HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0615 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, June 15, 2015
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
2. Look Ahead review
3. Discussion of the long-term future of the Imperatrice Property
4. Discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WELL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
~ N ~ N J m N A N j A W~ N V O? W N N N O A w~i W N~ O
O a 0 E3 c 0-
7 L 7 7 0 7 7 0< C O N: n 7 fn 0 7 7
C d C ^ C O C CD 7 7 0 3 7 C C-0 C C C
m 3m~ m 0 mN o m m wd cu
o m 3 n3i - m n o m m o LA. ° n CO) 'o 0
CD n 3 0. m m e CD
6 3 m 0 3 ° m
W T
cn 2D D_ 7 D O O O N 0_ O N 0 0 O °1 3 0 0
CD 7 7 0 m 0 7 S 7 3 F. 7 C ` 3 7 n x= W D1 d (D co, CD
m CD o to 0 7 <
7 d y y d CD w. C. y o 7 c to O M Cn
C y
67 o' C m' ° C c CL ° ° 5 w C~ O- ° n o ~ m o c m m
Co,
W
ID <D y: W y ® n t~ppo tp c m fD ° y m p~
R(- CL A
m m C rv O O O C C C o N
-10 CD F = CD C C C' N C C V1 N C ~ N~ C ni p 1 :3 (A w
. CD 'CU fffllllll y D 0 Lo, .Zl NN_. a~ 0 0 3 O1 < ~ cD a O < -n o y MWWO s m ~ -n o
o O_ 0 m 0 '0 0 0 O o O o N O m m CD m 0 7 T' w O O i O
C C) ;I 7 O C CL O » 2 m c o O m C =r m 3;m r y 3 7 x 3
c CD
D> >
co co _ o cn = CD y 3 d ^ m° co n g to on Q m co I m m
n 3 3 3 3 x 3 x w 0 .0 7- y m 3 N R m N 3 0((D n
3 O o o'er m ;Q 53 0 0° ~m 0 3 ^Xm 3 O C77tPm O m
v' a 7 O 3 Op m 3 n Qp w co $ 3 ° m o O
o O a O C7 in' 0 o v o D n c G D w m w= 0 f7
B =3 (D CD
m CD
m 0 0 N 3 -0 ° 3 0 O° v'
7 r m n o p oo m W m
_ = CD m a
m <
m O 0 -
m 3 N CD o
m 0.
m
n
CL 3 33 3m O 3 3 Ol 3 77
w~
m D' °7 D'
3 m v CD C (D = 0
y ~
750
D D
0 v ?
0 0 ;
N D
n o.
o D o
z c
v3
mm N~
zk c 3
N m D
X (n D
m N U) N _
m O o
° A
o m Q O
U n X,
2
cn D
z m
C) m
° m°
O A 0
N N IF
N cn
N m v
0 x
m
cn m
I (n
IIM
~o
A
M Z A cp
m 11
"
N
as
~ O
O
N
N
m O
m N
N 0
Hill
<0O>c 0 O 0 z 0 cn DK>K-no
o' n 0 (D a F. o. n OG O~ C 7 0 J V o
2 m m r 3
03 000 33m3N~N('o1 ffc
o ID
m m 0 Q m o W
_ 2 in
o n 0 cn J (n o N oT O Fn, (D ' 7 -0 o m' m m m (n 0 S S v y ai r co m 0 m m '0
jy~O R~~ NN"~ z°'a OoJH
p d 7 7 _ N
Q 0 0 o (ZD. 7 J N p N 3 3, 0 7
3 7 3
0
3 CD
y c m no 0,'0303 J o'0 0 O
a 3 3 2 3 3 0 3 n J :3 :3
3 3 o n
3 'a y o 0 a N' 3 m 0 3 N 3 o p
o N.v u o n'0 3 3 m
w 3 0 0 7 7 7 J 0 7 N f/!' N T. 3
ID 3 C J (D 7 O N
O
J y N 7 J CD
.0 0
ryDi J C (D
S N n (D N N
7 C O o
° 0 c) 3
(D O C 3
d
C N Q. N
.N.. O6 O7
~ J <
0 D O
O
c j
(7
0
O
4
1F
V/ OI
D
vs
- n~
T Q
1
N a. C
v~
N Cl)
N C
W
L ID
n 3
Ito
--I r
Oc
n
D ~
Z 1D
O 2)
m a
0
N
O_
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
June 15, 2015, Study Session
Discussion of the long-term future of the Imperatrice property
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.onus
SUMMARY
One of the Council's priority strategic planning goals is "Examine long term use of Imperatrice
property," an 864-acre piece of City-owned land on the north side of Interstate 5 at Eagle Mill Road.
This study session discussion is prompted by a proposal to place a solar farm on the property that was
presented to the Budget Committee by Councilor Voisin on May 7, but is intended to address all
potential long-term uses.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The 846-acre "Imperatrice Ranch" property (composed of seven separate tax lots) was acquired in
1996 as a receiving site for effluent from the City's waste water treatment plant. The City used food
and beverage tax proceeds and paid $950,287.98 for the property. The plan to land-apply the treated
effluent was ultimately rejected by the Council and the land has never been developed or utilized by
the City. Since 1996, the property has been used for cattle grazing under a lease (since expired) to Ron
Anderson, an Eagle Point rancher, and for a composting and a small livestock-raising operation under
a current lease with Standing Stone Brewing Company.
The property consists primarily of grasslands. There is a wetland swale on the southern portion of the
property. The property is traversed by a Talent Irrigation District irrigation canal and the portion of the
property below that ditch has irrigation rights, making it valuable for agricultural purposes. The
property is also traversed at its northeast corner by a Pacific Power transmission line and an Avista gas
line. Much of the vegetation on the central portion of the property consists of non-native invasive
plant species.
The Jackson County zoning designation on the property is Exclusive Farm Use, which severely limits
potential uses of the property. A table showing allowed uses in the EFU zone from the Jackson
County Land Development Ordinance is attached to this communication.
The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLO) has, for several years, pursued the idea of having the
City grant a conservation easement on the Imperatrice property. A conservation easement is a legal
agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of
the land in order to protect its conservation values. It allows the landowner to continue to own and use
the land and to sell it or pass it on to heirs. The Council discussed the pros and cons of a conservation
easement in 2014 but took no action, choosing instead to wait for a more comprehensive discussion of
the future of the property.
Paelof3
~r~
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
In determining what to do with the hmperatrice property, the Council may first wish to decide on what
its priorities are for the property. Priorities might include (but are not limited to):
• Income maximization
• Viewshed protection
• Recreation opportunities
• Energy production
•O} pen space conservation
Of course, waste water treatment, the original purpose for acquiring the property, should also be
considered as a priority. A valid argument can be made that the City should do nothing with the
property until it is determined for certain whether the Imperatrice property is needed for effluent
storage and land-spreading. (See attached e-mail from Public Works Director Mike Faught and memo
from CH2MHill.)
In concert with the Council's priorities, the City's choices with regard to the property fall into just a
few major categories:
1. Sell the property.
2. Lease the property for income-producing purposes
3. Hold on to the property for effluent treatment (which may yet be necessary).
4. Seek a re-zoning of the property to allow for residential development.
5. Do nothing.
Each of these options is expanded upon below.
1. Sell the property.
The real market value assigned to the property by the Jackson County Assessor's Office is $1,914,060,
with most of the value in the lower portion of the property with irrigation rights. Absent a formal
appraisal, which the City has not conducted, it's difficult to know exactly what the property is worth or
what it might actually fetch if it was put up for sale.
2. Lease the property for income-producing purposes.
This option has been explored in the past. Given the zoning of the property, the purposes for which it
can be leased are somewhat limited. The City leased the property for ten years (1999-2008) to Eagle
Point rancher Ron Anderson for cattle grazing and in 2009 issued a request for proposals for
"beneficial use" of the property at which time it entered into the current agreement with Standing
Stone Brewing. It has more recently been suggested that the City could lease the site to a solar energy
developer; an option that could be complicated by the Public Works Department's desire to reserve the
property for effluent treatment. (Note that while a solar farm is an allowed use in the EFU zone, a
conditional use permit would be required for an installation that displaced more than 20 acres of land
in non-high value EFU, or 12 acres of land in high-value EFU.)
3. Hold on to the property for effluent treatment.
As noted above, this is the purpose for which the property was originally acquired. The City will
attempt to address its effluent temperature problem through an outfall relocation and stream shading
program, however if these tactics do not work, it might still be necessary to use the Imperatrice
Page 2 of 3
RVI
IF&
CITY OF
ASHLAND
property for storage and land spreading of effluent. We are likely at least a year or two away from
knowing whether this form of effluent treatment will be necessary.
4. Seek a re-zoning of the property to allow for residential development.
This option goes hand-in-hand with income maximization. The upper portion of the Imperatrice
property, which has no irrigation rights, would likely have greater value if rezoned for large-lot rural
residential development. Rural residential land is likely to be worth $5-$10,000/acre as opposed to
perhaps $1,000/acre for EFU land with no irrigation rights. Staff has not explored what would be
involved in seeking a zone change and land division and has not conducted any market analyses to
formally determine what the value of re-zoned land would be.
5. Do nothing.
As noted above, the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy has long sought a conservation easement for
the Imperatrice property. While a conservation easement does not necessarily prevent other uses of the
property, the property might be less attractive for conservation purposes if there is development on it.
In addition, staff has been working for some time to create trail easements for the property and we
would strongly recommend establishing those easements before doing anything else with the land. We
currently have the coordinates of proposed trails in our GIS database, but we need to hire a surveyor to
develop the metes and bounds legal descriptions in order to create the easements for Council approval.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends completing and adopting the proposed trail easements but otherwise doing nothing
until it can be determined whether or not the property is needed for waste water effluent treatment.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A. This item is scheduled for discussion and Council direction to staff only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial photo of Imperatrice property, including lot lines and property features
Table of allowed uses of EFU land from Jackson County Land Development Ordinance
E-mail from Mike Faught to Dave Kanner, May 13, 2015
Memo from CH2MHill regarding potential future use of the Imperatrice property, June 8, 2015
Page 3 of 3
r,
k
a ~ r
Potential Conservation Values ~k
-Sf
„y,.. raj g w+> 4
1..;1.+b A "X 40,
Southern Oregon Buttercup
a,.
a•~,~~ C, ire a .'^3. l7 R ~ ~
r.
~ ~ ~ Area of exceptional native
,
-T "di-
;e
."~Plant presence and iversitr~ w
~t
,•,°•..,.i, na .nw., ,.~s' r' ~+x `''~`..3.°I ~,t,&• „r:. -r `"<j"~ sx'" rt ';a>'. w. _ew~''~'"~:~.. **'.w `x'::~,: ~
„"a~~
3 x x'd, " r4~ O
•d
o, a s P f
> : a ti^ "
All
tgo e
)n 3 {
-011
6
FPP
vl` x
;
µ LL
t Moderate ti
nave plant species presence•
zs
" I
u high nonnative invasive plant cover
"
30
Legend
6 as
PPL Power Lines
Approximate Avista Gas Line Of J, 3
atch of,willows Proposed Trail Easement
" u e" e t
qW,
Imperatrice Property
Ashland City Limits 9i
j k^,~ Taxlots
Imperatrice Special Features
Im eratrice Grassland A
Access Points 4
zm" a ,
IN
_ Im eratrice Grassland B -AX
-17F I-,
N
i SO
is
a Scale: 1:9,60o s
"a^
0 Boo 1,600 2,400 FT
IBM
k'
opportunity for hearing.3
D) Type 4 uses require review by the Planning Commission and the Board
of Commissioners, as applicable to ensure the proper integration of uses
that may be suitable only in specific locations. Approval of a Type 4
Permit to allow a specific use requires review and approval of a site
development plan pursuant to Section 3.2.4 when physical development
is proposed, as part of the Type 4 permit review.
E) Prohibited Uses: An AX@ in the Table indicates that the use is not
permitted. However, where noted by an existing facilities wholly within
an EFU District may be maintained, enhanced or expanded on the same
tract, subject to a Type 3 review.
F) Numerical References: The numbers contained in the ASee Also@
column are references to additional standards and requirements in the
LIDO that apply to the use type listed. Uses are also subject to applicable
standards of Chapters 7, 8, and 9. Numerical references for specific uses
shown on the table, refer to the corresponding section of OAR 660-033-
0130, or specific Oregon Revised Statutes.
TABLE 4.2-1: USE TABLE •-EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) DISTRICT
•-4 Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
ALL STATE LAW REFERENCE SEE ALSO
OTHER
FARM AND FOREST USES
1 Farm use 1 1 ORS 215.203 (definition); OAR
660-033-0120
2 Buildings, other than 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(f); OAR 660-
dwellings, customarily 033-0120
provided in conjunction with
farm use
3 Propagation or harvesting of a 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(c); OAR 660-
forest product. 033-0120
4 Temporary facility for primary 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)0); OAR 660- 4.2.3 and
processing of forest products 033-0120 & 0130(6) 4.2.4(B)
5 Facility for processing farm 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(u), 4.2.4(A)
crops or biofuel production ORS315.141;
OAR 660-033-0130(28)
NATURAL RESOURCE USES
6 Creation, restoration, or 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(p); OAR 660-
enhancement of wetlands 033-0120
7 The propagation, cultivation, 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(p); OAR 660- 4.2.3
maintenance, & harvesting of 033-0120 & 033-0130(5) & (27) 4.2.5(A)
aquatic or insect species
3 Ordinance 200412, effective 2-6-2005
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 3
TABLE 4.2-1: USE 'C •R 'R
p- •-4 Review
• • High-Value Farmland
' •
ALTSTATE LAW REFERENCE
USE HVFL HL
•
RESIDENTIAL USES
8 Dwelling customarily provided 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(D-1 OAR 660- 4.2.6(A) & (C)
in conjunction with farm use 033-0120, 0130(1), (30) & 0135
9 Farm dwelling for relative 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(e); OAR 660- 4.2.6(A) & (D)
033-0120 & 0130(9), (30)
10 Accessory farm dwellings, 2 2 ORS 215.277-278 and ORS 4.2.6(A) & (E)
including farmworker housing 215.283(1)(D;OAR 660-033-0120
& 0130(24), (30)
11 Ownership of record dwelling 2 2 ORS 215.705(1), (2), & (5)-(7); 4.2.6(A) & (F)
OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(3),
(30)
12 Temporary medical hardship 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(L); OAR 660- 4.2.3-,4.2.6(A) &
dwelling 033-0120 & 0130(5), (10) & (30) (G), 6.5.3(G)
13 Nonfarm dwelling 2 2 ORS 215.236(2) & (3); 4.2.6(A) & (H)
215.263(4); 215.284(2) & (3);
OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(4)(c)-
(d) & (30)
14 Residential homeifaciiity in 2 2 ORS 197.660(definition), 4.2.3;
existing dwellings 197.665(3), 215.283(2)(0); OAR 4.2.6(A) & (J)
660-033-0120&0130(5), (30)
15 Room and board arrange- 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(u); OAR 660- 4.2.3
ments for a maximum of five 033-0120 & 0130(5), (30) 4.2.6(A)
unrelated persons in an
existing residence
16 Alteration, restoration, or 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(s); OAR 660- 4.2.6(A) & (6)
replacement of a lawfully 033-0120 & 0130(8), (30)
established dwelling
17 Historic dwelling 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(o); 358.480; 4.2.6(A) & (1)
replacement OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(12),
(30)
18 Registered child care 2 2 ORS 657A.440 4.2.6(K)
facility/certified group child
care home
COMMERCIAL USES
19 Commercial activities in 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(a); OAR 660- 4.2.3, 4.2.7(A)
conjunction with farm use 033-0120 & 0130(5) 6.4.4(E)
including processing of farm
crops into biofuel not
permitted under
ORS215.203(2)(b)(L) or
ORS 215213(1)(x) and
ORS 215.283(1)(u)
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 4
TABLE 4.2-1: USE TABLE FOR EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) DISTRICT
•-4 Review
• • HVFL High-Value Farmland
+ STATE LAW REFERENCE SEE ALSO
•
20 Breeding, kenneling, & train- X* 1 ORS 215.283(1)(j); OAR 660- 11.2
ing greyhounds for racing 033-0120 & 0130(18)
21 Dog kennels X* 2 ORS 215.283(2)(n); OAR 660- 4.2.3, 11.2
033-0120 & 0130(5) & (18)
22 Home occupation/home 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(i), 215.448; 42.3; 4.2.7(E);
business OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(5) & 6.4.4 (C) & (D)
(14)
23 Destination resort, large X* 4 ORS 197.435-.467; 4.2.3, 6.3.8,
PDP' 215.283(2)(t); OAR 660-033- 11.2, 11.3
2 0120 & 0130(5) & (18)
FDP2
24 Destination resort, small X* X ORS 197.435-.445(6)(a); 11.2, 11.3
25 Winery 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(q), &.452-1 OAR 4.2.7(F)&(G)
660-033-0120
26 Restaurant or Events in
conjunction with a Winery
where the restaurant and/or 3 3 ORS 215.283 1
()(q), &.452-1 OAR 4.2.7(G)
the events are open to the
660
public greater than 25 days in -033-0120
a calendar year
27 Farm stand 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(o); OAR 660- 4.2.7(D)
033-0120 & 0130(23)
28 Landscape business in 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(z), ORS 4.2.7(H)
conjunction with 674.520, ORS 671.318;
growing/marketing of nursery OAR660-033-0130(5)
stock on the land that
constitutes farm use
MINERAL, AGGREGATE, OIL, AND GAS USES
29 Exploration & production of 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(g), 520.005 4.2.8(A)
geothermal, oil & gas (definition), 522.005 (definition) &
OAR 660-033-0120
30 Exploration for minerals 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(h), 517.750 4.2.8(6)
(definition); & OAR 660-033-0120
1 Preliminary Development Plan
2 Final Development Plan
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 5
TABLE 4,2-1 USE TABLE FOR EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) DISTRICT
•-4 Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
STA •
•
31 Operations for mining & pro- 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(b)(A); 520.005 423
cessing geothermal, oil & gas (definition); 522.005 (definition); 4.4.8
resources not otherwise per- OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(5)
mitted under this Ordinance
32 Mining, crushing, or stockpil- 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(b)(B),.298 & 4.2.3
ing aggregate & other mine- .301 OAR 660-033-0120 & 4.2.8(C)
ral & subsurface resources 0130(5), OAR660-023-0180 4.4.8
33 Processing aggregate into 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(b)(C); 517.750 4.2.3
asphalt or portland cement (definition); OAR 660-033-0120 & 4.2.8(D)
0130(5), (15) 4.4.8
34 Processing other mineral and 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(b)(D); OAR 660- 4.2.3,
subsurface resources 033-0120 & 0130(5) 4.4.8
TRANSPORTATION USES
35 Personal use airports for 3 3 ORS 215.283(2)(h); OAR 660- 4.2.3
airplanes & helicopter pads 033-0120 & 0130(5), (7) 4.2.9(A)
See also ORS 836.610-630
36 Climbing & passing lanes 1 1 ORS 215283(1)(k); OAR 660-
within the right-of-way existing 033-0120
as of July 1, 1987
37 Construction of additional 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(q); OAR 660- 4.2.3
passing & travel lanes 033-0120 & 0130(5)
requiring acquisition of rights-
of-way, not resulting in
creation of new parcels
38 Reconstruction or modifi- 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(1); OAR 660-
cation of public roads and 033-0120
highways, including place-
ment of utility facilities over-
head and in the subsurface of
public roads and high-ways
along the public right-of-way,
not including addition of travel
lanes, where no removal or
displacement of buildings
would occur, or no new
parcels result
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 6
TABLE
•-4 Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
i
ALSO
L STATE LAW REFERENCE SEE
OTHER
39 Reconstruction or modifi- 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(r); OAR 660- 4.2.3
cation of public roads or 033-0120 & 0130(5)
highways involving removal
or displacement of buildings,
but not resulting in creation of
new parcels
40 Temporary public road & 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(m); OAR 660-
highway detours that will be 033-0120
abandoned & restored to ori-
ginal condition or use at such
time as no longer needed
41 Minor betterment of existing 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(n); OAR 660-
public roads & highway 033-0120
related facilities (e.g., main-
tenance yards, weighstations
& rest areas) within a right-of-
way existing as of July 1,
1987, & contiguous publicly-
owned property to support
operation & maintenance of
public roads & highways
42 Public road and highway- 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(s); OAR 660- 4.2.3
related facilities improve- 033-0120 & 0130(5)
ment (e.g., maintenance
yards, weigh stations, & rest
areas) where additional
property or right-of-way is
required, not resulting in
creation of new parcels
43 Roads, highways, & other 2 or 4 2 or 4 ORS 215.283(3); OAR 660-012- 4.2.3; 4.2.9(6)
transportation facilities and 0065 (Type 2 uses listed, Type 4
improvements not otherwise uses not listed); OAR 660-012-
allowed in the EFU District 0070; OAR 660-033-0120 &
0130(13)
44 Parking no more than seven 2 2 ORS 215.311(3) 423
log trucks
UTILITY/SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
45 Utility facilities necessary 2 2 ORS 215.275 and .283(1)(d); 4.2.10(C)
for public service, including OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(16) 6.3.6(A)
wetland waste treatment
systems, not including com-
mercial facilities for generat-
ing electrical power for public
use b sale, or transmission
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 7
TABLE 4.2-1: USE •R 'R
' Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
II
USE HVFL ALL STATE LAW REFERENCE ALSO
OTHER
towers over 200 feet high
46 Telecommunications towers - 1 1 6.3.6(A)
co-location of antennae on an
existing tower
47 Transmission towers over 200 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(m); OAR 660- 4.2.3
feet high. 033-0130(5) 6.3.6(A)
48 Solid waste disposal site 3 2 or 3 ORS 459.049, 215.283(1)(i); 4.2.10, 11.2,
ordered established by the 11.3
EQC
49 Solid waste disposal site for X* 4 ORS 215.283(2)(k), 459.245; 4.2.3; 4.2.10
which DEQ permit is required OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(5) & 6.3.6(C)(2),11.2
(18)
50 Modification of a waste 2 2 6.3.6(D)
related use
51 Fire service facilities providing 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(v), 3.2
rural fire protection ORS 197.015(10)
52 Irrigation canals, delivery 2 2 ORS 215.283(1)(w), 540.505 3.2
lines, and accessory struc- (definition), ORS197.015(10);
tures and facilities associated OAR 660-033-0120
with a district
53 Utility facility service lines 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(x); OAR 660- 4.2.10
033-0120 & 0130(32)
54 Commercial utility facilities for 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(g); OAR 660- 4.2.3
generating power for public 033-0120 & 0130(5), (17) & (22) 4.2.10
use by sale
55 Composting facilities on X* 4 ORS 215.283(2)(k), 459.245; 4.2.3
farms, or for which a permit OAR 340-096-0020, 0024; 660- 4.2.10
has been granted by the DEQ 033-0120 & 0130(5), (18), (29); 6.3.6(C)(2)
OAR 340-093-0050 11.2
PARKS/PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
56 Public/ private schools, in- 3 2 ORS 215.283(1)(a); OAR 660- 4.2.11(1)
cluding essential buildings 033-0120 & 0130(2), (18) 11.2, 11.3
57 Churches & cemeteries in 3 2 ORS 215.283(1)(b) &.441; OAR 4.2.11(8), 11.2,
conjunction with churches 660-033-0120 & 0130(2), (18) 11.3
58 Private parks, playgrounds, X* 3 ORS 215.283(2)(c); OAR 660- 4.2.3
and hunting and fishing 033-0120 & 0130(5), (18)
preserves
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 8
TABLE `C •R
1 = Type 1 2 Type 2 Review 3 = Type 3 Review 4 = Type 4 Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
# USE HVFL ALL ATE LAW REFERENCE SEE I ALSO
OTHER
59 Campgrounds X* 3
ORS 215.283(2)(c); OAR 660- 4.2.3; 4.2.11(A),
033-0120 & 0130(5), (18), (19) 11.2, 11.3
60 Public parks and playgrounds 2 2 ORS 195.120,215.283(2)(d); 3.7.4; 4.2.3
OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(5) & 4.2.11(H)
(31); 660-034-0035 & 0040
61 Community centers owned by 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(e); 4.2.3
a governmental agency or a OAR 660-033-0120, 0130(5) 4.2.11(K)
nonprofit community
organization and operated
primarily by and for residents
of the local rural community
62 Golf courses X* 3 ORS 215.283(2)(f); OAR 660- 4.2.3, 4.2.11(C)
033-0120 & 0130(5), (18), (20)
63 Living history museum 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(x); OAR 660- 4.2.3
033-0120 & 0130(5), (21) 4.2.11(E)
64 On-site filming & accessory 1 1 ORS 215.306(3)(a) & (4); OAR 4.2.11(F)
activities for 45 davs or less 660-033-0120
65 On-site filming & accessory 2 2 ORS 215.306(3)(b) & (4); OAR 4.2.3
activities for more than 45 660-033-0120 & 0130(5) 4.2.11(G)
days
66 Takeoff & landing site for 1 1 ORS 215.283(1)(t); 4.2.11(J)
model aircraft OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(26)
67 Expansion of existing county 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(w), 565.210; 4.2.3
fairgrounds & directly related OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(5);
activities
68 Operations for extraction and 2 2 ORS 215.283(2)(v); OAR 660- 4.2.3
bottling of water 033-0120 & 0130(5)
69 Land application of biosolids 1 1 ORS 2115.246_247_249_251, & 4.2.11
transported by vehicle to a .283(1)(y); OAR 660-033-
tract. 0130(11)
70 Land application of reclaimed 2 2 ORS 215.246, .249, .251, & 4.2.11
water, and agricultural or .283(1)(y); OAR 660-033-
industrial process water 0130(11)
71 Firearms training facility; Law X* X* ORS 197.770; 6.3.7, 4.2.11(L),
enforcement facility ORS 215.283(1)(z) 11.2
OUTDOOR GATHERING USES
72 Outdoor gathering less than 1 1 ORS 197.015(10)(d); 433.735; 6.5.3(J)
3,000 persons not to con- OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(33)
tinue more than 120 hours in
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 9
ABLE 4.2-1: USE TABLE FOR EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) DISTRICT
•e •e 4 Review
Prohibited HVFL High-Value Farmland
ALL STATE LAW REFERENCE SEE I ALSO
OTHER
any 3-month period.
73 Outdoor gathering more than 4 4 ORS 433.735(1) &.763; 6.5.3(J)
3,000 persons to continue OAR 660-033-0120 & 0130(34)
more than 120 hours in any 3-
month period.
4.2.3 General Review Criteria for Type 2-4 Permits
The use may be approved only where the use:
A) Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on
surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and
B) Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices
on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.
The applicant may demonstrate that these criteria will be satisfied through the
imposition of conditions. Any conditions so imposed must be clear and objective.
[ORS 215.296; OAR 660-033-0030(5)]
4.2.4 Farm and Forest Use Regulations
A) Facility for Processing Farm Crops [ORS 215.283(1)(u), OAR 660-033-
0130(28)]
1) The farm on which the processing facility is located must provide
at least one-quarter (3) of the farm crops processed at the facility.
2) The building established for the processing facility shall not
exceed 10,000 square feet of floor area exclusive of the floor area
designated for preparation, storage, or other farm use or devote
more than 10,000 square feet to the processing activities within
another building supporting farm uses. A processing facility shall
comply with all applicable siting standards but the standards shall
not be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of the
processing facility.
B) Temporary Facility for Primary Processing of Forest Products (ORS
215.283(2)6); OAR 660-033-0120 and 0130(6)]
The primary processing of a forest product, for purposes of this
Ordinance, means the use of a portable chipper, stud mill, or other similar
methods of initial treatment of a forest product in order to enable its
shipment to market. This use is subject to the following standards:
1) The processing facility shall be located on, or on a parcel
contiguous to and in the same ownership as, the parcel on which
the forest products are grown.
2) The facility shall not seriously interfere with accepted farming
practices and shall be compatible with farm uses in the area.
Jackson County, Oregon
Chapter 4 Page 10
Dave Kanner
From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:50 PM
To: 'Dave Kanner
Subject: FW: effluent outfall
J ..1
From: Scott Fleury
[ ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:58 PM
To: 'Mike Faught'
Subject: effluent outfall
Mike,
Just a quick update regarding the currently underway outfall relocation study. CH2M Hill is our consultant under
contract to perform the outfall study which includes analyzing the mixing zone on Bear Creek with respect to our future
NDPES permit requirements.
As it stands right now we are about 50% complete with the outfall study phase 1. CH2M Hill has compiled a draft mixing
zone analysis and as we suspected temperature during specific times of the year are significant issues and also copper.
We are in the process of waiting for National Marine Fishers to release a new biological opinion in order to determine if
effluent DEQ criteria will need to be changed. Our permit is on DEQ's docket to write in spring of 2016, but this is still
variable depending on several other factors.
1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL<:
Potential Future Use of the Imperatrice Ranch Property
PREPARED FOR: City of Ashland
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
DATE: June 8, 2015
PROJECT NUMBER: 494901
The City-owned Imperatrice Ranch property has been the subject of numerous investigations for recycled
water use over the past 20 years. In 1999, a design was completed to develop recycled water storage and
irrigation facilities along with liquid biosolids land application. This project would have eliminated
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent discharges to Ashland Creek during certain times of the year
thereby addressing new phosphorus limits on the effluent discharge established by the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). For a number of reasons, the City decided not to proceed with the plan for
recycled water and biosolids reuse on the Imperatrice Ranch at that time. Instead, tertiary treatment
upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) were implemented to reduce phosphorus levels in the
effluent and allow continued discharge to Ashland Creek. The City also decided to continue the practice of
landfill disposal of WWTP biosolids.
The current national pollution discharge elimination (NPDES) permit for the WWTP was issued in May of
2004 and expired on December 31, 2008 but has been placed on administrative extension by the DEQ. This
is not unusual and is the case for most NPDES permits in Oregon at this time due to numerous challenges
that DEQfaces in renewing permits. However, it does mean that the current NPDES permit is based on the
water quality rules and procedures that were in place in 2004 rather than 2015. Since the time of the last
major WWTP upgrades in 2001 through 2003 and the last NPDES permit renewal in 2004, several new
regulations have been adopted that affect the Ashland WWTP including revised criteria for metals such as
copper, more stringent limitations on mixing zones, and new regulations on temperature that affect the
continued discharge of treated effluent to Ashland Creek.
In 2012, DEQ issued a letter to the City regarding their plans to schedule the NPDES permit renewal for
2014. This letter from DEQ also required that the City conduct additional effluent testing, conduct a copper
reduction study and industrial waste pretreatment survey, complete an outfall relocation study, and submit
a mixing zone dilution study for the relocated outfall. The City proceeded with satisfying these requests as
part of the Wastewater Facilities Plan update completed in May 2014 by Keller Associates and through the
Outfall Relocation Study contracted and started in May 2014 by CH2M HILL.
Options for addressing new metals, mixing zone, and temperature standards were evaluated and presented
in the 2012 Master Plan and subsequent May 2014 Wastewater Facilities Plan. Several options were
considered and were discussed with DEQ and community stakeholders during that planning process. This
included an option to develop a recycled water storage and irrigation project on the Imperatrice Ranch
property to aid in meeting temperature limitations. Definitive conclusions on a selected option were not
possible at the time but the highest ranking options for temperature compliance involved the use of
wetlands for cooling and riparian shading for trading of temperature water quality credits. The final
selection of options was contingent upon additional evaluations to be conducted under the Outfall
Relocation Study
The Outfall Relocation Study follows on the work in the Wastewater Facilities Plan and was intended to: 1)
further define the project for relocating the WWTP outfall from Ashland Creek to Bear Creek to meet the
new water quality standards; 2) evaluate the permit and regulatory approvals required for the project; 3)
engage local stakeholders in selecting alternatives; 4) conduct a mixing zone study at the new outfall
LETTERTOCOUNCIL I MPERATRICEPROPERTY REVOt.DOCR
POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF THE IMPERATRICE RANCH PROPERTY
location; and 5) evaluate the options for compliance with the new water quality standards at the relocated
outfall location. CH2M HILL has completed the initial alternatives analysis and communications with agency
staff and stakeholders and has complete the field mixing zone study and initial options evaluations for
addressing the new water quality standards. The preliminary results from this work has highlighted the need
for additional effluent characterization, additional discussion with regulatory agencies, and a reassessment
of the options for meeting temperature criteria. Some of the primary results of this work are outlined below:
• Relocation of the outfall from Bear Creek to Ashland Creek provides additional dilution necessary to
meet water quality criteria. However, the mixing dilution ratios are still relatively low even in Bear
Creek.
• Additional effluent characterization is necessary to determine if available dilution flows in Bear
Creek are sufficient to enable compliance with the water quality standards, particularly for copper.
City staff are currently collecting additional samples for this purpose.
• Near field thermal plume and cold water protection criteria were evaluated and temperature
restrictions during the Apr-May and Oct-Dec timeframes are more restrictive than were estimated
previously by DEQ. At this time, while wetland cooling and riparian shading appear to have benefits
in meeting temperature limitations these strategies alone do not appear able to meet all
temperature limitations.
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff are concerned about the removal of water from
Ashland Creek during late summer low flow periods (Sep-Oct) with the outfall relocation. However,
the water quality criteria cannot be met in Ashland Creek with the extremely limited dilution during
these low flow periods. A solution may require fish habitat mitigation or further engagement and
collaboration between the natural resource agencies to find an innovative solution that can be
supported by all.
One of the recommended next steps in the Outfall Relocation Study is to re-evaluate the options for
temperature compliance using the updated mixing zone study work and improved definition of temperature
obligations. We believe that one of the viable options that should be considered in this evaluation is the
development of storage and irrigation facilities for recycled water at the Imperatrice Ranch property. A
number of potential options for meeting both the near field' and far field2 temperature limitations have
been identified below:
• (Near Field - Oct-May) Use of wetlands combined with storage and reuse; (Far Field - year round)
riparian shade credits for the balance of thermal offsets
• (Near Field - Oct-May) Use of wetlands combined with a small chiller sized for Apr-May timeframe;
(Far Field - year round) riparian shade credits for the balance of thermal offsets
• (Near Field - Oct-May) Storage and reuse sized to meet all near field requirements; (Far Field - year
round) riparian shade credits for the balance of thermal offsets
• (Near Field - Oct-May) Cooling tower and chiller sized to meet all near field requirements; (Far Field
- year round) riparian shade credits for the balance of thermal offsets
• (Near Field and Far Field - year round) Storage and reuse sized to meet all temperature
requirements
• (Near Field and Far Field - year round) Cooling tower and chiller sized to meet all temperature
requirements
1 Near Field Temperature Limitation: These temperature limitations are developed to protect aquatic species within close vicinity to the point of
discharge. They consist of the thermal plume and cold water protection limitations to avoid stream temperature conditions that could create acute
impairment, thermal shock, migration blockage, or spawning impairment conditions.
2 Far Field Temperature Limitation: These temperature limitations are developed under a total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis to address
warming of rivers and streams over long stream reaches which address the cumulative effects of all heat sources to the water body. Resulting
discharge limitations are measured in terms of kilocalories per day of excess thermal load relative to a set biological criteria.
2 LETTERTOCOUNCIL_IMPERATRICEPROPERTY_REVOI.DOCX
POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF THE IMPERATRICE RANCH PROPERTY
At the time of the Facility Plan development and the initiation of the Outfall Relocation Study, DEQ was
planning to begin the NPDES permit renewal process in 2014. However, due to third-party challenges of the
state temperature standards and DEQ's procedures for implementing those standards at a state level,
Ashland's permit renewal process has been put on hold. Re-initiation of the permit renewal process is now
not anticipated until early 2016. With this additional schedule relief, the City has some additional time to
further evaluate options for future compliance and develop a strategy that can be incorporated into the
next NPDES permit renewal.
LETTERTOCOUNCIL_IMPERATRICEPROPERTY_REVOI.DOCX 3
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
June 15, 2015, Study Session
Discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
FROM:
Dave Kanner, City Administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City has been discussing the reconstruction or relocation of City Hall for more than 20 years. As
part of its 2014 strategic planning initiative, the City Council identified "Examine City Hall
replacement and other facility needs" as a priority goal. The proposed BN 2015-17 budget included a
request for $200,000 for a study of City Hall replacement, a long-term facilities master plan and a
study of underutilized assets. However, the Budget Committee approved only $100,000. Staff
proposes to use this money for a comprehensive examination of options for replacing City Hall and
will use this study session for a discussion with the Council on how to proceed with that effort.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Ashland's City Hall building is more than 120 years old. It was originally built in 1891 as a fire
station and expanded in 1913 to include the portion of the building that now houses Administration on
the second floor and the Utility Billing lobby and City Recorder's Office on the first floor. The current
stucco veneer was added to the building at that time, however the unreinforced brick masonry walls of
the original building continue to form the "skeleton" of City Hall. The photo below left shows the
original building. The photo at right is City Hall after it was expanded out to Main Street and the
cement stucco exterior was added. At that time, a one-story addition to the east was constructed in the
space between City Hall and the adjacent building (now occupied by Utility Billing). A partial second
story added to this expansion at an unknown date. Two smaller additions were constructed out of
concrete and concrete block at the south end of the building. Also, the interior of the building has been
remodeled several times. Click here to view City Hall historical photos. The newer rear section of the
building that now houses the Finance Department was built in two phases, with the second floor
completed in 1998.
i
.
If
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
The City has been discussing the reconstruction or relocation of City Hall for more than 20 years. The
building is seismically vulnerable, lacks meeting space and has no room for growth. However, it is the
seismic vulnerability of the building that presents the most pressing problem. The interior of City Hall
has been reconfigured a number of times since 1913 but has never has any structural improvements
related to seismic mitigation.
A history of recent discussions and planning efforts is as follows:
October 1993 - new building approved
In October 1993 the Planning Commission approved a site review for the construction of a 10,000
square foot City office building to be located to the rear of the City Council chambers. In November
1993, the Council sustained the Planning Commission's decision and approved a site review for the
construction of the new City office building. Due to community opposition to moving city offices out
of the downtown, the City Council withdrew the City's application in December of 1993 for a new
building and agreed by resolution to the formation of an ad hoe committee to study the space needs of
the City, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented.
1993 -1994 ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee
An ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee was formed by Resolution 93-41. In April 1994 the
committee presented its report to the City Council. The Committee concluded that additional space is
needed for city offices located downtown. They recommended that the funds earmarked for the
construction of the proposed building at the rear of the City Council Chambers be earmarked for a fund
to acquire, maximize and improve space for city offices in the downtown including: acquisition of the
Hillah Temple as soon as possible, rehabilitation of the existing City Hall building as soon as possible
to include at a minimum, compliance with all current applicable codes, ordinances and energy
conservation standards. If acquisition of the Hillah Temple was delayed, the rehabilitation of the
existing City Hall to include the addition of a third floor and expansion of the second floor to
accommodate all current downtown city employees. The committee also recommended contracting for
engineering and architectural services for the purpose of evaluating the existing City Hall building and
making recommendations regarding cost and methods to accomplish the rehabilitation. Click here to
read the 1994 ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee report to the City Council.
1994 Seismic Evaluation Report for City Hall
In 1994, the City contracted with Miller-Gardner, Inc., Consulting Engineers to conduct a seismic
evaluation of City Hall. The summary reads: Based on the findings of our field investigation and our
preliminary calculations, the scope of seismic upgrade of the Ashland City Hall will include repairs or
modification to five building components. These consist of bracing the exterior brick wall above the
roof (parapet), exterior and interior brick wall lateral ties at the roof, ceiling and floor levels, adding
interior shear walls, roof diaphragm reinforcement, and the addition of a braced steel frame inside at
the north wall. The estimated total cost of the upgrade including the second floor addition is $330,000.
Click here to read the 1994 Seismic Report. (Note: None of this recommended work has been done,
although the parapet bracing and roof strapping are planned for this summer.)
1996-1997 Space Needs at City Hall
In 1996 the City was unable to reach a mutually acceptable price for the Hillah Temple. The City
Council directed staff to pursue the addition of a third story to City Hall and to downsize the proposed
building at the East Main site. Click here to read the August 1997 report to City Council.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
In December of 1997 the City Council authorized a Sire Review for the construction of a 7800 square
foot City office located at 1175 E. Main Street (behind the City Council Chambers).
1998 -1999
In October of 1998 the City purchased the Hillah Temple for $650,360. In September of 1999, the
City Council held a public hearing to consider design alternatives for the Hillah Temple building.
Click here to read the Council minutes of September 1999.
A second story was added over the earlier addition at the south end of City Hall. This is now part of
Finance and the corner conference room. Use the link to City Hall historical photos to view this
addition.
2002
The City contracted with Architectural Design Works to develop a conceptual study for the long term
use of City Hall. The study identified the employee space needs, current floor plans and proposed
future floor plans. Click here to view the conceptual designs.
2008
In 2008 the City Council formed the Facilities Master Plan Committee (read purpose of committee
here) and contracted with OgdenRoemerWilkerson to develop a Facilities Master Plan with a long-
term vision. Click here to read the report.
The committee recommended Option 2 which is a combination of existing remodel and new
construction, including City Hall. The report did not address the seismic needs of the building. Option
3 identified possible locations to build a new City Hall in the downtown core.
The Council deferred action on the 2008 final report pending completion of a new Fire Station 92 and
expansion of the Police Station.
In light of the 20+ year history of City Hall replacement discussions and the Council's priority goal,
this communication takes it as a given that the City must move forward with addressing its current and
future City Hall needs, both in terms of safety and space. To that end, staff proposes using the
$100,000 budgeted in BN 2015-17 to hire a consultant team for a planning and public involvement
process that would - in broad terms - encompass the following steps:
1. Through a public engagement process, determine the key criteria the community would want us to
consider when planning for a new City Hall. These criteria could include: civic identity;
energy/sustainability; public space; accessibility; reinforce history; mixed uses, etc.
2. Identify locations where those criteria could be met.
3. Analyze the feasibility and pros/cons of each location.
4. Determine the costs and potential financing mechanisms for each option.
5. Council, with community input, selects a preferred alternative.
Staff seeks Council concurrence with this broad process outline and approval to move forward with an
RFP to select a consultant team for this project.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Organization
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The approved BN 2015-17 budget includes $100,000 in one-time money that staff proposes to use for
this City Hall study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff seeks approval to move forward with an RFP to select a consultant team for this project.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None