HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1103 Council Mtg PACKET NOTE: STUDY
SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. ;council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the
ON 11/3/98 y p
t hasbeen closed. If )u.wish to s k, please fiU out the S esker
entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and
inform'you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on
the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the
agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 3, 1998
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL:
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of October 20, 1998.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
(None)
V. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Authorize additional Federal Funding for the Central Ashland Bike Path
project.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings
must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting).
1. Adoption of the Transportation System Plan (excluding Chapters 10, 11 &
12 relating to the Financing Plan) as part of the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan, Transportation Element.
2. Amendment of portions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, specifically relating to
Hillside Development Standards.
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)______ _
Council Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
2. Update on the Implementation of Council's 1998 - 1999 Goals
3. Ashland Emergency Preparedness Exercise Schedule.
4. Soredi Partnership Agreement.
5. Council discussion regarding appointment of Council Position No. 4.
X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Replacing Chapter 2.22 of
the Ashland Municipal Code to Change the Name of the Bicycle
Commission to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and to Amend Its
Powers and Duties. "
2. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending the Liquor License
Review Chapter (Chapter 6.32) of the Ashland Municipal Code to Update
Provisions Relating to Evaluation of Applications."
3. First reading of"An Ordinance Amending the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Chapter (Chapter 18.62) of the Ashland Municipal Code to
Make Certain Sections Clear and Objective."
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:
XII. ADJOURNMENT:
Reminder
Executive Session at m
6:30 p. :on Tuesday,
Novembee 17 re: City Attorney Annual Evaluation.
A Study.Session will be at 12 30 p.m on Friday,
Novemberi20 to discuss the status of the AshIantl
Creek Restoration Project and potential
Downstream improvements'and Update on the I Yom`
Wetlantls;Demonstration Project.
7o S
��y
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 20, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws,Reid,Wheeldon,and DeBoer were present. Councilor Hauck was absent. (MayorShawspokebriefy
about her absence at the last meeting due to her father's passing away, and thanked the Council;and the citizens for
their understanding during this diicult time)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting and executive session of October 6th, 1998 were approved as presented.
i
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS
1. Update and presentation by the Rogue Valley Transportation District(RVTD).
RVTD representatives Scott Chancey and Julie Brown explained the services provided by RVTD in Ashland, bus
ridership, and the discontinuation of the Southern Oregon University (SOU) student ridership program. Chancey
explained the routes,frequency,hours,days,and fares involved both inside and outside of Ashland. Stated that current
ridership for the two routes within Ashland is approximately 45,036 trips,and the route connecting to Medford has a
ridership of 275,928 trips. 161,020 trips begin and end within the City.
Noted that the City currently contributes$100,000 to RVTD to support 15-minute service between the plaza and the
University and to keep fares at 250. Explained that negotiations with SOU over the student ridership program had
broken down and the program ended in September. Emphasized that RVTD's offer to the University still stands,and
would provide SOU students with free fares anywhere in RVTD's service area.
Councilor Wheeldon questioned how long the City's $100,000 subsidy would ensure the current levels of service.
Chancey indicated this applied for the current year,and RVTD would seek an increase next year. Explained that this
was partly due to the $90,000 cost which must be absorbed by RVTD to provide services that comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)mandates as applied within Ashland. Emphasized that there are no federal
funds for this program, and that the state provides only $115,000 to support ADA-compliant services district-wide.
Stated that the district-wide cost is$600,000. Noted that RVTD receives two fors of federal funding to provide bus
service,one for urban areas and the other for rural. The rural funding applies to Ashland,as well as Phoenix and Talent,
and brings in$113,500. Confirmed that no other City in the Rogue Valley subsidizes bus service,but noted that a 2-year
CMAQ grant in Medford provides high frequency bus routes. Councilor Wheeldon suggested that the Council needs
to be given an idea of projected increases in order to plan during the budget process. Chancey indicated that the costs
of service will not increase, but that the Valley Lift para-transit services required by ADA have seen significant
increases in cost.
In response to inquiries from Councilor Reid,Chancey noted that there are 234 individuals registered to use the Valley
Lift program in Ashland. Explained that trips in Ashland can cost RVTD up to$8 each,and those that continue outside
of Ashland can cost as much as$30. Emphasized that under ADA,RVTD is legally allowed to recover only twice the
regular fare from the passenger,which means that they only receive 500 to pay for such trips in Ashland.
Councilor DeBoer questioned if the City's subsidy would decrease if the upcoming ballot measure to fund bus service
were passed by the voters. Chancey stated that this would be discussed, and that it might allow for some increase in
services. Mayor Shaw suggested that this be discussed prior to election day.
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 1
Mayor Shaw questioned how the City subsidy relates to the lower fares, when the cost of running the bus does not
change with ridership..
Councilor Laws noted that the original $50,000 subsidy was based on the actual costs to provide service. When the
subsidy doubled,costs were not analyzed. Suggested that RVTD has greatly reduced their administrative staff to reduce
costs,and suggested that City staff should help in determining actual costs of service to Ashland. Emphasized that these
costs may in fact be more than$100,000.
Mayor Shaw suggested that the original$50,000 subsidy was to provide free ridership,and that the Transportation Plan
Advisory Commission chose 25¢ fares because it was believed that the service would have a greater perceived value
if there was some cost. Emphasized that she understands the subsidy pays for increased service and ridership,but stated
that the subsidy should not affect the fare. Chancey suggested that RVTD would have to look at farebox revenues if
the program were not in place. Mayor Shaw questioned the costs ofADA-compliant service as being only the difference
between twice the reduced Ashland fare and twice the regular district fare, not the full per trip cost of this service.
Emphasized that as set forth in ADA,RVTD cannot expect to recover the full per trip cost.
Councilor Laws noted this is an unfunded federal mandate. Chancey explained that there are costs associated with
providing service beyond that currently covered by the subsidy. Mayor Shaw emphasized that the numbers being
presented by RVTD were inconsistent,and suggested that they need to make consistent,verifiable figures available for
a presentation of this nature.
Councilor Reid noted concerns about ridership declining with the ending of the SOU program,and emphasized that the
City and the University are really one community. Suggested that this be kept in mind in future negotiations. Councilor
Wheeldon noted that the City has been casual about actual program costs in the past,and suggested that the Council be
more aware in the future. Emphasized that she would like to see figures corresponding to the services to be provided.
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that he and Councilor Laws had met with RVTD staff,and that RVTD will be
working with the City to better define the benefits and services received for the City's subsidy of the bus service. In
addition, the City is working with SOU to try and help negotiate an agreement with RVTD for the student ridership
program which lapsed.
2. Mayor's Proclamation declaring October 23 through 31 as"Red Ribbon Week."
Mayor Shaw read the proclamation in its entirety.
3. Mayor's Proclamation declaring October 25 through 31 as"World Population Awareness Week."
Mayor Shaw read the proclamation in its entirety.
CONSENT AGENDA
t. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of DaleShostrom to BuildingAppeals Board foraterm toexpire
December 31, 1998.
Councilors Wheeldon/Laws m/s to accept the consent agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing regarding Street Design Standards.
Director of Community Development John McLaughlin noted that the adoption of street standards is part of the
Comprehensive Plan,and explained that staff has been working to prepare these standards for the past year. Associate
Planner Maria Harris presented a slide show explaining the street standards proposal. Discussed the standards for
various street classifications, with cross-section views to illustrate the required elements. It was noted that the Tree
Commission has recommended an increase in planting strips to at least seven feet.
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 2
Presented a video illustrating various street types and widths within the City,and discussed similar street standards that
are in use around the state and nationwide. Emphasized that standards call for twenty foot streets in Portland,
McMinnville and Forest Grove. McLaughlin noted that the Planning Commission recommends that the Council not
adopt a twenty foot minimum option,but rather choose a twenty two foot minimum with parking on one side. Harris
noted the similar standards are present in the North Mountain Neighborhood plan,and emphasized that"queuing"streets
encourage more cautious driving. Noted examples in the Fordyce Street area,on Kirk Lane and Mill Pond Road,in one
of the most dense areas in the City at the busiest parking time,and on-street parking was still infrequent and the need
to queue unlikely.
Harris noted that emergency vehicle access has been addressed, and showed photos from Portland illustrating that
twenty foot streets are adequate for fire trucks. Noted that when accidents occur,pedestrian survival rates are 95%in
20 mph zones. Emphasized the effect of traffic on livability.
McLaughlin requested Council approval of the proposed standards and asked that staff be directed to implement
necessary amendments to the municipal code, to include the changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
Discussion of whether the proposed standards had enough flexibility to accommodate conditions around existing
unpaved streets in neighborhoods. McLaughlin stated that the purpose here is to set a standard,but that variances would
be available. Indicated that there are always situations that are exceptions to the rule,but that it would be difficult to
have a street with less than a twenty two foot width under these standards. City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that there
would likely be few appeals,as there have been few in the past and the variance standards have been lessened to make
granting variances easier. With regard to existing unpaved streets, McLaughlin stated that the first course of action
would be for staff to try to obtain additional right of way to meet the minimum standards, but noted that there would
be a greater likelihood of granting a variance for an existing street. City Administrator Mike Freeman brought up
Almond Street as an example. McLaughlin confirmed that granting a variance would be likely in this case. Emphasized
that the where twenty foot standards have been used there have been no problems.
Councilor Laws stated that based on Fire Department presentations to the Traffic Safety Commission,a fire truck with
its extenders out is not sufficiently accommodated by a twenty foot street. Councilor Reid indicated that she liked the
presentation,and would like move forward. Emphasized that she could accept a twenty two foot standard,but would
like to ensure that there was flexibility in the language to allow for topographic circumstances. Mayor Shaw noted that
there are areas within the proposed standards which address existing trees,grade,and other such factors. McLaughlin
reiterated this point,noted that page 40 in the proposed standards mentions opportunities for variance because of trees,
grade, and topography.
Mayor Shaw questioned whether the proposal could be changed to indicate property owner responsibility for park row
landscaping maintenance. McLaughlin stated that this is handled through Code Compliance,and is addressed elsewhere
in the code.
Public hearing opened at 8:25 p.m.
Catherine Carey/527 Walnut Street/Supports alternative transportation, and approves of pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly streets,but would like thereto be the possibility of exceptions for existing streets. Stated that if Walnut Street
were paved to twenty feet,with sidewalk and other standard features,thirty mature trees would be lost between Luna
Vista and Wiley Streets alone. Explained that her property was purchased twenty eight years ago and trees were planted
at that time. If paving occurred to a twenty foot standard,trees would be lost and existing driveways would be made
inaccessible. Urged that there needs to be a provision for exceptions in these standards.
Rick Landt/468 Heiman Street/Distributed a prepared statement which was read into the record by Mayor Shaw.
Wes Chapman/125 Almond Street/Noted that like Catherine Carey, his street has similar circumstances and would
require retaining walls and the loss of existing shrubs and trees if paved to the proposed standards. Emphasized that
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 3
he has had a good working relationship with the City,but stated that if Almond Street were paved to a twenty two foot
standard it would not fit. Concurred with Catherine Carey that flexibility and cooperation need to be part of the street
standards.
Public hearing closed at 8:34 p.m.
Councilor Reid recognized need for a guideline,but suggested that flexibility would be better for the community due
to the unique circumstances that exist in neighborhoods around the City. McLaughlin stated that the proposed street
standards allow for this flexibility,as noted on page 40,where exceptions for preserving natural features are specifically
allowed. Explained that these circumstances would not be considered variances, as they would allow for the
modification of features. McLaughlin confirmed for Councilor Reid that these exceptions do not address flexibility as
much for street width as for other parts of the proposed standards. McLaughlin also noted that standards will be applied
more strictly for new development, and will allow for more flexibility for Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) on
existing, unpaved streets.
Councilor DeBoer stated that language is needed to address existing street circumstances,and expressed concern with
park rows in some circumstances as discussed in Rick Landi's statement. Emphasized 22' streets are preferable.
McLaughlin stated that the preferable option for staff in the past has been to develop with park rows.
Councilor Wheeldon questioned the effectiveness of parking bays in residential neighborhoods. McLaughlin stated that
they work,but indicated that straight curbs work better in single family residential areas as they are more efficient and
require less paving. Councilor Wheeldon stated that flexibility is needed,and recognized that it is preferable to use as
little pavement as possible. Stated that she likes queuing streets,and stated that she would prefer a twenty foot standard.
Councilor Laws noted his concerns with park rows in commercial areas, and with strict standards being applied to
existing neighborhoods. Emphasized that the standards need to clearly indicate that there is flexibility. Discussion of
language that could be used to address street improvements in existing neighborhoods, noting that depending on
circumstances there may be a need to go below even the twenty foot minimum. Emphasized the need to have the
flexibility to accommodate these circumstances,and also reiterated concerns with park rows,sidewalks,and park row
maintenance. Suggested that space may need to be reclaimed from existing streets to accommodate park rows or
sidewalks in existing neighborhoods,rather than taking space from yards. McLaughlin stated that park rows could be
narrower based on the species of tree used and planting techniques in certain situations. Mayor Shaw suggested that
larger trees are preferred to provide a canopying effect over streets.
Staff was directed to bring back the street standards proposal in ordinance form,with alterations to address the Council's
recommendations,to include a twenty two foot street minimum with parking on one side in residential neighborhoods.
PUBLIC FORUM
Evan Archerd/120 North Second Street/Noted that he is a business owner and also owns a farm. Stated that he is
concerned with the effluent and sludge treatment center proposed for the north side of Interstate 5. Briefly explained
the history of this issue leading up to the current situation. Stated that the option selected by Council to locate the
effluent and sludge treatment center north of the Interstate does not meet three of the four stated goals of the project,
and is more expensive than a connection to regional treatment through the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
(BCV SA). Stated that the neighbors living near the site have formed Friends of the Creek and have retained an attorney
to appeal this issue to LUBA. Noted that they have requested an environmental impact report. Expressed concerns that
the County would likely deny approval of a septic system for a single residence on this site,but has approved the site
to treat waste for an entire community. Emphasized that the primary concerns are health,odor and real estate values,
and noted that the sight and odor of the facility might make the City less appealing to tourists. Explained that at least
four real estate sales have fallen because of this project,and recent court decisions have required governments to pay
for reductions in property values resulting from their decisions. Concluded that the project does not meet stated goals,
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 4
and is a costly investment in an unproven solution. Emphasized that alternatives are available,and presented a handout
listing some possible alternatives.
City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that there was no need for Council to respond as these comments were the subject of
a law suit and stated that some of the legal assertions being made were false.
Jim Elliott/2050 Butler Creek Road/Noted that the neighbors have spoken with the Department of Environmental
Quality(DEQ)and the Talent Irrigation District(TID)about the effluent/sludge treatment site and are concerned for
the Creek. Noted the alternatives on a handout presented to Council. Suggested that the neighbors would like a
proactive,cooperative solution,and are concerned for the safety of Butler Creek. Stated that they would like Council
to consider the alternatives presented.
Nolte stated that it would not be appropriate to debate the merits of the pending lawsuit. Explained that comments were
appropriate if Council wished to respond to items that were not part of the suit. Suggested that the alternative of piping
to the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority(BCVSA)could be discussed. Archerd requested that a study session be
held to discuss these matters. Councilor Laws suggested that the alternatives presented be referred to staff for
consideration and that staff prepare a report to Council if any of the alternatives appear promising. Mayor Shaw
indicated that these items would go to staff,and the Council may choose to call hearing or study session at a later date
based on staff determinations. Councilor DeBoer noted that the possibility of an agreement with BCVSA appears
promising and might merit further consideration.
John Huskey/173 Alder Lane/Director of Communications for the Associated Students of Southern Oregon
University (ASSOU)/fhanked the Councilors for their help with the RVTD issue. Noted that the University has
developed a pilot car pool program,and that individual bus passes have been purchased for students who request them.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that because several Councilors and the Mayor would be unable to attend,and
there would not be a quorum present,the October 21"study session was canceled. Noted that items to be discussed
were time sensitive. Suggested that the strategic planning issue be rescheduled for discussion on November 3'at 6:00
p.m.,and that the water plan be addressed at 12:30 p.m. on October 30".
Confirmed that the executive session for the City Attorney's evaluation was scheduled for November 17", and the
session to evaluate the City Administrator was scheduled for December 1'. Freeman stated that the Look ahead would
be revised to indicate the changes discussed and routed to Council. Councilor Reid indicated that she would be out of
town from November 8'through Thanksgiving.
ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland City Band Chapter of the
Ashland Municipal Code to Redefine the Band Board and its Duties Including Duties of the Band
Director."
Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to adopt Ordinance#2830. Roll call vote:Wheeldon,Reid,DeBoer,and Laws,YES.
Motion passed.
2. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Clover Lane on Property Owned
by Vernon Ludwig near Interstate 5 and Highway 66."
Councilors W heeldon/DeBoer m/s to adopt Ordinance#2831. Roll call vote:Laws,DeBoer,Reid,and W heeldon,
YES. Motion passed.
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 5
AZ
3. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Replacing Chapter 2.22 of the Ashland Municipal Code
to Change the Name of the Bicycle Commission to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and to
Amend Its Powers and Duties. "
Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to move the ordinance to a second reading. Roll call vote: DeBoer,Reid,Wheeldon,
and Laws,YES. Motion passed.
Councilor DeBoer questioned whether section 2.22.030 needed to be corrected to indicate five members need to be
present to constitute a quorum. Councilor Laws explained that the decision had been made to set a quorum at four in
this case.
4. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending the Telecommunications Title 16 of the Ashland
Municipal Code to Add Provisions Regulating Cable Service and to Simplify and Clarify Requirements
for Grantees.
This item was postponed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor Wheeldon explained that she had attended the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on the
W,and stated that it had been suggested that City Administrator Mike Freeman and Parks Director Ken Mickelsen
should meet,along with a member from the Council and the Parks Commission,to structure a process to look at issues
around restoration of Ashland Creek and Calle Guanajuato. Wheeldon went on to explain that consultant Brian
McCarthy would be making a presentation in November, and suggested that this preliminary meeting needed to be
scheduled to discuss roles and responsibilities.
City Administrator Freeman explained that this project has been underway for some time, and because of time
constraints the process needs to begin soon. Noted the difficulty based on the diverse parties involved,and stated that
he would like the help of the Parks Commission and the Council. Emphasized that this was an opportunity to try a new
method to structure this process.
Councilor Laws expressed his concerns that any decision need to address the downstream portions of the creek as well,
and stated that he was not prepared to make a decision without having downstream information available. Councilor
Wheeldon noted that the Parks Commission has retained Paul Fishman, of Fishman Environmental Services, who
worked on the OTAK report to look at the downstream portions of the creek. Councilor Laws stated that he wanted to
see a report from Public Works Director Paula Brown,and it was explained that Brown would be presenting this report
at the study session on Friday,November 20'".
Councilor Reid stated that all members of both bodies need to be invited to either meeting,even if attendance is to be
voluntary.Councilor Wheeldon emphasized that the initial meeting would not be a decision making session,and would
merely be to set up the process. Stated that no decision would be made on this issue until early next year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw,Mayor
City Council Meeting 10-20-98 6
i<
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
MINUTES
Mayor Cathy Shaw opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Council members present were Don Laws, Steve
Hauck, and Carole Wheeldon. Planning Commissioners present were Anna Howe, Marilyn Briggs, Steve
Armitage, Russ Chapman, Mike Gardiner, Mike Morris, Chris Hearn and John Fields. Staff present were
John McLaughlin, Planning Director and Sue Yates, Executive Secretary.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Presentation
McLaughlin presented the Transportation System Plan with a slide show, giving an overview of each
chapter in the plan. Goal 12 of the statewide land use goals deals with transportation directing the city to
plan for transportation needs to accommodate the city's growth in the future. The Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan which contains the city's vision, goals and policies were developed initially. It
was helpful to first develop the clear vision and from that came the Transportation System Plan which will
implement all the different modes of transportation to accommodate our vision.
There are certain elements contained in the plan that are required. Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9 10, and 12 are
specific to Ashland.
Discussion
McLaughlin said there are more projects identified in the plan than money available and it will be difficult to
generate the amount of money necessary to fund all the projects. Over the next 20 years, $17 million has
been projected. Prioritization of projects will become necessary. Additional revenues can be realized
through Systems Development Charges. Presently, the city is collecting about$50,000 per year in
transportation SDC's, so even if those fees are increased 300 percent, that would only be $150,000 in
revenue. Some funds would be available from T-21 (the new ISTEA legislation --federal money routed
through the state then doled out to local jurisdictions). Much of the T-21 money will go to transit,
pedestrian and bikes.
Briggs asked how the widening of Siskiyou Boulevard will happen. Laws said there is a tentative specific
plan that shows what will happen on Siskiyou Boulevard that was put together several years ago which
will be looked at again as the city comes closer to realization of that project. Paula Brown, Public Works
Director, said it is one of the highest priorities on the state's list. Whether or not it meets the regional test
could be a different story.
Mayor Shaw asked Brown if it is not true that some people in the region outside of Ashland and including
the Council liaison have not been particularly supportive of money going to improve Siskiyou Boulevard.
Brown said eight projects were reviewed and the questions posed to her were: Why is this regionally
significant?. Brown said Highway 99 supports the college, downtown, our school system, the
Shakespeare Festival, etc. Brown believes it is a regionally significant project. Laws stated he believes
the widening of Siskiyou Boulevard is the single most critical project the city has to promote multi-modal
transportation. He would like to get started immediately so those persons critical to this plan can create a
definite plan before funding even becomes available. Shaw said because DeBoer does not feel this is a
top priority and if we want to move the project along, the Council needs to reinforce to DeBoer what
Ashland's message should be to the region and the state. McLaughlin knows from his discussion with
those at the state level that they always like to hear from Ashland, and continuing to raise the issue at the
state level from the Council would be helpful.
McLaughlin reiterated that the plan is based not so much on decreasing congestion but improving existing
streets; trying to making the existing network as efficient as possible. The goal is to improve services
enough to get another 11 percent of the population to use alternate means of transportation.
t
Briggs has read in the plan about street trees and sidewalks but no clause is included to forgive the terrain
of the city. She recommended wording such as"except where the topography does not allow'.
Wheeldon asked what the requirement is by the state for the city to carry out the TSP. McLaughlin said
certain things have to be adopted and fortunately through past efforts, the city has done most of it, such as
reducing the parking requirements, setting maximum parking limits, location of bike parking, sidewalk
requirements in new developments--things that will improve networks through the planning process.
Things yet to be accomplished are access management, identifying improvements and adopting a
fundable plan.
McLaughlin told the Council and Commissioners to see him if there were any specifics in the plan they
would like to discuss.
CIVIC BUILDING DESIGN
Introduction
McLaughlin said that while a civic project was just recently approved that met the current standards, the
Planning Commissioners thought there should be a different set of standards for civic buildings. The
Commissioners have thought it important to consider, as a community, do we want to build places that
mean something to the future, that will set a tone to encourage new development to meet a higher
standard in our civic building? The Commissioners wanted an opportunity to talk to the Council about
this. The other side of the argument has been that the city already has relatively high standards for
commercial style development. Do we hold ourselves to a different standard than developers? A
developer will build a very nice building knowing it will attract customers and they will recoup their
investment. Government today, however, is under the gun to keep costs to a minimum so much of what is
being seen are metal buildings using the cheapest construction going to the lowest bidder.
Discussion
Howe clarified it is not just government buildings but libraries, schools, etc. The Commission realized the
impact that institutions have on the whole community.
Briggs has continued frustration when the existing criteria is so narrow and a public building is proposed
that is cheap and ugly. She can envision a three to five member board that would
be involved early in the plan (such as the Historic Commission Review Board) to comment on the design
of a public building. She pointed to some examples of buildings that have not gone well: the Teen Center
which is put on axis with a weed bank and cedar solid fence; a committee might have caught this. The
PINS building is ugly and a committee could have said if the building ever changed hands, what else could
be done with the building. The Commission recently approved a warehouse workshop at the entrance of
Oak Knoll Golf Course. It is a tin building with a porch and brick going up it. A committee could have
recommended instead of tin siding, some other material and for no more cost. She believes there should
have been an architectural review committee for the high school theater building. She does not see this
review as a stumbling block for getting a project done in a timely manner.
Shaw said it is not a bad idea to have some type of architectural guidelines for civic buildings.
She found how little control we had over what was happening at the civic center here. Everyone was
resistive as to what it looked like but it kept going through. Perhaps some guidelines would be a good
idea. She would like public buildings that are well built that will live longer than this generation.
Armitage said the reason the Planning Commission got into this problem is that in the end, the structure
and materials of certain projects are in compliance with the ordinance. To have a committee
JOINT STUDY SESSION 2
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29,1998
MINUTES
i
recommending design changes would be nice but sometimes groups are constrained by their budgets. A
committee can nudge and recommend. Would this not mean that a new chapter would have to be added
to the ordinance to cover this? Then a committee would not be needed because an applicant would be
held to the ordinance. A committee could help write the new ordinance. McLaughlin said the hardest
thing in an ordinance is to force good development.
Howe said she served as liaison to the local review board which did not constrain itself just to civic
buildings. The net effect to the city is that architects, engineers, landscapers, who served on the board
only meeting when something needed its review, was the city got services it could never have afforded to
offer people who were trying to develop in the town. The committee did it as a gift to the community. It
turned into a collegial activity that everyone felt good about.
Briggs mentioned the articles included in the packet.
Fields said he served on a committee that was part of the design process for the high school theater. He
believes once an architect is selected, it is slightly predictable what kind of building will come out of it.
There are those who really care about aesthetics but the architectural and design team drive the project.
He would like to see a minimum of what is in the Detailed Site Review that would hold civic buildings to
that standard. What values do we want to see in traditional architecture?
Armitage said if there is a measurable standard, the Planning Commission could support a review
committee.
Shaw suggested forming an ad hoc committee. Suggestions of those that could serve are:
Bill Bloodgood Tom Giordano Marilyn Briggs
Cathy Shaw Jim Lewis An engineer
Wheeldon believes it would be good to start with institutions who are likely to be building soon. This will
be a good way to communicate some values. Laws said he thinks government and other entities should
be notified this committee is going to be formed (city, county, college, forest service, Welcome Center,
state). Briggs thought the committee should come up with a couple of ides before inviting any entities.
Shaw thought some committee should meet and then check in with the Council before moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
JOINT STUDY SESSION 3
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29,1998
MINUTES
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
October 6, 1998
ORIENTATION MEETING
Commission members Lewis, Shostrom,Chambers, Foll,Steele,Anderson, Bailey and Cowan met,together with Associate
Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman, at the Community Center at 2:30 p.m. and then proceeded to the Water
Treatment Plant, the historic Ashland Municipal Power House and Reeder Reservoir for a tour. At 5:00 the orientation
meeting commenced at the Community Center. Local historian Kay Atwood spoke about the purpose of the Historic
Commission and projects to consider. As an example, she presented a project she had worked on for the City of Medford
and Medford Parks Department on the importance of cemeteries. She set up a curriculum for all 3rd and 4'"grade school
children in the Rogue Valley,along with a nine minute video entitled"Where Stones Talk". Knox spoke about upcoming City
issues, including the fire station, library, post office, City Hall, Masonic Temple,Guanajuato Way and the Hillah Temple. He
also talked about what to consider in making decisions on planning actions.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting was called to order at the Community Center by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:30 p.m. Members present
were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Gary Foll, Joan Steele, Curt Anderson and Vava Bailey. Also present were
Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Keith Chambers and Joyce Cowan were unable to
attend the evening meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Anderson moved and Shostrom seconded the Minutes of the September 2, 1998 meeting be approved as submitted. The
motion was unanimously passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 98-097
Conditional Use Permit
75 Wimer Street
Tom & Cheryl Charlesworth
Knox related this application is for the transfer of ownership for an existing traveler's accommodation. There will be no
changes. With a motion by Cowan and second by Shostrom, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval
of this proposal to the Planning Commission,
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of September follow:
234 North First Street Jim Little Roof Remodel
117 Eighth Street Dick McKinney & Diane Sly Remodel &Addition
664 "A" Street Jim Lewis Addition
243 East Main Street Western Bank Reroof
64 Gresham Street Don & Phyllis Reynolds Remodel &Addition
868 "A" Street Betty Camner Interior Remodel
47 Fourth Street Mark& Beth Heller Accessory Residential Unit
127 Strawberry Lane Andrew Bartholomew Remodel
25 Granite Street Robert McLellan Guest House
112 Heiman Street Community Health Center Tenant Improvement
355"B" Street John Ruikis Windows & Door
426 "B" Street Tatiyana & Patrick Foundation
180 Sherman Street Andrew Chester Reroof&Windows
323 High Street Heycke & Geismar Addition
30 North Second Street U.S. Bank Sign
247 East Main Street Art and Soul Gallery Sign
485 "A" Street Ashland Yoga Center Sign
REVIEW BOARD
Following is the September schedule for the.Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in
the Planning Department:
October 8'" Skibby, Anderson and Shostrom
October 15`" Skibby, Bailey and Steele
October 22nd Skibby, Foll and Shostrom
October 29" Skibby, Steele and Lewis
OLD BUSINESS
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA# Address Persons Assigned
96-086 685 "A" Street Curt Anderson/Jim Lewis
97-018 661 "B" Street Jim Lewis
98-022 112 Helman Street Vava Bailey
98-082 141 Lithia Way Dale Shostrom
98-034 221 Oak Street Dale Shostrom
98-039 Holly Street Joan Steele and Joyce Cowan
98-045 122 Church Street Vava Bailey
98-047 Between 548 &628 North Main Street Joyce Cowan
98-070 595 North Main Street Terry Skibby and Dale Shostrom
97-072 440 East Main Street Joyce Cowan
98-075 542 "A" Street Jim Lewis
98-091 559 Scenic Drive Vava Bailey
Grant for National Register Web Site
Steele reported she had drafted a letter to mail to the owners of the National Register properties. However, Knox said
he had received word from Patrick Andrus, from the National Park Service, who thought each property owner should be
personally called on the telephone. Andrus contends better participation is achieved through personal contact. The
Commission will use the draft letter as a guideline and divide the properties between the members. A letter of
confirmation can be sent after the phone contact.
GOALS
The Commission discussed last year's goals which were have already been accomplished. These included National
Register status for the Railroad District(will be before the State Advisory Board on Historic Preservation on October
30"), adoption of the Downtown Design Standards, and a walking tour publication (recently published by Southern
Oregon Historical Society). Another goal was National Register status for the Downtown Historic District. Knox has
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
October 6, 1998 2
since acquired a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for this. The Commission still needs to work on
education. Lewis stated the Commission should offer to give tours to students. Also discussed was the fact that
although Southern Oregon Historical Society has an office in the Old Ashland Armory, a permanent place is still needed
for visual displays and a history center. Goals will again be discussed at next month's meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Bailey and second by Steele, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting
at 8:20 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
October 6, 1998 3
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 27, 1998
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Steve Armitage at 7:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present
were Anna Howe, Russ Chapman, Chris Hearn, Alex Amaratico, Mike Morris, Mike Gardiner, Marilyn
Briggs, and John Fields. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill
Molnar, Mark Knox, and Susan Yates
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
Howe moved to approve, the motion was seconded and the Findings for PA98-091 were adopted.
Gardiner moved to approve, the motion was seconded the Findings for PA98-105 were adopted.
TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 98-115
REQUEST TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER 18.62 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. THESE AMENDMENTS
INVOLVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 18.62.040.J (POWER TO
AMEND PLANS), 18.62.080.B.8 (SITE GRADING), 18.62.080.D.5, 6.a AND 6.c (PRESERVING AND
REPLACING TREES, REVEGETATION PLANS)AND 18.62.080.B.5.a (FILL SLOPES).
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported the hillside ordinance was adopted in December of 1997 and appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals soon after. A decision was received recently, much of which is outlined in the Staff
Report. The City prevailed on some issues and LUBA had concerns with some issues which were mostly
housekeeping items which require adjusting some language in the ordinance. These issues have been
reviewed with Paul Nolte, City Attorney. He recommended deleting the language LUBA found to not be
clear and objective. The ordinance is very comprehensive with regard to erosion control and tree
protection and it will still provide what the City needs without the extra language. Staff recommends the
adjustments noted in the Staff Report.
Briggs thought on page 5, section 3, there should be two sentences because there are sites that are not
wildfire lands. The first sentence would end at"...on a site." followed by: "Development shall follow the
standards for fuel reduction...".
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN FREEDOM, 150 Nursery Street, favors creating more specific wording in the ordinances in the City
to facilitate the development process. He would like a definition of"maximum number of trees". In
creating a future vision for Ashland, there is language that will facilitate development not hinder it. There
is a need for more clarity.
RICK HARRIS, 33 North First, stated he objects to this action and agrees that"maximum" is not clear
wording. He believes there is an important part of the remand order that has been omitted from the Staff
Report that should be brought to the Commissioners' attention. Armitage noted that portion was in fact
included in the Staff Report. Harris believes there are still 46 acres of land needed within the city's
inventory that is not being addressed.
McLaughlin said the Comprehensive Plan identifies how many acres are zoned. The city is 46 acres short
for the 20 year supply but there is land in the Urban Growth Boundary. The Comprehensive Plan requires
the city to only have a five year supply. This point will be clarified.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe moved approval of PA98-115 to recommend to the City Council for adoption adding Briggs'wording.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 9"16
REQUEST TO ADOPT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said the chapters had been previously reviewed with the Commission at a Study Session.
This is the implementation of the Transportation Element. The plan is required by the State to link land
use and transportation.
The memo dated October 27, 1998 from John McLaughlin outlines the recommended amendments to the
TSP.
McLaughlin also included a modification suggested by Councilor DeBoer that the North Mountain Avenue
freeway interchange be included in the list of"Needed Transportation Improvements" (Chapter 9). The
bottom line is that it is the City's adopted position that it is unlikely a freeway interchange is unlikely during
the planning period (20 years). At this point it does not seem like a point to be included, however, DeBoer
recommended its inclusion. McLaughlin contacted ODOT and found the construction cost for a rural
interchange would run between $8 -10 million. The City's revenues over the next ten years will be only
$17 million. Including the modification does not really go along with the rest of the vision of the plan.
There was not enough interest on the part of the Commission to include DeBoer's modification.
' McLaughlin would like to recommend to the Council the TSP excluding Chapters 10, 11 and 12 (financing
portion)with the seven changes listed in the memo of October 27, 1998.
Chapman wondered if there was any sentiment on the part of the Commission to discuss the managed
boulevard speed of 30-40 mph. He cannot picture anyplace in Ashland where speeds should be 40 mph
because when an area is posted at 40 mph, drivers will invariably travel at 45 mph. If we are trying to
encourage a multi-modal town, the biggest safety issue is higher traffic speeds. This could be a good time
to encourage a maximum of 30-35 mph.
Hearn wandered if the Planning Commission could set speeds. McLaughlin explained that what we are
trying to do is reduce speeds through street design.
After additional discussion, the Commission decided to leave the managed speed for boulevards at 30 -
40 mph.
Chapman felt the cost of RVTD equipment was quite high. He would be interested in being part of a group
to work on finding alternatives.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
OCTOBER 27,1998
MINUTES
Y
Gardiner moved to move PA98-106 forward to the Council with the recommended changes. The motion
was seconded and approved unanimously.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR AND SECOND VICE CHAIR
Ron Bass' resignation left a vacancy for the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Anna Howe and
Mike Gardiner were nominated and Howe was elected. Gardiner is Second Vice Chair.
OTHER
McLaughlin announced a training session sponsored by the Rogue Valley Public Service Academy,
"Finding Facts& Reaching Legal Conclusions in Land Use Cases"to be held on November 4'. Any
Commissioner wishing to go should call Susan.
ADJOURNED-The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
OCTOBER 27,1998
MINUTES
Council Communication
Public Works Department
,�J(,// November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Paula Brown YU�
Reviewed by: Paul Nolte 11 �I
Approved by: Mike Freeman MP—
Title: 1•
Authorize Additional Federal Funding for the Central Ashland Bike Path Project
Synopsis:
The attached Amendment No. 3 to the Central Ashland Bike Path project authorizes additional
federal revenues through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)to be provided for
completion of the project.
Recommendation:
It is recommend the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Amendment No. 3
increasing the federal funds on the Central Ashland Bike Path to a total of$416,149.
Background Information:
The City and ODOT entered into an agreement on January 5, 1995 to provide federal and state
funds for the completion of the Central Ashland Bike Path. Additional funds not used on the
East Main Street Improvement project have been approved by ODOT to be reallocated to the
Central Ashland Bike Path. The total additional funds available to the Central Ashland Bike
Path project amount to $80,456.
September 24, 1998 Misc. Contracts &Agreements
No. 12748 #3
AMENDMENT NO. 3
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
The State of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (State),
and the City of Ashland acting by and through its Elected Officials (Agency), entered
into Local Agency Agreement No. 12748 on January 5, 1995; Amendment No. 1 on
May 15, 1997; and Amendment No. 2 on October 6, 1997. Said agreement covers an
enhancement project on the Central Ashland Bike Path, hereinafter referred to as
"project".
It has now been determined by State and Agency that the agreement referenced
above, although remaining in full force and effect, shall be amended by this agreement
to increase the funding for the project, as follows:
Page 1, Paragraph 4, which reads:
4. The project shall be conducted as a part of the Enhancement Program under
Title 23, United States Code, and the Oregon Action Plan. The
Enhancement Funds are limited to $248,000 of Enhancement funds, plus
$87,693 of STP funds per the Surface Transportation Agreement No. 11,873
with the League of Oregon Cities, for a total of $335,693 federal funds.
Agency shall be responsible for the match for the federal funds and any
portion of the project which is not covered by federal funding.
Shall be amended to read:
4. The project shall be conducted as a part of the Enhancement Program under
Title 23, United States Code, and the Oregon Action Plan. The
Enhancement Funds are limited to $248,800 of Enhancement funds, plus
$167,349 of STP funds per the Surface Transportation Agreement No.
11,873 with the League of Oregon Cities, for a total of $416,149 federal
funds. Agency shall be responsible for the match for the federal funds and
any portion of the project which is not covered by federal funding.
Agreement No. 12748 #3
City of Ashland
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand and affixed their seals
as of the day and year hereinafter written.
The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 1998, approved Subdelegation
Order No. 2 in which the Director grants authority to the Deputy Director/Chief Engineer
and the Deputy for Finance and Administration Operations to approve and execute
agreements over $50,000 when the work is related to a project included in the STIP or
is a line item in the approved biennial budget.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by and through
its Department of Transportation
By BY
Region Manager Deputy Director/Chief Engineer
Date Date
Approved As To CITY OF ASHLAND, by and
Legal Sufficiency through its Elected Officials
By BY
Agency Attorney Mayor
Date BY
City Recorder
Date
2
Council Communication
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
November 3, 1998
Title: Adoption of the Transportation System Plan (excluding Chapters 10,11,&12
relating to the Financing Plan) as part of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation Element.
Submitted by: John McLaughlin
�
Approved by: Mike Freeman m a..
Synopsis:
In December, 1996,the City of Ashland adopted the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, outlining the goals and policies for accommodating the transportation
needs associated with the growth of our community for the coming years. As required by the
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), cities must then adopt system plans to implement
those goals and policies. Beginning in February, 1997, the City undertook the process of
meeting the requirements of the TPR after receiving a grant from the Oregon Department of
Transportation. After many technical advisory committee meetings and two joint study sessions
between the Planning Commission and City Council, we are now presenting the final draft of the
TSP.
The Transportation System Plan addresses the current status of our transportation network within
the City and urban growth boundary, and identifies needed transportation improvements
necessary to accommodate the future growth projected in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
The adoption of the plan will result in the TSP becoming part of the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason, we are not required to adopt the financial chapters (10,
11, & 12) of the plan since they are subject to change based upon funding availability and project
prioritization.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council accept the TSP (excluding chapters 10, 11, and 12 and including
the seven recommendations from the Planning Commission) and direct staff to bring back the
implementing ordinances for adoption.
Background Information:
Supporting information is included in the packet, including the staff report, recommendations
from the Planning Commission, and the minutes of their meeting on October 27, 1998.
McLaughlin said the Comprehensive Plan identifies how many acres are zoned. The city is 46 acres short
for the 20 year supply but there is land in the Urban Growth Boundary. The Comprehensive Plan requires
the city to only have a five year supply. This point will be clarified.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe moved approval of PA98-115 to recommend to the City Council for adoption adding Briggs' wording.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 98-016
REQUEST TO ADOPT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said the chapters had been previously reviewed with the Commission at a Study Session.
This is the implementation of the Transportation Element. The plan is required by the State to link land
use and transportation.
The memo dated October 27, 1998 from John McLaughlin outlines the recommended amendments to the
TSP.
McLaughlin also included a modification suggested by Councilor DeBoer that the North Mountain Avenue
freeway interchange be included in the list of"Needed Transportation Improvements" (Chapter 9). The
bottom line is that it is the City's adopted position that it is unlikely a freeway interchange is unlikely during
the planning period (20 years). At this point it does not seem like a point to be included, however, DeBoer
recommended its inclusion. McLaughlin contacted ODOT and found the construction cost for a rural
interchange would run between $8 -10 million. The City's revenues over the next ten years will be only
$17 million. Including the modification does not really go along with the rest of the vision of the plan.
There was not enough interest on the part of the Commission to include DeBoer's modification.
McLaughlin would like to recommend to the Council the TSP excluding Chapters 10, 11 and 12 (financing
portion)with the seven changes listed in the memo of October 27, 1998.
Chapman wondered if there was any sentiment on the part'of the Commission to discuss the managed
boulevard speed of 30-40 mph. He cannot picture anyplace in Ashland where speeds should be 40 mph
because when an area is posted at 40 mph, drivers will invariably travel at 45 mph. If we are trying to
encourage a multi-modal town, the biggest safety issue is higher traffic speeds. This could be a good time
to encourage a maximum of 30 - 35 mph.
Hearn wondered if the Planning Commission could set speeds. McLaughlin explained that what we are
trying to do is reduce speeds through street design.
After additional discussion, the Commission decided to leave the managed speed for boulevards at 30-
40 mph.
Chapman felt the cost of RVTD equipment was quite high. He would be interested in being part of a group
to work on finding alternatives.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
OCTOBER 27,1998
MINUTES
Gardiner moved to move PA98-106 forward to the Council with the recommended changes. The motion
was seconded and approved unanimously.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR AND SECOND VICE CHAIR
Ron Bass' resignation left a vacancy for the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Anna Howe and
Mike Gardiner were nominated and Howe was elected. Gardiner is Second Vice Chair.
OTHER
McLaughlin announced a training session sponsored by the Rogue Valley Public Service Academy,
"Finding Facts & Reaching Legal Conclusions in Land Use Cases"to be held on November 40. Any
Commissioner wishing to go should call Susan.
ADJOURNED-The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
OCTOBER 27,1998
MINUTES
CITY OF ASHLAND �y °F''s"��Q
Department of Community Development
Planning Division 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 30, 1998
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
RE: Transportation System Plan
Recommended Amendments
The following numbered items are recommended amendments to the TSP:
1. Page 4-2 Update with current RVTD schedule and routes
2. Figure 4-3 Update with current RVTD routes
3. Figure 4-5 Update with Traffic Signal at East Main St./Mountain Ave.
4. Page 5-5 Table 5-1: Change to the following:
Average Daily Managed
Roadway Type Vehicles Speed (mph)
Boulevard 8,000-30,OA0 30-40 mph
Avenue 3,000- 10,000 25 mph
Neighborhood Collector 1,500-5,000 �5 mph'1'S=20 mph
Neighborhood Street 4k000 Q;500 3 mph 70=20 mph
These changes provide consistency between the recently approved Street Standards and
the TSP.
5. Page 5-6 Add to the paragraph under Avenues:
The standard avenue is characterized by a wider range of use that typically results in a
greater intensity of development along its route and at major intersections with other
collectors or arterials. Land uses such as low to medium-high density, mixed residential,
commercial, or industrial, and their associated traffic volumes are examples of this kind
of development intensity. Identified traffic calming tecbmques_indyfbe utilized on
avenues'
6. Page 7-11,12,&13 Update transit shelter designs to incorporate "canted" design
preferred by Ashland.
7. Page 8-8 Item D) near the bottom of the page.
Half-street improvements (sidewalks, curb and gutter, bike lanes/paths, and/or travel
lanes) should be provided along site frontages which do not have full build-out
improvements in place at time of development The-City may,Aafter assessmg the impact
of the development and likelthoodof future develop the full improvement
-of
stre`ets7
Recommended modification by Councilor DeBoer regarding a North Mountain Avenue
Freeway Interchange.
Councilor DeBoer has requested that the North Mountain Avenue Freeway interchange
(northbound on-ramp, southbound off-ramp) be included in the list of Needed
Transportation Improvements outlined in Chapter 9. Discussion was raised on this issue
during the adoption of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The
following text from the Element outlines the City's adopted position:
Presently, the City of Ashland is served by three freeway interchanges -Exit 19 at
the northern end of the city; Exit 14 at the intersection of Ashland Street and
Interstate 5, and Exit 11 at the far southern end of the community at the
intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Interstate 5. In the previous
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (1981), there was discussion
of an additional freeway interchange at the intersection of North Mountain
Avenue and Interstate 5, designed to serve the center of the community. For
several reasons, this new interchange is not likely to be developed during the
planning period. However, it is not precluded as an option for the future.
First, additional research has been conducted regarding the service area of the
interchange. The new interchange would primarily serve Southern Oregon State
College commuter students, and Medford-based trips from the nearby residential
areas. However, due to the linear nature of the community, and the perceived
distance of the freeway interchange from Siskiyou Boulevard, the total area
served by the interchange would not be large. The overall impact on through
traffic to the community is not offset by the large f nancial investment necessary
to construct the interchange.
Second, regarding the financial investment, current state highway construction
dollars are tightly controlled, and the likelihood of gaining state support for
construction of an interchange during the planning period is minimal. The
availability of three interchanges for a community of 18,000 appears to be ample,
by state standards. Therefore, the cost of constructing the interchange would fall
entirely on the local community.
Third, the investment in the freeway interchange, and the necessary infrastructure
improvements to streets accessing the North Mountain area would be almost
entirely auto-oriented The benefits to other modes of travel would be minimal,
especially when compared to the large capital outlay necessary. Therefore, a
freeway interchange at North Mountain Avenue is not likely to be developed
during the planning period, but it is nor precluded as an option for the future.
The TSP project list is developed for the "planning period," or 20 years. Because of the
language of the adopted Element, the North Mountain interchange was not included in this
system plan. As stated, it may be included at future updates, but given the recent adoption
of the element, it does not appear that conditions have changed significantly to require its
inclusion.
However, the Commission has the discretion to recommend its inclusion, and the Council
has the discretion to include it as a needed transportation improvement. Staff would
recommend that such a decision be supported with additional evidence and that the
Transportation Element be modified to reflect its inclusion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Transportation System Plan, excluding Chapters 10, 11, & 12,
and with the above seven recommended changes. The Commission and Council need to provide
guidance regarding the inclusion of the North Mountain freeway interchange.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 27, 1998
PLANNING ACTION: 98-106
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: Adoption of the Transportation System Plan (excluding Chapters 10,11,&12
relating to the Financing Plan) as part of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Transportation
Element.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption Transportation System Plan
(TSP).
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In December, 1996, the City of Ashland adopted the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, outlining the goals and policies for accommodating the
transportation needs associated with the growth of our community for the coming
years. As required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), cities
must then adopt system plans to implement those goals and policies. Beginning
in February, 1997, the City undertook the process of meeting the requirements of
the TPR after receiving a grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation.
After many technical advisory committee meetings and two joint study sessions
between the Planning Commission-and City Council,we are now presenting the
final draft of the TSP.
The Transportation System Plan addresses the current status of our transportation
network within the City and urban growth boundary, and identifies needed
transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the future growth
projected in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
All Planning Commissioners and City Council members have received full copies
of the TSP, and have had the opportunity to attend the recent study session
reviewing the information. Enclosed with the Staff report are the study session
memo prepared by Staff, and copies of the slide presentation.
Additional information will be presented with the staff report at the meeting.
II. Project Impact
The main purpose of the TSP is to provide the framework for "needed transportation"
improvements for the future. The plan outlines the projects that will help the City meets
its goals and policies for a more "modally equal" community. The main "planning"
efforts have already been accomplished though the adoption of the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP will further implement that vision
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends adoption of the Transportation System Plan and that the Staff be
directed to bring back the necessary implementing ordinances for formal adoption.
PA98-106 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
City of AshlandlTransportation System Plan October 27, 1998
Page 2
a'
£CBS oo.a ��
— mpEEw SS qtO` E O
x A�,, m E L•
O •C'omm� °aS'mf Fz�O
� � ■� awc 9 �mm Ea> -°m�qm
W ffim�GEc_ f� b'. ° �mE. q83.°c 9
C0
mWUi� mOvG lb_m u°iim « � C.:
pG •p ySy o
m N
� �'/w� s3`o •9833�3 ■ mw c c a�- - X � y..m t~Oi�
v/ Epc gao Ac tsz G a WmE*;a
"cma a�m°'+$ 'jfm my «r Ey em EO
m=c o °liffl � °m m tl10�pm CY��
a p A
S c E' °
gnSE ; p o ;a =oimm . O ,.. N.��E. m L
5s
\V ECm E�S= Eg R n 1 m
za m? E E� " a$w a_ i m
� � � Tuffi d�� $>'v $•;;°ppY�E >m�Y«�°a-°=d���++N b9ti
(n `0 0 3T ESE 'igB38
L 'E F-t 5$ • 19 o°Yg EZa UiL 3�fE X33�yFm °Q� Lu
co 3 y�o dffi cEio 12-c E
U., a'8 Sm3 mCCnC .Ywc EE��Od�3E �<o ■� �i'°x
v a3� bE Uc�,
0 .� E3m g°'y `002ffi �c$c.0c bc`: �uwgaa�ffi cm Sa
3 E�Hv$rL'm2 goI�F+a'
L g y, 5E L° doa 2o.8'S�c Eav CO CL'9€Sa .Yi ao $'
Ee nE Fn.�EE •o a3„b ffi..os9Q o•° Q0>
V=V-,.m�> 8.-f a do cyya c��
d�PJ m3E° nE9 S.122 wEvi3F-3OC 9ZQ`oE
og-
qq, b
5'0^ s'�m2C•`o_.E ESci og9 ,dam .yE C2��. '�¢ bp i u�,
9b3 °N
g o£acL mo mBEc An$m^v�. 8�b33 m'Sp�3'S'� /A dcg
p F 3'.0�$ $Tr o.- >E 3 oppxppE E V�
/^/`� E=TgTb 6Ei O.-u$ Oa RN>?93 .Ji"� T3ffiCW >�L 41 T dG
W . cn�8 an..�2 =5'y�$ffi�„ QoO yba o.�
cul v o3-• 23S" E
!�3 e�'o u2°S�3Gw8� mq=va cOq�s Et,`o_y ffiY m°
id 9y a�$ Ecc `cu.., Lm yE3aFE EbE3F._� cmoa rjy
ec°gC'di(`bZ`.y=ymnW¢g.c ncyyVySa�Yc$E dE mpcp�`�i0�'E c°'�.i'.•Ec o
LC yy9�63L pYIOC�y Oc.=°.YjS OC mac mSE'.i-,G+L.O Q
n° L'm
ww p ti ■�
� Fp� `u. n Fg cy3Ttr,3 03 >3 �y bC n
o^cam g$c `bok• Q'
om�'C- Q x�•O n?
Q
MOH E ., m� e3 yE
�1mis .V v.q-1°m uN$C �q°q��C Cffi
g9aL 'Ew�y ob�ac'c0 o03c
ySy$.. ^my aqca
0= 0'N 'p> a'-q9 "2:3 N"q LM
N`3V =o6L�t cU� O"U m°tO�u6 •Z m
•�E g'�ypp O.OJC� me S3 �_o���Eo p�p�
=-2 N6 9 °--. - a , C
a w8 � �g9 �o' ,wa>O.3c°�m'+c"��E°r SSE 'c°3> 8c� L
Eo;c 4n N .0 cby Eb�a E$" nc._S.v`!9 a: W .
a ZE'o o` by>'6 ma._c>9 w.:1 0 0 =�&E3 ca 9�b w
Q a- Q..c �a y b o t Nom,_a T Q U n J _..�E�o�m ;E o 6 c
(„) s ..tmmAm. ir0 e�6� 8°W� n°�f n$ nmc _mom^ E
�l L�A aC.m vii B+Lic58.y3io•._Em`ct'�c-c.om-.cri m`o 8i=�•�- (-c3`o O S
Fy LA T_ QEcmmm v �u�m'EF�io F9 > uc s'.�!'bi'3 °o
° .E-r•' a.5 a m°nZ -n$'E`�E'a o m W m 5
CITY OF ASHLAND `may X°F AS
Department of Community Development vs
Planning Division y�
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 1998
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
RE: Joint Study Session - September 29, 1998
Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Along with this memo, you will receive a copy of the draft Transportation System Plan. First, do
not be alarmed. While it is somewhat overwhelming in size and scope, we will take our time
during the study session to review its contents and ultimately head towards adoption of this
document as a part of our Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
There will be a detailed presentation made during the study session, but here is a little
background information to assist your perusal of this plan:
What is a Transportation System Plan ?
There is a hierarchy of transportation planning efforts required of cities by the State of Oregon,
through the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 12 of the statewide land
use goals addresses transportation needs, and cities must address those needs through their local
comprehensive plans. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), implementing Goal 12,
provides the administrative guidance to local jurisdictions for the preparation of comprehensive
plan amendments and a system plan. The City of Ashland has taken the first step in that process
by adopting our award winning Transportation Element, which provides the goals and polices
that will address the future transportation needs of our community. The next steps in the process,
as required by the Transportation Planning Rule, require us to prepare and ultimately adopt a
transportation system plan(TSP) to establish land use control and a network of facilities and
services to meet overall transportation needs. In effect, the TSP is an implementation tool for the
goals and policies of the Transportation Element, and defines and quantifies our existing and
future transportation network.
This is pretty dry reading...
Unlike the Transportation Element, which was specifically written to explain the vision of the
community for our transportation needs, the TSP is a technical document which must address
specific TPR requirements. Much of the document is written to comply with these minimum
state standards while still addressing our local needs. Rather than being a vision document, it
will be a reference document for the nuts and bolts implementation of our needed transportation
improvements.
What are Needed Transportation Improvements?
The first eight chapters of the TSP define our existing transportation system, review our goals
and policies for the future, address our projected growth, and make recommendations regarding
directions to accommodate that growth. Chapter 9 begins the portion of the plan where the
specific improvements needed to accommodate our future growth are identified and prioritized.
These improvements include upgrades to our street system to accommodate automobiles,
improvements to our pedestrian network to accommodate walkers, improvements to the bicycle
network to upgrade facilities for bicyclists, and transit system improvements for our transit
riders. These "needed" improvements provide the basis for our capital improvement planning
for future years, and future budget decisions.
What are our Needed Transportation Improvements going to cost?
The initial estimate for all of our needed improvements for the next 20 years is approximately
$57 million. The expected revenue to cover these costs is estimated to be approximately $17
million. We expect to be able to fund approximately $5 million worth of improvements during
the first 5-year period, increasing the need for good prioritization of projects. While it is
arguable that all projects on the list (see Appendix H) are "needed", it is clear that some are more
needed than others. The consultant has taken a first crack at prioritization, but by not being
entirely familiar with the local community, there are some problems with the list. The Staff is
currently working on reprioritizing the projects and welcome additional comments from the
Council and Commission on these issues.
What are we ultimately going to adopt?
We are required to adopt the TSP as part of our comprehensive plan, with the exception of the
financial section (Chapters 10, 11 & 12). The financial section will be adopted as a supporting
document, since it is subject to annual budget fluctuations and outside influences not normally
present in comprehensive plan documents.
What's the schedule of adoption?
As stated earlier in the memo, there will be a detailed presentation of the plan during the study
session with many opportunities for questions and comments. The current schedule calls for this
document being presented to the Planning Commission at the October 13, 1998 public hearing,
with the Council hearing it at their October 20, 1998 meeting. This schedule is subject to
change based on the comments and discussion received at the study session. Specific ordinances
will be prepared for final adoption by the Council in November.
We look forward to seeing you at the study session.
City of Ashland
Transportation /
Joint
Ashland
Ashland Planning
September 29, 1998
Ashland Planning
Department
What is a Transportation
"A plan for one or more transportation facilities that are planned, developed,
operated and maintained in a coordinated manner to supply continuity of
movement between modes a,
�� �} t���t2 � Re��� S _ � •4���J..
T� A
Definition Oregon i i. i . i Rule
Part of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan
The TSP is an integral part of an overall transportation/land use
strategy beginning at the State level.
■ LCDC Goal 12 - Transportation
■ Oregon Transportation Planning Rule
■ Transportation Element Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan
■ Transportation System Plan
Ashland Planning
Department
Key TSP Performance Indicators
What really makes a TSP tick...
• Plan Consistency
• Consistency with State and Regional Plans
• Reduced Auto Reliance
• Network of Streets
• Transportation Accessibility
• Safety
• Efficient Transportation Management
• Safe and Convenient Walking and Bicycling
• Intermodal Linkage and Passenger Services Coordination
• Minimizing conflicts between Modes
Ashland's Transportation System Plan
What's In It?
■ Twelve Chapters
• 1 - Introduction
• 2 - Review/Participation Process
• 3 - Background Policies/Rule Compliance
• 4 - Existing Conditions and Constraints
• 5 - Recommended Design Standards
• 6 - Identification of System Problems
• 7 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
• 8 - Access Management Plan
• 9 - Needed Transportation Improvements
• 10 - Financial Plan
• 1 I - Alternatives Evaluation and Project Prioritization
• 12 - Financially Constrained Plan Ashland Planning
Department
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 6 - Identification of System Problems
• Identify sub-standard street sections
► Goal: Have all streets multi-modal - with equal
facilities for pedestrians/bicyclists/automobiles
• Identify future travel demand
► Utilize modelling to identify future traffic congestion
areas.
• Consider Transportation System Managment (TSM)
and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 7 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
■ Activity Centers
► Commercial Areas
► High Density Residential Areas
► Employment Areas
► Schools - . ,..
► SOU
► Ashland Community Hospital
CLLTER
► Government Agencies
► Parks and Recreational Facilities
Ashland Planning
Department
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 7 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
■ Pedestrian Factors
► Adequate Facilities
► Attractive Streetscape
► Safe Environment
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 7 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
■ Bicycle Factors
► Adequate Facilities
► Continuous System
► Safe Environment
Ashland Planning
Department
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 7 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
■ Transit Factors
► Adequate Facilities
.E
► Convenient Service
► Safe Environment
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 8 - Access Management
• Maintain capacity of Boulevards and Avenues
(arterials and collectors) by managing access
points.
• Through land use actions, require driveway
consolidations and removal of unneeded drives.
• Incorporate neighborhood traffic calming to
control traffic speeds and access.
Ashland Planning
Department
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 9 - Needed Transportation Improvements
■ City-wide improvements needed for all modes of
travel
► Street improvements for capacity, safety, or upgrades.
► Pedestrian improvements to provide continuous routes
between homes and pedestrian generators.
► Bicycle improvements to provide continuous routes
between homes and bicycle trip generators.
► Public transit needs - additional routes, increased
amenities, improved service
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 10 - Financial Plan
■ Bottom line...
► There are more projects than there is money, and it
will be difficult to generate enough money to fund all
proj ects.
► Prioritization will become very important.
► Additional revenues can be realized through increased
SDC's, but will not significantly change shortfall
forecast.
► Additional funds will be realized from TEA-21, but
will be awarded competitively.
Ashland Planning
Department
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Chapter 12 - Financially Constrained Plan
• Over the next 20 year, there are $57 million
worth of improvements projected.
• Revenue forecast is $17 million
• Improvements will be made during the first 10
years in a "financially constrained plan", with
spending of approximately $10 million proposed,
staying within revenue forecast for this time
period.
Ashland Transportation System Plan
Where do we go from here...
• Update TSP to reflect changes from
Council/Commission and Staff refinements.
• Schedule for public hearings - subject to change.
► Tentatively - October 27th Planning Commission
► Tentatively - November 3rd City Council
• Adopt TSP and implement recommendations
• Utilize TSP in Budget process and CIP
• Begin Transportation SDC update process
Ashland Planning
Department
NOV-04-98 06 : 16 AM OREGO P. 02
IN
t N7711 S
L c g a I C e n t e r
November 3, 1998
City of Ashland
City Council
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
VIA FACSLMILE TRANSMISSION AND FIRST CLASS MAi�
Re: Remand/Hillside Development Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
I am in receipt of a copy of the Staff Report on Planning Action 98-115, the amendments
to the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, and make these comments on behalf of the Rogue
Valley Association of Realtors. It is not clear from the Staff Report if the Council is considering
additional amendments or findings to satisfy the remand from LUBA of the City's decision. The
LUBA opinion, however, goes far beyond the changes recommended in the Staff Report. If the
Staff believes that adoption of the changes recommended in the report will satisfy the
requirements imposed by LUBA, they are mistaken.
LUBA remanded the City's decision with the following instructions:
1. The City must demonstrate that the 160 acres of unincorporated SFk lands outside city
limits but inside the UGB can be developed under the HDO with a sufficient number of units 1) to
offset the loss of 5 units on SFR zoned lands within the city limits under the FIDO and 2)to
address the existing 46-acre shortage of SFR lands within city limits. This is needed to show
compliance with both ORS 197.307 and ACP Chapter JOI. (LUBA opinion, pgs. 15, 38).
2. The City must amend the following HDO provisions to make them clear and objective:
a. §18.62.040(l)
b. §18.62.080(B)(9)
C. §18.62.080(Dx5)
d. §18.62.080(Dx6)(a)
e. §18.62.080(D)(6)(c)
f. §18.62.080(B)(5)(a)
LUBA opinion, pg. 30.
3. The City must explain whether its HDO provisions challenged by Petitioner regulate for
Mailing address: P.O. Box 230637 Tigard, OR 97281.0637
Street address; 8255 S.W. Hunriker Road, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223
NOV-04-98 06 : 17 AM .P' 077,
purposes other than appearance or aesthetics. (LUBA opinion, pg. 31).
A review of the Staff Report shows that staff has done nothing to show compliance with
paragraphs 1 and 3 above. Specifically, there is nothing in the Staff Report addressing whether or
not there are 46 acres of SIR land outside the city limits but inside the UGB that is capable of
being developed under the HDO or whether or not those 160 acres will support the siting of 5
units. Furthermore, there is no attempt by staff to address whether the HDO provisions which
LUBA struck are designed to regulate"appearance or aesthetics." I notice on the copy of the
Staff Report which I received that there is no Section III, although I have all seven pages of the
Report. Could it be that the Staff failed to include Section III, and Section III dealt with these
additional items?
It seems somewhat silly to me to try to amend your ordinance while an appeal is ongoing.
The Staff Report indicates that the ordinance provisions which LUBA struck are not crucial to the
effectiveness of the HDO. If that is true, why don't you continue to enforce the HDO without the
contested ordinance provisions, await the outcome of the Court of Appeals decision, and then,
depending upon that outcome, conduct your remand hearing? After all, your staff, Paul Nolte and
I could spend time going forward with a LUBA appeal on remand that may be unnecessary given
the outcome of the Court of Appeals decision. Why not wait until after the Court of Appeals
renders its decision, Why waste taxpayer resources and staff time?
In the interest of all involved, I urge the Council to delay the remand hearing until after the
Court of Appeals decision. We all have other work which we can do in the interim. If you
choose to press forward with the remand hearing, so be it, but please consider all of the criteria
which LUBA ordered you to consider. If you do not, we will appeal your remand decision to
LUBA.
Please enter this letter into the record.
a urs,
0Utt
Attorney for RVAR
Council Communication
City Attorney
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Paul Nolte Vl/ (
Approved by: Mike Freeman
^
Title:
An Ordinance Amending the Physical & Environmental Constraints Chapter(Chapter 18.62) of
the Ashland Municipal Code to Make Certain Sections Clear and Objective
Synopsis:
The council originally adopted the hillside ordinance in December 1997. The Rogue Valley
Association of Realtors (RVAR)appealed the decision to LUBA, who rendered an opinion in
September 1998 substantially upholding the ordinance except for six subsections determined to
be not clear and objective. The amendments proposed to the council in the attached ordinance
cure the defects found by LUBA. A more detailed analysis is contained in the attached planning
staff report to the planning commission.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of first reading of the ordinance as amended by the planning
commission.
Background Information:
The proposed amendments have been presented to the planning commission who unanimously
recommended that the council adopt the amendments. The commission proposed one change in
section 3 of the ordinance previously published. That change has been incorporated into the
ordinance accompanying this memorandum. The section as published read:
"Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of
trees on a site following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located
in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact,the hearing authority may
approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions:"
The planning commission recommended that the section be changed to:
"Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of
trees on a siteFThe development shall follow following the standards for fuel reduction
if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the
hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following
conditions:"
Additional background information is contained in the attached planning staff report. RVAR has
appealed the LUBA decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals but the bases for the appeal will not
be known until its brief is filed. That brief is due October 29.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 27, 1998
PLANNING ACTION: 98-115
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62.040.J
18.62.080.B
18.62.080.D.5
18.62.080.D.6
18.62.080.D.6.c
18.62.080.B.5.a
REQUEST: Amendment of portions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter of
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, specifically relating to Hillside Development Standards, to
make the sections clear and objective.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance
amendments.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In December, 1997, the City of Ashland adopted an amended Physical and
Environmental Constraints Ordinance (Chapter 18.62 of the land use ordinance),
specifically dealing with new standards for Hillside Development. That decision was
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by the Rogue Valley Association
of Realtors (RVAR), with their case argued by the staff attorney from Oregonians in
Action.
LUBA upheld the majority of the ordinance provisions and rejected most of the
arguments submitted by the Oregonians in Action attorney who represented the
Rogue Valley Association of Realtors (RVAR). (RVAR never raised to LUBA
two of its arguments it so adamantly asserted in front of the council: (1) The city's
process was fundamentally flawed because of lack of citizen involvement and(2)
the HDO constituted a taking of property rights in violation of the Oregon and
Federal constitutions.)
LUBA upheld the City's extensive analysis of the number of building units that would be
affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO) and rejected RVAR's assertion
that hundreds of units were impacted. LUBA also found that there was substantial
evidence to uphold the council's findings in this regard.
LUBA also:
1. Rejected RVAR's assertions that the HDO violated ORS 92.040(2). This
statute prohibits cities from retroactively applying standards affecting subsequent
construction within subdivisions.
2. Rejected RVAR's assertions that the HDO violated ORS 227.178. This statute
requires subdivision applications to be evaluated on the basis of the standards
existing at the time the application was filed.
3. Rejected RVAR's assertions that the HDO violated Statewide Planning Goal 5
(Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources).
4. Rejected RVAR's assertions that the HDO violated Statewide Planning Goal 10
(Housing).
5. Rejected RVAR's assertions that the HDO violated the city's comprehensive
plan.
LUBA,however, found that the city "did not consider the loss of development potential
on SFR lands or other lands outside city limits but inside the UGB (Urban Growth
Boundary)."
1. The city failed to articulate in its findings how the 5 unit reduction (out of a
total of 33 units) on SFR zoned property could be offset in the 160 acres of
property in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB):
"It seems unlikely that the 160 acres of SFR-zoned land located outside city limits
but inside the UGB are so unsuitable for residential development that the HDO
(Hillside Development Ordinance)-will render those lands unable to provide a
sufficient number of residential units to meet these needs, even if the HDO makes
some of those 160 acres unbuildable. Nevertheless, the challenged decision fails
to address that question, and we are in no position to perform that analysis . . . .
On remand the city must demonstrate that the160 acres of unincorporated SFR
lands outside city limits but inside the urban growth boundary can be developed
under the HDO with a sufficient number of units (1) to offset the loss of 5 units on
SFR zoned lands within the city limits under the HDO and(2) to address the
existing 46-acre shortage of SFR lands within city limits."
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 2
The city argued that its comprehensive plan requires only a five-year housing supply in
the affected areas and that the vacant lands inventory showed that(even after adoption of
the HDO)there will still be a generous 33 year supply of buildable units in large lot
zoning within the city limits and a 10 year supply in the R-1 zone. LUBA rejected this
argument, however, in its final footnote:
"In addition we are uncertain of the legal significance of the city's argument that
Policy 1 at ACP (Ashland Comprehensive Plan)XII-6, which states the city will
strive to maintain a 5-year supply of land for any particular need in the city
limits is met. The relationship between that policy and(tables) which address
land needs and vacant buildable lands for a longer planning period and consider
lands outside the city limits, is not clear." (Emphasis in the original.)
Because LUBA could not connect how the loss of 5 units could possibly be made up on
160 acres in the UGB, it also upheld some, but not all, of the assertions by RVAR that
only clear and objective standards must be applied to hillside development. Specifically,
LUBA determined that six of the thirteen standards identified by RVAR as not being
clear and objective were, in fact,not clear and objective. E.g. ALUO 18.62.080(B)(5)(a)
requires fill slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the types of material of
which they are composed." LUBA opined that if the city included tables of slopes and
soils in its HDO,this standard would become clear and objective. Another example:
ALUO 18.62.080(D)(6)(c) "replacement trees shall be of similar resource value as the
trees removed."
LUBA has remanded the decision to the City. Fortunately LUBA pointed the way in its
opinion as to how the city could augment its findings so that the minor problems it found
with the ordinance could be resolved.
It appears that the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors and Oregonians In Action were
not satisfied with LUBA's decision and are currently in the process of filing a brief to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. However, we believe that it is appropriate to amend our
ordinance to address the issues raised by LUBA at the earliest possible time to ensure
proper application of the hillside development standards.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The amendments proposed here are in response to the main issues raised by LUBA
regarding clear and objective standards. These recommendations have been prepared
after review by the Planning Staff and City Attorney.
SECTION 1. Section 18.62.040.J of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 3
The Staff Advisor or Planning Gernmission has the power to arnend plans to include any
of the followft conditioms if it is deerned necessary to mitigate any potential neg
let caused by the development!
!.Require the retention of trees, reeks, ponds,wetlands, springs,waterecurses and
other matura' feature-s.
2.Require plan revision or madifleation to mitigate possible negative or irreversible
effect upon the topography or natural features thatthe proposed development may eattsL-.
eensultant may be hired to evaluate proposals and make reeenimendations if the h i
autherity finds that atitside expertise is meeded. The prefessional we" have expertise 0
speeffifie area or in the potential adverse on the area. A fee for these serviees 3
be charged to the applieant in addition 4ee-
LUBA's opinion was that this section did not provide clear and objective standards since
unknown plan modifications could be made by the Planning Commission during review of the
project. This section was actually utilized to allow for the approval of projects which may
have been denied without the amendment to the plan. It is our opinion that other sections of
the ordinance that specifically require the protection of natural features still provide adequate
protection and we believe that this section can be removed without loss of effectiveness of the
ordinance. The Commission also retains the right to deny applications (rather than amend
them) if they feel that certain natural features have not been adequately protected in the plan.
SECTION 2. Section 18.62.080.B of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall eonsider the sensitive
of these areas. Grading plans shaW be reviewed considering the following factors:
a. Terracing should be designed with small inerernerital steps, avoiding wide
step terracing and large areas of flat pads. No terracing shall be allowed except for the
purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad.
b. Retain existing grades to the greatest extent possible. Avoid an artificial
appearance by ereating smooth flowing eenteurs of varying gradients.Avoid sharp cuts and
fills and long, linear slopes that have tiniform gradL-
Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 4
d. Building pads should be of minimurn sure to ueeommodate the structure a
-c urts, swimming pools and large lawns
are diseotjraged7A:s-nYdeh-1of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept On the
natural state of the-ofkjhaf-s1oM.
Again,LUBA believed that the language proposed was not clear and objective. The original
purpose for this language was to provide guidance to developers regarding the nature of site
grading. However, there is adequate design standards for grading plans elsewhere in the
ordinance (18.62.080.8)that we believe the effectiveness of the ordinance will not be hindered
by the removal of this section.
SECTION 3. The first sentence of section 18.62.080.D.5 of the Ashland Municipal
Code is amended to read:
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees
on a site, when balanced with other provisions of this ehapte mild recognizing a id
following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands.
When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees
for one or more of the following conditions:
LUBA believed that our language regarding"balancing" was not clear and objective. We
believe that this section retains its original purpose.
SECTION 4. Section 18.62.080.D.6.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. Replacement trees shall
be of s*rnw'ar resouree value as the trees rernev The replanting plan shall include all
locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.
The section following this(18.62.080.D.6.b)requires that trees planted as part of a replanting
plan"will in time result in a canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to the
development of the property." We believe that this section, in combination with the other
provision of this tree replacement section,will ensure appropriate tree replanting. We do not
believe that the removal of this section will affect the implementation of the ordinance.
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 5
SECTION 5. Section 18.62.080.D.6.c of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
The hearing authority may, instead of reqtflring re. I rnplernentatien
of a revegetation plan. This plan may be substitul I i I mted areas or on areas
determined to be appropriate as determined by a professional landscape professional and
approved by the hearing authority. The developer shall be required to enter into a wri
agreement with the Gity obligating the developer to eernply with the requirements of th�e
revegetation program. A security deposit, not exceeding the cost of the revegetation pfam
rnplernentation, may be required to ensure that the agreement is fulfilled.
This section was included in the original ordinance to provide developers an option in heavily
forested areas. LUBA determined that the language was not clear and objective. We
recommend removing this section, recognizing that other provisions of the HDO require
erosion control plans with revegetation requirements to ensure slope stability, and also
discretion is given to the Planning Commission to adjust tree replanting plans "based upon
site-specific evidence and testimony." With these options available, we believe that proper
implementation of the tree replacement requirements can still be met without this section.
SECTION 6. Section 18.62.080.B.5.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Fall slope angles shall be deterrmimed On relationship to the type of materials of Whieh
they are eormposed. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet.
The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of
six feet from the nearest property line.
Again,this language was included to provide guidance to developers as they prepared their
plans. We recommend removing the first sentence to address LUBA's concerns regarding
clear and objective language. Further, Section 18.62.080.B. 1 requires "All cuts, grading or
fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code." This essentially requires that
fill slope angles be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are
composed. We do not believe that the removal of this section will hinder the effective
implementation of this section of the ordinance.
H. Project Impact
It is Staffs opinion that the decision by LUBA regarding the specific ordinance language
outlined above does not diminish the effectiveness of the ordinance. We believe that there
are adequate provisions throughout the ordinance to ensure the proper development of our
hillside lands, and that these amendments will not adversely affect the City's efforts at
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department —Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 6
regulating that development.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments to the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Chapter based on the recent LUBA decision on the Hillside Development
Ordinance.
PA98-115 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
Hillside Development Ordinance Amendments October 27, 1998
Page 7
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 27, 1998
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Steve Armitage at 7:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present
were Anna Howe, Russ Chapman, Chris Hearn, Alex Amaratico, Mike Morris, Mike Gardiner, Marilyn
Briggs, and John Fields. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill
Molnar, Mark Knox, and Susan Yates
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
Howe moved to approve, the motion was seconded and the Findings for PA98-091 were adopted.
Gardiner moved to approve, the motion was seconded the Findings for PA98-105 were adopted.
TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 98-115
REQUEST TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER 18.62 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. THESE AMENDMENTS
INVOLVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE,SECTIONS 18.62.040.J (POWER TO
AMEND PLANS), 18.62.080.B.8 (SITE GRADING), 18.62.080.D.6, 6.a AND 6.c (PRESERVING AND
REPLACING TREES, REVEGETATION PLANS)AND 18.62.080.B.5.a(FILL SLOPES).
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported the hillside ordinance was adopted in December of 1997 and appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals soon after. A decision was received recently, much of which is outlined in the Staff
Report. The City prevailed on some issues and LUBA had concerns with some issues which were mostly
housekeeping items which require adjusting some language in the ordinance. These issues have been
reviewed with Paul Nolte, City Attorney. He recommended deleting the language LUBA found to not be
clear and objective. The ordinance is very comprehensive with regard to erosion control and tree
protection and it will still provide what the City needs without the extra language. Staff recommends the
adjustments noted in the Staff Report.
Briggs thought on page 5, section 3, there should be two sentences because there are sites that are not
wildfire lands. The first sentence would end at"...on a site."followed by: "Development shall follow the
standards for fuel reduction...".
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN FREEDOM, 150 Nursery Street, favors creating more specific wording in the ordinances in the City
to facilitate the development process. He would like a definition of"maximum number of trees". In
creating a future vision for Ashland, there is language that will facilitate development not hinder it. There
is a need for more clarity.
RICK HARRIS, 33 North First, stated he objects to this action and agrees that"maximum" is not clear
wording. He believes there is an important part of the remand order that has been omitted from the Staff
Report that should be brought to the Commissioners' attention. Armitage noted that portion was in fact
included in the Staff Report. Harris believes there are still 46 acres of land needed within the city's
inventory that is not being addressed.
McLaughlin said the Comprehensive Plan identifies how many acres are zoned. The city is 46 acres short
for the 20 year supply but there is land in the Urban Growth Boundary. The Comprehensive Plan requires
the city to only have a five year supply. This point will be clarified.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe moved approval of PA98-115 to recommend to the City Council for adoption adding Briggs'wording.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 98-016
REQUEST TO ADOPT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said the chapters had been previously reviewed with the Commission at a Study Session.
This is the implementation of the Transportation Element. The plan is required by the State to link land
use and transportation.
The memo dated October 27, 1998 from John McLaughlin outlines the recommended amendments to the
TSP.
McLaughlin also included a modification suggested by Councilor DeBoer that the North Mountain Avenue
freeway interchange be included in the list of"Needed Transportation Improvements" (Chapter 9). The
bottom line is that it is the City's adopted position that it is unlikely a freeway interchange is unlikely during
the planning period (20 years). At this point it does not seem like a point to be included, however, DeBoer
recommended its inclusion. McLaughlin contacted ODOT and found the construction cost for a rural
interchange would run between $8 -10 million. The City's revenues over the next ten years will be only
$17 million. Including the modification does not really go along with the rest of the vision of the plan.
There was not enough interest on the part of the Commission to include DeBoer's modification.
McLaughlin would like to recommend to the Council the TSP excluding Chapters 10, 11 and 12 (financing
portion)with the seven changes listed in the memo of October 27, 1998.
Chapman wondered if there was any sentiment on the part of the Commission to discuss the managed
boulevard speed of 30-40 mph. He cannot picture anyplace in Ashland where speeds should be 40 mph
because when an area is posted at 40 mph, drivers will invariably travel at 45 mph. If we are trying to
encourage a multi-modal town, the biggest safety issue is higher traffic speeds. This could be a good time
to encourage a maximum of 30-35 mph.
Hearn wondered if the Planning Commission could set speeds. McLaughlin explained that what we are
trying to do is reduce speeds through street design.
After additional discussion, the Commission decided to leave the managed speed for boulevards at 30-
40 mph.
Chapman felt the cost of RVTD equipment was quite high. He would be interested in being part of a group
to work on finding alternatives.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
OCTOBER 27,1998
MINUTES
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PHYSICAL &
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER (CHAPTER
18.62) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE
CERTAIN SECTIONS CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are fined-tHreaghr and additions are sh d.
SECTION 1. Section 18.62.040.J of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
The Staff Advisor or Plamning Genimissiam has the power to armend plans to
wet'amds, springs, water eourses and other natural
,
features.
2. Require plan revision or modifiestiom to mitigate
possible negative or irreversible effect upon the
topography or natural features that the proposed
development may eause.
approval.
4. Require speeial evaluation by a recognized
to evaluate proposals and make reconimendatioms
the hearing authority finds that outside expertise is
needed. The professiomal we" have expertise in the
the area. A fee for these services shall be charge
the applicant im addition to the applieetion fee
SECTION 2. Section 18.62.080.13 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall eensider the
sensitive nature of these areas. Grading plans shall be reviewed considering the
following factors:
a. ,
No
terraang3shall be allowed except for the purposesof developingtia
level bij ng_pad_and for providing vehicular access to the_pact?
b. Retain existing grades LLO the greatest extent possib'e. Avoid an.
gradients. Avoid sharp etits and fills amd long, limear slopes that
have tiniform grade.
e-Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. 13616ng pads should be of rnininitirn sire to aeeemmedate the
sttieture and a reasonable arnetint of yard space. Pads for tennis
ectirts, swimming pools arid large lawns are discouraged. As much
of the rernaiming lot area as possible should be kept im the natural
state of the origina slope.
SECTION 3. The first sentence of section 18.62.080.D.5 of the Ashland Municipal Code
is amended to read:
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum
number of trees on a site,
The development shall follow the standards for
fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by
findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one
or more of the following conditions:
SECTION 4. Section 18.62.080.D.6.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. Replaeernent
trees she' be of similar resoui ce value as the trees removed. The replanting plan
shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree
planting details.
SECTION 5. Section 18.62.080.D.6.c of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
The hearing authority may, instead of requiring replaeerment tree
mplementation of a revegetation plan. This plan
professional laridseape professions and approved by the hearing atithohty. The
developer she" be required to enter onto a written agreement with the Gity
obligating the developer to corriply with the requirerrients of the revegetation
mplernentation, may be required to ensure that the agreernent is fulfilled.
SECTION 6. Section 18.62.080.B.5.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Fill slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of
whieh they are eemposed. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of
20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a
minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.
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 , 1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _day of 1998.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of , 1998.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney _
20
n u Q O 1p (o (A 00m DQ — D D O A A x m D -am -u n �c *n'
O
0 'a N O S O a S a f0 fWp y N N y m 0 3 p n Q O 'YO:
C c_ 0 p 3 0 3 p v W ow 0 0 0 0 0 3!!
CI0 O N MCd y C aC 7 < 7 m N C .0.. .c. .c. O. 0 A. C ff'
0 o' 0 0 � 3 < CEL 3^ �p m .� 0 0 0 0 3 — o o < �-
X e o � y � � 0 .n �' 30 m w c > > > > » ym m m 3
y 0 m o a a y o: 0 �3 D o a m D D m o �. 0 y lat",c x n m m m 0 D
O N O W co N N 4 O O O U m CI O O N V M. ❑. O0 C 1 O O ice.
.O. O N W N fD 7 7 p y N N 0 S N N N H d C Q
w• y a 0 A ^ c) 01 N. a c) m m m asd:
0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 0 (0 0
_ o 0 c li c . 0 w o 0 ^ y ao _ (,) o m w �Nfi
Z o c m (n z < ° :;n
0 0 4. a � j3 CL ° - m m m y � m3 "co
�^ m m � m a 3 E c a m a 3 o c w cn
CL M
° c 1 0p ° 1o' G > > > 0 a v r
om v x � V3oo z m y FD, c Z
C/)
m m
CD
o m' a 3 = m'
cr
(D
W
o
m M m m 0 0 0 QC n,
m X m
m m (mid (mn (A N O r m j
Ul (a (j N 0 � (o
co co
co
O M
d W
w y 0
p (n N O
3 �'O
N `I
0 x �" A
0 A
M m 0
O 1 y 0 N
N O
T
M
n
� O
App (D
�S a
d"
D n
_ (n
, ^° -0 0 w m 3N 00 C O
3� N N 7 o Co
N N O
m 0. 0 O. CL
m y v o o 00 °: D �
F B o s B n y 0 CD p06m Nam ; goym ° -0
N N x d d > CC
CL
D 0 CD
O .T7
m x 3
► n O O N F p O
0 m m a 2 O m m w m
A
0 3 C1 N n y Z n t�
O) W O C ... -V (A C 0 •0 CD
Co d � C O N .O.. CC 01 '
v7 C 0v 7 C
07 c ° d 0" D o. Z
O N N y i
m N 0
I CD
CD
3 n 3 c °:•v CD
CD Z N v cr
(n 7
O C C m
O
0 CL j
O C1
O Z co
7 0 n
N 3 0
CD m 7
N
O m
l
m �
3
0
0
c
' D
a
0
(CA Q.
N
O
01
C
., ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ 0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ T • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ a C
fn T72 ;Or3 x > o > CTd ;uXC 3. -I
w C .0 C N Z`z C� (�� n <. < to V°, (D y °w co 3.
N• C T O -n !� _ N N _ - N N (D n K) m au p N ' C' (D 7 -1 .0N... C) C 7 7 N 7 d � S S � 0) p w •�
O. 3 O CD 6) O N N .N-. N 6) `G 7 O - m
Dn0) °► C ( o ? 0 , � o o T °O- o 0) :3 CL W N
m D=) o D o -n y
CD 0 m 0 m m O (D c°i ° N v v o3 (c
0. n '� T .O. V O 7 N y N N K W n S O y d C 3 .(DD
mpg < o3 � � m � � � v> ° CD aa) � a, a, � m• �
_ (D y (D n• = N fD N (D 'O (D O O n. O
O O
CD a).0.. N N M N `� C. N 7 7 =• N O N v (D O N (gyp N CD
3 N v T � `-' L O O 2)X (D O) N O
3 0 — d c
G j ZN v0 07 .D.) CL 7c
O. .' (D L c N 3 N N O 77 6) :D
(D T U O 7 (D N 7C Z
I 01 ° m 0 CD
A O' n :3 N O
< 0 (° ni`?
D) N (D (D O a
l< ° 0 ° (D
(D N v N C L) 1
N _
O
W
Q co
N
m QO tD
(D D)
O 0) O
N m C
N fY
d
CD
rt
0
to
r
0
0
X,
D
(D
a)
CL
City Council Communication
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Mike Freeman M;4^
Title:
Update on the implementation of Council's 1998 — 1999 Goals.
Synopsis:
The City Council adopted several goals for the 1998 — 1999 Fiscal Year. Attached is an
update on them.
City Council Meeting
July 21, 1998
fiscal Year 1998 - 1999
Council Goals Impler 11=1 lion
Report
Report Number 2—Fall 1998
This report serves is and update for the City Council on the progress,
status and planning for meeting the goals adopted for this fiscal year.
Develop a plan to secure new facilities for the Fire Department
Developing a plan to meet the space needs of the Fire Department is a high priority
for the City of Ashland. Steps required to meet this Council goal are:
1. Meet with property owners in immediate vicinity of Station #1 and
Station #2 (Completed —June 1998)
2. Update space requirements analysis (Completed September- 1998)
3. Retain consultant for preliminary design work (Completed October —
1998)
4. Determine property owners interest in selling land to the City
(November 1998)
5. Brief City Council on financing alternatives for fire stations (December
1998)
6. Develop request for proposal for design and engineering services (15t
Quarter— 1999)
7. Retain architectural services (1"Quarter- 1998)
8. Begin station planning process for Station #1 or#2 (Summer — 1999)
9. Station planning process complete (includes architecture, land
acquisition, engineering, permitting, etc.) (Summer- 1999)
10.Station construction (Fall — 1999)
11.Begin process over for Station #1 or Station #2
Initiate a City-wide strategic planning process.
Steps include:
1. Conduct 1998 Citizen Survey (November 1998)
2. Brief City Council on Survey (December 1998)
3. Kick-off Meeting with City Council on strategic planning process for 1998 —
1999 (November- 1998)
z
it
4. Community Forums (Winter 1998)
5. Develop Community Vision Statement (Winter 1998)
6. Develop Goals Statements (Winter 1999)
7. Develop Multi-Year City Plan (i.e. budget, comprehensive plan, water plan,
"partners", etc.) (Spring 1999)
8. Organizational Alignment (Summer 1999 and on)
♦ Mission Statement
♦ Employee Survey
♦ Internal Communication
♦ Systems Planning
Explore alternatives to current Local Improvement
Steps include:
1. Convene committee (Completed)
2. Committee report (Completed)
3. City Council presentation (August 19)
4. Discuss alternatives (December 1998/January 1999)
5. Implementation of new LID processes (fiscal year 1999-2000)
transportation Encourage alternative . .
Projects Include:
Central Ashland Bikeway
♦ Project under construction (completed Winter 1998)
Sidewalks and Trails Construction
♦ Pursue ROW with Railtex for extension of Central Ashland Bikeway
(Winter 1998)
3
♦ Staff report to City Council on feasibility of this project(January 1998)
Lineal Parks
♦ Parks and Community Development have concurred that the concept of
lineal trails is appropriate for Ashland — Done
RVTD Levels of Service
♦ Additional route added in Ashland on East Main July 1
♦ Discussions ongoing regarding SOU ridership program
Siskiyou Bike Lanes
♦ Meet with ODOT representatives to discuss jurisdictional exchange and
the timing of the proposed project as approved by RVACT (September
1998)
Develop . . . plain and riparian areas. Include
Flood consideration for recommendations provided in the Ashland Creek
Restoration Project (OTAK).
1. Review OTAK report for clarity, recommendations, direction (Fall 1998)
2. Develop list of"issues"to be addressed in overall plan (Fall 1998)
3. Initiate planning process (Winter 1998)
4. Develop multi-year plan to deal with issue (Summer 1999)
5. Tie to "City Plan"for funding (ongoing)
Develop long-range, comprehensive solution for water needs.
1. Hire consultant(Completed—June 1998)
2. Prepare list of issues to address (Completed June 1998)
3. Identify alternatives (Completed July 1998)
4: Presentation of alternatives to City Council (October 1998)
5. Chamber Forum on water planning (November 1998)
6. Adoption of alternative (December 1998)
4
Council Communication
Ashland Fire & Rescue
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Keith E. Woodl
Paula Brown
Scott Fleuter e"j
Council Communication
Administrative Services Department
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Dick Wanderschei
Approved by: Mike Freeman
Title:
Memo on Proposed Breaching of Four Snake River Dams
Synopsis:
The National Marine Fisheries Services will be deciding between three alternatives on how to
help salmon recovery efforts on the Columbia-Snake River Basin. One option is breaching the
four lower Snake River Dams. This memo summarizes the reasons the Northwest Energy
Coalition supports breaching.
Recommendation:
For your information only - no action is necessary.
Background Information:
The City of Ashland has been an associate member of the Northwest Energy Coalition since
1990. The Coalition wanted to brief all its utility members about this issue and why it will be
supporting breaching of the dams at its annual meeting in November. Members met with the
City on October 19' in order to do this. This memo was prepared to summarize the issue and the
reasons the Northwest Energy Coalition supports breaching.
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Administrative Services — —
1'
MEMORANDUM oREGoa.....
DATE: October 29, 1995
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Wanderocheid and Pete Lovrovich
51-113JECT: PROP05ED BREACHING OF FOUR SNAKE RIVER PAM5
BACKGROUND
The City of Ashland has been an a55ociate member of the Northwest Energy Coalition Since October of 1990.
It was initially called the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, but last year changed its name to reflect
changes in the regional energy picture and its changing focus.
On October 19th, Councilor Reid, City Administrator Freeman, Electric Utility Director Lovrovich and
Administrative Services Director Wanderscheid met with Coalition Staff Sara Patton and Steve Weiss,
Coalition president and manager at Emerald PUP in Eugene Jeff Shield, and Scott Yates from Trout
Unlimited'o Portland office. The purpose of the meeting war,to discuss breaching of four Snake River dams.
PROPOSALS
Ao you are well aware,the salmon populations on the Columbia and 5nake River System are reaching critical
levelr, and in 1991, the 5nake River sockeye was listed a5 endangered and 5nake River opring, Summer and fall
Chinook were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fishery Service (NMF5).
The Columbia River once produced 16 million wild salmon but today barely manages to produce one million fish.
In the 19605, before the four lower 5nake River dams were constructed, spawning runs of 120,000 Spring and
Summer chinook annually made their way up to the 5nake River. In 1996, fewer than 3,500 wild Spring and
Summer Chinook returned to Spawn in the 5nake.
The four dams that are being propooed to be breached are Ice Harbor (built in 1962), Lower Monument (built in
1969), Little Goose (built in 1970) and Lower Granite (built in 1975). Breaching these damr, would be
accomplished by removing the earthen r,ection, with the result the reservoirs would be drained restoring a free
flowing river. The channel would be Shaped to divert water around the power house and locks. Roads, boat
docks and some buoinesser, would have to be moved. Electricity would no longer be produced and barge traffic
would end. Breaching would be done on one or two dams at a time, with the entire project expected to take five
years. It is believed this action would cause oteelhead and Salmon migration to be greatly improved and the
native opecier, would flourish in the natural river. Breaching would open up the 5nake River below Helic Canyon
Dam and this would mean both the 5almon and Clearwater River basins, which have prime habitat, would empty
into a free flowing 5nake River.
NMF5 PPOCE55 and NWEC ACTION
The National Marine Fishery Service is scheduled to make a decision under the Endangered 5pecies Act on this
issue by the end of 1999. It is evaluating three options - the status quo (no action), improved barging of fish
and increased spilling of water, or breaching the four 5nake River dams. The Northwest Energy Coalition's
board discussed this issue in June and was prepared to vote for the breaching option. However, it decided to
wait six months to discuss this issue with its utility members and also to allow the National Resource Defense
Council to study how to replace the power that would be lost by breaching the dams. That study will be
completed on November ro". Because we are an associate member, representatives traveled to Ashland to
meet and discuss this issue. The board is scheduled to vote on this at its annual meeting on November 6`h.
WHY NWEW SUPPORTS THE BREACHING ALTERNATIVE
Flood Control - These four dams are all run of the river dams and thus provide no flood control benefits.
Irrigation - 13 corporate farms utilize Ice Harbor Dam to irrigate about 35,000 acres of land. It would cost
$50 million to purchase these farms or$25 million to pay them to dry farm the land. This would be included in
the cost of this alternative.
Transportation - Currently the grain shipments that are being made via barge cost about $1.26/ton. Moving
this by rail costs $1.29/ton. This is an annual amount of about$100,000. Right now,the rail infrastructure
does not exist to move it all by rail so additional costs of$1-10 million have been added to this alternative to
provide better rail facilities.
Power Costs - These four dams currently produce about 800 AMWs of firm power. Because they are run of
the river dams,the timing of power production does not coincide with peak need in the northwest or peak
demands in the southwest, so the power is not nearly as high value as other hydro power resources in the
system. The Northwest Power Planning Council has estimated the net value of the power would be about$209
million/year. This would add about 3 to 3.5 mills to the cost of DFA wholesale power. The power produced by
these dams equals about 7/0 of overall northwest power production.
C,apital Costs - Estimated capital costs for breaching the dams are between $500-600 million. Annualized
costs for this would be in the neighborhood of$40 million/year.
Replacement Power - NRDC's study will probably provide more detailed information, but NWEC feels there
exists at least 835 AMW of conservation potential at costs of less that 3 cents/kWh, also that an additional
470 AMW of renewable resources are available for 4-7 cents/kWh. Therefore, they feel that replacing the power
lost should not be that difficult or costly.
5UMMAP.Y
It is expected the Board of NWEC is going to support breaching of the four lower 5nake River Dams at its
annual meeting on November 6'. It wanted to explain to its utility members the rational for doing this. We
have attempted to summarize this issue and the reasons for support in this memo. There is no action
required by the Council on this issue. This memo is provided for information only. We included a supplement
from the Idaho Statesman newspaper which provides far more depth and details on this complex issue.
Council Communication
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Maria Harris Nye
Approved by: Paul Nolte V-1
Approved by: Mike FreemanM(�
Title:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Replacing Chapter 2.22 of the Ashland Municipal Code to
Change the name of the Bicycle Commission to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and to
Amend Its Powers and Duties
Synopsis:
This is the second reading of the attached ordinance which expands the Bicycle Commission to
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. The primary changes in the ordinance are increasing
the number of voting members from seven to nine, having an elected chair and broadening the
primary duties to include pedestrian issues.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Background:
The purpose of the ordinance amendment is to expand the role of the Commission from strictly
addressing bicycle-related issues to advisement on all non-automotive methods of transportation,
with an emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian issues, The ordinance amendments are based on
comments from the Bicycle Commission, a review of the goals and policies of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and a review of ordinances for other
existing City commissions including Tree, Traffic Safety, Conservation, Historic and Planning
Commission.
In April, 1998, the Council reviewed an ordinance expanding the existing Bicycle Commission to
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Concerns were raised about duplicating duties
between this commission and the Traffic Safety Commission, and it was determined that it would
be most appropriate for the Traffic Safety Commission to retain the responsibilities associated
with transportation safety education and pedestrian safety laws. The attached draft ordinance
reflects this by limiting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission responsibility to bicycle safety
programs.
,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REPLACING CHAPTER 2.22 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE NAME OF
THE BICYCLE COMMISSION TO THE BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION AND TO AMEND ITS POWERS
AND DUTIES
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.22 of the Ashland Municipal Code is replaced in its entirety to
read:
Chapter 2.22
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Sections:
2.22.010 Established — Membership
2.22.020 Term —Vacancies
2.22.030 Quorum — Rules and Regulations
2.22.040 Powers and Duties — Generally
2.22.050 Reports
2.22.060 Compensation
2 22 010 Established — Membership. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission is
established and shall consist of nine voting members, one of which shall be a city
councilor, and four non-voting members including a representative from Rogue Valley
Transportation District, the Director of Community Development, the Director of Public
Works and the Chief of Police.
2.22.020 Term —Vacancies. The term of the voting members shall be for three years,
expiring on April 30 of each year. Any vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the
mayor, with confirmation by the city council, for the unexpired portion of the term. The
seven commission members currently serving as of the date of this 1998 amendment
shall serve their remaining terms. For the two members to be appointed to the
commission as a result of this 1998 amendment, one shall be appointed to a term
expiring April 30, 2000, and one member to a term expiring April 30, 2001. The
successors shall be appointed to three year terms. Any member who is absent for four
or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the
position vacant, and a new member shall be appointed to fill the vacancy.
2 22 030 Quorum — Rules and Regulations. Four voting members of the commission
shall constitute a quorum. At its first meeting of the year, the commission shall elect a
chair, vice-chair and a secretary, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the
commission. The commission may make rules and regulations for its meetings,
Page 1
consistent with the laws of the state and city charter and ordinances, and shall meet at
least once every month.
2.22.040 Powers and Duties — Generally. The primary purpose of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Commission shall be to advocate the equal opportunity to use non-
automotive forms of travel and to ensure the development of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities into a well-designed, integrated transportation network for all Ashland citizens.
In doing so, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the commission shall be as
follows:
A. To promote bicycling and walking in Ashland.
B. To review and make recommendations on the long-range transportation
plans as related to bicycle and pedestrian issues of the city.
C. To promote bicycle safety programs.
D. To serve in a liaison capacity between the city and Oregon Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee in developing the statewide bicycle and
pedestrian program, and in meeting the goals of the State of Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
E. To serve in a liaison capacity between the city and the Jackson County
Bicycle Committee in developing overall coordinated plans for bicycle
facilities and bicycle safety programs.
F. On a yearly basis, to review and make recommendations on
transportation projects as related to bicycle and pedestrian issues in the
city.
G. To review and recommend transportation project prioritization and funding
as related to bicycle and pedestrian issues in the city.
H. To advise the planning commission in the administration of the site review
process with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and parking.
I. To assist in the implementation of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
J. To develop and recommend to the city council and planning commission
adoption of ordinances and policies for the planning and maintenance of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the city.
K. To advise the city administrator and city departments regarding bicycle
and pedestrian issues in the city.
2.22.050 Reports. The commission shall submit copies of its minutes to the city council
and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time to time may be requested of
them by the city council or planning commission.
2.22.060 Compensation. Voting members of the commission shall receive no
compensation for services rendered.
Page 2
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 11998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1998.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1998.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Page 3
Council Communication
Legal Department
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Paul Nolte V�
Approved by: Mike Freeman
Title:
An Ordinance Amending the Liquor License Review Chapter(Chapter 6.32) of the Ashland
Municipal Code to Update Provisions Relating to Evaluation of Applications.
Synopsis:
The proposed changes in this ordinance update the ordinance to conform to state law and to
current practice. The changes minimize the role of the police department while utilizing the city
recorder to determine if an applicant meets city land use and business license requirements. An
annotated copy is attached.
Recommendation:
As this ordinance was published pursuant to Article X, Section 2(c) of the Ashland Municipal
Code, this ordinance can be read by title only and approved for fast reading at the Council's
November 3, 1998, meeting.
Background Information: -
City departments have served an evolving role in the evaluation of liquor license applications.
The extensive statutory regulation of licensees by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission
(OLCC) leaves little room for city input regarding the issuance of licenses. The proposed
changes in the existing ordinance minimize the role of the police department since the
department's role duplicated in many respects the Oregon Liquor Control Commission's
extensive background investigation of applicants. These changes, however, require the city clerk
to determine that the city's land use requirements are followed thereby eliminating a potential
problem brought to light within the last two years where a local restaurant converted to a sports
bar. The changes also enact a procedure to ensure that an applicant meets the city's business
license and restaurant registration requirements.
0lsharkne\COUNCIL\Commwiwtions\ligwr li=w ord.N98.wpd
t
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE
REVIEW CHAPTER (CHAPTER 6.32) OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE PROVISIONS RELATING
TO EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are fined-thratigh and additions are shaded.
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.32 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
Chapter 6.32
LIQUOR LICENSE REVIEW
Sections:
6.32.010 Purpose and Scope
6.32.020 Definitions
6.32.030 Application Process
6.32.040 Application Fees
6.32.050 City Recorder Duties
6.32.070 Hearing and Notice Procedure
6.32.080 Coordination with Other Fees
6 32.010 Purpose and Scope. The purpose of this @chapter is to establish the
principal criteria which shall be considered by the C—city Ecouncil in making
recommendations to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (O.L.C.C.) concerning
the granting, denying, modifying or renewing of all liquor licenses within the dity;
and to establish fees and a process, pursuantto ORS 47i.135, 71 210(4)sto be
utilized for the investigation of such license applications.
6.32.020 Definitions.
A. Administrator. The City Administrator of the City, or a designee.
B. Applicant. The person or persons submitting an application for a liquor
license.
C. Application. The application forms supplied by the Oregon Liquor
Control Commission.
D. Cam. The City of Ashland.
E. Council. The City Council of the City of Ashland.
Page 1 —ANNOTATED ORDINANCE WAWORDMIquor lkens anomiad
6.32.030 Application Process.'
A. Procedure. Any person, firm or corporation requesting a liquor license
through the O.L.C.C. shall present the completed license application
forms prescribed by O.L.C.C. to the city recorder.
B. Additonal Information. An O.L.C.C. Personal History form shall be
completed for each person named on the license application.
C. Completed Applications. Liquor license applications forms shall be
accepted only when all required forms are properly completed, the
requested information is submitted, and the required application fee, as
set forty 4h in Section 6.32.040, has been paid.
6.32.040 Application Fees. The city recorder shall charge and collect a license
investigation fee at the time the application is filed. The fees for such services shall
be established by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 2352, 1985; Ord. 2622 S2,
1991; Ord. 2774 S16, 1996)'
6.32.050 City Recorder Duties. Upon recelpt;of rna application foi a'newzliquor
license, the city recorder shall
A
n
i Refer the applloajinn to
thezDepartment of Commurnty Development;who shall determine IUthe
Iocatlon?of the!lic_ensee'sibusmess,compl!es with=the;city s land iase
Le qw eFments:
B. Gheek for delinqueney as to the payrnemt of property taxes, speeial
G. a If the licensee hasa business license an ttias registered_as
a restaurant,rf applicable;forthecitylsfoodwand beverage taxi
G� RepoI' theme C ty C>ouncif as to th6 filing o`f the apple gn;and he
determinationsimaae under this section
D? Endorse the application, if approved by the City Council.
6.32.060 Poke Beoartment Buties.
A. eandtiet background on emeh per-son narned as an
applicant on the license.
B. Review 9" applications based upen the eriteria set forth in Seetion
6.32.070, ..were.. B.
G. The Ghmef of Poke she" submit a recommendation to the Gity Getincil.
'Revised February 1996
2Revised February 1996
Page 2 —ANNOTATED ORDINANCE GIPAWORMiquor Umnse enompo
f
6 32 070 Hearing and Notice Procedures.
A. Council Consideration. If the
con VI_ ity recorder�determtirses{that the
.:, �^ v u >
applicart'fora newfhquor licenselascomplied wlth�thecltys land use
reguiren ents, has h ained�a business tense and registered as a
restaurant ,ifapplicable, the matter will be placed on the next regular
Ecity Ccouncil agenda for action
^`
If Mf ^ ' - If the atyrtiecor`derfeannot rmakeanyof the above
listed determinations. the recorder shall�reportsuchto�the city council
The counal1may then schedule a public hearing and
giye;notice giverras prove„ ided be ow.I_
B. Applicant Notice. Before the Ecity Ccouncil recommends denial of a
liquor license application, notice of a public hearing must be given to
the applicant, either personally or by certified mail, postmarked no later
than ten f+6) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall contain:
1. A statement of the time and place of the hearing;
2. A statement from the Ghief of Police or. m, Sup
adverse it3 recorder as tithe findings made;
3. A statement that the applicant may be represented by legal
counsel at the hearing, at the expense of the applicant.
C. Public Notice. In order to facilitate public participation in liquor license
applications, the Ecity Rrecorder shall, in the case of a
recommendation for denial, publish a notice of public hearing once in a
local newspaper of general circulation at least ten f%)-days prior to the
date of the hearing. The notice shall specify the date, time and location
of hearing, and the business name and address of the applicant. The
notice shall also inform the public that written or oral testimony may be
presented either for or against the application.
D. Evaluation Criteria. The Ccity Ecouncil shall make its recommendation
to the O.L.C.C., and in the case of denial or modification, shall specify
the reasons for recommending denial or modification. The minutes of
the Ccity Ecouncil shall reflect the reasons for a negative
recommendation. The Ccity Ecouncil may recommend denial of an
application if:
1. The application is incomplete.
2. The applicant neglects or refuses to provide, in a timely manner,
any information that is reasonably requested.
3. The applicant provides false or misleading information.
4. Publie opinion weighs against the applieation either by oral
public opinion shall be evaluated im light of the reasons
expressed and the exterit to whieh the persons expressing these
opinions are likely to be affected by the issuance of the lieense.
Greater weight will be given to opinions of persons residing,
working, or owning a business within one half (1/2) rinile of the
Page 3 —ANNOTATED ORDINANCE 13VAUL\ORDVII III ano.wpd
1.
opposition shall not, and of itself, be controlling.
twenty one (21) years of age unaccompanied by a ults.
6. The applieant has been convected of violating any of
aleoholie liquor laws of this State, or has beem eenvieted of any
erimme involving nioral turpitude.
�laneeJ.
a. There are sufficaent licensed prernises in the viemnity, or the
granting of the lieense is not dernanded by the publie interest o
9. The applieant is not a eitizen of the United States, or is physies"
or mentally ineen-,petent to earry on the rnamagernent of the
proposed establishment.
100 The appliesmt does-not have a good reeord of eernpliamee with
thTe"O.LTr
!I. The applieamt 09 not the legitimate owner of the businesS
proposed to be lieensed, or othei persons have ownership
12. The applieant does not possess or has not demonstrated
finamemal responsibility suffleient to meet the requirements of the
.
btismness.
13. The appleeant's premises fail to eemply with any 1
State laws or regtilations.
14. The app"eant's premises wod'd place an unreason
excess ve dernand up on F'--e 'mp'- H'npl hut not
6- 'aweMfmrnFaFA p3licant's busne s Theilocation oflteap
does notcomply withtheaatys landtuserequrements
455 A The applicant '
a_ rws
ha failed toaobtaihM bdsiness
icenseaor failed to reg'i`ster as a restaurant, dfapplicable.
466. Any reason, which in the sole opinion of the -,I city Ccouncil,
warrants an adverse recommendation based on public health,
safety, welfare, convenience or necessity.
E. Findings Transmitted. If the Ecity Ecouncil recommends approval, it
shall make a general finding that the applicant meets all the criteria of
this Echapter. If the Ecity Ecouncil recommends denial, it shall include
a finding or findings, based on the criteria of this Echapter in support of
its action. In either event, a copy of the Ecity Ecouncil minutes shall be
transmitted to the O.L.C.C. with the recommendation.
F. Blanket Renewals.
1. At the time of annual renewal of existing licenses, the Chief of
Poticercity'reco_77-7-7-1 shall make a report to the Ecity Ecouncil on
any licensee which has failed to meet the criteria set forth in
0M 9 5 6 and 10, above section
6:32:050.
Page 4 —ANNOTATED ORDINANCE G:WAUL\ORMIlquorlkenmanompd
2.
has delinquent property taxes, special assessments or utilit
3. In such case, the Ecity Ecouncil may recommend denial of the
renewal, or the withholding of endorsement of the renewal until
such deficiencies are brought to current status. The Ecity
Ecouncil may otherwise grant blanket approval of all license
renewals.
6.32.080 Coordination with Other Fees. The application fee set forth in Section
6.32.040 shall be in lieu of all other investigation fees, but shall not be in lieu of the
regular Business License Tax set forth in Chapter 6.04. (Ord. 2318, 1989; Ord.
2581, 1990)
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 1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1998.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1998.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Page 5 —ANNOTATED ORDINANCE G:IPAWORDViquor license ano.wpe
AS/y�y0
CITY OF ASHLAND -,
Department of Administrative Services — — —
y
MEMORANDUM OREGON•,.•='
DATE: October 9, 1998
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Wanderoch id
5U15JECT: UPDATE ON 5TYROFOAM
BACKGROUND
In conjunction with the recent changes to the City's Styrofoam ban, Councilor Pel3oer requested Some
updated information about the current State of Styrofoam production and recycling.
The original ordinance which banned Styrofoam was passed in August of 1989. This ordinance was
Somewhat unique because it included a preamble which contained 12 findings addressing why the
ordinance was being enacted.
The actual ordinance also Stated "The disposal of polystyrene foam products in public landfills and by
indiscriminate persons as litter, is hereby declared a public nuisance." In addition, it identified the
manufacture of polystyrene foam of all types "as a major contributor to the depletion of the earth's
ozone layer and thus iS a long-term menace to the public health."
The ordinance also created the"Polystyrene Foam Task Force". This task force Subsequently became
the Recycling Task Force and was later transformed again into the Conservation Commission.
With the exception of the recent change in the ordinance which exempted otyrofoam packaging for
meat, poultry and Seafood, the ordinance has been very Successful and required very little ongoing
enforcement by the City.
CHANGE5 51NCE 1989
Blowing Agents - According to the Polystyrene Packaging Council, no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have
been used as blowing agents for polystyrene Since the early 19905. Today, these products use
primarily pentane and carbon dioxide as the blowing agents. When CFCs were used to manufacture
PSF, it is estimated by EPA that 2 to 5% of CFCs used in the United 5tates in the 19800 went
toward production of polystyrene packaging products.
Recycling and Re-use - According to the Polystyrene Packaging Council, before 1988 there was
essentially no recovery of post-consumer polystyrene for recycling, but in 1996 almost 54 million
pounds were recycled. Its list of recycling sites in Oregon as of January 1998 identifies one drop off
program site in Portland, nine handlers, and one handler/reclaimer. The web site does not define
exactly what services are offered at the locations.
In discussing this issue with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality staff in Portland, they
stated Styrofoam recycling in the Northwest is a money losing proposition as no one is paying for the
material. It is expensive to transport because of its bulk. Where it is recycled it is remanufactured
into video cassette covers, CD cases and food trays. They believe the closest polystyrene recycling
site to Ashland would be the National Polystyrene Recycling Company in Corona, California (near Los
Angeles).
Ashland 5anitary & Recycling actually contacted the nine handlers that were identified on the
Packaging Council's web site. This research found that six of those listed actually have no Styrofoam
recycling program at all. Of the other three, one is a non-profit which takes food trays only, receives
no compensation for the material, and has to pay to ship it. A spokesperson stated if the company
weren't a non-profit one, it would be dropped from their program. Another stated it will take packing
peanuts only when it has a business who will take the peanuts. The third one said it takes molded
Styrofoam only.
SUMMARY
While the blowing agents have changed from CFC based to more benign chemicals, and recycling of
post-consumer polystyrene has increased since 1989, it still is not a product which can feasibly be
recycled in Ashland at this time. Removing or changing the ban would result in more Styrofoam ending
up in Ashland's waste stream. 5ince there is nothing to be gained and because some of the products
that polystyrene might replace are currently being packaged in recyclable material, we recommend the
ordinance, as amended recently by the City Council, is still effective and should be retained.
Council Communication
Administrative Services Department
November 3, 1998
Submitted by: Dick Wanderschei
Approved by: Mike Freeman lly*�
Title:
Memo on Proposed Breaching of Four Snake River Dams
Synopsis:
The National Marine Fisheries Services will be deciding between three alternatives on how to
help salmon recovery efforts on the Columbia-Snake River Basin. One option is breaching the
four lower Snake River Dams. This memo summarizes the reasons the Northwest Energy
Coalition supports breaching.
Recommendation:
For your information only -no action is necessary.
Background Information:
The City of Ashland has been an associate member of the Northwest Energy Coalition since
1990. The Coalition wanted to brief all its utility members about this issue and why it will be
supporting breaching of the dams at its annual meeting in November. Members met with the
City on October 19" in order to do this. This memo was prepared to summarize the issue and the
reasons the Northwest Energy Coalition supports breaching.
.....f.ASy��
CITY OF ASHLAND �--;
Department of Administrative Services ——
1'
MEMORANDUM REGG�V'
DATE: October 29, 1998
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Wanderocheid and Pete Lovrovich
5U13JECT: PROP05ED BREACHING OF FOUR 5NAKE RIVER DAM5
BACKGROUND
The City of Ashland has been an associate member of the Northwest Energy Coalition since October of 1990.
It was initially called the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, but last year changed its name to reflect
changes in the regional energy picture and its changing focus.
On October 19', Councilor Reid, City Administrator Freeman, Electric Utility Director Lovrovich and
Administrative Services Director Wanderscheid met with Coalition staff Sara Patton and Steve Weiss,
Coalition president and manager at Emerald PUP in Eugene Jeff Shield, and 5cott Yates from Trout
Unlimited's Portland office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss breaching of four Snake River dams.
PKOP05AL5
As you are well aware, the salmon populations on the Columbia and Snake River system are reaching critical
levels and in 1991,the 5nake River sockeye was listed as endangered and 5nake River spring, summer and fall
Chinook were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fishery Service (NMF5).
The Columbia River once produced 16 million wild salmon but today barely manages to produce one million fish.
In the 19605, before the four lower 5nake River dams were constructed, spawning runs of 120,000 spring and
summer Chinook annually made their way up to the 5nake River. In 1996, fewer than 3,500 wild spring and
summer chinook returned to spawn in the 5nake.
The four dams that are being proposed to be breached are Ice Harbor (built in 1962), Lower Monument (built in
1969), Little Goose (built in 1970) and Lower Granite (built in 1975). breaching these dams would be
accomplished by removing the earthen section, with the result the reservoirs would be drained restoring a free
flowing river. The channel would be shaped to divert water around the power house and locks. Roads, boat
docks and some businesses would have to be moved. Electricity would no longer be produced and barge traffic
would end. Breaching would be done on one or two dams at a time, with the entire project expected to take five
years. It is believed this action would cause steelhead and salmon migration to be greatly improved and the
native species would flourish in the natural river. breaching would open up the 5nake River below Hells Canyon
Dam and this would mean both the Salmon and Clearwater River basins, which have prime habitat, would empty
into a free flowing 5nake River.
NMF5 PPOCE55 and NWEC ACT10N
The National Marine Fishery 5ervice is scheduled to make a decision under the Endangered Species Act on this
issue by the end of 1999. It is evaluating three options - the status quo (no action), improved barging of fish
and increased spilling of water, or breaching the four 5nake River dams. The Northwest Energy Coalition's
board discussed this issue in June and was prepared to vote for the breaching option. However, it decided to
wait six months to discuss this issue with its utility members and also to allow the National Resource Defense
Council to study how to replace the power that would be lost by breaching the dams. That study will be
completed on November 6`h. Because we are an associate member, representatives traveled to Ashland to
meet and discuss this issue. The board is scheduled to vote on this at its annual meeting on November 6`h
WHY NWEW SUPPORTS THE BREACHING ALTERNATIVE
Flood Control - These four dams are all run of the river dams and thus provide no flood control benefits.
Irrigation - 13 corporate farms utilize Ice Harbor Dam to irrigate about 35,000 acres of land. It would cost
$50 million to purchase these farms or$25 million to pay them to dry farm the land. This would be included in
the cost of this alternative.
Transportation - Currently the grain shipments that are being made via barge cost about$1.26/ton. Moving
this by rail costs $1.29/ton. This is an annual amount of about$100,000. Right now,the rail infrastructure
does not exist to move it all by rail so additional costs of$1-10 million have been added to this alternative to
provide better rail facilities.
Power Costs - These four dams currently produce about 800 AMWs of firm power. Because they are run of
the river dams,the timing of power production does not coincide with peak need in the northwest or peak
demands in the southwest, so the power is not nearly as high value as other hydro power resources in the
system. The Northwest Power Planning Council has estimated the net value of the power would be about$209
million/year. This would add about 3 to 3.5 mills to the cost of 6PA wholesale power. The power produced by
these dams equals about 7/0 of overall northwest power production.
Capital Costs - Estimated capital costs for breaching the dams are between $500-600 million. Annualized
costs for this would be in the neighborhood of$40 million/year.
Replacement Power- NRDC's study will probably provide more detailed information, but NWEC feels there
exists at least 835 AMW of conservation potential at costs of less that 3 cents/kWh, also that an additional
470 AMW of renewable resources are available for 4-7 cents/kWh. Therefore, they feel that replacing the power
lost should not be that difficult or costly.
SUMMARY
It is expected the Board of NWEC is going to support breaching of the four lower 5nake River Dams at its
annual meeting on November 6°h. It wanted to explain to its utility members the rational for doing this. We
have attempted to summarize this issue and the reasons for support in this memo. There is no action
required by the Council on this issue. This memo is provided for information only. We included a supplement
from the Idaho Statesman newspaper which provides far more depth and details on this complex issue.