Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-1207 Council PACKET
..�-., a .. Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fl out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the C-ouncil Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you.as to the amount of time allotted tb you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item underrdiscussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the age, } AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 7, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. 11. ROLL CALL: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of November 16, 1999. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS: (None) V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Mayor's reappointments of incumbents to Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31, 2000. 3. Mayor's appointment of Beverly Moms to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2000. 4. Liquor License Application from Susan Battenburg Powell dba/Pilaf. 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. Hillside Development Ordinance Remand Hearing. 2. Public Hearing regarding Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District. 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: (Council Meeting Pkt. 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. CITY RECORDER'S OFFICE I VISIT THE CI'IT OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W WW.ASHLAND.OR.I.JS X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: J 1. Reading by title only of" A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding the Contract with the communications group, inc., for Advertising including Public Relations, Marketing and Designing and Preparing Advertising for Publication." 2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution setting a Public Hearing to Hear Petitions for/and any Objections to the Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street." 3. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements within the Local Improvement District and Authorizing the Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements against Property to be Benefited and Authorizing the City to borrow Money and Issue and Sell Notes for the Purpose of Providing Interim Financing for the Actual Cost of the Local Improvement." 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2, 1999," and Mayoral Proclamation. 5. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Adopting Fees for Telecommunication Registration, Applications, Construction, Franchises and Other Services under Ashland Municipal Code Title 16; and Repealing Resolution 98-24." 6. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Accepting Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street from Jackson County to the City of Ashland." 7. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII. ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER Study Session on:Thursday, December 9 at:noon.in the Hillah Temple .Topics to include: 1) Strategic Planning 2) Strategic Planning update on community,input process and 3) Discussion of N. Normal Annexation. ...............::..................................-...._.............................................................................................._.........._.._....................... ........... VISIT THE C ITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US i MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 16, 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 Minutes of the regular meeting of November 2, 1999 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS I. Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Robb Robbins of Ashland Fire& Rescue. Mayor Shaw honored Robbins on his retirement from service to the community after twenty years with the Ashland Fire& Rescue. 2. Update and presentation by the Tree Commission. Dan Moore of the Ashland Street Tree Commission introduced commission members Rich Whitall, Bryan Nelson, January Jennings, and Greg Covey. Donn Toth and Bob Kuenzel, commissioners who were unable to attend,were also recognized. Moore explained that the Tree Commission performs three main functions: 1)preserving trees;2)encouraging the correct location for planting of trees;and 3)education about the benefits of trees. It was noted that the street tree list is being updated and that the commission is developing an outreach program in the community to provide education through the schools. Explained that a survey was being conducted to determine curriculum needs related to tree education and urban forestry. Cited the Monterey Cypress tree at Briscoe School as an example of the way a tree nurtures the community over time. Explained their goal in introducing a heritage tree program to protect distinguished trees in the area. January Jennings concluded by reading a poem by William Stafford,Oregon poet laureate,titled "Always." 3. Mayor's Proclamation of November 22 as "Solutions to Hunger Day." Mayor Shaw read proclamation into the record. Mayor Shaw requested that the appointment of Jim Watson to the Ecomonic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee be placed under Consent Agenda as item 47. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Findings regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval for a site plan permit for the construction of a six unit apartment complex between Heiman and Laurel Streets. 3. Termination of a 20-foot wide public utility easement located along the westerly boundary of the properties located at 260,262 and 266 Witmer Street(39 lE 05DC 1901, 1902 and 1900). 4. Hendrickson Airport Hangar Rental Agreement. 5. State Police Airport Hangar Rental Agreement. 6. Request for Judge Pro tern appointment. 7. Mayor appointment of Jim Watson to Economic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee. Councilor Reid requested that consent agenda item #3 be pulled and placed under New Business. Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to approve consent agenda items 91,2,4-7. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Page lot 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av./Presented a map and indicated the Ski Ashland Expansion Plan area on the map and noted how it related to the watershed. Stated that this is an important area in terms of erosion. Sophia McDonald/210 California St.,#A/Updated council on activities regarding Southern Oregon University students. Explained that there is discussion regarding the issue of housing in regards to the difficulty in finding large size housing,as well as the issue of discrimination against students. Explained that they have completed their student survey regarding RVTD and will bring the formal results back to council in the future. Brief discussion regarding housing issues and the suggestion that the university look into providing student housing to accommodate students requiring larger apartments. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Oregon Shakespeare Festival proposal for new theater project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:26 p.m. Jo Fries/170 Ridge Rd./Spoke regarding the historic small,quiet town that Ashland was prior to the arrival of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Feels that OSF has only added to the quality and uniqueness of Ashland. Agrees that there is a space needs problem for OSF and supports the proposed plan by OSF for expansion and remodel. Believes that the city and citizens should continue to support OSF. Chuck KeiV586 E. Main St./Noted his economic interest in the proposed plan of OSF,as a B&B owner in town. Explained that his concerns regarding the expansion and the moving of Carpenter Hall were handled very well by OSF,and stated that he is pleased with the discussion and communication on the part of OSF. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Ln./Supports the proposal put forth by OSF,but noted his concern with the direction of OSF in regards to the parking lot. Noted his concern with the festival's wish to reserve the right to ask patrons to pay for the use of the structure. Stated he wouldn't oppose raising the ticket price,but would be against charging for use of the new lot. Joan Steele/332 Glenn St./Voiced amazement that a solution had been reached and voiced her support of the festival and the proposal by OSF. Would like to see some kind of encouragement by the council to the festival to allow more use of Carpenter Hall by community groups. Susan Rust/1026 Henry St.,#2/Stated that she felt the community of Ashland is an integrated whole,consisting of three components. These are the City,OSF and SOU. Explained that these three components maintain a balance in the community and provide diversity,economic prosperity and a unique quality of life. Emphasized that diminishing one component would weaken the whole. , Mike LaNier/211 Genesee St., Medford/Explained that he is a land-use consultant representing property owners on Hargadine Street,and stated that their purpose is not to discourage expansion, but to raise issues to be resolved before they lead to conflicts. Recognized that a single purpose review process is inadequate for a project of such a magnitude that it affects the community as a whole. Noted issues regarding transportation related to the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element Policy 23 regarding off-street parking,which he stated is in conflict with the City Municipal Code for the C-I-D zoning district. Stated that policies 24,25 and 36 are applicable and need to be evaluated to look at adequate parking in the downtown. Stated that parking issues need to be examined further and addressed beyond this site-specific process. Questioned how funding was developed for this parking lot originally,and whether the original funding prescribed future uses. Noted current fee for downtown parking areas, that is in place,and questioned whether the monies collected from that fee will apply to maintain this new structure. Stated that there is a"takings" issue in regards to on-street parking availability. Suggested long-term solutions by looking at forming a district for OSF,an examination of Pioneer Street in regards to parking and the possibility of a closure. Also suggested examining a land use designation for festival usage to work better with the residential district nearby,amending the traveler's accommodation ordinance,and a shuttle service to allow employee parking further from OSF facilities. (Provided copies listing these issues for council.) Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 i Michael Bingham/50 W. Nevada St./Commented on his longevity in the community and his thirteen years of owning a restaurant that was dependent on the festival. Recognized the importance of OSF in the community. Feels that we owe OSF reasonable consideration on their proposal. Michael O'Brien/107 Fork St./A neighbor of OSF,commented on his support of OSF and their intention to continue open communication and participation in the proposed plan. Suggests developing a"Committee of 50"to continue to provide participation and support for this proposal. Commented on the respect for OSF that has developed in other parts of the country. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:51 p.m. Mayor Shaw commented on an e-mail received from Colin Swales. Clarified that the city's hotel/motel tax goes into the general fund. Stated that one-third of this tax goes to Economic Development,and two-thirds of that amount goes to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining one-third(of the one-third ofhorellmore(tax monies going to Economic Development)goes to the festival. Shaw noted that the parking standards in the downtown area do not require that off-street parking be provided. This is because the city wants buildings to be located on the street,and does not want a lot of parking lots to be placed downtown. Emphasized that this enhances multi-modal transportation and encourages walking. Discussed how the increased number of seats would increase the number of visitors. Paul Nicholson,Chuck Butler and Dan Thorndyke/Representing Oregon Shakespeare Festival/Explained how the size of theater was determined and the problems associated with placing the building on this property. Emphasized that the Black Swan is too small for the current use,and with construction there are Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) issues which need to be addressed as well. Indicated on the map the size and height of the proposed building,noting that the peak of the roof will be 28 feet above the Hargadine Street level,with the eaves to be 14 feet over the street. Noted that these issues are all part of the planning process and the festival expects that all of these will be looked at in light of city ordinances through the planning process. Councilor Reid expressed her concern with creating the perception that this is a"done deal" Stated that she would like to see less discussion of details and encourage the public to participate in the actual planning process. Emphasized that the matter before council at this stage is just to initiate the planning process. Councilor Laws commented that one of the problems involved in this project is the limitation associated with the planning process being limited in scope in regards to the city ordinances. Emphasized that there is a separate issue of the revision/extension of the lease with OSF that gives the city more leverage in looking at a broader range of issues. Stated that because of this, there is additional information that is needed up front before it actually gets to the planning process. Pointed out that the lease makes this matter a two-stage process rather the normal one-stage planning process. Councilor Wheeldon noted that she felt this was the place to give staff some direction on negotiating the lease,and commented on possible revenue from parking fees as a means to fund alternative transportation. Emphasized that use of this revenue source should be kept open. Suggested that there was a need to consider air space in negotiation of the lease agreement with OSF,noting that a structure in Eugene has housing units in the spaces above the parking structure. Noted the possibility of providing affordable housing for people working at the theater. Would like to see the air space used to the benefit of the community at large. Councilor Fine noted that the festival's concern has been with their artistic ability rather than with growth. Noted his suggestion that the festival consider"covenanting,"that is making a legally binding commitment to the limitation on their future growth. Noted that the festival has expressed their intention not to use the Black Swan site to open an additional theater. Also expressed concern that Ashland citizens who own the Hargadine lot not be asked to pay rent to the festival for the use of the lot. Suggested that by the time the lease comes before council for renewal,there be a semi-final architectural rendering showing a design sensitive to the neighborhood and the spirit of downtown Ashland. Nicholson confirmed for Shaw that the proposal represents an attempt to increase the capacity of the festival by 8- 10%. Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 Hauck noted the need to look at wider public benefit, including a stipulation in the lease to allow public use of Carpenter Hall. Wheeldon inquired why buildings were deeded to the city. Nicholson suggested that it was an EDA condition, but he could not find adequate documentation to confirm this. Laws clarified that the federal government would not give money to a private organization, and as such the grant had to go to the city. Laws noted that some people seem to be trying to create a conflict around ownership of the property. Laws emphasized that the original grants were done for the public good,to create employment during a recession and to benefit the citizens of Ashland. It was not given to benefit the city government or the OSF. Suggested that this spirit of benefitting the community at large needs to be kept in mind. Shaw noted that the paving of the parking lot originally would have been contracted out,as paving equipment was not acquired by the city until 1975. Nicholson noted that initial elevations and renderings would be available long before a lease was prepared, as part of the pre-application process. Suggested that, with agreement of the council,this would take place within the next couple of months. Freeman requested that council specify their intention to the staff for conditions to be sought in the negotiations for the OSF lease agreement. Reid questioned if this should be discussed in executive session. Laws suggested that starting on the lease negotiations is premature and does not want to delay the planning process. Laws suggested that the Administration staff work with OSF to prepare a preliminary lease to bring forward for council approval. Stated that he would like to see a more collaborative effort to lead into the lease negotiations. Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to authorize City Administrator Mike Freeman to sign the application for the planning action to be filed by OSF. Freeman would be signing the application as the owner's representative for that portion of the project on city land(die Hargardine parking lot); by authorizing staff,the council: A) Is not committing itself as to how it would decide any land use appeal,if the planning action required for the project is appealed to the council; B) Is not committing itself to approval of a parking structure on the Hargardine lot; and C)Is not committing itself to any funding for a parking structure nor to any method of repayment for the structure,including paid parking. DISCUSSION: Wheeldon stated that she would like to wait to begin lease negotiation until a forum can occur. Questioned how the planning process could move forward without addressing the lease,as building on the land could not proceed without working out an agreement to the use of the land and buildings. Reid stated that she was willing to begin talking of the lease,but that she would be unwilling to design it by committee. Stated that she would be willing to direct staff to begin the negotiation process. Laws stated that a study session is needed to look at the council's intent. Discussion of how,and when,this could be best addressed. Shaw suggested two planning actions,one for the parking structure and one for the theater. They would occur together,but would be separate actions and this would allow the festival to move ahead on one item while the city works on the lease. Nolte clarified that the festival could initiate a planning action on either item without the lease,but even if the action were approved they could not build without the lease matter being settled. Suggested that the lease negotiations be included as part of the motion. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to amend motion to include authorizing staff to begin negotiation of lease amendments necessary for OSF to accomplish the project on the Hargadine parking lot. Voice vote on the motion to amend: All AYES. Motion passed. Roll call vote on the amended motion: Reid,Wheeldon, Laws, Hanson, Fine and Hauck, YES. Motion passed. Mayor Shaw called a ten minute break. 2. Confirmation of plans for 125"anniversary of incorporation of City of Ashland. Councilor Wheeldon explained that an Ashland student is organizing a fashion show celebrating this anniversary for her senior project. This is being supported by the Ashland Rotary Club,and OSF will be providing costumes. Noted that Rotary is providing refreshments on December 16"at the Mountain Avenue theater,and asked that the city provide use of Hillah Temple as needed for preparations for this event. Wheeldon noted the incredible Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 contribution on the part of citizens to support Guanajuato-related events, and noted that this event will serve as a fund-raiser for sister city programs for Guanajuato. Council expressed their consensus to allow use of the Hillah Temple. 3. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending 93-35 by Deleting Advertising Contracts as an Exemption from Competitive Bidding," and reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending Resolution 93-35 by Defining Advertising Contracts." Freeman noted that council had been provided with copies of Resolution #93-35. Laws stated that he would be willing to simply delete provision 3.5 from the present ordinance,to remove the exemption for advertising contracts. Laws,Wheeldon, and Fine agreed. Fine expressed his concerns that public concerns were not sufficiently addressed,and stated that staff and council would be willing to discuss prior transactions if the public has ongoing concerns. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Ln.Noiced his preference for the addition of the amendment rather than deletion of provision 3.5,but recognized that they have essentially the same result. Shaw read the synopsis from the council communication,and briefly explained the background behind this matter. Noted that advertising is one of a number of items which are exempt from competitive bidding. Explained that when it came time to hire a firm to do internet work and advertising,the City Administrator put out an RFP for bids. When none of the responses were up to the standard,and many did not respond. Stated that the firm selected on a second go-round had by far the best scope of work in their bid. A citizen complaint brought this up as an issue because the matter was not subject to competitive bidding. Shaw stated that she feels this action tonight is a resolution to this issue. Freeman clarified that the city began looking for a marketing firm to assist with the Ashland Fiber Network when he was new to the city,and he was unaware of the requirement for newspaper notification for bids. RFPs were sent directly to a group of firms. A local firm was ultimately awarded the contract. Clarified that there was no attempt to override proper procedures, it was merely an oversight,and stated that the City Attorney's reading of the ordinance was that advertising contracts were exempt anyway. Explained that with the new requirements being imposed here,there is a question of needing to competitively bid the contract when it is renewed this year. Stated that staff believes that this is not a good time to change advertising companies as a new telecommunications business is being launched. Explained problems with the set-up of the city web page,noting the difficulties in trying to update the old web page rather than creating a new one. Noted that this was a separate contract from the hosting of the web page, as was the training of staff to update the web page. Explained that this was the reason for the multiple contracts—two were for updating the web page,one was for hosting the site,and one for training staff. Hauck clarified that the two updates of the web page were separate,and in effect an entire new web page was created with the second contract. Freeman noted that circumstances can change once a contract has been initiated, requiring more than one contract with a single firm. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Lane/Emphasized that his question had to do with whether this was a contract was for personal services or a public contract. Stated that the contract was a personal services contract,subject to 94-21, but was only sent to five firms despite the resolutions requirement that it be sent statewide. Only one response was received,and one more UP was sent to the company that ended up getting the contract. Because only one proposal was sent to this one firm,he believes that this did not follow the rules or the intent of 94-21. Stated that he does not believe that there is any signed agreement for the$300,000 that has been spent,and that the only signed agreement is for$50,000. Noted that the first web site contract lists four deliverables(development,adding of dynamic content/content masters, training, and deployment to search engines). Other contracts,signed on the same date,are for these same deliverables which should have been covered under the first contract. Stated that he feels that there is confusion about which items are included under which contract. Confirmed for Laws that he does not believe there was any intent to circumvent rules for any nefarious purpose. He feels that mistakes may have been made for purposes of expediency. Hauck stated that he does not believe there were any technical violations made in this matter. Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #99-66 amending 93-35 by deleting advertising contracts as an exemption from competive bidding. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Laws, Fine, Wheeldon, Hanson and Reid, YES. Motion passed. 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution opposing 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 [tow to spend its procurement funds and support Local Economic Development. Mayor Shaw noted staffs recommendation,which stated that this is a complex issue that is beyond staff expertise. Explained that staff recommends that the city council not take action on this issue for the following reasons: 1)Staff does not feel that the City has or will have all the information necessary to understand this complex issue; 2)It is unclear,even if passed what real impact the MAI would have on the City of Ashland; and 3)The MAI agreement negotiations have ceased for now, and no action is needed. This issue is not being actively negotiated. It is very likely that the MAI negotiations may continue and the language of the agreement changed significantly from the version that is now known about. John Fisher-Smith explained that the US and Japan are seeking to incorporate Multi-Lateral Agreement on Investments(MAI)provisions into the World Trade Organization (WTO)agreement. The language may be changed,but the intent is the same. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 9:20 p.m. Kindler Stout/130 Orange Street/Stated that WTO will undermine safety of people, even in Ashland. Stated that more opposition to this agreement is needed,and urged council support of this resolution. Gerry Cavanaugh/560 Oak Street/Representing the Alliance for Democracy/Commented that if staff feels that this issue is beyond their expertise,they should refrain from making a recommendation. Explained that this agreement is to allow multi-national corporations to over-ride democratically adopted rules and regulations. Asked that this body make a gesture by taking a stand to oppose MAI,which would undercut the democratic rights of the people. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:26 p.m. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve Resolution#99-65. DISCUSSION: Reid noted that environmental protections are important and other countries should have the option to put such regulations in place. Hauck stated that he would be willing to support the resolution if the second to the last paragraph were deleted,as there would be no legal standing to oppose an international treaty. Reid stated that she would be willing to amend her motion accordingly. Laws voiced concern with complexity to issue and the necessity to hear both sides to this issue. Laws commented on the issue regarding globalization and the dislocation of labor. Recognized that some of these provisions could be misused. Understands that the oppositon to the MAI evolves out of concern for this possibility of misuse,and suggests that international decision making will be needed. Laws does not feel comfortable with opposing MAI because of the complexity of the issue. Fine noted the complexity of the issue and agreed with council concern that they have only had the opportunity to hear one side. Felt that council should defer to the federal government on international concerns,and emphasized that he would not feel comfortable with deciding on this issue,or burdening city staff with an issue of this magnitude. Fine requested that he be allowed to abstain from voting and encouraged other council inclined to vote no on this resolution to abstain. Councilor Wheeldon requested clarification on the direction of the treaty negotiations,and whether a resolution opposing MAI is appropriate if MAI has been abandoned. Hauck stated that the language of the resolution speaks generally to the type of treaty,and would thus be appropriate. Hanson does not believe that the MAI is going to go away and supports the resolution whole-heartedly. Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting I 1-16-99 Laws would like to vote for a resolution that would say that"This Council urges the national government to protect local autonomy to the greatest extent possible in the development of any regulation of international trade." Laws/Fine m/s to strike the wording of the original resolution,and amend it to read "This Council urges the national government to protect local autonomy to the greatest extent possible in the development of any regulation of international trade." Discussion: Wheeldon asked for input from the public; Shaw indicated that she was not willing to re-open the public hearing at this time. Roll call vote on the motion to amend: Reid, Hauck, Hanson and Wheeldon; Fine and Laws,YES. Motion to amend failed 4-2. Roll call vote on the original motion: Reid,Hauck, Hanson,and Wheeldon,YES. Fine and Laws, ABSTAINED. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1 Council Meeting Look Ahead. Freeman noted that this item was for council information,and he was available for any questions the council might have. 2. Presentation by Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. Jeff Fields/796 Oak Street/Requesting council to formally acknowledge and support the efforts of its citizens by voting and drafting a letter,to formally state that it would review the Alliance's completed comment before deciding what wild land fire mitigation strategy to officially promote. Fields clarified that this delay of the city's support was at the Forest Service's suggestion. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Presented map of Ashland watershed and how it relates to the HAZRED project. Briefly gave overview on the history of the watershed,noting clear-cut areas,area roads,and shaded fuel breaks. Noted the amount of timber that has been taken out of the area and feels that the Forest Service is taking advantage of the city by removing and profiting from the removal of timber. This also includes the cost of dredging Reeder Reservoir. It was noted by Councilor Hanson that Reeder Reservoir was not dredged after the 1997 flood,but only the upper fork areas. Laws noted the council's support and that there was no need for further argument. Agreed that the past practice by the forest service in clear-cutting did result in the need to dredge our reservoir,but emphasized that it may be difficult to determine the portion the degree of responsibility of the Forest Service versus natural erosion. Councilors Hanson/Hauck m/s to draft a letter to the Forest Service with the wording requested. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 3. Authorization to Initiate Planning Processes for the Fire Station reconstruction and Library expansion and remodel. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve authorization to initiate planning process for Fire Station reconstruction and Library expansion/remodel. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 4. Request for Funding by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce for Assistance related to the Holiday Festival of Light Program. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve funding request for Holiday Festival Light Program with Ashland Chamber of Commerce. DISCUSSION: Reid noted that her approval of this request was conditioned upon the requirement that this request go through the budget process in the future. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Laws questioned whether cash has been given in the past,or if it has all been in-kind donations. Freeman stated that there had been no cash given,but pointed out that the labor and materials amounted to about $26,000. Laws noted that he was uncomfortable with this,as there had been no council action in the past. Expressed concern that this amount to an add-on in addition to the money already given to the Chamber. Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 Does not like add-on's outside of the budget process,and stated that he could vote in favor of this item only ., with the understanding that it sets no precedent and will need to go to the budget committee through the regular budget process next year. Freeman clarified for Hauck that the$26,000 mentioned included the street decorations that have always been done by the city in the past. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 5. Termination of a 20-foot wide public utility easement located along the westerly boundary of the properties located at 260,262 and 266 Wimer Street(391E05DC 1901, 1902 and 1900). Reid noted her concern with letting go of a possible pedestrian path. Brown explained that this is strictly a public utility easement,and there is no easement for pedestrian access. Brown clarified that this is for utilities only,and the easement is simply being shifted to the other side of the lot. Reid stated that she would like to have pedestrian access easements wherever possible. Councilors Fine/Hanson m/s to approve consent agenda#3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Shaw suggested that,given the upcoming work to be done on the library and the fire station, the city look at creating specific zoning districts for government buildings. Also stated that this might be considered for religious buildings. Explained that this might be handled with a specific overlay,such as a"G-I"district,as can be found in other cities. Shaw further explained that the fire station is being built in a commercial zone,while the Hillah Temple and the library are in residential zones. Fine suggested that government use and libraries could be made outright permitted uses in all zones,as they would not likely conflict with potential developments in any zone. Council discussion of concern over whether the speakers from the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance were rushed in an attempt to end the meeting by 10:00 p. Hauck a Wheeldon stated that they felt the speakers were rushed,while Laws and Shaw stated that they felt the iscuss ion had ended and the request had been granted. Hanson suggested that in the future,council attempt o be a little more sensitive. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 17, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws,Hauck,Hanson,and Fine were present. Councilor Reid arrived late. Staff present:City Administrator Mike Freeman, Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles, Telecommunications/Marketing Manager Ann Seltzer, Director of Community Development John McLaughlin,Public Works Director Paula Brown,Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid,Chief of Police Scott Fleuter,Parks Director Ken Mickelsen,Fire Chief Keith Woodley, and Finance Director Jill Turner. DISCUSSION REGARDING CERT PROGRAM Fire Chief Woodley introduced Rees Jones, who is handling the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training,gave a brief overview and introduced CERT program graduate Betty Camner. Woodley briefly explained the curriculum and budget information that had been provided to council,and noted that the goal of the program is to extend emergency services to all neighborhoods in the event that emergency response personnel are unavailable. Provided a map to council showing the various team locations in the city,and emphasized that there is a need for self-sustaining communities that are able to stand alone for up to 72 hours in emergencies. Rees explained that the program began as a means to extend the emergency response capabilities, but suggested that it has deepened as it progressed. Betty Camner/868 A St./Emphasized that the CERT program is very empowering. Noted that she is a single mother, the owner of a traveler's accommodation,and a business owner,and stated that she found the training to be an incredible education. Explained that she now knows how to turn off utilities and use a fire extinguisher;she carries a first aid kit on her person and in her car. Stated that,all in all,she is more prepared to take case of herself and her family,and the community if necessary. Emphasized that her feeling is that this training has made her someone who would be able to contribute in a disaster, and someone who would act from educated knowledge. Jones noted that many participants speak of personal empowerment, and pointed out that two city councilors have completed the program. Suggested that this is good for the city and the citizens. Explained the handouts that were presented to council,which are samples of the ones used by the teams in canvassing neighborhoods. Also emphasized the commitment on the part of the program trainees,who are required to provide their own equipment for classes that may cost as much as$150-200. Woodley noted that training costs to the city are$104 per citizen,and that 25 hours are required to train each participant. Woodley emphasized that there is a need to include CERT volunteers in future disaster drills,and stated that the money invested in this program gives a high return. Concluded that in two years,all of the teams will be up and running and the costs will decrease significantly. Reid inquired about the possibility of involving high school students in the program to provide valuable training that would benefit the community and empower young people. Jones noted that all interested parties over 14 years of age are welcome,and pointed out that there are two high school students now in the program. Jones questioned spending tax dollars to train a high school team, when so much of the money invested could leave the community as these participants leave at graduation. However, he agreed that students could be included in other teams, and recognized City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page I of 6 f that this might be looked at again in the future. Reid suggested that once the program is established, it would be valuable to have an ongoing class run by school faculty as trainers. Jones emphasized that the existence of CERT teams provides a tremendous improvement in disaster response capabilities. Ina weekend training,over half of the trainees showed up for a dry run of an assessment,and covered all of the ground in neighborhoods on foot within two hours. In contrast, city staff would take four hours and make guesses as they drive by in emergency response vehicles. Woodley stated that graduates will train their families,and eventually graduates will train new trainees in classes. Jones suggested that this will reduce costs, and emphasized the level of professionalism present in the trainees. Woodley thanked Paula Brown for providing a meeting place and for assistance in creating the maps used. Woodley also thanked Rees Jones for all of his efforts. REPORT ON PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES This item was postponed to a future meeting. (Freeman noted this had to do with policy issues around providing High Speed Data(HSD)service to customers outside the city.) 2000-2001 STRATEGIC PLANNING UPDATE Freeman noted documents distributed as draft for review, and asked for council input on whether these are indeed priorities to move ahead with. Then, suggested looking at items by department projects. Freeman noted concern with the amount of projects identified for Community Development,and stated that he would like council to look at the workload here in depth. Reid stated that her preference would be for Community Development to finish the items which are underway before moving on to other items. Freeman suggested going through the 2000-2001 Strategic Plan Draft together to determine consensus. Laws stated that before moving ahead,he would need to have an idea of costs and staff priorities. Emphasized that he would need these details before giving final approval,but stated that he could give preliminary approval to the wording of the draft. Freeman stated that cost estimates would be brought to the next meeting, and asked the council to go over the draft wording as a group here. On page I, Laws asked that the document title be changed to"Strategic Plan Priorities"as this would help to clarify the purpose of the document. On page 2, Laws suggested that he would like the"Community Values Statement"to be more comprehensive. Reid concurred, and suggested that the statement be made less cumbersome. Shaw stated that the "Community Values Statement" looked good to her, and asked that wording be kept as brief and concise as possible. There were no comments on the"Citizen Participation and Involvement"section on page 2. Also on page 2,under"Environmental Resources,"Reid pointed out that recent actions allowing homes to be built in an unpaved area is out of compliance with part of this item. Laws stated that goals are to be worked toward, but emphasized that this can be over a period of time. Also under"Environmental Resources," Shaw suggested that the introductory paragraph be corrected to read"Ashland seeks to retain its natural beauty as it continues to grow and further development. The City seeks to strike a balance between urbanization and Pretesting preventing air,water,and noise pollution as well as protection from soil erosion and loss of small creeks and wetlands." On page 3,"Housing,"Hauck stated that the community land trust item has been implemented and can be removed from this list as it is in place and operational. Reid questioned the re-development/re-modeling changes to the City's SDC charges,and asked how difficult this will be. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin stated that any City Council Study Session 11117/99 Page 2 of 6 time SDCs are discussed,it becomes involved and complex,and noted for Reid that this item also involves issues around the Historic District and the demolition ordinance. On page 3,under"Economic Strategy"Fine suggested correcting the wording in the second item as follows:"Review the City's land use ordinances to ensure they are meeting or will meet the community's needsE and values as it they pertains to parking requirements, environmental constraints (i.e. trees), structure size, mixed use, landscaping and promoting alternative transportation." Under the next item in"Economic Strategy"Freeman stated that the living wage item could be made a directive from council to staff and could be removed from the strategic plan priorities. Council agreed,and this item was removed. On page 4, "Public Services" item 2, it was suggested that the second sentence beginning "Combine the grant program..." be changed to begin"Coordinate the grant program..." In"Public Services" item four, it was noted that the word"for"should not be capitalized. In"Public Services"item five,Reid noted that the green power item will be coming up soon,and Freeman pointed out that it may be an on-going item that is addressed incrementally. Hanson suggested that this item be reworded as "Develop a r-_°,... P%VeF altema``°°green power alternatives for the community." In the sixth item under "Public Services" dealing with regional partnerships, the word "electrical' was changed to "electricity." In the seventh item,Freeman clarified for Reid that the"street improvement and financing plan"referredto developing more of a long term plan to address this issue over time. In the eighth item,the word"need"was changed to"capacity." Freeman noted that last item in"Public Services"will be presented to council soon,and can be removed from this list. On page 4, items#1 and#3 under"Transportation&Transit"were combined. There was discussion of the jurisdictional exchange item,with Reid noting that there is a need here to keep the long-term maintenance costs in mind in the finance element of this matter. On page 5, under"Energy, Air, and Water Conservation" Reid questioned the status of the solar power program. Administrative Services Director/Conservation Manager Dick Wanderscheid explained that implementation of the residential portion of the program (Phase II)will depend on the institutional phase's(Phase 1)success. On page 5,under"Parks,Open Space,and Aesthetics,"Shaw questioned the status of the update of the open space map. Parks Director Ken Mickelsen confirmed that this update is underway. Freeman noted that he and Mickelsen had already met and discussed operational redundancies. Mickelsen stated that he was agreeable to continuing this dialog, and stated that information will be brought back to council after further discussions can take place. There were no changes made to the"Urbanization" items on page 6. On page 6,under"Historical Sites& Structures,"Fine questioned suggested that the second item be placed in"Public Services" and reworded to indicate the need to "Ensure that all public buildings are properly maintained, with appropriate attention to the special needs of historic buildings." Under"Regional Strategies"on page 6, Freeman noted that he has not pursued study sessions with other bodies due to workload. Asked for guidance from council as to the priority on this item. Hauck stated that he would prefer to delay joint sessions with other bodies in the region until specific issues arise. Cited the Urban Growth Boundary agreement City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 3 of 6 as one possibility, and suggested that discussions over this agreement might make a meeting with the county's board of comm issionersappropriate. McLaughlin noted that they will be updating this intergovemmentalagreement this year, and also noted that the county is rewriting its land use code. Reid suggested sitting in on the county discussions. Freeman asked that council direct him as to the need for joint regional sessions. Fine noted that these sessions could be with less than the full council. Under"Financial Management"on page 7, Freeman explained for Shaw that items I and 2 were to be more long range than the budget cycle. Freeman briefly explained background of item 2,and noted that there may be an RVTV show with the budget committee. Stated that he would also like a video of proposed capital projects. Council discussion that these items aim at continually increasing and improving the comprehensive information provided to the community on city budget and financial issues. Item I was changed to read: " The City will create long-term financial projections .for all funds." Item 2 was changed to read:"Promote a more thorough understanding of how the City receives and spends its funding." It was noted that item 4 had to do with new technologies and capabilities;briefly discussed the suggestion of looking at performance-based budgets. Under"Social Human Services"on page 7,Fine suggestedthat the 200-2001 Goal begin as follows:"After developing Based on the EleN,elepwent 9 a health and human services plan for the City,..." Freeman explained that the section on"Organizational Effectiveness"on page 8 was not ready to be finalized,and noted that this item developed from employee input. Laws noted that council would need to know costs in both money and time before giving final approval to the draft priorities. Asked that department heads convey if they can do the projects listed, and stated that where there are reservations the priorities need to be looked at further. Freeman asked if there could be an evaluation of what might be dropped here,and explained that the primary areas of concern are the volume of work for the Electric Department and for Community Development. Lookingat the Departmental Goals handout,McLaughlin questioned"Develop a program that will encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots." Explained that paving is already required as a condition of planning actions, and questioned whether the department should pursue requiring paving at existing houses. Shaw suggested developing a program to encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots on publicly owned lands. McLaughlin questioned the intent of the goal, and asked what incentives are to be offered and what outreach would need to be involved. Emphasized that this is not a land use issue. Shaw stated that the item could simply be worded as,"Encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots on publicly held lands." After discussion, this item was moved to the bottom of the priority list to be looked at in the future. Reid questioned the program for using recycled blacktop. Public Works Director Paula Brown noted that this program does not apply to parking lots.Finance Director Jill Turner stated that the possibility exists to create an LID to pave a publicly-owned lot. Reid suggested continuing with existing practices for streets, and encourage paving of public lots where possible. Relative to the item stating"Update the Public Services element of the Comprehensive Plan," McLaughlin noted that various master plans which have been implemented address the item. Explained that the City has met the review requirements for the State of Oregon,and questioned whether the current workload would make it feasible to get into internal housekeeping. Council expressed their consensus for removing this item. McLaughlin also questioned the design standards for public buildings item,noting that some committee meetings have already occurred. Explained the committee has had some difficulty in determining their purpose and direction. McLaughlin emphasized that all current projects are at a high standard, and suggested that if there are to be more projects, the staff can be directed to beef up the review process. Suggested that a new design process may not be necessary. City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 4 of 6 Reid noted her concerns over the metal building at the golf course on Highway 66 and the situation at the Senior Center at Hunter Park. Reid explained that she wants a code that applies to public buildings in the same way it does to private buildings. Laws concurred,and noted that there had been a failure to follow procedures in the Hunter Park building. Laws emphasized that there is a need to follow existing procedures rather than making new ones. Reid suggested that there might be a need for some review above the Planning Division to prevent any interdepartmental tensions. McLaughlin noted that the golf course building was simply poorly located,and emphasized that it meets the standard that other buildings are held to in that section of town. Reid stated that public buildings are publicly owned, and the concern is notjust with their use but with their public status. Reid suggested that publicly owned buildings need more review, not necessarily by Planning, but perhaps by a committee to hold them to a standard. Laws emphasized that there should not be a council review of every building,and emphasized that errors do not occur often. Suggested that there is a need to remain aware of the need to keep to a high standard without a formal procedure. McLaughlin noted that planning does review public buildings,and looks both at their long-term viability and how they fit in the neighborhood. Confirmed that there.needs to be increased scrutiny for public buildings under the current standard,rather than developing new standards. Council consensus that anew standard will not be developed,and that the committee may be deactivated. Shaw questioned the B Street lot, and asked that Public Works Director Paula Brown look at putting lights over the walkway behind the lot. Also noted that the star-thistle growing in the park-rows needs to be addressed. Asked that it be mowed. Brown confirmed that Public Works is working with the Parks Department on improving the landscaping here. Freeman explained that the staff feels that this list is very do-able,other than the Community Development portion that has already been discussed. Brown asked for some clarification relative to the Public Works department list as well. Emphasized that many of these projects are massive capital projects,and will be on-going. Stated that the department's workload is significant. Brown added that the list does not include day-to-day work of the department. Asked that council recognize that many items (such as the TAP project and dealings with TID)are dependent on outside agencies and are somewhat outside the city's control. Stated that these projects are priorities,but that they will be ongoing. Laws noted that the wording in the list distinguishes between"continuing"and"completing"projects. Reid questioned the bridge extending Nevada Street,noting the importance of this project as the area develops. Brown noted that the Surface Transportation Improvements Project(STIP)update is beginning for 2002-2005,and stated that the City may want to look at STIP project recommendations,including the Nevada Street bridge. Brown confirmed that the bridge is in the Transportation System Plan(TSP)and the beyond-five-yearplan,but Laws suggested moving it into Capital Improvement Projects list. Freeman noted that the recently increased transportation SDCs address this bridge. Reid emphasized that it may be a need sooner that had been previously believed. Freeman asked if the council would be comfortable with the proposed priority list as revised. Hauck stated that this would be acceptable,as long as anything distributed makes it clear that the list is not final. Freeman suggested that a public hearing be held in January. Freeman noted that there is a need to change the date for the January 25'"joint meeting, and stated that he would let councilors know when a date was chosen. Also discussed rescheduling of the December 8"meeting. It was decided that this meeting would be held at noon on December 9"at a location to be announced, to allow for the December 8" Rogue Valley Public Service Academy training session. City Council Study Session 11/17/99 - Page 5 of 6 c ADJOURNMENT ; 7 The meeting'was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Submitted by Derek Severson,Assistant to the City Recorder i t 1 f r i j City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 6 of 6 i i City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES October 12, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen Absent: None Council Present: Councillors Don Laws, Steve Hauck, Cameron Hanson, David Fine and Mayor Catherine Shaw Absent: Councillors Wheeldon and Reid I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Program Building at Hunter Park. II. CALLE GUANAJUATO RESTORATION PROJECT Chair Eggers briefly outlined the history of the public process to develop a Master Plan for the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. She indicated that this meeting was intended to be the culmination of that process. Consultant Brian McCarthy from Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert was present to review the proposed Master Plan and to answer any questions which the public, Councillors or Commissioners might have. If appropriate, following the presentation, the Commission and then the Council would independently make a decision to adopt the plan as Presented or modified in discussion. III. ATTACHMENT OF CITY RECORDER'S MINUTES As City Recorder Barbara Christiansen has indicated that only one set of minutes is needed for the public record, a copy of the Recorder's minutes are attached for the Commission's review and approval. Res ectfu� submitted, �' �``— Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 18, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen, Council Liaison Don Laws Absent: None I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main. II. ADDITIONS or DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meetina - September 20 1999 Commissioner Eggers noted that Commissioner MacGraw was listed as absent when she was actually present at the meeting. Commissioner Landt made a correction on the motion on page three substituting the phrase"all best management practices for storm water runoff"for"all best practices". Under Director's Report on page four related to the Calle Project, Commissioner Eggers asked that the second sentence be revised to read: "The Commission intends to provide$200,000 in the Department budget for this project." Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Jones seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Special Meeting - September 15 1999 Commissioner Landt indicated that the phrase "by consensus" should be eliminated from paragraph four on page 5 so that the beginning of the sentence would read "As each point was addressed, Commissioners decided which items or changes they would like to have the consultants pursue. . . " In the following paragraph in reference to in-stream work on the project, Commissioner Eggers indicated that September 2001 should be changed to read September 2000. Commissioner Coppedge made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner MacGi raw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. REVIEW OF FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as presented by checks # 26464 through 26675 and #100413 through 100559 in the amount of $ 639,277.13. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Regular Meeting- October 18, 1999 Page 2 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission REVIEW OF FINANCES-continued B. Approval of June 30, 1999 Quarterly Financial Statement Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the June 30, 1999 Quarterly Financial Statement as presented. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no C. Acknowledgment for GFOA Award Director Mickelsen indicated that he was delighted to report that for the eleventh consecutive year the Commission and Department has received the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement Award for excellence in financial reporting. As indicated in the letter from GFOA, attainment of the certificate represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. . V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Open Forum A member of the public indicated that it was his understanding that the Commission may be discussing postponing discussion on sports field lighting at N. Mountain Park until after the first of the year. He inquired whether or not the topic would be appropriate to address at this time. Commissioners chose to do so. Sports field lighting at N.Mountain Park- Referring to the staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999, Director Mickelsen said that having met with representatives from the N. Mountain Park neighbors and representatives from community sports groups, that a suggestion had been made that the Commission postpone formal discussion or action related to lighting until after the first of the year. Indicating appreciation for the discussion taking place by the interested parties and staff, by consensus, Commissioners agreed to postpone Commission meetings or any action related to sports field lighting until after the first of the year. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of policy related to bids for materials and construction contracts The Commission reviewed modifications to the policy which had been adopted related to approval of bids for materials and construction contracts. Apologizing for her absence during July and August when the original policy had been discussed and approved, Commissioner Coppedge expressed reservation about some elements related to the policy including items #4 and #5 which would be addressed this evening. In particular, she stated reservation to authorizing staff to approve bids "that exceed the budgeted amount by 10% or$5,0004 because she felt that the Commission should be aware of and approve those additional expenditures up front, not be informed after the fact. She said that she could agree with a policy which stated equal to or less than the budgeted amount but once an item goes over budget, for whatever dollar amount, it should have specific and prior approval of the Commission on a case by case basis. Commissioner Landt said that he understood Commissioner Coppedge's point of view and indicated that he too believed that the Commission was ultimately responsible for the budget. However, he also felt that within the parameters outlined that it was reasonable to give staff the authority to move forward on an item which was clearly a priority to the Commission. He did Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 3 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Policy related to bids for materials and contracts-continued indicate that item #5 of the proposed changes to the policy should include the word "could" so that the sentence would end "the explanation shall include where the money for the unbudgeted amount could come from." Commissioner MacGraw asked for staff's comment on the policy and proposed changes. Director Mickelsen said that staff had no problem with the proposed changes and that he would feel comfortable working under such a policy. He said he could certainly understand that calling Special Meetings or taking Commission time during Regular Meetings may not be the best use of Commissioners' time and would support the changes for that reason. Commissioner MacGraw commented that she would prefer keeping the policy as it is simply because if an expense is going to go over budget by whatever amount she felt that the Commission should be involved in the decision of whether or not to proceed; perhaps the Commission would feel the item was no longer a priority once it knew the actual cost. Both Commissioner Landt and Director Mickelsen indicated that if the levels of dollar amount or percentage amount noted in the policy were the basis of concern for some Commissioners that those numbers could certainly be changed. Following additional brief discussion, Commissioner Coppedge said that she felt it was important to note that her concerns about the policy were not based on a lack of trust in the judgement of staff but on the belief that it should be Commission responsibility to approve items which go out to bid rather than have that responsibility delegated to staff, particularly for items which come in over budget. Commissioner MacGraw concurred. MOTION Commissioner Coppedge made a motion to approve the following: 1) that bids for materials and construction may be approved by staff without Commission approval if the items are included in the budget and the bid is at or below the budgeted amount, 2) bids for over the budgeted amount should be referred to the Commission for approval. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Commissioner Eggers made a motion to approve the draft of changes to be made to the policy related to approval of bids for materials and construction contracts as drafted and attached to the memorandum from Commissioner Landt and Director Mickelsen dated October 14, 1999 with the exception that the word"could" be added to the phrase in item #5 "where the money for the unbudgeted amount could come from", and, that the policy would be reviewed and renewed after one year. Commissioner Landt seconded. The vote was: 3 yes -2 no (Coppedge, MacGraw) B. Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project Commissioners having reviewed a staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999 which indicated that in order to expedite the process for Phase 2 of the Calle Project, the Commission may choose to authorize staff to begin negotiations which Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert for a contract to develop working construction documents and obtaining permits. Approval of the master plan was on the Council's agenda for this Tuesday, October 19'. If approved by the Council, staff could then bring information related to the contract back to the Commission for approval at its next Regular Meeting. Commissioner Coppedge said support for the idea indicating that she believed moving forward as quickly as possible would keep the project on track for completing in-stream work this coming summer. Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 4 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Proiect-continued Commissioner Eggers inquired about the budget. Director Mickelsen said that he had tentatively spoken with Brian McCarthy who has tentatively indicated that he believes Phase 2 can be completed with a not-to-exceed figure of $175,000. He said that he hoped that in negotiations the dollar amount would actually fall under that amount but that this was CMG's "outside"figure at this time. The reason that this figure is higher than that which was stated in the rough budget presented earlier is to allow for any contingencies which the Commission may want included in Phase 2 which was not in the estimated, minimum budget outlined when the master plan was presented. In discussion, Commissioner Landt said that he felt that a public input element should be included in Phase 2 because it was "in the details"that people sometimes became the most interested because My could better visualize what "this would mean to me." Director Mickelsen said that usual practice was not to include an actual public process element in this phase, that it was included in the design phase. Commissioner Landt responded that he felt that not every detail needs to be brought back but that prior to $175,000 worth of work being completed, that some discussion and public input needs to take place. Commissioner MacGraw said that although she did not anticipate a public process element per se in Phase 2 that she did believe that discussion of some of the design details which were not appropriate for the master plan design phase would be appropriate to discuss during Phase 2. Commissioner Coppedge concurred and suggested that in negotiations with the consultants that it could be indicated that part of their work would be to include the opportunity for the Commission and public to "take a look" and give some feedback along the way. Commissioner Jones and Eggers supported the idea also. Director Mickelsen said that if the Commission authorized his beginning negotiations with CMG that he would indicate that the Commission would like to have one or two interim public meetings included in Phase 2. Commissioner Landt said that he felt that the estimate for Phase 2 was high in relationship to the cost for the master design phase. He said that he would be interested in knowing how other projects in the City would,compare; that is, what percentage of design work would fall into the master plan phase and what percentage into the construction documents phase. Commissioner Eggers said that because of some concerns which had been expressed by Councillors and the public related to cost that she would be interested in some kind of information which would indicate that the Phase 2 estimate was within line with other kinds of projects of a similar nature. Commissioner Coppedge said that she could not support spending staff time investigating arbitrary percentages to weigh the cost of one phase versus another phase because she did not feel it would be a productive use of staff time and would simply slow down the project. MOTION Indicating that if the City Council approves the Master Plan for the Calle at its upcoming meeting, Commissioner Coppedge moved to authorize the Director to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert for Phase.2 of the Calle Project which would include preparing the designs and plans for working construction drawings and all items associated with that work, the permitting process, bidding, construction supervision and administration. Commissioner Jones seconded. In discussion on the motion, Commissioner Eggers commented that if it would not take an inordinate amount of staff time to look into whether or not the estimated amount for Phase 2 was in sync with other similar projects that she would like to have that done and that she did not believe it would slow down the project. Councillor Laws commented that some budget information could be needed to the Council meeting for the following evening because budgets had not yet been firmly set. Commissioner MacGraw said that it was her understanding that the Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 5 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Project-continued Council was simply going to be addressing approval of the Master Design Plan itself, as the Commission did in the Special Meeting, not specific points of the budget. Director Mickelsen commented that it was his understanding that there was currently sufficient monies set aside in this year's budget to take care of Phase 2. Councillor Laws said that it was his understanding that technically the monies still need to be specifically allocated for this purpose. Commissioner Landt said that he was going to vote against the motion but with hesitation and sorrow because it is an important project. In stating his reasons he said that he believed that some elements of the plan ran contrary to the initial goals which had been set by the Council and Commission; in particular, encroachments into the stream which he believes is detrimental to the creek and more development on the west side than was initially anticipated. He said that he needed to vote his'conscience because he believes the direction we are headed is bad for Ashland Creek. Commissioner MacGraw said that she respected Commissioner Landt's position but that she felt that she needed to also reiterate that the Bill Hall, engineer on the design team, had addressed the question of stream encroachment—at least to her satisfaction —and, that the proposed enhancements to the west side had tome directly from the public process. She said that she did not believe that we were deviating from the goals as preliminarily set by the Council and Commission for the project. Commissioner Eggers said that she would be voting no on the motion because she had some reservations about the process to date. Although she voted to recommend the Master Plan Design to the Council, she had questions about the dollar amount be estimated for Phase 2. The vote was: 3 yes - 2 no (Eggers, Landt) C. Review of revised job description for the position of Department Director Commissioner Jones said that she and Commissioner Coppedge had worked with the Director to create the revised draft of a job description, a copy of which was in the Commissioners' packets for review. She said that this was the initial step in the process to adopt an updated job description for the Director but that it was in actuality part of an ongoing process in that job descriptions needed to be reviewed and updated periodically. She emphasized that this was a working model to which the committee anticipated other Commissioners would add input. She briefly described the format prior to Commissioners discussing the draft document. Commissioners reviewed the draft in detail making comments on various items as organized within the document and made suggestions on how they might be changed, enhanced, or made more clear. Following the discussion, Commissioners Jones and Coppedge indicated that they would revise the draft and bring an updated draft back to the Commission for review at the next meeting. They also indicated that they would be working on the performance review form and tying it into the job description which was being developed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Easement related to Bear Creek Greenwav Director Mickelsen said that it has come to the City's attention that the temporary bike path which was established off Glendower Street into the Ashland Pond area of the Greenway encroaches on private property. When the Department constructed the temporary path as a detour due to the construction work related to the Wastewater Treatment Plant project, it was unaware that the easement off Glendower was exclusively for maintenance and utility purposes, Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 6 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Easement off Glendower-continued not for general public access. He said that the property owner has been very understanding. However, if the Commission would like to continue to utilize this route for general public access to the Greenway Trail, an enhanced easement or purchase of the property would be required. MOTION Following brief discussion among Commissioners in which consensus was that public access to the Greenway would be important at this location, Commissioner Landt made a motion to authorize the Director to contact the involved property owner or owners to determine the feasibility of obtaining appropriate easements or of purchasing the property on the road off Glendower into Greenway park property. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Discussion of forms afid procedures for Youth Activities Lew grant requests Having utilized the original criteria for granting monies to assist.groups or organizations sponsoring community activities for several years, Commissioners decided to review the criteria based upon that experience to determine how the criteria could be better defined. Recreation Supervisor Emily Jones briefly reviewed a staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999 related to the criteria in place for granting monies. Included within the memorandum were comments from staff related to some policy modifications the Commission may choose to make. Commissioners discussed different elements of the criteria as originally established, added possible new criteria to be adopted and suggested ways in which the wording could be changed or modified for clarity. One topic,of general discussion was the fact that the overall Commission goals for use of the money was not clearly stated: Commissioner Coppedge summarized her understanding of the intent of previous Commissions which was to utilized the monies to attempt to stimulate the introduction of new programs, not to duplicate or assist programs which were those already available and viable within the community. In re-evaluating the criteria, she said that she would like to approach it in a positive manner; that is, state the Commission's goals and then organize the criteria to reflect the goals. Commissioner Eggers pointed out that in prior years the Commission had chosen to ignore its own criteria related to not supporting activities associated with already established organizations; in particular the Ashland School District and the YMCA. She said that she felt that if that criteria was going to continue to be stated that it should be adhered to and communicated clearly in the policy or documentation. Commissioner Jones suggested that a indication could be made that"first consideration"would be given to "new" groups or programs rather than to"existing" programs. Commissioner Landt suggested that the form which was presented to the public could be shaped along a format similar to the kind of document which goes out for an RFP. Perhaps then organizations would have sufficient information about what the Commission was looking for and to craft their information in a manner which would enable Commissioners to select among various applicants. He said that he felt that Commissioners needed some kind of score sheet and that the same information needed to be provided to the applicants. Commissioners quickly reviewed each existing criteria as listed to give guidance to staff as to how a revised draft of policy and documentation could be brought back to the Commission for review. Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 7 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS Relocation of bike oath through Railroad District Park Director Mickelsen asked for Commissioner comment regarding the memorandum dated October 8, 1999 on relocating the bike path through Railroad District Park. Commissioners indicated that staff should proceed to work with City staff and the Traffic Safety Commission to relocate the path so that the terminus of the path was not at the heavily trafficked 8"'and "A" Streets but further down towards 8'", 5"', and 4'" Streets. Commissioner Landt asked that the large area of dogwood be taken into consideration when actually locating the path. He expressed concern that if the path went through the large hedge that anyone within that area would be hidden fromssight. He said that in a neighborhood park setting he would prefer better visibility for safety reasons. Announcement of Award Director Mickelsen announced that the Oregon Recreation and Parks Association had selected the Department for its 1999 Design Award for flood restoration work which was done in Lithia Park. This is the highest award given by the ORPA for outstanding design and construction of parks and recreation facilities. Recap of Summer Recreation Programs Commissioners briefly reviewed a general synopsis and evaluation of the various summer programs conducted by the Department. Commissioner Eggers said that although pleased with the report she would like to see future reports include more"hard numbers"and some feedback from the public related to the programs. She also inquired about expanding Youth Activities to a wider variety of programs; do some outreach to see what other groups of young people with different interests might be served. Commissioner Jones asked that staff give some thought to how the new YMCA pool might affect aquatics programs at the pool in future years and expressed the overall interest in having the Department, YMCA, and SOU talk about how the three pools might work together to coordinate swimming lessons and activities for the community. Director Mickelsen said that he and Emily would contact the other aquatic facilities to open a dialogue to see how they could work together. Commissioner Jones said that although it was a little off-topic, she envisioned some kind of lesson program through the schools so that"every child" in Ashland would have the opportunity to learn how to swim. Darex Ice Rink Director Mickelsen said that plans are underway for setting up the ice rink and that it would be open for operation as soon as weather permitted. Commissioner Eggers commented that since staff is just beginning to set up the facility that she would like to see some kind of record kept related to staff time allocated to that task. She said that her thoughts related to having the information would be to know the entire cost for the facility so that when fees are reviewed, revenue versus expense could be more accurately determined. Indicating that she would not opposed to subsidizing the rink, she said that she wanted to have the most accurate information available when choosing to do so. Director Mickelsen indicated that that could be done. Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 8 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Commenting on the map provided which noted athletic fields throughout the community which were owned by either the City, SOU, or the school district, Commissioner Jones inquired why there were no fields highlighted on the north end of town—say at Briscoe and Helman Elementary Schools. Director Mickelsen indicated that the only fields which were highlighted were those in which the Parks had a joint agreement with the schools for usage and maintenance. In discussion, he clarified those areas are currently used for practice but not for games. In looking at the overall picture, Director Mickelsen said that it was important to note that other than the newly developing N. Mountain Park, the only park property delegated for organized sports are two Little League fields at Hunter Park and the soccer fields at the YMCA City Park. The balance of the fields the community uses for its activities are provided for by cooperative use and maintenance agreements for fields on School District and SOU properties. X. UPCOMING MEETING DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS The next Regular Meeting will be held on Monday, November 15, 1999. Other than items previously discussed, no additional items were added for the November agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT By consensus, Chair Eggers adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department f r ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes November 3, 1999 CALL TO ORDER At 7:35 p.m., Allan Sandler and Ed Bemis presented the latest detail drawings of their proposed building on Lithia Way, which will be known as the Mojo Club. This was a follow up of their planning action, which was heard at the September 8 meeting. At 8:00 p.m., Chairperson Lewis called the meeting to order at the Community Center. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Gary Foll, Curt Anderson, Dale Shostrom, Kay Maser, Joan Steele and Vava Bailey. Also present were City Council Liaison Cameron Hanson,Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Member Keith Chambers was unable to attend the meeting. Steele moved to amend the agenda in order to take action on the submitted drawing that was not on the agenda prior to other business. Foll seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Mainly, the Commissioners discussed the column width at the base and the width of the bellyband. Sandler stated they are leaning toward real granite for the base of the building. He volunteered to come back with the actual stone when the decision is made. Since the bellyband will be constructed with a different material, Shostrom said he did not feel it needed to be as wide as was drawn since it will stand out on its own. Skibby moved to accept the revised plan as presented. Foll seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Sandler related a time capsule was found under a portion of the cement slab in the Old Masonic Temple. It was first buried in 1876,then opened and additional material added in 1954. The only portion opened so far has revealed a list of items enclosed, which include coins, newspapers,flour from the flour mill and wool from the woolen mill. A grand opening of the box will be held on December 2 at 10:00 a.m. in the new Masonic Temple on Clover Lane, Southern Oregon Historical Society will be in charge of opening the box. Historian Kay Atwood will be writing a narrative,which will be on display with the contents of the box in the passageway of the Old Masonic Temple. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steele pointed out in the second paragraph on the second page of the October6, 1999 minutes,clearstory should be clerestory. Bailey then moved and Steele seconded the Minutes of the October 6, 1999 meeting be approved as corrected. The motion was unanimously passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 99-119 Conditional Use Permit 737 Siskiyou Boulevard Sean and Mardi McKellips Knox reported this application is for a transfer of ownership for the Adam's Cottage Bed & Breakfast. The new owners plan to lease the business for one year before they move to Ashland. Once the owners relocate, they will need to go through this process again. The property owners want everything run at high standards because they don't want to lose the clientele. Foll moved to recommend approval of this planning action. Bailey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of October follow: 139 East Main Street Emma Inc. Remodel 163 Granite Street Frances Sharkey 2m Story Addition 451 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 453 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 455 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 457 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 459 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 461 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 463 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 465 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 467 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 128 Wimer Street Brian Almquist Deck 67 Woolen Way Cameron Hanson Remodel/Finish Porch 99 Central Avenue Community Health Center Sign 393 East Main Street Ashland Antiques & Fine Collectibles Sign 135 Oak Street Internet Marketing Guild Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the November schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: November 4 Skibby, Foll, Anderson and Bailey November 10 Skibby, Foll and Maser November 18 Skibby, Chambers and Maser November 24 Skibby, Steele and Lewis December 2 Skibby, Steele and Bailey OLD BUSINESS Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA# 96-086 685 "A" Street Anderson and Lewis PA#97-018 661 "B" Street Lewis PA#98-039 Holly Street Steele and Lewis PA#98-045 122 Church Street Bailey PA#98-047 Between 548 &628 North Main Street Foll PA#99-020 525"A" Street Lewis PA#99-062 Van Ness Avenue Foil PA#99-102 141 Lithia Way Shostrom PA#99-108 340 Oak Street Shostrom Grant for National Register Web Site Knox stated the Ashland site should be on line by the first of the year. The web site can be checked out at www.cr.nps.gov/nr. Skibby noted the Review Board had talked with Brandon Goldman about getting posters made of the photos that will include the historic and current photos. Large color posters would cost$35.00 because they would be individually printed on the large color printer in the office. If Goldman can get a mylar printed, it maybe possible to get that copied for less. He will check it out. Goal Setting/Orientation Meeting—January 5, 2000 The Commission brainstormed ideas for the January meeting.Among the topics are Why is the Historic Commission here?Mat are the basics for maintaining consistency in decisions? Also to be discussed will be the Comprehensive Plan, demolition ordinance, demolition/moving permits, case studies for various types of planning actions, and zoning regulations. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 3, 1999 2 NEW BUSINESS Upcoming Displays at SOHS Ashland Site Lewis related he had attended a Southern Oregon Historical Society meeting. The Ashland location has rotating displays as do the Medford and Jacksonville sites. One of the ideas at the meeting was to have Ashland citizens bring in their memorabilia/collections for display. He invited the Commissioners to stop by and talk with Jay Leighton,curator of the Ashland Southern Oregon Historical Society site. The office is open from noon to 4:00 Wednesday through Saturday. OSFA Theater Expansion Lewis reported he had spoken at the City Council meeting the previous evening regarding the Oregon Shakespeare Festival plan to build another theater. He said he wanted to reinforce the fact that Carpenter Hall will be remaining in its current location. He would also like to see Carpenter Hall better utilized by local groups. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 3, 1999 3 CITY OF ASHLAND °oF s" Office of the Mayor EGON."', MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Catherine M. Shaw V' DATE: December 1, 1999 RE: REAPPOINTMENTS TO BUILDING APPEALS BOARD I would like to recommend and seek council approval of the reappointments of Darrel R. Jarvis, Tom Giordano, Darrell Boldt, Carol Horn Davis and Dale Shostrom to the Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31, 2000. A copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings is attached. There were no replies in response to the advertisement. Enc: of qrN Y. 4 t. v Your City Needs You! v4[ooN BUILDING APPEALS BOARD VACANCIES Applications are being accepted for open positions on the Building Appeals Board. These volunteer positions have one- year terms expiring December 31, 2000. The deadline for applications in November 26. If you are interested in applying, please submit your letter of interest with your r6sum6 (if available) tc City Recorder Barbara Christensen at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder. ,., CITY OF ASHLAND FASN Office of the Mayor rGo MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 1999 TO: City Council Members , FROM: Mayor Catherine Shaw RE: Appointment to Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission I would like to appoint Beverly Morris to the vacant position on the Bicycle &Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2000. The vacancy was created by the resignation of Theresa Johnson. Copies of the letters of interest are attached, along with a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings. YOUR CITY NEEDS YOU VACANCY Attachments: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2000, with a possible further term to the year 2003. If you are interested in being considered for this volunteer position, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to the City Recorder, City Hall, 20 E. Main Street, before Monday, November 1. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office comet\bicycle%appl.mem of the City Recorder. 650 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 C�O (541 ) 482-6021 0 October 26, 1999 X999 City Recorder City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Friends in City Hall: Please consider me as a candidate to fill the vacancy on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (term to expire April 30, 2000) . I understand that this is a volunteer position. A brief resume is included. Yours truly, Beverly S . Morris e BEVERLY S . MORRIS t 650 East Main C� Ashland, OR 97520 (541 ) 482-6021 t9� BORN: Lewiston, Idaho, 1930 EDUCATION: B.A. University of Idaho, Moscow, 1951 Fulbright scholarship for study in Austria, 1951-52 M.A. UCLA, 1955 . German Language and Literature PROFESSION: Instructor in German at Iowa State University, Ames, 1955-57 Private music teacher (piano and recorder) , 1965-1992 QUALIFICATIONS : I have been a lifelong bicyclist and pedestrian, although I drive and own a car. During almost two decades spent overseas with my husband, a Foreign Service officer, I was a happy pedestrian explorer in Paris, Bonn, Buenos Aires and Madrid, and an avid bicyclist in the city and surroundings of Bonn. As part of the orientation program sponsored by the embassies in Bonn, Buenos Aires and Madrid I led small groups of embassy dependents on learning excursions to help acquaint them with local public transportation systems - bus, train and tram - and also led walking tours within the cities and nearby environs. My husband and I , now retired, have owned a condo in Ashland since 1993 . Ashland is now our full-time and permanent residence, but from 1993-96 we divided our year between Oregon and Iowa, travelling back and forth by air and living in Ashland without a car. This worked well for us. One of our reasons for choosing Ashland was its charm as a walkers ' city. We managed for a cumulative total of 18 months, using bus, bicycle and feet. SPECIAL INTEREST: Bicyclist and pedestrian safety Date: 10/29/99 �C J9 99 To: City Recorder Subject: Application for a position on the Ashland Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission I am a retired orthodontist, living in the Railroad District of Ashland. Prior to moving here four years ago, I lived for fifteen years in the Nevada City area, northern California. I was active there in the Rural Quality Coalition, a group founded to promote and protect quality of life in a growing area. Since moving to Ashland, I have been active in Friends of Ashland, and more recently in "Sustainable Ashland: 2020 Vision'. I walk or bicycle daily, for pleasure,exercise and many errands, covering a route that often includes the bank, food shopping, the post office and the library. While I appreciate that Ashland is pedestrian and bicycle friendly, I would like to work to make it even more so. c Mort Smith 129 5th St. 482-7292 J o0"N Cv oi-c Id / K � /,pct r h c I k) it b , ke-s �� � �P l a , y � s c Gr r C Jl7 /SS/O,v Ptik Xock Snc C � r-I5 I17� In 1�d (e m - F 4PDW > FO ?PX Ila2 ASGTu,114 S � � t' e r William Southworth, M.D. /f� 866 Blaine Street tU Ashland, OR 97520 19 (541) 488-0107 99 October 19, 1999 City Recorder, City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland OR, 97520 Dear Sir or Madam: I would welcome the opportunity to serve on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. I have resided in the City of Ashland since 1979. I am now retired and therefore have a flexible schedule. I am an active cyclist, but I am also a pedestrian and motorist. I have no particular axe to grind and would do my best to provide thoughtful input to the deliberations of the Commission- I have served on numerous hospital committees over the years, but otherwise have no governmental experience. The following is an abbreviated curriculum vitae: Birthplace: Vicksburg, Michigan, 1941 Education: B.S. 1963, M.S. 1965, University of Michigan M.D. 1969 University of California, San Francisco Professional activities: Rural Health Physician, USPHS 1977-79 Emergency Physician at various hospitals including Ashland Community, Rogue Valley and Providence Medical Centers 1979-R9 Internal Medicine private practice, Medford OR, 1990-95 Personal: married, two sons, both graduated from Ashland HS I am available to answer further questions about my candidacy, or to provide recommendations, as you may require. Sincerely yours, William Southworth City Council Communication City Recorder's Office December 7, 1999 Submitted by: V�Rarbara Christensen( Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Liquor License Application from Susan Battenburg Powell dba/Pilaf Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC.. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following recommendation: "The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter." Background Information: Application reflects change in business location to 18 Calle Guanajuato. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. December 7, 1999 (Council packet information submitted December], 1999) Ashland City Council Meeting Public Hearing To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors City of Ashland, Oregon From: Ruben and Barbara Vasquez 885 Palmer Road Ashland, OR 97520 541.488.3295 (On behalf of the neighborhood) REGARDING Formation of a Local Improvement District—Palmer Road and Penny Drive within the Casa Madrona Subdivision We would like to thank the City Council for appointing the Citizen Committee to study the long-term issue relating to the of City of Ashland's Local Improvement District(LID)policy. The committee along with City staff and Council members spent many hours researching the policy. Finally recommendations were made to the full Council that resulted in the final adoption of Resolution # 99—09. (Attached) BACKGROUND Our neighborhood along with City Staff has been meeting over the past year regarding what steps were needed to form a LID to get our streets paved. Please note that 100% of our eligible neighbors signed the petition in support of the LID (Please refer to City of Ashland Exhibit A). It is our understanding that since 100%of the neighborhood signed the petition, we normally would not have to go through a Public Hearing process for approval if all minimum street standards are met. In our case however, there is one overall concern of foreseeable risk for sidewalks at this time. As part of this correspondence, we have listed the neighborhood concems/issues relating to sidewalks. Councilor David Fine and Jim Olson have visited our neighborhood and have indicated that the time for neighbors to request a specific variance would be at this City Council meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN&ISSUES RELATING TO SIDEWALKS 1. The overall concern/issue is one of foreseeable risk of creating a false sense of security, particularly for children if there was a sidewalk in our neighborhood at this time. Some child on a bike or skateboard or just out walking could go from a sidewalk on Palmer Road up or down onto to the very steep Woodland Drive into traffic where there are no sidewalks. Please refer to attached Photo A. 2. Another liability concern is the unexpected shift to sidewalks (different street widths) on well-established continuous very steep streets where there are no sidewalks and could present a hazard to drivers unfamiliar with the area, especially at night. (Palmer Road below Woodland Drive is one width, and has no sidewalks. Crossing Woodland Drive up onto Palmer Road there would be another width that would include a sidewalk in front of 4 homes). Please refer to attached Photos B and C. 3. Many times people are not aware of ADA requirements or needs, however, we have a particular awareness with those needs especially since one of our neighbors uses a motorized wheelchair. At best, where streets and sidewalks connect access by wheelchair is most difficult, in a hilly area it would be even more difficult. However, easier mobility is possible on just a paved road without going up and down sidewalks. 4. We do not think there is a need for sidewalks since Palmer Road (with three residences) and Penny Drive (with three residences with the potentiality of one more) are not through streets. Weissenback Way, a private drive (with three residences, two built out)extends off Penny Drive and is also a dead-end. (Please refer to map in City of Ashland Exhibit A). NEIGHBORHOOD RECOMMENDATIONS 1. We have attached completed informal surveys sent to all of our neighbors regarding their comments on sidewalks. Please note that One hundred percent (100%) is in support of no sidewalks. 2. We have an overriding liability concern of putting in sidewalks now as part of our LID. We recommend that when the sidewalk improvements are made to Woodland Drive, and to Palmer Road below Woodland Drive, the need for sidewalks for our neighborhood be reconsidered at that time. The right of way will still be there and enforceable. 3. The City of Ashland's budget for sidewalks this fiscal year is $25,000, with an additional $30,000 of Federal Grant monies. As fiscally responsible taxpayers, we strongly suggest that the $7,980 budgeted for sidewalks on the Palmer Road & Penny Drive LID be used for sidewalks near a school or park this year. 3. If need be, the current 40% sidewalk improvement assessment amount of $4,788.00 in our LID could still be a part of the current LID and used at a later date. When sidewalk improvements are made to Woodland Drive, and Palmer Road below Woodland Drive, sidewalk improvements could be reconsidered on Palmer Road above Woodland Drive as currently planned for this LID. We realize that this is a very busy time for all of you. We really need a paved road, however, due to our overriding concern of foreseeable risk of putting in sidewalks at this time, we would encourage you to visit our neighborhood before the City Council meeting on December 7, 1999. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact us at 541.488.3295. cc: Jim Olson, City of Ashland Attachments: Resolution # 99-09 City of Ashland Exhibit"A" Photos A, B, C Neighborhood Survey Regarding Minimum Street Standards Distribution: Bob and Gerry Bowlus . Ramona De Vaul Neil and Erlane Martin Julie Alumbaugh Dave and Melanie (Jensen) Skolnik Rodger and Pat Busse Steve and Aggie Wolfe Larry and Gail Frires Roger Katz James & Elizabth Eddy RESOLUTION NO. 99- O A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (LIDS) AND ESTABLISHING: THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN LIDS; THE POTENTIAL UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS; THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REQUIRED PROCESS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID PLANNING. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. City Participation in LIDS. A. Except as provided in paragraph B, the city shall contribute the following amounts to reduce assessments in any local improvement district (LID) formed after the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood: 60% of the total costs for sidewalk improvements; 75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements; 20% of the total costs for street surface improvements; and 50% of the total costs for engineering and administrative. B. Unless the council so directs by further resolution, no contribution will be made by the city under this section for LIDS formed after the date of this resolution if the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition. SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized. In determining the method to be utilized for charging assessments against benefitted properties in LIDS formed after the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood, the potential unit method, rather than the frontage foot method, shall be the preferred method. The potential unit method is that method which determines the maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography, transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the development potential of the properties. The planning department shall be responsible for initially determining the potential units for each property within a proposed LID. SECTION 3. Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties. A. The maximum amount any residentially zoned lot may be assessed as a benefitted property within an LID to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood and which is formed after the date of this resolution is $4,000 plus $4,000 for each potential unit within such residentially zoned lot. This maximum amount shall be increased to account for inflation annually on April 151 based on the PAGE 1-RESOLUTION F:WSERWA000ROUid reso n98.wpd Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) for Seattle, Washington. The current index is established at 5990.77. B. There shall be no maximum amount, however, on lots owned by the city or on lots where the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition. C. Prior to the adoption of the assessment resolution levying final assessments as provided in AMC § 13.20.060.E: 1. Any owner may pay the estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or 2. Any owner not subject to subsection B above, may pay the lesser of the estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or the maximum amount described in subsection A above. Upon such payment, the assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final assessment resolution shall reflect that the assessment has been paid. SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, city staff shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the LID formation. Residents shall be given the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on initial street design and potential units. Minimum street standards shall be maintained, however, unless the council by resolution specifically authorizes specific changes for a particular project. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04. 90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 0 day of ��%� ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorders SIGNED and APPROVED this `J day of � 1999. 4 Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Rev a ed as to,form: 6!,AJJkY- Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION FIUSERIPAUL\ORDYid reso n99wpd EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on December 7, 1999 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalk, and associated improvements to Palmer Road and Penny Drive within the Casa Madrona Subdivision. BENEFITTED PROPERTY: The description of the boundaries of the local improvement district to be assessed for this improvement is: All those lots fronting on Penny Drive and all those lots adjacent to Palmer Road south of Woodland Drive plus all lots accessed from and north of Weissenback Way. ESTIMATED COST: Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $66,931.00 of which $45,463.50 will be paid by special assessments on benefitted properties. Cost will be allocated based on $3,953.35 per unit or potential unit assessment. Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 271/2 North Main, Ashland, OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 am to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the streets should not be improved or why the benefitted properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefitted object to the improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. 39-1E-15BC TL 3007 Ruben R/Barbara Vasquez 885 Palmer Road ASHLAND OR 97520 00 7 1 I r it e A t L Cfl- .......... CD lox Tr T S : [: c I In 1 (0 1 ^ I 00 ■ - I „d mwirr h V 4a-'timt�'>_eiYN'Y'N+a j' ss - _ 4� r9 �,C ti 7 � gl�eti.s5c w`�. it 'T}� i'Yr3� • t yw.n-O-•� -fin* t 1 T Lt:.1S.ru..a..s'Ca.,�w � y•@st' �'vi- k.',��tt'� &*; � - _: ,k 5 . a YO IV W2Y rtU� f�ez R�a�• S•'l Ft.��y�i �N.SQ Sir 1n`c"�k.3+ ��T — hh- F PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT LOCATION: PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE ASSESSOR MAP: 391 E15BgD RECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER: DATE: �C NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, o purchasers in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposec street improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all mus; sign. Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND: We, the undersigned owners of record of real property within the City of Ashland, Jackson County.. Oregon, hereby petition that Palmer Road, south et Woodland Drive, and all of Penny Drive be improved with curb, gutter, paving, storm drains, and sidewalks in accordance with plans and specifications therefore as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby, and that we are the owners or the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street. N E ADDR S TAX LOT 7ZjQd G:Da"\Enginccr\L1MPa1mcr-Pwny Revision Ur to Nbrs 7.26-99.doc City of Ashland Department of Public Works - Engineering Division Estimate for Palmer Road & Penny Drive L.I.D. Street:Palmer Road & Penny Drive Estimate By: R. Pallady Limits:South of Woodland to end Date: 05/14/98 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 05/17/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 07/26199 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 09/01/99 GENERAL INFORMATION Length of Project: 564 Width of Street: 22' W/4' sidewalk 1 side (on Palmer Road and Penny Drive) Pavement Design: 4" AC A. ESTIMATED COSTS Total Estimate $53,120.00 B. OTHER (List) Contingency (5%) $2,656.00 C. TOTAL $55,776.00 D. ENGINEERING Cal 20% $11,155.00 E. PROJECT TOTAL $66,931.00 F. CREDITS Sidewalks - 60% of$7,980 $4,788.00 Storm Drain - 75% of$4,600 $3,450.00 Paving —20% of$38,260.00 $7,652.00 Engineering - 50% of$11,155 $5,577.50 Subtotal $21,467.50 G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $45,463.50 H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5 1. ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $3,953.35 G:Dawn\Enginccr\LID\Palmer—Penny Revision Ltr to Nbts 9.1.99.doc c s 4 lIC . r : r 3�JLi � � ' F �.�{• + '-7�S � + ° N,� ,rs � e 4"' j-�Y 'Y ... 1 1 '�S' t' '4/ .'s 4 - � \6f 4.; 1y Y 1!s. ''`,l r<' :-✓+ .t'� �..�' rrr� :7,� fr,r�t 'i� r v♦ �•� f..���,I`/ !'• Y.'` . r/ .I�dt����.� a r PHOTOA Woodland Drive looking / to Palmer Road e overall / one offoreseeable of creating afalse sense of particularlyfor / / / sidewalk I neighborhood at / I on / hike I skateboard l I I could ' / / I sidewalk on Palmer Road I / down onto I the vety steep Woodland Drive into traffic there are no sidewalks. r: y.i a ..y';`'( r:A:. :.tit ` � '•��� .ul' j !v _ F/ r r r ft( r c ' ..• - :.� MAR. � �`. 'r '/r/ I ' l //r / / I l / 'r 'llr I /l • I/ / / / / / /I I r 1r } .r a rr . ♦r� � C }'- ,r �Y �"F I �/�/ It �� �Na rt IK a14 �F� ��.�lair.•�-4 F '/ ' ll/ ll/ I/r r'!/'.� � / / '/ '/r/ / I /II•I I I /_. rl. I // r r PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL '7/0 0 AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND SIGNED SIGNED DATED /6,99 Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL �,L GQ 5 AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEI2z ';l)/;,� AND �a ,d-&--cam. SIGNED SIGNED DATED 3 � Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben.and Barbara Vasquez November 4, 1999 Hi Barbara-- Thanks for keeping me posted about what's going on in the neighborhood. Find enclosed my signed petition. One of my main concerns is that whatever happens with the paving on Palmer, I do not want rain water gushing down my driveway again. A couple of years ago, I had a small berm (sp?)installed when I had my driveway paved. It has helped to keep the water out just as I had hoped. I don't want this project to undo what I have already done. I'm sure you understand. I hope you will convey this sentiment to the powers that be. I've talked with Steve Wolfe about it, so he can be an advocate too. Thanks for your help. S cerely, Roge C. Katz, PhD 209-948-5316 PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL ND DO NOIWANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND SIGNED a°, � I( ) SIGNED DATED Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL 3 O 0 AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL 300 (?—AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. r� I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL -3 00 a AND SIGNED _t /� SIGNED '2 L�—� /C. _ 7�2c�Gzll DATED / / lC — e / UGC �•� Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL r AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM HE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND l a Q mil' tA SIGNED — (� ice_ C ��✓ A � SIGNED DATED Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 / I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL �I oC5 AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM TH O CEL .; AND WANT ALKS AS T OF T LMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND SIGNED P- jc4 ; lawl Q SIGNED DATED Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez ti PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL 00 AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS ART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD ARCEL AND SIGNED SIGNED DATED f Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez r PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 go I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL .3c t ci 5 fi 3005 AND . DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER CORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALK S PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. f I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF CORD OF PARCEL AND SIGNED r Z SIGNED - I ' DATED !I 11 H5 Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID FORMATION ` SIDEWALK ISSUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY REGARDING MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS October 28, 1999 T[-Sono , I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL T L Sot 1 ,rL 30 1''AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. THE SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE CONNECT TO OTHER SIDEWALKS. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY MEETING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE THINK THE COST OF $7,980.00 FOR THE SIDEWALKS COULD BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THE PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE LID. I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD OF PARCEL AND SIGNED a,✓vs /qm/ 4S Gl GI %��"T✓u t SIGNED DATED �!/, , /9I? 9w pevmy l�✓ fr7 - lPgO Thanks for all of your help. Please return this form to Ruben and Barbara Vasquez Council Communication Penny/Palmer LID Formation Public Works Department December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown V Reviewed by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited and authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. Synopsis: The attached Resolution establishes the level of improvements and estimated costs for the Penny /Palmer Local Improvement District (LID) for Penny Drive and Palmer Roadmithin the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Improvements consist of paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalk, and associated improvements, for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Petitions in favor of the improvements have been received from all of the property owners within the proposed Penny/Palmer Improvement District. Although a public hearing is not required where a 100% petition response is received, the property owners request the opportunity to approach the council regarding the requirements of including sidewalks in the required improvements. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to discuss concerns raised by the Penny/Palmer neighborhood, and further recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited and authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. Background for the Public Hearing Staff has reviewed the attached packet of information from Ruben and Barbara Vasquez on behalf of the Penny/Palmer neighborhood. The major concern raised is in regard to installing sidewalks in the improvement area at this time. The neighbors have signed in favor of the LID, but are requesting a variance so that sidewalks could be installed in the future after other sidewalk improvements are made to surrounding area streets, specifically Woodland Drive and Palmer Road. Pd51\SYS\l Penny CC PH RES.iloc Pagc 1 The Vasquez's have clearly made their concerns known in the attached packet. Briefly, the residents are concerned that the sidewalks only on Penny and Palmer would create a false sense of security that does not continue to other neighboring street sections. They are willing to include the sidewalk cost in their assessment, but would prefer one of two things happen with those funds—either fund additional sidewalks around schools, or hold the funds for future sidewalks in the assessment area. Staff continues to support the Council's position of including sidewalk improvements for all local improvement districts and major street improvements. Additional Background Information: Casa Madrona Subdivision was platted in 1965 at which time Penny Drive and Palmer Road were created and opened for travel. As was common during that period of the City's development, the streets were not improved. Attempts to create a local improvement district to improve the streets were made in 1967, 1971, 1986 and 1991. It wasn't until the Council's passage of Resolution No. 99-09, which approved specific areas of financial participation by the City,that sufficient interest in this LID was possible. Two neighborhood meetings were held where city staff members from Engineering and Planning meet with property owners to discuss the type of improvements required, the estimated costs and the methods by which these costs would be allocated. At the final neighborhood meeting held on August 25, 1999, 12 of the 16 owners within the proposed assessment district agreed upon the number of lots to be included and the number of potential units to be assessed. It was agreed that the three lots accessing from Weissenback Way (a private drive) should be assessed at a '/2 unit rate while those that had actual lot frontage on the streets to be improved should receive an assessment based upon a full unit. Further compensation was made to two lots,which had physically been combined(existing house built on both lots), and one lot that was large enough to divide into two lots. Petitions were signed by ALL of the owners within the proposed district. With a 100%petition response a public hearing is not required, however, the neighborhood was again unanimous in their desire to hold a public hearing so that the issue of sidewalk requirements could be discussed with Council members. A sidewalk along one side of the street has been included in the cost estimate and is reflected in the preliminary design. Attached is a copy of the cost estimate and boundary map. `:\PSl` fenny CC PH R]"S.duc Pagc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PENNY DRIVE /PALMER ROAD WITHIN THE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION FOR THE PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALK, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT. RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted.and.. to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held dnd it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District, No. 81. SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $66,931.00 all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $3,953.35 per unit or potential unit assessment. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION G:Dawn\Engineer\PennylPalmer LID2 Forming Distdct.doc r SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7). SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $73,624.10. SECTION 4. The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city. 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 Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION CAWINDOWMTEMPNENNV-PA.DOC EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LOTS & ESTIMATED COST PER LOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION MAP NO. TAX LOT DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL COST PER UNITS UNIT TOTAL i 39-1E-15BC 3000 Lot 12 CawMadrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 2 39-1E-15BC 3005 Lot Casa Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 3 39-1E-15BC 3007 Lot Casa Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 4 39-1E-15BC 3008 Lot 5 Caw Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 5 39-1 E-1 513C 3009 Lot 6 Caw Madrona 1 $3,953.35. $3,953.35 e 39-1E-15BC 3010 Lot 9 Caw Madrona 2 $3,953.35 $7,906.70 7 39-1E-156C 3011 Lot 10 CamMadrona .5 $3,953.35-1 $1,976.67 a 39-1E-15BC 3012 Lot 11 Cam Madrona .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 9 39-1 E-15BD 6100 Lot 1 Blk 4 9leber 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 10 39-1 E-15BD 7200 -------------- 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 11 39-1E-156D 7100 ------------ .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 12 39-1E-156D 7101 ----------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 13 39-1E-1513D 6900 ---------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 11.5 I TOTALS I $45,463.50 Note: The costs shown are estimates only. The final assessment will be derived from the actual costs incurred on the project. G:Dawn\EngineerU,ID\Palmer—Penny Revision Ltr to Nbrs 9-1-99.doc City of Ashland Department of Public Works - Engineering Division Estimate for Palmer Road & Penny Drive L.I.D. Street:Palmer Road & Penny Drive Estimate By: R. Pallady Limits:South of Woodland to end Date: 05/14/98 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 05117199 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 07/26/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 09/01/99 GENERAL INFORMATION Length of Project: 564 Width of Street: 22' W/4' sidewalk 1 side (on Palmer Road and Penny Drive) Pavement Design: 4" AC A. ESTIMATED COSTS Total Estimate $53,120.00 B. OTHER (List) Contingency (5%) $2,656.00 C. TOTAL $55,776.00 D. ENGINEERING (cil 20% $11,155.00 E. PROJECT TOTAL $66,931.00 F. CREDITS Sidewalks - 60% of$7,980 $4,788.00 Storm Drain - 75% of$4,600 $3,450.00 Paving — 20% of$38,260.00 $7,652.00 Engineering - 50% of$11,155 $5,577.50 Subtotal $21,467.50 G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $45,463.50 H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5 I. ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $3,953.35 G:Da"\Engineer\LID\Palmcr—Penny Revision Ur to Nbrs 9-1-99.doc h S! ��$.`�* P <`�• � as 3 t jj'!�„�` _ e • C � F. 1 r, Ef _ I KIIJ i. s t r i r lo 1 44i- i e i loL i i f4 � 1 t� } i� e d�.zia_� fitiil.=y;t�s,� Cz Ilfl_3�t � It7�1r�fCte£JC"�tl�f )t'L1"�1�Ir"it_�� E: ��Y-a�f�]llr3tifl�xct'i7J"Yl'�f�,f7�tr rjV -.. j i Title I Title 11 Title Ill f t i ( O��a`:%rL•`}<:£�'171'�`�•t,ArT�•i�"%.:aL'T3 �� i s h-' 34Y.1/:YiS7nY�'CIx:Si'if�i��!�C�i7lll 'i -' 4 How Its Administered Y How Does it Impact the City Recorder? c - v�'"Y'XJ 4 tr-��]Tltita7:]3�7�E1F� �; 1 Auxiliary Aids & Services You Are Not Required to Provide „ „��t?n���ts�-� t�t�t; t�'� qtr•,; -� 4 apt A, Also Not Required: F' If Employees or More ... Your City H2S 5 , rlrr ,� Purpose ( `�arm"sr:z7t7+XllhJilt s1 G�f} ,� L. . i Get Them There Be Prepared Review for Barriers 1 Q?'.ril??11ttti �CYa�tC,ll Ajz�'Xli� _. j �, It��•{[✓✓�.yy J�A:�t�17IC�-A.L`L'.l}�� ._. �:. .I Plan Ahead Stay Informed ei 177 `.1az�'rxr.�a Identify t s a 6 i J r -L •y-}'y` y-�'� ��lAYEly6�lA�.a+i.�e Department of Justice Action Department of Justice Action Useful Tools Om 8 ® Letter from Jon and Dordene Strecker regarding paving project on County road. OO Letter regarding travel arrangements for Fujioka trip. ® Photo of replacement tree well covers for downtown area. REPORTS: O Public Works Monthly Report for August, 1998 B. Bills Against the City: Check numbers 64512 through 64894 in the amount of$2,406,003.43 and Outgoing wires for period 8/29-9/11/98 in the amount of $155,154.92 C. AQ=t bids and award contract for: O One Dial-A-Ride van to Schetky Northwest Sales in the amount of$52,685.00 ® Wastewater Plant potable water reservoir to Bend Concrete Services in the amount of$49,513.00 OO Xerox 3030 printer from Central Pint& Reprographic Services in the amount of$9,695.00 D. Endorse OLCC applications for: O Bend Woolen Mill, located at 1854 NE Division, for a Change of Ownership and Greater Privilege from a Restaurant to a Dispenser Class A license E. Ratify OLCC Renewal Applications. O Indian Palace Restaurant 9 Longboard Louis's O Breakers ® Beef& Brew © Shoji's 8. Council Action and Reports. 9 City Manager's Report 10. Recess into executive session, pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1) (e)to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions and ORS 192.660 (1) (1) to review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer. 1 Adjourn. For additional information and/or arrangements for an interpretE�thetrome s of communication/access accommodations, please contact: City A88- 5517 C=/ Voice (503) 388-5571 0 To protect and enhance the well-being of our community with commitment, integrity and service ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities t Page 1 of 18 (File size=571Q Published in the Federal Register January 13, 1998 Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities: State and Local Governments Judicial and Regulatory Facilities Detention and Correctional Facilities NOTICE These guidelines have not been incorporated in the Department of Justice accessibility standards and are, therefore, not enforceable. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE 3. MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS • 3.5 Definitions 4. ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS AND SPACES: SCOPE AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS • 4.1 Minimum_ Requirements • 4.1.1 Application • .,4.1.3 Accessible Buildings:New Construction • 4.1.5 Accessible Buildings: Additions • 4.1.6 Accessible Buildings: Alterations •_.. 4.1.7 Accessible Buildings: Historic Preservation + ,R 4.30 Signaee • 4.31 Telephones 5. RESTAURANTS AND CAFETERIAS • 5.1 General 6. MEDICAL. CARE FACILITIES • 6.1 General • 6.3 Patient Bedrooms 7. BUSINESS, MERCANTILE AND CIVIC • 7.1 General • 7.2 Sales and Service Counters Teller Windows. Information Counters • 7.2(1) Counters with Cash Registers. etc. • 7.2(2)Ticketing Counters- Teller Stations 1etc • 7_2(3)Voice Communication http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htin 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 2 of 18 • 7^2(4) Assistive Listening Devices [Reserved] 8. LIBRARIES • 8.1 General 9. ACCESSIBLE TRANSIENT LODGING 10. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES • 10.1 General • 10.4 Airport s • 10.4.1 New Construction • (8) Security Systems 11. JUDICIAL., LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FACILITIES. • 11.1 General. • 11.1.1 Entrances. • 11.1.2 Security Systems. • 11.1.3* Two-Way Communication Systems. • 11.2 Judicial Facilities. • 11.2.1 Courtrooms. • (1)Accessible Elements • (a) Spectator, Press, and Other Areas with Fixed Seats. • (b) Lily Boxes and Witness Stands. • (c) Judges' Benches and Courtroom Stations. • (2)* Assistive Listening Systems • 11.2.2 Jury Assembly Areas and Jury Deliberation Areas. • (1)Refreshment Areas. • (2)Drinking Fountains. • ...11.2.3 Courthouse Holding Facilities: •.. .(I)Holding Cells' Minimum Number. • (a) Central Holding Cells: r .; '• (b) COUrt-FloorHoldm° • (�Rgquirements for Accessible Cells ?::H ' .':• ,'.,(a)Dodri!6d,DoOrways. • ..(]�* Toilet and Bathing Facilities. :-- (c (d)Drinldng Fountains and Water Coolers. • (e) Fixed or Built-in Seating and Tables. • W Fixed Benches. • (3)* Visiting Areas. • (a) Cubicles and Counters. • (]) Partitions. • 11.3* Legislative and Regulatory Facilities. • (1) Raised Speakers' Platforms. • (2) Spectator. Press. and Other Areas with Fixed Seats. • 11.3.2* Assistive Listening System. 12:DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, • 12.1* General. • 12.2 Entrances and Security Systems. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 3 of 18 • 12,2.1* Entrances. • 12.2.2 Security Systems, • 12.3* Visiting Areas. • (1) Cubicles and Counters. • U Partitions. • 12.4 Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms: Minimum Number. • 12.4.1* Holding Cells and General Housing Cells or Rooms. • 12,4.2* Special Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms. • 12.4.3* Accessible Cells or Rooms for Persons with Hearing Impairments. • 12.4.4 Medical Care Facilities. • 12.4.5 Alterations to Cells or Rooms (Reserved.) • 12.5 Requirements for Accessible Cells or Rooms. • 12.5.1 General. • 12.5.2* Minimum Requirements. • (1) Doors and Doorways. • (2)* Toilet and Bathing Facilities. • (3)* Beds. • (4) Drinking Fountains and Water Coolers. • (5) Fixed or Built-in Seating or Tables. • (6) Fixed Benches. • (7) Storage. • (8) Controls. • (9)Accommodations for Persons with Hearing Impairments. • 12.6 Visual Alarms and Telephones. 13. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING [RESERVED] 14. PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY [RESERVED] FIGURES IN BUILDING AND FACILITIES SCOPING AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS . .APPENDIX . . , � Y • a A3 5 Definitions a; - • p a�'x Transient Lodgin • A4 0 Accessible-Elements and Spaces: Scope and Technical Requirements • 1.7 Accessible Buildings: Historic Preservation • A4.31.9 Text Telephones • A4.31.9(1) • A4.31..9(3) • A4.33.7 Types of Listening Systems • A7.0 Business. Mercantile and Civic • A7.2(3) Counter or Teller Windows with Partitions. • A7.2(4) Assistive Listening Devices • A10.0 Transportation Facilities • A10.4 Airports • Al 0.4.1 New Construction • A10.4.1(8) Security Systems • Al 1.0 Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Facilities • A11.13 Two-Way Communication Systems • A11.2.1 Courtrooms • Al 1.2.1(2)Assistive Listening Systems • Al l.2.3 Courthouse Holding Facilities http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 4 of 18 • Al 1.2.3(2) Requirements for Accessible Cells • Al 1.2.3(2)(b)Toilet and Bathing Facilities • A I 1.2.3(2)(c) Beds • A]1.2.3(3) Visiting Areas • Al 1.3 Legislative and Regulatory Facilities • Al 1.3.2 Assistive Listening System • Al2.0 Detention and Correctional Facilities • Al2.1 General • Al2.2 Entrances and Security Systems • Al2.2.2 Entrances • Al2.3 Visiting Areas • Al2.4 Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms: Minimum Number • Al2.4.1 Holding Cells and General Housing Cells or Rooms • Al2.4.2 Special Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms • Al2.4.3 Accessible Cells or Rooms for Persons with Hearing Impairments • Al2.5 Requirements for Accessible Cells or Rooms • Al2.5.2 Minimum Requirements • Al2.5.2(2) Toilet and Bathing Facilities • Al2.5.2(3 Beds 1. PURPOSE. This document contains scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) of 1990. These scoping and technical requirements are to be applied during the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by titles 11 and III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by Federal agencies,including the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation,under the ADA. The illustrations and text of ANSI Al 17.1-1980 are reproduced with permission from the American National Standards Institute. Copies of the standard may be purchased from the American National Standards Institute at 1430 Broadway,New York,New York 10018. Paragraphs marked with an asterisk have related,nonmandatory material in the Appendix In the,j Appendix,the corresponding paragraph numbers are preceded by an A. k: n r s� sss 3. MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS. « « sus 3.5 Definitions. Alteration. An alteration is a change to a building or facility that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or part thereof. Alterations include,but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation,rehabilitation,reconstruction, historic restoration, resurfacing of circulation paths or vehicular ways, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing,painting or wallpapering, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 5 of 18 alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or facility. * * * * * Assembly Area. A room or space accommodating a group of individuals for recreational, educational, political, social, civic, or amusement purposes, or for the consumption of food and drink. * * * * * Curb Ramp. A short ramp cutting through a curb or built up to it. Private Facility. A place of public accommodation or a commercial facility subject to title III of the ADA and 28 CFR part 36 or a transportation facility subject to title III of the ADA and 49 CFR 37.45. Public Facility. A facility or portion of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity subject to title II of the ADA and 28 CFR part 35 or to title II of the ADA and 49 CFR 37.41 or 37.43. * * * * * TDD (Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf). See text telephone. TTY (Tele-Typewriter). See text telephone. * * * * * Technically Infeasible. See 4.1.6(1)(i) EXCEPTION. Text Telephone (TTY). Machinery or equipment that employs interactive text based communications through the transmission of coded signals across the standard telephone network. Text telephones can include, for example, devices known as TDDs (telecommunication display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf persons) or computers with special modems. Text telephones are also called TTYs, an abbreviation for tele-typewriter. * * * * * http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 6 of 18 Transient Lodging.* A building, facility, or portion thereof, excluding inpatient medical care facilities and residential facilities, that contains sleeping accommodations. Transient lodging may include, but is not limited to, resorts, group homes, hotels, motels, and dormitories. * * * * * 4. ACCESSIBLE ELEMENTS AND SPACES: SCOPE AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 4.1 Minimum Requirements. 4.1.1* Application. (1) General. All areas of newly designed or newly constructed buildings and facilities and altered portions of existing buildings and facilities shall comply with section 4, unless otherwise provided in this section or as modified in a special application section. (2)Application Based on Building Use. Special application sections provide additional requirements based on building use. When a building or facility contains more than one use covered by a special application section, each portion shall comply with the requirements for that use. * * * * * (5) General Exceptions. (b) Accessibility is not required to or in: (i) raised areas used primarily for purposes of security or life or fire safety, including,but not limited to, observation or lookout galleries,prison guard towers, fire towers, or fixed life guard stands; (ii)non-occupiable spaces accessed only by ladders,catwalks, crawl spaces,very narrow passageways,tunnels, or freight(non-passenger) elevators, and frequented only by service personnel for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring of equipment; such spaces may include, but are not limited to,elevator pits, elevator penthouses,piping or equipment catwalks,water or sewage treatment pump rooms and stations, electric substations and transformer vaults, and highway and tunnel utility facilities; or (iii) single occupant structures accessed only by a passageway that is below grade or that is elevated above standard curb height, including, but not limited to, toll booths accessed from underground tunnels. * * * * * 4.1.3 Accessible Buildings: New Construction. Accessible buildings and facilities shall meet the following minimum requirements: (5)* One passenger elevator complying with 410 shall serve each level, including mezzanines, in all multi-story buildings and facilities unless exempted below. If more than one elevator is provided, each passenger elevator shall comply with 4 10. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 7 of 18 EXCEPTION 1: Elevators are not required in: (a) private facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General; or (b)public facilities that are less than three stories and that are not open to the general public if the story above or below the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square feet. Examples may include,but are not limited to, drawbridge towers and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and train dispatching towers. The elevator exemptions set forth in paragraphs (a) and(b) do not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in section 4.1.3. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section except for elevator service. If toilet or bathing facilities are provided on a level not seined by an elevator, then toilet or bathing facilities must be provided on the accessible ground floor. In new construction, if a building or facility is eligible for exemption but a passenger elevator is nonetheless planned, that elevator shall meet the requirements of 4,IQ and shall serve each level in the building. A passenger elevator that provides service from a garage to only one level of a building or facility is not required to serve other levels. * * * * * EXCEPTION 4: Platform lifts (wheelchair lifts)complying with 4.11 of this guideline and applicable State or local codes may be used in lieu of an elevator only under the following conditions: (e)To provide access to raised judges'benches, clerks' stations, speakers' platforms,jury boxes and witness stands or to depressed areas such as the well of a court. . * * * * * EXCEPTION 5: Elevators located in air traffic control towers are not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab. * * * * * (8)* The requirements in(a) and (b)below shall be satisfied independently: (a)(i) At least 50 percent of all public entrances (excluding those in(b)below) shall comply with 4,14. At least one must be a ground floor entrance. Public entrances are any entrances that are not loading or service entrances. (ii) Accessible public entrances must be provided in a number at least equivalent to the number of exits required by the applicable building or fire codes. (This paragraph does not require an increase in the total number of public entrances planned for a facility.) (iii) An accessible public entrance must be provided to each tenancy in a facility(for example, individual stores in a strip shopping center). http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 8 of 18 (iv) In detention and correctional facilities subject to section 12, public entrances that are secured shall be accessible as required by 12.2.1. One entrance may be considered as meeting more than one of the requirements in (a). Where feasible, accessible public entrances shall be the entrances used by the majority of people visiting or working in the building. (b)(i) In addition, if direct access is provided for pedestrians from an enclosed parking garage to the building, at least one direct entrance from the garage to the building must be accessible. (ii) If access is provided for pedestrians from a pedestrian tunnel or elevated walkway, one entrance to the building from each tunnel or walkway must be accessible. (iii) In judicial, legislative, and regulatory facilities subject to section 11, restricted and secured entrances shall be accessible in the number required by 11.1.1. One entrance may be considered as meeting more than one of the requirements in(b). Because entrances also serve as emergency exits whose proximity to all parts of buildings and facilities is essential, it is preferable that all entrances be accessible. (c) If the only entrance to a building, or tenancy in a facility, is a service entrance, that entrance shall be accessible. (d) Entrances which are not accessible shall have directional signage complying with 4.30.1, 4.30.2, 4.30.3, and 4.30.5, which indicates the location of the nearest accessible entrance. (17) Public telephones. * * * rr (c) The following shall be provided in accordance with 4.31.9: (i) If four or more public pay telephones(including.both interior and exterior telephones) are provided at a site of a private facility, and at least one is in an interior location, then at least one interior public text telephone (TTY) shall be provided. If an interior public pay telephone is provided in a public use area in a building of a public facility, at least one interior public text telephone (TTY) shall be provided in the building in a public use area. (ii) If an interior public pay telephone is provided in a private facility that is a stadium or arena, a convention center, a hotel with a convention center, or a covered mall, at least one interior public text telephone (TTY) shall be provided in the facility. In stadiums, arenas and convention centers which are public facilities, at least one public text telephone (TTY) shall be provided on each floor level having at least one interior public pay telephone. (iii) If a public pay telephone is located in or adjacent to a hospital emergency room, hospital recovery room, or hospital waiting room, one public text telephone(TTY) shall be provided at each such location. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 9 of 18 (iv) If an interior public pay telephone is provided in the secured area of a detention or correctional facility subject to section 12, then at least one public text telephone (TTY) shall also be provided in at least one secured area. Secured areas are those areas used only by detainees or inmates and security personnel. (d) Where a bank of telephones in the interior of a building consists of three or more public pay telephones, at least one public pay telephone in each such bank shall be equipped with a shelf and outlet in compliance with 4.319(21. EXCEPTION: This requirement does not apply to the secured areas of detention or correctional facilities where shelves and outlets are prohibited for purposes of security or safety. 4.1.5* Accessible Buildings: Additions. Each addition to an existing building or facility shall be regarded as an alteration. Each space or element added to the existing building or facility shall comply with the applicable provisions of 4.1.1 to 4.1.3, Minimum Requirements(for New Construction) and the applicable technical specifications of section 4 and the special application sections. Each addition that affects or could affect the usability of an area containing a primary function shall comply with 4.1.6(21. 4.1.6 Accessible Buildings: Alterations. (1) General. Alterations to existing buildings and facilities shall comply with the following: * * * * * (k) EXCEPTION: (i)These guidelines do not require the installation of an elevator in an altered facility that is exempt from the requirement for an elevator under 4.1.3(5). (ii) The exemption provided in paragraph (i)does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in these guidelines. For example, alterations to floors above or below the ground floor must be accessible regardless of whether the altered facility has an elevator. If a facility subject to the elevator exemption set forth in paragraph(i) nonetheless has a passenger elevator, that elevator shall meet, to the maximum extent feasible, the accessibility requirements of these guidelines. 4.1.7 Accessible Buildings: Historic Preservation. (1)* Applicability: (a) General Rule. Alterations to a qualified historic building or facility shall comply with 4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations), the applicable technical specifications of section 4 and the applicable special application sections unless it is determined in accordance with the procedures in 4.1.7(2) that compliance with the requirements for accessible routes (exterior and interior), ramps, entrances, or toilets would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility in which case the alternative http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 10 of 18 requirements in 4.1.7(3) may be used for the feature. 4.30 Signage. * * * * * 4.30.7* Symbols of Accessibility. * * * * * (3) Text Telephones (TTYs). Text telephones (TTYs) required by 4.1.3 (17)(c) shall be identified by the international TTY symbol (Fig 43(c)). In addition, if a facility has a public text telephone (TTY), directional signage indicating the location of the nearest text telephone(TTY) shall be placed adjacent to all banks of telephones which do not contain a text telephone(TTY). Such directional signage shall include the international TTY symbol. If a facility has no banks of telephones, the directional signage shall be provided at the entrance (e.g., in a building directory). * * * * * 4.31 Telephones. * * * * * 4.31.9* Text telephones (TTYs) Required by 4.1. (1) Text telephones (TTYs) used with a pay telephone shall be permanently affixed within, or adjacent to, the telephone enclosure. If an acoustic coupler is used,the telephone cord shall be sufficiently long to allow connection of the text telephone(TTY) and the telephone receiver. (2) Pay telephones designed to accommodate a portable text telephone(TTY) shall be equipped with a shelf and an electrical outlet within or adjacent to the telephone enclosure. The telephone handset shall be capable of being placed flush on the surface of the shelf. The shelf shall be capable of accommodating a text telephone(TTY) and shall have 6 in(152 mm)minimum vertical clearance in the area where the text telephone(TTY) is to be placed. (3) Equivalent facilitation maybe provided. For example,a portable text telephone(TTY)maybe made available in a hotel at the registration desk if it is available on a 24-hour basis for use with nearby public pay telephones. In this instance, at least one pay telephone shall comply with paragraph 2 of this section. In addition, if an acoustic coupler is used, the telephone handset cord shall be sufficiently long so as to allow connection of the text telephone(TTY) and the telephone receiver. Directional.signage shall be provided and shall comply with 4.30.7. * * * * * 5. RESTAURANTS AND CAFETERIAS. 5.1* General. Except as specified or modified in this section, restaurants and cafeterias shall comply with the requirements of section 4. Where fixed tables (or dining counters where food is consumed but there is no service) are provided, at least five percent, but not less than one, of the fixed tables (or a portion of the dining counter) shall be accessible and shall comply with 4.0 as required in 4.1.3(181. In establishments where separate areas are designated for smoking and non-smoking patrons, the required number of accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be proportionally distributed between the smoking and non-smoking areas. In new construction, and where practicable in alterations, http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page I 1 of 18 accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be distributed throughout the space or facility. 6. MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES. 6.1 General. Medical care facilities included in this section are those in which people receive physical or medical treatment or care and where persons may need assistance in responding to an emergency and where the period of stay may exceed 24 hours. In addition to the requirements of section 4, medical care facilities and buildings shall comply with 6. * * * * * 6.3 Patient Bedrooms. Provide accessible patient bedrooms in compliance with section 4. Accessible patient bedrooms shall comply with the following: * * * * * 7. BUSINESS, MERCANTILE AND CIVIC. 7.1 General. In addition to the requirements of section 4, the design of all areas used for business transactions with the public shall comply with 7. 7.2 Sales and Service Counters,Teller Windows, Information Counters. (!)In areas used for transactions where counters have cash registers and are provided for sales or distribution of goods or services to the public, at least one of each type shall have a portion of the counter which is at least 36 in(915 mm) in length with a maximum height of 36 in(915 mm) above the finish floor. It shall be on an accessible route complying with-4,2. Such counters shall include, but are not limited to, counters in retail stores, and distribution centers. The accessible counters must be dispersed throughout the building or facility. In alterations where it is technically infeasible to provide an accessible counter;an auxiliary counter meeting these requirements may be provided. (2) In areas used for transactions that may not have a cash register but at which goods or services are sold or distributed including, but not limited to, ticketing counters, teller stations,registration counters in transient lodging facilities, information counters,box office counters and library check-out areas, either: (i) a portion of the main counter which is a minimum of 36 in(915 mm) in length shall be provided with a maximum height of 36 in(915 mm); or (ii) an auxiliary counter with a maximum height of 36 in(915 mm) in close proximity to the main counter shall be provided; or (iii) equivalent facilitation shall be provided(e.g., at a hotel registration counter, equivalent facilitation might consist of: (1) provision of a folding shelf attached to the main counter on which an individual with a disability can write, and(2)use of the space on the side of the counter or at the concierge desk, for handing materials back and forth). All accessible sales and service counters shall be on an accessible route complying with 4,a. http://www.access-board.govibfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 12 of 18 (3)* In public facilities where counters or teller windows have solid partitions or security glazing to separate personnel from the public, at least one of each type shall provide a method to facilitate voice communication. Such methods may include, but are not limited to, grilles, slats, talk-through baffles, intercoms, or telephone handset devices. The method of communication shall be accessible to both individuals who use wheelchairs and individuals who have difficulty bending or stooping. If provided for public use, at least one telephone communication device shall be equipped with volume controls complying with 4.31.5. Hand-operable communications devices, if provided, shall comply with 4.27. (4)* Assistive Listening Systems. (Reserved). 8. LIBRARIES. 8.1 General. In addition to the requirements of section 4, the design of all public areas of a library shall comply with 8, including reading and study areas, stacks,reference rooms,reserve areas, and special facilities or collections. 9. ACCESSIBLE TRANSIENT LODGING. (1) Except as specified in the special technical provisions of this section, accessible transient lodging shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4. Transient lodging includes facilities or portions thereof used for sleeping accommodations when not classed as a medical care facility. * s * * * 10. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. 10.1 General. (1)Every station, bus stop,bus stop pad, terminal,building or other transportation facility, shall comply with the applicable provisions of section 4,the special application sections, and the applicable provisions of this section. * ss * * 10.4 Airports. 10.4.1 New Construction. (8)* Security Systems. In public facilities that are airports, at least one accessible route complying with 4,a shall be provided through fixed security barriers at each single barrier or group of security barriers. A group is two or more security barriers immediately adjacent to each other at a single location. Where security barriers incorporate equipment such as metal detectors, fluoroscopes, or other similar devices which cannot be made accessible, an accessible route shall be provided adjacent to such security screening devices to facilitate an equivalent circulation path. The circulation path shall permit persons with disabilities passing through security barriers to maintain visual contact with their personal items to the same extent provided other members of the general http://www.access-board.govibfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 13 of 18 public. EXCEPTION: Doors, doorways, and gates designed to be operated only by security personnel shall be exempt from 4.13.9, 413.11, and 4.13.12. 11. JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FACILITIES. 11.1 General. In addition to the requirements in section 4 and 11.1,judicial facilities shall comply with 11.2 and legislative and regulatory facilities shall comply with 113• 11.1.1 Entrances. Where provided, at least one restricted entrance and one secured entrance to the facility shall be accessible in addition to the entrances required to be accessible by 4.1.3 . Restricted entrances are those entrances used only by judges, public officials, facility personnel or other authorized parties on a controlled basis. Secured entrances are those entrances to judicial facilities used only by detainees and detention officers. EXCEPTION: At secured entrances, doors and doorways operated only by security personnel shall be exempt from 4.13.9. 4.13.10, 4.13.11 and 4.13.12. 11.1.2 Security Systems. An accessible route complying with Al shall be provided through fixed security barriers at required accessible entrances. Where security barriers incorporate equipment such as metal detectors, fluoroscopes, or other similar devices which cannot be made accessible, an accessible route shall be provided adjacent to such security screening devices to facilitate an equivalent circulation path. 11.1.3* Two-Way Communication Systems. Where a two-way communication system is provided to gain admittance to a facility or to restricted areas within the facility, the system shall provide both visual and audible signals and shall comply with 4.27. 11.2 Judicial Facilities. 11.2.1 Courtrooms. (1) Where provided, the following elements and spaces shall be on an accessible route complying with 4 . Areas that are raised or depressed and accessed by ramps or platform lifts with entry ramps shall provide unobstructed turning space complying with 12,a. EXCEPTION: Vertical access to raised judges' benches or courtroom stations need not be installed provided that the requisite areas, maneuvering spaces, and, if appropriate, electrical service are installed at the time of initial construction to allow future installation of a means of vertical access complying with 41,4 10, or 411 without requiring substantial reconstruction of the space. (a) Spectator, Press, and Other Areas with Fixed Seats. Where spectator, press or other areas with fixed seats are provided, each type of seating area shall comply with 4.1.3(19)(a). (b) Jury Boxes and Witness Stands. Each jury box and witness stand shall have within its defined area clear floor space complying with 4.2.4. EXCEPTION: In alterations, accessible wheelchair spaces are not required to be located within the defined area of raised jury boxes or http://www.access-board.govibfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 14 of 18 witness stands and may be located outside these spaces where ramp or lift access poses a hazard by restricting or projecting into a means of egress required by the appropriate administrative authority. (c) Judges' Benches and Courtroom Stations. Judges' benches, clerks' stations,bailiffs' stations, deputy clerks' stations, court reporters' stations and litigants' and counsel stations shall comply with 4.32. (2)* Permanently installed assistive listening systems complying with-433 shall be provided in each courtroom. The minimum number of receivers shall be four percent of the room occupant load, as determined by applicable State or local codes, but not less than two receivers. An informational sign indicating the availability of an assistive listening system and complying with 4,34.1, 44,3 2, 4 30,3,4,30.5, and 4.307(41 shall be posted in a prominent place. 11.2.2 Jury Assembly Areas and Jury Deliberation Areas. Where provided in areas used for jury assembly or deliberation, the following elements or spaces shall be on an accessible route complying with 4.3 and shall comply with the following provisions: (1) Refreshment Areas. Refreshment areas, kitchenettes and fixed or built-in refreshment dispensers shall comply with the technical provisions of 9.2.2(7). (2) Drinking Fountains. Where provided in rooms covered under 11.2.2, there shall be a drinking fountain in each room complying with 4,15. 11.2.3 Courthouse Holding Facilities. (1) Holding Cells -Minimum Number. Where provided, facilities for detainees, including central holding cells and court-floor holding cells, shall comply with the following: (a) Central Holding Cells. Where separate central holding cells are provided for adult male,juvenile male, adult female, or juvenile female, one of each type shall comply with 11.2_ ,3(2). Where central-holding cells are provided,which are not separated by age.or sex, at least one cell complying with 11.2.3(2) shall be provided. (b) Court-Floor Holding Cells. Where separate court-floor holding cells are provided for adult male,juvenile male, adult female, or juvenile female, each courtroom shall be served by one cell of each type complying with 11.2.3(2). Where court-floor holding cells are provided,which are not separated by age or sex, courtrooms shall be served by at least one cell complying with 11.2.3(2). Cells may serve more than one courtroom. (2)Requirements for Accessible Cells. Accessible cells shall be on an accessible route complying with 4.3. Where provided,the following elements or spaces serving accessible cells shall be accessible and on an accessible route: (a) Doors and Doorways. All doors and doorways to accessible spaces and on an accessible route shall comply with 4.13. EXCEPTION: Doors and doorways operated only by security personnel shall be exempt from 4.13.2, 4,13,10, 4.13.11 and 4.13.12. (b)* Toilet and Bathing Facilities. Toilet facilities shall comply with 4.22 and bathing facilities shall comply with 423. Privacy screens shall not intrude on the clear floor space required for fixtures or the accessible route. (c)* Beds. Beds shall have maneuvering space at least 36 in(915 mm) wide along one http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 15 of 18 side. Where more than one bed is provided in a cell, the maneuvering space provided at adjacent beds may overlap. (d) Drinking Fountains and Water Coolers. Drinking fountains shall be accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs in accordance with 4,15 and shall be accessible to those who have difficulty bending or stooping. This can be accomplished by the use of a "hi-lo" fountain; by providing one fountain accessible to those who use wheelchairs and one fountain at a standard height convenient for those who have difficulty bending; by providing a fountain accessible under 4.15 and a water cooler; or by other such means as would achieve the required accessibility for each group. (e) Fixed or Built-in Seating and Tables. Fixed or built-in seating, tables or counters shall comply with-4,32. (f) Fixed Benches. Fixed benches shall be mounted at 17 in to 19 in (430 mm to 485 mm) above the finish floor and provide back support (e.g., attachment to wall). The structural strength of the bench attachments shall comply with 4.26.3. (3)* Visiting Areas. The following elements, where provided, shall be located on an accessible route complying with_43 and shall comply with the following provisions: (a) Cubicles and Counters. Five percent, but not less than one, of fixed cubicles shall comply with 4.32 on both the visitor and detainee sides. Where counters are provided, a portion at least 36 in (915 nun) in length shall comply with 4,32 on both the visitor and detainee sides. (b)Partitions. Solid partitions or security glazing that separate visitors from detainees shall comply with 7.2(31. 11.3* Legislative and Regulatory Facilities. Assembly areas designated for public use, including public meeting rooms, hearing rooms, and chambers shall comply with 11.3. 11.3.1 Where provided,the following elements and spaces shall be on an accessible route complying with 4,a. Areas that are raised or depressed and accessed by ramps or platform lifts with entry ramps shall provide unobstructed turning space complying with 4,2,a. (1) Raised Speakers' Platforms. Where raised speakers'platforms are provided, at least one of each type shall be accessible. (2) Spectator,Press, and Other Areas with Fixed Seats. Where spectator,press or other areas with fixed seats are provided, each type of seating area shall comply witl>_ 4.1.3(19)(a). 11.3.2* Each assembly area provided with a permanently installed audio-amplification system shall have a permanently installed assistive listening system. The minimum number of receivers shall be four percent of the room occupant load, as determined by applicable State or local codes, but not less than two receivers. An informational sign indicating the availability of an assistive listening system and complying with 4,301, 4,30,2, 4.30.3,4.30.5, and 4.30.7(4) shall be posted in a prominent place. 12. DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. 12.1* General. This section applies to jails, holding cells in police stations, prisons,juvenile detention centers, reformatories, and other institutional occupancies where occupants are under some degree of restraint or restriction for security reasons. Except as specified in this section, detention and correctional facilities shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4. All common use areas serving accessible cells or rooms and all public use areas are required to be designed and constructed to comply with section 4. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 16 of 18 EXCEPTIONS: Requirements for areas of rescue assistance in 4.1.3(9), 4.3.10, and 4.3.11 do not apply. Compliance with requirements for elevators in 4.1.3(5) and stairs 4.1.3(4) is not required in multi-story housing facilities where accessible cells or rooms, all common use areas serving them, and all public use areas are on an accessible route. Compliance with 4 1.3(16) is not required in areas other than public use areas. 12.2 Entrances and Security Systems. 12.2.1* Entrances. Entrances used by the public, including those that are secured, shall be accessible as required by 4.1.3(8). EXCEPTION: Compliance with 4.13.9, 4.13.10, 4.13.11 and 4.13.12 is not required at entrances, doors, or doorways that are operated only by security personnel or where security requirements prohibit full compliance with these provisions. 12.2.2 Security Systems. Where security systems are provided at public or other entrances required to be accessible by 12.2.1 or 12.2.2, an accessible route complying with 4.3 shall be provided through fixed security barriers. Where security barriers incorporate equipment such as metal detectors, fluoroscopes, or other similar devices which cannot be made accessible, an accessible route shall be provided adjacent to such security screening devices to facilitate an equivalent circulation path. 12.3* Visiting Areas. In non-contact visiting areas where inmates or detainees are separated from visitors, the following elements, where provided, shall be accessible and located on an accessible route complying with-4,L- (1) Cubicles and Counters. Five percent, but not less than one, of fixed cubicles shall comply with 4.32 on both the visitor and detainee or inmate sides. Where counters are provided, a portion at least 36 in(915 mm) in length shall comply with 4.32 on both the visitor and detainee or inmate sides. EXCEPTION: At non-contact visiting areas not serving accessible cells or rooms, the requirements of 12.3(1)do not apply to the inmate or detainee side of cubicles or counters. . (2) Partitions. Solid partitions or security glazing separating visitors from inmates or detainees shall comply with 12.4 Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms: Minimum Number. 12.4.1* Holding Cells and General Housing Cells or Rooms.At least two percent, but not less than one, of the total number of housing or holding cells or rooms provided in a facility shall comply with 12.4.2* Special Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms. In addition to the requirements of 12.4.1, where special holding or housing cells or rooms are provided, at least one serving each purpose shall comply with 12,�• Cells or rooms subject to this requirement include, but are not limited to, those used for purposes of orientation, protective custody, administrative or disciplinary detention or segregation, detoxification, and medical isolation. EXCEPTION: Cells or rooms specially designed without protrusions and to be used solely for purposes of suicide prevention are exempt from the requirement for grab bars at water closets in 4,16.4. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 17 of 18 12.4.3* Accessible Cells or Rooms for Persons with Hearing Impairments. In addition to the requirements of 12.4.1, two percent,but not less than one, of general housing or holding cells or rooms equipped with audible emergency warning systems or permanently installed telephones within the cell or room shall comply with the applicable requirements of 12.,6. 12.4.4 Medical Care Facilities. Medical care facilities providing physical or medical treatment or care shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 61,U and.OA, if persons may need assistance in emergencies and the period of stay may exceed 24 hours. Patient bedrooms or cells required to be accessible under 6.1 and¢.3 shall be provided in addition to any medical isolation cells required to be accessible under 12.4.2. 12.4.5 Alterations to Cells or Rooms. (Reserved.) 12.5 Requirements for Accessible Cells or Rooms. 12.5.1 General. Cells or rooms required to be accessible by 12.4 shall comply with 12.5. 12.5.2* Minimum Requirements.Accessible cells or rooms shall be on an accessible route complying with 4,2. Where provided to serve accessible housing or holding cells or rooms, the following elements or spaces shall be accessible and connected by an accessible route. (1)Doors and Doorways. All doors and doorways on an accessible route shall comply with 4.L1. EXCEPTION: Compliance with 4,13.9,4.13.1 4.13.11 and 4.13.12 is not required at entrances, doors, or doorways that are operated only by security personnel or where security requirements prohibit full compliance with these provisions. (2)* Toilet and Bathing Facilities. At least one toilet facility shall comply with 4.22 and one bathing facility shall comply with 4.23. Privacy screens shall not intrude on the clear floor space required for fixtures and the accessible route. (3)* Beds. Beds shall have maneuvering space at least 36 in(915 mm)wide along one side. Where more than one bed is provided in a room or cell,the maneuvering space provided at adjacent beds may overlap. (4)Drinking Fountains and Water Coolers. At least one drinking fountain shall comply with 4,15. (5)Fixed or Built-in Seating or Tables. Five percent, but not less than one,of the fixed or built-in seating,tables and counters shall comply with.4X. (6)Fixed Benches. At least one fixed bench shall be mounted at 17 in to 19 in(430 mm 'to 485 mm) above the finish floor and provide back support (e.g., attachment to wall). The structural strength of the bench attachments shall comply with 4.26.3. (7) Storage. Fixed or built-in storage facilities, such as cabinets, shelves, closets, and drawers, shall contain storage space complying with 4.25. (8) Controls. All controls intended for operation by inmates shall comply with 4.27• (9) Accommodations for persons with hearing impairments required by 12.4.3 and complying with 12-,.6 shall be provided in accessible cells or rooms. 12.6 Visual Alarms and Telephones. http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 ADAAG Judicial and Detention Facilities Page 18 of 18 Where audible emergency warning systems are provided to serve the occupants of holding or housing cells or rooms, visual alarms complying with 4.28.4 shall be provided. Where permanently installed telephones are provided within holding or housing cells or rooms, they shall have volume controls complying with 4.31.5. EXCEPTION: Visual alarms are not required where inmates or detainees are not allowed independent means of egress. Table of Contents Recent Updates About the Access Board Sueeest on Box Bugg and Facility Design Guidelines I Transportation Vehicle Guidelines I Enforcement I Publications I Training I Telecommunications I Other Resources Recent Updates About I . I Suggestion BI Guidelines Transportation Enforcement Guidelines ' . I FI ki 1 Other Resources http://www.access-board.gov/bfdg/adaag3.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources � ( � YI � Page 1 of 10 OTHER RESOURCES A variety of public and private sector entities provide technical assistance on ADAAG and the ADA in general. The Board provides assistance on the technical provisions of ADAAG and vehicle guidelines but the application to a given facility or vehicle is governed by the regulations issued by the Departments of Justice and Transportation. Those agencies provide technical assistance on their own regulations which include policy and operational issues. For example, the provision of complimentary paratransit is governed by DOT and program accessibility for State and local governments is governed by DOJ. Moreover, some aspects of accessibility are covered by statutes other than the ADA. Air carrier access, for example, is covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, regulated by DOT, and certain multi-unit residential housing is covered by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, regulated by Housing and Urban Development. Where the listed resources have a known World Wide Web or gopher site, a direct link is provided. Please send corrections to cannon@access-board.gov. This list is provided for information purposes only and the Board makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the information obtained from these sources is accurate or correct. The DDWartment of Justice offers technical assistance on the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and other ADA provisions applying to businesses, non-profit service agencies, and state and local government programs; also provides information on how to file ADA complaints. Many of its technical assistance letters are available on-line. • ADA Information Line for documents, questions, and referrals • 800-514-0301 (voice) • 800-514-0383 (TTY) • Electronic bulletin board • 202-514-6193 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical assistance on the ADA provisions applying to employment; also provides information on how to file ADA complaints. • Employment questions • 800-669-4000 (voice) • 800-669-6820 (TTY) • Employment documents • 800-669-3362 (voice) • 800-800-3302 (TTY) The Department of Transportation offers technical assistance on ADA provisions applying to public transportation. http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 2 of 10 • Documents and questions • 888-446-4511 (voice) • 202-366-0153 (TTY) • Legal questions • 202-366-1936 (voice) • TTY: use relay service • Complaints and enforcement • 202-366-2285 (voice) • 202-366-0153 (TTY) • Electronic bulletin board • 202-366-3764 The Federal Communications Commission offers technical assistance on ADA telephone relay service requirements. FCC also has jurisdiction over compliance with Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act. • Relay service - documents and questions • 202-418-0190 (voice) • 202-418-2555 (TTY) • Relay service- legal questions • 202-634-1798 (voice) • 202-418-0484(TTY) • Complaints and enforcement • 202-632-7553 (voice) • 202-418-0485 (TTY) The DDMartment of Education funds ten regional Disability &Business Technical Assistance Centers to provide technical assistance on the ADA. • 800-949-4232 (voice&TTY) (call automatically connects to the closest center) The President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities answers employment questions and funds the Job Accommodation Network(JAIdI,which provides advice on accommodating employees with disabilities. • Employment questions • 202-376-6200 (voice) • 202-376-6205 (TTY) • -Job Accommodation Network • 800-526-7234 (voice&TTY) • 800-232-9675 (voice&TTY) The Internal Revenue Service provides information about tax code provisions including tax credits (section 44) and deductions (section 190)that can assist businesses in complying with the ADA. These provisions are explained in publication 907 which can be accessed on line or ordered by calling the number below. • Tax code information • 800-829-1040 (voice) http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 3 of 10 • 800-829-4059 (TTY) • To order Publication 907 • 800-829-3676 (voice) • 800-829-4059 (TTY) • Within Washington, DC • 202-622-3110(voice) • TTY: use relay service The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund ( REDF) operates a hotline funded by the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance on the ADA. • ADA questions and publications: • 800-466-4232 (voice&TTY) The ADA USA Information Line is funded by the Department of Justice to provide ADA information in Spanish, Korean, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi,Arabic, Armenian, Russian, and Dine. • ADA information and publications • 800-232-4955 (voice) • 800-232-4957 (TTY) The Center for Universal Design(formerly, the Center on Accessible Housing)The Center for Universal Design is a national research, information, and technical assistance center that evaluates, develops, and promotes accessible and universal design in buildings and related products. • Technical assistance and publications • 800-647-6777 ABLEdata is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to collect and catalog information on product accessibility. • Product database • 800-227-0216 • 301-588-9284 OTHER LAWS OF INTEREST Other federal laws prohibit discrimination and provide equal opportunity for people with disabilities in housing, air transportation, and access to federal facilities and post offices. Telephone numbers for obtaining assistance in understanding and complying with these laws are listed here. Fair Housing Act: for questions, publications, and referrals on housing access issues, call: • Fair Housing Information Clearin ouse • 800-795-7915 (voice) • 800-483-2209 (TTY) Air Carrier Access Act: for questions pertaining to air transportation, call the Department of http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 4 of 10 Transportation: • Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) questions • 202-366-4859 (voice) • TTY: use relay service • ACAA complaints and enforcement • .202-267-5794 (voice) • 202-267-9730 (TTY) Architectural Barriers Act covers certain facilities built with federal funds. _... __........ Other Internet Sites ADA Document Center Copies of the statute, regulations, etc. Also, links to other sites. Adaptive Technology Resource Center Information on the use of adaptive technology, especially to ensure that information technology is accessible. American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS sponsors a variety of programs, including En , Point which seeks to encourage persons with disabilities to enter scienctific fields. American Association of Retired Persons From its Web page, "AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping older Americans achieve lives of independence, dignity and purpose." American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ' AASHTO is the organization which maintains the"Green Book' for design of roads and highways and has begun to address accessibility of pedestrian networks. American Council of the Blind ACB is a national organization advocating on behalf of persons who are blind or have low vision. American Foundation for the Blind "The mission of the American Foundation for the Blind is to enable people who are blind or visually impaired to achieve equality of access and opportunity that will ensure freedom of choice in their lives." American National Standards Institute ANSI serves as administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system. American Public Transit Association The trade association of the public transit industry. http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 5 of 10 American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM is a private sector organization which develops standards for a variety of factors including slip resistance for various surfaces. ASTM has recently developed a provisional standard for the accessibility of playground surfaces, PS-83. Building Officials and Code Administrators, International (BOCA) BOCA is one of the model building code organizations. Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOM BOMA is a trade association for building owners and managers. Bureau of Transportation Statistics Lots of data on transportation and documents from FHWA on public rights-of-way. California Code Information This is the State of California's Department of General Services - Division of the State Architect (including the Offices of Construction Services; Design Services; and Regulation Services). California State University Northridge Center on Disabilities The CSUN Center on Disabilities sponsors annually a major conference on technology and persons with disabilities. City of San Antonio Disability Etiquette Handbook The San Antonio Disability Office has developed this handbook of protocol for conducting job interviews, social contacts, effective communication, etc. Community Tra isr portation Association of America(CTAA) CTAA is a trade association of providers of community transportation, including paratransit services for individuals with disabilities. Council of American Buildinn Officials(CABO) CABO is the secretariat for CABO/ANSI Al 17.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities standard. COST 219 Information Resource Manager Information on telecommunications access from the COST 219 Committee, headquartered in Noiway. Directory of Transportation Resources This site contains many links to information about all types of transportation. Disabled American Veterans DAV is a national organization advocating on behalf of veterans with disabilities. Electronic Industries Foundation EIF has produced the Resource Guide for Accessible Design of Consumer Electronics. http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 6 of 10 Equal Access to Software and Information This site specializes in information on access to electronic media for persons with sight impairments. There are links to other sites with similar concerns, including the Trace Center. European Telecommunications Standards Institute The youngest of the three European standards making bodies, recognized by the European Council of Ministers, ETSI was set up in 1988 to set standards for Europe in telecommunications and the related fields of broadcasting and office information technology. Federal Documents Center A collection of federal documents and links to federal agencies. Federal Register This site not only contains the Federal Register but can access many Government Printing Office documents. It is a "gateway" site with access to most documents available from the Government Printing Office (see below). Gallaudet University Gallaudet is the world's only university for deaf and hard of hearing undergraduate students. Graduate degree programs and continuing education courses are available to deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. General Services Administration Center on Information Technology Accommodation GSA has developed guidelines for making HTML Web pages accessible. Government Accounting Office Download or order reports directly from this site. Reports include status of business, schools compliance with the ADA, civil rights issues, as well as transportation issues. Government Printing Office The Government Printing Office maintains its own web page with access to the Federal Register, Congressional Record, legislation, etc. Access through a Federal Depository Library gateway(see above) is sometimes easier. Home Modification Action Project The Goal of"Promoting Successful Aging in Place: The Home Modification Action Project" (or HMAP) is to increase the availability of home modifications so that frail older and disabled persons have the choice to age in place and the provision of care can take place in a supporitve environment. Inclusion of Disabled and Elderly People in Telematics (INCLUDE) INCLUDE is a project to collect and disseminate information on "user-centered design, user needs, standardization matters, and legislation" regarding access to telecommunications. Infrared Data Association (IrDA) IrDA sets standards for infrared data transmission, such as the transmission of codes and data between a refreshable Braille machine and a telecommunications device. http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 7 of 10 IntematiOnal Conference of Building Officials ( Ci BO) ICBO is one of the model building code organizations. Intemational Telecommunications Union The ITU, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is an international organization within which governments and the private sector coordinate global telecom networks and services. j e2al Decisions Legal decisions in U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Appeals Courts, and New York courts. National Association of the Deaf NAD is a national consumer organization representing people who are deaf and hard of hearing. National Association of Radio and Telecommunications Engineers Inc NARTE offers certification to qualified technicians and engineers. A subdivision,Association of Accessibility Engineering Specialists, is specializing in accessibility for persons with disabilities. National Center on Accessibility The Center is a cooperative project between the National Park Service and Indiana University to provide information and technical assistance,primarily on recreation access. National Center for Accessible Media NCAM is a project of WGBH, the Boston PBS station. It has developed guidelines for making media, including Web pages, accessible and promotes use of the Web Access Symbol on accessible Web sites. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research The NCDDR's purpose is to enhance the dissemination efforts of NID funded research projects and to increase the accessibility of research outcomes for the benefit of their consumers, particularly those from minority backgrounds National Council on the Aging According to its Web page,NCOA is committed "to promoting the dignity, self-determination, well-being, and contributions of older persons and to enhancing the field of aging through leadership and service, education, and advocacy." National Council on Disability The Council is a federal agency which provides recommendations to the President and Congress on overall policy issues affecting persons with disabilities. The Council developed the concept and much of the statutory language which formed the ADA. National Federation of the Blind NFB is a national organization advocating on behalf of persons who are blind or have low vision. National Fire Protection Association MPA1 http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 .- Other Resources Page 8 of 10 NFPA develops the model fire code. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research NIDRR is a division of the U. S. Department of Education which funds a variety of research projects and research centers around the country. National Science Foundation The National Science Foundation is an independent U.S. government agency responsible for promoting science and engineering through programs in almost 20,000 research and education projects in science and engineering. Some projects focus on technology and people with disabilities. Paralyzed Veterans of America PVA is a national advocacy organization representing veterans. PlumbNet The PlumbNet is populated by plumbers, architects, interior designers, and homeowners sharing information and resources for new construction, remodeling, renovations and restoration. You will find a Barrier Free (ADA) section under the "Builder Bits and Designer Dangers" subheading. You can also post questions. From here you can connect to a host of ADA disability related URLs. Project ACTION Project ACTION(Accessible Community Transportation in Our Nation)was created by Congress five years ago to promote cooperation between the disability community and the transportation industry. Project ACTION's products are designed to help implement ADA transportation regulations for public and p ivate transportation operators, including human services agencies, paratransit, small-urban and rural transit providers. It has established a database of accessible transportation throughout the nation. Regulatory Information Service Center The Regulatory Information Service Center has established the REGINFO.GOV site to assist users who want to find information about Federal, state, and local regulation. The Center is a Federal Government office located in the General Services Administration, with responsibility for gathering and publishing information on Federal regulations. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America(RESIN RESNA is an interdisciplinary association for the advancement of rehabilitation and assistive technologies (AT). San Francisco Department of Public Works Disability Accessibility Coordinator This site provides information on San Francisco Bay Area activities. Self Help for Hard of Hearin People eonle SHIM is a national consumer organization representing people who are hard of hearing and provides technical assistance for selecting Assistive Listening systems. Southern Building Code Conference International (SBCCI) http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 Other Resources Page 9 of 10 SBCCI is one of the model building code organizations. Telecommunications Industry Association TIA is a trade organization of 625 member companies in the communications and information technology industry, large and small companies which provide communications materials, products, systems, distribution services and professional services to the United States and countries around the world. Thoma This is the site operated by the Library of Congress where one can obtain status and full text of current and last year's legislation, as well as the Congressional Record. Telematics for Elderly and Disabled People (TIDE) Project TIDE is a research program of the European Commission to collect information on access, especially to telecommunications. Trace R&D Center The Trace Center has information on how to design equipment, World Wide Web sites, information kiosks, etc. to be accessible. U. S. House of Representatives House bills passed and pending, hearing schedules, etc. U. S. Senate Senate bills passed and pending, hearing schedules, etc. WebABLE A general source of information on disability issues with many links to other useful sites. WGBH National Center on Accessible Media NCAM is a project of WGBH, the Boston PBS station. It has developed guidelines for making media, including Web pages, accessible and promotes use of the Web Access Symbol on accessible Web sites. The White House Presidential speeches, press releases and links to Executive Branch agencies; even a greeting from Socks. World Institute on Disability WID is an international public policy center dedicated to carrying out research on disability issues and overcoming obstacles to independent living. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) The W3C was founded in 1994 to develop common protocols for the evolution of the World Wide Web. W3C is an international industry consortium,jointly hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science [MIT/LCS] in the United States; the Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique [INRIA] in Europe; and the http://www.access-board.gov/other/other.htm 9/15/98 I ♦ - Disabilities Commission Page 1 of 1 Disabilities Commission Eugene Organ, Exec. Dir. 1257 Ferry St. SE, Salem 97310; 503-378-3142 (voice/TTY); toll free: 1-800-358-3117, Oregon only; Fax: 503-378-3599 Jan Campbell, chair, Portland; Mary Byrkit, Portland; Kenneth Crowley, Wilsonville; Donn DeBemardi, Portland; Janine DeLaunay, Portland; JoAnna Gaumond, Salem; Alicia Hays, Eugene; Diane Imel, Wilsonville; George McCart, Prineville; Kristine Merlich, Bend; Robert Pike, Portland; Henry Stack, Portland. The commission is authorized by ORS chapter 185. Commissioners are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate for not more than two consecutive three-year terms. The Disabilities Commission identifies and publicizes the needs and rights of individuals with disabilities; advises the legislature, the governor, state agencies and other public and private agencies on disability issues; coordinates inter-agency efforts in the delivery of disability-related services, and promotes the rehabilitation and employment of the disabled. The commission conducts Oregon's Client Assistance Program, which helps clients in federally-funded rehabilitation programs by explaining rules and procedures, client rights and responsibilities, and mediating conflicts. The Deaf and Hearing Impaired Access Program assists state agencies in ensuring that programs and services are accessible to deaf and hearing impaired persons. The commission has been designated the coordinating agency for implementing the Americans With Disabilities Act in Oregon. The Oregon Disabilities Commission also administers Technology Access for Life Needs (TALN). TALN provides information and advocacy on assistive technology for people with disabilities. Return to Other Agencies, Boards and Commissions Executive Main Page Oregon Blue Book Table of Contents 1997-98 Oregon Blue Book Executive http://www.sos.state.or.us/BlueBook/1997_98/executive/Disabilities.htm 9/15/98 4hr a$... ... ?HMf<(tl:Y.9:5.'.,,... :»>fi:::5::i:::=F:5855:::i5.R•.•<.:<::::::::<:<:wy.:::o:.:.:::..:<'<;.:x'::<uupwrau:x........ ..:.:.... I]]IMM i rx llquarterly;PubticatianoftheApA7ralningPrajeet far Steta and;focal i3overnmants �.� W Supported by a Grant from the U.S, pepart, artt of Eduoation,Natlonal institute on Olsabiityand ADA V1NTi4[iL, Ism,` Rehabilitation Research, Giant i1H13319S0g11 ::..:a..,....:,.............. :.:x.. COVER STORY Moving Violations' Cities owners of America have not fully grasped the Enforce Accessible Parking letter or the Spirit of disability law. Through Volunteerism Millage's organization, based in Columbia, Ten- nessee, began with a group of disabled automo- Most city police departments simply don't have bile factory employees from the Saturn facility in the personnel or the time to patrol for illegal nearby Spring Hill; they wanted to educate their parkers. Generally, parking violations take a co-workers on disability issues. Their activism back-seat to more serious crimes, says Robert soon spread to city parking issues, and now Millage, executive director of the Tennessee Asso- they're helping to staff the Columbia Disabled ciation for Disability Rights. Until recently, Mil- Parking Enforcement Unit, in which they serve as lage says, disabled people in Tennessee had no official police deputies. reliable recourse for prosecuting parking viola- tions because violators were usually gone by the Once they have received a day's training in police time the police responded to a complaint. That procedure and conflict resolution, volunteers are was the case until disabled citizens themselves given a vest, a cellular phone and a Polaroid got involved. They successfully lobbied their state camera. Then they patrol the streets, in search of legislature to create a volunteer parking enforce- violators—both illegal parkers and the businesses ment program that allows citizens, many of them or facilities that fail to provide accessible parking. have disabilities, to patrol city streets and parking lots and issue tickets to people who park illegally (Continued on page 20) in designated disabled parking spaces. Such pro- grams have been set up in a dozen other states. Title Ill of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spells out clearly the type and number of !R tfre NQWS accessible' parking spaces that owners of most public accommodations and commercial facilities dress Desk 5 must provide. Generally, it's 2 to 4 percent of the Qttarteriy i eatuias 8 total parking spaces available. The ADA Accessi gecess Prof[ie 1$ bility Standards includes strict guidelines for sig nage, ramps, curb cuts and other architectural 7 ratRtrtg' hitgitli¢f1tS 78 details. Unfortunately, disability activists say not hoof egX0 everyone is "up to speed" on the federal require- 4220 ments. Many of the building and parking lot Irt The Know •',py Spring 1998 1 _ ROGUE VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® 629 Franquette Street Medford, Oregon 97501 REALTOR"" (541) 779-9421 December 7, 1999 City of Ashland Honorable Mayor and City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Hillside Development Ordinance Remand Hearing Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: The Rogue Valley Association of REALTORS®would like to take this opportunity to listen to the Council's input on the remanded issues brought about by the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)case#97-260. The Rogue Valley Association of REALTORS®would also like to include into the record that House Bill 3410 (HB 3410-A) dealing with approval standards for residential development, which went into effect October 23, 1999, also be referenced by Staff while deliberating remand issues. It is the desire of the Rogue Valley Association of REALTORS®to continue to establish standing in these matter for future hearings. Respectfully Submitted Bob Strosser Legislative Committee Chair Rogue Valley Association of REALTORS® REALTOR®-is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. 70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--1999 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 3410 Sponsored by Representative MORGAN (at the request of Oregon Contractors Association. Oregoniaas in Action) ��Z �/ CHAPTER .................... .:. .. ... .... AN ACT Relating to approval standards for residential development; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 197.307, 215.416 and 227.173. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 197.307 is amended to read: 197.307. (1) The availability of affordable, decent. safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for seasonal and year-round farmworkers, is a matter of statewide concern. (2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing. (3)(a) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing, including housing for seasonal and year-round farmworkers, shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need. (b) A local government shall attach only clear and objective approval standards or special conditions[, as provided in subsection (6) of this section,] regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics to an application for development of needed housing or to a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160, for residential development. The standards or conditions shall not be attached in a manner that will deny the application or reduce the proposed housing density provided the proposed density is otherwise allowed in the zone. (c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this subsection do not apply to an application or permit for residential development in an area identified in a formally adopted central city plan, or a re- gional center as defined by Metro, in a city with a population of 500,000 or more. (d) In addition to an approval process based on clear and objective standards as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a local government may adopt an alternative approval process for residential applications and permits based on approval criteria that are not clear and objective provided the applicant retains the option of proceeding under the clear and objective standards or the alternative process and the approval criteria for the alternative process comply with all appli- cable land use planning goals and rules. (e) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to applications or permits for residential development in historic areas designated for protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic areas. (4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not be construed as an infringement on a local govern- ment's prerogative to: Enrolled House Bill 3410 (HB 3410-A) Page 1 (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright: (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal: or (c) Establish approval procedures. (5) A jurisdiction may adopt any or all of the following placement standards, or any less re- strictive standard, for the approval of manufactured homes located outside mobile home parks: (a) The manufactured home shall be multisectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet. (b) The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and en- closed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade. (c) The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall require a slope of greater than a nominal three feet in height for each 12 feet in width. (d) The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on sur- rounding dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority. (e) The manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards which reduce levels equivalent to the performance stand- ards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state building code as defined in ORS 455.010. (f) The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of like materials. A ju- risdiction may require an attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such is consistent with the predominant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings. (g) In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection, a city or county may subject a manufactured home and the lot upon which it is sited to any development standard, ar- chitectural requirement and minimum size requirement to which a conventional single-family resi- dential dwelling on the same lot would be subject. (6) Any approval standards, special conditions and the procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. SECTION 2. ORS 215.416 is amended to read: 215.416. (1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates. for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service. (2) The governing body shall establish a consolidated procedure by which an applicant may ap- ply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 215.428. The consolidated proce- dure shall be available for use at the option of the applicant no later than the time of the first pe- riodic review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. (3) Except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application. (4) The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in conflict with the comprehensive plan of the county and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by statute or county legis- lation. (5) Hearings under this section shall be held only after notice to the applicant and also notice to other persons as otherwise provided by law and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.763. (6) Notice of a public hearing on an application submitted under this section shall be provided to the owner of an airport defined by the Department of Transportation as a "public use airport" if. Enrolled House Bill 3410 (HB 3410-A) Page 2 (a) The name and address of the airport owner has been provided by the Department of Trans- portation to the county planning authority; and (b) The property subject to the land use hearing is: (A) Within 5,000 feet of the side or end of a runway of an airport determined by the Department of Transportation to be a "visual airport"; or (B) Within 10.000 feet of the side or end of the runway of an airport determined by the De- partment of Transportation to be an "instMment airport." (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section. notice of a land use hearing need not be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the zoning permit would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside the runway "ap- proach surface" as defined by the Department of Transportation. (8)(a) Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and com- prehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning or- dinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole. (b) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307 to provide only clear and objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance. (9) Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall be based upon and accompa- nied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the deci- sion, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. (10) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding. (11)(a) The hearings officer, or such other person as the governing body designates, may approve or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other designated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for appeal of the decision to those persons who would have had a right to notice if a hearing had been scheduled or who are adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision. Notice of the decision shall be given in the same manner as required by ORS 197.763. An appeal from a hearings officer's decision shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the county. An appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the appeal shall be a de novo hearing. (b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose bounda- ries include the site. (12) A decision described in ORS 215.402 (4)(b) shall: (a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth: (A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject property; (B) The date of the decision; and (C) A description of the decision made. (b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. (c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (4)(b). (13) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 215.402 (4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights. Enrolled House Bill 3410 (HB 3410-A) Page 3 (14) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section. a limited land use decision shall be sub- ject to the requiremenis set forth in ORS 197.195 and 197.828. SECTION 3. ORS 227.173 is amended to read: 227.173. (1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria. which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the compre- hensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. (2) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307.to ..—..T__ provide only-clear and objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance. [(l)[ (3) Approval or denial of a permit application or expedited land division shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered rel- evant to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justi- fication for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. [01 (4) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding. SECTION 4. Section 5 of this 1999 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 197.830 to 197.845. SECTION 5. In a proceeding before the Land Use Board of Appeals or on judicial review from an order of the board that involves an ordinance required to contain clear and objective approval standards for a permit under ORS 197.307 and 227.175, the local government im- posing the provisions of the ordinance shall demonstrate that the approval standards are capable of being imposed only in a clear and objective manner. Passed by House May 12, 1999 Received by Governor. Jn�J1 ....8..1 ... .M..................� ..... 1999 Jerk of House Approved: 3'46W............. a x,...... 1999 ....... ..... ...........................e of House Passed by Senate June 7. 1999 .. . ....... . .... . ...................................... Governor Filed in O e of Secre ary of State: ............ ...... esident of Senate °° .....................�............. 1999 ?( l .................................................... Secrets y of State Enrolled House Bill 3410 fHB 3410-A) Page 4 City Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Hillside Development Ordinance Remand December 7, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin Director of Community Developmer�tV / Approved by: Paul Nolte,City Attorney V\— y�,, Q Approved by: Mike Freeman,City Administrator 1h-N Title: A public hearing regarding the Hillside Development Ordinance to determine issues remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in the case of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. the City of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-260. The Council will hear and: 1. Determine whether the 160 acres of unincorporated single family residential(SFR) lands outside city limits but inside the urban growth boundary can be developed under the Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO)with a sufficient number of units(a)to offset the loss of 5 units on SFR zoned lands within the city limits under the HDO and(b)to address the existing 46-acre shortage of SFR lands within city limits. 2. Determine that Ashland Land Use Ordinance Section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard: "It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment." These are the only issues that will be considered by the council at this hearing. All other issues have been resolved or are subject to further hearings and action by the planning commission and the council in the future. Synopsis: In December, 1997,the City of Ashland adopted the Hillside Development Ordinance for protection of Ashland's hillside areas. That ordinance adoption was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors (RVAR). LUBA remanded the decision, requesting the City to clarify and determine that the loss of five potential building lots due to the revised slope restrictions could be accommodated on other lands within the urban growth boundary(UGB)and still comply with the requirements of our comprehensive plan. The Council adopted a new Buildable Lands Inventory in September, 1999 which indicates that there is a surplus of lands, specifically in the single family residential zone referred to by LUBA and affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance. This surplus provides sufficient land to meet the 20-year projected needs of our community for housing and addresses the issues raised by the Realtors during the appeals process. The second issue of the remand involves the Council confirming that the following language [I 8.62.080(E)(2)(g)] is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard: "It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment." It is clear from the language "It is recommended"that this part of the ordinance is a suggestion and not mandatory. Fiscal Impact: none Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council find, based upon the recently adopted Buildable Lands Inventory (Resolution 99-58), that there is a greater than 20-year supply of all residential lands affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance and that the adoption of the new ordinance will not result in shortage in any residential land use classification. Further, we recommend that the Council confirm that the language in 18.62.080(E)(2)(g)is a suggestion and not mandatory. Staff will bring back the appropriate findings supporting your decision at the following meeting for final adoption. Ba ground Information: ring the adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance,one of the key issues raised by the Realtors was loss of developable land. The adopted ordinance changed the threshold for developable land from 40% down to 35% and therefore, some parcels which could previously be divided no longer had that option. Staff s review of this issue indicated that there would be a loss of 33 housing units,with five of those units being on R-I (single family)zoned lands. The remaining 28 units would be on low density residentially zoned lands (RR-.5 and WR). The City was able to show that there were adequate lands within the City limits to accommodate the loss of the 28 units in the low density zones,however,LUBA found that additional evidence was necessary to show that the 160 acres of single family zoned land within the UGB would adequate to accommodate the loss of the five units, and still maintain a 20 year supply. They also raised the issue of a shortage of 46 acres of single family zoned land within the City limits, indicated in the comprehensive plan. In fact, there was no shortage of land, but rather LUBA misunderstood that our 20-year supply of land is met by both lands within our city limits and UGB,and that the City does not need to provide a 20-year supply within the city limits. Since the time of the ordinance adoption,the City has adopted the Buildable Lands Inventory(Resolution 99-58)which indicates that within the UGB,the City has a36 year supply of lands and within the actual city limits, there is a 31 year supply of lands. These inventory numbers address both issues raised by LUBA. This inventory was based on detailed field studies and analysis of development over the past several years, and included the effects on potential development imposed by the Hillside Development Standards. The methodology for the inventory was based on administrative rules adopted by the State of Oregon. Based upon our adopted Buildable Lands Inventory, the City has well in excess of the lands necessary to accommodate our future growth, and to more than offset the reduction in potential lots caused by the change in slope threshold for development on Hillside lands. Copies of the Council resolution adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory, and the inventory itself; are attached to this communication. RESOLUTION NO. 99- Sg 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. l Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this as day of .11999. Catherine M. 6haw, Mayor Re � Paul Nolte, City Attorney n� Buildable iCAA i ..w. Lands I nventor I 00 ` Y CITYOFASHLAND 1998-99 Prepared by: City of Ashland Dept. of Community Development Planning Division Buildable Lands Inventory Table of Contents Buildable Lands Inventory - Land Component Pare 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 ......................................... Needed Housing 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................... . . . . . ... . ....................................................I............ 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 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory EGO I 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 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-1-10&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) HC 13.5(as R2) Health Care/Senior housing WWR Slope contingent Woodland Reserve,Environmental Constraints RR-1 0.6 units per acre Rural Residential,Low-Density(LDR) Gatherine 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 #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 D 21 0.15 0.75 E-1 102 27.79 19.81 P-5 . 10 15.80 4.44 GC 8 6.02 6.88 HC 22 8.32 0.35 M-1 21 44.35 9.64 DIM 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-I-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 2.19 RR-.5-P 66. 40.54 13.20 RR-I 4. 3.12 0.00 -5 127. 163.01 70.54 RR 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:AU 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 23 Totals Buildable Acres by BLI Status(UGB and Clry combined) BLI_STATUS #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) �I 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 IoL 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 concocted 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]J 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. 114U "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 lo[. 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 32.6% 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% 11 WE 0:2, sr�r� `�,£ _1� 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 2.00/6 Downtown - 4 0.3% Employment 13 0.90/0 Health Care 279 19.8% High Density Residential 93 6.6% Low Density Residential 46 3.3% Multi-family Residential 181 12.95% Single-family Residential 676 48.00/9 Single-family Residential Reserve 3 0.2% Southem Omgon University 36 2.6% Suburban Residential 42 3.06/o 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 (#DU)/(Avg Du per Acre) C-1 29 20.20 1.43 C-1-D 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 15.06 823 R-2-P - 61 10.48 5.82 R-3 98 19.36 5.06 RR-.5 13 2.61 4.98 RR-.S-P 34 2.45 13.88 RR-1 2 2.53 0.79 RR-5 2 1.0 2.0 SO 36 16.200 222 WR 8 1.49 5.37 ' s Q F Table 3.4 Sub-Category Analysis o[Cammercial and Industrial Lands a ; 7ANE Namur of GmmeNd4evdapmuU(1990-ff) rmevted iv Sq•Ft � #��€c R � I t E-1 40 250874 vsc HC 2 2476 ' M_I 2 16200 SO 2 32893 R-2 3 11818 TOTALS 61 405355 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 AsNaW POpla lon PrO ecdon adjusted for those in large group quarters and divided 2400D by an assumed rate of 2.2 `' ° , ' tea 2M=MM persons per household. 22000 The Southern Oregon 2aM y' :4 1988 TYA '" University dormitories = Flst anc 180W P s Ptp will house 750 students in Spring Quarter 1999, 16000 ------ - —Rnledion according to the SOU 14000 - - . ------------------------------------------ Housing Office. The 2018 Population forecast of 12MG --------------------------------------------- 22,473 people, minus the 10000 750 students living in 19M 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2700 2005 2D10 2015 2020 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 . ... ;o�/a6an4y Ad/uSnfelK e Needed Housind Units . 1600 ii• a'a5i ''� . . i 1200 6 ^.x UNITs 1000 NEEDED 000 X430 tai ties 600 pp 400 200 0. 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 (2.66/6 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,MRP(manufactured homing in parks), GA, and MU dwelling units were considered renter-occupied Multi-family units; whereas SFF, 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 1%, 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:(MR) Multi-family residential detached:(MFR-D) Manufactured housing units in Parks:(M]HP) 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 a 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-earned 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,MW Lower Middle(18.2%) $15,000 to$25,000 Low rise high density,MFR,NW 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 Table 4.1 Population and Housing Trends 1970-Present. 1970 1980 1990 =19989 (currennt) Population 12,342 14,943 16,234 Persons per Household 2.84 2.36 2.22 ILA 6-; tarn�a�s4 Number of Housing Units 4,124 6,330 7,204 Median Family Income ^ '^"�'nt 'y (adjusted 1999 dollars) $35,038 $39,479 $40,364 € $38;$00 p998,HUn) -; 4_-- N�dollars)Median Household income(adjusted $34,560 $36,226 $38,598 Median Rent $321 .$384 $502 -A%M to (adjusted 1999 dollars) b :62 .Median Home Value $61,670 $123,915 $139,194 Ufa`-- v al espll (adjusted 1999 dollars) of asFeC1 on w1,998) Homeowner no data no data 2.6% data - vacancy Rates rental no data no data 2.8% *�f'"° flafarfag 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 CUUR0000SAO) Table 4.2 Households by Occupancy Persons Living in Number of Households % Share Household (1989) 1 person 2217 320 2 persons 2521 370% 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 with needed by Desired year 2018, year 2018, 2.2 persons per year 2018, Vacancy Rates Housing Unit Type total units at 1.75 at 1.9 built 1990-98 household at 2.4 people (Based people per people per (city wide avg.) per persons s per household household household household) 14v1fi-funny roidrndd(MFR) 32.6% 466 429 r ., 12`:Id e vi l;. 340 Muli,i-funily roidmual dcterad: 4.4% 63 58 M5 46 !}= 46 (MFR-D) M ttcwrd awsina unia:0'" 0.5% 7 6 r 5 Muwfacwned M1wuina°nia in 1.60/6 23 21 20 17 Pub:(MfB) W.dUe....4-m 1.4% 20 Is is roidmfid wit(°):(MV) �s+: Sieglo-fwily roidwtid Deuced: 51.1% 731 673 ' 533 (SFR) �uSi°alo-fwily resideefiJ Awrlyd: $,3% 76 70 - 67 55 �-69& . (SFR-A) Yc Gwunmwteui.W hunins:(GA) 3.1% 44 41 39 32 41 r • tom. � S� , y. . ..fi a� :'{?'' . 0 3 �,f,.,'ute'y �3..qg, s. �nta ;Iwa3ww �fµ t�-x`-Ew1.H3,1'Ist9sw��.ae.. 1263 ar 'k.''"vl s��.y9 ��._m .a..tr. riH#xv Percentage of Type Modified to reflect Anticlpated Development MFR .30% 429 395 v 79 313 98 az fi , 52 MFR-D eve s6 sz 50 a MH 1% 14 13 - 10 ! t : 266 MW 2s% 36 33 32 , t.ar 2 . ' a" .8w. 4 . MU 2% 29 26 25 ...r 2l ° 470 - SFR as% 644 593 (8, ,588 SFR'A 12.5% 179 16s 5$ 130 6e x ° °cus'� 31 �:. GA 3/. 43 40 3 � faA`: �� max ,€ t . °'r 1 it MTOk°il�$ "1" '(� l 444301 y"' a 1317 kar> ii"1"263f" ,�*,.- x,1043` 13!111` 16 Determination of whether the supply ofresidential 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 Awe eF,oar,w.(in SgFQb/ 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 increasing land prices and housing prices. As Ashland's housing prices rise it is likely that market �, y< F ,. pressures will encourage the construction of more affordable housing. To plan for this contingency staff 0 R.I.0 Rd-6 RR-,4�1 a RZ S RJ•- has determined that an increase in the allocation of SFR-A housing is justified. Calculation of amount of residential 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 between 1990 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'/: 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% 200/6 11% Downtown 100/. Employment 2% 55% Health Care 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 MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA Commercial 20% Downtown 100% Employment 55% Health Care 10% 2% 100/6 High Density Residential 33% 4% 15% 20% Low Density Residential 3% 60/ 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 Designations MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA Commercial Er"fr*3; Downtown 3 ,3 ��a 6 Employment 14 X14` Health Care 40 12 16 68 High Density 131 2 2 32 - t ._ Residential Low Density 2 35 7 Residential Multi-family 187 13 33 4 12 33 40 322 Residential _. Single-family 20 35 11 500 23 -589 Residential Southern Oregon 20 '0 University - Suburban Residential 58 S•8 Woodland 29 29 ffi.Ns:in dec� L-Mr, MOV �2 40 Qlts a .s rt�.It] Z w +, r �, 20 r . Table 5.3 Residential Land Need (Acres) by Housing Type and Comprehensive Plan Designations ax.,�� Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified and Actual Net Densities(Units per Net Acre(table 3.1)) I,M - Designations Needed m MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA rNe"ticres (11.97) (5.8) (6.32) (10.87) (8.06) (4.67) (18.33) (6.15) Commercial .62 fin a 1 Downtown .37 e i""-`e' 7P-= Employment 1.74 f 1.74 Health Care 3.34 2.57 .87 8� Al. High Density Residential 10.94 .34 .32 1.75 3A �e s Low Density Residential .34 7.49 3 Multi-family Residential 15.62 2.24 3.04 .50 2.57 1.80 6.50 , 2t2T Single-family Residential 1.67 6.03 1.74 107.07 1.25 16 t7&- Southern Oregon University 1.67 ME Suburban Residential 3.16 Woodland 6.21 ' ++6 � .„ � +C' F.a e�*6 � i1 eede ,332 �8� 5 X3.04 3M23 �L � 1 3 5 21 Table 6 Residential Land Need/Availability Comparison by Comprehensive Plan Designations Additional Residential Land Land Needed Net Acres Supply availability (acres) Buildable Difference Needed in Years COMPPLAN for 20 year Acres (Net Buildable (at the close Residential Available Acres- Land of the within Development (within Needed) planning within City (1999-2018) UGB) period) UGB Limits Commercial 62 8.47 7.85 Surplus not residential Downtown .37 0.15 -0.22 0 2 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 12.25 12.25 LDR g27 40.07 32.24 Surplus 102.25 102.25 MFR 46.27 14.0 Surplus 28.5 10.25 SFR 215.56 97.8 Surplus 36.6 31.25 SFRR 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 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 Di(ferenceua Commercial Eskimakeof *Pse a, Total Acres Commercial s* Mxs y Buildable bet gen M developments Total Acres..k. r ,. ZONE P Used Developments Acres (1990-98) ged0iluj l�1Ce 1990-98 s Anticipated Available btltty lincludes C& (199,9 208) MU (1999-2018) t " � C-1 9 10.78 20 ia`.m . 24< 8.5 C-1-1) 3 1.13 72-5 � .15 2#35 E_1 40 34.35 89 ` 76 86 +10 M-1 2 1.38 4 3 55 MM k 65 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 (Surplus/Deficit) Airport not evaluated as residential 0 C1'x 0 Commercial not evaluated as residential 5 notalualaa residential Downtown not evaluated as residential 3 ot�evaluatetl�s resides.al' Employment not evaluated as residential 14 noQcv uago a; 4sidentiel HC 104 68 36 unit surplus { HDR 163 167 Loitydefi¢�� 4P"a�ltl 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 -18 unit daef�Wib ike y Woodland 11 likely(27 total possible) 29 '(4 unit deli it with,engm 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 i 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 landmeeded 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-I 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 HEADWATERS ROADLESS POLICY " Inventoried Roadless Areas Policy: 1) Inventoried roadless areas should be protected as wilderness or recieve some other form of protective designation. 2) Development or intensive management (timber sales, roads or any other development) within the boundaries of these areas should not take place. 3) The Rogue River, Winema, Siskiyou and Klamath National Forests as well as the Medford District of the BLM should place a minimum of a ten year moratorium on activites within these areas in order to allow time to place them under wilderness orother protection regardless of their status under the Northwest Foerst Plan or other planning documents. During this time, these areas should be removed from the timber base and the PSO reduced. * Uninventoried Roadless Areas POLICY: 1) These areas will be identified and defined soon. In the meantime, all uninventoried roadless areas over 1,000 acres should be protected. 2) Once identified and defined, they should be formally analyzed by the agencies for inclusion in the wilderness system or other protected status. The analysis should include an EIS and associated public input. 3) Until they are analyzed, there should be no activity in these areas that would degrade their present or potential wilderness value or other protected status. * WILDERNESS RECOVERY AREAS POLICY: 1) As these areas are identified and defined, agencies should formally analyze their suitability for protection. This analysis should include the importance and future importance of the area to recovery, wildlife and recreation values as well as other important features. 0 COW � 'H° a 3 c O w � c o A a 0 3j> C w to oL ° : � y � � ° •e p n � n o `e � •e � w o C > > _ `< EA`e A'e n 33 v, y3 vi " x — `" �, x ❑ rn � vi ❑ ° vn m w H w, w3�9. � . v, N C N, m °' o T ry w " > > o p o 2 ►.. N m N V+ FC+I (D ° 'O 9 Vi 9 o v°i .°. S ry 3 j O 9 9 9 3 9 F eD .n°. N o a°o y w w o F w w m y ce _ 3 CD CD a (D V r _ s ° co co n co 3 a A 3 3 A A A H A n 0 N 0 0 0 m N O N ^Q^ N N �AA ♦I N N V1 N N r� i ° vy 93m n to �, x � mrnxinF - 0 c� AXX �_ a N N ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ C ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ C W ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ G m W n � 0 ^ x7y n n n n3 c yro0 � �_ a °A ti w w C C 00 0o Ov 00. :i to O w (7 w ro O p, C. 00 w °— ° ro 7 ro O lTJ o � � 'o'' ^ vii y w .7. w W w w A w � OI=0 � � n• .7. p^ (7 y 7 .�, .- � c y c w 77�y w pb do°o ° o' Lo A 3 n co w O w o 5 m °w rn 0 CL CEj' CL o w w 5 w cno °° a 7 fD � o o0 0 "c) 0 �_ a � ro w � V co n 0 0 3 CD 0 c0 r 0 0 pr D CD 0 CL A m m m m City Council Communication Administrative Services Department Exemption from Competitive Bidding December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Dick Wanderscheid Approved By: Paul Nolte K Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Resolution exempting from competitive bidding an extension to the contract for advertising for the Ashland Fiber Network(AFN). Synopsis: The City executed the original contract for advertising for AFN with the communications group, inc. on December 11, 1998. An addendum to this contract was signed on July 21, 1999. On November 16, 1999 the City Council passed an amendment to the competitive bidding resolution which removed advertising from the list of items which were exempt from competitive bidding. The attached resolution would provide a one-time exemption to extend the contract with the communications group, inc. through the entire rollout period,which is estimated to occur over a 12 to 18 month period. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the exemption. Background Information: Even though advertising at the time was exempted from competitive bidding, staff chose to solicit bids from five agencies however, only one agency responded. Subsequently an additional agency, the communications group, inc., was asked to submit a bid. They responded and were selected to provide this service. Marketing of AFN services will soon be entering a critical phase, as residential services will soon be launched in the first nodes of service. Staff has worked with the communications group, inc. and has an extensive marketing campaign on the shelf and ready to implement quickly. This firm has been very responsive and creative in their approach to helping the City market AFN. Their local expertise and resources have allowed them to respond rapidly with the necessary marketing skills on this quickly changing project. Staff feels that to go out and request bids at this critical stage of the project would be ill advised. We cannot afford the time necessary to competitively bid this out, bring a new firm up to speed and develop new approaches prior to the need to initiate this next important marketing phase of this project. The AFN business plan projects advertising, marketing and public relation expenses for year 2 and half of year 3 at about $143,000. Projecting that the actual length of rollout will be between 12 and 18 months, the total cost for this extension should be between $93,000 to $143,000. RESOLUTION NO. 99- BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING THE CONTRACT WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LCRB RESOLUTION INC FOR ADVERTISING INCLUDING PUBLIC RELATIONS, MARKETING AND DESIGNING AND PREPARING ADVERTISING FOR PUBLICATION. Recitals: A. AMC § 2.50.030.B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds (1)the lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract; and (2)the exemption will result in substantial cost savings. B. This code provision provides that in making such findings, the board may consider the type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as the board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the board shall direct the use of alternate contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modern or innovative contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of encouraging competition. C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the board shall adopt written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption of a contract or class of contracts complies with the requirements of AMC § 2.50.030.B. The board adopts the information contained in the council communication dated December 7, 1999 from Dick Wanderscheid as findings justifying the exemption. The board finds that this exemption will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract and the exemption will result in substantial cost savings. The board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows: Contract with communications group, Inc. for advertising including public relations, marketing and designing and preparing advertising for publication. This exemption is limited to the extension of the existing contract for a period not to exceed 18 months from the date this resolution is adopted. 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 ev wed as t fo Paul NdIte, City Atto ey PAGE 1-LCBR EXEMPTION (FAUSER\PAUL\CRMLCRB%CRB res advertising communications group.wpd) Completed projects by the communications group, inc. December 1998 — November 1999 • Development of overall marketing plan • Three AFN logo designs for consideration by the City Final Brand name • Final AFN logo design • Business cards • Letterhead and envelopes • Illustrations (house, cityscape, speed) • City Hall/Utility Billing counter redesign • AFN data sell sheet • AFN internet sell sheet • AFN television sell sheet • Channel line-up flyer • Channel line-up direct mail/response survey • JPR ad for channel line-up and community input • Folders/media kits and contents • Statement stuffers • "It's worth the wait"advertisements (photos and copy) • Movie screen ad • Living and Doing Business ad • July 4`h Hillah Temple logo/display/posters • Electric Department vehicle logo/design • AFN web site/design • Internet Service Provider ads (photo and copy) • AFN print television ads (photos and copy) • Assortment of ads for print media"From Ashland to Anywhere" • Generic "world" ad design and copy • Radio ad for Grizzly/SOU sports broadcasts • AFN Power Point presentations • Co-op ad guidelines for ISPs • Coordination and placement of media buys Council Communication Public Works Department Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown / Reviewed by: Paul Nolte I1NI,✓ Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Hear Petitions for/and any Objections to the Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street Synopsis: In July 1999, the City received the attached petition from property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street requesting the remaining portion of a sixteen foot wide alley extending from Bush Street westerly 100 feet be vacated. City staff recommended that a five foot wide pedestrian and bicycle access easement be reserved to access property towards Laurel Street. The First United Methodist Church of Ashland sent the attached letter objecting to the easement. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 1999 with the intent of resolving the bicycle and pedestrian easement conflict and other issues. The Planning Commission approved the vacation request with a reservation for the five foot pedestrian and bicycle easement, along with other conditions as outlined below. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting a public hearing on January 18, 2000 for the purpose of hearing objections to the vacation of the remaining 100 foot section of the Bush Street alley. Background Information: The sixteen foot wide alley connecting Laurel and Bush Streets was dedicated to the City as part of the original 1888 town plat. The alley, which is located in block 25 of the original town plat was 300.75 feet long. In 1982, under ordinance No. 2197 (instrument No. 82-07723), the northerly 200.75 feet was vacated to accommodate the construction of Wesly Hall by the First United Methodist Church. The remaining 100 feet of the alley off Bush Street, while still public, serves mainly the two adjacent lots; 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street. The property at 159 North Main Street \ is a multi-unit travelers accommodation with a six space parking lot accessed from the alley. The alley provides the necessary back-up space for the head-in parking. The property at 63 Bush Street is a single family residence. The alley provides access to a detached garage located at the rear of the property. The property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street are proposing to vacate the alley and return ownership of the land to their adjacent parcels. The alley is 1,611.2 square feet in size. The property owners are proposing to divide the area equally in half so that the eastside property line of 63 Bush Street would be moved to the west eight feet. The property at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street would both be increased by 805.6 square feet if the alley is vacated and the property divided as proposed. 1':'.l!JIfR.1':\I!1:\`(1 tl'N(.11.('('ltu"li tiIlco Allc, \'ataliou I'll URULd .' The property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street have submitted a letter agreeing to provide a five foot wide public pedestrian and bicycle easement the length of the alley. The neighbors propose to locate the easement on the west side of the alley which would become the property of 63 Bush Street. The vacation was initiated in order to increase the rear yard of 159 North Main Street, and the side yard of 63 Bush Street. Currently, both properties have non-conforming structures which do not meet current setback requirements located adjacent to the alley. The addition of eight feet to each property and subsequent movement of the property lines would change the buildings to a conforming status because an adequate amount of property would be added to each parcel. After the adjustment, any additions to the accessory structures would simply require a building permit. Recently, the First United Methodist Church of Ashland erected a fence along their property } f abutting the north end of the alley. Prior to the installation of the fence it was physically possible for a pedestrian or cyclist to use the alley and C Wesley Hall parking lot to go from Bush Street to 111114111111111111111 Laurel Street and vice versa. The church submitted a letter in opposition to the public pedestrian and bicycle easement(copy attached, dated July 26, 1999). The letter states that the church has had problems with"transients using the area". This issue was presented in public hearing to the Planning Commission on November 9, 1999. The vacation was approved with the following conditions: 1. That a public pedestrian and bicycle easement, a minimum of five feet in width shall be provided connecting the Bush Street right-of-way to the north end of the existing alley. 2. That mutual access easements shall be recorded for the properties located at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street so that the area which was formerly a public alley can continue to be used as a shared driveway and back-up space. 3. That the public pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be kept free and clear of any objects including but not limited to temporary structures, landscaping, refuse/recycling containers, vehicles and fencing. 4. That the small shed and refuse/recycling containers currently located in the alley shall be removed from the public pedestrian and bicycle easement. 5. That the existing pavement/vehicular access shall remain in place. 6. That any fencing on adjacent properties shall be located outside the public pedestrian and bicycle easement so that the full width is unobstructed. It is felt that conditions at the end of the alley may change in the future to allow pedestrian access through and that the easement could be a vital future pedestrian link. The petition to vacate the property has been verified and the required $500 filing fee paid. V.'.USI.RA-M IA(j)k \(.IL('C Ipnh`1"O Ally. V.r::e ism 1911 d(UI:.. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR A PETITION FOR, AND ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSH STREET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 4.16 and ORS 271.080 to 271.150, the City Council of the City of Ashland will conduct a public hearing on January 18, 2000 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon, to hear the petition for, and any objections to, the vacation of a portion of an alley off Bush Street with a reservation for a five foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement as described on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The City Recorder is directed to give notice of the petition and hearing by publishing a notice in.the Daily Tidings, once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing and such other notice as may be required by ORS 271.110. 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 1 — RESOLUTION G:Paula\City CouncillResolution Bush Street Alley Public Hearing.doc ` V EXHIBIT A Description of the Vacation of a Portion of an Alley off Bush Street in the City of Ashland: A portion of that sixteen foot wide alley situated in Block 25 of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the Official Plat thereof adopted by the Ashland City Council on November 5, 1888. Said vacation shall include the remaining 100 feet of alley adjacent to Lots 3 & 4 of said Block 25. RESERVING THERE FROM An easement for pedestrian and bicycle use, five feet in width and situated along the length of the alley with the north boundary being contiguous to the centerline of alley. City of Ashland Engineering Division Description of Alley Vacation and Easement Reservation NOVEMBER 23, 1999 G:Paula\Council\Bush Street Alley Exhibit A.doc 00 3A I 1 8 3 1 1]a r ] a 3 1 9 C Ne I y .... . ..... . r,4 cr, cr I I y I I HNI I 7 I to I (o On -��� •. .. �.: .� ,.. •�•� i� �� i�, : . ,:• �• �� •�i�•♦•• .�.4.. 3V _ t£o .. r . � � � � ' =e ��} "] .l � {�:��';. � .� —_ � _/ 1 �° TT r-) ( L �1 I b ,� n : - -JUL 2 8 lacq July 26, 1999 Mardi Young President of Trustees First United Methodist Church of Ashland 175 North Main Street Ashland, Oregon, 97520 Mr. James H. Olson Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Vacation of Alley off Bush Street Dear Mr. Olson, We were recently asked to sign a petition to vacate the balance of an alley leading from Bush St. to our property line. The first portion of this alley was vacated several years ago when our church constructed Wesley Hall and the adjacent parking lot. The petition was signed, but we have a concern. In a letter from the petitioners it was stated that the City of Ashland wants to retain a five foot wide easement from Bush Street that will end at our property line. It is the intention of the Church to secure the area at the end of the alley with a fence on our property line. There have been some problems with transients using the area, which is next to a building that is used as a children's classroom by day and church group meeting room at night. We do not understand why the City wants to retain this five foot wide strip of land that dead ends into our property. We are not in favor of the easement. Please clarify the City's reasoning for requiring the easement in connection with this application for vacation. Thank you for your attention to this matter in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Mardi Young cc: Trustees Jon & Carmen Reinhardt, Petitioner Robin Foster—Colleen Curran, Petitioners Date Filed: '71z PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near 9/ tl A/0JR6,3 13/(3 / 57RrEr do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 667/3%of the affected area which lies within 200 feet On either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. NAME DDA RESS TAX LOT NO. 1 S7 A/. 14.:v1 3100 2 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) I. Tel- k being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures>_ddlffi► ion4oprrwwwrf are the signatures of the persons owning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. A Sig Lure Notary FMbli6 K Fr-iaasegt My Commission Expires /6- 44 gLI.EN T�iY/7855 S41FUgE1 CCI.IL ISSi ` G:Dam%StreetNaaBon Petigon. m _ Date Filed: '712 PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near IS`J ti.nj/At 9 Un/ {(n3 11//.St/ S%l rc7 do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 662/3%of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. NAME ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. 1 SL 2 ' 1L /Yo $hv.z SV etbt 1 3.5013370/ 4 "` 71"L Z90(2� 5 5?s-nC�) T 5 s 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) I, "Toff f. &G/A � 66 being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures vanosiiw Fare the signatures of the persons owning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. Sign J re Notary Pu IC 11 //! OFFICIAL SEAL M Commission Expires 1D-0 -q7 MARY LYNNLEWALLEN My P COMMISSION NO.047855 NI caw"pUM(VIRIS OCT.n.IN2 G'.DewM.StrwttVsutbn PntRIM.WpA Date Filed: 71 .��2-J PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near S9 k/. ti(A I✓ Aioloi' L K (-S/f 17- do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 662h%of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. S�AM ADDRESS TAX LOT NO 1 low zxl �� gs� OU z 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) 1. 7'0'✓j-)- %yllalu� being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures ate — are the signatures of the persons wning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. / 1' Signa re Notary Pu c My Commission Expires L. . OFFICIALS'-AL 1NOTARY RY LYNN LEWALL_.c AWSSON NO.047855 C=mIS9198 EXPIRES OCT.IL 1999 G:o"nL ueov=fion Pattw.npd • Date Filed: 7/ 7"fir PETITION We he undersigned property owners residing on or near •O , do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 667/3%of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. MAI 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures 1olonl0ft �tar�are the signatures of the personprowning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. T L Sign e Notary Public �� _�� / �/ of taus=_AL My Commission Expires ! fJ ARY LYNN LE WALLF-.N NCTAFY ?GBi.IC CA C'. , i COMMt%�IpM 04,855 MV coMMlsi'ON E;P RES�L 1,}sy9 G:DawASUWVW tiw Peldbn.wPd Council Communication Legal Department Canvass of the Vote and Mayoral Proclamation December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte � Approved by: Mike Freeman 1„K-L Title: A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2, 1999, and Mayoral Proclamation. Synopsis: The resolution and proclamation set forth the results of the election on November 2, 1999, and make the canvass a matter of record as required by the city charter. Recommendation: Council should adopt the resolution, and the mayor should make the proclamation. Background Information: Article VII, Section 6, of the City Charter requires that the canvass of votes for all city elections be made, and the results of the election"shall be entered in the record of the proceedings of the council."The resolution sets forth the vote for each measure, and the proclamation sets forth the passage or failure of each of ballot measures, all as required by this charter section. F:\USER\sh.,Iene\COUNCIL\Co.n unicadons\camass of the vote,0299.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999. RECITALS: A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 7`h day of December, 1999, at the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 2nd day of November 1999. B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes for the measures as follows: 15-3 General Obligation Bond Authorization for Public Yes 4.207 Library Remodel and Expansion No 2,2.082 15-4 General Obligation Bond Authorization for Public Yes 4,137 Fire Station Expansion No 2,072 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Measure 15-3, which posed the following question is declared to have passed: "Shall the city be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,960,000? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to limits of Sections 11 and 11 B, Article XI, of the Oregon Constitution." SECTION 2. Measure 15-4, which posed the following question is declared to have passed: "Shall the city be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,140,000? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to limits of Sections 11 and 11 B, Article XI, of the Oregon Constitution." This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of December, 1999. . Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor R we a. t Paul Note, City Attorney PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE F 1U SEMshadene\COU NCIL\E LEC-11.99.RES.wpd PROCLAMATION rGns , I, Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at nd� 1999 the election held in thet ity of Iand,`Oreg0% onTj dby�of November, , �i� SRI there was submittedA the votersla`measure regarding/general obligation bond authorization for public library remodel and expa s on which pose the question: "Shall the city be authorized to issueigeneral,obligation bohds in an amountonot to exceed ,d /�� o "Lithia Water" - � $5,960,000?":This�measure is declared to haV6ib`sled with 4,207-affirmativNotes to 2,082 negative vos;.and°voterturnoufbeing great han the required 50%. A second, easure`re6arding general obligation bond authonzation for public fire I � �N 4Y LT'' " ,f 'r� KfTat� ei station expansion,was �Ubpjm/itted to the v '-trerstwhich posed the questions"Shall the city be authorized tokissu jje'jlggeyneralEobligation bonds in an amouht nouto exceed $3,140;000?" is asu reis eciared to have passed with 4,1'37 affirmative votes,to 2,072 negative votesKan d,voter turnout being greater than ti 50% >i Dated/at Ashland Oregon this day of December , 1999.E ✓� �_ ;�" �1 s� � ��T�'� �:�� ✓ ms's ` Cathenne M. Shaw, Mayor � , < ( =1 CD \ §} § m/ \ k k§ § \ b ( m § 9 ` a \ z /( \ OE 3 z � m§ Z. £ _ o « �f k ® 7k oil £ , a , _ , ) `° Cl) f ( ) • @ * \ = Q { k k § § § _ $ $ \ § ) § \ ( ( / § § \ \ f § V / . _ , _ %0 W f { \ p ` E _ � ƒ . . f e 77 � E mk ){ §q | \ \ / E / W tv ) ¢ � § CA G � } (k . § 8 q§)!f f .f ) § )( §/§ J § q m { 7 0\0 ƒ § 77 { ) 2 / i $ ` k ! ! w , w tA NO , , , . • ! ® . A � ( n \ T Council Communication Legal Department Telecommunication Fees December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Noltev- Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Adopting Fees for Telecommunication Registration, Applications, Construction, Franchises and Other Services under Ashland Municipal Code Title 16; and Repealing Resolution 98-24 Synopsis: This resolution sets forth the fees authorized in the city's telecommunications ordinance adopted in March 1998 and codified as Title 16 in the Ashland Municipal Code. The council recently adopted numerous amendments to the ordinance, some of which require that fees specified in the ordinance be set by resolution of the council. This resolution sets those fees as required by the ordinance. Recommendation: Move to adopt the resolution. Background Information: The council previously adopted Resolution 98-24 which established franchise fees for telecommunication carriers subject to the city's telecommunications ordinance. This resolution readopts the same franchise fees set forth in Resolution 98-24 and adopts other fees (such as application and review fees and construction permit fees), the amounts of which were previously listed in the telecommunications ordinance. This resolution addresses for the first time the pavement degradation fee which was added to the telecommunications ordinance by the recently adopted amendments. Other than the pavement degradation fee, this resolution does not add any fees to the existing telecommunications fee structure nor does it increase any fees previously specified in the telecommunications ordinance. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\mte reso d99 mwpd) t `e RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION REGISTRATION, APPLICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION, FRANCHISES AND OTHER SERVICES UNDER ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 16; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 98-24 Recitals: A. The city's telecommunications ordinance adopted in 1998 and codified in Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code provides that the city council will set telecommunication franchise fees by resolution. B. Telecommunication franchise fees are established by the city for the purpose of assuring that the city's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to, and the use of, public rights-of-way are fully compensated by the persons seeking such access and causing such costs and to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the city and its residents for permitting private use of the public right of way. C. Recent amendments to Title 16 require that the council set certain other telecommunication-related fees by resolution, and this resolution is intended to implement such Title 16 requirements. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Registration fee. The registration fee for telecommunication carriers is established in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) section 16.08.030 as being equal to the license fee for a new business as provided in AMC Chapter 6.04. SECTION 2. Construction Permit Fee. (AMC § 16.12.070). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, prior to issuance of a construction permit for construction within the public right of way, the applicant must pay a permit fee equal to $250.00 or six-tenths of one percent (0.6%) of the estimated cost of constructing the telecommunications facilities, whichever is greater. SECTION 3. Diminished Pavement Life Fee. (AMC § 16.12.075) For any construction requiring pavement cuts within a public right of way, the amount to be paid to reimburse city for the pavement degradation and shortened pavement life that results from such cuts is established as follows: PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Tele mmunic tions\rate reso d99.wpd) r For Longitudinal Excavations: Age of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $3.50/linear foot of excavation Between 5 and 10 years $3.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $2.00/linear foot Over 15 years $1.00/linear foot For Transverse Excavations: Age of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $7.00/linear foot Between 5 and 10 years $6.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $4.00/linear foot Over 15 years $2.00/linear foot *The age of the street pavement where excavation occurs will be the period of time since the street surface was resurfaced, overlaid or reconstructed, measured from the fiscal year in which such work was completed to the fiscal year when a permit is issued for the excavation. SECTION 4. Application and Review Fee. (AMC § 16.20.040). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, the applicant must pay a review fee of$250.00. SECTION 5. Franchise Fee. (AMC § 16.24.070) A telecommunications grantee must pay a franchise fee to the city, through the duration of its franchise, as follows: A. For all grantees except as provided in paragraphs B and C, a fee of 5 percent of gross revenues paid quarterly. The minimum quarterly fee will be $1,000. Gross revenue is defined in section 16.04.040.L of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The franchise fee for a telecommunication utility shall equal 7% of its gross revenue on exchange access services earned within the boundaries of the city. C. For limited use telecommunications grantees, a minimum annual fee, payable in advance, of $4,000 or $1.22 per linear foot of right-of-way used, whichever sum is greater. This fee will increase annually in July of each year, by multiplying the fee by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of March preceding the July in which the fee is to be increased and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure. As used in this section, "Index" refers to the All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. 'Base CPI Index Figure' will refer to the Index number indicated for the PAGE 2-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Tele mmunic tionsVate ms d99.wpd) c \ month of March, 1998, and the "CPI Index Figure' for any other month will refer to the Index number for that month. Beginning July 1, 2001, the fee will be $2.50 per linear foot. This fee will increase annually by the CPI Index as set forth above. The base CPI will be March of 1998. 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. SECTION 6. Resolution 98-24 is repealed. 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 11999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor R�ai as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 3-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\rate reso d99.wpd) Council Communication Public Works Department Jurisdictional Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street /J 'J December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown Approved by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Accepting Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street from Jackson County to the City of Ashland Synopsis: Currently the section of Clay Street between Siskiyou Boulevard and E. Main Street is under Jackson County jurisdiction. Under this proposal,2840 feet of this portion of Clay Street,the northern portion within the City Limits, would become the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland. Jackson County has offered a one-time payment of$80,000 as compensation for assuming the jurisdiction of this street to assist with maintenance and improvement costs. This offer is based upon County road standards and includes the cost,of paving a 33-foot wide street section with-three inches of asphalt. As is the practice of Jackson County, an additional 20% has been added to the total amount for long term maintenance. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the attached agreement transferring jurisdiction of 2840 feet of Clay Street to the City of Ashland. Approval of this agreement will place Clay Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to approximately 400 feet north of Ashland Street within the jurisdiction of the City. Background Information: The section of Clay Street between Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland Street is the most patched and roughest street within the City. The original surface was placed by Jackson County and consists of an oil mat on an existing soil base. There is little to no aggregate base under the pavement. The pavement thickness is less than one inch in some areas. The section to be transferred is the entire northern section of Clay Street that is within the City Limits and includes the portion between Siskiyou Boulevard and the frontage road south of Ashland Street(Highway 66)and from the frontage road north of Ashland Street to a point 365 feet northerly. The total length of street to be transferred would be approximately 2840 feet. Most of the Clay Street area was annexed into the City under the `Bellview Annexation" in May 1964, Ordinance No. 1350. The unimproved roads within the annexation area remained under County jurisdiction and included Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road. It will be necessary to completely reconstruct the street between Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. The surface must be excavated, base rock placed, and curb and gutter installed. Storm drains and sidewalks will also be needed to bring the street to City standards. It is anticipated that a Local Improvement District will be formed to help fund the remaining costs of the street improvement project within the next three years. G:Paula\Council\CC Clay Jurisdiction.doc RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TRANSFER OF A PORTION OF CLAY STREET FROM JACKSON COUNTY TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND Recitals: A. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County has adopted an order pursuant to ORS 373.270 authorizing the surrender of jurisdiction over a portion (described below) of Clay Street ("the Street") to the City of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland deems it necessary or expedient and for the best interests of the City to acquire jurisdiction of the Street. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland accepts the county order and offer to surrender jurisdiction of the Street as described in the attached agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland letter dated November 10, 1999. SECTION 2. The mayor is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. 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 1-RESOLUTION (G:Paula\Council\Clay Street Transfer Resolution.doc) Ln lD n DO I a) 1 0 • c 3 a a T ?t a 9 1 a I C pRERTE EMU arts 7 1 1 1 4 6 a: s I I A 3 3 3 A 4 1 cr C/)(Z) a 2 T r 3 at c I f I Z a :: : I I e::r Of In I LO n 1 CC) E• MAIIV ST. r E~ , a q U a ASHLAND , dw c i U • I J ` � i a a CITY OF ASHLAND _ U SCALE: 1"=700' ® - PROPOSED JURISDICITONAL 0.1 0 0.1 Mies ' EXCHANGE AREA CLAY ST. -JACKSON COUNTY AIN Joseph L.S[rehl,P.E. Direclor JACKSON COUNTY 200 Antelope ROaO White City,Oregon 97503 (sot)774-e1e4 Fax:(547)830-6407 Roads October 4, 1999 iL Jim Olson Engineering Services Manager i.. City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Jim: Enclosed is an Agreement for the transfer of jurisdiction of portions of Clay Street. Please submit the agreement to the City Council for approval and the Mayor's signature,then return all three of the signed copies to me to submitted to the Board of Commissioners. The dollar amount is based on 2,475 feet of road south of Highway 66 and 365 feet of road north of Highway 66, a pavement width of 33 feet, asphalt depth of 3 inches,a unit price of$32.00 per ton on the portion south of Highway 66 and $35.00 per ton for the portion north of Highway 66 with 20 percent added to the total dollar amount. The higher price per ton for the northerly section is based on a small tonnage of asphalt. Thank you for your c eration in this matter. Since l Dale etr E. County Engineer enclosures sw cc: Joseph L. Strahl ASHLANDJEX992JIM.WPD BEAR CREEK GREENWAY / ENGINEERING / FLEET MANAGEMENT / MOTOR POOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 774-6231 774.8184 7748181 776-7339 774.8183 774.8184 7746307 CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 November 4, 1999 Mr. Dale Petrasek, P.E. Jackson County Engineering 200 Antelope Road White City OR 97503 RE: CLAY STREET JURISDICTIONAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Dear Dale: Thank you for providing the agreement for the jurisdictional exchange for Clay Street in Ashland. In the past, the City has not been anxious to assume the maintenance of Clay Street primarily due to its extremely poor condition. It will take a major reconstruction of the street to bring it to City standards. The cost will be much more than experienced for similar jurisdictional upgrades. We hope that the County's financial offer might reflect this extra effort required on Clay Street. As we discussed by phone, one compensation might be a reconsideration of the amount of money allocated per ton of asphalt surfacing. As you indicated, $32.00 per ton of asphalt is your standard price based upon the total tonnage of the project. There does, however, appear to be a considerable cost differential for our construction area. The cost of placing asphalt in Ashland has been over$40.00 for several years. Enclosed are some sample bid tabulation sheets for various Ashland project costs. Hopefully,the higher construction costs experienced in Ashland might warrant an increase in your allocated price per ton a shown on the exchange agreement. Please feel free to call me at 488-5347 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ames H. Olson Engineering Services Manager CC: Paula Brown G:Dawn\EngineerUimOlsonUurisdictional Exchange Asphalt Cost Ltr.doc Joseph L Strehl.P.E. Director - - ,JACKSON COUNTY Zoo)774-814 White City,Oregon 97503 (54 1)774-81 B4 Fax:(541)830-8407 Roads November 10, 1999 — City of Ashland Engineering Attention: Jim Olson City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Portion of Clay Street Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is a revised page 2 of subject agreement for jurisdictional transfer of a portion of Clay Street. Please return all three copies to our department for further processing once approved by the City. Sincerely, Sherryll W/Ilace Administrative Assistant cc: Dale Petrasek BEAR CREEK GREENWAY / ENGINEERING / FLEET MANAGEMENT / MOTOR POOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 774-6271 774-8184 774.8184 776.7339 774.8183 774-8184 774-6307 AGREEMENT This Agreement made between Jackson county,apolitical subdivisionof the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as County and the City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City; Recitals A. The County presently has jurisdiction over the Roads (as defined below) within the city limits of the City. Because of the geographical location of the Roads,the costs of maintenance and improvements to the Roads has become unduly burdensome to the County. B. The City is involved in an ongoing street improvement program for roads and streets within the city limits. The City wishes to exercise jurisdiction over the Roads to ensure that the Roads are included within the City's street improvement program. C. ORS 373.270 permits the jurisdiction over county roads to be transferred to a city whenever the county governing board deems it necessary, expedient or for the best interest of the county to surrender jurisdiction,and the governing body of the city deems it necessary or expedient and for the best interest of the city to acquire jurisdiction over the county road to the same extent as it has over other public streets and alleys of the city. D. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County has, after satisfying the notice requirements stated in ORS 373.270(2), (3) and (4), adopted an order authorizing surrender of jurisdiction over the Roads and execution of this Agreement on behalf of the County. E. The City Council of the City has adopted a resolution authorizing the acceptance of jurisdiction over the Roads and execution of this Agreement on behalf of the City. Agreement NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: I. Identification of Roads. This Agreement concerns portions of the following county roads within the City: a. Clay Street,from Siskiyou Blvd to a point 2,475 feet north of Siskiyou Blvd. b. Clay Street, from the State frontage road at Highway 66 to a point 365 feet north of the State frontage road at Highway 66. The roads identified above are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the"Roads". The Roads are shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this agreement by reference. Agreement - 1 2. Transfer of Jurisdiction. The County hereby transfers jurisdiction over the Roads to the City, and the City hereby assumes jurisdiction over the Roads from the County. The City is hereby solely responsible for all construction, improvements, repair, maintenance, levying and collection of assessments and control of access over the Roads. The City shall have the same jurisdiction over the Roads as by its charter and the laws of the State of Oregon are given or granted it over any of the public streets and alleys of the City. 3. Payment by County. Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the County shall make a one time payment to the City in the amount of$80,000.00 as a contribution towards defraying the City's costs of constructing, improving, repairing and maintaining the Roads. After making the payment, the County shall have no further obligation, financial or otherwise, with regard to the Roads. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands on this day of October, 2000. COUNTY: CITY: JACKSON COUNTY CITY OF ASHLAND By: Sue Slack By: Acting County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Doug McGeary County Counsel Agreement- 2 Council Communication Legal Department Ordinance Modifying Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures. Synopsis: This ordinance amends the requirements for demolition and relocation of historic structures within the city. The ordinance no longer bases the requirements on properties which have a historic designation. The purpose of the new requirements is to promote the reduction in volume of solid waste. The amendments clarify the meaning of demolition, which was previously undefined, and establishes new standards, requirements for notice and approval by the newly created Demolition Review Committee before any structure may be demolished or relocated. The property owner must have an approved development plan prior to demolition or relocation and must demonstrate,for structures erected prior to 1955, that demolition/redevelopment is more compatible with the neighborhood than rehabilitation would be. Violation of the ordinance carries enhanced penalties including fines up to the market value of the structure for flagrant violations. Recommendation: Move to approve the ordinance for second reading. Background Information: This ordinance is proposed for the purpose of curing a problem with the city's requirements for the demolition of structures. Currently the city's requirements are unenforceable due to statutory enactments made in 1995 which restricted the city's ability to control the demolition of historic structures. That statute (ORS 197.772) allows a property owner to remove property from any historic designation list compiled by the city. The current demolition ordinance applies only to structures on the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. F:\USER\sharlene\COUNCIL\Communications`demolitiun ord<c 1199.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.04.210 OF, AND ADDING OTHER SECTIONS TO, THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF STRUCTURES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: F nnotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. eletions are {inedihro� and additions are 'shaded. SECTION 1. Section 15.04.210 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 15 04 210 Demolition and-mow g o elocat on+of brmidincts ructures ii A. The purpose of?se6ti6ns1`5 04 21'0`to 15 04^218.is to�prorroteta reduction in__ ,. r a t� volume?of solid waste by'encouragmg all reasonable opportumties,fo rehabilitate -cns afar- r •' ^ r or adaptivelyrreuse extgstructures 'By volume building matenals`form>a large percentage of thesolid�wa"ste stream and contmueuse of'the'building g' materials m existing stuctures,wdl_reduceahA°amount of waste produced; B; Foy purposes of'section"ss1`5OV10 throughU15 04 218;the following terms; phrases, words anWa their tlenvations mean: 1 DemolitionTo�raze destiny;`dismantle, or any act r p�rocess�that may r cause partial or total destructionxof astructure where less Phan 60% of the structures external walls will be r_"etamed in place;.or whereless than+90% of the street'facade will�remam — °--- 2 4: Facade °KThe front or principal face(s)vof a building,someiirnes� - iiistmguished from the other faces'';by.elaboration4of;architectural or r Ziff .:- w ornamental details and diten serving;as:the pnma_ry entrance:,; C Except`_as provided in section 15 04.210,.D, Aa permit is required before a-a_rfy baifding stru6f6r'e.can be moved or demolished or, relocated:pi a feffavaing fees The permit fees for demolition orrrelocation of a structure will beset by resolution of the council. D. No demolition or relocation permif is,'required: 1. For structures of lessthan'500 square feet in sie. Page 1 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:wsERNPAWORD%demliti nord am3.wp0 : . WAR : • WTTTTTTT'--'-'-'--';; . : . In - - . : ol - the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List eii behalf of the taye"Ind the-Eity�etrrteif: 7. An tkl-e��ew tintil the final list is-eertnll- pprove 81 ail act �-n the request for dernofitio��6 3. The y whem it finds the-followinT rneet the minimum foF onejusion in the final fis 248�, S2, 19W. b. That the building in questiom owner. EE. In addition to the enforcement provisions of this Title, the City Attorney may, or upon order of the City Council shall, immediately commence action or proceedings for the prevention of the demolition or moving-relocation of a structure in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will prevent the demolition, moving, removal, or damage to a building or structure, or using property contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies provided for herein in--;tfissection,shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 1': For any!demolition or relocation, in violation of sections 15:04.210 to 15.04.218;the Idourt shall°also.have the authority.to�order,the person convicted of the violation to restore the structure to its condition prior to the demolition or to move and restore the building to its original;site. 2. For any flag rant_violation,.the court may impose•a,fne up to and including the assessed market yalue of.the structure demolished or relocated. A flagrantMolation,is an act by a,person who; after tieing notifiedof a violation, intentionally, contmues't Page 3 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:%USERXPAULWRDWemoilbon ord am3.wpd SECTION 2. The following sections 15.04.212 through 15.04.218 are added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 15.04.212 Demolition-Review Committee. The Demolition Review Committee is established and will consist of'three members: a city councilor appointed by the mayor, a planning commissioner appointed by the chair of the'planning-commission and'the aty building official The^term foi-the appointed members°is'one..year or until their successorware:appointed. The term for.appomted members shall expiring on April 3,0 of 11 each,y6ar,,e,xceptthat the term-for the initial:appointees-shall expire April'30; 2001 -A s. ,. member is•eligible forreappointmentr. �15r04�'214 App ova l°Process:Applications for demolition=or relocatiompecmits will±be dec ded by the DemohtionRevlew Committee who wdLconduct a¢public heanng on eachapplication and_apply thestandards set forth m sections 15 04.216 or 15 04 2.18, for"granting;oi'denymg`the<perrnit A A complete,applicatlon must be submitted totthe budding official and must include all of the;r`.equiredxinformationsfor tFiekspeafic action requested The application must li'e signedby one`or morepropertji'`.owners:of theFpropertytiwhere the structure islocated? TheappljcationriiusYbeacsompa •Hied<by<the:appropriate application`,fee: B` Notice for,hearings before the Demolition Review Committee willbe published in`a daily?newspaper of�9eneral'circulation within the,city at least 14 days prior o the heanng)andEmaded to:the�apPlacant�or authorizedfiagent at le'a'-,s',t,19 days prior_,to the heanngvIh-hdditwn{a3notice mustrbegposted{on the prop.,erty by<tliefapplicant irnsueFi a manner as,to<be clearly visiblehfrom,azpublic right ofiway, at least 14 days prior to ttie dateofftheheanngi Tfi'e applicantymust ceitify,`for,the record of the hearing, that tfe posting was accomplishedThepostedrnotice must confam a brief descnptyonrof+the proposal, the,fime; date and place of th'e hearing,and tte phone,numberand_address f'contactwith the building;official. C Wthm„15 days of tfieThearing, or.withm 15"days of the receiptofthe report described m5sectwn 18 04 216 1°a is received, whichever date is later, the Qemolition Review__ . Committee shall issue its`decision5m,wi itmg and;mail it to',the applicant and�all persons whoappeared"andspoke atahe hearing: Ds The decision of the'pemolition Review Cori mittee"r`nay,be appealed to`the council by,-the applicant or someone who spoke.at the heanng:-In addition; the council may review,the,decision,"' its own'motion.'-The decision=iss;appealed,by fling:,a notice.,of. appeal with the city admirnsttafor ,The appeal fee. asset by resolution ofthe,council; miastlaccom an the notice eaL.Tfie a eal pest be filed=within 15 day's of`the p y pP PP date the decision of the committeeys mailed. The a" eal notice must contain the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement that the,appellant is;the applicant or someone',Whp appeared and testified at the hearing, the date.of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should e.reversed,or.modified, based�on the,�applicable standards. Page 4 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:WSER\PAUL\oRDNdemli0on ord aw7.wp0 E. The notice of appeal, together with notice.of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal'by the Council will be:mailed to the parties at least 20 days'prior-to-the hearing.The appeal before,the council shall be a de novo hearing based solely on the evidence in the record mad&before the Demolition Review.Board: The`applicant shall have the,burden to prove the standards-have,been met. The council mayafflrm; reverse or modify the decision and may.approve or.deny the request, orgTant approval wth'conditions: The Council shall make findings and conclusions,:and make a decision based'on the record•before it asjustification for its action:The Council shall cause copies of a final order to-be sent to all,persons°,participating in.the,appeal,- 15.04:216. Demoliitidhstandardsi A...For,demolition of"sfructures erected pnorito 1_955;thtLapplicant musf demonstrate; t 46ither sub'pa�agr_a_phs two 2 apply_; 1 The strueture cannofbe& habilitated or reused+on site as part of any econorriicallyTbeneficial,use of4the=property.-ln determining=whether an_ econom'ically_beneficial usefcambe mad&of the property_the Demolition Rewew Committee may require the applicant to; a !*Wish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect; developer,br appraiser;"ojotherperson who-is ezperienced�in rehabilitation of'build,ings,that='addressesthe-estimate&market yaiuexofithe property,6nrw,hi8h'th6,buildm_g lies both,before and after demolition;or removal`or fi, Market4,e'property,,utilizmg+a marketing plan approved b'"iition-Review Committee;dr by advertising the:property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford,�,Mail'Tri unehatrleasteight times.and at reguiar intvals for'at east;90 days and,byposting a 1"eefr'f f i � forsale-sign on,tiproperty; ouo six squ&e) eet, msizeand cl" ' rly;'visU— fromjthestreet, for,the;same,.90 day�period 2..,: The;structur d,oroposed•for,demolition is structurally unsound,despite efforts by, tFie'_ownertoproperly,maintain the,structure: B. in addit onto subpaiagraphs 1,or 2 above„the applicant mustalso.demonstrate`: 1;• The structure cannot lie,practicably;relocated to another site:,: 2. The demolition proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact to the character of the neighborhood: within which.the demolition is proposed to occur; 3. The integrity and architectural character ofthe neighborhood where the proposed demolition,is,to take place will not be substantiality diminished or compromised. For the' ,purposes of this;provision, the tgrm Page 5 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:%USER\PAUL\ORD,dem libm ord am3.wpd "architectural character' includes,.but is-,not limited to, height, coverage, setbacks, massing, siting, fenestration; streetscape, alleyscape, materials; and scale,-of materials;, 4. Subsequerit development.on the property:will add:to,the architectural characterof the neighborhood more"thanthestructure tobe;demolished; 5. The demolition proposal mitigates to the-greatest,extent.practical,any impact to`=the"importance,of:otfier structures locafed.on the property and on{adjacent•parcels; 6. The applicanthas.receivetl final°agproval:for a SiWReview Permit pursuant tojsectign,18 72.040 for`tfle,,redevelopinenf plan of?.the ,u onginating site The redevelopment,plan must`provide fora replacement structure;,of a minimum ofk1,000 square`feet and._must be compatible with' or'.enhance the integrity and architectural characterrof the neidbbothood ThisGStandard}may be waived d the°applicant agrees to restrictthe_, pr operty,toopemsPace uses and,a finding.is made thattsucki restriction constitutes a=greatet�beneft to the neightiorhoodthan redevelopment wouand 7 The applicant will`-post withjthe city a°bond :or other=suitable<collateral,as 11 determined by the city administrator, ensuring;the:safe demolition of,the' structure"land thecompleted perf_ormance'of the=redeevelopment plan:' C For demob_ tion of structureserectedtm 1`95b or after,Tthe applicant: r 1> Has,theyt Orden bVproving;the tructure wa§ erected m 1955>or after rAny structuerected..in 1955 or after which replaced a`pre 1955 structure demolished or relocated undersections 15:04 210,fo 15 042h18, shall be: considered a pre 1955 structure subject fo the;stantdards:in'subsections 15 04 216 A and;&.: 2. Must demonstrate that firal approval fora*Site Review Permit pursuant, o section°1;8 72.040 for the redevelopment plan,bf;•the:originatingaite'has been',receive d. The redev elopmeiitaplan,must�provide'for-a-replacement structure=ainj& st be compatible,, 4W(:t enhance',the,integrity,and architectural character of<the neighborhood This'standard rnay,be;waived ifthe:applicant agrees to restrict the.property t&op6h spaceusesand',a finding•.is made that sucl restriction constitutes,a.greater benefit to the neigh .6rhood than rod evelopmer t would D. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition,debris, if feasible and cost-effective as•determined by the Demolition Review Committee:The Committee=may'co,nsult with the Conservation,Commission or others in making such determin'atiori. Page 6 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:�USER\PAUL\ORD\dem libm ord eiw9.wpd Section 15:04.218:Relocation Standards. A. For relocationof'structures erected prior to,1955, the applicant must demonstrate: 1. Thes&ucture cannot be rehabilitated.or reused on its.originating site as part of any reasonable,and benefcial.use of the.property: 2. Relocation is'the besfmethod for-preservation of the charact_er.:and integrity of the structure. 3 The tstructu re,will retau%sufficientfeatures, integrityofdesign materials, workmanship,feeling;and association,so_as to:continue_to convey,;its architectural significanceu 4t The architectural integrity of th&neighborhood ofthe origination site;,and of the structure:itself, will not'be substantiality compromised or, diminished and the'proposal for sutisequent;development on"the,origination.site will add to'tt a character of h' neighborhoods!morethan,the-structure to be mov_etla The structure Js ca able<of withstandin the h sical impacts of ttie 5 P 9<� P Y_ P relocation and ee-"siting',based on,a,structural reportby 6-licensed e?ngineer:attestihdgco the soundness oftt :structure: 6; The applicant has agreed to post withsthe aty abond orother'suitable collate-ai'as:determmedbythe city:administrator, ensuring!,thesafe relocation preservation;srehabilitation and repair ofi hestcucture,' receiving site preparationantl;infrastrucfure connections:, 7. The applicant'has received final approval for a Site Review:Permi4 pursuant to section 18'72.040? or the.redevelopment plan of the originating site..The;redevelopment planmust provide fora replacement__ structure`vof a minimum of 1x,000 square feet and must,be compatible with orenh,ance the integrity and architectural characfet of the.neighborhood: This standard:may be waived iftlie;applicant agrees`to restrict the_, property,to open,space uses,,and•a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater lieneft fo the neighborhood than`redevelopment would+ B. For relocation.of structures erected:in 1955 or after the:applieant, 1. Has the burden of proving'the structure was erected in 1955 or after. Any structure erected in 1955 or after, which replaced a pre-1955 structure demolished or relocated_ under 15.04.210 to 15.042118, shall be. considered a pre-1955 structure subject to the standards in subsections 15,64,216,.A and,B: Page 7 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:UUSERNPAULNORD%demiUm Ord eno9.wpd 2. Must demonstrate that final approval for a Site.Review.Permit pursuant to section 18.72.040 for the redevelopment plan of the originating,site has been received. The redevelopment plan must provide for a,replacement structure for the originating site and must be compatible with or enhance the integrity.and architectural character-of-the-neighborhood. This standard may be waived if the applicant agrees to.restrict the property to open space.uses and a findinb1s.made thatsuch restriction constitutes a greater benefitfto the neighborhood than:redevelopment would. C. For an. n y_relocation.under this section, the applicant mustcomply with the provisions,of Chapter 15.08' SECTION 3. The following section 18.72.040.A.7 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18 72.040 Approval Process. A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor. 7 Redevelopment:plans for:pfoperty,.subject to•the.demolition or relqqqtdni red uirements in4ecti6ns_15 04216 and 15.04.218. 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 8 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:%USER\PAUL%ORO\dem libon ord aw3.wpd MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 16, 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 Minutes of the regular meeting of November 2, 1999 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS 1. Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Robb Robbins of Ashland Fire& Rescue. Mayor Shaw honored Robbins on his retirement from service to the community after twenty years with the Ashland Fire& Rescue. 2. Update and presentation by the Tree Commission. Dan Moore of the Ashland Street Tree Commission introduced commission members Rich Whitall, Bryan Nelson, January Jennings, and Greg Covey. Donn Todt and Bob Kuenzel, commissioners who were unable to attend,were also recognized. Moore explained that the Tree Commission performs three main functions: 1)preserving trees;2)encouraging the correct location for planting of trees; and 3)education about the benefits of trees. It was noted that the street tree list is being updated and that the commission is developing an outreach program in the community to provide education through the schools. Explained that a survey was being conducted to determine curriculum needs related to tree education and urban forestry. Cited the Monterey Cypress tree at Briscoe School as an example of the way a tree nurtures the community over time. Explained their goal in introducing a heritage tree program to protect distinguished trees in the area. January Jennings concluded by reading a poem by William Stafford,Oregon poet laureate,titled "Always. " 3. Mayor's Proclamation of November 22 as "Solutions to Hunger Day." Mayor Shaw read proclamation into the record. Mayor Shaw requested that the appointment of Jim Watson to the Ecomonic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee be placed under Consent Agenda as item #7. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Findings regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval for a site plan permit for the construction of a six unit apartment complex between Helman and Laurel Streets. 3. Termination of a 20-foot wide public utility easement located along the westerly boundary of the properties located at 260,262 and 266 Winter Street(39 lE 05DC 1901, 1902 and 1900). 4. Hendrickson Airport Hangar Rental Agreement. 5. State Police Airport Hangar Rental Agreement. 6. Request for Judge Pro Tern appointment. 7. Mayor appointment of Jim Watson to Economic Development Strategy Ad Hoc Committee. Councilor Reid requested that consent agenda item#3 be pulled and placed under New Business. Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to approve consent agenda items#1,2,4-7. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Page 1 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av./Presented a map and indicated the Ski Ashland Expansion Plan area on the map and noted how it related to the watershed. Stated that this is an important area in terms of erosion. Sophia McDonald/210 California St.,#A/Updated council on activities regarding Southern Oregon University students. Explained that there is discussion regarding the issue of housing in regards to the difficulty in finding large size housing, as well as the issue of discrimination against students. Explained that they have completed their student survey regarding RVTD and will bring the formal results back to council in the future. Brief discussion regarding housing issues and the suggestion that the university look into providing student housing to accommodate students requiring larger apartments. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Oregon Shakespeare Festival proposal for new theater project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:26 p.m. Jo Fries/170 Ridge Rd./Spoke regarding the historic small, quiet town that Ashland was prior to the arrival of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Feels that OSF has only added to the quality and uniqueness of Ashland. Agrees that there is a space needs problem for OSF and supports the proposed plan by OSF for expansion and remodel. Believes that the city and citizens should continue to support OSF. Chuck Keil/586 E. Main St./Noted his economic interest in the proposed plan of OSF,as a B&B owner in town. Explained that his concerns regarding the expansion and the moving of Carpenter Hall were handled very well by OSF,and stated that he is pleased with the discussion and communication on the part of OSF. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Ln./Supports the proposal put forth by OSF,but noted his concern with the direction of OSF in regards to the parking lot. Noted his concern with the festival's wish to reserve the right to ask patrons to pay for the use of the structure. Stated he wouldn't oppose raising the ticket price,but would be against charging for use of the new lot. Joan Steele/332 Glenn St.Noiced amazement that a solution had been reached and voiced her support of the festival and the proposal by OSF. Would like to see some kind of encouragement by the council to the festival to allow more use of Carpenter Hall by community groups. Susan Rust/1026 Henry St.,#2/Stated that she felt the community of Ashland is an integrated whole,consisting of three components. These are the City,OSF and SOU. Explained that these three components maintain a balance in the community and provide diversity,economic prosperity and a unique quality of life. Emphasized that diminishing one component would weaken the whole. Mike LaNier/211 Genesee St., Medford/Explained that he is a land-use consultant representing property owners on Hargadine Street,and stated that their purpose is not to discourage expansion,but to raise issues to be resolved before they lead to conflicts. Recognized that a single purpose review process is inadequate for a project of such a magnitude that it affects the community as a whole. Noted issues regarding transportation related to the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element Policy 23 regarding off-street parking, which he stated is in conflict with the City Municipal Code for the C-1-D zoning district. Stated that policies 24,25 and 36 are applicable and need to be evaluated to look at adequate parking in the downtown. Stated that parking issues need to be examined further and addressed beyond this site-specific process. Questioned how funding was developed for this parking lot originally,and whether the original funding prescribed future uses. Noted current fee�for downtown parking areas, that is in place,and questioned whether the monies collected from that fee will apply to maintain this new structure. Stated that there is a"takings" issue in regards to on-street parking availability. Suggested long-term solutions by looking at forming a district for OSF,an examination of Pioneer Street in regards to parking and the possibility of a closure. Also suggested examining a land use designation for festival usage to work better with the residential district nearby,amending the traveler's accommodation ordinance,and a shuttle service to allow employee parking further from OSF facilities. (Provided copies listing these issues for council.) Page 2 o 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 Michael Bingham/50 W. Nevada St./Commented on his longevity in the community and his thirteen years of owning a restaurant that was dependent on the festival. Recognized the importance of OSF in the community. Feels that we owe OSF reasonable consideration on their proposal. Michael O'Brien/107 Fork St./A neighbor of OSF,commented on his support of OSF and their intention to continue open communication and participation in the proposed plan. Suggests developing a"Committee of 50"to continue to provide participation and support for this proposal. Commented on the respect for OSF that has developed in other parts of the country. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:51 p.m. Mayor Shaw commented on an e-mail received from Colin Swales. Clarified that the city's hotel/motel tax goes into the general fund. Stated that one-third of this tax goes to Economic Development,and two-thirds of that amount goes to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining one-third(of the one-third of hotel/motel tax monies going to Economic Development)goes to the festival. Shaw noted that the parking standards in the downtown area do not require that off-street parking be provided. This is because the city wants buildings to be located on the street,and does not want a lot of parking lots to be placed downtown. Emphasized that this enhances multi-modal transportation and encourages walking. Discussed how the increased number of seats would increase the number of visitors. Paul Nicholson,Chuck Butler and Dan Thorndyke/Representing Oregon Shakespeare Festival/Explained how the size of theater was determined and the problems associated with placing the building on this property. Emphasized that the Black Swan is too small for the current use, and with construction there are Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) issues which need to be addressed as well. Indicated on the map the size and height of the proposed building, noting that the peak of the roof will be 28 feet above the Hargadine Street level, with the eaves to be 14 feet over the street. Noted that these issues are all part of the planning process and the festival expects that all of these will be looked at in light of city ordinances through the planning process. Councilor Reid expressed her concern with creating the perception that this is a"done deal." Stated that she would like to see less discussion of details and encourage the public to participate in the actual planning process. Emphasized that the matter before council at this stage is just to initiate the planning process. Councilor Laws commented that one of the problems involved in this project is the limitation associated with the planning process being limited in scope in regards to the city ordinances. Emphasized that there is a separate issue of the revision/extension of the lease with OSF that gives the city more leverage in looking at a broader range of issues. Stated that because of this,there is additional information that is needed up front before it actually gets to the planning process. Pointed out that the lease makes this matter a two-stage process rather the normal one-stage planning process. Councilor Wheeldon noted that she felt this was the place to give staff some direction on negotiating the lease,and commented on possible revenue from parking fees as a means to fund alternative transportation. Emphasized that use of this revenue source should be kept open. Suggested that there was a need to consider air space in negotiation of the lease agreement with OSF, noting that a structure in Eugene has housing units in the spaces above the parking structure. Noted the possibility of providing affordable housing for people working at the theater. Would like to see the air space used to the benefit of the community at large. Councilor Fine noted that the festival's concern has been with their artistic ability rather than with growth. Noted his suggestion that the festival consider"covenanting,"that is making a legally binding commitment to the limitation on their future growth. Noted that the festival has expressed their intention not to use the Black Swan site to open an additional theater. Also expressed concern that Ashland citizens who own the Hargadine lot not be asked to pay rent to the festival for the use of the lot. Suggested that by the time the lease comes before council for renewal,there be a semi-final architectural rendering showing a design sensitive to the neighborhood and the spirit of downtown Ashland. Nicholson confirmed for Shaw that the proposal represents an attempt to increase the capacity of the festival by 8- l0%. Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting I 1-16-99 Hauck noted the need to look at wider public benefit, including a stipulation in the lease to allow public use of - Carpenter Hall. Wheeldon inquired why buildings were deeded to the city. Nicholson suggested that it was an EDA condition, but he could not find adequate documentation to confirm this. Laws clarified that the federal government would not give money to a private organization,and as such the grant had to go to the city. Laws noted that some people seem to be trying to create a conflict around ownership of the property. Laws emphasized that the original grants were done for the public good,to create employment during a recession and to benefit the citizens of Ashland. It was not given to benefit the city govemment or the OSF. Suggested that this spirit of benefitting the community at large needs to be kept in mind. Shaw noted that the paving of the parking lot originally would have been contracted out,as paving equipment was not acquired by the city until 1975. Nicholson noted that initial elevations and renderings would be available long before a lease was prepared, as part of the pre-application process. Suggested that,with agreement of the council,this would take place within the next couple of months. Freeman requested that council specify their intention to the staff for conditions to be sought in the negotiations for the OSF lease agreement. Reid questioned if this should be discussed in executive session. Laws suggested that starting on the lease negotiations is premature and does not want to delay the planning process. Laws suggested that the Administration staff work with OSF to prepare a preliminary lease to bring forward for council approval. Stated that he would like to see a more collaborative effort to lead into the lease negotiations. Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to authorize City Administrator Mike Freeman to sign the application for the planning action to be filed by OSF. Freeman would be signing the application as the owner's representative for that portion of the project on city land(the Hargardine parking lot); by authorizing staff,the council: A) Is not committing itself as to how it would decide any land use appeal,if the planning action required for the project is appealed to the council; B) Is not committing itself to approval of a parking structure on the Hargardine lot;and C) Is not committing itself to any funding for a parking structure nor to any method of repayment for the structure,including paid parking.. DISCUSSION: Wheeldon stated that she would like to wait to begin lease negotiation until a forum can occur. Questioned how the planning process could move forward without addressing the lease,as building on the land could not proceed without working out an agreement to the use of the land and buildings. Reid stated that she was willing to begin talking of the lease,but that she would be unwilling to design it by committee. Stated that she would be willing to direct staff to begin the negotiation process. Laws stated that a study session is needed to look at the council's intent. Discussion of how,and when,this could be best addressed. Shaw suggested two planning actions,one for the parking structure and one for the theater. They would occur together, but would be separate actions and this would allow the festival to move ahead on one item while the city works on the lease. Nolte clarified that the festival could initiate a planning action on either item without the lease,but even if the action were approved they could not build without the lease matter being settled. Suggested that the lease negotiations be included as part of the motion. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to amend motion to include authorizing staff to begin negotiation of lease amendments necessary for OSF to accomplish the project on the Hargadine parking lot. Voice vote on the motion to amend: All AYES. Motion passed. Roll call vote on the amended motion: Reid,Wheeldon, Laws,Hanson, Fine and Hauck,YES. Motion passed. Mayor Shaw called a ten minute break. 2. Confirmation of plans for 125"anniversary of incorporation of City of Ashland. Councilor Wheeldon explained that an Ashland student is organizing a fashion show celebrating this anniversary for her senior project. This is being supported by the Ashland Rotary Club,and OSF will be providing costumes. Noted that Rotary is providing refreshments on December 166 at the Mountain Avenue theater,and asked that the city provide use of Hillah Temple as needed for preparations for this event. Wheeldon noted the incredible Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 J contribution on the part of citizens to support Guanajuato-related events,and noted that this event will serve as a fund-raiser for sister city programs for Guanajuato. Council expressed their consensus to allow use of the Hillah Temple. 3. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending 93-35 by Deleting Advertising Contracts as an Exemption from Competitive Bidding," and reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending Resolution 93-35 by Defining Advertising Contracts." Freeman noted that council had been provided with copies of Resolution#93-35. Laws stated that he would be willing to simply delete provision 3.5 from the present ordinance,to remove the exemption for advertising contracts. Laws, Wheeldon,and Fine agreed. Fine expressed his concerns that public concerns were not sufficiently addressed,and stated that staff and council would be willing to discuss prior transactions if the public has ongoing concerns. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Ln.Noiced his preference for the addition of the amendment rather than deletion of provision 3.5, but recognized that they have essentially the same result: Shaw read the synopsis from the council communication,and briefly explained the background behind this matter. Noted that advertising is one of a number of items which are exempt from competitive bidding. Explained that when it came time to hire a firm to do internet work and advertising,the City Administrator put out an RFP for bids. When none of the responses were up to the standard,and many did not respond. Stated that the firm selected on a second go-round had by far the best scope of work in their bid. A citizen complaint brought this up as an issue because the matter was not subject to competitive bidding. Shaw stated that she feels this action tonight is a resolution to this issue. Freeman clarified that the city began looking for a marketing firm to assist with the Ashland Fiber Network when he was new to the city,and he was unaware of the requirement for newspaper notification for bids. RFPs were sent directly to a group of firms. A local firm was ultimately awarded the contract. Clarified that there was no attempt to override proper procedures, it was merely an oversight,and stated that the City Attorney's reading of the ordinance was that advertising contracts were exempt anyway. Explained that with the new requirements being imposed here,there is a question of needing to competitively bid the contract when it is renewed this year. Stated that staff believes that this is not a good time to change advertising companies as a new telecommunications business is being launched. Explained problems with the set-up of the city web page,noting the difficulties in trying to update the old web page rather than creating a new one. Noted that this was a separate contract from the hosting of the web page, as was the training of staff to update the web page. Explained that this was the reason for the multiple contracts—two were for updating the web page,one was for hosting the site,and one for training staff. Hauck clarified that the two updates of the web page were separate,and in effect an entire new web page was created with the second contract. Freeman noted that circumstances can change once a contract has been initiated, requiring more than one contract with a single firm. Russ Silbiger/562 Ray Lane/Emphasized that his question had to do with whether this was a contract was for personal services or a public contract. Stated that the contract was a personal services contract,subject to 94-21,but was only sent to five firms despite the resolutions requirement that it be sent statewide. Only one response was received,and one more RFP was sent to the company that ended up getting the contract. Because only one proposal was sent to this one firm,he believes that this did not follow the rules or the intent of 94-21. Stated that he does not believe that there is any signed agreement for the$300,000 that has been spent,and that the only signed agreement is for$50,000. Noted that the first web site contract lists four deliverables(development,adding of dynamic content/content masters,training,and deployment to search engines). Other contracts,signed on the same date,are for these same deliverables which should have been covered under the first contract. Stated that he feels that there is confusion about which items are included under which contract. Confirmed for Laws that he does not believe there was any intent to circumvent rules for any nefarious purpose. He feels that mistakes may have been made for purposes of expediency. Hauck stated that he does not believe there were any technical violations made in this matter. Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #99-66 amending 93-35 by deleting advertising contracts as an exemption from competive bidding. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Laws, Fine,Whecldon, Hanson and Reid, YES. Motion passed. 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution opposing 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. Mayor Shaw noted staff's recommendation, which stated that this is a complex issue that is beyond staff expertise. Explained that staff recommends that the city council not take action on this issue for the following reasons: 1)Staff does not feel that the City has or will have all the information necessary to understand this complex issue; 2) It is unclear,even if passed what real impact the MAI would have on the City of Ashland; and 3)The MAI agreement negotiations have ceased for now, and no action is needed. This issue is not being actively negotiated. It is very likely that the MAI negotiations may continue and the language of the agreement changed significantly from the version that is now known about. John Fisher-Smith explained that the US and Japan are seeking to incorporate Multi-Lateral Agreement on Investments(MAI)provisions into the World Trade Organization (WTO)agreement. The language may be changed,but the intent is the same. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 9:20 p.m. Kindler Stout/130 Orange Street/Stated that WTO will undermine safety of people,even in Ashland. Stated that more opposition to this agreement is needed, and urged council support of this resolution. Gerry Cavanaugh/560 Oak Street/Representing the Alliance for Democracy/Commented that if staff feels that this issue is beyond their expertise, they should refrain from making a recommendation. Explained that this agreement is to allow multi-national corporations to over-ride democratically adopted rules and regulations. Asked that this body make a gesture by taking a stand to oppose MAI, which would undercut the democratic rights of the people. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:26 p.m. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve Resolution#99-65. DISCUSSION: Reid noted that environmental protections are important and other countries should have the option to put such regulations in place. Hauck stated that he would be willing to support the resolution if the second to the last paragraph were deleted,as there would he no legal standing to oppose an international treaty. Reid stated that she would be willing to amend her motion accordingly. Laws voiced concern with complexity to issue and the necessity to hear both sides to this issue. Laws commented on the issue regarding globalization and the dislocation of labor. Recognized that some of these provisions could be misused. Understands that the oppositon to the MAI evolves out of concern for this possibility of misuse,and suggests that international decision making will be needed. Laws does not feel comfortable with opposing MAI because of the complexity of the issue. Fine noted the complexity of the issue and agreed with council concern that they have only had the opportunity to hear one side. Felt that council should defer to the federal government on international concerns,and emphasized that he would not feel comfortable with deciding on this issue,or burdening city staff with an issue of this magnitude. Fine requested that he be allowed to abstain from voting and encouraged other council inclined to vote no on this resolution to abstain. Councilor Wheeldon requested clarification on the direction of the treaty negotiations,and whether a resolution opposing MAI is appropriate if MAI has been abandoned. Hauck stated that the language of the resolution speaks generally to the type of treaty,and would thus be appropriate. Hanson does not believe that the MAI is going to go away and supports the resolution whole-heartedly. Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 r Laws would like to vote for a resolution that would say that"This Council urges the national government to protect local autonomy to the greatest extent possible in the development of any regulation of international trade." Laws/Fine m/s to strike the wording of the original resolution,and amend it to read"This Council urges the national government to protect local autonomy to the greatest extent possible in the development of any regulation of international trade." Discussion: Wheeldon asked for input from the public; Shaw indicated that she was not willing to re-open the public hearing at this time. Roll call vote on the motion to amend: Reid,Hauck,Hanson and Wheeldon; Fine and Laws,YES. Motion to amend failed 4-2. Roll call vote on the original motion: Reid,Hauck,Hanson,and Wheeldon,YES. Fine and Laws, ABSTAINED. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1 Council Meeting Look Ahead. Freeman noted that this item was for council information,and he was available for any questions the council might have. 2. Presentation by Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. Jeff Fields/796 Oak Street/Requesting council to formally acknowledge and support the efforts of its citizens by voting and drafting a letter,to formally state that it would review the Alliance's completed comment before deciding what wild land fire mitigation strategy to officially promote. Fields clarified that this delay of the city's support was at the Forest Service's suggestion. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Presented map of Ashland watershed and how it relates to the HAZRED project. Briefly gave overview on the history of the watershed,noting clear-cut areas,area roads, and shaded fuel breaks. Noted the amount of timber that has been taken out of the area and feels that the Forest Service is taking advantage of the city by removing and profiting from the removal of timber. This also includes the cost of dredging Reeder Reservoir. It was noted by Councilor Hanson that Reeder Reservoir was not dredged after the 1997 flood, but only the upper fork areas. Laws noted the council's support and that there was no need for further argument. Agreed that the past practice by the forest service in clear-cutting did result in the need to dredge our reservoir,but emphasized that it may be difficult to determine the portion the degree of responsibility of the Forest Service versus natural erosion. Councilors Hanson/Hauck m/s to draft a letter to the Forest Service with the wording requested. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 3. Authorization to Initiate Planning Processes for the Fire Station reconstruction and Library expansion and remodel. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve authorization to initiate planning process for Fire Station reconstruction and Library expansion/remodel. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 4. Request for Funding by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce for Assistance related to the Holiday Festival of Light Program. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve funding request for Holiday Festival Light Program with Ashland Chamber of Commerce. DISCUSSION: Reid noted that her approval of this request was conditioned upon the requirement that this request go through the budget process in the future. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Laws questioned whether cash has been given in the past,or if it has all been in-kind donations. Freeman stated that there had been no cash given,but pointed out that the labor and materials amounted to about $26,000. Laws noted that he was uncomfortable with this,as there had been no council action in the past. Expressed concern that this amount to an add-on in addition to the money already given to the Chamber. Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 t Does not like add-on's outside of the budget process,and stated that he could vote in favor of this item only with the understanding that it sets no precedent and will need to go to the budget committee through the regular budget process next year. Freeman clarified for Hauck that the$26,000 mentioned included the street decorations that have always been done by the city in the past. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 5. Termination of a 20-foot wide public utility easement located along the westerly boundary of the properties located at 260,262 and 266 Winter Street(391 E05DC 1901, 1902 and 1900). Reid noted her concern with letting go of a possible pedestrian path. Brown explained that this is strictly a public utility easement,and there is no easement for pedestrian access. Brown clarified that this is for utilities only,and the easement is simply being shifted to the other side of the lot. Reid stated that she would like to have pedestrian access easements wherever possible. Councilors Fine/Hanson m/s to approve consent agenda#3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Shaw suggested that,given the upcoming work to be done on the library and the fire station, the city look at creating specific zoning districts for government buildings. Also stated that this might be considered for religious buildings. Explained that this might be handled with a specific overlay,such as a"G-1"district,as can be found in other cities. Shaw further explained that the fire station is being built in a commercial zone,while the Hillah Temple and the library are in residential zones. Fine suggested that government use and libraries could be made outright permitted uses in all zones,as they would not likely conflict with potential developments in any zone. Council discussion of concern over whether the speakers from the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance were rushed in an attempt to end the meeting by 10:00 p.m. Hauck and Wheeldon stated that they felt the speakers were rushed,while Laws and Shaw stated that they felt the discussion had ended and the request had been granted. Hanson suggested that in the future,council attempt to be a little more sensitive. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw,Mayor Page 8 o 8 City Council Meeting 11-16-99 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 17, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws,Hauck,Hanson,and Fine were present. Councilor Reid arrived late. Staff present:City Administrator Mike Freeman, Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles, Telecommunications/Marketing Manager Ann Seltzer, Director of Community Development John McLaughlin,Public Works Director Paula Brown,Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid,Chief of Police Scott Fleuter,Parks Director Ken Mickelsen,Fire Chief Keith Woodley, and Finance Director Jill Turner. DISCUSSION REGARDING CERT PROGRAM Fire Chief Woodley inttoduced Rees Jones, who is handling the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training,gave a brief overview and introduced CERT program graduate Betty Camper. Woodley briefly explained the curriculum and budget information that had been provided to council,and noted that the goal of the program is to extend emergency services to all neighborhoods in the event that emergency response personnel are unavailable. Provided a map to council showing the various team locations in the city,and emphasized that there is a need for self-sustaining communities that are able to stand alone for up to 72 hours in emergencies. Rees explained that the program began as a means to extend the emergency response capabilities,but suggested that it has deepened as it progressed. Betty Camner/868 A St./Emphasized that the CERT program is very empowering. Noted that she is a single mother, the owner of a traveler's accommodation,and a business owner,and stated that she found the training to be an incredible education. Explained that she now knows how to turn off utilities and use a fire extinguisher;she carries a first aid kit on her person and in her car. Stated that,all in all,she is more prepared to take care of herself and her family,and the community if necessary. Emphasized that her feeling is that this training has made her someone who would be able to contribute in a disaster, and someone who would act from educated knowledge. Jones noted that many participants speak of personal empowerment, and pointed out that two city councilors have completed the program. Suggested that this is good for the city and the citizens. Explained the handouts that were presented to council,which are samples of the ones used by the teams in canvassing neighborhoods. Also emphasized the commitment on the part of the program trainees,who are required to provide their own equipment for classes that may cost as much as$150-200. Woodley noted that training costs to the city are$104 per citizen,and that 25 hours are required to train each participant. Woodley emphasizedthat there is a need to include CERT volunteers in future disaster drills,and stated that the money invested in this program gives a high return. Concluded that in two years,all of the teams will be up and running and the costs will decrease significantly. Reid inquired about the possibility of involving high school students in the program to provide valuable training that would benefit the community and empower young people. Jones noted that all interested parties over 14 years of age are welcome,and pointed out that there are two high school students now in the program. Jones questioned spending tax dollars to train a high school team, when so much of the money invested could leave the community as these participants leave at graduation. However, he agreed that students could be included in other teams, and recognized City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 1 of 6 that this might be looked at again in the future. Reid suggested that once the program is established, it would be valuable to have an ongoing class run by school faculty as trainers. Jones emphasized that the existence of CERT teams provides a tremendous improvement in disaster response capabilities. In a weekend training,over half of the trainees showed up for a dry run of an assessment,and covered all of the ground in neighborhoods on foot within two hours. In contrast, city staff would take four hours and make guesses as they drive by in emergency response vehicles. Woodley stated that graduates will train their families,and eventually graduates will train new trainees in classes. Jones suggested that this will reduce costs, and emphasized the level of professionalism present in the trainees. Woodley thanked Paula Brown for providing a meeting place and for assistance in creating the maps used. Woodley also thanked Rees Jones for all of his efforts. REPORT ON PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES This item was postponed to a future meeting. (Freeman noted this had to do with policy issues around providing High Speed Data(HSD)service to customers outside the city.) 2000-2001 STRATEGIC PLANNING UPDATE Freeman noted documents distributed as draft for review, and asked for council input on whether these are indeed priorities to move ahead with. Then, suggested looking at items by department projects. Freeman noted concern with the amount of projects identified for Community Development,and stated that he would like council to look at the workload here in depth. Reid stated that her preference would be for Community Development to finish the items which are underway before moving on to other items. Freeman suggested going through the 2000-2001 Strategic Plan Draft together to determine consensus. Laws stated that before moving ahead,he would need to have an idea of costs and staff priorities. Emphasized that he would need these details before giving final approval,but stated that he could give preliminary approval to the wording of the draft. Freeman stated that cost estimates would be brought to the next meeting, and asked the council to go over the draft wording as a group here. On page 1,Laws asked that the document title be changed to"Strategic Plan Priorities"as this would help to clarify the purpose of the document. On page 2, Laws suggested that he would like the"Community Values Statement" to be more comprehensive. Reid concurred, and suggested that the statement be made less cumbersome. Shaw stated that the "Community Values Statement" looked good to her, and asked that wording be kept as brief and concise as possible. There were no comments on the"Citizen Participation and Involvement" section on page 2. Also on page 2,under"Environmental Resources,"Reid pointed out that recent actions allowing homes to be built in an unpaved area is out of compliance with part of this item. Laws stated that goals are to be worked toward, but emphasized that this can be over a period of time. Also under"Environmental Resources," Shaw suggested that the introductory paragraph be corrected to read"Ashland seeks to retain its natural beauty as it continues to grow and further development. The City seeks to strike a balance between urbanization and pretesting preventing air,water,and noise pollution as well as protection from soil erosion and loss of small creeks and wetlands." On page 3,"Housing,"Hauck stated that the community land trust item has been implemented and can be removed from this list as it is in place and operational. Reid questioned the re-development/re-modeling changes to the City's SDC charges,and asked how difficult this will be. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin stated that any City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 2 of 6 time SDCs are discussed,it becomes involved and complex,and noted for Reid that this item also involves issues around the Historic District and the demolition ordinance. On page 3,under"Economic Strategy"Fine suggested correcting the wording in the second item as follows:"Review the City's land use ordinances to ensure they are meeting or will meet the community's needsF and values as it they pertains to parking requirements, environmental constraints (i.e. trees), structure size, mixed use, landscaping and promoting alternative transportation." Under the next item in"Economic Strategy"Freeman stated that the living wage item could be made a directive from council to staff and could be removed from the strategic plan priorities. Council agreed,and this item was removed. On page 4, "Public Services" item 2, it was suggested that the second sentence beginning "Combine the grant program..."be changed to begin"Coordinate the grant program..." In"Public Services" item four, it was noted that the word"for"should not be capitalized. In"Public Services"item five,Reid noted that the green power item will be coming up soon,and Freeman pointed out that it may be an on-going item that is addressed incrementally. Hanson suggested that this item be reworded as "Develop a r_...... P6WeF^lteFRa °°°green power alternatives for the community." In the sixth item under "Public Services" dealing with regional partnerships, the word "electrical" was changed to "electricity." In the seventh item,Freeman clarified for Reid that the"street improvement and financing plan"referred to developing more of a long term plan to address this issue over time. In the eighth item,the word"need"was changed to"capacity" Freeman noted that last item in"Public Services"will be presented to council soon,and can be removed from this list. On page 4, items#I and 93 under"Transportation&Transit"were combined. There was discussion of the jurisdictional exchange item,with Reid noting that there is a need here to keep the long-term maintenance costs in mind in the finance element of this matter. On page 5, under"Energy, Air, and Water Conservation" Reid questioned the status of the solar power program. Administrative Services Director/Conservation Manager Dick Wanderscheid explained that implementation of the residential portion of the program(Phase 11)will depend on the institutional phase's(Phase I)success. On page 5,under"Parks,Open Space,and Aesthetics,"Shaw questioned the status of the update of the open space map. Parks Director Ken Mickelsen confirmed that this update is underway. Freeman noted that he and Mickelsen had already met and discussed operational redundancies. Mickelsen stated that he was agreeable to continuing this dialog, and stated that information will be brought back to council after further discussions can take place. There were no changes made to the"Urbanization" items on page 6. On page 6, under"Historical Sites& Structures,"Fine questioned suggested that the second item be placed in"Public Services" and reworded to indicate the need to "Ensure that all public buildings are properly maintained, with appropriate attention to the special needs of historic buildings." Under"Regional Strategies"on page 6,Freeman noted that he has not pursued study sessions with other bodies due to workload. Asked for guidance from council as to the priority on this item. Hauck stated that he would prefer to delay joint sessions with other bodies in the region until specific issues arise. Cited the Urban Growth Boundary agreement City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 3 of 6 as one possibility,and suggested that discussions over this agreement might make a meeting with the county's board of commissioners appropriate. McLaughlin noted that they will be updating this intergovernmentalagreement this year, and also noted that the county is rewriting its land use code. Reid suggested sitting in on the county discussions. Freeman asked that council direct him as to the need forjoint regional sessions. Fine noted that these sessions could be with less than the full council. Under"Financial Management"on page 7,Freeman explained for Shaw that items I and 2 were to be more long range than the budget cycle. Freeman briefly explained background of item 2,and noted that there may be an RVTV show with the budget committee. Stated that he would also like a video of proposed capital projects. Council discussion that these items aim at continually increasing and improving the comprehensive information provided to the community on city budget and financial issues. Item I was changed to read: " The City will create long-term financial projections for all funds." Item 2 was changed to read:"Promote a more thorough understanding of how the City receives and spends its funding." It was noted that item 4 had to do with new technologies and capabilities;briefly discussed the suggestion of looking at performance-based budgets. Under"Social Human Services"on page 7,Fine suggestedthat the 200-2001 Goal begin as follows:"After developing Based on the development a a health and human services plan for the City,..." Freeman explained that the section on"Organizational Effectiveness"on page 8 was not ready to be finalized,and noted that this item developed from employee input. Laws noted that council would need to know costs in both money and time before giving final approval to the draft priorities. Asked that department heads convey if they can do the projects listed, and stated that where there are reservations the priorities need to be looked at further. Freeman asked if there could be an evaluation of what might be dropped here,and explained that the primary areas of concern are the volume of work for the Electric Department and for Community Development. Looking at the Departmental Goals handout,McLaughlin questioned"Develop a program that will encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots." Explained that paving is already required as a condition of planning actions, and questioned whether the department should pursue requiring paving at existing houses. Shaw suggested developing a program to encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots on publicly owned lands. McLaughlin questioned the intent of the goal, and asked what incentives are to be offered and what outreach would need to be involved. Emphasized that this is not a land use issue. Shaw stated that the item could simply be worded as,"Encourage the paving of unpaved driveways and parking lots on publicly held lands." After discussion,this item was moved to the bottom of the priority list to be looked at in the future. Reid questioned the program for using recycled blacktop. Public Works Director Paula Brown noted that this program does not apply to parking lots.Finance Director Jill Turner stated that the possibility exists to create an LID to pave a publicly-owned lot. Reid suggested continuingwith existing practices for streets,and encourage paving of public lots where possible. Relative to the item stating"Update the Public Services element of the Comprehensive Plan," McLaughlin noted that various master plans which have been implemented address the item. Explained that the City has met the review requirements for the State of Oregon,and questioned whether the current workload would make it feasible to get into internal housekeeping. Council expressed their consensus for removing this item. McLaughlin also questioned the design standards for public buildings item,noting that some committee meetings have already occurred. Explained the committee has had some difficulty in determining their purpose and direction. McLaughlin emphasized that all current projects are at a high standard, and suggested that if there are to be more projects, the staff can be directed to beef up the review process. Suggested that a new design process may not be necessary. City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 4 of 6 Reid noted her concerns over the metal building at the golf course on Highway 66 and the situation at the Senior Center at Hunter Park. Reid explained that she wants a code that applies to public buildings in the same way it does to private buildings. Laws concurred,and noted that there had been a failure to follow procedures in the Hunter Park building. Laws emphasized that there is a need to follow existing procedures rather than making new ones. Reid suggested that there might be a need for some review above the Planning Division to prevent any interdepartmental tensions. McLaughlin noted that the golf course building was simply poorly located,and emphasized that it meets the standard that other buildings are held to in that section of town. Reid stated that public buildings are publicly owned, and the concern is not just with their use but with their public status. Reid suggested that publicly owned buildings need more review,not necessarily by Planning, but perhaps by a committee to hold them to a standard. Laws emphasized that there should not be a council review of every building,and emphasized that errors do not occur often. Suggested that there is a need to remain aware of the need to keep to a high standard without a formal procedure. McLaughlin noted that planning does review public buildings,and looks both at their long-term viability and how they fit in the neighborhood. Confirmed that there needs to be increased scrutiny for public buildings under the current standard,rather than developing new standards. Council consensus that anew standard will not be developed,and that the committee may be deactivated. Shaw questioned the B Street lot, and asked that Public Works Director Paula Brown look at putting lights over the walkway behind the lot. Also noted that the star-thistle growing in the park-rows needs to be addressed. Asked that it be mowed. Brown confirmed that Public Works is working with the Parks Department on improving the landscaping here. Freeman explained that the staff feels that this list is very do-able,other than the Community Development portion that has already been discussed. Brown asked for some clarification relative to the Public Works department list as well. Emphasized that many of these projects are massive capital projects,and will be on-going..Stated that the department's workload is significant. Brown added that the list does not include day-to-day work of the department. Asked that council recognize that many items (such as the TAP project and dealings with TID)are dependent on outside agencies and are somewhat outside the city's control. Stated that these projects are priorities, but that they will be ongoing. Laws noted that the wording in the list distinguishes between"continuing" and"completing" projects. Reid questioned the bridge extending Nevada Street,noting the importance of this project as the area develops. Brown noted that the Surface Transportation Improvements Project(STIP)update is beginning for 2002-2005,and stated that the City may want to look at STIP project recommendations,including the Nevada Street bridge. Brown con firmed that the bridge is in the Transportation System Plan(TSP)and the beyond-five-yearplan,but Laws suggested moving it into Capital Improvement Projects list. Freeman noted that the recently increased transportation SDCs address this bridge. Reid emphasized that it may be a need sooner that had been previously believed. Freeman asked if the council would be comfortable with the proposed priority list as revised. Hauck stated that this would be acceptable, as long as anything distributed makes it clear that the list is not final. Freeman suggested that a public hearing be held in January. Freeman noted that there is a need to change the date for the January 25"joint meeting, and stated that he would let councilors know when a date was chosen. Also discussed rescheduling of the December 8"meeting. It was decided that this meeting would be held at noon on December 91"at a location to be announced, to allow for the December 8" Rogue Valley Public Service Academy training session. City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 5 of 6 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Submitted by Derek Severson,Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Study Session 11/17/99 Page 6 of 6 City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES October 12, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen Absent: None Council Present: Councillors Don Laws, Steve Hauck, Cameron Hanson, David Fine and Mayor Catherine Shaw Absent: Councillors Wheeldon and Reid I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Program Building at Hunter Park. II. CALLE GUANAJUATO RESTORATION PROJECT Chair Eggers briefly outlined the history of the public process to develop a Master Plan for the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. She indicated that this meeting was intended to be the culmination of that process. Consultant Brian McCarthy from Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert was present to review the proposed Master Plan and to answer any questions which the public, Councillors or Commissioners might have. If appropriate, following the presentation, the Commission and then the Council would independently make a decision to adopt the plan as presented or modified in discussion. III. ATTACHMENT OF CITY RECORDER'S MINUTES As City Recorder Barbara Christiansen has indicated that only one set of minutes is needed for the public record, a copy of the Recorder's minutes are attached for the Commission's review and approval. Res ec}tfu submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department 1` City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 18, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen, Council Liaison Don Laws Absent: None I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main. II. ADDITIONS or DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - September 20, 1999 Commissioner Eggers noted that Commissioner MacGraw was listed as absent when she was actually present at the meeting. Commissioner Landt made a correction on the motion on page three substituting the phrase "all best management practices for storm water runoff"for"all best practices". Under Director's Report on page four related to the Calle Project, Commissioner Eggers asked that the second sentence be revised to read: "The Commission intends to .provide$200,000 in the Department budget for this project." Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Jones seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Special Meeting - September 15. 1999 Commissioner Landt indicated that the phrase"by consensus"should be eliminated from paragraph four on page 5 so that the beginning of the sentence would read "As each point was addressed, Commissioners decided which items or changes they would like to have the consultants pursue. . . ." In the following paragraph in reference to in-stream work on the project, Commissioner Eggers indicated that September 2001 should be changed to read September 2000. Commissioner Coppedge made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. REVIEW OF FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as presented by checks #26464 through 26675 and #100413 through 100559 in the amount of $ 639,277.13. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no i Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 2 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission REVIEW OF FINANCES-continued B. Approval of June 30, 1999 Quarterly Financial Statement Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to approve the June 30, 1999 Quarterly Financial Statement as presented. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no C. Acknowledgment for GFOA Award Director Mickelsen indicated that he was delighted to report that for the eleventh consecutive year the Commission and Department has received the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement Award for excellence in financial reporting. As indicated in the letter from GFOA, attainment of the certificate represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Open Forum A member of the public indicated that it was his understanding that the Commission may be discussing postponing discussion on sports field lighting at N. Mountain Park until after the first of the year. He inquired whether or not the topic would be appropriate to address at this time. Commissioners chose to do so. Sports field lighting at N.Mountain Park - Referring to the staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999, Director Mickelsen said that having met with representatives from the N. Mountain Park neighbors and representatives from community sports groups, that a suggestion had been made that the Commission postpone formal discussion or action related to lighting until after the first of the year. Indicating appreciation for the discussion taking place by the interested parties and staff, by consensus, Commissioners agreed to postpone Commission meetings or any action related to sports field lighting until after the first of the year. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of policy related to bids for materials and construction contracts The Commission reviewed modifications to the policy which had been adopted related to approval of bids for materials and construction contracts. Apologizing for her absence during July and August when the original policy had been discussed and approved, Commissioner Coppedge expressed reservation about some elements related to the policy including items #4 and #5 which would be addressed this evening. In particular, she stated reservation to authorizing staff to approve bids`that exceed the budgeted amount by 10% or$5,000" because she felt that the Commission should be aware of and approve those additional expenditures up front, not be informed after the fact. She said that she could agree with a policy which stated equal to or less than the budgeted amount but once an item goes over budget, for whatever dollar amount, it should have specific and prior approval of the Commission on a case by case basis. Commissioner Landt said that he understood Commissioner Coppedge's point of view and indicated that he too believed that the Commission was ultimately responsible for the budget. However, he also felt that within the parameters outlined that it was reasonable to give staff the authority to move forward on an item which was clearly a priority to the Commission. He did Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 3 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Policy related to bids for materials and contracts-continued indicate that item #5 of the proposed changes to the policy should include the word "could" so that the sentence would end "the explanation shall include where the money for the unbudgeted amount could come from." Commissioner MacGraw asked for staff's comment on the policy and proposed changes. Director Mickelsen said that staff had no problem with the proposed changes and that he would feel comfortable working under such a policy. He said he could certainly understand that calling Special Meetings or taking Commission time during Regular Meetings may not be the best use of Commissioners' time and would support the changes for that reason. Commissioner MacGraw commented that she would prefer keeping the policy as it is simply because if an expense is going to go over budget by whatever amount she felt that the Commission should be involved in the decision of whether or not to proceed; perhaps the Commission would feel the item was no longer a priority once it knew the actual cost. Both Commissioner Landt and Director Mickelsen indicated that if the levels of dollar amount or percentage amount noted in the policy were the basis of concern for some Commissioners that those numbers could certainly be changed. Following additional brief discussion, Commissioner Coppedge said that she felt it was important to note that her concerns about the policy were not based on a lack of trust in the judgement of staff but on the belief that it should be Commission responsibility to approve items which go out to bid rather than have that responsibility delegated to staff, particularly for items which come in over budget. Commissioner MacGraw concurred. MOTION Commissioner Coppedge made a motion to approve the following: 1) that bids for materials and construction may be approved by staff without Commission approval if the items are included in the budget and the bid is at or below the budgeted amount, 2) bids for over the budgeted amount should be referred to the Commission for approval. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Commissioner Eggers made a motion to approve the draft of changes to be made to the policy related to approval of bids for materials and construction contracts as drafted and attached to the memorandum from Commissioner Landt and Director Mickelsen dated October 14, 1999 with the exception that the word "could" be added to the phrase in item #5 "where the money for the unbudgeted amount could come from", and, that the policy would be reviewed and renewed after one year. Commissioner Landt seconded. The vote was: 3 yes -2 no (Coppedge, MacGraw) B. Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project Commissioners having reviewed a staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999 which indicated that in order to expedite the process for Phase 2 of the Calle Project, the Commission may choose to authorize staff to begin negotiations which Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert for a contract to develop working construction documents and obtaining permits. Approval of the master plan was on the Council's agenda for this Tuesday, October 19". If approved by the Council, staff could then bring information related to the contract back to the Commission for approval at its next Regular Meeting. Commissioner Coppedge said support for the idea indicating that she believed moving forward as quickly as possible would keep the project on track for completing in-stream work this coming summer. Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 4 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Proiect-continued Commissioner Eggers inquired about the budget. Director Mickelsen said that he had tentatively spoken with Brian McCarthy who has tentatively indicated that he believes Phase 2 can be completed with a not-to-exceed figure of$175,000. He said that he hoped that in negotiations the dollar amount would actually fall under that amount but that this was CMG's "outside"figure at this time. The reason that this figure is higher than that which was stated in the rough budget presented earlier is to allow for any contingencies which the Commission may want included in Phase 2 which was not in the estimated, minimum budget outlined when the master plan was presented. In discussion, Commissioner Landt said that he felt that a public input element should be included in Phase 2 because it was "in the details"that people sometimes became the most interested because they could better visualize what"this would mean to me." Director Mickelsen said that usual practice was not to include an actual public process element in this phase, that it was included in the design phase. Commissioner Landt responded that he felt that not every detail needs to be brought back but that prior to $175,000 worth of work being completed, that some discussion and public input needs to take place. Commissioner MacGraw said that although she did not anticipate a public process element per se in Phase 2 that she did believe that discussion of some of the design details which were not appropriate for the master plan design phase would be appropriate to discuss during Phase 2. Commissioner Coppedge concurred and suggested that in negotiations with the consultants that it could be indicated that part of their work would be to include the opportunity for the Commission and public to"take a look"and give some feedback along the way. Commissioner Jones and Eggers supported the idea also. Director Mickelsen said that if the Commission authorized his beginning negotiations with CMG that he would indicate that the Commission would like to have one or two interim public meetings included in Phase 2. Commissioner Landt said that he felt that the estimate for Phase 2 was high in relationship to the cost for the master design phase. He said that he would be interested in knowing how other projects in the City would,compare; that is, what percentage of design work would fall into the master plan phase and what percentage into the construction documents phase. Commissioner Eggers said that because of some concerns which had been expressed by Councillors and the public related to cost that she would be interested in some kind of information which would indicate that the Phase 2 estimate was within line with other kinds of projects of a similar nature. Commissioner Coppedge said that she could not support spending staff time investigating arbitrary percentages to weigh the cost of one phase versus another phase because she did not feel it would be a productive use of staff time and would simply slow down the project. MOTION Indicating that if the City Council approves the Master Plan for the Calle at its upcoming meeting, Commissioner Coppedge moved to authorize the Director to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert for Phase 2 of the Calle Project which would include preparing the designs and plans for working construction drawings and all items associated with that work, the permitting process, bidding, construction supervision and administration. Commissioner Jones seconded. In discussion on the motion, Commissioner Eggers commented that if it would not take an inordinate amount of staff time to look into whether or not the estimated amount for Phase 2 was in sync with other similar projects that she would like to have that done and that she did not believe it would slow down the project. Councillor Laws commented that some budget information could be needed to the Council meeting for the following evening because budgets had not yet been firmly set. Commissioner MacGraw said that it was her understanding that the Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 5 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Project-continued Council was simply going to be addressing approval of the Master Design Plan itself, as the Commission did in the Special Meeting, not specific points of the budget. Director Mickelsen commented that it was his understanding that there was currently sufficient monies set aside in this year's budget to take care of Phase 2. Councillor Laws said that it was his understanding that technically the monies still need to be specifically allocated for this purpose. Commissioner Landt said that he was going to vote against the motion but with hesitation and sorrow because it is an important project. In stating his reasons he said that he believed that some elements of the plan ran contrary to the initial goals which had been set by the Council and Commission; in particular, encroachments into the stream which he believes is detrimental to the creek and more development on the west side than was initially anticipated. He said that he needed to vote his'conscience because he believes the direction we are headed is bad for Ashland Creek. Commissioner MacGraw said that she respected Commissioner Landt's position but that she felt that she needed to also reiterate that the Bill Hall, engineer on the design team, had addressed the question of stream encroachment—at least to her satisfaction—and, that the proposed enhancements to the west side had come directly from the public process. She said that she did not believe that we were deviating from the goals as preliminarily set by the Council and Commission for the project. Commissioner Eggers said that she would be voting no on the motion because she had some reservations about the process to date. Although she voted to recommend the Master Plan Design to the Council, she had questions about the dollar amount be estimated for Phase 2. The vote was: 3 yes -2 no (Eggers, Landt) C. Review of revised iob description for the position of Department Director Commissioner Jones said that she and Commissioner Coppedge had worked with the Director to create the revised draft of a job description, a copy of which was in the Commissioners' packets for review. She said that this was the initial step in the process to adopt an updated job description for the Director but that it was in actuality part of an ongoing process in that job descriptions needed to be reviewed and updated periodically. She emphasized that this was a working model to which the committee anticipated other Commissioners would add input. She briefly described the format prior to Commissioners discussing the draft document. Commissioners reviewed the draft in detail making comments on various items as organized within the document and made suggestions on how they might be changed, enhanced, or made more clear. Following the discussion, Commissioners Jones and Coppedge indicated that they would revise the draft and bring an updated draft back to the Commission for review at the next meeting. They also indicated that they would be working on the performance review form and tying it into the job description which was being developed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Easement related to Bear Creek Greenwav Director Mickelsen said that it has come to the City's attention that the temporary bike path which was established off Glendower Street into the Ashland Pond area of the Greenway encroaches on private property. When the Department constructed the temporary path as a detour due to the construction work related to the Wastewater Treatment Plant project, it was unaware that the easement off Glendower was exclusively for maintenance and utility purposes, r , Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 6 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Easement off Glendower-continued not for general public access. He said that the property owner has been very understanding. However, if the Commission would like to continue to utilize this route for general public access to the Greenway Trail, an enhanced easement or purchase of the property would be required. MOTION Following brief discussion among Commissioners in which consensus was that public access to the Greenway would be important at this location, Commissioner Landt made a motion to authorize the Director to contact the involved property owner or owners to determine the feasibility of obtaining appropriate easements or of purchasing the property on the road off Glendower into Greenway park property. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Discussion of forms and procedures for Youth Activities Lew grant requests Having utilized the original criteria for granting monies to assist,groups or organizations sponsoring community activities for several years, Commissioners decided to review the criteria based upon that experience to determine how the criteria could be better defined. Recreation Supervisor Emily Jones briefly reviewed a staff memorandum dated October 13, 1999 related to the criteria in place for granting monies. Included within the memorandum were comments from staff related to some policy modifications the Commission may choose to make. Commissioners discussed different elements of the criteria as originally established, added possible new criteria to be adopted and suggested ways in which the wording could be changed or modified for clarity. One topic of general discussion was the fact that the overall Commission goals for use of the money was not clearly stated: Commissioner Coppedge summarized her understanding of the intent of previous Commissions which was to utilized the monies to attempt to stimulate the introduction of new programs, not to duplicate or assist programs which were those already available and viable within the community. In re-evaluating the criteria, she said that she would like to approach it in a positive manner; that is, state the Commission's goals and then organize the criteria to reflect the goals. Commissioner Eggers pointed out that in prior years the Commission had chosen to ignore its own criteria related to not supporting activities associated with already established organizations; in particular the Ashland School District and the YMCA. She said that she felt that if that criteria was going to continue to be stated that it should be adhered to and communicated clearly in the policy or documentation. Commissioner Jones suggested that a indication could be made that"first consideration"would be given to"new"groups or programs rather than to "existing" programs. Commissioner Landt suggested that the form which was presented to the public could be shaped along a format similar to the kind of document which goes out for an RFP. Perhaps then organizations would have sufficient information about what the Commission was looking for and to craft their information in a manner which would enable Commissioners to select among various applicants. He said that he felt that Commissioners needed some kind of score sheet and that the same information needed to be provided to the applicants. Commissioners quickly reviewed each existing criteria as listed to give guidance to staff as to how a revised draft of policy and documentation could be brought back to the Commission for review. Regular Meeting-October 18, 1999 Page 7 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS Relocation of bike oath through Railroad District Park Director Mickelsen asked for Commissioner comment regarding the memorandum dated October 8, 1999 on relocating the bike path through Railroad District Park. Commissioners indicated that staff should proceed to work with City staff and the Traffic Safety Commission to relocate the path so that the terminus of the path was not at the heavily trafficked 80'and "A" Streets but further down towards 6h, 5"', and 4th Streets. Commissioner Landt asked that the large area of dogwood be taken into consideration when actually locating the path. He expressed concern that if the path went through the large hedge that anyone within that area would be hidden from sight. He said that in a neighborhood park setting he would prefer better visibility for safety reasons. Announcement of Award Director Mickelsen announced that the Oregon Recreation and Parks Association had selected the Department for its 1999 Design Award for flood restoration work which was done in Lithia Park. This is the highest award given by the ORPA for outstanding design and construction of parks and recreation facilities. Recap of Summer Recreation Programs Commissioners briefly reviewed a general synopsis and evaluation of the various summer programs conducted by the Department. Commissioner Eggers said that although pleased with the report she would like to see future reports include more"hard numbers"and some feedback from the public related to the programs. She also inquired about expanding Youth Activities to a wider variety of programs; do some outreach to see what other groups of young people with different interests might be served. Commissioner Jones asked that staff give some thought to how the new YMCA pool might affect aquatics programs at the pool in future years and expressed the overall interest in having the Department, YMCA, and SOU talk about how the three pools might work together to coordinate swimming lessons and activities for the community. Director Mickelsen said that he and Emily would contact the other aquatic facilities to open a dialogue to see how they could work together. Commissioner Jones said that although it was a little off-topic, she envisioned some kind of lesson program through the schools so that"every child" in Ashland would have the opportunity to learn how to swim. Darex Ice Rink Director Mickelsen said that plans are underway for setting up the ice rink and that it would be open for operation as soon as weather permitted. Commissioner Eggers commented that since staff is just beginning to set up the facility that she would like to see some kind of record kept related to staff time allocated to that task. She said that her thoughts related to having the information would be to know the entire cost for the facility so that when fees are reviewed, revenue versus expense could be more accurately determined.. Indicating that she would not opposed to subsidizing the rink, she said that she wanted to have the most accurate information available when choosing to do so. Director Mickelsen indicated that that could be done. i 1 Regular Meeting.October 18, 1999 Page 8 of 8 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Commenting on the map provided which noted athletic fields throughout the community which were owned by either the City, SOU, or the school district, Commissioner Jones inquired why there were no fields highlighted on the north end of town —say at Briscoe and Helman Elementary Schools. Director Mickelsen indicated that the only fields which were highlighted were those in which the Parks had a joint agreement with the schools for usage and maintenance. In discussion, he clarified those areas are currently used for practice but not for games. In looking at the overall picture, Director Mickelsen said that it was important to note that other than the newly developing N. Mountain Park, the only park property delegated for organized sports are two Little League fields at Hunter Park and the sgccer fields at the YMCA City Park. The balance of the fields the community uses for its activities are provided for by cooperative use and maintenance agreements for fields on School District and SOU properties. X. UPCOMING MEETING DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS The next Regular Meeting will be held on Monday, November 15, 1999. Other than items previously discussed, no additional items were added for the November agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT By consensus, Chair Eggers adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes November 3, 1999 CALL TO ORDER At 7:35 p.m., Allan Sandler and Ed Bemis presented the latest detail drawings of their proposed building on Lithia Way, which will be known as the Mojo Club. This was a follow up of their planning action, which was heard at the September 8 meeting. At 8:00 p.m., Chairperson Lewis called the meeting to order at the Community Center. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Gary Foil, Curt Anderson, Dale Shostrom, Kay Maser, Joan Steele and Vava Bailey. Also present were City Council Liaison Cameron Hanson,Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Member Keith Chambers was unable to attend the meeting. Steele moved to amend the agenda in order to take action on the submitted drawing that was not on the agenda prior to other business. Foll seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Mainly, the Commissioners discussed the column width at the base and the width of the bellyband. Sandler stated they are leaning toward real granite for the base of the building. He volunteered to come back with the actual stone when the decision is made. Since the bellyband will be constructed with a different material,Shostrom said he did not feel it needed to be as wide as was drawn since it will stand out on its own. Skibby moved to accept the revised plan as presented. Foll seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Sandler related a time capsule was found under a portion of the cement slab in the Old Masonic Temple. It was first buried in 1876,then opened and additional material added in 1954. The only portion opened so far has revealed a list of items enclosed, which include coins, newspapers,flour from the flour mill and wool from the woolen mill. A grand opening of the box will be held on December 2 at 10:00 a.m. in the new Masonic Temple on Clover Lane. Southern Oregon Historical Society will be in charge of opening the box. Historian Kay Atwood will be writing a narrative,which will be on display with the contents of the box in the passageway of the Old Masonic Temple. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steele pointed out in the second paragraph on the second page of the October 6, 1999 minutes,clearstory should be clerestory. Bailey then moved and Steele seconded the Minutes of the October 6, 1999 meeting be approved as corrected. The motion was unanimously passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 99-119 Conditional Use Permit 737 Siskiyou Boulevard Sean and Mardi McKellips Knox reported this application is for a transfer of ownership for the Adam's Cottage Bed R Breakfast. The new owners plan to lease the business for one year before they move to Ashland. Once the owners relocate, they will need to go through this process again. The property owners want everything run at high standards because they don't want to lose the clientele. Foll moved to recommend approval of this planning action. Bailey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of October follow: 139 East Main Street Emma Inc. Remodel 163 Granite Street Frances Sharkey 2 n Story Addition 451 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 453 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A J 455 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 457 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 459 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 461 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 463 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 465 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 467 Holly Street Morgan Pacific LLC SFR-A 128 Wimer Street Brian Almquist Deck 67 Woolen Way. Cameron Hanson Remodel/Finish Porch 99 Central Avenue Community Health Center Sign 393 East Main Street Ashland Antiques & Fine Collectibles Sign 135 Oak Street Internet Marketing Guild Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the November schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: November 4 Skibby, Foll, Anderson and Bailey November 10 Skibby, Foll and Maser November 18 Skibby, Chambers and Maser November 24 Skibby, Steele and Lewis December 2 Skibby, Steele and Bailey OLD BUSINESS Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA#96-086 685"A" Street Anderson and Lewis PA#97-018 661 "B" Street Lewis PA#98-039 Holly Street Steele and Lewis PA#98-045 122 Church Street Bailey PA#98-047 Between 548 &628 North Main Street Foil PA#99-020 525 "A" Street Lewis PA#99-062 Van Ness Avenue Foil PA#99-102 141 Lithia Way Shostrom PA#99-108 340 Oak Street Shostrom Grant for National Register Web Site Knox stated the Ashland site should be online by the first of the year. The web site can be checked out atwww.cr.nps.gov/nr. Skibby noted the Review Board had talked with Brandon Goldman about getting posters made of the photos that will include the historic and current photos. Large color posters would cost$35.00 because they would be individually printed on the large color printer in the office. If Goldman can get a mylar printed, it maybe possible to get that copied for less. He will check it out. Goal Setting/Orientation Meeting —January 5, 2000 The Commission brainstormed ideas for the January meeting.Among the topics are Why is the Historic Commission here?What are the basics for maintaining consistency in decisions? Also to be discussed will be the Comprehensive Plan, demolition ordinance, demolition/moving permits, case studies for various types of planning actions, and zoning regulations. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 3, 1999 2 NEW BUSINESS Upcoming Displays at SOHS Ashland Site Lewis related he had attended a Southern Oregon Historical Society meeting. The Ashland location has rotating displays as do the Medford and Jacksonville sites. One of the ideas at the meeting was to have Ashland citizens bring in their memorabilia/collections for display. He invited the Commissioners to stop by and talk with Jay Leighton,curator of the Ashland Southern Oregon Historical Society site. The office is open from noon to 4:00 Wednesday through Saturday. OSFA Theater Expansion Lewis reported he had spoken at the City Council meeting the previous evening regarding the Oregon Shakespeare Festival plan to build another theater. He said he wanted to reinforce the fact that Carpenter Hall will be remaining in its current location. He would also like to see Carpenter Hall better utilized by local groups. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes November 3, 1999 3 CITY OF ASHLAND y FASH`' Office of the Mayor OREGON.,=;: MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Catherine M. Shaw V' DATE: December 1, 1999 RE: REAPPOINTMENTS TO BUILDING APPEALS BOARD I would like to recommend and seek council approval of the reappointments of Darrel R. Jarvis, Tom Giordano, Darrell Boldt, Carol Horn Davis and Dale Shostrom to the Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31, 2000. A copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings is attached. There were no replies in response to the advertisement. Enc: �o�ary4 mow= t � a / Needs City o4rooM BUILDING APPEALS BOARD VACANCIES Applications are being accepted for open positions on the Building Appeals Board. These volunteer positions have one- year terms expiring December 31, 2000. The deadline for applications in November 26. If you are interested in applying, please submit your letter of interest with your r6sum6 (if available) to City Recorder Barbara Christensen at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder. CITY OF ASHLAND FASH -- a Office of the Mayor r' REGO MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 1999 TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Catherine Shaw (y RE: Appointment to Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission I would like to appoint Beverly Morris to the vacant position on the Bicycle &Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2000. The vacancy was created by the resignation of Theresa Johnson. Copies of the letters of interest are attached, along with a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings. YOUR CITY NEEDS YOU VACANCY Attachments: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2000, with a possible further term to the year 2003. If you are interested in being considered for this volunteer position, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your rdsume (if available) to the City Recorder, City Hall, 20 E. Main Street, before Monday, November 1. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office comm\bicycle\appt=m of the City Recorder. 650 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 C�O (541) 482-6021 C, October 26, 1999 �& 0&249 City Recorder City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Friends in City Hall: Please consider me as a candidate to fill the vacancy on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (term to expire April 30, 2000) . I understand that this is a volunteer position. A brief resume is included. Yours truly, Beverly S . Morris BEVERLY S . MORRIS ts 650 East Main ZA Ashland, OR 97520 (541 ) 482-6021 t9� BORN: Lewiston, Idaho, 1930 EDUCATION: B.A. University of Idaho, Moscow, 1951 Fulbright scholarship for study in Austria, 1951-52 M.A. UCLA, 1955 . German Language and Literature PROFESSION: Instructor in German at Iowa State University, Ames, 1955-57 Private music teacher (piano and recorder) , 1965-1992 QUALIFICATIONS : I have been a lifelong bicyclist and pedestrian, although I drive and own a car. During almost two decades spent overseas with my husband, a Foreign Service officer, I was a happy pedestrian explorer in Paris, Bonn, Buenos Aires and Madrid, and an avid bicyclist in the city and surroundings of Bonn. As part of the orientation program sponsored by the embassies in Bonn, Buenos Aires and Madrid I led small groups of embassy dependents on learning excursions to help acquaint them with local public transportation systems - bus, train and tram - and also led walking tours within the cities and nearby environs. My husband and I, now retired, have owned a condo in Ashland since 1993 . Ashland is now our full-time and permanent residence, but from - 1993-96 we divided our year between Oregon and Iowa, travelling back and forth by air and living in Ashland without a car. This worked well for us. One of our reasons for choosing Ashland was its charm as a walkers ' city. We managed for a cumulative total of 18 months, using bus, bicycle and feet. SPECIAL INTEREST: Bicyclist and pedestrian safety 1% Date: 10/29/99 �C,7 99 To: City Recorder Subject: Application for a position on the Ashland Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission I am a retired orthodontist, living in the Railroad District of Ashland. Prior to moving here four years ago, I lived for fifteen years in the Nevada City area, northern California. I was active there in the Rural Quality Coalition, a group founded to promote and protect quality of life in a growing area. Since moving to Ashland, I have been active in Friends of Ashland, and more recently in"Sustainable Ashland: 2020 Vision'. I walk or bicycle daily, for pleasure, exercise and many errands, covering a route that often includes the bank, food shopping, the post office and the library. While I appreciate that Ashland is pedestrian and bicycle friendly, I would like to work to make it even more so. c Mort Smith 129 5th St. 482-7292 /D a5 - 9 f a Oct Id h l O S cr f D lU j,'c c / COY17'1SS/o1L1 IL l (Wfilr b , l� e-� work /w 4 � P h tcKcle 0-463 �ry C oN See � -c //J� 01719,JC (' SnC/4 c k (-6 F/1A,L/ t�'Ne 121 � S � IwN d Or c17- fib N047p ye 6 113 tjo rl< I-IP - 175 U Gomm � u mot J Lj � S s e c r William Southworth, M.D. A^n 866 Blaine Street Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-0107 1 19,99 October 19, 1999 City Recorder, City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland OR, 97520 Dear Sir or Madam: I would welcome the opportunity to serve on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. I have resided in the City of Ashland since 1979. I am now retired and therefore have a flexible schedule. I am an active cyclist, but I am also a pedestrian and motorist. I have no particular axe to grind and would do my best to provide thoughtful input to the deliberations of the Commission.. I have served on numerous hospital committees over the years, but otherwise have no governmental experience. The following is an abbreviated curriculum vitae: Birthplace: Vicksburg, Michigan, 1941 Education: B.S. 1963, M.S. 1965, University of Michigan M.D. 1969 University of California, San Francisco Professional activities: Rural Health Physician, USPHS 1977-79 Emergency Physician at various hospitals including Ashland Community, Rogue Valley and Providence Medical Centers 1979-89 Internal Medicine private practice, Medford OR, 1990-95 Personal: married, two sons, both graduated from Ashland HS I am available to answer further questions about my candidacy, or to provide recommendations, as you may require. Sincerely yours, William Southworth City Council Communication City Recorder's Office December 7, 1999 Submitted by: V�Rarbara Christensen Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Liquor License Application from Susan Battenburg Powell dba/Pilaf Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following recommendation: "The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter." Background Information: Application reflects change in business location to 18 Calle Guanajuato. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. City Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Hillside Development Ordinance Remand December 7, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin Director of Community Develo2mek6l;D Approved by: Paul Nolte,City Attorney (/\�, Approved by: Mike Freeman,City Administrator Title: A public hearing regarding the Hillside Development Ordinance to determine issues remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA) in the case of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. the City of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-260. The Council will hear and: 1. Determine whether the 160 acres of unincorporated single family residential (SFR) lands outside city limits but inside the urban growth boundary can be developed under the Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO)with a sufficient number of units(a)to offset the loss of 5 units on SFR zoned lands within the city limits under the HDO and(b)to address the existing 46-acre shortage of SFR lands within city limits. 2. Determine that Ashland Land Use Ordinance Section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard: "It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment." These are the only issues that will be considered by the council at this hearing. All other issues have been resolved or are subject to further hearings and action by the planning commission and the council in the future. Synopsis: In December, 1997,the City of Ashland adopted the Hillside Development Ordinance for protection of Ashland's hillside areas. That ordinance adoption was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors (RVAR). LUBA remanded the decision, requesting the City to clarify and determine that the loss of five potential building lots due to the revised slope restrictions could be accommodated on other lands within the urban growth boundary(UGB)and still comply with the requirements of our comprehensive plan. The Council adopted a new Buildable Lands Inventory in September, 1999 which indicates that there is a surplus of lands, specifically in the single family residential zone referred to by LUBA and affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance. This surplus provides sufficient land to meet the 20-year projected needs of our community for housing and addresses the issues raised by the Realtors during the appeals process. The second issue of the remand involves the Council confirming that the following language [I 8.62.080(E)(2)(g)] is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard: "It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment." It is clear from the language "It is recommended"that this part of the ordinance is a suggestion and not mandatory. Fiscal Impact: none Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council find, based upon the recently adopted Buildable Lands Inventory (Resolution 99-58), that there is a greater than 20-year supply of all residential lands affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance and that the adoption of the new ordinance will not result in shortage in any residential land use classification. Further, we recommend that the Council confirm that the language in 18.62.080(E)(2)(g)is a suggestion and not mandatory. Staff will bring back the appropriate findings supporting your decision at the following meeting for final adoption. Background Information: During the adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance,one of the key issues raised by the Realtors was loss of developable land. The adopted ordinance changed the threshold for developable land from 40%down to 35% and therefore, some parcels which could previously be divided no longer had that option. Staff's review of this issue indicated that there would be a loss of 33 housing units,with five of those units being on R-1 (single family) zoned lands. The remaining 28 units would be on low density residentially zoned lands (RR-.5 and WR). The City was able to show that there were adequate lands within the City limits to accommodate the loss of the 28 units in the low density zones,however,LUBA found that additional evidence was necessary to show that the 160 acres of single family zoned land within the UGB would adequate to accommodate the loss of the'five units, and still maintain a 20 year supply. They also raised the issue of a shortage of 46 acres of single family zoned land within the City limits, indicated in the comprehensive plan. In fact, there was no shortage of land, but rather LUBA misunderstood thatour 20-year supply of land is met by both lands within our city limits and UGB,and that the City does not need to provide a 20-year supply within the city limits. Since the time of the ordinance adoption,the City has adopted the Buildable Lands Inventory(Resolution 99-58)which indicates that within the UGB,the City has a36 year supply of lands and within the actual city limits, there is a 31 year supply of lands. These inventory numbers address both issues raised by LUBA. This inventory was based on detailed field studies and analysis of development over the past several years, and included the effects on potential development imposed by the Hillside Development Standards. The methodology for the inventory was based on administrative rules adopted by the State of Oregon. Based upon our adopted Buildable Lands Inventory, the City has well in excess of the lands necessary to accommodate our future growth,and to more than offset the reduction in potential lots caused by the change in slope threshold for development on Hillside lands. Copies of the Council resolution adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory, and the inventory itself, are attached to this communication. RESOLUTION NO. 99- 5g 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 4a' day of .11999. Catherine M. haw, Mayor Re Paul Nolte, City Attorney Buildable fKbm V Lands Y ' 00 Inventor y i CITYOFASHLAND 1998-99 Prepared by: City of Ashland Dept. of Community Development Planning Division � EG � 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 .................................................. Needed Housing 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 Plan designation .................. .................... . ..................................................... 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 22 designation......................................................................................I.............. 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 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 1 i ` 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. 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-I-7.5-P 3.6 units per acre Single-Family Residential(SFR) R-1-10&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) HC 13.5(as 112) 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 Fieldwork 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 B-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-1 21 44.35 9.64 NM 12 29.85 0.00 R-1-10 87 20.47 725 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 2.19 RR-.S-P 66. 40.54 1320 RR-1 4. 3.12 0.00 RR-5 127. 163.01 70.54 EWR l2. I1.01 31.61 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 #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: NIM "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. NgP "Manufactured Dwelling"(defined above[MJJ))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 Reductiogfor built ( ) (units Public Facilities gross acre) Multi-family residential(MFR) 458 17.1 11.97 32.6% 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% o .._ilntts;Built= � s ;: .`,t 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 2.06/6 Downtown 4 0.3% Employment 13 - 0.90/6 Health Cate 279 19.8% High Density Residential 93 6.6% Low Density Residential 46 3.3% Multi-family Residential 181 12.96/. Single-family Residential 676 48.00/. 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 (AIDU)/(Avg Du per Acre) C-1 29 20.20 1.43 C•1-D 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 76 736 1033 R 15 P 299 8.55 34.97 R-1-7.5 106 g4.45 18.96 R-1.7.5-P 26 5.94 R-2 124 823 R-2-P 61 5.82 R-3 98 19.36 5.06 RR-.5 13 2.61 4198 RR-.5-P 34 2.45 13.88 RR-1 2 - 2-53 039 RR-5 2 1.0 2.0 so 36 16.200 2.22 WR g 1.49 537 man xY? C }4 .--.�x.QP'?1,,uil-'A" r..esill°.erd 0 �oui; v __g Pit Table 3.4 Sub Category Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Lands NvmberMGmmmdal dcYdapmub 09s 99) Fber Arta $-3 Mal bm'O,id ZONE pvdada C&aa0 -P�ted Ia Sq•FI C-1 9 78296 .. '� 10:7 ,. .. C-I-D - 3 ' 12798 PM .. E-1 40 250874 4 ` " HC 2 2476 •- ' .R S°...:M: _ 2AT%'Nfe "Ryr7G'�'K M_I 2 16200 rnv. I �r 80 2 32893 €•.. ... �e .z`,.�"_.aaa:T% R-2 3 11818 TOTALS 61 405355 1628 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. IThe 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 psNaJ PoplWon Projection adjusted for those in large group quarters and divided 24000 by an assumed rate of 2.2 ,z ;�"' . `" ,A���x��; . �z�� fX° ` 2M_2M persons per household. 22000 ...... P}� . :.. The Southern Oregon 20000 - University dormitories 18000 ,,, will house 750 students in u Spring Quarter 1999, 16000 --- - Rgedion according to the SOU 14000 - ------------------------------------------- Housing Office. The 2018 1 Population forecast of 22,473 people, minus the 10000 750 students living in 19M 1975 1980 1M5 1990 1985 MM 2O 5 =0 =5 2W 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 Its'.. .`oVacan�y AGN Srtern ' .. 1600 r ' t •' ia,..Si� r .,y z �Y _ .., .. 1400 1200 UNITS 1000 NEEDED 800 4S0 tair ties Goo- 400- 200 0. 1.75 1i9 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 SFIZ, SFR-A, and ME (manufactumd 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 1%, 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) Mined Use,commercial with residential unit(s):(MU) Single-family residential Attached:(SFR-A) Multi-family residential: (IviF'R) Manufactured housing units:(MR) Multi-family residential detached: (MFR-D) Manufactured housing units in Parks:(NW) 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-earned 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 Table 4.1 Population and Housing Trends 1970-Present. 1970 1980 1990 j 1998 99(current)l Population 12,342 14,943 16,234 s' y � r� Persons per Household 2.84 2.36 2.22 t ,...wa OkrwT_ Number of Housing Units 4,124 6,330 7,204 ,�� z:-8 7, `yIr�; Median Family Income $35,038 $39,479 $40,364 $3�8800,� _ a (adjusted 1999 dollars) National Median Household income(adjusted `� a }�.e ''ii 1999 dollars) $34,560 $36,226 $38,598 $ 6 -4, 1 ) Median Rent $321 $384 $502 ;fin data' (adjusted 1999 dollars) Median Home Value $61670 $123915 $139,194 caaareat uesu ° (adjusted 1999 dollars) + by;`me Rogue Yi m ofRFA T... 11 o6Febmary t Home owner no data no data 2.6% EnD2 ata Vacancy .. ,., Ra1eS rental - no data no data 2.8% 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) 1 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 <I% 6876 Total Households 15 Table 4.3 Projected Number of Needed Housing Units by Type within 20 Years Units Number of New Number of Needed Units New Unit s New Units needed needed it Units needed by New Units adjusted for Percentage of year 2018 with needed by Desired year 2018, year 2018, 2 2 ersons per year 2018, Vacancy Rates - Housing Unit Type total units at 1.75 at 1.9 p household at 2.4 people (Based built 1990-98 people per people per household household (city wide avg.) per persons s per household household) Wie-mnity midis i(MFR) 32.6% 466 429 340 M°ie-rwiy mmwtat ednd: 4.4°/a 63 58 "" '56y �5x 46 59 ', O�R.D) ... >• ° j 1' • x6e �mamdacomd iss ina wits:(A41) 0.5% 7 6 I� .a S` IA masa.M.d t�tw nniu in 1.6% 23 21 20 5 17 X31' Parks:QGIP) e� ' Mud Usi c°mmemd with 1.4% 20 18 1 y 15 IW °At'' residrnYal imit(Q:(MI!) - ay Singto-Gmity mmcndd Dasd: 51.1% 731 673 WS 533 z.�' (SPR) sg Si°glo-famny reaiaa,tr.t AsatIM: 5.3% 76 70 - 67 " 55 t 64 k 3 (SFR-A) sk . '•Km..� "'. b Gvwvmat aaiWdhwai°g:(DA) 3.1•/, 44 41 9 ' 32 `r4L R" w'+" <3 }" ". sr 7 1 3?� '°,t317 uf� G a ".«.:z 9+ 09w: TotgLs _ Percentage of Type Modifiedao=reflect Anticipated"Development r t4 '*s ,° U s MFR 30% 429 395 ���(� 313 x398 �r sx _ W . } MFR-D 4•b 56 sz 5.0 .. 4z 952 n MH 1% 14 13 t3 10 3 i MHP 25% 36 33 n 26 `•Y 21 =::f 26 r". MU zva z9 z6 Y 25 . 45% 644 593 ,:. 568 0 _. 58,8 SFR � A ux3 : 125% 179 165 158 ? 130 �}„ .162! {. SFR-A WEN �:-, +� . GA 3t 43 40 4- 38 k4 31 :w V.., f I);�ti'"( +� r re100'li'- '1ir xcs 14304x' ,c 1017 'i "���y i�263`5 c5.'� 1 #1043 ,.ice 3w^ 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 Ay° .Fbo QnSRf1'byZme 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 LL3000 increasing land prices and housing prices. As Ashland's housing prices rise it is likely that market pressures will encourage the construction of more s '€ affordable housing. To plan for this contingency staff 8110 R-tl R-1-1D R2 R4 Re&EeMW z«1p has determined that an increase in the allocation of SFR-A housing is justified. Calculation of amount of residential 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 between 1990 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% 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 106/. Employment 20/6 55% Health Care 46% 3% 290/. High Density Residential 170/. 3% 17% I% 17% Low Density Residential 3% 6% Multi-family Residential 21% 24% 100% 15% 3% 5% 1006/. 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 MHP MU SFR I SFR-A GA commercial 20% Downtown 10% Employment 55% Health Care 100% 20/. 100/. High Density Residential 33% 4% 15% 20% 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 TOTAti Designations MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA tUffitsr t Commercial 5 Downtown 3 Employment 14 r _„ .. Health Care 40 12 16 High Density 131 2 2 32 67 ' Residential Low Density 2 35 Residential _ Multi-family, 187 13 33 4 12 33 40 322 Residential " Single-family 20 35 11 500 23 i x:'389 - Residential Southern Oregon 20 "0 University 4uburbm Residential 58 fz $ 29 ended `�� � 523 r2jr 12 40 ng Units 8. 3 . . : - 20 r. r Table 5.3 Residential Land Need (Acres) by Housing Type and Comprehensive Plan Designations . 1.4"M Comprehensive Plan Structure Types Identified and Actual Net Densities(Units per Net Acre(table 3.1)) (Land,.,) Designations CtNeeded in,' MFR MFR-D MH MHP MU SFR SFR-A GA NetAcres (11.97) '(5.8) (6.32) (10.87) (8.06) (4.67) (18.33) (615) xj,•`x 3 Commercial .62 E5a:62 w Downtown .37 rK 411:371 w', Employment 1.74 a+ .a Health Care 3.34 2.57 .87 .78=:� 3:35 . High Density Residential 10.94 .34 .32 1.75 Low Density Residential .34 7.49 Multi-family Residential 15.62 2.24 3.04 .50 2.57 1.80 6.50 Single-family Residential 1.67 6.03 1.74 107.07 1.25 1.t z76 Southern Oregon University 1.67 7 Suburban Residential 3.16 Woodland 6.21 -6,21 "? ig afa an Needed l Ac ! 33 2 8r95 G' 6 I 04 25.9 8 83 X6.5 21 Table 6 Residential Land Need/Availability Comparison by Comprehensive Plan Designations Additional Residential Land Land Needed Net Acres Supply availability (acres) Buildable Difference Needed in Years COMPPLAN for 20 year Acres (Net Buildable (at the close Residential Available Acres-Land of the within within Development (within Needed) planning City (1999-2018) UGB) period) UGB Limits Commercial .62 8.47 7.85 Surplus not residential Downtown .37 0.15 -0.22 Z 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 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 2.5 14.75 14.75 Totals 191.76 541.94 350.18 Surplus Table 7 Commercial Land Need/Availability Comparison by Zone Designations Number of # c�' ire cc Number of Differences Commercial Estimate of ' W Total Acres Commercial Tatal3AcresF Buildable �eyen 4 ZONE developments Used Development Wow ceded s Acres JVeedatrd (1990-98) 1990-98 s Anticipated a r " Available Aihty [includes C& (1999 2018) tis (1999-2018) & •, "'N* 1 § t MUl r kr E k C-1 9 10.78 20 :24t µ 8.5 s 15 5 C-1-13 3 1.13 7 2 5 ``" .15 2 2x35 4w, , B-1 40 34.35 89 x:;76 { 86 t10 M-1 2 1.38 4 3 n+ ? 55 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 (Surplus/Deficit) Airport not evaluated as residential 0 0 Commercial not evaluated as residential 5 �nol-cvaluatged�•a,g�residentitil. Downtown not evaluated as residential 3 n Tev_aluatd'as cesidea�iat Employment not evaluated as residential 14 1TU Valuated asyresidenlial HC 104 68 36 unit surplus 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 $u It ; M Woodland 11 likely(27 total possible) 29 demo engiq a bg) 1'rotal 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 a 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 Council Communication Penny/Palmer LID Formation Public Works Department ��J�,�y! December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Bmwrt{¢� Reviewed by: Paul Nolte IVY Approved by: Mike Freeman YWA Title: A resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited and authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. Synopsis: The attached Resolution establishes the level of improvements and estimated costs for the Penny /Palmer Local Improvement District(LID) for Penny Drive and Palmer Roadmithin the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Improvements consist of paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalk, and associated improvements, for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Petitions in favor of the improvements have been received from all of the property owners within the proposed Penny/Palmer Improvement District. Although a public hearing is not required where a 100%petition response is received,the property owners request the opportunity to approach the council regarding the requirements of including sidewalks in the required improvements. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to discuss concerns raised by the Penny/Palmer neighborhood, and further recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited and authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. Background for the Public Hearing Staff has reviewed the attached packet of information from Ruben and Barbara Vasquez on behalf of the Penny/Palmer neighborhood. The major concern raised is in regard to installing sidewalks in the improvement area at this time. The neighbors have signed in favor of the LID, but are requesting a variance so that sidewalks could be installed in the future after other sidewalk improvements are made to surrounding area streets, specifically Woodland Drive and Palmer Road. \\I'SI\SYS\l!SI3R\ilawn\GNGINI FR\L:ID'',Palmcr-Penny CC 11I-1 REES.doc Page I i The Vasquez's have clearly made their concerns known in the attached packet. Briefly, the residents are concerned that the sidewalks only on Penny and Palmer would create a false sense of security that does not continue to other neighboring street sections. They are willing to include the sidewalk cost in their assessment, but would prefer one of two things happen with those fends—either fund additional sidewalks around schools, or hold the funds for future sidewalks in the assessment area. Staff continues to support the Council's position of including sidewalk improvements for all local improvement districts and major street improvements. Additional Background Information: Casa Madrona Subdivision was platted in 1965 at which time Penny Drive and Palmer Road were created and opened for travel. As was common during that period of the City's development,the streets were not improved. Attempts to create a local improvement district to improve the streets were made in 1967, 1971, 1986 and 1991. It wasn't until the Council's passage of Resolution No. 99-09,which approved specific areas of financial participation by the City,that sufficient interest in this LID was possible. Two neighborhood meetings were held where city staff members from Engineering and Planning meet with property owners to discuss the type of improvements required, the estimated costs and the methods by which these costs would be allocated. At the final neighborhood meeting held on August 25, 1999, 12 of the 16 owners within the proposed assessment district agreed upon the number of lots to be included and the number of potential units to be assessed. It was agreed that the three lots accessing from Weissenback Way (a private drive) should be assessed at a %2 unit rate while those that had actual lot frontage on the streets to be improved should receive an assessment based upon a full unit. Further compensation was made to two lots, which had physically been combined (existing house built on both lots), and one lot that was large enough to divide into two lots. Petitions were signed by ALL of the owners within the proposed district. With a 100%petition response a public hearing is not required, however, the neighborhood was again unanimous in their desire to hold a public hearing so that the issue of sidewalk requirements could be discussed with Council members. A sidewalk along one side of the street has been included in the cost estimate and is reflected in the preliminary design. Attached is a copy of the cost estimate and boundary map. 'QPS 1'',Sl'S`.USER\dawn\ENG I V GGR`l I D\I'nimcr-Penny CC PI-I RES.ibc Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PENNY DRIVE /PALMER ROAD WITHIN THE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION FOR THE PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALK, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT. RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted.and- to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and•it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District, No. 81. SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $66,931.00 all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $3,953.35 per unit or potential unit assessment. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION G:DawntEngineerlPenny/Palmer LID2 Forming District.doc EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LOTS & ESTIMATED COST PER LOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION MAP NO. TAX LOT DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL COST PER TOTAL UNITS UNIT I 39-1E-15BC 3000 Lot 12 caw madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 2 39-1 E-15BC 3005 Lot 3 Casa Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 3 39-1E-15BC 3007 Lot caw madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 4 39-1 E-1 513C 3008 Lot 5 Casa Madrona 1 $3,953.35: $3,953.35 5 39AE-15BC 3009 Loth case Madrona 1 $3,953.35. $3,953.35 6 39-1E-1513C 3010 Lot caw madrona 2 $3,953.35`: $7,906.70 7 39-1E-15BC 3011 Lot 10 caw Madrona .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 a 39-1E-15BC 3012 Lot 11 caw madrona .5 $3,953.35- $1,976.67 9 39-1 E-15BD 6100 Lot 1 Blk 4 Bieber 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 1.0 39-1 E-15BD 7200 ------------ 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 » 39-1E-15BD 7100 - ----- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 12 39-1E-156D 7101 — ---- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 13 39-1E-156D 6900 --------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 11.5 TOTALS $45,463.50 Note: The costs shown are estimates only. The final assessment will be derived from the actual costs incurred on the project. G:Daw \EngineerU.ID\Palmer—Penny Revision LI to Nbrs 9-1-99.doc City of Ashland Department of Public Works - Engineering Division Estimate for Palmer Road & Penny Drive L.I.D. Street:Palmer Road & Penny Drive Estimate By: R. Pallady Limits:South of Woodland to end Date: 05114/98 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 05/17/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 07/26/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 09/01/99 GENERAL INFORMATION Length of Project: 564 Width of Street: 22' W/4' sidewalk 1 side (on Palmer Road and Penny Drive) Pavement Design: 4" AC A. ESTIMATED COSTS Total Estimate $53,120.00 B. OTHER (List) Contingency (5%) $2,656.00 C. TOTAL $55,776.00 D. ENGINEERING Cad 20% $11,155.00 E. PROJECT TOTAL $66,931.00 F. CREDITS Sidewalks - 60% of$7,980 $4,788.00 Storm Drain - 75% of$4,600 $3,450.00 Paving —20% of$38,260.00 $7,652.00 Engineering - 50% of$11,155 $5,577.50 Subtotal $21,467.50 G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $45,463.50 H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5 I. ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $3,953.35 G:Dawn\Engi=cALID\Palmer—Penny Revision Ltr to Nbrs 9-1-99.doc • I N W N N N U d t h O O wd CW N I, O A 0 U O O N O ON T L d c //C��l a o f o o F M 0 "=' S `o a Y v. o c 3 S ° c ." U .N c u y S a c c 2 C1 —y Y u u C O `n E C' u = u 0 v E s E a E a w °' 3 E E E fi Uo c E y E E v Q 6.o 0 0 0 c = u 'y vi yp o o a v m v " � o CL H o o a U ami 0 0 0 Z 0 .o c e z E c .. u ., ., o K a .. u ., ,� 'm E c E c E n � �... 0 n D c c c o 00 0 00 m i y y '� 9 9 9 u u o T C .� Y 'O d 'O 9 y V �°n � v, OinC � y00' O' O N N N N N N N N N N V wm ^W i Q Y O O J C d d C 7 O V _ V V as o � CD ° p V a t a ] ¢ ° b -x a tw � v z ^m o a a w G 7 e a0.i is m � � td � O y ^ Q V U ^ C7 .o be p c a 3 'C � o to "c E U ❑ o p \ p c A. a �" .> > m y o C ° .. C cae O b ¢ b0 caC y catl N N NN .. (, '^ aYai .9b O P. U a y w p F :+ >l O O w U T pry cd ttl y K W ?E 7 N id ctl td Q' 7 N ca O «O v 9 'c a v N w 3 u p a ro scnrncncnrs: x d3rnrnU N N City Council Communication Administrative Services Department Exemption from Competitive Bidding December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Dick Wanderscheid Approved By: Paul Nolte K Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Resolution exempting from competitive bidding an extension to the contract for advertising for the Ashland Fiber Network(AFN). Synopsis: The City executed the original contract for advertising for AFN with the communications group, inc. on December 11, 1998. An addendum to this contract was signed on July 21, 1999. On November 16, 1999 the City Council passed an amendment to the competitive bidding resolution which removed advertising from the list of items which were exempt from competitive bidding. The attached resolution would provide a one-time exemption to extend the contract with the communications group, inc. through the entire rollout period,which is estimated to occur over a 12 to 18 month period. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the exemption. Background Information: Even though advertising at the time was exempted from competitive bidding, staff chose to solicit bids from five agencies however, only one agency responded. Subsequently an additional agency, the communications group, inc.,was asked to submit a bid. They responded and were selected to provide this service. Marketing of AFN services will soon be entering a critical phase, as residential services will soon be launched in the first nodes of service. Staff has worked with the communications group, inc. and has an extensive marketing campaign on the shelf and ready to implement quickly. This firm has been very responsive and creative in their approach to helping the City market AFN. Their local expertise and resources have allowed them to respond rapidly with the necessary marketing skills on this quickly changing project. Staff feels that to go out and request bids at this critical stage of the project would be ill advised. We cannot afford the time necessary to competitively bid this out, bring a new firm up to speed and develop new approaches prior to the need to initiate this next important marketing phase of this project. The AFN business plan projects advertising, marketing and public relation expenses for year 2 and half of year 3 at about $143,000. Projecting that the actual length of rollout will be between 12 and 18 months, the total cost for this extension should be between $93,000 to $143,000. RESOLUTION NO. 99- BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING THE CONTRACT WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LCRB RESOLUTION INC FOR ADVERTISING INCLUDING PUBLIC RELATIONS, MARKETING AND DESIGNING AND PREPARING ADVERTISING FOR PUBLICATION. Recitals: A. AMC § 2.50.030.6 permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds (1)the lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract; and (2)the exemption will result in substantial cost savings. B. This code provision provides that in making such findings, the board may consider the type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as the board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the board shall direct the use of alternate contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modern or innovative contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of encouraging competition. C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the board shall adopt written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption of a contract or class of contracts complies with the requirements of AMC § 2.50.030.B. The board adopts the information contained in the council communication dated December 7, 1999 from Dick Wanderscheid as findings justifying the exemption. The board finds that this exemption will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract and the exemption will result in substantial cost savings. The board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows: Contract with communications group, Inc. for advertising including public relations, marketing and designing and preparing advertising for publication. This exemption is limited to the extension of the existing contract for a period not to exceed 18 months from the date this resolution is adopted. 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 aau we d as t fo Pl N te, City Atto ey PAGE 1-LCBR EXEMPTION (FIUSER\PAUUORDLLCRMLCRS me advenising a mmunicedons group.w d) Completed projects by the communications group, inc. December 1998 — November 1999 • Development of overall marketing plan • Three AFN logo designs for consideration by the City • Final Brand name • Final AFN logo design • Business cards • Letterhead and envelopes • Illustrations (house, cityscape, speed) • City Hall/Utility Billing counter redesign AFN data sell sheet • AFN internet sell sheet • AFN television sell sheet • Channel line-up flyer • Channel line-up direct mail/response survey • JPR ad for channel line-up and community input Folders/media kits and contents • Statement stuffers • "It's worth the wait" advertisements (photos and copy) • Movie screen ad • Living and Doing Business ad • . July 4`h Hillah Temple logo/display/posters • Electric Department vehicle logo/design • AFN web site/design • Internet Service Provider ads (photo and copy) • AFN print television ads (photos and copy) • Assortment of ads for print media"From Ashland to Anywhere" • Generic "world" ad design and copy • Radio ad for Grizzly/SOU sports broadcasts • AFN Power Point presentations • Co-op ad guidelines for ISPs • Coordination and placement of media buys Council Communication Public Works Department Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown Reviewed by: Paul Nolte +-� Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Hear Petitions for/and any Objections to the Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street Synopsis: In July 1999, the City received the attached petition from property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street requesting the remaining portion of a sixteen foot wide alley extending from Bush Street westerly 100 feet be vacated. City staff recommended that a five foot wide pedestrian and bicycle access easement be reserved to access property towards Laurel Street. The First United Methodist Church of Ashland sent the attached letter objecting to the easement. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 1999 with the intent of resolving the bicycle and pedestrian easement conflict and other issues. The Planning Commission approved the vacation request with a reservation for the five foot pedestrian and bicycle easement, along with other conditions as outlined below. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting a public hearing on January 18, 2000 for the purpose of hearing objections to the vacation of the remaining 100 foot section of the Bush Street alley. Background Information: The sixteen foot wide alley connecting Laurel and Bush Streets was dedicated to the City as part of the original 1888 town plat. The alley, which is located in block 25 of the original town plat was 300.75 feet long. In 1982, under ordinance No. 2197 (instrument No. 82-07723), the northerly 200.75 feet was vacated to accommodate the construction of Wesly Hall by the First United Methodist Church. The remaining 100 feet of the alley off Bush Street, while still public, serves mainly the two adjacent lots; 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street. The property at 159 North Main Street is a multi-unit travelers accommodation with a six space parking lot accessed from the alley. The alley provides the necessary back-up space for the head-in parking. The property at 63 Bush Street is a single family residence. The alley provides access to a detached garage located at the rear of the property. The property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street are proposing to vacate the alley and return ownership of the land to their adjacent parcels. The alley is 1,611.2 square feet in size. The property owners are proposing to divide the area equally in half so that the eastside property line of 63 Bush Street would be moved to the west eight feet. The property at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street would both be increased by 805.6 square feet if the alley is vacated and the property divided as proposed. FAGI-i ItTAI.I A'(C(it \( IL C('Ignh`vw(:\Ike \ircaiim I'll(r2Ul.d. The property owners at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street have submitted a letter agreeing to provide a five foot wide public pedestrian and bicycle easement the length of the alley. The neighbors propose to locate the easement on the west side of the alley which would become the property of 63 Bush Street. The vacation was initiated in order to increase the rear yard of 159 North Main Street, and the side yard of 63 Bush Street. Currently, both properties have non-conforming structures which do not meet current setback requirements located adjacent to the alley. The addition of eight feet to each property and subsequent movement of the property lines would change the buildings to a conforming status because an adequate amount of property would be added to each parcel. After the adjustment, any additions to the accessory structures would simply require a building permit. Recently, the First United Methodist Church of Ashland erected a fence along their property }\ abutting the north end of the alley. Prior to the fi installation of the fence it was physically possible for a pedestrian or cyclist to use the alley and € Wesley Hall parking lot to go from Bush Street to 111114illllllllll1111 Laurel Street and vice versa. The church submitted a letter in opposition to the public pedestrian and bicycle easement (copy attached, dated July 26, 1999). The letter states that the church has had problems with"transients using the area". This issue was presented in public hearing to the Planning Commission on November 9, 1999. The vacation was approved with the following conditions: 1. That a public pedestrian and bicycle easement, a minimum of five feet in width shall be provided connecting the Bush Street right-of-way to the north end of the existing alley. 2. That mutual access easements shall be recorded for the properties located at 63 Bush Street and 159 North Main Street so that the area which was formerly a public alley can continue to be used as a shared driveway and back-up space. 3. That the public pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be kept free and clear of any objects including but not limited to temporary structures, landscaping, refuse/recycling containers, vehicles and fencing. 4. That the small shed and refuse/recycling containers currently located in the alley shall be removed from the public pedestrian and bicycle easement. 5. That the existing pavement/vehicular access shall remain in place. 6. That any fencing on adjacent properties shall be located outside the public pedestrian and bicycle easement so that the full width is unobstructed. It is felt that conditions at the end of the alley may change in the future to allow pedestrian access through and that the easement could be a vital future pedestrian link. The petition to vacate the property has been verified and the required $500 filing fee paid. F.--.V>I.K`J'At9 A'.t.14 M Ii.l'l: Ru•h tiu'.a:lIc. F'.r::ei,m 191 i IRDI,.L. RESOLUTION NO. 99= A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR A PETITION FOR, AND ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSH STREET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 4.16 and ORS 271.080 to 271.150, the City Council of the City of Ashland will conduct a public hearing on January 18, 2000 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon, to hear the petition for, and any objections to, the vacation of a portion of an alley off Bush Street with a reservation for a five foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement as described on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The City Recorder is directed to give notice of the petition and hearing by publishing a notice in the Daily Tidings, once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing and such other notice as may be required by ORS 271.110. 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 1 — RESOLUTION G:Paula\City CounciRResolution Bush Street Alley Public Hearing.doc EXHIBIT A Description of the Vacation of a Portion of an Alley off Bush Street in the City of Ashland: A portion of that sixteen foot wide alley situated in Block 25 of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the Official Plat thereof adopted by the Ashland City Council on November 5, 1888. Said vacation shall include the remaining 100 feet of alley adjacent to Lots 3 & 4 of said Block 25. RESERVING THERE FROM An easement for pedestrian and bicycle use, five feet in width and situated along the length of the alley with the north boundary being contiguous to the centerline of alley. City of Ashland Engineering Division Description of Alley Vacation and Easement Reservation NOVEMBER 23, 1999 CiTaulaTounciMush Street Alley Exhibit A.doc 't I Lr) I to I 1 00 a I I 1 7 s 3 3 1 2-.3 1 1 : ] ] t: g y a A 3 C 1 2 1 Z Z 3 1 1 c A a 8 3 3 3 3 00)� f t f a 1 3 3 9& co a 1 1 1 T 1 1 7 5 1 N 1 W) I I U') I to 1 n 1 00 1 01 _ .�. . .. .. � �'� --... ,/ f,. ` • • .. ,: �� � : .,;. �'� :�:� �� ..•: •. ..;. � : �, - ��°" :::::,. ..`'.' , _ �• ,;:; �''� ;: _ y'r. u r ti 7 4�� °� pp .;,rr�, , .� � �� ;:� �_ .� �_ � -� � _ _/ 1 _ , . . • . . / - ' ; n I ; I? jl ;i )UL 2 8 Iccq July 26, 1999 .� Mardi Young President of Trustees First United Methodist Church of Ashland 175 North Main Street Ashland, Oregon, 97520 Mr. James H. Olson Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Vacation of Alley off Bush Street Dear Mr. Olson, We were recently asked to sign a petition to vacate the balance of an alley leading from Bush St. to our property line. The first portion of this alley was vacated several years ago when our church constructed Wesley Hall and the adjacent parking lot. The petition was signed, but we have a concern. In a letter from the petitioners it was stated that the City of Ashland wants to retain a five foot wide easement from Bush Street that will end at our property line. It is the intention of the Church to secure the area at the end of the alley with a fence on our property line. There have been some problems with transients using the area, which is next to a building that is used as a children's classroom by day and church group meeting room at night. We do not understand why the City wants to retain this five foot wide strip of land that dead ends into our property. We are not in favor of the easement. Please clarify the City's reasoning for requiring the easement in connection with this application for vacation. Thank you for your attention to this matter in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Mardi Young cc: Trustees Jon & Carmen Reinhardt, Petitioner Robin Foster—Colleen Curran, Petitioners a Date Filed: '712'�)/ -29 PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near /12 /V- 4/A) A/0 Jkb /3i[.5 M.5 7)?iif do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 66%%of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. 11 f7 ,NAME (} ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. 1 clt, 1 1}rooV.e,�G`.Joe� /57 Al. M,.%,, 00 2 /iLr U. 31Gtilr .� 3i�.z s t/0 330 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) I, 7w, l bf Ik//A o being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signaturesmmwib~ i•� are the signatures of the persons owning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. Sig ture Notary FMbli6 K*2l �seAi My Commission Expires /O G� 4,q . gL1.EN yc(8iN 0855 r!09 fXPGiFf Ctr.l7,Iffi GMa MrGMXVautbn PetabnmpA Date Filed: / /" PETITION We the undersigned property_owners residing on or near 15`i ti,h4/Ai � 1 (63 7yj/.St/ !;i i7 do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 662/3% of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. NAME / r�ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. z s Al i Y ' �I /Yo �I7aL S� liaC /1 35e1337or 4 ' 22p9� 5 07`ice 8 • . � � /7 lv, urn ?/3ay � 1�> 9 to County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) I. 7aA f. IPC/,t�/f46I being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures vmmminWo are the signatures of the persons owning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. Sign re Notary Pu IC 1 //' OFFICIALSEAL M Commission Expires 1D"I1 "G-1 MARY LYNN LEWALLEN My p NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION NO.007855 NYCLMeSMEXPIRESOCT. AIM G9awn'SlreeNVaaBon PetRbn.wpd . Date Filed: PETITION /We the undersigned property owners residing on or near 15q ti). M A �,✓ ilrL0/ai' L ? L S/L ST' do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public rightof-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 662/3% of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. - NAM•E ADDRESS TAX LOT NO - 1 QY(9t ?x� ;10 2 — 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 �- County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) j°G v j p L j y/Yl�(/� . being one of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures 1i> are the signatures of the pcaning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. � �lt Signa re Notary Pu c My Commission Expires OFFICIAL SEAL ]ARY TA RY PUBL CE OREG01.OMMISSION NO. 047855 I'ASIMISSIOtl E%PIKES OCi.1I 1999 G'.0a %SbaaAVaraU3n PNabnmpC Date Filed: 7/ PETITION We he undersigned property owners residing on or near k] do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT REMAINING PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY EXTENDING WESTERLY APPROXIMATELY 100.65 FEET FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BUSH STREET (BETWEEN HIGH STREET AND NORTH MAIN STREET) IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100%of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 667/3%of the affected area which lies within 200 feel on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. E ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 County of Jackson ) State of Oregon ) I. TOO 7 12E I AI( t4PIO I , being One of the principal proponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures IMIMMOM are the signatures of the personp wning property abutting or within the area affected by the proposed vacation. Sign e Notary"P Ic ))hh )/ /; =R,SEAL My Commission Expires !U l `�l LEWALLEN C CRE,Di! EFtJO. 04,855 E4 OC i.:1,1783 G:Ga"%strmAVa"tiw Patftion pd Council Communication Legal Department Canvass of the Vote and Mayoral Proclamation December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman I IIM` Title: A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2, 1999, and Mayoral Proclamation. Synopsis: The resolution and proclamation set forth the results of the election on November 2, 1999, and make the canvass a matter of record as required by the city charter. Recommendation: Council should adopt the resolution, and the mayor should make the proclamation. Background Information: Article VII, Section 6, of the City Charter requires that the canvass of votes for all city elections be made, and the results of the election"shall be entered in the record of the proceedings of the council."The resolution sets forth the vote for each measure, and the proclamation sets forth the passage or failure of each of ballot measures, all as required by this charter section. F:\USER�sharlene\COUNCIL\CommunicaEons\canvass of the vote<0299.wpd s RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999. RECITALS: A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 71h day of December, 1999, at the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 2nd day of November 1999. B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes for the measures as follows: 15-3 General Obligation Bond Authorization for Public Yes 4,207 Library Remodel and Expansion No 2,082 15-4 General Obligation Bond Authorization for Public Yes 4,137 Fire Station Expansion No 2_ THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Measure 15-3, which posed the following question is declared to have passed: "Shall the city be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,960,000? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to limits of Sections 11 and 11 B, Article XI, of the Oregon Constitution." SECTION 2. Measure 15-4, which posed the following question is declared to have passed: "Shall the city be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,140,000? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to limits of Sections 11 and 11 B, Article XI, of the Oregon Constitution." This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of December, 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor R we t Paul Note, City Attorney PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE F9USEMShadene\COUN CIOELEC-11.99RES.wpd PROCLAMATION G I, Catherine M. Shaw, Maypa of the City f Aishland,Oregon, do proclaim that at the election held in the�City of=Ashland; Oregon on the 2 day of November, 1999, there was submitted<to tjhe voters;a i r measure regarding general obligation bond r authorization for'public I brary model and_expa son which posearthe question: "Shall the city be authuhzed Lu issue ge_neralloblig tion bonds in an amounp of to exceed � h&r --Uthia dater" s $5,960 00.0?"..This±measure is declared to have, assed with 4,207 affirmative votes to 2,082 negative votes, and voter turnout being greater�than the'eregOR' 50%. Asecond -Measure reg drag generaF obliga on bontl authonzaton for public fire �. > ,h station expansion wasNubmitted to the voters'which posetl the question •fShalI the city be authorized to issue�igeneral.obhgation bondslln an amountAnotao exceed a. t € .a er -....d a.d fit,; ip Pty t $3,140,000?" This,measure isideclared to have passed with 4,137 affirmative votes,to 1, �L F 6- V� 2,072 negative votes,andtvoterturnout beriig great rkthan the required 50% ; �qq..? t �+. Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this s a8ay of December 1999. h' �. .\ � % °- - Gatherine M. Shaw, Mayor = e ! e r ! § E , � ® z | � | ƒ / s ! 0 § � 72 F. �{ Fn /| 0 ± $ §§ /i % . � 2 ) 2 { / Oil �f if § E / - E E ! £ Qn , ; » ■ g r ■ 2 J ■ @ 7 % c ` R = ) SE <CD w G § § \ £ § ^ £ { ® w / 00! E _ _ bi , 00 � , , , 2 % v ( o . 0 7B < § § | � , § - � i MI k j t7i � ® § q `\ / CT @ / ® \ ! /| \ A ) z CER{ { ( � © 8 / � ( Q ( / § b ) \ § § § § ° ) o q ( K @ k § J § Q � \ � � � ` - - { § J z / n \ { k � £ ( to k 0 E ® . ■ ` k ` . i . \ ( ( , « Council Communication Legal Department Telecommunication Fees December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte V-- Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Adopting Fees for Telecommunication Registration, Applications, Construction, Franchises and Other Services under Ashland Municipal Code Title 16; and Repealing Resolution 98-24 Synopsis: This resolution sets forth the fees authorized in the city's telecommunications ordinance adopted in March 1998 and codified as Title 16 in the Ashland Municipal Code. The council recently adopted numerous amendments to the ordinance, some of which require that fees specified in the ordinance be set by resolution of the council. This resolution sets those fees as required by the ordinance. Recommendation: Move to adopt the resolution. Background Information: The council previously adopted Resolution 98-24 which established franchise fees for telecommunication carriers subject to the city's telecommunications ordinance. This resolution readopts the same franchise fees set forth in Resolution 98-24 and adopts other fees (such as application and review fees and construction permit fees), the amounts of which were previously listed in the telecommunications ordinance. This resolution addresses for the first time the pavement degradation fee which was added to the telecommunications ordinance by the recently adopted amendments. Other than the pavement degradation fee, this resolution does not add any fees to the existing telecommunications fee structure nor does it increase any fees previously specified in the telecommunications ordinance. (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\rate mso d99 cempd) RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION REGISTRATION, APPLICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION, FRANCHISES AND OTHER SERVICES UNDER ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 16; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 98-24 Recitals: A. The city's telecommunications ordinance adopted in 1998 and codified in Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code provides that the city council will set telecommunication franchise fees by resolution. B. Telecommunication franchise fees are established by the city for the purpose of assuring that the city's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to, and the use of, public rights-of-way are fully compensated by the persons seeking such access and causing such costs and to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the city and its residents for permitting private use of the public right of way. C. Recent amendments to Title 16 require that the council set certain other telecommunication-related fees by resolution, and this resolution is intended to implement such Title 16 requirements. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Registration fee. The registration fee for telecommunication carriers is established in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) section 16.08.030 as being equal to the license fee for a new business as provided in AMC Chapter 6.04. SECTION 2. Construction Permit Fee. (AMC § 16.12.070). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, prior to issuance of a construction permit for construction within the public right of way, the applicant must pay a permit fee equal to $250.00 or six-tenths of one percent (0.6%) of the estimated cost of constructing the telecommunications facilities, whichever is greater. SECTION 3. Diminished Pavement Life Fee. (AMC § 16.12.075) For any construction requiring pavement cuts within a public right of way, the amount to be paid to reimburse city for the pavement degradation and shortened pavement life that results from such cuts is established as follows: PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Tele mmuniwtions\rate reso d99.wpd) For Longitudinal Excavations: Aoe of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $3.50/linear foot of excavation Between 5 and 10 years $3.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $2.00/linear foot Over 15 years $1.00/linear foot For Transverse Excavations: Age of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $7.00/linear foot Between 5 and 10 years $6.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $4.00/linear foot Over 15 years $2.00/linear foot *The age of the street pavement where excavation occurs will be the period of time since the street surface was resurfaced, overlaid or reconstructed, measured from the fiscal year in which such work was completed to the fiscal year when a permit is issued for the excavation. SECTION 4. Application and Review Fee. (AMC § 16.20.040). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, the applicant must pay a review fee of$250.00. SECTION 5. Franchise Fee. (AMC § 16.24.070) A telecommunications grantee must pay a franchise fee to the city, through the duration of its franchise, as follows: A. For all grantees except as provided in paragraphs B and C, a fee of 5 percent of gross revenues paid quarterly. The minimum quarterly fee will be $1,000. Gross revenue is defined in section 16.04.040.E of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The franchise fee for a telecommunication utility shall equal 7% of its gross revenue on exchange access services earned within the boundaries of the city. C. For limited use telecommunications grantees, a minimum annual fee, payable in advance, of$4,000 or $1.22 per linear foot of right-of-way used, whichever sum is greater. This fee will increase annually in July of each year, by multiplying the fee by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of March preceding the July in which the fee is to be increased and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure. As used in this section, "Index" refers to the All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. 'Base CPI Index Figure" will refer to the Index number indicated for the PAGE 2-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Tele mmuniwtionsVale MW d99.wpd) month of March, 1998, and the "CPI Index Figure" for any other month will refer to the Index number for that month. Beginning July 1, 2001, the fee will be $2.50 per linear foot. This fee will increase annually by the CPI Index as set forth above. The base CPI will be March of 1998. 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. SECTION 6. Resolution 98-24 is repealed. 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 wed as to form: R Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 3-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Tele mmuniwtionsVate reso d99.wpd) Council Communication Public Works Department Jurisdictional Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street /J 'J December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown/'k►'� Approved by: Paul Nolte �J� - Approved by: Mike Freeman WV_ Title: A Resolution Accepting Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street from Jackson County to the City of Ashland Synopsis: Currently the section of Clay Street between Siskiyou Boulevard and E. Main Street is under Jackson County jurisdiction. Under this proposal, 2840 feet of this portion of Clay Street,the northern portion within the City Limits, would become the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland. Jackson County has offered a one-time payment of$80,000 as compensation for assuming the jurisdiction of this street to assist with maintenance and improvement costs. This offer is based upon County road standards and includes the cost.of paving a 33-foot wide street section with three inches of asphalt. As is the practice of Jackson County, an additional 20%has been added to the total amount for long term maintenance. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the attached agreement transferring jurisdiction of 2840 feet of Clay Street to the City of Ashland. Approval of this agreement will place Clay Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to approximately 400 feet north of Ashland Street within the jurisdiction of the City. Background Information: The section of Clay Street between Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland Street is the most patched and roughest street within the City. The original surface was placed by Jackson County and consists of an oil mat on an existing soil base. There is little to no aggregate base under the pavement. The pavement thickness is less than one inch in some areas. The section to be transferred is the entire northern section of Clay Street that is within the City Limits and includes the portion between Siskiyou Boulevard and the frontage road south of Ashland Street(Highway 66) and from the frontage road north of Ashland Street to a point 365 feet northerly. The total length of street to be transferred would be approximately 2840 feet. Most of the Clay Street area was annexed into the City under the `Bellview Annexation" in May 1964, Ordinance No. 1350. The unimproved roads within the annexation area remained under County jurisdiction and included Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road. It will be necessary to completely reconstruct the street between Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. The surface must be excavated, base rock placed, and curb and gutter installed. Storm drains and sidewalks will also be needed to bring the street to City standards. It is anticipated that a Local Improvement District will be formed to help fund the remaining costs of the street improvement project within the next three years. G:Paula\Council\CC Clay Jurisdiction.doc RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TRANSFER OF A PORTION OF CLAY STREET FROM JACKSON COUNTY TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND Recitals: A. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County has adopted an order pursuant to ORS 373.270 authorizing the surrender of jurisdiction over a portion (described below) of Clay Street ("the Street") to the City of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland deems it necessary or expedient and for the best interests of the City to acquire jurisdiction of the Street. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland accepts the county order and offer to surrender jurisdiction of the Street as described in the attached agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland letter dated November 10, 1999. SECTION 2. The mayor is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. 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: N Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (G:Paula%CounditClay Street Transfer Resolution.doc) 00 C) I I c x 1 8 3: 31 a7. 3 E :!:T aE a I a 3u ] a e S I - oFi2 Y4 Hum i a I 2 f 2 a 3 ]a 9 a I a 7 CD 2 1 a T LO CC) E. MAIN ST. f • l E~ , d a Gj b w a ASHLAND �} I 1 c° A U - I • F c� r SIS W do a G� cn d CITY OF ASHLAND SCALE: 1"=700' ® - PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL 0.1 o 0.1 Wes EXCHANGE AREA CLAY ST.-JACKSON COUNTY Joseph L.Strehl,P.E. Direc(or 200 Antelope Road JACKSON COUNTY (541)74-814 0— (`,5411)7714-81084 on 97503 Fax:(541)830-6407 Roads October 4, 1999 �L Jim Olson Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Jim: Enclosed is an Agreement for the transfer of jurisdiction of portions of Clay Street. Please submit the agreement to the City Council for approval and the Mayor's signature,then return all three of the signed copies to me to submitted to the Board of Commissioners. The dollar amount is based on 2,475 feet of road south of Highway 66 and 365 feet of road north of Highway 66, a pavement width of 33 feet, asphalt depth of 3 inches, a unit price of$32.00 per ton on the portion south of Highway 66 and$35.00 per ton for the portion north of Highway 66 with 20 percent added to the total dollar amount. The higher price per ton for the northerly section is based on a small tonnage of asphalt. Thank you for your c eration in this matter. Since I Dale etr E. County Engineer enclosures sw cc: Joseph L. Strahl ASHLAND1EX99211M.WPD BEAR CREEK GREENWAY / ENGINEERING / FLEET MANAGEMENT / MOTOR POOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 7746331 774.8184 7748184 776-7339 774.8183 774-8184 774-6307 CITY OF ASMini, CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 November 4, 1999 Mr. Dale Petrasek, P.E. Jackson County Engineering 200 Antelope Road White City OR 97503 RE: CLAY STREET JURISDICTIONAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Dear Dale: Thank you for providing the agreement for the jurisdictional exchange for Clay Street in Ashland. In the past, the City has not been anxious to assume the maintenance of Clay Street primarily due to its extremely poor condition. It will take a major reconstruction of the street to bring it to City standards. The cost will be much more than experienced for similar jurisdictional upgrades. We hope that the County's financial offer might reflect this extra effort required on Clay Street. As we discussed by phone, one compensation might be a reconsideration of the amount of money allocated per ton of asphalt surfacing. As you indicated, $32.00 per ton of asphalt is your standard price based upon the total tonnage of the project. There does, however, appear to be a considerable cost differential for our construction area. The cost of placing asphalt in Ashland has been over$40.00 for several years. Enclosed are some sample bid tabulation sheets for various Ashland project costs. Hopefully,the higher construction costs experienced in Ashland might warrant an increase in your allocated price per ton a shown on the exchange agreement. Please feel free to call me at 488-5347 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ames H. Olson Engineering Services Manager CC: Paula Brown G:Dawn\EngineerVimOlson\Jurisdictional Exchange Asphalt Cost Ltr.doc • Joseph L Strahl,P.E. mod Director JACKSON COUNTY I White City,Oregon 97503(64 Antelope(541)774-6164 184 Fax:(541)830-6407 Roads November 10, 1999 -- City of Ashland Engineering Attention: Jim Olson Cl City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Portion of Clay Street Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is a revised page 2 of subject agreement for jurisdictional transfer of a portion of Clay Street. Please return all three copies to our department for further processing once approved by the City. Sincerely, Sherryll Wallace Administrative Assistant cc: Dale Petrasek BEAR CREEK GREENWAY / ENGINEERING / FLEE7 MANAGEMENT / MOTOR POOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 7746271 774-8164 771-8184 776-7739 774-8187 774-8184 774-6301 AGREEMENT This Agreement made between Jackson county,apolitical subdivisionof the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as County and the City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City; Recitals A. The County presently has jurisdiction over the Roads(as defined below)within the city limits of the City. Because of the geographical location of the Roads,the costs of maintenance and improvements to the Roads has become unduly burdensome to the County. B. The City is involved in an ongoing street improvement program for roads and streets within the city limits. The City wishes to exercise jurisdiction over the Roads to ensure that the Roads are included within the City's street improvement program. C. ORS 373.270 permits the jurisdiction over county roads to be transferred to a city whenever the county governing board deems it necessary, expedient or for the best interest of the county to surrender jurisdiction,and the governing body of the city deems it necessary or expedient and for the best interest of the city to acquire jurisdiction over the county road to the same extent as it has over other public streets and alleys of the city. D. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County has, after satisfying the notice requirements stated in ORS 373.270(2), (3) and (4), adopted an order authorizing surrender of jurisdiction over the Roads and execution of this Agreement on behalf of the County. E. The City Council of the City has adopted a resolution authorizing the acceptance of jurisdiction over the Roads and execution of this Agreement on behalf of the City. Agreement NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Identification of Roads. This Agreement concerns portions of the following county roads within the City: a. Clay Street,from Siskiyou Blvd to a point 2,475 feet north of Siskiyou Blvd. b. Clay Street, from the State frontage road at Highway 66 to a point 365 feet north of the State frontage road at Highway 66. The roads identified above are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the"Roads". The Roads are shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this agreement by reference. Agreement - 1 2. Transfer of Jurisdiction. The County hereby-transfers jurisdiction over the Roads to the City, and the City hereby assumes jurisdiction over the Roads from the County. The City is hereby solely responsible for all construction, improvements, repair, maintenance, levying and collection of assessments and control of access over the Roads. The City shall have the same jurisdiction over the Roads as by its charter and the laws of the State of Oregon are given or granted it over any of the public streets and alleys of the City. 3. lament by County. Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the County shall make a one time payment to the City in the amount of$80,000.00 as a contribution towards defraying the City's costs of constructing, improving, repairing and maintaining the Roads. After making the payment, the County shall have no further obligation, financial or otherwise, with regard to the Roads. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands on this day of October, 2000. COUNTY: CITY: JACKSON COUNTY CITY OF ASHLAND By: Sue Slack By: Acting County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Doug McGeary County Counsel Agreement- 2 Council Communication Legal Department Ordinance Modifying Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures December 7, 1999 Submitted by: Paul Nolte W Approved by: Mike Freeman �. Title: An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures. Synopsis: This ordinance amends the requirements for demolition and relocation of historic structures within the city. The ordinance no longer bases the requirements on properties which have a historic designation. The purpose of the new requirements is to promote the reduction in volume of solid waste. The amendments clarify the meaning of demolition, which was previously undefined, and establishes new standards, requirements for notice and approval by the newly created Demolition Review Committee before any structure may be demolished or relocated. The property owner must have an approved development plan prior to demolition or relocation and must demonstrate, for structures erected prior to 1955, that demolition/redevelopment is more compatible with the neighborhood than rehabilitation would be. Violation of the ordinance carries enhanced penalties including fines up to the market value of the structure for flagrant violations. Recommendation: Move to approve the ordinance for second reading. Background Information: This ordinance is proposed for the purpose of curing a problem with the city's requirements for the demolition of structures. Currently the city's requirements are unenforceable due to statutory enactments made in 1995 which restricted the city's ability to control the demolition of historic structures. That statute (ORS 197.772) allows a property owner to remove property from any historic designation list compiled by the city. The current demolition ordinance applies only to structures on the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. F:\USER'sharlene\COUNCIL\Communicatiuns\demalition ord-c 1199.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.04.210 OF, AND ADDING OTHER SECTIONS TO, THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF STRUCTURES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: F nnotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. eletions are fin�eJf t and additions are shaded. SECTION 1. Section 15.04.210 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 15 04 210 Demolition amiffly of w r reloca4ioridof buffdfnasxstructures. A. The u ose of sections1504210to 15 04'2,1.8 is to promote areduction m;_. P rF? volume3 of solidzwaste by encouraging aIL[easonableop�portumties to rehabilitate P adaptively reuse existing structures By volumbuilding materials from a large percentage of the solid waste stream and continued use of they Idmg mattenats, n existirig_structures will reduce=the'amount of waste produced; : 3n50420thropur fog 43 2i ti gn 1,8therf to lowirig terms'; phrasgs,.wor mean- 0 1 a . or any acor Demolitn Tzd process thanmaya,%11 cause.parhal or total tlestruction of a}structd�6Mffe!re less tliar 60/o of he structure's external walls will be retam`ed in placeor where less'thang0% of#the=street,facade will remain 2'•j Facade `The front or principal faces) of a wldmg;`sometimes distmguished.from the other faces=byyelaborahon of architectural'or �r •�„ ornamental details:androften servigg_a`s,the pnmary>entrance: . C. ExcePf`as.provided m sections 1'5'.04.2.10lb,Aa permit is required before a-any building structuee..can be moved o demolished or rel'' r6d ¢;Theiaffawing fees The permit fees for demolition or relocation of a structure will be set by resolution of the council. D. No demolition or relocation permi4`=is required: 1. For structures of less-1 F I id n4500 square-feet in size. Page 1 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE Fi%USER\PAUL\ORD\demo06on ora ano3.wpd e • e e : - - : . da Almqv In sp - - - : : recognition of the Sirtictures on the the-Eity-Eatmeil E. Movo 2. The Goune" shall first r��r Hie demolition or rriovingl5efniftAo� �g such reearnrnendati�l., or after the passage of thiFty (30)shall a ces not a nelusion in th 5 final 10 3t, or (Ord. 2462, S2, 1989). b. That the building in juestion been eenderrined a-id cannot, in the opinion-o��, to a new building of the , owner. FE. In addition to the enforcement provisions of this Title, the City Attorney may, or upon order of the City Council shall, immediately commence.action or proceedings for the prevention of the demolition or moving-relbcationof a structure in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will prevent the demolition, moving, removal, or damage to a building or structure, or using property, contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies provided for herein in:tlis.sectionshall be cumulative and not exclusive. 1. For any derriolition or relocation in violation of sections,15:04.210:to 15.04.218;the court shall also have the authority.to order the person convicted of the violation-to restore°the`structure to.its condition prior to the demolition or to.move and restore the building to its origirial'site. 2. For any.flagrant.violation;.the court,may.impose aline up to and including the assessed market value of.the structure demolished or relocated.A flag rant violation is�an act by,a persori,who, after being notified of a violation, intentionally cgntinues.if;, Page 3 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:WSER\PAULWRD\de 1i6w oad mw3.wpd SECTION 2. The following sections 15.04.212 through 15.04.218 are added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 1504:212 Demolition-Review Committee The Demolition Review Committee is established and will consist of,three members. a city councilor appointed by the mayor, a planning commissioner appointed-by,the chair,.of the p-I rihing commission and the city,;building offcial The:term fo'r the appointed membersis one year or until their successors are,appointed The term forappointed members shall expiring..on April 3p of each?year; except that the-teem for the,initial:appointees„shall'expire April 30, 2001. A member isieligible forreappointme9t. 95 04214 Approval Process'Applications for•demolition:`or relocation permits will be deeded by the DemolltionzRevlew+Committee wFo`wdlconductlapublic hearing on, „q eachtapplication and applythestandads set forth` msections 15µO4'216.or 15 04;25$. for7granting„or denymg_thepernit A A{c`omplete application mustbe submitted to thef building official and must include=all of the',r'egwred informationtfor tt a specific action requested Thetapplication must be; sigried`.by one'or more`property owriers f the property where the structure is located The-application must;6e„accompanied ly the`appropnafe applicationrfee: B Notice for hearings*b'efore the Demolition Review4Committee will be pubhshed' n'a daily newspaper o aionithin thectw y'at east 14�days prior:to the g hearn' d ma'led)to the applicanttor autlionzed agentsat leastrl4,0ays prwrato`the hearing Irnadditon a=noticemust'be,postedfon'vthe°pr"operty,by}the applicant m suchsa manner as to.betclearly visible from a public right of way at least 14 days`prwr to•ttie date}of the hearrg The applicantmust=certifyfor,the record of the hear rig, thatythe; posting was accomplisherdTtieposted?notice must contain a brief descnpton ofxthe proposal, thefime, date and>place of the hearing;and,the phone;,number and address fob centact witFi th_e•buildmg�off cial C* Wth 15 days ofythe hearing, or witt m 15 daysxof the"receipt-of the report described m section 18.04 216 1 a �s received whichever date is later, the gemoldior Rewew .._ .�. Committee sfiall issue its`decisionm".w�itmg-and'ma)I itito the applicant,and all persons whoappearedand poke atthe,hearinge D The decision of theYDemolitbnRewew 06m' omriittee may be appealed fo the council by the applicant or someoneywho spoke,at the h'eanng: I-'addition; the council may review the_decision on its own.'motron;The decision is;appealed:liy ling,a'notice.,of appeal with the city,admmisfrator:,The appeal fee, as set?by.resolution of the.council, must accompany the notice of°appeal:Th"e.appeal musY.be filed within 15:days.ofthe date the decision of he committee is mailed. The appeal notice must con-Wirt-the appellant's name, 'ad,dress, a,ieference to the decision soughf fo be reviewed, a statement that the.appellant is,the applicant orsomeone:who appeared and testified at the hearing, the date of.the,decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should,be reversed ormod,ified, based,on ttie applicable standards. Page 4 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:XUSERTAULWRD,demoiWOn ord anos.wpd E. The notice of appeal, together with notice`4f the date, time and place of'the hearing on the appeal by the Council'will be;mailed to'the_parties-at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The appeal before the council shall be.a.de novo hearing based solely on the evidenbe in the record made;;beforethe Demolition Review Board: The applicant shall have the burden to prove the standards have been met. The council 'may affirm, reverse or modify ihe.deci'sion and"maya`approve ordeny:the request; or>grant approval with conditions. The Council;shall make findings and conclusions,:and.make a decision based on the'record.before itastustification fot its action:The°CounciFshgll cause copies of a final order to be sent to allpersons participating in the appeal: 16'.04:216. Demolition standard's] A Fordemolition of strbctures erected.pnorrto 1955, theapplicant must demonstate,' that either subparagraphs 1_or.2�apply 1: The,strueture cannot be,r'ehabilitated or.'reusedon,site as,part,of any_ economically beneficial;use of thejproperty:Iri determining?whether.an. economically beneficial�use,can,,be made'of the'property,: Demolition Review Committees may regwre the applicant to:<I a F6Fhish,an'66onomic feasibility report prepared•by an architect; developer, or4appraiser; orother person.wFo.is experienced'in rehabilifation of Buildings,that addeesses'th'e estimated-market_ value`ofxtho°property onrwhich the•building?lies;both,hbefore and afterodemolition or':removph..:, rf b Market theme propeity,utilizing;a marketingtplan approved by the D"emolition';Review,`.Committee•or'byradvertising the_ptoperty in the Ashland'Qaily Tdings andMedford MaihTrlune at least eight times andat regular intervals for atjeast.90 days`ah by posting_a. for sale;sign onittie.prope- four to six, square feet;in size and clear) visible fromrthe;street, for`ttie same,90,dayperiodi 2sr The structure proposed'for demolition is"structurally unsound despite efforts,6y tFie ownerto;.properly maintain the,structure. B.`tn>addition_<to subparagraphs 1 or 2-:above ,the applicant•must;also demonstrate; I. The structure cannot be practicat%ly relocated to another site; 2. The die mol'hiori':proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact to the character of the neighborhood within which the,demolition is proposed to occur; 3. The integrity and architectural:character of the neighborhood where:the proposed demolition;isao take`place will not be substantiality, diminished orrcompromised. For'tl a purposes of this provision, the>term Page 5 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F1usERNAUL�ORDWem liticn ord an 3.wpe "architectural character" includes, but is not limited'toi height, coverage, setbacks, massing, siting,,fenestration,.streetscape, alley scape, materials, and scale'of materials; 4. Subsequent development on the.property.will add to the architectural characterof the neighborhood,more than the structure to be demolished; 5. The demolition proposal.ri�iitigates to the greatest extentKpractical any . impact tothe importance;of other structureslocated•,on'the,pr,'operty and on aiijacent pa[eels 6 The applicants has>receryedtfinal ep'proval for a Site;Review Permit pursuant,tb,section 18 72040#fortithe redevelopmentrplan,of:the M$ originating site The redevelopmentaplah�must provide for a,replacement structurelof'_a' minimum of,;1,000{square feet and'mustbehcompatiblerwitht or enhance the integnty and architectural;:'character of the neighborhood: This standard may be waived rfithe•applicant agrees to,restrict the property .0 open'space us`es,and a finding is matlesthat suchirestnctior constitutes:a=greater=`berie_ft>fortfie_neigl6orhoo_drthan.redevelopment would;-and 7. The 60plicant4ill. p6stwith the citya bond;or other suitable collateral,as, determined by,the city�administrator, ensuringtthe,safe,demolition of.the structure'anii tfie completed'performance?of`the redevelopmentplak C. For demolit n of structures,effected m 1955 or after„the applicant; 1. Hascthe burden of p�ovingrthe structure was erected�n 19551or after" Any structure;erected'in 1955Tor after,,which replaced arpre ,1,955 structure demolished orFr'elocated under sections 15.:.04`210 toy 15 04'.218, stiall'b'e' considered a'p'se=1955. fructureMsubject toahe,staridards.in subsections 5.04 2 A and Bs' 2. Must demonstrate that finabapproval�for a.Srte Review Permit pursuant'to section#1:13 72 d40 for,th`e.redevelopmeni<pplan of the>onginating;sit'e has been'recelved: The redevetopment,plan must provide for a,replacement structure:and;must be�compatible.vvith,ora enhanceith6.integrity,and architect ral`'character of the neighborhood Thispstandar`d m'ay'-I'6 e,waived if the applicant agrees to;restricttt a property to`--open space uses and a findiijbJs made that such:restriction constitutes-a'greater benefitto the neighborhood than redevelopm'entcwould D. For any demolition approved under this section; the applicant is required to salvage or,recycle construction and demolition,debris, if feasible and cost-effective as determined by the Demolition Review Committee:The Committ ee may consult with the Conservation Commission or others in making such,dete,mir' tidm Page 6 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:kusER\PAUL%OROUeewibm ord eno3.wpa Section 15:04.218:,Relocation.Standards: A. For relocation'of''structures erected prior.to.1955,•the applicant must demonstrate: 1. The`structurgcannot be rehabilitated or reused omits originating site as part ofcany reasonable and beneficial use of the property`. 2. Relocation is.'the best method for preservation of the character-and integrity'of the structure: 3'. The structure will'retain sufficient features,.integrity of design, materials, workmanship; feeling, and assoc'iafion, so as to continue.-to convey its architectural;significanm' 4.' The,,architectural,integrity`tofthe,heighbbr ood;ofthe origination site and._ of.thestructure,;itself, will not bexsubstantiality compromised or diminished andthb,proposal for,subsequent;developmenton`the onginatiorssite;will add totle character of4the;neighborhoodmore,than;the_structure to be a _ moved: 5, The structure}is=capable ofwithstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and ia-siting based on.a structural report;by a,licensed e;ngmeer:attestmg,to?thesound ness,ofthetstructure: 6, The applicant has agreed4o post with the.city a bond or'other suitable collate alias=.d�termined`by thetcity`administrator;>,ensurjng�the-safe r."elocation,=preservation; rehabilitation and,repair.of the structure; eceivinglsite,preparationand,infrasfructure connections;' 7: The applicantlhas received fi hat;approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant,tossection 1.8.72 040,for-the redevelopment plate'of th6_ _ onginating site: The..redevelopmeitplan='must provide for,a replacement_ structure of a.minimum.of 1,000 square:feet andmust,be compatible with` or e{ihancerthe,integnty and arcF itectural',character'of the neighborhooiiC This standards rmay be waived if the applicant agrees to restrict the_ property to open space,,uses,and'a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the=neighborh ood':thamredevelopment would B. Fortelocation ofstructures erected.in 19, 55 or:after the applicant; 1. Has the burden of proving,the structure was erected in 1955 or after. Any structure erected in 1955 or after,.which replaced a pre-1955 structure demolished or relocated under 15.04.210 to 15.04.218; shall be considered a pre-1,955 structure subject to the standards in subsections 15:04:218:A arid,B Page 7 - ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:NUSERMPAUL�ORDWemo,iOi ord aw3.wpd 2. Must demonstrate that final approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant to section 18.72.0 40 for the redevelopment,plan of the originating,'site has been received. The redevelopment plan must provide for a replacement s6uctured for the.originating,site and must be compatible.with or enhance the integrity,and architectural character of the neighportiood. This stan'd'ard.inay be waived if.the:applicant agrees to{estnct'the property to open space uses and a firding.'is made that such restriction constitutes a greater b__enefit to,the neighborhood than,red evelopment would: C. F&ahy relocation.underthis section, the applicant must comply With the provisions of Chapter 15.08: SECTION 3. The following section 18.72.040.A.7 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.72.040 Approval Process. A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor. T Redevelopment`plans fortp�operty`sublect to the.demolition or relocation`=reguirerp6fitsLip sections 1,5:.9,k-Z16 and:15.04;218. 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 8 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE F:WSER\PAUL\ORO\dem litimadaw3.wpd