Climate-Friendly Areas Evaluation Report

Medford Climate Friendly Area Study – Evalua Ɵon of Candidate Loca Ɵons Revised December 2023 27 Conclusions The potential CFAs evaluated in this report all have relative advantages and disadvantages. For many reasons, however, Candidate A repres ents the best opportunity to locate a CFA that has the greatest likelihood of achievi ng the regulatory goals established by administrative rule. These include  Presence of larger, existing residential development with dens ities high enough to realistically meet and exceed mini mum residential densities mandated by administrative rule. As discussed above, older and more recently constructed residential development in downtown Medford ranges in density between 70 units/net acre and 150 or more units/net acre.  Development market momentum favoring high density in fill and adaptive reuse development.  Presence of recreational, service, ed ucational, cultural, and employment opportunities.  Presence of vacant and un derutilized land for development of high density residential and mixed use development;  Presence of existing multis tory buildings that can be converted into vertical mixed use buildings;  Municipal support for downtown develop ment and revitalization, including consideration of new Urba n Renewal Districts within the Candidate A and investments in robust pedestrian and bicycle facilities;  Regulatory environment that is highly co nsistent with the land use requirements for a CFA;  Ongoing long range planning for downtown that will speci fically consider its possible designation as a CFA. The plan will address a rang e of policy issues including the function and operation of a public parking system, urban design, and land use.  Access to public transportation and regi onal active transportation network; and  Existence of adequate public infrastructure. Candidates B and C also possess relative advantages that make them appealing opportunities for secondary CFAs. A new Urba n Renewal District is being considered in the Candidate B geography. Both Cand idates B and C have larger, consolidated tracts of development than does Candidate A, providin g opportunities for higher density residential development at a scale that could signi ficantly contribute to the goal of locating housing in CFAs. But all things considered, Cand idate A is a vastly superior as a CFA to B and C, which could be evaluated as secondary CFAs.