CALL TO ORDER: 6:01pm

Commissioners Present: Mark Brouillard, Joe Graf, Corinne Vièville, Linda Peterson-Adams, Katharine Danner, Derrick Claypool-Barnes, Holly Christiansen
Commissioners Not Present: None
Council Liaison Present: Paula Hyatt
Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Elizabeth Beckerich
Guests Present: Jeff Jackson, Maria Harris, Kat Smith

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome to the new Commissioner, Holly Christiansen.

CONSENT AGENDA
Danner requested corrections to September meeting minutes. First correction on page 3 changing “the” to “there is”. Second correction to be on last page stating, “Fleury can look into is” being changed to “Fleury can look into it”. Peterson-Adams requested motion to approve the minutes as amended, Vièville motioned, Danner seconded, motion approved.

PUBLIC FORUM
Wimer Street Parking Restrictions – Ashland resident Jeff Jackson
Faith Street Traffic Calming – Kat Smith

CRASH REPORT
Officer MacLennan not present for crash report.
Christiansen inquired about the purpose of the Crash Report. Fleury explained that all accidents are tracked in a database and used for analysis in traffic calming to identify hot spots and systemic issues. It is also used for grant applications. Peterson-Adams added that the information is useful for programs such as Vision Zero as well. Christiansen asked why bikes and pedestrians are grouped together, as they should be separate groups. Fleury advised that in the database that information can be filtered to include one or the other. Christiansen inquired where the information for the database comes from and whether it’s only accidents that are reported to the Ashland Police Department. Claypool-Barnes stated that the information was based also on accidents reported to the DMV. Graf added that talking to Officer MacLennan about accidents was useful for determining cause.

NEW BUSINESS
A. Wimer Street Parking Restrictions
Fleury stated that Officer MacLennan talked to him about the Police Department receiving complaints about the parking situation on Wimer Street. Specifically, driveways being blocked and people parking in the yellow zone. MacLennan asked that the Transportation Commission investigate switching the parking area from one side of the street to the other to remedy the issues. Fleury advised that parking being on the curbside closest to the Wimer Heights apartments would be beneficial to the pedestrians trying to access those apartments. Fleury also stated that due to how the striping was previously done on the south side of the street, site distance should be examined as well. Peterson-Adams inquired if the parking restrictions were approved if the striping would be included in that plan or if it would be a long-term goal. Fleury stated that if approved then site distance would need to be verified, then striping could occur.
Jeff Jackson, presented requests/concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Jackson stated that he agrees with moving the street parking to the north side of Wimer but he requested that the yellow striping on the south side near Scenic Avenue be repeated on the south side for multiple reasons. The first reason being that there had been 2 accidents reported in the area, with one fatal accident in 2019 where a driver was turning onto Wimer from Scenic. Jackson believes that yellow striping would help prevent that from happening again. The second reason Jackson stated was that there is a fire hydrant on the south side corner of the intersection and that without the yellow striping emergency vehicles will not be able to stage as they won’t be able to park. The third reason Jackson stated was that his home is on the National Historic Register, and the tree in his front yard is Tree of the Year. Jackson’s neighbor Sam Whitford, who is a member of the Ashland Historic Commission, told Jackson that the view of the house and tree are valuable to the community, so therefore should not be blocked by hedges which Jackson stated would be put up to block the view of cars parked in front of the house. Jackson requested that what is done on the north side in terms of yellow striping be the same for the south side.

Vièville motioned that the Transportation Commission approve the requested change of moving the parking from the north side to the south side, and also that the site distance be verified to make matching yellow striping along the curb as requested. Danner seconded.
Danner then inquired if any residents that currently live on the side where vehicles are parking had made any comments. Fleury replied that there was a letter from a resident in the apartments that is in favor of the change. Brouillard stated that he did not see a reason to carry on the yellow line as the historic house is being blocked by Scenic Avenue anyway, and three parking spots would be lost if they moved the parking because they were not taking the egress of the apartment complex into consideration. Peterson-Adams reminded commissioners that part of the motion is to have Public Works determine the site distance. Fleury stated that Public Works would have to look at the driveway in question in comparison to number of parking spaces. Graf requested that commissioners look at Google Street View and stated that he thinks it makes more sense to have parking near the apartments, and if parking is not moved that a crosswalk be put in as the area is a good candidate for Traffic Calming. Peterson-Adams stated that a high priority project to be completed soon is the bike boulevard from Scenic Ave to North Main St, and a medium priority project also to be completed is sidewalks from Thornton Way to North Main Street, so perhaps Traffic Calming applications for Wimer could wait until those are completed as they may alleviate some of the issues.

Commissioners looked at Google Street View of the area and saw that there were cars parked in the yellow. Brouillard stated that they are over parking and that’s why they’re parked in the yellow. Fleury argued that simplicity and a shorter walking distance is why they’re parking in the yellow. Graf questioned if the picket fence in front of the historic house was in the correct spot/up to code and stated that the fence may be more of a problem in regard to the fire hydrant than the parking situation. Brouillard stated that the Tree of the Year in their yard is blocking site distance, and the yellow line should go past the tree. Brouillard asked if the historic residence is still being used as a Bed and Breakfast? The resident stated that the house is a private residence now. Graf requested that the motion be changed to include that the yellow line be extended. Brouillard disagreed stating that 407 Scenic Ave should not be the only house included in the yellow striping and it should go all the way to the intersection of Scenic Ave and Chestnut St as to not discriminate. Fleury stated that they could cover the area in signage to get the point across.

The motion was amended to be that site distance in the area of Wimer and Scenic will be verified at all access points. The amendment and main motion passed unanimously.

B. Draft Code Amendments – Changes to Annexation Standards
Maria Harris, Planning Manager from City of Ashland Community Development, presented on the project of changes to Annexation Standards. An update to the Annexation Standards was initiated by City Council in August of 2021 to look at issues raised on appeal before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On the north end of town near the railroad trestle there was an annexation for 17 acres for a residential multi-family development. The frontage property was to have a sidewalk built to city standards and include a planting strip. One area of this sidewalk was approved for a bus pullout, which would go against the city code. The City granted an exception for the bus pullout as part of the annexation approval process. The exception decision was appealed to the board of appeals and they ruled a procedural error was made because rules state that there can be no exceptions. Despite that rule, exceptions have been made in the past, such as at the end of Helman St and Nevada St near the dog park, which was done because the builder applied for the development and the annexation at the same time. Another exception was Bud’s Dairy on Main Street due to delineated wetland.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
1. Address issues in appeal to LUBA.
2. Provide clear standards for the evaluation of needed housing.
3. Provide clarity and responsiveness in Ashland’s development process.

EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES
- Approval authority may grant exceptions and variances to the annexation standards.
- Approval criteria can be used to grant exceptions and variances to annexation standards.
- Public facility requirements apply to annexations.
- Flexibility added to Exception to Street Standards.

PUBLIC FACILITY/TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A. Clarification added that City Council may require additional public facility improvements and grant exceptions and variances to annexation standards. Requirements for transportation improvements reworded for clarity.
B. Specify requirements bordering and in annexed area.
C. Likely connections to destinations within a quarter mile.

NEXT STEPS
- November 1, 2021 – City Council Study Session
- November 9, 2021 – Planning Commission Public Hearing
- November 16, 2021 – City Council Public Hearing

In the presentation the idea of taking the words “safe and accessible” out of the Annexation Standards was brought up due to the words being subjective. Brouillard stated that he does not want to take those words out. Graf agreed that “safe” should not be taken out as all developments need to have the goal of safety in mind, and the language in the in the code implies that this is applied for all developments. Harris clarified that this change would not apply to most developments, just annexations. Vièville agreed with Graf and questioned if this change would set a negative precedent if “safe and accessible” are not involved. Peterson-Adams stated that the goal of taking the words out is clarity. Peterson-Adams then stated that the mission of the Transportation Commission is for people to be able to move through the city by mode of their choice, and the commission must consider safety. She went on to state that the Transportation Network Planning System that the Transportation Commission uses is the same one that the state uses, and they resolve to build a transportation system that increases safety, therefore requirements for annexation leading to development should include safety as well. Peterson-Adams also noted that “accessibility” is not specifically talking about ADA requirements but is more general.

Fleury asked Harris if builders can annex without providing a development proposal. Harris replied that requirements have been changed to where they need to do both, however some applications don’t need a development proposal for things like bringing existing roads into the city. Fleury then asked if annexation is always a Type 3 project, and Harris responded yes. Fleury stated that those types of projects always come to the Transportation Commission and wondered if there is a way in the process to include guidance on what is “safe and accessible” to make it less ambiguous. Harris inquired if there is a way to put some sort of measurement into the code to help set a standard of what “safe” is. Vièville asked why “safe and accessible” is a problem as is, and Harris responded that “safe” is not tied to a Transportation or Engineering standard, and it’s defined by whoever is reading it. Vièville asked if they (Transportation Commission) would need to come up with this definition and Harris stated that they are looking into hiring a Transportation Engineer to help with it. Claypool-Barnes clarified that the language needs to be rooted in math/engineering standards, to which Harris agreed.

Brouillard stated that the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “safe” is “Freedom from damage, injury, or danger” and that he doesn’t find that ambiguous. Claypool-Barnes argues that is it ambiguous from an engineering standpoint. Brouillard stated that annexation would widen roads and take out bike lanes which would be less safe.

Vièville inquired if there’s a crosswalk on North Main St to which Peterson-Adams responded no, but LUBA talked about it previously however it wasn’t taken into consideration. Graf added that it was brought up multiple times in the pre-application phase but no one from the Planning Commission was there to hear the comments.

Graf stated that if safety is not considered at this point then it will be later when complaints start to come in about traffic and pedestrian issues. Vièville stated that people with impairments need a crosswalk because they can’t watch for cars coming to cross the street. Peterson-Adams reminds commissioners that they should be talking more generally and not about a specific project. Vièville replied that it sets a precedent when they do things for specific projects.

Fleury said that the city can request whatever they want but since there are multiple agencies involved, notably ODOT having right of way, in this specific project it ultimately isn’t up to them. Fleury then stated that using sound engineering judgement and standards such as ODOT’s provides a general requirement that the city can follow, and it exists already. It can help build what a safe network is and how it gets tied into design and layout, like at North Mountain Ave where it was specifically designed to slow people down. “Safe” can be defined in the proposal for a project and it would give the policy body comfort to know that it’s safe based on standards that they can point to. Vièville stated that the standards need to be put into the language and then the Transportation Commission can revisit it.

Peterson-Adams asked if that precludes keeping “safe and accessible” in the annexation? Fleury replied that no, it should be required for anything having to do with the Transportation Commission and city planning in general, to which Peterson-Adams clarified includes annexation.

Brouillard then stated that he thinks this discussion sounds like a discussion on how to annex Grand Terrace and thinks that it should be put to a vote to the citizens because it abuts county property, not city property.

Vièville stated that she feels this discussion is more about making developers able to build more houses, and the city standards are being changed to make them more accommodating to builders.

It was decided that Harris will provide the minutes from this meeting to the Planning Commission. Vièville asked if the Transportation Commission will revisit the topic after a traffic engineer looks at it? Harris replied that the next step is for this topic to go to a public hearing and then to City Council. Hyatt stated to Harris and Fleury that there are more details in this discussion than she can communicate to Council, and asked if there is a way to communicate this feedback in a more detailed way? Harris deferred to Scott regarding minutes to be provided to Council. Vièville recommended that the conversation be sent to City Council for the upcoming November 1st study session. Peterson-Adams recommended that “safe and accessible” be put back into the language. Vièville stated that the commission needs to be more firm about it and the whole of the discussion needs to be given to City Council for their study session. Peterson-Adams said that part of their charge is to advise City Council and the Planning Commission, and that they’re advising now that “safe and accessible” be put back into the document.
Fleury stated that the minutes could be done as early as next week however they would still only be a draft until they are approved at the next Transportation Commission meeting in November. Fleury suggested that the phrasing be something like “safe and accessible based on sound transportation engineering practices” or “safe and accessible utilizing transportation related engineering analysis and judgement”. He went on to say that the language could then point to the ODOT or National Association of City Transportation Officials design guides as part of traffic impact analysis, enabling them to say that certain types of improvements will make things safer based on studies already done. It would also add flexibility for professionals in the field based on their knowledge.

Graf stated that he doesn’t think it’s fair to make City Council read the minutes and that presenting it as Fleury put it is ideal as it’s shorter and more effective. Vièville agreed. Danner requested that Peterson-Adams revise the statement to include what Fleury said.
Graf motions that a recommendation be made to the Planning Commission and City Council, the language says “safe and accessible based on transportation engineering standards”. Danner seconded. Brouillard requested to also include Peterson-Adams’ previous statement. Danner seconded. All ayes except Claypool-Barnes who briefly left the meeting.
Hyatt added that the motion will be useful for all parties. Peterson-Adams stated that the Transportation Commission tends to have problems presented to them after they’ve already happened, and that they need to be caught earlier. Commissioners then stated their appreciation for Fleury’s helpfulness and positive attitude.

Old Business
A. Traffic Calming
Peterson-Adams brought up a need to make improvements to the Traffic Calming program due to several people applying but not meeting requirements to put them into phase 2. It was suggested that the ranking system needs to be evaluated.

Kat Smith, a resident of Faith Avenue and former Transportation Commissioner, and her neighbors submitted a Traffic Calming Application in December 2020 and it did not meet requirements to go past the pre-application suggestions. Smith spoke about her experience being at 770 Faith Avenue for the last 11 years. She said that she has built connections with her neighbors through block parties and year after year the conversation comes back to traffic calming. Smith talked about the need for sidewalks due to a high population of elderly people, children, and people walking their dogs. She also talked about the suggestion of speed bumps and traffic circles to calm traffic. She stated that sharrows were suggested and put in, and while they are helpful it’s not enough to provide adequate results. Smith also stated that a speed radar trailer has been placed on her street twice with positive results. Signatures were submitted by the neighborhood twice for traffic calming measures but both times criteria was not met to continue the process. Smith suggested that Faith Avenue be used as a pilot area for a program like 20 is Plenty because the street is often used as a throughfare between Highways 66 and 99.
Brouillard stated that providing traffic calming measures on Faith Avenue would push the issues to areas like Park Street and all the other connector streets. Peterson-Adams stated that the basis for priority needs to be made for these streets and they can’t do traffic calming projects based purely on a street being a “squeaky wheel”. Vièville added that the school near Faith Avenue may contribute to more traffic. Smith stated that a city-wide effort would be ideal, and that Faith Ave is willing to be a pilot area for traffic calming measures.

Claypool-Barnes asked if Clay Street belongs to ODOT or if it had been transferred to the City of Ashland. Fleury responded that Jackson County is in the process of transferring the street over and that the city will improve it with a grant they were given. Claypool-Barnes inquired if that grant could be used for the whole neighborhood, but Fleury advised the funds would only cover street improvements. Claypool-Barnes stated that funding for traffic calming had still not been addressed.

Graf commented that in the document about prioritization the 50th percentile speed descriptor doesn’t accurately describe what it is. Fleury stated that instead of using 25 mph as the base speed the intent was to use the measured 50th percentile speed as the base to start the scoring and said he would clean up the wording. Additionally, Graf questioned why having no sidewalk should earn 5 points whereas having no bike lane only counts for 2 points. Graf said that the point system needs to be considered along with the amount of crashes and speeding in a particular area, with criteria not solely based on crashes or speed. Peterson-Adams asked Graf if he thinks that having no sidewalks should earn less points to close the gap, to which Graf replied no, that having no bike lanes should earn more points. Vièville stated that the commission shouldn’t wait for crashes to be an issue for them to approve a project.

Claypool-Barnes stated that a program needs to be created from the ground up and a supply and demand approach needs to be taken. He suggested that the scoring criteria should be based on what the commission can do and how many people want things done, and that basing what gets done on what funds are available would be beneficial. Christiansen added that she believes there are multiple unreported crashes and she’s concerned about that. Fleury stated that the discussion was being looked at through the lens of Vision Zero and trying premeditatively to not have crashes is part of the solution. Fleury also stated that setting aside funds for projects can be done, but criteria needs to be decided first. The budget is still being decided so there is currently no specific budget set aside for traffic calming. Brouillard pointed out that in the past solutions that were suggested were not received well by residents and rejected.

Tying back into Christiansen’s comment, Brouillard shared that he had experienced multiple accidents that went unreported, so he agreed with Graf that an area having no accidents should not mean that it shouldn’t be considered for improvements. Claypool-Barnes pointed out that originally the idea that was discussed was that there would also be a citizen self-reporting aspect implemented. Peterson-Adams stated that that could be included in a statement of need and included on the application. Fleury agreed that a statement of need could push an application over the top. Peterson-Adams then asked if the commission could make a comparison with the new criteria and Faith Avenue, as it could change the outcome and point value. Fleury responded that he would build a spreadsheet for the few streets that have applied and how they will rank with the updated criteria, and stated that that may help Graf’s concerns. Graf stated that one reason for having a numerical scoring system was to take the onus off the Transportation Commission. Another way to do that may be to state that they are going to score every project based on criteria and they will take that and other factors into consideration, making the final decision as the commission. That way the numbers aren’t used as a crutch but will help make the decision.

Danner stated that if a project is not approved the first time around then they can be put on hold and a higher budget/more funds can be requested for the future to be put aside for said projects. Fleury added that there is potential for funds from other grants, and that he would like to be able to tell citizens that their projects are being put on hold and not forgotten rather than outright rejected.

Claypool-Barnes stated that he wants to open the scope of the program, as he believes it could be used for multiple safety issues and not just traffic.

Peterson-Adams stated that in the criteria it should be included if there are any Capital Improvement Programs already in the works, and if so, how far out they are, and that that should also be included when prioritizing proposed projects. Fleury agreed, and it was pointed out that Faith Avenue is already in the Capital Improvement Program.

Claypool-Barnes requested that the Transportation Commission asses what it would look like economically if every request was funded and executed.

FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
Traffic Calming

ADJOURNMENT: @ 8:07pm

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Beckerich, Office Assistant II
**Full Video Available by Request**