The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-0901 Documents Submitted at Mtg ~~'~Rt =.~n~~npson F_ Box 201 Ashland, OR 97520 City of Ashland Space Needs--Offices and Parking The subject of how and where to house our growing city government has again arisen after 20 years of quiet. For new comers, in 1980 the City Council voted to budget funds to build City offices where the police station is located. thereby electing to have govern; nent abandon the downtown to tourism. This decision followed the prevailing post World War II mentality of killing off traditional downtowns by moving everything from them to suburban style settings. At about the same time Ashland hired a new Community Development Director, John Fregonese who would become a national leader in municipal land use planning due to his originality, passion, arid vision. Because of John's efforts, by the late 1980`s many Oregon cities looked to Ashland for guidance concerning many planning issues, such as how to retard spraw conserve resources, reduce vehicle trips, provide more landscaping, and lay out sites to encourage aesthetics and pedestrian access. John was against moving City Hall, and as Community Development Director he would not agree to recommend approval for any planning action calling for' such a move. But he left at the end of 1991 to direct growth management, in the Portland Metro area. His immediate successor haG neither the strength nor conviction to battle the move. Thus, in 1993 a planning action was presented to build a 10,000 square foot building on East Main _St. that was billed as "just moving the Planning Department". The hidden issue was that the Community Development Department (Planning Department etc) only needed 4000 square feet so the extra space really meant that the entire municipal government was moving from the downtown. This fortunately resulted in controversy, and by the time this unwise decision was tabled and then reversed, the Governor's Office, 1000 Friends of Oregon, The Oregon Downtown Association, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development all voiced their objection to the removal of Ashland's City Hall to a suburban type location on East Main St.. Plus, a formidable Ashland citizens group recruited by local designers Rick and Gail Vezie planned to appeal the decision with the help of the aforementioned organizations. Ioaiiv the Hillah Temole property was purchased on Winburn Way and the ei-~a-nnina. Building; and Engineering Departments were housed in a new one story(unfortunately) Community Development Building that was tall enough to look as if it were two. For 14 years that building met the needs of the City. But now the nearby administrative offices need more room, so what are Ashland's options? Do we have another battle about a suburban type location versus downtown core location. Or can we again decide to keep our local government where it belongs and explore additional space options downtown. he existing City Hall building is not much of a treasure, but the outer shell car be preserved and the entire interior could e demolished and rebuilt with an extra story. This would satisfy important seismic considerations. Or additional stories could be added to the Community Development Building while incorporating a needed elevator to also service the Alice Piel Walkway. Any downtown building proposal naturally beings up the issue of parking. And someday as occurred in many European cities, Ashland will have to excavate for an underground parking facility either below the Plaza (with flood protection safeguards and pumps) or below the parking lot at the corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer Streets. This last property might also provide a location for the City Hall if decision makers elect to pursue that as a third possible location and consolidate all downtown governmerA functions into one building. Thus, v e have twc~ issues to debate: 1.) A new or expanded City Hall and 2.) More parking, preferably underground. Where4,ever City Hall is locatecP will need to have better access to the Mayor's, City Administrator's, Finance Director's and City Attorney's offices than at present. The blocking off of the former stairway entrance from the Plaza proved to be a barrier to accessibility to the detriment of good communication between citizens and the staff that Ashland citizens pay for. Brent Thompson over 30 years served on 7 City decision making bodies including 10 years on the Planning Commission and 2 years on the City Council. 541 4$$-0447 8/31/2015 City Councilors, My name is Brett Lutz and my wife, Susan, our three young children, and I live at 1700 East Main Street, inside the urban growth boundary and Normal Avenue Development Plan. We also own a home within the Ashland city limits, on Laurel Street. While my comments do not necessarily represent those of my employer, I am employed as a meteorologist at the National Weather Service and manage the office's fire weather and climate programs. I track and predict weather and climate as it pertains to drought, snowpack, water supply, and fire potential and severity and present this information to various public and government entities. In the 3 years we've lived on East Main Street, I've sent 3 letters regarding the Normal Avenue Plan, primarily related to concerns over wetland W-9, proposed roadways, and the density of development near it. I think it's important that these water and road concerns are put in context for you. Photographic evidence from 1990, given to me by the previous owner of my land and home, indicate that wetland W-9 was notably larger on its downhill north end than it is, currently. In the 3 years I have lived in the Development Plan area, I have witnessed land clearing, burning, and tilling on the northern periphery of and within wetland W-9 that have shrunken its apparent size. We are now in our approximate 3rd year of drought, as designated by the National US Drought Monitor, and our drought is currently classified as "Severe". As is depicted on the Environmental Protection Agency's website, "wetlands function like natural tubs or sponges, storing water and slowly releasing it. This process slows the water's momentum and erosive potential, reduces flood heights, and allows for ground water recharge, which contributes to base flow to surface water systems during dry periods. Although a small wetland might not store much water, a network of many small wetlands can store an enormous amount of water. The ability of wetlands to store floodwaters reduces the risk of costly property damage and loss of life-benefits that have economic value to us." As you have likely heard, the Climate Prediction Center is forecasting a strong El Nino for 2015-16, similar to the 1997-98 El Nino, which brought above normal precipitation to Ashland and much of the surrounding area (nttp:/ www.wrcc.dri.edu/wwdt 2rchive.php?folder-pcnl2). El Nino is a climate cycle in the Pacific Ocean that cycles on 3-5 year intervals. It increases the strength of wet season low pressure in the Gulf of Alaska, thus increasing the likelihood of moist and persistent south flow storm events. Such events can cause very heavy precipitation, such as was observed last February when Ashland experienced its 3`d wettest 2 day period since July ls" 1892. That event and thunderstorms in June already pushed areas in and around the Ashland city limits into flood. This included drainage ditch flooding along the north side of East Main Street and garage flooding on my property. Increased urbanization both increases the amount of water that becomes run-off and increases run-off speed. With area reservoirs and water supplies currently near record lows, we need to protect our historic wetlands to buffer us from future floods and droughts. Climate change research clearly indicates that the frequency and magnitude of severe flooding is expected to increase due to increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. I seriously question the draft FEMA flood zone maps in the plan, as the risks of flooding are not reduced with the current increased CO2 in the atmosphere; instead the risks of flood severity and frequency are increased. I ask that the City Council seriously consider diminishing the density of development in the Normal Avenue Development Area and increasing the northward extent of the designation of wetland W-9. Additionally, removing proposed roadways west of Normal Avenue would also be preferable to diminish flash flooding on and near my property. It is notable that other areas in the Normal Avenue Development Plan Area appear to be at an even higher risk of flooding. Lastly, observed climate data indicates that our climate is warming. The water year 2013-14 was one of the driest years on record with spring snowpack under 40% of the 1981-2010 normal and, while 2014- 15 was close to normal for water, mountain snowpack was an abysmal 20% of normal in the Siskiyous this spring. With the expectation of increased average temperature, a resultant continued long term general reduction in snowpack, and expected increased frequency and severity of both floods and droughts in the next 50-100 years due to CO2 that has already been emitted into the atmosphere, it is of utmost importance that the City of Ashland ensure its infrastructure is able to provide both current and future residents both a steady water supply and flood prevention and control. The following items are for reference: Wetland definition: Wetlands are part of the foundation of our nation's water resources and are vital to the health of waterways and communities that are downstream. Wetlands feed downstream waters, trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. littoWwater.epa.govtpe/w_eiands index.cfm Water storage. Wetlands function like natural tubs or sponges, storing water and slowly releasing it. This process slows the water's momentum and erosive potential, reduces flood heights, and allows for ground water recharge, which contributes to base flow to surface water systems during dry periods. Although a small wetland might not store much water, a network of many small wetlands can store an enormous amount of water. The ability of wetlands to store floodwaters reduces the risk of costly property damage and loss of life-benefits that have economic value to us. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that protecting wetlands along the Charles River in Boston, Massachusetts, saved $17 million in potential flood damage. ?ttgiwater.epa.ov/type/wetlands outreach/upload/functions-values.odf Please feel free to contact me for any documentation or evidence confirming the above statements. Thank you for your time and commitment to our fine city of Ashland! Sincerely, Brett Lutz 1700 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-218-5203 A plan must be workab to succeed. i want to point out some features of the NNP that are at odds with the stated goals and principles of the plan itself. Preservation of open space and natural features This has been a stated priority, yet when looking at the map all the wetlands have an underlying zoning of 7-6 units per acre. If somehow these important lands were diminished in some way, then building at that density could happen. Roads and paths are also on the map--this does not lead to their health. Housing types The plan shows various kinds of dwellings, from single family to apartments, yet, realistically, only about 60 acres of this 94 are buildable, • so even without density bonuses adding more dwellings, 450 units can not be accommodated except at a minimum of 7-6 units per acre. Is this what families want? Open space This has been mentioned as important at every meeting; yet, again, on 60 acres one can not possibly have community gardens, play areas, open spaces and walking paths while somehow fitting in over 450 housing units. Implementation of the Plan Although some on the committee assured the audience that build out would occur over many years, finished `way down the road', they also endorsed Advanced Financing, which allows the City taxpayers to pay for off-site infrastructure with the hope of being reimbursed as houses are built and assessments collected. However, any money not returned to the City coffers in 20 years (when does the clock start?) is forgiven. So, while a builder has reason to wait, then default on payment, the City should want to be reimbursed as quickly as possible. Transportation All emphasis has been on upgrades to East Main Street and the RR crossing, with various estimates as to the cost of improvements. What about Clay Street, now a rural road carrying lots of traffic, and a signal at Ashland Street and Normal. Shouldn't that be added to the total cost? Streets and paths are still not settled, but one connection that concerns me -the school bus turnaround for the middle school was designed to keep students at a distance from cars. Here is a street that would carry traffic right past the buses. So much emphasis has been given to transit that some of the past priorities have been forgotten. My plea to the Council: Remove the underlying zoning from the wetlands and creeks. Then there is no incentive to drain, disk, or otherwise destroy these important features as building simply can not occur on these lands. Reduce the number of units by half, to 225. That would lessen the impacts, allow for a real variety of housing and open space, community gardens and parks while still adding ample housing to the inventory to satisfy growth needs for the next 2 decades. Do a comprehensive water study to update needs, supply sources and allocations, inn me.5} -tile 6N - w~a~ ~,►:pmts o f Such a Merge Qrojio. Submitted by Debbie Miller September 1, 2015 Normal Neighborhood Plan Comments by Sue DeMarinis 9/1/15 DON'T degrade the delicate habitats of the green or water resource areas in the NNP. Change the underlying & adjacent zoning of the open spaces to the LOWEST housing density (NN-1-5). This lower density zoning will not allow inappropriate conditional permitted uses (like a commercially-operated assisted living facility), and bonus provisions for transfer of MORE INTENSE density from these zones - both with larger impervious footprints AND parking lots! Protect this area's unique natural features and reduce underlying zoning in open space areas AND retain the proposed "family-friendly character of the NNP". Reducing the PLAN density won't exclude affordable housing. All annexed parcels, regardless of their zoning, must still retain the required 25 percent. NNP Open space areas should NOT BE allowedo be REDUCED bV_ a simple MINOR amendment, BUT REQUIRE a MAJOR amendment process with public input and expert testimony. Neighboring homesites will be detrimentally affected by reducing the capacity of open space areas for retaining flood and storm waters. Meadowbrook Park Estates is seeing this problem fifteen years after building over or near wetlands. These residents are now seeing cracked foundations, backed up sewer drains, and flooded storm drains. I Do NOT want to stop the City of Ashland from growing. Just DO IT Sensibly and sustainably. Accorm-nodate future growth across the ENTIRE Urban Growth Boundary. DON'T cram 75% of the projected need for one housing type (Suburban Residential) into a single Urban Growth Boundary site, creating enormous congestion and traffic hazards, especially adjacent to 3 school zones. City tax dollars will be offered in a new loan program, Advanced Financing, to developers. When did Ashland become a bank? Has the credit history of these borrowers been scrutinized for us, the lenders? Do we have a say in the requirements of this lending contract? The repayment of these funds through developer's SDC's will, according to the City's Cost Estimate Summary, reimburse the costs of offsite road improvements and storm drains. Where is the portion of this development's SDC funding that should go to upgrading the increased demand on our water and sewer treatment plants? Will Ashland citizens have to subsidize this missing money? If our City has enough capacity in our existing infrastructure systems like our Water Master Plan predicts, then why this summer, were 86 homes cut off from their TID water to supplement our dwindling Reeder reservoir supplies? Was this "Plan of Correction" the best way to accommodate unanticipated water/climate changes? Our wildfire protection standards are about to change city-wide due to severe climatic aberrations. The NNP should not have to be amended afterwards. Amend the DENSITY in the Normal Neighborhood Plan NOW, and proactively and sustainably PLAN-FOR A DENSITY our resources environment and community can handle! To the Ashland City Council: Sept. 1, 2015, Meeting, re: Normal Neighborhood Plan My name is Paula Fox. I live at 367 Normal Ave. I want to talk about growth and water. Mayor Stromberg, in your State of the City speech in January of this year, you "put forth five proposals to preserve and improve the quality of life in Ashland in the coming years." The first two were: 1. Concentrate high-density residential development in "nodes" on the city's public transit corridor. 2. Reserve the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Master Plan area to provide larger detached homes suitable for families with children, built in cluster developments to allow shared gardens, play areas, and parking. I think this is a wonderful vision for future growth of our city. However, a big question looms over us today, and that is: How much should the City grow, given the current water shortages and predictions of continuing drought? The issue of water relates to quality of life and sustainability of limited resources. Ashland's finite water resources must be addressed prior to any development, especially this "overdevelopment" of 450 high-density housing units proposed in the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Questions & Answers regarding the Plan posted on the City's website last night states: "The Plan actually improves the water master planning process by providing sufficient detail to determine size and location of future water lines that can then be added to the Water Master Plan." Oh, that's just great! You can determine the size and location of future water lines all you want, but the question not answered is: Where will the water come from? Oregon's ongoing four-year drought and water shortages are described as the "new normal" by our governor and numerous climatologists. We all know that Ashland's water sources are gravely stressed now and subject to additional threats in the future. For the second year, the City has taken away TID water rights from 86 Ashland households. That's half of all Ashland TID users! How many will it be next year? I understand the need to have a plan for future growth, but growth needs to be sustainable and within the limits of our natural resources. The plan needs to be responsible and realistic. High-density housing should be removed from the plan and replaced with clusters of detached homes for families, as envisioned by the Mayor. And NO growth should be allowed until the City's water supply is fully adequate to service existing households now and into the future. I think it is irresponsible for the City to even consider adding 450 new residential units during these times of drought. Our water situation is dire. Let's not make it even worse! FAMILY-FRIENDLY QUALITY OF LIFE IN ASHLAND r There's an imbalance of zoning for Suburban Residential (SR) in the plan. This zoning density within the Normal Plan is carrying 75% of all SR projected needs for the entire urban growth boundary. Quoting the mayor from his State of the City speech this year, he said "that centrally located developments with higher density mixed-use residential overlays (which are residences above commercial) would allow for lower density, family-friendly development in the Normal Neighborhood Plan." There are ACRES of pocket areas within the city of Ashland that have yet to be developed, like below Riverwalk District between Mountain Ave. and Oak St, plus along Ashland St across from Wendy's, and at the intersection with Tolman Creek Rd. All of these infill areas already have city services and access to public transportation. So why is the City planning to cram so much density into the urban growth boundary when it's not needed? And why isn't the plan for this housing density to be spread throughout the UGB? I encourage the council to support its own Goal# 13: "to develop infill and use compact urban forms", not urban sprawl! The mayor proposed in his speech to "reserve the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) area to provide larger detached homes suitable for families with children." This plan should be designed with a smaller sustainable density that would also support Council Goal #14: to encourage the development of public spaces that build community and promote interaction. The plan presented tonight, with this concentration of extreme density, diminishes the opportunity for community gardens, sustainable agriculture, parks, play areas and preservation of educational natural resources within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. How can the Normal Neighborhood Master Plan incorporate zoning for 450 new dwelling units and uphold another Council Goal#7: to keep Ashland a family- friendly community? Please do not approve this too dense version of the NNP! Sept. 1, 2015 Ashland City Council Meeting Tod Brannan 367 Normal Avenue The City's So-called Q&A About the Normal Avenue Master Plan The City posted a number of questions and answers about the Normal Neighborhood plan late last night. This hardly gives people a chance to respond before tonight's meeting! The answers seem to be an attempt to refute and shut down arguments citizens are making against this plan. Here's a reality check on some of the answers. Q&A Says A Reality Check... 1 Need to agree on a This vision has to be a vision of the citizens, not the City vision Council and Planning Commission. As elected officials you work for us, and you have a responsibility to represent the citizens and what we want. The plan does not represent our vision. 2 Water is not a problem. If water is not a problem, then why did the City cut off TID Don't worry We've done water to 86 households the last 2 years and divert that our planning. water to the City? 3 In Oregon, cities are not True, but we don't have to be crammed in like sardines allowed to stop growth. either. The plan needs to drastically reduce the proposed density. 4 Infrastructure costs will I think this means the City will pay the developer to build be reimbursed by the the infrastructure, then the developer will pay us back? developer. Well, what could possibly go wrong with that? The City (confusing paragraph!) needs to perform due diligence on any developer, so the tax payers are not left holding the bag. 5 Normal neighborhood is How convenient! Just change what "infill" means, then a part of the infill strategy developer can build in the urban growth boundary even and therefore part of the though there is plenty of land within the city limits. This Buildable Lands answer ignores any discussion of costs! It is much less Inventory. expensive to build near existing infrastructure within the city limits than to build in an area with no infrastructure. Building in the NNP could be a big hit to tax payers. 6 County standards for You want to talk about aesthetics? Implementing the aesthetics are less proposed high-density plan would destroy the character of stringent than the City's. a beautiful neighborhood. Do you think that apartment buildings are aesthetically pleasing? I don't! Final Thought - This entire project has been developer driven with little support from citizens. The vast majority of citizens want this plan either totally rejected or revised to a much lower density. 4'ry L71 / Nancy Parker, 456 Euclid St., Ashland OR 1. The NNP is a big city plan designed for a small town by developers. Traditionally, Ashland has followed a policy of "Infill" to accommodate sustainable growth. With the NNP, the city abandons Infill in favor of urban sprawl. 2. Annexation of UGB land to build 450 new homes entails running city services to those homes, extending power lines, water mains, sewer lines, and fiber optic cabling to the site, and upgrading country roads. I understand the developer would pick up the tab for onsite infrastructure, but I'm talking here about extending services to the site. 3. I've reviewed the 37-page Plan, and nowhere do I find mention of costs. The entire discussion of infrastructure consists of two paragraphs on page 36-on water and sewer, which basically state that no existing City of Ashland services extend into the "project area." 4. No effort is made to estimate what the city's infrastructure costs might be, nor who is to pay them. Dollar estimates range from $5 to $10 million and higher-$1,000 or more per taxpayer. Talk of "Advance Financing" raises all sorts of red flags. What are we as a city doing, financing developers? The citizens are the city, and ultimately, if the developers default, we bear the cost. 5. What is most unconscionable about this plan, is that it is overkill. Ashland's own growth studies forecast 187 new residents per year. Currently, within the city limits, with services already in place, there are 1,883 buildable units. I.e., we have enough room to allow for sustainable growth for 20 years without needing to annex and develop UGB land 6. I understand the NNP project has been in the works for years. I understand you feel you've heard all you need to hear from Ashland's residents. But I must tell you that most of us only heard about this plan in the past month. And to me, it looks more like a Developers' vision than a citizens' Master Plan. 8. You are the people we elected to represent us and our interests, not developers' interests. Most of us moved here to escape big city urban sprawl. Nowhere are our interests more at stake than here. This plan impacts our quality of life in terms of traffic, congestion, pollution, and loss of open space and wetlands. And it hits us in our pocketbooks. 9. The Normal Ave. Plan is much too large in scope for Ashland and incomplete in terms of cost estimates. And it ignores our values and our interests. From the last two pages of the 37-page NNP Master Plan, here is all that is said about Infrastructure: Water No City of Ashland water services extend in the project area and all existing homes in the project area get their potable and domestic water from wells. The closest municipal water sources are the Lithia main that runs in the East Main Street alignment and an 8-inch main that runs along the full extent of Creek Drive and part of Clay Street. Sanitary Sewer No City of Ashland sanitary sewers extend to the project area; all existing homes in the project area rely on septic systems for disposing of their waste. A single 8-inch service stub connects Temple Emek Shalom at 1800 East Main Street to the 12-inch sanitary sewer that runs in the Bear Creek Alignment. Other proximate sewer lines include 8- inch sewer lines that run in the Walker Street, Creek Drive, and Clay Street alignments. 1 September 2015 9 1 1~ 6Y ~ U` My name is Beth Coye. I live at 1609 Peachy Road. I am a member of the NNP Citizen Action Group, a group of Ashland citizens who came together a month ago to evaluate the implications of the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) for all Ashland's citizens. I will speak to the Position Paper our Group submitted to the Mayor and City Council. This Paper contains three recommendations regarding the plan: 1. The NNP density should be reduced from 450 to 225 dwelling units, reducing the projected resident population from 914 to 457. 2. The City should institute a greater educational outreach effort to inform Ashland citizens of the NNP, gathering feedback on the consequences of the plan. Currently, only a small percentage of citizens are aware of the NNP. 3. Ashland citizens need reassurance that the zoning requirement of 25% open space will be strictly adhered to, including wetlands, thus assuring preservation of this critically sensitive habitat. We make these recommendations based on six areas of concern: 1.Cost of infrastructure - The plan does not address the real costs of external infrastructure improvements. [Nancy Parker will address this issue.] 2.Density_/number of units - The plan provides for construction of 450 dwelling units, expected to house approximately 914 residents. Such density would compromise the integrity of wetlands, conservation easements, and hydrology management. It also would negate the principle of matching densities within the NNP with densities of contiguous neighborhoods. [Bryce Anderson will address this issue.] 3.Sustainability of resources and livability - [Several members will address this issue.] 4.Water - Finite water resources must be addressed prior to the Council's approval of the NNP. Ashland's water sources currently are stressed and subject to many future threats. [Paula Fox will address this issue.] S. Wetlands protection - Sue DeMarinis will address this issue.] 6. Street improvements. Given these concerns, in particular the financial consequences to the City of Ashland - as well as the impact of the NNP on Ashland's quality of life - the Citizen Action Group asks that the City Council table the NNP as currently written and that the plan be revised to address these concerns. As a former Political Science professor, I say that democracy demands citizen education and participation. In the case of the NNP, this has not yet happened. The number one goal of Oregon Land Use Planning is Citizen Involvement! I ask that City officials commit to orchestrating - citywide - a democratic process for the Normal Neighborhood Plan before making any more decisions. We don't wish to fight; we wish to dialogue. There has been minimal dialogue between citizenry and city officials. Thank you. Ashland City Council Meeting Sept. 1, 2015 My name is Carola Lacy. I live at 667 Park, 42 I will talk about street improvements. Street Improvements The high density of 450 residential units proposed in the plan will cause congestion on our streets, and will result in up to 5,000 additional vehicle trips per day (according to the city transportation commission). Much of this increased congestion will be near the middle and elementary schools, and will create a serious safety issue. Street improvements will be needed for Ashland St., Normal Ave., East Main St., Clay Street, and others. The Normal Ave. railroad crossing will need an upgrade. The congestion and safety problems would not be as bad if density were reduced. MOSf Glfiz*1 g deSive fh-ese c4 amgtes : 1. Reduce the density from 450 to 225 units. This still will result in an increase of vehicle trips per day of 2,500, but it's a lot better than 5,000! 2. Improve the streets BEFORE any development is done. The city transportation commission has recommended this. To do street improvements "as needed", as the NNP recommends, will worsen congestion and cause serious safety issues around the schools and elsewhere. 3. Specify the exact street upgrades that will be needed and the costs. We citizens must know what the financial consequences will be for us. This entire project seems to be developer-driven with little support from citizens. In closing, most Ashlanders feel this entire project needs to be either totally rejected or revised to a much lower density. Further, we need a different format for dialogue. We must have longer than three minutes to talk back and forth about these crucial issues. 845 Cypress Point Loop Ashland, Oregon September 1, 2015 Ashland City Council 1175 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon Council Members; I'm writing my concerns re: the Normal Neighborhood Plan. 1. The size of this development shows no regard for our natural resources. We're in drought conditions now and no rain in sight. A reduction in size to no more than 225 new units is more in line with our resources. 2. Another point is our electric usage. I believe ALL NEW HOMES must include at least two (2) solar panels on their roofs. Let's set a building standard for the future. 3. Current developments approved by the council are two-story buildings. This practice allows for larger square foot homes but completely disregards your population of SENIOR CITIZENS! I think that 50% of the homes should be single story for a balanced population. NO MORE SENIOR CITIZEN DISCRIMINATION! ! 4. Landscaping within this project must be drought-tolerant. The installation of public vegetable gardens for residential use would be another added PLUS to our community. 5. ALL developmental costs for this project plus additional costs to our current sewage plant and roads MUST be paid by the developer. It is NOT FAIR to our citizens to pay any more taxes. Please give this project your complete attention. I hope that all of you will address these five issues. It's for the good of our community. w K. Rishel and C. Ri rds ' j / Registered voters, tax payers, and concerned citizens. August 31, 2015 City of Ashland Council Ashland Planning Commission Re: Normal St Development plans Dear Officials: We have very strong doubts about the Normal area plan: We are concerned about the ability of the City and the neighborhoods surrounding the plan area to absorb and provide for the increased traffic congestion, infrastructure and water service resulting from the addition of 450 dwellings in the proposed area. • It does not seem reasonable to put 450 households in an area with limited street access and capacity. Both East Main St and Ashland St. are already often crowded with traffic, especially during morning and evening rush hours, and before and after school hours. The Tuesday growers market also adds to congestion on and near Wightman St. • Nor does it seem reasonable to take on such a large additional water demand when we are already pushing the limits of our supply. • Sewer and storm drainage will be hugely increased, and will likely require major additions. What demand is there to Iustifv these chances? With that much at risk, what compelling reason is there to undertake an addition of this scale? How willeople in Ashland benefit from the addition? Adding population does not necessarily benefit a community, particularly one like Ashland, which already offers a very good quality of life to its residents. It seems that perhaps there is some "we should to it because we can do it" sort of thinking going on. Progress has many dimensions other than size. Part of the attractiveness of Ashland is that it is reasonable in scale and all of the town is accessible to all of its residents. This 12lan seems radically out of scale. Thank you for your attention. OfuC.e,~B a r" e f l3 Z ~bt tee- \4- rv L-a K--k, 544-20! fg 47 August 31, 2015 City of Ashland Council Ashland Planning Commission Re: Normal St Development plans Dear Officials: We have very strong doubts about the Normal area plan: We are concerned about the ability of the City and the neighborhoods surrounding the plan area to absorb and provide for the increased traffic congestion, infrastructure and water service resulting from the addition of 450 dwellings in the proposed area. • It does not seem reasonable to put 450 households in an area with limited street access and capacity. Both East Main St and Ashland St. are already often crowded with traffic, especially during morning and evening rush hours, and before and after school hours. The Tuesday growers market also adds to congestion on and near Wightman St. • Nor does it seem reasonable to take on such a large additional water demand when we are already pushing the limits of our supply. • Sewer and storm drainage will be hugely increased, and will likely require major additions. What demand is there to justify these changes? With that much at risk, what compelling reason is there to undertake an addition of this scale? How will people in Ashland benefit from the addition? Adding population does not necessarily benefit a community, particularly one like Ashland, which already offers a very good quality of life to its residents. It seems that perhaps there is some "we should to it because we can do it" sort of thinking going on. Progress has many dimensions other than size. Part of the attractiveness of Ashland is that it is reasonable in scale and all of the town is accessible to all of its residents. This plan seems radically out of scale. Thank you for your attention. r George b-' Pagani Nancy E. Pagani J 158 N Wightman St Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-0047 Speaker Request Form THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you do not wish to speak. (Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary) 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement- Tonight's Meeting Date Name l C~ (please print) 1i Address (no P.O. Box) Phone Email u Re ar Meeting 1ti~y genda topic/item number OR r Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearin; Please indicate the fallowing: For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge- v • fig , I a L.-. The Public Meeting Law rewires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak The Ashland City Council generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland- - - 1 PHILIP C LANG, OPE. LC~S~Xr-1141 ® CAL. LCMT 5500 ~~C~Sa", LC~S~ 758 B e5t.reet Ashland, Oregon 97520 Residence, 541 ® 482-8659 Office/fix 541 ° 482-5387 e-mail PlithpCmind.net, September 1, 2015 To: City Council/Planning Dept. HAND DELIVERED TO COUNCIL - 9/1/15 Re.: Normal Neighborhood Plan I join with my h eighbors in o-pposthAg the Normal Neighborhood plan for all the reasons they cite in their brochure and which I am sure they will state at tonight's meeting. I am a party at interest: I own 682 Normal Avenue, and manage the home owned by my son at 686 Normal Avenue. I have been in Ashland for 30 years. In that time the "good-old boy" corruption , the transformation of the Planning Process into simply a formal "stamp of approval" for every sort of "development" to enrich developers at the expense of what we continue to tout as "Ashland's livability" now happens routinely - a kind of dance of Planning, City Council, and associated city staff in which the outcome is inevitable: Developers/greedy - everything - citizens - nothing. Less than a month ago, the at the August 4th City Council Meeting another such "development" plan was proposed in the form of "cleaning up" a section of the railroad property to allow for the construction of developer houses. Five thousand truckloads of heavily cimtomina_t-d railroad terminus waste including heavy dirty fuels and oils, taxie metals of all sorts, was to be dragged through our neighborhod by way of Oak and Clear Creek streets! Now the proponents of these schemes with the collusion of the City apparatus do not get discourgaed easily - big bucks are to be made! This scheme was floated in 2006. Citizens objected mightily. If the area was to be "cleaned up", the waste should go out the way it came - via railroad. The City Council voted an expression of concern and intention that stated this. A creek flows through this property: Love Canal here we come! Not to worry, developer friends. Our City Attorney and City Manager informed all present that: (1) the RR is prospering and no longer would have railroad cars available to haul out the filth, and, (2) that was only a "sense of the Council" vote - not official, and unable to be binding on the railroad. Obviously, we are the hostages of the railroad - their hosts in our City, rather than the other way around, as it should be. City Council - re: North Normal Plan - 9/1/15 - p. 2 I mention this RR development scheme because it was resurrected a month ago - and now comes the North Normal Project. I have always said that all our national problems are visible in microcosm in Ashland. Over "development, debasement of a livable environment, destruction of habitat and open space, etc. etc. I also mention it because Mayor Stromberg stated his position clearly about such developments. In a jolly vein, he wondered what the objections were about: "(we'll have) more taxes, more commerce". And whopcould complain about that? Who indeed? I wish my No Normal Plan fellow citizens well. I fear that in the end, having found that:rationality, fairness, concern for quality of life in Ashland, and good common sense may not prevail. In that case, they will have to find a countervailing power to the unholy alliance of the city apparatus with developers, and that, unfortunately, that power will have to be engaged through the courts. *inc rely, P LAN4ASW, LCSW, Ph.D. 9/1/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldma ash n r. us tj Awl I FW: Council Contact Form - Betsy Shanafelt - 9/1/2015 From : Dave Kanner <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 03:33 PM Subject : FW: Council Contact Form - Betsy Shanafelt - 9/1/2015 To :'bill molnar' <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Dave Kanner, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2103 or (541)488-6002, TTY 800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 488-5311 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. Thank you. From: Betsy Shanafelt [mailto:ann@ashland.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:17 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Betsy Shanafelt - 9/1/2015 Name: Betsy Shanafelt Email: shanafela mind. net Subject: Normal Neighborhood Plan Message: I don't live anywhere near the Normal neighborhood, but I object to a process with such far-reaching outcomes that does NOT involve neighborhood and broader community input. I urge you all to send this back to the drawing board for community input and development of costs and environmental impact. Frankly, the Planning/Community Development Dept. has n't proven that it is on top of projects that it approves or very smart about its development schemes. The article in the Mail Tribune quotes Molnar as saying that anyone beginning annexation today would be subject to ordinances now on the books--a problem. Well if those ordinances aren't good, then fix them. PLEASE not another rush to screw up like the Plaza and the unrealized "industrial park" off Crowson Rd. There is no urgency! Do it right! (Interestingly, right next to the Aug. 31 article in the MT about NNP was one about the city of Talent's intelligent approach to developing a plaza.) https://zim bra.ashiand.or.us/zim bra/h/pri ntmessage?id=106845&xi m=1 1 /1 911/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Debbie Mattsson <debbiegm922@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 03:12 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : john@council.ashiand.or.us, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> I wish to go record as being against the Normal Neighborhood Plan. That area is far to small to accommodate 450 new "dwelling units". Our water supply cannot support these new units. Taxpayers MUST NOT be required to pay for the necessary infrastructure upgrades; taxpayers' quality of life will be negatively impacted by this development. Also, wildlife habitats will be compromised, three State Designated Wetlands will be adversely affected. Please table this plan. Sincerely, Deborah Mattsson (formerly Deborah Tingle) Sent from my iPhone https://zimbra.ashl and.or.us/zi mbra/h/pri ntmessage?id=106842&xim=1 1/1 9/112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us High Density Housing Plan From : Jody Zonnenschein <ayalaz26@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 01:40 PM Subject : High Density Housing Plan To : john@council.ashland.or.us, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Dear John and Brandon, I'm writing in regards to this plan to build 450 new units off of Clay St. I can't help but wonder what and whom, besides income for the city, this plan serves. Bringing in that many more residents to a town that is already challenged with many who can not find work here in this valley is asking for trouble, as in crime. What happens once people move here and can't make a living? In addition to that aspect, what studies have been done to determine the impact this new housing will have on the current infrastructure, wetlands, green space, etc. Many people moved to Ashland, or visit Ashland, because of it's rural charm. It seems the City Council is bent on destroying that. Respectfully, Jody Zonnenschein 75 Brooks Lane, Ashland https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/Wprintmessage?id= 106830&xim=1 1 /1 9/1/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us FW: Council Contact Form - Kathryn (Kate) Cleland-Sipfle - 9/1/2015 From : Dave Kanner <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 12:13 PM Subject : FW: Council Contact Form - Kathryn (Kate) Cleland-Sipfle - 9/1/2015 To : 'bill molnar' <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> From: Kathryn (Kate) Cleland-Sipfle [mailto:ann@ashland.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:12 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Kathryn (Kate) Cleland-Sipfle - 9/1/2015 Name: Kathryn (Kate) Cleland-Sipfle Email: sipfle aol.com Subject: Normal Neighborhood Project Message: I am concerned that there has been so little public input regarding the proposed Normal Neighborhood Project which seems only to benefit the seller and the developer. My input has to do with open space and wetlands, keeping density where it is, and using existing infrastructure instead of expanding infrastructure where there is none. Th e fields and wetlands of the Normal neighborhood should be left in place to do what natural wetlands do in terms of storing and cleaning water in this drought-ridden region, providing habitat for wildlife, and providing open space for us to enjoy. I have enjoyed this area as s birdwatcher. I would be very happy to see the sale of this land with a conservation easement with very little development and leaving most of it for fields and wetlands. There is ample available land for residential development in the denser areas of Ashland. Your map shows where it is. There would be much less demand for infrastructure development in these areas, as much is already in place. Renovation of derelict housing and in-fill are a better solution to providing quality housing and keeping our builders and skilled tradespersons employed. Please take seriously the input from the many concerned citizens of Ashland who are just beginning to find out about NNP and react to it. It's n of a win for the public. Please leave this land mostly wild. https://zimbra.ashl and.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?i d=106816&xi m=1 1 /1 9/1/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Avenue Development From :Jacquelyn Agee <jacquelyn2628@live.com> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 09:15 AM Subject : Normal Avenue Development To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashiand.or.us>, Sugar M <sugarm@opendoor.com> Dear Mr. Goldman: When this development was reviewed last year, I was heartened that the Council listened to our concerns as residents of the neighborhoods that will be affected by this plan. I even told Councilor Dennis Slattery that I was impressed to see government working so functionally on behalf of its citizens. So, imagine my surprise when I recently learned that this project is once again before the Council in a configuration very similar to the one presented last year. None of the concerns raised by those of us affected have been resolved. This project as I understand it will add 450 new dwelling units; increase Ashland's population by 6%; add 2,000 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day to East Main; draw on an already strained water supply and negatively impact wetlands. These were all issues raised at last year's meeting. Now its going to be voted upon again and none of these issues have been resolved. Didn't you hear us??? Bottom line - presenting this project to the Council and asking for approval is premature. Further citizen input is needed, and at the very least, transportation concerns should be resolved. The level of density being considered is no longer appropriate for this part of Ashland and the Comprehensive Plan should be revised to reflect this. This plan should not be presented without first addressing the significant infrastructure problems that completion of this project will create. This plan needs to go back to the drawing board as it did last year. It is wrong, wrong, wrong for Ashland! Sincerely, Jackie Agee 168 Crocker St. Chautauqua Trace 3 hftps:/Jzimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbraftprintmessage?id= I 06752&xim=1 1/1 9/112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us From : gretchen vos <oregongretchen@yahoo.com> Tue, Sep 01, 2015 09:00 AM Subject : NNP To : john@council.ashland.or.us Cc : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Reply To : gretchen vos <oregongretchen@yahoo.com> I am writing in concern abo the NNP. I live on Lit Way near Homes Street. These are my concerns. 1. Increased traffic near a currently unsafe traffic area near Walker Elementary. ALREADY at this point, during the school year, it is a dangerous thing to cross Normal Street at Homes, parents in cars are in a hurry, there is NO crosswalk, there is no sidewalk on the west side of Normal. THE NNP DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS AT ALL! What will the city do to make sure that Normal St. does not become even MORE dangerous? WITH INCREASED CARS! There is a Senior Center, a baseball field, a park for toddlers, an elementary school, and a quiet small neighborhood of children. I am appalled that the city council would consider approving this proposed plan that would ENDANGER CHILDREN!!!!!! 2. Wetlands. There are a few wetlands in the area of the NNP. These are protected by state and federal law. Yet already the churches have chosen to use a tractor and a rototiller to these areas. Shall we assume that a group that is willing to break the law, can be trusted to abide by the law when the time comes to develop this land! The Army Corps of Engineers would not be happy to see what has been allowed in this area. I intend to let them know! PLEASE tell me, is the City aware of the ground breaking and tree cutting activities that have already been done in this area? What has the City done about this? 3. Money/Costs. I believe that the NNP should stipulate that 100% of the infrastructure costs be paid for by the developers (and/or tax payers living int he new development). For instance, the RXR crossing. WHILE IT IS CONVENIENT to say that "all of us" would benefit from some of the infrastructure improvements, the fact is that currently NO ONE needs a more developed RXR crossing. The same for any development at Homes St. and/or Ashland Street. These costs are for the benefit of the proposed development. The emperor clearly has no clothes on! To attempt to claim that we, as tax payers, benefit from the infrastructure, is absurd and I am insulted to think that anyone would expect me to swallow this absurd lie. There is a reason that in other states that the taxpayers in newly developed areas pay higher taxes for the new infrastructure development; is Ashland so rural and out of touch that we cannot expect a developer and its new tax payers to pay? This is standard procedure in California for instance!!!! Please do no approve this proposed NNP until the many associated issues have been resolved. While this development may not occur for years to come, the implications of the currently proposed NNP, if approved, will stand. thank you for reading this, and please include this in the official record. Gretchen Vos 444 Lit Way Ashland, OR 97520 Gretchen Vos, Senior Botanist Siskiyou BioSurvey, LLC 444 Lit Way Ashland, OR 97520 home: 541/ 482-2455 cell: 541 /821-8648 If you knew you could not fail, what would you most want to do for the world?" https://zi mbra.ashi and.or.us/zim bra/h/pri ntmessage?id=106748&xim=1 1 /2 9/112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Ave. comments From :Joyce Woods < rejoycew@ashlandhome. net> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 06:55 PM Subject : Normal Ave. comments To : goldmanb@ashland.or.us Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Ashland City Council Members Mayor John Stromberg August 31, 2015 Dear Everyone, First, I want to thank the folks who work in the City government. My parents were in city government so I know that it can be a thankless job at times. Thanks for the things that you do to make Ashland the safe, healthy and interesting place where so many of us want to be. Thanks for our beautiful parks and open spaces, hiking trails safe streets, AFN, the Senior Center, Parks and Rec, efforts towards conservation, sustainability and forest resiliency programs, CERT and so many other things. That said, in the past I have noticed a tendency to listen but dismiss residents deep concerns about the effects on existing homes and neighborhoods when development is proposed. (Though I do believe things have improved from the early 2000's.) When I first moved to Ashland in 1981, I could not afford to stay here and ended up renting in Medford for a while. But Ashland was where I wanted to be. So upon completing my Masters Degree, I returned here in 1987 and eventually bought a home in 2001. It's not a grand place above the Boulevard, but it is Ashland. Wow! Has my area changed in those years. Wetlands paved over, a high-rise apartment building boxing in my near neighbors, foot-traffic of strangers always walking by my door, increased traffic and some incidents of crime a little too close for comfort. I know that the City Council and Mayor have the best interest of all of Ashland at heart. I only ask that in making these decisions about annexing additional land, building hundreds of homes, granting permits and establishing the breadth and scope of these changes, please, consider your impact upon the current residents whose lives and love of Ashland you may be altering forever. Sincerely, Joyce A. Woods 2308 Abbott Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-1747 reiovicewCabashlandhome. net P.S. Thanks again to Brandon Goldman for his time, patience and assistance today. https://zimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=106707&xim=1 Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Street Development From : pamela ourshalimian <artofpamela@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 10:21 PM Subject : Normal Street Development To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Cc : john@council.ashland.or.us Dear Mayor and City Planner: Its my intention to express my concerns over the upcoming development slated for our fair city and hopefully sway you from voting in favor. I wish I had the time and energy to write an eloquent letter, unfortunately I do not. Its more important to me that you realize how much our townspeople are against this project. I recently became aware of the Normal st. development and am surprised, extremely concerned and flat out shocked that the city would be seriously considering a development of this size on our small town resources considering yet another year with lack of water in the west. I am among a Growing number who are AGAINST this project. It seems prudent that we pause and reconsider what is truly important for our existing population and the impact such a huge development would have on so many levels. PLEASE vote against passing this development and reconsider those options that include our use of resources; water, electricity, sewage, traffic not too mention the cost of who will be paying the taxes for such a project. Sincerely, Pamela Ourshalimian https://zi m bra.ashiand.or.us/zi m braftpri ntmessage?id=106709&xi m=1 1/1 911/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan Comments From : Mary Jane Oring <mjs356@me.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 05:58 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan Comments To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> To the Honorable Mayor & City Council, My husband & I strongly oppose the plan as proposed. The proposed density is inappropriate for the area & will impact City costs, water demands & traffic congestion. Currently we citizens are being asked to conserve resources while the City is being asked increase the burden on these resources. I urge you to vote NO on the plan. Mary lane Oring 42 Crocker St. Ashland, OR 97520 -7 https:/Izimbra.ashiarid.or.us/zimbraHprintmessage?id= 106705&xim= 1 111 8/31/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Bern Koch <genebern2@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 04:14 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : john@council.ashland.or.us Cc : Brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>, pam@council.ashland.or.us Honorable Mayor, Strongly oppose this Plan. Be better if was titled "Abnormal Plan" because of tremendous taxpayer expense, road congestion, pressure on schools, already limited water for City, stress on all public utilities, and not an immediate need. It is an "Abnormal Plan" at this time. Please let the rational heads of the Council prevail and vote AGAINST this irrational Plan. Thank you. Gene Koch 60 Crocker Street Ashland, OR 97520 https:/Izimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbrafVprintmessage?id=106687&xim=1 1I1 August 31, 2015 City of Ashland Council Ashland Planning Commission Re: Normal St Development plans Dear Officials: We have very strong doubts about the Normal area plan: We are concerned about the ability of the City and the neighborhoods surrounding the plan area to absorb and provide for the increased traffic congestion, infrastructure and water service resulting from the addition of 450 dwellings in the proposed area. • It does not seem reasonable to put 450 households in an area with limited street access and capacity. Both East Main St and Ashland St. are already often crowded with traffic, especially during morning and evening rush hours, and before and after school hours. The Tuesday growers market also adds to congestion on and near Wightman St. • Nor does it seem reasonable to take on such a large additional water demand when we are already pushing the limits of our supply. • Sewer and storm drainage will be hugely increased, and will likely require major additions. What demand is there to justify these changes? With that much at risk, what compelling reason is there to undertake an addition of this scale? How will people in Ashland benefit from the addition? Adding population does not necessarily benefit a community, particularly one like Ashland, which already offers a very good quality of life to its residents. It seems that perhaps there is some "we should to it because we can do it" sort of thinking going on. Progress has many dimensions other than size. Part of the attractiveness of Ashland is that it is reasonable in scale and all of the town is accessible to all of its residents. This plan seems radically out of scale. Thank you for your attention. George C. Pagani Nancy E. Pagani 158 N Wightman St Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-0047 8/31/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan to Big From : Carl and Sally McKirgan <mckirgan1239@msn.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 01:25 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan to Big To : John Stromberg, Mayor of Ashland <john@coundl.ashland.or.us>, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>, Carol Voisin <carol@council.ashland.or.us>, Greg Lemhouse <greg@council.ashland. or. us> Cc : Nancy Parker <naparker@mind.net>, Bethany King <grand lfolks@yahoo.com> Hello Friends, Please do not Allow construction of 450 new residential dwellings on a 94-acre parcel of land in the Urban Growth Boundary, bordered by E. Main to the north, Clay St. to the East, Ashland Middle School (Walker St.) on the west, and the railroad tracks on the south. While Ashland dearly needs affordable housing 450 units is WAY too much. Maybe half that amount would be acceptable. Thank you for the good work that you do! Blessings, Sally & Carl McKirgan 351 Bridge Street, Ashland ~o hftps://zimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/Wprintmessage?id= 106664&xim= 1 1/1 80/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Randy Hoffner <rnh@ashlandoregon.org> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 01:12 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Dear Mr Goldman, One of the major reasons we came to Ashland is the quality of life we enjoy here. I believe the proposed NNP will have a serious negative impact on our quality of life, bringing too much development in a short time span, additional traffic to contend with, and additional stress on our water supply, among other things. I would like to urge the City Council to table approval of the NNP, allowing for further citizen education about this project. It will have too great an impact on our community to jump into it this quickly, without further consideration of its consequences. Sincerely, Randall Hoffner 1091 Beswick Way https://7imbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/tVprintmessage?id= 106662&xim=1 1/1 To: Brandon Goldman, senior planner City of Ashland cc: Ashland City Council Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Adoption Date: 9/1/2015 From: John Colwell, representing GracePoint Church Board, 1760 E Main St. To begin our remarks, we feel it necessary to state that GracePoint Church is not opposed to the general concept of development on the empty lands between East Main and properties to the south. We also wish to protect the wetland on our property and therefore have paid significant funds to have a formal wetland delineation. We desire to be good neighbors and we want to join hands with the City of Ashland in moving forward into the future. However, we have deep concerns about the current plan that is being presented for adoption. We have carefully followed and participated in this planning process for close to 2 years. We have continued to voice our concerns, register our objections, request minor and major changes as we view these proposed planning actions will affect our property interests. We have been met with courtesy but we cannot recall one substantive response or accommodation to our concerns. While courtesy can go a long way, it is not a substitute for negotiation. The members and friends of GracePoint Church ask the Ashland City Council to reject the proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan Adoption. The plan is flawed because several of it's underlying assumptions were false and led to a gross overestimation of the available wetland space our property and as a result within the entire planning region. When, during the planning and community discussion process, that fact became evident, there was no capitulation to property owners concerns. Instead, a new designation (renaming) occurred, that changed "wetland" to "open space" and resulted in the inability of property owners to actually challenge the size and extent of the now "open space" on their property. The initial estimates of where wetlands were and their sizes were based on the then registered wetland estimate but buried in the documentation is the fact that during this estimate there was not an onsite visit to view or study even the largest wetland which is on our property. The primary issue is that this definition was out of date and therefore not valid. To compound this already evident problem the only accommodation to property owners was to allow us to formally request a Major Plan amendment. Recently there has been an attempt to mitigate the severity of these initially faulty wetland sizes by requiring property owners to request changes by a Minor Plan Amendment instead. Both of these possible solutions may seem reasonable until you consider the fact that the wetland sizes, upon which all the density calculations have been based, were wrong and out of date even at the time of their incorporation into this process. It is our belief that the Ashland Planning staff knew this but proceeded, showing a purposeful disregard for owners by using out of date data rather than pay for wetland surveys to collect accurate information. This put the landowners "under the wheel of the bus" and the City at risk legally because a legal challenge argument will point to the faulty and out of date initial estimates. This not only undermines the credibility of the process but exposes a probable true intent, which appears to ensure a desired result by shifting the responsibility of making changes onto the landowners (at landowners expense) rather than starting with accurate sizes of the wetlands. At one of the public hearings Ashland Gracepoint presented a written recommendation to staff that until a current legitimate wetland survey was done this process was invalid and susceptible to legal challenge. We suggested that by using knowingly out of date and faulty estimates the City was exposed to creating a "public taking" event. We were assailed with the response from Planning Staff that this is not a taking but a planning process and therefore the taking rules would not apply. We disagree, when our future ability to use this property, whether within the City or out, is severely limited by faulty and knowingly out of date planning assumptions. In support of these initially faulty assumptions, at least two private formal Wetland Delineations have already been performed that challenge these initial assumptions and we have our application before the State Department on Lands at this time. The survey of our property has been done, application submitted and the size of the wetland recommended by a recognized wetland professional is 0.64 acres. This is a far cry from the 2+ acres in the initial information Ashland Planning Staff used for their calculation of the density and open space trades required during this planning process. Some may claim that the delineation was completed during drought conditions, but the most recent delineation is nearly the same size as the delineation performed by the Army Corp of Engineers in the early 1990's. We have contacted legal counsel to protect our assets but hope this will not escalate to a legal challenge. Sincerely, John Colwell for: Ashland GracePoint Church Board 1760 E Main St. Ashland, Oregon 8/3112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us NNP From : Avram Chetron <avram.chetron@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 01:31 PM Subject : NNP To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> City Planner, PLEASE oppose the ill-advised NNP! The only people this ambitious overreach benefits are the developers... and this at a cost to all Ashland residents. I think your constituency should be us Ashlanders, not the developers. Their vision is for more dollars, while ours is for quality of life. Listen to your heart and your common sense. Avram Chetron 14 https:/Izimbra.ashland.or.uslzi mbrafVpri ntmessage?id=106665&xi m=1 1/1 Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Clark Rhudy <candsrhudy@icloud.com> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 08:15 AM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Please table this plan until the citizens of Ashland have had a chance to study it! Clark and Suzanne Rhudy Sent from my iPad https://zi mbra.ashiand.or.us/zim bra/h/pri ntmessage?id=106581 &xi m=1 1/1 cimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan Comments From : David Force <wanderforce@aol.com> Sun, Aug 30, 2015 06:28 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan Comments To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Cc : John Pierson < meadowlarkwoman@charter. net> Dear Mr. Goldman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Please enter these comments in the record for the September 1, 2015 public hearing. I will be unable to attend that meeting. I am writing as the attorney for the William Pierson Family Farm Trust and Pierson Cattle & Hay, an Oregon limited partnership. The Trust owns the 235-acre Pierson Ranch, including 13 lots of record centered on 1735 E. Main Street; directly across E. Main from the neighborhood planning area, and located on both sides of Bear Creek and both sides of Interstate 5. All but about 9 acres of the trust property are zoned Exclusive Farm Use. The trust property is managed by Pierson Cattle & Hay, whose General Partner John S. Pierson lives on the property, and is a busy working farm. The Trust and PCH have some serious concerns about the consequences of dense residential development in the Normal Neighborhood, upon the viability of the farming operation. - The Normal Neighborhood occupies a higher elevation than the Trust property, and slopes downhill toward E. Main and Bear Creek. At least two seasonal streams drain the Neighborhood into Bear Creek across the Trust property. During times of even mild precipitation, stormwater runoff onto the Trust property causes soil erosion and interrupts use of parts of the Trust property a few times each year. We are concerned that unless extensive storm sewer facilities are developed in the Neighborhood prior to any new construction, the increased water runoff from new streets, driveways, roofs, etc., will cause severe negative impacts which cannot be mitigated after the fact. Most critically, we implore the City to insure that all stormwater runoff is diverted away from E. Main and does not flow over the Trust property. - The Ashland side of the Trust property is bisected diagonally by the City's 48-inch sewer main. Consistent with Ashland's longstanding policy of preventing any kind of improvement or development on lands contiguous to, but outside, its corporate limits (in this instance E. Main Street); only a single sanitary sewer hookup is allowed by the City along the 1/3-mile transit of the sewer main trunk. Extensive development in the Normal Neighborhood would certainly require construction of a large feeder into the main line under the Trust Property; which in turn will require an easement across the property and compensation for major interruption of the farm business during its construction. Moreover the existence of such a lateral connection to the main sewer trunk would render a significant portion of the Trust property less useable for agricultural purposes. The Trust therefore offers to help the City avoid the expense and delay of use of its eminent domain authority, and would grant the requisite easement in exchange for allowing hookups to either the main or the new lateral sewer for each of the lots of record owned by the Trust which front directly on E. Main; and extension of the City's municipal water service across E. Main to those lots. Thank you and the Council for your attention to and consideration of these matters. Please feel free to contact me by email, or standard mail at P.O. Box 10972 Eugene, Oregon 97440. Very truly yours, David C. Force https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id= 106558&xim= 1 1/2 8/°1 /2015 u i wi a Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us FW: Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Gwyneth Ragosine <gwynethr@mind.net> Sun, Aug 30, 2015 01:38 PM Subject : FW: Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> From: Gwyneth Ragosine [mailto:gwynethr@mind.net] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:29 PM TO: john@council.ashland.or.us CC: brandon.goldman@ashland.ci.or.us Subject: Normal Neighborhood Plan Dear Mayor 5tromberg, I want to register my strong opposition to this plan. It is WAY too big and I cannot see how it would benefit our town. Gwyneth Ragosine Oak Knoll Drive 17 111 https://zimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id= 106557&xim= I 8/3112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Plan From : Bruce Barnes <bebarnes@jeffnet.org> Sun, Aug 30, 2015 09:47 PM Subject : Normal Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> What a DUMB IDEA ! Ashland's citizens are not crying for more houses to be built! Only the developers would benefit, and the citizens would be stuck with this future-blight in our midst, costing us huge infrastructure expenses into the future. Remember, City Staff serves THE PEOPLE, not developers. Bruce Barnes 132 Blue Heron Lane Ashland hftps://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbraftprintmessage?id= 106560&xim= 1 1/1 B/31/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us FW: Normal Development From : Dave Kanner <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us> Mon, Aug 31, 2015 08:07 AM Subject : FW: Normal Development To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>, 'bill molnar' < bill. molnar@ashland. or. us> Dave Kanner, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2103 or (541) 488-6002, TTY 800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 488-5311 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. Thank you. From: John Stromberg [mailto:john@council.ashland.or.us] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:46 PM To: City Council Subject: Fwd: Normal Development FYI John Stromberg Mayor 541 552 2104 (direct) 541488 6002 (secretary) This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to the Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2104. Thank you. From: "Bruce Barnes" <bebarnes@jeffnet.org> To: john council.ashiand.or.us Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:44:32 PM Subject: Normal Development Dear Mr. Mayor, Ashland does NOT need this huge expansion of residential housing. If a FEW low-income homes are needed, then build them. But remember, the only ones who would benefit from this huge addition to Ashland are the developers! Citizens, by and large, are not calling for more houses to be built. It's only developers who would benefit. Ashland does not exist to serve the needs/wants of developers! NO to the Normal Plan. Bruce Barnes 132 Blue Heron Lane Ashland hftps://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/tVprintmessage?id= 106577&x1 m=1 1 /2 8/31/2015 L Zimbra goidmanb@ashiand.or.us Fw: NNP Position Paper from The NNP Citizens Action Group From : Nancy Parker <naparker@mind.net> Sat, Aug 29, 2015 02:38 PM Subject : Fw: NNP Position Paper from The NNP Citizens Action Group 1 attachment To : Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> From: Nancy Parker Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 2:35 PM To: Greg Lemhouse Subject: Fw: NNP Position Paper from The NNP Citizens Action Group Dear Brandon, On Monday, Aug. 24, I emailed you (see below) with the NNP Citizens Action Group's Position Paper. After learning that Pam Marsh did not receive that email, I am resending this to each of you separately. Please ignore if you already received it. Thanks, Nancy Parker From: Nancy Parker Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:41 PM To: John Strombera, Mayor, ; mike council.ashland.or.us; rich(alcouncil.ashland.or.us; stefani(acouncil.ashland.or.usemail.com; greq(o)council.ashland.or.us; Carol Voisin ; pamacouncil.ashiand.or.us Cc: diana.shiplet(a)ashland.or.us: brandon.goldman(a)ashiand.or.us Subject: NNP Position Paper from The NNP Citizens Action Group To: Mayor Stromberg and Members of the Ashland City From: NNP Citizen Action Group In recent weeks a group of Ashland citizens concerned with the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan (NNP) have organized to form an action group to address a number of concerns we share regarding this planned development, slated for review at your September 1st meeting. Note that several members of our group live outside the Normal Avenue neighborhood and have never been heard on this issue until now. Attached, please find our Position Paper, outlining concerns our group feels should be addressed before any decision is reached on a working development plan. We are sending you this document so that it can be made a part of the public record and as a courtesy, so that members of the Council and Your Honor, the Mayor, may have ample time to review its contents prior to the September 1st meeting. Our concerns fall in six general areas: 1. Potential infrastructure costs and the omission from the NNP of a detailed breakdown of these costs and who pays them. 2, The high density of the planned development. 3. Sustainability of resources and livability. Zo 4. Finite water resources. https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=106522&xim=1 1/2 8/31/2015 Zimbra 5. Protection of wetlands and sensitive wildlife habitat. 6. Potential increased traffic, pollution and congestion. We look forward to expressing our concerns at the upcoming meeting as well as voicing recommendations set forward in our Position Paper. Our hope is that citizen feedback is received with the understanding that maintaining the quality of life in Ashland for all its citizens is uppermost in our minds. Respectfully, NNP Citizen Action Group NNP Position Paper.pdf 640 KB https:llzimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id= I 06522&xim= 1 2/2 Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan (NNP) Position Paper Prepared by the NNP Citizen Action Group - August 2015 Purpose This position paper is addressed to the Ashland mayor and members of the City Council. Its purpose is to provide information in support of tabling the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan (NNP) by the City Council until major revisions are made and Ashland citizens have had greater opportunity to become informed on both policy and cost ramifications of the NNP. The paper presents a brief introduction and background and raises six major areas of concern to the NNP Citizen Action Group. Introduction Why is this issue important to the City? The City's goal is "to maintain a compact urban form and to ensure the orderly and sequential development of land in the City Limits." The city does not want the Normal Avenue Neighborhood or other property within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be developed as County property in a haphazard manner. Ergo, there is a need for a city plan for the property. What is the City's position? The City intends to implement the NNP now, despite an estimated 1,883 vacant or partially vacant (i.e., undeveloped) parcels that currently exist within the city limits. Developers and a few landowners intend to sell and urbanize property located in this area. City staff first met with out-of-area consultants. Then a preliminary plan was studied by the Transportation and Planning Commissions and debated by the Council, which was unable to reach a decision. It was then sent to a working committee and returned to the Planning Commission for its approval. Now, reading of the modified plan will occur at the September 1, 2015 Council meeting. The existence, however, of the estimated 1,883 parcels of buildable land has yet to be addressed either by staff or the ad hoc Council study committee. Who are the stakeholders? All the citizens of Ashland, the developers, the residents of Normal Avenue and adjoining neighborhoods, and the City staff. 1 What are the stakeholders' positions? • Citizens of Ashland. With the exception of Normal Avenue area and some Clay St. residents, few Ashlanders have been made aware of the imminent approval of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan (NNP). The few who have learned of it are concerned about the implications for Ashland's natural resources and costs and question who will have to shoulder the sizable financial costs. • Developers. Developers want to return a profit of at least 10% on their investment. • The Normal Avenue residents. Most of these residents are very concerned about implementation of the Plan that will: (1) add congestion to streets, (2) impair key natural resources, (3) commit City resources without sufficient citizen education, and (4) build-up one of the UGB areas, allowing high density development rather than abiding by City infill strategies. • City Staff. Staff supports the annexation of this parcel with high density development, supporting an adequate housing inventory for the next several decades. Background The Normal Avenue Neighborhood is one of the last sizeable tracts of largely vacant (undeveloped) land designated for residential purposes in Ashland's UGB. The future development of the area is expected to accommodate long-range population growth consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Ashland's position in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS). The city has received a request to develop a nine-acre parcel within NNP. Approximately 30 of the 94 acres will not be built out at this time or in the near future because these property owners have shown no interest in selling or subdividing, nor have they any interest in developing on acreage with natural features needing protection. City planners have been studying some of the issues that must be taken into consideration in a Master Plan for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood. After extensive deliberations including public hearings, the City Planning Commission approved a Plan on August 11, 2015. The City Council will consider the first reading of the Proposed NNP on September 1, 2015. This Plan will be the guiding document for urbanization of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood. 2 Six Concerns There are six critical reasons why decision on this plan by the City Council should be tabled for more discussion: 1. Cost of Infrastructure Specific explanation about who pays for the infr str of advance financing for internal, must be included in the adopted plan. T costs NNP's infrastructure are enormous. Ashland citizens should not to be expected to carry this burden in a loan, in fees, or in indirect taxing. There must be city-wide discussion on the options for funding these costs before the Plan is approved. The City needs to give citizens the truth regarding probable costs including water, sewer, electrical, street improvements, etc. The Public Works staff projects the total cost for offsite improvements to be between $8 and $10 million, of which $1.5 million is earmarked for the railroad crossing, and $8.5 million for improvement of East Main Street. City planners have informally estimated in meetings that the City might be responsible for approximately 18% of the East Main improvements, or about $1.5 million. About 40% of the total length of East Main designated for improvement, however, consists of the Ashland Middle School frontage, the cost of which will be difficult or impossible to shift to any developer. Thus, the City may actually be responsible for nearly $3.5 million of the East Main Street improvements, in addition to the $1.5 million for the railroad crossing. These costs, totalling approximately $5.3 million, have fluctuated from meeting to meeting. The Plan's approval must specify implementation ordinances to include the revenue streams that will pay for this infrastructure. Failure to provide this critical detail as part of the Plan ignores the Council's fiduciary responsibility. 2. Density/Number of Units Density of units in the NNP is too high. The proposed density of 450 units within the 94 acres is too high and could compromise the integrity of wetlands, conservation easements, and hydrology management. It would negate the principle of matching densities within the NNP with densities of contiguous neighborhoods. 3 The impact on East Main and Normal Street of the projected population growth of 914 (2.03 persons per household) would require expensive improvements to those streets. Financing these improvements is not addressed in the NNP; some of these costs are likely to be borne by all Ashland taxpayers. 3. Sustainability of Resources and Livability City growth versus sustainability is an issue of great consequence. "The 2011 Buildable Land Report" (BLI) estimates there to be 1,883 buildable parcels of varying sizes available within Ashland's city limits. While both the NNP and "The 2012 Ashland Housing Needs Report" estimate growth within Ashland in coming decades, minimal consideration is given to the effects of this growth on Ashland's sustainability and its reasonable standards of livability for all its citizens. Any discussion of Ashland's growth must give primary consideration to the effects of climate change on all resources, especially our finite water resources (see Item 44 below). How much growth should come from infill versus annexation from the UGB? The Ashland Comprehensive Plan projects an approximate Ashland population growth rate at .75% per year accommodating approximately 187 new residents per year. At 2.03 persons per household, that amounts to only 92 dwelling units needed per year. Various projections indicate that between 1,474 and 1,604 dwelling units will be needed by 2031. To approve construction of 450 homes in the NNP represents approximately 30% of projected dwelling unit needs by 2031. These estimates beg the question: Why does the NNP call for such density on UGB land? 4. Water Finite water resources must be addressed prior to the Council's approval of the NNP. Sources of water for Ashland include Reeder Reservoir, Talent Irrigation District (TID), and the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) tie in to Medford's water supply. Under normal conditions, untreated TID water is designated for irrigation and TAP for emergencies only. All sources are subject to threats: water rights to TID that can be reclaimed and TID can be too polluted to use; TAP is subject to availability from Medford; the Reeder Reservoir and Fork Creeks are dependent on snow pack. 4 Oregon's ongoing four-year drought and water shortages are described as the "new normal," both by Governor Kate Brown and numerous climatologists. For the second year, TID water for one-half of the City's TID users has been diverted for citywide needs. Ashlanders cooperate during drought conditions with voluntary conservation, but there are limits! When NNP planning began, the City's water supply was not a major issue. In 2015 and beyond, implementing the NNP Master Plan with the potential of 450 residential units and a projected population increase of 914 would further diminish Ashland's finite water supply. Relatedly, minimal plans exist to handle water needs for Ashland's projected growth rates. 5. Wetlands Protection Will the beauty and the protection of the floodplains within NNP be maintained? Development density would also compromise the integrity of wetlands, conservation easements, and hydrology management. Within the 94 acres are three State Designated Wetlands, with two creeks which are integral to health and functionality of a floodplain that keeps seasonal storm waters from damaging downstream properties. These exceptional natural features enhance the livability of the area for wildlife and humans. Given the proximity of Ashland Middle School to NNP, the NNP wetlands offer an educational resource in the School's backyard. The NNP's density bonuses allowed for developments next to open space/water resource lands threaten the viability of these lands. 6. Street Improvements Projected street improvements will affect many residents: East Main Street, Ashland Street, and Normal Avenue are the two outside feeder streets for NNP, and increased traffic from the projected population of 914 (2.03 people per household) would require expensive improvements. Based on an estimated two vehicles per household, the 2013 NNP traffic analysis projected between 1,500 and 5,000 vehicle trips per day due to the NNP development. This amount of traffic will not only impact the road frontage along the NNP development, but will also continue its impact on traffic, congestion, and pollution all the way down East Main Street into downtown. Extended East Main Street improvement costs would further impact all Ashland taxpayers, but they are not stated in the infrastructure estimates. s Improvements for the RR crossing on Normal Street could be delayed until a later phase of development. However, East Main is currently a rural road, already often inadequate for existing traffic and entirely unsuitable for cyclists and pedestrians, let alone for the increased use which would follow development. The NNP calls for development of East Main in phases, "dependent upon the impacts of proposed developments within the plan area." This contradicts the recommendation of the Transportation and Planning Commissions that East Main be improved from Walker to Clay Streets prior to development. Improvements should include a center lane for left turns and provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Finally, no consideration in the NNP has been given to inevitable upgrades needed to Clay Street to accommodate additional traffic, nor to the need for a light at Ashland Street and Normal Avenue to manage increased traffic. Recommendations • The NNP density should be reduced from 450 to 225 dwelling units, reducing the projected resident population from 914 to 457. • The City should institute a systematic educational outreach effort in each City district to inform citizens and gather feedback from them on the consequences of the NNP. • Ashland citizens need reassurance that the zoning requirement of 25% open space will be strictly adhered to, including wetlands, thus assuring preservation of this critically sensitive habitat. The practice of "mitigation of wetlands" within the NNP should be strictly disallowed. Given the six areas of concern outlined above, and in particular the financial consequences to the City of Ashland as well as the impact of the NNP on Ashland's quality of life, the NNP Citizen Action Group asks that the City Council table the NNP as currently written. We believe the Plan needs to be revised to address these concerns and that the citizens of Ashland must be given greater opportunity to become informed and offer input on this Plan. Simultaneously, implementation ordinances specifying revenue streams to pay for large infrastructure changes must be forthcoming before a vote on any version of the NNP is taken. Z~ 6 Failure to allow further consideration of these concerns and recommendations ignores fiduciary responsibilities and duties which City officials owe to all Ashland citizens. Respectfully, The Undersigned Ashland Residents: Bryce Anderson /s/ Carol Block /s/ 2092 Creek Dr. and 355 Normal Ave. representing Meadowbrook Park Estates, East Village, Ashland Meadows, and Chatauqua Tra ce HOA's Nancy Boyer/s/ Tod Brannan/s/ 425 Normal Ave. 367 Normal Ave. Beth Coye /s/ Sue DeMarinis /s/ 1609 Peachey Rd. 145 Normal Ave. Paula Fox /s/ Su Grossmann /s/ 367 Normal Ave. 880 Ashland St. Jody Hodges /s/ David Hoffman /s/ 515 Friendship 345 Scenic Dr. Sabra Hoffman /s/ Nancy Parker 345 Scenic Dr. 456 Euclid St. Donna Rhee /s/ 338 Scenic Dr. For more information, refer to the link below and read the proposed Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan and related documents including City reports, proposed ordinances, and minutes of relevant meetings as well as letters by citizens. http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=14769 7 Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/29/2015 From : Rod Palmieri <ann@ashland.or.us> Sat, Aug 29, 2015 11:34 AM Subject : Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/29/2015 To : council@ashland.or.us Reply To : rodpalmieri@prodigy.net Name: Rod Palmieri Email: rodpalmieri@prodigy.net Subject: Normal Neighborhood Plan Message: I am writing to you again to express my concerns over the Normal Neighborhood Plan which will be voted on at this coming Council Meeting on Sept 1, 2015. I have had some correspondence with Pam Marsh, but feel that I need to inform the entire Council of my opposition to the Normal Neighborhood Plan. As currently written it does not take int o conside ration several extremely import issues. (Water, infrastructure, public safety, ecological, and congestion to name a few.) We are a community that prides itself in promoting a sustainable lifestyle and this plan, as presented, is certainly NOT sustainable. Without a sustainable water resource and careful application of wildfire protection, this plan could be catastrophic to the City of Ashland. The goals of the City should be to have: 1. A sustainable water supply for all current and future residents. 2. Minimal impact on ecosystems and wetlands. 3.Minimization of urban sprawl. 4. Reduction of dwelling numbers in this small area to reduce the potential of wildfire damage. 5. Adequate infrastructure without additional taxes on current residents. 6. Not to turn into another California with mandated water restrictions and uncontrolled growth. I urge the city to table the current Plan and return it for additional research and Comm unity inp ut on how to mitigate the additional costs that will be incurred if this plan is adopted as written. There are too many issues which are not addressed but are scheduled to be addressed, when there are applications for development. These must be addressed BEFORE the application so that everyone will know who will be responsible for the costs and what guidelines must be built into the construction plan. If the City Council believes that this plan is adequate, I would recommend that additional wording be added which will mandate that any application include a sustainable water supply and adequate infrastructure BEFORE any homes are built. These costs should not be the responsibility of the current residents, but the responsibility of the developer. More information needs to be provided to the residents of Ashland before approval. The recent article in the Daily Tidings should be the start of that information process and not just before the vote to go forward w ithout ad '77, / ditional input, https://zi mbra.ashiand.or.us/zi m bra/h/pri ntmessage?id=106576&part=3&xi m=1 1 /2 8/31/2095 Zimbra I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment. 3d https://zimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id= 106576&part=3&xim= 1 2/2 813112015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Council Contact Form - Sharry Teague - 8/29/2015 From : Sharry Teague <ann@ashland.or.us> Sat, Aug 29, 2015 04:50 PM Subject : Council Contact Form - Sharry Teague - 8/29/2015 To : council@ashland.or.us Reply To ; sharryb@mind.net Name: Sharry Teague Email: sharryb@mind.net Subject: Normal Plan Message: Dear Council Members, I oppose adoption of the Normal Plan as currently written. I do not feel it adequately protects wetlands. I also want to see more of the infrastructure costs spelled out, especially the cost of improving east main street and the railroad crossing upgrade. Thanks for your consideration of these important detains before acce pting thi s plan. Yours truly, Sharry Teague and Robert Simpson 443 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR https:/Izimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/hlprintmessage?id=106576&part=2&xim=1 111 Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us FW: Council Contact Form - McIntosh, Eirlys - 8/28/2015 From : Dave Kanner <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us> Fri, Aug 28, 2015 02:40 PM Subject : FW: Council Contact Form - McIntosh, Eirlys - 8/28/2015 To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>, 'bill molnar' < bi l I . molnar@ashl a nd. or. us> From: McIntosh, Eirlys [maiIto: ann@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 1:57 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - McIntosh, Eirlys - 8/28/2015 Name: McIntosh, Eirlys Email: ashland2@mind.net Subject: Normal Neighborhood Plan Message: This plan should not be implemented. Another 450 homes in Ashland will put a huge strain on resources - particularly water. The added infrastructural cost of this plan is enormous and I am flabbergasted that the City would even consider it. Please forget this plan. 32 hitps://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=106501&xim=1 1/1 8127/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us FW: Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/2612015 From : David Lohman <lohmand@ashland.or.us> Thu, Aug 27, 2015 10:23 AM Subject : FW: Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/26/2015 To : 'Mike Faught <faughtm@ashland.or.us>, 'John Karns' <karnsj@ashland.or.us>, 'Bill Molnar' <molnarb@ashland.or.us>, 'Brandon Goldman' <goldmanb@ashland.or.us> FYI - From: Rod Palmieri [mailto:ann@ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 8:30 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/26/2015 Name: Rod Palmieri Email: rodpalmieri@prodigy,net Subject: Normal Ave Plan Message: I attended a meeting tonight presented by the Center for Social Ecology and Public Policy in conjunction with the Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission. According to the City's own Commission on Wildfires, the Normal Avenue Plan DOES NOT comply with the requirements set down by the City in that a 30 foot defensible space must be around structu res. Acco rding to the Plan up for consideration at the Sept 1, 2015 City Council Meeting this defensible space does not comply. It would seem that if approved and if there was a fire, the city would be financially liable for damages caused if they approved a development that did not meet its own criteria for defensible space in case of a fire. I would recommend that either the project be denied or at least sent back for review as to why the city is ignoring its own Commission's requirements. I strongly oppose the Normal Ave Plan and think it is fiscally unsound in view of the fire risk and the lack of water for current residents. I would like my comments to be considered at the meeting and entered into the record. Thank you. 33 https://zimbra.ashiand.or.us/zimbra/h/printrnessage?id=106261&uim=1 1!1 812812015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us FW: Council Contact Form - char hersh& mike hersh - 8/26/2015 From : Dave Kanner <dave.kanner@ashland.or.us> Fri, Aug 28, 2015 12:06 PM Subject : FW: Council Contact Form - char hersh& mike hersh - 8/26/2015 To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>, 'bill molnar' <bill.moinar@ashland.or.us> From: char hersh& mike hersh [mailto:ann@ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:44 PM To: council @ashland. or. us Subject: Council Contact Form - char hersh& mike hersh - 8/26/2015 Name: char hersh& mike hersh Email. hummingbird(a)ieffnet.org Subject: Normal neighborhood plan Message: Please do not allow this plan to be implemented. It is not good for the citizens of Ashland. https://zi m bra.ashl and.or. us/zi m bra/Wpri ntm ess age?id=10G484&xi m=1 1/1 8/28/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 811/2015 From : Rod Palmieri <ann@ashland.or.us> Sat, Aug 01, 2015 06:27 PM Subject : Council Contact Form - Rod Palmieri - 8/1/2015 To : council@ashland.or.us Reply To : Rodpalmieri@prodigy.net Name: Rod Palmieri Email: Rodpalmieri@prodigy.net Subject: Normal Ave Plan Message: I just read the City Source insert with our current bill. In this document, you give tips for draught. You also state that "Ashiands water supply is limited". And that the lack of snowpack means that we all need to be efficient in our use of water. This being the case, I believe that it would be unconscionable to even consider adding addit ional hom es (up to 500+) as called for on this plan without having adequate water for ALL citizens. I hope that you see the folly of this project at this time and wait until we have sufficient water. Thank you for your consideration. 35 https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/Wprintmessage?id= 106485&part=2&xim=1 111 8/31/2015 Zimbra Zimbra goldmanb@ashIand.or.us Council Contact Form - Sharry Teague - 8/29/2015 From : Sharry Teague <ann@ashland.or.us> Sat, Aug 29, 2015 04:50 PM Subject : Council Contact Form - Sharry Teague - 8/29/2015 To : council@ashland.or.us Reply To : sharryb@mind.net Name: Sharry Teague Email: sharryb@mind.net Subject: Normal Plan Message: Dear Council Members, I oppose adoption of the Normal Plan as currently written. I do not feel it adequately protects wetlands. I also want to see more of the infrastructure costs spelled out, especially the cost of improving east main street and the railroad crossing upgrade. Thanks for your consideration of these important detains before acce pting thi s plan. Yours truly, Sharry Teague and Robert Simpson 443 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR https:l/zimbra.ashland.or.us/zi mbralh/printmessage?id=106576&part=2&xim=1 Public Testimony for Ashland City Council Meeting - September 1, 201S Page 1/2 By Sue DeMarinis Density - REDUCE! Data according to the City of Ashland 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI): a. Buildable Acres within UGB = 252.2 acres b. Buildable acres within the NNP = 70.5 acres :or 28% of total UGB buildable acres set for NNP c. Buildable acres within UGB of Zone Classification N-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential) = 41.6 acres d. Buildable acres within NNP of Zone Classification N-1-3.5 (7.2 DU/acre) 31.05 acres :or 75% of UGB zone N-1-3.5 set for NNP e. Dwelling Units within UGB = 970 Dwelling Units (DU's) f. Dwelling Units within NNP = 450 Dwelling Units (DU's) :or 46% of total DU's in UGB set for NNP *Note: calculated by (51.75 total acres zoned NN-1-3.5 in NNP) - (20.7 ac.Open Space zoned NN-1-3.5 in NNP) = 31.05 acres, if all open space is kept as delineated on the current July 2015 iteration of the NNP Master Plan. If any re-delineations are incorporated for smaller outlines of NNP Open Space, then this zoning classification acreage increases further, and so does the density! j THE TOTAL buildable acres available in the UGB= 252.2acres. The NNP is 28% of the total UGB buildable acreage. That makes the NNP slated for 28% of all Buildable land in the UGB, but with 46% of the density. As it stands now, the percentage of acreage for NN-1-3.5 zoning in the NNP is 75% of all acreage zoned NN-1-3.5 in the entire UGB! Why is such a dense application of this zone classification needed in this area ONLY? Why should this area of the UGB carry such a heavily weighted density for this zoning designation? According to the City's 2011 BLI's projection for the next 20 years, there are 252.2 buildable acres within the UGB, making the entire UGB capable of adding 970 Dwelling Units(DU) to the City's already available 1883 DU's. Why is the NNP slated for 450 of these 970 DU's? That's 46% of the entire UGB's Dwelling Units projected for the next 20 years, being planned for a single site. This density not only seems imbalanced and unfair to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, but it poses unnecessary problems, especially adjacent to 3 school zones, like concentrated vehicular pollution and congestion, with the potential of increased traffic accidents, and requires exorbitant street improvements to handle such a density. Development nearthe RR tracks in Central Ashland, below the RR District, has been slowed due to contaminated soils. However, there is currently a plan for removal of such hazardous waste. This opens up a large area within the City for development, along with other undeveloped pockets (such as Gateway South at Tolman & Ashland Streets, & the Croman Mill Site). All of these areas are on the city's public transit corridor already, unlike the NNP. According to the Mayor's State of the City speech this year, he stated, "that centrally located developments, with higher density mixed-use residential overlays (residences above commercial) would allow for lower density, family-friendly, development in the NNP and preservation of Ashland's largest wetland and multiple water resource ecosystems". The mayor also proposed, "to reserve the NNP area to provide larger detached homes suitable for families with children, built in cluster developments to allow shared gardens, play areas, and parking." How can the NNP Master Plan incorporate zoning for.450 dwelling units and uphold this quality of life in Ashland? 37 Page 2/2 Comments to Council by Sue DeMarinis SOLUTION: It not only seems fair, but indeed prudent, to reduce the density of the number of dwelling units within the NNP by at least half, or to approximately 225 dwelling units, along with proportionately decreasing the NN-1-3.5 zoning within the 94 acre parcel of the NNP. Infrastructure Costs -TOO EXPENSIVE! The initial costs of basic infrastructure (upgrades/expansion of: streets, water and sewer treatment plants, electric, cable, etc.) for such a densely zoned NNP must be subsidized by SDC's from the City Funds, as well as the SDC's from potential developers as the area is built out. The NNP must show a City-Wide benefit to be able to use such funds. When the NNP is zoned for such massive density, where is the benefit for the entire City population? Forward funding from the City of Ashland, i.e. Advanced Financing, has been suggested as a tool to offset initial infrastructure costs. If developers in the NNP invest in this tool to offset costs up front, they have 20 years for repayment back to the City of Ashland coffers. What happens if this area doesn't develop as expected within the payback timeframe, as we have seen in the Croman Mill Site still sitting undeveloped 5 years after their Master Plan was approved by the City Council? Will the city taxpayers then be expected to subsidize these unpaid monies for future necessary City expenditures? .SOLUTION: Less Density > Less Infrastructure Costs! Zoning Designations underlying Open Spaces within the NNP- KEEP IT GREEN! All open spaces, wetlands, and riparian areas within the NNP have an underlying zoning of NN-1-3.5. WHY? If the NNP Master Plan actually intends to keep these areas green, then why do they have an underlying zoning at all? This zoning classification poses multiple problems. 1. Any area adjacent to the Open Space on an individual tax lot is granted a 1.5x the zoning density on those areas in exchange for keeping a portion of their property in Open Space, e.g. an adjacent area to a NN-1-3.5 zone (7.2 DU/acre)would be allowed to up its building density to 10.8 DU/acre. This also opens up a multitude of uses that would be incongruent with the overall neighborhood feeling. 2. Any area adjacent to Open Space zoned NN-1-3.5 has the opportunity to apply for a Conditional Use permit for impactful and non-related uses of a family friendly neighborhood. 3. Dense construction adjacent to Open Spaces will be temporarily, and possibly permanently, destructive to wildlife corridors and natural ecosystems. 4. Dense zoning in and around Open Spaces in the NNP will not allow for interconnected pedestrian or bicycle pathways 5. Dense zoning over and around sensitive Open Spaces does NOT preserve our guidelines in the Comp Plan (18.63.070-D3) for avoiding impacts to wetlands except where no practical alternative exists. Reduce the density and design Cul-de-Sacs (avoid crossing over with roads) to protect water resource zones! 6. Any Mitigation (relocation offsite) of Designated Wetlands will further increase unneeded density and the NNP will lose planned green space if this option is not taken into account in the Planning regulations. SOLUTION: Re-Zone NNP Open Spaces without an Underlying Zone classification, or RE-Zone NNP Open Spaces at most with NN-1-5 (4.5 DU/acre) 38 i Normal Neighborhood Plan - Open SQace Network & Water Resource Lands - by Sue D. The goal of the City of Ashland COMP Plan Open Space Policy (8.15) is to provide the people of Ashland with a variety, quantity, and quality of parks & open spaces. The Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) should exemplify the goals and values of the quality of life in Ashland. Water resources within the NNP, which include State Designated Wetlands #9, #12, #4, as well as portions of Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek, are necessary for recharging of aquifers/wells, buffering storm water level fluctuations and holding temporary seasonal flood waters from damaging downstream properties, & providing j water for surface agriculture, wildlife corridors and botanical habitats. Open spaces accentuate the livability and provide areas for community gardens, playgrounds, green space for relaxation. East-west connectivity crossing over these areas should be minimized by paved cul-de-sacs connecting to porous pathways, decomposed granite trails, grass pavers, elevated boardwalks or foot bridges, thereby diminishing the impact on the open spaces and providing safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The only paved road over these sensitive areas should be the New Normal Ave collector, making the NNP a more livable and walkable neighborhood for both humans and wildlife. (See revised map). Greenway/conservation spaces should be retained as initially defined in the NNP, and was guided by the state approved designations in the Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory or LWI. These areas, which were clearly outlined and available to property owners prior to purchasing their property, already limited future development and protected these significant resources. Any recent or future delineations which shrink i wetlands and/or their surrounding open space will negatively affect the environmental balance origii`ally- planned within the NNP community. Recent NNP re-delineations, done in extreme drought conditions-, have- decreased the overall open space/wetland calculation by 4.89 acres. How will this be compensated in the NNP if they are accepted? I In addition, all of the underlying potential zoning of open spaces/wetlands and their buffer zones within the NNP are slated for NN-1-3.5, or 7.2 dwelling units-DU/acre, rather than NN-1-5, or 4.5 DU/ac. - which would be a more gradual transition from open space to residential development. If the proposed NNP regulation which grants land adjacent to open space/wetlands a density bonus of 1.5times the underlying zoning as a f compensation for lack of development potential on these parcels, then NN-1-3.5 which is zoned for 7.2DU/ac. would be granted a bonus to allow for 10.8 DU/acre on these adjacent lands. Such density bonuses next to to open space/water resource lands defeats the purpose of green space connectivity and only adds further soil compaction, increased impervious surfaces, increased emissions, additional light pollution & noise pollution-all detrimental to the habitat & function of these resources. Why are Open Spaces zoned so densely to begin with? I AMC 18.74 - Prevention of inconsistent and disruptive designs in residential areas: This municipal code would be violated by allowing conditional uses of light industrial or medical-involving more pavement and traffic, either adjacent to or within the zoning of NN-1-3.5, particularly surrounding open space/conservation areas. Conditional Use Permits should exclude these types of non-conforming uses. f' Comp Plan policy (8.16.3) is intended to encourage school-park joint developments as educational and scientific resources. With AMS literally in the backyard of the NNP, these wetland resources should not be ignored. In fact, it could create an ATTRACTION for public use and enjoyment, especially students. The NNP for j this area should maintain this quality of life and share its resources to benefit the whole city as a DESTINATION that will justify the infrastructure expenses which will be paid for by the ENTIRE city: The water resource and open space lands need to be protected with the least impactful surrounding development designs and density. CR -ur V 0L AS ND 1 i 1 e + ryn ~T ¢ t 1 ~ ;mss Normal Neighborhood Plan Q ~ zoo ~ goo 800 Feet Working Group Altemaa$Ive Discussion Draft Zone Street Types j NN-1-5 "-15 +J Openspace Area collector significant wetlands a a path NN-1-3.5, (2007 LWI) street NN-1-3.5-C shared street NN -2 I J August 20, 2015 Dear City Council Members, My name is Alma Rosa Alvarez, and my address is 491 Normal Avenue. I am writing you today, in lieu of presenting my comments at the public hearing scheduled for September 1, 2015, as I will be out of the state at that time. While I would like to state that the city's work on establishing a plan for the area, now known as the Normal Neighborhood (NANP) is laudable, I believe our city has not fully anticipated what the addition of 450 units in this area means. My first concern is with density and its attendant implications. Since October 2012, I, along with many of my neighbors voiced our opposition to the construction of 450 units in the Normal Neighborhood area. At the charrette, most of us felt comfortable with the development of 350 units. Some of our concerns, at that time, related to traffic flow. As is evident during the academic year, the traffic through Normal Avenue, leading into Homes is steady, and sometimes scary due to the lack of traffic signs (yield or stop signs) to help control the flow of traffic. Once Little League starts, the traffic on these streets increases. My ask to the council is to have the appropriate city personnel appointed to perform an analysis of traffic patterns on these streets during peak usage, and then to factor in what those traffic patterns would be with an additional 1000 residents. The concern we had in 2012 continues to be a concern for me, and other residents of my street, particularly those of us in the older Normal neighborhood. My second concern, also related to density, deals with water availability. I was struck by Bill Molinar's comment on Tuesday, August 11th, 2015 that the NANP had taken into account climate change by anticipating drought in a cycle of once every five years. We have been in drought for at least three years. According to some experts, we have been in drought for four years. I believe that the city needs to recalculate density in relation to more regular, persistent drought consistent with climate change. I urge you to not approve a plan until drought factors are also more adequately considered. It would be a travesty to develop without adequate infrastructural support, and the quality of life that we so much love in Ashland would be compromised. I want to be very clear about my position as a resident. I am not opposed to having a plan, and I am not opposed to development. Growth is natural within a city. I am also in favor of affordable housing. People that work, for example in the service industry, should be able to live in Ashland. I look forward to the diversity that affordable housing could bring to our city. I am, however, opposed to the development of housing that might not have adequate infrastructural support, particularly if some of that housing is designated for low-wage earners. I am also opposed to development that would alter the neighborhood feeling and relative safety of my street through unmanaged traffic. Finally, I am in support of a plan that will preserve the wetlands and the biological diversity of our region. I look forward to a plan that can do the various things outlined above. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Alma Rosa Alvarez 41