Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-0921 Council PACKET
Imoortamt: Any citizen ratterfan ng council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the swbject of a public hearing high has been Gosed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near'the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize youand inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to s`o"me extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the leng h of the a•enda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 21, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II ROLL CALL: III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of September 7, 1999 and Executive Meeting Minutes of September 9, 1999. IV SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS: 1. Update and presentation regarding the Senior Program Board. 2. Presentation by Suzi Aufderheide regarding Alliance for Democracy. 3. Presentation by Rosemary Dalton regarding domestic partnerships. 4. Mayor's proclamation of"National Fire Prevention Week." V CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Greg Covey to the Tree Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2001. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee. 4. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (Washington Street Annexation by Neuman)." 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. Public Hearing regarding final assessments for Westwood Street Local Improvement District. 2. Public Hearing to consider adequacy of storm drain system capacity for a 25-lot subdivision (Planning Action 97-054) LUBA Remand No. 98-166, Hunt, et. al. v. City of Ashland ( notion a uired) 5v bm �}ed ex Council Meeting Pkt. Tl� e welt+ to PI ann CITY RECORDER'S OFFICE VII PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VIII UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) IX NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. 2. Presentation regarding the Building Lands Inventory (BLI) in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. �1 Discussion and Presentation of information on the Proposed Jurisdictional Exchange O J�eU with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) along Highway 99 (Siskiyou (e569 Boulevard, N. Main Street and Lithia Way). +0 4. Council initiation of a planning action for a land partition at 667 North Main Street (new neighborhood park). law��h, 5. Request for$5,000 start up funds for film festival. rA 6. Discussion of Draft City Council Reimbursement Resolution. X ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the Amount of$188,616.93 for the Westwood Street Local Improvement District for Improvements Consisting of Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk, and Associated Improvements, for the Extension of Westwood Street from its Existing Terminus at Orchard Street, approximately 1300 feet southerly." 2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution adopting the Building Lands Inventory (BLI) in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan." 3. First reading of"An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal Code to Establish Fiscal Priorities for New Programs." 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 Clarify Requirements for Grantees." 5. Second reading of"An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of"A" Street Easterly of Oak Street." XI OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER Please note that Study Sessions will now be held on Wednesdays following a council meeting. Executive Session on Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at noon in Council Chambers regarding City Administrator evaluation. 09/20/99 MON 14:53 FAX 541 488 0091 C21 MAIN STREET [a 001 rm a 114 uma0 JUf OUST SERVICE 1@003 A3m•m"a-1 cent, .Page 2 • I:AIl01T "A" . , 80—M80 U U OESCRIM10N , i Parcel 2 (0.174 Agree +) Beginning ate 5/8° it PLO met far the northreat terser or lot 1, Block 4 49 e2 f 5100R! aODITSOS situate site°• is the City of Ashland. Jackson Goossi, or*", meaarditg to tbo official slat thereof sew of rago7d, thehes Rerth 890W11" East 67.00 toot aleag the north line of said lea to a 5/8" irea plat %tone• bases 10010/250 ramt 101.345 feet to ■ 5/8" iron Pia es the senth 116• of lot 21 thongs South 890$9132" Most 85.00 feet aleog maid lie, tm m 5/8° Iran via found for the southwest coiner of said Intl thongs North 000 1124" Sant 99.69 feet (Record ■ 100.0 feet) along the rest Sfax of tots 1 and 2 to the point or hegisnisgo She abbe pergola subject to ezimtiag gsa•ptiens and romer•atlenm. j am on", cam QIPp�; M123= o w J� TRUST�x Q �e ' 09/20/99 MON 14:53 FAX 541 488 0091 C21 MAIN STREET 121002 09/20/98 13:43 FAX 541 772 3998, JCS CUST SERVICE I@002 BO�y�yBp A E HT r— Owner Charles H. i June E. Flock Address 69e LlberFV St Ashland, Ore Address Owner lE Tax let /IS) Property 39 Seetlon assessor's Me0 11 .� Trp. Range Stram Ash(and Qrcg2M., Street Address Its street I parch 12, 1990 minor Lend Partition pate Planning Action BO-s ype I Exhibit °A°. I/ve As the Owner(i) of the property listed above, end described In Es Hereby consent to the following Improveamnts. dedlcetlons. or other actions, as required by the City of Ashland, and agree to bear the proportionate payment Of essoclaled Bests. Th1s agreainsnt Is to be binding upon myself/ourselves, ey/our twirls). asecutors, and That ssigns, lrs it is my/our express Intention that this agraeaaf�urelornersro th�proparfY- af the Items listed below shall be binding upon . !i Improvement, Dedication, or Other Action: 1) Thet socsss via Sufi nit Street fray Mende Street. 9 drlveea Id ev drive Iflcetlons from wands Street to t sad areal to a cloth f 1 '- t • be the ' 11h:11 111111111 2) Futu I 1 , �8 Slgnaturo _�O e 1e • r e Stela of Ore on ) County of Jackson)ss. a 'W'ary y�rD d of �i/s./ 19AL, before me, the unders)y�ei, rY On this pt _day Public In And for paid Coirly and Stele, per'anally ap7earcd tho 0011 ns-ad + In -1-1 W" "<u7C� t•� �1.° aro/i: kh�= 10 by to be th` iGCr.11ea1 indiri d•F.t(5) dn5cri�-W , 'Cd ' aPS IrCC1Y ,M- . ilhln I11}TrWgarnt. el � lhat QVPC; " voluntcrlly-ellcvd 1-jr lost a1Kr••; In Icny .eternal, 1 low hereunto set my lend m h .d coal ia day an vrl it rn. , U, n eNN:-Fta>_ U; U, * o ' O Y O U� rn ' wd • Y isMIR,:- l'1:.' s 410 T— Off-, a � U U m o ° u O � N T � N °� O JL. •• 9 H d v u E Q �. .0 E c c m z c u .� Q a U e a ° -°• E m G Y 'o a' o u '� E v ¢ 'm ,c F E U a a N E ac U o c .�... ti .o o o` O .9 ° .3 u 0 E a ri a s v vt n v a o n v n o o u 3 o > o y m U` n a 3 a' Q O A O O O m' � 4 4 U ¢ 40 Q v" ti PRESENTATION REGARDING DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DOMESTIC PARTNER F GISTRY FACT SHEET What are we doing? We are petitioning the City of Ashland to serve as a Domestic Partnership Registry for Southern Oregon and to issue Certificates of Domestic Partnership. Why a Domestic Partnership Registry and Certificates? There are four important reasons for the creation of a Domestic Partners Registry and Issuance of Certificates of Domestic Partnership: 1. There is a positive psychological impact in allowing same-sex partners to register. With marriage for same-sex partners a long way in the future, it is an opportunity for the City of Ashland to acknowledge our relationships as legitimate, valid, and loving. It promotes real and existent family values without mean-spirited exclusions. 2. It provides proof of domestic partnership for businesses offering benefits for domestic partners. These benefits are fast becoming the norm as over 150 businesses in the private sector in Oregon now offer medical and other insurance benefits. It has long been recognized by high tech industries that offering maximum benefits attracts the best and brightest to their companies. 3. Establishes in writing a relationship for such purposes as hospital and other institutional visitation rights. Longtime partners are sometimes barred from visitation rights in hospitals at the whim of administrators or unaccepting blood relatives. This documentation may be used to support the rights of domestic partners. 4. Officially establishes Ashland as a diversity-conscious community which therefore offers a certain measure of safety for its residents and visitors. Page 2. Domestic Partnership What is domestic partnership? Domestic partnership for purposes of the proposed registry is defined as follows: 1. Two parties reside together and share the common necessities of life. 2. Two parties are not married to anyone. 3. Two parties are at least eighteen (18) years of age or older. 4. Two parties are not related by blood so close as to bar marriage in the State of Oregon and are mentally competent to consent to contract. 5. Two parties are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely and are responsible for their common welfare. What must be done to register? Partners must complete and sign an affidavit at the City Clerk's Office and pay a fee of$20.00. They will be entered in the registry and will be issued a Certificate of Domestic Partnership. Submitted by: Neil Sechan and Rosemary Dunn Dalton on behalf of the membership of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Political Caucus of Southern Oregon. City of Ashland Domestic Partnership Information Sheet Program implemented on October_, 1999 The City of Ashland has adopted a Policy extending the registration of Domestic Partners to the public. The registration provides the partners with the documentation which may be required by employers or service providers in order to verify the partnership and to receive extended benefits, advantageous rates or special services. The Affidavit of Domestic Partnership form must be signed by both parties, and each, in signing, attest to certain facts including a declaration of responsibility by the signing parties for their common welfare. The Affidavit form must be filed in person by one of the parties with the City Clerk's office. It should be noted that this Affidavit of Domestic Partnership may have potential legal implications under Oregon law through contracting by non-marital cohabiting couples with respect to the financial obligations of their relationship. If you have any questions regarding the potential legal effects of signing the Affidavit of Domestic Partnership, you should consult an attorney. Domestic Partnership Defined Domestic partnership shall exist between two persons regardless of gender and each of them shall be the domestic partner of the other if they both complete, sign and cause to be filed with the City Clerk an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership attesting to the following: I. The two parties reside together and share the common necessities of life. 2. The two parties are not married to anyone. 3. The two parties are at least eighteen(18) years of age or older. 4. The two parties are not related by blood so close as to bar marriage in the State of Oregon and are mentally competent to consent to contract. 5. The two parties are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely and are responsible for our common welfare. 6. The two parties agree to file a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership, should the above cease to be true. 7. The two parties understand that the registration of the Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City Clerk creates a domestic partnership of continuous duration until either of the parties files a Statement of Termination or upon the death of either party. (In the case of the death of either party, a Statement of Termination is not required to be filed.) 8. Neither of the parties has filed a Statement of Termination within the last six(6) months. 9. The two parties understand that any employer who suffers any loss because of false statements contained in this Affidavit of Domestic Partnership may have cause to bring a civil action against the parties to recover losses. Termination of Domestic Partnerships A member of a domestic partnership may end said relationship by filing a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the City Clerk. In the Statement of Termination, the individual will be required to affirm under penalty of perjury that the partnership is terminated. If both parties have signed the forma $2.00 fee is required to file the form. If only one party has signed the form, a$5.00 fee is required to file the form and cover the mailing by certified mail of a copy to the second ply. Filing New Affidavits After Termination No individual who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership may file another such Affidavit until six (6) months after a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership termination the previous partnership has been filed with the City Clerk. Notice of Possible Civil Actions Any person, employer or company who suffers any loss because of a false statement contained in the Affidavit of Domestic Partnership or failure to notify the employer of changed circumstances as required on the Affidavit may have grounds to bring a civil action to recover their losses. CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND AFFIDAVIT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP We declare under penalty of perjury: 1. We reside together and share the common of life. 2. We are not married to anyone. 3. We are at least eighteen(18) years of age or older. 4. We are not related by blood so close as to bar marriage in the State of Oregon and are mentally competent to consent to contract. 5. We are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely and are responsible for our common welfare. 6. We agree to file a Statement of Termination of Domestic Partnership, should the above cease to be true. 7. We understand that the registration of the Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City Clerk creates a domestic partnership of continuous duration until either of us files a Statement of Termination or upon the death of either of us. (In the case of the death of either party, a Statement of Termination is not required to be filed.) 8. Neither of us has filed a Statement of Termination within the last six (6) months. 9. We understand that any employer who suffers any loss because of false statements contained in this Affidavit of Domestic Partnership may have cause to bring a civil action against us to recover losses. WE DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THAT THE STATEMENTS ABOVE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. Signed on in Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Fee: $20 for filing the Affidavit and obtaining a Certificate of Registration of a Domestic Partnership Resolution No. Establishing fees for registration with the City Clerk under the Domestic Partnership Registration Policy. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Ashland as follows: Section 1. A fee in the amount of$20.00 is hereby established for filing an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership and for issuance of the Certificate by the City Clerk. Section 2. A fee of$2.00 is hereby established for filing a Statement of Termination when both parties have signed the form. Section 3. A fee of$5.00 is hereby established for filing a Statement of Termination when only one party has signed the form. Copy for Certificate (need design) City of Ashland Domestic Partners On City Clerk of Ashland, Certified that and became Domestic Partners By Filing an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership in the Office of the City Clerk. By Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF TERMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THAT THE STATEMENTS BELOW ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. That the partnership between: and Print Name Print Name terminated on: Date Signed on in S..aaturu Signature Fee: $2.00 Filing fee when both parties have signed. $5.00 Filing fee when one party has signed—To be mailed, Certified Mail to: Last known address: For office use: Fee: $2.00 _ Date filed: $5.00 Date mailed: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF "A" STREET EASTERLY OF OAK STREET THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The public right of way described on the attached Exhibit A is vacated subject to a reservation of a six-foot wide pedestrian access easement as described in Section 2. SECTION 2. The six-foot wide pedestrian access easement is retained along the Southern edge of the property boundary adjacent to "A" Street as described on attached Exhibit B. The easement is for pedestrian access and should be at approximate street grade and maintain an eight foot height clearance from overhangs and obstructions. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1999, And duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1 —ORDINANCE (FAUSERTAULMCOUNCIUVacation A Street Ord RevPB.doc) MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 7, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 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, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of August 17, 1999 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS 1. Y2K Preparedness Presentation Barbara Jarvis,and a group of her neighbors,explained what their neighborhood has done to prepare for Y2K or other potential emergencies. Stated that they began using e-mail and flyers to connect with neighbors,and held a potluck to bring the neighbors together. Stated that the experience was a very positive experience with over 50 adults and 20 children attending. Stated that connecting with the neighborhood has been valuable, and would help in preparing to deal with a flood,fire,Y2K or other such incidents. Recognized the value of the Certified Emergency Response Team (CERT) program offered by Ashland Fire Department. Discussed the neighborhood included in the CERT program,and the use of triangle signs in assessing the condition of residents in neighborhoods,noting that although the Fire Department needs to physically assess things separately,the signs would still be of.value in identifying houses with critical needs. Also discussed the Y2K book in use in Portland. Requested that the council join with the CERT Program for a fee of$50 to purchase Cygnus Emergency Response triangles and the Y2K books. Suggested that$2000 would probably provide signs for every house in town. Wheeldon cautionedthe possibility of disorganization iftriangles were distributed into neighborhoods that are not aware of this communication system or are not organized. Suggested that signs need to be distributed to organized groups only. Shaw suggested providing signs to neighborhoods if requested. Laws commented that neighborhoods should be dealt with on an individual basis and to look further into the Fire Department CERT program. Fine explained that there with be a CERT presentation to council in the autumn, and the feasibility of citywide use of the triangles could be discussed at that time. Fine noted he would abstain from voting to allocate money for signs as the'sign maker,Wayne Schumaker, is a client. Councilors Hanson/Reid m/s to approve$50 expenditure in order to support this neighborhood in securing these triangles to be used in their neighborhood. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Jarvis noted her neighborhood's willingness to help any others trying to organize, and stated that she was in the phonebook and would welcome calls. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports. 3. Liquor License Application from Sharon Hull dba/The Boudashery LTD. 4. Sign two Final Airport Hangar Land Lease Agreements. 5. Approval of Street Cut on Pinecrest Terrace to Install a Residential Gas Service at 1488 Pinecrest Terrace. 6. Granting an Access and Utility Easement to Eugene and Patricia Hardwick. September 7'", 1999 Regular Meeting 1 Items#1 and#6 were pulled and placed under"New& Miscellaneous Business". Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve items#2,3 and 5 of the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Councilors W heeldon/Hauck m/s to approve item#4. It was noted that Councilor Fine would be abstaining,and he submitted the following statement for the record: "In my law practice I represent two of the tenants in this draft lease,Tara Labs, Inc.,and Bergs& Bond Properties. Although I have not represented either of them in relation to this matter,I am obliged nonetheless not to participate in Council abstaining and noting conflict of interest as he is the attorney for the tenants. Voice Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson,and Wheeldon: AYE; Fine: ABSTAIN. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing regarding withdrawing an annexed area(Washington Street)from Jackson County Fire District No.5. Nolte provided background information for this item,and noted the requirements of the annexation process. Public Hearing Open: 7:28 p.m. No speakers came forward. Public Hearing Closed: 7:28 p.m. Mayor Shaw read ordinance in full. Councilors W heeldon/Hanson m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Hanson,Hauck,Wheeldon,Reid, Fine and Laws: YES. Motion passed. 2. Public Hearing regarding design of Hillah Temple. Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles introduced representatives from Berry Architects and proceeded to coverthe steps that have been taken in getting to where we are today. Explained that council is now being asked to consider design alternatives for the Hillah Temple building. Noted the concerns that have been raised,and recognized the need for restrooms near the Calle, as well as a trash receptacle enclosure and parking spaces. Explained that the staff recommendation is for a single floor configuration with a combination flat roof/pitched roof entry design,and restrooms that are not attached to the building. Explained that financing and budgeting would be the next step,after council makes a design decision. Commented that staff had worked with neighbors in order to determine how they may be affected. Emphasized the importance of this site for its effect on views for Granite Street and the Plaza, as well as for its proximity to the Ashland Creek and Lithia Park. Architect Jack Berry presented diagrams that ranged from the basic design to the finished design,both single and two- story designs. Explained the steps that were taken and how ideas and concerns surrounding the Calle, restrooms, budget,etc.were incorporated into the concepts. Noted that a one-story building would not be has high as the current building and would likely not impact the view of the neighbors behind the building. Showed conceptual drawings detailing how the entryway and Calle might look. Stated that in some of the proposed schemes,there is a larger number of parking spaces allowed. Also presented schemes for addressing the Alice Piet Walkway. Noted that a one-story scheme is less expensive than a two-story,depending on the complexity of the design selected. Councilor Reid expressed her concern with moving ahead without involving the Historic Commission. Scolesexplained that the Historic Commission has been consulted and presented with conceptual drawings. Scoles noted that some members of the commission did attend the public meetings and that when council makes a design decision then the Historic and Planning Commissions would be more formally involved. Scoles discussed the memo included in the packet detailing the foot traffic to the counter for the two departments involved. Also noted that re-zoning and site review would be needed,and gave price estimates as$1.5 million for the single story and$1.8 million for the two-story design. Reid noted her concern regarding using flat roofs on a public building. Berry explained that there would be drainage on the roof,by sloping it slightly,which would not allow the"ponding"of water typical on a flat roof. Shaw noted that snow can also be a consideration in Ashland. September T", 1999 Regular Meeting 2 I Hauck brought up for discussion the possibility of placing restrooms in the middle of the Plaza now that there is room with the removal of the large tree behind the visitor information booth. Reid noted the possibility of restrooms in the building of the current City Hall near the walkway at the rear of the building. Discussion by council regarding the need for, and placement of, public restrooms. City Administrator Mike Freeman explained the difficulties surrounding renovating the back of the City Hall building. Berry clarified that the proposed schemes involving the stairs did not involve removing and replacing the Alice Pie[ Walkway stairs,but stated that he felt that replacement and/or enhancement of the stairs should be considered. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:03 p.m. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Noted that the one-story scheme is very satisfactory. Stated that Director of Community Development John McLaughlin had confirmed for her that the Downtown Design Standards would apply here. Noted that she is a member of a committee working to present civic design standards,and explained elements in the proposal that met the standards being prepared. Paul Ross/52 Granite Street/Explained that he resides above the temple, noted letter he had sent the Mayor and Council on this issue,and also noted that he had contacted the State Historic Preservation Office in Salem. Confirmed for Shaw that his concern is with the height of building and the effect an increase in height will have on his view. Confirmed for Shaw that the single story design with the entrance discussed would address his concerns. Briggs noted that the entry way in the proposed single story design was off-center,and would not block the view from the house,as it is more aligned with the Ross's yard. Tom Olbrich/2820 Quail Run,Talent/Speaking on behalf of Doug and Linda Smith,who reside at 60 Granite Street. Noted that he also had resided at 52 Granite Street for a time in the 1980's,and stated that the view of the flat roof and air conditioning unit on the Hillah Temple was the worst part of living there. Stated that any increase in height, even if it were aligned with the yard,would be bad. Read statement from the Smith's which noted concerns with:the height of building and obstruction of their view;unsightly and noisy air conditioning units;increased lighting disturbing their yard and home;an increased in parking on Granite and Baum Streets;the use of the parking space in front of their home; and the congestion and hazardous situations created by increasing traffic and parking in this area. Emphasized that this is the entrance to Lithia Park and as such it should be protected. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Noted his background in architecture, and spoke of his support of redesigning the Hillah Temple and the importance of maintaining the entrance to the park. Felt that the architects should have shown an entire streetscape to provide an understanding of how the building fits with the surrounding area. Requested that council give a lot of thought to the design of the proposed building,and suggested holding a competition to get other designs. William Sauers/55 Granite Street/Noted that he resides above the proposed building site. Commented that he felt that the current Hillah Temple blends into the area and that he is concerned with the suggested design concepts and they would fit into the entrance to the park. Noted concern with what may happen to the Alice Piel Walkway and that there have been no injuries that he is aware of,nor any complaints about the current stairway. Stated that he is not in favor of making any changes to the walkway. Express his support for a one-story building and reminded council that this is to be a public building. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 South/Stated that there are a lot of design concepts to work out, and expressed his supports for a single story building. Noted his concern with the overall project,citing the need to look at the big picture that includes the area between the proposed building and the Calle. Emphasized the need for public restrooms downtown,and also noted the need for a trash receptacle area for the plaza merchants and that it should not be smaller than what is currently provided. Noted that he is very pleased with the overall design. Russ Silberger/562 Ray Lane/Noted the high cost associated with expanding City Hall and how this money could have been spent.Noted that the current budget only includes a$450,000 for the expansion of City Hall. September 7t°, 1999 Regular Meeting 3 Shaw provided some background,noting that the committee that dealt with space needs believed hat the Hillah Temple was the best possible option. Clarified that the proposed one story concept would provide one additional parking space. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:32 p.m. Staff recommends that council select a preferred alternative(Concept B,Site Scheme 2,Elevation Scheme I or III)and then direct staff to prepare financing program for consideration at the second council meeting in November. Council voiced consensus on Concept C, with Councilor Wheeldon voicing concern surrounding traffic issues and the proposed placement of restrooms. Councilor Reid voiced concern with choosing without conferring further with the Traffic Safety Commission and Historic Commission, and suggested that it may be premature to choose a favorite concept at this stage. Hauck clarified that the Historic Commission does not work in the design stage,but instead works from an applicant's design. Freeman explained that staff has reviewed Concept C and has voiced concerns with having a parking lot to the side of the building for safety issues,and also cited the disadvantage this design has in not utilizing the"one-stop shopping" counter idea by sharing a front entrance counter between two departments. Shaw explained her preference for Concept C,and suggested that further design work might be needed to look at the concerns raised. Fine noted that Scheme C did not exist during the open house,but actually came out of Marilyn Briggs'response to the presented schemes. Suggested that this is a fitting tribute to the public process that the preferred design has arisen from citizen involvement. Laws suggested looking at the six employees who would be using the parking lot to determine whether there would be a traffic problem,as they would likely be entering and leaving at different times. Wheeldon noted the need to select a scheme that works for the people who work in the space. Questioned whether the dynamics and the internal floorplan could be worked on to combine the best of schemes B and C. Reid expressed her preference for a contemporary design that would be sympathetic to the historic district and the park. Berry clarified his liking for concept B,stating that the C scheme is too pretentious and should be courted as a civic building. Also noted that the design empties out onto a utilitarian space. Concluded that his main objection is aesthetic, as he feels that the building should look like it belongs. Councilor Laws changed his support from Scheme C to Scheme B,but says that he would like to see a better,three- dimensional rendition of C. Fine also requested a two-dimensional streetscape diagram showing C. Berry clarified for council that they could provide computer-enhanced models. Shaw summarized that council would like to see work done to clear up the problems with the scheme C floorplan,and to have a model showing scheme C integrated into the streetscape,a three-dimensional rendition of scheme C,and a more broken-up rendition of scheme B. Freeman stated that he would speak to the architect and bring a revised schedule back to the council. 3. Public Hearing regarding vacating a portion of"A" Street easterly of Oak Street. Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that the purpose of this proposal is to un-encumber sections of the building which have been built out into the A Street right-of-way over the course of many years. Th requested vacation is along the north side of the street and is variable in width,from 11.0 feet to 6.0 feet wide,and contains approximately 0.9 acres. Staff recommends vacating a portion of A Street and reserving a six-foot pedestrian easement. September 7'", 1999 Regular.Meeting 4 I Alan Sandler clarified that there is a lot of landscaping going into the plan,and stated that they are encouraging public pedestrian access. Community Development Director John McLaughlin clarified for council that the public walkway will be at ground level,and the second story of the building will extend out over the walkway. Nolte clarified that the dates specified in the ordinance are not specified,and asked that the ordinance before council be changed to omit the first seven words"On the dates specified in this ordinance." Public hearing opened at: 9:17 p.m. No speakers came forward. Public hearing closed at: 9:17 p.m. Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to move the ordinance, as amended, to second reading. Roll call vote: Laws, Wheeldon,Hauck,Fine,Reid,and Hanson,YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Presented council a previous statement made by the City of Ashland in 1979 regarding the Forest Service Interim Plan. Noted a previous timber sale near Wagner Butte,and stated that the Forest Service uses concern over fire hazard reduction as a means to extract timber in late successional reserve areas that would otherwise be protected. Discussed the HazRed Project,and the history of shaded fuel breaks and controlled bums. Stated that water quality should be the City's prime concern,while the Forest Service's primary interest is timber extraction,and stated that the City could stop the HazRed project until further studies are done. Wheeldon informed Navickas that there is work being done with Headwaters and the Rogue Institute to develop alternatives to the HazRed project,and suggested that Navickas attend an upcoming meeting to get involved in this process. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Official Notice to City Recorder and Filing of Intent to Veto Council Legislation by Mayor Catherine M.Shaw. Mayor Shaw submitted a formal statement to the City Recorder,noting that on August 7,1999 the Ashland City Council passed a resolution by a 4-2 vote titled: "A resolution expressing the sense of the council with respect to the moral obligation of city government to help ameliorate the effects of certain decisions taken in the public interest." Shaw briefly outlined her objections to this resolution and reasons for a mayoral veto: 1. This resolution as written does not specifically outline what the City would or would not do in a situation that may be interpreted as"deleterious effects upon specific individuals." 2. In section one it infers that even where monetary compensation may be legal the city may have an obligation above and beyond that,contradicting the section three. 3. There is no attempt to define what would constitute deleterious, moral, or"a step beyond what the law requires." 1 urge the council to think carefully before imposing any ordinances or resolutions that attempt to legislate moral obligations. Is this not a first step toward legislating other areas that society feels are our moral obligation? 4. This resolution is simply a good-neighbor policy. The council and government should be dedicated to the principals of such by way of their oath of office. Do we need to legislate what we should be doing anyway? 5. Resolutions,ordinances and contracts should be measurable,quantifidble concepts that help to guide both this and subsequent governing bodies. They should not be obscure,feel-good,politically-contrived words that lack substance and clarity. Reid clarified that that the meeting was the August 17'meeting, and stated that because she was absent the vote was 3-2. Laws confirmed this to be correct from the minutes. Nolte clarified that the charter specifies that the resolution is now automatically placed before the council for a vote, which would need to pass by a 4-2 margin to over-ride the mayoral veto. September 7'", 1999 Regular Meeting 5 Fine urged council to join him in voting to over-ride this veto. Stated that there are citizens who believe that the city cannot be trusted based on its recent track record,and this resolution is needed to begin to rebuild community trust in the council. Wheeldon stated that she had not heard any testimony that trust in the council is lacking. Shaw expressed her concern with legislating morality, and stated that actions speak much louder than words. Emphasized that morality does not need to be legislated and dictated to future councils. Reid noted the state statute that is in place to compensate anyone forced to move from a condemnation,and suggested that any further legislation is unnecessary and playing on the emotions of the community. Fine noted the history of this resolution, and explained that state law would only require the city to pay moving expenses. Fine stated that this is inadequate,and stated that the resolution is not a 'statement of overarching morality, but rather a statement that the city government will not trample upon individual rights. Wheeldon clarified that both she and Councilor Hauck were opposed to this resolution from the start. Councilor Laws stated that he would support this item again,though the veto will not be over-ridden. Agreed with Fine that there is considerable sentiment in the community that the city has done many things poorly, unfairly and thoughtlessly. Stated that this resolution is not trying to legislate the type of morality suggested by the Mayor. Explained that this resolution is advocating fairness,and while it would do very little in concrete terms,he believes that there is value in a type of symbolism. Feels that the resolution could do no harm, and that the veto isn't necessary. Shaw explained that she has a problem with legislation that is basically about nothing,and with government deciding what is right and what is wrong. Hauck discussed legislating moral obligation without defining obligations as contrary to fairness,as evidenced in"tax fairness"decisions at the federal level. Laws commented that what the Federal government does is often for selfish interests,and that he is proud of Ashland in that he has never seen a councilor vote on the basis of selfish interest. Vote to approve Resolution#99-52. Roll call vote:Laws,Hanson,and Fine,YES. Reid,Hauck,and Wheeldon, NO. Motion failed 3-3. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. Freeman stated that there is a study session coming up later in the week,and noted that he was available if there were any questions on upcoming agenda items. Councilor Reid requested additional information on other cities' experiences with green power. Asked that the City of Salem, Emerald Power,and other BPA utilities be contacted. Wheeldon asked for more history on council expenditures from the City Recorder,for the study session,and asked that specific information be pulled for five years. 2. Acceptance of Pedestrian Easement through the Masonic Lodge Building,25 N. Main Street. Nolte explained the documentation included in the council packets,noting that it is a pedestrian easement connecting the Calle and the Plaza. Nolte explained the complexity of this issue,and noted that the date of the easement would coincide with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Reid questioned the city's responsibility in maintaining incurred with accepting this easement. Nolte clarified that the responsibility is identical to that of public sidewalks,meaning that responsibility falls on the adjoining property owner. Initially,this means the responsibility will fall to the developer,but that the city will clean and light the easement and pay for the electricity. Confirmed that the developer would install and pay for the lights. September 7'", 1999 Regular Meeting 6 Alan Sandler/1260 Prospect/Confirmed that there will be public restrooms,available for tenants. Asked that if the Parks Commission does not grant Calle access,they be allowed to retain stairs on their property. Nolte stated his belief that this would be acceptable as long as there was no encroachment onto the Calle. Laws stated that there should be no problem as long as there was ADA access, and noted that the Parks Commission simply had not wanted encroachment onto the Calle prior to their decision on a final design. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve acceptance of pedestrian easement. Roll Call Vote: Reid,Hanson, Laws,Wheeldon, Fine and Hauck: YES. Motion passed. 3. Discussion regarding voting delegate for NLC meeting in December in Los Angeles. Hauck and Reid indicated their desire to attend,but noted that this needed to be discussed after a council expenditure policy was looked at. Laws/Fine m/s to approve Hauck as voting delegate if he attends, and to approve Reid as voting delegate if Hauck does not attend. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 4. Consent Agenda Item#1 Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. Reid questioned the minutes indicating that Brown would be coming to Council to put together a team for the redesign of Siskiyou Boulevard and that this redesign would be tied to the jurisdictional exchange with ODOT. Brown noted that she and Freeman were meeting with ODOT,that no decision has been made,and that they will be coming before council at the next meeting with a formal presentation. Brown confirmed for Reid that the redesign could happen,but that if the city does not take responsibility for 4'Street through Walker ODOT will not change the cross-section of the boulevard. Councilors Hanson/Hauck m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Reid noted her reservations about the city taking responsibility for a state highway. Wheeldon questioned whether this should be scheduled for a study session or a regular meeting. Freeman noted that no study session was available,and the matter is time sensitive and needed to be dealt with. Clarified that no decision will be expected of council at the time of the presentation. 5. Consent Agenda Item 46 granting an Access and Utility Easement to Eugene and Patricia Hardwick. Reid questioned this easement in terms of the big picture. Brown clarified that the city has the easement to extend Normal through to East Main,but that there is no vehicular access granted to the Hardwick property from East Main. Emphasized that this easement simply cleans up that discrepancy. Reid expressed her concern with dense urban development in conflict with the rural sites in this area. Wheeldon stated that easements aren't normally done in this way,and suggested that there was a need to annex. Laws noted that the council caused this problem in voting not to annex previously,and stated that it would be unfair to obstruct this person's opportunity to develop now. Wheeldon asked for information from McLaughlin on the big picture for development,and possibly annexation,of this area. ' Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve consent agenda items#1 and#6. Voice vote: All AYES.Motion passed. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading of"An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5(Washington Street Annexation by Neuman)." (Dealt with under "Public Hearings"above.) September 7'", 1999 Regular Meeting 7 2. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal Code to Establish Fiscal Priorities for New Programs." Fine explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to improve communication in telling the community how council expects to pay for new projects and programs. It will require council to identify potential modes of funding, and give the Budget Committee an idea of council priorities. Noted that the ordinance excludes minor and emergency expenditures. Emphasized that this will be appropriate given the financial stringency expected in coming years. Shaw questioned what problem,specifically,was being addressed by this ordinance. Laws reminded the council that the question was raised with the LID issue. Reid suggested that the existing process works,and stated that it may take time to find funding,but projects get done. Concerned with getting caught up in a frenzy to do things quickly and diverting funds from where they are needed in response to pressure from minority groups. Hauck indicated his general agreement with Reid,and questioned whether this ordinance was proposed primarily to address projects having revenue or tax impacts. Suggested that$40,000 does not really have this sort of an impact. Laws suggested raising the figure,and brought up how this ordinance would effect the building of the Hillah Temple remodel. Argued that under this ordinance,a funding source for renovations would have needed to be identified when the purchase of the building occurred. Wheeldon used the example of the fluctuation of the expense associated with the sewage treatment plant,and questioned how the proposed ordinance could be honored in a situation like that. Suggested that there are too many interwoven priorities, on multiple levels, and that projects should begin with an understanding of the need for the project and a vision. Stated that if a project begins with money,then you may never get to the vision. Hanson stated that he does not see how council can realistically enter into a project without determining funding. Noted the Calle discussions as an example, where initial estimates of around $1 million have now been raised to over$2 million,and stated that this ordinance is a good idea for this reason. Shaw questioned how this applied to the Calle,noting that if funding had been located for the$1 million estimate there would still be a need now to locate the additional funds. Laws stated that there is not a need to find the funding for the Calle until the Council actually adopts a plan addressing this item. Laws explained for Wheeldon that there would still be changes to respond to circumstances. Noted that in the case of the sewage treatment plant,funding sources were identified when the plan was adopted,and suggested that the limit in the ordinance be raised from$40,000 to$100,000 or$150,000. Stated that there was adequate flexibility in the ordinance that it wouldn't create problems. Hauck reiterated that he believed the intention was to address items with significant impact on taxpayers or the city revenue stream,and stated that$40,000 really is not in that scale. Fine conceded to change the ordinance from 0.5% to 1.5%, which would be about $122,000. Explained that the ordinance would provide options for funding, without tying the budget committee's hands. Noted the example of purchasing water rights at Lost Creek Dam,which the city has committed to without identifying funding sources. Also noted the TAP pipeline as another example of an item committed to without funding. Shaw cautioned council that when you require an elected governing body to say where the funding is coming from,you shift power to the staff. Under the cu4ent situation, council can identify priorities and direct staff to locate funding. Fine requested that the item be put off until the next meeting as"Unfinished Business." 3. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of"A"Street Easterly of Oak Street." (Dealt with under public hearings above.) September T", 1999 Regular Meeting 8 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for the Final Assessment of the Westwood Street Local Improvement District to Provide for Improvements Consisting of Paving, Curbs,Gutters,Storm Drains,Sidewalk,and Associated Improvements,for the Extension of Westwood Street from its Existing Terminus at Orchard Street,approximately 1300 Feet Southerly." Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #99-56. Roll Call Vote: Hanson, Reid, Hauck, Fine, Wheeldon and Laws: YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Laws suggested that since the appeal was upheld on the off-site spraying facility,requiring the city to apply formally fora conditional use permit,it would be a good idea for staff to request an extension from the DEQ. Council concurred that this was a good idea. Wheeldon asked for council permission to meet with staff to discuss a potential celebration for the city's 125' anniversary this fall. Reid questioned whether there was money available through Oregon Economic Development and the Oregon Department of Transportation,and requested that the LID for sidewalks be brought back to the council to take advantage of the possible availability of state funds. Freeman noted that the Forest Commission meeting scheduled for September 8"has been rescheduled to the 15'". Reid noted that she is commission liaison,and stated that she will be gone that week. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw,Mayor September 7", 1999 Regular Meeting 9 PRESENTATION REGARDING ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY Alliance for Deniocracy Rogue Valley Chapter of Southern Oregon September I, 1999 Most Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland: We,the Alliance for Democracy,Rogue Valley Chapter,are deeply concerned that new International trade treaties such as NAFTA are destructive of our Democracy and are threatening to our local governance and well-being.We have therefore prepared a presentation,and a Resolution for your consideration and adoption on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,on the matter of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment(MAI)and the World Trade Organization(WTO). We enclose two so called"MAI Free"resolutions for your consideration,one is a sample resolution with all possible features and the other we have drawn up to be more succinct and more understandable to the public(we will gladly work with you on a version that reflects the views of the citizens and city council of Ashland). We also enclose resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of San Francisco CA,Salem OR,and Olympia WA as well as a resolution adopted by the Western Governors Conference.Even the City Council of Seattle the host city for the WTO,passed an"MAI Free"resolution on April 12,by a vote of"! Similar resolutions have been passed in other U.S.and Canadian cities,and by other governmental groups and organizations throughout the world and are listed on the web pages of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch at: Onto'//uww citizen ore(octrade/MAUWhat°/"20vou/city htm>. As background information,we enclose two pamphlets entitled"MAI"and"WTO"respectively,and a brief paper giving political and historical perspective on MAI and how it relates to the WTO. We believe that local self- sufficiency and democratic sovereignty suffers when NAFTA type treaties are drawn up in a furtive manner by off- shore policy making bodies like the OECD and WTO and then"fast tracked"through the Senate as treaties so as to avoid public debate. We believe that such international trade agreements should be examined in an open,democratic way at all levels of government since these agreements may over-ride laws at the local,state and national level. As part of the democratic process in Ashland,we are providing this information to show how such treaties could negatively impact Ashland.Finally,we request that the Alliance for Democracy be placed on the September 21, 1999 agenda in the"Presentation"as well as,the"Action"section of the agenda.There is some urgency since the World Trade Organization will meet in Seattle at the end of November for its third Ministerial Meeting. The national Alliance for Democracy along with 850 other NGO's,have signed a Statement Opposing A Millennium Round of Trade Agreements,and many concerned groups are sending representatives to Seattle to raise public awareness of what is happening.There is a swelling grass roots movement to prevent an MAI-type agenda from being perpetrated on the public without open democratic debate. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely Yours, 1_�mzi Aufd eide Quarterly facilitator Alliance for Democracy, R.V.Chapter Encl:Two Ashland resolutions MAI&WTO Pamphlets 4-page MAI/WTO background 4 sample resolutions AfD Mailing List Address for Roque Valley Chanter off for Democracy: Address for national Alliance for Democracy: Ralph Bruening Alliance for Democracy P.O. Box 645 Ashland, Oregon 97520 P. O. Box 683 Lincoln, Massachusetts 01773 Phone: 541.488.9412 Phone: 781.259.9395 Fax: 781.259.0404 E-mail: ralphbmeninq(ohotmail.com Web: http://www.afd-online.orq/ Version ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CITY OF ASHLAND'S OPPOSITION TO PROVISIONS OF THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT(MAI) OR SIMILAR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIBERALIZATION AGREEMENTS THAT COULD RESTRICT ASHLAND'S ABILITY.TO REGULATE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION,DECIDE HOW TO SPEND ITS PROCUREMENT FUNDS AND SUPPORT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS,The United States government,through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) had participated from 1995 to 1998 in the negotiation for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI);and WHEREAS, the MAI was premised on limited federal,state or local government action to regulate environmental,health and other public safeguards affecting business operators; terms of privatization;land zoning rules;procurement;terms for investment in natural resource extraction,real estate,plants,and services;and currency speculation;and WHEREAS, federal, state and local legislators and members of civil society in numerous countries negotiating for an MAI,opposed its extreme provisions; and WHEREAS,Several OECD countries are working to move the negotiations of an international investment liberalization agreement similar to the MAI to the World Trade Organization (WTO);and WHEREAS,Several regional trade and investment liberalization agreements now under negotiation are being targeted to include provisions similar to the MAI in them;and WHEREAS, the United States Treasury supports an expansion of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to MAI-like provisions;and WHEREAS,The opposition to the MAI is based on a substantive criticism,not the venue where it is being negotiated; and WHrEREAS,The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allows public entities to place restrictions on the use of public funds when the public entity is acting as a market participant;and WHEREAS, "Expropriation" and"General Treatment" concepts of the MAI-model could prohibit public entities from conditioning the receipt of public funds on compliance with human rights laws or other criteria reflecting community values;and WHEREAS, Government entities are currently allowed to regulate within their jurisdiction, without causing a compensable taking of private property, to the extent specified under existing interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution; and WHEREAS,The MAI-model, if adopted free-standing, or within other international agreements, could restrict the ability of state, county and city governments to condition new major investments within their jurisdictions with performance requirements, such as local hiring requirements and requirements to support local economic development; and WHEREAS,The "-model, if adopted free-standing,or within international agreements,' could supersede existing constitutional interpretations of a government's regulatory rights under the Fifth Amendment and restrict new regulation by state,and local governments;and WHEREAS,The "National Treatment" concept of the MAI-model could prohibit the use of domestic procurement preferences and subsidies and other benefits to local businesses for the purpose of encouraging local economic development;and WHEREAS,The"Most Favored Nation" concept of the MAI-model could prohibit state and local governments from prohibiting contracts with entities that violate international human rights, labor and environmental laws;and WHEREAS,The MAI-model, freestanding or incorporated into other international commercial agreements,could bar Congress,state legislatures,boards of supervisors and city councils from using trade sanctions to punish nations for human rights violations or other ' violations of international law-,and WHEREAS,The MAI-model, freestanding or incorporated into other international commercial agreements,could create a dispute resolution mechanism for investors against governments that is external to the United States federal court system and could be unrestricted by existing judicial interpretations of U.S.constitutional principles: and WHEREAS,Several recent lawsuits brought forward under NAFTA's similar dispute resolution mechanism on which the MAI-model was designed,has demonstrated the real threat of international commercial agreements that empower corporations to sue governments over laws designed to protect the public health and the environment-,and WHEREAS,the MAI-model,wherever pursued,is contrary to the interests of the City of Ashland, now therefore be it; RESOLVED,That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby urges its state and federally elected officials and lobbyists to actively protest any provision in a free-standing investment deregulation treaty like MAI,or in any similar investment liberalization provisions in other international commercial agreements,that would restrict Ashland's ability to regulate within its jurisdiction,decide how to use its public procurement dollars,and extend benefits to encourage local economic development in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution;and be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That the City of Ashland urges its state and federal elected officials to oppose any free-standing investment deregulation treaty like MAI,or any similar investment liberalization provisions in other international commercial agreements,which would deprive the United States courts of jurisdiction over litigation brought by speculators and multinational corporations against the City of Ashland;and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the provisions of a free-standing investment deregulation treaty like MAI, or any similar investment liberalization provisions in other international (,ommercial agreements does not apply within the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland. Version 2. City of Ashland Resolution EXPRESSING OPPOSITION BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO PROVISIONS OF THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT(MAD OR SIMILAR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIBERALIZATION AGREEMENTS THAT COULD RESTRICT ASHLAND'S ABILITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION,TO DECIDE HOW TO SPEND ITS PROCUREMENT FUNDS, AND TO SUPPORT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS,The United States government,through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)and the World Trade Organization(WTO),have been participating in the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAD;and WHEREAS,The citizens of Ashland have had little access to information and informed debate on the MAI and its implications at the federal, state,and local levels;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could restrict the ability of Ashland,as well as other U.S. state,county and city governments to set appropriate conditions on new major investments within their jurisdictions from performance requirements such as use of local labor and materials,and thus could restrict the ability of Ashland to support healthy and sensible local economic development; and WHEREAS, Provisions of the MAI draft text could prevent state and local governments from prohibiting contracts with entities that violate international human rights,labor and environmental laws;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form would give corporations the same status as governments,including the right to sue governments,and would create an international dispute resolution mechanism for investors and corporations that is external to the United States federal court system and would be exempt from existing judicial interpretations of U.S. constitutional principles; and WHEREAS,The interests of the City of Ashland are not furthered or promoted by an agreement that creates new rights and protections for international investors,but provides no rights or protections for local small businesses,workers,the environment,or for planning rules enacted by the City of Ashland; therefore,be it RESOLVED,That the City of Ashland hereby urges its state and fedeially elected officials to actively protest any provision in the MAI draft text or similar provisions of any international agreement that would restrict Ashland's ability to regulate within its jurisdiction, decide how to use its public procurement dollars,or extend benefits to encourage local economic development in a manner consistent with the environment and character of Ashland in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. MAI: Political and Historical Background The MAI,Multilateral Agreement on Investments,is an international trade agreement that would put the rights of corporations and investors above the democratic rights of people at all levels of government. MAI was drawn up behind closed doors in the twenty-nine nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)in Paris. When copies of the document were leaked over the internet in 1997 there was such a worldwide outcry that it was withdrawn at the next OECD meeting. However,critics of MAI point out that MAI represents the world trade agenda of the trans- national corporations,and as such,it will not go away. They think there will be an attempt to insert MAI-type clauses in World Trade Organization(WTO)and other international trade agreements. When there is a conflict between the concept of"free trade"under MAI(or its clones)and local laws, local laws and regulations protecting such rights as air,water,environment, labor,consumer products,and human rights would be invalidated because they would be seen as an interference to free trade. International trade tribunals,held in secret,would rule on the cases. Their judgements would be final and could not be appealed The tribunals would be held in Europe and would consist of members such as the International Chamber of Commerce. Losing Countries would have three choices: change their laws,pay compensation,or face trade sanctions. Our court system could not overturn these rulings. Is this merely alarmist rhetoric? Consider NAFTA which is a limited,prototype MAI. In 1997 Ethyl Corporation of the U.S.sued the Canadian Government for$251 million because Canada had a ban on MMT,a gasoline additive made by Ethyl. It had been banned for health reasons. When the case was taken before a NAFTA trade tribunal,Ethyl said it should be compensated under the"Expropriation"clause because the law hurt its potential future profits and harmed its reputation. No MMT business had taken place,but it became obvious that Canada would lose. So they paid Ethyl$13 million out of court and also repealed their law. This year California found that the gasoline additive MTBE was getting into underground water supplies. MTBE is a suspected carcinogen so California outlawed it. MTBE is made by Methenex Corporation of Vancouver,B. C. which promptly filed a NAFTA lawsuit against California for almost one billion dollars. With the failure of the first attempt at an MAI,"fast track"methods(used in NAFTA)are being attempted by the President and MAI supporters to smuggle provisions of MAI past Congress into international law without debate since it requires only a pass or fail vote which corporate lobbyists could help deliver. There are some political and historical perspectives that should be examined to better understand the MAI in whatever firture anti-democratic form it may take. Political perspective: To better understand the dangers of MAI,here in Ashland and elsewhere,two points should be emphasized: 1. MAI is not political in the sense of conservative and liberal,it is simply antidemocratic. 2. Anti-MAI measures are not anti-corporation measures. Citizens'MAI's are necessary and beneficial when done on a government-to-government level in which the rights,laws,and sovereignty of the citizens of these countries are respected and any resulting agreements,whether conservative or liberal,reflect an open democratic process. 1. MAI is not liberal in that it would potentially prevent such actions on a national level as the anti-apartheid sanctions taken against South Africa by the U. S.and other countries since they could interfere with some corporate investments. On a state or city level it could effectively prevent such states as Massachusettk and such cities as San Francisco in their embargo against Burma because of its human rights violations. MAI could go against the UNs Universal Declaration of Human Rights. MAI masquerades as liberal under a"one world"banner though it is often forged in secret by bureaucrats in a top-down,antidemocratic manner. For Ashland,what would be the possible effects of MAI? Under an MAI-type regimen,any corporation, seeing itself as an injured party, i.e.,as losing profits,could sue for a damages-ruling in a WTO trade tribunal. Any laws in Ashland,or the state of Oregon,expressing the wishes of local citizens to use the economic/purchasing power of the city to express its community concerns could be affected. This could involve safeguards to public health and to environmental,cultural, social,labor,consumer,and economic justice. Recycling could be objected to as interfering with profits. Laws that seek to redress discrimination against women and minorities would be vulnerable to repeal. Under MAI,campaign finance reform laws might interfere with corporations'right to influence elections. Under MAI, foreign corporations are to be treated at least as favorably or more favorably than domestic companies. This offers foreign corporations the chance to"buy" U. S. elections at any level of government. And why not? Corporations were given many of the rights of citizens in 1886 as part of the Fourteenth Amendment. And to not allow them to spend huge amounts of money to influence elections interferes with their First Amendment rights. To be treated"at least as favorably," foreign corporations deserve this also. So under MAI logic,we should welcome these new"citizens." MAI is not conservative because it might over-turn many laws favored by conservatives. U. S.sanctions against Iraq,Iran, and Libya,and even the controversial Helms-Burton Act of 1996 which penalizes foreign investors in Cuba would inevitably be overturned under MAI. "Buy American"policies must not interfere with foreign corporations. Some issues of the conservative Christian social agenda that protect traditional and family values might be prohibited if they interfere with international trade. For years,conservative Christians have been railing against the Trilateral Commission as a group set up to create the"New World Order"which will usher in the anti-Christ. The Trilateral Commission created in 1973 is a forerunner of the OECD and now the WTO formed in 1995. Pat Buchanan,who sees himself as a conservative populist, , came out against NAFTA(a proto-MAI agreement)because he had to admit that this multilateral agreement on investments went against the interests of the workers who supported him. MAI is not the voice of moderates,which is probably the voice of many small businesses in Ashland. MAI certainly gives any large corporation,foreign or domestic,a great advantage in competing against local,small businesses which might want to try to protect the interests of local patrons,use local labor or materials,protect the character of the town,keep money in the community,and generally have a vested interested in the community beyond profits. Any laws set up to help local businesses maintain the character of Ashland might be over-tamed as anti-competitive to large corporations. This could also include democratic preferences such as who should run public utilities. Even local water resources might be treated as a commercial commodity in this global market(this has been suggested by some corporations). Designated historical sites or districts could infringe upon the rights of corporations to do business there,and so they might object. The Reform Party,a moderate alternative to the two major political parties,was against NAFTA also. Ross Perot was sometimes ridiculed for his political slogan about the"sucking sound ofjobs going to Mexico." He should have rather emphasized the broader anti-democratic precedent of NAFTA in which the rights of labor,among many other rights,were clearly threatened. Thus,potentially any democratic laws could be seen to interfere with international trade leading to"expropriation"actions by corporations or investors who see themselves as injured. Also,cultural traditions and customs not codified into law could be corrupted by profits-first corporate values. A prime example of the attack or cultural values is the onslaught of movies,videos games,and TV programs in which sex and violence are glorified,trivia is monumentalized,and cultural values are denigrated,all under the perennial commercial rationale of responding to"market forces"from the people. 2. Anti-MAI measures are not anti-corporation measures though corporations may see them in that way. It is we that MAI reflects mainstream corporate attitudes,particularly those of transnationals,and the political thinking of mainstream Democrats and Republicans.This is symptomatic of a short-sightedness which does not perceive the long-term consequences. In a legal sense, MAI is basically amoral rather than immoral since it puts economic el iciency above social or individual morality. (True liberalism and conservatism are much more concerned with moral issues. And that might interfere with international trade.) But with the undercurrents of greed,power,and encouraged gluttony(over- consumption)that are involved,MAI can become destructive to society if there are not adequate democratic safeguards. Our best attitude is to educate people,no moralize,because when people realize whit is happening with the anti- democratic ramifications of MAI,the facts will speak for themselves. For us to appeal to the public,many of whom respond to phrases such as"states rights"and"government interferes too much in bur lives,"we need to point out how dramatically corporations under MAI could undermine local laws and exploit us iq ways that could dominate our lives. At least when government interferes in our lives we have the right to change the situation with the democratic principles and constitutional safeguards we so loudly proclaim and much of the world admires. With the WTO meeting in Seattle in late November to plan the next phase of getting MAI-type trade agreements approved, it is time to bring what is happening to light as much as possible in order to involve citizens in a democratic process of evaluation. Historical perspective: Of the many historical factors that have created MAI as a mainstream political and economic belief,one point is often ignored:the economic rise of Japan after WWII. 2 Because of the cold war that was beginning to rage at that time,Japan was allowed,even encouraged by the U. S.,to develop its own form of"capitalism"to ensure that it did not go communist. Quotes are used around"capitalism"since it was a myth perpetuated by both the U. S.and the Soviet Union. Because of the hostilities of the cold war,nations were polarized into blocs and Japan definitely was not in the communist bloc. Since it was a close ally of the U. S., it must have been "capitalist." In fact, it was a form of mercantilism that encouraged exports and protected against imports. The Japanese became relatively frugal while feeding consumerism abroad,certainly a virtue in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin. The"zaibatsu"(mega-corporations),which powered the Japanese war machine and had their roots in historical Japanese culture,became the economic driving force working hand-in-hand with the government There was little of a free market. But it felt right to the Japanese because it was part of their cultural heritage. The government nurtured and guided the mega-corporations to rebuild the country economically through cooperation with itself and the other Japanese mega- corporations. Competition was mainly to be used in the export market where the fledgling Japanese economy had to compete. This maximized economic efficiency and united the people in a common effort. And it worked only too well, until internal flaws in the system derailed the economic juggernaut at the end of the 1980s. Just as in the game of Monopoly, if one player wins all the money the game is over. By the 1970s Japan was beginning to accumulate a massive balance-of-payments surplus. Along with other factors,such as the oil crisis,the capitalist economies,especially the U. S.,were suffering financial instability. The almighty dollar was being devalued,the gold standard was abandoned,and the threat of more tariffs was arising. In 1973 the Trilateral Commission began to look at three geographical regions or economic spheres of interest:the U.SJCanada, Western Europe,and Japan. These three centers of economic power were supposed to control their spheres of interest and help coordinate international trade between these spheres. Free-market capitalism needed standard rules to ensure the game did not destroy any of the major players. In the 1980s,Ronald Reagan became president and the myth of laissez faire capitalism reached new heights of optimism. Free trade did begin to open up in many ways,but not much with many countries including Japan. Why should they change? The Japanese people were comfortable with the system that had lifted them up from the ashes of WWII to become one of the richest nations in the world. Meanwhile,during the Reagan administration the U. S.went from being the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation in the world. What the communists were unable to achieve in over 70 years-the destruction of world capitalism-was being accomplished by the type of"capitalism"that the U.S.helped set up in Japan. To make things worse,South Korea and the other Asian economic tigers were on the move. Their model was that of Japan. That model not only worked the best,but it was also congenial to their Confucian social orders. Meanwhile,third-world countries were using tariffs and restrictions to try to survive in an ocean of huge capitalist sharks. When criticized by the U. S.and the other developed countries,some would respond by saying they were doing little more than what the U. S. government,lead by the Federalists,enacted against England and the rest of Europe as American industries were being formed. To cut through all this economic chaos and save capitalism,it became obvious to mainstream economic and political leaders that a level playing field for free-market capitalism must be realized So such measures as the Uruguay Round, NAFTA,MAI,and the WTO needed to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. Unfortunately,this created a secretive,elitist,antidemocratic movement whose intent was to force all nations to fit into a one-size-fits-all set of rules for a global economy. These rules were,of course,the ones that worked best for large,transnational corporations(whose CE00s worked with trade ambassadors to write them)who would be leading the economic revolution. in their amoral view, man is primarily an economic animal and maximizing profits elevates mankind. So the moral concerns,political systems, cultures,traditions,lifestyles, i.e.,all facets of national identity of world nations,-were to be chopped off to fit this procrustean bed of free-market capitalism as envisioned by those who developed the MAI. And,besides,it was needed to save mankind from economic chaos. It is true that the world is threatened by economic chaos because the present form of world capitalism is not working. And the collapse of capitalism would probably create conditions that could again bring forth demagogues like Hitler,with catastrophic consequences. Citizens' MAI's must be developed in a government-to-government manner,preferably multilateral in scope. But this must proceed in a open, democratic way in which the rights, values,traditions,and moral views of the peoples involved- flesh and blood people rather than fictitious corporate entities posing as citizens-can be taken into account when making necessary compromises. It will be a long,slow process. But it is the only way we can protect our sovereignty against transnational corporations that seek to rule us when we should be ruling them. So to the MAI and its reincarnations we must say no. We deserve something better which preserves democracy as we know it. 3 o z _ w, o m' o F o c ° N £ O < o ,r�i, ti C p ., Co co Cr a SE coo fD o' � 0. c � ° �• � o o w o' d Fn 0 goo w H w m y 0 O w F n w n CL r",^ A F7n N a . � ao. j• ^I (P N cn vw ' W c -fDi t7 CD fb o � m oC " O r Ilya /) !w �a ti C. O fD O j y S .. 9 .0 o w CDD � 5 0 " o (rq �• o y � r- CD 0 - oC) (D o o y m G 0 < o (D yy o w 0 G C eb 0 9 3 A o o 0 is m C7 fb •py . .. ° " a � p. CD ° O a- N n• C_ n .may pj y w A O O C W d '��*T' o" ,may �i (D CD CL cs - a ° r M H o ti N x x aAZ 0o r" o m m > ?» ro co @ g o a- 0 CD< y o' er �y.0' � o r� N m CD W 0 ft O. F N N w 5 Q. G0. 5• C .N-. 0 P, CD 5' � PFti N Western Governors'Association June 24 1997 Resolution 97 -010 SPONSORS:Governors Nelson,Geringer and Cayetano SUBJECT: Multilateral Agreement on Investment and Implementation of Trade Pacts A.BACI{GROUND 1.Western states have had great success in attracting foreign investment In addition,investors based in the West own significant investments overseas.The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment(MAD,presently being negotiated by the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)and now scheduled for completion by May 1998,is intended to foster additional investment activity while at the same time providing stability to and leveling the playing field for U.S:based investors. 2.Along with these benefits,the MAI may also have the effect of eroding the sovereignty of state governments.The 1997 report of the Western Governors'Association(WGA),"Multilateral Agreement on Investment:Potential Effects on State& Local Government"details potential impacts on states of MAI proposals.These include limiting state policies that favor local businesses;limiting state use of investment incentives and perfomtance requirements;and limiting state economic,land use, and environmental regulation.Limits on exceptions and reservations to the MAI within the agreement may bang more state practices within its scope.In addition,dispute resolution proposals could allow individual investors new powers to seek remedies directly against state laws before international tribunals. 3.Western Governors and other groups obtained protections against the erosion of state sovereignty as part of implementing legislation for the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA)and the Uruguay Round of the GATT.These laws maintain state sovereign immunity,foreclose lawsuits against states or state officials,and require the federal government to consult with Congress and the states before moving to preempt a state law inconsistent with a trade agreement.Furthermore, state-federal consultation procedures were established that purport to include states in the implementation of trade agreements and in the defense of international challenges to state measures. 4. In their roles as law and policy makers and regulators,as active participants in the international economy,and as strong supporters of international investment and sustainable economic development,states have a strong interest in the outcome of the MAI negotiations,in MAI implementation,and in the ongoing implementation of NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. B. GOVERNORS'POLICY STATEMENT 1.Western Governors support in principle an agreement that will encourage foreign investment domestically while providing U.S.-based investors with greater levels of protection abroad.However,such an agreement must also protect the sovereignty of states.To provide for additional state protections and public consideration,the MAI should also be adopted by Congress through implementing legislation. 2.U.S.negotiators are urged to work with their OECD counterparts to insure that the MAI: a.preserves the ability of states to favor local businesses for legitimate purposes as defined by the Supreme Court; b.preserves the ability of states to use investment incentives and performance requirements to achieve legitimate public purposes; c.preserves current regulatory authority of states over econornic activity,land use,and the environment; d.uses traditional definitions of trade and investment terminology and does not expand these concepts in ways that limit state sovereignty; e.allows for general exceptions and reservations consistent with those in NAFTA and the Uruguay Round and that these protections endure over time;and, f.does not takes precedence over NAFTA or the Uruguay Round and allow the MAI to be used to enforce those agreements. 3.MAI implementing legislation should include provisions preserving state sovereign immunity,foreclosing private lawsuits against states or state officials,and requiring consultation with states and Congress before the federal government can move to preempt state laws or seek to recoup monetary damages from states awarded by international tribunals.Should a state measure be challenged under the MAI,states should have the opportunity to dirtAy defend their laws if they choose. Finally, the;implementing legislation should improve communications between govemor-appointed state points of contact and the Office of the Trade Representative(UM)and it should establish advisory level access for these individuals. 4.Western Governors continue to be concerned about implementation of the state-federal consultation provisions of the NAFTA and Uruguay Round legislation.USTR should redouble its efforts to consult with states on trade issues of concern and to include states in the work of international harmonization committees. C.GOVERNORS'MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 1.The WGA shall convey this resolution to President Clinton,Secretary of State Albright,Secretary of Treasury Rubin, Ambassador Barshefsky,and the chairman and relevant subcommittee chairs of the following committees: House Ways and Means;House Foreign Affairs;Senate Finance;and,Senate Foreign Affairs. 2.The WGA should keep Governors informed of MAI developments and work closely with other interested parties to protect state sovereignty in the MAI and its implementing legislation.The WGA should also continue to monitor,report on, and press federal officials regarding use of state-federal procedures for NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. City of Olympia May 5,199 WHEREAS,The United States government,through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)has been participating in the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment(MAI);and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could restrict the ability of state,county and city governments to condition new major investments within their jurisdictions from performance requirements to support local economic development;and WHEREAS,Government entities are currently allowed to regulate within their jurisdiction,without causing a compensable taking of private property,to the extent specified under existing interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current forth,could supersede existing constitutional interpretations of a government's regulatory rights under the Fifth Amendment and restrict new regulation by state and local governments; and WHEREAS,The"Most Favored Nation"provisions of the MAI draft text could prohibit state and local governments from prohibiting contracts with entities that violate international human rights,labor and environmental laws;and WHEREAS,The MAI if adopted in its current form,could bar Congress,state legislatures,and city councils from using trade sanctions to punish nations for human rights violations and other violations of international law;and WHEREAS,The"Expropriation"and"General Treatment"provisions of the MAI draft text could prohibit public entities from conditioning the receipt of public funds on compliance with human rights laws or other criteria reflecting community values;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could create a dispute resolution mechanism for investors against governments that is extemal to the United States federal court system and could be unrestricted by existing judicial interpretations of U.S.constitutional principles;and WHEREAS,The City of Olympia is not represented in the negotiations of the MAI,nor will it be allowed to represent itself in any international judicial proceedings arising from this agreement,in the U.S.courts or international tribunals,in matters that concern its own ordinances and direct interest;and WHEREAS,The interest of the citizens of Olympia are not promoted by an agreements that creates new enforceable rights and privileges for international investors,but provides no enforceable rights or protections for workers,the envirorunent,or communities;therefor,be it RESOLVED,That the City of Olympia hereby urges its state and federally elected officials to actively protest any provision in the MAI draft text or similar provision of any international agreement that would restrict Olympia's ability to regulate within its jurisdiction,decide how to use its public procurement dollars,and extend benefits to encourage local economic development in a manner consistent with the U.S.Constitution. San Francisco April 20.1998 WHEREAS,The United States government,through the Organization for Economic Development(OECD)has been participating in the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment(MAI);and WHEREAS,The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allows public entities to place restrictions on the use of public funds when the public entity is acting as a market participant;and WHEREAS,San Francisco has utilized the"market participant exception"to the Commerce Clause in enacting the Burma and Equal Benefits ordinances in order to condition receipt of public procurement dollars on compliance with local,federal and international human rights laws;and WHEREAS,The"Expropriation"and "General Treatment"provisions of the MAI draft text could prohibit public entities from conditioning the receipt of public funds on compliance with human rights laws or other criteria reflecting community values;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could restrict the ability of state,county and city governments to condition new major investments within their jurisdictions from performance requirements,such as local hiring requirements and requirements to support local economic development;and WHEREAS,Government entities are currently allowed to regulate within their jurisdiction,without causing a compensable taking of private property,to the extent specified under existing interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current fort,could supersede existing constitutional interpretations of a governments regulatory rights under the Fifth Amendment and restrict new regulation by state and local governments; and WHEREAS,The"National Treatment"provisions of the MAI draft text could prohibit the use of domestic procurement preferences and subsidies and other benefits to local businesses for the purpose of encouraging local economic development and WHEREAS,The "Most Favored Nation"provisions of the MAI draft text could prohibit state and local govemments from prohibiting contracts with entities that violate international human rights,labor and environmental laws;and WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could bar Congress,state legislatures,boards of supervisors and city councils from using trade sanctions to punish nations for human rights violations or other violations of international law;and 1. WHEREAS,The MAI,if adopted in its current form,could create a dispute resolution mechanism for investors against governments that is external to the United States federal court system and could be unrestricted by existing judicial interpretations of U.S.constitutional principles;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby urges its state and federally elected officials and lobbyists to actively protest any provision in the MAI draft Axt or similar provision of any international agreement that would restrict San Francisco's ability to regulate within its jurisdiction,decide how to use its public procurement dollars,and extend benefits to encourage local economic development in a manner consistent with the U.S.Constitution. SUPERVISOR AMMIANO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a v. w o•'O n Z u Z E /o :z o 3 A a •� O $fn ^°N. S n G Q�Q m n m ' aof °' 2 m a � m m 7 a? O y •" 1 O m n > m > n q n O •^ry > F m C� m0. ^ O y x y t R A is y Jr Vl '= y to CL ttthhh �. � o y 0. b� 9 �' 7. O. .. y a �' o: °' g Cam. w Q O b9 � n � 5' � � cn w 570 nm� .o 7ntio. otj � a tr iL n C D. � O n dt7 00 G ? T O 0 A r� 7 F C �7 7 O & O''1 if Q. Q 7 C m p r0 (," 0. R1 11.AA� an o 5tro ao 7N 7Q 7ao � ro ,cc oq es a- y or °'my CL 4-0 .°.. b °.. A fi mn :3 S 7 R _ v pQ 1 mK o G Oev � ° Cz > 0mo 7 a > a°� 'n y °� � x Qo A � �eb c[ . o 7r'+] Fj `� `S O'er Cj m m : > O H N ru o S y ri a :� a �. C n p, .O.• -Oi w A yi p H G. � F. WW 9 CC,Y �$ `pE� � xy� rapt y. N 0 H O ��9 C 0 < �. �'(L 0 6a 5 w A. rt p„ O o � •••1w o n•2 � �. n w A. H c i � ... A. n v.• O °:. ov T , R a J.. '-tIJ 1 ' ►! 11�,� S7�Yf`)% •:: •h•yA•i f�'r `. <�. t] ��'rLv�.�-,'.� "� .0 �1 :•i i'•...,'..Y?h.� 2 c••f �7 � "l�f . err•" .t /�41,c�y.'-•.M.. :c: ::';..� :, ,.n:L�... .. rb !Wl :�y '`]..�-iJi�.:..ti:. :i-i'v�� -' �' • '.{VM:t':6C•F-'�h�.% .ilh�'. ✓i::. ///yyyf00���r���{• F TT `lilt+ CCo � �a � " gin ° o MO ff, � � m ;, aN u , � a 0 a G ob :°, y vow � " mac roVy ° Ao eo b �ca , ` p0 "�� a b pops 'd w a � '��' A o CK aQ � aa pauw .N+ o � 0 3 cn . ,o cu 914 tt � a° mod ° ( a G w uda an who a. O O a o p eo � o p °mot u a, RF � 7 .o cu C p .°3 tr a a �' Ln p a O N a a w a m . cd a � , La- !! y� L.' a t y 17 pO+' a �1a t a i � s a s O. y :� w m .tea •� O Op •� �3 m p 0 a pow. +�. `r v Y e x C a � a ° O Y z = �+ to *+ G ca rd cu a O [ O p a TJ � C 1ayw �9 ° N .4r O d y N Q. C'. N b r., C; =I •" pk, b f.7 c ,� ��r+, p aq N v a '`.' O tb w ro,N 'O �. raj a 3 O 21 ts .•� •d �, w `� '� 'F". 0) .9 � b � D �� � V ,' ° caa � a ,d cO o S o � d Oo V � d a, >. y F. a s a, . . G C o a m ~ d 01 O • O w w w .r a s v] v a e o � U °' a. 8 ,°. ' "� °a. 50 oop� ate' i, wQ a0 a m orn '" o >+ °po �' oa ; c7 •+ O o o #s G ►� ou a� a -°o �wAN � n. a � � A p p o a e,e•d S2Ola rxxitj3H n3d0 Wd6z:t o 66, 1 t and L! Ki w ui a w W� 0:xi tzl!a X!rmi ni:�:>i Z Z Cn 0 ;O Qiw .w a 0 . i 1>i 0 VI 0 ............. ........... ......-................... ..................... C),mi C)i Eoni-on� mi Pri m t,)i oi 0:u 0i r)�mi wl tri m w:tz.to m tv w�m m w!>i> r- .0 zi—io m UIUMU;n�nir C, to :sn C : 0 : a-,ft Fi� i !:e CO 0 irr CD iC, i-.i= :n .o i I Cr, m co ct cr C' r- in. n ni- CD U) 10 r -3- jo Min 2. :N ............. ............. ............ ........... ....... ........ ...... ........ It OA o I rip W. o i 0 aA CD 00 i i Zji 0 (Pp i 3 04.: 0 00 Lt, k. ............ .............. ........ uj iwitjv— g�. > > Ni Ni bji -0� Sg i31!�IC7) 31 0! i -X N . : CL tQ: Ti` NlSa K a a i 8 !2 V-4"2 U I. w W, i U) micoji rAi— �c �m . ON ::Cz z tzi . ]*.z >!ca o R:b o o ;tr:::� z C)iE >101r)�Olc) ;3 : -Pt:w i - 7i W.0 0i I. i- -J: CD lvn C6 x >4 - i (D . !cn! w i 0 0 -4 iR 0 :— pir 0 =10 0 . 0 ;" (*D 0 rim ! I �=i:� —:a CD iK W M ozo 5 > A.to .coo 1 V L.)io F;�Oi 0 eD —; Ri.:r� =1 'i cn :!3CD 0 Mi 0 .i �P) i : 0 Wi= i CL co 20 itt.Al" U:CQ Q w 4�i c cn: 403 N CD ::- : : CD in , 2< rV -0;>i Xi>i>1 K;>1 >i>i>; >i> > >i > > > >i> >i>:> > >; 0 W :(v w Ot 0 =1 fla 0 !=°rQ !=' E7 E7 Nr S5"-o Fig CD M := im = in = 'm i= X ! CL 0. in. CL C:6 CL:a. o. C. M.:0. 0. CL:CL,0. 2 a 11 0 & 0 rL 91. CL CL 0. 00 CD 010.0 Oioio�aao:o L" olao�ololoioio ........... ................ . ..... ...... ......... . .......... JJJLAV AiLfl.4.�n. tA*�D �A �A tA LA! LA: W w j t ) t) Wit') . . . -0i 1� ��I� ozo ND t ) 0 0ow 8 -j t� 8 f8 �3 a\ i0:01jo!Oic�0!c 8 ��'o 0�8 �D ........................... ....... ........................... . ... ....... ..... ....... ........ ........ -0 i 9- : :0 co 0 a w o cri l< ZM:2 x R.1 i CD CL CD 0 (jo 0 C� L4 Ca L):Ln Q ni^„T 01 r- F 10 1 Di CD CD i w 0 ........... ................ C) CY L) 0 ca W :rz �r_ 0 0 0 w to 0 0 CO :3 i AD w :t3l PTI �T .9 .— CD CO (-D > 0 :2 �-D =. I 10 CD I M CD CD P�* 0 0 -< Pr -_-) . 0 Op ELI .lool 0 .C� 0 CD 0 0 0 CD ............. 00 "1 i�A�N-Mi iooi-j 0 uj: w bj; m ....... .. ........ I t'j. 4� wi—bWOZZ Oo\ i.i". g& g-001! olth 41 0� tA -j . . . CL WI I�Ai ul�88: e-1:8:�D, Vil mo CD Q,! 01 .0 := .co 0 0 0 0, 01" >4 =:Pr CD I W : 0 : ID j ca. cr,00 ; r co co;o l< CD.! �CD p a. da. CIL: co ft ................ ...... .............. ')i>i Ol>I > > > > > L) > > o �wip-ico :w O .W W :w W .W w C' �" w CD n °.' CD rn Z E : CIL C< D CD W W ,W W.: "W co : co w Q. & m. 86 R, CIL CIL 0. M.,o..:C�. CL, CIL C, Cl Ca � rL .............. ........................ ...... ...... ol 0:0�0�0�0.ol 0 0 0:0:cz 0 0.0 0 0 0:0:cl 0:0:0::oi ol 0 cicoo C) fA .......... ........... ................ ....... ....... -9 -S I LA.U U U,U:Up ttznj! th (Ai w Lj�Lrc 8�LA:Ul;8, . . . 0:0:(D.0:0: .............. .......... ...... ......I-- .............. w m I w CD 57- X I .0 n i w = E n : M . (TQ PIt iCD— m : I cv L 00 10" uo _I_L1 1_1 ...L....I _I. L 1 I ..I I . 1. 11 1 1 LJ I L -1 _I... I 1 .I. _I_ I I I_I I I I I I 1 .1.. q! C7 rn to: tarz!7� ox -3y v, v ncO < CD n W 0 „ G ! N w " : o w w ' wl�-p O N . gir- w 2 a .a-.�• N p :< 7 w .p O . y w _ :N N ''w .�' � p : �y„ 0- C O O^ JS"",...� D IM : tfo W w S�j G :`< 7. ;; = �G ` _O= -J �' 0 a' �O ;Q .y. � CD =ice ^ corn w : ..... < < -3; -3cnG7;L7 � 5!?i WcntiL7EnG7cncncncn �;� :t7.� zJ �CJ7� 7ro 'o v;rozzzi� � � r o : G p . S c o .o � w :w C p 'L3 :. w � i .7� � � .7CC:S,,C c �< � Wo c �. F n ° ? ` .y+ ; 5s C c a �o9p 'D ao _ip p ; a. =° 'v : y :,_y `< '°° to .^.:a to cv .-�'+ :p � c ;o co =' .F•° � o ... .ctml N tm It 9 + W S w-iJ O O p G\ p UtO: A W�A ►���7 N �- °� �O J; � it,i O tai:J � .$ C N �1 N �- ut:U .-. �; �I w.w N N::1� N � .� -0\ ul C�tJ.N w I , �i ..� �:'�,Drri (� ,+�:$ a � tn.0 .-� !.- ut p� O,A �Ji Ut,A O O 50 U �: u): W i; �j o c"o 2 OC� w rb Cl 0.WlY -3zao <O N -0 'e n' O `o S i w i c9 3 1, 'w+ ° v O G. � ;7s' t,3 Ml CDw � :w 'm G cr << •< < �:'o °' cn p V'.°=:A O w 00 "! ... ....... .. ... .. .. ...._ f7 �; � a a', a � a'aaaaaaaxav' � vaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa CD CD � ID CD w :w w w w ww w w w o p w w ;w w w :w w w o w w w w w w w � O G a: G G:G:G G G a!p- a..< +< G:G;O. G G:, G:G.p._ eb _. _ ....._ ._... a._ .. 0 0 0 d; 000i0000000:00oo00o;0a 000 00000OL00000 � ._... ._ ._- �, (NA:uvv wl.ul ul v�1 t A l v�7 �u v� u, � uc�J 1 t N NN'N N:N 0 0 0'0:0 00oNo'woo'ov o0Y;0 0.0:07 N 0. 00,0 0 0 bt�n]:�uo ,.o�l -��:;�v� .... -N o m CD p N 6z% e d 0 CD co ................. ........................—.................. .............. .......... 0 0 wiw co DD ; o ............ ....... ............... ....................... .................. .......... .......... -A 00 CAI �C. CA w 'J' Ni 0 O ............ ............. ................................................. ......... . 0 LA CL 0 O:Uli M Z co :wi. pa 0 *L ................... .................. ............................................. .......> > CL CL ............................. .............. ............... ................................ ................ ............ ...... ............. ........................... ....................... rn rD a. O ry Jo, vm, I.... m N, hfr &W%obt,;OK UVT�1�10K I 4K'1t W -V-f, MAYORAL PROCLAMATION iE WHEREAS; Smoke and poisonous gases are the leading•cause of fatalities during fire emergencies; and can cause death in advance of actual:flames; and Rzi, WHEREAS, Underestimating the potential of fire, and the time it takes to escape a fire emergency, can place our loved ones at risk of death and injury; and WHEREAS,., D'evelooing and practicing a home fire escape plan at least twice a year is critical to preparing for a realfire emergency; and WHEREAS, A complete home escape plamincludes having working smoke alarms, 0 everyone in the household knowing two ways out of each room, a family 1 meeting place outside and knowing how,to contact the fire-department; and R" �Vp s every family to devel p a home fire 1g, WHEREAS, 'Ashland Fire,& Rescue encourage 0 escai)e,Dian and to practice it regularly; and 3 WHEREAS, Ashland Fire & Rescue joins.with the citizens of Ashland:ih,a commitment i 11-1Z 'tb'the safety of life and property from the devastating effects of fire-, and NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor of the*City of Ashland; do hereby M M S% .``'^ proclaim the week of October 3 — 9, 1999, as National Fire Prevention Week. This week commemorates the'great Chicago Fire of 1871 which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings. M, I call upon the pe.ople of Ashland to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school, andJ6:plah and practice their home family fire escape plans,as the 1999 fire Prevention Week,theme suggests: "FIRE, DRILLS: THE GREAT ESCAPE! &AAA Dated this 21st day of September, 1999. tam Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor tik ,0.1 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ASHLAND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES JULY,22ND 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: BILL LAMBE, JOHN MORRISON, THOMAS HEUMANN, GEORGE FARDELMANN, DON LAWS STAFF PRESENT: JIM OLSON, DAWN CURTIS MEMBERS ABSENT: BILL SNELL, MICHAEL SAVKO I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE MEETING. Approved with changes. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. PUBLIC FORUM ITEMS: None. B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS/PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED 1. REQUEST FOR CROSSWALK ON HWY 66 Ms Karen Giblin, General Manager of the Windmill Inn of Ashland, requested a painted crosswalk be installed between the Windmill Inn and Oak Tree Restaurant. Ms. Giblin further requested an additional speed sign be installed with increased enforcement. BACKGROUND: Highway 66 or Greensprings Highway is a state highway, which carries a traffic load of approximately 7600 vehicles per day in that area. The street is three lanes wide with a center turn lane and an average width of 55 feet. The cross-walk requested at the bus stop constitutes a mid-block cross-walk. Both the City and O.D.O.T. are committed to preventing mid-block crossings. The unexpected nature of the crosswalk provides a hazardous crossing for pedestrians. Studies have shown that pedestrians are 15 times more likely to be struck in mid-block crossing than at an intersection. In speaking with Ms. Giblin and with Alex Georgevich (O.D.O.T. Traffic Engineer) it appears that a cross-walk at Clover Lane would be a possibility. The intersection is better defined and slight distance is better. O.D.O.T. was not opposed to this option. RECOMMENDATION: G:Dawn\Traf\M1nutesVune 99.doc Staff recommends that a painted cross-walk be authorized across Highway 66 at Clover Lane. A handicap ramp would be constructed by the City with block grant funds or by Windmills Inn if the crossing is needed sooner. The crosswalk should not be installed until the ramp is constructed. In addition, the sidewalk along the south side of the street would need to be extended southerly approximately 20 feet to access the Oak Tree Restaurant. This work should be done by the restaurant or by Windmill Inn under permit from the Engineering Office. Alex has also agreed to request a speed study to determine if the 40 mph speed zone can be reduced in this area. The study usually takes four weeks or more. Discussion: Ms. Giblin addressed the Commission regarding the need for the crosswalk at this location. Olson reiterated the ODOT policy on mid-block crosswalks. The rise in the street will make it difficult for drivers to see the crosswalk until they are on top of it. The false feeling of safety implied by a crosswalk will make the pedestrians less aware of the vehicles. Giblin commented that over 10,000 people a year stay at the Windmill and the closest restaurant is across Ashland Street. There will be further desire to cross when the Denny's is completed on Clover Lane. They are trying to encourage safe practices and be proactive to a situation which will undoubtedly become a problem. Olson agreed and the concern for pedestrians is warranted. The construction taking place on Clover will include sidewalks on both sides of the street and Olson would like to see a crosswalk at the southeast intersection of Clover and the addition of a handicap ramp. Decision: Morrison moved to accept Staffs recommendation. Laws had concern for the speed of traffic along this stretch of road. He suggested asking ODOT for a reduction of 10 MPH. Olson will draft a letter to ODOT for expedition of the speed limit reduction. Morrison asked if the crosswalk could coincide with the speed reduction and Olson said it may not happen until late fall. Commission seemed to be in agreement with this. Neumann asked if signage would be installed. Olson will ask ODOT, but there is no guarantee. Motion to accept Staff recommendation passed with stipulation on speed limit. 2. SPECIAL CONCERNS AT ASHLAND VILLAGE SUBDIVISION REQUEST: Ms Michele Zagorski, representing the Ashland Village Homeowners Association, requests traffic speed and volume studies be conducted and that suggestions be made to slow traffic in the subdivision. BACKGROUND: Ashland Village Subdivision, constructed in 1996, is now nearly completely built. The streets in the subdivision were patterned to provide a measure of traffic calming within the subdivision. To travel from Mountain Avenue to Fordyce Street requires negotiation of five 900 turns. Other features include curb extensions, set back sidewalks, concrete patterned cross-walks and narrow streets (28 feet wide). All streets within the subdivision are signed for one-sided parking, however, under the current transportation plan, parking could be allowed on both sides. G:Dawn\Traf\MinutesVune 99.doc CONCLUSION: Staff conducted spot speed studies at two different locations at differing times and dates to try to gain an accurate analysis of the traffic speeds. The results of the speed study using a radar gun showed an unusually high rate of speed zone compliance. Traffic volumes were also light in comparison with comparable residential streets. Although it is difficult to pinpoint the most opportune time to detect the most problematic drivers, our studies did not indicate a chronic speed control problem. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff indicated their approval of removing the parking restrictions on the street. Engineering staff supports that option. Often, the effect of randomly staggered parking vehicles along a street has a traffic calming effect as drivers are forced to weave around parked cars. All lots in the subdivision do appear to have ample off-street parking and on- street parking is not excessive. If the Traffic Safety Commission moves, Public Works staff can be directed to remove the no parking signs. Discussion: Mr. Zagorski and Dwayne Whitcomb, president of the Home Owner's Association of Ashland Village, were present to address Commission. Staff presented the speed and traffic studies which were conducted at this location. Zagorski is concerned with the traffic that uses the subdivision route to travel from E. Main to Mountain. He does not understand why the Planning Department would approve connection of two arterials by a residential area. Neumann asked if there was a time of day when the traffic was heavier. Zagorski felt traffic picked up in the afternoon when school had let out. Neumann had driven the area and he could not go through the corners doing 25 MPH. He feels it would be difficult even for a vehicle to negotiate the turns at the posted speed. Laws said that Council and Planning have a goal of eliminating the creation of dead end roads to keep car travel to a minimum and to accommodate emergency vehicles. Laws felt that the perception of speed in this subdivision was more of a problem than that of actual speeding. He would like to have streets in Ashland's standard at 25 MPH or even 20 MPH. The design of Ashland Village was unique and planned for safety, he doesn't see how we could make it any safer. Zagorski asked if speed humps similar to the ones being installed on Oak Street could be looked into. Olson commented that they are made for speeds of 25 MPH and the speed limit is 20 MPH here so it would be ineffective. Laws commented that studies find that people's perception of vehicles going over 20 MPH seem to be speeding even if they are within the speed limit. Olson said this street was the slowest street recorded. The design was very successful from a traffic safety standpoint. Laws believes that the citizens perception of the speed is eschewed. Commission suggested citizens borrow a radar gun and clock the vehicles going through. Zagorski asked when the 20 MPH speed limit standard would be established and Olson commented that ODOT sets the standards and they establish 25 MPH for residential areas. Decision: The parking recommendation will be enforced. 3. REQUEST FOR 15 MINUTE PARKING SPACE AT 372 E. MAIN — FOLLOW UP G:Dawn\Traf\MinutesVune 99.doc As per requested by the Commission, staff contacted the various businesses which would be affected by the decision to relocate the fifteen minute parking space in the 300 block of E. Main Street. Staff contacted John Fields who owns the building where Amerititle operates and he had no objection to the move. Eva, the Office Manager for Amerititle said they would actually appreciate the moving of the fifteen minute parking space since the majority of their clients are there for a longer space of time. They were questioned in regards to a conflict with the Fed Ex deliveries and both Eva and John informed me that deliver trucks use the parking lot and they simply block the entrance to deliver parcels. Rogue Ski Shop had no objections, neither did the Low Down Board Shop who felt that the majority of their clientele were pedestrian, there would be little to no effect to them. There was no objection to this move and staff recommends the relocation of the fifteen minute parking space to accommodate the Village Baker's request. Decision: Morrison motioned to move the parking space as was requested. Neumann seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 4. REQUEST FOR CROSSWALK ON E. MAIN STREET Ms Debbie Wilson, Youth Program Coordinator at the Community Works building requested the installation of a painted cross-walk on East Main Street at Garfield Street. Ms. Wilson stated that the majority of the pedestrian traffic into the Community Works building uses the sidewalk on the south side of East Main Street coming from the middle school and high school. There is also heavy pedestrian traffic from Garfield Park to the Community Works building. BACKGROUND: Two months ago, the Commission heard a similar request for a crosswalk at East Main Street and California Street. This crosswalk, located at the bikeway crossing which has now been established. CONCLUSION: The crosswalk requested can be installed on the west side of Garfield since sidewalks are available in all directions. A crosswalk on the east side of Garfield Street would exit onto a driveway, which should be avoided. If the commission wishes to approve this request, two conditions might be considered as requirements. 1. The crosswalk must have handicap access ramps at each sidewalk entrance. Two ramps would be required at a combined cost of approximately $1200. It may be possible to include these ramps in our upcoming 1999 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair project if block grant funds are available. With a crosswalk located on the west side of Garfield Street, it will be necessary to also establish a painted crosswalk across Garfield Street at the existing handicap access ramps. G:Dawn\Traf\MinutesVune 99.doc Discussion: Olson has spoken to Parks Department to arrange a cost sharing between Public Works and Parks to install children playing signs and children present signs. The crosswalk will have to have the handicap access ramps installed and the west side is a better option for this because it is less crowded with utility accessories. Debbie Wilson, Community Works has been in operation now for six months or so and they have had great success with educating the children in safely crossing, but are asking for suggestions on educating the drivers. Decision: Huemann motioned to approve staff recommendation. Passed unanimously. 5. TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON a AND A STREETS Ms Keri Green, 288 Ninth Street Alley, recently requested a stop sign on A Street at 8"' Streets. She suggested that a sign with a "Right Turn Permitted Without Stopping" rider be added to the stop sign. A comment was also made regarding the use of the bike path by automobile traffic. BACKGROUND: From Ms. Green's message, it appears that the addition of the Ninth Street Alley (a private way) added additional congestion and confusion to the intersection. Prior to the creation of the private drive, there was no other option for traffic movement at the street with only two legs existing to the intersection. Ninth Street Alley is currently a dead-end drive and serves 10 homes. Eventually, it will connect to"B" Street and serve 18 homes. With the completion of the street and its connection to"B," additional traffic will most likely be encountered. The predominant movement through the intersection is on 8`" and A Street. Traffic onto Ninth Street Alley constitutes less than 5% of the total traffic. CONCLUSION: 1. Bikeway Concerns Engineering staff have negotiated with Ledford Construction and ODOT (who is administering the project) to install 18 steel bollards along the length of the bikeway. The bollards, which are lockable and removable, will be installed at each possible vehicular entrance onto the bikeway. The change order, approved over a month ago, authorizes the contractor to install the bollards at a cost of$350 each. Installation is expected beginning July 19. Additionally, the Street Division will add signing prohibiting motor vehicles on the bikeway. 2. Stop Sign Request Ninth Street Alley is not a public way and, as such, all traffic entering or exiting the street must yield to oncoming traffic. The stop sign with "Right Turn Permitted Without Stopping" is no longer a legal sign. It was removed from ODOT's Traffic Safety Approval List several years ago. Because of the relatively low traffic volumes using Ninth Street Alley and its"private" status, no additional traffic control devices are warranted at this time. This intersection should be re-examined upon completion of the connection of Ninth Street to "B" Street. G:Dawn\Traf\MinuteSVune 99.doc Discussion: Lambe asked when the subdivision will be complete. Olson was not sure as the first phase was just completed, but the second phase has yet to start. Olson really had no suggestion on alleviating the problem at this stage, but when the connection is made to B Street this needs to be re-addressed. Wilma Oksendahl addressed the issue with the Commission. She feels that the traffic in this area needs to be made aware of the bike path being there. Morrison commented that looking north on 8`h Street you don't expect the alley or the cars turning left into the alley. Olson foresees a problem with rear ending more then broad- siding. The alley looks very much like a driveway at this time. There was a suggestion for a stop sign at 8t' and A Streets but the warrants are not met for this. Laws suggested doing some vegetation clearing to make visibility better. Neumann suggested also removing some of the parking spaces for more room. Oksendahl suggested putting up some 20 MPH signs along A Street too. Laws sees many ways to improve this area, but is hesitant to agree to a stop sign at this time. There will be precautionary signs put up with the bikepath and the ballards added will keep vehicle traffic from driving down the bikepaths. Olson agrees that it would be premature to add a stop sign on 8`" at this point because only 3% of the traffic is coming out of the 9`" Street alley. It seems over done to stop 97% of the traffic for 3%. Decision: Olson will contact Adam Hanks, Code Enforcement Officer to contact the owners on the corner to clear the vegetation. There will be a speed study on next month's agenda and this will be discussed further. 6. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ONE-WAY DESIGNATION ON INDIANA STREET Mr. Bruce Moats, Physical Plant Director for S.O.U., requests Indiana Street be designed one-way (southbound) to alleviate some of the traffic congestion during the next 8 months of the Visual Arts Building expansion project. BACKGROUND: Indiana Street extends from Woodland Drive to Siskiyou through residential neighborhoods and along S.O.U. residence halls. The north end of the street where it connects to Siskiyou Boulevard was re-aligned two years ago so that the street now aligns with Wightman Street. Currently, the north end of the street is heavily congested with construction traffic from the Visual Arts Building expansion project. The street is 30 feet wide and allows parking on one side only for most of the street length. The following streets intersect Indiana Street: 1. Woodland Drive 2. Fielder Street 3. Windsor Street 4. Oregon Street 5. Madrone Street 6. Siskiyou Boulevard G:Dawn\Traf\MinutesVune 99.doc Consideration of a one-way system logically would be located to divert from Oregon Street which is a full 4-way intersection. The diversion options would be either Frances Lane to Siskiyou Boulevard or Walker Avenue to Siskiyou Boulevard. CONCLUSION: Fire and Emergency Services has voiced no opposition to the temporary one-way southbound designation. The southbound direction is the common direction of approach. The planning staff has concerns regarding the requested length of a temporary designation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that S.O.U. be allowed to place temporary signs and barriers to create a one-way traffic flow (southbound) on Indiana Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to Oregon. It is further recommended that the approval be given for four months with the option of a renewal of the approval following a successful review. Erection and maintenance of signs and barriers should be the responsibility of S.O.U. Discussion: Bruce Moats, SOU Facilities Manager, was present to discuss this item. Commission and Moats discussed the best locations for redirecting the traffic on Indiana. The Commission considered who would be most inconvenienced by the redirection. The residential area above the campus has a significantly lower traffic count according to Olson. It was agreed the wisest place to implement the one way would be at Oregon Street. Moats will do all signage for this change and will alert the Campus. Commission also considered changing the orientation of the alley which runs from Omar's and runs behind the Elderhostel. Moats considered this and will implement this if the redirection is allowed. Lambe asked if the weight limits on the delivery trucks would be a problem on any of the other streets they will be accessing during this time. The length of the trailers should also be looked at. There will also need to be flaggers out for the larger delivery trucks. Morrison asked if, in the future, contractors can be asked to budget for adequate traffic control. Decision: Commission was unanimous to the redirection of Indiana Street and Moats will be responsible for all signage and public awareness. Moats will present a progress report in four months time for reconsideration of the Commission. 7. OAK STREET TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT UPDATE Construction will begin by the end of August. Rubber speed humps have arrived and the blessing of ODOT has been received. 8. REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In March of this year a request was made to Professor Robert Layton, O.S.U. Transportation Research Institute for technical assistance in the analysis of the intersection of East Main Street, Siskiyou Boulevard, Gresham Street and Third Street (see attached G:Dawn\Traf\MinutesVune 99.doc letter and application). The assistance is to be provided by the Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University with funding by the Oregon Traffic Safety Division. We have just received notification that our application has been accepted and will be funded. Selection of an engineering consultant is currently ongoing. Upon selection of the consultant we will be further notified as the project schedule and the funding amount. Discussion: Grant was accepted and ODOT will be sending us referrals on Engineers for the project. Laws wanted to be sure that the chosen Engineers are aware of the Fire Department building plans and the Library plans will be available to them. Neumann asked if they will be asked about the addition of a traffic circle. A. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS TRAFFIC ITEMS: Read by Title. B. HANDICAP ACCESS ISSUES: None. C. TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION COMMITTEE: -School Safety Program: None -SOU Traffic Safety Committee: None D. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES "School Zone Planning, Design and Control"at OSU, August 12, 1999 "Oregon Transportation Safety Conference"at Windmill Inn, Ashland, October 20- 22, 1999 -"Harborview Traffic Safety & Injury Prevention"Seattle, WA, September 22-24 and October 20-22, 1999 E. GOAL SETTING — Morrison and Laws will be meeting to discuss the school participation goal. E. OTHER -Participation in the Oregon Transportation Safety Conference - -Community Small Projects Mini Grant Program Olson asked for permission to submit for a radar gun for traffic studies. Commission agreed to this allocation. -Utility Billing Insert for August -Educational Brochures from ODOT -Name Plaque Order—They are on their way! IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Safety Notes V. NEW/ ADDITIONAL ITEMS - NONE V. ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. G:Dawn\Traf\Minutes\1une 99.doc CITY OF ASHLAND F.ASy." -- o Office of the Mayor EGO MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 1999 TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Catherine Shaw RE: Appointment to Tree Commission I would like to appoint Greg Covey to the vacant position on the Tree Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2001. The vacancy was created by the resignation of Kerry KenCairn as she now serves on the Planning Commission. Copies of letters of interest are attached, along with a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings. cr �� Attachment: o, �+ Your o °a�aoM TREE COMMISSION VACANCY The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the Tree Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2001. If you are interested in commi%icydPsppl.men, being considered for this volunteer position, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (ii available) to Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, City Hall, 20 E. Main Street, before Monday, September 13, 1999. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder. •I , gregory t . covey landscape architecture / site planning September 9, 1999 Ms. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder City of Ashland cS 20 East Main St. Fi0 Ashland, Oregon 97520 l� . Re: Request for Appointment to City of Ashland Street Tree Commission Dear Ms. Christensen: Please consider my request for immediate appointment to the Ashland Street Tree Commission. I have spoken with Robbin Pearce, City Staff Representative to the Tree Commission, about the responsibilities of serving. I also understand you will forward this request to Mayor Cathy Shaw for final approval. I received my Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree from the University of Oregon in 1987, and I have been practicing landscape architecture in professional offices for over twelve years. I have maintained my license as a Landscape Architect in Oregon since earning my initial registration in 1992 (Registration#295). I believe my experience with professional design in both the public and private sectors will be an asset to the Commission, and I look forward to serving. Please call me if you have any questions, or if you need additional information to process this request. Thank you for considering my appointment. Respectfully, Gregory T. Covey (l Landscape Architect C: Robbin Pearce 295 east main street, suite 8, ashland, oregon 97520 phone: 541 -552- 1015 / fax: 541 -482-0858 / e-mail: covey @mind.net 346'�u€ai qa e•'F s } June 2, 1999 Cathy Shaw, Mayor 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 RE: TREE COMMISSION Dear Ms. Shaw, Kerry Kencairn has asked me to write you expressing my willingness to serve on the Tree Commission as her replacement. As you know, she has been asked to serve on the Planning Commission. While I am neither a landscaper or a botanist,I am somewhat informed about trees, their types and care, and Kerry has expressed confidence in my ability to serve at the level required by the Commission. I am certainly able to listen to and sort through varying information and opinions in a conscientious way. I have been told that this would be my role on the Tree Commission. After living in Ashland for the past 7 years, my sense of good citizenship says that it is time I performed some service to the community. If you would like to discuss this with me, please feel free to phone me at 482-7909. Sincerely, � t MELANIE MINDLIN CITY OF ASHLAND y_-. SH., do Office of the Mayor (541)466-6002 - IS 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 (541)488-5311 -Fax REG� -" MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members ,, FROM: Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor 0i DATE: September 15, 1999 RE: Confirmation of appointments to Ashland Economic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee I would like to confirm the following appointments to the Ashland Economic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee: Organization Name: Name: City Council Carol Wheeldon Planning Commission Mike Gardiner Oregon Shakespeare Festival Janeen Olsen Chamber of Commerce Sandra Slattery Southern Oregon University Steve Reno Project A Jim Teece Mountain Supply DBA) Bill Gillian Oregon Action Rich Rohde Darex Dave Bernard Low Down Board Shop Ruben Davis Citizen Member John Freedom Staff Liaisons Mike Freeman, John McLaughlin By way of background, in 1999, the Ashland City Council adopted a goal to update the City's Economic Development goals and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan and to further develop materials that outline the City's economic development goals and objectives. The City's economic development goals and objectives are nearly 10 years old and in need of review. City Council formed a committee made up of community members and representatives from organizations involved in economic development to assist them in meeting their goal. "Givens" The City Council has adopted several long-standing policies the committee should keep in mind as they develop economic development strategies and recommendations. Project "Givens" 1. The City does not offer financial incentives for companies to locate a business in Ashland; 2. The City will not compromise high quality standards for development; 3. The City requires that all businesses follow planning and building procedures; 4. The City will not waive or reduce system development charges, fees, permits costs, etc. for development; and 5. The City Council is the final decision making body—they may or may not implement the recommendations of the committee. Process Over the next six months, the City Council charges the Economic Development Strategy Committee to do the following: Committee Process: 1. Review the Citys Comprehensive Plan, Economy chapter, paying attention to the section called "The Future" and the "Goals" found at the back of the chapter. Determine if the existing Economy section of the comprehensive plan meets the community's current and emerging economic development needs. 2. Review the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations (i.e. Chamber, City, SOU, SOREDI, etc.) involved in economic development. Determine if the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations need to be clarified or modified and are meeting the needs of the City. 3. Develop a written report outlining. and explaining (with any related documentation) the committee's recommendations and make a formal presentation to the City Council. City Process: 1. Staff preparation of proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public Hearing on proposed changes before the Planning Commission. 3. Adoption of changes to Comprehensive Plan by City Council. 4. Develop written materials outlining the City's economic development policies and procedures. Council Communication Legal Department Ordinance Withdrawing Annexed Area From District September 21, 1999 Submitted byf Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman 00— " Title: An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (Washington Street Annexation by Neuman). Synopsis: The council approved the annexation of this property on February 2, 1999, and adopted findings on March 3, 1999. The resolution annexing the property was adopted on August 17, 1999. This ordinance withdraws the property from the fire district. The city will now provide fire protection as the property is now within the city limits. Recommendation: Adopt second reading of ordinance. Background Information: This is the third phase of a three-phase process for a "full consent' annexation(where all of the landowners and at least 50% of the electors residing in the area to be annexed have consented to the annexation). The first phase is the land use phase coordinated through the planning department where hearings are held before the planning commission and the council. That phase was completed in February 1999 when the council held a hearing and voted to approve the annexation. The second phase was completed at the August 17, 1999, council meeting and consists of the actual annexation of the property by resolution of the council. The third phase involves the withdrawal of the annexed area from any special district. For Ashland, the only special district the city generally withdraws from is Jackson County Fire District #5. This phase involves a public hearing (which was held on September 7, 1999) and council adoption of an ordinance withdrawing the area from the district. FAUSGRTAUWRDWnnex ord(withdrawing(Neuman-Washington St.)cc2.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING AN ANNEXED AREA FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 5 (WASHINGTON STREET ANNEXATION BY NEUMAN). Recitals: A. The owner of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" has consented to the annexation of this property to the City of Ashland. There are no electors residing in the tract to be annexed. B. Pursuant to ORS 222.524 a public hearing was held on September 7, 1999, at 7 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, on the question of withdrawal of this property from Jackson County Fire District No. 5. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be withdrawn from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.111. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland elects to pay the bonds of the Special Taxing Districts pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.520(2)(b). The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the 7th day of September , 1999, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine-M. Shaw, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-SPECIAL ORDINANCE (p:ord�annx-neu.ord) MOUNTAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT LLC EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO CITY OF ASHLAND P. PARCEL OF LAND TO BE PNN'XED TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT BEARS S 00°03'' 23" W, 251 . 77 FEET FROM THE NE 1/146 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON; SAID POINT OF BEGINNING LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY OF INTERSTATE 5 HIGHWAY, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY OF WASHINGTON STREET; THENCE S 00 002 ' 16" W, 1180. 83 FEET FOLLOWING THE 1/16 SECTION LINE TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND; THENCE ALONG THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF—WAY OF THE RAILROAD, N 42'49' 48" W, 463. 65 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 2006137" SPIRAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 4309 ' 31" W, 88 . 35 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 149 ' 14", A RADIUS OF 2764 . 93 FEET, THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 44 039 ' 35" W, 87 . 85 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE RAILROAD AND RUNNING N 00'01 ' 08" W, 833. 76 FEET; THENCE N 89`45 ' 14" E, 377 . 43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY OF INTERSTATE 5 AND WASHINGTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT—OF—WAY, S 26`39 ' 48" E, 135 . 96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 10 . 63 ACRES . Z REGISTERED LJU. - ! 'l l PROFESSIONAL, ! . LA SUR YOR Oaq_.oNID EGOIV JAN" 25 '}89 OARRYL J. MEMI 1866 Q1.cul /Z-3/-00 Council Communication Public Works Department Westwood Street LID Final Assessment September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Bmwn , Reviewed by: Paul Nolte - Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the Amount of$188,616.93 for the Westwood Street Local Improvement District for Improvements Consisting of Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk, and Associated Improvements, for the Extension of Westwood Street from Its Existing Terminus at Orchard Street, Approximately 1300 Feet Southerly Synopsis: This Council action is required under the Ashland Municipal Code as the final step in the process to levy assessments to lots within local improvement districts. The Westwood Street local improvement district was established in January 1998 by the City Council prior to enacting the improvements, and all of the improvements have now been completed. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution levying assessments for the lots within the Westwood Street Local Improvement District. Background Information: The City Council during the September 7, 1999 meeting established a Public Hearing date for 7:00 p.m., September 21, 1999,to consider objectives to the proposed assessments for the lots within the Westwood Street Local Improvement District. The City Recorder mailed public hearing notifications to all affected property owners on September 9, 1999. At the time this staff report was prepared, two written complaints have been received. Staff has also responded to a couple of minor requests for clarification. Any additional complaints received by staff will be addressed at the public hearing. 1) Abe and Cynthia Mish, 600 Nyla Lane, wrote a letter dated September 13, 1999, objecting to the proposed assessment and resubmitted a letter written to Jim Olson of June 11, 1999. Their concern is with the fact that they have two lots on Nyla Lane; one of which has their home, and they have no intention of developing the second adjacent lot. The Mish's are contending that they should not have to pay for the assessment on the vacant lot until the time of development. In reviewing the Mish's rationale, staff believes they are confusing the Council's new LID policy (adopted as Resolution 99-09 in February 1999 after the formation of this LID)which assesses 1E\IISFK\PAIJI,A\1.I1)s\Westwu(,d 1.11)final a.xss scp2l.doc each lot on the basis of developable units. The new policy requires payment only at the time of development. The Mish's, however, have two separate lots and are assessed for each lot. The Mish's are also disputing the fact that they are being assessed at all since they claim their"... deed states quite unequivocally that we have no financial obligation now or in the future for any other street improvements." Staff does not have a copy of the deed, and recalls this to be the Mish's interpretation. Council discussed this issue during the formation of the LID and establishment of the LID boundaries. Council included Nyla Lane as a benefited area in the LID limits (see attached minutes of the Public Hearing on January 6, 1998). Nyla Lane residents do benefit from the Westwood Street improvements as they use Westwood Street as their primary access to Nyla Lane. Council also agreed that the City would pay half of the assessed costs of each of the lots on Nyla Lane. 2) Ms. Anna Hassell, 125 Westwood Street, Placer Run Subdivision, provided a written request to Council (dated September 15, 1999)to reduce her assessment by 10% as was done on the Fordyce LID, and a 60% City credit for sidewalks. The additional costs to the City for granting a 10% overall reduction and an additional 35% sidewalk credit (the City is already contributing 25 1/o)is nearly $22,400. Ms. Hassell accepted the City's low bid for construction of street improvements at$161,409.26. Final construction costs were $176,991.18 ($15,581.72 or 9.1% over the contract award). The contract overruns included a greater quantity of base rock and retaining wall. The contractor also was required to move an additional manhole and adjust five water valves that were not initially included in the project. There was also an additional $7,900 worth of work requested of the contractor that was not reflected on the plans. She is also asking for a"Woodland Reserve" exemption for 1.3 acres, the value of which has not been calculated. Ms. Hassell was aware at the time of construction that her development would not be eligible for the 60% sidewalk credit as proposed in the new LID policy adopted by Council in February 1999 (Resolution 99-09). Ms. Hassell is admittedly new to developing and staff has worked hard and spend considerable additional time to assist in her efforts. It is staff's opinion that the City should not bear additional costs for this project. If approved, funding for this additional level of City participation has not been identified. Additional Background Information Westwood Street Local Improvement District was established on January 7, 1998 (Resolution 98-01) at the request of the developer(Ms. Anna Hassell) and with the consent of the majority of the impacted neighborhood. The street improvements were required as a condition of the development on Westwood Street(now known as the Placer Run Subdivision). The formation of this assessment district was a departure from traditional methods of assessment. The developer worked closely with the neighborhood to form an equitable and agreeable assessment rate. The rates established did not conform to any clear mathematical formula but instead were costs that were agreed upon by the participants on a sliding scale based on practical benefit. Unanimous agreement by the developer and all homeowners within the district was not possible. Council intervened in the assessment decision for the five(5) lots on Nyla Lane that do not directly front on Westwood Street. Council committed the City to provide half of the Nyla Lane resident's$1,800 assessment(a total City commitment of$4,500). All other homeowners on Westwood and Placer F:\USLK\FAUL.A\L.1 Us',%Vestwood LID fin a]assess sep2I.doc Run(previously known as Pinewood)had agreed to the sliding scale assessment.By the final assessment agreement and because the developer bore the heaviest burden of the costs, overages or refunds in the pre-arranged amounts were to be awarded to the developer. As a result, the Council's December 15, 1998 action regarding new LID practices to reduce existing LIDs by 10 percent was not applicable. Engineering services were completed by Hammond Engineering. The construction of the improvements was contracted to D. Britton Enterprises. Construction began in January 1999. Final street improvements were completed in June 1999. The original estimated cost to the assessment district was $125,900.00 for design services and construction improvements. The construction improvements contract was awarded at $161,409.46 and final construction costs were $176,991.18. Total project costs including engineering design services, construction and interest and administration were $196,472.43. The City is responsible for 25%of the sidewalk ($3,355.50) and ''/z of the Nyla Lane assessment($4,500) leaving the total to be assessed to the District at $188,616.93. The original assessment contained 15 lots, and established fixed costs for all lots with the exception of the two lots (901 and 902) held by the developer. Credits and overages were to be applied to those two lots. The developer has since further divided lots 901 and 902 by the creation of the Placer Run Subdivision. Final costs and assessments to each lot are shown on Exhibit A. i s\IJtiF.Kil'A111.,:\\LIDS\1Vcsuvood 1.11)final assesssep2l.doc Z=t: C) f T; UP 2 111H iN CD 00 �M ............. —---------- els SUMMARY OF WESTWOOD STREET LID COSTS ESTIMATED COSTS CONSTRUCTION D. BRITTON ENTERPRISES $ 176,991.18 ENGINEERING HAMMOND ENGINEERING $ 15,376.60 INTEREST&ADMINISTRATION $ 4,104.65 TOTAL $ 196,472.43 COST BREAKDOWN STREET CONSTRUCTION $ 123,127.88 SIDEWALKS $ 13,422.00 STORM DRAINS $ 40,441.30 SANITARY SEWER $ ENGINEERING $ 15,376.60 INTEREST BADMINISTRATION $ 4,104.65 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $ 196,472.43 CREDITS SIDEWALK(25% OF S/W COSTS) ($13,422.00 x.25) $ 3,355.50 CITY PARTICIPATION (1/2 OF$1,800) FOR 5 LOTS OFF NYLA LANE $ 4,500.00 TOTAL INITIAL CREDITS $ 7,855.50 TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $ 188,616.93 8/2/99 G:Dawn\Engineer\Westwood Summary 8-2.xls § w ( ) ) k k . m 4 t 22 \ , § d � 2A z q � B w Gw En k � / o / § \ ) \ � \ \ k c \ �� \ k ) \ k At / ° / / = / k = < k2 / 2 & «E 2 z z z ® � z - � z z 27 ) � eGjf ) $ 2 ) ) 27 [ § » � = < . ) \ \ ) . , ! ] } � d , ƒ / 0 0 � ❑ a '> 'y O y C O O ❑ O U O y y O N Q ' d V] V] N N � � y � •N � CID to O O p 0 > U a a w a a a z w '^ f � N O O O O O O N O O h H O O O O O O M O .n vi .n h o 00 o 00 M M M M 7 y 7 7 (A (A b9 FA V3' fA fA (A 69 F N oa V I F wa p � a V] ¢ p N � O y Q z z X 3 Z a � N N 1¢ N N N N N O N k] h F z o °� � o Q O a O� p zQ a w¢¢n 0 �W7 p¢ a p p rA w n: : u O O o: O caG W c�C �a aa rn cp 4 -) F O o O O a O U O O OO O O O > O 1qj i p jz z 0 FO FzoW Q� .g E � d a0 vZi w h FO O O O O O O O O CA CA � as m w w m as m co co 0 y o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 m of M M M M M M M M M C w G 3 z w 3 ZI '4 ❑ c c 0 0 0 0 a to � ti ti U 41 _ N V ¢ F °a w a° w a o a° w Q b N h T 00 F FI�I Oa U F w � � o O z N Q g N N U q r+ O b U3a > 00 oz -ld¢ ¢Y¢ fY� Q rFn ¢ ¢ O .q O E --z� o N , ¢ Q ¢ Q w v 3 Cd oz F o OF d QI l� W T N z RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $188,616.93 FOR THE WESTWOOD STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALK, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS, FOR THE EXTENSION OF WESTWOOD STREET FROM ITS EXISTING TERMINUS AT ORCHARD STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTHERLY THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland has constructed curbs, gutters, storm drain, sidewalk, and paving in the Westwood Street Local Improvement District during 1999. B. The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of$196,472.43. The City assumed responsibility for 25% of the sidewalk($3,355.50) and for 1/2 of the Nyla Lane assessments (totaling $4,500) leaving the total to be assessed to the District at $188,616.93. C. The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments charged against each lot is according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Paula C. Brown, Public Works Director, in the Council Communication of September 21, 1999, is convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited above. D. Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefitted to defray the expense thereof. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for$100.00 or more may request the payment be extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received. SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi- annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. Interest charged will be the actual bond sale rate plus 1.5 percent, with a maximum of 10 percent. The initial interest to be charged is 6.75 percent. dFSIA SYS VUSI,il2VPAUL.AVI,IU>AWcswixw(I 1.11) Icvy RCN0.110C SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in sections 1 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney \il:SI\SYS`t)SLR\PAIJI.A�.LIU>\WeslwnoJ LID le VI Rcsu.Joc be Cy„r�0. /t-/s% Coco Ny �G LQ e �S� �a •,d - 4 �s za JED SEP 14 1999 �� -¢ �2 6 0 93A 7L 206 1 ` a.aA� GL 2 E(/✓/ Ao CL 2e /./7I ABE, & CYNTHIA:. MISH a , E00-NYLA LANE'.-': s,t 'ASHLAND 'OR 97520 JIM OLSON 20 E MAIN �i, • t ,.,a , as w` ' " ,` r ,� ?<: •aaf In�.,S rY}�r ;�''•:;:; 3rd yP. Wi e -i RE. AWES W00p �, ESO �JxIiO i '+ r.3v�pM(W�'oBSvq v4 'L f�i,•♦Yr L.M .+ `»< k'"7" ],trot > .:, A'N DEAR. MR• OLSON• t> �` 1 eyy.. + , r{ , , tr ] .r \ - ` � • .ya° ?l 1 -a< 3 � r :1 �1 � f5 d'n rC'`�i 1, �d.. '+ �Ttrsiy is i •'t;�ri fi,�t°�r*� 4 > a n !? 1 xla+ ♦ i IT WAS MAY 4t1HEN+ I';F IRST 'yRIE[��TD ' tE}ACH, YO,U OR °; Yi"a sr 11.1 1 1 c v: t tir:vM,,HL� 1 Fr i' t S W K t T �}f.� thitii'S' y� ,�,•t i�Ge.f.".i t 'qp{' r ,,...u�•a? i 5 IICCCG:: f. a )J r yayr _� a 3�,°� 'L.a ""yy.. - ,ar'` S V v'C fA/j t >l� ` 1� N•n° �'� r L• r+ v l". ti'T I,EyF�T XQU 0 i4 T . yCy s BACK MOMISI SOU I' BY NO ) Itr EA TNN ,L•.53 . �FINE ` BABCHR tE. S ? 1I °DA: X� L4 dr�'`N 4_ THAT'YOU.vU nAST R r ( fit - E 0�[N2 LOTSf iALhANE * H y NT7lLLYc UEI Myry�$, e n `, ? III I LITTLEi°IF+eA( N7� EggNy�IF{ ITFROM(e THE P,A�C�IN„`G�^OF, iWESTWOQD., b� YF Gc ACCORDING ;TO �GOU . '0 N;=IVEWSL;ETD'ATED: Tw 3 THE i.GMl/� 1 Y \,lh�rs t • Nr! �V QUR:,_Gu Et SA .WA QA1fEDi A EA ' b x =v F y t+v h +�'�.L( � Nv�♦ ric .IP � �: 4 !�✓S,7�S Ls �_ �{ 9 DEEQ^�S`rz E3 1e Y e �Y •FINANCIAL- !L sKtl , �i 'Q'i�" �>a•N '° _ 7e i .ft 1. , -.* rr F• .,,�v :�'�n 1 b 1/*,x r� + + vr,� x s^I ,7' ni'., 'Yr{>r r, 5 YJ(• 4 °d R' R %= WE WOULD 'APPf�ECIATF N'A4, ESPO�iB r ^y, ,+y yfi 4 ` r 1, )� y �24{_�{ryY°{rry(tt>�'��� +�^1'�>'L �eYleQri��,�}Jry � N�\S� � n 5 ✓ 1 1 ,� Yh Sri r r L j IF i Y rw� ii t S nJi xv,*i ♦ eb+i jaRS,7i^rT a. tt �'L � R$L 13js � f4* 15f�i Y l � EL{'((Kib'l/11 4 ♦[ / f 1 ? y t 1 A��d Y .I{' ,. !( `ir+f��y �d �IA-'�/s/w N t �t _ y• 'k', a r ♦Y` 56 i r � r ( `Z '{ 5 es i • �?t d fl• j j tf..#'�Lj 1 i'nY7 ` r+e, rR.�r'Y��. °, $ r� �r"� . � � � 4 1 � `��;5 r �r �+`2 •r 66�ooJ � rr ,4 s� i l � ' 4 rJ rire'� t t (> � � 1 � �.as ✓ 1 i1Jy x.vS�� 1 i1 '` l a » � rL.�y .rl y"Y7>�'AlvSy� J`•+ i1Fi u1: `'i5� �J'r�+ i�i i,�� +,. Y'f° 1�w x`" Tr7 Ir.r Ppk •r ( :.:i P�y�h'','��a+q.�r ��. i, r4,7 i� 4fit ✓aW `�}� ,. r � 0.•.i/"'�'V� W� ° r'�jZ if sLj '.1 � ^`�i✓•4 (i7k�xLyrr((� }r. ell t i �..N:.Y u cif��"v i �. e � / Iri)� y Yi ;t =..ia�}���liY��x� (a '�° ( � ♦r fi � � 2 � Y1 N1 ' 'r to C i �� �AA0.�• rrr rL�v'Y`,e � f .;. -: ,... :rpc N l.:1�: 4t,C i':.*1 c� r1i n.� • ,' SI _!•r ".:+,, City Onderslunding L[U.c, erosion control, stormwater quality, many. And the maximum assess- conlinued jrvm page 1 and improved pedestrian environ- nrent for most properties is capped used to complete capital improve- ments. To that end the Committee at $4,000 per potential unit (annu- ments in special assessment dis- recommended that the City partici- ally adjusted for inflation), thus tricts. Most commonly in Ashland pate in street improvements as addressing the concerns of many it has been used for street, outlined in the chart below. citizens. In addition, an opportu- stonndrain and sidewalk improve — nity to defer the costs for larger ! r /tills, 1/tt ) /j�liCn//I parcels was also adopted, allowing urcnt projects in neighborhoods. owners with large properties not to For example, local homeowners �' paY abut 40% hese who live along an unpaved street percentage. vary- on each be burdened by large assessments until they decide to develop. For are assessed for an improvement, individual project) of the example, if you own a home on a which historically, has been based Ij cost o a U111, improved f on the frontage along the street. � 'j- .f 1 � large lot (one that could be di- g g ' street, rued the remaining; vided) you would be assessed for This assessment can then be paid in full or financed over 10 years. amount tvill he pair, by the i the cost of both lots. However, you i landowners of the properly i would onl a the assessment for In reviewing the City's policies fassessinent.regarding LIDs, the Ad Hoc LID abutting the street. t e of on w tc r our tome rs Committee looked at past LID situate ; ater, i ou ivi e t�e lot ou wou a or remain ec n projects, and also accepted coin The City Council agreed and t e of her ran , r you never divide ments and concerns from citizens adopted this partnership approach the,lot,;youWould only'pay the_one throughout the City. A major as part of the new LID resolution.concern was that.the total cost of The method of LID assessment the improvement was borne by the has also been modified. Each Other changes involve options neighborhood. The Committee felt property owner within an improve- for payoff of agreements prior to that the City should bear at least a ment district will be assessed based street improvements, incorporating portion of the costs since the street on the potential number of lots on a neighborhood involvement improvement results in benefits far their property. Most property process for all future LIDS. The beyond the local neighborhood, owners will only have one, but developers' share of an LID is not such as improved air quality, development properties can have subsidized by the City. Overall, the new policy provides an opportunity for the City to share in local street improvements, while also providing an equitable assess- ment process. The new procedures should result in fairer assessments, and a greater acceptance of street improvement projects that will benefit Lite entire community as ' well as local neighborhoods. �`r t For a complete copy of lire new policies and ordinance anrend- y. M. meats, contact the City Recorder at 48�8-5307. vb/r/CL -C' ANNA HASSELL 125 HESTVOOD STREET ' ASHLAND, ORE6ON 97520 PHONE/FAX (541) 482-6475 September 15, 1999 To The Honorable Mayor and City Council of City of Ashland: Re: Placer Run Subdivision - Westwood LID Assessments Lot Rl = $123, 229. 93 LID Assessment for 5. 780 acres (Exhibit A) Dear Mayor and Council : 1 . This is to request that a ten (10) percent City participation he assigned to the Westwood LID as was in the Fordyce Project. Although Westwood LID was formed prior to current City Policy/ ( ) the following will show that there was not a clear picture of projected costs until after the City Policy took effect. 2. For the same reason, a request is hereby made for the City to participate to the 60% allowed for sidewalks" 3" A request to exempt the Woodland Reserve 1 . 3 acres from the LID formula of $9, 684, 10 per acre assessment is herein made. A. A plea herein for some City credit for the less than 300 fool-. Placer Run road finished to full City street improvements. 5. Original discussions included some participation by the Strawberry Developers who will use Westwood Street to connect with their project. Perhaps some contribution would he appropriate if their plans are to use Westwood as main access. A LOOK AT NUMBERS: Present LIP_assessment Lot #1 $113, 229. 93 Acres Lot #1 Res"idence sold minus 6, 556. 14 - Acres . 677 (Formula Acres x $9, 684. 10) Woodland Reserve exeipt minus 12,5e9. 33 Acres 3 potential lots 36,799. 58 Acres 3.800...... (Each .1 lot_LID assessment) A2,266. 53 Acres 1 . 270 WITH the above adjustments, the present edual distribution_ D ~ Lot #1 contained 5^ 760 acres (minus residence of 0. 677 acres (which has been Vold) with the possibility of three more lots to be created if an access road is devised through the 1 . 3 acres of Woodland Reserve separating the balance of 3. 8 acres (three lots 1 of 3 pages of city serviced land} from the other six subdivision lots . In consideration for further division of Lot #1 , to three one acre lots, we signed a '/ Irrevocable Peed of Acquisition" to the City (Exhibit Q to acquire (improved to City standards at our expense) Placer Run road intersecting Westwood. This road is to lead to the Woodland Reserve access for the three potential lots . When the Westwood LID was approved` the consulting Engineer' s estimates of $125, 900. 00 ( were the basis for the allocation of reduced and fixed LID costs for the existing residences on 0estwo"d/ with the remaining amount spread over the seven lots created in the subdivision" The *21, 000 Westwood sewer installation cost was not this estimate. Rased on consulting Engineer' s cost estimates/ $125, 900. 00, all this seemed feasible" After the LTD was formed and allocations made there were new requirements added to the LID costs. It seems the rock walls required in front of the existing Westwood residences had been left out of the consulting - Engineer' s estimates, extra cost to developer, as the LID allocations had been computed' five lots sold on that basis, and agreements with the existing Westwood neighbors executed" Finally, the bids were solicited for the Westwood Street Improvement Project, There were no bids received" After further revisions, the estimate was raised to $145, 900" 00. The lc* hid received was $161, 409" 26 ( which required our consent as it was over the ten (10) per cent allowed" Swallowing hard, it still seemed feasible even though all allocations had been made and guaranteed to the buyers . The advantage to the City was that there would be revenue from the t with the City we pay LID assessments as Project. (By agreemen w lots are sold. ) ( ) Five of the seven lots were sold prior to the final LID allocation" That left any additional costs to be allocated only to the remaining three potential lots " The agreed upon contractor' s hid was $161, 409. 19" The finished price was about 10% over. This does not include engineer' s estimates ` or interest & administration. Although aware the bid could be 10% over the published price, there was no understanding that the contractor could exceed his bid price by another 10%" � Due to consulting Engineer' s error, the storm drains were relocated from the original drawings and the consulting engineer was instructed by the City to re-engineer three times' requiring our re-engineering for Placer Run, with its attendant costs for engineering and surveys" ` , ' heard here reiterate many times, It was never my You' ve ear me Y ' prevailed, intention to be a developer" but circumstances have preva , City policies have gone forward, and here I am, trying my best to conform to what is required. I acknowledge my obligation to know how to put together a subdivision, but I don' t know ! Simply relying on experts and a patient and helpful City Staff working with me on development 2 of' 3 pages (after we granted the Westwood Street extension right of way to the City) has finalized the one-half acre seven lot subdivision . Staff' s help along the way is genuinely appreciated. All have made efforts to accomplish the "next goal" while the Council has gone the "extra mile" as we fought our way through LUBA and the various obstacles which arcse. Thank you all for your assistance and dedication to your positions of responsibility and service. NOTES: 1 . Lot #5 has been purchased and the LID paid by the owner" 2. All other unsold lots in Markus/Hassell names have deferred assessments until sold" Your consideration of this request regarding LID assessments is appreciated" Other suggestions are welcomed" Respectfully submitted/ t`nna Hassell for Placer Run Subdivision \ww\lid-lt2 , ' ` / ` 3 of 3 pages CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 6 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Proposed formation of a Local Improvement District for street requirements on Westwood Street. Public hearing opened at 7:27 p.m. Public Works Director/City Engineer Paula Brown explained costs of the project, the option chosen by Council in their regular meeting held December 2nd to determine benefit assessment, and briefly explained the history of this Local Improvement District's formation. . Robert J. Connard/570 Nyla Lane/Noted receiving notice of hearing on December 5, 1997. Stated that there . was a contract between Vernon Gross, who developed Nyla Lane in 1979, and the City of Ashland, to sign in favor of street improvements for building lots 3, 9 and 10. Stated that this agreement was intended to go with the land. Also explained that Gross had been told by Dick Wanderscheid that all of the city's requirements had 2 been met as of July 12, 1979. Feels that this LID does not benefit Nyla Lane residents, and requiring Nyla Lane residents to pay an LID assessment is counter to the City's agreement with Gross. Vernon Gross/585 Nyla Lane/Stated that John Billings told him at the time the area was developed in 1979 that Nyla Lane would not be assessed for improvements to Westwood or Orchard. Noted that Nyla Lane property is shown as unencumbered on the title, and suggested that this might lead to lawsuits to tie up development. Suggested City seek some sort of federal grant to complete work in the area without cost to Nyla residents. Henry Kneebone/449 Orchard St./Explained that he owns property across the canyon from Westwood St., and questioned whether he would be required to pay a portion of the Local Improvement District cost. Mayor Golden stated that he would not. Andy Burt/1355 Romeo Dr./Resident of another cul-de-sac, questioned who makes decision to repair streets. Explained that he feels he pays more than his share for streets that are in disrepair and inquired about the process involved in initiating improvements. Director of Public Works Paula Brown responded by clarifying the general LID process and noting that each neighborhood has its own unique situation that would affect the formation of an LID. In the case of Westwood Street, Brown explained that options for inclusion of Nyla Lane residents had come before council. Noted the possibility of neighbors initiating LID's, and the possibility in some cases of determining benefits based strictly on frontage. Brown responded to Mr. Gross's suggestion of seeking a grant for funding by pointing out that the only recent grant had been on Oak Street, and that this had only covered sidewalk costs. Brown then explained that in this case, no other funds are available beyond the developer, the benefitted residents and the city. Councilor Laws responded to Mr. Burt's question by stating that decisions are made by the City Council, noting that this is done based on case-by-case details. Councilor DeBoer questioned the existence of the agreement mentioned by Connard and Gross, and inquired as to whether Nyla Lane residents were in fact benefitted by this project. Public hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. Councilor Laws questioned City Attorney Paul Nolte about the lawsuit suggested by Mr. Gross. Nolte responded that he did not see the possibility for a successful lawsuit in this situation. Councilor Wheeldon questioned the assessment of benefits to Nyla Lane residents. Brown clarified that the options presented to council at the regular meeting held December 2nd were based on how residents were benefitted, explaining that it is her opinion, supported by the option selected by council, that Nyla Lane residents are benefitted in this case. Brown also pointed out that Mr. Kneebone received no benefit as his property is a drainage area with no access and thus no assessment was made against him. Councilor Laws questioned City Attorney Nolte further, inquiring as to the cost of attorney fees for dealing with an unsuccessful lawsuit. Nolte explained that any property could potentially be encumbered by Council action under an LID, and that there would be no liability to a title company for Oat reason. Stated that the cost of defending a suit, if residents should try to appeal council's decision, would be between$3,000 and $5,000. Laws clarified this was money already set aside by the city, and wouldn't,be an additional amount paid through tax dollars. Councilor Hagen clarified that some grant funds had been available on Oak Street from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to explore possible means of slowing traffic without stop signs, by necking down the street, adding cross walks and speed tables. Emphasized that this funding had been available for specific City Council Meeting 01-06-98 3 reasons. Councilor Wheeldon noted that these monies had been made available by ODOT and that the decision to provide funds had not involved the council. Mayor Golden read, by title only, "A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Westwood Street from Orchard Street Southerly 1,300 Feet for the Westwood Street Local Improvement District and Authorizing the Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements consisting of Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Paving and Sidewalks against Property to be Benefitted and Providing that Warrants Issued for the Cost of the Improvement be General Obligations of the City of Ashland." Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to adopt the resolution. DISCUSSION: Councilor DeBoer explained that the assessment to Nyla Lane lots would likely work out to payments of less than$10 per month, and that there was a definite benefit to these lots. Noted that the City had opted to pay$4500 to offset the assessments against Nyla Lane, and emphasized that this LID had been initiated within the neighborhood and supported by the majority of the residents. Roll call vote: Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, DeBoer and Laws, all YES. Motion passed. 4 2. Authorization by Council to set a Public Hearing Date for the Formation of Westwood Street LID to January 6, 1998. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to authorize setting a public hearing date for the formation of Westwood Street LID for January 6, 1998. DISCUSSION: Director of Public Works Paul Brown, noted options offered by Anna Hassel, including determining benefit to Nyla Lane residents. Brown noted that staff felt that Nyla Lane residents benefit and should pay. City Attorney Nolte clarified for council timeframe and procedure that would be involved if there is a change to the methodology of the assessment at the proposed public hearing. Explained that re-noticing would need to be done if there is a change in the assessed amount. Clarified that the public notice sent out to property owners would include the proposed method of assessment. Councilor Laws noted the city easement near the gully area on one side of the street, and suggested option 4 as the preferred option. Golden, Reid, DeBoer and Wheeldon all expressed approval of option 4 as well. Brown explained to council that there is no change in cost to property owners with the inclusion of Nyla Lane. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to amend original motion to include option 4, with the city splitting assessment rate with five Nyla Lane property owners. Voice vote: all APES. Motion passed. City Council Meeting 12-02-97 7 RESOLUTION NO. 99-56 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WESTWOOD STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALK, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS, FOR THE EXTENSION OF WESTWOOD STREET FROM ITS EXISTING TERMINUS AT ORCHARD STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTHERLY THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged to lots within the Westwood Street Local Improvement District, orders that a public hearing be held to consider objections to this assessment at 7:00 p.m., September 21, 1999, in the City of Ashland, City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notice of the proposed assessments to the owner of the lots to be assessed. This resolution was read by title only in accordan e with Ashland Municipal Code_2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this_e day of� 1999. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of x 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Rev' wed as to Paul Nolte, City Attorney F".1'.�IfR',P;\ULA'.I,IUs`.N'e>nruuJ I,IU I'I I Kcsu.Joc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE WESTWOOD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Please take notice that the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed assessments for the assessment district described above. The proposed assessments, a description(by map and tax lot)of the property to be assessed and the name of the property owner are attached to this notice. The public hearing will be held at: 7:00 PM, September 21, 1999 Council Chambers 1175 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 The Ashland Municipal Code requires that any objections that are filed must be in writing and must state the specific grounds for objection. Objections must be received by: 5:00 PM; Friday, September 17, 1999 and may be delivered or mailed to the: City Recorder Ashland City Hall 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Please note that assessments may be modified by the Council and will be levied by the Council after the hearing, will be charged against the property, and will be immediately payable in full or in installments (if applicable) following the levy. I:. 11�41:WPAI'I'\'.I,In .N'eel.coud I..II) PI I Kem"do� Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Strawberry Lane Subdivision Remand Hearing September 21, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin Approved by: Mike Freeman {y Title: 1' Planning Action 97-054 is a request for Outline Plan approval for a 25-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at Strawberry Lane. Pursuant to the Land Use Board of Appeals decision in Hunt et al v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 98-166, the only issue under review and consideration by the Ashland City Council shall be the determination of adequate storm drain system capacity for Alnut/Nutley Streets. All other issues are considered final and complete. Synopsis: In July, 1998, the City Council approved the subdivision request for a 25-lot subdivision on upper Strawberry Lane. An appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals was filed by several neighbors, and the City's decision was remanded based on a lack of evidence regarding storm drain improvements from the intersection of Alnutt and Strawberry down to Nutley Street. The applicants have provided an engineered storm drain improvement plan which has been reviewed by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. We have found that the design meets the City's standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve the subdivision request based upon the submittal of the additional information, and that Staff be directed to bring back the necessary findings to support the decision for final adoption. Background Information: The attached staff report and materials provide addititional background information. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HE/ IG on the following A copy of the application,a' uments and evidence relied upon by the applicaflt request with respect to the ASHLAND LANL JSE ORDINANCE will and applicable criteria are ay. ile for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on September 21, inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. Hall, 20 East Main Street,Ashland,Oregon 97520, During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 552- LUBA on that criterion. 2047, I N SW T i'nW r2 al H x t m.Nts@ EY Y r`G NUTLEY ST *b o L �( fm Y k'a i �i�w rygr pt i :-Y i J 5 R YP 4Y U k t L Q {. !f' wr 4 Planning Action 97-045 is a request for Outline Plan approval for a 25-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at Strawberry Lane. Pursuant to the Land Use Board of Appeals decision in Hunt et al v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 98- 166, the only issue under review and consideration by the Ashland City Council shall be the determination of adequate storm drain system capacity for Alnut/Nutley Streets. All other issues are considered final and complete. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential; Zoning: RR-.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 08 AC; Tax lots: 101, 200, 201, and 500. Applicants: Doug Neuman, Meg Brown, Paul Hwoschinsky 'XyS°8 f \ Z"T d� 1 s GBH 3 I ; fn 2 }8 = ff R e R I�5M?R 7 v !RS H f 8�afe i t. 3C Rd.. G rom Y ;a NUREYSf S 6G ,AR�ar�; / z RR'sR °spat 7o�G, c G E 8g L . °✓ t 6Fx ` k 8x � r ry iRCB � RH :i• � -_� ^34:8' 8 a a� rco a Ad-Cx E� R '�G Lv4 v3 SC/R�i Y" f 4SI { CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter, ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 21, 1999 PLANNING ACTION: 97-054 APPLICANT: Doug Neuman, Meg Brown, Paul Hwoschinsky LOCATION: upper Strawberry Lane area ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential REQUEST: Outline Plan approval for a 25-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at Strawberry Lane. Pursuant to the Land Use Board of Appeals decision in Hunt et al v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 98-166, the only issue under review and consideration by the Ashland City Council shall be the determination of adequate storm drain system capacity for Alnut/Nutley Streets. All other issues are considered final and complete. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background -History of Application: This application was originally filed on May, 9, 1997, but was not deemed complete until December 23, 1997. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 10, 1998 at which time the Commission continued the request to allow for additional information to be provided. The continued hearing was held on April 14, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission approved the request. The findings of that approval were adopted at the May 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. An appeal was filed by surrounding property owners, and a public hearing was held in front of the City Council on June 16, 1998. The public hearing was-closed, but the meeting continued until July 7, 1998 to allow for Staff to bring back a clarification of a condition of approval. The Council approved the request on July 7, 1998, and adopted the findings approving the action on September 1, 1998. An appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) was filed by several surrounding neighbors: Susan Hunt, Jon Peele, Christine Crawley, Patricia Haley, Cici Brown, Benjamin Stott and Tim Brandy. The final decision was reached by the Board in February, 1999. In very simplistic terms, the petitioners raised eight points where they believed the City erred in approving the application, ranging from access and capacity to process issues. LUBA found that the only issue to be addressed by the City on remand was involving storm drainage. They found that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of adequate storm water facilities. Specifically, there needed to be information and evidence regarding the connection of the storm drain system from the intersection of Strawberry and Alnut down to Nutley street. All other facets of the subdivision approval have been found to be complete and are not subject to further review by the Council. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The proposal involves approximately 25 acres located off of upper Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. The project is to subdivide the property into 25 lots. The detailed description is available in previous staff reports. To address the issue of storm drainage remanded by LUBA, the applicants have had their project engineer, Hammond Engineering, prepare a storm water plan for dealing with transporting the storm water from the intersection of Strawberry and Alnut Streets down Alnut to Nutley, then down Nutley ultimately ending in Ashland Creek. The design is for an 18" line for the Alnut section, increasing to 24" in lower Nutley, and ending in an energy dissipator as the water enters Ashland Creek. . The design of the improvements was based upon the efforts to date regarding the City's storm drain master plan update. Based upon the recommendations of the consulting team looking at the City's overall storm drain system, these improvements will accommodate the estimated storm water flows, not only from the proposed subdivision, but also from the other impervious surfaces in the upstream area which will utilize this system. II. Project Impact The proposed design has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and has been found to be appropriately sized to accommodate the storm water flows. It has also been found to be in conformance with the proposed storm drain master plan. These storm drain improvements will need to be installed concurrently with the other street improvement required for the subdivision in order ensure adequate facilities to accommodate the storm water associated with the new impervious surfaces. These improvements may be installed by the developer or as part of a future local improvement district for the neighborhood. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The specific criterion related to the issue of storm drainage is as follows: That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and f re protection and adequate transportation, and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. (emphasis added) The design provided by the applicants' engineer and reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department indicated that there is now evidence of adequate urban storm drainage, and capacity in that urban storm drain system. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of request with the additional condition, and that Staff be directed to bring back findings supporting the decision. 22. That the storm drain improvements for Alnut and Nutley indicated on the submitted plan from Hammond Engineering (Job No. 97-07)be installed concurrently with all street improvements for the subdivision. 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 SUSAN HUNT, JON PEELE, CHRISTINE ) 5 CRAWELY, PATRICIA HALEY, CICI ) 6 BROWN, BENJAMIN STOTT and TIM ) 7 BRANDY, ) 8 ) 9 Petitioners, ) 10 ) 11 vs. ) 12 ) LUBA No. 98-166 13 CITY OF ASHLAND, 14 ) FINAL OPINION 15 Respondent, ) AND ORDER 16 ) 17 and ) 18 ) 19 MARGARET BROWN, DOUGLAS NEUMAN,) 20 and PAUL HWOSCHINSKY, ) 21 ) 22 Intervenors-Respondent. ) 23 24 25 Appeal from City of Ashland. 26 27 Jon Peele, Ashland; filed the petition for review and argued on his own behalf. 28 29 No appearance by City of Ashland. 30 31 John R. Hassen and William F. Wilson, Medford, filed the response brief and argued 32 on behalf of intervenors-respondent. With them on the brief was Homecker, Cowling, 33 Hassen and Heysell. 34 35 HOLSTUN, Board Member; GUSTAFSON, Board Chair; HANNA, Board Member, 36 participated in the decision. 37 38 REMANDED 2/17/99 39 40 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the 41 provisions of ORS 197.850. Pagel C Q ,� �- I Opinion by Holstun. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals the city's approval of an outline plan for a 25-lot subdivision.' 4 MOTION TO INTERVENE 5 Margaret Brown, Douglas Neuman, and Paul Hwoschinsky (intervenors), the 6 applicants below, move to intervene on the side of the city. There is no opposition to the 7 motion, and it is allowed. 8 FACTS 9 Intervenors applied for approval of an outline plan for a 25-lot subdivision under the 10 Performance Standards Options of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.88. ALUO 11 18.88 allows development pursuant to more flexible design standards than are contained in 12 the city's subdivision ordinance at ALUO 18.80. 13 The subject property is comprised of five tax lots zoned RR-.5-P, Low Density Rural 14 Residential. A narrow unimproved road, Strawberry Lane, crosses the subject property east 15 to west, connecting on the'west side with Westwood Street, an improved street, and on the 16 east side with Alnutt Street. Alnutt Street is a narrow unimproved street that continues north 17 and east to connect with Nutley Street, an improved street where a city storm drainage system 18 is located. Strawberry Lane continues eastward from its intersection with Alnutt Street down 19 a steep hill to connect with paved collector streets. 20 Intervenors' application proposes to pave and improve Strawberry Lane from its 21 intersection with Westwood Street through the development eastward to its intersection with 22 Alnutt Street, but not to improve either Strawberry Lane or Alnutt beyond that point. The 23 proposed development will generate an additional 230 average daily trips [ADTs]. Because 24 travel between the subject property to urban centers is shorter and more direct using the 'Each of the petitioners in this appeal appears pro se. Although several other petitioners are part of this appeal, only petitioner Jon R. Peele signed the petition for review and thus only that petitioner presented argument to the Board. Accordingly, our opinion refers to "petitioner" rather than to "petitioners." Page 2 I Strawberry Lane route than the Westwood Street route, 138 ADTs, or 60 percent, of the 2 traffic generated by the proposed development will use the Strawberry Lane or Alnutt Street 3 route rather than the Westwood Street route. 4 Intervenors' proposed storm drainage plan contemplates underground drainage pipes 5 running from the development eastward and downhill along Strawberry Lane to its 6 intersection with Alnutt Street. There are no underground drainage facilities or surface 7 drainage ditches at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street. 8 On May 12, 1998, the city planning commission approved intervenors' application 9 under ALUO 18.88.030. On appeal to the city council, the council conducted a de novo 10 review on June 16, 1998, during which it heard testimony from planning staff and the public. 11 The council closed the public hearing for deliberations but was unable to reach a conclusion 12 and directed planning staff to bring options regarding improvement of the Strawberry 13 Lane/Alnutt Street area to the next meeting held July 7, 1998. At the meeting on July 7, 14 1998, the city council accepted a "City Council Communication" from the planning director, 15 recommending that the council impose an additional condition, Condition 21, requiring the 16 applicants to provide secondary paved access from the intersection of Strawberry Lane and 17 Alnutt Street to a paved collector street. The Council voted to deny the appeal, and approve 18 the application,with the addition of Condition 21. 19 This appeal followed. 20 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 21 Petitioner argues that the city's findings of compliance with ALUO 22 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) with respect to access, drainage, and the impacts on the city's facilities 23 are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) requires 24 findings 25 "ft]hat adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, 26 paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm 27 drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the Page 3 I development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity." 2 (Emphases added.) 3 A. First and Third Subassignments of Error: Primary Access 4 Petitioner contends, first, that the city made a finding that the Westwood Street route 5 will be the "primary" access for the proposed subdivision. Petitioner argues that the city's 6 finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, given that the Strawberry Lane 7 route is a shorter and more direct route to urban centers and most of the additional traffic 8 generated by the subdivision will use the Strawberry Lane route. Because Strawberry Lane 9 will, in effect, be the "primary" access, petitioner argues the city's finding of compliance with 10 the requirement at ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) that there is "paved access to and through the I l development" is not supported by substantial evidence: 12 In addition, petitioner argues that provisions of the Transportation Element of the 13 city's comprehensive plan and a definition in OAR 660-012-0005 require that access routes 14 be "reasonably direct," and that the challenged decision violates these provisions by 15 designating as "primary" access a route, the Westwood Street route, that is not reasonably 16 direct. 17 The challenged finding states, in relevant part: 18 "Paved access to and through the development will be provided via Westwood 19 Street. Alternate paved access will also be provided from the intersection of 20 Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved collector street." Record 10. 21 Intervenors respond that the city did not make a finding that the Westwood Street 22 route will be the "primary" access, and that even if a finding to that effect is inferred, ALUO 23 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) does not require a finding that any particular road provides "primary" 24 access, only that there is "paved access to and through the development." Intervenors 25 contend that there is substantial evidence in the record that Westwood Street provides "paved 26 access to and through the development." Further, intervenors respond that the cited 27 provisions of the Transportation Element and the definition in OAR 660-012-0005 are not 28 approval criteria applicable to the proposed subdivision. Page 4 I Petitioner has not established that the cited provisions of the Transportation Element 2 or the definition at OAR 660-012-0005, part of the Transportation Planning Rule, are 3 approval criteria applicable to intervenors' request for approval under ALUO 18.88. The 4 cited provisions of the Transportation Element are merely general statements that do not 5 contain any indication that they constitute approval criteria.' Nor has petitioner established 6 that any provision of the Transportation Planning Rule, much less the definition at OAR 660- 7 012-0005, is applicable to intervenors' request. 8 We also agree with intervenors that the city did not make a finding that Westwood 9 Street is the "primary" access route, and that ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) does not require such 10 a finding.' The lack of substantial evidence to support a finding the city did not make and did 11 not need to make is not a basis to reverse or remand the challenged decision. To the extent 12 that petitioner challenges the findings the city did make regarding the role of Westwood 13 Street in complying with ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b), we conclude that those findings are 14 supported by substantial evidence. 15 Petitioner's third subassignment of error is based entirely on the argument in the first 16 subassignment of error that the city erred in designating the Westwood Street route the 17 "primary" access for purposes of ALUO 18.88.030(4)(b), and is rejected for the reasons 18 expressed above. 'For example, the petition for review quotes the following statement from the Transportation Element at page 2: "[w]e must have a well-designed, integrated network that is convenient to use." Petition for Review 13. We discern nothing in such language that could conceivably constitute an approval criterion. 'At oral argument, petitioner argued that, while the terms of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) do not refer to primary" access or any similar concept, the context of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) includes ALUO 18.80.020(B)(9), which requires that "[a]II major means of access to a 'subdivision or major partition shall be from existing streets fully improved to City standards a ' *[J" We understood petitioner to contend that we should infer that the "major means of access" concept in ALUO 18.80.020(B)(9) is equally applicable to the "paved access" requirement of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b). We are not certain that ALUO 18.80.020(B)(9), which appears in a different section of the ALUO, is correctly viewed as providing context for ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b). Moreover, petitioner does not explain how he derives a "primary" access standard in 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) from the "major" access standard in 18.80.020(B)(9). In any event, petitioner's contextual argument is not adequately developed in the petition for review, and we do not consider it further. OAR 661- 010-040(1); Deschutes Development v. Deschutes Ctv, 5 Or LUBA 218, 220(1982). Page 5 I The first and third subassignments of error are denied. 2 B. Second Subassignment of Error: Storm Drainage System 3 With respect to the proposed storm drainage system,the challenged decision finds: 4 "Runoff into conventional curb and gutter systems within the new street will 5 be directed to a new pipe system proposed to be installed from Hitt Road 6 down to the intersection of Strawberry lane and Alnutt Street and connected to 7 the existing city storm drainage system." Record 10. 8 Petitioner argues that the city's finding that the proposed storm drainage system will 9 be "connected to the existing city storm drainage system" is not supported by substantial 10 evidence, because the proposed drainage system stops at the intersection of Strawberry Lane 11 and Alnutt Street, and does not connect to the city's drainage system in Nutley Street or any 12 other drainage system. Accordingly, petitioner argues, the proposed drainage system does 13 not comply with the requirement in ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) for adequate urban storm 14 drainage, and the city's findings to that effect are not supported by substantial evidence. 15 Intervenors respond that Condition 21 of the challenged decision requires that the 16 drainage system constructed to Alnutt Street be connected to the city's drainage system 17 extending from Nutley Street. However, Condition 21 requires only that 18 "secondary paved access, providing through access for the development, be 19 provided from the intersection of Strawberry and Alnutt to a paved collector 20 street." Record 17. 21 We perceive nothing in Condition 21 that requires that the proposed storm drainage system 22 be connected to the city's system in Nutley Street. At oral argument, intervenors contended 23 that, whenever Alnutt Street is paved from Strawberry Lane to Nutley Street, drainage 24 facilities will be included and connected as a matter of course. However, Condition 21 does 25 not require that Alnutt Street be paved or improved; it merely requires that paved access be 26 provided from the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a "paved collector 27 street," which could mean Nutley Street or other paved collector streets below Strawberry 28 Lane. In any case, even if Condition 21 required the improvement of Alnutt Street, it does 29 not require connection of the proposed drainage facilities to the city's system, and intervenors Page 6 I have not identified any basis in this record to conclude that such connections will be made as 2 a matter of course. 3 Finally, intervenors argue that, even if no connection is made with the city's drainage 4 system, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the city's finding of compliance 5 with the ALUO 18.88.030(4)(b) for adequate urban storm drainage. Intervenors cite to 6 testimony by the intervenors' civil engineer that he reviewed the "plans" and that there were 7 "no problems" with the proposed water, sewer or storm drain systems. Record 25. 8 Intervenors suggest this evidence constitutes substantial evidence regarding the adequacy of 9 the proposed storm drainage system. However, the relevant "plan" referred to at Record 25 is 10 presumably the proposed drainage plan at Record 157. If so, that plan depicts the drainage 11 system only on the subject property, and does not depict the terminus of the proposed 12 drainage system at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street, or otherwise 13 indicate what happens to the runoff discharging from intervenors' storm pipe. See also 14 Record 102 (staff report questioning where the runoff will go). 15 Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable person would rely upon in making a 16 decision. City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 298 Or 104, 119, 690 P2d 475 17 (1984). We agree with petitioner that there is not substantial evidence to support the city's 18 finding that the proposed drainage system will be "connected to the existing city storm 19 drainage system." Record 10. Because the decision treats connection of, the new storm 20 drainage pipes to be installed in Strawberry Lane to the city's system as necessary to provide 21 an adequate urban storm drainage system, we further conclude that the city's finding of 22 compliance with ALUO 18.88.030(4)(b) with respect to an adequate storm drainage system is 23 also not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 24 The third subassignment of error is sustained. Page 7 I C. Fourth Subassignment of Error: Capacity 2 Petitioner challenges the city's finding that the proposed storm drainage system and 3 the proposed use of Strawberry Lane as an access route comply with the ALUO 4 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) requirement that the development not cause a city facility to operate 5 beyond capacity. 6 With respect to the capacity of Strawberry Lane, the challenged decision states that 7 "[t]he improvements to Strawberry Lane from [the development] and through 8 its intersection with Alnutt Street will improve access to the area in the overall 9 operation of the intersection, while still allowing the unimproved sections of 10 Alnutt Street and Strawberry Lane to operate at an acceptable level of service. 11 "* * * Alternate paved access will also be provided from the intersection of z 12 Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved collector street. The paving of 13 altemate access will eliminate the dangerous conditions presently existing in 14 the lower Strawberry Lane area. * * * 15 "* * * The County uses 800 ADTs for unpaved roads. Even at maximum 16 build out, the capacity on the street system would not be reached. Also, if the 17 vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, 92 ADTs on Westwood 18 and 138 ADTs on Strawberry Lane, are added to the present traffic counts, the 19 additional vehicle trips are far below street capacity." Record 9-10. 20 Petitioner argues that there is no evidence in the record regarding the capacity of 21 Strawberry Lane in its current narrow, unimproved condition, and thus that the city's findings 22 regarding its capacity and that it will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service are 23 not supported by substantial evidence. 24 The record indicates that Strawberry Lane in its current condition has a capacity of 25 800 ADTs, and that the total traffic on Strawberry Lane including the additional traffic from 26 the proposed subdivision does not exceed 323 ADTs. Record 85. Intervenors respond, and 27 we agree, that the city's findings with respect to the capacity of Strawberry Lane are 28 supported by substantial evidence in the record.- 29 With respect to the proposed drainage system, petitioner repeats that the system ends 30 at the Alnutt Street intersection and argue that collecting and then discharging water at that 31 intersection, where no ditches or other drainage facilities exist, will causc the city's storm Page 8 I drainage facilities to operate beyond capacity. Intervenors repeat their argument, rejected 2 above, that as part of Condition 21 the city's storm drainage system will be extended from 3 Nutley Street to the intersection of Strawberry Lane/Alnutt Street. Further, intervenors 4 reiterate that, even if the proposed drainage system is not connected the city's, the proposed 5 system is adequate. We reject those same arguments here because there is no evidence that 6 the system will be connected to the city's system, and because the decision appears to treat 7 connection with its system as necessary for compliance with ALUO 18.88.030(4)(b). We 8 agree with petitioner that, absent that connection or other means of addressing discharge from 9 intervenors' system, the record lacks substantial evidence that the development will not cause 10 the city's facilities to operate beyond capacity. 11 The fourth subassignment of error is sustained, in part. 12 D. Fifth Subassignment of Error: Condition 21 13 Petitioner contends that the imposition of Condition 21, which requires intervenors to 14 provide paved access from the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved 15 collector street, is inadequate to ensure that the proposed development meets the access 16 requirements of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b). Petitioner argues that Condition 21 does not (1) 17 specify what route the paved access will take from the intersection, (2) subject the resulting 18 paved access to the city's standards with respect to width, sidewalks, drainage systems, etc., 19 or (3) demonstrate that improvements to Strawberry Lane/Alnutt Street can feasibly comply 20 with the city's street standards. Petitioner argues that there is evidence in the record that any 21 route from the intersection must traverse steep terrain, and no evidence in the record 22 demonstrating that such routes can be built to city street standards. Accordingly, petitioner 23 contends, there is no evidence in the record that Condition'21 will ensure compliance with 24 the requirement that there be "paved access to and through the development." 25 The challenged decision finds that 26 "[p]aved access to and through the development will be provided via 27 Westwood Street. Alternate paved access will be provided from the Page 9 I intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved collector street. 2 The paving of alternate access will eliminate the dangerous conditions 3 presently existing in the lower Strawberry Lane area. The development 4 acknowledges responsibility for impacts on the downstream streets and the 5 appropriateness of participation in the expense of improvement by providing 6 for paved access to a collector street as required by Condition 21." Record 10. 7 Intervenors respond that in the above quoted passage the city found that the 8 Westwood Street route provides "paved access to and through the development" and that the 9 city found Condition 21 to serve a different purpose, to provide nonessential "secondary" or 10 "alternate" paved access. Accordingly, intervenors argue, Condition 21 is not intended to and 11 is not necessary to ensure compliance with ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b), and petitioner's 12 argument to the contrary provides no basis to reverse or remand the challenged decision. 13 We agree with intervenors that the city found that Westwood Street provides the 14 "paved access to and through the development" required by ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b), and 15 that the decision does not appear to require the "alternate" paved access reflected in 16 Condition 21 in order to comply with ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b).4 Moreover, even if 17 Condition 21 is intended to satisfy ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b), it is not clear, as petitioner 18 contends, that ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) requires more than "paved access to and through 19 the development." Petitioner's argument is premised on petitioner's view, discussed more 20 fully in the third assignment of error below, that ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) requires that 21 roads subject to that provision meet unspecified city street standards, and that the city 22 misconstrued ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) to the contrary. However, as we determine below in 23 discussing in the third assignment of error, ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) merely requires 24 "paved access" to and through the development, and does not require compliance with any 25 particular set of street standards. To the extent Condition 21 is intended to establish 'Petitioner does not argue that Condition 21 requires secondary paved access in order to comply with the "through"requirement of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b). Page 10 I compliance with ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b), there is substantial evidence in the record that it 2 requires "paved access" to and through the development. 3 The fifth subassignment of error is denied. 4 The first assignment of error is sustained, in part. 5 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 6 Petitioner contends that the city erred in refusing to close the lower Strawberry Lane 7 area to all traffic except for emergency travel. According to petitioner, closing Strawberry 8 Lane is required to prevent that road from being used as the primary access to and from the 9 subdivision and to prevent unsafe conditions. Petitioner objects that the city declined to 10 impose a condition to that effect without any explanation or a reasonable basis for declining 11 to do so. 12 Intervenors respond, and we agree, that there is no applicable legal standard that 13 requires the city to have a reasonable basis for declining to impose a condition of approval 14 proposed by a party to a local proceeding. Salem Golf Club v. City of Salem, 28 Or LUBA 15 561, 572 (1995). 16 The second assignment of error is denied. 17 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 18 Petitioner contends that the city misinterpreted ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) by limiting 19 application of its "paved access" requirement to Westwood Street route., According to 20 petitioner, ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) is not satisfied unless all accessways to and from a 21 proposed development are shown to be "safe and adequate" and comply with the city's street 22 standards. Petitioner repeats his arguments from the first assignment of error that there is not 23 substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that Strawberry Lane can be developed to 24 comply with the city's streets standards and be made to be "safe and adequate." 25 The third assignment of error is a variant of the arguments presented, and rejected, in 26 the fifth subassignment of the first assignment of error, discussed above. The essential Page I I I problem with both sets of arguments is that petitioner has not established that ALUO 2 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) requires more than what its terms appear to require: that there be paved 3 access to and through the development. Petitioner has not adequately identified what obliges 4 the city to ensure that the improvements mandated by Condition 21 satisfy any particular set 5 of street standards. Petitioner makes an oblique reference to street standards in the 6 subdivision provisions of ALUO Chapter 18.80, but.does not explain why those standards 7 apply to development approved under ALUO Chapter 18.88. Even if ALUO Chapter 18.80 8 provides the pertinent street standards for any improvements constructed as a result of 9 Condition 21, petitioner's specific argument trader this assignment of error is that 10 ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) itself imposes those standards on all access routes and thus the 11 city misinterpreted ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) as imposing street standards only on the 12 Westwood Street route. 13 Petitioner does not identify where in the challenged decision the city makes the 14 interpretation to which petitioner objects. The city makes no express interpretations of 15 ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) in the challenged decision, and any implicit interpretations of that 16 provision are not readily discernible. Accordingly, to the extent it is necessary to resolve this 17 assignment of error, we may make our own determination of whether the challenged decision 18 is correct. ORS 197.829(2).5 Doing so is appropriate, as the relevant facts are undisputed, 19 the matter presents a pure question of law, and the legal questions are adequately briefed by 20 the parties. Miller v. Clackamas Countv, 31 Or LUBA 104, 106 (1996). We conclude that 21 the plain text of ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b) imposes no requirements that all access streets 22 comply with any particular street standards. Such requirements may exist elsewhere in the 23 city's code, but we cannot agree with petitioner that those requirements reside in 'ORS 197.829(2)provides: "If a local government fails to interpret a provision of its comprehensive plan or land use regulations, or if such interpretation is inadequate for review, the board may make its own determination of whether the local government decision is correct." Page 12 I ALUO 18.88.030(A)(4)(b). Accordingly, petitioner's argument to the contrary under this 2 assignment of error presents no basis to reverse or remand the challenged decision. 3 The third assignment of error is denied. 4 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5 Petitioner contends that the city committed a procedural error that prejudiced 6 petitioner's substantial rights by accepting the planning staff recommendation to impose 7 Condition 21 after the close of the public hearing without providing petitioner an opportunity 8 to respond to that new "evidence." Petitioner argues that the planning staff recommendation 9 constitutes new evidence impermissibly accepted after the record was closed, and that the 10 city erred in not allowing petitioner to address the feasibility of Condition 21. 11 Petitioner cites Brown v. Union County, 32 Or LUBA 168 (1996) and Tucker v. 12 Douglas Countv, 28 Or LUBA 134 (1994) for the proposition that whenever evidence is 13 accepted after the close of record participants in the proceeding must be given an opportunity 14 to address that new evidence. However, both of those cases involved submissions of 15 evidence by proponents or opponents of the application, not staff recommendations. Staff 16 communications with local decision makers are not considered ex vart contacts that require 17 disclosure and an opportunity for rebuttal. Richards-Kreitzberg v. Marion County, 31 Or 18 LUBA 540, 541 (1996). By the same reasoning, a staff recommendation regarding 19 appropriate conditions of approval is not new "evidence" that might, if submitted by one of 20 the parties, trigger an obligation to reopen the record for rebuttal. 21 The fourth assignment of error is denied. 22 The city's decision is remanded. Page 13 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 5 98-166 on February 17, 1999, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof 6 contained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney 7 as follows: 8 9 Jon R. Peele to P.O. Box 566 11 Ashland OR 97520 12 13 Paul Nolte 14 20 East Main Street 15 Ashland OR 97520 16 17 John R. Hassen 18 William F. Wilson 19 Hornecker Cowling et al 20 PO Box 670 21 Medford OR 97501 22 23 Dated this 17 day of February, 1999. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Gina Beaman 30 Administrative Specialist M E M O R A N D U M TO: JRH FROM: WFW DATE: September 1, 1999 RE: Brown - City Council Narrative; File No. 20,957 On May 12, 1998, the City Planning Commission approved the applicant ' s application for the Strawberry Lane development under Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18 . 88 . 030 . On appeal to the City Council, the Council conducted a de novo review on June 16, 1998, during which it heard testimony from Planning staff and the public. The Council closed the public hearing for deliberation but was unable to reach a conclusion and directed Planning staff to bring options regarding improvement of the Strawberry Lane/Alnutt Street area to the next meeting held July 7, 1998 . At the meeting on July 7, 1998, the City Council accepted a City Council communication from the Planning Director, recommending .that the Council impose an additional condition, Condition 21, requiring the applicants to provide secondary paved access from the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved collector street. The Council voted to deny the appeal, and approve the application with the addition of Condition 21 . Petitioners appealed the Council ' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) . On February 17, 1999, LUBA issued its opinion in which it upheld the City' s decision in every particular except for the adequacy and capacity of the urban storm drainage system. This matter is now back upon remand regarding the urban storm drainage system. WFW: js (JDS\W0RK\FRED\BR0WN.MEM)9/1/99 HAMMOND ENGINEERING dC44GG3 OCR 4G3LQI�l�[ �44L^Qd 4802 Industry Drive MEDFORD, OR 97502 Phone (541) 776-3327 DATE JOB NO. Fax (641) 858-2008 / ATTENTION To n W o \d Nano nn L)k T / I d� RE: (-,LtAcrf l l La x\ WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: • Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications • Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. r DESCRIPTION Z spk Pw'j-S' s I- 2 8` Is ktp THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGN N enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. � ✓� -'+1 .0��_ u.: E- tee_° cj Cy°6I � YY � � :q. yy�t) uR 21 —� Y yetgtb1 q t�. Y 7 u \ cn zr a w � r o ' w i z 2 _ Wi < r N O 'w uj z gs b B e x R I 5Y 7/ 1 it a 8 8 ;fit {aM 6 � ( •• ��� ' q r • �3 f �.�/ IND win W k, C) 'c GC OR a ! Q. kl i2 l66y�.y ekT`1 k 6 ,0 rc it Fr _ 1 zzC W f � a I Y re I s. !�n ��`� �• 3 Sf�. ��� +.iFIN3l � S � L ikt 3 / i / Z t �y£ fu1 fru R F ,i Y 5 f' t to-k ttJ tzfr�53� � N FYf3� 3 t� ✓v i3f R' N� J J >k _ ufFkfSkv" �y / 121 r w � pmN 2 k kk,. y Non 3 q �_ tt fP.31t rH ':&+43v, G \ I \ V \ l� Ge \ O l t L Ilii / �i y i I H Tf A i ul MR Ty NV j`a� dbV Way .�w� I I Q r o yF�a pp Z XHl „•1 y y 3 / Z S W Sm� �a� g r Woo: RR: W �d �M „d;� �_�;� , , i i ,/ � •: i—i—iii �' i �� m rl ^ I i M�ji� f � • • N [tl EE' t a•: ,r.t__ flf� f S•„ r �HSH f i s .:a. / F�1 x aaN ^= pi LLI xti�t{7�ttrr ;IIIR LU jE itFi J( � Z 2 Z �i�'4U'' i � ivi�e ---*8 .tth.£sl-T� n«•s r ) r _ • y d• I E �Z6=. tf _l., tkit'rGG��i .................. J ! \% lv?" . � z [ : r � � I . - ( / G \ \ ( / : it» \\ AG / . � . . . � .\A ! \ \ u § §> � � \ ■ _ ; Z j / . . B ,Hill \ y & \ | � . � . � ? - ._�wdl BEFORE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL 5gJ&M bC✓ 1 1998 In the Matter of Planning ) Action #97-054, Request for ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND Outline Plan Approval for a ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25-Lot Subdivision Under the ) Performance Standards Option ) Located at Strawberry Lane. ) Applicants: Doug Neuman, ) Margaret Brown, and Paul ) Hwoschinsky. ) I. INTRODUCTION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW for approval of an outline plan for a 25-lot subdivision under the performance standards option on property legally described as 391E8AC Tax Lots 101, 200, 201 and 500 located at Strawberry Lane. II . RECITALS 1 . Tax Lots 101 , 200, 201 and 500 of 391E8AC are located adjacent to Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road and are zoned RR- . 5-P; Low Density Rural Residential . , 2 . The applicants are requesting approval of a 25-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. Site improvements are shown on the outline plan and supporting documents are on file at the Department of Community Development. 3 . The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 16, 1998, and held further deliberation on July 7, 1998 , at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. III . CRITERIA . The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in the Performance Standards Options of Chapter 18 . 88 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance : 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS O F LAW S A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. B. That adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, flood plain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. E. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space in common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Ashland City Ordinance Title 18, Chapter 18 . 88 .030( 4 ) provides the approval criteria for an Outline Plan. A. 18 . 88 . 030( 4 ) ( a ) -- That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. DISCUSSION: Chapter 18 . 88 . 030( 3 ) requires an outline plan application to have specific contents. The application package consists of the following items : DRAWINGS : 1 . Site/landscape plan showing the lot layout, building envelopes, open space areas, street right-of-way, and preliminary landscape/irrigation design. Included with< these drawings are details showing pedestrian path design, specific grading plans, and typical street cross-sections . 2 . Fire/tree management plan showing primary and secondary fire zones and suggested plan list . 2 -. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3 . Topographic survey showing terrain, significant trees, existing structures, and utilities . Also included is a slope analysis map delineating slopes of 35 and 40 percent or greater. 4. Sample exterior elevations showing the design concept, building form, proportion, scale, and materials. NARRATIVE: The May 1997 and December 1997 narratives provide the following information: 1 . Type of project. 2. Project information ( i .e. , owner, legal description, density, etc. ) . 3. Introduction. 4. Background information. 5 . Site description/analysis . 6 . Project description. 7 . Design concept for site planning, landscape, grading, and building. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL In addition to the drawings and narrative, photocopies of pictures taken at the site are included. Also included are the draft Strawberry/Westwood Neighborhood Plan of March 18, 1996, clarification of information for the Planning Commission staff submitted on behalf of Applicants, public testimony of March 16 , 1998, expanded findings on appeal of planning action 97-054 of June 10, 1998, and the Traffic Analysis Report of Wes Reynolds of June 15, 1998 . Also included in the findings are the entir'e City of Ashland Planning record, including staff reports and Planning Commission findings and conclusions . The project will be privately financed and construction drawings will begin as soon as outline approval is granted . Current city standards for energy efficiency will be applied to all new homes and enforced by the CC&RS for the project . DISCUSSION : This section also requires that the project shall comply with all applicable requirements and standards described under the Performance Standards Options Section 18 . 88 . The application must be found to comply with street, setback and parking standards, as outlined under the Performance Standards Option. 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . Street Standards . Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road are existing public rights of way. At the present time, Hitt Road is gated and provides access to the upper reservoir area for authorized vehicles . A new road will be built connecting Strawberry Lane to Hitt Road, creating a looped street system. The new road shall be constructed to the requirements for a "residential lane" as described in the performance standards chapter. Hitt Road ' s existing paved surface has not been constructed to city street standards and shall be fully improved as part of the development . The application includes paving from Westwood Street through the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street. The improvements will include pavement, curb and gutter, storm drain facilities, and public sidewalks/paths. The applicants are proposing to provide paved access from the development out Westwood Street to the southern end of the Hassell development which will create paved access to Wimer, a paved collector street, and to pave down Strawberry Lane from the development to the intersection of Alnutt Street and Strawberry Lane. 2 . Parking Standards . Onstreet parking requirements apply to all developments zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3 . While the RR- . 5 zoning district is not specifically noted, 17 onstreet spaces ( parking bays ) will be provided. Also, additional guest parking has been designated on 16 out of 25 lots . 3 . Setbacks . Building envelopes have been delineated on all lots . All envelopes are consistent with front and perimeter setback requirements for the zoning district. Solar setbacks will be evaluated at the time of building permit review. FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that the development has met all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland . B. 18 . 88 . 030( 4 ) ( b) -- That adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. 4 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISCUSSION: 1 . Water . The applicants intend to provide water for domestic use, fire control, and plant irrigation. An existing ten inch water line is located within Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. A ten inch water line is adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. A fire hydrant will be placed every 250 feet of travel distance from any home. Each new home will also have a residential fire sprinkler system. Low water use plumbing fixtures will be installed per city standards. Further, low water plant material and water saving irrigation systems will be installed within the public right-of- way. According to the city, the water line is adequate to handle the proposed development. A can-and-will-serve letter has been provided by the city engineer. 2. Sewer. An existing eight inch sanitary sewer line is located within the Strawberry Lane right-of-way. The applicants will connect the project sanitary sewer service to this line. This line is adequate to support the proposed subdivision. A can-and-will-serve letter has been provided by the city engineer. 3 . Paved access to and through the development. The development will provide paved access from Westwood Street, beginning at the end of the local improvement district from the Hassell development, south to the intersection with Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane will then be widened and paved to and through its intersection with Alnutt Street. Hitt Road will be improved to city standards to where it intersects with the proposed new road. The new road, Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road will create a looped, paved circulation system. The proposed improvements provide paved access from the nearest fully improved collector street, to and along the frontage of the development . Paved access has been proposed from and along the frontage of the development, to Westwood, once these improvements have been made paved access will exist to Orchard, to Wrights Creek, to Wimer, and to North Main. All public streets along this route have adequate capacity to handle the incremental increase in vehicle trips resulting from the project as demonstrated by the traffic study in the neighborhood plan, the applicants ' submissions, and the traffic analysis report . The improvements to Strawberry Lane from Hitt Road and through its intersection with Alnutt Street will improve access to the area in the overall operation of the intersection, while still allowing the unimproved sections of Alnutt Street and Strawberry Lane to operate at an acceptable level of service. 5 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Wes Reynolds Traffic Study demonstrates that the proposed development will not cause any streets providing paved access to and through the development to operate beyond capacity. Paved access to and through the development will be provided via Westwood Street. Alternate paved access will also be provided from the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street to a paved collector street. The paving of alternate access will eliminate the dangerous conditions presently existing in the lower Strawberry Lane area. The development acknowledges responsibility for impacts on the downstream streets and the appropriateness of participation in the expense of improvement by providing for paved access to a collector street as required by condition 21 . The capacity for a paved local collector street is 1500 ADTs . The County uses 800 ADTs for unpaved roads. Even at maximum build out, the capacity on the street system would not be reached. Also, if the vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, 92 ADTs on Westwood and 138 ADTs on Strawberry Lane, are added to the present traffic counts,, the additional vehicle trips are far below street capacity. 4 . Electrical , telephone, and cable television. All on site and new services within the public right-of-way will be underground. The existing services are located within the Strawberry Lane right-of-way. Ten foot wide public utility easements are provided along all street frontages . 5 . Urban storm drainage. The use of natural and standard pipe storm drainage systems are sufficient to handle the increased runoff from the development . As stated in the Hammond Engineering Report, the proposal will incorporate natural drainage swales adjacent to streets and pedestrian walkways to collect and control runoff from private property and public streets. The use of drainage swales will be limited to grades less than 4% in the development. Detention ponds are proposed to be installed throughout the common oped space in order to slow water passage and protect the natural creek environment from increased peak flows resulting from paving and development. Because sediment will accumulate in the detention ponds, a homeowner ' s association will be responsible for the regular sediment removal and maintenance schedule for the system. Runoff into conventional curb and gutter systems within the new street will be directed to a new pipe system proposed to be installed from Hitt Road down to the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street and connected to the existing city storm drainage system. 6 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW �o 6 . Fire and police protection. The proposed fire management plan addressed the concerns raised by the fire chief regarding the development . The proposed project is within the city limits and therefore protected by both fire and police services . As recommended by the fire department, all new homes will have automatic fire sprinkler systems. 7 . Adequate transportation. The proposed development will generate an additional 230 average daily vehicle trips. As demonstrated in the applicants ' findings, traffic count maps, the neighborhood plan, and the Wes Reynolds traffic report, the transportation route to and through the development will operate below capacity. All public streets along this route have adequate capacity to handle the incremental increase in vehicle trips resulting from the project. Resolution 91-39, in the record, does not apply to collector streets. Wimer is a collector street. Therefore, Wimer does have further capacity and may serve as access to the development. 8. The development will not violate the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter. Development will not occur within flood plain corridor lands, areas within 20 feet of any creek designated for riparian preservation, such as Wrights Creek. The proposed Fire Management Plan addresses all the concerns raised by the fire chief . Both the Neighborhood Plan and the Development Plan precede adoption of development on slopes of greater than 35%. The new Hillside ordinance was adopted subsequent to the December 1997 acceptance of the application as complete. The Development Plan is in conformance with the prior ordinance prohibiting development on slopes of greater than 40%. Therefore, the Development Plan is in conformance with the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter. 9 . The council does not interpret the code to require sidewalks on both sides of a street providing access to development. There is not sufficient right-of-way on Strawberry Lane to provide all performance standards, otherwise required. FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that all key city facilities can be adequately,, provided and that no city facilities will be caused to operate beyond capacity. C. 18 . 88 . 030( 4 ) ( c ) -- That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas and unbuildable areas . 7 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . r DISCUSSION: A topographic map with slope analysis has been provided as part of the application materials. The map identifies all areas with slopes of 35% and greater, as well as 40% and greater. Because the application was filed prior to the recent adoption of hillside development standards, all building envelopes must be located on lands with slopes of less than 40%, rather than 35% as established under the new hillside standards. Consistent with this standard, all of the building envelopes have been located on slopes of less than 40%. 1 . Significant Trees The location of existing significant trees and shrubs have been noted on the applicants ' drawing. The less sloped portions of the development have larger pines and oaks scattered throughout the property. The steeper sections tend to be densely covered with a combination of scrub oak, manzanita, and madrone trees . The building envelopes and private driveways have been located to avoid having to remove significant trees. Given the severity of slopes on the Brown property, much of the parcel is considered unbuildable and will remain in a natural state. A fire management plan and tree protection plan has been provided by the applicant . 2 . Natural drainageway A natural drainage .swale runs south to north through the lower portion of the project. The drainage swale represents the southern extent of the east fork of Wrights Creek . The natural drainageway has been incorporated into the project ' s design. Sections of the drainageway north and south of Strawberry Lane are located in areas identified as private open space and will not be disturbed. See applicants ' drawings. Building envelopes have been located at a minimum of 20 feet from the top of the creek bank to reduce impacts on the drainage areas resulting during home construction. FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that the existing and natural features of the land have been identified in the plan of development and have been included in the open space, common areas and unbuildable areas . D. 18 . 88 . 030( 4 ) ( d ) -- That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. DISCUSSION: The surrounding area is zoned rural and woodland residential, while the area to the southeast is currently outside Ashland ' s city 8 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW limits . Much of the street system is already in place, with the exception of the new section of road in this project proposed for connecting upper Hitt Road to upper Strawberry Lane_ Adjacent parcels have frontage along existing public rights of way. The physiographic constraints apparent in this area will be the key factor in determining the future development of adjacent lands rather than any element of this project . The development of the Hwoschinsky property will not prevent development of the Kneebone property to the north. Access to the Kneebone property is located off Sunnyview Drive. The city performance standards zoning would allow clustering of lots in this area, which is the flatter portion of the Kneebone property, without .loss of density. The southerly portion of the property is both steep and environmentally sensitive due to Wrights Creek. Under present ordinances, the southerly portion of the Kneebone property would be difficult, if not impossible to develop. The concerns of the Kneebone property owners have been satisfied because adequate city facilities exist or will be built as part of the development to provide the required services to the development . The proposed development will not prevent the Kneebone property from being developed . FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. E. 18 . 88 .030( 4 ) ( e) -- That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that, if developments are done in phases, the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project . DISCUSSION: All private common landscape areas, drainage swales, sidewalks, detention ponds, and open spaces will be maintained by a homeowner ' s association, and the final association agreement will be provided prior to final plan approval . The homeowners association will also be responsible for maintenance of the drainage swales in the public right-of-way. The long term maintenance of the project ' s fire prevention and control plan will be the responsibility of the homeowner ' s association. The proposed private open space serves the following purposes : 1 . The preservation of significant trees ; 2 . The location of natural drainage in riparian areas; 9 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3 . The protection of the view shed from the downtown area and from across the canyon; and 4 . Stabilization of areas of significant slope. The total private open space is 7 . 37 acres, which is 29% of the total development. This exceeds the 5% required under city standards . As mentioned in the narrative, the open space is private due to the sensitivity of the area. Public trails to the open space would create a potential fire hazard and disturb the natural drainage way/riparian area. The applicants are also providing a meandering path within the public right-of-way for pedestrian access . FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that adequate provisions exist for the maintenance of open space and common areas. F. 18. 88 .030( 4 ) ( f ) -- That the a proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. DISCUSSION: The existing zoning for this area is RR- . 5P. This zone allows for half acre zoning. Under this zoning, the applicant could have 30 units . Due to site constraints, preservation of the rural character of the area, and compliance with the neighborhood plan the applicant is requesting 25 units . The proposed density complies with Section 18 . 88 . 40 for the ' underlying zoning designation for the properties. The density for this project has been calculated as follows: Base density: 1 . 2 DU/Acre x 25 .04 acres = 30 units Proposed project density: 25 homes ( 2 existing ) FINDING: Based upon the record and the above discussion, it is found that the proposed density meets the applicable base and bonus density standards . V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the evidence submitted with this application and the discussions, conclusions, and findings made above, the Ashland City Council makes the following conclusions of law: 10 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW / y 1 . Based on the record of the public hearing on this matter, the Ashland City Council concludes that the proposed 25-lot subdivision, under the Performance Standards Option, is supported by evidence in the record . Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action No. 98-054 . The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1 . That all proposals of the applicants be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2 . That the final design of the intersection of Hitt Road and new road comply with city site distance standards. Compliance with site distance standards to be indicated at the time of final plan approval . 3 . The location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, including, but not limited to, drainage soils, detention ponds and pipe systems, be submitted at the time of final plan for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. 4. The building setbacks along the perimeter of the project site shall comply with yard requirements of the RR- . 5 zoning district. 5 . That a draft copy of the CC&Rs for the 'homeowner' s association be provided at the time of final plan. CC&Rs to describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common open space in accordance with the fire prevention and control plan. CC&Rs to provide time schedule for the regular maintenance of storm water detention systems and fire prevention and control strategies . 6 . That the central open space area shown on the final plan between the new road, Hitt Road and Strawberry Lane match the size and configuration of the area shown on the plan presented at the February 10, 1998, meeting of the Planning Commission. 7 . That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, be installed along the frontage of each lot prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Street trees with 'root barriers to be installed within the planting strip/park - row prior to the certificate of occupancy. Root barrier design to be submitted for review and approval at the time of final plan;, 8 . That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland . 11 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9 . That a site, size and species specific landscaping plan incorporating the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission for all common areas and planting strips be submitted for review at ._ the time of final plan. 10. That any installation of fencing along the boundary of the open space not exceed a height of four feet . 11 . That a drainage and grading plan for the project be submitted at the time of final plan for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Division. 12 . That engineered construction drawings for all streets and shared private driveways be provided in final plan. Plans to include profiles and cross sections, indicating cuts and fills, erosion control and slope stability and methodologies consistent with the standards for hillside lands contained in AMC 18. 62 . 13 . That all proposed fencing adjacent to the open space along the fork of Wrights Creek not exceed a height of four feet and be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the physical and environmental constraints chapter 18 . 62, flood plain corridor lands, if applicable. 14 . That all open space improvements ( i .e. landscaping, detention ponds, irrigation, etc. ) be installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the subdivision chapter prior to signature of the final survey plat . 15 . That additional right of way be dedicated along Hitt Road and Strawberry Lane, if required by the Public Works Department, to allow adequate room for the proposed street improvements. 16 . That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be complied with prior to the signature of the final survey plat and or the issuance' of a certificate of occupancy for each new home. Such requirements to include the installation of interior sprinkler systems in all new homes . 17 . That written authorization from the Oregon Division of State Lands be provided for the proposed development adjacent to Wrights Creek prior to final plan approval . 18 . That a deed restriction be placed in the CC&Rs for the project indicating that all understory vegetation associated with the Wrights Creek drainageway environment be retained to protect stream and habitat quality. Understory materials may be systematically replaced with like horticultural varieties of plant species when approved by the Ashland Planning Department in coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 12 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19 . That a plan describing tree protection strategies consistent with the standards in Chapter 18 . 62 for hillside lands be submitted at the time of final plan approval . Plan to describe timing and implementation of such tree protection measures in accordance with the construction of all public improvements ( i . e. streets and utilities ) and shared driveways . 20 . That it is recommended that all construction traffic go by way of paved streets . 21 . That secondary paved access , providing through access for the development, be provided from the intersection of Strawberry and Alnutt to a paved collector street. ADOPTED and APPROVED by the Ashland City Council on September 1 , 1998 . atherine Shaw, Mayor 13 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW o o A, -• w - w o a ?: w w �' -. o !Y � o, ° c ° rt � w °= c o. N o o' `° » c °o H N. w o 7 �' •d °y ° =' m fD y m x n a d w ,� � � w Z m m � m � A °o o. 5. 'A � o. fD� rr ^ o o E* � � m 7 9 7 A y w ,� m 'o .°m. CD w g A = a o ° N X n CD CD 0 0 0 CD N N C 3 b a m CD � z Q ( Nom: . � 0 y ° n D CD N Q. o N O n N 1(pl 1W n T • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ c ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ a C Y co iD n v 3 oaw (m o w c n 0 w °i w b .�. 7 N• N o ° ° w 0 w P. ry Q. El n N n N N w S w v N ti 9 R M O c (D i9 Cl) CD �j O tD !D tD w O w w b o O 7 O w o p .. ty o CD ° o w O °w o " � /D N 7 C � W � x.+ � b •Oi ^t N b 'O N CD CD ° 7 ° r a o o N D w G1 c Q. w Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Buildable Lands Inventory September 21, 1999 Submitted by: John McLau¢hlir� Approved by: Mike Freeman m,U Title: Resolution adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Synopsis: Beginning in November, the Planning Department began conducting an inventory of the City's buildable lands utilizing the efforts of Brandon Goldman, an Assistant Planner funded by the state's Transportation and Growth Management Program. The inventory was conducted in accord with state statutes and policies. The final conclusion reached is that there are adequate lands within the city's urban growth boundary to accommodate the projected growth in all land classifications for the next 20 years. This includes land for single family, multi-family, and commercial/industrial development. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Background Information: The Department of Community Development began the inventory of Buildable Land in November of 1998 and concluded the inventory in April of 1999. A Planning Commission Study Session was held on April 27, 1999 in which the methodology and results of the land availability component of the BLI were discussed. A second Planning Commission Study session was held on June 29, 1999. The results of the BLI and analysis of past development trends were presented as review of Study Session 1. In addition the housing needs analysis was presented as was the land need/availability projections for each comprehensive plan designation. On August 31, 1999 the Planning Commission reviewed the final draft of the BLI and Housing Needs Analysis. At this extension of their regular meeting (Aug 10, 1999) the commission heard public testimony. The Commission voted to recommend the approval of the draft BLI to the City Council. Definitions Buildable Land is defined as residentially designated vacant,partially vacant, and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater. unless otherwise provided for at the time of acknowledgment, and land within the 100-year flood plain was not considered buildable in conducting this BLI. Those tax lots where the surrounding land uses are compatible with more intensive use, and the improvement value is less than or equal to 30% of the total property value, are listed as redevelopable for the purposes of this inventory. BLI Findings The Buildable Lands Inventory revealed that The City of Ashland currently contains enough land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate future housing needs, and commercial land needs, within the 20 year planning period(1998-2018). The housing need projection was based on the City's adopted population projection for the year 2018 of 22,473 persons. It was calculated that a total of 1,312 new housing units would need to be built to house the population in the City of Ashland by 2018. Based on past development trends (1990-1998), it is anticipated that each Comprehensive Plan designation has adequate buildable acreage to satisfy a 20 year need for residential housing within that designation except High Density Residential, and Woodland Residential. The needed housing units in these areas could be accommodated in areas where there exists a surplus of land in compatible plan designations such as MFR and LDR respectively. In total there exists approximately 541 buildable acres (residential) within the UGB, and residential development within 20 years is,expected to consume only 192 acres. An additional component of this inventory was an assessment of redevelopable land. In total there is 301 acres of land within the UGB that is currently considered redevelopable. The redevelopable lands were inventoried, but not included as "available buildable land" in conducting the net buildable land assessment. In aggregate, it is anticipated that there is sufficient land within the UGB to accommodate commercial and industrial development. Although commercial and industrial development is difficult to forecast, projections based on past commercial development trends (1990-1998) predict that there will be demand for about 105 acres of buildable land designated for commercial, industrial or employment during the planning period(Table 7). As there currently is over 149 such acres available zoned C-1, E-1 or M-1, no expansion of the UGB to accommodate commercial development is necessary. However, the available land is primarily zoned M-1, and there may be a deficit in lands zoned C-1 and E-I by the close of the planning period. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY IN SUPPORT OF THE ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECITALS: A. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the urbanization of land within the urban growth boundary based upon the available inventories of specific land classifications. B. The City's Urban Growth Boundary is designed based upon the provision of at least a 20 year supply of residential lands in needed housing categories. C. ORS 197.298 sets specific requirements for the provision of buildable lands for needed housing within an urban growth boundary. The City of Ashland resolves as follows: SECTION 1. That the City of Ashland adopts the Buildable Lands Inventory 1998-99 as the official inventory in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 21 day of September, 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Buildable �..4. Lands oo Inventor CITY OFASHLAIYD 1998-99 D ' T RAI� Prepared by: City of Ashland Dept. of Community Development Planning Division .. OREGON.' City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory FGO The purpose of conducting a"Buildable Lands Inventory" (BLI) is to allow a community to increase the probability that needed housing will be built. Through the process of inventorying vacant, partially vacant, and redevelopable lands, a community can determine whether or not there exists an adequate supply of buildable land within their Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). If it is determined that future housing needs will require more buildable land than is available, the community's Planning Commission and City Council can make informed decisions, and implement the appropriate measures to provide for the housing need. To a certain extent, the methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are based on state policies. The City of Ashland must comply with the requirements of House Bill 2709 as codified in Oregon Revised Statutes. House Bill 2709 provides definitions of buildable lands (ORS 197.295) , requirements for coordination of population projections (ORS 195.036), and sets forth specific requirements regarding the assessment of buildable lands for needed housing (ORS 197.298). In addition ORS 197.296 established specific requirements for planning and plan implementation for needed housing types. The process of conducting a BLI can be divided into two components. This land component is a broad-brush assessment of whether the UGB contains enough land to satisfy the community's 20 year housing need, assuming development continues at the average density that has recently occurred. The second component is the housing needs analysis. Through the analysis of past development trends, population projections, and local demographic information, we can estimate the quantity and types of housing units likely to be needed within the planning period. 1 Buildable Lands Inventory Table of Contents Buildable Lands Inventory- Land Component Page Table 1 Residential Density Assumptions............................................................. 3 Table 2.1 Buildable and Redevelopable acres by Zone designations....................... 4 Table 2.2 Gross and Net buildable acres by Zone designations............................... 5 Table 2.3 Total Buildable Acres by BLI status......................................................... 5 Past Development Trends (1990-1998) Table 3.1 Residential housing units built by Housing Type and Density................. 7 Table 3.2 Residential housing units built by Comprehensive Plan designation....... 7 Table 3.3 Residential housing units built by Zone designation................................ 8 Table 3.4 Commercial Units built by Zone designation............................................ 8 Housing Needs Analysis Component PopulationForecast.................................................................................................... 9 PersonsPer Household.............................................................................................. 10-11 NeededHousing Units............................................................................................... 10-11 Table 4.1 Population and Housing Trends (1970 to present)................................... 15 Table 4.2 Households by Occupancy............................................:............................ 15 Table 4.3 Projected Number of Needed Housing Units by Type within 20 yrs........ 16 Needed Housing Distribution Table 5.1.1 Historical Distribution(1990-98) of Housing Units by Comprehensive Plandesignation ..........................................................:................................. 19 Table 5.1.2 Modifies Percentages of Distribution by Type - to reflect anticipated development (Needed Housing Mix)............................................................. 19 Table 5.2 Anticipated Distribution of Needed Housing Units................................... 20 Table 5.3 Residential Land need (acres) by Housing Type and Comprehensive Plandesignation............................................................................................. 21 Land Need-Availability Comparison Table 6 Residential Land Need -Availability Comparison by Comprehensive Plan designation..................................................................................................... 22 Table 7 Commercial Land Need-Availability Comparison by Zone designation..... 22 Table 8 Residential Housing Need - Potential Housing Units Comparison by Comprehensive Plan designation................................................................... 24 SummaryConclusions........................................................................................................... 25 Definitions.............................................................................................................................. 26-27 Land Component Field work included site visits to all tax lots within the UGB. Vacant and partially vacant tax lots were examined closely to identify physical constraints to development. This examination yielded a gross percentage of each lot that would be suitable for development. This percentage was used to determine the net buildable acres on each parcel. , The City of Ashland had Aerial photographs taken of the entire UGB in April of 1998. These photographs were digitized to include elevation contour lines, which enabled accurate determination of slope, and were thus useful in determining the percentage of buildable land on any given parcel. The following definitions were used in evaluating land availability: "Buildable Land" means residentially designated vacant,partially vacant, and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards(Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater unless otherwise provided for at the time of acknowledgment, and land within the 100-year flood plain was not considered buildable in conducting this BLI. Vacant: Vacant lots were those parcels that were free of improvements (structures)and were available for future residential development. Alternative designations were assigned to those parcels that, although physically vacant, were not considered suitable for residential development. Vacant/Undevelopable =Unbuildable acres include vacant areas: 1)with slopes in excess of 35% 2)within the flood way 3)within the 100 year flood plain 4) in resource protection areas 5)not expected to have service availability within 20 years(City Capital Improvement Plan, Future Street Dedication Map) Vacant/Airport= land reserved for Ashland Municipal Airport expansion Vacant/Open Space-Parks = land reserved as parks and open space Vacant/Parking= Paved parking lots Partially Vacant: Partially vacant lots were determined to have buildable acreage if the lot size was equal to, or greater than, the minimum lot size requirements set for residential density [in each zone]. Redevelopable Parcels Redevelopable parcels were identified by dividing the Improvement Value by the Total 2 Value (IV + LV=Total Value). Those tax lots where the surrounding land uses are compatible with more intensive use, and the improvement value is less than or equal to 30% of the total property value, were listed as redevelopable (RD) in the City's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. Residential Density Density of potential residential development was determined by referencing the City's Comprehensive plan. The number of dwelling units allowed per acre, for each zone, includes accommodations for public facilities (see Table 1). The density allowance coefficient(ie. "13.5" du per acre in R-2) was initially determined to include accommodations for needed public facilities land, thus a"gross buildable acres"- to- "net buildable acres" reduction, for public facilities, has been omitted. Table 1: Residential density assumptions: Zone Assumed Density Type R-1-3.5 7.2 units per acre Suburban Residential (SR),Townhouses,Manufactured Home R-1-5& R-1-5-P 4.5 units per acre Single-Family Residential (SFR) R-1-7.5& R-1-7.5-P 3.6 units per acre Single-Family Residential(SFR) R-1-]0&R-1-10-P 2.4 units per acre Single-Family Residential(SFR) R-2 13.5 units per acre Multi-Family Residential(MFR) R-3 20 units per acre High Density Residential(HDR) RR-.5& RR-.5-P 1.2 units per acre Rural Residential,Low-Density(LDR) 1{C 13.5 (as R2) Health Care/Senior housing wR Slope contingent woodland Reserve,Environmental Constraints RR-1 0.6 units per acre Rural Residential,Low-Density(LDR) Gathering Information Field work included site visits to all tax lots within the UGB. Vacant and partially vacant tax lots were examined closely to identify physical constraints to development. This examination yielded a gross percentage of each lot that would be suitable for development. This percentage was used to determine the net buildable acres on each parcel. The City of Ashland had Aerial photographs taken of the entire UGB in April of 1998. These photographs were digitized to include elevation contour lines, which enabled accurate determination of slope, and were thus useful in determining the percentage of buildable land on any given parcel. As the percentage of buildable land on each parcel is directly related to the presence of physical constraints to development, the City of Ashland Hazard maps were digitized to conduct a GIS spatial analysis to exclude lands within the flood plain from consideration. 3 Results of land inventory The inventory of available buildable land revealed that there exists over 600 net acres within Ashland's UGB that are suitable for development. The following tables (2.1-2.3) show the distribution of these buildable acres by zone, and Comprehensive Plan designation. Table 2.1 Buildable and Redevelopable Acres by Zone:All lots (UGB and City combined) ZONE p of Parcels Net Buildable Acres Redevelopable Acres (Vacant and Partially Vacant) (Gross Acreage of RD parcels) C-1 55 7.48 24.27 C-1-13 21 0.15 0.75 E-1 102 27.79 19.81 F-5 10 15.80 4.44 GC 8 6.02 6.88 HC 22 8.32 0.35 M-t 21 44.35 9.64 NM 12 29.85 0.00 R-1-10 87 20.47 7.25 R-1-10-P 80 21.35 12.28 R-1-3.5 7 12.51 0.00 R-1-5 82 13.49 9.11 R-1-5-P 144 101.27 20.40 R-1-7.5 232 33.9 22.91 R-1-7.5-P 26 7.86 1.67 R-2 150 15.28 28.26 R-2-P 6 3.25 0.25 R-3 72 7.39 7.08 RR-.5 38 5.11 119 RR-.5-P 66. 40.54 13.20 RR-1 4. 3.12 0.00 RR-5 127. 163.01 70.54 so 12. 11.01 31.61 WR 37. 5.11 8.03 4 Table 2.2 Gross and Net-Buildable Acres by Comprehensive Plan Designation:All lots(UGB and City combined) COMPPLAN Gross Acreage Net Buildable Acres Redevelopable Acres (of parcels included in BLI) (Reduced by excluding physical (gross Acreage) constraints to development and acreage for public right of ways) Airport 21.56 0.88 0.00 Commercial 41.56 8.47 26.56 Downtown 1.73 0.15 - 0.75 Employment 150.25 85.83 35.75 Health Care 10.82 8.32 .22 HDR 17.95 8.10 6.34 Industrial 75.15 54.66 12.49 LDR 147.91 40.07 25.97 MFR 105.01 46.65 34.53 OS 2.10 0.00 0.40 PF 29.01 7.50 0.24 SFR 483.51 215.56 105.96 SFRR 177.52 77.40 14.35 SOU 58.89 11.64 31.02 Suburban R 63.77 36.46 5.58 Woodland 139.15 3.67 0.52 Table 2.3 Totals Buildable Acres by BLI Status. (UGB and City combined) BLI_STATUS N of Parcels Gross Acreage Net Buildable Acres V 495 492.47 370.40 PV 239 419.38 234.96 RD 452 300.92 300.92 V/UnDev 105 165.69 0.00(not buildable) V/Airport 6 19.81 0.00(not buildable) V/OS-Park 60 56.42 0.00(not buildable) V/Parking 28 12.6 0.00(not buildable) 5 Past Development Trends In order to determine the actual density and actual mix of housing development that has occurred in the City of Ashland since the last periodic review(1990), data was gathered by analyzing City building permit data from January 1990 through December 1998. These data were entered into the GIS tax lot record database file, allowing for future GIS analysis. Types of Housing identified Definition TYPE For the purposes of this Housing Development Trend analysis,the definitions in OAR 660-007-0005, ORS 197.015 and 197.295 shall apply.In addition,the following definitions apply: MFR "Multiple Family Housing"means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. MFR-D "Multiple Family Housing Detached"means detached housing where two(2)or more dwelling units are located on a single lot. MH "Manufactured Dwelling"means: (a)Residential trailer,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed before January 1, 1962; (b)Mobile home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed between January 1, 1962,and June 15, 1976,and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction; (c)Manufactured home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards regulations in effect at the time of construction; (d)Does not mean any building or structure subject to the structural specialty code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.100 to 455.450 or any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. MHP "Manufactured Dwelling"(defined above[MH])located in a"Manufactured Dwelling Park" "Manufactured Dwelling Park"means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings are located within . 500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Manufactured dwelling park'does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. MU "Mixed Use Housing"means a housing unit that is attached to a commercial development within a commercial zone SFR "Detached Single Family Housing"means a housing unit that is free standing and separate from other housing units. SFR-A "Attached Single Family Housing"means common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. GA "Government Assisted Housing"means housing that is financed in whole or part by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to 456.720,or housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority. 6 Table 3.1 Residential Housing Units Built 1990-1998 by Housing Unit Type and Density Housing Unit Type Number Actual Actual Net %of of Units Gross Density total Built Density 30%Density units (1990-98) (units per Reductionfor built Public Facilities gross acre) Multi-family residential(MFR) 458 17.1 11.97 32.61% Multi-family residential detached: (MFR-D) 62 8.28 5.80 4.4% Manufactured housing units: (MH) 6 9.03 6.32 0.5% Manufactured housing units in Parks: (MHP) 23 15.53 10.87 1.6% Mixed Use,commercial with residential unit(s): (MU) 20 11.52 10.87 1.4% Single-family residential Detached: (SFR) 719 6.67 4.67 51.1% Single-family residential Attached: (SFR-A) 75 26.19 18.33 5.3% Government assisted housing: (GA) 44 8.79 6.15 3.1% Total Units Built 1407'z s Table 3.2 Residential Housing Units Built 1990-1998 by Comprehensive Plan Designation Comprehensive Plan Designation Number of housing units built Percentage of (1990-98) total units built(1407) Commercial 28 2.0% Downtown 4 0.3% Employment 13 0.9% Health Care - 279 19.8% High Density Residential 93 6.6% Low Density Residential 46 3.3% Multi-family Residential 181 12.9% Single-family Residential 676 48.0% Single-family Residential Reserve 3 0.2% Southern Oregon University 36 2.6% Suburban Residential 42 3.0% woodland 6 0.4% 7 Table 3.3 Residential Housing Units Built 1990-1998 by Zone Designation ZONE Total Dwelling Units Built Average Dwelling Units Acres used (1990-1998) Per Gross Acre (4DU)l(Avg Du per Acre) C-1 29 20.20 1.43 C-1-13 4 18.14 0.05 E-1 14 7.19 1.95 HC 279 18.4 15.16 R-1-10 58 4.17 13.9 R-1-10-P 96 5.94 16.16 R-1-3.5 42 17.99 2.33 R-1-5 76 7.36 10.33 R-1-5-P 299 8.55 34.97 R-1-7.5 106 5.59 18.96 R-1-7.5-P 26 4.45 5.84 R-2 124 15.06 8.23 R-2-P 61 10.48 5.82 R-3 98 19.36 5.06 RR-.5 13 2.61 4.98 RR-.5-P 34 2.45 13.88 RR-1 2 2.53 0.79 RR-5 2 1.0 2.0 SO 36 16.200 122 WR 8 1.49 1 5.37 Total Housing Units=1407 - Total Acres Used-1691A3 Table 3.4 Sub-Category Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Lands ZONE Number of Commerdd d dopmeva(199 9Q Floor Am Tmil Aae9 Uud liududm C A MUI rep..trd iu Sq.F1 ie C-1 9 78296 C-1-D 3 12798 1 I3F E-1 40 250874 .3435..£, HC 2 2476 r 6.49 M-1 2 16200 1.38 SO 2 32893 ,17.99 R-2 - 3 11818 4.16 TOTALS 61 405355 96.28. 8 Housing Needs Analysis Component The purpose of this component is to discern whether the UGB contains enough buildable land to accommodate the 20 year housing need at recently developed densities. In the land component we examined past development trends and determined the actual average densities of development in each zone. (Table 3.3). In this portion of the Buildable lands inventory we determine Ashland's expected population increase, factoring in an average number of persons per household, and we can estimate the number of needed housing units. By applying the average densities from recent development we can determine how much land is needed to accommodate these units. Finally, by comparing the projected needs for residential land to the supply of buildable land, we can determine what measures, if any, are needed to meet housing needs. Population Forecast: The population forecast used in conducting this portion of the housing needs analysis was established in accordance with ORS 195.036. Jackson County served as the regional coordinating body for the forecast. The projections utilized were agreed upon and adopted by both Jackson County and the City of Ashland (see chart below). The population estimate for 1998 (19,220 people living within Ashland) was the most recent (December 1998) estimate from the Portland State University Center for Population, Research and Census. The population of Ashland grew by 2,601 persons (21%) between 1970 and 1980. From 1980 to 1990 Ashland saw a population increase of 1,291 (8.6%). Since 1990 Ashland's population has grown by 2,986 (18%). The projected population for 2018 was AsNaM PbpAafion PrgeWon adjusted for those in large group quarters and divided 24000 by an assumed rate of 2.2 Z+8=2M persons per household. 220 00.,------------------------`---------- ---- .-- The Southern Oregon 20000 -____-----_----_--- -'�. University dormitories will house 750 students in 18D00 - —Hstaic Fbp Spring Quarter 1999, 16000 ---- - --------------------------- Roledicn according to the SOU 14000 - ------------------------------------------- Housing Office. The 2018 Population forecast of 12000" --------------------------"------------------ 22,473 people, minus the 10000 750 students living in 1970 1975 1990 19B5 1990 1995 2ODO 2M5 2n0 any 20M large group quarters, equals a projected population living in households of 21,723. Subtracting the current population (19,220) from this projections yields an estimated population increase of 2503 people living in households during the planning period. 9 Persons Per Household: A household includes all people who occupy a housing unit, such as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as separate living quarter. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing lists an average of persons per household to be 2.22 for Ashland. The 1990 Census data for Ashland distinguishes between persons per owner-occupied units (2.45) and renter occupied units (1.98). The average household size has decreased nationally and locally over the last 3 decades, and it is likely to continue decreasing. Oregon's statewide household size averaged 2.6 in 1980, and 2.52 in 1990, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This trend is expected to continue statewide as well as locally. The declining household size suggests (ceteris paribus) a shift toward a demand for smaller sized housing (Leland Consulting Group, Planning for Residential Growth: 1997) The 1990 household size average of 2.22 for Ashland has decreased slightly to 2.20 persons per household by 1998. The development trend between 1990 and 1998 reveals a temporary shift toward an even smaller household size (1.93). In this period the population grew by 2,720, and 1407 new dwelling units were constructed (2720/1407= 1.93 persons per household). This smaller household size is in part the result of the inflated number of senior and student family housing built in this period, as student and senior households are generally single or double occupancy. The development of specific housing types is cyclical, thus it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in the amount of senior and student housing built during the planning period. For this reason we are basing the housing needs projection upon the city wide average of 2.2 persons per household instead of recent household size trends. We have included calculations based upon alternative persons per household scenarios (1.75 pph, 1.9 pph and 2.4 pph) in order to illustrate how relatively minor shifts in pph may result in dramatic differences in the amount of housing needed. Needed Housing Units Projection: The 1990 Census of Population and Housing identifies 7204 housing units in Ashland. Between 1990 and 1998, 1,407 new housing units were built. Thus, by adding these figures we can estimate that there are currently 8,611 housing units within the City of Ashland. `Projected Population in Households' divided by `Projected Household Size' yields the `Projected Total Number of Households: (21,723)/(2.2) = 9874 households. By predicting that 9874 housing units will be needed, and only 8,611 currently exist, we can forecast that approximately 1,263 new housing units will be needed through the planning period. This assumes 2.2 persons per household and does not include additional units needed to accommodate desired vacancy rates. Although 2.2 persons per household is the anticipated ratio (as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan), we have included in this summary report projections based on 1.75, 1.9 and 2.4 persons per household in new development, to reflect alternative scenarios. When we anticipate a household size of 1.75pph for the increased population, 1430 new housing units would be needed (no adjustment for vacancy rates). With a household size of 1.9 for the increased population 1317 new housing units would be needed (no adjustment for vacancy rates). A household size of 2.4 would result in a projected total number of housing units needed of 1,043 (no adjustment for vacancy rates). 10 Needed Housing Units Based on Persons Per Household 3 Vacancy Pdlusnnnt - e Nce ded Housin Units - 1600 1400 1200 UNITS 1000 NEEDED 600 1630 13'17 1263 6D0 043 4D0 200 O 1.75 1:9 2.2 2.4 Persons Per Household In order to adjust for a desirable vacancy rate, the projected needed housing unit numbers were multiplied by 1.026 (2.6%vacancy rate) for Single-family units, and 1.05 (5% vacancy rate) for Multi-family units [For the purpose of this adjustment, MFR, MFR-D, MHP(manufactured housing in parks), GA, and MU dwelling units were considered renter-occupied Multi-family units; whereas SFR, SFR-A, and MH (manufactured housing not in parks)were considered owner-occupied Single-family units.] (Table 4.3). Utilizing the projection based on 2.2 persons per household (1,263 units needed), it was calculated that a total of 1,312 new housing units will need to be built to house the population in the City of Ashland in 2018. Many factors contribute to what form or `type' of housing these 1312 new units will take. Age demographics, persons per household, income demographics, land prices, construction costs, are just a few contributing factors which shape the local housing market. In order to conduct a housing needs analysis that is relevant to Ashland, local information was gathered and examined. Population Demographics: Since 1980, as a share of total population, the proportions of persons 5 to 17, 25 to 54, and 65 years and older have all increased; while the share of persons aged under 5, 18 to 24, and 55 to 64 years have declined (SORSI/SOU. 1993). The shift toward an older population is consistent with national trends as the "baby boom" generation moves through the age demographics. Locally the shift to an older population can also be attributed to the in-migration of retirees, and a simultaneous out-migration of people aged 18-24. Time Magazine reported on 11 this trend by listing the City of Ashland as one of the top ten retirement destinations in the nation (March 8, 1999 Vol. 153 NO. 9). The increase in persons aged 5 to 17 reflects the population demographic bulge created by the"baby buster" (children of baby boomers) generation. The housing units developed between 1990 and 1998 reveal a pattern of development that enables us to forecast the City of Ashland's housing needs through the next 20 years. In this period (1990-98), 1407 units were constructed and of these 51% were Single-family residential detached (SFR); 33%were Multi-family residential (MFR); 5% were Single-family residential attached (SFR-A); 4.4% were Multi-family residential detached (MFR-D) ; 3.1% were government assisted (GA); 1.6%were Manufactured housing units in parks (MHP); 1.4%were Mixed Use developments (MU); and the remaining 0.5% were manufacture housing units not in parks (MH) (See Table 3.1). We predict a slight modification of these percentages of housing types will occur during the planning period and these adjusted percentages are applied to the needed housing units figure of 1,312 and a forecast of needed units by type is achieved (see Table 4.2.1). Since 1995 the development trends show a increase in the construction of Single- family attached homes, a decrease in Multi-family residential (if senior and student housing are excluded), an increase in Mixed Use dwelling units, and an overall shift toward smaller lot sizes. The assumption that these recent trends will continue through the planning period results in the following adjusted percentages: MFR 30%; MFR-D 4%; MH I%, MHP 2.5%; MU 2%; SFR 45%; SFR-A 12.5%; GA 3% (Table 4.3). Types of housing likely to be affordable to projected households based on income. The types of housing addressed in this housing needs analysis include: Single-family residential:(SFR) Mixed Use,commercial with residential unit(s): (MU) Single-family residential Attached:(SFR-A) Multi-family residential:(MFR) Manufactured housing units: (MH) Multi-family residential detached:(MFR-D) Manufactured housing units in Parks: (MHP) Government assisted housing: (GA) In researching past development trends, we also identified travelers accommodations as a seasonal housing type, but as these units do not contribute to the residential housing stock they were omitted from the housing needs analysis. Income Demographics: The most recent data on personal income is from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis and was published in 1995. Adjusted for inflation, both the median and the average household income rose (4% and 6% respectively) from 1980-1990 (SORSI /SOU. 1993). Ashland showed higher per capita income than Jackson County overall, with an increase of 9.5% between 1980 and 1990. Median family income in Ashland increased between 1970 and 1990 from$35,038 to $40,364 inconstant dollars (Table 4.1.1). Since then the median family income has dropped slightly to $38,800 (1998, HUD) for a family of four(4). The national median family income mirrors Ashland's profile, with increases from 1970-1990, and a slight downward trend from 1990 to the present. Ashland's population living below the poverty level reached 17.4% in 1990, relatively 12 unchanged from the US Census 1980 figure. However, the share of families with children under 18 living in poverty increased by 7 percentage points since 1980 to 17.7%. Conversely, the share of persons 65 years in poverty dropped significantly from 13% in 1980 to 6% in 1990 (SORSI /SOU. 1993). This drop reflects the affluence of persons 65 years retiring to Ashland over the last decade. Transfer Payments (Social Security, retirement payments, Medicare, Veterans benefits, Unemployment, Food Stamps etc.) account for 23% of personal income in the Rogue Valley (Oregon Employment Dept., 1998 Regional Economic Profile: Region 8). In 1970, transfer payments accounted for less than 11% of personal income, whereas today that percentage has more than doubled in the Rogue Valley. Statewide, transfer payments only contribute 17% of personal income. The local increase in the proportion of income from non-eamed sources (transfer payments, dividends, interest etc.)resulted from the reduction of higher paying jobs in heavy industry and the very rapid growth in retirement income (Oregon Employment Dept., 1998 Regional Economic Profile: Region 8). Demand for particular housing types is shaped by many factors, but none more relevant than the ability of each household to afford them. The 1990 Census data is contains the most recent income data available. Review and revision of the income based demand assumptions will be necessary following the completion of the year 2000 Census. Income and Financially Attainable Housing Types, 1990 Census information Market Segment by Income Household Income Range Financially Attainable Products High(14.7%) $50,000 or more All Housing Types Upper Middle(16.4%) $35,000 to$50,000 Small lot(new),SFR,attached townhouses Middle(16.5%) $25,000 to$35,000 Single Family Attached, Small Lot used housing, MH,MHP Lower Middle(18.2%) $15,000 to$25,000 Low rise high density,MFR MHP Low(34.2%) Less than$15,000 Apartments, Subsidized housing Median Income$23,579(1990 dollars); Total number of households=6,876 Estimate of the number of additional needed units by structure type Ashland's comprehensive plan recognizes that the desirability of Ashland as a place to live will tend to make housing choices expensive and limited (V-13). In order to preserve the character of Ashland it may be necessary to implement measures that maintain a diversity of population groups such as students, artists, actors and local residents that are now retired (V-14). In order to plan for a variety of housing types that would be affordable to Ashland residents with various income levels, staff has modified the percentages of anticipated housing types to accommodate each income range (Table 4.3). The result of this adjustment is an increased allocation (compared to historic proportions) of those housing units that are the least expensive. 13 The Single Family Attached (SFR-A) housing apportionment has been increased from 5.3%to 12.5%, and Manufactured Dwellings (both MH and MHP) from 2.1% to 3.5%. As both SFR-A units and manufactured dwellings are well suited to single or double occupancy this increased apportionment will provide housing alternatives for the 69% of Ashland households that have less than 3 people per household(Table 4.2). Also the proportion of Single Family residential (SFR)has been reduced by 6%to reflect the shift toward a smaller household size. The 1990 Census reported that manufactured dwellings accounted for only 2.3% of Ashland's total housing stock. Between 1990 and 1998 approximately 2.1% of all new housing units constructed within Ashland's city limits were manufactured dwellings (1.6%within parks, and 0.5% outside of parks). The 1990 Census also reported that in the town of Phoenix upwards of 30%of their housing stock, and nearly 40% of the City of Talent's, was in the form of manufactured dwellings. Medford more closely resembles Ashland in that manufactured dwellings only represent 3.5%of its housing stock. The relatively low percentage of manufactured dwellings is due in part to regional market pressures. Ashland does provide ample land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate manufactured dwelling parks. Manufactured dwelling parks are an allowed use in all R-2, R-3 and R-1-3.5 zones. Manufactured homes on individual lots are permitted in all R-1 zones excepting the Ashland Historic Interest Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately, land prices in Ashland are considerably higher than in the adjacent communities of Talent and Phoenix, thus the regional housing market influences development of parks to occur in those municipalities instead of Ashland. There are over 48 buildable acres that permit manufactured dwelling parks within Ashland's UGB. Of these only 29 acres are expected to be used for multi-family developments by the year 2018 (Table 6). Thus there exists 19 buildable acres remaining that could accommodate manufactured dwelling parks if the market advanced their development. Past development trends have demonstrated that manufactured housing represents less than 2.3%of Ashland's housing stock. However, to plan for the contingency of an increase in the development of manufactured dwellings, Ashland has increased the proportional allotment from the historic 2.1% to 3.5% for the purposes of this housing needs analysis. In total, it is estimated that 1312 additional units will be needed by the close of the planning period. The distribution of these needed units into each housing type is shown in Table 4.3. 14 I Table 4.1 Population and Housing Trends 1970-Present. 1970 1980 1990 199&.49:OR t) Population 12,342 14,943 16,234 19;220!_; Persons per Household 2.84 2.36 2.22 2.20 ` ' Number of Housing Units 4,124 6,330 7,204 8,749 Median Family Income $35,038 $39,479 $40,364 ; $3,8,800 (adjusted 1999 dollars) (19vs stun) - - National Median Household income(adjusted $34,560 $36,226 $38,598 $36,754(1996) 1999 dollars) Median Rent no$321 $384 $502 data (adjusted 1999 dollars) sg„y $176,162' Median Home Value (� � Qmmt Market Value su had (adjusted 1999 dollars) $61,670 $123,915 $139,194 .meaeBae,,vanry u�,ihon :yof REALTORS®as of February 24 1996)�a r a., Home owner no data no data 2.6% E. no dataG E Vacancy mW-„.Vvo�.a ..4 = s” Ra`e5 rental no data no data 2.8% no data All figures(unless noted)are from The US Census Bureau and are specifically for Ashland. Adjustment to 1999 dollars extracted from the Consumer Price Index(CPI-U 1982-84=100;series CUUROOOOSAO) Table 4.2 Households by Occupancy Persons Living in Number of Households % Share Household (1989) l person 2217 32% 2 persons 2521 37% 3 persons 1045 15% 4 persons 763 11% 5 persons 237 3% 6 persons 54 <1% 7 or more 39 < 1% 6876 Total Households 15 Table 4.3 Projected Number of Needed Housing Units by Type within 20 Years New Units New Units Number of New Number of Needed Units needed by needed by Units needed by New Units adjusted for Percentage of year 2018, year 2018, year 2018 with needed by Desired Housing Unit Type total units at 1.75 at 1.9 2.2 persons per year 2018, Vacancy Rates built 1990-98 household at 2.4 people (Based on 2.2 people per people per (city,wide avg.) per persons per household household household household) Multi-family residential(WR) 32.6% 466 429 412 340 433 Multi-family residential detached 4,4% 63 58 56 46 59 (MFR-D) Manufactured housing unit,(MU) 0.5% 7 6 = 6 5 M %facturW ow s units in 1.6/0 23 21 :° 20 17 ;,` 4pJ2i1 i r- s . park': Mixed Use,rn�Nwim 1.4% 20 18 t 18 >,x' 15 aTad... resid.d.1 um s singlafmily midential Detach: 51.1% 731 673 '- 645 (SFR) 533 662 3� - " Sin le-family midential Attached: % ' a 5.3/ 76 70 '�67 * 55 69n (SFR-A) Government satiated hxesin (GA) 39 32 s 1 3.1% 44 4i y Totalsh:s. :,�.. ww,�c� " :P*-,1.3w:� 12ti3.ra ._ Iv 1043 Percentage of Type Modified to reflect Anticipated Development MFR Joel az9 39s Z,379 d 313 9r8� R MFR-D 4% 56 52 50 42 M 52 EF 2 MH 1% 14 13 X13 10 1'x3 MHP 2.5% 36 33 26 33 F MU 2% 29 262$ 21 '�"°':26 SFR 45% 644 593 k 568 470 5'88 sip Or ,• '� : SFR—A 12.5% 179 165 lie _ 158 " 130 1 . '' ' GA 3% 43 40 38 .` 31 z 44 0u Totals 100/. .we 1430 ` 1317 F1263 = 1043 1)3112'.;. 16 Determination of whether the supply of residential land within the city limits and Urban Growth Boundary is suff cient for future housing needs. Comparison of actual housing mix and density with needed mix and density. The relationship between lot size and square feet of living space is key in determining how land will be consumed by future development. As persons per household have decreased over time, the average square footage of floor area has increased. This disparity results in an increase in the consumption of total acreage relative to the number of people housed. A secondary result of this inverse relationship between Ae rage Fb r Nea(in SgFI)by Zane smaller households in larger dwelling units is an increase in housing costs per person. The construction of"oversized" housing units thus $ - _ accelerates the depletion of available land, thereby LL _ increasing land prices and housing prices. As Ashland's housing prices rise it is likely that market pressures will encourage the construction of more 0. _ affordable housing. To plan for this contingency staff R-1-10 R4-5 R-145 R3 RJ WR ResiAeMialZmes has determined that an increase in the allocation of 9.70_ W, SFR-A housing is justified. Calculation of amount ofresidential land needed by Comprehensive Plan designation for projected number of households based on housing projections (1312 units). It was estimated that 1312 new housing units will be needed by year 2018. The process of allocating needed housing mix into the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation is complicated by the fact that there is a overlap of housing types permitted in each designation. In order to best determine which Comprehensive Plan designation needed housing units will be built in, we can utilize the distribution trends illustrated between 1990 and 1998 (Table 5.1.1). By projecting a similar distribution through the planning period we can estimate each plan designations allotment of needed housing units (Table 5.1.2). The actual net density of residential housing units built between1990 and 1998, by housing Unit Type, was determined in the land component of the BLI (Table 3.3). By comparing this actual net density to the permitted densities set forth in the City of Ashland's Land Use Ordinance, we find that development has been occurring at the densities anticipated . Thus we can utilize the actual net density range based on structure type to estimate land needs through the planning period. Dividing the number of needed units of each structure type by the actual net density of recent developments (1990-98) yields the number of acres needed. Referencing the anticipated distribution of structure types (Table 5.1.2), we determined the land need apportionment for each plan designation (Table 5.3). Comparison of residential land supply with residential land need The residential land needed to accommodate the future housing needs of the City of Ashland, within the planning period, can be satisfied by the available buildable land within the 17 Urban Growth Boundary. Each plan designation has adequate buildable acreage to satisfy the need within that designation except Downtown and Woodland Residential and High Density Residential. The demand for housing units within the Downtown plan designation is entirely for mixed use developments (2 additional units), thus the shortage of available land (0.03 acres) will be mitigated either by an increase in development of mixed use dwelling units or in the redevelopment of existing buildings. The shortage of available land within the Woodlands designation is primarily the result of environmental restrictions to development. Steep sloped vacant areas (greater than 35%) are not considered buildable for the purpose of this analysis. Thus the 2.54 acre deficit of buildable land within the Woodland plan designation would have to be accommodated within another designation. Land designated Low Density Residential (LDR) will have a surplus of 32 acres at the close of the planning period, which could easily satisfy the demand for the additional 2'/Z acre of Woodland buildable land. High Density Residential buildable land is insufficient to satisfy the demand within 20 years. At the conclusion of the planning period there in an estimated deficit of 5.25 buildable acres designated for HDR. However, the land need/availability comparison (Table 6) reveals that there is an estimated surplus of 14 buildable acres in Multi-family zoned lands (or designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan) at the close of the planning period. A portion of these 14 available buildable acres will likely satisfy the need for the High Density housing units. Sub-Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Lands Between 1990 and 1998, 54 Commercial and Industrial developments were completed within the City of Ashland. The land area used for these developments amounted to 48 acres. During the next 20 years, if the depletion of commercial (C-1), industrial (M-1), and employment (E-1) zoned lands were to continue at the rate established between 1990 and 98, about 105 acres would be developed to accommodate approximately 120 buildings. The land zoned E-1 would bear the largest proportion of the anticipated commercial development with the need for 76 acres. As there exists 86 acres of buildable E-1 zoned land, there is a minimal surplus of 10 acres in this zone. There is a shortage of 18 acres in commercially designated lands, with a demand of 26.5 acres during the"planning period, and only 8.5 acres available for development. Unlike E-1 and C-1 zones, there is a very large surplus of buildable land designated for industrial use (M-1). During the planning period there is likely to be only 3 acres utilized for industrial development and there is currently 55 buildable acres available (Table 2.4.3), leaving a remainder of 52 buildable acres at the close of the planning period. 18 Table 5.1.1 Historical Distribution of housing types built 1990-98, by Comprehensive Plan Designation (Actual Housing Mix) Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified Designations MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR- GA A Commercial 3% 20% 11% Downtown 10% Employment 2% 55% Health Cam 46% 3% 29% High Density Residential 17% 3% 17% 1% 17% Low Density Residential 3% 6% Multi-family Residential 21% 24% 1000/6 15% 3% 5% 100% Single-family Residential 6% 68% 83% 82% 12% Southern Oregon University 7% Suburban Residential 26% Woodland 5% Table 5.1.2 Modified Percentages of Distribution by Type,to Reflect Anticipated Development (Needed Housing Mix) Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified Designations MFR MFR-D MH I MHP MU I SFR SFR-A GA Commercial 201/6 Downtown 10% Employment 55% Health Care 10% 2% 10% High Density Residential 33% 4% 15% 200/. Low Density Residential 3% 6% Multi-family Residential 47% 25% 100% 15% 2% 20% 100% Single-family Residential 5% 68% .85% 85% 14% Southern Oregon University 5% Suburban Residential 36% Woodland 5 19 Table 5.2 Anticipated Distribution of Needed Housing Units (1312) Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified TOTAL Designations a MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA Urufs Commercial 5 r 5 Downtown 3 - 3 Employment 14 "'14 Health Care 40 12 16 £" x:68 High Density 131 2 2 32 167 Residential Low Density 2 35 Residential Multi-family 187 13 33 4 12 33 40 322 Residential s . Single-family 20 35 11 500 23 ,1.. -589 Residential Southern Oregon 20 20 - University Suburban Residential 58 Woodland 29 29 - Total Needed - Housing Un�ts� 398 X52 13 33 X26, 588 16240 1312 20 Table 5.3 Residential Land Need (Acres) by Housing Type and Comprehensive Plan Designations. Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified and Actual Net Densities(Units per Net Acre(table 3 1)) Land Designations Needed in MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA Net Acres (11.97) (5.8) (6.32) (10.87) (8.06) (4.67) (18.33) (615) Commercial .62 .62 Downtown .37 37 Employment 1.74 1.74 Health Care 3.34 2.57 .87 678 High Density Residential 10.94 .34 .32 1.75 13 35 a Low Density Residential .34 7.49 msaru.a 404+i Multi-family Residential 15.62 2.24 3.04 .50 2.57 1.80 6.50 r32 27 Single-family Residential 1.67 6.03 1.74 107.07 1.25 y'l l7 76 r Southern Oregon University 1.67 1,67-MV Suburban Residential 3.16 �:,3 16 Woodland 6.21 Total=Land Needed .33.2 8 95 , 2.06 3.04 3.23 125191 '8.83 415 e 191.76 Acres 21 Table 6 Residential Land Need/Availability Comparison by Comprehensive Plan Designations Additional Residential Land i Land Needed Net Acres Supply availablity (acres) Buildable Difference Needed in Years COMPPLAN for 20 year Acres (Net Buildable (at the close Residential Available Acres-Land Development (within Needed) of the within within (1999-2018) UGB) planning UGB City period) Limits Commercial .62 8.47 7.85 Surplus not residential Downtown .37 0.15 -0.22 0.23 not residential Employment 1.74 85.83 84.09 Surplus not residential Health Care 6.78 8.32 1.54 Surplus 24.5 24.5 HDR 13.35 8.1 5.25 5.25 12.25 12.25 LDR 7.83 40.07 32.24 Surplus 102.25 102.25 MFR 32.27 46.27 14.0 Surplus 28.5 10.25 SFR 117.76 215.56 97.8 Surplus 36.6 31.25 SFRR 0 77.4 77.4 Surplus reserves SOU 1.67 11.64 9.97 Surplus 142.0 142.0 Suburban R 3.16 36.46 33.3 Surplus 230.75 33.5 Woodland 6.21 3.67 -2.54 2.54 14.75 14.75 Totals 191.76 541.94 350.18 Surplus Table 7 Commercial Land Need /Availability Comparison by Zone Designations Number of Number of Commercial Estimate of Difference Total Acres Commercial � Buildable ZONE developments Used Development Total Acres Acres between (1990-98) Needed Need and 1990-98 s Anticipated Available includes C& (1999-2018) Availability:. MUl (1999-2018) C-1 9 10.78 20 24 8.5 15.5- C-1-13 3 1.13 7 2.5 .15 -2.35 E-1 40 34.35 89 76 86 +10 M-1 2 1.38 4 3 55 +52 TOT>ALS S4 47.64 120 105.5 149.63 +44.15 22 Potential Units to Needed Units Comparison When conducting the Buildable Land Inventory, vacant and partially vacant tax lots were examined closely to identify physical constraints to development. This examination yielded a determination of the number of net buildable acres on each parcel. In addition to this, an assessment of the number of dwelling units that could be built on each parcel was recorded. A maximum number of dwelling units permitted by zone designation was recorded, as was an adjusted number that reflects a likely number that would be constructed given the particular qualities of a given site. Using this adjusted number of potential dwelling units (estimate) we can more accurately evaluate housing availability (when compared to an estimation based on net buildable acres [Table 6] as required by ORS 197.296). The direct comparison between the adjusted number of potential dwelling units and the number of housing units expected in the next 20 years is less abstract than the land density comparison method, and is thus included in this analysis (Table 8). The method of comparing the number of housing units needed with the number of potential housing units likely to be built due to the particular constraints on a given parcel reinforces the contention that there is presently enough land within Ashland's UGB to accommodate the population increase anticipated by the year 2018. The results of this unit to unit comparison are fundamentally the same as the land density comparison method. There could be a deficit of High Density Residential housing units (4 units) at the close of the planning period. There is also a deficit in the number of available housing unit sites in lands designated Woodland Residential (WR) if demand for such sites proceeded at the same rate as 1990-1998. However, as WR buildable sites become more scarce it is likely that developers would choose sites in lands designated Low Density Residential as there is a projected surplus of such sites. Commercial, Industrial, Downtown and Employment designations were not evaluated for potential residential use, and thus each reflects a deficit in available housing units when compared to past housing development trends. In total there is a deficit of only 22 units indicated in these designations and it is likely that mixed use developments will accommodate many of these housing units. 23 Table 8 Residential Housing Need/Potential Housing Units, Comparison by Comprehensive Plan Designations Adjusted-Potential Needed Housing Units Residential Housing by 2018 Difference COMPPLAN Units I (Surplus/Deficit) Airport not evaluated as residential 0 0 Commercial not evaluated as residential 5 not evaluated as residential Downtown ` not evaluated as residential 3 not;evaluated as,rcsideutial; Employment not evaluated as residential 14 •.,,not evaluated es,residential Vie# HC 104 68 36 unit surplus u ' a HDR 163 167 LDR 88 37 51 unit surplus MFR 534 322 212 unit surplus PF 33 0 33 unit surplus SFR 1259 589 670 unit surplus SFRR 97 0 97 unit surplus SOU 86 20 66 unit surplus Suburban R 118 58 60 unit surplus -4 Woodland I1 likely(27 total possible) 29 '_18�uottdeficd Itkely (2 unit deficit with enginCEHMM Total 2493 1312 - 1181 surplus Note:The number of"adjusted-potential units"are estimates only. The actual number of dwelling units developed per parcel will likely vary from these estimates. 24 Summary Conclusions The Buildable Lands Inventory revealed that The City of Ashland currently contains enough land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate future housing needs, and commercial land needs, within the 20 year planning period (1998-2018). The housing need projection was based on the City's adopted population projection for the year 2018 of 22,473 persons. It was calculated that a total of 1,312 new housing units will need to be built to house the population in the City of Ashland by 2018. In order to best determine which Comprehensive Plan designation needed housing units would be built in,we modified the distribution patterns established between 1990 and 1998 (Table 5.1.2) to reflect anticipated development. By projecting the modified distribution through the planning period we were able to determine each plan designations apportionment of needed housing units (Table 5.2). The residential land needed to accommodate the future housing needs of the City of Ashland, within the planning period, can be satisfied by the available buildable land within the UGB (Table 6). Each plan designation has adequate buildable acreage to satisfy the need within that designation except High Density Residential, Downtown Commercial, and Woodland Residential. The needed housing units in these areas could be accommodated in areas where there exists a surplus of land in compatible plan designations (such as LDR, SFR or MFR). In total there exists approximately 541 buildable acres (residential) within the UGB, and residential development within 20 years is expected to consume only 192 acres. An additional component of this inventory was an assessment of redevelopable land. In total there is 301 acres of land within the UGB that is currently considered redevelopable (Those tax lots where the surrounding land uses are compatible with more intensive use, and the improvement value is less than or equal to 30% of the total property value, were listed as redevelopable). The redevelopable lands were inventoried, but not included as "available buildable land" in conducting the net buildable land assessment. In aggregate, it is anticipated that there is sufficient land within the UGB to accommodate commercial and industrial development. Although commercial and industrial development is difficult to forecast, projections based on past commercial development trends (1990-1998) predict that there will be demand for about 105 acres of buildable land designated for commercial, industrial or employment during the planning period (Table 7). As there currently is 149 such acres available zoned C-1, E-1 or M-1, no expansion of the UGB to accommodate commercial development is necessary. However, the available land is primarily zoned M-1, and there may be a deficit in lands zoned C-1 and E-1 by the close of the planning period. 25 Definitions(Source: Oregon Administrative Rules, 1998 Compilation , LCDC) (1)A "Net Buildable Acre" consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designated buildable land,after excluding present and future rights-of-way,restricted hazard areas,public open spaces and restricted resource protection areas. , (2)"Attached Single Family Housing"means common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. (3)"Buildable Land"means residentially designated vacant and,at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards(Statewide Planning Goal 7)or subject to natural resource protection measures(Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater unless otherwise provided for at the time of acknowledgment,and land within the 100-year flood plain is generally considered unbuildable for purposes of density calculations. (4)'Detached Single Family Housing"means a housing unit that is free standing and separate from other housing units. (5) "Government Assisted Housing"means housing that is financed in whole or part by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to 456.720,or housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority. (6)"Housing Needs Projection"refers to a local determination,justified in the plan,as to the housing types and densities that will be: (a)Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and future area residents of all income levels during the planning period; (b)Consistent with OAR 660-007-0010 through 660-007-0037 and any other adopted regional housing standards;and (c)Consistent with Goal 14 requirements for the efficient provision of public facilities and services,and efficiency of land use. (7)"Manufactured Dwelling"means: (a)Residential trailer, a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed before January 1, 1962; (b)Mobile home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed between January 1, 1962,and June 15, 1976,and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction; (c)Manufactured home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards regulations in effect at the time of construction; (d)Does not mean any building or structure subject to the structural specialty code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.100 to 455.450 or any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. (8) "Manufactured Dwelling Park" means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings as defined in ORS 446.003 are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid 26 for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Manufactured dwelling park" does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. (9) "Manufactured Homes"means structures with a Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)label certifying that the structure is constructed in accordance with National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974(42 U. S. C. Sections 5401 et seq.),as amended on August 22, 1981. (10)"Mobile Home Park"means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings as defined in ORS 446.003 are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Mobile home park" does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. (11) "Multiple Family Housing"means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. (12) "Needed Housing"defined. Until the beginning of the first periodic review of local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing"means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing"also means: (a)Housing that includes,but is not limited to,attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b)Government assisted housing; (c)Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; (d)Manufactured home on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. (13) "Redevelopable Land"means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces,there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. 27 • g> WIlLill J nm•�r�Q9�'� y� -- .�.,"� .1 a S .a.• .. . .� F� i JL'arT < 11p 'I�I Ia ntyl Lhk/qu ��,n(,! e Jul Lj ,n Ii•1 ""Pr}�illllo f i� ��V�rl�► GI ��"%/_ .. `'1_ '1✓_��� +�♦Ilxy=11 �Ilnl�i nimi.r all O .� rrr� � /// lnnnnn■ (��I i nn�'–�moon k1pnnu � � r ■�r///��■ 111 annur "�/ 1'*kkl 1 III 4T1 J� 1 • /� nI / � nun a. n�l noon - �M . °Inanl4nliri 1�■T aa■ 1...., � iGa�/ / ... ,nn . • m dy 4 °'°f _ • n.11 non n . n• 9119 111114 11■111 f7 `f' # �•°, .� x. Gllll�.11lllllli�'0R •: 1 ,F4V 1 yy -yy.'n m 1 a.. Rw ggp s' �utl1:� � ��'` I. - i -- � s"�a,� �■. R,• yi=i/-°n��� it i9,l. "G.a� �1/ .,nll/ dd19d1elClniou v ,:�' 101- ��.. �.0 a �F' IJ��� WEER Ran 'a .1 um1 0 / �>,��fa 1 Vys110 namaxr/ mn �IIPII m i�■ • . �'° / pp� fi��• 9i n m �I/.�■sii . it onfj 1!7 a t 1 . .ds p ,( �IItAfl 111 ��, aian. u�O��•LLf �m 1� , / u � !n n un nn• mnu.�. " 1 h x �n a I !� .r .,,, nfu m /o■anmm�a man n nurannlam. .' fry I/f i U`r 1 •al norm ..ra'In1O■1,11 '. a n u n na.n 1 i�� aQ p u1■ ■— a - nu � �f'�'!'-'1,� u• In la • rr. rr /. R , .Ia��y///I ��//� � ua a/ � --a � �a 6vf►x�1:'�� of l§-u. , r •ru ar i nm nm • � a11��I a��N•at�N:I rr ��•' rur rM, .a? ,a? fi Innnnnnn ♦C' t( ■ a -IIPItlll�llhl3�r//n / {ri ✓ rr 1 � �a • Y���IC� . r* a I�i , Ian Isla nll a. L r Jlatri / p.1 •//I/\� y'7� / h '4r 4 CIII I. .� f 1 ��•i r////.., // 11 6i �aI4�� ' 1 n./�r�1 /„1..��i�(I�i'4I%v ♦1'4���r;///`h rra^ 11t� fatb f T A la■b n.,.ra�E'"33 � t RZ i j a rn� 1� ♦ a., 11rIA �//��/� Z`w/ �: �llIII.����w•�o•■.mp ;Fp7 I ' -'r-7/�•\ ptl N,a p� �✓I/Gi �wm101 • of n44 �h r r i � 1 1 l C1 NOT �uL na ,rP.n 0/Y.'..■t�.■�■�11��•� D��� `• .1. .S E Fa r �• III■. ,�L�_ :.���� ,L'Y•'� i/•fin��� ; - ��r r� Council Communication Public Works Department Jurisdictional Exchange Discussion September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown r Approved by: Mike Ereemati YO Title: Discussion and Presentation of Information on the Proposed Jurisdictional Exchange with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) along Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard,N. Main Street, and Lithia Way) Synopsis: The City has been working toward gaining approval of a modernization project and funding within the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) for Siskiyou Boulevard(Highway 99) between 4th Street and Walker Avenue for many long years. In the process of approving this project for the 2002 construction year, ODOT has added a requirement for transfer of jurisdiction. The current Oregon Highway Plan requires that ODOT negotiate with local governments to transfer jurisdiction of ownership on their district level highways that are up for major improvements or modernization projects such as Siskiyou Boulevard. As a condition of approval of the full modernization project to accommodate bicycle travel, improve pedestrian access and safety concerns, and allocate bus turnouts, Ashland must consider accepting ownership of the improved street section. If the City does not accept ownership, then the modernization project will not be funded by ODOT. In the process of these discussions, the remaining City portions of Highway 99 (N. Main Street and Lithia Way couplet and the south end of Siskiyou) were also evaluated for jurisdictional exchange possibilities, but put on hold until this initial section was finalized. The following highlights discussions that have been ongoing between the State and City staff., Recommendation: This item is for information and discussion only. Staff will bring this to Council under new business for a decision on the jurisdiction exchange with ODOT in the near future. Background Information: The portion of Highway 99 that runs through the City of Ashland, like many other portions of Highway 99, does not act like a state highway, but more like a city street. As noted above, the Oregon Highway Plan requires ODOT to negotiate with local jurisdictions to transfer ownership on major improvements of state projects that affect local jurisdictions. ODOT uses a predetermined formula for their state facilities when considering jurisdictional transfers. Their formula includes provisions for 20-year life and maintenance of the street facilities including signals, pavement, street lights, signage, bridges, railing and known drainage US l\SYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\CC jurisdictional exchange info.doc facilities. Their formula also includes major preservation projects (ie: pavement overlays) when deemed necessary. Staff members from both agencies have discussed options for the past six months. Exchange Options: Four different options have been discussed to compare the costs if the STIP project for modernization of Siskiyou from 4th to Walker is completed or not, and if Ashland takes jurisdiction of the N. Main Street Bridge or not. Each figure represents the present worth costs of completing maintenance between the years 2000—2020. ODOT Maintenance 'ODOT Maintenance ODOT Maintenance ODOT Maintenance LOCATION Costs with Costs with Costs without Costs without Modernization odemization Modernization Modernization ODOT transfers N ODOT transfers OD© kee s ODOT keeps Highway 99 Main St Bridge Main St Bridge N Main St Bridge N Main St Bridge to Ashland to Ashland N City Limits—4th $ 1,855,369 $ 1,833,692 $ 1,855,369 $ 1,833,692 4th—Walker $431,624 OEM $ 1,437,629 $ 1,437,629 Walker—S City $ 620,024 $ 620,024 $620,024 $ 620,024 Limits Washington St $70,643 . 170 643 $ 70,643 $=70,643 2a9 •7,600 $2x95`5,983 $ 3 t9.83$6'G5 $31<9b1x9888 The difference between the"with or without modernization" is the Siskiyou Boulevard bikelane project. Right now, the STIP modernization project between 4`h Street and Walker Avenue is scheduled for construction in 2002 at $1,785,000. If the City intends on taking jurisdiction, the City can tailor the modernization project specifically for the Ashland's needs. Once the project is completed there is an additional $431,624 in"cash"to continue to maintain the new road section for the next 20 years. If the City declines to take jurisdiction, at least of the 4th to Walker section, then the modernization project will not be funded and ODOT will consider completing an overlay project only on that section. ODOT's Basis for estimates of the 4th Street to Walker Avenue Section: The modernization project scheduled for 2002 essentially brings this section of Siskiyou Boulevard to "new" condition. As such, ODOT's maintenance formula expects that this facility is easier and less costly to maintain for the first several years. Over the 20 year period the expected maintenance costs increase to the annualized rate of$40,400 per year. Assdming the modernization occurs, ODOT is offering Ashland $431,624 to take ownership. This is in addition to the scheduled $1,785,000 for the modernization project. If the City chooses not to accept the transfer of ownership, then ODOT will most likely complete only a preservation overlay project estimated at$632,000 in the year 2002 and keep the street section in"fair" condition. Both ODOT and City staff are continuing to review the cost estimates. ODOT is considering adding to their maintenance cost estimates to reflect the cost of striping and sweeping. ODOT \\FSI\SYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\CC jurisdictional exchange info.doc may also add to their overlay estimate to include the potentially significant cost of anticipated subbase replacement due to drainage problems over the years. These costs have been estimated by City staff to be as high as $286,000 and could be added to the potential modernization project. The 4`h to Walker section of Siskiyou Boulevard shows up as a priority project in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) at a cost of$1,200,000. The basis for this cost estimate is unclear. City staff has completed an independent estimate for full reconstruction of the 4a'to Walker section for Siskiyou Boulevard. This estimate is difficult to develop as all of the design ' considerations and existing subsurface conditions are unknown. Staff looked at the section as if the whole thing was to be completely dug out, and a large portion of the subsurface was to be replaced and re-compacted. The estimate also includes full replacement of all curbs, gutters and sidewalk sections just to be on the high or conservative side. Our independent estimate yielded a cost of$2,100,000 for the construction work. Until a final design is completed and all of the necessary testing is done, we will not have an accurate picture of the total costs. Our estimate is within ODOT's range of$1,785,000, but is significantly higher than the TSP estimate of $1,200,000. Staff will continue negotiations with ODOT for a better understanding of costs and expectations for the jurisdictional exchange process. It maybe possible to have ODOT help pay for subsurface deterioration if found during construction. Ownership Benefits and Detractors: As with any decision, there are pros and cons when accepting ownership of a facility. In this case, the primary concern is related to the financial burden placed on a City when jurisdiction of new facilities are received. Many of our community members currently perceive that the City already"owns"this section of the "City's" streets, and call us when there are potholes or other hazardous conditions. The City street crews do a considerable amount of the current pavement markings (line, curb and crosswalk painting), all of the street sweeping functions, and the majority of the snow removal in the winter. Staff has researched a variety of cities and counties and received their input as follows on the perception of the value and benefit/challenge received from such exchange programs: 1) The City of Salem has done.several exchanges with ODOT; both receiving sections from ODOT and giving up sections that are better managed by ODOT. One of the issues that Salem faced was the drainage concerns and maintenance agreements once the jurisdictions were established. Salem found that ODOT could maintain some of the sections better due to economies of scale, but the City had different standards than ODOT. 1. 2) The City of Bend has positive experiences with jurisdictional exchanges and felt they were handled fairly. Bend did express concern over the prior condition of the road and road work completed by ODOT. Bend staff also stated that they changed the character of the road and that ODOT gave the City "free reign" in the design and maintenance of the sections that were exchanged and taken by the City. 3) The City of Albany had a different experience in that ODOT took jurisdiction of a City street to create a couplet. The City had to push hard to have ODOT create the needed pedestrian, bicycle and ADA standards that would have been standard for the City. After working had to get what the City wanted, they felt it worked out well in the end. 4) The City of Medford has completed several exchanges with ODOT. The accepted funding and jurisdiction of the Riverside/Court couplet and used the funds to improve Barnett Road US IMMUSERTAULMCOUNCIMC jurisdictional exchange info.doc that was a high priority to the City. They had a positive experience with the exchange, and were able to have more local control. Staff s biggest concern with the exchange is the unknowns with existing drainage facilities and the unknowns with the structural condition of the road subsurface. If these can be addressed and if ODOT can assist during the modernization project, staff has nothing but positive reaction to the exchange opportunity. With the City's control of the facility, the City can enhance the maintenance, control the speeds, control the travel widths, parking, and add needed bicycle and pedestrian amenities. Yes, the City will have to fix potholes (which should be minimal on a well-reconstructed facility for at least the next 10 years), but will be able to control the maintenance schedule and ensure the facility is maintained to City standards. Yes, the facility remains designated as a"state" facility, but short of closing that route, the City would have total control over any modifications, signage, striping, parking,volume controls, etc placed on that facility. N. Main Street Bridge: City staff has been concerned with taking jurisdiction of the N. Main Street Bridge. There are concerns for flood handling capacity that have not been fully addressed. The financial difference in whether the City takes this portion or not, are insignificant. However, if this is under the City's jurisdiction and there are vehicular or flood carrying capacity issues, the City's responsibility are more clearly defined. Staff recommends ODOT retain jurisdiction of the N. Main Street Bridge section. Other ODOT Projects and Areas of Responsibility: In addition to the modernization project for Siskiyou Boulevard from 4`n Street to Walker Avenue, Ashland has three other projects funded by ODOT that are represented in the STIP: ❑ Signal Replacement on Lithia Way (Highway 99)between 2nd and Helman Streets; Operations program, estimated at$690,000 (programmed for 2001 construction) ❑ Roadway Overlay on Siskiyou Boulevard from Valley View Road to Walker Avenue (MP 17 - 19.56 includes area outside City limits); Pavement Preservation program at an estimated cost of$1,503,000 (construction year 2001) ❑ Roadway.Overlay on Siskiyou Boulevard from Walker Avenue to I-5 (MP 20.84 -24.12 which includes area outside City limits); Pavement Preservation program at an estimated cost of$1,503,000 (construction year 2003) 1. If the City accepts the jurisdictional transfer of all of these street sections, then it would be up to the City to continue to make appropriate preservation and maintenance repairs. The funds set aside in the STIP would be a part of the funds used in the exchange. These STIP projects include sections that are outside of the City's boundaries and a portion would not be transferred to the City. The City could elect to take jurisdiction after the preservation projects are completed, but would not have any control of the type of overlay or any other,improvements made to those sections. The City could elect to take jurisdiction prior to the preservation projects and use the funds for a complete upgrade to these sections, or other sections for that matter, now or in the future. The specific impact to Ashland's decision for these other sections is as follows: North City Limit(NCL) to 4"' Street: The preservation project (basically grinding and a 3+ inch overlay) for the City's portion of N. Main Street from the City's northern city limit (basically just north of Schofield Street) to 4th Street is estimated to be $822,000 (construction in 2001). The total 20-year maintenance costs offered by ODOT for Ashland to take ownership of \\FS 1\SYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\CC jurisdictional exchange info.doc this section is $1,833,692, which includes the preservation project. This section includes the one-way E Main Street/Lithia Way couplet from Helman to 4th Street. ODOT's offer includes the cost to repair the decking and railing on the overpass at Lithia Way which in their estimation is required in the year 2016. The City would determine when to complete the preservation project and may wish to include different parking, bicycle, pedestrian access improvements along with necessary maintenance pavement overlay. By accepting jurisdiction of this section, Ashland would receive just over$1,000,000 to fully maintain the section for 20 years at current maintenance standards in "like" condition. ODOT has rated this section of the street as "fair". Walker Avenue to South City Limit (SCL): This section from Walker Avenue to the southern City Limits approximately 800 feet south of Tolman Creek Road is also scheduled for a preservation project in the year 2003. The preservation project is estimated at $337,000. \\FSI\SYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\CC jurisdictional exchange info.doc rr gg � z o _ � 'aAV ZIa?I7VM Ca ui a ti 'aAV xtV.wnOW q u 04 0 O _ Q �D y O w 0 O 71„ c Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Land Partition — 667 North Main Street September 21, 1999 Submitted by: John McLauehlip Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Council initiation of a planning action for a land partition for the property at 667 North Main Street(new neighborhood park). Synopsis: The City recently purchased the property at 667 North Main Street for the creation of a new neighborhood park. A portion of the property contains an existing residence which can be partitioned onto its own parcel for future sale. The property is approximately 1.9 acres in size, with the proposal being to create an approximate 15,000 sq. ft. parcel for the home, with the remainder being used for the neighborhood park. Recommendation: Section 18.108.150 states that the Council may initiate a planning action and direct the appropriate city department to complete and file the application. We recommend that the Council direct the Planning Staff to file a land partition request as proposed for the property at 667 North Main Street. Background Information: This property was purchased to provide for a neighborhood park in the northern Ashland area, and represents one of the last large parcels with excellent neighborhood access. There are three dwellings on the property, but in order to efficiently utilize the property for park purposes, the two smaller dwellings are proposed for demolition. The larger, older residence, which was the original home on the property, is proposed to be maintained on a separate parcel for future sale by the City. The remainder of the property will be dedicated for park purposes and turned over to the Parks Department after completion of the partition. -T sPr a v: 1 pt • l t Ay a js �A } 7�v. s i i Iv i 4 w s!A A G x ti", sCj•! 3 3i�r � 1 • t � h ±l f tltr � 1 I 1 s p 1 • 1°;� 5 �-Y L N{ / '. n is�d„ • '�� ..2- s E F . > t 3' f � i x iv.' J •�:Yi.JP".iY`R..P:Y•e'i i•':Tr`'Y7Y*y.}>y .,� ------------ I V I "'-- - �si Scenic Dr a I i 67 " treeA i 7 \ d F �. m \, r II � � fit 7 z D Z �a�jr4 t J 62 ZD. \ N• (� p \,• a' �LID\ \ N Qom• FU �� \ W P - Q � � / 5' n II U1 / (Q 0 00 �J�,= g `V� _ �� • m T� � T O O I I ol N O MEL +. . REQUEST FOR $59000 START UP FUNDS FOR FILM FESTIVAL to')C a ` RARA AVIS MEDIA GROUP - PO BOX 368\ ' ; ASHLAND OR 97520 .541.488.3149 PHONE/FAX _ ,<RARAAVISOMIND:NET September 10, 1999 - - -r: I Mr.'_.Mike'Freeman " Ashland City Administrator „ 20 East Main Street. Ashland, OregoA97520 • ' 1" Dear Mr. Freeman: •' It was very enlightening and informative to speak with you and John rMcL'aughlin at our ,recent'meeting with Mr. Schweiger .and Ms. Hall. I appreciate your candor and-insights. - I would like to formally request start-up funds front the City of Ashland to be used, to create the Ashland, Independent Film Festival. Our non-profit corporation„•The- Southern Oregon FilmSociety;'is joining forces with Mr. . John'Schweigers company, Coming Attractions Inc., to.produce The Ashland ' Independent Film_ Festival to be-held at both the Varsity Theater and Ashland Street Cinema in October,of 2000. - In an effort to keep Ashland'out in front, of the Arts, our intention is to produce, a "major-market” ,American independent film .festival in Ashland. The cornerstone of which would be premiere screenings of the finest films produced by A merican independent film makers. But the Ashland Independent Film r Festival will not stop there. ;Modeled after 'the great domestic film festivals of Sundance, Telluride and Taos, The Ashland Independent Film Festival will also feature an awards ceremony for the best films, tributes to movie stars and their favorite films, special Hollywood screenings, as well as seminars, lectures and guest director workshops. V I,D E 0 F I L M P R I N T M U L T I M E D I A J This is the one cultural event that Ashland currently does not possess, and would be a wonderful addition to our community. Without constructing any buildings whatsoever, The _Ashland Independent Film Festival would be. a valuable_ asset.to-ial).Ashland residents. By adding to the cultural stature that already ezist's in our community, this.event/scheduled for October of every year, would. add much to.the civic pride of.our city:: The new artistic voices heard at such a festival would add to, the creative life ' that already exists'in the local artistic community and,provide avenue for all Ashland residents• to '-view, first-hand, the cutting edge of independent- filmmaking" and;meet'th'6 film\inakers themselves. Of\course this would also , be an important .outlet for students at .Southern,Oregon, University to _ showcase their work as well. Our plan is_to also establish a grant program, so,\i that we can encourage the efforts of the Center For The,Visual Arts - Film' festivals also,provide a valuable Nvenue for,artists to showcase their work' Wiithout thin type pi outlet-for,young film makers such cutting I edge,` avant\ gard, films like\,'The\ Blair j Witch, Project',-would,tnever have been produced,,which would have been a great loss for audiences'worldwide. l I would like to ask the city council for $5,000 in start-up funds, so we may fund the preliminary development details necessary to ensure'the immediate ' 'success of The Ashland Independent Film Festival. Hiring 'consultants from other successful.film festivals;.web-site and logo design, database creation and ;'other hard-costs are the top priorities that will be funded' with such a generous grant. ' Please ,Help us! make the Ashland Independent Film Festival a cultural` success for the:City.- ' r i Cordially, ' Steven Wood fC. Si ger Southern Oregon Film Society enEO Co ming Attractions, Inc. City Council Communication Administration Reimbursement Policy September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Mike Freeman Title: 1 Discussion of DRAFT City Council reimbursement resolution. Synopsis: In 1991, the City Council adopted a policy regarding travel and reimbursement for Mayor and City Council training and business expenses. This policy has not been followed over the years and is out of date. Attached is a draft policy for the.City Council to consider. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed policy and make any changes, additions, for subtractions and either: adopt the resolution as presented; adopt an amended resolution;or direct staff to make additional changes to be brought back for further discussion and adoption at a later date. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REIMBURSEMENT POLICY FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: It is beneficial for the City to provide the Mayor and City Council with training and educational opportunities regarding municipal government matters. SECTION 1. TRAINING: Annually, the Mayor and City Council shall authorize a training budget through the budgeting process. The Mayor and Council shall not exceed the training budget in the fiscal year without prior approval by the majority of the City Council. There are three types of training or educational the City may provide the Mayor and City Council. 1. The Mayor or Council may represent the City in any number of capacities for which the City will pay for the participation. This may include such organizations as the League of Oregon Cities or National League of Cities, Bonneville Power Administration, etc. The Mayor or City Council may participate in these types of activities and have their expenses reimbursed without specific approval by the City Council. The City Administrator will review all such reimbursements for the Mayor and Council to determine if it meets City policy. 2. The Mayor or Council may wish to seek training on specific issues related to municipal government management such as Budget Law, Land Use Law, telecommunications, public safety, etc.. Generally, this type of training should be budgeted for in the annual budget process. However, this type of training may be approved by the City Administrator provided the Mayor and City Council have sufficient funds in their training budget to accommodate the expense. If no funds are available, the requesting member of thg.City Council shall seek prior approval for the training from the entire Council. 3. The Mayor or Council may wish to attend educational or professional development training. Prior to attending this type of training, the requesting member of the City Council shall seek prior approval for the training from the entire Council. SECTION 2. REIMBURSEMENT: The City shall reimburse the Mayor and City Council in accordance with adopted City policies and IRS regulations. Generally, the Mayor and Council shall receive reimbursement for: mileage, meals, business phone calls, airfare, taxis, rental cars, registration costs and other business expenses related to costs for approved training, or representation of the City. PAGE 1-RESOLUTION(FAUSERUIIRE\WORD FILES\COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\RESOLUTION COUNCIL REIMBURSEMENT.DOC) This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder. SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION(FAUSERWI(BWORD FILES\COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\RESOLUTION COUNCIL REIMBURSEMENT.DOC) City Council Communication Administration Establishment of Fiscal Priorities for New Programs September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Mike Freeman►�""' Title: An ordinance adding section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish fiscal priorities for new programs. Synopsis: During the budget process this past year, the City Council discussed the need to adopt a City policy that would require the Council to identify the method by which Council adopted projects, initiatives or policies would be funded. The ordinance requires that the Council indicate the funding mechanism upon adopting a new project, initiative or policy with the appropriate funding source. Recommendation: The staff have no position on the proposed ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.04.095 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH FISCAL PRIORITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following section 2.04.095 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 2.04.095 Identification of Fiscal Impact and Priorities of Policy Decisions. A. At such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant . revenue implications, it shall offer clear direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to the fiscal priority to be afforded this new program or policy in the city budget process. B. When the city council adopts such a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded; e.g., which existing taxes or fees the council expects to increase and by how much, or which current city programs or department expenditures the council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if the council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. C. As used in this section 2.04.095, the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budget year in excess of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the city's annual General Fund budget, and which may require increasing existing taxes or fees or imposition of new taxes or fees. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations or, or necessitated by, public emergencies. The foregoing ordinance was READ on the _ day of September, 1999, and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this _day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.04.095 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH FISCAL PRIORITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following section 2.04.095 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 2.04.095 Identification of Fiscal Impact and Priorities of Expenelifine Po,,lick.Decisions. A. At such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant revenue implications, it shall offer clear direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to the fiscal priority to be afforded this new program or policy in t� he city bu„ dget�rocess. B. When the city council adopts such program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded; for example, a.,g, which exit taxes or fees other the council expects to increase and by how much, or which current city ro rams or de artment ex enditures the council erects feels might to reduced to fund the new program or policy. However, if the council cannot reasonabl identif a otential fundin source it shall so indicate. C. As used in this section 2.04.095, the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" means includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budgetyear in excess of one half of pereentf0. one and one-half pqrrant 11.5% of the city's annual General Fund budget and which ma re uire increasin existin taxes or fees or im osition of new taxes or fees. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations of, or necessitated by, public emergencies. The foregoing ordinance was READ on the_ day of 1999, and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Redline draft for Council packet, Meeting of 21 Sept. 99. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.04.095 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH FISCAL PRIORITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following section 2.04.095 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 2.04.095 Identification of Fiscal Impact and Priorities of Policy Decisions. A.At such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant revenue implications, it shall offer clear direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to the fiscal priority to be afforded this new program or policy in the city budget process. B. When the city council adopts such a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded; e.g., which existing taxes or fees the council expects to increase and by how much, or which current city programs or department expenditures the council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if the council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. C. As used in this section 2.04.095, the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budget year in excess of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the city's annual General Fund budget, and which may require increasing existing taxes or fees or imposition of new taxes or fees. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations of, or necessitated by, public emergencies. The foregoing ordinance was READ on the day of 1999, and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Draft for Council Packet, Meeting of 21 Sept. 99. H:\city99\fisc ord dr3.wpd Council Communication Legal Department Telecommunication Code Amendments September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte �A Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: 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 Synopsis: This ordinance contains numerous amendments to the telecommunications ordinance adopted by the council in March 1998. Major changes include adding a provision imposing the construction and renewal requirements on cable TV utilities and deleting the requirement for a license rather than a franchise for those telecommunication providers using only a small portion of the city's right of ways. The distinction between a license and franchise was not clear and under the proposed amendments only franchises will be issued. The changes also include: 1) a requirement that a telecommunications provider pay a pavement degradation fee when construction within a right of way includes cutting the pavement. Pavement cuts shorten pavement life and this fee is designed to recoup the city's investment in quality paving; 2) encouragement for providers to cooperate with other utilities during construction within the right of way so that multiple cutting of the pavement is avoided; 3) a clarification that a provider who is permitted by the city to install facilities above ground may do so with consent of the city or the joint pole owner(US West); 4) streamlining of construction requirements within the public rights of way and 5) a fee for resellers who have no facilities within the right of way but lease lines from a franchisee. Resellers use leased lines to sell telecommunication services to others. Recommendation: Adopt first reading of the ordinance by title only. Background Information: A version of these amendments were first presented to the council in December 1998 and a first reading was conducted in January 1999. At that time, US West requested additional time to review the amendments. Council Communication from the Legal Dept. Page 2 September 21, 1999 Prior to the January first reading, representatives of US West met with staff to voice its concerns over some ordinance provisions. US West felt that the city had exceeded its authority in the implied manner the city would charge US West over and above statutory limits. For incumbent local exchange carriers (i.e. US West), cities are limited to charging 7% of a narrowly defined revenue base (about one-third of US West's total revenue). In addition, US West felt that the unreimbursed co-location requirements imposed by the ordinance amounted to a constitutional taking. US West also noted that the ordinance placed in doubt the contractual provisions the city has with it over joint pole ownership. Under a contract dating back to the 1920s practically every pole erected in the city is jointly purchased, installed and owned by US West and the city. US West also pointed out several construction requirements in the ordinance that were impractical, inefficient or uneconomical. After the January first reading, staff continued to meet with representatives of US West and Falcon Cable to further resolve perceived ambiguities in the amendments and to further clarify and streamline requirements for telecommunication providers. Many of the amendments are proposed to alleviate the concerns of US West and Falcon. Some amendments also result from experience in other cities who are attempting to implement their own telecommunication ordinances. F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno cc.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 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 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 finetl-thre and additions are shaded. SECTION 1. The following section 16.04.025 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: ca t16 04025itji to Cable`=zService; and ®pen y _ Uideo.S stern.eTo the extent not specifically'preclutle by the;Cable Act or any otheed° al law, this titleshall apply to cable service provided within the citynand to OpenVideo Systems; as �c. P, that to"rm isaus"ed in section 653 of±the Telecommunications SECTION 2. Sections 16.04.040.J, K, L, Q, Y and BB of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: J. Franchise or License means an agreement between the city and a grantee which grants a privilege to use public right of way and utility easements within the city for a dedicated purpose and for specific compensation. K. Grantee means the person to which a franchise oriieense is granted by the city. * L. Gross Revenue. Except=for a'telecoinmurications utility,, gross reven 61means gross revenue derived by grantee from the provision of telecommunications services originating or terminating in the city on facilities covered by the franchise or license. For the purposes of this definition, etluncollectib le s "r mp z from revenue includetltirigrossfrevenus may be excluded from toss revenues'.For atelecommunications utility, oss revenue g_ ty g en means tho'se`revehues deriyetlkfr rtiexchange access services, as tlefined in ORS 401 710, lessfnet unegollectibles from such revenues. if a telecommunications: 1 serv*ee on facilities frorn an end user to an pe nt of presence-, pFoMkde"� ..at at least 90% of the on tile la-eility is interstate. 4. Revenue derived Irom 'toil transport seMee-s. * Q. Public Rights of Way include, but are not limited to, streets, roads, highways, bridges, alleys, sidewalks, trails, paths, public easements and all other public ways areas, including the subsurface under and air space over these areas, but only to the extent of the city's right, title, interest or authority to grant a fieense-aFfranchise to occupy and use such streets and easements for telecommunications facilities Publi- f I'M'.�-rn'fp' W"ay domnot include trails,,paths or sid'ewalks}within-parks oiYother areas`of. theicity unless.the+trailpath.or sidewalkhas beenkdetlicated as a right of way; Y. To" Serveee means telecornmunoestions serviee provided between made on a per-tinit basis, exeludii, within an extended area Reseller meansa"ny persori that 'p'er-orvid'es telecommunications sernce using a telecommunications facility within a,�publica right of;way for,which service a separate o arge is,matle; where that person does not owri,=lease, control or manage the telecommunications facility used to provide the service, BB. Utility Easement means any_easement withinthe"public rrghtof way tlesignatetl on;a subdivision pl�atxor p�aitition map as a utihty��easemehtl publicfitihty easement_oi `P.UgE " ortany easement granted to or owned by the city and acquired, established, dedicated or devoted for public utility purposes not inconsistent with the telecommunications facilities. SECTION 3. Section 16.08.010 is amended to read: 16.08.010 Purpose. The purpose for registration is: A. To assure that all telecommunications carriers who have facilities or provide services within the city comply with the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city. B. To provide the city with accurate and current information concerning the telecommunications carriers who offer to provide telecommunications services within the city, or that own or operate telecommunications facilities within the city. C. To assist the city in the enforcement of this title and the collection of any city franchise fees,— a fees or charges that may be due the city. Page 2—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAULReiewmmunic tions\Ordinanc s\ashiand amend 899 anno.wpd) Paws as they apply to grantees under this title. SECTION 5. Section 16.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.08.020 Registration Required. Except as provided in section 16.08.040, all telecommunications carriers having telecommunications facilities within the corporate limits of the city, and all telecommunications carriers that offer or provide telecommunications service to customer premises within the city, shall register with the city) pursuamt to this ehapter on the 'JThe appropriate application anti license quali a from a)the O,PU�C,eor€b) theFCC necessary_ reg` statton information,Applicants alsoahave the:'opt> Ion of providing the following ,. — --- information j A. The identity and legal status of the registrant, including any affiliates. t name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the registration statement. E B. A description of the registrant's existing or proposed telecommunications facilities within the city a>descnpt of'fhe telec mo murnca o s facilities that the registraht intends to construct and a . D. A description of the telecommunications service that the registrant intends to offer or provide, or is currently offering or providing, to persons, firms, businesses or institutions within the city. E. Information suffie'ent to determine whether the registrant is subjeet to publie right of way licensing or franchising undef this title. FQ. Information sufficient to determine whether the transmission, origination or receipt of the telecommunications services provided or to be provided by the registrant constitutes an occupation or privilege subject.to any business license requirements;A-, ,., dopy the business license or:license number-must be provided;! G. Worrmatoon suffiement to determine that the ed for and reeeived any eertifleate of autherity or permit required by the F66 or the OPU6 to provide teleeernmitinieations servie,es within the W. Mbrmat4on suffie'ent to determine that the applieent has applied for and received any eonstruction permit, operating license or other approval required by the FGG to have telecommuniestions faeHities within the eity. Page 3—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) _ �rtsc rtarrrbe oci. d. �tte` cl`er it�Iwiii.atian as the eity may reasonably SECTION 6. Section 16.08.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.08.040 Exceptions to Registration. The following telecommunications carriers are excepted from registration: I * A. Telecommunications carriers that are owned and operated exclusiVelyjor -.I.N,. its own use by the state or a political subdivision of this state"an d=_provide �--.rH felecommunicaflons _services for;'governmental_:"purpos'es 'nly_ B. A private telecommunications network, provided that such network does not use or occupy any public rights of way of the city or other rights of vvay C.! Telecommunicafions carriers that are grantees under a tel�ecommunicatns�frarichise with the,city or prev�'ous grantees�that have timelyen tfled for; and a�_e=actively and__expeditiou`sly pursuing]a franchise reti�al.y; SECTION 7. Section 16.12.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.12.030 Construction Permits. No_person shall construct or install any telecommunications facilities within public,right of way in the city without first. obtaining a construction permit,previ ___,ded #IWVV F and`pay ng-Ahe'construction permit fee.esfablish section 16:12:070; A. No,permit shall be iss6ed for the eonstruction or installation of ii * B. No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way unless the telecommunications carrier has first Applied_for and received a licemse or franchise pursuant to chapter 16.20 or previous grantees thatahaveftimely fled for, and ace actively_and expeditiously pursuing, a franchise renewal. G. No permit sh all be for the eenstruetion or installation o fee estab'ished In se&H.011 16.12.070. Page 4—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) B. No permit shall be necessary for the installation of a customer specific wire ("a drop") by a franchise grantee where no excavation within the right of way occurs. G] NMpermdishaji be necessary for the mstallat)on of'felecommunlcatlon fac(ht)eswtth,)nba�ut)I�tyjeasement�that is not otherwisefw)thin, under or_ over a pubIicstreet, road highway,,,bridge, alley, bikewayss)dewalk; trail or path- SECTION 8. Section 16.12.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.040 Permit Applications. Applications for permits to construct telecommunications facilities within aeputltc rlghtofeway shall be submitted upon forms to be provided by the city and shall be accompanied by drawings, plans, specifications and eernputef maps in , in sufficient detail to A Ddemonstrate: — A 1�, That the facilities will be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes, rules and regulations andrthat*the facilities wtll be constructed h accordance with1the franchise agreement. * 62. The location and route of all facilities on or`in the;publlc ghts of wayto be installed aboveground or on existing utility poles. The location and route of all facilities to be located under the surface of the ground, ' _ within the public rights f way. U!ingTfadliUesUall be differentiated on£the,plans from new construction: E3. The location of all of applicantls;existing underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes, mains and installations which.are within the public rights of way along the underground route proposed by the applicant. B. The location of a" other fae"itmes to be ponstrueted within the eety, but not within the publie rights of way: Y * E4. The eenstruefien methods to be e p!?yed_�r proteetion of existing . . to the.publiC r g,hts of way. A typical cross section shall be provided showing new or existing facilities in relation to the street, curb, sidewalk or right of way. The application shall also be accompanied by computer generated electronic maps of the proposed installations in a format specified by the city++_unless the Page 5—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USERtPAULtTelecommunicationstOrdinances tashland amend 899 annompd) applicant demonstrates that the format utilized was developed by the applicant and is proprietary. * B Show tThe location dimension and types of all trees which will=be _ substantiallytimmedemovedorreplacedfas a resultofthe areas disturbed 3 dunng�oonstruction=and�whic, ,,, h,�are within or adjacent to the public rights of way along the route proposed by the applicant, _ The applicant shall=submit ajlandscape plan, satisfactory toithe city, for the replacement of such trees_; SECTION 9. Section 16.12.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.12.060 Traffic Control Plan. All peirnit applications which involve work on, in, under, across or along any public rights of way shall be aceornpanied by a traffic r °e mied consistent with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and to minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. SECTION 10. Section 16.12.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.12.070 Construction Permit Fee. Unless otherwise provided in a t franchise agreement, prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant shall pay a permit fee estimated eost Of g�eate,=,rin an amour nt�,t�o�be�det n edzby resolutionof the aty c Uo ncil�Nothmg in this sectiomshall�req`uire�attelecomrriwnications�utility to paya�perm�t<fee unless the u'tilityis{prov ding telecommunication services;m addition to ezehange access services: SECTION 11. The following section 16.12.075 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Section 16�12.0769Dimmiished pavement hfe-fee Grantee for a y onstruction requiring pavement4cuts; shalltpay totcir an amount to reimburse}cityxfor the pavement degradation antl sho enedNpavement life thattresults from such cuts. Such"fees�sFialltbe setbyresolution ofathercitycouncil and shall be based#upoh the'linear3fe'etroffthe Pavemeriteutthe ge of the pavement;wh n cutand whether the"excavation is transverse or�longitudinat This�sectiomstiall not -apply to a Telecommurncation Utility if such'fee is determined to fall witlin`the restrictions of ORS 22;1.51`5'(3): SECTION 12. Section 16.12.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.12.090 Construction Schedule. The permittee shall submit a written construction schedule to the Department of Public Works before commencing any work in or about the public rights of way. At the citys°request; the Page 6—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanms\ashland amend 899 annompd) construction scheddI6�shall rncl'ude a4besttestlmate deadline forcompletion of construction. The scheiulels subtectto�approval bythe D'Irector of Pub'lie Woks, The permittee shall further notify the Department of Public Works not less than two working days in advance of com`menc the pro ect'und`1 tj issued permit for artp excavation or work to the public rights of way. 07en, advance notice is not possible because of an emergency, the permittee shall give notice within 24 hours of the excavation or work. When feasible, permittee shall contact all other grantees or utilities located within the public right of way . wheretconstruction is to occur. The purpose of the contact is to determine if joint p_rojeefs are feasible ' to minimize duplication of work and unnecessary excavation. For those grantees or utilities expressing Ili nterest in a joint project, permittee shall give them reasonable notice of the particular dates on which open trenching exists. Upon mutual agreement, permittee shall make the trench available to grantees and utilities for installation of comduit, pedestals, vaults, laterals, wires, lines or equipment. The payment for the cost of trenching and installation shall be as mutually agreed to by the parties. Provided permittee demonstrates a good kwf5it h attempt to coordinate, the City shall not hiffiffi7otalissiance of any permit due inability oany granutilio agree upon scheduling of the project and/or reirmbursemgnt of costs associated with the project. SECTION 13. Section 16.12.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.100 Locates. The permittee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding the provisions of ORS Chapter 757, governing the location of underground facilities (the "One-Call statutes"). Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One-Call statutes. E-very grantee under this title shall join and maintain membership in the Oregon Utility Notification C►enter and shall comply with the rules adopted by the center regulating the notif icatioan and marking of underground facilities, SECTION 14. Section 16.12.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 1. 16.12.110 Compliance with Permit. All construction practices and activities shall be in accordance with the permit and approved final plans and specifications for the facilities. The Department of Public Works and its representatives shall be provided access to the work site and such further information that is not confcemtial, sensitive or prgprietary as they may require to ensure compliance with such requirements. I SECTION 15. Section 16.12.120 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. 16.12.120 Bisplay of Permit. The permittee shall maintain a eopy of the eenstructiom permit amd approved plans at the eenstruction site, which shall be displayed and niade avaHable for inspection by the Department of Publie Works or its representatives at all tinies when eemstruefiem work is oeeurrinT. Page 7—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) SECTION 16. Section 16.12.130 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. the location of faeilities by depth, line, grade, proximity to other facifities-otiothef standaFd, the permittee shall eause the aeation ofsuel6eilities to be verified by wh'eh are not located On eernplianee with permit reqdirements at the sele expense of the permittee. SECTION 17. Section 16.12.140 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.140 Noncomplying Work_Upon order of the Department of_Public Works, aft rre easonable notice and an opportunity to cure has been,..given ;all work which does not comply with the permit, the approved plans and specifications for the work, the franchise agreement-,or the requirements of this title, shall be removed at the sole expense of the permittee. SECTION 18. Section 16.12.150 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.150 Completion of Construction. The permittee shall promptly complete all construction activities so as to minimize disruption of the city rights of way and other public and private property. All construction work authorized by a permit within city rights of way, including restoration, must be completed within 1.20 days of the date of issuance unless the city engineer agrees to a_longer;period_. SECTION 19. Section 16.12.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted: 16.12.168 As-Built Drawings. Witilin WV Mays a" -nF4 a Q-# *'n a the permittee shall furnish the eitywith two complete sets of plan anels — ii. SECTION 20. Sections 16.12.170.A, B and C of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: * A. When a permittee, or any person acting on its,behalf, does any work in or affecting any public rights of way, other rights of way or city property, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions and restore such ways or property to as -__ ted belere the work was undertaken, near the original condition as reasonably possible, unless otherwise directed by the city. B. If weather or other conditions do not permit the complete restoration required by this section, the permittee shall temporarily restore the affected rights of way or property if directed to do so by the city engineer. Such temporary restoration shall be at the permittee's sole expense and Page 8—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanws\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) the permittee shall promptly undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather or other conditions no longer prevent such permanent restoration. For the purpose of this subsection, temporary restoratlonJmeans restoring theProperty toa fe contlition_ perrnttt tng such,=usf3thepr„operty aswas�made prior tolthe�ork beuig undertaken temporary restoration does=notrequire€pavinglaridscaping or-surf_acing_of e.permanent nature ' C. If the permittee falls to restore rights of way or property to as-geed-a eend'tmen as existed before the work was tindert as.near the original con �, -rte', .. y� condltlon as'reasonal5lypossllile; the qty, shall give the perm(ttee v�i_r`itten notice'a�provide the permittee a reasonable period of time not i 1�-e, . . x A —, exceedinga30rdays to restore the rights of way or property. If, aftepsuch n tlo ce th�etperm ttee fails to restore the rights of way or property to asp goodnaeondltioh as existed before the work was undertaken, the,�clty shall cause such restoration to be made at the expense of the permittee. SECTION 21. Section 16.12.190 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.190 Construction and Completion Bond. Unless otherwise provided in a +ieense-eFfranchise agreement, or unless the city otherwise specifically approves an alternative security to assure performance, a performance bond written by a corporate surety acceptable to the city, and authorized to transact business in Oregon, equal to at least 100% of the estimated cost of constructing grantee's telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way of the city shall be deposited before construction is commenced. A. The performance bond shall remain in force until 60 days after substantial completion of the work, as determined in writing by the city, including restoration of public rights of way and other property affected by the construction. B. The performance bond shall guarantee, to the satisfaction Af the city: 1. timely completion of construction; 2. construction in compliance with applicable plans, permits, technical codes and standards; 3. proper location of the facilities as specified by the city; 4. restoration of the public rights of way and other property affected by the construction; and 5. „ required by this title; and V. timely payment and satisfaction of all claims, demands or liens for labor, material or services provided in connection with the work. Page 9—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) SECTION 22. Section 16.12.200 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. and, Of different, the grantee, are responsible for perforniamee of and eornplianee with all provisioms of this ehaptert SECTION 23. Section 16.12.210 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. cooperate with the e1by and W:' eseh other. ILII of their proposed eanstruetion activities for that ealendar year in, aretind or that may affeet the ptiblie rights of way. B. Eaeh grantee she" meet with the city,-other gran of the publie rights of way annually or as determimed by the eity to sehedtfle and as ordered by the eity engineer, to minimize pub" i nvolving overhead eons ftmmion shall also be coordinated ais�� ties in r rder to ensure facilities and spaee are Department available. SECTION 24. Section 16.16.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.010 Location of Facilities. All facilities located within the public right of way or utility easements shall be constructed, installed and located in accordance with the following terms and conditions, unless otherwise specified in a fieeftse-w franchise:agreement: A. Grantee shall install its telecommunications facilities underground unless the city specifically permits attachments to utility poles or other aboveground facilities', provided, however, no entity with existing__. _ attachments to utility poles shall be required to install new or existing facilities_underground except as provided in the following subsections B. Grantee shall install its telecommunications-facilities within an existing underground duct or conduit owned by it whenever surplus capacity exists within such utility facility_unless grantee demonstrates to satisfaction_of city that such installation is not feasible. C. A grantee with permission to install overhead facilities shall install its telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus usable space is available as determined by the Department of Electric Utilities or the owner of the poles. Page 10—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanms\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) D. Whenever any existing electric utilities are located underground within a public right of way of the city, a grantee with permission to occupy the same public right of way must also locate its telecommunications facilities underground. Whenever any overhead electric utilities are relocated underground, any grantee with permission to occupy the same public right of way must also relocate underground. E. Whenever any new or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located or relocated underground within a public right of way of the city, a grantee that currently occupies the same public right of way shall relocate its facilities underground concurrently with the other affected utilities to minimize disruption of the public right of way, absent extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as determined by the city and consistent with state law. * F. teleearnmuMeateens earraers or facilities, the eity may require the grantee * tTThe city engineer may grant exceptions to some or all of the requirements of this section if the engineer determines, in the engineer's sole discretion, that a waiver is necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of this title. SECTION 25. Section 16.16.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.030 Relocation or Removal of Facilities. Within 60 days following written notice from the city, a grantee shall, at its own expense, temporarily or permanently remove, relocate, change or alter the position of any telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way whenever the city shall have determined that such removal, relocation, change or alteration is reasonably necessary for: , A. The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any city or other public improvement in or upon the public rights of way. * B. The operations of the city or other, governmental entity in or upon the, public rights of way_vnless such city operations are exclusively for its= telecommunications purposes or cable services_ which compete wit other telecommunications carriers or cable servic6s. * Notwithstanding the 60 day limit, a grantee shall, at fts own no expense to the city, relocate overhead facilities within 30 days following written notice from the Electric Utilities Department that the city or a joint pole owner has space on poles for such purpose. Page 11 —AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) * The 30 or 60 day limit may be waived by consent of the parties. Waivers shall not be unreasonably withheld. The city shall notrequlre, grant eto removelor�relocate its faclles or vacate any street, alley orothertpublic higtiwayncidental�toanypubhchousingor �enewalaproj ecttnder ORSChapters4s>56 or 457';wlthout,resenringagrantee>s nght'therein;or;without reGuirmgta.grarifee to tie"compensated$for"the costs thereof? SECTION 26. Section 16.16.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.040 Removal of Unauthorized Facilities. Within 30 days following written notice from the city, any grantee, telecommunications carrier, or other person that owns, controls or maintains any unauthorized telecommunications system, facility or related appurtenances within the public rights of way of the city shall, at its own expense, remove such facilities or appurtenances from the public rights of way of the city. A telecommunications system or facility is unauthorized and subject to removal in the following circumstances: * A. One year after the expiration or termination of the grantee's telecommunications tiee_nse�franchise unless ttiexgrabtee ha 'Aimely filed for, and i"s_actively_and ezpeditiously�pursuing a franchise renewal; B. Upon abandonment of a facility within the public rights of way of the city. A facility will be considered abandoned when it is deactivated, out of service, or not used for its intended and authorized purpose for a period of 90 days or longer. A facility will not be considered abandoned if it is _ temporarily out of service during_performance of repairs,ifthe facility_is ezcesscapacityxof as cur'rent°g�antee� who is:not irr`default,;if the facility is being replaced or if the facility has been disconnected because the building or property being served is vacant. C. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without,the prior grant of a telecommunications 4eense-eFfranchise. D. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior issuance of a required construction permit. E. If the system or facility was constructed or installed at a location not permitted by the grantee's telecommunications fieense-ar-franchise. F. If the system interferes with or adversely affects existing telecommunication facilities. The 30 day limit may be waived by consent of the parties. Waivers shall not be unreasonably withheld. Page 12—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) If all the facilities and appurtenances are not removed within one year after the termination or expiration of the franchise or Iieense or such further time as may be granted by the city, they shall be forfeited to the city. The city may notify the grantee, carrier or other person described above that it waives forfeiture and may compel removal from the public right of way and restoration of the right of way and may maintain court suit to require such removal and restoration by the grantee, carrier or other person or the payment of the cost thereof by the grantee, carrier or other person. SECTION 27. Chapter 16.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: Chapter 16.20 Telecommunications Lmeense of Franchise Sections: 16.20.020 Telecommunications Franchise 16.20.030 Application 16.20.040 Application and Review Fee 16.20.050 Determination by the city 16.20.060 Rights Granted 16.20.070 Term of Grant 16.20.080 Leeense Route 16.20.090 Franchise Territory 16.20.100 Compensation to eity 16.20.110 Amendment of Grant 16020.120 Renewal Applications 16.20.130 Renewal Determinations 16.200140 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal 16.20.150 Assignments or Transfers of Grant, Notice to city 16.20.170 Revocation or Termination of GrantFranchise 16.20.180 Notice and Duty to Cure 16.20.190 Public Hearing 16.20.200 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions 16.20.210 Other City Costs 16 20 010 TeIecermm nieations License. /1 to I___nini..m:__L.o__ license _hall be red of any teleeernmunmeations earrier who desires public rights of way of the eity idemtified by the earrier. 16.20.020 Telecommunications Franchise. A telecommunications franchise shall be required of any telecommunications carrier who desires to occupy public rights of way of the city based on geographie areas within the eipy. Page 13—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telemmmunic tions\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) 16.20.030 Application. Any person that desires a telecommunications license er franchise pursuant to this chapter shall file an application with the Finance Department which shall include the following information: A. The identity of the applicant, ineluding a" affilmates of the applicant doing btisiness On the State-of-�. B. A description of the telecommunications services that are or will to be offered or provided by the applicant over its telecommunications facilities within the city. C. A deseription of the transmission rrieditim that is being used or will n. Preliminary engineering plans, specifications and a network map of the facilities to be located within the'public rights of way in the_city, including uu� copies in a computerized format specified by the city (unless;the applicant tlemonstrates that the format utilize was'developed by the apphcant_and !§,p roprietary) and all in sufficient detail to identify. 1. the location and route requested for applicant's proposed telecommunications facilities; 2. the loestion of a" aboveground and nudergrotind publie telecornmunieation, eable, water, sewer, storm drainage and othe ftenloties in the public rights of way along the propoted-fotrl�—, fae"'toes of other te'ecorrimunicab 4. the specific trees, struettiFes, irnproverrient�, f=6 Ries and&f any, that appIiCZU-*V-ropo9e9 to temporarily or pemiaftenty-remove or , relocate. ED. If applicant is proposing to install aboveground facilities, tojhe extent that they the applicantwill be using utility poles, evidence from the Electric Utilities Department orpole owner that surplus usable'space is available for locating the applicant's telecommunications facilities on existing utility poles along the proposed route; and if surplu usable space is not available in some or all service areas, an indication of these locations and a "make ready" schedule for completion. FE. If the applicant is proposing an underground installation in existing ducts or conduits within the public rights of way, provide information in sufficient detail to identify: 1. the excess capacity currently available iri such ducts or conduits before installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities; Page 14—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) 2. the excess capacity, if any, that will exist in such ducts or conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities. 6_F,. If applicant is proposing an underground installation within new ducts or conduits to be constructed within the public rights of way: 1. the location proposed for the new ducts or conduits; 2. the excess capacity that will exist in such ducts or conduits after the installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities. HG. A preliminary construction schedule and completion date. I. Financial staternents prepared im seeordamee with generally aecepted eonstruet, operate, maintain, reloeste and remove the faellities. d. Worrmation in sufficient deta" to establish the ap6lieant's teehnical qualifications, experienee and expertise regarding the teleeemmunieations K.M. Information to establish that the applicant has obtained all other governmental approvals and permits to construct and operate the facilities and to offer or provide the telecommunications services proposed. L. Whether the applieant to provide eable serviee, videe dial tone determine whether stieh ! to cable framehe I.. An accurate map showing the location of any existing telecommunications facilities in the city that applicant intends to use or lease. make available to the eity and other publie, educational and governmental n9stitatiens�. E). As BuRs, after completion of imitial eamstruetiqn. Q. The area or areas of the eity the applicant d6s6res to serve and a sehedtfle for btim'd-but to the embre framehase area. R. Such other information as may be requested by the eity administrator 0 Page 15—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) 16.20.040 Application and Review Fee. A. Any applicant for a lieense-e>-franchise pursuant to this chapter shall pay an application and review fee in an amount to be determined by resolution of the city council. This section shall not apply to,a telecommunication utility which provides only local exchange access. B. The application and review fee shall be deposited with the city as part of the application filed pursuant to section 16.20.030. 16.20.050 Determination by the city. The city shall issue a written determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part, below. If the application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for denial. The standards to b e applied by eity are! prepese-!-&— ttes- D. The-eapattity of t. e Pub 01 way '.0 aeeamniedate additional utility and telecarnmunmeations facilities if the lieemse as gfanted. tnents, serviee, travel or 1- orfranehise is- within the publie rights of way. G. The serviee that appliestnt will provide to the community and. r and welfare if the 'weense or The availability of alternate retites OF Iceationi for the proposed facilities-- d. Ap eable federal and state teleeernm—.�Uvila lavvay regulations and h-e44tef-sl-.etofs-ais-tTtay-deiiienstrate that the grant to tise the public it r ghts of way will-serve the Cornntunity 16.20.060 Rights Granted. No k�franchise granted under this chapter shall convey any right, title or interest in the public rights of way, but shall be deemed a grant Page 16—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) to use and occupy the public rights of way for the limited purposes and term, and upon the conditions stated in the license or agreement. Further, me lieense or franchise s be eonstr�ed as any warranty of tWL- 16.20.070 Term of Grant. Unless otherwise specified in a heense-enfranchise agreement, a telecommunications fieense-er-franchise granted under this title shall be in effect for a term of five years. 16.20.080 Lieense Route. A telecommunications lieense granted under this chapter shall be '"moted to a grant to use speeifie publie rights of way and defined portions o may. 16.20.090 Franchise Territory. A-Un less.otherwise,,specified in a,-,franchise agreement) telecommunications franchise granted under this chapter shall be limited to the specific geographic area of the city to be served by the franchise grantee, and the public rights of way necessary to serve such areas. R 16.20.100 Gernpensation to eity. Eaeh lieense and franehise granted under this ehapter is subjeet to the eity's right, whieh 49 expressly reserved, to annually fix a and reasonable Compensation to be paid for the privileges granted, provided, nothin this ehapter shall prohibit the eity and a grantee from agreeing to the corn pensation-to be 16.20.110 Amendment of Grant. Conditions for amending a Feense-enfranchise: R A. A new application and grant shall be required of any telecommunications carrier that desires to extend or locate its telecommunications facilities in public rights of way of the city which are not included in a license g franchise previously granted under this title,unless the grantee has alreadyy received-a-franchise to occupy public rights-of-way,in,all areas of the,city? B. If ordered by the city to locate or relocate its telecommunications facilities in public rights of way not included in a previously granted license 0 franchise, the city shall grant an amendment without further application. A new application and grant shall be required of any telecommunications carrier that desires to provide a service which was not included in a lieense or franchise previously granted under this title. 16.20.120 Renewal Applications. A grantee that desires to renew its license 0 franchise under this chapter shall, not less than 90 days before expiration of the current agreement, file an application with the city for renewal of its license 0 franchise which shall include the following information: Page 17—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) A. The information required pursuant to section 16.20.030 that has not previously been provided to the city in connection with grantee's existing franchise agreement. B. Any information required pursuant to the iieense-or-franchise agreement between the city and the grantee. 16.20.130 Renewal Determinations. Within 90 days after receiving a complete application under section 16.20.120, the city shall issue a written determination granting or denying the renewal application in whole or in part, applying the following standards. If the renewal application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for non-renewal. A. The finanewa' and teehnqea' ability of the- applileant. The legal abili-Ly- &the applicant. —�. —The applicant's compliance with the requirements of this title and the fieense-ar-franchise agreement. EB. Applicable federal, state and local telecommunications laws, rules and policies. F. Stich other'I aetoi o as may ernCMSL te 'l-at the e0n,tint.ted grant to use 16.20.140 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal. No heense-orfranchise shall be renewed until. any ongoing violations or defaults in the grantee's performance of the agreement, or of the requirements of this title, have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action to be taken by the grantee has been approved by the city. 16.20.150 Assignments or Transfers of Grant, Notice to city. A. Grantee shall notify the city quarterly of the sale or lease ol the eapaeity, bandwidth, "t fiber, dark fiber or swlt�-Jhllnl�- ---': teleec)rniliunocatent-taffiefL-.--NoLLI'ee, or eity approval, prior t to the transaction is notfequirved I— as remains solely respoms:1-le for carrying out its obligations umder its frffln.-his-e -a.-Ireement and thiS ehapter. B. --Ownership or control of a majority interest in a telecommunications system, icense or franchise may not, directly or indirectly, be transferred, assigned or disposed of by sale, lease, merger, consolidation or other act Page 18-AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanoes\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) of the grantee, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior consent of the city, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and then only on such reasonable conditions as may be prescribed in such consent. 1. Grantee and the proposed assignee or transferee of the grant franchise,or system shall provide and certify the following to the eity not less tham 120 days prior to the proposed date of transfer! a. Gernplete information setting forth the mature, ternis and eendition of the proposed transfer or assignment, b. A" information required of a teleeernmunications Imeemse or proposed transferee or assfgnee� ----- - . � -- - - .agree,.ih wnting;;to assume and abid','by'all ofthe provisions of the franchises—_ 2. No transfer shall be approved unless the assignee or transferee has the legal, technical, financial and other requisite qualifications to own, hold and operate the telecommunications system pursuant to this title. 3. Unless otherwise provided in a fieense or franchise agreement, the grantee shall reimburse the city for all direct and indirect fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred by the city in considering a request to transfer or assign a telecommunications license franchise. 4. , Any transfer or assignment of a telecommunications grant frahchis0, system or integral part of a system without prior approval of the city under this section or pursuant to a fieenseef franchise agreement shall be void and is cause for revocation of the grant. eontrol of the grantee, of the owmership or working eentre' of a teleeornmuniestions io eense or franchise, of the ownemhop or working eontrol of affiliated entities having ownership or working eentrol of the grantee or of a teleeernrmuniestions system, or-of eentrol of the capacity or bandwidth of grantee's teleeemn�undeation systern, Meilities-ff substantial parts of sueh capacity or bandwidth, shall be eonsideredd am assignment Of transfer requiring city approval pursuant to seetion 16.20.150. Transsetions between affiliated entities are not exempt frorn eity approval. 16.20.170 Revocation or Termination of Grant Franchise. A+eense-ef-franchise to use or occupy public rights of way of the city may be revoked for the following reasons: Page 19—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) A. Construction or operation in the city or in the public rights of way of the city without a license or franchise grant of authorization. B. Construction or operation at an unauthorized location. C. Unauthorized substantial transfer.of eentrel of the grantee. Failure to comply,wo 'section with respect to sale, transfer or asslgnmentof a telecommunications system orfranchise. E. Unatither1red sale, assigiinient or transfer of grantee's franehise-Of D. Misrepresentation by or on behalf of a grantee in any application to the city. 6E.. Abandonment of telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way. ffF. Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this title. * fd. Willful or continued Failure to pay_taxes,compensation, fees or costs when and as due the city unless subject to a bona fide dispute. H.. Insolvency or bankruptcy of the grantee. IE'I. Violation of a material provision of this title. 0. Violation of a material term of a-fieense-eFfranchise agreement. * 16.20.180 Notice and Duty to Cure. Pursuant to section_16.20.170;In in,the event that the city believes'that grounds exist for revocation of a ffeense-aFfranchise, the city shall give the grantee written notice of the apparent violation or noncompliance, providing a short and concise statement of the nature and general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and providing the grantee a reasonable period of time not exceeding 30 days to furnish evidence: A. That corrective action has been, or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, to remedy the violation or noncompliance. B. That rebuts the alleged violation or noncompliance. C. That it would be in the public interest to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation. 16.20.190 Public Hearing. In the event that a grantee fails to provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to the city as provided in section 16.20.180, the city administrator shall refer the apparent violation or non-compliance to the city council. Page 20—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAULtTelecommunications\Ordinances�ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) The city council shall provide the grantee with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the matter. 16.20.200 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions. If persuaded that the grantee has violated or failed to comply with material provisions of this title, or of a franchise or iieense agreement, the city council shall determine whether to revoke the fieense er franchise, or to establish some lesser sanction and cure, considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation as reflected by one or more of the following factors: A. Whether the misconduct was egregious. B. Whether substantial harm resulted. C. Whether the violation was intentional. D. Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other requirements. E. Whether there is a history of overall compliance. F. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted or cured. 16.20.210 Other City Costs. All grantees shall, within 30 days after written demand, reimburse the city for all direct and indirect costs and expenses incurred by the city in connection with any modification, amendment, renewal or transfer of the fieeense or franchise or any license or franchise agreement. SECTION 28. Section 16.24.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.24.010 Facilities. Each grantee shall provide the city with an accurate map or maps certifying the location of all telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way. Each grantee shall provide updated maps annually lnclud ng copies_in a computerized format specified by the city_(unless the grantee_ _ demonstrates•that the format utilized-was developed by_the applicant and.is prop rietary$. SECTION 29. Section 16.24.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: { * 16.24.020. Damage to Grantee's Facilities. Unless directly and proximately caused by willful, intentional;of malicious or n_egligent'acts by the city, the city shall not be liable for any damage to or loss of any telecommunications facility within the public rights of way of the city as a result of or in connection with any public works, public improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, or work of any kind in the public rights of way by or on behalf of the city, or for any consequential losses resulting directly or indirectly from such work. Page 21 —AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) SECTION 30. Section 16.24.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted: 'i make its telecommunications sery ces ava I any euston er will ,n its eense or franchise area who shall request sue' servwee, without duserimimation as to the terms, eenditions, rates a eharges for grantee's sef-viees, pmvidleel 1 -1-1 :_ this ehapter shall prohibit a grantee from making any reasonable'.....eations ameng differently situated eustomers. SECTION 31. Section 16.24.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. i 6.24.050 Service to the city. A grantee shall make it ts�eleecrnmunmeafioms serviees available to the eity at its most faverable rate offered at the time of the request eharged to a similar n subject to any ol 7-—-I- ta'"s or prile e hsts an file with the n •u may deduet the applieable eharges from franehise fee payments. Other terms between the &y and grantee: SECTION 32. Section 16.24.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.24.060 Compensation for City Property. If any right is granted, by lease, }ieense,franqhise or other manner, to use and occupy city property not;located_ Within a<public eight of wayjfor the installation of telecommunications facilities, the compensation to be paid for such right and use shall be fixed by the city. SECTION 33. Section 16.24.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.24.070 Franchise and Leeense Fees. As compensation for the benefits and privileges under its franchise or licrse and in consideration of permission to use the right-of-way of the city, the grantee shall pay a quarterly franchise fee to the city, through the duration of its franchise, as follows: A. The minimum quarterly franchise fee shall be set by resolution of the council. * B. The4franchise),fee fora telecommunication utility shall equal 7% of .. . its gross`revenu"h exchange ac ces's`serv(cestearned=within the boundaries of,the city; In addition, a telecommunication-utility shall pay the fee in the following paragraph on telecommunications services which sire not local exchange access.'services. C. Except for limited use telecommunication grantees, Tthe franchise fee shall equal a r percent of the grantee's gross revenues derived from grantee's provision of telecommunications services and telecommunications facilities to retail customers and one percent (1%) on all other gross revenues derived from grantee's provision Page 22—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) of telecommunications services and telecommunications facilities to wholesale customers, including other telecommunications carriers, if such-customers or carriers are also telecommunication grantees under this title. If such customers or carriers are not grantees, then the franchise fee shall equal the fee for retail customers. The amount of the percent for retail customers `shall be set by resolution of the council. - l_.__ _.. ._, D6. A`hmited use.a telecommunication.grantee shall pay,a fee based on_ the number of linear feet of right of way_used. A limited use;___ telecommunication grantee is defined as one whose franchise'_ limits the amount of linear feet the grantee may occupy or one who has a franchise as'of October 1998 for the�purpose of long` distance telecommunications-. The fee per linear foot shall be set by, of the council i The annual franchise fee collectable from a telecommunications utility shall not exceed the maximum amount under Oregon Law. The city shall accept from a telecommunications utility, in full payment of the franchise fee, the maximum amount allowed under Oregon law. On request, the telecommunications utility must provide documentation to support its calculation. BE. Grantee shall be "providing" telecommunications services or facilities if it sells, leases, resells, or otherwise conveys such services or facilities for consideration. EF. A grantee providing resold telecommunications services or facilities shall be entitled to a credit against its franchise fee for an amount equal to a percentage of the price paid for such services or facilities at wholesale. Such percentage shall be set by resolution of the council. FG: So long as it registers-with the city,as tequired in chapter 16.08 and pays.the fees required for grantees set forth is subsections A and_B above,a reseller may use another person's facilities to engage in- telecommunications activities in the rigWof--way without obtaining a franchise; providing the reseller does not,:either itself or through an affiliate, own or lease, control or manage any facilities in the right- of-way and is not involved in construction or repair of facilities in the right-of-way. For purposes of calculatifng the fees to be paid by a reseller, the amount of compensation paid by the reseller to the owner or manager of facilities in the right-of-way for the services it resells shall be deducted from the reseller's gross revenues before applying the percentage rates described in subsection C above. Page 23—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\eshland amend 899 anno.wpd) GH. Payment shall be made by each April 25, July 25, October 25 and January 25 for the quarter just ended. Any grantee who fails to remit any fee imposed by this chapter within 30 days of the date it is due, shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the fee from the date on which the remittance first became due until paid. SECTION 34. The paragraph following section 16.24.100.D of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: The liability insurance policies required by this section shall be maintained by the grantee throughout the term of the telecommunications fieense-ar-franchise, and such other period of time during which the grantee is operating without a franchise or license, or is engaged in the removal of its telecommunications facilities. Each such insurance policy shall contain the following endorsement: "This policy may not be canceled nor the intention not to renew be stated until 90 days after receipt by the city, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the city's risk manager of such intent to cancel or not to renew." SECTION 35. Section 16.24.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.24.110 General Indemnification. Each 6eense-or-franchise agreement shall include, to the extent permitted by law, grantee's express undertaking to defend, indemnify and hold the city and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of, resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the grantee or its affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its telecommunications facilities, and in providing or offering telecommunications services over the facilities or network, whether such acts or omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this title or by a grant agreement made or entered into pursuant to this title. SECTION 36. Section 16.24.120 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read 16.24.120 Performance Surety. Unless the city otherwise specifically approves an alternative security to assure performance, before a lieense or franchise granted pursuant to this title is effective, the grantee shall provide and maintain a performance bond, in form and substance acceptable to the city, as security for the full and complete performance of this title, including any costs, expenses, damages or loss the city pays or incurs because of any failure attributable to the Page 24—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:tUSERt PAULt Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) grantee to comply with the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations or permits of the city. SECTION 37. The following chapter 16.26 is added to Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code: Chapter 16.26 _CABLE FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS Sections' _ _ � ,1(i.26.010 Grant R Franchise? ;16.26.0201 Franchise Required! 16.26.Q30 Length of Franchises (16.26.040 Cable Franchise Characteristic 16.26.050 Cable Franchisee Subject to Other , Police Powers: 16.26.060 Operation of a Cable System Without a Franchise 1- v ,16.26.01b Grant of Franchise,_] _ A. The city.may grant one or more cable television franchises containing such provisions as are reasonably necessary to protect the public interest, and each such franchise shall be awarded in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this chapter.; __B.,This chapter may be amended from time to time, and in no event shall this chapter be considered a contract between the city-and a franchisee such that the city, would be prohibited from amending any provision of this chapter, provided no such amendment shall in any way impair any contract right or increase obligations of a franchisee under an outstanding_and.e_ffective franchise except in the lawful exercise of the city's police powers C. This chapter shall be in addition to the requirements of Title 16,that are specifically,made applicable to cable service as provided in section 16.0.4.025:in the event of'a conflict between this chapter and other requirements:of Title 16, this chapter r__.__. _ _ _ . -- - —_ shall control.i 16.26 020 Franchise..Regwre-d I A. No person may constructi operate or maintain a cable system or provide cable service over a cable system within theicity without a franchise granted by the city authorizing such activity. No person may be granted a franchise without having entered into a franchise agreement with the city pursuant to this chapter. For the purpose of this provision, the operation of part or all of a cable system within the city means the use or occupancy of rights-of-way by facilities,used to provide cable service. Page 25—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. I (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\eshland amend 899 anno.wpd) B. To the extent permitted by law, a telecommunications utility, as defined by state law, which utilizes its system to provide cable service shall be subject to this chapter and shall require a cable franchise under this chapter., C.! Services sirr larto cable service, such as open video system service, shall also be subject to this chapter to the extent provided by law. D. A system shall not be deemed as operating within the city even though service is offered or rendered to one or more subscribers within the city, if no right-of-way is used or occupied. All cable franchises granted pursuant I o this chapter shall contain-substantially similar terms and conditions, which, taken as a whole and considering relevant characteristics of the applicants, do not provide more or less favorable terms.an d.conditions than those required of other cable franchisees. 116:26.030 Length of Franchise.°Unless otherwise specified in cable_franchise, no cable franchise shall be granted for a period of more than five years. 116.26.040 Cable eFFranchise_Characteristics. _.___._._._ _ __._ _ __ --_._ _ --- -. ---- --- --. A. A cable franchise authorizes use of rights-of-way for installing,operating and maintaining cables, wires, lines, optical fiber, underground conduit 'and other devices necessary and appurtenant to the operation of a cable, ,'system to provide cable services within the city, but does not expressly or implicitly authorize a franchisee to provide service to, or install a cable system on private property without owner consent, or to use publicly or privately owned poles, ducts or conduits without a separate agreement With the pole owner. A cable franchise shall not mean or include any exclusive right for the privilege of transacting and carrying on a business within the city as generally required by the laws of the city. A cable franchise�shall not.-----, __ I any authority to provide telecommunications services or any other_ communications services besides cable services and a separate franch_i_se shall be required for the provision of telecommunications services in _ addition to the cable franchise. A franchise shall not confer any implicit rights other than those mandated by federal, state_or local law C. A cable franchise is nonexclusive and will not explicitly or implicitly: preclude the issuance of other franchises tobperate cable systems within the city; affect the city's right to authorize use of rights-of-way by other persons to operate cable systems or for other purposes as it determines appropriate. D. Once a cable franchise has been accepted and executed by the city and a franchisee, such cable franchise shall constitute a.valid and enforceable Page 26—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USERt PAUL\Telecommunications tOrdinancestashland amend 899 anno.wpd) agreement between the franchisee and the city, and the terms, conditions and provisions of such franchise, subject to this chapter and all other duly enacted and applicable laws and regulations, shall define the rights and obligations of the franchisee and-the city relating to the-franchise. . Ej All privileges prescribed by a cable franchise shall be subordinate to any, prior lawful occupancy of the rights-of-way and the city reserves the right to reasonably designate where a franchisee's facilities are to be placed,_ within the rights-of way„tfirough_itsgenerally applicable permitprocedures. __ .__-.- _ . __ F A cable r franchise-_ shall be_a privilege that is in the public trust and _ personal to the original franchisee. No franchise transfer shall occurL_. __- 'Without>the prior written consent of the city council.upon application made by the franchisee pursuant to this chapter, the franchise and applicable law.Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any.purported,_ franchise transfer made without application and prior written consent shall be void and shall be cause for;the city to revoke the cable franchise.t- X16 26 050, Cable Franchisee Subjectto Other Laws,:Pollce Powers r, �. -e___.__-�._ t --.--_�___ ,._.._ A cable franchisee shall.at all times be subject to and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including this chapter. A cable franchisee shall at all times be subject to all lawful,.__ exercise of the police power of the city including, but not limited to; all-,- rights the city may have under the cable act, all powers regarding zoning; Isupervision pro of construction control ofrights-of_way_and iconsumer tection:'; The city shall have full.authority to regulate cable systems, cable franchisees and franchises as may now or hereafter be lawfully permissible; 16.26 060. Operation of a Cable System Without a Franchise. Any person who,_ „_ occupies rights-of-way for the purpose of operating or constructing a cable syste_m or provides cable service over a cable system and who does not hold a valid franchise from the city shall be subject.to all requirements of this chapter. The city administrator shall have the authority_, A. To.require such person to enter into a franchise within 30 days of receipt of written notice that a.franchise is required; or B: To require such person to remove its property and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory to the city. The city administrator may direct city personnel, or may employ contractors, to remove the property and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory to the city and charge the person the costs therefor. Page 27—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) C. To take any other action it is entitled to take under applicable law. In no event shall a franchise be created unless it is issued by the city pursuant to this chapter and_subject to a written franchise agreement_, 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 11999, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 28—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) Council Communication Public Works Department Vacation of a Portion of A Street September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown f Reviewed by: Paul Nolte (( ( Approved by: Mike Freeman " Title: An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of`A' Street Easterly of Oak Street Synopsis: On May 18, 1999 a petition was received by the Engineering Division requesting the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way on A Street. The purpose of the vacation is to un-encumber sections of the building which have been built out into the A Street right-of-way over the course of many years. The requested vacation is along the north side of the street and is variable in width, from 11.0 feet to 6.0 feet wide,and contains approximately 0.9 acres.The attached map shows the location and dimensions of the area to be vacated. The petition has been verified and the required$500 filing fee has been received. All City departments, as well as the utility companies, have been notified of this proposed action. No objections to the vacation have been received.The vacation includes retaining an easement for a six- foot wide pedestrian access adjacent to A Street. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance to vacate a portion of A Street and reserve a six-foot wide pedestrian access easement. This ordinance was modified from the first reading to reflect a more detailed description of the retained pedestrian easement. Background Information: The existing Oak Street Tank and Steel building is located on the north side of A Street and extends from Oak Street approximately 270 feet easterly. The original building was constructed circa 1900 and served as a fruit warehouse. Several building expansions were added over the ensuing years. In August of 1920, Ordinance No. 701 was passed which vacated a 5 foot wide by 150 foot long portion of right-of-way on the north side of A Street(formerly known as Ash Street). This vacation allowed for a significant expansion of the original building. Subsequent expansions were built with projections into the right-of-way without the benefit of clearing the"Street right-of-way. f Current plans call for the renovation of the building following Oak Steel Tank and Steel's relocation to Jefferson Street. Much of the south building face will be removed and re-established to include a covered pedestrian walk along the north curb. The vacation will clear the right-of-way to allow the creation of building overhangs and canopies over the sidewalk. A six-foot wide (measured from the curb existing curb face)pedestrian access easement will be reserved to create a public sidewalk on the north side of the street. Council first read the proposed ordinance on September 7, 1999,and asked for clarification of the retained pedestrian easement. Language in the revised ordinance addresses those concerns. \\FSI\SYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\CC A Street vacation PH ORD2.doc z 7 2 CID <Zs fill Z 9 3 S 1 3 3 3 3 1 3' '1—1 3 co LO I h CC) I m J • PPP�B odO�aa 1 � 1 n S9+H( a oY yi � Y i d ra s 4 c �✓��d jr�s< � � � np� �) 1 a°O>a sa: I r s S Gr::a _ I 1 aiiad''o:�'�:P>'•".ii'i:%!:`:iii;^iei(i�i Ji�iiv%. 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF "A" STREET EASTERLY OF OAK STREET THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. On the date adopted below, the public right of way described on the attached Exhibit A is vacated subject to a reservation of a six-foot wide pedestrian access easement as described in Section 2. SECTION 2. The six-foot wide pedestrian access easement is retained along the Southern edge of the property boundary adjacent to "A" Street as described on attached Exhibit B. The easement is for pedestrian access and should be at approximate street grade and maintain an eight foot height clearances form overhead overhangs and obstructions. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of And duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of . 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Y PAGE 1 —ORDINANCE (Templ BarbaraGA Street Vacation Ordinance.doc) EXHIBIT A EAGLE-EYE SURVEYING CORPORATION 23 North Ivy Street, Medford P. O. Box 4397, Medford, Oregon 97501-0170 Tel. (541) 776-2313 Fax. (541) 776-9978 DESCRIPTION FOR: Ed Bemis August 19, 1999 A portion of 'A' Street to be vacated: Containing 0. 09 Acres, more or less: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 1 of Block 27 of CHITWOOD TRACTS in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, as now recorded, being located in, the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 4, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 23°14143" West, parallel with and 30.00 feet distant Southeasterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the centerline of Oak Street, for a distance of 11 . 00 feet to a point that is 19 . 00 feet distant Northeasterly of, when measured normal therefrom, the centerline of 'A' Street, as now monumented; thence South 66°55 ' 08" East, a distance of 269 . 89 feet; thence South 65°46' 04" East 85. 59 feet to point on the Easterly right of way line of 'A' Street; thence Northerly and Westerly along the right way line of 'A' Street the following courses: North 00 030119" East, a distance of 14 . 91 feet; thence North 67°02141" West, a distance of 54 .26 feet; thence South 00°14 '26" West, a distance of 5. 42 feet; thence North 67 002 ' 41" West, a distance of 151. 66 feet; thence North 22°57 ' 19" East, a distance of 5. 00 feet; thence North 67 002141" West, a distance of 146. 00 feet to the Point of Beginning. 4 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR O E G OG RUSSELL D R A DUN� G HTON 2657 Exp_ 12/3179 9 1 Exhibit B An easement for Pedestrian Access 6.00 feet in width along the Northerly side of 'A' Street, in the City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon,more fully described below. Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot I of Block 27 of Chitwood Tracts in the City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon,as now recorded,being located in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 4,Township 39 South Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian;thence South 23'14'43" West, parallel with and 30.00 feet distant Southeasterly of when measured normal therefrom,the Centerline of Oak Street, for a distance of 11.00 feet,to a point which is 19.00 feet distant Northeasterly of, when measured normal therefrom,the centerline of`A' Street, as now monumented,being the True Point of Beginning,thence along the following course and distances: South 66°55'08"East,a distance of 269.89 feet;thence, South 65°46'04" East, 85.59 feet to a point on the Easterly Right of Way line of`A' Street; thence,Northerly along said line North 00030'19"East,6.55 feet;thence, North 65°46'04"West, 83.01 feet;thence,North 66°55'08"West,269.88 feet;thence, South 23°14'43"West,6.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Pedestrian Access Easement City of Ashland Engineering Division September 15, 1999 F:\user\reid\AstEase.doc September 20, 1999 Remarks to the Ashland City Council, September 21 , 1999 I urge the Ashland City Council to adopt the resolution in favor of declaring the City to be a "WTO/MAI Free Zone." Of course, such an action may be characterized as a purely symbolic gesture, BUT the symbol will represent the wishes of a free, democratically-elected representative body, asserting and reconfirming the democratic liberties and self-governing powers of free people. It is not too much to say that the agencies that apply and administer the rules and regulations of globalization---NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, for example---are among the most secretive, unaccountable and undemocratic, or rather anti-democratic, bodies in existence and it is well past the time when they need to be brought before the bar of democratic accountability.. There is enough evidence for, and too many examples of the unaccountability, irresponsibility, and the anti-democratic nature of these agencies to impel we the people to take a public stand opposing the further degrading of our liberties and Constitutional freedoms. Global economic developments and global financial forces have local effects---there is no going back to a purely local existence, insulated from these developments and forces. But we can, and we certainly should demand, that this global juggernaut respect our democratic rights and our constitutional powers at the local, the county, the state and the national levels so that we retain sufficient control over our economic and social destiny. The threat to our liberties and to our self-governing abilities is real. By supporting this resolution, the Council will be supporting the City and the democratic powers of its citizens. Thank you. Gerry Cavanaugh P. O. Box 247 (56 Oak St.) Ashland, OR 97520; 541-482-6543; From Councilor Steve Hauck: To: The Mayor and City Council: Having gone over the proposed amendments to City's Telecommunication Ordinance, I have the following suggestions to make for changes to the proposed document. I will outline my reasons for each change at tonight's meeting. (. (Restore the following section.) SECTION 3. Section 16.08.010 16.08.010 Purpose. D. To assist the city in monitoring compliance with local, state and federal laws as they apply to grantees under this title. II. (Remove the following section.) SECTION 26, Section 16.16.030 The city shall not require a grantee to remove or=relocete its faGbties or vacate any street, alley or other pubhc,highway inadentaf;to any public tiousmg or renewal protect under ORS Chapters 456 or 457 without reservmg:e grantee's nghttherem orwithoutrequiring agrantee to'becompensated fonthe:costs thereof. 111. (Restore the following section) 16.20.030 Application. D. 4. the specific trees, structures, improvements, facilities and obstructions, if any, that applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate. I. Financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles demonstrating the applicant's financial ability to construct, operate, maintain, relocate and re a move the facilities. J. Information in sufficient detail to establish the applicant's technical qualifications, experience and expertise regarding the telecommunications facilities and services described in the application. L. Whether the applicant intends to provide cable service, video dial tone service or other video programming service, and sufficient information to determine whether such service is subject to cable franchising. , N. A description of the services or facilities that the applicant will offer or make available to the city and other public, educational and governmental institutions. O: As Builts, after completion of initial construction. P. A description of applicant's access and line extension policies. Q. The area or areas of the city the applicant desires to serve and a schedule for build-out to the entire franchise area. IV. (Restore the following sections.) 16.20.050 Determination by the city. The city shall issue a written determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part, applying the standards listed below. If the application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for denial. The standards to be applied by city are: A. The financial and technical ability of the applicant. B. The legal ability of the applicant. C. The capacity of the public rights of way to accommodate the applicant's proposed facilities. D. The capacity of the public rights of way to accommodate additional utility and telecommunications facilities if the license franchis#?is granted. E. The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the license or franchise is granted. F. The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction within the public rights of way. G. The service that applicant will provide to the community and region. H. The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the license or franchise is granted. I. The availability of alternate routes or locations for the proposed facilities. J. Applicable federal and state telecommunications laws, regulations and policies. K. Such other factors as may demonstrate that the grant to use the public rights of way will serve the community interest. V. (Restore the following sections) " 16.20.130 Renewal Determinations. A. The financial and technical ability of the applicant. B. The legal ability of the applicant. C. The continuing capacity of the public rights of way to accommodate the applicant's existing facilities. D. The applicant's compliance with the requirements of this title and the license or franchise agreement. F. Such other factors as may demonstrate that the continued grant to use the public rights of way will serve the community interest. VI. (Restore the following section.) 16.20.160 Transactions Affecting Control of Grant. Any transactions which singularly or collectively result in a change of ten percent or more of the ownership or working control of the grantee, of the ownership or working control of a telecommunications license or franchise, of the ownership or working control of affiliated entities having ownership or working control of the grantee or of a telecommunications system, or of control of the capacity or bandwidth of grantee's telecommunication system, facilities or substantial parts of such capacity or bandwidth, shall be considered an assignment or transfer requiring city approval pursuant to section 16.20.150. Transactions between affiliated entities are not exempt from city approval. VII. (Restore the following section) 16.20.170 Revocation or Termination of f mt`Franchise. C. Unauthorized substantial transfer of control of the grantee. E. Unauthorized sale, assignment or transfer of grantee's franchise or license assets, or a substantial interest in the franchise or license. VIII. (Restore the following section.) SECTION 30, Section 16.24.040: 16.24.040 Nondiscrimination. A grantee shall make its telecommunications services available to any customer within its license or franchise area who shall request such service, without discrimination as to the terms, conditions, rates or charges for grantee's services; provided, however, that nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a grantee from making any reasonable classifications among differently situated customers. RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CITY OF ASHLAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The attached document entitled "City of Ashland Telecommunications Policy" is adopted as the city's policy regarding telecommunications. The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of October, 1996. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY AND RESOLUTION (V:ordlte1womm.r") CITY OF ASHLAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY Technological and regulatory change in the telecommunications industry presents the residents and businesses of Ashland'many new opportunities. The City of Ashland is committed to ensuring that everyone in our community has equal access to these new options. Ashland encourages a competitive telecommunications marketplace that respects the needs of individual residents, businesses and the community as a whole. The city is also committed to using telecommunications technologies to the fullest extent possible to assist in the delivery of municipal services. The City of Ashland shall implement this policy through its multiple roles as: ♦ a regulator ♦ a facilitator ♦ a service provider The City as a Regulator 1. Develop a "level playing field" for all telecommunications companies by assessing equitable taxes and fees on service providers in Ashland and/or companies that wish to use city rights-of-way. 2. Protect the city's rights-of-way by requiring telecommunications companies to respect the integrity of city infrastructure. 3. Promote universal access to telecommunications services for all Ashland residents without regard to economic, social, or language barriers. 4. Ensure that Ashland city ordinances, permits, and procedures enable telecommunication technology advances while protecting the quality of life in our communities. 5. Ensure that Ashland's cable television infrastructure is consistently state-of-the- art and provides residents and businesses with competitive costs and service options. The City as a Facilitator 1. Encourage competition among all telecommunications companies to offer our businesses and residents a state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure that provides the widest variety of services at the lowest available costs. 2. Educate residents and businesses about technological and regulatory changes in the telecommunications industry and encourage a dialogue in the community of how to best use these services throughout Ashland in a coordinated, integrated manner. PAGE 2-TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY AND RESOLUTION (p:orcRal ommsm) 3. Encourage the location and retention of businesses in Ashland by marketing the benefits of advanced telecommunications services to achieve greater economic competitiveness. 4. Encourage-the development of additional telecommunications networks in Ashland to ensure that services from these networks are available to all residents and businesses. 5. Take an active role in state and federal telecommunications legislation and regulation to protect the rights of local government as well as the privacy and security of our residents using telecommunications services. The City as a Service Provider 1. Maximize utilization of telecommunications technology to provide public information and services to our community. 2. Continue to modernize the city's telecommunications infrastructure to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of city operations. 3. Evaluate potential application of telecommunications technologies in new or expanded ways. 4. Purchase telecommunications services for the city that provide quality services at competitive rates. PAGE 3-TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY AND RESOLUTION (p:or&eftomm.rm) Road to Seattle 1999 A New World Government is being created by the WTO and You have not yet been invited! A global system of enforceable rules is being created where corporations have all the rights, governments have all the obligations, and democracy is left behind in the dust. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is having its ministerial meeting in Seattle to expand its powers over our lives, environment, and democracy. You are invited to learn about the WTO and the issues Youare also invited to go to Seattle and express your views N Ashland Events 9/21 Polic format on:'MAI Free' proposal to Ashland City Council, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. q � [a Civic Center, => Join us to help support the proposal. G [482-0102] 9/25 Forum: Economics' and the economy: What can and must we do to have the economy serve the needs of human beings?Author, Douglas Dowd, Donation ISaturday, 7-9 p.m. Ashland Congreg. Church, 717 Siskiyou Blvd. [488-5653] 10/10 Activist Mrksh : WTO Road Show Multi-media performance teach-in to educate and organize against the WTO. Sunday afternoon & eve. [488-3495] 10/11 Meeting; Rogue Valley''Alliance for Democracy * Ashland Co Amtq y Food Store, Monday, 6:30 [488-9412] 10/19 EducatiorrIwSOU Teach-in Tuesday,,j 9 p.m. - Afternoon sessions 1-5 p.m. '^Keynote andforum 7:00 p§m. [482-6988] 1118 Meeting: Rogue V! f yaWliance for Democracy Ashland Com my ood Store, Monday, 6:30 [488-9412] Seattle Eveil , ts Toll free: 1-877-786-7886 www.tradewatch.org k RV-AllianT for Democracy 541-488-9412 Travel arrangements Caravan(s) and car pooling;;to Settle, Washington [488.0541] 11/28 or 29 Education:Teach-in, sponsored by Interna'tion'al,Forumion Globalization (IFG) ***Tickets required*** 11/29-12/3 Main Event: WTO Ministerial Meeting - EduCatiottal eVents street festivities, peaceful demonstrations, cultural activities Rogue Valley Alliance for Democracy 541-488-9412 (P-RB990913 See other side 0 8 � a .a' o . ~ o �c o two O ;'. ��' co — 0 012 o � •gyO 0 Co ='C y tl�0' �d , N f1' • y< l ° < O w o " c co u y o m a' w E � g n CD O , C ° 0 o w o w 0 E �Q N Ny . O a N : a � • O w OQ CD OO O 00 :3 rjQ tri rn�' w. d S w f f9 d r 3 Q o ro � � m i A ro m d —I f�D fp N N• _ I w OQ to A to O' e�,'• O .�fD ?'_ "' m 0 ft 0 (D 3 ( m n n—CO _� 3 0 7 0°^ a RD 0 o` 0 w o ° co o o Y °. � O fD � -yi fp O. N •°» z p A .°., < w n W pni P` O ffo c 'y O =1 3v° m _ = � IA 3 �i � °' ao � cpo5a3 '0 Otl m = O O a 0 > 3 m w o w = a 0 w r9 c _q m � o >' d o � m 2 c ° w 5' H w ft 0) 0 m m m fO QN' m 7y A �. � 5• � H ° w fco 5 M CD CD;0 a) o o fn 0 C v o °o o o < v CD 0 > � m � � 00 � � CL. a y o0 7 O• Q f9 rti y FBI N C" 0 w w w vCi OO w < a IQ B w n JQ a a a1p� H O 0- w < > a O "i'1 < O w w w a- O o o ca y y• a a ] y a w .. 0 C7 P';. 0 E � ' G — ° n.°. 1E N O' c, BL C) 7. F). p w co w c CD c / N w m .. N Road to Seattle 1999 A New World Government is being created by the WTO and You have not yet been invited! A global system of enforceable rules is being created where corporations have all the rights, governments have all the obligations, and democracy is left behind in the dust. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is having its ministerial meeting in Seattle to expand its powers over our lives, environment, and democracy. ` You are invited to learn about the WTO and the issues Ydi re also invited to go to Seattle and express your views I Ashland Events 9/21 Policv formation: 'MAI Free' proposal to Ashland City Council, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. a> Civic Center, => Join us to help support the proposal. G [482-0102] 9/25XForum: Economics' and the economy: What can and must we do to have the economy serve the needs of human beings?Author, Douglas Dowd, Donation �SatAay, 7-9 p.m. Ashland Congreg. Church, 717 Siskiyou Blvd. [488-5653] 10/10 Activist Mrkshop: WTO Road Show Multi-media performance teach-in to educate and vi organize against the WTO. Sunda afternoon & eve. • 9 9 Y [488-3495] 10/11 Meeti a; Rogue Vaa 44lliance for Democracy Ashland CommUqty Food Store, Monday, 6:30 [488-9412] 1.10/19 Education eSOU Teach-in Tu sday 1-9 p.m. -Afternoon sessions 1-5 p.m. m '"*4K ote and forum 7:00 pin). [482-6988] 11/8 Meeting: Rogue Valley fiance for Democracy Ashland Commu6ityzEood Store, Monday, 6:30 [488-9412] Seattle. Eve `n, ts Toll free: 1-877-786-7886 www.tradewatch.gL RV-Allia ce for Democracy 541-488-9412 Travel arrangements Caravan(s) and car pooling,,to Seattle, Vlllashington [488.0541] 11/28 or 29 Education:Teach-in, sponsored by International F�orurnon Globalization (IFG) ***Tickets required*** i+ Q 11/29-1213 Main Event: WTO Ministerial Meeting - Educational eNents�street festivities, peaceful demonstrations, cultural activities Rogue Valley Alliance for Democracy 541-488-9412 (P-RB9f)0913 See other side KIM 05 �' � ° ~ O C (] C ry v N C <Dw• o o •Y b ❑ °� tr o O 5 a w w tm' 0 w P.pro N ro P) CD y ••� m n• °• w0' p y. .� .O"•.' O 7 w CD -D S c°o a 91 cr CD 00 CD "• ° < a C E o o v 3 y m w a c �• w ° N CG o SO F 549 S 5. ° (D ; C: ° y <• � ry 0. CD � �ry��--yI (Op o p� g �= 5 �o w o a Q �• O N H A N : ~ 3' _� N N C tTj ID 0 ts a " a nw �. w n F p � ° " ? a .wi Q n ° 0 0 0. � '•' C � �� �� o 'y C r.T fb O w d r 5: � O ro to b D � wE a m � n mq S?� D � CD 0 o m •- N y _ N N n (p V i `N k CD m CD � 3 � w ddCD SNy+ p H N O O y (O � O 7 n f0 _ °.: 4y A (7 . 0 < n N w n W n G C ommmm � CD B, a w Oro ti c n a. ow v tz m g ee N N o „ o w m C N -I N o Q. c0.o » �' C 0 Ifl _ w N n Om m @Cn y m S . ci A �' °a �. � 7, y y N w A n 7 N O_ (D (p X11 (D N •i C ^ (D OQ w .Z7 d (D (D O .y w O .N. O K (D y r N Cp .� Q C b O C N (D A CD �' N 7 w' �. 0. O 7 N » 7 () � 7 L y ° (U C n 'p w N. N O ro N °' O (D c ° Q M to co A 0 awu0 wn N 0 R. :4 m M. m yzy CD P-0 o w3, "CD 00 co n w o �' n CD F - c Q �' r w (s cr .w. i•� N ...+. •�•1 C N N •Y N e�w ca. CL ' �� 5• ;•� o w O f7 H co =1 N ("o w p0' E w w �^ � N N , J �• b r Local Access Television To Broadcast Shows on WT081AI With the World Trade Organization meeting planned for the end of November in Seattle, WA, most people do not have any clue about WTO/MAI plans. The Multilateral Agreement on Investments, also known as "NAFTA on steroids" was killed in its first round but promises to rear its ugly head again in Seattle. And all of this while most United States citizens have no idea what is being planned for planet earth... OPEU District Four Productions, and its RVTV program "Unions: Power For People Who Work" will be providing viewers a series of five programs which clearly explain WTO/MAI. Produced by Julius Fisher's award winning "Working TV" in Vancouver, B.C., these programs are listed below, with the dates/channels/times for each broadcast (*note: broadcast start times can vary 5 to 10 minutes on RVTV). Maude Barlow on the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), part 1 9/22, 10/6, 10/18, 10/29, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m. Maude Barlow on the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), part 2 9/243 10/8, 10/22, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m. High School MAI 9/31, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m.; 9/24, 10/8, 10/22, Ch. 9--9 p.m. The MAI: Labor,Speaks Out 9/29, 10/13, 10/27, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m.; 10/1, 10/18, 10/29, Ch. 9--9 p.m. Private Drain on Public Water 9/27, Ch. 31--5:30 p.m.; 10/1, 10/4, 10115, 10/25, Ch. 317-6:02 p.m. Local Access Television To Broadcast Shows on WTO/MAI With the World Trade Organization meeting planned for the end of November in Seattle, WA, most people do not have any clue about WTO/MAJ plans. The Multilateral Agreement on Investments, also known as "NAFTA on steroids" was killed in its first round but promises to rear its ugly head again in Seattle. And all of this while most United States citizens have no idea what is being planned for planet earth... OPEU District Four Productions, and its RVTV program "Unions: Power For People Who Work" will be providing viewers a series of five programs which clearly explain WTO/MAI. Produced by Julius Fisher's award winning "Working TV" in Vancouver, B.C., these programs are listed below, with the dates/channels/times for each broadcast (*note: broadcast start times can vary 5 to 10 minutes on RVTV). Maude Barlow on the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), part 1 9/22, 10/6, 10/18, 10/29, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m. Maude Barlow on the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), part 2 9/245 10/8, 10/22, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m. High School MAI 9/31, Ch. 3,1--6:02 p.m.; 9/24, 10/8, 10/22, Ch. 9--9 p.m. The MAI: Labor Speaks Out 9/29, 10/13, 10/27, Ch. 31--6:0.2 p.m.; 10/1, 10/18, 10/29, Ch. 9--9 p.m. Private Drain on Public Water 9/27, Ch. 31--5:30 p.m.; 10/1, 10/4, 10115, 10/25, Ch. 31--6:02 p.m. r { i x r T i!r- _,a Y 1� 1 If j CHI ``\ _may A`\.��.. - ,-J /� �/,. / .. %/'� i/r:` "�• l� !i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF "A" STREET EASTERLY OF OAK STREET THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. On the date specified in section two of this ordinance, the public right of way described on the attached Exhibit A is vacated subject to a reservation of a six-foot wide pedestrian access easement. SECTION 2. The attached described right of way shall be deemed vacated upon the date of approval of this ordinance. The foregoing ordinance was firs READ on the day of . 1999, A d mss!, PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1 — ORDINANCE (FA USERTAUUORDwacationA Street ord.wpd) City Council Communication Administration Reimbursement Policy September 21, 1999 Submitted by: Mike Freeman/ Title: Discussion of DRAFT City Council reimbursement resolution. Synopsis: In 1991, the City Council adopted a policy regarding travel and reimbursement for Mayor and City Council training and business expenses. This policy has not been followed over the years and is out of date. Attached is a draft policy for the City Council to consider. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed policy and make any changes, additions, for subtractions and either: adopt the resolution as presented; adopt an amended resolution; or direct staff to make additional changes to be brought back for further discussion and adoption at a later date. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REIMBURSEMENT POLICY FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: It is beneficial for the City to provide the Mayor and City Council with training and educational opportunities regarding municipal government matters. SECTION 1. TRAINING: Annually, the Mayor and City Council shall authorize a training budget through the budgeting process. The Mayor and Council shall not exceed the training budget in the fiscal year without prior approval by the majority of the City Council. There are three types of training or educational the City may provide the Mayor and City Council. 1. The Mayor or Council may represent the City in any number of capacities for which the City will pay for the participation. This may include such organizations as the League of Oregon Cities or National League of Cities, Bonneville Power Administration, etc. The Mayor or City Council may participate in these types of activities and have their expenses reimbursed without specific approval by the City Council. The City Administrator will review all such reimbursements for the Mayor and Council to determine if it meets City policy. 2. The Mayor or Council may wish to seek training on specific issues related to municipal government management such as Budget Law, Land Use Law, telecommunications, public safety, etc. Generally, this type of training should be budgeted for in the annual budget process. However, this type of training may be approved by the City Administrator provided the Mayor and City Council have sufficient funds in their training budget to accommodate the expense. If no funds are available, the requesting member of the City Council shall seek prior approval for the training from the entire Council. 3. The Mayor or Council may wish to attend educational or professional development training. Prior to attending this type of training, the requesting member of the City Council shall seek prior approval for the training from the entire Council. SECTION 2. REIMBURSEMENT: The City shall reimburse the Mayor and City Council in accordance with adopted City policies and IRS regulations. Generally, the Mayor and Council shall receive reimbursement for: mileage, meals, business phone calls, airfare, taxis, rental cars, registration costs and other business expenses related to costs for approved training, or representation of the City. PAGE 1-RESOLUTION(FAUSERWIMWORD FILES\COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\RESOLUTION COUNCIL REIMBURSEMENT.DOC) This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION(FAUSEMMIKE\WORD FILES\COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\RESOLUTION COUNCIL REIMBURSEMENT.DOC) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.04.095 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH FISCAL PRIORITIES FOR NEW PROGRAMS THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following section 2.04.095 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 2.04.095 Identification of Fiscal Impact and Priorities of Policy Decisions. A. At such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant revenue implications, it shall offer clear direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to the fiscal priority to be afforded this new program or policy in the city budget process. B. When the city council adopts such a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded; e.g., which existing taxes or fees the council expects to increase and by how much, or which current city programs or department expenditures the council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if the council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. C. As used in this section 2.04.095, the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budget year in excess of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the city's annual General Fund budget, and which may require increasing existing taxes or fees or imposition of new taxes or fees. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations or, or necessitated by, public emergencies. The foregoing ordinance was READ on the day of September, 1999, and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 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 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 t#treugh and additions are shaded. SECTION 1. The following section 16.04.025 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 1604 025 Applicability=fo Gable?Sem e`and ®p n Uldeo�Syste'm fo the ez ent not specificallyp clytletl by the Cable Act or an,yothser federal law, this title shall aapply�to cableervlce provided'vwthin the city and-to OpeV S.ystgms, as that teem Gsed in section 653_of the Telecommunications Actx SECTION 2. Sections 16.04.040.J, K, L, Q, Y and BB of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: J. Franchise or Heense means an agreement between the city and a grantee which grants a privilege to use public right of way and utility easements within the city for a dedicated purpose and for specific compensation. K. Grantee means the person to which a franchise or Iieense is granted by the city. * L. Gross Revenue aEzceptffortelecommumcationsutlty -gross L4venuemeans gross revenue derived by grantee from the provision of telecommunications services originating or terminating in the city on facilities covered by the franchise er-keense. For the purposes of thisdefinition, the f eHevvrng�ten9s-nei`uncollectibles from,reV pliimcluded in gross revenues may be excluded from gross revenues;= For a telec ih,hunicatioris util ty g oss revenue meansrit ose revenues derived.from exchange access services as definedin ®RS 401 7^10; less net uncoil ctibles from such revenues. If a telecommunications utility provides telecommunication services in addition tozexchange access service`s, then gross revenue for those additional services shall have,thxe meaning defined im t IV III t=see I al, oI this section. 2. Reventie derived from the provision of interstate tell service. 3. Revenue derived ffern the provision of telecernmtiniestions Page 1 —AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\eshland amend 899 annompd) i serviee on faew'Otmes frorn an end user to an interexchange carrier's point of presenee, provided that at least 90% of the annual traffie on the fateility is interstate. 4. Revenue derived frorn to" transport serviees. Q. Public Rights'of Way include, but are not limited to, streets, roads, highways, bridges, alleys, sidewalks, trails, paths, public easements and all other public ways or areas, including the subsurface under and air space over these areas, but only to the extent of the city's right, title, interest or authority to grant a ftense-oFfranchise to occupy and-use-such streets and _easements for telecommunications facilities. Public Rights of Way do not include traiIs,'paths of sidewalks within parks or other ar'.eas of the cityunless the trail; path or_sidewalk'hhas�been_dedlcafed as a'righ't ofi Y. Trey*yv' hip an extended'area Reseller means any person that provides'telecommunicat ions,service using a telecommunic'atlonskfacility withirr'a public right:of wayforwhich service a separate chaige Is made? Where that person,does not.own, lease, control or manage the telecommunications facility used toprovlde the service, - ---- - - BB. Utility Easement means any easement within the public right of way designated on a subdivision plat or partition map.as_a utility easement; public-lity easement or'P.U.E." or any easement granted to or owned by the city and acquired, established, dedicated or devoted for public utility purposes not inconsistent with the telecommunications facilities. SECTION 3. Section 16.08.010 is amended to read: 16.08.010 Purpose. The purpose for registration is: A. To assure that all telecommunications carriers who have facilities or provide services within the city comply with the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city. B. To provide the city with accurate and current information concerning the telecommunications carriers who offer to provide telecommunications services within the city, or that own or operate telecommunications facilities within the city. C. To assist the city in the enforcement of this title and the collection of any city franchise fees, license fees or charges that may be due the city. E). To assist the city On moniterimg eernplianee with leeal, state and federal Page 2—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) laws as they apply to grantees under this title. SECTION 5. Section 16.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.08.020 Registration Required. Except as provided in section 16.08.040, all telecommunications carriers having telecommunications facilities within the corporate limits of the city, and all telecommunications carriers that offer or provide telecommunications service to customer premises within the city, shall register with the city application and license from::a) the OPU.C; or b) the FCC qualify as necessary", . registration information. Applicants also h_ave the option of providing the following jhnformationj A. The identity and legal status of the registrant, including any affiliates. the_name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the registration statement. E B. A description of the registrant's existing or proposed telecommunications facilities within the city, a description of the telecommunications f_a_c_ilities th at the registrant intends to construct and'?_, D.--A description of the telecommunications service that the registrant intends to offer or provide, or is currently offering or providing, to persons, firms, businesses or institutions within the city. E. Wormabon suffiement to determine whether the registrant is subjeet to publie right of way lieensing or franehising tinder this title. FC. Information sufficient to determine whether the transmission, origination or receipt of the telecommunications services provided or to be provided by the registrant constitutes an occupation or privilege subject to any a .y tax business'license requirements:"A copy of the business license or-license number must be provided G. Information suffleient to determine that the applicant has applied for and reeeived.any eertifleate of authority or permit required by the FGG or the E)PIJG to provide teleeornmuniestions services within the eity. i I. Information suffiement to determine that the applieant has applied for and required by the FGE) to have teleeemmunmeations faealities within the-eitr. Page 3—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) I. If the registramt has applied for and reeeived a city busimess heense, j. Stich other *Mbrmatiom as the eity may reasonably require. SECTION 6. Section 16.08.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.08.040 Exceptions to Registration. The following telecommunications carriers are excepted from registration: * A. Telecommunications carriers that are owned and operated exclusively for its own use by the state or a political subdivision of this state and provide telecommunications servicesifor governrriental.purposes only; B. A private telecommunications network, provided that such network does not use or occupy any public rights of way of the city or other rights of vvay within the eitY• C� Telecommunicatns carriers thataregrantees underka telecommunications franchisewithithecity or pre�iousgrantees that have time lyfiled for, and_are actively'and_expeditlously:pu�sumg;ra franchise renewal: SECTION 7. Section 16.12.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.12.030 Construction Permits. No person shall construct or install any telecommunications facilities within gh'tu&way Ir the city without first obtainrng a construction permit, andrpayingthe ontruct on peririitfee estab6shetl in section*16 12`070 A. No permit shall be issued for the eemstruetion or of * B6 No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way unless the telecommunications carrier has first applied for and received aor franchise pursuant to chapter 16 20 orlpreviousgrantees that have timely, filedtfor,_and are actively and:expeditiouslypursiang a franchise renewal; G. No permit shall be issued for the eenstruetiom or installatiom of telecommunmeatmems fae"it'es without payment of the eemstruction permit fee estab"shed in sectmom 16.12.070. Page 4—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) No perinit shall b`e neces"saryfor fhealnstaIlatlon�ofYaeustomer�speclflc wire (Aladrop ) by a franchlseygraritee where?noexeavatwn;within themght of way,occu[s C N er o p� mitshal(be neces ry for�ithe lnstallatlon of tele oc mmunication fa"cilltleswitln a utility easementth`ait�ls not otherwise wlthm, under or o�erap lillcstreet, roadahlghwaybndge,;alley,,bikeway, sidewalk_, trail orxpath,� SECTION 8. Section 16.12.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.040 Permit Applications. Applications for permits to construct telecommunications facilities wit' hin ublc right f way�shall be submitted upon forms to be provided by the city and shall be accompanied by drawings, plans, specifications and eernputeF maps in , in sufficient detail to Mdemonstrate: 'V1 That the facilities will be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes, rules and regulations"sand that the facilities will be constructedtinaccordancewlth the franc hiseaoreement. . 1 ti 82. The location and route of all facilities on�ormahe p'�ublic rights of wayfito be installed aboveground or on existing utility poles. The location and route of all facilities to be located under the surface of the ground, ineltielimg the 'One and grade proposed for the buri a" 11,9-pillts al-ping the retite whmeh are within the public rights of way. Existing fa li es._shal bbe differentiated on�the plans from new ... .YV... � A construetion�i E3. The location of all ofapplcant,*sexisting underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes, mains and installations which are within the public rights of way along the underground route proposed by the applicant. B. The cestmem of all other faem'mfies to be eenstrueted within the eity, but not within the publie rights of way. E4. The eenstructiom metheds to be employed for protection of existing rkttsafwaq Atypical cross section.shall be provided'showing new oexisfing facilities in relationto the street curb sidewalk or right ofrway J:=r=2 - �a _t ta=a'�'La :..he�apphcation shall ecompanhmaps of the proposeons\in aformattspecified__by the clty_unless the Page 5—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) applicant demonstrates that the format-util ized was clevel-ope�d-by t11hq_!ppIicant and is proprietary! B. Show iThe location, dimension and types of all trees which will be substantially trimmed, removed or-replaced- as a-result of the areas disturbed during_construction_and which are wwithin or adjacent to-the public rights of way along the route proposed by the applicant, together wit.. a 'andseape plan protecting, trim i . - -h pptaeing-pnd_Festprong_4nylrel" or,srela-a to be oi�rbql dOng-P�*ti.pt,Wmn. :The shall submit a landscape_ptarl, for the replacement of such trees satisfactory to the c SECTION 9. Section 16.12.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.060 Traffic Control Plan. All permit applieations which involve work on, in, under, across or along any public rights of way shall be eteeernpanied by a traffi-c eentrol plan ......---ZJ I— ine---res and deviees that will be _derrip,90P 1-fingthe iggeas- employed, perfonrecl�ponsistent with the- "Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and to minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. SECTION 10. Section 16.12.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.070 Construction Permit Fee. Unless otherwise provided in a lieense of franchise agreement, prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant shall pay a permit fee equal to $250.00 or six tenths of one pereent (8.6%) of the estimiated eest te'eeernrntinieat*i gT* in an amount to be determined by resolution of the city council. Not-h'ing in this section shall require a telecommunications utility to pay a permit fee unless the utility is providing te!qcqmrnunication services in addition to exchange access services!, SECTION 11. The following section 16.12.075 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Section -i6.--1-2-.-07-5-.-Diminished--pavement life fee. -Grantee,--for--any-c-o-n-s-t-r-ucti-oh requiring pavement cuts, shall pay to city an amount to reimburse city for the -, pavement degradation and shortened pavement life that results from such cuts. Such fees shall be set by resolution of the city council and shall be based_u ' pop the linear feet of the pavement cut, the age of the pavement when cut and whether the excavation is transverse or longitudinal. This section shall not tapply to a Telecommunication Utility if such fee is determined to fall within the restrictions of ORS_221.515(3). SECTION 12. Section 16.12.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.090 Construction Schedule. The permittee shall submit a written construction schedule to the Department of Public Works before commencing any work in or about the public rights of way. A-the i_city's request, the Page 6—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USERXPAUL�Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashiand amend 899 anno.wpd) construction schedule shall include a best estimate deadline for completion of construction. The schedule is subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. The permittee shall further notify the Department of Public Works not less than two working days in advance of commencing the project under the issued permit for:w y-excavation or work in the-publicrights of way. When` advance notice is not possible because of an emergency, the permittee shall give notice within 24 hours of the excavation or work. When feasible, 'Perm ittee shall contact all other g or utilities outlllties located within the public right of way where construction is to occur. The purpose_of the contact is to determine if joint projects are feasible; to minimize duplication-of work and-unnecessary_excavation. For those grantees or utilities expressing interest in a joint project, permittee shall give them reasonable notice of the particular dates on which open trenching exists. Upon mutual agreement, permittee shall make the trench available to grantees and utilities for installation of conduit, pedestals, vaults, laterals, wires, lines or equipment. The payment for the cost of trenching and installation shall be as mutually agreed to by the parties. Provided permittee demonstrates a good faith attempt to coordinate, the City_ shall not withhold issuance of any permit due to the inability of the permittee and any grantee or utility to agree upon scheduling of the_project and/or 'reimbursement of costs associated with the project SECTION 13. Section 16.12.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.100 Locates. The permittee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding the provisions of ORS Chapter 757, governing the location of underground facilities (the "One-Call statutes"). Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One-Call statutes. Every grantee under this title shall join and maintain membership in the Oregon Utility Notification Center and shall comply with the rules adopted by_the center regulating the notification and marking-of underground facilities) SECTION 14. Section 16.12.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.110 Compliance with Permit. All construction practices and activities shall be in accordance with the permit and approved final plans and specifications for the facilities. The Department of Public Works and its representatives shall be provided access to the work site and such €uHhef information that is not confidential, sensitive or prop(__ta_ry_,as they may require to ensure compliance with such requirements. SECTION 15. Section 16.12.120 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. q6.12.120 B isplay of Permit. The permittee shall maintain a eopy of the construction permit and approved plans at the eenstruetion site, whieh shall be displayed and made available for inspeetion by the Bepartment of Ptiblie Works or its representatives at all tomes when eonstruetion work is eeeurrim. Page 7—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) SECTION 16. Section 16.12.130 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. 6.12.130 Survey of Underground Facilities. If the eenstruction permit specifies the leeation of facilities by depth, lime, grade, proximity to other fae"ities or othe standard, the permittee shall eause the location of sueh fae"ities to be verified by wh*eh are not oeated im eemplianee with permit requirements at the sole expense of the permittee. SECTION 17. Section 16.12.140 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.140 Noncomplying Work. Upon order of the Department of Public Works, afterre_asonable notice and an opportunity to cure ha's beengiv_en;;all work which does not comply_wlth the permit, the approved plans and specifications for the work, the franchise agreement',or the requirements of this title, shall be removed at the sole expense of the permittee. SECTION 18. Section 16.12.150 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.150 Completion of Construction. The permittee shall promptly complete all construction activities so as to minimize disruption of the city rights of way and other public and private property. All construction work authorized by a permit within city rights of way, including restoration, must be completed within 120 days of the date of issuance ;unless4he city englneeragreesto a longerperiod. SECTION 19. Section 16.12.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted: 16.12.160 As-Built Drawings. Within 60 days after eornpletiom of eenstruction, the permittee shall furmish the eity with two complete sets of plans and a set on a SECTION 20. Sections 16.12.170.A, B and C of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: A. When a permittee, or any person acting on its behalf, does any work in or affecting any public rights of way, other rights of way or city property, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions and restore such ways or property to as _ _as existed bef6re _ was andertakem,jtgar thTe'ork i al'condition a6"reasonablyi`p ible unless otherwise directed by the city. B. If weather or other conditions do not permit the complete restoration required by this section, the permittee shall temporarily restore the fdrecaffected rights of way or property e do'so by the=city engineer. Such temporary restoration shall be at the permittee's sole expense and Page 8—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) the permittee shall promptly undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather or other conditions no longer prevent such permanent restoration. For the purpose of this subsection_, m teporary restoration means restoring the property to a safe condition permitting such`use of the property as was made priorto the work being_ undertaken. Temporary restoration does not require paving;:landscaping or surfacing_of apermanent nature. C. If the permittee fails to restore rights of way or property to as-geed J a J before the work .._J rt I i LiV11V ILIVII DJ G/LIJIGV UGIVIG crrrnccrr, ,as near the onglnal condition as reasonably possrble,.;the city shall give;the:permittee written notice and provide the permittee a reasonable period of time not exceeding 30 days,to restore:fhe'.`rlghts�ofway orapropertji"if, after such notice, the permittee.fails-to restore the rights of,way.or•property.to�as 11 good a conditionwas existed before the work was undertaken, the city shall cause such restoration to be made at the expense of the permittee. SECTION 21. Section 16.12.190 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.12.190 Construction and Completion Bond. Unless otherwise provided in a ncensse-enfranchise agreement, or unless the city otherwise specifically approves an alternative security to assure performance, a performance bond written by a corporate surety acceptable to the city, and authorized to transact business in Oregon, equal to at least 100% of the estimated cost of constructing grantee's telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way of the city shall be deposited before construction is commenced. A. The performance bond shall remain in force until 60 days after substantial completion of the work, as determined in writing by the city, including restoration of public rights of way and other property affected by the construction. B. The performance bond shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the city: 1. timely completion of construction; 2. construction in compliance with applicable plans, permits, technical codes and standards; 3. proper location of the facilities as specified by the city; 4. restoration of the public rights of way and other property affected by the construction; and 5 "as-built" required by this title; amd V. timely payment and satisfaction of all claims, demands or liens for labor, material or services provided in connection with the work. Page 9—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USERt PAULXTelecommunicationslOrdinances\ashiand amend 899 anno.wpd) SECTION 22. Section 16.12.200 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. 16.12.200 Responsibility of Owner. The owner of the fseilities to be constructed with a" provisions of this chaptet. SECTION 23. Section 16.12.210 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. 16.12.218 Geerd*nat'on of Gonstruetmen Aet'v'tees. A" grantees are required tO ecoperate with the eity amd with each other. A. By danuary 1 of eseh year, grantees shall provide the city with a sehedul of their proposed eenstruetion aetivities for that ealemdar year in, ar or that may affeet the publie right-8 of way. B. Eaeh grantee shall meet with the eity, other grantees and users of the pub ie rights of way annually or as determined by the eity to seheeltile and coordinate eenstruetiom in the public rights of way. l� nil eonst_ue :_n locations, aetmv Yte_ and sehed 'es sha be ____J V. I'lll VVIIJIIUVLIV111VVPlIV11J, PVIIVIUGJ PIIU .I.VIIGUUIGA�. , as ordered by the eity emgineer, to minimize pub" i nve ving overhead construetion shall also be coordinated also with Department of Eleetrie Utilities in order to ensum faeilities and spaee are SECTION 24. Section 16.16.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.010 Location of Facilities. All facilities located within the public right of way or utility easements shall be constructed, installed and located in accordance with the following terms and conditions, unless otherwise specified in a lieense er franchise agreement: * A. Grantee shall install its telecommunications facilities underground unless the city specifically permits attachments to utility poles or other aboveground facilities�tprovldetl however Ino�entlty with existing attachmentsTto utllllry poles shall begrequire'Rto costa Ianew�q- xis t g faclhfies nder`ground except as.provldetl iri thb following sut seictions B. Grantee shall install its telecommunications facilities within an existing underground duct or conduit owned by It whenever surplus capacity, exists � F . within such utility facility unlessPgranteedemon"strafesPto satisfaction}of city that'such installation is not feasible. * C. A grantee with permission to install overhead facilities shall install its telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus usable,Cspace is available as determined by the Department of Electric Utilities or the ownerrof:the poles. Page 10—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) D. Whenever any existing electric utilities are located, underground within a public right of way of the city, a grantee with permission to occupy the same public right of way must also locate its telecommunications facilities underground. Whenever any overhead electric utilities are relocated underground, any grantee with permission to occupy the same public right of way must also relocate underground. E. Whenever any new or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located or relocated underground within a public right of way of the city, a grantee that currently occupies the same public right of way shall relocate its facilities underground concurrently with the other affected utilities to minimize disruption of the public right of way, absent extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as determined by the city and consistent with state law. * F. teleeorrimummestmens earraers or facilities, the eity may reqti'Fe the grantee to provide additional duets, eenduits, manholes and other facilities * G—The city engineer may grant exceptions to some or all of the requirements of this section if the engineer determines, in the engineer's sole discretion, that a waiver is necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of this title. SECTION 25. Section 16.16.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.030 Relocation or Removal of Facilities. Within 60 days following written notice from the city, a grantee shall, at its own expense, temporarily or permanently remove, relocate, change or alter the position of any telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way whenever the city shall have determined that such removal, relocation, change or alteration is reasonably necessary for: A. The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any city or other public improvement in or upon the public rights of way. * B. The operations of the city-or other governmental entity in or upon the public rights of way unless such city operations are exclusively for its telecommunications purposes or cable services which compete with other telecommunications carriers or cable services. * Notwithstanding the 60 day limit, a grantee shall, at fts-ewWno;expense to the city,', relocate overhead facilities within 30 days following written notice from the Electric Utilities Department that the city ora joint pole,owne_r_�has space on poles for such purpose. Page 11 —AUG- 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) The 30_or.60 day limit may be waived by consent of the parties. Waivers shall not be unreasonably withheld. The city shall not require a grantee to remove or relocate its facilities or vacate' any street, alley or other-public highway incidental to any public housing or _ renewal project underORS Chapters 456 or 457-without reserving a grantee's Tight therein,or without requiring a grantee to be for the costs thereof, SECTION 26. Section 16.16.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.16.040 Removal of Unauthorized Facilities. Within 30 days following written notice from the city, any grantee, telecommunications carrier, or other person that owns, controls or maintains any unauthorized telecommunications system, facility or related appurtenances within the public rights of way of the city shall, at its own expense, remove such facilities or appurtenances from the public rights of way of the city. A telecommunications system or facility is unauthorized and subject to removal in the following circumstances: A. One year after the expiration or termination of the grantee's_ telecommunications fieenseeFfranchise unless the grantee!has timely fled for, and is actively_and expeditiously pursuing, a franchise renewals B. Upon abandonment of a facility within the public rights of way of the city. A facility will be considered abandoned when it is deactivated, out of service, or not used for its intended and authorized purpose for a period of 90 days or longer. A facility will not be considered abandoned,if it is temporarily_out of service during_perf_ormance of repairs, if the facility'is excess capacity of a current,grantee who=is not inµdefault, if the facility is being replaced or if the facility has been disconnected because the building or property being served is vacant. C. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior grant of a telecommunications fieense-ar-franchise. D. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior issuance of a required construction permit. E. If the system or facility was constructed or installed at a location not permitted by the grantee's telecommunications tic�franchise. F. If the system interferes with or adversely affects existing telecommunication facilities. The 30 day limit may be waived by consent of the parties. Waivers shall not be unreasonably withheld. Page 12—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:%USERXPAUL%Telecommunications tOrdinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) If all the facilities and appurtenances are not removed within one year after the termination or expiration of the franchise or license such further time as may be granted by the city, they shall be forfeited to the city. The city may notify the grantee, carrier or other person described above that it waives forfeiture and may compel removal from the public right of way and restoration of the right of way and may maintain court suit to require such removal and restoration by the grantee, carrier or other person or the payment of the cost thereof by the grantee, carrier or other person. SECTION 27. Chapter 16.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: Chapter 16.20 Telecommunications Hcam o€Tranchise Sections: 16.20.810 Te'eeernmunbeateens License 16.20.020 Telecommunications Franchise 16.20.030 Application 16.20.040 Application and Review Fee 16.20.050 Determination by the city 16.20.060 Rights Granted 16.20.070 Term of Grant 16.20.060 Heense Route, 16.20.090 Franchise Territory 16.20.100 6ornpensation to eity 16.20.110 Amendment of Grant 16.20.120 Renewal Applications 16.20.130 Renewal Determinations 16.20.140 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal 16.20.150 Assignments or Transfers of Grant, Notice to city 16.20.168 Transaetions Affeeting Centro' of Grant 16.20.170 Revocation or Termination of GrantFranchise 16.20.180 Notice and Duty to Cure 16.20.190 Public Hearing 16.20.200 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions 16.20.210 Other City Costs y identified by th� 16.20.020 Telecommunications Franchise. A telecommunications franchise shall be required of any telecommunications carrier who desires to occupy public rights of way of the city based on geographie areas within the eit.F. Page 13—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) 16.20.030 Application. Any person that desires a telecommunications Heense eF franchise pursuant to this chapter shall file an application with the Finance Department which shall include the following information: A. The identity of the applicant, ineluding a" affiliates of the applicant doing business On the State of Gregen. B. A description of the telecommunications services that are or will to be offered or provided by the applicant over its telecommunications facilities within the city. C. A deseription of the transmission rneditirn that is beimg tised or will be tised by the applieant to offer or provide stich telecommunications services w*th'n the eity. B.Preliminary engineering plans, specifications_and a network map of the facilities to be located within the 'public rights_of way in the'ci_ty including_ copies in a computerized format specified_by the city (unless the applicant demonstrates that the format utilized was by by the applicant and is.proprieta_ry)_:and all in sufficient detail to identify° 1. the location and route requested for applicant's proposed telecommunications facilities; te'ecernmumoesteen, cab e, water, sewer, storm draimage and othe faeolities in the publie rights of way along the proposed rodte, 3. the loestion(s), if any, for intereonneetion with the teleeornrntimeeations ID VIIIUGJ VI VIIIGI lG ccOTRRR7TfTCA[TOTr5Z3ffiGf3, if any, that appliesint proposes to temporarily or permanently rermove e releeate. ED,. If applicant is_proposing to install aboveground facilities, to the extent that th" the applicant,will be using utility poles, evidence from the Electric Utilities Department or pole owner that safp+as'usable`space is available for locating the applicant's telecommunications facilities on existing utility poles along the proposed route; and if st3rplUS usable space is not available in some or all service areas, an indication of these locations and a "make ready" schedule for completion. FE. If the applicant is proposing an underground installation in existing ducts or conduits within the public rights of way, provide information in sufficient detail to identify: 1. the excess capacity currently available in such ducts or conduits before installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities; Page 14—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) 2. the excess capacity, if any, that will exist in such ducts or conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities. Cf. If applicant is proposing an underground installation within new ducts or conduits to be constructed within the public rights of way: 1. the location proposed for the new ducts or conduits; 2. the excess capacity that will exist in such ducts or conduits after the installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities. HG. A preliminary construction schedule and completion date. eenstruet, operate, maintain, re oeste and remove the fae"ities. j. Hofmat on On suffi6ent detail to establish the applicant's technical qualifleaimons, experienee and expertise regarding the teleeernmuniestion fae"Oties and services desermbed in the applieation- KH. Information to establish that the applicant has obtained all other governmental approvals and permits to construct and operate the facilities and to offer or provide the telecommunications services proposed. L. Whether the applieamt imtends to provide cable serviee, videe dial tone MI. An accurate map showing the location of any existing telecommunications facilities in the city that applicant intends to use or lease. N. A deseriptiom of the services or fae"ities that the applicant will offer or E). As BuRs, after eornpletion of initial eenstruetion. Q. The area or areas of the eity the applicant desires to serve and a schedule mss- for bu:'d°o .a to the entire frameNse __e_ R. Such other information as may be requested by the eity administrater o the administrator's designee.- w� vun Page 15—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) 16.20.040 Application and Review Fee. A. Any applicant for a fieense-enfranchise pursuant to this chapter shall pay an application and review fee in an amount to be determined,by resolution of the city council. This section shall not apply to a telecommunication: utility which provides only local exchange access: B. The application and review fee shall be deposited with the city as part of the application filed pursuant to section 16.20.030. 16.20.050 Determination by the city. The city shall issue a written determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part, belew. If the application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for denial. The standards to be applied by eity are!The eapaeity of the publie rights of way to aceernmedate the applicant's A. The financial and teehn'ea' ability of the applicant. B. The legal ability of the applieamt. . proposed facilities. 1). The eapacity of the publie rights of way to accernmedate additional utilit and te'eeernmunieations fae"Otmes if the lieense *9 granted. E. The darnage or disruption, if any, of publie or private faeilitie�7 F. The publie interest in rninirni?ing the eost and disruption of eenstruction within the publie rights of way. G. The sery ee that applicant will provide to the eernmunity and The effeet, if any, on publie health, sa" and welfare if the lieense or framehise is granted. I. The avaHability of alternate retites or leeations for the proposed faeolities. j. Applicable federal amd state teleeemmuniestions laws, regulations and pafieies I(. Stieh other Meters as may dernenstrate that the grant to use the publie rights of way Ml serve the eornmunity interest-. 16.20.060 Rights Granted. No fieense-aFfranchise granted under this chapter shall convey any right, title or interest in the public rights of way, but shall be deemed a grant Page 16—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) to_use and occupy the public rights of way for the limited purposes and term', and upon the conditions'stated in the n agreement. Further, no "---__ __r_ _h:__ any warranty of title- 16.20.070 Term of Grant. Unless otherwise specified in a lieense-enfranchise agreement, a telecommunications Heense-enfranchise granted under this title shall be in effect for a term of five years. 16.20.088 Heense Route. A te'eeernrntimleat'ons heense gramted under this chapte rights of way. 16.20.090 Franchise Territory. AkUnless otherwise specified in a franchise agreement; telecommunications franchise granted under this chapter shall be limited to the specific geographic area of the city to be served by the franchise grantee, and the public rights of way necessary to serve such areas. ehapter is subjeet to the eity's right, which Is expressly reserved, to annually fix a and reasemable eernpensation to be paid for the privileges granted, provided, nothing-in this ehapter shall prohibit the eity and a grantee frorn agreeing to the eempensation-to be paid. 16.20.110 Amendment of Grant. Conditions for amending a fieense-enfranchise: A. A new application and grant shall be required of any telecommunications carrier that desires to extend or locate its telecommunications facilities in public rights of way of the city which are not included in a I franchise previously granted under this title_unless the grantee has _- already received as franchise to occupy public rights-o_f-way_in all areas of Ike city B. If ordered by the city to locate or relocate its telecommunications facilities in public rights of way not included in a previously granted iieensea franchise, the city shall grant an amendment without further application. A new application and grant shall be required of any telecommunications carrier that desires to provide a service which was not included in a lime or franchise previously granted under this title. 16.20.120 Renewal Applications. A grantee that desires to renew its license ar franchise under this chapter shall, not less than 90 days before expiration of the current agreement, file an application with the city for renewal of its license e franchise which shall include the following information: Page 17—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telewmmunic tions\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) A. The information required pursuant to section 16.20.030 that has not previously been provided to the city in connection with grantee's existing franchise agreement. B. Any information required pursuant to the fieense-ef"franchise agreement between the city and the grantee. * 16.20.130 Renewal Determinations. Within 90 days after receiving a complete application under section 16.20.120, the city shall issue a written determination granting or denying the renewal application in whole or in part, applying the following standards. If the renewal application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for non-renewal. A. . B. The legal ability of the applicant. G. The eentinuing eapeteity of the ptiblie rights of way to aecorrimadate the D. The applicant's compliance with the requirements of this title and the i censevrfranchise agreement. Ed. Applicable federal, state and local telecommunications laws, rules and policies. F. Stieh other factors as may demonstrate that the eentintied grant to tise the publie rights of way will serve the eorrimunity interest. 16.20.140 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal. No license or franchise shall be renewed until any ongoing violations or defaults in the grantee's performance of the agreement, or of the requirements of this title, have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action to be taken by the grantee has been approved by the city. 16.20.150 Assignments or Transfers of Grant, Notice to city. * A. Grantee shall rietify the eity quarterly of the sale or lease of the eapaeity, bandwidth, lot fiber, dark fiber or switchi ig services to any e transaetion is not required, so long as grantee rernains solely responsible for earrying otit its obligations under its franehise agreement and this ehapter. Transactions betweem affiliated are not exempt frorn this B—. --Ownership or control of a_majority_interest in_a telecommunications system,4 ieense or franchise may not, directly or indirectly, be transferred, assigned or disposed of by sale, lease, merger, consolidation or other act Page 18—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) of the grantee, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior consent of the city, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and then only on such reasonable conditions as may be prescribed in such consent. 1. Grantee and the proposed assignee or transferee of the grant franchisWor system shall provide and eertify the following Onformation to the eity- not less than 120 days prior to the proposed date of transfer eenditiom of the proposed transfer or assignment, proposed transferee or assignee,- e. - -_- -- agree, in - --- — -- - . --- --- _ - --- . writing, to assume and abide by_all of the provisions of the franchise! 2. No transfer shall be approved unless the assignee or transferee has the legal, technical, financial and other requisite qualifications to own, hold and operate the telecommunications system pursuant to this title. 3. Unless otherwise provided in a fieense-ar-franchise agreement, the grantee shall reimburse the city for all direct and indirect fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred by the city in considering a request to transferor assign a telecommunications ;;eense er franchise. 4. Any transfer or assignment of a telecommunications grant franchise, system or integral part of a system without prior approval of the city under this section or pursuant to a heense-ot4ranchise agreement shall be void and is cause for revocation of the grant. control of the grantee, of the ownership or working control of a telecarnmunieations 1q eense or franehise, of the ownership or working eentrel of affiliated entities having ownership or working eantrol of the grantee or of a telecornmunleations system, or of substantial parts of sueh capacity or bamdwidth, shall be eensidered an assignme transfer requiring eity approval puFsuant to seetion 16.20.150. Transactions between 16.20.170 Revocation or Termination of Grant-Franchise'. Awe-orfranchise to use or occupy public rights of way of the city may be revoked for the following reasons: Page 19—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 annompd) A. Construction or operation in the city or in the public rights of way of the city without a +ieense or grant of authorization. B. Construction or operation at an unauthorized location. C. . _.._.uth rizo- c __jgLvnentefs "eenseor ft _ failure to comply With section with respect to sale, transfer or assignment of a telecommunications_system or franchise; E. Unatithorized sale, assignmemt or transfer of grantee's framehise or IIPonse assets, r a substantial interest m m the franchise oI , u���u �V�VV• 111V franchise IIV\a11J4a. FD. Misrepresentation or lack of cander.by or on behalf of a grantee in any application to the city. GE. Abandonment of telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way. I IF. Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this title. fG. WIlful or continued_Ffailure.to pay-taxes, compensation, fees or costs when and as due the city unless subject to a bona fide dispute. dH. Insolvency or bankruptcy of the.grantee. IH. Violation of a material provision of this title. t 1. Violation of a material term of a+eense-err-franchise agreement. 16.20.180 Notice and Duty to Cure. Pursuant to section 16.20.170 i fn in'the event that the city believes that grounds exist for revocation of a Iieense orfranchise, the city shall give the grantee written notice of the apparent violation or noncompliance, providing a short and concise statement of the nature and general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and providing the grantee a reasonable period of time not exceeding 30 days to furnish evidence: A. That corrective action has been, or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, to remedy the violation or noncompliance. B. That rebuts the alleged violation or noncompliance. C. That it would be in the public interest to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation. 16.20.190 Public Hearing. In the event that a grantee fails to provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to the city as provided in section 16.20.180, the city administrator shall refer the apparent violation or non-compliance to the city council. Page 20—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanms\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) The city council shall provide the grantee with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the matter. 16.20.200 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions. If persuaded that the grantee has violated or failed to comply with material provisions of this title, or of a franchise W fieense agreement, the city council shall determine whether to revoke the lieense er franchise, or to establish some lesser sanction and cure, considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation as reflected by one or more of the following factors: A. Whether the misconduct was egregious. B. Whether substantial harm resulted. C. Whether the violation was intentional. D. Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other requirements. E. Whether there is a history of overall compliance. F. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted or cured. 16.20.210 Other City Costs. All grantees shall, within 30 days after written demand, reimburse the city for all direct and indirect costs and expenses incurred by the city in connection with any modification, amendment, renewal or transfer of the license 0 franchise or any license or franchise agreement. SECTION 28. Section 16.24.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.24.010 Facilities. Each grantee shall provide the city with an accurate map or maps certifying the location of all telecommunications facilities within the public rights of way. Each grantee shall provide updated maps annually including copies_in,a computerized format speci_f_ed by the city `(unless the grantee___ demonstrates that the format utilized was developed by the applicant and is prop riet_ary). SECTION 29. Section 16.24.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: * 16.24.020. Damage to Grantee's Facilities.Unless directly and proximately caused by willful, intentional,i er malicious or negligent acts by the city, the city shall not be liable for any damage to or loss of any telecommunications facility within the public rights of way of the city as a result of or in connection with any public works, public improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, or work of any kind in the public rights of way by or on behalf of the city, or for any consequential losses resulting directly or indirectly from such work. Page 21 —AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) SECTION 30. Section 16.24.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted: 16.24.040 Nondiscrimination. A grantee shall make its teleeornmunieetions request stieh serviee, without diserimination as to the terms, conditions, rates e eharges for grantee's services: provided, however, that nothing in this chapte shall prohibit a grantee frorn making any reasomable classifications arneng SECTION 31. Section 16.24.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. 16.24.85E) Gerviee to the eity. A grantee shall make its telecommunications services available to the eity at its.rnest faverable rate offered at the tirne of the request eharged to a similar use . .' for a similar veltjni� of serviee, subjeet to any of grantee's tarif% file with the OPUG.,:Grantee may deduet the applicable charges frorn framehise fee payments. ether terms and conditions of stieh serviees may be specified in a separate agreement between the eity and gramtee. SECTION 32. Section 16.24.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.24.060 Compensation for City Property. If any right is granted, by_lease, _ fi eq -franchise_or other ,manner, to use and occupy city property not located_ within public right of way'_for the installation of telecommunications facilities, the compensation to be paid for such right and use shall be fixed by the city. SECTION 33. Section 16.24.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.24.070 Franchise and Eieense Fees. As compensation for the benefits and privileges under its franchise or license and in consideration of permission to use the right-of-way of the city, the grantee shall pay a quarterly franchise fee to the city, through the duration of its franchise, as follows: A. The minimum quarterly franchise fee shall be set by resolution of the council. B. The.franchlse fee for a telecommunication utility,shallequal 79/6-,of its gross revenue on exchange access services earned within the boundaries of the city. In addition, a telecommunication ufility shall pay the fee in the following paragraph on<telecommunications services which are not local exchange access service§ C. Except for limited use telecommunication;grantees;_Tthe franchise fee shall equal a percent of the grantee's gross revenues derived from grantee's provision of telecommunications services and telecommunications facilities to retail customers and one percent (1%) on all other gross revenues derived from grantee's provision Page 22—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) of telecommunications services and telecommunications facilities to wholesale customers, Including other telecommunications carriers if such customers;o carner'sja e�als 4telecommunlcation granteesunderthis title If such customers or,*car it ers are5not granteesthenrtthe,franchise4fee#shall4�equal'thefeefor retail customers. The amount of the percent for£retailcustomersrshall be set by resolution of the council. DE A'_Ilmitediuse telecommunlcatlonggrantee shall pay a�feetasegSLR the numberof linear feet�of�Ight ofway used A hrriited"use teldeom`munlcatlon grantee IStdefned as one whose Ma ch se rM �L �Am ..r �.$E�Ym11 .ic +''i limits the amount�ofrlinear#feetthe grantee may occupy or onewho_ has 1 franchise as_of October 1998 for the purpose of long di anceRelecommiinications The fee per linear footsshall e set i r ,- by,resolutibsofntFie council: The annual franchise fee collectable from a telecommunications utility shall not exceed the maximum amount under Oregon Law. The city shall accept from a telecommunications utility, in full payment of the franchise fee, the maximum amount allowed under Oregon law. On request, the telecommunications utility must provide documentation to support its calculation. EE. Grantee shall be "providing" telecommunications services or facilities if it sells, leases, resells, or otherwise conveys such services or facilities for consideration. EF A grantee providing resold telecommunications services or facilities shall be entitled to a credit against its franchise fee for an amount equal to a percentage of the price paid for such services or facilities at wholesale. Such percentage shall be set by resolution of the council. Fi So long as it registers with the city as required in chapter 16.08 and pays t_he fees required for grantees set forth is subsections A and B- above, areseller may use another person's facilities to engage in telecommunications activities in the right-of-wa,y without obtaining a franchise, providing the reseller.cJt?es not, either itself or through an affiliate, own or lease, control`or�manage any facilities in the right- of�way and is not involvedinnc�oristruction or repair of facilities in the nght of-way. For purposes;ofcalculatmg the fees to be paid by a reseller, the amount of compensatronypaid by the reseller to the owner or manager of facilitiesin theright-of-way for the services it resells shall be deducted from'thereseller's gross revenues before, applying the:percentage rates describedein subsection C above. Page 23—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\eshland amend 899 anno.wpd) GJ i! Payment shall be made by each April 25, July 25, October 25 and January 25 for the quarter just ended. Any grantee who fails to remit any fee imposed by this chapter within 30 days of the date it is due, shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the fee from the date on which the remittance first became due until paid. SECTION 34. The paragraph following section 16.24.100.D of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: The liability insurance policies required by this section shall be maintained by the grantee throughout the term of the telecommunications Reense-er franchise, and such other period of time during which the grantee is operating without a franchise oHieense, or is engaged in the removal of its telecommunications facilities. Each such insurance policy shall contain the following endorsement: "This policy may not be canceled nor the intention not to renew be stated until 90 days after receipt by the city, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the city's risk manager of such intent to cancel or not to renew." SECTION 35. Section 16.24.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 16.24.110 General Indemnification. Each tense-ot4ranchise agreement shall include, to the extent permitted by law, grantee's express undertaking to defend, indemnify and hold the city and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of, resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the grantee or its affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its telecommunications facilities, and in providing or offering telecommunications services over the facilities or network, whether such acts or omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this title or by a grant agreement made or entered into pursuant to this title. SECTION 36. Section 16.24.120 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read 16.24.120 Performance Surety. Unless the city otherwise specifically approves an alternative security to assure performance, before a ficense-or franchise granted pursuant to this title is effective, the grantee shall provide and maintain a performance bond, in form and substance acceptable to the city, as security for the full and complete performance of this title, including any costs, expenses, damages or loss the city pays or incurs because of any failure attributable to the Page 24—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) grantee to comply with the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations or permits of the city. SECTION 37. The following chapter 16.26 is added to Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code: Chapter 16.26 CABLE FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS Sections: _ 16.ib- i Grant of Franchise: 16.26.020 Franchise Required:, ;16.26:030; Length of Franchise: 16.26.040 Cable Franchise Ch aracieristicil _ 16.26.050 Cable Franchisee Subject to Other Laws, Police Power_s_r 16.26:060; Operation of a Cable-System Without a Franchise. 16_26.010-Grant of Franchise. 1 The city may grant one or more cable television franchises containing such provisions as are reasonably necessary to protect the public interest, and each such franchise shall be awarded in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this _ B. This chapter may be amended from time to time, and in no event shall this chapter be considered a contract between the city and a franchisee such that the city, would be prohibited from amending any provision of this chapter, provided no such amendment shall in any way impair any contract right or increase obligations of a^ _ franchisee under an outstanding a effective franchise except in the lawful of nd the city's policepower,` _ C. This chapter shall be In addition to the requirements of Title 16 that are` _- specifically made applicable to cable service as provided in section 16.04.025. In the I vent of a conflict between this chapter and other requirements of Title_16,__this-chapter_ shall control 18s26.020_Franchise Required.; AJ No person may construct, operate or maintain a cable system or provide cable service over a cable system within the city without a franchise granted by the city authorizing such activity. No person may be granted a franchise without having entered into a franchise agreement with the city pursuant to this chapter. For the purpose of this provision, the operation of part or all of a cable system within the city means the use or occupancy_of rights-ofway by facilities used to provide cable service`; Page 25—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanoes\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) To the extent permitted by law, a telecommunications utility, as defined by ,state law, which utilizes its system to provide cable service shall be.. subject to this chapter and shall require a cable franchise under this chapter-, 'C.- Services-similar t—o cable- -s-er-v-ic e--, such as open vide o- -system,service, shall also be subject to this chapter to the extent provided by law. D. A system shall not be deemed as operating within the city even though_ service is offered or rendered to one or more subscribers within the city, if no right-of-way is used or occupied. All cable franchises granted pursuant' to this chapter shall contain substantially similar terms and conditions,- Which, taken as a whole and considering relevant characteristics of the applicants, do not provide more or less favorable terms and conditions' than those required of other cable franchisees. I ,6.26.-d-30-Length-o-f--Franchise.-Unless--otherwise---specified- i-n -a--cable- f-ra- -n-chi-se.-no cable franchise shall be granted for a period_of more than five ,f6.26.64o—Cable--Franchise Characteristics. I A cable franchise'authorizes use of rights-of-way for installing,- -operating and maintaining cables, wires, lines, optical fiber, underground conduit and other devices necessary and appurtenant to the operation of a cable system to provide cable services within the city, but does not expressly or implicitly authorize a franchisee to provide service to, or install a cable, system on private property without owner consent, or to use publicly or, privately owned poles, ducts or conduits a sep witho t r tx u" a a eagreement with the _ol�p owner., -- _ —. A cable—franchise-s-h-a 1-1 not-mean or in cI u d e any excI us ive right f,-o r the 'Privilege of transacting and carrying on a business within the city as- generally required by the laws of the city. A cable franchise shall not confer any authority to provide telecommunications services or any other ,communications services besides cable services and a separate franchise' shall be required for the provision of telecommunications services in addition to the cable franchise. A franchise shall not confer any,implicit rights ther than those mandated by federal, state or local law; C.1 A cable franchise is nonexclusive and will not explicitly or implicitly;- 'preclude the issuance of other franchises to operate cable systems within i the city; affect the city's right to authorize use of rights-of-way by other 11 persons to operate cable systems or for other purposes as it determines appropriate.j Once a cable franchise has been accepted and executed by the city and a franchisee, such cable franchise shall constitute a valid and enforceable Page 26-AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telemmmunimtions\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) agreement between the franchisee and the city, and the terms, conditions_ and provisions of such franchise, subject to this chapter and all other duly, enacted and applicable laws and regulations, shall define the rights and, obligations of the franchisee,and the city_ relating to the franchise. E. ; All privileges prescribed by a cable franchise shall be subordinate to any prior lawful occupancy of the rights-of-way and the city reserves the right to reasonably designate where a franchisee's facilities are to be placed, Within the rights-of-way through its-generally_applicablepermit procedures_.; FJ A cable franchise shall be a privilege that is in the public trust and personal to the original franchisee. No franchise transfer shall occur Without the prior written consent of the city council upon application made by the franchisee pursuant to this chapter, the franchise and applicable law. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any purported franchise transfer made without application and prior written consent shall be void and shall be cause for the city to revoke the cable franchise. 116.26 05O.—Cab I-e franchisee-Subject-o Other Laws, Police Powers 4 cable franchisee shall at all times be subject to and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including this chapter. A cable franchisee shall at all times be subject to all lawful exercise of the police power of the city including, but not limited to, a' 'rights the city may have under the cable act, all powers regarding zoning; supervision of construction, control of rights-of-way and consumer �protection.j .__. PJ The city shall have full authority to regulate cable systems, cable franchisees and franchises as m__ay now or hereafter be lawfully permissible. 1—.._ __.-___.-- .._..__.._f__.._______ —_._ __.___.._—_.___..___._—_-_---.__, 16.26.060. Operation of a Cable System Without a Franchise. Any person who occupies rights-of-way for the purpose of operating or constructing a cable system or provides cable service over a cable system and who does not hold a valid franchise_ from the city shall be subject to all requirements of this chapter. The city_administrator shall have the authority., A To require such person to enter into a franchise w_it_hin 30 days of-receipt of written notice that a franchise is required _or BB To require sdc h person to remove its property and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory to the city. The city administrator may direct city personnel, or may employ contractors, to remove the property'' and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory-to the city-and, charge the person the costs therefor! Page 27—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:U JSER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinanoes\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd) C. To take any other action it is entitled to take_under applicable law.; In no event shall a franchise be created unless it is issued by_the'city pursuant to this chapter and subiect,to a written franchise agreement.' 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 ' 1999, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 28—AUG. 99 AMENDMENTS. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\Ordinances\ashland amend 899 anno.wpd)