintenance costs are minimized. Prioritize streets for repaying by factors such as
the level of use, street classification and pavement condition.
21. Prohibit the formation of new unpaved roads.
22. Discourage development from occurring on unpaved streets.
23. Off-street parking for all land uses shall be adequate, but not excessive, and shall not interfere
with multi-modal slreel uses,
24. Manage the supply, operations and demand for parking in the public right-of-way to
encourage economic vitality, traffic safety and livability of neighborhoods. Parking in the
right-of-way, in general, should serve land uses in the immediate area.
25. Reduce the number of automobile parking spaces required for new development,
discouraging automobile use as the only source of access and encouraging use of alternative
modes.
26. Consider environmental impacts when developing new street projects. Require new street
projects to reduce impact on terrain and natural vegetation.
27. Acquire or control parcels of land that may be needed in the future for any transportation
purpose when the opportunity arises through sale, donation or land use action,
28. Periodically assess future travel demand and corresponding capacity requirements of street
network. Choose a comprehensive transportation system approach to address any.capacity
insufficiencies that is consistent with the goals, policies and philosophy of the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
29. Coordinate land use planning with transportation planning. Integrate transportation-
related functions that involve several City departments so that the goals, policies and
philosophy of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan are consistently pursued
in the transportation project development process.
30. Coordinate City transportation planning with county, regional, state and federal plans.
31. Coordinate the transportation planning efforts of the adopted Ashland Downiown Plan
with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
including the provision parking lots and parking structures.
32. Interconnections between residential neighborhoods shall be encouraged for automobile,
pedestrians and bicycle traffic, but non- local traffic shall be discouraged through street
design, except for boulevards, avenues, and neighborhood collectors. Cul-de-sac or dead-end
street designs shall be discouraged whenever an interconnection alternative exists.
Development or a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting new and
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633,0
Page 13
existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street
Dedication map.
33. Plan for the full improvement of Hersey, Nevada and Mountain Avenue as alternative
routes to the downtown area for north-south traffic.
34. Street dedicaiions shall be required as a condition of land development. A future street
dedication map shall be adopted and implemented as part of the Land Use Ordinance.
35, Re-evaluate parking space size requirements due to the increased use of smaller cars.
36, Encourage sharing of existing and future parking facilities by various nearby businesses.
37. Require effective landscaping throughout continuous paved parking areas to increase
shading, screening and buffering aesthetics, and for percolation of water into the groundwater
table.
Chapter 10 Trallsportation, Section 4 Pedestriall and Bicycle Transportation (10.04)
Goal I: To raise the priority of convenient, safe, accessible, and attractive walking and bicycling
networks.
Policies:
1. Provide walkways and bikeways that are integrated into the transportation system.
2. Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facility needs into all planning, design, construction and
maintenance activities of the City of Ashland
3. Provide walkways and bikeways in conjunction with all land divisions, street construction and
reconstruction projects and all commercial, industrial and residential developments.
4. Require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce
vehicle trips. Modify street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is
maintained.
5. Target walkway and bikeway improvements that link neighborhoods, schools, retail and
service areas, employment centers and recreation areas.
6. Use design standards that create convenient, safe, accessible and attractive walkways and
bikeways.
7. Design walkways and bikeways for all types of users including people with disabilities,
children and the etderly.
8. Require sidewalks and pedestrian access in all developments.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
Oty of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15,2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 14
9. Require wide sidewalks in retail areas.
10. Require ptanting strips and street trees between the roadway and the sidewalk to buffer
pedestrians from vehicles.
11. Require secure, sheltered bicycle parking in business developments, institutions, duplexes and
multifamily developments,
12. Design street intersections to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel by using design
features such as, but not limited to, raised medians and islands, curb extensions, colored,
textured and/or raised crosswalks, minimum necessary curb radii, pedestrian crossing push
buttons, left and right bike turn lanes, signal loop detectors in bike lanes and signal timing
conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel speeds.
13. Design intersections with equal attention to pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist safety.
Identify existing intersections that are dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, and develop
plan for redesign of unsafe areas.
14. Develop maintenance program to keep walkways and bikeways smooth, clean and free of
obstructions.
15. Pedestrian Traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets and in parking lots.
16. Encourage the establislunent of a Community-owned Bicycle Program, allowing the provision
of "loaner" bikes throughout the community for residents, commuters and tourists.
Goal II: To su pport and encourage increased levels of walking and bicycling.
Policies:
1. Promote decreased auto use and increased walking, bicycling, public transportation, ride
sharing and other transportation demand management techniques.
2. Develop and implement a transportation safety education program.
3. Increase enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety laws. Target motorists, pedestrians
and bicyclists.
4. Increase neighborhood use of Sidewalk LID Program.
5. Encourage employer commuter programs to promote walking, bicycling, public transit, ride
sharing and other transportation demand management techniques.
6, Encourage businesses to inform customers of available non-auto access to the business
locations and to support cllstomer use of non-auto access.
7. Establish aggressive but realistic performance targets for increasing walking and bicycling
trips (for personal business, school, social and work).
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 15
Goal III: Emphasize environments, which enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage,
Policies:
1. Maintain and improve Ashland's compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and
bicycle travel. (To be addressed in pedestrian node concept areas,)
2. Promote a mixed land use pattern, where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design
that supports walking and bicycling trips. (To be addressed in pedestrian node concept areas.)
3. Develop street design standards that outline street widths, curb radii, and other pedestrian
environment factors which facilitate walking and bicycling.
4. Use traffic calming tools to create a safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian and bicycle
environment to slow speeds, reduce street widths and interrupt traffic as appropriate in each
particular location.
5. Establish a street tree program to plant more trees on existing streets and to promote/monitor
street tree care throughout Ashland,
6, Identify areas needing pedestrian and bicycle amenities, such as rest rooms, benches, pocket
parks and drinking fountains, and develop installation and funding plan.
7. Encourage public art along multi-modal travel corridors,
Goal IV: To dedicate funding and staff support to implement the goals and policies of this
section.
Policies:
1. Identify funding sources for walking and bicycling promotion, planning and facilities
construction.
2. Investigate the creation of the role of transportation coordinator to facilitate a viable multi-
modal transportation network and achieve Ashland's transportation goals,
3. Develop transportation program using a comprehensive approach with planning and
engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement components.
4. Support participation by all City staff involved in creating the transportation network in
educational programs covering transportation plarrning, design and engineering.
5. Consistently incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the City of Ashland Capital
Improvement Plan.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
September 15, 2010
Project #: 10633.0
Page 16
Chapter 10 Transportation, SecHon 5 Public Transit (1~.05)
Section 10.05.04 Public Transit Goals and Policies
Goal: To create a public transportation system that is linked to pedestrian, bicycle and motor
vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle.
Policies:
1. Develop pedestrian and bicycle networks that are linked to the public transportation routes.
2. Zoning shall allow for residential densities and a mix of commercial businesses within walking
distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of existing and planned public transit services which
support use of public transportation.
3. Work with the local public transit provider to provide service within one-fourth of a mile of
every home in Ashland.
4. Promote and support express commuter service between cities in the Rogue Valley.
5. Incorporate needs of people who don't drive when developing transit routes and facilities.
6. Provide pleasant, clean, safe, comfortable shelters along transit lines.
7. Require residential and commercial development within one-quarter of a mile of existing or
future, public transit services to provide transit shelters, bus access, and bus turnaround areas,
8. Install bike racks or lockers at transit stops.
9. Identify park and ride, bike and ride and walk and ride lols in Ashland to support
ridesharing.
10. Develop a transportation center in Ashland.
11. Encourage promotional and educational activities that encourage people who own cars and
school children to use public transit.
12. Work with the local public transit provider to address the specific public transportation
needs of Ashland.
13. Participate and show leadership in interacting with counties, cities and other special
governments in Southern Oregon to develop regional public transportation services to reduce
the frequency and length of vehicular trips:
14. Establish aggressive but realistic performance targets for increasing public transit use for
the short, medium and long run.
Kittelson & Associates, Tne.
Portland, Oregon
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan
~eptember 15, 2010
Project #: 10633,0
Page 17
Chapter 10 Transportation, Section 6 Commercial Freight and Passenger Transportation (10.06)
Section 10.06.07 Commercial Freight and Passenger Transportation Goals and Policies
Goal: To provide efficient and effective movement of goods, services and passengers by air, rail,
water, pipeline, and highway freight transportation while maintaining the high quality of life of
Ashland.
Policies:
1. Review development within the Airport Overlay Zone to ensure compatibility with the
Ashland Municipal Airport.
2. Explore intra-city commuter rail service on existing rail lines.
3. Mitigate railroad noise through the use of berming and landscaping in developments adjacent
to the railroad and which are impacted by railroad noise.
4, Maintain boulevard and avenue street facilities adequate for tJ:uck travel within Ashland.
5. Coordinate with County, regional, State and Federal jurisdictions to maintain and develop
inter-modal hubs, which allow goods and passengers to m'!ve from truck or automobile to rail
to ship or plane.
6. Encourage the use of rail transport for the movement of goods and passengers as a means of
conserving energy and reducing reliance on the automobile.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
Memorandum
.
To:
Jim Olson, City of Ashland
Project Management Team, Ashland
Transportation Corrunissiotl, AsWand Planning
Commission
Il355 SIP &on" F.>ry Rd.
LW O,,,,,.!", OR 91035
Phc.. (50J) 635-3618
Fax (50J) 635-5J95
From:
Tom Litster, Senior Urban Designer
Brad Kilby, AICP
Copies: File
Date: September 10, 2010
Subject: Ashland Transportation System Plan Update
Technical Memorandum #1
Review of Policies, Plans, Rules, and Regulations
Project No.: 15702
Introduction
The City of Ashland initiated an update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP) with the goal of developing
<(an integrated land use and transportation plan to increase the viability of transit, bicycles, walking, and
other alternative modes of transportation; reduce per capita automobile vehicle miles traveled; provide safe
walking and bicycling routes to home, work, shopping, and schools; implement environmentally responsible
design standards, and minimize new automobile-related infrastructure." This memorandum summarizes a
review of existing Local, County, Regional, and State documents that address aspects of land use and
transportation planning d,at cau provide a baseline for updating the City of Ashland's TSP. TIle review
helps to identity goals, policies, design standards, and .ommunity aspirations that seem likely to provide
direction for staff, decision-makers, participating citizens, and the Consultant team in our coUaborative
efforts to meet overall project goals and specific objectives of individual tasks.
Each document was reviewed for transportation elements. land use elements. expressions of community
aspirations, and design standards that inform the subsequent tasks of the TSP update. Land use elements
received more emphasis than might he typical oClocal TSP. That emphasis reflects the desire to include
concepn!.l plannitlg for pedestrian-oriented development as part of the update. It also reflects the City of
Ashland's long-standing commitment to fully integrate transportation planning into conununity planning.
The following matrix is a quick reference to indicate which of the four elements listed above were fowld in
the document. Each document is also categorized as Local, County, Regional, State, or Other.
L:\Pw;ect\15700\15102\P1anning\ Task 2\lTmal RC'.i5ions\^shhcnd TSP MemoUinal-09lOlO.doc
I
Technical Memorandum #1
Ash/and TranspOrla/ion System Plan
Page 2
Jtp/ember 10, 2010
Transportation Land Use Community Design
Elements Elements Vision Standards
City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan J J J J
1998 Transportation Srstcm Pion ("fSP) J J
Partial TSP Update J J
J H'lnd Use Code J J
H~Indbook for Pbnning and Designing J J
Streets
Ashland B Street Transportation Phtn .[ .[
Site Design and Use Standards .[ J J
A~hl:tnd in Action Report J J
Bnildnble 1_1nds Im'entolY J
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Pbn J J J J
Ashland Dowmown Plans J J J
Economic Opporrunilies An:ilysi$ J
Histonc Preservation Plan .f .f
Railroau PropcCQ.' r>.hstcr Pl:m J .f .f
Railroad District Infi1I Strategy J .f .f
Southern OrerO" IJnlvcrsit:-, Master Phil .f .f .f
Ul'dnle
Recommended Street Tree Guide J .[
Solar Selbnck Guide .f .f
Trnnsportntion an~J Growth Mfll1:lgemcfll .f .f .f
OutreachS\'orkshop Final Report
2008 TGM Grant Application J J .f
AshJand Aitport J\'laster Plan . .f
County
lackson CounlJ' Comprehensive Pbn J J .f
Technical Memorandunl #1
Ashlalld y'"tmsporfah'on System PloJ1
Page 3
SepteJl/ber 10, 2010
Transportation land Use Community Design
Elements Elements Vision Standards
lacksun County TSP .[ .[ .[ .[
Regional
RV1{PO Regiona.l.Tmnsport~tion Phn .[ .[
RV1\.fPO Region~1 Trnn~pOrlalion .[ .[
Imprm'ement Plan
RVMPO Freight Stud)' .[ .[
RVt\-fPO OR 99 North-Sonth Tr~wel .[ .[ .[
Dem..'lI1d Srud~'
Greater He~r CreekVaIIey'Regjon:tl Plan .[ .[ .[
Bear Creek Greenway CVlanagcment Plan .[ .[ .[
RVTD Tcn Ycar Long Range Plan .[ .[ .[
State
OAR Chapter 660 division 012 .[ .[
OAR Chaprer 734 di\'ision 051 .[
Orellon Highway PI:lI1 .[ .[
Highw,,)' Design Manunl .[ .[
Oregoo Public Trnnsponacion P1:1I1 .[ .[ .[
Oregon Ibil Plan .[
Oregon Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan .[ .[ .[
Statewide Planning-Coals .[ .[ .[
Interch:1n~ Area Management Pl:tn for .[ .[ .[
Interchange~14.
Stare\\~de Trnnsportatkm Improvement .[ .[
Plan (1010-2013 Drnft)
Other References
Inrernatiomil Scan SurilmJI.Q' Report on .[
Pedcstrian/Bk)'cle Safety and Moliilit)'
City of Portland B2 Power .[ .[
City uf Pordand 13i<;)'cle Boulcvards 2009 .[ .[
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland TronspOltotion System Plan
Page 4
S,ptember 10, 2010
Local Policies, Plans, and Standards
Review of City of Ashland policies, plans, standards, and community input reveals a long and strong
conununity commitment to integrated land use and transportation planning as critical to a community vision
Uto retain our small town character for character even while we grow." Beginning in the early 1990s, public
discussion has focused on multimodal transportation and the integral connection between land use and
transportation. They are "inextricably linked.JJ Transportation infrastrucmre and choices should be
complementary to the City of Ashland's qualities of place as found in the downtown core, the historic
neighborhoods, and ill a devdopment pattern that reflects characteristics of traditional neighborhoods.
Streets are the greatest plO1 of that infrastructure and should be regarded as public and social spaces-not
merely as transportation facilities.
On the land use side of the equation, urban form should remain compact and connected, with streets that
are safe and appealing for all users--<:ars, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. The traditional ne~hborhood
pattern represents an opportunity to meet the land use objectives of compact development with mixed llSCS,
as well as reduce the demand for vehicle trips by encouraging more bicycle and walking trips.
The surrunary has been organized under the following general headings for transportation and land use
elements:
Comprehensive Transportation Planning
Public Transit
Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
Parking Management
. Street Design
. Land Use
Comprehensive Transportation Planning
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan establishes overriding goals and policies for
transportation planning in dlC City of Ashland. It establishes "modal equity" as a cornerstone for
transportation planning. Modal eqnality means equal opportunity to nse aU modes of traveL Equality of
access it does not tCimply equal financial commitment or equal percentage of use of each mode," However,
the recognition that funding levels for facilities for different modes may not be in financial equal amoWlts
was not intended to sanction any demonstrable underfunding of any transportation choice. Specific goals
and SUpp01-llng policies are established to provide a street system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
transit service that are safe and comfortable to use, easily accessible, and well-connected in its reach
throughout the City. The transportatioo system should encourage bicycle and walking trips, pedestrian-
oriented development, and pnblic transit service as viable alternatives to vehicle trips.
Action in Ashland 2000 emphasizes transportation planning as an integral part of community planning. 'The
qualities and character of transportation direcdy affects the community character. It also acknowledges that
Technical Memorandum #1
hhlond TransplJ/falion System Pion
Page 5
September 10, 2010
there is uno silver bullet" for meeting the challenges of transportation planning as part of community
planning. A tluee-prong approach is recommended, an approach that mirrors key aspects of updating the
TSP. The approach integrates improved transit, parking management. and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The action plan concludes with a series of specific problem statements and possible solutions.
The Ashland Downtown Plan - Phase II, also expresses the importance of addressing all aspects of the
transportatinn system from travel choices. Good planning should address reducing congestion and vehicle
speeds. improving street design, and parking management as interrelated strategies and results. For instance,
providing better choices for non-vehicle travel will have a positive impact on reducing congestion and
parking management plan, particularly in the downtown core. The Downtown Plan - Phase II also includes
a detailed inventory of sidewalk conditions in downtown and seventeen separate intersections and makes
recommendations for improvements.
The TIP was developed in 1998 and partially updated in 2007-08. The TIP defines the City of Ashlaod's
modal system; sets forth policies. requirements. and standards; evaluates existing conditions and constraints;
projects future travel de~nd; and identifies specific transportation improvement projects. The 2007-2008
update includes over a 100 projects to be completed in a 20 year period. along with updated forecasts of
future traffic conditions. The plan also addresses Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Oregon
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR).
The policies a.nd design standards are consistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and with Jackson County policics for bicycle paths and bicycle connectivity. The TIP acknowledges the
need for coordination widl the State since Highway 66 (Ashland Street) and Highway 99 E (Main, Lid1ia
Way) function as primary east-west and north-south community streets. The TSP update notes that state
highways within thc City of Ashland's limits exceed access standards set by both dle City of Ashland and
Oregon DeplUtment of Transportation (ODm). The Travel Demand Management (IDM) policies are
consistent with the often expressed community vision for a small town character with multimodal
transportation. enhanced transit service, and mixed use development
Public Transit
Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) fixed route buses and paratransit service link seven commtutities. The
City of Ashland provides approximately 10 percent of dle overall RVTD ridership and approximately 50
percent of the ridership for Route 10. Over the past 10 to 15 years, both citizens and community leaders
have expressed desires for transit improvements that include park-and-ride facilities to support enhanced
regional service beginning with an express coute to MedfordJ extended service hours for evenings and
weekendsJ more frequent service to new connections within the City of Ashland. and improved passenger
amenities at bus stops. The desires were expressed as goals in the 2007 partial update of the TIP and the
Ashland in Action Plan. The RVTD Ten Year Long Range Plan acknowledges that the current level of
service is inadequate but the funding challenges are significant. The plan proposes d,e tiered service
expansion ill order to prioritize service cnhancements (Figure 5.1) and a ranking of expansion scenarios
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland Transportation .System Pion
Page 6
Septtmb,,'10, 2010
based on Board priorities, agency priorities, and public priorities (Figure 5.3). The plan also addresses
potential future projects for the Railroad Districl, Plaza, Southern Oregon University (SOU), the Croman
Mill Site, and implementing Bns Rapid Transit (BRT).
Ashland in Action 2000 recommends looking at underntilized parking areas as possible transit park-and-
rides, developing a multimodal transit center. no fare local service, and implementing employee incentives to
use transit (or other means of alternative transportation).
Review of significant master planning efforts for the Railroad Property, Croman Mill Site, and SOU campus
also suggest an enhanced role Cor public transit as part of a livable and sustainable transportation system.
The redevelopment plan for the Croman Mill Site includes the possibility of High Capacity Transit (HCI) as
a future connection to regional corrunuter rail and a streetcar connection to downtown. Other significant
references to transit were found in the City of Ashland TSP and in the county and regional documents
summarized later in this memorandum. To date, transit planning documents have been primarily focused on
intra-city and inter.city bus service.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
A commitment to safe and appealing pedestrian and bicycle facilities is an objective of the majority of
documents reviewed. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan articulates a community-wide
goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities to encourage non-vehicle transportation choices, It also
provides general functional and qualitative design guidelines for the facilities.' The TSP identifies pedestrian
improvement projects and bicycle improvemenl projects.' The Ashland in Action Plan reinforces the
importance of walking and biking as viable transportation options in the strategies to reduce traffic
congestion and to manage the demand and supply of parking. The Downtown Plan - Phase II provides a
series of specific improvements to the existing sidewalk system in order to improve the overall walkability of
downtown.
Community characler depends heavily on the multinrodal connectivity and traditional neighborhood
development patterns made possible by a high quality pedestrian and bicycle network. TIle pedestrian is the
essence of~'pedestrian node development", Both intra-neighborhood and inter-neighborhood connectivity,
along with safe routes to schools, should be considered during planning and design review. High quality
transit service also depends on the pedestrian facilities. Most transit trips begin and end with a walking trip.
If there are n~t clea.r, continuous, and safe pathways to the bus stops the potential transit rider is less likely
to make that transportation choice,
I 1995 'ISP. Chapter 7
, 1995 TSP, Chaptet 9
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashlond TranspOltation Syst'm Plan
Page 7
S'ptember 10, 2010
Parking Management
Literature review found that there are community concerns over public parking availability, particularly in
downtown and around SOU and the Ashland Community Hospital. Residents near those areas reported
difficulties finding parking on the neighborhood streets due to spill nver parlting from those major
destinations. Several docwnents reviewed focus on the issue of parking as a significant influence on
transportation choices and the future development in the City of Ashland. Ashland in Action 2000 sets four
primary goals for parking, aimed first at addressing the concerns d1follgh parking ma'"'gement rather
constructing additional off-street parking:
. Off-street parking shall be adequate but not excessive
Manage the supply, operations, and demand for parking
On-street parking should serve needs in the immediate vicinity
Encourage sharing of existing and future parking
Specific recommendations include a pay and display program for downtown, evaluation of opportunities to
create more on-street parking, identifying downtown locations for employees, and working with SOU to
. modity class schedules to better balance parking demand.
The Downtown Plan identifies key issues consistendy expressed by citizens and stakeholders. There were
concerns about parking capacity for parking during peak seasons, employee use of parking negatively
impacting customers and visitors, and pricing of parking. TI1ere was a consensus about the need for an
overall parking plan_ 1ne plan recommends near.term actions to address parking management. Key a.ctions
are enforcement activities to meet the desired turnover rates and creating Core, Intermediate, and Periphery
parking inanagement zones that will support specific economic activities, including employee,parking.
Street Design
The Comprehensive Plan and Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets provide general design
qualities and specific design standards for the City of Ashland's street system that include bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan defines the follO\ving elements
of the pnblic circulation system and establishes guidelines for land use and right-of-way design for each
strect type:
Boulevard
. Avenue
Neighborhood collector
Neighborhood street
Alley
. Neighborhood street
. Multiuse Pathway
Teclmical Memorandum #1
Asbland T mnporto/ion System Plan
Page 8
S<j>ltmber 10, 2010
The street classifications are a modified version of a traditional functional class system. They are intended to
recapture 'streets as multimodal corridors and public spaces.
The goal of modal eqnity, the cornerstone of the Transportation Element, is supported by the adopted
design standards of A Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets. The Handbook also follows the street
types from the Transportation Element and provides detailed design standards for each type. It also
provides guidance for the basic principles of traditional street design and for the layout of streets as part of
the desired neighborhood form, reinforcing the role of street design as part of creating a good public realin
throughout the City of Ashland.
Community participation in planning for Great Streets was evident at a 2007 Outreach Workshop funded by
the TGM. The workshop engaged community participants in a discussion of the qualities and design
challenges of good streets and the importance of land uses and building design along those streets. Specific
streets in the City of Ashland were discussed wilh regard to their opportunities and challenges. The final
report for the event includes a recent Outreach Workshop funded by the Transportation and Growth
Management Program (TGM) that engaged community participants in a discussion of the creation of good
streets and the importance of land uses and building design along those streets. The final report for the
event includes a brief description of three opportunity areas for pedesttian.oricnted development. These
areas have been identified as the pedestrian nodes to be studied as part of the TIP update.
The Importance of Land Use
A unique aspect of this TIP update is the focus on land nse in the form of conceptual planning for specific
pedestrian nodes. However~ it is consistent with the City of Ashland's long-standing conunitment to the
integration of transportation and community development planning. Plans and policies repeatedly express
confidence that compact, mixed use development patterns with a high degree of multimodal connectivity
will have a measurable effect on reducing congestion, reducing parking demand, promo.ring sustainability,
and maintaining the indicators of livability for the City of Ashland.
The City of Ashland's Land Use Code appears to be supportivc of mixed use development in the
Commercial and Commercial Downtown Overlay Zone, with residential densities of 30 units per acre to 60
muts per acre. The North Mountahl Zone may be the best example of newer p~destrian-oriented
development zoning, particularly in the NM-C and NM-MF districts. It allows a mix of commercial and
residential uses with relatively rugh density of residential development. These districts are also st:l.1.1ctured by
a small block pattern and good street connectivity. The SOU district can also support the introduction of
. mixed use campus development and a pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly integration of streets and
buildings. The SOU Master Plan Update appears to take advantage of those opportunities.
The code will be reviewed more extensively as part of Task 6, which includes conceptual planning for three
pedestrian nodes and an outline of recommended implementing code updates based on those conceptual
studies and their development principles.
Technical Memorandum #1
Arhlond TTtlnspmtalion System Pion
Page 9
Sepkmher 10, 2010
The Railroad Property Master Plan and d,e Croman lVIill Site Redevelopment Plan illustrate traditional
neighborhood strc;:et pattems with relatively small blocks and a mix of uses on sites where a previous single
use was predominant Redevelopment is an opportunity to create regional and local connectivity for
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit riders. These plans .include recommendations for new zoning and
site design guidelines and illustrate the desired qualities of mixed use, pedestrian-oriented development
where walkability and neighborhood destinations are defining elements.
The SOU Master Plan Update also acknowledges the importance of developing mixed uses to support
student life. 111e guidelines are for design and siting of new buildings, particularly along street edges, to
reflect the principles of pedestrian-oriented design. TIlis desigo ethic will be coupled with improved visibility
and accessibility for pedestrians throngh better street crossings, a pedestrian esplanade, and new pathways.
The plan notes that a comparable pedestrian integration standard for SOU is the pedestrian accessibility and
mobility in the downtown core.
Site Design and Land Use Standards provide prospective development wid1 principles for planning and
design. 'Ibe document combines principles with requirements in the form of policies and standards. It
includes context-sensitive design standards for delineated detail site review zones. Additional standards
apply to Historic District Development, the Ashland Boulevard Corridor, and Downtown Ashland. Land
use goal and policies and design guidance can also be found in the Historic Preservation Plan and the Solar
Setback Guide.
According to the Economic Opportunities Analysis (2007), dle buildable lands inventory shows a close
match between land needs and supply. The analysis acknowledges a shortage of vacant lands for
employment use but notes that historically I significant amounts of employment bave located in residential
areas. There is also demand for industrial land that could be exacerbated if the Croman Mill Site is
converted to other uses.
State Documents
State docwnents include overarching goals and policies which provide a regulatory context for the TSP
update and also support the City of Ashland's strong commitment to integrated planning. The Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP) provides standards for operations, safety, and mobility for state highways. There are
stated objectives to integrate land use and transportation to maintain mobility and efficiency while meeting
mobility performance expect.'1tions. Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations are reqwred to be
consistent with the standards. The OHP also defines a process for developing alternate mobility standards.
A Special Transportation Area (STA) allows greater flexibility for highway mobility and design standards.
Consequendy, portions of highways within city limits can function more like significant community streets
such as a main street. Planning and business investments can precede based on an overall plan rather than
on a case-by-case basis. This supports mixed use development and local policies to address trips and street
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland Tnmsportalion System Plan
Page 10
September 10, 2010
connectivity. The City of Ashland currendy has an STA designation for a portion of Highway 99. The City
of Ashland and ODOT may wish to consider expanding it as part of the TSP update.
The reviewed docwnents are summarized as follows:
Coordination of land use planning and transportation planning
. Cooperation among state and local planning agencies
. Balanced and multi-m04al transportation improvements
. Project implementation that ensures improvements is safe and efficient.
In addition, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIp) is Oregon's fonr year
transportation capital inrprovement program. It is the document that identifies d,e funding for, and
schednling of, transportation projects and programs. It includes projects On the federal, state, city, and
county transportation systems, multimndal projects (highway, passenger rail, freigh~ public transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian), and projects in the National Parks, National Forests, and Indian tribal lands. The projects
located ,vithin the City of Ashland include:
Bridge inrprovement and interchange enhancements at 1-5 Exit 14 (OR 66-Ashland Street)
. 1-5 pavement preservation
East Main Street railroad crossing modernization
Pavement preservation on Plaza Avenue from Nezla Avenue to Verda Street
Various capital, operations. and congestion management projects for RVTD ~cluding ruM projects,
funding for a TDM rideshare staff person, and an on-board diagnostic system
Coordination of Land Use Planning with Transportation Planning
lbe plans document that the impacts of transportation and land use planning are inextricably related.
Adverse impacts :Ire often evidenced by increased congestion, longer conunute times, increased vehicle
miles traveled, an overaU diminished quality of life, .and a less efficient transportation system. The policies
uniformly reflect a growing consensus among transportatjon and planning officials over the past several
years that better coo.rdination of project planning and design standards is needed to improve transportation
systems and allow them to operate in the best interest of 01/ users of those systems.
Cooperation Between State and Local Agencies
In order for coordination to be effective, it is critical that state and local transportation and conununity
planning ~ncies cooperate as they develop both long range plans and short telm improvement plans.
Timely conununication is a key to deciding the logistics, timing, and importance of needed transportation
improvements in order to avoid redundancy and overlapping or contradictory implementation. Both of the
proceeding ptinciples are clearly evidenced by policies IB Lmd U" and Transportation and 2A Partnerrhips of
the Oregon Highway Plan, regulatory language widrin the Oregon Rail Plan, and regulatory language within
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland T roasporialion System Plan
Page 11
Septemher 10, 2010
thc Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012) that implements Goal 12 of the Oregon Statewide
Planning Goals.
Balanced and Multi-modal Transportation Improvements
Almost all reviewed documents have goals, objectives, and standards that influence state and local
transportation and COnllnunity plaru1ing agencies to include transportation improvements that encourage
altcnlative forms of transp01tation to the vehicle. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the Oregon
Public Transportation Plan, The Oregon Highway Plan, Goal 12, and the Oregon Transportation Plan
include goals, objectives, and regulations that require transportation plans and improvements to
accommodale alternative forms of transportations such as bicycling, wallting, public transit, and airports.
OAR 734--051 helps to increase the efficiency of aU of these systems by mandating access management and
prescribing design standards for improvements along state owned facilities. In addition, it sets a design
context for the City of AsWand streets that are still under state highway jurisdiction. Some of these same
practices could be beneficial to their heavier traveled local streets. The Oregon Rail Plan advocates for the
provision of improvements for freight and passenger rail service.
The Oregon Public Transpoltation Plan, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the Oregon Rail Plan
help communities identify the roles and responsibilities of key players in developing programs for rideshare,
public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, education programs, minimum levels of service, and
transportation demand management for all types of alternative r;ransportation modes.
Safe and Efficient
Safety and efficiency are predominant objectives of a.ll.of the state documents reviewed Within each one of
the documents there is a goal, objective, directive, or regulation that requires transportation plans and
improvements to be planned or designed with these two concepts in mind. Safety is achieved through
specific design policies Q.e., access management, desigo guidelines, specifIC improvement types), public
education programs, and programs related to maintenance and replacement of transpoL1ation
improvements. Efficiency is encouraged throngh the provision of transportation altematives and programs
geared towards connectivity, timing of improvements, spacing of access, and careful monitoring to assist in
identifying future needed improvements:
The Ashland Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by DLCD and, therefore, is already compliant with the
Statewide Planning Goals; however, the foUo\ving Statewide Planning Goals ean be considered dirccdy
applicable to the update of the City of Ashland's TIP:
Goal- 1
Goal - 2
Goal- 5
Goal- 6
Goal- 7
Citizen Involvement
Land Use Planning
Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
Air, Water, aod Land Resources Quality
Areas Subject to Natural Disasters or Flooding
Technical Memorandum #1
Asblond Transpoltafion SysteIR Pion
Page 12
September 10, 2010
Goal- II Public Facilities and Services
Goal-12 Transportation
Goal- 13 Energy Conservation
Taken as a whole. the documents reviewed and maintained by the State provide a high degree of consistency
and supportive information to enable the City of Ashland to achieve the vision for the latest TSP update.
Regional Documents
The regional documents reviewed are:
RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan
RVMPO Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RVMPO Freight Study
RVMPO OR 99 NOlth-South Travel Demand Study
. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
Bear Creek Greenway Management Plan
RVTD Ten-Year Long Range Plan
Rogue Yalley Regional Planning
The RVMPO OR 99 North-Sonth Travel Demand Study is a long-term multimodal concept plan for the
Highway 99 Corridor Area. The purpose of the study is to develop an alternative to 1-5 north-south travel,
from Seven Oaks Interchange, to the north, south to Interchange 11 in the City of Ashland. 1ne study
focuses on the roles land use and. multimodal transportation can play to improve peak-hour travel through
the corridor. The plan includes strategies to reduce vehicular traffic congestion, greenhouse gases, and
snpport economic development along the north-south corridor. Phase I of the project, which establishes dle
baseline information needed to move forward, has recently been completed. Phase II of the project, the
analysis of alternatives, is currently being scoped and is not yet underway. The Phase 1 final report provides
some valuable baseline data along the corridor that could be incorporated into the update of the City of
Ashland TSP.
The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan, the RVMPO Regional Transportation Improvement Program,
the RVMPO Freight Study, and the RVID Ten-Year Long &.nge Plan are regional planning efforts that
identity regional and local projects and funding for transportation improvement. The plans identity a variety
of system management improvements, some located within the City of Ashland, to coordinate regional
improvements to the transportation system in efforts to relieve congestion, improve air quality, and improve
the efficiency and safety of the system. Eacb of these plans provides valuablc baseline data that can be
considered in the City of Ashland TSP update. Project from the Regional Transportation Impmvement
Program (Tables 3 and 4) and from the Regional Transportatinn Plan (Table 8-2) that affects the City of
Ashland includes:
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland Tronporia/ion Syi/,m Phn
Page 13
September 10, 2010
.
Long teem plans for signalization and intersection improvements
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Street improvement projects including pavement overlays and sidewalk improvements
Transportation Demand Management programs
Transit stop improvements
Railroad crossing improvements
.
.
In addition, the RVTD Ten-Year Long Range Plan includes inrprovements to the public transit system
based on goals related to the social needs of transit riders, the organizational requirements of the transit
system, economic operation of transit, and the environmental benefits of the transit system. Ibe plan also
includes a list of objectives and performance measures that will be evaluated in 2017, the end of the
planning horizon. Many of the perfonnance measures would potentially relate to the goals of a multi-modal
and balanced uprlated TSP, and should be considered as part of this current effort. Specific improvements
from tlus plan related to ,transportation demand management are as follows:
Establish two vanpools with at least one traveling from Grants Pass
Establish Gnarantecd Ride Home program
Establish Safe Routes to School Task Force
Enlist at least two new employers into the bus pass program each year
Implement the new statewide rideshace website when made available
The RVMPO Freight Study is related direcdy to the movement of freight ,vithin the Rogne Valley. Specific
comments out of the freight study that relate directly to needed improvements in the City of AsWand are
truck parking and loading zones in downtown, and the North Ashland intersection with 1-5.
Bear Creek Regional Planning
The Bear Creek Greenway Management Plan is a management plan between Jackson County, Ashland,
Talent, Phoerill4 Medford, and Central Point for the Bear Cn~ek Greenway. Specific to bicycle and
pedestrian improvements within the current City of Ashland is the planned Bear Creek Greenway. The plan
provides for a potential multi-use link between Ashland and Central Point. Ultimately. the goal is to have a
continuous 21-mile path from Oak Street in Ashland to the Seven Oaks Interchange in Central Point. The
management plan addresses specific management assignments for Public Safety> Emergency Services. Litter
and Vandalism Contro~ Surface Managemen~ Vegetation Management, Natural Resource Protection,
Furore Capital Facilities, and Plan Implementation within the greenway corridor.
Technical MelJ10randllm #1
Ashland Transportation .fystem Plan
Page 14
September 10,2010
County Documents
,
The following Jackson County documents were reviewed:
.
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan
Jackson County TSP
.
Updated in 2004, d,e Jackson COWlty Comprehensive Plan is the officiallong-rangc poUcy document for
Jackson County. Like any comprehensive plan, the county's plan selVes as a framework for future decisions
related to land use, trnnsportation, the environment, the economy, housing. and public facilities. Specific
goals and policies have been identified to implemel,lt the vision that the citizens of Jackson County have for
their community. Specific to the City of Ashland, the County is charged with coordinating popnlation'
estimates and managing lands in a manner tbat ~fficiendy allows the conversion of mrallands to urban lands
as the Urban Growth Bound:u.y is expanded. The relationship between the City oJ Ashland and Co;'nty
Comprehensive Plans is fundamentally the same when it comes to policies related to:
Focusing urban growth in urban areas
Reducing sprawl
Providing coordinated and efficient transp~rtation
. Encouraging sustainable economic development
Protecting the environment
Encouraging citizen participation and regional coordination
Ensuring adequate public facilities and services.
Tbc Jackson County TSP, adopted \n 2005, guides the management and development of transportation
facilities within Jackson County and serves to implement the Transportation Element of the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan.
The Jackson County TSP identifies Transportation goals and policies; a street system plan, including
functionaL classifications and representative street sections; pedestrian and bicycle plans thnt identity the
locntions of future facilities; a. transit plan dlat identifies major transit stops and streets that may have future
transit service, potential locations for implementing traffic signal priority for buses, and trnnsit,supportive
programs; pipeline, air, rail, mnrine, and freight plans; and an implementation plan, inclucting a prioritized,
financially constrained transportation improvement program, and a list of other priority projects that could
be funded if new sources of transportation revenue can be developed.
Jackson County's TSP includes three primary goals and accompanying poUcies for Livability, Modal
Components, and Integration,
Techuical Memoraudum #1
AJhland Transportation System Plan
Page 15
Stptembtr 10, 2010
Livability Goal' To develop and maintain a safe multi-modal transportation system capable of meeting the
diVC1'SC transportation needs of Jack soh County wl~e minimizing adverse impacts to the environment
and to the County's qnality of life.
Modal Comporrents Coal' To plan an integrated transportation system that maintains existing facilities and
responds to the changing needs of Jackson County hy providing effective multi-modal transportation
options.
lnt'l.ration Coal: To achieve the livability and modal elements goals by integrating land use planning,
system financial planning, environmental planning, and application of policies to address transportation
needs in s~cific locations,
Each of the three goals is supported by policies and strategies that provide direction for accomplishment of
dle goals. Some of the policies and strategies identified in support of the goals will certainly snpport the
primary objective the CitY of Ashland TSP update.
Other References
The following documents were also reviewed:
International Scan Summary Report on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility (Not Regional)
City of Pordand B2 Power
City of Pordand Bicycle Boulevards 2009
The International Scan Summary Report on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility was included under
this classification not because it is a regional docwnent, but because it is very closely related to the City of
Pordand B2 Power program and the City of Pordand's Bicycle Boulevards 2009. All rlrree of these
documents are prinrarily focused around policy, design, and implementation of programs and improvements
that encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian activities within comprehensive transportation systems. The B2
Power program and the City of Portland's Bicycle Boulevards 2009 docwnenllist a variety of ways to
optimize bicycle travel drrough treatments such as traffic calining and traffic reduction, signage and
pavement markings. and intersection crossing treatments.
The Scan Summary Report on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility paper is the findings of a study
of five separate Em"opean Countries bicycle and pedestrian programs. The study was commissioned to
identity and assess effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. The paper
includes potentiil policy language and reconunended implementation measures for engineering, education,
enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation that may be of some value in the updated the City of Ashland
TSP.
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland Tronsporfalion Syslem Pion
Page 16
Seplemher 10, 2010
Conclusions
Draft review of over forty documents identified a state, regiona~ and county regulatory context and a
community vision that should be considered wben evaluatiog alternatives and ultimately updating the City
of AsWand TSP, A few of the City of Ashland documents are not adopted plans; therefore, do not provide a
regulatory context However, they do provide useful '~baselineJl insight into the recent history of community
planning and citizen input with regard to transportation issues and the relationship of those issues to land
use development in the future. In some cases, development of alternative's will call for an integration of
local, state, county, and regional goals and objectives and the parameter and standards for design.
Coordination of timelines for implementation and project funding may also be needed.
Ashlond Comprehensive Pion: The Comprehensive Plan will remain the bedrock of goals, policies, and land
use designations for updating dle TSP. It provides clear policies and critetia for evaluating
transportation improvements, transit corridors, and any land use concepts for pedestrian nodes and
locations for increasing density.
Ashland L:md Use Code: The land use code is a snpporting document for the Comprellensive Plan. The
zoning designations will provide starting places for investigating opportunities for future pedesu;an
nodes and other intensification of development that is integrated with multimodal transportation
improvements, particularly enhanced transit service. Recommendations for changes to existing zoning
or creation of new overlay districts may become part of the TSP update.
. Ashland in AcJion 2000 omllhe Downlown Plan: Both documents include problem statements and
challenges for consideration in updating the TSP. The plans also make specific improvement proposals
for the pedestrian and bicycle circulation, transit service, and parking.
A Handbookfor Planning tlnd DtJigning Streets: The street standards are comprehensive and hierarchical.
'Ibey will be the starting point for any recommended changes to local street design. Updates may include
creating new Green Street standards. This may be a new street type or design elements for the
management of stormwater that could be included as a modification to existing street types.
The SOU Mosler Plan Update, the Rmhvod PIOPe'!J Masler Pion, and the CIO,non MiD Sile Rulevelopmenl Pion:
Each of these plans is illustrative of important transportation connections and choices that will help
define the coming years for the City of Ashland. These plans may present opportunities to coordinate
local and regional objectives and develop updated project lists that reflect both.
RVTD Ten Year Long Runge Pion: There will be opportunities for an integrated consideration of transit
corridors with enhanced service and intensification of land uses. Tins integt::\ted planning can help
define appropriate levels of transit-oriented development and provide needed data for implementing the
Tiered Service Expansion proposed by RVTD. Planning should also includc consideration of
transpOLtatioo for dle elderly and disabled through paratransit services.
. RVMPO RtgionolTronsportolion Plan (RTP) and Regional Tronporlolion Implvvemenl Plan (TIP):
Opportunities to coordinate local and regional objectives through specific projects and their timelines
for funding and implemcntation. The RTP includes adopted regional goals for transit service.
Technical Memorandum #1
Ashland Tramporialion Syslem Plan
Page 17
Septemher 10, 2010
Slale Plans alld Slandards: Coordination of plans and requirements access spacing and design standards for
roadway elements will be required for the state highway facilities that also serve as major streets for the
City of Ashland.
lntmhangeArea Managemenl Planfor lnl",hange 14: The TSP npdate must be consistent wid, the lAMP.
Olher Rrjerences: These documents can provide useful guidance and best practices examples for improving
mnltimodal facilities.
Current Bicycle Friendly Communities -- September 2010
Community State Award Level Since Population
Boulder. CO Platinum 2004 101,500
Davis CA Platinum 2005 63,722
Portland OR Platinum 2003 533,492
Corvallis OR Gold 2003 53,165
Eugene OR Gold 2004 142,681
Fort Collins CO Gold 2003 118,652
Jackson and Teto WY Gold 2006 18,251
Madison WI Gold 2006 221,551
Palo Alto CA Gold 2003 56,862
San Francisco CA Gold 2006 739,426
Seattle WA Gold 2008 563,374
Stanford Universi CA Gold 2008 13,315
Tucson & East Ph AZ Gold 2004 512,023
Ann Arbor MI Silver 2005 114,028
Arlington VA Silver 2003 200,226
Austin TX Silver 2007 681,804
Bellingham WA Silver 2006 73,460
Bend OR Silver 2005 80,995
Bloomington IN Silver 2003 69,107
Breckenridge CO Silver 2009 3,493
Carrboro NC Silver 2004 18,162
Chicago IL - Silver 2005 2,896,016
Colorado Springs CO Silver 2008 360,890
Columbia MO Silver 2009 102,324
Denver CO Silver 2003 598,707
Durango CO Silver 2008 15,878
Flagstaff AZ Silver 2006 57,391
Folsom CA Silver 2003 63,960
Gainesville FL Silver 2004 117,182
Minneapolis MN Silver 2008 373,188
Missoula MT Silver 2003 57,053
Olympia WA Silver 2008 44,460
Presidio of San FI CA Silver 2003 3,000
Salt Lake City UT Silver 2007 181,743
San Luis Obispo CA Silver. 2007 44,174
Santa Barbara CA Silver 2003 87,370
Santa Cruz CA Silver 2007 54,593
Scottsdale AZ Silver 2005 221,792
Steamboat Sprin CO Silver 2007 9,815
Tempe AZ Silver 2003 165,000
Current Bicycle Friendly Communities -- September 2010
Wood River Valle ID Silver 2008 12,506
Ada County ID Bronze 2004 395,974
Albany OR Bronze 2010 48,770
Albuquerque NM Bronze 2005 448,607
Alexandria VA Bronze 2009 140,024
Anchorage AK Bronze 2009 284,994
Arcata CA Bronze 2008 16,651
Arvada CO Bronze 2008 107,050
Ashland OR Bronze 2004 19,522
Auburn AL Bronze 2005 52,205
Bainbridge Island WA Bronze 2008 20,300
Baltimore MD Bronze 2010 631,000
Baton Rouge LA Bronze 2009 428,360
Beaverton OR Bronze 2003 79,350
Billings MT Bronze 2008 100,147
Boca Raton FL Bronze 2003 83,960
Brentwood CA Bronze 2006 40,007
Brunswick ME Bronze 2003 21,820
Burlington VT Bronze 2004 38,889
Calistoga CA Bronze 2009 5,300
Carbondale CO Bronze 2010 5,196
Carmel IN Bronze 2006 70,000
Cary NC Bronze 2003 119,745
Cedar Falls IA Bronze 2009 36,145
Chandler AZ Bronze 2004 252,257
Chapel Hill NC Bronze 2010 55,616
Charleston SC Bronze 2010 124,000
Charlotte NC Bronze 2008 648,387
Charlottesville VA Bronze 2008 40,315
Chattanooga TN Bronze 2003 155,554
Chico CA Bronze 2004 79,000
Claremont CA Bronze 2008 36,612
Coeur d'Alene ID Bronze 2008 41,983
Columbia SC Bronze 2008 116,278
Columbus OH Bronze 2009 748,000
Concord NH Bronze 2010 43,225
Davidson NC Bronze 2010 10,300
Dayton OH Bronze 2010 154,200
Durham NC Bronze 2010 212,789
Fayetteville AR Bronze 2010 67,158
Franklin PA Bronze 2010 7,212
Current Bicycle Friendly Communities -- September 2010
Gilbert AZ Bronze 2003 196,000
Golden CO Bronze 2010 18,026
Grand Rapids MI Bronze 2009 688,937
Greensboro NC Bronze 2009 258,671
Greenville SC Bronze 2009 28
Gresham OR Bronze 2010 101,537
Houghton MI Bronze 2010 8,238
Huntington CA Bronze 2010 202,250
Indianapolis & M IN Bronze 2009 872,842
Iowa City IA Bronze 2009 65,219
Irvine CA Bronze 2009 186,220
Knoxville TN Bronze 2010 177,646
La Crosse WI Bronze 2007 51,818
Lakewood CO Bronze 2009 146,000
Lansing MI Bronze 2010 111,304
Lawrence KS Bronze 2004 88,664
Lexington-Fayett KY Bronze 2007 246,800
Liberty Lake WA Bronze 2007 7,270
Long Beach CA Bronze 2009 466,520
Longmont CO Bronze 2004 84,636
Louisville KY Bronze 2006 700,030
Marquette MI Bronze 2010 . 21,000
Menlo Park CA Bronze 2010 30,648
Mesa AZ Bronze 2003 437,454
Milwaukee WI Bronze 2006 554,965
Mountain View CA Bronze 2004 70,708
Naperville IL Bronze 2009 128,358
New York NY Bronze 2007 8,143,197
Newark DE Bronze 2010 29,886
North Little Rock AR Bronze 2009 60,433
Oakland CA Bronze 2010 365,875
Oceanside CA Bronze 2008 174,925
Orlando FL Bronze 2004 205,648
Oxford MS Bronze 2008 16,727
Park City UT Bronze 2007 20,620
Philadelphia PA Bronze 2009 1,454,382
Pittsburgh PA Bronze 2010 316,718
Port Townsend WA Bronze 2008 8,334
Portage MI Bronze 2010 46,143
Redmond WA Bronze 2003 49,890
Ridgeland MS Bronze 2010 22,809
Current Bicycle Friendly Communities.- September 2010
Riverside CA Bronze 2009 311,575
Roanoke VA Bronze 2010 94,911
Rochester MN Bronze 2010 102,437
Roseville CA Bronze 2008 109,154
Roswell GA Bronze , 2006 85,920
Sacramento CA Bronze 2006 457,514
Salem OR Bronze 2008 152,239
San Antonio TX Bronze 2010 1,144,646
San Jose CA Bronze 2006 912,332
Sanibel FL Bronze 2010 6,064
Santa Clara CA Bronze 2010 110,376
Santa Clarita CA Bronze 2007 175,314
Santa Monica . CA Bronze 2009 87,400
Schaumburg IL Bronze 2003 73,346
Shawnee K5 Bronze 2003 57,628
Simsbury CT Bronze 2010 23,256
Sioux Falls SD Bronze 2009 154,000
Sitka AK Bronze 2008 8,883
Sonoma CA Bronze 2009 9,128
South Bend IN Bronze 2010 100,842
South Lake Taho CA Bronze 2006 23,609
South Sioux City NE Bronze 2006 11,925
Spartanburg SC Bronze 2007 39,487
Spokane WA Bronze 2010 204,428
Springfield MO Bronze 2010 156,206
St. Louis MO Bronze 2009 350,759
St. Petersburg FL Bronze 2006 249,090
Sunnyvale CA Bronze 2006 131,760
Tallahassee FL Bronze 2009 176,336
Thousand Oaks CA Bronze 2008 127,644
Traverse City MI Bronze 2009 14,532
Tulsa OK Bronze 2009 384,037
Urbana IL Bronze 2010 40,550
Vail CO Bronze 2009 4,806
Vancouver WA Bronze 2005 156,600
Washington DC Bronze 2003 553,523
June 03, 2010
Breaking Our Addictiou to Highway Lcvel of Service Staudards
Note from PCJ Edilor Wayne Senvi/le: this is the third in a series of postings about a
recent two-day workshop I attended. Sponsored by the Proiect for Public Soaces, it
focused on "streets as places."
In this post I'm passing along some of what I learned fi'om transportation engineer Gary
Toth. Toth, who is now Senior Director of Transportation Initiatives for the Project for
Public Spaces, worked for 34 years for the New Jersey Dept. of Transportation, where he
served as Director of Project Planning & Development. He has been one of the leading
national advocates for integrating land use and community considerations into
transportation planning.
Why Getting Good Gradcs Isn't Always the Answer
It's a constant source of amazement to me how much we're addicted to report cards.
Many of us strove in elementary school, high school, and then in college to get those A's
(OK, sometimes a B or C was acceptable). But the idea of receiving an F for
flunking/failure, or even a D, was something to dread.
I think -- and I'm not kidding about this -- this is part of what embues highway "Levels of
Service" ratings with such power. Most local elected officials and citizens I've
encountered seem to view good LOS grades as a sign of success, and D's (or even C's) as
evidence of failure. Our built-in aversion to receiving a "failing" LOS report card is
reinforced by the fact that there is some truth to the ratings: D does indicate congestion
problems, while A or B means we can zip along our roadways with nary a stop.
You noticed that I highlighted the word "some." The problem, according to transportation
engineer Gary Toth, is that LOS ratings tell you only part of the story -- and sometimes
not the most important part. As Toth explains, "design decisions' based on LOS
performance measures end up serving only the through motorist at the expense of the
very communities that the road is also supposed to serve."
How's that? According to Toth, LOS simply does not take into account other
considerations -- such as impacts on pedestrians, on businesses served by the roadway, or
on other cominunity or neighborhood interests. It simply focuses on the motor vehicle.
"The fact is," Toth said, "improving levels of service for cars can degrade it for
pedestrians, shops, and others."
What's more, Toth adds, LOS calculations are typically made "using peak hour travel
projections, generally 20 years into the future." This means our roads are intentionally
"over designed" to handle capacity that only occurs'at the very heaviest travel period. The
problem with over-designed roadways, Toth notes, is that they can "take major bites out
of the community's fabric," while -- especially during otfpeak hours -- turning the
roadway into a speedway. .
Are we bound by Level of Service standards contained in the Transportation Research
Board's Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO's Green Book? No, we're not, says
Toth. As he points out, "while often used as a bible by traffic modelers, in reality the
Highway Capacity Manual neither constitutes nor attempts to establish legal standards for
highway construction."
As Toth explains, "the Green Book and most DOTs provide guidelines for selection of
LOS, but these are guidelines only... selection of a target LOS is a policy decision and is
based on a particular jurisdiction's philosophy on whether or not to accept congestion."
Indeed, the Federal Highwav Administration notes that "while the Highway Capacity
Manual provides the analytical basis for design calculations and decisions,judgment
must be used in the selection of the appropriate level of service for the facility under
study."
That was my key take away from Gary Toth's remarks: communities have a choice -- and
these choices have major ramifications. They can decide on wider, straighter roadways to
eliminate congestion (and receive better grades on their LOS report card), or they can
balance traffic needs against other community goals, such as encouraging more
pedestrian activity and street life.
A community, if it wants to, can actually aim for having drivers slow down so they can
smell the coffee -- and pull over to stop at that tempting coffee house.
For a growing number of cities and towns, living with some congestion is a trade-off
worth making.
. It's also worth noting that major highway planning organizations such as AASHTO and
the Institute for Transportation Engineers have been moving towards more flexible
guidelines that take a roadway's surrounding context into account. [For more on this, see
an excellent article we published by transportation planner Hannah Twaddell, "Fitting
Roadwavs (0 Communitv Needs: A Look at the iTE Urban Thoroughfares Renort."]
During the PPS workshop, Toth called level of service standards one of the "deadly duo"
-- the other being traffic projections. More on the misuse of traffic projections in next
Monday's post.
[Note: in putting together this post I drew on both my notes of Gary Toth's comments
during the workshop and material in a handout he prepared, "Traffic projections and
levels of service targets. "]
That was my key take away from Gary Toth's remarks: communities have a choice -- and
these choices have major ramifications. They can decide on wider, straighter roadways to
eliminate congestion (and receive better grades on their LOS report card), or they can
balance traffic needs against other community goals, such as encouraging more
pedestrian activity and street life.
A community, if it wants to, can actually aim for having drivers slow down so they can
smell the coffee -- and pull over to stop at that tempting coffee house.
For a growing number of cities and towns, living with some congestion is a trade-off
worth making.
It's also worth noting that major highway planning organizations such as AASHTO and
the Institute for Transportation Engineers have been moving towards more flexible
guidelines that take a roadwl!y's sun'Ollnding context into account. [For more on this, see
an excellent article we published by transportation planner Hannah Twaddell, "Fiuinl.l
Roadwavs 10 Community Needs: A LOok at the IrE Urban Thoroui!htares Reoort."]
During the PP8 workshop, Toth called level of service standards one of the "deadly duo"
--the other being traffic projections. More on the misuse of traffic projections in next
Monday's post.
[Note: in putting together this post [ drew on both my notes of Gary Toth's comments
during the workshop and material in a handout he prepared, "Traffic projections and
levels of service targets. "]
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Advance Financing of Public Improvement
October 4,2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552-2411
Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Will the Council add code language to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), creating an Advanced
Financing of Public Improvement section?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends that Council direct staff to develop an ordinance to create an Advanced Financing of
Public Improvement section in the Ashland Municipal Code.
Background:
The City Council previously held an Advance Financing of Public Improvements study session on
November 30, 2009 and then was scheduled to consider proposed Advanced Financing of Public
Improvements ordinance language at their March 16,2010 City Council meeting. The March 16,2010
discussion was delayed due to time constraints. The first reading was then continued to August 3,
2010. Given that it has been ten (10) months since the Council has discussed this issue, staff is
presenting the proposed Advanced Financing of Public Improvements topic to the Council in a study
session. Council will then consider approving the first reading of the new Advanced Financing of
Public Improvements ordinance Tuesday October 19,2010 at the regular City Council session,
assuming you still wish to move ahead with this concept.
Most new private developments require the upgrade of public facilities. Unless these projects meet the
-requirements of a Systems Development Charge or a Local Improvement District, the cost of these
upgrades is paid for by the developer and/or the City. Sometimes a developer has to put in larger
facilities than are required as a condition of approval to avoid having to replace or reconstruct the
facility when other properties develop. Future property owners get the full benefit ofthe new facility
without paying their proportionate share of the costs.
An example of facility improvements includes:
. Larger and/or extended water lines that are required for fire flow for several projects
. Storm water line improvements and corresponding detention basins
. Improved sewer lines to provide capacity to an entire area
. The constructjon of street extensions to provide required traffic flows
. Construction of traffic signals
. Right-of-way or easement purchases for required public improvements which may be outside
of their property or development boundaries and a requirement of their conditions of approval
Page I of2
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
There are currently only two methods of charging benefited property owners their share of public
improvement projects: System Development Charges (SDC) or the formation of a Local Improvement
District (LID).
1. SDC's: The collection ofSDC's are payable upon and as a condition of approval:
a. The issuance or approval of a building or plumbing permit for a development;
b. A permit for a development not requiring the issuance of a building permit, or
c. A permit or other authorization to connect to the water, sanitary sewer, or
d. Storm drainage system (AMC 4.20.070). The amount of the SDC is based on the cost of
the capital improvement attributed to growth and identified on the Capital Improvement
Project (CIP) list.
This method collects revenue for future capacity projects identified in the adopted Master Plan CIP
lists. When developers or the City constructs one of the approved SDC projects, SDC's can be
used to reimburse the City or a developer.
2. LID: A Local Improvement District (LID) is an existing tool to construct public facilities generally
in an existing facility or neighborhood (street, transit, parking, sewer, water, irrigation, etc.) and
distributes the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use. An LID assessment is
assessed to the property owner immediately and the debt can be financed over a period of at least
ten (10) years.
If approved, a third alternative method of repayment would be the Advanced Financing of Public
Improvement section. This method would allow the City or developer to be reimbursed for its portion
of the public improvement.
Advanced Financing is similar to the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) in that it
distributes the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use. The difference between the
two financing options is that an LID assessment is due immediately. The Advance Financing method
is due when the benefited property owner hooks into the public improvement.
The reason staff is proposing new code language for Advanced Financing is to provide a financial
mechanism to reimburse publicly or privately funded public improvement projects that have direct
benefit to other property owners.
Related City Policies:
AMC 4.20.070.
Council Options:
N/A
Potential Motions:
N/A
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance
Page 2 of2
~.l'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 13.30 RELATING
TO THE ADVANCE FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Annotated to show deletioRs and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold" -' and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the Citv 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; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citvof
Beaverton v. Intemational Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop. 20 Or. App. 293,
531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, The City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the people
ofthe City of Ashland to authorize the creation of an advanced financing resolution to provide
for an alternative reimbursement vehicle for infrastructure costs fronted by the City or by a
private party in excess of a development's proportionate infrastructure allocation; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:_
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 13.30, including Sections 13.30. 010 [Definitions] through
13.30.075 [Dispute Resolution], is hereby added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 13.30
ADVANCE FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
SECTIONS
13.30.010 Definitions
13.30.015 Purpose
13.30.020 Applicability
13.30.025 Receipt of Application
13.30.030 City Staff Analysis
13.30.035 Public Hearing
13.30.040 Notification
13.30.045 Advance Financing Resolutions and Agreements
13.30.050 Advance Financed Rejmbursement
13.30.055 Disposition of Advance Financed Reimbursements
13.30.060 Recording
Page'l of 8
13.30.065 Public Improvements
13.30.070 Multiple Public Improvements
13.30.075 Dispute Resolution
13.30.010 DEFINITIONS
The following are definitions for the purposes of this Chapter and for the purposes of any
advance financing agreement entered into with the City of Ashland ("City") pursuant hereto and
for any actions taken as authorized pursuant to this Chapter or otherwise:
A. ADVANCE FINANCING: means a developer's or City's payment for the installation
of one or more public' improvements installed pursuant to this Chapter which
benefiting property owners may utilize upon reimbursing a proportional share of the
cost of such improvement.
B. ADVANCE FINANCING AGREEMENT: means an agreement between one or more
private land owner(s) or developer(s) and the City, as authorized by the Council by
resolution, and executed by the City Administrator, which agreement provides for the
installation of and payment for advance financing of public improvements, and may,
in such agreement, require provisions for improvement, inspection and other financial
guarantee(s) as the City deems best to protect the public and benefiting property
owners, and may make such other provisions as the Council determines necessary and
proper.
C. ADVANCE FINANCING RESOLUTION: means a resolution passed by the Council
and executed by the Mayor designating a public improvement to be an advance
financed public improvement and containing provisions for financial reimbursement
by benefiting property owners who may eventually utilize the improvement and such
other provisions as the Council determines in the best interest of the public.
D. BENEFITTING PROPERTY OWNER: means the fee holder of record of the legal
title to real property which, by virtue of installation of an advance financed public
improvement, may be served, all or in part, by the same. Where such real property is
being purchased under recorded land sales contract, then such purchaser( s) shall also
be deemed owner(s).
E. CITY: means the City of Ashland and shall include the following entities:
I. COUNCIL: means the City Council of Ashland;
2. CITY ADMINISTRATOR: means the City Administrator of the City of
Ashland;
3. PLANNING COMMISSION: means the Planning Commjssion of the City of
Ashland;
4. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: means the Public Works Director of the City
of Ashland;
5. CITY ENGINEER: means the City Engineer of the City of Ashland.
F. DEVELOPER: means the City, an individual, a partnership, a joint venture, a
corporation, a subdivider, a partitioner of land or any other entity, without limitation,
Page 2 of8
who will bear, under the terms of this Chapter, the expense of construct jon, purchase,
installation, or other creation of a public improvement.
G. PROPORTIONAL SHARE: means the amount of the advance financed
reimbursement due from the benefiting property owner calculated in accordance with
section 13.30.050(B).
H. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: means the following:
I. The grading, graveling, paving or other surfacing of any street; or opening,
laying out, widening, extending, altering, changing the grade of or constructjng
any street;
2. The construction of sidewalks;
3. The construction or upgrading of any sanitary or storm sewer;
4. The construction or upgrading of any water line, reservoir, well, or related
water facility; or .
5. Any other public improvement authorized by the Council.
13.03.015 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure orderly new development by providing methods to
finance necessary public improvements so that these necessary public improvements are installed
concurrent with, or before, the new development occurs. The Chapter permits the City to require
that new development pay the installation cost of necessary public improvements and assures
that necessary public improvements are installed in accordance with adopted public facilities
plans. The Chapter provides for a mechanism to reimburse developers, the City, or both, from
benefiting property owners for a proportional share of costs incurred.
13.03.020 APPLICABILITY
A. In accordance with Title 18 "Land Use" of the Ashland Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission or Council may condition approval of planning actions, such as but not
limited to, subdivisions, land partitions and conditional use permits, to require that the
applicant construct necessary public improvements for the development. When the
development is to occur at locations where approved capital improvement or other
master planning documents show new public improvements are necessary, the
Planning Commission or Council may condjtion such planning action approval(s) to
require that the applicant enter into an advance financing agreement which will best
protect the public and promote the general welfare of the City.
B. In accordance with Section 13.30.035 -'13.30-045, the Council may determine that an
advance financed public improvement will best protect the public and promote the
general welfare of the City by ensuring orderly new development. In the absence of a
development application, the Council may, by option, designate the City or other
public entity as the developer and direct the City Administrator to prepare an advance
financing application.
C. In the event the development's subject property is in the Urban Growth Boundary, it
shall be, in due course, annexed to the City. The terms of the City's agreement(s)
Page 3 of8
with Jackson County, concerning the Urban Growth Boundary, as well as other
agreements for provision of public services, (e.g. agreements with Ashland Fire
District and others), shall be considered in action(s) taken througb under the auspices
of this Chapter.
13.30.025 RECEIPT OF APPLICATION
The City Public Works Department will receive applications, accompanied by a mandatory
application fee, plus a deposit for the cost to notice and prepare the analysis of the proposed
public improvement, in such form and amount as the Council may, from time to time, set by
resolution, for advance financed public improvements. The application fee is non-refundable
and the deposit will be applied against the cost of administrative analysis of the proposed
advance financed public improvements, for the cost of notifying the property owners, and for
recording cost. When the City, or other public entity, is the developer, the Council shall, by
motion, direct the City to submit the application to the public works department without fee or
deposit. Applications for advance financed public improvements are expected to be submitted
and approved prior to start of work; however, applications will be accepted for a period of six
months after start of work for the public improvement.
13.30.030 CITY ST AFF ANALYSIS
Upon receipt of the advance financed public improvements application, the public works
department shall make an analysis of the advance financed public improvements proposal and
shall prepare a report to be submitted to the Council for review, discussion, and public hearing.
Such report shall include a map showing the location and area of all benefiting properties. The
report shall also include the City Engineer's estimate of the total cost of the advance financed
public improvement, and a cost allocation plan to benefiting properties. If the improvement is in
the City's Urban Growth Boundary, Jackson County and special districts affected shall be
provided a copy of the report.
13.30.035 PUBLIC HEARING
Within a reasonable time after the Public Works Department has completed its analysis and
report to the City Administrator, an informational public hearing before the Council shall be held
in which all parties and the general public shall be given the opportunity to express their views
and ask questions pertaining to the proposed advance financed public improvements. Since
advance financed public improvements do not give rise to assessments, the public hearing is for
informational purposes only, and is not subject to mandatory termination due to remonstrances.
The Council has the sole discretion, after the public hearing, to decide whether or not an advance
financing resolution shall be approved.
13.30.040 NOTIFICATION
Not less than seven (7) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to any public hearing being held
pursuant to this Chapter, the developer, all benefiting property owners, and the general public
(and, if the improvements are within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, then Jackson County,
and any other district affected) shall be notified of such hearing and the purpose thereof. Public
notice shall be accomplished by a written notice posted at Ashland City Hall and such other
Page 4 0[8
conspicuous locations as the Council may determine to be appropriate, and by a written notice
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community, once in either of the two
consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. Notification of benefiting property owners shaH also be
accomplished by regular mail, or by personal service. If notification is accomplished by mail,
notice shall be considered made on the date that the letter of notification is posted. Failure of any
owner to be so notified shaH not invalidate or otherwise affect any advance financing resolution
or the Council's action to approve or not to approve the same.
13.30.045 ADVANCE FINANCING RESOLUTIONS AND AGREEMENTS
After the public hearing held pursuant to section 13.30.040,
A. If the Council desires to proceed with advance financing of a public improvement, it
shall pass an advance financing resolution accordingly. The resolution shall designate
the proposed improvement as an advance financed public improvement and provide
for advance financed reimbursement by benefiting property owners pursuant to this
Chapter. When the developer is a private developer, the advance financing resolution
shaH instruct the City to enter into an agreement between the developer and the City
pertaining to the advance financed public improvement, and may, in such agreement,
require improvement, inspection and other financial guarantee(s) as the City deems
best to protect the public and benefiting property owners, and may make such other
provisions as the Council determines necessary and proper.
B. If the Council rejects the appl~cation, no further action shaH be taken at that time.
13.30.050 ADVANCE FINANCED REIMBURSEMENT
A. Advanced Financed Reimbursement Imposed. An advance financed reimbursement is
imposed on aH benefiting property owners at such time as the owners apply for
connection to advance financed public improvement, or apply for building permits for
projects that utilize an advance financed public improvement.
B. Rates. Benefiting property owners shaH pay advance financed reimbursement
calculated as follows:
1. If the advance financed public improvement is completed by a private developer,
the reimbursement to the developer via the City shaH be the total actual cost of the
improvement, increased by seven (7) percent annual simple interest, or such other
interest rate as the Council may, from time to time, set by resolution, and applied to
the cost aHocation plan described in City Staff Analysis, Section 13.30.030;
2. If the advance financed public improvement is completed by a public agency, the
reimbursement to the public agency shaH be the total cost of the improvement
increased by the same interest rate, including costs, as the public entity pays to
finance construction, and applied to the cost aHocation plan described in City Staff
Analysis, Section 13.30.030; or
3. If the advance financed public improvement is completed without the issuance of
Page 5 0[8
J
debt by the public entity, the reimbursement to the public entity shall be to the total
cost of the improvement il)creased by the current interest rate private developers
receive, as set forth in above subsection, and applied to the cost allocation plan
described in City Staff Analysis, Section 13.30.030.
4. If inequities are created through the strict implementation of the above Formulas
1,2 or 3, above, the Council may modify its impact on a case-by-case basis.
C. Collection
1. The advance financed reimbursement is immediately due and payable by
benefiting property owners upon their application for connection to an advance
financed public improvement or any building permit the result of which will utilize
any advance financed public improvement. If connection is made or construction
commenced without the above-described permits, then the advance financed
reimbursement is immediately due and payable upon the earliest date that any such
permit was required. No permit for connection or construction shall be issued until
the advance financed reimbursement is paid in full or otherwise processed in
accordance with the terms of Paragraph 2 of this Subsection C. Whenever the full
and correct advance financed reimbursement is due and has not been paid and
collected for any reason, the City Administrator shall report to the Council the
amount of the uncollected reimbursement, the description of the real property to
which the reimbursement is attributable, the date upon which the reimbursement
was due and the name or names of the benefiting property owners. The City
Council, by motion, shall then set a public hearing and shall direct the City
Administrator to give notice of the hearing to each of those benefiting property
owners, together with a copy of the City Administrator's report concerning the
unpaid reimbursement, either in person or by certified mail. Upon public hearing,
the Council may accept, reject, or modify the City Administrator's report; and if it
finds that any reimbursement is unpaid and uncollected, the Council, by motion,
may direct the City Recorder to docket the unpaid and uncollected reimbursement
in the City docket of liens. Upon completion of the docketing, the City shall have a
lien against the described land for the full amount of the unpaid advance financed
reimbursement, together with interest at the current legal rate, and the City's actual
cost of serving notice upon the benefiting property owners. The lien shall be
enforced in the manner provided by Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 223.
2. Whenever an advance financed reimbursement is due and collectable, the
benefiting property owner may apply, upon forms provided by the City
Administrator, for the voluntary imposition of a lien upon the subject property for
the full amount of the advance financed reimbursement and the payment of that
lien in twenty equal semi-annual installments including interest at the current legal
rate. The applicant must provide a certificate from a licensed title insurance
company showing the identity and amount of all other liens already of record
against the property and a certificate from the County Tax Assessor showing the
assessed value less the combined total principal balance and accrued interest on all
prior liens. Upon receipt of such certificates and application, the City Administrator
shall compute the amount of the advance financed reimbursement, the date upon
Page 6 of8
which the reimbursement is due, the name or names of the applicant/owners and
the description of the property; and, upon receiving that report, the City Recorder
shall record the lien in the City record of liens. From the time that docketing is
completed, the City shall have a lien upon the subject property for the amount of
the charge and interest upon that charge at the rate established by the Council for
advance financed public improvements. That lien shall be enforced in the manner
provided in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 223.
13.30.055 DISPOSITION OF ADVANCE FINANCED REIMBURSEMENTS
Private developers shall receive a portion of advance financed reimbursement collected by the
City pertaining to their advance financed public improvements. Such reimbursement shall be
delivered to the developer for a period of ten (10)years from the date the applicable advance
financing agreement has been executed. In addition, any developer, or said developer's heirs,
successors or assigns, may apply at five-year intervals for two five-year extensions beyond the
initial ten-year period. Such reimbursement will be made by the City within ninety (90) days of
receipt of the advance financed reimbursements. Advance financed reimbursements not paid to
the developer under the terms of this Chapter shall be retained by the City to be used for related
system improvements as authorized from time to time by the Council. .
13.30.060 RECORDING
All advance financing resolutions shall be recorded by the City in the property records of
Jackson County, Oregon. Such resolution shall identify full legal description of the benefiting
properties. Failure to make such recording shall not affect the legality of an advance financing
resolution or agreement.
13.30.065 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Public improvements established pursuant to advance financing agreements shall become and
remain the sole property of the City pursuant to the advance financing agreements, and advance
financed reimbursement, plus interest, not paid to the developer during the ten-year period, or
any extension or extensions. thereof, as set forth in section 13.30.055, shall be paid to the City to
be used for related system improvement as authorized from time to time by the Council.
13.30.070 MULTIPLE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Any advance financing application may include one or more public improvements.
13.30.075 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of a dispute arising from a transaction prescribed in this Chapter, it shall first be
addressed by mandatory mediation, the participants in which shall be all parties affected. If
settlement cannot be reached, resolution shall be by binding arbitration and the prevailing
party(ies) shall be entitled to arbitration fees and costs incurred.
Page 70f8
SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
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 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _ day of ,2010
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2010
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2010.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form: \
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 8 of8