Planning Commission

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 14, 2026 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff Announcements 2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. June 9, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on July 14, 2026 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/94128664134 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Transportation System Plan & Public Engagement Plan Update 2. Planning Commission ORS Research and Resources VI. OPEN DISCUSSION 1. Planning Commission Annual Retreat Initial Discussion VII. ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: July 28, 2026 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number 1.800.735.2900). Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Page 1 of 1 Total Page Number: 1 Total Page Number: 2  Planning Commission Minutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. June 9, 2026 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Jay Lininger Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Russell Phillips John Maher Kerry KenCairn Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle II. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff Announcements – None 2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. April 28, 2026 Regular Meeting 2. May 12, 2026 Regular Meeting 3. May 26, 2026 Study Session Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Lininger, Phillips, Herron, MacCracken Jain, and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 7-0. Page 1 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 3  Planning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM – None V. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2026-00018 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Legislative amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish a Manufactured Home Park (MHP) Zone, update development and design standards for manufactured housing for clear and objective standards, and establish notice of sale, opportunity to purchase, and tenant protection provisions. Staff Presentation Community Development Director Brandon Goldman provided an overview of the ordinance package, noting that it implements a priority action identified in the City's Housing Production Strategy adopted in 2023, specifically Strategy G — the preservation and modernization of manufactured home parks. Staff explained that existing manufactured housing development standards had not been updated in over 30 years, and the project was intended to modernize those regulations to comply with state law while creating a more effective framework for park preservation and reinvestment. The work was supported through a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), with technical assistance provided by 3J Consulting. Mr. Goldman outlined three primary components of the ordinance package: (1) amendments to manufactured housing development standards; (2) establishment of a new Manufactured Home Park (MHP) zone and corresponding comprehensive plan designation to be applied to existing parks; and (3) a separate ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10 to establish notice of sale requirements, opportunity to purchase provisions, and other tenant protections. Mr. Goldman noted that Assistant City Attorney Carmel Zahran had recommended further legal review of the Chapter 10 ordinance, and that the Planning Commission was not required to make a formal recommendation on that section, though it could provide comments and recommended modifications for consideration by legal and the City Council (see attachment #1). This item was scheduled for City Council first reading on June 16, 2026. Consultant Presentation Scott Fregonese and Journie Gering of 3J Consulting provided an overview of the project background, community engagement efforts — including an advisory committee of park residents that met three times, a joint work session with the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee, City Council, and Planning Commission in January 2026, and an online open house and public survey open from April 27 through May 31, 2026, which received approximately 46 responses. He reviewed the substantive code changes made between the last Planning Commission meeting and Page 2 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 4  Planning Commission Minutes the current draft, which included: replacing the term "financial burden" with "proportionate impact" in the phased compliance provisions; adding childcare and residential facilities to the use table under AMC 18.2.2.030; increasing the opportunity-to-purchase period from 120 to 180 days; updating landscaping and lot coverage standards to 65 percent maximum coverage with 35 percent minimum landscaping; and removing a limitation on increasing the number of units in the phased compliance section applicable to nonconforming uses. Mr. Fregonese summarized the full set of code changes across multiple AMC sections, including revised manufactured housing development standards, updated density and dimensional standards supporting higher-density development, removal of minimum lot size requirements in favor of references to applicable building and fire codes, updated setback and circulation standards, addition of community-serving building standards, and revised nonconforming use compliance provisions. The presentation also highlighted the new MHP zone and corresponding map designations proposed for Wingspread, Tolman Creek, and — upon annexation — Siskiyou Village and Nauvoo Park. The consultant noted that the Ashland Urban RV Park at 278 Idaho Street and Upper Pines had been recommended for removal from the proposed zone map (see attachment #2). Public Comments • Gerry Lehrburger: Expressed concerns about flood risk in manufactured home parks near Bear Creek and called for mitigation measures (see attachment #3). • Rich Rohde: Supported the ordinance package, commending the collaborative process and urging its unanimous passage. • Deborah Stampfli: Supported the ordinance but worried about large investment groups outbidding residents. • Peter Hoyt: Advocated for park protection to prevent resident displacement due to redevelopment. • David Wright (Agent for Wingspread LLC): Objected to extending the opportunity-to- purchase period to 180 days and sought clarity on nonconforming status implications. • Nancy Willson: Thanked the commission for the proposed protections advocating for genuine affordable housing. • David Allen: Appreciated the discussion on zoning recommendations. • Alan Ackroyd: Suggested 180 days might be inadequate for organizing a park purchase and raised concerns about emergency egress. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing at 7:50pm. Deliberations and Decision Ordinance 3296 — AMC Title 18 Manufactured Housing Code Amendments Commissioner Lininger identified inconsistency with terms like "manufactured housing Page 3 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 5  Planning Commission Minutes development," "manufactured home park," and "manufactured dwelling park" across the code. Staff concurred, suggesting amending "manufactured dwelling park" to include these as synonyms for consistency. The "proportionate impact" standard in phased compliance, clarified by consultants, was also discussed. A minor drafting error on page 51 of the packet was highlighted for correction. Ordinances 3297 and 3298 — MHP Zone and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Staff and the Commission agreed to amend both zoning map ordinance (3297) and comprehensive plan map ordinance (3298) to exclude Upper Pines and 278 Idaho Street from the proposed MHP zone designations, aligning with previous directions. Jackson Wellsprings was confirmed to be excluded from both maps. Ordinance 3306 — AMC Chapter 10.116 Notice of Sale, Opportunity to Purchase, and Tenant Protections Commissioner Lininger suggested changing "executed" to "tendered" in the notice of sale provisions for clarity and removing the phrase "following receipt of a notice of sale" from Subsection A to empower resident organizations to make purchase offers at any time. Extended discussion clarified no new obligations for park owners would arise, maintaining that residents could express purchase interest anytime. Commissioner Russell highlighted potential legal challenges with ORS 90.660 and supported further city attorney review. Staff noted that the City Attorney would further review the ordinance before Council discussion on June 16. Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed manufactured home park zone ordinance package for PA-L-2026-00018, including Ordinances 3296, 3297, and 3298, together with the supporting findings as recommended by staff and as amended on the record, specifically: amending Ordinances 3297 and 3298 to remove Upper Pines and 278 Idaho Street from the proposed MHP zone and comprehensive plan designations, excluding Jackson Wells Springs from the maps, and amending the definition of "manufactured dwelling park" to recognize "manufactured home park" and "manufactured housing development" as synonymous terms; and further recommending that Ordinance 3306 (AMC Chapter 10.116) be forwarded to City Council with the Planning Commission's comments but receive additional city attorney review before adoption. DISCUSSION: Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Maher m/s to amend the motion to withdraw Ordinance 3306 for further review by the Legal Department and the Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Phillips, Herron, Maher, KenCairn, Lininger, and Verner: NAY. Commissioner MacCracken Jain: AYE. Amendment failed 1-6. Roll Call Vote on original motion: Commissioners Phillips, Herron, Maher, MacCracken Jain, KenCairn, Lininger, and Verner: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Page 4 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 6  Planning Commission Minutes VI. OPEN DISCUSSION – None VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 7 Total Page Number: 8 Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ) Planning Commission Public Hearing :ƵŶĞϵ͕ϮϬϮϲ͕ϳ͗ϬϬWDര Project Overview Total Page Number: 9 MHPZ Project Overview Project Background: The MHPZ is a part of Ashland's Housing Production Strategy Strategy G: Maintain quality and support preservation of existing manufactured home parks DLCD Grant: Ashland received a technical assistance grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to fund the creation of the MHPZ ordinance. Design Standards: The project called for set standards for density, lot size, setbacks, utilities, and more to preserve existing parks and possibly allow higher- density development and smaller unit sizes. MHPZ Project Engagement • The MAC met 3 times over the course of the project to give feedback • A joint study session between the HHSAC, PC, CC was held on January 27, 2026 to review work products • Code changes were reviewed by: • MAC on March 11, 2026 • HHSAC on April 23, 2026 • PC on April 28, 2026 • An online open house is available on the city webpage showing work products and materials • A survey was published on the webpage • it was open from April 27 to May 31, 2026 • Approximately 46 people responded to the survey Total Page Number: 10  Proposed MHP Zone Proposed MPH Zone The Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ) is proposed for 5 existing manufactured housing communities. 3 are located within the Ashland city limits: • Wingspread Manufactured Home Park • Tolman Creek Manufactured Home Park • Ashland Urban RV Park (278 Idaho St- recommend removal) 2 are located within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB): • Siskiyou Village Manufactured Home Park • Navoo Park Estates Total Page Number: 11  New Code Changes Code changes that have occurred since that last PC Meeting include: • Changed 'financial burden' to 'proportionate impact' and added definition New • Added/updated childcare and residential facilities in table in AMC 18.2.2.030 Code • Changed 120 days to 180 days for opportunity to purchase per Changes Planning Commission discussion Summary • Updated landscaping and lot coverage to reflect city staff recommendations (65% coverage and 35% landscaped) • Updated 'limitations section' under phased compliance and removed "Limitations. Approval under this subsection shall not: Allow an increase in the number of manufactured housing spaces beyond what legally existed at the time the development became nonconforming;" (AMC 18.2.3.180 (G)) Total Page Number: 12  Proposed Code Changes 9 Add the Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ) Code to the Allowed Uses by Zone table. Changes 9 Update the childcare facilities to be permitted on lands zoned for multiunit residential or Summary institutional uses to comply with HB 3560. 9 Update residential treatment facilities and residential homes to be permitted on lands AMC zoned for residential, commercial, employment, industrial, and public lands 18.2.2.030 (excluding parks) to comply with HB 2005. Total Page Number: 13  9 Revise standards for manufactured homes on Code individual lots to comply with state-required clear and objective standards to comply with Changes HB 2347 and ORS 197A.400. Summary AMC 18.2.3.170 9 Revise manufactured housing development standards to implement updated clear and objective standards. 9 Update density, dimensional, and design standards Code to support higher-density manufactured housing developments. Changes 9 Remove minimum lot size standards and instead Summary reference applicable building and fire code requirements. 9 Revise maximum lot coverage standards to allow up AMC to 65 percent lot coverage. 18.2.3.180 9 Update setback standards to reference applicable building and fire code separation requirements and allow limited encroachments for porches and decks where compliant with applicable codes. 9 Update private street and circulation standards, including turnaround requirements consistent with applicable fire code standards. Total Page Number: 14  9 Add permanent pedestrian walkway and ADA accessibility requirements. 9 Update landscaping standards and require landscaped open areas for a minimum of 35 percent Code or lot area. Changes 9 Update common open space and amenity standards. Summary 9 Add standards for community-serving buildings, including permitted and conditional accessory uses. 9 Revise manufactured housing unit standards, including removal of minimum size, width, and patio AMC requirements and allowing smaller units under 500 18.2.3.180 square feet to count toward density calculations at a reduced ratio. 9 Revise standards applicable to nonconforming manufactured housing developments to allow phased or partial compliance approaches. Code Changes Summary 9 Revise Performance Standards Option (PSO) applicability provisions to allow cottage housing and manufactured housing developments to utilize PSO AMC procedures. 18.3.9.020 AMC 18.3.9.030 9 Add references to AMC 18.2.3.180 within PSO Overlay applicability standards. Total Page Number: 15 Code Changes Summary 9 Revise outline plan procedures to exempt manufactured housing developments and cottage housing developments from certain outline/final plan AMC approval submittal requirements. 18.3.9.040 AMC 18.5.8.050 9 Revise annexation standards to exempt manufactured home parks from residential annexation affordability requirements and allow manufactured housing developments up to 18 dwelling units per acre upon annexation. Code Changes Summary 9 Add and revise definitions related to manufactured housing, including Manufactured Dwelling, Prefabricated Dwelling, Manufactured Dwelling Park, AMC Recreational Vehicle, and Proportionate Impact. 18.6.1.030 AMC 9 Add a new chapter establishing standards related to 10.116 manufactured home park sale, closure, conversion, and tenant protections, including notice requirements, opportunity to purchase provisions, relocation assistance standards, relocation plan review procedures, anti-harassment provisions, notice requirements to City housing staff, and enforcement provisions. Total Page Number: 16 Updated Zoning Map Total Page Number: 17 Next Steps Next Steps: ¾ Adoption Schedule: • City Council Study Session – 6/15 • City Council Public Hearing First Reading – 6/16 • City Council Second Reading- 7/21 Total Page Number: 18 Questions & Comments Thank You! Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 Total Page Number: 21 Total Page Number: 22  DISCUSSION ITEMS _________________________________ Transportation System Plan & Public Engagement Plan Update Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 Memo DATE: July 14, 2026 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director RE: Transportation System Plan & Public Engagement Plan Update Purpose This memo provides the Planning Commission with an overview of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), the update process now getting underway, and the Commission's role over the course of the project. This item is informational and no action is requested at this time. The Commission last reviewed this project in May 2025, when it approved the Public Engagement Plan. Since that time the project experienced delays in contracting, but the consultant contract has now been executed and work is beginning. What a Transportation System Plan (TSP) Is, and Why It Matters A Transportation System Plan is the City's long range blueprint for how people and goods move through Ashland. It identifies the transportation facilities and services needed to support planned land uses over a twenty year horizon, covering all modes of travel including walking, bicycling, transit, motor vehicles, and freight. The TSP establishes the projects, programs, and policies that guide the City's transportation investments and provides the basis for requiring transportation improvements in conjunction with development. The TSP is a requirement of Oregon's statewide land use planning program. Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and the Transportation Planning Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission direct cities to prepare and adopt transportation system plans that are coordinated with local comprehensive plans, regional plans, and the Oregon Transportation Plan. Under this framework, the TSP is adopted as a supporting element of the Comprehensive Plan. This connection is what gives the plan its legal weight. Once adopted, the TSP shapes future land use decisions, capital improvement programming, and eligibility for state and federal transportation funding. Ashland's current TSP was adopted in 2013, and this update will bring the plan into alignment with current conditions, community priorities, and updated state requirements, including new provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule adopted under the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities program. Project Structure and Consultant Team COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 25 The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is providing funding and project management support for the update, and has contracted with Alta Planning + Design to serve as the City's consultant team. City staff, ODOT, and the consultant team will coordinate through a project management team over the life of the project, which is anticipated to span approximately two years from the start of work through adoption. General Scope of Work While the detailed schedule remains subject to refinement, the overall arc of the project includes the following major phases. • Community engagement foundation. Updating the approved Public Engagement Plan with the consultant team, launching the project website, and preparing a community profile that includes an equity analysis to help ensure outreach reaches all segments of the community. • Policy framework. Review of existing plans, policies, and code provisions, followed by development of goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria that will guide the plan. • Existing and future conditions. An inventory of the transportation system and analysis of how it performs today across all travel modes, along with a forecast of future conditions based on planned growth. • Solutions development. Identification and evaluation of potential projects and programs for each travel mode, leading to prioritized project lists and an assessment of available funding. • Preferred solutions and draft plan. Selection of a cost constrained set of projects, preparation of the draft TSP document, and drafting of any implementing ordinances and findings needed for adoption. • Adoption. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, concluding with adoption of the final TSP and any implementing ordinances. Public engagement is woven throughout these phases rather than confined to any single step. The Transportation Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission both reviewed and approved a Public Engagement Plan for this project in May 2025. That plan is attached to this memo for reference. The engagement approach it describes will carry forward, although the timeline and specific dates will need to be updated in consultation with the consultant team now that work is underway. Rather than forming a temporary advisory body for this effort, the plan relies on the City's existing standing advisory committees. These include the Transportation Advisory Committee, the Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee, the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee, the Wildfire Safety Advisory Committee, and the Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee, each engaged at key milestones within its area of focus. Broader community engagement will include a project website, community surveys, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, open houses, and coordination with regional partners such as ODOT, the Rogue Valley Transportation District, Jackson County, the Ashland School District, and Southern Oregon University. Role of the Planning Commission COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 26 The Planning Commission will be involved in this process in two distinct capacities. • Public engagement throughout the process. The Planning Commission is also designated as the Committee on Citizen Involvement (2.12.070 - https://ashland.municipal.codes/AMC/2.12.070) and as such assist the City Council in establishing opportunities for public engagement in long range planning, supporting those efforts as they take shape, and evaluating how well the public involvement process is working. Commissioners will take part in the community conversation throughout the life of the project. Under the approved Public Engagement Plan, this begins with a joint kickoff meeting of the Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory Committee, followed by periodic presentations and study sessions at key milestones, joint review of plan concepts and alternatives, and Commission review of the draft plan. A joint work session with the City Council is also anticipated as the draft plan comes together. • • Legislative review and recommendation. Because the TSP will be adopted as a technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan, its adoption is a legislative land use decision. The Commission will hold a public hearing on the draft plan and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In addition, should the process result in proposed modifications to the City's street standards or other land use standards, the Commission will likewise review those amendments to Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18 and provide a recommendation to the Council on their adoption. Next Steps With the contract executed, the consultant team is initiating project management, community engagement planning, and background policy review tasks. Staff will return to the Commission with updates as the project advances and will coordinate scheduling of study sessions at the appropriate milestones. In the meantime, questions about the project may be directed to the Community Development Department. Attachments: 1. May 2025 Draft Public Engagement Plan 2. Select Pages from State of Oregon TSP Guidelines • Full 139 page download available here: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/TSP- Guidelines/Documents/TSP%20Guidelines.pdf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 27 City of Ashland – Transportation System Plan Update Draft Public Engagement Plan (PEP) Prepared: [Insert Date] -Incorporating PC and TAC revisions- 5/1/2025 Purpose This Public Engagement Plan outlines the community outreach, advisory committee engagement, and public review process to guide the development of Ashland’s updated Transportation System Plan (TSP). A TSP is a foundational element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, serving as a long-range blueprint for how people and goods will move within and through the city—by foot, bike, transit, and vehicle. It informs future capital improvements, development decisions, and funding priorities. Because transportation directly affects daily life and intersects with goals related to climate action, housing accessibility, and wildfire preparedness, the TSP is best shaped through robust public engagement. This process is designed to ensure inclusive and transparent community input, incorporate technical expertise, and reflect the values and priorities of Ashland residents. Goals of the Public Engagement Process • Transparency: Ensure the public understands the purpose, scope, and progress of the TSP update. • Inclusivity: Actively engage community members, including underserved populations. • Integration: Incorporate feedback from standing advisory committees, technical experts, and advocacy groups. • Education: Provide stakeholders with accessible and relevant information about transportation planning. • Responsiveness: Demonstrate how public and advisory committee input informs the TSP. Key Stakeholders and Advisory Bodies • Public: Residents, business owners, neighborhood groups, students, and regional users. • City Bodies: o Planning Commission o Transportation Advisory Committee o Climate Policy Advisory Committee Total Page Number: 28  o Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee o Wildfire Safety Advisory Committee • City Council • Regional and Agency Partners: o Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) o Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) o Jackson County o Ashland School District o Southern Oregon University (SOU) • Regional Advocacy Groups: o Streets for Everyone (Ashland Climate Collaborative) o Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) o others Overview of Decision-Making and Advisory Bodies Unlike jurisdictions that form temporary advisory bodies for planning initiatives, Ashland will rely on its existing standing advisory committees to guide the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. These committees—established by ordinance and composed of appointed community members—each focus on specific policy areas such as transportation, climate, housing, and wildfire safety. Members are selected for their expertise, lived experience, or stakeholder representation relevant to the committee's scope. Leveraging these established bodies ensures continuity, subject matter knowledge, and alignment with ongoing city priorities. Each advisory committee will be engaged at key milestones to provide focused input, helping shape the TSP in a way that reflects the community’s values and technical realities. • Planning Commission As the City’s designated land use review body, the Planning Commission serves as the primary reviewing authority for the TSP update. Because the Transportation System Plan is a required element of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan, any amendments to the TSP must undergo a public hearing process before the Planning Commission in accordance with state law and local ordinance. The Commission will hold formal public hearings and issue recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption of the updated TSP. In addition to its legislative responsibilities, the Commission will participate in a joint kickoff meeting with the Transportation Advisory Total Page Number: 29  Committee and will review key milestones, including the draft and final plan, to ensure alignment with broader land use and policy goals. • Transportation Advisory Committee This committee provides focused input on transportation policy, planning, and project prioritization. Composed of members with expertise in transportation, engineering, and mobility systems, the committee will guide the development of multimodal goals, review proposed projects, and help rank improvements to ensure the TSP advances a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation network. • Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee Reviews proposed strategies for alignment with the City’s adopted Climate and Energy Action Plan, with a focus on greenhouse gas reduction. • Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee Provides input on transportation equity, accessibility, and how proposed investments may affect vulnerable populations. • Wildfire Safety Advisory Committee Reviews evacuation modeling assumptions and provides feedback on proposed transportation improvements to support community resilience. • Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee Provides input to ensure the TSP advances equity, access, and anti-displacement goals. Reviews how proposed transportation investments may impact underserved communities and supports strategies that promote transportation justice. Regional Technical Input Targeted stakeholder interviews will be conducted to gather issue-specific input and technical insight from key regional partners and institutional stakeholders. Participants may include: • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) • Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) • Jackson County • Ashland School District • Southern Oregon University (SOU) Total Page Number: 30  • Local transportation advocacy groups such as Streets for Everyone and Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) Engagement Strategies and Activities • Project Website Dedicated TSP Update page (ashlandoregon.gov/TSP) • Online Surveys • Social Media / Email Updates • Pop-up Events • Utility Bill Inserts (as needed) • Public Hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council Engagement Timeline and Activities (18-Month Process: May 2025 – October 2026) Phase 1: Project Initiation (Months 1–3) • Launch project webpage and public communications. • Joint Planning Commission & Transportation Advisory Committee Kickoff Meeting. Phase 2: Data Gathering & Needs Assessment (Months 4–6) • Conduct stakeholder interviews, including SOU and advocacy groups. • Present to: o Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) o Planning Commission o Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC) o Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC) o Wildfire Safety Advisory Committee (WSAC) Social Equity & Racial Justice Advisory Committee (SERJAC) • Launch Community Survey #1. Phase 3: Concepts & Alternatives (Months 7–9) • Joint review by Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory Committee. • Focus groups (e.g., students, seniors, underserved populations). • Topic-specific workshops with advisory committees. Total Page Number: 31 Phase 4: Public Open House #1 – General (Months 10–12) • In-person or online open house on draft needs, alternatives, and equity considerations. Phase 5: Draft Plan Development (Months 13–15) • Review draft plan with: o Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) o Planning Commission o Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC) o Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC) o Wildfire Safety Advisory Committee (WSAC) Social Equity & Racial Justice Advisory Committee (SERJAC) Phase 6: Public Open House #2 – Wildfire Evacuation Focus (Months 16–17) • Present wildfire evacuation modeling and proposed street improvements. Phase 7: Final Review & Adoption (Month 18-24) • Public hearings with Planning Commission and City Council. • Final engagement summary and TSP adoption. Documentation and Reporting All advisory committee feedback (including public meeting minutes), survey responses, public comments, and stakeholder input will be compiled in a Final Engagement Summary Report. This standalone report will be presented alongside the draft Transportation System Plan during the Planning Commission and City Council adoption hearings, providing a clear record of how public input informed the plan’s development. General Timeline Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Transportation System Plan Guidelines Oregon Department of Transportation December 2024 Total Page Number: 34 Why update a TSP? A TSP provides a comprehensive, multimodal picture of how the existing and future transportation system meets the needs of its users. While the state Transportation Planning Rules (TPR) require most Oregon jurisdictions to adopt a TSP, there are many other good reasons to employ this critical long-range planning tool. Plot a clear course for your community Show how your transportation goals meet the goals and Determine where planned transportation improvements needs of planned land uses should be located and what right-of-way needs to be protected Identify and advocate for projects, programs, and Provide rationale for making prudent transportation services the community can fund (financially investments and land use decisions constrained plan) and would like to fund (financially unconstrained plan), within the planning horizon Work toward shared goals A TSP tells others how transportation policies and investments support broader community and regional goals. Being able to see where goals overlap with those of other agencies creates valuable opportunities for collaboration. Attract and secure funds Not only does a TSP provide a necessary linkage to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program to secure funding, it also provides the policy foundation and documentation of needs to support transportation funding decisions and requests. Getting results Read how TSP updates have helped communities fund system investments, coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies, and deliver projects. 14 Total Page Number: 35 Increase potential funding The Wilsonville TSP update, funded through the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program, helped the City of Wilsonville pursue funding for projects on the state system. Support transportation decisions As part of its TGM-funded TSP update, the City of Ashland examined a road diet on North Main Street (OR 99) that would reduce the number of lanes from four to three, providing room for bicycle lanes. Because North Main Street is an alternative route to I-5, ODOT's Motor Carrier Transportation Division was consulted on the proposal. After extensive consultations between the city and state and a major community engagement effort, the city proceeded with a 1-year pilot project to restripe North Main Street. After the 1-year pilot period, the Ashland City Council voted to make the road diet permanent. It should be noted that a road diet on an ODOT facility would most likely be a component of a corridor refinement plan that would be incorporated into a TSP, since a more detailed analysis and community engagement are typically needed for this type of project. For more information on plan implementation, see the excerpt from TGM Tangibles Volume II. Make major improvements through small, affordable steps The City of Newberg was awarded an Oregon TGM grant to prepare a pedestrian and bicycle plan, with an emphasis on identifying a critical core network of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant infrastructure. Rather than wait until funding is secured to construct improvements along an entire corridor, the plan identifies spot improvements that could strategically and affordably remove barriers along a route more quickly and for a fraction of the cost. This plan resulted in an amendment to the city's TSP that updated bicycle and pedestrian elements to include the critical routes and improvements. For more information on plan implementation, see the excerpt from TGM Tangibles Volume II. 15 Total Page Number: 36 When to update a TSP Like all planning documents, a TSP should be updated periodically to reflect a community’s growth and change. Many circumstances can trigger a TSP update, including state or regional compliance issues, changing community priorities, and funding availability. Cities located within a metropolitan area must update their TSPs to conform with the 2022 updates to the state Transportation Planning Rules (TPR), which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see OAR 660-0012-0100). The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) encourages communities to review and update their major plans, including TSPs, on an interval of around seven years. Communities experiencing rapid change may need to update their TSPs at shorter intervals. Does my community need to have a TSP? The TPR provides exemptions to some jurisdictions. Outside of a metropolitan area - Outside of a metropolitan area - Outside of a metropolitan area - Cities with fewer than 10,000 Counties with fewer than 25,000 Unincorporated areas of counties residents may not be required to residents may not be required to inside the UGB with fewer than have a TSP have a TSP 10,000 residents may not be required to have a TSP Inside a metropolitan area - Cities and counties with fewer than 10,000 residents may not be required to have a TSP 16 Total Page Number: 37 DLCD may grant a whole or partial exemption from TPR requirements for these jurisdictions. This includes jurisdictions that are newly included in a metropolitan area and may be subject to new rules. Exempt jurisdictions are still eligible for state grant funding to prepare or update a TSP but may not be obligated to fulfill all the requirements in the TPR. More information about how to apply for an exemption may be found in this document. Can my community secure funding to complete a TSP update? Many communities looking to update their TSP need funding to support the effort. Some funding opportunities, like the Oregon TGM program, are competitive and could affect when an update takes place. Other communities may be able to self-fund a TSP update, providing more flexibility for timing. How long will a TSP update take? Completing all elements of a TSP typically takes 18 to 36 months. Scope, complexity, staff availability, community interest, budget, and the number of agency participants can influence the timeline. What might trigger an update? Population growth and changes to land use patterns, such as: • Significant actual or anticipated population growth • Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansions and annexations • Adoption of a Climate Friendly Area (CFA) for jurisdictions within a metropolitan area • Zoning changes, particularly those that increase residential density or that mix uses • Updated planning documents (i.e., Buildable Lands Inventory, Housing Needs Analysis, Economic Opportunities Assessment) Changed community priorities, such as: • Planned employment or residential development that requires new transportation infrastructure • Increased housing diversity and complete neighborhoods policies • Climate Action Plans that call for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) • Planning for evacuation and supply routes as part of emergency preparedness • Community interest in enhancing active transportation modes • New funding sources (i.e., state or federal grants that require an adopted plan for eligibility) • New infrastructure that is needed to comply with an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan • For metropolitan areas, plans to add new or expanded road facilities as defined in OAR 660-012-0830 17 Total Page Number: 38 The current TSP document no longer addresses the existing or future transportation needs/vision/standards of the local jurisdiction, such as: • Need for new transportation projects based on infill redevelopment or UGB expansions • Need to update a Capital Improvement Program • Plan amendments or zone changes • Specific modal elements that need inclusion or updating (i.e., transit plan) • Roadway functional classifications that are inconsistent between local and state jurisdictions • Completion of most projects in the TSP • A TSP planning horizon of less than 15 years from the current date The current TSP is inconsistent with other local plans or policies, such as: • Updated comprehensive plan elements, including a Housing Capacity Analysis • A new or updated transit development plan • Updated system development charges/transportation impact fees • Periodic review (regularly scheduled updates to major planning documents; see the next section, “When Is a TSP Update Required?” for more on periodic reviews • An expansion of the UGB • Annexation of land into a jurisdiction • An Urban Reserves designation • Planning for the location or relocation of a major transportation facility • A new or relocated employment center • Transportation refinement plans (adopted by resolution or legislatively adopted by reference into the TSP) • Planning for major improvements on the state system (e.g., freeway interchanges or new bypasses) • Plans related to access to and connectivity with other transportation modes (e.g., air, rail, transit, or freight) The current TSP is inconsistent with state or regional plans or policies. Examples include: • For jurisdictions within metropolitan areas or amendments to the area’s Regional Transportation Plan • For jurisdictions within metropolitan areas, compliance with 2022 amendments to the TPR intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, address equity for historically underserved populations, or conduct an equitable engagement process • Changes to state policy or requirements in the Oregon Transportation Plan or the associated mode and topic plans 18 Total Page Number: 39  • Proposed major projects that require exceptions to Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal (e.g., Goal 3, Agricultural Lands) When is a TSP update required? Within metropolitan areas, the TPR outlines two types of TSP updates: major and minor (see OAR 660-012-0105). A major update is one that changes the horizon year of the plan or adds a project that requires enhanced review under OAR 660-012-0830 because it adds significant capacity, such as a road widening larger than a three-lane arterial. A major update triggers a complete review of all parts of the TSP, including compliance with the new CFEC program. A minor update is any other change to a TSP that does not change the horizon year and can be limited in its approach, such as a refinement plan. An update is required under the TPR in the following cases: Periodic Review Cities with a population of more than 25,000 in a metropolitan area are encouraged to review and update major planning documents, including the TSP, every seven years. Cities with a population of more than 10,000 and located outside a metropolitan area are encouraged to review documents every 10 years. The periodic review process is based on an evaluation and work program developed with the assistance of DLCD. Periodic review type updates are typically major updates because they almost always change the horizon year of the plan. While the process of completing a task on the work program varies based on the needs and practices of the jurisdictions and the nature of the task, the local process for developing a TSP is essentially the same as it would be for a plan amendment outside of a periodic review. The notice requirements, however, are different. Periodic review requirements are established in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 and are interpreted and supplemented by OAR 660-0025. Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment A plan or land use regulation amendment that would substantially affect one or more transportation facilities may trigger the need to update a TSP. This includes actions such as rezoning an area to land uses that could increase or change transportation needs that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or adding to the UGB outside of a periodic review. This may be either a major or minor update, depending on the extent of the change. The TPR requires local jurisdictions to evaluate proposed plan amendments for consistency with adopted land use and transportation plans. This part of the TPR, as discussed in OAR 660-012-0060, is designed to address several important objectives: • Ensure that local governments consider the transportation impacts of changes to land use • Keep land use and transportation plans in balance with one another by ensuring that the planned transportation system is adequate to support the planned land use • Address how needed transportation improvements will be funded • Accommodate new development in a way that minimizes traffic impacts 19 Total Page Number: 40 OAR 660-012-0060 specifies a category of facilities, improvements, and services that can be assumed to be in place or committed and available to provide transportation capacity over a 20-year planning horizon. The TPR guides local jurisdictions in determining what transportation improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period when considering amendments to local plans and land use regulations. Multimodal Mixed Use Areas (MMAs) and CFAs are exempt from the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060 per OAR 660-012-0325 (Transportation Review in Climate Friendly Areas). Special Rules for Metro The TPR has a special section for rules that apply only to (see OAR 660-012-0140). Metro must develop a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in coordination with the regional transportation plan required by federal law for metropolitan areas. Cities and counties within Metro must amend their plans to be consistent with the Metro RTP as implemented through the Functional Plan and may set their horizon year to match the horizon year of the adopted RTP. Metro has some flexibility built into the TPR to propose alternative requirements to those in the Rule, as well as the authority to impose additional requirements for transportation system planning within Metro cities and counties. Any additional or alternative requirements must be approved by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Transportation Planning Rule Citations Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, defines the state’s policies on transportation. OAR 660 Division 12, also known as the Transportation Planning Rules (TPR), implements Goal 12. The TPR requires that: • Most jurisdictions prepare and adopt a regional or local transportation plan that serves as the transportation element of a comprehensive plan (see OAR 660-012-0015 for non-metropolitan areas and OAR 660-012- 0100 for metropolitan areas). • Local TSPs are consistent with RTPs. Where elements of the RTP have not been adopted, coordination is needed between the city/county and the regional transportation planning agency when preparing the local TSP (see OAR 660-012-0015). 20 Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42  DISCUSSION ITEMS _________________________________ Planning Commission ORS Research and Resources Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 Memo DATE: July 14, 2026 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner RE: Planning Commission Legal Research Introduction At the request of Planning Commission Chair Lisa Verner, this study session provides an overview of resources for researching Oregon land use law, including decisions from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). These resources are intended to help Commissioners with legislative work, such as updating the zoning code or changing the Comprehensive Plan. They are not intended for researching individual quasi-judicial applications. Legislative work follows different rules than quasi-judicial hearings. In legislative matters, Commissioners are not limited to a fixed record of evidence. They may review how laws have been written and interpreted to help develop sound public policy. Learning how to use these legal resources can help the Commission make better-informed decisions. Individual Legal Research Quasi-judicial decisions apply existing laws to a specific property or application, such as a variance, conditional use permit, or subdivision. In these cases, Oregon law generally discourages decision-makers from gathering their own facts outside the hearing record. However, researching the law itself is usually appropriate. For example, a Commissioner may read LUBA decisions to understand how a law has been interpreted. Researching the facts of a specific application is different. If a Commissioner gathers information that is not part of the record, that information could affect the decision without giving everyone involved a chance to respond. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 45 Examples: o Improper:  Commissioner visits the property alone and observes facts not introduced into evidence.  Commissioners research traffic counts, wetlands, neighborhood impacts, property history, etc., then relies on that information.  Commissioners obtain information from neighbors outside the hearing. o Usually acceptable:  General knowledge possessed by a local official.  Familiarity with community conditions.  Information already contained in the record. The dividing line is whether the board member brings new, case specific facts into the decision that were not already part of the record. Where a decision maker conducts their own research into the planning file, such research could constitute extra-record evidence, reliance on which to render the decision could warrant remand to allow the parties an opportunity to respond. [Bergmann v. City of Brookings, LUBA No 2020-096 (Aug 2, 2021).] Legal Research Resources Oregon Law  Pending Legislation [You will need the HB (House Bill) or SB (Senate Bill) number to search for the law that you are looking for. You will also need to know which session-year because the numbers are recycled] o https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws  ORS (Oregon Revised Statues) o https://oregon.public.law/statutes  Relevant Land Use Chapters o ORS chapter 92 Subdivisions and Partitions o ORS chapter 195 Local Government Planning Coordination o ORS chapter 197 Comprehensive Land Use Planning o ORS chapter 227 City Planning and Zoning  OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) o https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/  OAR chapter 661 Land Use Board of Appeals COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 46 The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA): https://www.oregon.gov/luba/ Legal research can be conducted through the LUBA website through three main items.  Headnotes o Headnotes are brief, categorized summaries of the legal points established in decisions made by LUBA. They are organized by subject matter to serve as a research aid. They summarize the board's conclusions on specific legal doctrines. o Each headnote contains a brief statement of the legal rule, the key facts of the case, and a citation to the specific LUBA opinion from which it is derived. o https://www.oregon.gov/luba/Pages/Headnotes.aspx This combined version of the headnotes is 3,629 pages, is over 60 Mb, and contains 20,528 individual entries organized across 41 legal topic sections.  Final Opinions o OAR 661-010-0070 provides that the Final Order of Board will Indicate whether the decision being reviewed is affirmed, reversed, remanded, transferred, invalidated, or whether the appeal is dismissed. o Includes (at present) 5,149 unique final opinions from 1990 to 2026.  Published Orders o When LUBA feels a procedural order is sufficiently unique or instructive to merit public dissemination they publish them. o Includes (at present) 529 procedural orders from 1999 through 2026 Other Resources https://www.oregonlandusetraining.info/ An overview of planning principles and practices in Oregon. APA: https://www.planning.org/divisions/planningandlaw/case-law-digest/ LOC: https://www.orcities.org/resources/reference/reference-library COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 47